Germany - structuralist v intentionalist (1 Viewer)

[Jackson18]

G'day,

I was wondering whether someone could explain the structuralist s intentionalist debate in German history and provide some example historians.

Also in what context should this sort of material be used?
I am retarded

Cheers
Jackson

 

[timmii]

Briefly, structuralists understate the importance of hitler and his policies in determining what happened in Germany. They see it rather as a culmination of historical, economic, social factors.

Intentionalists instead focus on Hitler as a strong personality with a definitive plan and see his power and intentions driving germany's course.

I'd elaborate and tell you which historian said what and in particular contexts, but I can't find my notes atm So someone else will hopefulyl add to this.

Pluralists (like Ian kershaw) believe its an interaction between both Hitler's determinism and the circumstances.

Generally you'll use this depending on what the question is. For instance if teh question was "analyse germany's military defeat", you could then discuss the intentionalists' argument (e.g poor planning by Hitler, his failure to listen to subordinates, provoking America, Hitler directing plans without military experience, delayed enaction of total war/rationing etc, the dualism and bureaucracy Hitler established to maintain power etc undermined efficiency....)

Then you may say structuralists believe instead that it was a function of the weather in russia, poor economic preparations, America entering the war, social upheaval blah blah....

Then, having assessed the arguments, come to your own conclusion...