which of these sources would a historian studying kristallnacht find the more useful?

Authors Avatar

History Coursework – which of these sources would a historian studying kristallnacht find the more useful?

          Looking at source A and considering not only its accuracy and reliability but also its provenance it is easy to see that this source is highly reliable. This is due to the writer and also cross referencing this account with various other sources.

The writer, Fritz Hesse, was a journalist at during the reign of Hitler who worked for the Nazis. So not would a journalist be trained to pick up information and take notes of significant events, of which kristallnacht was one, he would also have had these notes to recall his memory when his account of the events was later written in 1954. Also it may at first seem like him being a Nazi journalist may question the sources validity however in the Nazi reign more Germans worked as a party of the Nazi leadership. This actually increases the reliability of the source because he is speaking negatively about the Nazis. I also know from looking at other sources and information about the Nazis that it would have been impossible for this journalist to write that account in the Nazis reign for fear of being arrested and put into a concentration camp or being beaten and tortured.

Join now!

The source says that fritz wrote in his account what he heard on that night, this implies that he was there. He also says that the Nazis ‘claimed it was spontaneous rioting’, this says it was a planned attack that the Nazis tried to cover up and hide. The source also contains the two different views on who planned the attack, Hitler or Goebbels, also with a reason for Goebbels to plan it: to assist him in his power struggle with in the Nazi party.

Source B however is not very reliable at all. Firstly it was written by ...

This is a preview of the whole essay