Intent and “Function” in the Making of Anti-Jewish Laws in Nazi Germany

One of the perennial debates surrounding the Holocaust, not to mention the role of ordinary Germans in it, concerns the extent to which it was “planned in advance.”
On the one side, you have “intentionalists” who argue that genocide was planned long in advance, and who argue that the evidence supports and early date of premeditation; on the other side are so-called “functionalists,” who claim that the “Final Solution” was not decided on finally until perhaps as late as December 1941 or even January 1942. These interpretations, in turn, are bound up with sharply constrasting visions of how the Nazi state worked.

A. Intentionalism
The Holocaust proved to be so vast, so thoroughly devastating, and so completely unprecedented that in retrospect, after 1945, it quickly acquired the air of inevitability. Surely something this systematic, this enormous, must have been conceived and planned long in advance, well before the Holocaust began to unfold in 1941. Perhaps the planning had begun, in some form, perhaps even before the NSDAP’s ascent to national prominence in 1930. The most avid proponents of this view stressed that the seeds of Hitler’s plan extended all the way back to World War One.  Thus Lucy Dawidowicz:

The Final Solution had its origins in Hitler’s mind. In Mein Kampf, he tells us that he decided on his war against the Jews in November 1918, when, at the military hospital in Pasewalk, he learned…of the naval mutiny in Kiel, the revolution that forced the abdication of the Emperor, and finally the armistice.

Indeed, to intentionalists such as Dawidowicz, the historic transcript of Nazi ideology seemed to bear her out: already in 1920, for example, the Nazi Party Program—which was never altered in 25 years!—said:

4. Only racial comrades (Volksgenossen) can be citizens of the state. Only persons of German blood can be racial comrades, regardless of religious affiliation. No Jew can therefore be a German racial comrade.
5. Whoever is not a citizen of the state shall live in Germany as a guest and be subject to alien law.

Intentionalists also note that of all the “planks” in the Nazi platform, only this one was actually implemented: one the course was set, they insist, there was never any back-tracking. Furthermore, the record of Hitler’s own public statements throughout the 1930s indicated, with the benefit of hindsight, a consistent progression toward the inevitable goal of physical destruction. Thus in January 1939, Hitler addressed the Reichstag, saying:

During my lifetime I have often made prophecies, and people have laughed at me, more often than not. In my struggle for power the Jews have always laughed louder when I prophesied that one day, I should be the leader of the German state, that I should be in full control of the nation, and that then, among other things, I should find the solution to the Jewish problem. I imagine that the Jews in Germany who laughed most heartily then are now finding that their laughter chokes them. Today I am going to make another prophecy: if the international Jewish financiers inside and outside Europe succeed in involving the nations in another war, the result will not be world Bolshevism and therefore a victory of Judaism—it will be the end of the Jews in Europe!

Earlier, in a 1937 address to party bosses Hitler made the point that

…the final aim of our policy is crystal clear to all of us. All that concerns me is never to take a step that could damage us in any way. You must understand that I always go as far as I dare and never further. It is vital to have a sixth sense that tells you, broadly, what you can do and what you cannot do. Even in a struggle with an adversary it is not my way to issue a direct challenge to a trial of strength. I do not say ‘Come on and fight, because I want a fight!’ Instead, I shout at him (and I shout louder and louder): ‘I mean to destroy you.’ And then I use my intelligence to help me maneuver him into a tight corner so that he cannot strike back, and then I deliver the fatal blow.

In view of such statements as these, “intentionalists” argue the following points:

a) That Hitler was supremely in control, especially of anti-Jewish policy;
b) That there was a direct and necessary link between antisemitic ideology and its genocidal outcome:
c) That each phase in the development of anti-Semitic legislation during the 1930s was a necessary, incremental stage in a process designed in advance.
d) That the “confusions” which arose in the course of anti-Semitic legislation were to some extent intentional, meant to cloak and conceal, just as Hitler hinted in his 1937 speech;
e) Finally, intentionalists argue that we should take Hitler at his prophetic word: that he conceived a plan to exterminate the Jews of Germany long before 1941, perhaps before 1933.

This argument is in line with the “totalitarian” view of Nazi Germany and its manner of operation: it places Hitler at the center of decision-making; it regards the various agencies of state power as the more or less coordinated instruments for the implementation of Hitler’s dictatorial will; it emphasizes the continuity of ideology and practice.

B. “Functionalism”
As functionalists see it, anti-Jewish policy was subject to the same forces of “charismatic leadership,” “polycracy” and “cumulative radicalization” that governed the evolution of Nazi policy in every other area.

1) “Functionalists” tend to argue that prior to 1933, the NSDAP was fundamentally a revolutionary propaganda organization; as such, its activities were oriented almost exclusively toward winning support at the poles—not toward crafting policies in anticipation of actually holding power. In addition, the revolutionary quality of Nazism virtually necessitated that practical questions be avoided in advance of the “seizure of power.”

2) Intentionalism, then, is inconsistent with the haphazard and ad hoc manner in which Hitler and the Nazi leadership went about their business. As Hans Mommsen observed, “Never has a political party come to power so ill-prepared for the tasks of governing.” Apart from Hitler’s pronouncements in Mein Kampf, there was very little planning for the day when Nazis would be in a position to change policy toward German Jews.

Following the clear wording of our party platform, we envisage the solution of the Jewish Question in that Jews living among the German people are treated like the foreigners they are and consider themselves to be, and are therefore placed under the law of foreigners. That does not mean a pogrom against them. The Jews merely have the same position in state and society as the English, the French, Italians and Japanese…who live here.

3) “Functionalists” tend to emphasize the competitive and chaotic nature of decision making, and point at the sheer number of individuals, state agencies, and NSDAP organizations vying for control over racial policy:

4) Finally, functionalists argue that Hitler’s role in the formation of anti-Jewish policies was complex and evolving: in Jewish policy as in most things, Hitler kept typically himself aloof from involvement in the practicalities of policy-making; in the early stages of his regime, they point out, Hitler’s role was usually to restrain more radical elements in the NSDAP; they also note that Hitler’s subordinates sometimes ignored his wishes and pursued their more radical designs despite his wishes.
At a cabinet meeting on 7 April 1933, for example, Hitler stipulated that Jews in civil service should not be expelled from office; but local NSDAP authorities went ahead anyway, and banned Jewish doctors from health boards and other public functions. Later on, Hitler took a more active role, intervening fitfully in September 1935 to push through the Nürnberg Race Laws; more systematically after the forces of radicalization coalesced in 1937 and 1938.

5) With respect to the origins of genocide, functionalists tend to argue that the decision to perpetrate genocide emerged gradually from a series of stymied efforts to find a satisfactory “solution” to the “Jewish Question”; in each instance, the predominant “solution” was undermined by changing circumstances; was hobbled by conflict with other aims of national policy; or ran aground on the contradictions of its own internal logic. In each phase, the participants were as numerous as they had been at the outset; but the outcome of each failed experiment was in the same direction, toward ever more radical “solutions” until only genocide remained.

Return to 443/543 Homepage