Historians have disagreed with the view that the Holocaust was a long-term
plan to eliminate the Jews.
It is accurate to say that the Holocaust was an attempted genocide on the Jewish population with 6
million Jews murdered. However, historians debate whether it had always been a long-term plan to
kill the Jews. Lucy Dawidowicz contends the intentionalist view arguing that the Holocaust had
always been a long-term plan and that Hitler was central to the Holocaust. She believes Hitler had
decided upon the Final Solution no later than 1919, citing evidence from Hitler’s earlier work.
Christopher Browning argues the moderate functionalist interpretation by focusing on the structure
and institution of the Third Reich. He believes it was the lower ranked officials who carried out the
extensive measures against the Jews to win favour with Hitler – ‘working towards the Fuhrer.’ Ian
Kershaw developed a synthesis view believing that the perception of Hitler was crucial and that it
wouldn’t be accurate to study the Holocaust through the prism of one man. To determine the
convincingness of each historian’s interpretation, their arguments could be measured against the
lenses of the Nazi party’s origins, Hitler’s role as Fuhrer and Nazi methods. Dawidowicz produces
countless work focused on the intentionalist view, as a Jewish woman her debate is personal,
uncompromising and undoubtedly deepens the root of her argument therefore her argument is
most convincing.
To interrogate whether the Holocaust was a long-term plan reinforced by Hitler one must focus on
the origins of the Nazi party. This proves Dawidowicz’s view in ‘the War Against the Jews’ because of
the obvious ideological foundations of anti-Semitism in the NSDAP. In 1920, Germany was at peak
instability, not just because of the aftermath of World War I but due to the changes in weak
bureaucracy. The NSDAP was especially focused on calling a strong state to lead the ‘master race’ 1 in
the ‘racial struggle’2 against ‘inferior races.’3 This strengthens Dawidowicz’s argument as a historian
could recognise that the roots of the Nazi party were obsessively focused on “isolating” the Jews
from the rest of the German population, and later developed policies to cater to the needs of the
Volk to be able to gain the seats needed to implement their anti-Semitic policies. This is reinforced
shortly after by Hitler’s 25-point program in 1920, which was a political manifesto that outlined
Hitler’s vision, if the Nazis ever came into power. The programme oppressed particular racial groups
in Germany. Hitler refers to Jews separate from other races, that he considers ‘inferior’, 4 by referring
to them as ‘aliens’5 and may seem to weaken Dawidowicz’s argument as she bases her argument off
on Hitler’s use of rhetoric. His rhetoric is scattered throughout Mein Kampf (1925). For example, he
personifies the Jewish population as one big target stating ‘his spirit is inwardly as alien to true
Christianity’,6 shaping the stereotype of the Jew as ‘the personification of the devil.’ 7 Therefore,
interpreting words like ‘alien’8 as the extreme of Hitler’s intent to ‘exterminate’ 9 the Jewish
population, could be far-fetched. This point is strengthened by historians such as Yehuda Bauer, who
is an expert Holocaust historian. He points out that Dawidowicz’s debate is too focused on the
ambiguity of Hitler’s words. The rhetoric in 1920s although barbaric towards the Jews, is not in itself
1
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf pp.145
2
Browning, Christopher. The Origins of the Final Solution pp.25
3
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf pp.193
4
Dawidowicz, Lucy. The War Against the Jews pp.36
5
Dawidowicz, Lucy. The War Against the Jews pp. 44
6
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf
7
Dawidowicz, Lucy. The War Against the Jews pp.45
8
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf pp. 215
9
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf pp. 62
, evidence of Hitler planning the Holocaust. On the other hand, Hitler once stated ‘everything I have
accomplished I owe to persuasion,’ highlighting how Hitler knew rhetoric was his key to success, and
shows some sort of beginning strategy for the demise of the Jews. This is supported by Hitler in Mein
Kampf (1925), that if ‘twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been
held under poison gas [...] the sacrifice of millions in the front would not have been in vain.’ 10 This
may be earlier evidence of a long-term plan and supports Dawidowicz’s argument as her evidence to
her argument focuses on the 1920s. This shows how Hitler’s obsession with the Jews led him from
early in his life to attach to the notion that the solution to the “Jewish problem” could only be
achieved by radical means, literally by ‘eliminating’ 11 the Jews. Overall, Hitler’s use of rhetoric
throughout the 1920s may not wholly show evidence of a long-term plan. However, the use of the
25-point programme and Mein Kampf cannot be ignored as it drafts the blue print for racial policies
in Nazi Germany, which leads to Dawidowicz’s argument as largely convincing.
To decide whether the Nazi party’s origins could be considered as evidence for the Final Solution, a
historian could focus on the earlier stages of the NSDAP and the implications of their ideologies to
follow. Browning’s focus is toward the final stages of the Holocaust (1939-1943), in his book ‘the
Origins of the Final Solution’, therefore he does not interrogate the 1920s. This to some extent
weakens Browning’s argument as he does not consider the whole period. Karl Schleunes, an
American historian who is an expert on the Holocaust, argues that the rivalry within the unstable
Nazi party provided a major driving force behind the Holocaust. Schleunes states ‘everywhere
[Hitler] turned, [he] found a corrupt Jew promoting such diverse evils,’ 12 which implies that the core
of the Nazi party was centred around the “Jewish Question” because of the Fuhrer’s obsession and
weakens his view as it shows the prominent role of Hitler’s ideology. This may show the prevalent
anti-Semitism in Germany as Nazi membership had risen from 2000 in 1920, to 20 000 by 1923.
Schleunes mentions that anti-Semitism was fuelled by the mistreatment and dehumanisation of
Jews. Though violent attacks toward the Jewish population remained dormant during the 1920s,
Hitler’s political influence was limited as his ideology did not appeal to the Volk due to greater
economic issues throughout the 1920s. Sir Martin Gilbert, a respected humanitarian historian,
supports Schleunes by stating the ‘hatred of the Jews, echoed in the actions of [Hitler’s] followers’ 13
and had manifested onto ‘individual Jews’ being ‘attacked in the street.’ This supports Schleunes’
view as it shows a lack of direction from Hitler due to the uncontrollable SS, carrying out acts on
behalf of their “distant overlord.”14 This indicates that Germans may have played a role as though
they were not lower ranked Nazi officials, their silence was another factor which led to the
culmination of the Holocaust. Hitler continued to produce threatening speeches which targeted
Jews. This weakens Schleunes’ debate as Hitler’s extensive use of rhetoric in his speeches like
“eradicate” shows that though it is indirect, Hitler was well aware of the success of his rhetoric
because of the increased violence against Jews. He continued to make use of rhetoric throughout
the whole period. Overall, though Hitler’s lack of intervention against the SS may show some sort of
master plan, the lower ranked Nazi officials seemed to carry out acts on their own accord. On the
other hand, the violence was instigated by Hitler through his hatred fuelled speeches. This results to
the support from Schleunes for Brownings argument as somewhat unconvincing.
10
Dawidowicz, Lucy. The War Against the Jews pp.30
11
Dawidowicz, Lucy. The War Against the Jews pp.44
12
Schleunes, Karl. The Twisted Road to Auschwitz: Nazi Policy Toward German Jews pp.48
13
Gilbert, Martin. The Holocaust pp.24
14
Browning, Christopher
plan to eliminate the Jews.
It is accurate to say that the Holocaust was an attempted genocide on the Jewish population with 6
million Jews murdered. However, historians debate whether it had always been a long-term plan to
kill the Jews. Lucy Dawidowicz contends the intentionalist view arguing that the Holocaust had
always been a long-term plan and that Hitler was central to the Holocaust. She believes Hitler had
decided upon the Final Solution no later than 1919, citing evidence from Hitler’s earlier work.
Christopher Browning argues the moderate functionalist interpretation by focusing on the structure
and institution of the Third Reich. He believes it was the lower ranked officials who carried out the
extensive measures against the Jews to win favour with Hitler – ‘working towards the Fuhrer.’ Ian
Kershaw developed a synthesis view believing that the perception of Hitler was crucial and that it
wouldn’t be accurate to study the Holocaust through the prism of one man. To determine the
convincingness of each historian’s interpretation, their arguments could be measured against the
lenses of the Nazi party’s origins, Hitler’s role as Fuhrer and Nazi methods. Dawidowicz produces
countless work focused on the intentionalist view, as a Jewish woman her debate is personal,
uncompromising and undoubtedly deepens the root of her argument therefore her argument is
most convincing.
To interrogate whether the Holocaust was a long-term plan reinforced by Hitler one must focus on
the origins of the Nazi party. This proves Dawidowicz’s view in ‘the War Against the Jews’ because of
the obvious ideological foundations of anti-Semitism in the NSDAP. In 1920, Germany was at peak
instability, not just because of the aftermath of World War I but due to the changes in weak
bureaucracy. The NSDAP was especially focused on calling a strong state to lead the ‘master race’ 1 in
the ‘racial struggle’2 against ‘inferior races.’3 This strengthens Dawidowicz’s argument as a historian
could recognise that the roots of the Nazi party were obsessively focused on “isolating” the Jews
from the rest of the German population, and later developed policies to cater to the needs of the
Volk to be able to gain the seats needed to implement their anti-Semitic policies. This is reinforced
shortly after by Hitler’s 25-point program in 1920, which was a political manifesto that outlined
Hitler’s vision, if the Nazis ever came into power. The programme oppressed particular racial groups
in Germany. Hitler refers to Jews separate from other races, that he considers ‘inferior’, 4 by referring
to them as ‘aliens’5 and may seem to weaken Dawidowicz’s argument as she bases her argument off
on Hitler’s use of rhetoric. His rhetoric is scattered throughout Mein Kampf (1925). For example, he
personifies the Jewish population as one big target stating ‘his spirit is inwardly as alien to true
Christianity’,6 shaping the stereotype of the Jew as ‘the personification of the devil.’ 7 Therefore,
interpreting words like ‘alien’8 as the extreme of Hitler’s intent to ‘exterminate’ 9 the Jewish
population, could be far-fetched. This point is strengthened by historians such as Yehuda Bauer, who
is an expert Holocaust historian. He points out that Dawidowicz’s debate is too focused on the
ambiguity of Hitler’s words. The rhetoric in 1920s although barbaric towards the Jews, is not in itself
1
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf pp.145
2
Browning, Christopher. The Origins of the Final Solution pp.25
3
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf pp.193
4
Dawidowicz, Lucy. The War Against the Jews pp.36
5
Dawidowicz, Lucy. The War Against the Jews pp. 44
6
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf
7
Dawidowicz, Lucy. The War Against the Jews pp.45
8
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf pp. 215
9
Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf pp. 62
, evidence of Hitler planning the Holocaust. On the other hand, Hitler once stated ‘everything I have
accomplished I owe to persuasion,’ highlighting how Hitler knew rhetoric was his key to success, and
shows some sort of beginning strategy for the demise of the Jews. This is supported by Hitler in Mein
Kampf (1925), that if ‘twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been
held under poison gas [...] the sacrifice of millions in the front would not have been in vain.’ 10 This
may be earlier evidence of a long-term plan and supports Dawidowicz’s argument as her evidence to
her argument focuses on the 1920s. This shows how Hitler’s obsession with the Jews led him from
early in his life to attach to the notion that the solution to the “Jewish problem” could only be
achieved by radical means, literally by ‘eliminating’ 11 the Jews. Overall, Hitler’s use of rhetoric
throughout the 1920s may not wholly show evidence of a long-term plan. However, the use of the
25-point programme and Mein Kampf cannot be ignored as it drafts the blue print for racial policies
in Nazi Germany, which leads to Dawidowicz’s argument as largely convincing.
To decide whether the Nazi party’s origins could be considered as evidence for the Final Solution, a
historian could focus on the earlier stages of the NSDAP and the implications of their ideologies to
follow. Browning’s focus is toward the final stages of the Holocaust (1939-1943), in his book ‘the
Origins of the Final Solution’, therefore he does not interrogate the 1920s. This to some extent
weakens Browning’s argument as he does not consider the whole period. Karl Schleunes, an
American historian who is an expert on the Holocaust, argues that the rivalry within the unstable
Nazi party provided a major driving force behind the Holocaust. Schleunes states ‘everywhere
[Hitler] turned, [he] found a corrupt Jew promoting such diverse evils,’ 12 which implies that the core
of the Nazi party was centred around the “Jewish Question” because of the Fuhrer’s obsession and
weakens his view as it shows the prominent role of Hitler’s ideology. This may show the prevalent
anti-Semitism in Germany as Nazi membership had risen from 2000 in 1920, to 20 000 by 1923.
Schleunes mentions that anti-Semitism was fuelled by the mistreatment and dehumanisation of
Jews. Though violent attacks toward the Jewish population remained dormant during the 1920s,
Hitler’s political influence was limited as his ideology did not appeal to the Volk due to greater
economic issues throughout the 1920s. Sir Martin Gilbert, a respected humanitarian historian,
supports Schleunes by stating the ‘hatred of the Jews, echoed in the actions of [Hitler’s] followers’ 13
and had manifested onto ‘individual Jews’ being ‘attacked in the street.’ This supports Schleunes’
view as it shows a lack of direction from Hitler due to the uncontrollable SS, carrying out acts on
behalf of their “distant overlord.”14 This indicates that Germans may have played a role as though
they were not lower ranked Nazi officials, their silence was another factor which led to the
culmination of the Holocaust. Hitler continued to produce threatening speeches which targeted
Jews. This weakens Schleunes’ debate as Hitler’s extensive use of rhetoric in his speeches like
“eradicate” shows that though it is indirect, Hitler was well aware of the success of his rhetoric
because of the increased violence against Jews. He continued to make use of rhetoric throughout
the whole period. Overall, though Hitler’s lack of intervention against the SS may show some sort of
master plan, the lower ranked Nazi officials seemed to carry out acts on their own accord. On the
other hand, the violence was instigated by Hitler through his hatred fuelled speeches. This results to
the support from Schleunes for Brownings argument as somewhat unconvincing.
10
Dawidowicz, Lucy. The War Against the Jews pp.30
11
Dawidowicz, Lucy. The War Against the Jews pp.44
12
Schleunes, Karl. The Twisted Road to Auschwitz: Nazi Policy Toward German Jews pp.48
13
Gilbert, Martin. The Holocaust pp.24
14
Browning, Christopher
