Source B gives the impression that Hitler didn’t need to use violence to get to the position he was in. However source A quotes that Hitler,
“Elbowed his way through the crowd.” Then a little after this quote, “the hall was thrown into the wildest commotion”
This backs up my point that both sources show different ways of Hitler getting to the speaking position. Although both sources show Hitler in control they infer that he got there by different means, Source a by violence and Source B by respect.
2b.
Sources A and B give a lot of different impressions of the Munich putsch, which I have explained in the previous question. There are reasons why these differences in inferences are here.
One reason is that the natures of the sources are completely different. Source A is an eyewitness account, whereas Source B is an official Nazi painting. This gives the impression that the eyewitness account is the most likely source to be true because it was actually written by someone that was present at the Burgerbraukeller. Source B gives the impression that it is a biased sources that has been influenced by the nazi party to make Hitler look like a non-violent person and a respectful man.
Another reason why the sources infer different things could be related to the purpose of the sources. Source B infers that Hitler was a calm, kind man. This is the total opposite of the inferences that can be taken from sources A. This could be because source B was drawn by an official Nazi party artist, who was probably paid to paint the picture to glorify Hitler and the nazis. Although this could be said as a reason why source B portrays Hitler as such a respected man the same could be said about the purposes of source A. Source A was written by a member of the Nazi party who left them and left Germany in the 1930’s. Although the writer was a member of the nazi party, he left for unknown reasons. These reasons could have been because of Hitler’s behaviour and attitudes towards others. If so then the writer could have stretched the truth a bit to make Hitler look bad. Source A infers that Hitler was a bad man who had no respect for others. The writer could have also thought that people would automatically believe his statement because he was an eyewitness and he made his story sound believable.
I think that the creators have both stretched the truth in their interpretations of events. They have both stretched opposite ways to make the sources totally different from on another. To explain my theory I have put the sources on a scale of one to ten of Hitler’s integrity and personality, one being the bad end. Using this scale, source A is a one whereas source B is a ten. My inferences from both of the sources give me the impression that Hitler was around about a four on the scale.
I suspect that both of these sources put together might create inferences that are closer to the truth than each of the sources separately.
3.
Sources C and D are both useful in helping me to understand the events in Munich on the 8th November 1923. Although they are both useful they are both useful in different ways because they are different types of sources; for example source C is a table of the bill given to the nazi’s whereas source D is a written extract of Hitler’s speech.
Source C is a good source for finding out some of what happened at the putsch. It is good because it is a bill for the Munich putsch. It shows that there were 800 meals and 2372 pints of beer consumed. These figures give that a lot of alcohol was drunk and me an idea of approximately how many people were there. Source D says the hall was “occupied by 600 heavily armed men”. This indicates that a lot of people were drunk therefore many of them were not thinking as well as they could have been as they were armed. It shows that there was a lot of damage caused in the Burgerbraukeller. There were 143 tankards, 98 chairs and 2 music stands broken. This gives the impression of a violent atmosphere. This could have been because of the commotion described in source A, or as a result of the beer that was consumed. It also shows that not everyone was involved because if the number of meals is compared to the amount broken there is a big difference in numbers. Source C also shows what kind of people the nazi’s were because it shows that 148 sets of cutlery were stolen.
Source D is an extract from Hitler’s speech that night at the Burgerbraukeller. This source is useful as it infers some of the possible things that Hitler was thinking during this speech. Most of Hitler’s speech was lies because he wanted to make people believe things that he hoped were true, for example he said,
“The November Criminals and the Reich President are declared removed.”
And, “troops and police are marching on the city under the swastika.”
An explanation for Hitler’s exaggerations and constant lies could be that he was trying to persuade people that Hitler had the backing from everyone and that it was the correct thing to do to side with him. By doing this Hitler hoped that people would join his party voluntarilarly because he had changed their mind and views.
Although source C is a good source for some aspects of research into the putsch, it doesn’t give a big enough view of events. It only gives information about the number of people at the putsch and about the amount of damage caused.
Source D is also a good source for some aspects of research into the putsch but not into the specific details. Source D only gives help to people that are researching on the things that Hitler said to try and win over the people in the Putsch.
Overall I think that both of the sources are very useful into finding out about the night at the Burgerbraukeller but they both help people in different aspects of their research into the Munich ‘Beer hall’ Putsch.
4.
In sources F, G and H the information agrees and disagrees over the events at the Munich putsch. There are several different themes that all three of the authors talk about but they don’t all give the same inferences.
In all three sources the authors mention Hitler falling to the ground at gunshot but the writers put it across in different ways that could change peoples views of Hitler if they had only read one of them.
The writer of source F was trying to justify Hitler’s actions and make it seem like he was a good man who cared about others. This is shown when source F says,
“Hitler went to the man and stood over him.” This makes it look like Hitler went over to the injured man to help him. Clearly though Hitler wasn’t put out of his way and didn’t go far because earlier in the source it says that Hitler was standing next to the man. This example shows glorification by the author.
The writer of source G though was trying to undermine Hitler’s character. The source doesn’t even mention the injured man. It makes it seem that Hitler was a coward and ran away at first gunfire, without a care in the world, except for himself.
While sources F and G give different and opposite impressions of when Hitler fell down, source H tries to give a balanced account. The writer doesn’t side with anyone. He doesn’t give his opinions, just says what could have happened both ways. He says that it could be that Hitler was behaving like an experienced professional by falling down, but also says that there were some thing to suggest that Hitler behaved in a cowardly manner. When he mentions the injured man, he only uses it as a possible reason for Hitler’s falling down.
For this theme I have come to the conclusion that source H is the least biased source and the other two sources are both as biased as each other but at the other end of the scale.
I have come to the conclusion that source F is a piece of nazi propaganda written to ensure that Hitler was illustrated as a courageous and brave man. By doing this the creator aims to influence the readers into seeing Hitler in a positive light so that they would support him when he needed it.
I have also realised that source G is the total opposite of source F, but it must be noted that it was written by a social democrat writer and was done so thirteen years after the event took place. This source portrays Hitler as a coward whom,
“Sprained his arm, but this did not prevent him from running.”
This quote is one of the ones which supports my opinion of this source and allows me to come to this view.
The content provided in source H is put across as being in between sources F and G. It attempts to give a clear and un-biased account of the events. As a result of this it takes into account that Hitler had attributes and capabilities as a soldier.
After close analysis of these sources I am able to conclude that sources F and G strongly disagree with each other. This is because one of them is written with the objective of praising Hitler whilst the other one was created for the purpose of criticizing him. On the other hand source H is obviously a more balanced piece of data that has been assembled for the sole purpose of retelling the events.
5.
Hitler always tried to put a good image of himself across as shown in sources I and J.
In source I Hitler is standing up straight and he is alongside a World War 1 hero, General Ludendorff, this was intended to improve his image. Ludendorff was a nationally recognised hero and he was seen as a friend. This relationship could’ve improved people’s thoughts about Hitler. In effect the picture leads the audience to suggest that although Hitler is going on trial he has the encouragement from some of the key figures in society. The fact that Hitler is standing up straight gives the impression that Hitler was a well-mannered man. Hitler and Ludendorff are also placed in the centre of the picture, this suggests that Hitler was also one of the most important people there.
Source J is an extract of a statement made by Hitler whilst he was in trial. In this speech he is trying to justify his actions by implying that he did these things for the sake of the nation. Mentioning the nation highlights the fact that although he is talking to the court he is in fact addressing the whole nation. He uses this tactic to create a patriotic mood that in effect will guarantee that the public backs him. When he says,
“The eternal court of history will judge us criminals.”
He reveals that even if his current trial is a failure then as history evolves, the German people will forgive him. This is the most important thing to Hitler.
In my opinion source J is a very effective one because it provides a clear picture of how Hitler used the trial for his own benefit.
6.
‘The events in Munich on 8th/9th November 1923 greatly increased the influence of Hitler and the Nazi party in Germany.’
As the putsch was unsuccessful and Hitler was imprisoned you could say that it didn’t increase Hitler’s influence. If I look more closely at the evidence I noticed that it did have some helpful results.
Firstly, the putsch did give Hitler a lot of publicity, especially the reporting of his trial where he made a passionate speech. A source that gives quotes from this speech is source J. Hitler exploits the patriotic side of the Germans by saying that all he wanted was the best for the “German people” and that he would “fight and die “ for his “fatherland”. Hitler had soon won the court over and had household recognition. He had done this to such a great extent that he was allowed to talk and express himself. His ideas here might have got to people who would otherwise have not known much about him. It showed that the nazi’s were a right wing group who were prepared to try and overthrow the government which they felt was wrong for Germany. In some ways the failure of the putsch had been the most successful thing that could have happened.
Secondly, Hitler spent a lot of time in prison writing Mein Kampf and setting down his ideas. Some of his ideas were extremely odd and a lot of it didn’t make any sense at all but it was seen by some as an important book. Source K shows that Hitler realised that he would have to “pursue a new policy” to be the ruler of Germany. The source argues that Hitler’s new plan was to get into the “Reichstag” by outvoting the others to have a majority and eventually to gain control of Germany. This shows that during Hitler’s time in jail, he substituted his fundamental beliefs on how to accumulate power and we now know that Hitler’s radical change of political tactics gave Hitler the power he wanted as he became the ruler of Germany. Another source that shows that Hitler had changed his views for his political benefit is source K. In source K Hitler mentions using the “Catholic and Marxist members” to enter the Reichstag. Hitler had always been a stern right wing fascist but after his time spent in jail he came to the conclusion that he had to take advantage of the communist and socialist’s positions in the Reichstag. This would hurdle him into the power where he could bring back out the extreme right wing in himself because he no longer needed the help from his left wing counterparts. This shows that during Hitler’s duration in jail he accomplished the skills of manipulation so that he could get what he needed and the previous stubborn Hitler had realised how to bend rules to achieve his goals.
The third and most important reason links to the last one. Hitler realised that seizing power by force probably wouldn’t work. He couldn’t rely on the important groups like the police and army to support him so he changed his tactics and tried using the political system to take control. So by the time the Weimar government was collapsing in 1929 the nazi’s were ready to take advantage, fight elections and take a lot of seats. By 1932 thing had got to the stage where Germany was desperate for a strong government because of the economic crisis. The nazi’s had the most seats in the Reichstag. All was needed now was a little dealing and manipulating behind the scenes and Hitler was chancellor.
