• 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. The Reichstag Fire-Coursework B

    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.

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

    The book is showing that van der Lubbe and other communists are the one who set the fire off causing a 'communist armed uprising'. The cover was propaganda for the people of Germany as a Nazi wrote it. It was trying to convince people that the communists were the ones who started the fire.

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

    In conclusion, I don't think that sources F and H completely prove that Goering was telling lies as they are too unreliable to be used to say that he was. Even though I think that Goering was telling lies, there is not enough proof from the sources so I cannot justify that.

  2. History Coursework – the Reichstag Fire

    Especially as the Communists needed this confession so badly and could easily have made it up. So in conclusion, neither source proves that Goering is lying in source F, as both are the words of men who are either giving evidence to support their innocence or cannot back their words.

  1. Modern World History Coursework - Reichstag Sourcework

    to dissuade the population of Germany from supporting the more radical left-wing groups. They have achieved this by picturing a scene that directly infers that it was Communists that were responsible for the Reichstag fire. The Reichstag building in this period was seen by most as the supreme governing parliament in Germany.

  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. Assess the extent to

    more prosperous from 1933 to 1939, from the weakest of the major European powers in 1933, to the strongest by 1936, from an unemployment rate of 6 million on the eve of Hitler's ascension to Chancellor to 300,000 by 1939.

  2. Kristallnacht - source related study.

    other hand it could be reliable because he uses negative Nazi images and he also he has taken an enormous risk in writing this note. Source 'E' attempts to convey shock of "Most German people", who are not he says involved in the "plunderings and destruction" of Jewish property.

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