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

    Secondly, the fact that the speech indicates his love for power would also worry the league as they often struggle with situations whereby a powerful country has done something. A perfect example of this is the incident of Vilna. Vilna was awarded to Poland solely on the basis that they

  2. adolf hitler

    Hitler left a devastated Europe and with it a warning for the future. His regime had illustrated the dangers of nationalism, the obscenity of racism and the importance of democracy. It was an expensive lesson, but it did provide the basis for a better future.

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

    This makes Source J seem as if it supports the fact that the Nazis were the masterminds. Source H supported the fact that the communists were the masterminds. However, the source couldn't be trusted because the historian was not present during the actual event. This makes the facts written unreliable.

  2. Modern World History Coursework - Reichstag Sourcework

    Van Der Lubbe spoke about the events just after they happened, therefore in this case, source B does not support source A. Another point to make about the sources is why they were created. Source A was from Rudolf Diels' personal account, whereas source B was given to a jury during trial.

  1. GCSE History Coursework: Reichstag Fire 1) ...

    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

  2. Holocaust - Source related questions.

    Source D has the benefit of hindsight and some details could have been lost due to the time gap. All the Sources tell us something about the treatment of Jews. But none of the sources contain any conclusive evidence about the reaction of the Germans as they do not provide the bigger picture.

  1. Kristallnacht - source study

    This account is all the more believable, and therefore supportive of source C because it was written by a German civil servant - somebody who was involved and would have knowledge of such plans of the State. (d) In my opinion the messages of the two cartoons are similar.

  2. History Sourcework - Do Sources D and E make it more or less likely, ...

    If he is referring to the 10th of November there is no account for the 9th and the build up of the Anti-Semitic laws within Germany. He does not say how the SS and SA received there housebreaking tools or who gave them the tools and their orders; this leads

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