Holocaust and Rwanda Genocide - Essay Example

Holocaust and Rwanda Genocide Introduction There are multiple necessary factors to elaborate on Holocaust and Rwanda genocide, but none can be regarded as sufficient. The most significant and necessary factor that propelled the genocide detailed a prolonged history of anti-Semitism. Genocide sways the imagination of individuals with raw numbers. Genocide, in this case, refers to the structural and systematic destruction of innocent individuals by a state bureaucratic apparatus and may also mean expulsion or evacuation of individuals from one place to another. Genocide remains a controversial topic among nationalists, historians, politicians, fascists, and academics. Genocides have been perpetrated times and again across diverse places in the world. Explanations on the Holocaust featured bureaucratic and/or economic motives and/or wartime pressures (Levene 2000, p.305). The bulk of the data and interpretation of the Holocaust and Rwanda genocide centres on either intentionalist or the functionalist perspectives. For instance, the debate surrounding the root of Holocaust can be explored from two main questions: 1) was there an Adolf Hitler's preset master plan to annihilate the Jewish race? Intentionalists assert that there was such a plan, whereas functionalists assert that it was absent. 2) How was Holocaust systematically driven? (By the instructions awarded by Adolf Hitler or deep within the ranks of the bureaucracy). Intentionalists maintain that the scheme came from Adolf Hitler whereas functionalists argue it emanated deep within the lower ranks of the bureaucracy. Discussion The genocide of European Jews, mainly referred to as the Holocaust, occurred between 1941 and 1945 whereby close to six million European Jews were annihilated by the Nazis. From the 1960s following the publication of a number of work such as The Hitler State, several historians disputed the overriding interpretation and outlined that the alleged master plan was, in fact, absent. During the 1970s, proponents of the intentionalist school of thought labelled as “the straight road to Auschwitz” camp owing to their insistence that Hitler was satisfying a preset programme (Mann 2005, p.180). Proponents of the functionalist school of thought were referred to as “the twisted road to Auschwitz” camp owing to their insistence that it was the internal power arrangements of the Third Reich that orchestrated the Holocaust. Hence, functionalists/structuralists assert that Holocaust stemmed as part of the functioning of the Nazi state while intentionalists believe that it was Hitler’s intents alone that propelled the Holocaust (Confino2012, p.118). Functionalism also referred to as structuralism and intentionalism represents a historiographical debate centring on the origins of mass murder such as the Holocaust. The two schools of thought avail a historical explanation on decision-making regarding the Nazi Jewish policy (Stone 2012, p.39). One of the approaches focuses on the structure of the Nazi regime and its functioning (functionalist) while intentionalism spotlights Hitler, his ideology and intentions. The Holocaust: Intentionalist Approach The intentionalists argue that Hitler plus his team were propagating Aryan-race supremacy as they were anti-Semitism as they proposed to wipe them out of the map. As the word suggest, intentionalists places significant interest on the intention of the Nazis, from the outset, detailing the resolve to eliminate Jews by means that ultimately encompasses mass slaughter. This approach elevates the figure of Adolf Hitler and his monomaniacal fanaticism to annihilate the Jewish “cancer” from Germany and across the whole of Europe (Kershaw 2000, p.40). Thus, Hitler plus his team deliberately came to a conclusion that the Jews ought to be eliminated. Furthermore, Hitler’s declarations were wholly antagonistic and pre-planned determination. Explanations to intentionalism cite personal experience and the dominant ideology as the central motivation behind the Holocaust. The motivation in this case is wholly ideological regardless of whether the policy documented was drawn later that the 1920s. This has been proven to be largely improbable as supported by significant counter-evidence given that until August 1941, German Jews plus those living within Nazi occupied countries were persuaded to emigrate. It appears possible that the initial Nazi’s plans for Jews encompassed a “territorial solution,” but no significant effort was laid towards accomplishing it realistically or effectively (Kershaw 2000, p.41). The extreme intentionalists camp asserts that Hitler had already laid plans for the Holocaust by 1924, or perhaps earlier. Subsequently, intentionalists view the Holocaust as purely and entirely the product of a long-term strategy laid down by Hitler, something he had premeditated years before coming to power (Jones 2010, p.628). According to this approach, Hitler had always wanted to exterminate the Jews right from day one as he made frequent mentions amid his speeches and even in Mein Kampf. As such, Hitler intention was the bedrock within the process of radicalization in anti-Jewish policy that led to the annihilation. To support their assertions, extreme intentionalists cite abundant anti-semitic pronouncements delivered by Hitler. Nevertheless, critics accuse the camp of lacking basis citing the fact that none of the referred declarations points to extermination of the entire Jewish people; indeed, exceptionally few suggest killing of Jews at all (Valentino 2004, p.6). Only one explicit reference can be cited in Mein Kampf where Hitler implies that gassing of 12,000 to15, 000 Jews would have been acceptable, rather than the fruitless sacrifice of German soldiers in First World War (Browning 2004, p.173). Moderate intentionalists, on the other hand, assert that Hitler had settled on the Holocaust in the late 1930s and unquestionably no later than 1939-1941. This camp relies on Hitler’s “prophesy speech” delivered on January 30, 1939 prior to the Reichstag in which Hitler declared “if Jewish financiers launched another world war, then the outcome would detail the extermination of the whole Jewish race in Europe.” One of the outstanding problem of the outlined thesis centres on the observation that although this statement is indicative of the intention to perpetrate genocide, Hitler made no attempt after delivering the speech to have it followed (Jones 2010, p.629). Intentionalist interpret quotes by Hitler as enough proof that right from the moment he first attempted to gain political power, Hitler had a plot (worked with consciousness and calculation) to annihilate the Jews via genocide. Hence, Hitler was the supreme centre of the regime, and that everything can be explained in terms of his personality and ideals and that without Hitler, there would be no Holocaust. The Holocaust: Functionalist Approach Functionalism, on the other hand, delineates that the annihilation of Jews materialized as an aim much later, probably not till 1941 and remained principally driven by forces from below and/or practical considerations. According to this approach, Hitler was a weak dictator, and that the chaotic structure and institutions of the Third Reich were the dominant forces at play. The main distinction between the two centres on Hitler’s role in implementing the “Final Solution” or state power vs. Fuhrer power. Extreme Functionalist Interpretation The most drastic functionalists’ perceptions detail that the idea that to some extent, the Nazis “stumbled” into the decision to undertake the Holocaust and that the ruling Nazi leadership played no role in initiating the Holocaust (either from the onset of Mein Kampf or Hitler’s ascension to power, and that the whole plan flowed from the lower ranks within the German bureaucracy. According to this approach, irrespective of the fact that Hitler was resolutely and sadistically anti-Semitic, he never planned on perpetrating a genocidal Holocaust against European Jews. This camp asserts that the extermination strategy developed gradually owing to initiatives from bureaucrats, who were in essence responding to other policy failures. While approving of it at the closing stages, neither Hitler nor any other Nazis possesses any serious ideas regarding the annihilation of the Jews until early 1940s. Advocates of this approach cite the fact that Hitler was in power for close to almost a decade, and it was not until in the middle, and towards the end of the bloody war, when gas chambers plus other devices of mass killings were installed and utilized (Rita and Botwinick 2004, p.120). Thus, Hitler would not have waited that long to institute the infrastructure for the killings. The functionalists view the “Final Solution” as emanating from specific bureaucratic structures, political and military circumstances, as well as logistical constraints. This approach details that a majority of the pressures emanated from middle ranking German officials within the occupied Poland and that the pressures found their way up to the top. Moderate functionalists, on the other hand, assert that the competition within the jagged Nazi power structure availed the significant driving force propelling the Holocaust. This camp argues that the Nazis pursued to drive out the Jews from Europe, but resorted to genocide after their crashing failure in the proposed schemes. Comparison of Intentionalist and Functionalist Approaches to the Holocaust Both intentionalists and functionalists concur that Hitler directed the deportation of Jews to Nazi-occupied Poland; however, intentionalists assert that the extradition was right from the beginning a codeword for Jews annihilation. Functionalists, on the other hand, perceive the deportation of Jews to Poland to be quite plainly that-a plan to deport Jews. Hence, Functionalists perceive the Holocaust to be a bureaucratic innovation designed by low-level Nazi officials within Poland so as resolve the challenge of what to do with the growing influx of the Jews, by murdering majority of them. Functionalists also highlight the exceedingly chaotic nature of the Nazi state. This procedure, referred to by historians as “working towards the Fuhrer,” pursued Hitler’s ever-mounting calls for radicalism in all facets of policy, which, in turn, naturally led officials to recommend more and more excessive solutions to the “Jewish question. The phrase “the Final Solution” is indicative that there were multiple proposed solutions. Intentionalists assert that, even in cases where Hitler did not openly root for the Holocaust, Hitler was fully aware of its existence while it was in development. Intentionalists assert that the process of Holocaust featured a top-down approach, rather than bottom-up approach. Hence, genocide was first and foremost the result of Hitler complete with well-laid stages. In contrast, Functionalists assert that the Holocaust was not essentially a top-down approach but a bottom-up one whereby crime was planned, systematized, and perpetrated with the reinforcement of a bureaucratic system and official ranks. This approach downplays the implication of Hitler as an individual. The debate on whether Hitler did or did not plan or command the Holocaust does not in any way mean that he flees moral responsibility for it-Hitler fashioned the climate of radical anti-Semitism that occasioned and informed majority of the policies that instantaneously contributed to it, and availed the leadership that evaluated these measures to be both permissible and acceptable. This makes the debate between functionalism and intentionalism to be radically different from Holocaust denial. Rwanda Genocide Intentionalists and functionalists approaches can be employed to other genocides and mass murders such as Rwanda. The Holocaust and Rwanda genocide come out as one of the most catastrophic and dehumanization fatality episodes that mankind has witnessed within the 20th century. The genocide in Rwanda represents a contemporary example of mass murder fuelled by ethnic hatred (Mann 2005, p.428). Rwanda genocide has been labelled as a modern phenomenon based on three themes, namely: rationalization, bureaucracy, and technology. There are numerous explanations and interpretations regarding the cause of the Rwandan genocide such as demographic and ethnic conflict, colonialism, economic, and social crises. Although, the stated crises were critical, German and Belgian colonial policies of divide and rule played a significant role in fanning the ethnic hatred (Gellately and Kiernan 2003, p.325). The colonialist’s policies that elevated the Tutsi and marginalized the Hutu yielded a political struggle long after departure of the colonialists. Anti-Tutsi sentiment had overtime been constant throughout Rwanda history and it waxed and diminished depending on the historical moment. A small group entailing hardliner within Rwanda’s ruling party and military orchestrated the 20th century’s most swift extermination campaign. The apocalypse characterized by massive bloodletting was precipitated by the shooting down of the presidential plane ferrying President Habyalimana plus his Burundi counterpart Cyprien Ntaramyira on April 6, 1994. Amidst the civil war and subsequent to presidential assassination, the hardliners consolidated control of the Rwandan state by eliminating their main political opponents. The declaration of war on “the Tutsi enemy” was followed by mobilization of the civilian administration, and deployment of loyal army units and militia (Totten, Bartrop, and Jacobs 2008, p.214). The genocide lasted for hundred days till the Tutsi dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front) troops seized power in Kigali. Rwanda Genocide: Intentionalist Approach It is essential to note that the intentionalist in antagonism to functionalism debate is quite comparable to the Rwandan massacre. Intentionalists assert that the genocide of the Tutsi was the novel of top-down elite determination. According to this approach, Rwanda genocide embodies modern genocide in which the elite planned it and employed the state to implement their plan (Bartov 2005, p.4). This observation aligns with the affirmation that genocide emerges from top-down instrumental decisions. Intentionalists, on the other hand, assert that the mass murder of the Tutsi was well planned prior to the 1994 genocide. Unlike the Nazi Holocaust, the Rwandan perpetrators were easy to spotlight since they did not attempt to hide their intentions. The Interahamwe (those who stick together) featured an extremist Hutu paramilitary unit that was central to the Rwandan genocide and was the most significant of the anti-Tutsi militias reigning throughout the country. The radical Hutu-killing machine, which sprung into action after the assignation of the president, demonstrated that genocide was far from spontaneous and that it was a carefully planned campaign of annihilation that had its executioners prepared and waiting to spring into action long prior to trigger on the night of April 6, 1994 (Lemarchand 2002, p.307). The political role exercised by the late president Habyarimana was apparent as his redefinition of national identity revolving around the ethnic lines, plus his rallying of his fellow Hutu ethnic group against the minority Tutsi turned out to be the prelude for later perpetration of the 1994 genocide. Rwanda Genocide: Functionalist Approach Functionalists, on the other hand, assert that it was a bottom-up Hutu dominated government resolution to execute the genocide. Functionalists’ state that the Rwandan genocide was not in any way premeditated since the perpetrators did not in any way plan genocide policies until months prior to the genocide. They also cite the Arusha Peace agreements as a factor in propelling the genocide since the possibility of loss of power felt by the Hutu dominated government subsequent to the signing of the agreement (Jones 2010, p.247). The functionalist approach spread responsibility instead of blaming the “evil” elite as core perpetrators. Nevertheless, moderate functionalists assert that it was the evil elite who perpetuated the mass murder. Comparison of Intentionalist and Functionalist Approaches to the Holocaust and Rwandan Genocides The Rwandan and the Holocaust genocides represent some of the most atrocious crimes against humanity in contemporary times. Although, each of them is significant in own right, the two vary in many ways. The Rwandan genocide, in particular, is distinct from the Holocaust since it is the outcome of ethnic conflict, but most significantly a product of a civil war in which Hutu pursued to settle scores with their Tutsi countrymen. The perpetrators motive in Rwanda case can be delineated as retributive since the Hutu perceived that the negotiated political process could threaten their interest (Lemarchand 2002, p.308). Unlike the Rwandan genocide, the Holocaust was not in any way retributive, neither did it emanate from ethnic conflict, nor the Nazi perpetrators were not victims who turned perpetrators. The Holocaust was driven by Nazi's racist and anti-Semitic ideology. As such, the Holocaust was largely about ideology rather than retribution. Just like the Holocaust, Rwandan genocide remained engineered by the regime plus its elites and driven by local authorities and undertaken by the public. The Holocaust and Rwanda genocide share several similarities, especially in presenting an effective paradigmatic frame for conceptualizing the horror and cruelty of genocide. From a historical approach, the genocides perpetrated by Nazis in 1941 and Hutus in 1994 coincide, in the systematic annihilation of ethnic groups perceived to be inferior (Hintjens 1999, p.242). One can critically point out the presence of a historical debate between intentionalists and functionalists. Although, both approaches possess a tendency to concur that the Holocaust and Rwanda genocide took place, but the precise nature of the atrocities is the centre of the controversy and disagreement. For the intentionalists, the role of Hitler in perpetrating the Holocaust was irreducible while for the functionalists, “circumstances” were critical. Others highlighted the implication of “cumulative radicalization” that flowed from the irrationality of the Nazi state. Such contrasting interpretations are directly relevant to Rwanda as they herald two critical dimensions of analysis centring on the genocidal state, associated ideologues, militias, and racist propaganda (Hintjens 1999, p.243). Viewing Holocaust and Rwanda’s genocide from the lenses of the two schools of thought constrains one’s capability for broad and deeper analysis. As such, a third approach may be necessary since there must be extra factors or reasons that had galvanized the Holocaust and Rwanda’s bloodshed such as mental, economic, or role of bystanders, rather than basing it purely on the ethnic issue. As such, genocide and the Holocaust were not derived from clear cut intentionalist or functionalist perspectives, but rather, the impacts of modernity on human civilization that yielded mass killing machines and the exclusion of selected populations (Mann 2007, p.428). Replacing the name of Hitler with that of Habyalimana and/or Nazi regime with the Hutu administration can only express a deceptive view of the causes of the Rwanda bloodshed. However, emphasizing Hitler’s pivotal function in the extermination of Jews does not in any manner weaken the centrality of ideology. Conclusion Irrespective of all the apparent differences within the context of genocide, neither side disputes nor contests the authenticity of the Holocaust and Rwanda genocide. Indeed, there is no radical rejection over the theory that outlines that Hitler and Hutus were directly responsible for their crimes. The intentionalist and functionalist strands cannot be conceived to be not irreconcilable as there is interplay of actors and variables. Both positions within the debate possess several merits and demerits and ultimately mirror diverse forms of historical explanation. The raw material from Nazi genocide was evident from the beginning, but required a mass of historically contingent attributes to actualize and amplify it. In the Holocaust, Nazi racism was crucial in driving the motivation of leaders and some cadres in the execution of genocide; nevertheless, revolution and war proved to be decisive for facilitating ideological motivations to be transformed into policies of genocide. In contrast, the Rwandan genocide has been cited as flowing from age-old tribal enmities between Hutu and Tutsi and to have been undertaken in a disorganized frenzied manner (an explosion of tribal hatred). References List Bartov, O. (2005). Holocaust: Origins, Implementation, and Aftermath, New York, Routledge. pp.4.  Browning, C. (2004). The decision-making process, pp. 173-196 in The Historiography of the Holocaust, Dan Stone (ed) Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp.173-196. Confino, A. (2012). Foundational pasts: the Holocaust as historical understanding, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. pp.118 Gellately, R. & Kiernan, N. (2003). The specter of genocide: Mass murder in historical perspective, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. pp.325-335. Hintjens, H.M., (1999). Explaining the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda, The Journal of Modern African Studies 37(2), pp.241-286. Jones, A., (2010). Genocide a comprohensive introduction, New York, Routledge. pp.628. Kershaw, I., (2000). The Nazi Dictatorship: In Hitler and the Holocaust, London, Hodder Education. pp.40-42) Lemarchand, R., (2002). History of Genocide in Rwanda, The Journal of African History 43(22), p.307. Levene, M. (2000). Why is the twentieth century the century of genocide? Journal of World History 11 (2), pp.305-336. Mann, M., (2007). The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing, Genocide. Cambridge University Press. pp.428-473. Rita, S. & Botwinick, A. (2004). History of the Holocaust, New Jersey, Prentice Hall. pp. 120. Stone, D. (2012). The Holocaust and historical methodology, New York, Berghahn Books. pp.39. Totten, S., Bartrop, P. R., & Jacobs, S. L. (2008). Dictionary of genocide, Westport, Greenwood Press. p.214. Valentino, B. A., (2004). Final Solution: Mass killings and genocide in the 20th century, New York, Cornel University Press. pp.6. Read More