Adolf Hitler's Role In The Holocaust

Throughout human history, scarcely any event can compare in atrocity to that of the Holocaust. We will never know the comprehensive truth of the Holocaust and its’ notorious leader Adolf Hitler, and as such we are left to speculate on the origins and impact created by those involved. To some, Adolf Hitler is the inimitable leader, the charismatic politician with a heinous purpose and the sole person to blame for the events which became known to history as the Holocaust. This ideology is known as the intentionalist argument, and British historian Ian Kershaw is a fervent believer in Hitler’s central role. On the other hand, left-wing German historian Hans Mommsen advocates the functionalist argument which attempts to lessen the extent at which …show more content…
If Hitler was good at anything, it was manipulation. Furthermore, the genocide experienced in the Holocaust could very well have been avoided if a leader as manipulative and irrational as Hitler was removed from the picture. As such, Hitler played a pivotal role in the progression of the Holocaust and he is worthy of blame above all others.
Although an overall unexceptional German citizen, Hitler did have the ability to appeal to the German people and influence their thoughts and perception of his rampant anti-Semitism. When brought to power in 1932, the German people were well aware of the Nazi party’s anti-Semitic inclinations. They had hoped for moderation, but instead experienced excessive anti-Semitic policy. The persecution of the Jews at the hand of Hitler occurred inconsistently over the pre-WWII era. Hitler stated early on that one goal of his being in power was to address the “Jewish problem”. According to Mommsen, “Hitler considered the ‘Jewish question’ from a visionary political perspective that did not reflect the real situation” (Mommsen, 28). With this understanding, Mommsen attempts to argue that Hitler was more a philosophical anti-Semite as opposed to an anti-Semite in practice. Even disregarding the mass genocide of the Holocaust, we know this to be false. …show more content…
Reverence and respect of the atrocities committed is vital, but why should we continually bring to the surface topics that have no definite answer? Like many topics in history, understanding the past is key to unlocking the present, as well as our futures. Knowing whether Hitler alone can be blamed for causing the Holocaust, or if it was rather a societal disease running rampant through eastern Europe is likewise vital to prevent similar occurrences in the modern era. Mommsen attempts to deny Hitler as causation of the Final Solution because he believes the Holocaust cannot be the result of any one man, particularly one as politically ineffective as Hitler. To Mommsen, Hitler's indirect orders were not ingenious schemes of manipulation as Kershaw claims, but rather a simple example of weak-dictatorship. Kershaw on the other hand wants to maintain Hitler as causing the Holocaust because he believes one man can be blamed for the Holocaust, if that one man knows how to manipulate an entire culture and gather enough devoted followers to do his bidding, no matter how heinous it may seem to those on the outside. In addition to this, people like having a face and a name, one single embodiment of all the bad that had happened, to blame. To some degree, Hitler is the scapegoat here. Arguably a deserving one, but perhaps not as deserving as we believe him to be. Sure he gave orders and