Twisted Road To Auschwitz Summary

Studies of the Holocaust have provoked passionate debates. Increasingly, they have become a central topic of concern for historians particularly since the early 1970s, as the Holocaust studies were generally limited. However, one of the most intense debates surrounding the role played by Hitler in the ’Final Solution’. That is, whether and when Hitler took a decision to initiate the extermination process. Of course, this issue has caused incredible controversy and naturally such a contentious topic of debate has radically produced large amounts of new data and literature. Conflicting, an interpretation has caused further disparities between historians over Hitler’s role in the Holocaust. For this

What many victims went through is horrendous and difficult to comprehend. The debate between intentionalist and functionalist has been long and argumentative. Timothy Mason developed the term in a written essay, having the aim of turning the focus away from Hitler as the sole object of the Holocaust. Mason being a functionalist held the theory that it’s significant whilst studying the Holocaust, to consider the ‘dynamics of Nazi barbarism’ {Mason} as economically and institutionally motivated, without insisting Hitler must ‘carry the main burden of explanation’ [Mason, 1995, p. 216]. Furthermore, Mason believes along with other functionalists that the Holocaust must examine the factors in the development of the event on a wider scale. The economic aspect and issues in 1930 undoubtedly resulted to the chaotic political environment. Evidently, functionalists emphasise and place great importance on the multiple social issues and the effect it had on the decision making in the Third Reich. Hitler doesn’t play a significant role in the functionalist’s judgment. Additionally, Lucy Dawidowicz writes that “war and annihilation of the Jews were interdependent”. I believe historians or writers such as Dawidowicz take into account all factors whilst making the judgments which is great, however I don’t believe that the killing of six million people was ‘interdependent on the war’. It’s like saying all of

Of the four historians, it is Kershaw, Goldhagen, and Peukert who propose the idea that the holocaust was a long-term plan and Berghahn who argues that it was a reaction to the circumstances brought about by expansion during world war two. All of the historians agree to a certain degree that the extermination of the Jewish people from Germany was a long term idea of Hitler’s, but it is at the point where ‘idea’ becomes ‘plan’ that they differ.

The debate as to whether Hitler was a ‘weak dictator’ or ‘Master of the Third Reich’ is one that has been contested by historians of Nazi Germany for many years and lies at the centre of the Intentionalist – Structuralist debate. On the one hand, historians such as Bullock, Bracher, Jackel and Hildebrand regard Hitler’s personality, ideology and will as the central locomotive in the Third Reich. Others, such as Broszat, Mason and Mommsen argue that the regime evolved out from pressures and circumstances rather than from Hitler’s intentions. They emphasise the institutional anarchy of the regime as being the result of Hitler’s ‘weak’ leadership. The most convincing standpoint is the

In spite of the fact that it is a commonly known historical piece of the Holocaust, it’s authenticity has been questioned. Some conspiracies deny that it even happened at all. Through the analyzation of Hitler’s own violent anti-Semitism, powerful position, and ability to convey Nazi propaganda into action, one can see how he is the sole cause of the Holocaust.

The word Holocaust refers to the mass murder of 6 million European Jews by the German Nazi regime during World War II. It began in 1933 and ended in 1945. The ruler of Germany during this time was Adolf Hitler. He and the Nazis put the Jew in concentration camps, where thousands were killed everyday. This was one of the worst if not the worst genocides in history. Many books have been written to document survivors’ testimony of this horrific event. Elie Wiesel shares his story and Art Spiegelman shares his father’s story in the books Night and Maus. Comparisons can be drawn between Maus and Night through the author's purpose for writing , the survivor’s experiences, and the author's perspective.

The Holocaust was a horrible time period where Nazi’s attempted a genocide of Jewish people, gypsies and others they deemed had a disability. The victims would be sent to concentration camps, such as Auschwitz. The point of views the authors used can advance their purpose. If authors use objective point of view, they give only facts about the topic and does not give any opinions or bias. Unlike objective, subjective point of views helps form your opinion by giving the author’s experience and bias. The article “Auschwitz,” the film One Day at Auschwitz, and the memoir Night by Elie Wiesel feature information and experiences during the time the Holocaust took place.

By comparing, analyzing and questioning the validity of Maus I and II, Night, Night and Fog, nonfictional historical accounts and a poem, called Already Embraced by the Arm of Heavenly Solace, found in Europe in the Contemporary World, Schindler’s List and the Return to Auschwitz we may determine to what degree these sources serve to advance humanity’s understanding of the holocaust. The holocaust can be explained as the historical event in which the Nazi’s, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, and its collaborators murdered and persecuted approximately six million Jews. This came about because of the German belief that they were “racially superior” and the Jews were an alien threat to the German state. For humanity to advance in

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.

The Holocaust of 1933-1945, was the systematic killing of millions of European Jews by the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (Nazis) (Webster, 430). This project showed the treacherous treatment towards all Jews of that era. Though many fought against this horrific genocide, the officials had already determined in their minds to exterminate the Jews. Thus, the Holocaust was a malicious movement that broke up many homes, brought immense despair, and congregated great discrimination. The Holocaust was an act of Hell on earth.

It may seem that the functionalists are forfending Hitler from all the abhorrence but they are just placing him in the 1930’s where anti-Semitism was prevalent and the conception of liberating Europe from the Jews was not a unique conception or plan. Hans Mommsen was recognised as a leading expert on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust who is a functionalist and strongly believes the functionalist viewpoint. Mommsen believes Adolf Hitler rather than acting decisively, reacted to various social pressures. Mommsen was also opposed to the notion of the Nazi Germany as a totalitarian state. He was best known for arguing that Adolf Hitler was a “Weak Dictator” thesis as he quotes “Adolf Hitler was unwilling to take decisions, frequently uncertain, exclusively concerned with upholding his prestige and personal authority, influenced in the strongest fashion by his current entourage, in some aspects a weak dictator”. Functionalism analyses the occurrence of the Holocaust from two perceptions and sanctions the audience to understand that it is crucial to pinpoint the time period and to understand the reasons why such a horrible event

When it comes to interpreting the Final Solution, there are two main schools of thought that provide different explanations for how and why National Socialist Germany killed millions of Jews. The first interpretation is the functionalist view, which explains the Final Solution as something that came about by the chaotic and anarchical nature of the Nazi state. It places much importance on improvisation and radicalization. While acknowledging that Hitler played a key role, this view sees Hitler’s role as “a mobilizing and integrating agent”. The second interpretation is the intentionalist view, which explains the Final Solution as something that was planned and organized by Hitler. Placing emphasis on the “coherent and consistent ideology implemented through an all-powerful totalitarian dictatorship” is vital to this view. Of the two different interpretations, it seems that the intentionalist interpretation of the Final Solution provides a more convincing explanation for how and why National Socialist Germany killed millions of Jews. The combination of Hitler’s racial ideologies and the Second World War provided the motivation and the means to execute his plan to murder millions of Jewish people.

By the late 1970s, two broad schools of historiographical thought about Hitler and Nazi Germany were taking shape. They were eventually described as ‘intentionalism’ and ‘structuralism’ or ‘functionalism’. Both offer explanations about the nature of political power, the extent of planning, the organisation of the Nazi regime and the role Hitler played in decision-making. In general intentionalists believe that powerful individuals affect historical development. What major leaders, e.g. Hitler, wanted is important as they were in a position to obtain what they wanted.

It seems, at least according to Richard Bessel, historians “have come to doubt the importance of neither the orders given by the Nazi leadership nor the institutional context in which these orders were given and carried out.” More important than functionalism or intentionalism, Bessel argues, are arguments of a moral nature. However, these historiographical sides had somewhat fought for moral superiority, with intentionalists accusing functionalists of focusing on “underlying logic, embedded in processes of decision-making… was to ignore individual human responsibility-and, in the case of the monstrous crimes of Nazism, in effect to be guilty of a dereliction of one's moral duty.” This battle for the high ground, he claims, saved these

The holocaust was a bleak and unrecoverable part of the history of the twentieth century that will always be remembered. Millions died for no reason except for one man’s madness. Although many people know why this war happened many don’t know when and what events lead up to this: the way Hitler came into power, or when the first concentration camp was established, and what city it was in, why Jews were hated so much by Hitler, and why the rest of the country also hated them as well as, and what the chronology of the Holocaust. These are some of the things I will explain in my paper.