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

Authors Avatar

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. Both of the points it could be making, however, are supported by Source A, but both cannot be true. This makes me question the reliability of Source A. Either way, statements in Source A support Source B, but both sources are quite unreliable as neither gives a definite answer, so they cannot support each other to great length.

2)        How far can you trust Source A?

Source A was written by Rudolf Diels, the Head of the Prussian Political Police, at the time of the Reichstag fire. It was written sometime after the Second World War and sometime before the Nuremburg Trials.

        It is a fact that Diels was one of the first people on the scene of the Reichstag fire, so this adds to the credibility of the source. Also, Diels was Head of the Prussian Political Police, and so although he was one of the first people on the scene of the fire, he may have been biased in writing this account to not make it seem as though they had made a wrong decision in convicting Van der Lubbe. Another point to remember is that this account was written after the Second World War, at least 12 years after the Reichstag fire, so his memory of the event might have blurred a bit, although he was the Head of Police and it is quite likely that he might have taken notes.

The account in Source A was written before the Nuremburg trials, and Diels was probably worried about being convicted of war crimes, so might have changed his account of the event to make him seem like more of a ‘good guy’, and to try and make others out as being the real criminals to take the attention away from himself: He quotes Goering as saying ‘There will be no mercy now. Anyone who stands in our way will be cut down. Every Communist will be shot or hanged. Everybody supporting the Communists must be arrested,’ making Goering out as a ‘bad guy’, and thus drawing the attention away from himself.

Diels makes two remarks in this source that contradict each other: ‘The voluntary confessions of Van der Lubbe made me believe he had acted alone’ contradicts ‘Several other details suggested that Communists that helped him start these other fires, might also have helped him with the Reichstag Fire’. These statements make me believe that Diels could not reach an accurate point, so make the source less reliable.

Also, at the end of the first paragraph, Diels says he ‘read the Communist pamphlets he (Van der Lubbe) carried in his trouser pockets’. I find it highly unlikely that a man who was going to burn down a building and undoubtedly get caught would be carrying papers that would convict him of being a Communist. If he was a Communist, he would not have wanted to make it blatantly obvious. Also if you are a member of a political party, you rarely carry pamphlets about that party on your person, especially if you’re going to burn down a building. This suggests to me that not only was Van der Lubbe framed in some way, but that it also makes this source less reliable.

Join now!

Source A could also be contradicted by Source B, making Source A less reliable, as Diels says he believed ‘others might also have helped him with the Reichstag fire’, and Source B states that Van der Lubbe ‘set fire to the Reichstag all by (him)self’. Although, as I mentioned earlier, Source B could be ambiguous and Source A contradicts itself so this cannot be entirely trusted.

To conclude, there’s a lot to say that this source is unreliable and a little to say that it can be trusted, so I don’t think it should be used as a piece of evidence ...

This is a preview of the whole essay