To learn more about these powers, we can look at source J, which has Hitler saying, “ The communist deputies must be hanged this very night. Every [supposedly, one] in league with them must be arrested”. It seems that Hitler is using the fire as an excuse to get rid of his enemies and opposition, in much the same way that Nero got rid of his enemies and opposition, the Christians, thanks to the fire in Rome. It tells us that he uses the event to force Hindenburg to give him extra powers (supposedly for the protection of people and sate), such as the one that took away citizens’ fundamental rights, letting the Gestapo imprison people without trials, and another one allowing the Reich party to take control of Germany if necessary. This was, as is stated in the caption of source K Hitler’s best chance of becoming a dictator. To add to the oppressive powers gained by the treaty, there was an article that ordered the death penalty for any violations of the decree. This is a bad preview of the future, and was, I believe, the point of no return as far as the Nazi leadership is concerned.
Not only did he bring in tough laws against the communists, but he also had a publicity campaign going against them, as we can see from source I. The anti-communist book, showing the threat of a communist armed uprising, was written by a Nazi, and, possibly, commissioned by Hitler to crush the communists and gain more power. Even if it wasn’t, the fact that it was written by a Nazi means that it would almost certainly be communist bashing propaganda.
Overall, I believe source K to be an accurate interpretation of the consequences of the fire, as it draws a very good parallel between the Hitler situation and the Nero situation, which both had the same results for the ruler’s enemies. Also the fact that the emergency powers are mentioned as an aid for Hitler to become a dictator is accurate, as they gave him permission to get rid of those who got in between him and the position of dictator. Also, the fact that Hitler is holding a swastika on a pole is important, as it reminds us of the eagle that the Roman soldiers used to carry as a standard, hinting to us that he will become a tyrannical emperor in search of enlarging his empire, just like so many Roman leaders.
Question 3
This final essay will seek to answer the question at the heart of the matter; who started the Reichstag fire, and what were their motives? From the sources provided, we can narrow the choice down to: Van de Lubbe acting on his own, Van de Lubbe acting as part of a Communist plot, or the Nazis. To attempt to discover the truth, we must group the sources together depending on which theory they support, analyse them all to discover what clues they contain, and their reliability, then use them to make an informed decision on the cause of the fire.
The first theory, that Van de Lubbe was a madman acting on his own, is supported (and, in one case, debunked) by the following sources.
Source A, although supporting the first theory, also gives us clues that could help the second one, and which fit in with the third. Diels himself believes that Van de Lubbe set fire to the building on his own. His testimony is important, as he actually spoke and interrogated the accused on the night of the events, and so would have a good idea of his motives. Another thing is that it was written after the Second World War, which meant that he could finally speak freely without fear of retribution from his superiors. He could be saying it to disassociate himself from Hitler, but I don’t believe so (he was after all in the SS, people extremely loyal to Hitler. This in itself adds to its credibility, as he is speaking against Hitler’s ideas. If he were merely repeating what the chancellor said, then it would be unreliable, as one would think he was merely saying it out of loyalty. However, he does give some evidence that would support the second theory, by telling us that a Communist pamphlet was found in Van de Lubbe’s pocket, and some evidence that fits in with the third theory, by telling us that Hitler wouldn’t listen to what he had to say, but had already made his mind up that it was a Communist plot. Overall, I believe this source to be very reliable, as it was written by the head of the political police, a supposedly biased man who is speaking out against what Hitler said, after Hitler was gone. It is also backed up by a few other sources (mentioned later).
Source B is a very strong source, being the testimony of the accused. I think that this is one of the strongest of them all, as he has no reason to lie. In this source, he says quite clearly, that he set fire to the Reichstag building alone. Believers in the third theory might say he had been tortured, but I don’t believe that, as if he had been, the Nazis would surely make him say it was part of a Communist plot, rather than that he acted alone. If the second theory is right, then surely he would admit to it to publicise his cause, like the Islamic fundamentalists do after nearly every bombing. This source gives credit to the first theory, while debunking the other two.
This theory is, however, later attacked by source L, which tells us that it was impossible for him to have acted alone. It goes directly against source A, by saying that he was seriously physically handicapped, while Diels states that he “Rushed through the big corridors”. Would a physically handicapped person be able to rush? (We don’t know how he was handicapped, but the fact that it was mentioned suggests that it would be something that would slow him down). Being a history book, the facts are probably true (or at least not intentionally false), as the writers wouldn’t have been influenced by the times, and historians should take a broad view of the subject. However, it also encourages the theory, as it says he was mentally and physically handicapped, making him an outcast in Nazi society, and would give him a motive for the burning. He was attempting to stop the Nazis imposing their prejudiced beliefs. This source may, however, be unreliable, as it was probably written from second hand accounts (much like we are doing here), which means the authors may have had incorrect information upon which to base their theory.
The second and official theory, that Van de Lubbe was acting as part of a Communist plot, is backed up by these sources.
The first is source C, which gives an account from Goebbels telling how he and the chancellor went to the scene to find that it was the work of a Communist plot. It does not give any details as to how that conclusion was reached, nor does it mention that the chief of police thought otherwise. I find this source to be very unreliable, as it was written by the minister of propaganda, whose job it was to lie and twist the truth to make people believe what he wanted them to.
Source D, again, gives no proof of why it was believed to be a Communist plot, just that Hitler said it was, which ties in with what Diels said in source A. I believe this to be a fairly reliable source (see Q1), but not a very useful one. All it really does is confirm what was written in source A.
Source I tells us little about why they believe the fire was started by Communists, other than that a Nazi wrote a book about it. Let’s not forget that the Nazis and Communists were the two opposite ends of the political spectrum. They were sworn enemies, and if a Nazi had the chance to turn the people against, or get rid of the Communists, they would use it. This greatly reduces the book’s chances of being fair and broadminded. Another fact is that the book was written shortly after the fire, meaning that the author must have gathered the information during the immediate aftermath, at which time the only available evidence would have been the Nazi speeches blaming it on a Communist plot. However, the fact that there’s a whole book about it (not just a leaflet) suggests that there is probably a lot of evidence for the theory.
Finally, source K also supports the theory, showing the Reichstag burning with the title “The Red Peril”. This was produced by a British person, who wouldn’t have been influenced by the Nazi ideals. It tells us that it was the Communists that burnt the Reichstag, and that if nothing is done, they will take over Germany. However, we must also remember that Britain also feared the spread of communism, and so may have been a bit biased.
The third and final theory, that the Nazis burnt the Reichstag, is supported by the following sources.
Source E is, in my mind, quite reliable (see Q1). It tells us about how he heard Goering say that he did it. The part of this that I find the most supportive of the third theory, however, is the fact that Hitler had asked him to do a report, even though he had already made up his mind as to the causes, and would not listen to any other ideas (see source A). Why call for a report when he had already made his mind up? The best reason I can think of is to justify his persecution of the Communists. Notice how he got a Nazi to compile the report, and one that had “unhesitatingly ascribed it to arson on the part of persons under Communist influence”. I think he chose the person carefully, so as to be sure of the result. All this seems to point to Hitler having planned the whole thing from the beginning, and that it is just a way of eliminating the opposition, and getting more votes for the Nazis. Let’s not forget that during the last elections (November 1932), the Nazis lost lots of votes, and Hitler was even threatening suicide if things didn’t change. It seems quite suspicious that the thing that would allow him to get rid of the opposition happened just when it was needed.
The testimony itself isn’t particularly credible. As he said, they were making cynical jokes, could this have been one of them? Also, the closing quote seems to me to be sarcastic, and, as it was taken out of context, we can’t be sure of what was meant.
Source I adds credibility to what Rauschning said, and makes the confession more reliable. However, it was said at a war crimes trial, in which Halder would be trying to get away with the shortest possible sentence. To do this, he would have to name names, and pass the blame on to someone else. You also have to question Goering’s motives. Why would he incriminate himself? In addition, this was ten years after the event, which could mean a lot of things. Perhaps he thought that it was in the past, and so he could finally come out with the truth (after all, at this point Germany were winning the war, and so he was unlikely to be punished), or perhaps he just wanted to take credit for it to show off. That said, the fact that two separate witnesses both claim to have heard him boast about it makes the case quite strong.
To counter this, we hear Goering’s testimony at the same trials in source G. He claims that he is innocent, but his case seems to rest on the fact that he wouldn’t tell anyone if it had been him. We have already discussed the fact that when he made the claim, Germany was winning the war, and therefore he was unlikely to be punished. He could have said it to gain respect and admiration from his peers, which makes his testimony less valid. He also was on trial, and so was trying to get a shorter sentence. If he were to be found guilty of this crime, it would show how cunning, and how devoted to Hitler he was, which would make him more likely to be charged for war crimes.
Source H is the supposed confession of one of the SA men in charge of burning the Reichstag. However, there are a few strange things about it. He says that he did it in belief that he would be serving the Fuhrer, which means that he must have been very loyal to Hitler. Why then, would he confess to doing such a thing, especially to the Communists, who were attacked by the SA. The fact that it was published by the Communists lessens the source’s credibility even more. The Communists had been imprisoned and persecuted because of what happened, and had lost the support of the German public. They had the perfect motive for making up such a testimony, which would, at the very least, make the public question the leadership. Overall, I believe this source to be totally fictitious.
It is obvious from the information gathered, that not all the sources can be telling he truth. For example, source B and source H both have people confessing to the fire. Before making our minds up on which theory is right, we should recap on the main arguments for each theory.
Theory one has the backing of the head of the political police (speaking against the chancellor), who was there on the night and who interviewed Van de Lubbe. We also have Van de Lubbe’s confession, again a strong, reliable source. Then, thanks to source L, we know that he had the motive to do it, being both mentally and physically handicapped, and so would be a reject in Nazi society. It also tells us that Hitler refused to listen to any other reasoning except that it was a Communist plot. The only real flaw in this theory is the fact that if he were handicapped, it would have been very hard to set it on fire.
Theory two is a weak one. It’s only really supported by the fact that the German government decided that’s what happened, which ties in with theory one.
Theory three is backed mainly by the fact that two separate sources claim to have heard Goering claim that he did it, and a very dubious confession from the SA man who supposedly carried out the operation. The main proof for this theory is the circumstantial evidence. Hitler was recently appointed chancellor, but on the last elections had lost 2 million votes for the Nazi party. He was so distressed by this, he threatened suicide. He desperately needed something to win back the public, and get rid of the opposition. It just so happened that this opportunity came along a few months later, and allowed him to lock the opposition up without trial. It’s quite suspicious that what Hitler really needed came about at exactly the right time.
In conclusion, I believe that theory one is correct. The first two sources are just too strong to ignore. But I also believe that Hitler, being the cunning man that he was, decided to use it as an excuse to get the votes back. That fact that he was unwilling to listen to what Diels said makes it quite clear that he had some kind of a plan. I think that when he heard that the Reichstag had been burnt, and that the man had a Communist pamphlet in his pocket, he decided to impose the Communist plot theory for his personal interests. As for Van de Lubbe, I believe he knew that he would an outcast under the Nazi regime, which is why he joined the Communists, where he would be treated as a human. I don’t believe the Communists were involved in the fire, but that Van de Lubbe did it to try and stop the terrible fate that would await him and those like him if the Nazis were to take control.