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

History Sourcework - How Far does Source I prove that Goering was telling the truth in Source H? - Hitler's Germany

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

History Sourcework: Study Sources H and I. How Far does Source I prove that Goering was telling the truth in Source H? Source H was written by Goering who was at the time in command of the German economy. Goering was a high ranking party official, achieving the prestige of being Hitler's deputy at one point. He was furious that Goebbels had allowed so much destruction during the ransacking of Jewish Property. He was stringently trying to adhere to the 4-year economic plan that was to prepare Germany for war. He saw that the property and goods within the Jewish households which would have greatly useful to help achieve this plan. He had nothing to do directly with Kristallnact though. After the damage of Kristallnact in order to keep in line with the party's Anti Semitic policies he charged the Jew's 100 million marks for the damage caused that night. He was later charged with the responsibility of the Jews in the concentration camps, which led to him being tried after the war, in that trial this account was given. The testimony follows the opinions of Goering in that his fierce competition against Goebbels that results in placing all of the blame onto Goebbels shoulders who was not there to defend himself, after committing suicide. ...read more.

Middle

However the claim that Hitler apologising for the actions of Goebbels, we do not know. If Source A is anything to be going by, it seems that Hitler fully supported the actions of Goebbels. The reason why he would apologise for the actions of Goebbels if Source A were true is unknown, unless he was putting a face on to all other senior Nazi's. There are a few gaps in the text. Goering's interpretation of what happened during Kristallnact is unknown and what he was doing at the time. He did not disclose in the piece who else apart from Goebbels was responsible for Kristallnact. Nor Fritz Hesse reported if what happened at the dinner party in a true manner as he was probably there. However we do know that Goering was not directly involved in Kristallnact though he had to deal with the consequences. Source I is a reporting of a conversation held with Hitler by Frau Troost, a women married to Hitler's favourite architect. The speaker in this source is Hitler, occurring shortly after Kristallnact. The opinion of Hitler seems to be that Kristallnact was a regrettable event because of von Roth's death and maybe because everybody saw the Jews killed on the street, which he did not want to occur. The consequences were starting to emerge on the economy as well throwing the four-year economic plan askew. ...read more.

Conclusion

The agreement with France is not put into more detail. What was it? Was their really any sort of plan with France? It may have been a Nazi bluff. No other source agrees or mentions with this aspect of the conversation, which leaves it as a bit suspect. The figure of speech '' Elephant in a china shop'' does agree with Sources C, E, F and G in picturing Kristallnact as a brutal messy attack. In conclusion Source I does agree to an extent that Goering was telling the truth in source H. It agrees on the fact that there was extensive damage to German Property and eventually the Economy. The tone Hitler uses in Source I suggests that he did regret the incident and meaning that he may have apologised for Goebbels, therefore agreeing with Source H again. Further similarities result from Adolf Hitler claiming that the entire occurrence of Kristallnact shouldn't have happened. Whether or not Hitler feels that the economy was damaged and the four-year plan in the process, is not discussed in Source I so remains unknown. However the use of the plural form of ''the people responsible'' indicates that there was more than one person responsible for organising the riots. Source H just shows Goering blaming Goebbels for everything. This results in the two sources agreeing on most issues to an extent, meaning that both ounces carry a reasonable degree of reliability as they confer reasonably. J.Harratt ...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. GCSE History Coursework: Reichstag Fire 1) ...

    Also, the title might be being sarcastic, saying that the Communists clearly aren't the real danger, but the Nazis are, as they have all this power now. If that is the case, the artist is against the Nazis, and does not like the fact that they are getting stronger and that Germany might be run as a dictatorship.

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

    were strong/big and the league could do nothing about it, although it originally belonged to Lithuania. Finally, the league would be worried because they would be unsure as to how Mussolini would act. For example; in 1920, Mussolini may have chosen for Italy to use force instead of go to

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

    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? Explain your answer. Quote i was supported by sources A, B, and D. Source A quoted that van der Lubbe's confessions made Diels believe that he had acted alone.

  2. adolf hitler

    It is estimated that during the first year of invasion, over a million communists were executed by the SS. Senior officers objected on tactical as well as humanitarian grounds. They argued that knowledge that they faced death or torture would encourage the Soviets to carry on fighting instead of surrendering.

  1. Modern World History Coursework - Reichstag Sourcework

    Source B would not necessarily back up source A given that it is an official account of a major event. One of the subtle differences between accounts was how the sources themselves were acquired. Rudolf Diels' source was written in a journal, whereas that of Van Der Lubbe was given orally at a trial.

  2. Holocaust - Source related questions.

    By participating there is strong support shown. These men on the railways and in the SS would have told what they knew to a relative or a friend. This would have spread fresh knowledge. Source J is different because it is split up by the layers of knowledge within Germany.

  1. Kristallnacht - source related study.

    caused fury among the Nazis" which contradicts with the idea of the public being horrified as they would probably be too frightened of the consequences, if they were spotted. Buffman talks about the "hideous part of the so-called 'spontaneous' action" which strongly backs up his previous points by suggesting that

  2. History Sourcework - How similar are the messages of these two cartoons? - Hitler's ...

    The knife carried in the right hand also carries the message of death and murder. The pocket watch's that were looted off bodies and found in the cartoon in the officers pockets were the symbol of the Jewish business, therefore this represents the destruction and looting of the Jewish business'.

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