Hermann Goering
Hermann Goering Hermann Goering, (Wilhelm) 1893- 1946. * Hitler's Heir- Nazi No.2 * High military & economic leader of 3rd Reich. * Born Rosenheim, Upper Bavaria on 12th January 1893. * Attended Cadet College at Karlsruhe. * At the beginning of World War 1 Goering served as a Lieutenant of the infantry in Alsace Lorraine and later joined the Airforce as a combat pilot. * By the end of the war Goering was highly decorated and won tremendous popularity as a 'Romantic Knight of the sky'. * Goering roamed through various 'aero' jobs. * After the war he met Carin von Kantzow and later married in 1922. * In the fall of 1922 Goering met Hitler and decided to join the rising as a young politician. * With a very well decorated war-hero on Hitler's side, produced excellent propaganda. * Goering was made Head Commander of SA. * At the 1923 Munich 'Beer-hall' Putsch Goering was severely wounded but managed to escape to Austria & then Sweden, during his recovery he became addicted to morphine and was jailed for this. * After political amnesty in 1926 Goering returned to Germany and quickly re-established contacts with Hitler. * In 1928 he was the first Nazi to be elected into the Reichstag and was re-elected in 1930. * Goering served as Hitlers political agent in Berlin. * After election in 1932 Goering became president of the Reichstag. * Goering was involved in an
The contribution of Herman Goering to the third reich.
THE CONTRIBUTION OF HERMAN GOERING TO THE THIRD REICH Hermann Goering was born in Bavaria on 12th January 1893. He was the son of a senior army officer and was educated at a military school, choosing to become a member of the Prussian Cadet Corps. In June 1912 Goering joined the German Army. After only a few months serving with the infantry he was hospitalised with rheumatoid arthritis of the knees. When he had recovered, he transferred to the German Army Air Service. At first Goering was an Observer but soon became a pilot. During the first world war Goering became a ''fighter ace'' - a superb fighter pilot. He went on to succeed the command of his squadron. After the war Goering worked for the Fokker aeroplane company based in Holland. Whilst in Holland he met and married Baroness Karen von Fock-Kantzow. Goering returned to Germany in 1923 and after hearing Adolf Hitler speak he joined the National Socialist German workers Party. Goering was very impressed with the Nazi's. Hitler was also impressed with Goering. Hitler was quick to appoint Goering as head of the SA. The SA's purpose at this time was to disrupt the political opponents of the Nazi party by using violence and terror. During the Munich putch of 1923 Goering was wounded, he had two granite splinters (from a building) in his groin. Avoiding arrest Goering fled to Sweeden.
How far does source I prove that Goering was telling the truth in
Question E Study sources H and I How far does source I prove that Goering was telling the truth in Source H? Source H is Herman Goering's account of a conversation between himself and Adolf Hitler. At the time of the conversation, Goering was in charge of the economy and the four year economic plan, to make enough money to re-arm Germany and the Nazis. Goering gave this account during his trial for war crimes at Nuremberg in 1945. Herman Goering was in charge of the rearmament of the Nazis, and to achieve this he helped build up Germany. To make enough money for the mass rearmament, he used businesses, helping them to grow and become wealthy parts of his economic plan. He also used the income from the taxes. He was responsible for many businesses, many of which were run by the Jewish citizens. The Jewish became an important part of Goering's economic plan, and when the events of Kristallnacht occurred many Jewish businesses were destroyed along with a lot of Jewish property which was worth a lot of economic value. In source H, Goering expresses his anger of the events of Kristallnacht, and tells us that destroying so much Jewish property disturbed his four year economic plan. As you read on in source H, it becomes apparent that Goering is blaming Goebbles for the attacks on the Jews. He goes on to tell us that even Hitler was not happy about the events of kristallnacht,
How does source I prove that Goering was telling the truth in source H?
How does source I prove that Goering was telling the truth in source H? Source H is Goering's account of a conversation with Hitler regarding Kristallnacht. In this account Goering claims that Goebbels planned Kristallnacht, continuing he implies that Hitler was against Kristallnacht. Goering claims that he himself disapproved of the event due to materialistic reasons saying "it is not acceptable that he upset my difficult economic tasks" this seems a plausible reason for Goering to show contempt for Kristallnacht. Goering defends Hitler's integrity "Hitler made some apologies" suggesting Hitler knew that Goebbels had planned it and felt some guilt for his associate's acts however Goering continues and distances Hitler from the event by saying "on the whole he agreed that such events should not take place" thus directing all of the blame on to Goebbels. Source I is written by a friend of Hitler's, she reports a conversation that she had with Hitler regarding Kristallnacht. This source implies that Hitler was completely against Kristallnacht and even writes that Hitler regarded Kristallnacht as "terrible" this distances Hitler from the event corresponding with source H. However, unlike source H source I suggests that Hitler was unbeknownst to who planned Kristallnacht "The people responsible" unless Hitler was prevaricating then this vagueness implies he does not know that
History Sourcework - How Far does Source I prove that Goering was telling the truth in Source H? - Hitler's Germany
History Sourcework: Study Sources H and I. How Far does Source I prove that Goering was telling the truth in Source H? Source H was written by Goering who was at the time in command of the German economy. Goering was a high ranking party official, achieving the prestige of being Hitler's deputy at one point. He was furious that Goebbels had allowed so much destruction during the ransacking of Jewish Property. He was stringently trying to adhere to the 4-year economic plan that was to prepare Germany for war. He saw that the property and goods within the Jewish households which would have greatly useful to help achieve this plan. He had nothing to do directly with Kristallnact though. After the damage of Kristallnact in order to keep in line with the party's Anti Semitic policies he charged the Jew's 100 million marks for the damage caused that night. He was later charged with the responsibility of the Jews in the concentration camps, which led to him being tried after the war, in that trial this account was given. The testimony follows the opinions of Goering in that his fierce competition against Goebbels that results in placing all of the blame onto Goebbels shoulders who was not there to defend himself, after committing suicide. Goering seems to be very angry at the fact that his work on the four-year economic plan in order to prepare Germany for war had been set back by
Hermann Goering - Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and, as Hitler's designated successor, the second man in the Third Reich
Shelley Michaels Hermann Goering 6/6/03 Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and, as Hitler's designated successor, the second man in the Third Reich, Hermann Goering was born in Rosenheim on January 12, 1893. The son of a judge who had been sent by Bismarck to South-West Africa as the first Resident Minister Plenipotentiary, Goering entered the army in 1914 as an Infantry Lieutenant, before being transferred to the air force as a combat pilot. The last Commander in 1918 of the Richthofen Fighter Squadron, Goering distinguished himself as an air ace, credited with shooting down twenty-two Allied aircraft. Awarded the Pour le Merite and the Iron Cross (First Class), he ended the war with the romantic aura of a much decorated pilot and war hero. After World War I he was employed as a showflier and pilot in Denmark and Sweden, where he met his first wife, Baroness Karin von Fock-Kantzow, whom he married in Munich in February 1922. Goering's aristocratic background and his prestige as a war hero made him a prize recruit to the infant Nazi Party and Hitler appointed him to command the SA Brownshirts in December 1922. Nazism offered the swashbuckling Goering the promise of action, adventure, comradeship and an outlet for his unreflective, elemental hunger for power. In 1923 he took part in the Munich Beer-Hall putsch,
Profile on the 5 leading Nazi's
History Profile on the 5 leading Nazi's Joseph Goebbels Joseph Goebbels was born in Rheydt, Germany, on 29th October, 1897. A good student he won a Catholic scholarship and eventually achieved a PhD from Heilderberg University. Goebbels was under five feet tall with a bad limp caused by a bone operation as a child and in 1914 was rejected by the German Army. It was later claimed that he spent the next two days crying hysterically in his room. Goebbels spent the next ten years writing novels, plays and poems. When he failed to find a publisher for his work he developed the theory that this was because the publishing companies were owned by Jews. He was also rejected as a reporter by the newspaper Berliner Tageblatt. Goebbels joined the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) in 1926. Goebbels described one of their first meetings with Adolf Hitler in his diary: "Shakes my hand. Like an old friend. And those big blue eyes. Like stars. He is glad to see me. I am in heaven. That man has everything to be king." Hitler admired Goebbels' abilities as a writer and speaker. They shared an interest in propaganda and together they planned how the NSDAP would win the support of the German people. He edited Der Angriff (The Attack) and used the daily newspaper to promote the idea of German nationalism. In 1928 Goebbels, Hermann Goering and ten other members of the Nazi
Who burnt the Reichstag?
history coursework Who burned the Reichstag? On the evening of the 27th of February the Reichstag parliament building was burned down. The fire started at approximately 9pm. a lecturer from Bremen, Floeter, saw as he was walking past the Reichstag, a man breaking in through the window of the building. He quickly found a policeman and when they returned they saw a mysterious figure in the Reichstag, but more importantly he saw flames. The time was 9:03 p.m. Thaler was next on the scene and he told the policeman to shoot the figure. The policeman fired his gun, and the figure disappeared. at 9:13pm the first report reached the fire station, and at 9:15pm the first fire engine reached the scene. At 9:22pm a policeman tried to enter the building but the flames were so fierce he had to retreat. At 9:27pm the police found a half naked man, the man was Marina Van Der Lubbe. At 9:42pm the 60 fire engines from Berlin all arrived at the Reichstag. However they could not control the blaze and the Reichstag was ruined. The Reichstag was important in German history, because it was vital in the increasing the Nazi's election results. I will study a number of sources' that have been produced, primary and secondary, and try to determine who started the fire, for this I will consider the Nazi's, the Communists and Van Der Lubbe himself. After I have
Study the following interpretations of the Reichstag Fire.
Question 5 Study the following interpretations of the Reichstag Fire... * Van de Lubbe was a madman who set fire to the Reichstag on his own. * Van de Lubbe set fire to the Reichstag as art of an attempted Communist lot or revolution. * The Nazis started the Reichstag Fire. Using all the sources and your own knowledge consider all three interpretations and explain which is best supported by the evidence. It is not possible to be certain who started the Reichstag Fire. Some historians believe Van de Lubbe's confessions that he acted alone, some believe that Van de Lubbe acted as art of an attempted Communist lot or revolution. The final theory is that the fire was a deliberate plan by the Nazis to win support by getting rid of their opposition. The sources contain evidence for all three interpretations, although some sources are more reliable than others are. There is evidence in the sources that Van de Lubbe may have acted alone. For example in Source A Rudolf Diels believes that Van de Lubbe could have 'easily set fire to the old furniture, the heavy curtains and the bone dry wooden panels'. Diels is saying that the conditions of the furnishing inside the Reichstag was ideal for a fire to spread. However this is just one mans opinion. Another source, Source B, supports the theory that Van de Lubbe acted alone. Source B is Van de Lubbe confessing to starting the
Studies of Sources from the Reichstag Fire - who was responsible?
A Collection of Studies on Sources about the Reichstag Fire I am going to look at both sources A and B, to see to what extent B supports A. Shortly after the Second World War, Rudolf Diels, the head of the political police, wrote Source A and Source B is a quote from Marinus Van der Lubbe's confession. He confessed that he alone started the Reichstag Fire, 'I can only repeat that I set fire to the Reichstag all by myself,' (Van der Lubbe, 1933) and he was not part of a Communist plot, contrary to some of the views of Diels and others mentioned in Source A. Even though Diels' points do not always agree with Van der Lubbe's, Diels contemplated the thought of him acting alone. An example is when Diels states in Source A 'The voluntary confessions of Van der Lubbe made me believe he acted alone,' which is in strong agreement with Van der Lubbe's viewpoint of him not being part of any plot. Also when Diels says he 'reported that after questioning Van der Lubbe he thought he was a madman', this is saying he did it alone as it would be unlikely that there would be a whole group of mad people and he only did it because he was mad; not because he was part of a plot. This does show some agreement with Van der Lubbe The way Van der Lubbe may have done it might have also led Diels to believe he acted alone. Diels said that Van der Lubbe 'could have easily set fire to the old furniture,
