This paper will address the Intentionalist vs. Functionalist argument surrounding Hitler’s enactment of the Holocaust and whether one argument has more testimony than the other; First interpreting Hitler’s direct involvement in the creation of the death camps and then whether Hitler’s were to eradicate all. Hitler acquired power of the entire government through political ingenuity, political maneuverings, and, through a glimpse of hope, with his spellbinding speeches. His party, the NSDAP, attracted popularity during a time of economic depression after a long period of German struggle. After the Reichstag Fire, Hitler and his political party voted on the Enabling act that would allow Hitler’s cabinet the power to enact laws without the consent of the Reichstag. After the …show more content…
After the Nazis had full control over Germany, the SS exponentially increased in numbers. With an outstanding number of workers in this organization, Himmler began expanding the reach of the SS by creating subordinate organizations to specify on certain areas of expertise; namely the intelligence service and the security service. He developed organization after organization exacting control over the people of Germany. Eventually Himmler wanted to create a “unified German police”. The SS then became restrictive in their eligibility requirements to join. “The department implemented racial policies and monitored the ‘racial integrity’ of the SS membership.” In 1933 Himmler initiated the first concentration camp in Dachau. Himmler appointed Theodor Eicke, whom had a history of being a convicted felon and had the ideology of a true Nazi, to run the camp. The system that Eicke created was used as a “model for future camps”. The camps soon were made to control jews, political opponents, and others who got in the way of the new united Germany — “a mechanism of social and racial