The reliability of this account is in question because of the date it was written. As source A was written some time after the trial the event was not fresh in the memory of the writer and some statements could be less reliable, for example, the times when people arrived and the exact words said by Goering and Hitler.
On the other hand, the first account could be more reliable as it was written after the trial and the writer had time to reflect on the events, whereas sources written at the time would be written as the events were still happening and may not have included all the facts.
In my opinion this is an unreliable source as it is written by a Nazi and probably reflects one-sided views. The writer would have supported Hitler’s ideas and disliked the communists, so the source has more than likely been written with a bias view. The source does reflect the view that Communists where responsible for the fire after all, and the writer does not suggest the responsibility of the Nazi party for the fire even though he draws suspicion by saying how quick Goering and Hitler where to arrive on the scene and how easily they blamed the Communists.
- Study sources C and D.
How far do sources C and D agree about the events surrounding the Reichstag fire? Explain your answer.
Both the sources C and D reflect the view that the Nazis where taking advantage of the Reichstag Fire.
Source C is a drawing of Hinderburg, the leader in Germany at the time, who is suggesting to Hitler that the Reichstag Fire is a heaven sent opportunity and that Hitler should use it to become a dictator. Both figures are dressed in Roman garments and a view of Rome burning is shown in the background. Rome wanted a large empire, it wanted to be a great world power and Hitler wished the same for Germany. The part of the picture that shows Rome burning is probably referring to the great fire of Rome in 62 AD. The fire was rumoured to have been started or encouraged by the fifth Roman Emperor, Nero, who was in power at the time. The Fire of Rome was convenient for Nero as it quickly set fire to the homes of Nero’s enemies in the rich part of the city. Nero, like Hitler, blamed the event on a group of people - Hitler blamed the Communists, Nero blamed the Christians. So in source C, Hitler is possibly being compared to an opportunist, like Nero and it is suggested that Hitler take advantage of the Reichstag fire to achieve his ambition to be Dictator. We later see how Hitler takes advantage of events when he re-militarises the Rhineland and this supports the view that Hitler is an opportunist.
Source D is the cover of a book released by the Nazis entitled “Armed Uprising”. It is written by a Nazi and published shortly after the Reichstag fire. The right hand figure is Van der Lubbe and centred is the Reichstag building. The Nazis are obviously blaming the Communists for the fire as they’re showing Van der Lubbe lighting matches over the burning building of the Reichstag. The two left hand figures are not wearing uniforms so are probably not Nazis or policemen. They look across to Van der Lubbe with guns – they are possibly meant to be common people who are against the Communists or Van der Lubbe. The fact they have guns pointing at Van der Lubbe suggests security and control emitted by the Nazis. The Nazis are obviously aiming for a sense of power and possible fear with the release of this book. The title, “Armed Uprising” suggests the increase in power for the Nazis obtained by the arrest and control of Communists causing trouble. It could also suggest the uprising of the Communists using arms and arson, and may have been an attempt by the Nazis to produce fear of the Communist party and gain more support for the Nazis.
Both sources however, reflect the strong view that the Nazis took advantage of the fire. Source D supports source C as it was released shortly after the fire and suggests the control of the Communists for the advantage of the people, this would have gained votes in election as it produced fear and security. Source C suggests that Hitler gain votes using the Reichstag fire to eventually lead to his dictatorship. The scroll in the hand of Hitler in source C says “Emergency Powers” suggesting the use of the situation to Hitler’s benefit also.
Around the time of the Reichstag fire Hitler declared a state of emergency and was allowed to arrest many Communist leaders as a result. Both sources A and B reflect this anti-Communist approach to circumstances surrounding the fire and the advantage that Hitler took of the event.
- Study Source D
Use the source and your knowledge of the period to explain why the Nazis would want to publish a book like this one.
At the time of the Reichstag fire there would have been many rumours as to whether Van der Lubbe did in fact set fire to the Reichstag building. Hitler wanted the public to believe that the allegations where true so that he could blame the Communists for the fire and gain more support for the Nazi Party. Hitler had to act quickly to take advantage of the fire as the hype and curiosity surrounding the fire would soon die down. He wanted to put the idea of Communist sabotage into the minds of the German people so that they would become supporters of the Nazi party.
Hitler’s ambition was to become the leader and Dictator of Germany and eventually to make Germany a strong and powerful Empire. To achieve this he needed the support of many people who shared the same views as him and wanted the same things.
By publishing the book, “Armed Uprising” so soon after the Reichstag Fire the Nazis could support their views and blame the Communists for arson. The front cover clearly suggests the belief that Van der Lubbe began the fire as he lights matches over the building. Hitler also believed in using fear to influence people’s views – men with guns are shown on the front of the book and are positioned in a threatening way to Van der Lubbe which suggests that anyone who goes against the Nazi’s will be dealt with.
For some people, the two men with guns give a sense of security suggesting the protection of those in support of Hitler against the Communists. This would have been to the Nazi’s advantage as it meant many people would fear being members of or supporting the Communist party.
Hitler believed that “Only the strong will win, the weak will always lose” – the cover of the book is very strong and striking, it catches attention and is shows that the Nazis are serious enough about the allegations against Van der Lubbe and the Communist party to write a book supporting their views and enhancing their power over the German people.
- Study Sources E, F and G
Do sources E and G prove that Goering, (Source F), was telling lies? Explain your answer.
Source E and G both suggest that Goering was partly, if not entirely responsible for the Reichstag fire. Goering condemns these allegations as being “ridiculous”; he says that General Halder’s suggestion- that he told a group of people at a dinner party in 1943 he set fire to the Reichstag- is not true.
General Franz Halder claims that while at lunch on Hitler’s birthday party in 1943, during a conversation about the Reichstag, Goering broke into the conversation and said how “The only one who knows about the Reichstag is myself, as it was I who set fire to the building”. However, Halder is giving evidence at his trial for War crimes in 1946. He is obviously trying to protect himself during these trials and people say many things under pressure that are not necessarily true but help them in some way. This means that the statement by Halder cannot be proved to be correct and therefore does not prove anything.
It is ten years after the fire that the birthday party for Hitler in which these allegations where said to have taken place was held. The seriousness of the issue would have probably blown over by then, so Goering could have been joking. After all, it was a happy occasion and Goering, being an important Nazi figure, could not afford for allegations of this nature.
When Goering condemns Halder’s words he too is giving evidence in trial and is trying to help himself so he obviously does not want to admit to involvement in the Reichstag fire.
Source G is the “confession” of Karl Ernst who was the leader of the SA. At the time it was published Communists where desperate for the support of their party. The Nazis who had blamed the fire on them were cleverly taking advantage of the situation, so the Communists needed to prove that the fire was not in fact their fault as Hitler alleged. It is convenient that the confession is given so soon after the fire and that the confessor, Karl Ernst had been killed in the “Night of the Long Knives” by the time the book was published. The “Night of the Long Knives” was when Hitler had several SA leaders arrested and shot as he claimed they were causing trouble within the Nazi party. It was also rumoured that Hitler feared Ernst would become more powerful than himself.
Van der Lubbe is said to have been associated with Ernst shortly before the fire and this alleges that the Nazi party and Van der Lubbe were somehow connected in the planning of the Reichstag fire, especially as the SA would have had the incendiary materials needed.
However, because Ernst could not support the confession, it does not prove that Goering was guilty of co-organising the Reichstag fire. Especially as the Communists needed this confession so badly and could easily have made it up.
So in conclusion, neither source proves that Goering is lying in source F, as both are the words of men who are either giving evidence to support their innocence or cannot back their words.
-
Study Sources H, I and J.
Do these three sources make it more or less likely that the Nazis planned the fire? Explain your answer.
In my opinion sources H, I and J make it more likely that the Nazis planned the Reichstag fire. Source H is from a history book published many years after the fire, in 1974. The source, although analysing the situation according to factual evidence does suggest the Nazi’s need to “take action” which seems convenient as they had been planning to “destroy the Communists after the election, when they would be in a stronger position to deal with them”. The source also suggests the use of lists, which were used to arrest Communists. This does suggest that the Nazis had planned the arrest of Communists prior to the fire, although the lists are said to be out of date.
The second source, source I is also a source taken from a 1974 history book. It establishes that Van der Lubbe was probably not capable of setting fire to the Reichstag himself because of the scale of the building and the handicaps he had, both mentally and physically. In fact, Van der Lubbe had severe sight disabilities after bullies put a mason’s sack over his head and chalk dust permanently damaged his eyes. He had to bring a piece of paper to within a couple of inches of his eyes before he could read it. Also, Van der Lubbe’s knowledge of the building was small and he would have needed great knowledge to have found his way around and set fire to so many rooms in such a short space of time. The source states that it was “impossible” for one man to set the building alight and this also supports the view that Van der Lubbe did not act alone.
Source J is a photo taken shortly after the Reichstag fire in which the extent of the damage is clearly shown. The scale of the damage caused by the fire is so huge that it is difficult to imagine only one person could have caused it.
In conclusion, the sources suggest that Van der Lubbe did not act alone and as the Nazis used the fire to their advantage it is entirely possible that they were behind the planning of the fire, especially as it put them in such a leading political position.
- Study the following interpretations of the Reichstag fire.
(i) Van der Lubbe was a madman, and he set fire to the Reichstag all by himself, but the Nazis genuinely believed the fire was the start of a Communist uprising.
(ii) The Reichstag Fire was started by the Nazis to give them an excuse to take emergency powers and lock up or kill the Communists. Van der Lubbe was used by the Nazis.
Which interpretation is best supported by the evidence in these sources and your knowledge of the period?
In my opinion the second opinion (ii) is best supported in these sources and by my knowledge of the period.
The sources which I think support this statement in particular are; Source C as it suggests that Hitler took advantage of the situation so he could fuel his ambition to be dictator; Source D as the Nazis are obviously blaming the fire on the Communists and trying to achieve support for their party; Source E, although it cannot be proved that Goering really disclosed his involvement in the Reichstag fire, is still a suspicious allegation by General Halder; Source H as it describes how the Nazis took advantage of the situation even though they had planned to get rid of the Communists after they had been elected into power; Source I as it states how it would have been difficult, if not impossible for one man to have set fire to the Reichstag especially as Van der Lubbe was actually handicapped; and finally source J, which reflects the severity of the fire and the scale of it - which doesn’t seem like arson capable of just one man.
Van der Lubbe, being partially blinded and possibly mentally handicapped was probably incapable of a task on this scale. He had previously attempted to swim the channel several times, which involved getting ready to swim in front of the press, swimming a short distance out to sea and then returning to announce that the tides where “currently unfavourable”. Van der Lubbe had a desire for fame that was not natural and possibly caused by a mental disorder. Because of this the Nazi’s would probably have found it easy to use Van der Lubbe as a “dupe” to set alight to the building by promising him the inevitable fame it would result in.
Hitler was an opportunist and took advantage of events such as the Reichstag fire and in this case it was very much to his advantage, resulting in the arrest of many leading Communists.
It is said that Van der Lubbe was in the clutches of a couple of SA men including Karl Ernst in the period immediately before the fire suggesting his involvement with the Nazis. Ernst is also said to have stated, when asked if his storm troopers were responsible for the fire, “If I said yes I’d be a bloody fool, if I said no I’d be a bloody liar.” The SA also had access to incendiary materials and had a history of setting fire to election displays and rival political groups. Hitler’s black shirted guards later killed Ernst in the “Night of the Long Knives” which was convenient especially as Ernst had apparently just confessed to his involvement in the fire to Communist members.
The main sources contradicting the Nazi’s involvement with the fire are mostly written by Nazi’s. Source A which is the recollection of a Nazi, Rudolf Diels, strongly implies that Van der Lubbe was solely responsible for the fire.
Source F, the contradiction of allegations against Goering, are the words of Goering who was a strong Nazi member. The book cover, source D is a bias picture suggesting Van der Lubbe committed the arson and helps to support the Nazi party. This was also published by a Nazi.
Source B is written by Van der Lubbe who, as I mentioned was widely known at the time as a mad-man whose main aim in life was to become famous, even if it meant by execution which inevitably was the case after the fire.
In conclusion, the interpretation that the Reichstag Fire was started by the Nazis to give them an excuse to take emergency powers and lock up or kill the Communists is clearly supported by most sources, and as Hitler was so driven by power and was an opportunist it is very likely that the Reichstag fire was a set up. The Nazis probably used Van der Lubbe, as he would have been an easy target to manipulate into setting fire to the Reichstag. He may not have known that he was on the road to execution, he may not have had a choice, but he got the wish for fame that he had strived for most of his life.
- Use the sources and your knowledge of German history to explain why there has been so much disagreement over the Reichstag fire.
There is much disagreement over the Reichstag fire for many reasons. Hitler was a manipulative and clever man who covered up his actions carefully. He wouldn’t have wanted people to think that the Nazi party was responsible for the fire, and if he was involved he would have planned the event carefully to prevent people from finding out.
The Reichstag came at such an important time for both the Communist and Nazi parties and was especially convenient for the Nazi party, which led to suspicion especially on the Communist side. The Nazis used the fire to declare a state of emergency in which they could arrest many leading Communists and of course this was a very strong move for the Nazi party. The main Communists were then wiped out and so any evidence they held in support of the Communists innocence could not be heard.
The sources blaming the Nazis are widely unreliable as many are written with no evidence available to back them up. For example, source G which was written after the Confessor had been killed. Also, source E which are the words of a man who is defending himself in trial.
Van der Lubbe was mentally and physically handicapped and had limited knowledge of the building. This and the extent of the damage (shown in source J) to the Reichstag, was so great that it is difficult to believe his statement in source B which says he acted alone.
Because many books and sources written at the time show bias points of views in support of either the Communist or Nazi party it is difficult to come to a clear conclusion as to who set fire to the Reichstag. There weren’t many people who did not take a side either with the Communists or the Nazis in those days and if they weren’t part of the Nazi or Communist party they would be scared to publish their view of who planned the Reichstag fire as it meant that they would be in danger of conflict from either party.
Both parties were powerful; especially the Nazi party and this power meant that if the Nazi party had planned the fire they would have been able to cover it up easily. On the other hand, if Van der Lubbe did act alone there is not enough compelling evidence in support as he was executed so soon after the Reichstag fire.
In conclusion there has been much confusion over the Reichstag fire as many sources and confessions are unreliable either because they are written from a bias point of view, which is common, or they are confessions made while under pressure. Some sources cannot be supported as the writer or confessor was killed shortly after their statements were made. There is also doubt over whether Van der Lubbe was solely responsible for the fire for many reasons, including his mental and physical health. Even if he was responsible for the fire we will probably never know for certain because he was killed so soon after his confession.