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

How does source I prove that Goering was telling the truth in source H?

Extracts from this document...


How does source I prove that Goering was telling the truth in source H? Source H is Goering's account of a conversation with Hitler regarding Kristallnacht. In this account Goering claims that Goebbels planned Kristallnacht, continuing he implies that Hitler was against Kristallnacht. Goering claims that he himself disapproved of the event due to materialistic reasons saying "it is not acceptable that he upset my difficult economic tasks" this seems a plausible reason for Goering to show contempt for Kristallnacht. Goering defends Hitler's integrity "Hitler made some apologies" suggesting Hitler knew that Goebbels had planned it and felt some guilt for his associate's acts however Goering continues and distances Hitler from the event by saying "on the whole he agreed that such events should not take place" thus directing all of the blame on to Goebbels. ...read more.


Goering's account was taken whilst he was on trial for war crimes, this results in a higher probability that Goering would fabricate his responses to make it look like he was innocent therefore a lot of what he says is unlikely to be truthful; most of the people involved with Kristallnacht were dead so nothing could be contradicted by any of his associates; this was extremely advantageous to Goering. Source I disagrees with my own knowledge of Kristallnacht and the numerous more reliable sources such as A, C and E which suggest that the Nazis carried out the attacks. Frau Troost was interviewed many years after her conversation with Hitler so it seems implausible that she would remember everything about the conversation unless she had written it down. ...read more.


It seems likely that he would also lie about whether or not he knew who was responsible for Kristallnacht and indeed if he was annoyed about it. I have come to the conclusion that source I doesn't prove that Goering's account is truthful as there are some discrepancies between the sources for instance Hitler knew who was responsible for Kristallnacht in source H where as in source I Hitler seems unbeknownst to this fact. Also source H seems more reliable as it corresponds with my own knowledge of Kristallnacht although obviously there will be some equivocation as he was on trial at the time. Although source I does not prove that Source H is truthful I think that it does go so far as making it more plausible that Hitler had a negative reaction towards Kristallnacht. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...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 History Projects 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 History Projects essays

  1. Elizabethen Source Investigation

    Women usually worked and, 'supervised by men,' suggesting that, women were not capable of working without a person sitting next to them. 'We daren't talk and we daren't laugh. If we laughed or if we talked we had to leave off.'

  2. History source 2003

    However by itself, the source only suggests that the Munch Putsch was not a failure, it does not prove it. b) At the time, Hitler had not come to power, but was drumming up support and converting Germans to Nazism whilst trying to worm his way into power.

  1. How far does source I prove that Goering was telling the truth in

    He goes on to tell us that even Hitler was not happy about the events of kristallnacht, and that he agreed that an event like this must not be allowed to take place again. Goering blamed Goebbles for the events of Kristallnacht, but he simply could have been trying to

  2. To what extent has the truth about the Spanish Inquisition been distorted?

    Despite this, it can be seen that if so many of the 'Major heretics' had not been executed in the Inquisition's early years, its primary role might have continued in attempting to eliminate the conversos and Protestants. This may also have been the case if 150,000 of the Jewish population

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