The Reichstag Fire-Coursework B
Chris Nevins
The Reichstag Fire-Coursework B
Question 1: Source A is a piece of secondary evidence by Rudolf Diels, head of the Prussian political police. In it he tells us of how he arrived at the burning building to find Van der Lubbe, come out of the building, with matches and communist pamphlets.
Source B is a piece of primary evidence where Van der Lubbe was speaking at his trial. He said that he was the only one who set fire to the building. None of the defendants, including the communists, were guilty of starting the fire.
In Diel's report he often put across his own opinions rather than the facts. At one point he wrote that Goring said "Police on emergency footing; shoot to kill."
This account was written after the Second World War, which would have been at least 12 years after the event. How could Diels remember what Goring said word for word? Diels also wrote that Van der Lubbe could of easily set fire to the curtains, furniture and wooden panels. Deils also said that Van der Lubbe ran through corridors. If Van der Lubbe was physically and mentally handicapped, how could he have done all this?
Source A goes into a lot more detail of the event than source B. Source A tells us about how Van der Lubbe came out of the building with matches and how he made lots of little fire throughout the Reichstag. Where as source B is a short statement by Van der Lubbe of who is responsible of starting the fire.
So source b can be used to support source A because source B is saying that Van der Lubbe started the fire and so is source A.
Question 2: Source A is a piece of secondary evidence written by Diels, head of the Prussian police, after the Second World War. In some ways this source can be seen as reliable and in others it can't. It is reliable because Diels was there at the time of the event and as he was the head of the Prussian police he had access to a lot more information that others may not. Diels also might have kept a diary and used police reports to put this source together. It was not reliable because it was written some time after the fire and as he was Prussian, he might have been biased towards the Nazis. So from these points we can see that the source is unreliable some ways but reliable in others.
The source has 'pro's' and 'con's.' The pro's being that Diels was at the scene so his account was accurate; as he was head of the Prussian police he had a lot more information available to him, which others might not have seen. The source is also supported by others. Source B, Van der Lubbe saying he started the fire, and source H where it says that if the Nazis did start the fire they would have planned who to arrest so that they could destroy the communists. This didn't happen, the Nazis used out-of-date lists to make arrests and the ones who were arrested did not have much power in the party.
However, the con's are, Diels report had a lot of detail saying he wrote it over 12 years after the fire. Therefore lots could have been made up. However, he might have kept a diary or got information off of police records. He wrote this book in later life to make himself look important and to impress his Nazis bosses. This book came to light at the time of the Nuremberg trials. At the trials Nazis were accused of war crimes and so Diels might have spoken up to take the attention away form the Nazis. There are also many contradictions within the source. For example, Diels reported that Van der Lubbe ran through corridors; Van der Lubbe was handicapped both physically and mentally. Diels also said that Van der Lubbe started the fire with his burning short; Van der Lubbe came out of the building without a shirt on! Diels account was also not supported by others. Diels reckons that Van der Lubbe set fire to the Reichstag but source G is a confession from Karl Ernst saying that he set fire to the building; he was a Nazi. Also source E shows that Goring also a Nazi set ire to the building!
At the time Diels wrote this report, Nazi members were on trial for war crimes at Nuremberg. The Nuremberg trials took place in 1945 on November 20th. They were looking into the cases of 2 individuals, which had committed a variety of crimes form extermination of racial and religious groups to the mistreatment of prisoners of war. Out of the 24, which were put on trial, 12 were sentenced to death by hanging and 7 received prison sentences from 10years to life. Goring committed suicide a few hours before he was due to be executed. Diels might have ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
At the time Diels wrote this report, Nazi members were on trial for war crimes at Nuremberg. The Nuremberg trials took place in 1945 on November 20th. They were looking into the cases of 2 individuals, which had committed a variety of crimes form extermination of racial and religious groups to the mistreatment of prisoners of war. Out of the 24, which were put on trial, 12 were sentenced to death by hanging and 7 received prison sentences from 10years to life. Goring committed suicide a few hours before he was due to be executed. Diels might have been trying to take away the attention from the Nazis and putting it on the communists. Diels also tried to take the edge off some of the Nazis bad name.
Question 3: Source C is a piece of primary evidence from a British magazine showing Hindenburg talking to Hitler. Hindenburg is giving Hitler the chance to arrest any communists he wishes. Hindenburg is also saying to Hitler that if you don't become dictator now, you never will.
Source D is a piece of primary evidence warning people that the communists are trying to gain power by force.
The surface similarities are that they both show the fire in the background. The differences are that source C try's to put the blame on the Nazis by showing that Hitler has gained powers form the fire, meaning he can arrest any communist he wants and therefore destroy the communist party. Source D blames the communists because it shows that the communists want to take power by force.
Both sources actually show the Nazis exploiting the situation. In source C it shows that Hitler will become dictator because of the power he will gain from the situation. Source D, however, is warning people that the communists are trying to take power forcibly. If people believe this then they will vote for the Nazis and Hitler will become dictator after the general election in Germany in 1933. Therefore from both pieces of evidence we can see that the Nazis will gain power in Germany and therefore it is clear that Hitler and his Nazi party were taking advantage of the political situation.
Question 4: Source D is a piece of primary evidence written by the Nazis warning people that the communists were starting an uprising. The Nazis might have written the book for several reasons. First of all they could have written it to money. Lots of people would be interested with what's going on so they would buy the book. The Nazis could have also written the book to let people know of their policies. Another reason for the book is to put the blame on the communists. The book was written shortly after the fire to blame the communists of starting it. As the election was coming up people would vote for the Nazis as they blamed the communists for starting the fire and feared that they would start a revolution. Therefore the book would help to make the German public fear what would happen if the communists were given political power, this undermining the communists campaign. These voters would now vote Nazi to block the communist revolution and the Nazis would be clear to win the election. The book would help the Nazi cause.
Question 5: Source E is a piece of secondary evidence given by Franz Halder in 1946. At the time he was on trial for war crimes during the Second World War, he blames Goring (a member of the Nazi party).
Source F is a piece of secondary evidence given by Goring at his trial for war crimes. He is replying to Halder's accusations that he started the fire.
Source G is a piece of primary evidence, it is a confession saying that Karl Ernst (leader of the S.A) and two other S.A men set fire to the Reichstag. It was published by the communists blaming the Nazis.
Source E was given to us by Halder who was also on trial for war crimes. This means that he could have been lying to get out of trouble. This is the only source blaming Goring so therefore could be untrue. However, Halder claims that when Goring said he did it he was drunk and sometimes you speak truthfully when you're drunk because you don't think of the consequences. Also Halder was under oath at the trial so he shouldn't have been lying.
Source F was Goring's reply to what Halder had to say. Goring claimed that it was all lies. However, after ten years it might have been safe to boast about it but also you don't know what your saying when your drunk, and again he is on trial for war crimes so would not implicate himself in another crime.
Source G is the confession of Karl Ernst saying that he and two other S.A men set fire to the Reichstag. The communists published this confession after the death of Ernst and therefore Ernst could not defend himself. Also when you want a confession you would use torture. Ernst might have lied just to stop the pain. There are no other sources saying that Ernst set fire to the building so we don't know if this source is reliable. Source's E and G both blame the Nazis. So these two sources' can back each other up and therefore can be used against F, which blames the communists. Therefore each source contains a certain amount of bias dependant on audience and purpose.
Question 6: Source H is a piece of secondary evidence from a history book. It blames the communists for the fire because it says the Nazis used out-of-date lists to make arrests and they didn't destroy the communists as planned.
Source I is a piece of secondary evidence also from a history book. It blames the Nazis because it didn't think Van der Lubbe could have been capable to do all that damage, as he was handicapped.
Source J is a piece of primary evidence. It is a photograph of the Reichstag the morning after the fire.
From the three sources I think it is more likely that the Nazis started the fire because out of the three two blame the Nazis, source I and J. Source I says it must have been the Nazis because Van der Lubbe couldn't have done all that damage as he was handicapped and it wasn't possible for one man to do it all by himself. Source J backs this up, as it is a picture of the damage caused to the building. I think it shows that Van der Lubbe couldn't have done this by himself because there was too much damage for one man to have had done and Van der Lubbe was also physically handicapped.
Question 7: There are two interpretations of the Reichstag fire. One is that Van der Lubbe was a madman and he set fire to the building all by himself and the Nazis really believed this was the start of a communist uprising. The sources that agree with this are A, B, D, F, and H.
Source A is the account of when Rudolf Diels arrived at the scene of the fire. This source blames the communists because Diels saw Van der Lubbe come out of the building with matches and communist pamphlets.
Source B is Van der Lubbe speaking at his trial. He is admitting that only he set fire to the Reichstag.
Source D is the cover of a boom called 'Armed Uprising'. This was published by the Nazis accusing then of taking power by force e.g. Setting fire to the Reichstag.
Source H is a piece of evidence from a history book saying that if the Nazis did start the fire they would have planned carefully who to arrest. This didn't happen. These sources were written in different times. The ones written around 1933(like B and D) were likely to be biased as people had a lot to lose and gain from the outcome of the fire. E.g. winning more votes to win the election. The sources written around 1945(like A and F) were also likely to be biased, as it was the time of the Nuremberg trials. This meant that people were getting others off the hook and taking away the attention of the purpose of the trials. Sources like H, which were written around1974 are likely to unbiased, as they are secondary evidence and they could have collected all the facts to put across their opinions.
However, there are weaknesses to this interpretation. Sources C, G, E, and I disagree because they blame the Nazis.
Source C shows Hindenburg talking to Hitler. Hindenburg is saying that if Hitler does not now take power he never will. As the Nazi party had set up this fire to make it look like the communists were to blame. Hitler would then win more votes and therefore win the election. Source G is the confession of Karl Ernst. He says that him and two other SA men set fire to the Reichstag as he was serving the Fuhrer. He also says that they used van der Lubbe as a decoy. Source E is Halder giving evidence at his trial. He says that he heard Goring admit to setting the Reichstag alight. Source I is a report from a history book saying that van der Lubbe was in no fit state to do the damage he did, as he was handicapped and the building was far too big to do what he did in the time he had when he had no knowledge of the building at all.
The other interpretation is that the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag to gain powers, and therefore lock up any communists they wished, and they used Van der Lubbe to do this. The sources that agree with this are C, E, G and I. Source C is Hitler gaining power from starting the fire. Hitler could have destroyed the communists leaving him free to win the up-coming election. This source was from 1933 and therefore likely to be biased, as there was a lot to lose and gain, at the time, for both parties. Source E shows that Goring (a Nazi) admitted to the fire. This source was written during the time of the Nuremberg trials and therefore likely to be biased as they were trying to get each other off the hook and take away the attention that was why they were on trial in the first place. Source G is Ernst confessing to starting the fire with two other S.A men. This source was written in 1934, which meant that people could still gain and lose a lot e.g. more people voting for a certain party at the election.
However, there are also weaknesses to this interpretation. Sources C, E, G, I and J also agree that the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag. Source C is a cartoon where Hindenburg is talking to Hitler and he says that if Hitler doesn't take this opportunity he never will. Meaning he will not get a better chance as this has been set up just for Hitler so that he can blame the communists and win the votes for the election. Source E is general Halder giving evidence at his trial. He says that he heard Goring admit to setting fire to the Reichstag. Source G is a confession of Karl Ernst saying that he and two other SA men set fire to the Reichstag. He did it because he was serving the Fuhrer. He also says that he use van der Lubbe as a decoy. Source I is a report from a history book saying that it was virtually impossible for a man like van der Lubbe to set fire to the Reichstag, because he had no knowledge of the building and he was handicapped. Source J is a photo of the Reichstag taken after the fire. It shows the destruction that the fire caused. I think it shows that van der Lubbe could not do this much damage, as he was handicapped. I agree that the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag and used Van der Lubbe because of several reasons. The first being that Van der Lubbe was in no fit state to go running around and starting fires as in source I. The second reason is that the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag so they could have an excuse to kill or arrest communists. This would have left the Nazis free to win the election that was coming up.
Question 8: There is so much disagreement over who started the Reichstag fire because most of the evidence available to us is biased. Therefore it is hard to come to any conclusion.
A lot of people had a lot to lose and gain from the outcome of the fire so that causes a lot of confusion. This is because people didn't want to be seen as starting the fire because they would have lost the election and would have been arrested. So this didn't happen people made up stories that were not true, meaning there is a lot of information that is incorrect and makes it more difficult to find out actually what happened, as there are cover-ups and information blocking the truth.
People argue that the communists started the fire and there is evidence to support this. Sources A, B, D, F and H back up this argument. However, people also say that the Nazis were responsible for the fire and again there is evidence to support this for the sources C, E and G.
People have their own opinions about things. There were a lot of people investigating the fire and therefore there was a lot of disagreement. So the more people investigating the fire the less likely any conclusion can be reached. This is because the evidence available to us is people's own opinions, and not the full truth. It therefore makes it difficult to decide which evidence is correct and which isn't. The more evidence there is the more we are going to get confused as the evidence will be cover-ups of the actual truth so the people who were guilty won't get found out. Therefore it is clear form the evidence that many groups had a lot to gain or lose from the fire, and therefore all evidence will contain an amount of bias due to contest, audience and purpose. As time goes by it is less likely that any definite judgement will be reached on who was to blame for the start of the Reichstag fire as all evidence is biased.
