• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

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

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Question 1 Study Sources A and B To what extent is the account of the police chief in Source A supported by Van de Lubbes confession is Source 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. ...read more.

Middle

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 set fire to the Reichstag. 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. ...read more.

Conclusion

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. History Reichstag Fire Coursework ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Germany 1918-1939 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Germany 1918-1939 essays

  1. IGCSE History Coursework Assignment B - Source Analysis of the Reichstag Fire

    The things that were said in the cartoon were actually Hitler's thoughts not Hindenburg's. Hindenburg didn't advised Hitler to use the situation to become dictator. Actually, Hindenburg did not even want Hitler to be chancellor. Source D is a book that also shows the Reichstag Fire in the background.

  2. History Coursework – the Reichstag Fire

    It is convenient that the confession is given so soon after the fire and that the confessor, Karl Ernst had been killed in the "Night of the Long Knives" by the time the book was published. The "Night of the Long Knives" was when Hitler had several SA leaders arrested

  1. Studies of Sources from the Reichstag Fire - who was responsible?

    Source H is said to be written by Karl Ernst, who was a leader of the SA, but since it was published by the Communists in 1934 there may be some parts of it that have been changed towards the view of the Communists so might not be completely reliable.

  2. GCSE History Coursework: Reichstag Fire 1) ...

    Also, Diels was Head of the Prussian Political Police, and so although he was one of the first people on the scene of the fire, he may have been biased in writing this account to not make it seem as though they had made a wrong decision in convicting Van der Lubbe.

  1. Modern World History Coursework - Reichstag Sourcework

    Another explicit agreement between the sources is how it is inferred that the Nazis blame the Communist party and in particular its extremist followers for the events that transpired on the night of 27th February 1933. This is clear from source C from the title; 'The Red Peril'.

  2. Assess the extent to

    The unemployment rate greatly reduced and facilitated for a new war economy and provided such commodities as the Autobahn (the great highway) The German Government encouraged investment by demonstrating political stability and a spirit of co-operation with its neighbors. As a result of this more jobs were created thus less

  1. Kristallnacht - source related study.

    it is implying that the fire brigade have been deliberately told not to put the fires out, so this suggests that it was not spontaneous at all and instead it was organised by the Nazis and implicated by the SS.

  2. The Reichstag Fire-Coursework B

    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

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work