The overall impression of this source is that the Nazis were entirely to blame for the events of Kristallnacht, and the ordinary German people were innocent bystanders, ‘viewing the ruins and the violence’ in horror, powerless to argue with the Nazis. Being a primary source, written by a member of the American Consul from what he had seen himself, we are inclined to believe this account, because as an independent outsider, there was no pressure on him by the Nazi police force on what to say.
(c) When referring to those responsible for Anti-Semitic tension, Source D uses terms such as ‘the masses’, suggesting that any uprisings that could occur would be as a result of the ordinary German people, rather than the Nazi party’s influence. This completely contradicts Source C, which plainly states that ‘all of the local crowds were obviously horrified by the Nazis’ acts’. Thus, it leads us to question whether the account in Source C is wholly accurate, in labelling the Nazis as being entirely to blame for the mass slaughter of the Jews.
Source E uses the same style of language as in Source C, when describing the destruction of Kristallnacht. Contrasted to Source D, it suggests that the Nazi party was behind Kristallnacht, and that ‘most German people had nothing to do with these riots and burnings’. Similarly, Source C presents this same opinion; thus, here, Source E is supporting Source C. Further similarities are found when both sources blame the Nazi police force for the bulk of the damage of Kristallnacht; Source E says that ‘the police supplied SA men with axes’, and Source C that ‘the violence was carried out by SS men and Stormtroopers’. Consequently, by supporting Source C in this way, Source E is making it more likely that that source is accurate.
Source C clearly mocks the ‘so-called “spontaneous” action’, and instead holds the Nazi party completely to blame for the events of Kristallnacht. Source D undermines Source C by making the official line seem less true, and the spontaneous uprising of the people seem more possible; consequently, it makes the truth behind Source C seem less likely. However, this is contradicted by Source E, which validates the opinions raised in Source C, and thus makes its accuracy appear more likely.
(d) Although both Sources F and G are portraying the destruction of Kristallnacht, they differ in numerous ways. Their similarities lie in their illustrations of the mass devastation caused by the Nazi in the pictures. Both Nazis have death and destruction surrounding them, suggesting that the party members are bringers of misfortune and tragedy. In this way, both imply that what the Nazis are doing is not helping Germany, and consequently, both appear to be promoting Anti-Nazism.
In Source F, the cartoonist has chosen the old, traditional portrayal of a Nazi to demonstrate that the Nazi in the picture represents Nazis in general. The Nazi is being warned against his misconduct, and this evident recognition of Nazis’ sins from the slaughter of Kristallnacht demonstrates that the sympathy of the source is with the Jews. In contrast, the sympathy of Source G is with the Germans, as is shown by the helpless woman in the picture, who represents the German people. She is presented as entirely innocent, in the midst of all the corruption enveloping her, and in this way, the source is depicting the Germans as being blameless in the current situation. Instead, it is shown to be the Nazis who are responsible for the destruction, as demonstrated by the Nazi in the picture with a dead body beneath him.
Source F is clearly Anti-Nazi; similarly, the overall message of Source G is that the Nazi regime is attacking the nation; therefore, both sources convey the message that the Nazis are responsible for the ruins and desolation of Kristallnacht. However, the sources hold opposing views regarding whom is innocent in Germany. Source F is directing its commiseration towards the Jews, who are those lying dead in a heap on the floor; in contrast, Source G shows sympathy for the ordinary German citizens, who are powerless to stop the Nazis.
(e) In Sources H and I, there is some analytical agreement when referring to the wasteful destruction of Kristallnacht, suggesting that Goering’s account in Source H must have been truthful, for both sources to speak of it in the same way. This concurrence is found when Goering refers to how ‘destroying so much Jewish property of economic value’ was utterly unacceptable; this is supported by Hitler’s claim that those responsible for the destruction had been ‘like elephants in a china shop’, giving an impression of the scale of the damage caused.
Further similarities between the two sources are found when implying those responsible for causing Kristallnacht, because neither suggests that Hitler had officially organised it. However, in Source I, Hitler does not indicate who exactly was to blame, but just ambiguously says that ‘the people responsible have destroyed everything’, whereas in Source H, Goering is clearly placing the blame on Goebbels, and says that ‘Hitler made some apologies for Goebbels’, implying that Hitler, too, agreed that Goebbels was responsible for Kristallnacht. Since this is not entirely supported in Source I, we are thus left with some doubt as to whether Goering was actually telling the truth in Source H.
Before deciding whether Goering was telling the truth in Source H, we must look at the origin of both sources. In Source H, Goering is on trial after the war, and thus he has to defend himself with what he says. Consequently, he would not want to appear to have been in favour of Kristallnacht, and this suggests that he possibly lied in this account, to save his life. Also, it is possible that Goering might have been purposely blaming Goebbels, because of the on-going conflict between them as they fought for Hitler’s attention. Source I, too, has its limitations. It is a secondary source, and since the interview with Troost was carried out in 1971, long after the war, one has to question the reliability of her memory.
After analysing both sources, one can make the decision that to an extent, Source I proves that Goering was telling the truth in Source H, because it agrees about the wasteful damage caused on Kristallnacht, and that the Nazis were not to blame for these events. However, Source H insists that Goebbels was responsible for the mass destruction, whereas in Source I, Hitler does not confirm this. This leads us to see that publicly, Hitler did not want the Nazis to be seen as guilty for Kristallnacht, whereas in fact, ‘there was no doubting Hitler’s approval’ (Source A).
(f) ‘Kristallnacht was a spontaneous event by the German people’.
Source B agrees with the above quote, as is shown when the account states that any Anti-Semitic uprisings ‘were not to be organised by the Party, but neither were they to be discouraged if they started spontaneously’. Source D endorses this by mentioning that in the weeks preceding Kristallnacht, there had already been ‘signs of unrest amongst the masses’; here, the use of language suggests that the ordinary Germans were the ‘masses’ who would eventually become out of hand, and spontaneously start the great riots against the Jews. However, it is possible that the Jew writing this account wanted to see the uprisings as a result of the German people, rather than the Nazi party. Source B, too, has its limitations; it demonstrates that primary sources are not always useful, because in this case, it is likely that the secret account is untruthful, as the Nazis would not admit, even to themselves, that the attack on the Jews had been an officially organized party attack, and were instead attempting to distance themselves from the events of Kristallnacht.
Source I supports the above claim to an extent, as Hitler says ‘the people responsible have destroyed everything for me’, implying that Kristallnacht was as a result of ordinary German people impulsively rebelling against the Jews. However, as this is the image that Hitler wanted to project for these events, it is clear that by saying this, he was attempting to convince people that the Nazi party did not organise the uprisings, and thus, he might possibly have distorted the truth. Another limitation is the reliability of Frau Troost’s memory, as her conversation with Hitler was reported in 1971, long after the Second World War.
The image presented in Source G clearly disagrees with the above quote, as it presents the German people as powerless in the current circumstances, represented by an innocent woman, vulnerable in the midst of the corruption surrounding her. It contradicts the above claim to the extent that it even identifies the Nazis as being responsible for the events of Kristallnacht, suggested by a Nazi in the cartoon, raising his arm in victory while standing over a dead body, one whom he has evidently just slain. Source F presents the same image, but not quite as powerfully. It too disagrees with the quote, by showing the Nazis as being to blame, illustrated by a Nazi standing on a heap of debris and corpses. However, although it is Anti-Nazi, it is not entirely placing the Germans out of the blame, as no reference is made to their place in Kristallnacht.
Source H, too, has several ambiguities when deciding whether Kristallnacht was a spontaneous uprising by the Germans, or whether it was officially organised. In this source, Goering is blaming Goebbels for the occurrence of Kristallnacht; by holding another member of the Nazi party responsible, he is consequently taking the blame away from the ordinary Germans, and thus contradicting the above quote. However, Goering continues to say that Hitler ‘agreed that such events must not be allowed to take place’. This indicates that Hitler opposed the idea of Kristallnacht; hence, the Nazis could not have organised it, without authorization from Hitler, and as a result, it must have been the German people who caused the riots. Yet one must consider this source’s limitations before reaching a conclusion; Goering was on trial after the war, and thus he had to defend himself with what he said. Consequently, he would not want to appear in favour of Kristallnacht, and this suggests that he possibly lied in this account, to save his life.
Sources A, C and E clearly contradict the above claim; they state that the Nazis were fully to blame for the events of Kristallnacht, and that ‘most German people have nothing to do with these riots and burnings’ (Source E). Source A endorses in this belief by noting that ‘Hitler squealed with delight and slapped his thigh with enthusiasm’ on hearing of the mass attack being planned against the Jews, thus demonstrating his obvious approval of the imminent events. However, one has to take into account that Source A is a secondary source, and thus the historian’s summarisation might have somewhat distorted the truth. Furthermore, being written almost twenty years after Kristallnacht, Hesse’s memory of the events cannot still be very clear in his mind. Source E has fewer limitations; being an anonymous note, the writer could not have been charged for expressing these opinions, and thus would not have needed to conceal the truth. Source C, too, obviously counters the above quote, by mocking the ‘so-called “spontaneous” action’, and insisting that the Nazis were to blame. This eyewitness, primary source is very reliable because a foreigner, who had no pressure on him from the Nazis on what he could say, would not have altered the truth.
To reach a decision about whether ‘Kristallnacht was a spontaneous event by the German people’ or not, we must explore the reliability of each source, and the message each is attempting to convey. After closely analysing these sources, it is possible to conclude that although Sources B and D evidently support the above claim, the majority of the sources are either indecisive, or resolutely against it.
