Nazis' Responsibility for the Holocaust: Analytical Essay

The Holocaust was the result of popular opinion of distaste towards Jews who were blamed, by the influential Nazi party, for the devastation of Germany, and especially for their loss at war. Within this there are three schools of thought: The Holocaust was the result of the contribution and influence made by other leading Nazi members, this takes into consideration the roles of subordinates such as Heydrich and Himmler who held significant amounts of authority as well as possessing similar anti-semitic ideals to Hitler. As well as this, a contrasting argument is that the Holocaust was solely Hitler’s responsibility, focusing on his intention to commit genocide as well as him being the main perpetrator of the Holocaust. The final argument being that it was a collaborative effort between Hitler and other leading Nazi figures, taking into account that it was Hitler who helped to cement this anti-semitic feeling within his party, however he was not the only one who possessed these feelings towards this oppressed group; ultimately implying that it was a mutual effort between Hitler and his leading subordinates to establish the Holocaust, through an ideology shared by them to kill millions of Jews in order to ‘cleanse’ and bring ‘purity’ back to the German population.

In regards to the area of debate, emphasising the responsibility of other leading Nazi officials, Robert Gerwarth sides with this argument throughout his publication ‘Hitler’s Hangman: The Life of Heydrich’. Gerwarth explores the roles of leading Nazis officials; primarily that of Himmler and Heydrich. He suggests that these influential figures, within the Nazi party, helped to create concrete policies based on of Hitler’s ideologies and also helped to make plans for the Jewish extermination. He also implies how influential they actually were to Hitler as a result of their quick decent up the Nazi hierarchy. In contrast, an historian which embodies the view that it was solely Hitler’s responsibility in regards to the Holocaust, is Lucy Dawidowicz in her book ‘The War Against the Jews 1933-1945’. Dawidowicz focuses on Hitler’s responsibility regarding the Holocaust and suggests he was influenced from a very early age in his hatred towards the Jews. Through her intentionalist argument, she believes that Hitler created an idea of the Holocaust before he came into power, particularly during his childhood and adolescent stages, and that this ideology was only then carried out once he became Fuhrer. Subsequently, an argument which takes into consideration both perspectives is that it was a collaborative effort between Hitler and other leading Nazi figures that contribute massively to the creation of the Holocaust. These historians do not undermine Hitler’s responsibility, but also take into consideration the involvement of other authoritative figures. Gerald Fleming’s, ‘Hitler and the Final Solution’ explores this argument through a more flexible intentionalist approach in which he does not underestimate Hitler’s responsibility in regards to the Holocaust but does not discredit the involvement of other Nazi officials. He suggests that it was Hitler who had given the orders to exterminate/murder the Jews, however it was other Nazi officials, such as Himmler and Heydrich, who had actually carried out these intentions. By taking into account these individual perspectives, I aim to address their stance on the question, and then to use these throughout my argument in order to not create bias towards a particular opinion but to also cover complex aspects of the question in regards to the extent of responsibility that Hitler’s subordinates possessed. Through reading and researching these historians opinions on this question, I hope that this will allow me to come to a conclusion that will contain aspects of each and also help me to form my own unbiased opinion on how responsible they actually were.

The emphasis of other leading Nazi figures (other than Hitler) regarding their influence upon the Holocaust is not to be understated. Such influential figures include Reinhard Heydrich and Heinrich Himmler, both leading SS and Nazi party members who possessed immense amounts of authority and therefore held some influence over Hitler. Heydrich and Himmler held a similar view of ‘identity of the long-term enemies of the German race and of the measures to be taken against them’, these so-called ‘enemies’ included Jews who held leading positions within the Marxist and liberal-democratic movements, as well as non-affiliated Jewish intellectuals who opposed the Nazi regime. This shared ideology, paired with their powerful position(s) within the Nazi party hierarchy, helps to emphasise their willingness to contribute heavily towards the ‘Final Solution’ and ultimately the extermination of millions of Jewish individuals. Pursuing this further, it was Himmler who helped to devise the schemes which led to the eventual execution of the Jews; it is claimed he “worked tirelessly” and “diligently” to put these schemes into practice and work towards a future in which an Aryan race would be superior, shown through only recruiting those who displayed typical Aryan characteristics. He believed that this would successfully “scientifically rebreed what he believed was a primeval master race”. As well as showing similar ideologies to that of Hitler, he also helped put into place the blueprints for the creation of a concentration camp (commandments of the 13 “Stammlager”, translated to the main concentration camps); as well as his aide in implementing the ‘Final Solution’. Therefore, the emphasis upon Nazi official responsibility and influence, other than that of Hitler, is especially emphasised when particular anti-Semitic actions were masterminded by those who were subordinates to the Fuhrer. Reinhard Heydrich also played a key role in regards to the extermination of the Jews and the eventual creation of the ‘Final Solution’. Despite Heydrich’s assassination three years prior to the eventual liberation of concentration camps by allied forces, he still had major influence regarding earlier anti-semitism, during Nazi rule, which contributed to that of the Holocaust. An example of this being his willingness to coordinate Kristallnacht, arguably the first prominent attack against the Jewish population under Hitler’s rule. This led to hundreds of Jews to be perished, whilst 30,000 were arrested and sent to concentration camps. The SS and Nazi police force, both of which Himmler and Heydrich were heavily affiliated with, steered violence of Kristallnacht directly and exclusively at the Jews, in hopes that this would accelerate the decision of Jewish citizens to emigrate and make leaving assets behind seem less valuable. Undoubtedly, the unwavering loyalty of both Himmler and Heydrich to Hitler essentially made them the two of the most influential individuals within the Nazi party; naturally to Hitler also. Through their stature within the Nazi hierarchy and therefore influence over Hitler as well as leading Nazi organisations, only emphasises their true power and involvement regarding the Jewish question, highlighted by their willingness to put into practice Hitler’s ideologies.

An historian which supports the debate that it was in fact the influence and responsibility of leading Nazis, rather than Hitler, such as Heydrich and Himmler, is Robert Gerwarth. A respected historian, born in Germany, who now serves on various publication boards; including that of the Journal of Modern European History and Contemporary European History. His publication: Hitler’s Hangman: The Life of Heydrich has been commended as a result of his diligence in analysing archives and other sources in the United States, as well as Ireland, in order to uncover the true nature of the subject surrounding overall responsibility for the Holocaust. Although, his efforts to use sources mainly originating from Western society limits his ability to capture a fully accurate account of the Holocaust, and so fails to study accounts from neighbouring communist countries who were directly affected by the Nazi regime. However, it should not be ignored that his clear, well-structured argument allows for the reader to be able to follow relatively easy, only emphasising how convincing his work actually is. As well as this, it’s publication in 2011 allows for the use of up-to-date information regarding the creation and establishment of the Holocaust itself, further underlining its validity and usefulness when understanding Nazi rule. Gerwarth argues that these influential figures, Heydrich and Himmler, helped to create policies inspired by that of Hitler’s own ideology, and that they too also helped form plans for the eventual extermination of the Jews. Following this further, Gerwarth does not fail to recognise their quick decent up the Nazi hierarchy, quickly becoming two individuals who helped influence Hitler which resulted in his reliance upon them. He implies that Himmler was the man who helped to “transform the Nazi worldview” as expressed by by Hitler and Heydrich. Further suggesting that the Holocaust was a direct cause of the influence from other leading Nazis apart from Hitler. Despite Hitler forming the SS, it was Himmler who commanded the ‘two most important executive organs of the Third Reich’, the SS and the police. It is also to be noted that his work on Heydrich and Himmler is credited with “dispelling several myths about Heydrich”; including that of rumours surrounding Heydrich’s alleged affiliation with Judaism, and that he was a “relative newcomer to the Nazi party”. Throughout his argument, he delivers well informed and researched statements regarding the extent of responsibility that Heydrich and Himmler possessed, whilst showcasing little empathy to that of Hitler or his subordinates; helping to eliminate any potential bias towards any particular individual(s). Whilst his argument takes on the view that the Holocaust had little to do with Hitler himself, and that its creation was mainly influenced by that of Himmler and Heydrich, it is not absolute, in that his response is nuanced and is open to some interpretation from the reader. As a result, he is credited by other scholars specialising in similar areas; reviewing that he “opens the book by identifying two challenges to writing a Nazi biography: mastering the literature of Nazism, and fathoming the mentality and ideology of a committed Nazi”, to which he succeeds in overcoming both of these aspects through his ability to “ not prosecute nor demonise Heydrich, nor does he moralise, trivialise, or sacralise his violence”.

An alternative area of debate regarding who held the most responsibility for the Holocaust, is that it was solely Hitler’s responsibility. This argument focuses largely on Hitler specifically intending to commit genocide and is therefore the most influential figure surrounding the Holocaust. Through Hitler’s early childhood and adolescent experiences, he began to form an anti-Semite feeling, later described as his ‘central and most compelling belief’, which later transpired to Hitler blaming the Jews for Germany’s loss of the war, the collapse of the monarchy; as well as Germany’s economic downfall, this ‘belief’ was then radicalised and put into practice when he dominated the newly-elected Nazi party. Following this further, it is to be known that he was also the individual who led the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP – which would later become known as the Nazi party) from 1921-1945; therefore it can be assumed that he held full responsibility and ultimately put into place discriminatory values held by the party as a result of his status and overall influence within the party itself. Despite Heydrich and Himmler becoming leading figures within the SS, it was Hitler who formed this military force and helped place them within society; they were eventually designated to carry out the “Final Solution of the Jewish Problem”. Only insinuating further that Hitler held the most responsibility as it was his beliefs and ideas which helped to form the foundation of his party. Arguably, the SS were also in talks with Hitler himself and so his ideas, as a consequence, were fed to them; as a result of this many SS men became willing to carry out tasks such as Kristallnacht, as well as arresting and imprisoning Jewish suspects in order to show their loyalty to the Fuhrer and the regime. Fundamentally, the SS were working for the Fuhrer and through his want for a “master race”, and for the Jews to be completely removed from Germany. This helped to encourage further anti-Semite behaviour from this military force. Despite appearing organised from an outsider perspective, the Nazi state was disheveled, although this is believed to be the result of Hitler wanting to create competition as well as uncertainty within his party so as to increase their reliance on him for guidance. This was a tactic adopted by Hitler to ensure that loyalty to the him was maintained throughout the Reich and so anti-Semitic actions such as the Nuremberg Laws, Kristallnacht, and as well as the eventual Holocaust itself could be carried out through appointment of high ranking members of the Nazi party. These actions are believed to directly originate from Hitler’s hatred towards the Jews, further supported though his authorisation of methods to eliminate the Jewish population in Germany in order to achieve his master plan of a “pure, Aryan race”. The “deep hatred” that Hitler possessed towards the Jews was said to have ‘dominated his thoughts and actions of his life’, and that this obsession eventually led him to finalise ideas regarding the Holocaust. This form of argument disregards the influence and heavy involvement of other Nazi officials, implying the intentionalist view that Hitler had planned this idea of genocide before coming into power; stemming from early childhood experiences. Further implying that it was Hitler who had authorised and put into place a “solution to the Jewish problem” as well as allowing other Nazi officials to carry out their own methods of anti-semitism, proving to be the mastermind behind most Nazi operations.

In support of this argument, intentionalist historian Lucy Dawidowicz, argues that it was primarily Hitler’s responsibility in regards to the Holocaust. In 1975, Dawidowicz produced The War Against The Jews 1933-1945, this publication focused on Hitler’s responsibility surrounding the Holocaust and goes into depth about how his anti-Semitic attitude was influenced from a very early age. As well as this, she explores the aspect that he created an idea of the Holocaust before he came into power, and that this ideology was only then carried out when he eventually became leader. His obsession of hatred for the Jews, she states, had led him to this notion of the ‘solution to the Jewish problem’; which could only be achieved through radicalised measures such as extermination. Dawidowicz also claims that Hitler’s idea to murder the Jews was a mere ‘phantom inhabiting Hitler’s mind’ and that this was only then made profound when he became Fuhrer. Despite her work being credited for its ability in understanding “the peculiar nature of Nazism and the behaviour of European Jewry under Nazi domination”, there is the concept of bias that her work possesses. This is the result of her close interaction with major Jewish Scholars and writers, which she admitted later in life, that she was “profoundly influenced by both the rigorous curriculum offered at the Hunters College High School and the teachers that she studied with”; as well as the influence from her Jewish parents. Furthermore, when the war ended she spent eighteen months in Germany, serving among Jewish survivors and helping to catalog the thousands of book confiscated by the Nazis. Even though her work is based off of events that she also experienced; as well as being able to collect first-hand accounts from Holocaust survivors, this ultimately leads her to create a source which is very strict in its perspective as she solely focuses on the aspect that it was undoubtedly Hitler’s responsibility for the Holocaust. Dawidowiczs’ bias can also be seen through her works about contemporary issues with Jews in America, who she appears to sympathise with massively; so evidently disregarding any other concept that it was not Hitler’s actions and ideologies that resulted in the implementation of the Holocaust through her works about Eastern Jewry and the Holocaust. The failure to offer any other explanation, or elaborate on any other aspects, further invalidates her argument, with limited evidence and recall from other sources, the impact that her work has is severely limited; reviewed as “seemingly accentuating and emphasising a Jewish problem, actually denigrates the paramount lesson of the Holocaust for Jewish and universal history”. As a result, her work is discredited with offering a limited perspective on the Holocaust and that her work, used in isolation, is dangerous when researching overall responsibility because of its tendency to offer statements with very little evidence to support it, making it less believable.

Taking into account both perspectives of the debate, an additional argument is that it was a collaborative effort between Hitler and other leading Nazi figures, such as Heydrich and Himmler, that contributed massively to the creation of the Holocaust and overall journey to the ‘Final Solution’. Hitler’s responsibility and influence is not undermined in this argument as it details that he, in fact, gave out the initial orders to exterminate/ murder the Jewish population, however in doing so it does not discredit the contribution of other Nazi officials who had actually then carried out these orders. It can also be argued, through this viewpoint, that individuals such as Heydrich and Himmler formed their own opinion as well as reason for hatred of the Jews, although it is most likely that Hitler’s charisma as a leader, and motivational speeches given to his subordinates, only added to and further radicalised their initial anti-Semitic views. Pursuing this further, Hitler had conveyed several ideas to both Himmler and Heydrich in regards to the ‘Jewish Question’, as well as his ‘desire for the destruction of the Jews’ to Himmler himself, who given his role within the Nazi party, was then able to set into motion, through Hitler’s authorisation, his plans to create several concentration camps. Undoubtedly, Hitler could not have single-handedly carried out and planned what would become the Holocaust; to which the roles of Heydrich and Himmler become most apparent. As a result of their high-rank within the Nazi party, they displayed a depth of loyalty to Hitler, as their Fuhrer, and so would therefore have influence over his actions because of their respective expertise. Furthermore, through Hitler’s appointment for Himmler to command the “two most important executive organs of the Third Reich”, the SS and the police; as well as Heydrich also being a prominent figure of the SS and intelligence agency, shows the power Hitler allowed them to possess, being able to command their own units, therefore emphasising the joint effort made by all three individuals to create and implement ideas regarding the removal of the Jews from German society. Heydrich and Himmler were supporters of Hitler’s ideas initially, and so it is expected that they carried out his intentions without much hesitation. Their shared ideology of eventually expelling and murdering millions of Jewish individuals in order to ‘cleanse’ the German population as well as ‘bring purity back’, allowed them to efficiently work together, forming methods and operations in order to establish Hitler’s concept of a “master race”.