To what extent is the account of the police chief in Source A supported by Van de Lubbes confession is Source B?

Question 1

Study Sources A and B

Explain you answer.

Source A is an account by Rudolf Diels written after the Second World War. Rudolf Diels was the head of the Prussian political police. Source B is a confession Van de Lubbe made at his trial in 1933.

In Source B Van de Lubbe makes the statement “I set fire to the Reichstag all by myself”. He is taking all the blame for setting fire to the Reichstag, he clearly states that contrary to what some believed, he acted alone, without help from any other people.

This confession is in many ways backed up by Source A. Source A tells us that Van de Lubbe was exhausted, it says he was “smeared with dirt and sweating” and “he panted”. Obviously if Van de Lubbe was acting alone he would be extremely tired and he would be sweating, for one man to set fire to such a huge building would have been a mammoth task and would have taken considerable effort. According to Source A Van de Lubbe seemed happy and had a “triumphant gleam” in his eyes. Van de Lubbe would have felt very happy about what he had done.

Van de Lubbe’s “voluntary confessions” is enough for Diels to believe that Van de Lubbe did actually act alone. Diels goes on to say that Van de Lubbe could have “easily set fire” to the Reichstag. Diels explains how easy it would have been for Van de Lubbe to set fire to the Reichstag. Diels believed Van de Lubbe could have “rushed through the big corridors with his burning shirt which he had used as a torch to start more fires”, this explanation sounds very believable. Diels describes Van de Lubbe as a “madman”; a “madman” may quite happily ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

However there are also a lot of ways in which source A is not supported by Van de Lubbe’s confession in Source B. Diels tells us that the night of the fire he interviewed Van de Lubbe and found several “communists pamphlets”. This suggests he was a supporter of the communists. If Van de Lubbe was a supporter of the communist there is a strong possibility that he was not working alone but was working with a group of other communists.

The night of the fire, Van de Lubbe was made to give his account of events several times. Diels describes Van’s stories as “confused”. If Van de Lubbe were lying, after giving his story several times it would become confusing and jumbled.

The account by Diels also contains evidence from Goering (a leading Nazi) and the leader of the Nazi party- Hitler. Goering says: “There will be no mercy now. Anyone who stands in our way will be cut down. Every communist will be shot or hanged. Everybody supporting the communist must be arrested”. Goering seems certain that the communists were the arsonists responsible for setting the Reichstag on fire. The evidence from Hitler reads: “The criminals have thought all this out beautifully”. Hitler uses the word “criminals” which is the plural of “criminal” so according to Hitler there was more than one person behind this crime.

In conclusion, to a certain extent the account of the police chief (Source A) does agree with Van de Lubbe’s confession in Source B. Reasons why the sources agree include the fact that Van de Lubbe was exhausted and Van de Lubbe been described as a madman.

However there are ways Source A is not supported by Source B. There is a lot of information in Source A that doesn’t appear in Source B, such as details about exactly how Van de Lubbe may have committed the arson. Although Diels seems to believe Van de Lubbe, the quotes from Goering and Hitler suggest that the communists were responsible for the fire and that there was more than one person involved.