Historians have disagreed about the extent to which the Holocaust was a
long-term plan. What is your view about the extent to which the Holocaust
was a long-term plan?
Introduction
The Holocaust was one of the most harrowing atrocities of WW2. It’s defined
as the systematic attempt to massacre European Jewry by the Nazis between
1941 and 1945.1 Although the persecution of Jews began in 1933 after Hitler
became Germany's chancellor, a large-scale massacre started during WWII
with the invasion of the USSR by the Nazis in 1941.2 German soldiers
advanced with mobile death squads (Einsatzgruppen), assisted by local
allies.3 In the pretext of security, they massacred more than a million Jewish
residents in their recently annexed areas. These atrocities would later be
merged into a well-organized annihilation program at the start of 1942, with
millions of Jews being sent to death camps or getting worked to death in
various concentration centres. When Nazi Germany eventually collapsed in
1945, it’s estimated that the Nazi killing machine had annihilated about 5-6
million Jews or approximately 60-70% of European Jewry.4 This systematic
massacre of Jews left historians in disagreement concerning whether the
Holocaust was a long-term plan. Since the 1970s, historians have disagreed
1
David Cesarani, Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews, 1933-1949 (St. Martin’s Press, 2016), p. xxx.
2
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (New York: Knopf,
1996), p. 148.
3
Ibid.
4
Karl A Schleunes, The Twisted Road to Auschwitz: Nazi Policy toward German Jews, 1933-1939 (Urbana Ill.:
University Of Illinois Press, 1990), p. 4.
, 1
over whether Hitler's goal to exterminate European Jewry was always
premeditated or if the genocide developed gradually due to other factors.
The Holocaust has been interpreted through two main schools of thought:
intentionalists and structuralists. Intentionalists argue that the idea of
exterminating the Jews was premeditated and began after the founding of
the Weimar Republic in 1918, whereas structuralists maintain that the
Holocaust was an unintended “cumulative radicalisation” brought about by
the polycratic regime's chaotic process of decision-making and the
ideological drive to purge Germany of its perceived enemies.5 Structuralists
can be subdivided into two sub-schools: extreme and moderate. Extreme
structuralists opine that the genocide arose from the frustrations that the
Nazis suffered during WWII, while moderate structuralists focus on
gradualism and maintain that the path to Holocaust lacked a clear direction.
The extent to which the Holocaust was a long-term plan can be assessed
through these three key works: "Modern Germany" by Berghahn, “The
Origins of the Final Solution” by Browning, and Farmer’s “Hitler and the
Holocaust.” Berghahn, an intentionalist, argues that the Holocaust was
Hitler’s long-term plan. He writes that when Hitler began his career as the
key opposition figure of the Weimar Republic in 1919, his anti-Semitism was
characterised by pathological hatred and extremism that were bound to deal
a major blow to Jewish life once he could assume power and get access to
the country’s vast executive machinery.6 Berghahn notes that Hitler led the
5
Cesarani, Final Solution, p. xxxi.
6
V R Berghahn, Modern Germany (Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 132.
, 2
Nazis in blaming the Weimar Republic’s predicament on Jews based on the
conviction that the Germans and the Jews were involved in a race war from
which only one could win. Such philosophy of a life-and-death rivalry, the
result of which was believed to determine humanity's entire future, implied,
at the very least, a generalised physical eradication of the Jewish minority. 7
To Hitler, Jews were dangerous outcasts who deserved to be avoided at all
costs, justifying the use of all "defensive" tactics.8 Browning, an extreme
structuralist, argues that the Nazis opted for the Holocaust after they failed
in their attempt to invade the Soviet Union in 1941.9 According to Browning,
since the start of WWII, the Nazi German troops – the Wehrmacht – enjoyed a
string of military triumphs but these victories came to an abrupt stop in late
October 1941. The Wehrmacht’s advancement came to a halt due to a
combination of factors, including lack of supplies, fatigue of the troops, bad
weather, impassable roads, and strong resistance from the Red Army’s
remnants, which made Moscow’s invasion elusive.10 Although the Soviet
Union was spared, the European Jewry was not. The Nazis directed their
attention to a mass annihilation program that would see the massacre of the
Jews of Europe as part of Hitler’s attempt to claim some form of quick victory
in the war.11 Farmer, a moderate structuralist, differs from Browning but
partly agrees with Berghahn on the short-term nature of the Holocaust.
7
Berghahn, Modern Germany, p. 132.
8
Ibid.
9
Christopher R Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-
March 1942 (Lincoln: University Of Nebraska Press, 2005), p. 427.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
long-term plan. What is your view about the extent to which the Holocaust
was a long-term plan?
Introduction
The Holocaust was one of the most harrowing atrocities of WW2. It’s defined
as the systematic attempt to massacre European Jewry by the Nazis between
1941 and 1945.1 Although the persecution of Jews began in 1933 after Hitler
became Germany's chancellor, a large-scale massacre started during WWII
with the invasion of the USSR by the Nazis in 1941.2 German soldiers
advanced with mobile death squads (Einsatzgruppen), assisted by local
allies.3 In the pretext of security, they massacred more than a million Jewish
residents in their recently annexed areas. These atrocities would later be
merged into a well-organized annihilation program at the start of 1942, with
millions of Jews being sent to death camps or getting worked to death in
various concentration centres. When Nazi Germany eventually collapsed in
1945, it’s estimated that the Nazi killing machine had annihilated about 5-6
million Jews or approximately 60-70% of European Jewry.4 This systematic
massacre of Jews left historians in disagreement concerning whether the
Holocaust was a long-term plan. Since the 1970s, historians have disagreed
1
David Cesarani, Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews, 1933-1949 (St. Martin’s Press, 2016), p. xxx.
2
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (New York: Knopf,
1996), p. 148.
3
Ibid.
4
Karl A Schleunes, The Twisted Road to Auschwitz: Nazi Policy toward German Jews, 1933-1939 (Urbana Ill.:
University Of Illinois Press, 1990), p. 4.
, 1
over whether Hitler's goal to exterminate European Jewry was always
premeditated or if the genocide developed gradually due to other factors.
The Holocaust has been interpreted through two main schools of thought:
intentionalists and structuralists. Intentionalists argue that the idea of
exterminating the Jews was premeditated and began after the founding of
the Weimar Republic in 1918, whereas structuralists maintain that the
Holocaust was an unintended “cumulative radicalisation” brought about by
the polycratic regime's chaotic process of decision-making and the
ideological drive to purge Germany of its perceived enemies.5 Structuralists
can be subdivided into two sub-schools: extreme and moderate. Extreme
structuralists opine that the genocide arose from the frustrations that the
Nazis suffered during WWII, while moderate structuralists focus on
gradualism and maintain that the path to Holocaust lacked a clear direction.
The extent to which the Holocaust was a long-term plan can be assessed
through these three key works: "Modern Germany" by Berghahn, “The
Origins of the Final Solution” by Browning, and Farmer’s “Hitler and the
Holocaust.” Berghahn, an intentionalist, argues that the Holocaust was
Hitler’s long-term plan. He writes that when Hitler began his career as the
key opposition figure of the Weimar Republic in 1919, his anti-Semitism was
characterised by pathological hatred and extremism that were bound to deal
a major blow to Jewish life once he could assume power and get access to
the country’s vast executive machinery.6 Berghahn notes that Hitler led the
5
Cesarani, Final Solution, p. xxxi.
6
V R Berghahn, Modern Germany (Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 132.
, 2
Nazis in blaming the Weimar Republic’s predicament on Jews based on the
conviction that the Germans and the Jews were involved in a race war from
which only one could win. Such philosophy of a life-and-death rivalry, the
result of which was believed to determine humanity's entire future, implied,
at the very least, a generalised physical eradication of the Jewish minority. 7
To Hitler, Jews were dangerous outcasts who deserved to be avoided at all
costs, justifying the use of all "defensive" tactics.8 Browning, an extreme
structuralist, argues that the Nazis opted for the Holocaust after they failed
in their attempt to invade the Soviet Union in 1941.9 According to Browning,
since the start of WWII, the Nazi German troops – the Wehrmacht – enjoyed a
string of military triumphs but these victories came to an abrupt stop in late
October 1941. The Wehrmacht’s advancement came to a halt due to a
combination of factors, including lack of supplies, fatigue of the troops, bad
weather, impassable roads, and strong resistance from the Red Army’s
remnants, which made Moscow’s invasion elusive.10 Although the Soviet
Union was spared, the European Jewry was not. The Nazis directed their
attention to a mass annihilation program that would see the massacre of the
Jews of Europe as part of Hitler’s attempt to claim some form of quick victory
in the war.11 Farmer, a moderate structuralist, differs from Browning but
partly agrees with Berghahn on the short-term nature of the Holocaust.
7
Berghahn, Modern Germany, p. 132.
8
Ibid.
9
Christopher R Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-
March 1942 (Lincoln: University Of Nebraska Press, 2005), p. 427.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
