Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Was The Holocaust Planned and Premeditated
Was The Holocaust Planned and Premeditated
Premeditated?
Lecturer: Elly Dlin
dragged on and then later, by the spring of 1941, a new and far more lethal stage of the Nazi antiJewish policies had been reached.
Was there a straight and clear road to Auschwitz?
The functionalists see a twisted road
The father of the functionalist approach to the Holocaust is probably Karl Schluenes who wrote a book
in 1970 entitled THE TWISTED ROAD TO AUSCHWITZ, but the study that broke the solid wall of
intentionalist thinking about National Socialism was undoubtedly A.J.P. Taylors' THE ORIGINS OF
THE SECOND WORLD WAR that appeared more than a decade earlier.
Reenacting the controversy of the 1920s when the "revisionist" historians attacked the consensus
about Germany being solely responsible for the outbreak of the First World War, Taylor sparked a
heated debate with his argument that Hitler had not intended for the Second World War to begin and
that it was not German actions but those of the Allied governments that had actually precipitated the
conflict.
The functionalists present a confused picture of the inner workings of the Third Reich. Far from it
being seen as a well-oiled hierarchy in which authority flowed downwards and obedience flowed
upwards, the Nazi bureaucracy was described as a maze of competing power groups that revolved
around the personalities of bitter rivals who were diametrically opposed to the policies and interests of
each other and who were ceaselessly plotting against and clashing with their rivals. One writer
compared the essence of the Third Reich to a medieval struggle between feudal oligarchies engaged
in a Hobbesian war of all against all (Robert Koehl).
Hitler is seen as a brooding and often distant leader who preferred to let his subordinates fight it out
amongst themselves while he remained passive and untainted on the sidelines. Once a winner had
clearly emerged, the Fuehrer would ensure that the victor got his laurels by recognizing his de facto
control. It was a sort of "institutional Darwinism" (David Schoenbaum) in which bureaucrats and
bureaucracies struggled to survive and only the strongest of them would endure. At the heart of the
system was NOT premeditated planning but a fatalistic laissez-faire. What happened happened. No
one could predict who would emerge victorious and which one of the competing policies and policymakers would ultimately dominate, but the one that won was the one that should have one. Its
success was post factum proof of its superiority (had it not been meant to win then it never would
have won) and therefore its success was also ultimate proof of the rightness of its victory.
Concrete examples of differing interpretations
1. The Nuremberg Laws (or in their official names: The Law of Reich Citizenship and The Law for the
Protection of German Blood and German Honour) 15 September 1935 (all documents in this section
are reprinted in DOCUMENTS ON THE HOLOCAUST). Intentionalists see them as a keystone to
Nazi anti-Jewish measures. They provided a legal definition to the question "Who is a Jew?", a step
that is essential in the process of marking Jews out from the rest of the society, isolating them and
preparing the ground for their ultimate elimination.
But, argue the functionalists, if they were so crucial to the process, why were they drafted almost as
an after-thought on the back of a napkin in an all-night cafe? The context in which these laws were
presented was the "normalization" of relations between the Aryan race and the Jews. If these were
the new terms under which life was to proceed then it provided some stability. If these provisions
defined what were the restrictions and limitations under the law, then the rest was "illegal". Contact
between Aryans and Jews was now narrowly circumscribed - for example, it became illegal for Jews
to employ in their households female Aryans under 45 years old - but not totally eliminated since it
was now legal to employ one over 45 years old, or to hire a male.
The representative body of German Jewry responded that the Nuremberg Laws "come as the
heaviest of blows for the Jews in Germany" but at the same time they create "a basis on which a
tolerable relationship becomes possible between the German and the Jewish people." Taken in
context, the Jewish reaction of alarm and fear may have also been mixed with relief.
2. Another example of differing interpretations is in regards to the policy of ghettoization. The
Instructions by Heydrich on Policies and Operations Concerning Jews in the Occupied Territories, 21
September 1939 (known by the nickname "schnellbrief"). It distinguishes between "final aims" and
"the stages leading to the fulfillment of this final aim". It set out the areas that "are to be cleared of
Jews" and also the principle of "as few concentration centers as possible...only (in) cities which are
rail junctions, or are at least located on railroad lines". In addition to defining the ghettoes, it also
outlined the size and responsibility of the Jewish councils and several key German economic
interests, such as labour and food sources.
Again the intentionalists hold this document up as a cornerstone of the Nazi's anti-Jewish policies.
Yet the actual practice of the Third Reich was so diverse and variegated in places that these
provisions were kept more in the breech. So how important were they? How do we explain that as
central a feature as the ghettoes is not a carefully planned and considered program but an afterthought, considered haphazardly, some 3 weeks after the start of the War?
And what is the "final aim" or "endziel"? Does the fact that is it not defined even in a highly secret
document of the secret police not imply that it has not yet been clarified? Are the "endziel" and the
"endloesung" (the final solution) the same thing, as the intentionalists would have us believe? After
all, NO document uses them interchangeably. Functionalist historians stress the probability that the
real meaning of the "endziel" to be a territorial solution for the Jewish question (either the "Nisko Plan"
in the Lublin District or the "Madagascar Plan"). They also point out that the first appearance in a
document of the term "endloesung" was in 31 July 1941 - several weeks after the start of the
organized mass murders of Jews in the East. The term first appears in a letter sent to Heydrich by
Goering entrusting him to report back on "the preliminary organizational, practical and financial
measures for the execution of the intended final solution ("endloesung) of the Jewish question.".
6 months into the mass killings, at Wannsee, Heydrich was nervous that someone would raise serious
objections to his policies or would challenge SS control in this area. When that did not happen, his
relief was apparent to all, as described by Eichmann during his interrogation.
The bottom line of this dispute
Yet the gap between the two positions, the intentionalist and functionalist, is far from unbridgeable.
The pure intentionalist position does not completely hold because if Hitler was merely waiting for the
first opportune moment to implement his pre-conceived murderous intentions then why did he wait 2
1/2 years before beginning the Final Solution in Poland? He held absolute control over millions of
Jews from September 1939 but only began the mass murders in the spring of 1942.
But neither does a pure functionalist position fit the facts, for if the murder of the Jews was nothing
more than a random side-show that happened to develop out of conditions at the time than how can
we explain Hitler's steadfast determination, in the face of repeated difficulties and set-backs, not to
desist from pursuing the Jewish question? Each failure seemed only to cause him to re-double his
efforts to find a solution. And from his first surviving letter in 1919 until his final written statement - his
suicide note of 29 April 1945 - the one subject that most occupied his attention was the fight against
international Jewry. Hitler's ideology may neither have been pretty nor fully consistent, but it was of
primary importance to everything that he did, and antisemitism was always at its very heart.
Perhaps a greater challenge than making sense of the individual character and role of Adolf Hitler is
trying to understand why so many perfectly normally people followed him along that murderous path.
It is to that question that we will turn in our next lecture.
References:
DOCUMENTS ON THE HOLOCAUST, Yitzhak Arad, Yisrael Gutman and Avraham Margaliot, eds.,
Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 1981, Nuremberg Laws pp. 76-80, Jewish reactions pp. 84-8, Schnellbrief
pp. 173-8, Final Solution Order p. 233, the protocol of the Wannsee Conference pp. 249-61 and his
last testament, pp. 162-3.
Fleming, Gerald, HITLER AND THE FINAL SOLUTION, Berkeley, California: University of California
Press, 1984.