Q) To What Extent Was The 'final Solution Of The Jewish Question' A 'german National Project'?

Q) To what extent was the 'final solution of the Jewish Question' a 'German National project'?

'The holocaust was not an international conflict in any normal sense: it took place within the context of an international conflict...but there was no war of the Jews against Nazism...in most cases, this was a war of the doomed...The Holocaust is about murder, and no amount of imaginative reconstruction will ever change that fundamental reality.' So writes Michael Marrus in the introduction to his book 'The Holocaust in History.' Marrus captures pertinently the essence of the Holocaust. It was not necessary in ensuring the success of the German war effort, nor was it an event which was part of an international conflict; it was merely undertaken against the backdrop of one. It was the systematic murder of a race within occupied Europe for reasons far removed from German military imperatives and was most definitely not, therefore, undertaken for the defence of the Reich or out of security concerns. Ideology, not military pragmatism, drove German Jewish policy towards the Final Solution. Perhaps it is misguided to suggest, however, that it was German Jewish policy which resulted in the Final Solution as the used of the word 'German' conveys to the reader the sense that the entire nation was responsible for such wickedness, rather than just the Nazi elite. To say that the Holocaust was a 'German National Project' is to go far too far in the implication of the nation as a whole in the murder of the European Jewry. Certainly, there was a slight element of national mobilization in such a large undertaking and there was, it will be argued, a well entrenched degree of anti-Semitism within Germany long before Hitler came to power, which the Nazis were able to exploit to a limited extent through their propaganda campaigns. The actual impetus for the final solution, however, will be shown to have emanated from Hitler's own ideology, whilst the decisions to move towards the Final Solution, and the practical steps taken to ensure that it was carried out, were undertaken by the Nazi elite and not by the German nation as a whole. The Final Solution cannot, therefore, be said to constitute a 'German National Project' and should instead be seen as a Nazi project instigated by Hitler's own ideology and given momentum by the decision taken by the Nazi elite. Although elements of the German population are in some way culpable, the involvement of the nation as a whole is negligible enough to rule out any notion that the Holocaust was in anyway a German national project. Before launching into an examination of the decisive role played by Hitler and the Nazi elite in the instigation of the final solution, it is necessary to first of all examine the nature of the anti-Semitism which pervaded German society long before Hitler came to power. In his book 'Willing Executioners', Daniel Goldhagen presses the argument that ordinary Germans were, in fact, partly culpable for the Holocaust and deserve a degree of blame for the events that unfolded. In setting the scene for his analysis of the role played by ordinary Germans in the mass killings on the Eastern Front, Goldhagen draws attention to what he describes as 'the persistence of a widespread, profound German cultural animus towards Jews that evolved from an early Nineteenth Century eliminationist form to the more deadly Twentieth Century incarnation.' Anti-Semitism, it should be said, was not a phenomenon unique to Germany and almost all European countries have experienced some form of repression or violence aimed at Jews at some point since the middle ages. One need only look at the 1894 Dreyfus affair in France - in which a young French artillery officer of Jewish descent was wrongly convicted of passing military secrets to Germany - to perceive the widespread nature of European anti-Semitism. In Germany, however, anti-Semitism was far more deeply rooted than in the other states of Western Europe and was often framed in the context of the defence of Germanic culture against degenerative outside influences. It is this deeply rooted anti-Semitism, argues Goldhagen, which allowed Hitler and the Nazi Elite to undertake such a horrific policy of mass murder. In his work 'Nazi Policy, Jewish Workers, German Killer', Christopher Browning echoes Goldhagen's sentiment, arguing that Nazi policies were 'very much in tune with widely held views and hopes in much of German society concerning the construction of a German empire in eastern Europe' and that 'There was no shortage if those who now eagerly sought to contribute to this historic opportunity for a triumph of German racial imperialism.' More disturbingly, however, Browning contends that 'The broad support for German racial imperialism in the east was one foundation upon which the future consensus for the mass murder of the Jews would be built.' Deep seated anti-Semitism, in Goldhagen and Browning's view, acts as a life-force which allowed the Nazi elite to push forward with the Final Solution and is something without which the mass killing of Jews during the Holocaust would have been impossible. Indeed, Goldhagen and Browning are not entirely alone in his belief that only the willing cooperation of the German people allowed the Nazis to conduct such a brutal and systematic process which resulted in mass murder. Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wipperman highlight the fact that 'From the beginning, many academics and scientists were involved in the formation and implementation of Nazi racial policy' , a fact which shows the level of professional support for the ideas espoused by the Nazi party. Moreover, Burleigh and Wipperman contend that rather than initiation anti-Semitic feeling in Germany, the Nazis merely 'imposed a logical structure on various forms of hatred and irrationality' which already existed in Germany prior to 1933. Whilst there is little doubt that anti-Semitism was a potent force in Germany prior to the Hitler's rise to power, to suggest that it alone facilitated the implementation of the Final Solution, or to claim that it show the Final Solution to be a 'German National Project' is to afford it too great a role and to fail to acknowledge the dual processes of Hitler's ideology and the progressive radicalisation of the Nazi elite and their policies. In order to better understand why the Final Solution was a Nazi project as opposed to a national one, it is best to examine to dichotomy between two schools of thought which have come to be termed 'intentionalism' and 'functionalism'. Moreover, in examining each of these two schools of thought, it will be shown that although historic German anti-Semitism feeds into and interacts with each of them; it is not the principle cause of the Final Solution as with both intentionalism and functionalism, Nazi principles and actions, rather than national ones, are the essential driving force. The most concise summary of the division between the two schools of thought is offered by Browning when he writes that 'The intentionalists emphasized the centrality of Adolf Hitler's ideology, pre-determined plans, and opportunistic decision making, whereas the functionalists emphasized the dysfunction and unplanned destructive implosion of an unguided bureaucratic structure and tension-filled political movement that had driven themselves into a dead end.' In essence, intentionalists contend that Hitler planned the Final Solution from the very beginning of his political career and that his desire to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe was evinced as early as 1920, whilst functionalist believe that the anarchic nature of the Nazi system, Browning's 'anarchic structure', meant that the Final Solution was given impetus by the actions of at Nazi elite as a whole, with Hitler's rhetoric acting as a mere guiding force. What is interesting to observe at this early juncture, however, is that the idea of the Final Solution being a 'German National Project' is not afforded any great weight in either of these schools of thought. 'Even a genocide must have some sort of birth, monstrous as that may seem; it must have a genesis.' So wrote Philippe Burrin in his book 'Hitler and the Jews'. Burrin's point at first appear to be stating the obvious. Of course a genocide must have a beginning, all events have a beginning no matter how far back one must look for it. Even the universe is known to have had a beginning. Burrin's point, however, is not merely a blindingly obvious throw away statement, as it drives to the heart of the intentionalist debate. Someone, somewhere, must have conceived of a plan to exterminate the European Jewry, it is an event to well organised and too far reaching to have happened by accident. It must have had a genesis and, according to intentionalists, this genesis can be found in the mind and intentions of Adolf Hitler himself. It is Burrin who argues this thesis most vigorously, writing that 'animated by incredible anti-Semitic hatred [Hitler] had had the firm intention of killing the Jews since the 1920's; he bided his time, and seized the moment when it came.' More damningly, however, Burrin argues that 'In Hitler's attitude towards the Jews a homicidal potential escalated into a murderous intent.' If all events - even genocide - require a genesis, a point of conception, then Burrin posits such a genesis firmly in the intentions of Adolf Hitler. Hitler's desires, more than anything else, are seen by intentionalists such as Burrin as being accountable for the implementation of the Final Solution. Christopher Browning, by contrast, does place the genesis for the Final Solution well within Hitler's control, but calls for what he terms 'moderate functionalism'. Despite the word functionalism appearing in the name, Browning's view is essentially a refinement of Burrin's intentionalist argument. Browning argues that Hitler 'made a series of key decisions in 1941 that ordained the mass murder of Europe's Jews' and that in the euphoria of victory in 1941, Hitler 'solicited a plan to extend the killing process already underway in Russia to the rest of Europe's Jews' What is important in Browning's argument, however, is that Hitler had not decided upon the Final Solution as the culmination of his anti-Semitic hatred, as opposed to Burrin's more whole-hearted intentionalism which claims that Hitler intended the Final Solution from as early as 1920. In both cases, however, the impetus for the final solution is derived directly from Hitler, whether it is seen as a radicalisation of his views in light of Germany's success in the East or as the logical end point of a desire he had held since the early 1920's. What is conspicuous, however, is the absence of any notion of the Final Solution being a 'German National Project'. In the intentionalist view, the Holocaust can be seen as being very much a pet project of Hitler, rather than one implemented or brought about by the desires of the German people as a whole. At one point, Burrin does relax his argument somewhat, stating that 'The Final Solution was born, then, of the confluence of the Fuhrer's anti-Semitic obsession, the anarchic operation of his regime, and the emergence of an uncontrollable situation.' Although a moderation of his extreme intentionalism, Burrin's moderation does not, as with other intentionalist arguments, place any great deal of complicity at the feet of the German people as a whole. Under the intentionalist school of thought, the genesis of the Final Solution is traceable directly to Hitler. It was Hitler's project, not the German people's. A second key school of thought surrounding the development of the Final Solution has been labelled 'functionalism' Functionalists argue 'that Hitler and the Nazis were not operating programmatically toward a premeditated goal' but rather that the Final Solution emerged piecemeal out of the bureaucratic anarchy of the Nazi regime and that although direction was given by Hitler's rhetoric, no direct orders were ever issued by Hitler and the Final Solution itself was not the only possible end point for the gradual radicalisation of Nazi racial policies. Whilst Hitler's ideology may have been essential to permitting the mass killing of Jews, functionalists argue, the Final Solution was not premeditated and nor was it determined purely by Hitler's desires. Hitler, under the functionalist view, did not necessarily intend to murder Europe's Jewish population, but merely to remove them from German life. A Final Solution did not necessarily have to be a lethal one. Ian Kershaw argues that in understanding the origins of the Final Solution one must realise that there was a 'dynamic process of radicalisation' in Nazi policies and that whatever vague direction was given by Hitler was 'eagerly seized upon as order for action by men wishing to prove their diligence.' Nazi policies became more and more radical, what began as a boycott of Jewish businesses in 1933 led to the Nuremburg laws in 1935 and to loosely organised killings in the East with the launching of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941. Only after this was the Final Solution in the way in which we conceive of it undertaken. Rather than pursuing the systematic destruction of the Jewish race from the beginning, therefore, the Nazi regime arrived at it through a process of gradual radicalisation. Such a process was not, however, driven by Hitler but by officials keen to show their loyalty to the regime by interpreting Hitler's vague directive in the ways the thought would pleas him the most. Moreover, functionalists argue, the 'cumulative radicalisation' of Nazi Jewish policy could not be halted because no one institution was able to take overall responsibility once the regime as a whole had embarked on its chosen course. Under a functionalist view, therefore, the impetus for the Final Solution comes not from Hitler himself, but from the anarchic bureaucratic system of the Nazi regime and the step-by step radicalisation of Nazi policy as implemented by party officials seeking Hitler's approval. Just as with the intentionalist view, however, the role of German society as a whole is more or less neglected. If intentionalism sees the Final Solution as Hitler's project, then functionalism sees it as the project of the Nazi bureaucracy as a whole and not of the German nation. Neither intentionalist nor functionalist arguments about the nature of the Final Solution suggest that it was a 'German National Project' which was willed on by the German population as a whole. Intentionalism holds the Holocaust to have been Hitler's own project, one which he had planned from as early as 1920 and which he alone pushed forward as circumstances allowed. Functionalism reduced the role of Hitler and claims that whilst his ideology gave the Nazi party direction in its arrival at the Final Solution, it actually arrived there through a process of 'cumulative radicalisation' brought about by the decentralisation of decision making under which officials sought to interpret Hitler's vague directives in the way they thought would please the Fuhrer the most. Neither of these two schools of thought, therefore, hold the Final Solution to have been a 'German National Project'. Furthermore, even the deeply rooted anti-Semitism examined at the start of this essay fails to account for the move towards the Final solution. The Holocaust was not, therefore, a 'German National Project but a project of Hitler and the Nazi bureaucracy he oversaw. Words: 2,514 Browning, Christopher, The Path to Genocide: Essays on the Launching of the Final Solution (Cambridge, 1992)

Browning, Christopher, Nazi Policy, Jewish Workers, German Killers (Cambridge, 2000)

Burleigh, Michael and Wipperman, Wolfgang, The Racial State: Germany 1933-1945 (Cambridge, 1991)

Burin, Philippe, Hitler and the Jews: The Genesis of the Holocaust (Arnold, 1994)

Goldhagen, Daniel, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (London, 2003)

Kershaw, Ian, The Nazi Dictatorship (Oxford, 2000)

Kershaw , Ian and Lewin, Moshe, Stalinism and Nazism: Dictatorships in Comparison (Cambridge, 1997)

Marrus, Michael, The Holocaust in History (London, 1989)