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

Authors Avatar

Michelle Koesnadi        IGCSE History Coursework – Assignment B        Mr. Boyd

1) Study Sources A and B.
How far is the account in Source A supported by Source B? Explain you answer.

        Source B supports only some points made in Source A’s account. Source A suggested that van der Lubbe and a couple of other communists was involved in the Reichstag fire and in starting other smaller fires in Berlin. However, in Source B, van der Lubbe only mentioned that he was the only one that planned to set the Reichstag fire. He said, “I can only repeat that I set fire to the Reichstag all by my self.” This shows that Source B does support some of the points made in Source A.

        However, when the writer of Source A, Rudolf Diels, interviewed van der Lubbe, he sort of believed that Lubbe could have acted on his own. Diels thought that starting fire is an easy job. Just by putting fire to the heavy curtains or furniture, then a big fire would come out. This was what Rudolf Diels thought when van der Lubbe was making his confessions and this thoughts of him could be proven by Source B. Source B stated that Lubbe set the fire on his own. No other communists helped him even though some communists were brought into court with him. The two justifications above both show that Source B only supports Source A by the fact that van der Lubbe started the Reichstag Fire on his own not with other communists.

        Even though Source B seemed to support Source A at first, we still don’t know if the things said in the sources are true. We must analyze the provenance as well. Source A was written after WWII, so the information might be slightly altered. Diels would not want to end up in jail. Therefore, he’d try to make himself seem innocent but not too innocent. If he seemed too innocent, then the judges won’t believe him. Source B was a quote from van der Lubbe’s trial in 1933. Van der Lubbe was probably tortured to say what the Nazis wanted, which was admit that van der Lubbe and his communist friends started the fire. This shows that both sources are suited to what the audience wants to hear. Source A was to be suited to the judges at the Nuremberg Trials of 1945-47 and Source B was to fulfill what the Nazis wanted to hear. Therefore, both sources are inaccurate and they are not what they seem to be.

2) Study Source A.
How reliable is this account? Explain your answer.

        When Diels wrote this account, it was after World War II. Because of this, the source is most likely inaccurate. After the war ended, another war started right away. This was the Cold War. The democratic powers (USA, Britain and France) were fighting ‘a war of words’ with the communist (USSR). From 1945 to 1989, Germany was split into Western democratic Germany and Eastern communist Germany. The Nuremberg trials were held in the democratic part of Germany. Naturally, Diels would want to avoid being arrested. Therefore, he’d try to make his account as ‘pro-democrat’ as possible. The democrats do not like communists, so Diels would not want to get on the democrats’ bad side making him being sent to jail. This is one of the reasons why his account might be altered, making it unreliable, in order to keep himself alive.

        Another reason the judges could use to get him into jail is that he was one of the top Nazis to be prosecuted. Rudolf Diels was Göring’s protégé. Therefore, he’d try to protect Göring so that Göring could protect him back. His account did not criticize Göring much. It only said, “Göring then shouted out the order to me: ‘Police on an emergency footing; shoot to kill.’” Because Diels did not want Göring to go to jail, he probably wrote the account with only the less-cruel deeds Göring did. This is another reason of why the account might not be fully honest. Therefore making it undependable.

        Also, Rudolf Diels would want the judges to believe in what he had to say. For the judges to believe in what he wrote, he would tone down his views so that he doesn’t seem too ambitious but not too unsupportive of the Nazi party either. If he was being too ambitious, then the judges would know that he exaggerated the good facts and minimally write the negative ones. Obviously, Diels won’t be trusted for what he wrote. But, if Diels tried to be anti-Nazi, he would be mistrusted as well. As a result, the point of view of the account Diels put himself into may not represent of what he truly believes. Clearly, Source A is not a very reliable source due to the circumstances Rudolf Diels was in.

3) Study Sources C and D.
How far do Sources C and D agree about the events surrounding the Reichstag Fire? Explain your answer.

Both sources agree with each other because both sources show the communist downfall helped Hitler’s rise to power. Source C is a British cartoon from a magazine of satire, Punch. Because of this, the situation is most likely exaggerated. The source is titled ‘The Red Peril’ and there is the Reichstag building burned in the background. This probably means the communist uprising is a threat to the Nazi party and they are the ones who started the fire. The man beside Hitler (Hindenburg) is saying to Hitler that this is the perfect moment for him to become dictator. Hitler could have blamed the communist for starting the fire. Then, he could get rid of them easily. The source states that Hindenburg is saying it, but the cartoonist is only using Hindenburg as a character to show what Hitler thinks. The things that were said in the cartoon were actually Hitler’s thoughts not Hindenburg’s. Hindenburg didn’t advised Hitler to use the situation to become dictator. Actually, Hindenburg did not even want Hitler to be chancellor.

Join now!

Source D is a book that also shows the Reichstag Fire in the background. The book is showing that van der Lubbe and other communists are the one who set the fire off causing a ‘communist armed uprising’. The cover was propaganda for the people of Germany as a Nazi wrote it. It was trying to convince people that the communists were the ones who started the fire. The title ‘Armed Uprising’ could also mean that the communists are competing for power with the Nazis by building their army. As a result, it created a warning to the citizens to ...

This is a preview of the whole essay