Nazi Germany: Why did Kristallnacht take place

Richard O’Driscoll History Coursework

Nazi Germany: Why did Kristallnacht take place?

(a) Study sources A and B. Which of these two sources would a historian studying Kristallnacht find the more useful? (7)

Source A is a summary by an historian of Fritz Hesse’s account of the evening of 9th November. The source is about the dinner which the party leaders attended where Hesse recollected some important events between Goebbels and Hitler. In the source it describes that Hesse could hear Goebbels explaining to Hitler that he and the SA were planning a mass attack against Jewish shops and synagogues in a few hours time. Hesse also recalled Hitler’s delight of the subject;

‘Hitler squealed with delight and slapped his thigh with enthusiasm.’

Hesse wrote his account in 1954, and this is a summary produced of this, obviously at a later date. Hesse recollected this account, roughly sixteen years after the evening. This could have affected Hesse’s account in two ways. Sixteen years is a long time and he may have forgotten or misjudged some events that took place on the evening. Also within those sixteen years his views of the events may have changed which may have led him to invent his own details.

Also, a significant point to make in regard to what the historian has done is that it is a ‘summary’ of Hesse’s account and some important information may have been excluded from the source or details could have been lost or altered. Though, this is relatively unlikely, as it is an historian who produced this summary and what reason would an historian have, if any, of changing the reasoning behind an account. Therefore what we have to question is the reliability of Hesse’s original account.

Hesse’s account relies heavily on his recollection of conversations and actions some matters. Hesse was a journalist who worked for the Nazis and those who would assume that he would take the side of the Nazis and tell everyone that it was a spontaneous uprising of the German people would be wrong because he actually puts the blame on Goebells and the SA and also puts a bad impression of Hitler. From what Hesse heard it was Goebbels and the SA who were planning the attack, and to Hitler’s joyful approval. In the source it also states;

‘It was clear that Goebbels, who at the time was out of favour with Hitler, was trying to win back Hitler’s support.’

So Hesse infers that Goebells planned Kristallnacht and the SA executed the events of Kristallnacht on his orders and while Hitler was not part of the actual plan, he was nevertheless delighted by the events.

Hesse’s opinion therefore was that Goebbels was trying desperately to get back into Hitler’s good books. His thoughts seem sincere enough for a man who was at the dinner and one who was a key figure, as he worked for the Nazis. This obviously shows Hitler, Goebbels and the Nazis in a very bad light and there could be some reasons why he would do this. He could just be trying to show his opinion of the matter from what he had experienced or he could have been angry or disgusted with Hitler and the Nazis for various reasons. He could have been mistreated as a journalist, forced to lie to the public, for example, and in this case he would be biased for he is influenced by what has happened in the past and telling lies about the Nazis either in anger or revenge.

If Hesse is reliable it is an extremely useful source. It tells us that Goebells planned Kristallnacht and the SA executed the events, while Hitler was not part of the events but he was delighted nevertheless. Is this likely? Would Goebells, who was out of favour with Hitler at the time, plan such mass executions without him knowing. But he will know that Hitler is anti-Semitic. The Jews were one of the most inferior races in Hitler’s eyes and therefore executions of the kind would have pleased Hitler. Also, it was the Nazis who started anti-Semitic acts against the Jews. Denial of rights for Jews between 1933-1938 were numerous acts by the Nazis against the Jews. There were no events where the public had acted against the Jews in an anti-Semitic way. Therefore it is more likely that the Nazis did commit these events and it is highly possible, in my opinion that the SA did implement these acts on Goebells order.

For this source to be more useful we would need another witness who was at the evening who also heard what was said.

Source B is an extract from a secret report prepared by the Nazi Party Supreme Court after the events of Kristallnacht. This source talks about how the uprising had been initiated by the public where Jewish shops and synagogues had been demolished. The source explains how Dr Goebbels told the party on the evening of 9 November that there had been ‘anti-Jewish’ demonstrations. A significant point is how we see Hitler’s approval which I will ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

For this source to be more useful we would need another witness who was at the evening who also heard what was said.

This secret report was written after the events of Kristallnacht and so the events are going to be fresh and clear. It was prepared by the Nazi Party Supreme Court and so I would assume it would seek to exonerate and insinuate the Nazis position on these events that they were not to blame. The fact that it was prepared suggests that the Nazis prepared a source that would defend themselves if the blame was put on the Nazis for committing the horrific acts.

The view the Nazi court put forward is that the rioting was initiated and executed by the German people and yet they were not to be discouraged totally in the future in similar circumstances:

‘The Fuhrer, at Goebbels’ suggestion, had decided that such demonstrations were not to be organised by the party, but neither were they to be discouraged if they started spontaneously.’

The source infers that the Nazis did not organise or initiate these events but that the Nazis do not disagree with the moral behind these attacks. Hitler hated the Jews as I explained earlier and though he would not commit these events, he would not discourage them. The source infers that the German people initiated these attacks on the Jews but this is unlikely. It is the Nazis who had been denying the Jews of rights for five years and it is much more likely the Nazis did commit these acts.

Both source A and B write about the same dinner on the 9 November. Source A recalls Goebells telling Hitler that the SA had initiated attacks on the Jews but in source B it says that Goebells told the the party leaders that these events had been committed. Source A claims events prior to Kristallnacht and therefore is more reliable to source B which claims events after Kristallnacht. This is because source A claims about the events of which are to occur and so must be quite reliable. Source B claims events after Kritallnacht and therefore can change their story to defend their view.

Source B is quite limited because it is prepared by the Nazi court and so therefore is not going to put the blame on themselves. It is therefore very biased and is not very useful. Source A, on the other hand is more reliable to an historian studying Kristallnacht.

Study source C. What impression of Kristallnacht does source C give? Explain your answer. (6)

Source C is an account by David Buffman, the American Consul in Leipzig. He wrote this account at the time from what he had seen himself and from interviews he carried out. Firstly, David describes to us what the Nazi press claims as the origin of the shattering of shop windows as ‘a spontaneous wave of anger, as a result of the cowardly Jewish murder of von Roth in Paris.’ Ernst von Roth was an official for the German Embassy in Paris and the young Jew shot him dead on the basis of revenge for the mistreatment of his parents by the Nazis.

David goes on to say how even the local crowds were ‘horrified’ by the violence caused by the Nazis. He obviously believes that the Nazi press headline is out of order and unforgivable. This source is obviously accusing the Nazis of these acts but also that they were completely out of order even in the eyes of their own public.

David goes on to say how one reliable source told him that the violence was committed by SS men and Stormtroopers in no uniform; and also that there had been no attempts made to put out the fires of the ‘Jewish’ burning buildings. The source is completely challenging the morality of what the Nazis claimed

In conclusion to the source, David mocks the movement of male German Jews to concentration camps and totally disagrees with the acts by the Nazis towards the Jews;

‘The slightest sign of sympathy for the Jews from the public caused fury among the Nazis.’

The source is utterly demoralizes the Nazis by saying that these acts were completely shameful and ‘hideous.’ It says from the start that the shattering of these shop windows was there revenge for a murder of a German official by a Jew. Therefore they burnt synagogues and destroyed shops.

‘Is the murder committed by one Jewish person worth the retaliation of destroying Jewish homes, synagogues and businesses all over Germany?’

Doesn’t this rhetorical question sum up what the source is saying? I think so.

Study sources C, D and E. Do sources D and E make it more likely, that the account given in Source C is accurate?

Source D is a description of events in the weeks before Kristallnacht, written in November, 1938, by a German Jew. This Jew explains in the source that acts of terror against Jews were already being committed even before Kristallnacht.

‘Notices reading ‘Jews not wanted’ appeared in various shops and cinemas.’

This Jew also says how there had been signs of unrest amongst the masses. I assume he is regarding the masses as the public, though according to source C, SS men and Stormtroopers were carrying out violence and they were not in uniform. Source C and D agree that every attempt was being made to obliterate the German Jews, even before the events of Kristallnacht so that makes both of them more reliable.

Source D is a note sent on 12 November, 1938, to the British Consul in Cologne, Germany. It was signed ‘Civil Servant.’ In the source it again states that most of the German people have nothing to do with the plunderings of the Jewish shops and such. Like in source C the note says how the police supplied SA men with axes, housebreaking tools and ladders. These sources agree and so this makes the other information in source C more reliable.

Overall, both sources D and E make it more likely that the account given in source C is accurate for a lot of information in these two sources is matched by source C.

Study sources F and G. How similar are the messages of these two cartoons? Explain your answer with reference to the details of the cartoons.

Source F is a Cartoon about Kristallnacht, published in a Russian newspaper on 10 November, 1938. It shows Tsar Nicolas II speaking down to a German Nazi, I assume from heaven. Tsar Nicholas II had encouraged attacks against the Jews during his reign (1894-1917). He and his family were murdered by communists in 1918. It shows the Nazi looking up to Nicholas with a dagger dripping with blood and loads of other weapons around him. He has obviously committed something horrible to someone Jewish and Tsar Nicholas is saying to him, ‘Attacking the Jews did not do me any good my Fascist friend.’

The source was published on the day when the rioting began. The source has a message. Tsar Nicholas is advising the Nazis not to attack the Jews for it did not help him; he died for encouraging the attacks.

Source G is another cartoon about Kristallnacht, published in a British magazine on 30 November, 1938. In the picture we see a woman who is securely tied up, she represents the German people and we see a man dressed in uniform, representing the Nazis. The man in uniform has a person helpless on the floor that looks like he has just been beaten by the man in uniform as he has a bat-like weapon in his hand. The woman is tied up and she is trying to see what is happening.

We have to assume the person beaten on floor is a German Jew who has been beaten by the Nazis. The German people tied up are horrified and can just look on to these events. That is my perspective of this source, its shows the Nazis committing these horrifying acts to the Jews while the German people look on in agony.

Both sources are similar in a way as they show that the Nazis are causing this atrocity to the Jews. Source F in particular is stating that these attacks on Jews will not do the Nazis any good and maybe it is also saying that to treat the Jews in that way is wrong. In source G we see this atrocity committed by the Nazis to show them in a bad light and so that these acts are also wrong as they are affecting the German people also. Both sources show the Nazis are wrong but in a different way, as it will not benefit the Nazis and that you are killing innocent people and causing pain to your own public. As these are similar in what they want to achieve, they both achieve this in a different way and so they are not completely similar.

Study sources H and I. How far does Source I prove that Goering was telling the truth in Source H?

Source H is Goering’s account of a conversation with Hitler about Kristallnacht. Goering states that Goebbels was not responsible for the economy and that his disturbance towards the Jewish property has caused has given him difficult economic tasks to take care off. He says how Hitler made some apologies for Goebbels, but that he thought it should not take place.

This account from Goering was made during his trial for war crimes at Nuremberg in 1945-1946. Goering was in charge of Nazi rearmament policies.

Source I is a conversation recollected where Hitler is speaking to Frau Troost shortly after Kristallnacht. Frau Troost recollected this conversation in 1971. Hitler loved her husband’s architecture.

In this source we hear Hitler talking shamefully about the events of Kristallnacht. He says that the people who committed these things have destroyed everything for him and that he thought he was coming to an understanding with France; now that was out of the window.

We hear in both sources how Hitler disagrees with the events of Kristallnacht. In source H we hear Goering saying how Hitler ‘agreed that such events must not be allowed to take place.’ In source I Hitler talks shamefully about those who are responsible for the events. Goering blames the acts of devastation on Goebbels but Hitler in source I does not know who is responsible, whereas in source H Goebbels says how Hitler made some apologies for Goebbels mess. If we assume Hitler is telling truth to Frau he proves Goering’s words that he did not agree with the events but the two do not prove that the person responsible is Goebbels. Goering blames Goebbels but he has to blame someone and Hitler does not know who did it, therefore Goebbels is blaming the wrong man and lying. Therefore source I proves one thing and leaves another thing unproved. Therefore it proves Goering’s word to a half extent.

Study all the sources. ‘Kristallnacht was a spontaneous event by the German people.’ How far do these sources support this claim?

‘Kristallnacht was a spontaneous event of the German people.’

A source that does agree with this statement is source B. Source B is a secret report prepared by the Nazi Party Supreme Court after the events of Kristallnacht. This source suggests that the ‘anti-Jewish’ demonstrations had been committed by the German people. We know this as it states;

‘The Fuhrer, at Goebbels’ suggestion, had decided that such demonstrations were not to be organised by the party, but neither were they to be discouraged if they started spontaneously.’

This report was prepared to defend the Nazis against accusations that they had committed the events. The source is completely bias as they are protecting themselves. Another source which also agrees that the German people were to blame is source I. Source I is a conversation recollected where Hitler speaks to Frau Troost (the wife of one of his favourite architects) after the events of Kristallnacht. The conversation was recollected by Frau in 1971. Hitler states how ‘Kristallnacht was terrible.’ Hitler states that the people responsible have destroyed everything for him, obviously pointing to the public.

Though again this source lacks reliability for again it is bias. If it was him who ordered the events or even Goebbels he would not say it.

Two sources that disagree that the German people caused this rioting are sources E and F. Source E is a note sent on 12 November, 1938, to the British Consul in Cologne, Germany. It was signed, ‘A Civil servant.’ The source explains that most of the German people have nothing to do with these riots and burnings. It explains how the police supplied the SA men with the tools and the list of the names and addresses was given.

This source was supposedly written by a civil servant, someone working for the German government. The source explains that the German people were not the ones to be blamed. There is a good chance it is a civil servant and if it was it would be quite a useful source. Another source that agrees to the point that the German people were not to blame is source F.

The source is blaming the Nazis for causing the events and this if from an outside source. It is an opinion made by the Russian newspaper but seems quite a good one seeing that a former Russian Tsar did encourage attacks on Jews.

This source lacks any facts and so is quite useless. Though I believe sources E and F, which agree the German people were not to blame, provide more usefulness than sources B and I and therefore I conclude the sources dimly support the claim that ‘Kristallnacht was a spontaneous event by the German people.’

Nazi Germany: Why did Kristallnacht take place

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

Nazi Germany - Why did Kristallnacht take place? Source based work.

Why Did Kristallnacht Take Place.

Why did kristallnacht take place?

Source Investigation: Why did Kristallnacht take place?