3) How far do Sources C and D agree about the events surrounding the Reichstag Fire? Explain your answer.
Source C is a British cartoon while Source D is a book written by a Nazi. They both relate to the aftermath of the Reichstag Fire. While the two sources agree on some points, they differ on others.
First, both sources take the view that the Nazis were not behind the Reichstag fire. They both appear to agree that the Communists started the fire. Source C is titled “The Red Peril”. The Communists were often referred to with the color red. It also shows Hindenburg telling Hitler to take advantage of the unexpected opportunity. Hindenburg says “this is a heaven sent opportunity”, which shows the cartoonist does not think the Nazis planned the Reichstag Fire. Source D also blames the Communists, as the book is titled Armed Uprising and shows van der Lubbe on the cover. The author of the book has the view that the Communists started the Reichstag Fire and they were trying to disrupt the German government.
Second, the two sources agree that the Nazis reacted to the fire and took the opportunity to attack to increase their power. Source C shows Hitler holding Emergency Powers, and Hindenburg telling him that the Reichstag Fire has given him the perfect opportunity to increase his power. Source D is anti-Communist propaganda because it blames Lubbe and the Communists for the fire. It’s publication by a Nazi after the dire shows that the Nazis took the opportunity to attack the Communists and elevate their position still further.
On the other hand, the two Sources disagree about exactly how the Nazis reacted to the fire. In Source C, Hindenburg says to Hitler, “If you can’t be dictator now, you never will be”. The creator of Source C is of the opinion that Hitler took advantage of the Reichstag Fire to become a dictator. This is a negative view of the Nazi reaction, as the creator says Hitler was conniving and used the situation to help himself in a dishonest way. The creator of Source D is of the opinion that the burning of the Reichstag was a serious attack against the German government: an “uprising”. Since the author of Source D thinks the Fire was essentially an attack, the source does not condemn the Nazis in any way. While Source D does not specifically refer to how the Nazis reacted, it gives a more positive view of them, because it increases the magnitude of the Reichstag Fire. The Nazis were not taking advantage of the situation, but were responding appropriately to an act of war.
In conclusion, Sources C and D agree that the Nazis did not start the Reichstag Fire and that they took the opportunity to increase their power. They do not exactly agree about the way the Nazis reacted however, and this is because Source C is a British cartoon, while Source D is a sample of Nazi propaganda, and they have opposing loyalties.
4) Use Source D and your knowledge of the period to explain why the Nazis would want to publish a book like this one.
Source D is a book about the Reichstag Fire written shortly after the event by a Nazi. This automatically places it in the category of propaganda. The use of propaganda was an essential part of the Nazis’ success and appeal, because using books like Source D, they were able to spread their message and indoctrinate the German people.
Propaganda’s main use was used to indoctrinate people. At the time when Source D was published, shortly after the Reichstag Fire, the Nazis were preparing for an election. They needed to gain a majority in the Parliament so that the could pass the Enabling Law and gain complete power. This made it very important that they do well in the elections. Thus, a book like Source D presented the view that the Communists started the fire, and was meant to turn people away from the Communists and towards the Nazis. The title, “Armed Uprising”, suggests right away that the Communists were responsible for the fire and that they had attempted to take over the state. The reader sees the cover showing van der Lubbe and the burning Reichstag, and it looks like an attack on the German people by the Communists. A book like Source D does not mention the possibility of Nazi involvement, or that Lubbe was just used as a dupe, but molds public opinion against the Communists. Citizens would then be more likely to vote for the Nazis rather than the Communists.
Goebbels, the Propaganda Minister, used all types of media to saturate the public with Nazi ideas. The German people heard about German superiority on the radio, read about the evils of Communism in the newspapers, and learned to hate Jews through reading books. They were constantly surrounded by Nazi ideas, which made it possible for Hitler to gain and keep support. People did not have any other choices about what to think because the Nazi ideas were the only ones available. This was what the Nazis wanted because their goal was to create a totalitarian state.
Nazi propaganda could strike a blow to those that were considered enemies. Source D, for example, attacks the Communists and makes them look like enemies of the state. Nazi propaganda made the opposition look disreputable and made the German people turn against them. When the Nazis rewrote textbooks to make Jews the enemies in stories and exaggerated the German role in history, they were able to destroy their enemies’ reputations.
In conclusion, propaganda allowed the Nazis to control and indoctrinate their people. Source D is a good example of propaganda as it promotes anti-Communism and gives a biased, skewed view of the Reichstag Fire. At the time, the Nazis were still trying to gain power, so they used propaganda to attack the opposition and attract voters and support.
5) Do Sources E and G prove that Goring, (Source F) was telling lies? Explain your answer.
No, Sources E and G do not prove that Goring in Source F was telling lies. In history, the lack of evidence and the faults in human nature and memory make it very hard to prove anything conclusively, and this example is no exception.
Source F is a statement made by Goring at his trial in 1946. He says that it is “ridiculous” to claim that he started the fire. Source E is a statement made by General Franz Halder at his trial in 1946. He says that during Hitler’s birthday party, Goring boasted that he had set fire to the Reichstag. Finally, Source G is a “confession” of Karl Ernst, a leader of the SA, published after his death by the Communists.
First, there is doubt about the integrity of the authors of Sources E and G. General Halder’s statement in Source E was made during his war crimes trial. When one is on trial, with one’s life at risk, it is not impossible to lie to protect oneself. Halder would have wanted to place the blame on someone else, so that he would not make himself look any worse. Source G is supposedly written by Karl Ernst, but this is doubtful because it was published after his death, and by the Communists. If the author is not even alive to verify his confession or defend himself, the integrity of the source is questionable.
Second, there are some questionable statements made in both Sources E and G. In Source E, Halder says Goring shouted out in the middle of Hitler’s birthday lunch that he started the fire. This supposed confession comes from the memory of Halder, and could be a complete lie or be embellished. Also, it was a birthday party where the event occurred, and Goring may have said “for I set fire to it”, but he may have been drunk or not in his normal state of mind. In Source G, Ernst effectually takes the blame for the fire, but we do not know the context in which his “confession” was made. He says he and two members of the SA “set fire to the Reichstag”, but we don’t know if this confession was forced out of him, or whether he made it at all.
On the other hand, Goring in Source F was also on trial for his life, and so he may not have been telling the truth about the fire. Also, his testimony is very defensive, and he does not give an evidence or name another suspect who could have started the fire. General Halder, in Source E, is obviously a leader in the Nazi party, as he was being tried for war crimes, and so it is not impossible that he knows about Goring’s involvement. Also, Ernst in Source G suggests that Goring knew about the Fire, as he “suggested to Goring that we use the underground passage”. Even though the source is questionable, it still implicated Goring. Thus Sources E and G suggest that Goring was lying, but they do not prove it because their reliability is questionable.
- Do these three sources (H, I, and J) make it more or less likely that the Nazis planned the fire? Explain your answer.
Sources H, I and J do not conclusively implicate nor exonerate the Nazis concerning the Reichstag fire. However, the different sources do give some evidence about Nazi involvement.
Source H is an extract from a history book published in 1974. According to the source, “the measures that followed the Fire were not carefully planned”. This is contrary to usual Nazi behavior, where everything was carefully planned and coordinated. The fact that they were ‘using out-of-date lists” to arrest Communists, and they weren’t successful as claimed suggest the Nazis did not expect they would have this opportunity. This means that they were not involved in the Reichstag fire, and it was a complete surprise for them. Thus, the evidence in Source H makes it less likely that the Nazis planned the fire.
On the other hand, Sources I and J do not defend the Nazis. Instead they defend van der Lubbe. According to source I, which is also from a history book published in 1974, “it would have been impossible for any one man to set the building alight on this scale”. This defends van der Lubbe, saying it was impossible for him to have started the fire, especially as he was handicapped. This means that the fire was planned by a large organized group, such as the Communists or the Nazis. Thus Source I makes it possible that the Nazis started the Fire.
Source J is a photograph of the remains of the Reichstag after the fire. Even though the picture is not very clear, it is obvious that a large amount of damage was done. The picture makes it hard to believe that Lubbe acted alone and caused so much destruction. This Source also defends Lubbe and gives evidence that he could not have acted alone. Thus, Source J also points towards some organized body, which could possibly be the Nazis.
In conclusion, the three source H gives evidence to make it less likely that the Nazis planned the fire, while Source I and J make it more likely, even though they are less decisive.
7) Which interpretation is best supported by the evidence in these sources and your knowledge of the period? Explain your answer.
The second interpretation that the Reichstag Fire was started by the Nazis and van der Lubbe was used as a dupe is best supported by the evidence in the sources and by the situation at the time.
First, according to many of the sources, there is doubt about van der Lubbe’s involvement. According to Source A, the account by Rudolf Diels, a supporter of the Nazis, Lubbe was a madman who started the fire on his own. However, the information about Lubbe is not very believable. Diels says that Lubbe was carrying Communist pamphlets in his pockets, which is unlikely if he was really working with the Communists. Also, according to Source B, Lubbe confessed to starting the fire all by himself, but he is speaking at his trial after who knows what kind of interrogations and bullying. Source I says that it would have been extremely difficult for Lubbe to have started the fire all by himself, as he was both physically and mentally handicapped. Source J shows the enormous extent of the damage done to the Reichstag, which makes it even less likely that Lubbe was able to set fire to the building.
Second, many of the Sources provide evidence that the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire to gain control. This gives them a good reason to have started the fire themselves. According to Source C, which is a British cartoon, many people thought that the Nazis took advantage of the Reichstag Fire to take over the government. Source D shows that the Nazis are once again taking advantage of the situation to publish propaganda to attack the Communists.
Third, there is speculation within the Nazi party itself that certain members were involved. According to Source E, Goring apparently admitted to having started the fire at Hitler’s birthday. Goring in Source F defends himself against this accusation, but he is on trial for his life and may be just making a desperate attempt to protect himself. He does not offer any other potential In Source G, a leader of the SA apparently confesses to starting the Reichstag Fire.
Source G is the only Source that conclusively seeks to dismiss the notion of Nazi involvement, as it says that the Nazis did not plan the arrests of the Communists well, and they did not seem to be prepared for such a situation. Also, there is doubt about the reliability of some of the sources. For example, Source G, the confession of Karl Ernst, is very questionable because it is published by the Communists after his death.
The sources may not be completely reliable, but the situation at the time also suggests that the Nazis started the fire themselves. In 1933, Hitler was Chancellor of Germany, but he was not happy because he was heading a coalition government, and Nazis held only three of eleven Cabinet posts. Hitler wanted more power, and so he called for an election. His lust for power was made obvious by the Nazi violent political campaign where members of the SA broke up opposition meetings and attacked members of opposing parties. Hitler wanted to beat the Communists, so it was not unlikely that he would go so far as to have the Reichstag burnt down and conveniently blame his enemies. The Reichstag was the house of Parliament, and therefore stood for democracy, so Hitler would have felt no particular love for it.
Thus, according to the sources and the events of the period, it is more likely that the Nazis started the Reichstag Fire themselves in order to take emergency powers, and van der Lubbe did not act alone but was used by the Nazis.
- Use the sources and your knowledge of German history to explain why there has been so much disagreement over the Reichstag Fire.
It would seem that the destruction of an entire building, and a very important one at that, would be documented and understood; there would be no doubt about how it happened. This is not the case with the Reichstag building, and there is still to this day a great deal of disagreement about which party is really guilty.
First, there is a lack of clear documentation about the fire. It was a deeply politicized and controversial event, and there is a lack of unbiased, accurate information about it. At the time, Hitler’s position as Chancellor allowed him to control the media. His Propaganda Minister, Goebbels, would have been able to restrict what information was released about the details of the fire, meaning that the reports that exist are not trustworthy.
Within the ten sources given there are many contradictions and disagreements. First, the head of the political police, Diels in Source A, believes that van der Lubbe was a madman and acted alone. Van der Lubbe in Source B says that he started the fire, and agrees with the account in Source A. According to the Sources I and J, it was impossible for Lubbe to have started the fire on his own because of the extent of the damage and Lubbe’s own limitations.
On the other hand, the book in Source D blames the Communists, as does Source H, which says the Nazis had no part in the fire but just reacted to a Communist threat. General Halder in Source E blames Goring, and Karl Ernst’s “confession” implicates the SA and Goring. However, according to Goring’s testimony in Source F, he could not possibly be blamed.
With so many conflicting views, it is impossible to find the real culprit. To make it worse, the accuracy of many of the sources is suspect. In many cases the accounts may be biased or inaccurate. For example, Source E is testimony by General Halder, but he is giving evidence at a trial where his life is on stake, so there is a high probability that he is not telling the truth, or is just trying to hoist the blame on someone else.
The events of the time confuse the Reichstag Fire even more. Both the Communists and the Nazis had motives to burn down the Reichstag, as both has power, but not as much as they wanted. The Communists had won 89 seats in the 1932 elections, making them a significant party. Hitler was Chancellor, and the Nazi party was the largest party in the Reichstag. Both groups wanted to gain complete power, so the Communists may have wanted to burn down the Reichstag, while the Nazis would have wanted to do it so they could blame the Communists and use it as a reason to wipe them out.
The Nazis found it convenient to associate van der Lubbe with the Communists and to execute him and attack the party, but there were still suspicions. As the cartoon in Source C states, the fire was very convenient for the Nazis. However the cartoon is a British source, and may just be a biased foreign attack on Nazi Germany. For these reasons, the question of who really started the Reichstag Fire remains unanswered, even though there are many hypotheses.
