I would say that the strong intentionalist interpretation is more or less discredited and has been for some time. It's important to note that there are degrees within each camp, with different historians having expressed both strong and weak versions of each hypothesis. I wouldn't call it obsolete, and there's still debate on some aspects of the functionalism-intentionalism question so I'd hesitate to call it resolved, but a general consensus has emerged around what would be considered a moderate functionalist interpretation i.e., Hitler was necessary as a precondition for the Holocaust, but the Final Solution was the result of a gradual process of radicalization and was heavily driven by the initiative of people at the lower levels of the Nazi bureaucracy. ![]() Previous AMAs | Previous Roundtables Featuresįeature posts are posted weekly. May 25th | Panel AMA with /r/AskBibleScholars Please Subscribe to our Google Calendar for Upcoming AMAs and Events To nominate someone else as a Quality Contributor, message the mods. Our flaired users have detailed knowledge of their historical specialty and a proven record of excellent contributions to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read and Understand the Rules Before Contributing. Report Comments That Break Reddiquette or the Subreddit Rules. Serious On-Topic Comments Only: No Jokes, Anecdotes, Clutter, or other Digressions. Provide Primary and Secondary Sources If Asked. ![]() Write Original, In-Depth and Comprehensive Answers, Using Good Historical Practices. Questions should be clear and specific in what they ask, and should be able to get detailed answers from historians whose expertise is likely to be in particular times and places. Nothing Less Than 20 Years Old, and Don't Soapbox. Be Nice: No Racism, Bigotry, or Offensive Behavior. Downvote and Report comments that are unhelpful or grossly off-topic. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |