The sources differ on some aspects – e.g. who is most to blame? Source B puts a lot of the blame on Von Papen, “Papen finally won him (Hindenburg) over to Hitler” However Source B is by a high ranking member of President Hindenburg’s office, at the Nuremburg Trials in 1946 – Meissner may be trying to place on someone else apart from Hindenburg as he may have been close to Hindenburg and is trying to de-emphasise Hindenburg’s role. Meissner’s account however, is likely to be accurate as he will want to be truthful at a trial; he is also likely to be very wary and careful of what he is saying to avoid the blame landing on him. Whereas Source D blames different groups of people – the right wing conservatives, elites and large owners. “Politicians… important elite groups who (which) were anxious to secure a political solution of the crisis that was favourable to their interests.” D says that Hitler needed elites, and vice versa “as he alone could deliver mass support required to impose a workable solution to Germany’s crisis.” The Nazi party was the largest party in the Reichstag with 37.7% of the vote in July 1932 (the last free election), and this meant that if they didn’t agree with things the Reichstag were saying they could walk out and force another election. This also increased the use of Article 48 – ruling without the Reichstag in order to get things done. The SA were causing violence – Hitler was the only one who could control them, and would reduce the violence and fear on the streets of Germany. Hitler needed the elites as in November 1932 the Nazi’s lost over 2 million votes, and the party was split and bankrupt. If Hitler was chancellor, the party would no longer be split and he could control other parties, to ensure the Nazi’s would remain in power.
The provenance of the sources must be considered – Source B, as discussed, was written in 1946, over a decade after the event, and given as evidence at the Nuremburg trials. The writer of the source may have forgotten the details, or is looking back on it in a different light – justification. The writer of Source B, Otto Meissner, was there at the time, and was in a high ranking position in Hindenburg’s office so would have been party to many important meetings and decisions. He is likely to know about the reasoning behind Hindenburg’s decision, and as it was given at a trial, it is likely be accurate and truthful. However, Meissner will be very careful of what he says and may be trying to de-emphasise the role of Hindenburg, and is placing most of the blame on Von Papen – he worked with Hindenburg and may not want him blamed. However Meissner will want to be truthful as he has sworn an oath to tell the truth so will not be lying about Hindenburg’s role – Meissner’s account is likely to be accurate and reliable. Source D is written by Ian Kershaw, a historian, in a book he wrote on Hitler in 1997. The date is not so important in the case of this source, as Ian Kershaw would had looked and studied many primary sources in order to come to the viewpoint of the source – also it makes quite reliable and accurate. It is unlikely to be biased as he would have looked at many sources with different viewpoints and biases, in order to get an idea of what actually happened at the time, also Kershaw would have had access to more sources than would have been available earlier on – so is likely to be able to draw a more accurate and trustworthy conclusion of the events of the time. As a historian Kershaw should have no perspective which would influence his ideas, apart from the evidence he has from sources, so his ideas should be fairly accurate. Both sources are reliable and trustworthy – the account of Meissner is likely to be truthful as it is given at a trial, and Kershaw will have looked at many different sources to come to the conclusion he did. Source D is very useful as Kershaw will have to give a complete view of the sources he looked at, and it has a wide view point – blaming different groups for the appointment of Hitler as chancellor, not just one person. Source B many not be as useful as it might not be complete – it mainly talks about Von Papen – not much on Hindenburg’s role, so Meissner may have been trying to de-emphasise Hindenburg’s role as he was close to him. Also some important facts may have been forgotten in the decade between the trial and the event - therefore it may not be as useful.
