What was the main cause of Kristallnacht?

Authors Avatar

Kristallnacht

Question One

Source A is an account written by a historian who summarised a Nazi journalist's account of the evening; the account was written in 1954. This is nine years after the Nazi party ceased control over Germany in 1945 so Nazi censorship was no longer in force; this means that the journalist was free to write as he pleased about the Nazis and any events that happened. Therefore, he is more likely to write the truth about what happened, which in that respect makes the source very reliable. As a journalist, he would have been there at the event so would have seen very clearly all that took place, enabling him to write an accurate account, making the source reliable and useful.

However, over the nine years since the event he might have forgotten some of the things that had happened, which means that what he wrote may not be a full account; this makes this source seem unreliable and therefore not as useful to a historian.

Source B is a secret report prepared by the Nazi Party Supreme Court. It was written by the Nazi party when they were in power, which means that it was properly censored by them to give their views that are very biased the Nazis' favour. This makes the source unreliable and not as useful.

However, some might say that the fact that it is secret means it was not intended to be opened by anyone else so instead would give the real account of what happened, which does make it reliable and useful. On the other hand, the Nazis must have known that if they were to go out of power then all their secret documents would be opened, so they would have still given biased accounts. Evidently, the Nazis are very clever people and would have probably known that one is more likely to believe something if it is marked “confidential” or “secret” and used this to make themselves look good after they are leave government. Either way, this ambiguity makes the source not useful.

From my analysis, I conclude that historians would find Source A more useful because it was written after the Nazis ceased control of Germany and it was written by a journalist who would have been at the event. It might have been written by someone working for the Nazis but many people had lost support for the Nazi Party because they had seen how terrible it was. Source B was written by the Nazis, which immediately makes it unreliable.

 

Question Two

Source C gives the impression that the Nazis were responsible for Kristallnacht but they tried to make it looks as though it was caused by the public in a “spontaneous wave of anger”.

It begins by describing the account as expressed by the Nazi press who claim that it was caused purely be the German public in “'spontaneous wave of anger, as a result of the cowardly murder of von Roth...'”. The source then challenges the Nazi argument by stating that when looking at the destruction and violent actions, “all of the local crowds were obviously horrified by the Nazis' acts”.

To further dispute the Nazi claims, it cites an unnamed source as proof that “the violence was carried out by SS men and Stromtroopers not in uniform” and “had been provided with hammers, axes and fire bombs”. This gives the impression that it was an organised attack and was organised by Nazi officials (SS men and Stormtroopers) made to look like ordinary members of the public. It states that “the activity of the fire brigade being [was] confined to spraying water on adjoining buildings” and that there was “arrest and transportation to concentration camps”; it implies arresting people, ordering the fire brigade and transporting them requires organisation so it could not have possibly been spontaneous.

However it happened, the “slightest sign of sympathy for the Jews from the public caused fury amongst the Nazis” so the Nazis must have heavily supported the campaign.

Question Three

Source C initially blames the Nazi people, quoting the Nazi press, who said it started as “a spontaneous wave an anger, as a result of the cowardly Jewish murder of von Roth in Paris”. One cannot use this part of the Source C as the Nazi press would be biased in favour of the Nazis because the Nazis own the Nazi press. Any publication from a company or government would be biased in favour of that company of government because they want to make themselves look good.

It then goes on to quote an unnamed reliable source that, they had been “carried out by SS men and Stormtroopers not in uniform.” This source is reliable.

This source blames the Nazis because it says it was carried out by “SS men and Stormtroopers” whom work for the Nazis. It is all reliable because the American, who were neutral at the time, who wrote it was there and saw the effects and carried out the interviews.

Source D does not blame anyone in particular but suggests it could have been the people because it says “there had been signs of the unrest amongst the masses”. It does not say what about – it could have been unrest due to the dislike of anti-Semitism. It could have been the government because notices “reading 'Jews not wanted' appeared in various shops and cinemas.” They were probably put there by the government because the shops were various and unrelated.

This source is unreliable because it was written before the event happened so it can't say who did it and is was written by a Jew so he might have exaggerated the violence and terror to provoke more sympathy towards the Jews.

It decreases the accuracy because it implies it might have been the people but it is unreliable so in that sense, it does not.

Source E blames the Nazis because it says “most German people have nothing to do with these riots and burnings and the police supplied the SA men with [weapons].” It also adds that it was planned saying “a list of names and addresses” were given.

Join now!

This source is largely reliable because the civil servant who wrote it works for the government so he would know what was going on and was sent after the 12th November 1938 so he would know what had happened. It could be unreliable because it was signed anonymously so it could have been by someone who was unduly biased against the Nazis, which would give him reason to criticise them wherever he could.

It makes Source C seem more accurate because it says it was the Nazis, like Source C, and it was very reliable.

Overall, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay