Hitler’s anti-Semitism took root in the Nazi party and contributed to their policies and attacks against the Jews. It is clear within his writings in Mein Kampf, that Hitler believed that he would be fighting for a just cause and protecting the world from the Jewry. Hitler stated “I believe myself to be acting in the sense of the Almighty creator: by defending myself against the Jew I fight for the Lord’s work.” This fight against the Jew became part of Nazi ideology and was embraced by the German people. Social Darwinism and racial superiority also became part of the Nazi ideology. This is evident in a speech made by Himmler to the SS on April 24, 1943 where he stated that they “were the first to really answer the race problem by action,
…show more content…
The party leaders were not concerned with national policy but only with policy that would affect their jurisdictions. Because of this lack of policy at a national level, functionalists argue that “thus radicalism, and, in society at large, continual political mobilization, became ends in themselves, substitutes of a kind for policy goals.” The absence of this structure, led to radicalization within society and it is argued that although Hitler did not oppose this “he was not, it is argued, its self-conscious or purposeful author.” It is there where their argument lays, the Holocaust is not an idea from Hitler rather it was created by the party itself. By lacking policies, the party led its people to radicalization and mobilization which gave raise to high anti-Semitic feelings within society. Although functionalists argue that it was the party and not the man where the Holocaust originated it is only fair to point out that Hitler had a deep hatred for Jews. He had an anti-Jewish sentiment, which many in Germany shared after the war. Hitler was able to appeal to the masses who were angry about the outcome of the Treaty of Versailles, he was able to channel this hatred into …show more content…
They do not disagree with the intentionalists on the matter of whether or not there was a hatred for Jews but what they do disagree on is how the final solution came about. Intentionalists attributed to Hitler, it was him who created the final solution and it was solely him who ordered the destruction of the Jews. Yet functionalists believe that everyone within the Nazi party was involved in some way “the initiation as well as the implementation of decisions was largely in its hands [Nazi administration]. No special agency was created… Each organization was to play a specific role in the process, and each was to find the means to carry out its task.” It can be argued that it was team work between the agencies that almost resulted in the success of the Final Solution. Even though both the functionalists and the intentionalists make a fair assessment of the situation. I am inclined to believe that the intentionalists present a better argument. Through the use of group identity, ideology, and the hatred for Jews Hitler was able to create the Holocaust. It was him who began it and it was with him that the Holocaust ended. He is its creator and the Nazi party was merely a vehicle to get his ideas to spread throughout Germany. Without the man, it is safe to assume that
The party leaders were not concerned with national policy but only with policy that would affect their jurisdictions. Because of this lack of policy at a national level, functionalists argue that “thus radicalism, and, in society at large, continual political mobilization, became ends in themselves, substitutes of a kind for policy goals.” The absence of this structure, led to radicalization within society and it is argued that although Hitler did not oppose this “he was not, it is argued, its self-conscious or purposeful author.” It is there where their argument lays, the Holocaust is not an idea from Hitler rather it was created by the party itself. By lacking policies, the party led its people to radicalization and mobilization which gave raise to high anti-Semitic feelings within society. Although functionalists argue that it was the party and not the man where the Holocaust originated it is only fair to point out that Hitler had a deep hatred for Jews. He had an anti-Jewish sentiment, which many in Germany shared after the war. Hitler was able to appeal to the masses who were angry about the outcome of the Treaty of Versailles, he was able to channel this hatred into …show more content…
They do not disagree with the intentionalists on the matter of whether or not there was a hatred for Jews but what they do disagree on is how the final solution came about. Intentionalists attributed to Hitler, it was him who created the final solution and it was solely him who ordered the destruction of the Jews. Yet functionalists believe that everyone within the Nazi party was involved in some way “the initiation as well as the implementation of decisions was largely in its hands [Nazi administration]. No special agency was created… Each organization was to play a specific role in the process, and each was to find the means to carry out its task.” It can be argued that it was team work between the agencies that almost resulted in the success of the Final Solution. Even though both the functionalists and the intentionalists make a fair assessment of the situation. I am inclined to believe that the intentionalists present a better argument. Through the use of group identity, ideology, and the hatred for Jews Hitler was able to create the Holocaust. It was him who began it and it was with him that the Holocaust ended. He is its creator and the Nazi party was merely a vehicle to get his ideas to spread throughout Germany. Without the man, it is safe to assume that