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 watch out for the communists.
In conclusion, both sources show that the Nazis are exploiting the situation. They used the Reichstag Fire as a reason to get rid of the communist party so that they have less opposition. Source C shows what Hitler’s plans are and source D was to make the people think that communism is dangerous. Together, the two sources agree that Hitler made full use of the Reichstag Fire situation.
4) Study Source D.
Use the source and your knowledge of the period to explain why the Nazis would want to publish a book like this one.
The Nazis would want to publish a book like this because it is propaganda and it could change people’s opinion on the communist party. Up until 27th of February in 1933, one of Hitler’s tasks was to get rid of his oppositions. The radical parties (Nazis and Communists) were getting the most votes after the many failures of the Weimar government. Hitler did not want competition with his own party. Therefore, he wanted to get rid of the communist party. The election results of November 1932 show that Hitler has not managed to gain 50% of the Reichstag seats. He had only 196 seats in the Reichstag, which was only 20.4% of the whole seats. The communists have 100 seats, which was 16.9% of the whole Reichstag seats. Hitler had to have 50% of the seats if he wanted total control over Germany. Therefore, he had to get rid of the communists. He did this by blaming van der Lubbe and his communist friends for setting the fire off. Van der Lubbe admitted that he was the only one who set the fire. But then, there isn’t very clear evidence up until now if van der Lubbe really was the criminal or did the Nazis use him. He could have been tortured by the Nazis so that he’d admit the blame. After all, the Nazis wanted to get rid of the communist party. Therefore, if van der Lubbe admitted the blame, the Nazis could use that as an excuse to ban the party. Also, Nazis feared the rise of the communist. The USSR was beginning to expand to the west and east to spread their communist ideas during 1930s. Hitler was afraid that people would prefer the communists rather than the Nazi party. He wanted to make sure that his opposition was gone.
Another event that might scare the Nazis was the Spartacist Uprising in 1919. The Spartacists party name was later changed to the Communisty Party of Germany (KPD). This uprising was also known as the January Uprising. It was a general strike that happened from the 5th of January to January 20th 1919. The KPD tried to take control of Berlin during. Obviously, Hitler was afraid that the KPD might have plans to conduct another putsch. Therefore, he created a book like shown in Source D to make people not support the communists.
The book was to emphasize to blame even more so that the people of Germany would be more convinced that the communists were the ones who started the fire. If Hitler managed to get rid of the communist party, which he did later on, then he’d have more votes in the Reichstag and he is one step closer towards the fuhrer title.
5) Study Sources E, F, and G.
Do sources E and G prove that Goering (Source F) was telling lies?
Source E and G prove that Source F was not true. Sources E and G both state that Goering was highly involved with plotting the Reichstag Fire. However, we must look beyond the text to evaluate whether the sources are purely true. Source E was General Franz Halder giving evidence at Nuremberg Trials of 1946. Therefore, his purpose was probably to impress the judges to not have him being sent to jail. Therefore, he probably altered or totally changed the evidence he gave. Also, Franz Halder’s past might have made him want have a revenge on Hitler. After the July 20 bomb plot, Hitler himself accused Halder of being a part of the plan. He was then arrested by the Gestapo and soon sent to the concentration camp. Halder claimed that he was not involved with the plot at all. If what he said was true and if Hitler was still alive in 1946, then it’s not surprising that he’d want revenge on Hitler.
Source G was a confession from Karl Ernst of the SA. At first, we might think that a primary source from a SA member himself will be very good reliable evidence. However, the Communists published this confession in 1934 after Ernst was killed in Night of the Long Knives, 30 June 1934. This could be another propaganda made by the communists to make people think that Goering and other Nazis planned the Fire. In fact, Ernst might not even write this source at all. The communist might have just made it up. They’d use Karl Ernst’s name because he’s dead. This would not cause complications. If he was alive, then he might object writing the source and the communist would be caught lying. If people knew the Nazis were the ones who caused the fire, they would not want to support the party and the communists will be the ones who seem ‘heroic’. It shows that the propaganda could be used to have the communists party enabled in Germany again after it was banned in March 1933.
Source F was Goering giving his thoughts in his trial in Nuremberg. Even if he did start the Reichstag Fire, he would not reveal it to the judges unless he was tortured. Goering would also try to cover up what he did so that he won’t be punished severely. This shows why the information he gave could not be trusted. In fact, Source E and F are like ‘competitors’. Source E states Goering was the mastermind whereas Source F states that Halder’s evidence was not true. When we have two sources that disagree with each other, it means that we couldn’t trust both sources. We will need more evidence in order to determine which is right. Perhaps, both sources could also be wrong. For example, Source G mentioned Karl Ernst and two SA men set the fire (not Halder nor Goering). It only stated that Ernst suggested Goering to use the underground passage. Obviously, none of these sources could be trusted and we could not determine whether or not Goering was telling lies.
6) Study Sources H, I, and J.
Do these three sources make it more or less likely that the Nazis planned the Fire? Explain your answer.
Source H was from a history book in 1974. Basically, Source H states that the Nazi party had hoped to knock down the Communist party after the elections in order for them to gain 50% of the Reichstag seats. The Nazis needed to blame the communists because they thought the fire was a communist uprising and they were afraid. The Source does not make it seem that the Nazis planned the Fire. However, it the message was not that frank as Source I.
Source I clearly shows that it was blaming the Nazis for the plan of the fire. The Source mentioned that Lubbe did not have an idea of what the Reichstag building was like and that he was mentally and physically handicapped. It shows that van der Lubbe is incapable of setting the fire on his own. The source made it seem that the Nazis were being unreasonable. However, we still could not trust both Sources H and I. Both sources were not a primary source. The historian who wrote the book was not present when the evidence was given out. The historian would probably compile many sources together and make his own judgment out of it. Also, he might also be reading or hearing sources that are inaccurate of biased. This makes the source unreliable. The writer of Source I would not know whether or not Lubbe really know the Reichstag building. The writer could not read through Lubbe’s mind. Therefore, the Source is inaccurate. Another factor that would affect the two sources is because it’s published in 1974. The sources were written after the war in which the historians might have developed hatred to the Nazis and they would want to put the blame to them as much as possible.
Unlike Sources H and I, Source J is more accurate. This was a photograph of the remaining Reichstag building right after the event occurred. Obviously, there was not any image editing software back then, so the picture would not be false information. Although we could trust this source, Source J does not give evidence whether the Nazis or the Communists planned the Fire. However, it does support Source I. The damage in the picture was severe and it showed that van der Lubbe would not have been able to do the severe damage in a short time.
Overall, two of the sources are unreliable and one is reliable. The unreliable ones make it seem more likely that the Nazis planned the fire out. And the reliable source is neutral. But, all three sources together make it seem the Nazis set the fire out. Even though Source J is neutral, it still backs Source I up. 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. Therefore, there are more evidence that the Nazis planned out the Reichstag Fire. However, the sources are inaccurate and other contradicting evidence make it hard to decide whether or not the Nazis planned the fire.
7) Study the following interpretations of the Reichstag Fire.
(i) Van der Lubbe was a madman, and he set fire to ther Reichstag all by himself, but the Nazis genuinely believed the fire was the start of a Communist uprising.
(ii) The Reichstag Fire was started by the Nazis to give them an excuse to take emergency powers and lock up or kill the Communists. 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. He was found half naked in a burning shirt running across the corridors of the building. This was when the Reichstag officials caught him. There was a clear proof that Lubbe was seen ‘half-burned’. The source claimed that with a burning shirt, it is much easier to set a big fire. After all, the Reichstag building was filled with wooden walls and big curtains which all are conductors of fire. Diels also claimed that Lubbe had confessed that he started smaller fires in Berlin. This makes people believe the fact that if Lubbe was familiar with starting fires, then it would be easy for him to put a big building in fire. Lubbe still considers him as a communist. Therefore, if only this source was used, then everyone would have believed the communists started the fire.
Source B was a primary confession of van der Lubbe at his trial. Even though he stated ‘I set fire to the Reichstag all by my self’, we could not tell if he was telling the truth. Moments after the Fire, Lubbe was taken by the Gestapo for torturing. In the end, Lubbe confessed that he set the fire but denied that he is part of the communist’s secret plan to overthrow the Nazis. Usually people would just believe a primary statement like this. But, because the Nazis are famous for torturing, we could not say whether this statement is true or not. But then, if it is true, it partly supports quote i because it supports the statement of Lubbe starting the fire but not the fact that it was a communist uprising.
Source D is propaganda. The title ‘Armed Uprising’ means to watch out for the communist’s rise. It is like a warning to not follow them. The book is trying to convince the readers that van der Lubbe was the one who set the fire. This is why the Nazi author put him on the cover along with the fire. This could be proven because Hitler referred the fire as the “Communist Putsch”. He used it to symbolize the signal of communist rise. Because the book shows that the communist is rising, it backed up evidence for quote i.
Different from quote i, quote ii has more supporting evidence from the sources. Source C, E, G, I, and J all support quote ii. Source C shows that Hitler was thinking to become dictator when the fire occurred. The source made it seem that Hitler had planned it all from the beginning. Even though the information might be exaggerated, it is actually true. Hitler was infuriated with the outcome of the Leipzig trials. He seemed that he wanted more communists to be executed. Instead, many that were brought to into the trial were released or expelled to the Soviet Union where many received a heroic welcome. Obviously, the Nazis had already thought of expelling the communists by exploiting the Reichstag Fire situation.
Source E was Franz Halder hearing Goering’s own words. Goering said, “The only one who really knows about the Reichstag building is I, for I set fire to it.” After he said that, Goering slapped his thigh. This is a sign that he accidentally confessed something that shouldn’t be shared. However, this source isn’t reliable. Halder said this when he was at his trials. He would try to impress the judges to lighten his charges. Therefore, the information given might not be true at all. But then, judging without looking at the provenance, the source supports the fact that Nazis were the masterminds.
Source G proved that Karl Ernst and Goering planned to start the fire at around 9pm. They planned to use Lubbe while the SA set the fire. It is true that the fire started blazing at 9.15pm and Lubbe was the person who was caught by the officials. This shows that this source proves quote ii to be true. The Nazis were using Lubbe for distraction so that the 2 SA men won’t be seen. However, the communist published this source. Therefore, the information is most likely propaganda and inaccurate.
Source I is from a history book in 1974. This means the facts written down are probably historians making their own judgment of the sources they had. Source I clearly states that it’s impossible to set a fire in a building that big on his own. Also, Lubbe was mentally and physically handicapped. This makes it even more impossible for him to set the fire by himself. To back Source I up, Source J shows how badly destroyed the Reichstag building was. Source J proves that no one man could create such a severe damage on his own. Other than that, Source J is very accurate, as the photograph wouldn’t be edited on computers. Clearly, Source I and J prove that the communist could not have planned all of the fire by only using one man. If the communist were not the mastermind, then it’s mostly like that the Nazis were.
To support quote ii furthermore, Georgi Dimitrov, a Bulgarian communist leader, proved to Goering that the Reichstag officials did not collect any membership card of the communist party that belonged to Lubbe when Goering claimed that he had Lubbe’s passport and communist identity card when he spoke on the 28th of February. Without Lubbe’s communist identity card, the Nazis could not fully prove that Lubbe is a communist.
In conclusion, it is clear that the judgement of Lubbe being used by the Nazis and that Reichstag Fire situation was exploited is best supported. Quote ii includes 2 proofs that are reliable (Source C and J) whereas quote i do not have any. The fact that a communist was caught on-the-spot in the place of incident made many people believe that the fire was a communist act is a strong evidence. However, common people don’t think the fact that the Nazis could’ve used Lubbe as part of their plan. This also applies to many of the sources given. There aren’t dependable proofs to prove that a source is accurate. It is the historian’s decision to look at the provenance and to decide whether or not the source is accurate. Because quote ii is supported with many dependable sources, then obviously it’s more likely that the Nazis were the group behind the event.
8) Use the sources and your knowledge of German history to explain why there has been so much disagreement over the Reichstag Fire.
The reason why there are many disagreements over the Reichstag Fire is because the given sources are untrustworthy. For example, even though Source A was a primary source, it was written after WWII. The information given is most likely slightly altered. Ending up in jail is not what Diels would want. Therefore, he’d try creating an innocent impression to the judges at the Nuremberg Trials of 1946. However, he must make himself too innocent. If he did, then the judges won’t believe him because they’ll know he must have altered the information.
Source B was van der Lubbe’s quotation during his trial in 1933. It is most likely that van der Lubbe was tortured beforehand to admit that he and his communist friends started the fire. After all, the Nazis were famous for their torture. The Nazis would want him to admit the blame so that the party could ban the communists. Van der Lubbe’s speech has a big chance of being lie because the answers were forced out of his mouth not from his heart.
Even when there is a source that did not originate from the Nazis, the source is still probably biased. For example, Source C was from a British magazine called Punch. The British did not like the Germans. Therefore, the source is exaggerated especially when the cartoon is from a magazine full of satire. From the use of contextual knowledge, we can tell that this source is actually quite accurate except for the fact that Hindenburg did not say it to Hitler. Hitler wanted to get rid of his opposition ever since he wanted to become a dictator. We can tell that he has gained more support through his election results. He had only 230 seats in the July 1932 elections and he had 288 seats in the 1933 elections. The cartoonist only used Hindenburg as person to make Hitler’s thoughts clear to the audience. Source C also agrees with Source D. Source D supports the fact that the communist are dangerous and they need to be banned. This makes Source C seem more accurate which is good. Both sources show that the Nazis exploit the situation. The Nazis are making full use of the Reichstag Fire to help them rise in power.
Some sources may have back up from other sources and other facts. But, there are sources that seem to make sense at first but when some other sources come in, it could disagree with the accurate source. This makes people confused of which to believe. Sources E and F disagree with each other. Source E states the fact that Goering was the mastermind of the Reichstag Fire. But then Source F states that the origin of Source E, which was Franz Halder, was telling lies. Both sources are inaccurate. Source E was when General Franz Halder was trying to impress the judges at the Nuremberg Trials. His information is probably inaccurate. Source F was when Goering was giving his talk to the judges at the Nuremberg Trials. He was also trying to cover up for he actually did. This means that historians could not fully trust the source. But then, when the two sources disagree, then it means that there is more confusion.
Other than confusion, there are also propagandas. The Nazis published Source D. The book could have changed people’s opinion on the communist party. Hitler had only have 20.4% of the whole Reichstag seats in the November 1932 elections. He needed 50% of the seats in order to gain total control. The book was to emphasize the blame on van der Lubbe and the communists. This is to make the people of Germany more convinced that the communists were the ones who started the fire. Then Hitler could ban the communist party when van der Lubbe is proven guilty.
Also, an event that happened right after World War II made some of these sources unreliable. This event was the Cold War. The Cold War was a ‘war of words’ between the communists and the democrats. USSR and the communist party was seen as the enemy in this war. In Source A, Rudolf Diels wrote the account after WWII. This meant that he was writing during the Cold War. Germany was split into Western Germany (democratic) and Eastern Germany (communist) in 1945. The Nuremberg trials were held in the democratic part of Germany. Therefore, Diels would write his account in a point of view where it would support the democrats to please the judges. The Cold War caused some sources to turn inaccurate. This means that there is another untrustworthy source. It makes it harder for historians to draw conclusion on who started the fire.
As you can see, it’s hard to choose which of the sources should we trust. Most of them are all propagandas or biased. Modern historians are also confused by with what modern history books have to say. There are not enough reliable results to prove that the communists or the Nazis were the ones who planned the fire. We don’t even know whether van der Lubbe might have wanted to get the communists into trouble. There are no exact proofs and evidence to prove a statement. Therefore, much disagreement over the Reichstag Fire issue is due to the unreliable and clashing sources from the past.