Sources A and B. Which of these two sources would an historian studying Kristallnacht find the more useful ?Fritz Hesse a journalist who worked for the Nazi Party wrote source A.

Hesse worked for the Nazi Party, and could have been present during this meeting, which would make him a first hand witness, thereon making the source primary. Furthermore, the source was written after the War, so he would have been uncensored, as he didn’t have the worry of being sent to a concentration camp. Although, Hesse may have been moving himself away from the Nazi’s by showing Hitler and the Nazi’s in a bad position.  

What’s more, Goebbels knew that an Anti –Semitic attack would please Hitler. It is also true that Goebbels was ‘out of favour with Hitler’, at this time, because he had a public affair with a rebellious actress, and Hitler was not happy. From this it is clear that Goebbels was ‘trying to win back Hitler’s support’.  

Source B is an extract from a secret report prepared by the Nazi Supreme Court, after the events of Kristallnacht. The source explains how Goebbels told the party on the evening of 9 November that there had been ‘ anti Jewish demonstrations in parts of Munich, during which Jewish shops had been demolished’. It had apparently been decided that ‘such demonstrations were not to be organised by the party, but neither were they to be discouraged if started spontaneously’. Therefore saying that it was a spontaneous attack.

In addiction, Source B is from a ‘secret report’, indicating its significant historical importance. Also, due to the fact that this was an internal Nazi report, it was not for public viewing, and this would hence supposedly that it would not conceal the truth. On the contrary, it is obvious that the source is heavily one sided, stating that ‘such demonstrations were not to be organised by the party’; when we know that in fact this statement was absolutely untrue. In this way, it was clear that the Nazi’s themselves would not even admit that the attacks on the Jews had officially been organised by the party itself, and were instead the Nazi’s were trying to distance themselves from the event of Kristallnacht altogether.

To conclude, both sources A and B show Nazi support for the events of Kristallnacht. When a historian investigates source B, they would have to consider that although it has more of a political purpose hat source A, it was clearly written to make the mass genocide seem a spontaneous uprising of the German people. Thus, a historian would find source A, more useful because I does not appear to have been written for any particular purpose other than to disclose the truth. This in my opinion would no make the source subjective, because it is explain the facts as they are.