In Kershaw’s “Hitler and the Holocaust,” the main idea posses the question of interpreting Hitler and his relation to the ‘Final Solution’. \u00a0According to Kershaw there are two types of interpretation: ‘intention’ and ‘structure’. \u00a0Intentionalists believe Hitler fully intended to eliminate the Jews by created an elaborate plan, known as the Final Solution, in which was the central goal of Hitler’s dictatorship. \u00a0In contrast, structuralists believe Hitler played a minimal role in creating the Final Solution, instead it was the bureaucracy who were unable to agree on a single idea on how to eliminate Jews, creating lots of chaos.<\/p>\n
Looking further into the ‘structuralist’ interpretation, Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli expert on the Holocaust, argues the bureaucracy caused the twisted path leading to the ‘Final Solution.’ \u00a0With Hitler playing a minimal role in the planning of the ‘Final Solution,’ it is difficult to argue there was a straight, direct path leading to the annihilation of the Jews. \u00a0The bureaucracy was unable to agree on clear objectives and the answer to the ‘Jewish Question,’ therefore creating chaos within the government .<\/p>\n
The structuralist interpretation argues Hitler was minimally involved which raises the question as to whether or not Hitler was necessary\u00a0in organizing and constructing the ‘Final Solution’, or was any individual in a dictator role\u00a0capable of doing so? \u00a0Is the radicalization of the individuals and bureaucracy to blame instead?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In Kershaw’s “Hitler and the Holocaust,” the main idea posses the question of interpreting Hitler and his relation to the ‘Final Solution’. \u00a0According to Kershaw there are two types of interpretation: ‘intention’ and ‘structure’. \u00a0Intentionalists believe Hitler fully intended to … Continue reading