"If
at the beginning of the War and during the War, twelve or fifteen thousand of
these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under the poison gas, as
happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field,
the sacrifice of millions would not have been in vain." –Adolph Hitler
-Adolph Hitler
Naimark argues that Hitler used a
“contingent process as a blueprint” for his genocide against the Jews. He
groups the massacre in terms of intentionalism and functionalism. Naimark
doesn’t make it very clear which one he thinks belongs to the case, just so
much as explains what they mean. Silly Hitler, you stumped everyone so much that
people still argue about it today! Personally, I could care less, genocide is
genocide. Intentionally or functionally, it is wrong either way.
Naimark discusses how functionalism
“emphasizes the impetus within the systems themselves” and intentionalism “underlines
the long-term plan” (Naimark 82). Trying to figure out exactly what he meant, I
went researching. I’ll admit that I was completely befuddled while reading over
students from Yale and Harvard’s papers. However, it is interesting to see how
many people still discuss and blog about how a man mass murdered millions of innocent
people. I guess I’m the pot calling the kettle black on that one, but I
digress. Many scholars have approached the topic of intentionalism verses
functionalism during the Holocaust. It wasn’t until I found a history blog on
Yahoo when I actually realized what Naimark was trying to get at.
History blogger Kjersti Wasiak from the
University of Arizona uses the quotation above to interpret the difference
between intentionalism and functionalism (note: not the oven quote). She states
that an Intentionalist would say that when Hitler first obtained political
power he had a plan in the back of his head for his genocide. So, he knew what
he was doing and needed the power in order to do so. She goes on to say that Functionalists
would decode it as a “strategy evolved rather than following a preset
blueprint.” As in, he came to power, and then thought of his sadistic plan. Finally,
something that a mere mortal can comprehend.
Naimark
mentions how both functionalism and intentionalism were used in determining the
genocide. He redeemed himself from
confusing me by simply stating that both of them were used. “Shifting choices
under evolving circumstances determined the tragedy” (Naimark 82). I agree;
people can change their plans and do change their plans if something alters its
course. Basically Naimark is saying that Hitler essentially, intentionally
functioned to slaughter millions of people.
I
realize that Naimark continues to discuss the similarities and differences
between the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, but this section of simply
determining whether a mass murder was strategized or developed, really stood
out to me. The Holocaust was terrible, blatantly stated. It happened a long
time ago, but it doesn’t make it any less traumatizing. The fact we have to
categorize genocides as intentionally or functionally intrigues me. Hitler did
such a good job at disguising his actions that people, to this day, write about
it. I wonder if 70 years from now people will still be debating if Miley’s
twerking was intentional or functional.
Below
are the two websites I found the most helpful.
No comments:
Post a Comment