Martin Broszat, 1977 Reply to David Irving

[Archie]

Martin Broszat, "Hitler and the Genesis of the 'Final Solution': An Assessment of David Irving's Theses"
Originally Published in German in Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte in 1977
Published in English translation in Yad Vashem Studies in 1979 and in the collection Aspects of the Third Reich, edited by H.W. Koch (page numbers in this post will be from this source)

Background: David Irving published Hitler's War in 1977. At that time, Irving more or less accepted the Holocaust as true, but he insisted that Hitler had not known about it (based on the lack of documentary evidence) and that it was orchestrated by Himmler and others behind Hitler's back. Broszat was a historian at the Institut für Zeitgeschichte, a historical institute in Germany that was set up after the war essentially to police the history of the Third Reich era.

Summary: The first half of the article goes over general history. The second half rebuts Irving's thesis. The article is a good example of the "functionalist" school of thought, and a quite early one. The functionalist narrative is rather unintuitive and it differs wildly from how the general public understands "the Holocaust." Below are some selections.

It is remarkable that prominent National Socialist figures who had had frequent dealings with Hitler during the war and who were connected at least partially with the Jewish question and who were after the war still available as witnesses (for instance Göring, Ribbentrop, Hans Frank) or who left extensive notes (like the diaries of Goebbels), while obviously informed about the annihilation of the Jews could make no statement about a specific secret order on the part of Hitler. This not only indicates that all agreements about the ultimate aim of the ‘final solution’ were adopted and transmitted verbally but also shows that the physical liquidation of the Jews was set in motion not through a one-time decision but rather bit by bit. (398)

The above is at odds with the narrative at Nuremberg and in most earlier histories.

The first liquidation act ... by the Einsatzkommandos ... was no doubt carried out on the personal directive of Hitler. This, like the order to shoot all Soviet commissars, was obviously based on the fanatical determination of the National Sociailst leadership to eradicate ‘Jewish Bolshevism’ root and stem. This does not yet necessarily signify that physical liquidation, including the Jews of Germany, was the overall aim of NS Jewish policy, and had already been adopted at that time, nor that Göring’s orders to Heydrich for the preparation of a comprehensive programme for the deportation of Jews dated 31 July 1941, should be interpreted in this sense. Uwe Dietrich Adam in his study of the National Socialist Jewish policy had rejected this theory some years before, and with good cause. (398-399)

The reinterpretation of the Göring order of July 1941, which tasks Heydrich with the "final solution," is likewise a pretty radical departure from earlier interpretations. The historian Adam mentioned here wrote a 1972 book Judenpolitick im Dritten Reich which seems to be an even earlier functionalist text.

When in the summer and fall of 1941 in their discussions and written communications the participants spoke only in vague terms of deportation ‘to the East’, this was not merely semantic obfuscation–it was typical of the manner in which Hitler, Himmler and Heydrich approached the problem of a ‘radical solution’ to major racial, social and völkisch-political questions. Extensive actions for the transport of masses of people were begun without any clear conception of the consequences. Regarding the deportation of Jews to the East, conceived and planned ever since the summer of 1941 and begun, in fact, in the middle of October 1941, in all probability there existed only a vague idea: to employ the Jews in the East, in ghettos and in camps, at forced hard labor. (399)

Here he seems to take deportation "to the East" as being originally fairly literal, not a mere codeword, as is often maintained. And he again emphasizes the how "vague" and minimally planned everything was.

Ultimately, he argues that the Holocaust came about because the evacuation of Jews had begun but circumstances changed because of the deterioration of the military situation in the East.

It thus seems that the liquidation of the Jews began not solely as the result of an ostensible will for extermination but also as a ‘way out’ of a blind alley into which the National Socialists had manoeuvered themselves. The practice of liquidation, once initiated and established, gained predominance and evolved in the end into a comprehensive ‘programme’.

This interpretation cannot be verified with absolute certainty but in the light of circumstances, which cannot be discussed here in detail, it seems more plausible than the assumption that there was a general secret order for the extermination of the Jews in the summer of 1941 (405).”

It appears to me however that no comprehensive order for the extermination existed and that the ‘programme’ for the extermination of the Jews developed through individual actions and gradually attained its institutional and factual character by spring of 1942 after the construction of the extermination camps in Poland (between December 1941 and July 1942). (note 27)

A few other bits,

On the lack of documentation, he suggests that “the attempts to obscure evidence were to a large extent successful.” (398)

After summarizing an episode from October 1941, he remarks: “This would be hard to explain if the plan for the extermination of the Jews had already been decided upon.” (402) Again, clashing with the traditional timeline.

Regarding Chelmno he refers to its “ad hoc character” (406)

Of Wannsee, he refers to the “vaguely worded minutes” (416)

Again, this gradual, largely unplanned evolution of a program of mass execution I think would be surprising and nonsensical to most people, and it clashes jarringly with earlier narratives. These are rather extreme revisions to the story. And the fact that the mainstream side can have such major differences in the basic timeline and so forth suggests that actual proof for these theories is lacking.

On Irving

In the second half, Broszat offers a rebuttal to Irving's thesis that the Holocaust happened behind Hitler's back.

Broszat acknowledges that Hitler's responsibility can be "established only indirectly," yet he feels it is "nevertheless overwhelming." I won't go over his specific arguments, but the upshot of it is that he says it is ludicrous to think something of this scale could occur without Hitler's knowledge and support given the power structure and organization with the Reich. And I think Broszat is correct about that. Irving's thesis is rather ridiculous.

Irving's Logic: Hitler did not know about the Holocaust. Therefore, the Holocaust happened behind his back. (Implicit premise: the Holocaust happened).

Broszat's Logic: It is not possible for the Holocaust to have happened without Hitler's involvement and knowledge. Therefore, Hitler knew about the Holocaust. (Implicit premise: the Holocaust happened).

Irving is correct in part and Broszat is correct in part. Where they are both wrong is that they are working from the false premise that the Holocaust happened.

The revisionist version: It is not possible for the Holocaust to have happened without Hitler's involvement and knowledge. Hitler did not know about the Holocaust. Therefore, the Holocaust did not happen.

[bombsaway]

I would say you are also assigning an implicit premise (the Holocaust didn't happen)

Real thesis: Hitler's lack of formal involvement in terms of orders (there's evidence that he received Holocaust documents like Himmler's report 51) doesn't prove or disprove the Holocaust

[Archie]

I would say you are also assigning an implicit premise (the Holocaust didn't happen)

Real thesis: Hitler's lack of formal involvement in terms of orders (there's evidence that he received Holocaust documents like Himmler's report 51) doesn't prove or disprove the Holocaust

If you want to dispute core aspects of the revisionist position, take it to the debate board. Don't post here unless you have some specific research to contribute. I do not want threads in this part of the forum to be generic arguing.

As far as your comment, I see you went to the Nessie school of logic. My point was that if you take Irving's premise (that Hitler didn't know) plus Broszat's premise (that it is impossible for Hitler not to have known) and accept both of them, then the implication that follows is that there was no Holocaust. In my example, it was a conclusion, not a premise. If you disagree with that conclusion, it's because you disagree with a premise (like you don't think Hitler didn't know), not the actual logic.

The curious thing about Broszat's paper is that he more or less admits that Hitler's involvement can be shown only indirectly. And then he proceeds to make general (but actually quite good points) about the chain of command and so on in the Reich.

[bombsaway]

I would say you are also assigning an implicit premise (the Holocaust didn't happen)

Real thesis: Hitler's lack of formal involvement in terms of orders (there's evidence that he received Holocaust documents like Himmler's report 51) doesn't prove or disprove the Holocaust

If you want to dispute core aspects of the revisionist position, take it to the debate board. Don't post here unless you have some specific research to contribute. I do not want threads in this part of the forum to be generic arguing.

As far as your comment, I see you went to the Nessie school of logic. My point was that if you take Irving's premise (that Hitler didn't know) plus Broszat's premise (that it is impossible for Hitler not to have known) and accept both of them, then the implication that follows is that there was no Holocaust. In my example, it was a conclusion, not a premise. If you disagree with that conclusion, it's because you disagree with a premise (like you don't think Hitler didn't know), not the actual logic.

The curious thing about Broszat's paper is that he more or less admits that Hitler's involvement can be shown only indirectly. And then he proceeds to make general (but actually quite good points) about the chain of command and so on in the Reich.

" My point was that if you take Irving's premise (that Hitler didn't know) plus Broszat's premise (that it is impossible for Hitler not to have known) and accept both of them, then the implication that follows is that there was no Holocaust."

I see, that's a more reasonable position. I'll refrain from pure argumentation on this board from now on.