History Coursework – the Reichstag Fire

Authors Avatar

HISTORY COURSEWORK – THE REICHSTAG FIRE

Jamie Lake

1. Study sources A and B.

 How far is the account in source A supported by source B? Explain your answer.

To some extent, source A is supported by source B.

 The writer of source A, Rudolf Diels, is a Nazi and head of the Prussian police. His account of the Reichstag fire is written in 1950, seventeen years after the Reichstag fire took place. He gives a detailed account of the arrest of Van der Lubbe, the arrival of the Nazi leaders Goering and Hitler and their orders and words. Source B however is an account of Van der Lubbe’s words at his trial in 1933.

Both accounts could be accused of being bias and giving one-sided views of the event. After all, it was a crucial time for politics and led to a great turning point for both the Communist and Nazi Parties.  

Source A describes how Rudolf Dies “pushed his way into the burning building” and discovered Van der Lubbe naked from the waist up, with a “wild triumphant gleam in the eyes of his pale young face”.  He is described to be panting as if he has completed a tremendous task, but later, when questioning Van der Lubbe, his stories are confused.  On one hand, this does not support Source B, in which Van der Lubbe states that he did set fire to the Reichstag building all by himself: his statement is clear, concise and to the point. There is no sign of confusion.  On the other hand, Van der Lubbe would obviously have been exhausted and possibly in a state of shock after the Reichstag fire, leading to confusion when he was questioned that night.

In source B, Van der Lubbe says “I set fire to the Reichstag all by myself” and this supports Diels account, Source A, which states that, “The voluntary confession of Van der Lubbe made me believe that he had acted alone”.

Contradicting Source A though, Source B states that “The other Defendants, (including the Communists) are in this trial but they were not in the Reichstag” whereas Source A says that several details suggested that Communists who had helped Van der Lubbe begin previous fires could also have helped him with the Reichstag fire.

Van der Lubbe seems proud to have started fires and takes full responsibility for them – as it says in source A, Van der Lubbe confesses to beginning several other fires elsewhere in Berlin. 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. It is possible that Van der Lubbe is defending the other communists, especially as Goering wanted the Communists hanged or shot, and anyone supporting them arrested – all as a result of the Reichstag fire.

Hitler believes that it is the work of a group of Communists and says, “This is something really cunning, prepared a long time ago. The criminals have thought this out beautifully”. He uses the word “Criminal” in plural, which suggests his belief that more than one person planned the Reichstag.  Source B does not either support or contradict this comment, as Van der Lubbe only says he set fire to the Reichstag by himself. He does not say that he planned it entirely alone, although he could have said this at another point in the trial.

 

  1. Study source A.

How reliable is this account? Explain your answer

The fact that the first account is written some time after the fire and the trial of Van der Lubbe may mean that it is less reliable. The trial found Van der Lubbe guilty and had him executed – leading to the signing of an emergency decree which gave authority to the Nazi’s to prohibit assemblies, outlaw newspapers (and other publications) and to arrest people on suspicion of treason. This amount of power was very convenient to the Nazis and led to the arrest of many Communists.

Diel’s account supports Van der Lubbe’s confession but also makes statements that may have been dangerous if the document had been written around the time of the Reichstag fire. For example, the fact Goering and Hitler arrived so quickly on the scene may have aroused suspicion.  Also, Rudolf Diels says that after he had collected his thoughts, he declared, “This is a mad house”.  It may have been unwise to release this particular statement at the time especially as Hitler was so determined that the Nazi’s were anything but a mad house.

So this may be why the document was released in 1950. Also, it was after the World War – there were no longer any Nazis and the communists were in a minority. Diels may have released this document later on as it was after the trial of Van der Lubbe and after he had been found guilty- meaning that the information he gives about Van der Lubbe is reinforced by the document and not contradicted.

Join now!

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 ...

This is a preview of the whole essay