Intentionalist VS Functionalist (Hitler Germany)

Two historical schools of thought have emerged around the question of the origins of "The Final Solution" (German, Enloesung)- the decision to completely obliterate European Jewry. Tim Mason (1981) has framed the debate in terms of "intentionalists" versus "functionalists. The "intentionalists" (1) have argued that it was Hitler's intention from the beginning (even before his rise to power) to exterminate the Jews and that the war with Russia was a pretext for that undertaking, at the very least, an integral part of it. Based on his avowed antisemitism as early as Mein Kampf (1923) and his early statements (1939) that Jews would be completely destroyed if they plunged Germany into another world war, these historians have taken the view that all decisions, political and military, were made with an eye to the ultimate extermination of the Jews.

The other point of view, espoused by the "functionalists,(2) has argued that the "Final Solution" was decided upon only after many failed attempts to force Jews to emigrate from Germany and that the closure of possible destinations by the rest of the world combined with the logistical problems of such a massive deportation "forced" the "Final Solution" into existence. Further, these scholars suggest, Hitler's style of leadership, his demand for total loyalty from his subordinates (fuhrerprinzip) and the paranoia they engendered, caused subordinate SS agencies to come up with the Final Solution in early 1942.

Retrieved from http://frank.mtsu.edu/~baustin/finlsol.html

"In recent years a consensus has developed among historians of Nazism
that the distinction is no longer fruitful and that both intentionalist and
structuralist perspectives must be taken into consideration in explaining the
origins of the Holocaust." Stackelberg