Sofia Manton
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?
With reference to three chosen works:
● Analyse the ways in which interpretations of the question, problem or issue
differ.
● Explain the differences you have identified.
● Evaluate the arguments, indicating which you found most persuasive and
explaining your judgements.
a) Introduction
The term ‘Holocaust’ has come to characterise one of the darkest chapters in modern
history. This term encapsulates the historical event that resulted in the deliberate persecution
and murder of six million European Jews, as well as additional millions who were part of
other minority groups, including homosexuals, political dissidents and the disabled,
described as ‘untermenschen’ (subhuman) by the Nazis, seen as not deserving to live.1
Between 1933 and 1945, the Holocaust was an evolving event, becoming the most
well-known genocide in human history.2 Despite being acknowledged as a unique
catastrophe, there are several definitions of the Holocaust, and this has changed through
time. This is because, based on one’s viewpoints and experiences, individuals may define
the Holocaust in different ways. For example, Jews use the Hebrew word ‘Shoah,’ which
means ‘catastrophe,’ to attempt to summarise the genocide that has impacted so many
religious and ethnic groups globally.3 Above all, it is crucial to use an accurate and
encompassing definition to respect those who suffered, educate future generations, combat
prejudice, and encourage compassion.
While most scholars, historians and individuals embrace very similar definitions of the
Holocaust, the origins of the event are ambiguous. Around the globe, historians have spent
tremendous efforts to create a convincing explanation for the events of the Holocaust. This
has created the debate that has split between intentionalism and functionalism.
Intentionalists contend that Hitler and Nazi leadership had a long-term plan. They assert that
the genocide was meticulously planned and was an essential component of Nazi ideology.4
1
The National WWII Museum, The Holocaust, (2023),
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/holocaust.
2
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Introduction to the Holocaust, (2021),
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/introduction-to-the-holocaust.
3
Koen Smilde, What Is the Holocaust? (2020), Anne Frank Website,
https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/what-is-the-holocaust/.
4
Holocaust Centre, Interpretations of the Holocaust, 2023,
https://www.holocaustcentre.org.nz/uploads/1/1/5/2/115245341/interpretations-of-the-holoca
ust.pdf.
1
, Sofia Manton
Contrastingly, functionalists claim that the Holocaust was the outcome of spontaneous
processes. Numerous elements interacted to cultivate the foundations for genocide.
Functionalists highlight social, political, and economic elements that contributed to gradual
development.5
These two spheres of argument reflect the conflict between historians. Lucy Dawidowicz,
who focuses on Jewish history, takes an intentionalist stance arguing Hitler began
formulating plans on November 11, 1918, and everything he did after was focused on
achieving that goal. She also claimed that in his 1924 book ‘Mein Kampf’, Hitler ‘openly
espoused his program of annihilation.’6 In contrast, Martin Broszat supports a functionalist
perspective, contending that the dictatorship was propelled by internal conflict rather than
Adolf Hitler and that the government had been made up of competing institutions and power
battles.7 Due to this, he claims that the Germans led themselves into a ‘sackgasse’ (a ‘blind
alley’), which had caused the genocide to occur ‘stück-und schubweise’ (‘bit by bit’).8 Karl
Schleunes’ interpretation puts forward a different viewpoint. He argues for moderate
functionalism: there was no clear route towards the Holocaust. He draws attention to
inconsistencies in Nazi Jewish policies, arguing the path was ‘twisted’ and there was a ‘trial
and error approach to the Jewish problem’.9
b) To what extent was the Holocaust a long-term plan?
The Holocaust was an intricate event, and determining whether it was a long-term plan
involves setting criteria. A compelling argument, whether intentionalist or functionalist,
should acknowledge historical context, evidence of planning, implementation and
motivations and aims.10
When acknowledging historical context, a strong response should offer thorough context on
the causes, such as an examination of the rise of the Nazi Party, the social, economic, and
political elements that influenced the emergence of antisemitic attitudes, as well as
circumstances that resulted in the genocide, whether long-term or short-term.
A compelling argument must also consider documented evidence to support its claims. A
strong intentionalist viewpoint should consider evidence such as Hitler's writings and rallies,
the development of concentration camps in the years before the Holocaust, and the
utilisation of gas chambers to strengthen theories. Similarly, a strong functionalist argument
5
Ibid.
6
Lucy S Dawidowicz, The War against the Jews 1933-1945, (1975), p. 158
7
Martin Broszat, The Hitler State (2014)
8
Martin Broszat, Hitler and the Genesis of the 'Final Solution': An Assessment of David
Irving's Theses (Chapter in Aspects of the Third Reich), (1985), p. 398 and p. 405
9
Karl A Schleunes, The Twisted Road to Auschwitz: Nazi Policy toward German Jews,
1933-1939, (1970), p. 277 and p. 257-258
10
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Causes and Motivations — United States
Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2022,
https://www.ushmm.org/teach/teaching-materials/roles-of-individuals/ethical-leaders/backgro
und/causes-and-motivations.
2
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?
With reference to three chosen works:
● Analyse the ways in which interpretations of the question, problem or issue
differ.
● Explain the differences you have identified.
● Evaluate the arguments, indicating which you found most persuasive and
explaining your judgements.
a) Introduction
The term ‘Holocaust’ has come to characterise one of the darkest chapters in modern
history. This term encapsulates the historical event that resulted in the deliberate persecution
and murder of six million European Jews, as well as additional millions who were part of
other minority groups, including homosexuals, political dissidents and the disabled,
described as ‘untermenschen’ (subhuman) by the Nazis, seen as not deserving to live.1
Between 1933 and 1945, the Holocaust was an evolving event, becoming the most
well-known genocide in human history.2 Despite being acknowledged as a unique
catastrophe, there are several definitions of the Holocaust, and this has changed through
time. This is because, based on one’s viewpoints and experiences, individuals may define
the Holocaust in different ways. For example, Jews use the Hebrew word ‘Shoah,’ which
means ‘catastrophe,’ to attempt to summarise the genocide that has impacted so many
religious and ethnic groups globally.3 Above all, it is crucial to use an accurate and
encompassing definition to respect those who suffered, educate future generations, combat
prejudice, and encourage compassion.
While most scholars, historians and individuals embrace very similar definitions of the
Holocaust, the origins of the event are ambiguous. Around the globe, historians have spent
tremendous efforts to create a convincing explanation for the events of the Holocaust. This
has created the debate that has split between intentionalism and functionalism.
Intentionalists contend that Hitler and Nazi leadership had a long-term plan. They assert that
the genocide was meticulously planned and was an essential component of Nazi ideology.4
1
The National WWII Museum, The Holocaust, (2023),
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/holocaust.
2
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Introduction to the Holocaust, (2021),
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/introduction-to-the-holocaust.
3
Koen Smilde, What Is the Holocaust? (2020), Anne Frank Website,
https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/what-is-the-holocaust/.
4
Holocaust Centre, Interpretations of the Holocaust, 2023,
https://www.holocaustcentre.org.nz/uploads/1/1/5/2/115245341/interpretations-of-the-holoca
ust.pdf.
1
, Sofia Manton
Contrastingly, functionalists claim that the Holocaust was the outcome of spontaneous
processes. Numerous elements interacted to cultivate the foundations for genocide.
Functionalists highlight social, political, and economic elements that contributed to gradual
development.5
These two spheres of argument reflect the conflict between historians. Lucy Dawidowicz,
who focuses on Jewish history, takes an intentionalist stance arguing Hitler began
formulating plans on November 11, 1918, and everything he did after was focused on
achieving that goal. She also claimed that in his 1924 book ‘Mein Kampf’, Hitler ‘openly
espoused his program of annihilation.’6 In contrast, Martin Broszat supports a functionalist
perspective, contending that the dictatorship was propelled by internal conflict rather than
Adolf Hitler and that the government had been made up of competing institutions and power
battles.7 Due to this, he claims that the Germans led themselves into a ‘sackgasse’ (a ‘blind
alley’), which had caused the genocide to occur ‘stück-und schubweise’ (‘bit by bit’).8 Karl
Schleunes’ interpretation puts forward a different viewpoint. He argues for moderate
functionalism: there was no clear route towards the Holocaust. He draws attention to
inconsistencies in Nazi Jewish policies, arguing the path was ‘twisted’ and there was a ‘trial
and error approach to the Jewish problem’.9
b) To what extent was the Holocaust a long-term plan?
The Holocaust was an intricate event, and determining whether it was a long-term plan
involves setting criteria. A compelling argument, whether intentionalist or functionalist,
should acknowledge historical context, evidence of planning, implementation and
motivations and aims.10
When acknowledging historical context, a strong response should offer thorough context on
the causes, such as an examination of the rise of the Nazi Party, the social, economic, and
political elements that influenced the emergence of antisemitic attitudes, as well as
circumstances that resulted in the genocide, whether long-term or short-term.
A compelling argument must also consider documented evidence to support its claims. A
strong intentionalist viewpoint should consider evidence such as Hitler's writings and rallies,
the development of concentration camps in the years before the Holocaust, and the
utilisation of gas chambers to strengthen theories. Similarly, a strong functionalist argument
5
Ibid.
6
Lucy S Dawidowicz, The War against the Jews 1933-1945, (1975), p. 158
7
Martin Broszat, The Hitler State (2014)
8
Martin Broszat, Hitler and the Genesis of the 'Final Solution': An Assessment of David
Irving's Theses (Chapter in Aspects of the Third Reich), (1985), p. 398 and p. 405
9
Karl A Schleunes, The Twisted Road to Auschwitz: Nazi Policy toward German Jews,
1933-1939, (1970), p. 277 and p. 257-258
10
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Causes and Motivations — United States
Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2022,
https://www.ushmm.org/teach/teaching-materials/roles-of-individuals/ethical-leaders/backgro
und/causes-and-motivations.
2
