Intentionalism vs Functionalism

When it comes to the Holocaust, which position is more correct according to you? Intentionalists believe the nazis had planned to kill their political/racial etc enemies from the start, while functionalists think they didn't plant to, but as the war carried on, amidst bueraucratic complications they found themselves in a blind alley and then decided to kill them

Attached: 9d95db76cdded7d296238cef15c2352ad9b544a553f4c0707eaa664fa7f037c3.jpg (960x595, 166.57K)

Other urls found in this thread:

independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-clinical-psychologist-canada-popularity-convincing-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html

Why the fuck should I care.
Hitler offered multiple times to export Jews but he still had millions in Europe so he killed them, historically it's undeniably functionalism. Drumpf will probably do the same once the orange retard realizes he can't just deport 20 million people, and will probably genocide them.

literally who cares. the holocaust isnt even the worst genocide europeans have done its just the worst genocide europeans have done to other europeans in europe.

This.
Don't bump the thread.

Trump wouldn't do that even if he could. Who would allow him to do something so fucked up? And to all the othet retards itt stop being such a bunch of cocksuckers "loL muH HoLocAusT isnT baD :Dddd cocksuckers

They executed them even at the start of the war, and they had plans to colonize all of the slavic lands.

Intentionalism obviously ffs just read mein kampf

Ignore quote

Intentionalism, but it doesn't matter because Hitler could have literally wrote down "We must unironically kill them all, 100% serious guys, literal death" and his fanboys would still say it was all metaphorical or a forgery or a forced confession retroactively extracted from his ghost after the war or whatever the fuck else.

This, even if the nazis as one collective didn't plan on killing their enemies from the beginning, Hitler definitely did

Lol, whiter than you Fritz.

Trump is just another neo-liberal, albeit one thats more direct and open about it. If he had kept his mouth shut and talked only when needed like every president before him, you would be hard pressed to find a difference.

Wasn't the whole extermination idea more of a Himmler thing?

That's a misrepresentation of the intentionalism vs. functionalism debate. The core disagreement between the two sides of the debate is whether the Holocaust was mostly carried out on the basis of direct orders formulated by high-ranking officials or of initiatives undertaken by the rank-and-file. Whether the Holocaust was the result of a decades-old plan or of cumulative radicalization is a function of that.

The reality is mostly a mix of both though tending towards functionalism in most cases. What often happened is the hierarchy issued vague orders that rewarded speculation and the rank-and-file (including entire departments) competed to "interpret" them "properly", outdoing each other in the process.

Attached: 7e862100562a414912c641f05c20e1cc6fb9e5242e817044b59840c5a3ee8807.jpg (900x762, 301.97K)

Isn't this a bit like the Zizek-bit about the guy who suspects his wife is cheating on him?

Even if they only leapt into extermination out of a perverse kind of necessity, the underlying pathology was still genocidal antisemitism, and they were happy for the excuse.

What's that bit about Zizek? I've never heard of that before

...

I don't remember the original lecture I saw it in, but it was referenced by him in the recent Zizek-Peterson hubub.
independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-clinical-psychologist-canada-popularity-convincing-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html

Holodomor is "denied" even by anti-communists like Robert Conquest or Solzhenitsyn. Denial in the sense that the famine in Ukraine was not a deliberate genocide. Nobody actually denies that the famine itself never happened, not even the most insane ☭TANKIE☭s. People just attribute it to different reasons.

Wew but I shouldn’t be surprised based on the flag

Point to a genocide that Europeans have done that is both worse in absolute size, percentage of population killed and similar in time-span hard mode: no Belgian Congo

Belgian slave-driving in the Congo wasn't a genocide, though.

No, he writes that it was certainly deliberate, and possibly qualifies as a genocide.
No, he claims that the famine was engineered, but did not deliberately target Ukrainians, as it also killed other ethnicities.

True, but its arguably the only comparable democide afaik

The Holocaust was the inevitable outcome of an ideology based on an organic conception of nationalism – with race and nation inexorably bound up together. Jews were considered by Nazis to be parasites that had to be purged from the nation like a body would purge itself of toxins.

You can probably find areas where this happened during the European wars of religion. All the war and famine blurs the lines a bit, but nevertheless certain regions were virtually depopulated with sectarian justifications.

Not the most spirited debate.

Attached: 1343709614794.jpg (447x444, 21.05K)

No side of the debate claims there was no genocidal process of organized mass slaughter going on. What the debate is about is the genocide's origin, how it came to be. Both intentionalists and functionalists would deny that the Jews were merely the victims of criminal negligence.

So the debate is actually more along the lines of whom the initiative originated with: influential Nazi officials at the top, or rank-and-file bureaucracy at the bottom?

Not exactly any funnier, though.

It is my view that the Holocaust was ordered, in light of the failure to take Stalingrad, because the Nazi government did not want a future German government to suffer from war indemnity for the Nazi regime's labor camps. In doing so, the Nazis hedged their bets against an allied victory.

In essence, by taking millions of undesirables and putting them into forced labor they were put on an unavoidable path (once German victory in WW2 was off the cards) to extermination. If Stalingrad was more successful then alternative but still barbaric schemes may have been devised along the speculative plans we already know.

Note that the modern German state has never had to pay reparations for a single Holocaust victim. They paid for the refugees that were resettled in Israel at the end of WW2, and that's it. Thus the Nazi's scheme, in the end game, worked. The millions of forced laborers Germany would have had to compensate otherwise would have bankrupted the fed. republic.

Wait what?
that's fucking bullshit

It's shit like this that makes conspiracies

The Final Solution was ordered before the German defeat in Stalingrad, though — and the Einsatzgruppen started systematically killing Jews almost as soon as WWII was in full swing.