• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

GCSE History Coursework: Reichstag Fire 1) How far is the account in Source A supported by Source B? In Source A, Rudolf Diels claims at the start of the second paragraph that

Extracts from this document...


GCSE History Coursework: Reichstag Fire 1) How far is the account in Source A supported by Source B? In Source A, Rudolf Diels claims at the start of the second paragraph that 'The voluntary confessions of Van der Lubbe made me believe he had acted alone'. This point is supported by Source B, as it says that 'I (van der Lubbe) set fire to the Reichstag all by myself'. But, in the third paragraph of Source A, Diels changes his mind and writes 'Several details suggested that Communists who helped him start these other fires, might also have helped him with the Reichstag Fire'. This point contradicts Source B and his earlier remark, and seems to me to make Source A less reliable, as Diels cannot reach an accurate point. In Source B, Van der Lubbe states 'The other defendants (including the Communists) are in this trial, but they were not in the Reichstag'. This statement could be taken to mean two things: either he is saying he was the only one who had anything to do with the Reichstag fire and that he did it all by himself; or he could be saying that although he was the only one inside the building, others had helped him to plan it. Also, this would not contradict his first statement, as he only says he 'set fire to the Reichstag' all by himself, and doesn't mention if people had helped him get inside. If this is true, and that he was not the only person to plan this, then Diels remark about how he believed others 'might also have helped him with the Reichstag fire' would support Source B, although this would contradict Diels first statement that Van der Lubbe had 'acted alone'. This ambiguity in Source B means that it might not be very reliable, as it could be saying two different things. ...read more.


4) Do sources E and G prove that Goering (Source F) was telling lies? Source E is a statement given by General Franz Halder at his trial in Nuremburg in 1946 when he was being tried for war crimes by the Allies. It states that at Hitler's birthday in 1943, 'Goering broke into the conversation and shouted: The only one who really knows about the Reichstag building is I, for I set fire to it'. What Halder said might be true, and Goering might have exposed the truth because he had been drinking alcohol, but Hitler was tea-total, and there wasn't likely to be any alcohol at his birthday celebrations. Also, Halder was on trial for war crimes, so would want to get blame and attention drawn away from him and onto others, so could have easily lied. I don't think that there is much reliability in this source. Source G is a document that was published by Communists in 1934 and is supposedly the confession of Karl Ernst, leader of the SA, published after his death in the 'Night of the Long Knives'. It tells how Ernst and 'two SA men set fire to the Reichstag', how they 'used the underground passage leading from his (Goering's) house to the Reichstag', and how they 'used Van der Lubbe. He would climb into the Reichstag and blunder about while we set fire to the building'. This 'confession' was published by Communists who obviously would benefit a lot from something like this, as it degrades the Nazis and exposes them as frauds. But I don't see any reason why Ernst would give his confession to the Communists, or even confess, even if the confession is true. Also, it seems very useful to the Communists that Ernst has just died, and therefore would not be able to argue with the Communists or say that this is a lie. ...read more.


However, this source is extremely unreliable. It was a 'confession' of Ernst, published by Communists after Ernst death. I think that it's too lucky for the Communists to get hold of something like this, and that they only chose to publish it after Ernst's death so that he couldn't dismiss it. I also see no reason why Ernst would write this confession, even if it was true. Source H is from a history book published 41 years after the fire, in 1974, so might have some facts wrong as it is so long after the event. It suggests that the Nazis were not prepared for the fire, and arrested Communists whose names were on an 'out-of-date list'. If they had planned the fire, they would have been ready to take appropriate action afterwards, but here they weren't, so suggests that statement i) is correct. Source I is again from a history book published in 1974, so facts might be a bit wrong. This source doesn't support statement ii), but instead disagrees with i), as it says that 'Given the brief time available to Lubbe, it would have been impossible for any one man to set the building alight on this scale, let alone a man without knowledge of the place, and seriously handicapped, both mentally and physically, as Lubbe undoubtedly was'. It makes it very clear that Van der Lubbe could not have possibly set the building alight himself without any aid. Source J has no relevance to either statement, and is entirely neutral to both. Although there are more reliable sources and more evidence to suggest that statement i) is correct, and that Van der Lubbe did set fire to the Reichstag all by himself (although he may have had help planning the fire), I still believe that statement ii) is true. To me, it seems like the fire was just too much of a good thing to happen to the Nazis, and at a good time too. The evidence says otherwise, but I think that the Nazis were far too fortunate. Harry Ball 11-VAA 29.01.04 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Germany 1918-1939 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Germany 1918-1939 essays

  1. The Reichstag Fire-Coursework B

    The source has 'pro's' and 'con's.' The pro's being that Diels was at the scene so his account was accurate; as he was head of the Prussian police he had a lot more information available to him, which others might not have seen. The source is also supported by others.

  2. How far was HItler to blame for the second world war?

    He soon became a dictator, a person with complete control, they outlawed all political party's and any one who spoke out was murdered. They also tried to teach the teens on Hitler's beliefs, they chanted Nazi slogans and told them they had the power to control Germany.

  1. IGCSE History Coursework Assignment B - Source Analysis of the Reichstag Fire

    Study Source A. How reliable is this account? Explain your answer. When Diels wrote this account, it was after World War II. Because of this, the source is most likely inaccurate. After the war ended, another war started right away.

  2. Studies of Sources from the Reichstag Fire - who was responsible?

    for example The Express that Delmer wrote for, which supported Hitler's views and showed him in a good light, this Source cannot be completely reliable. The title 'The Germans and I' suggests Delmer was quite close with Germany; in particular Adolf Hitler so therefore may be biased.

  1. History Coursework – the Reichstag Fire

    In the same way, Van der Lubbe is confessing to beginning the Reichstag fire. Source A describes how Goering and Hitler arrive on the scene and condemn the fire as an act of the Communists. On the other hand, in source B Van der Lubbe says that he acted alone without the help of other Communists.

  2. The Italian Conquest of Abyssinia: How far was the LoN to blame?

    In conclusion to this answer, I feel that source A is more useful than source B for understanding the problems of peacekeeping in the 1930s for the sole reason that living creatures are used to represent countries as opposed to sacks.

  1. Modern World History Coursework - Reichstag Sourcework

    are in this trial, but they were not in the Reichstag'. This difference in views displays a lack of knowledge and perhaps of mistruth about the occurrences in the Reichstag. Source A directly differs from source B; the first source infers that the communists were in the building itself, the

  2. GCSE Coursework Assignment 2

    It also sounds sarcastic as it sounds like he is saying that they won't always be powerful, like they think they will, and that they'll get what's coming soon enough if they do not stop terrorising Jews. Source G shows a woman, who is meant to represent the German people, and a man in uniform representing the Nazis.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work