Breakthrough
New Old Stock
Retrospect journal
empire’, which refers to the 1940 proposal to relocate the entire Jewish population of Madagascar. He also speaks of Hitler’s ‘barbaric vision for reorganising entire populations in conquered territories.’ There is thus no indication of a plan for genocide. Instead, evidence suggests that total control and resettlement are on the agenda. Therefore, the origins of the Holocaust came about as a response to circumstances, rather than Nazi initiation. Cesarani also points to the dynamics of the regime, particularly of Hitler being ‘under-pressure’ from the Nazi party bosses to remove ‘the remaining Jews.’ It is evident at the Wannsee Conference in 1942, when the state of the Ghettoes was discussed, that their apparent decay needed to be dealt with as soon as possible due to the escalating spread of disease and death. As suggested, ‘Hitler was in a state of panic’, and reaching for the most radical idea seemed the only solution. Once again, this reinforces the view that the decision was spontaneous, arising when the Ghettoes were becoming overcrowded, and Germany were losing their grip on the war. Despite this evidence, however, intentionalist historians view the origins of the Holocaust as being quite the opposite: unavoidable, in the core foundations, and
ACADEMIC (XI)
33
thus planned in the long term. Eberhard Jäckel uses several speeches from Hitler before, and after, his appointment to Chancellor in 1933. These speeches spoke of the policies and aspirations of the Nazi party. He points to the repeated notion of the Jews being “done away with,” including, within the context, Hitler’s mention of poisonous gas. The ‘trial-and-error’ argument which is put forward by functionalists is therefore countered by Jäckel, who argues that the plan for annihilation was always there, the Nazis merely had to find ‘a convenient dumping ground for the Jews.’ The final plan was there, though flexible and unclear, which functionalists regard as being no plan at all. Jäckel’s intentionalist opinion derived from examining many of Hitler’s quotes. Mein Kampf, published in 1925, is a prime example of this, as it combines elements of autobiography and Hitler’s political ideology. The statement, ‘If 12,000–15,000 Jews were gassed, then the sacrifice of millions of soldiers would not have been in vain,’ presents Hitler’s clear aspiration and long drawn out plan of how to exterminate Jews. Nevertheless, Hitler began dictating Mein Kampf after the failure of the Munich Putsch led to his imprisonment in November 1923. This suggests that he had time to accumulate his ideas and plans in his prison cell. However, the prison governor of Landsberg noted: ‘he [Hitler] hopes the book will run into many editions, thus enabling him to fulfill his financial obligations and to defray the expenses incurred at the time of his trial.’ Therefore, it is highly probable that in order for it to sell well, Hitler needed a shock factor and exaggeration. This also resonates in the argument of Hitler gaining power by playing upon the anti-Semitic, anti-Versailles, and economic depression sentiments of the time, which allowed him to rise and gain power through his messianic stance, supporting what came to be known as the “Hitler Myth.” This links into Lucy Dawidowicz’s argument of Hitler conceiving the plan in 1918, straight after Germany had lost the war, as he believed the Jews were the cause of Germany’s loss. Intentionalist Richard Breitman discusses the evidence of the 1939 Prophecy Speech, whereby Hitler asserts that, under the circumstance that “Jewish financiers” began yet another world war, “...the result would be the annihilation of the entire Jewish race in Europe.” In 1941, Goebbels wrote in his diary that ‘the Führer’s prophecy is coming true in a most terrible way.’ It is clear that the Minister of Propaganda is rather surprised, indicating an unplanned result, rather than a long-term blueprint. Furthermore, this once again points to the disorganised dynamic and unclear policies of the regime. It is clear that the Holocaust was, indeed, a result of cumulative radicalization and a spontaneous, reckless response to the various pressures of the people and events surrounding that time. The political system which orchestrated such a policy is the prime indication of this. Although intentionalists would argue the incomparable and omnipresent power of Hitler, the structured leadership suggests otherwise. It enabled sub-leaders such as Heyrich to derive their own policies - for example that ‘the Star of David are to be displayed on pushchairs and briefcases’ - suggesting disunity and lack of any policy plans, including mass murder, in regards to their ideology. From the beginning, it was apparent Jews were reluctantly granted a place in Hitler’s Germany. Parallel to the Jim Crow laws in Southern United States until 1965, whereby African Americans were segregated from white Americans, the Nuremberg Laws also aimed to maintain the superiority of the Aryan race. Therefore, they were not a stepping stone towards genocide, merely a part of the undeniably strong anti-Semitism throughout Europe, that was apparent from the Jewish massacres in 1648 Poland, to the forging of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the late nineteenth century. The Madagascar Plan came about through Hitler’s push for Lebensraum, relocating the Jews to make more space for the Aryan race - once again, intending to keep them alive with no plans for annihilation in 1938. World War II was waged on the further basis of Hitler’s hunger for expanding Lebensraum, which had a knock-on effect, creating chaos, panic, and further placing millions of Jews in Hitler’s hands. The failed plans to Madagascar and denied emigration due to the war caused the Nazis to look for the fastest, most radical way to get rid of the Jewish population. Overall, cumulative radicalization stemmed from numerous impacts, from anti-Semitic propaganda, to the sadistic Einsatzgruppen, to the impact of the war. Thus, because the decision over the annihilation cannot be pinpointed, it is clear that a radical accumulated build up caused the Holocaust. Although there are indeed many interpretations about the origins of the Holocaust, when remembering such a milestone, it is necessary to look and remember the factors which also enabled the fall of inherent humanity. Therefore, to quote George Santayana, “the one who does not remember history is bound to live through it again.” Milestones provide the perfect opportunity to remember.