Assess The View That The Holocaust was Due to a Long Term Plan of Hitler Essay Sample

Assess The View That The Holocaust was Due to a Long Term Plan of Hitler Pages
Pages: Word count: Rewriting Possibility: % ()

Due to a formulated and structured plan? Or due to incontrollable influence of conflicting events? The extermination of the Jews was however not initial but took a gradualism approach. Whether this was planned is a subject of disputation and controversy .Functionalist historians state that it resulted from increasing radicalisation. They agree it was an accumulation of events which led to the “final solution” and due to other governmental direction such ad Heydrich or Himmler. Another school of thought however find significant evidence apparent in Mein Kempth of Hitler’s determination and desperation to “eradicate” the Jewish race. Thus exemplifying the conception that the Holocaust was part of a “long term ideal” [Interpretation C] of Hitler’s deep in the book, something which the intentionalists credit

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen said it was a long held ideal Hitler had clear and direct goals it was designed to look like a gradual growth e.g. Night of Broken Glass completely contradicting with [Interpretation A]which argues the extermination of the Jews was due to “subsequent escalation”. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen of [Interpretation C] states the regime was “determined and not linear and unambiguous”. Stating that Hitler was not vague but clear for his apparent hatred for the Jews .This view is supported by Lucy Dawidowicz who says the holocaust was “systematic”

Embodying the view of [Interpretation A] that they didn’t have a clear plan but Hitler contemplated other options such as the “emigration programme”. A programme to help the Jews migrate instead of the final solution .Nonetheless it was a strenuous and laborious task something which interpretation C upholds by stating needed a “variety of constraints”.

Development and augmentation for anti-Semitism convinces that the Holocaust was part of a long term list for Hitler. The three phrases leading up to the complete destruction tells us of Hitler’s charm to build gradually as this was more realistic. Anti-Semitism to Radicalisation and then to Einsatzgruppen .Increased in vigorousness .Thus maintaining the view of [Interpretation C] that it was “goal directed” .Hitler had a goal an aim to achieve .This view is advocated by [Interpretation B] which states it was part of a “long list of measures .It wasn’t a case of limited option but clear objectives. This view is supported by historian Flemming who believes that it was a “pre-planned agenda and put to practice over 12 years”Nonetheless there wasn’t a necessary consistant set up as Ian Kershaw states in interpretation D “Hitler had not been involved in the Wanasee conference…there was no need for his involvement”. This signifies Hitlers limited role within the anti-Semitism.It wasn’t as seriously planned as [Interpretation C][ states. Because ssurely the leader would be there to partake?This authorises the interpretation of Irwing who states there was no written order to the Jewish final solution and supports the view of Brozsat who stated it was merely “half baked ideas”.Although it was an “complex” and difficult” task Daniel Jonah Goldhagen,the complexity of the task making it a little more than blueprints as Broasat suggested

“These included gypsies ,homosexuasls the work shy and the physically and mentally handicapped” The Jews were not the sole target .Detlov Peuket of [Interpration B] states that there was community aliens and that the Jew were only part of this as others were also targated. it also agrees with [Interpretation D] “there were measures taken against the Jews”.However the view of [Interpretation A] disagrees and states “They were determined to exclude the jews from society but little thought had been given to how thius was to to be achieved” adds the extra bit of information that the Jews extermination was spontaneous .ity has the implication that Hitler didn’t know the ultimate direction beforehand . “this is not to imply the inventors the inventors of the final solution had a clear idea” On the other hand [Interpretation C] says the ideas were”clear”.Two conflicting arguments .Hitler spoke of the importance of”the extermination of the peoples devil”.The view is argued by Trevor Roper that Mein Kampf was “a complete blueprint of his intended achievements”

On the contrary Hitler has been seen to be by many as an “weak dictator”. Interpretation D states that “heydrich ws more than happy to use Hitlers blanket of authoritization”This reveals to us of Hitlers possible lack of dedication towards the cause. That he preffered for work to be done on his behalf.Hitler was not the one who orchestrated the holocaust advocated by Dick Geary “the absence of clear lines of authority”.This links with as [Inteprtation B] Which agrees that nazi organisation was in line with atrocities . Could therefore not havbbe planned the Holocaust .[Interpretation C] calls these views “erroneous”that Hitler knew exactly what he was doing and was in full control supported by Rich”Hitler was the master in the third reich” However Himmler and Heydrich had leading postion in the holocaust nce is undesputaible .Herydrich was the first administrator of the concentration camp system and even organized the eisatzgruppen However it could be argued that although influential as K.Hilderbrand said “fundeamental to Nationalists Socialists genocide was GHitlers race dogma.The Nazis knew of Hitlers strongest aim despite Hitler not being at the forefront of every meeting they knew exactly what he wanted .

Inteprtation asays the final solution was to hide to tracks they didn’t want to see the west to see it .The genocide escalated to war and there wwasnt a clear idea.The german had to lode physical barrier .Other options such as the emigration programme were also contemplated interpretation A doesn’t agree that that the Holocaust was planned .they didn’t want the “west” to see the terrible things they were doing to the jews so they had no othr option as”war seriously weakened there chances of surivol .Roberts Johnsons arguments stress the spontaneity of Hitlr and the Nzi party “events in 1933suggest the spontaneous and radical nature of anti-Semitism beyond the control of the party”.This view is also confirmed by Mommsens essay title “there was no order in the feurer order.That the boycott of the Jewish shops in April 1933 and then the Nuremburg Laws excluding them from German citzizenship ands marrying Aryan Germans .These acts by Hitler are seen to be of un-premeditation and Hitler was acting on impulse .This can be seen to be true as after 1938 anti-semitism did become more violent Thence bringing weight to the view that the Holocasut was due to “subsequent escalation” as things did plummet.

Interprertation D agrees it was due to circumstances but does not outline these to be because of war .Interprartarion b contradicts and states The eradication of the Jews was ahead of a “long list”

Further evidence suggests of Hitlers premeditation about the holocaust about the holocaust ” but the final objective must be the complete removal /Entferning of the Jews”.The letter was written in 1919 to his military superior Adolf Gemlich This written eveidence as Hitler states “final objective” meaning the same thing as the final solution .It can therefore be argued he had intentional goals that were preplanned .This also highlights the fact that Hitler gave orders to his officals and they knew his core intentions years in advance .”Heydrich was more than happy to use Hitlers blanket of auauthorosiationto expand killing into the overall programme of Europe under genocide”.Top offocials such as Heydrich and Himmler took matters into their own hands .This view is complemented by historian Fritz Redlich who states “at times Hitler proposed less radical measurses than other Nationalists Socialists such as Heydrich and Himmler This implies that although Hitlers undisputable anti-Semitism both historians stress his small role in the the Genocide . On the other hand [Interpretation c] disagrees with this and says Hitler was “determined to undertake a task” .This point is strenghed historian Fritz Redlich as he says “obviously only he could undertake a task” and “he had helpers to…execute his wishes”.

Search For The related topics

  • holocaust
  • Olivia from Bla Bla Writing

    Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out

    Haven't found the Essay You Want?
    For Only $13.90/page