Nazi Germany And World War Two

While there are varying degrees of intensity, the essence of the two arguments centre on the responsibility and questionable pre-conceived nature of the ‘Final Solution to the Jewish Question.’ Both disciplines utilise their own interpretations of primary source evidence to answer the following two questions: was the Holocaust a premeditated and articulated master plan developed by Adolf Hitler in the earlier years of his political career? and was the Holocaust carried out according to the orders of Hitler, or did the initiative develop amongst the ranks of the German bureaucracy and eventuate from the commands of powerful Nazi party members. The questioning of the motivations and logistical proceedings behind the Holocaust came to light in the 1945 Nuremberg War Crime Trials where the incorrect Intentionalist view was heavily enforced and taken as an almost gospel truth. As time passed, logic presided and historians began to challenge the dominant interpretation, thus birthing the Functionalist view. The Intentionalists inaccurately hold Hitler as an all-powerful, all-controlling being whose goal from the start was to eradicate the Jews, arguing that this plan was consistently and meticulously followed from the conception of his political career to the fall of the Nazi Party. The

Charles Darwin developed a theory of biological evolution that stated all species evolved from other species through natural selection. Herbert Spencer followed up with this theory by coining the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ as a way to describe natural selection. This theory grew among scientist, but the Fundamentalist Christians opposed Darwinism because it goes against their core beliefs. Some used it as a way to justify classifying some people as second-rate and how they treated those people. Darwinism also played a major role in America’s immigration policy and furthermore is one of the main reason for the start of World War I.

Many things that happen also have a trigger event – the final straw, or the

In the book Ordinary Men, Christopher Browning tackles the question of why German citizens engaged in nefarious behavior that led to the deaths of millions of Jewish and other minorities throughout Europe. The question of what drove Germans to commit acts of genocide has been investigated by numerous historians, but unfortunately, no overarching answer for the crimes has yet been decided upon. However, certain theories are more popular than others. Daniel Goldhagen in his book, Hitler’s Willing Executioners, has expounded that the nature of the German culture before the Second World War was deeply embedded in anti-Semitic fervor, which in turn, acted as the catalyst for the events that would unfold into the Holocaust. It is at this

Most of us have heard of the Nazi party’s horrific, genocidal regime on destroying the Jewish race, but what events led up to their dire judgement? In this study I aim to uncover the events, reasons and changes which led to the Holocaust and the further changes in the treatment of the Jewish race by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party.

With the ideas of Darwinism the seeds of eugenics were also sown , here a biological shaping of its citizens and those deemed beneficial encouraged those that were not were to be managed. The bodily appearance of groups was used as an indicator of a pre-disposition towards anti-social behaviour based upon the conception of they being more similar to animals and thus less rational, more inclined to criminality and less deserving of rights. This domestically this manifested itself in governing in a biopolitical way and of policies that discouraged these groups from having families and carrying on their genetic traits, many that were physically and mentally disabled or ill were sent to asylums, the poor to work houses. Taken to the extreme it was used as justification for the genocide of Jews

Therefore this paper will focus on similar critiques, arguing that a combination of the long history of anti-Semitism and “scientific” racism interpretations presented by Friedlander and Weiss provides the most logical interpretations of the Nazi government and the origins of the Holocaust.

Functionalism versus intentionalism is an ongoing historical debate about the origins of the Holocaust. The two questions that the debate centers around on are; was there a master plan by Adolf Hitler for the holocaust? The intentionalist argument is that there was a ‘master plan’, while functionalist’s ague that there was not. The second question is whether the initiative for the Holocaust and the Final Solution come from Adolf Hitler himself, or from lower ranks in the Third Reich. Both side agree that Hitler was the supreme leader, and was responsible for encouraging the anti-Semitism during the Holocaust, but intentionalists believe that the initiative for the final solution came from above, while functionalists argue that it came from the lower ranks within the bureaucracy.

Social Darwinism is a popular social evolution theory in 19 century propounded by Herbert Spencer. It refers to notions of struggle for existence being used to justify social policies, which show no sympathy for those unable to support them. Rationalized by the notion that colonized nations, poor people, or disadvantaged minorities must have deserved their situations because they were “less fit” than those who were better off.

Stanley Milgram’s experiment revealed, when faced higher authority figures, the average person feels pressured to conform, even when faced with personal morality. Such as the Nazis. Under the leadership of Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), the “Nazi Party grew into a mass movement and ruled Germany through totalitarian means from 1933 to 1945”. (2) Hitler believed that German people were the purest of the Aryan race, and the master

When considering historians accounts on whether Hitler was a “Weak dictator.” due to his erratic ineptitude as a leader or whether he was actually “The Master of the Third Reich.”, it’s essential to look upon the historians argument and whether it’s credible or not. With a look at the differing historian’s views it’s evident that there’s clear difference between the historians viewpoints; some portray Hitler to be a lazy and reluctant decision maker and was merely “One extreme element of the extensive malevolence that was the Nazi system.” Whereas others argue that Hitler had reached a state of absolutism as he controlled all areas of Nazi government and thus tailored a social Darwinist bureaucracy which was driven to implement his world view” . Both sides of the argument can be divided into two different aspects: Some historians argue from an ‘Intentionalist’ viewpoint where Hitler had total control whereas others would argue from a ‘Structualist’ viewpoint thus suggesting Hitler didn’t have full control due to his poly-cratic style of leadership and there was more than one element of rule within Nazi Germany.

Nazi Germany was a state built on racial ideologies. The Nazi Party was influenced by two contributing factors leading up the Nazi state. These crucial influences are the buildup of science on racial hygiene and the policing groups that further shaped and protected the Nazi regime. Science at this time was not distrusted and was viewed as concrete. In 1895, Alfred Ploetz, coined the term racial hygiene (Procter, 15). This term purpose was to consider not just the good of the individual but also the good of the race. When political parties began to dissolve and Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor, these ideals were brought up with him. The need to return to normalcy allowed Hitler to sway public opinion. Hitler implemented policing to anyone who he saw that threatened the Nazi Party. Racial Hygiene is the most influential building block of the Nazi administration that sparked interest around the world before the 1900s. The growth of Racial Hygiene or scientific discrimination was an emitting agenda, but it was also diplomatic in design to reinforce certain power relations as “natural” with the help of policing programs to navigate into the Nazi Parties direction.

Social Darwinism was a concept that emerged later in the nineteenth century suggesting that what applied to nature could also apply to human society – that the strong prevail over the weak, that superior races prevail over inferior races. This concept with its theme of struggle and survival of the fittest appealed to Hitler. “Struggle” wrote Hitler “is the father of all things…He who wants to live must fight and who does not want to fight in this world where external struggle is the law of life has no right to exist”*.

An excerpt written by Jerry Bergman; Darwinism and the Holocaust illustrates one view of social Darwinism and is posted on www.trueorigin.org/holocaust.asp. It is clear Bergman is a creationist, being, he falsely claims; if the Nazis believed all humans were descendants of Adam and Eve and equal before the creator of god, the holocaust would have never occurred (1). To validate his argument, Bergman concludes social Darwinism is equivalent to Nazism, and claims Hitler is a “savior” of man kind-if Darwinian evolution is true (11). By calling Hitler a “savior,” he shows his readers he is not only ignorant, but does not truly grasp the fact, Darwin’s ideas of evolution were abused to justify Nazi policies against races which were considered “inferior.”

Social Darwinism was a sociological theory that merged Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection and the work of Herbert Spencer, Malthus, and other scientific and sociological theorists to justify imperialism, racism, and conservative economic policies. The overall acceptance of the power of nature in defining human beings developed during the 18th century Enlightenment. Europe’s exploration not only brought about immense economic and agricultural growth, but also exposed them to “human behavior and life patterns within environments and under circumstances dramatically different than their own” (4). The most popular catch phrases of Darwinism, “struggle for existence” and “survival of the fittest”, when applied to the life of man in society, suggested that nature would provide that the best competitors in a competitive situation would win, and that this process would lead to continuing improvement” (6. Hoft). This misinterpreted sense of superiority engulfed much of society at the time and was used to justify the logistics behind certain actions regarding capitalism, racism, and imperialism. Furthermore, it served as the backbone of some of the most heinous acts imaginable including the genocide and sterilization of certain groups of people.