• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9

Which of these two sources would an historian studying Kristallnacht find the more useful?

Extracts from this document...


Nazi Germany Which of these two sources would an historian studying Kristallnacht find the more useful? A) Source A shows the Journalist Fritz Hesse who attended a Nazi dinner for party leaders; he claims to have overheard a conversation between Hitler and Goebbels. He says that they was discussing a "mass attack" that the SA was going to launch and the Jewish people, he states that Hitler showed no objecting to the plan and was quite enthusiastic with it, "there was no doubting Hitler's approval" showing that he was willing to go along with the plans of Kristallnacht, this is quite an accurate and reliable source as it was written against the Nazi's by someone who was working for them. Though as he says he overheard it, he may of not heard some vital information, and as a journalist after the war he may of wrote this just to make money, so it may not be as useful to a historian. Source A is also a secondary source so may have been depicted in different ways. Whereas, Source B is a written report prepared by the Nazi party supreme court after the events of Kristallnacht, it says that Goebbels illustrated the happenings of Kristallnacht, Goebbels says that Hitler had decided that the Nazi's were not to get involved in these demonstrations whether to stop it or to start it, "demonstrations were not to be organised by the party, but neither were they to be discouraged..." stating that the Nazi's would not organise such demonstrations but neither would they disapprove if something like it had taken place. As this was a written report and secret it would be more reliable then overhearing a conversation and the fact that it is secret means that it was only meant for Nazi's so it would be truthful and was not meant to get out. In conclusion, I would think a historian would find source B more useful and accurate as the contents of the report were written ...read more.


The woman represents the German people as captives to Nazi's and their beliefs. The gag on the mouth means that if the German people had could conduct freedom of speech they would be against Kristallnacht and the Nazis. The helmet on the floor is the Roman God of messenger's helmet. This shows that the woman knows that the Nazis were to blame for Kristallnacht and she has to tell the superpowers like Britain and France to come and help. The woman is unable to deliver this message however because she is tied up. This shows the German people would tell the truth if they were not afraid of what the Nazi would do to them. The sword and shield in the picture represent the German people and the fact that they would fight against the Nazis and defend the Jews, if they were not too scared to speak out. The two cartoons have a variety of similarities and the most obvious similarity is that they both show the Nazis in an abhorrent way meaning that both countries thought the Nazis were to blame for Kristallnacht. As well as both Nazi figures are seen standing over dead Jewish bodies looking up to the sky, this associates the Nazis with death in both drawings, and shows the Nazis were proud of murdering these people. Both cartoons show that the Nazis were to blame for Kristallnacht. They both depict the Nazis as murderers who killed many Jews. Also both cartoonists believe that many people know the Nazis committed these acts, yet they are not prepared to stop the Nazis. In conclusion both cartoons share the same meaning and are trying to put across the Nazi's evil relentless ways. They both show the Nazi's anti-Semitic ways and the fact that even their own people (the Tsar and German people) disagree with what they are doing and would speak out if they could. How far does source I prove that Goering was telling the truth in source H? E) ...read more.


In this source Hitler and Goebbels are overheard muttering plans about Kristallnacht. Hitler seemed to quite enjoy the idea that Goebbels put forward to him and is seen to of "slapped his thigh with enthusiasm and squeal with delight." This shows that Kristallnacht would have been set up by the Nazi's and that Hitler agreed to it and was happy with the idea brought forward to him. In source C an American describes Kristallnacht. He says "the violence was carried out by S.S men and storm troopers not in uniform", this points the blame at the Nazi's as they carried out the flats. This is a reliable source because the writer saw it for himself, and asked lots of different people what they saw. Source E is an anonymous note given to the British consul in Cologne on 12 of November 1938. It says that most German people had nothing to do with the riots and that it was all done by S.A men. It states that "the police supplied SA men with weapons such as, axes, housebreaking tools and ladders", as well as a list of all the addresses of Jewish shops and flats, this shows that normal German people had nothing to do with Kristallnacht, and it was all done by Nazi's. Source A definitely backs up my thoughts as it shows Hitler and Goebbels discussing the attacks, and that Hitler was very enthusiastic about the plan. Also, source C and E both say that the secret police carried out Kristallnacht, and as source C is an eyewitness account it is more then likely to be true. In conclusion, I feel that it was in fact the Nazi SA who carried out these riots and attacks on the Jewish people and that someone, most likely Goebbels, ordered the attacks in order to get back into Hitler's support. I therefore think that the riots were not the German people, but they were specially planned riots set up by the Nazi's designed to spur on hatred towards Jews. ?? ?? ?? ?? 1 ...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. Why Did Kristallnacht Take Place? (a) A ...

    Goebbels knew that an anti-Semitic attack would please Hitler, which is backed up in the source; 'there was no doubting Hitler's approval'. It is true that Goebbels was 'out of favour with Hitler' at this point, as he had had a public affair with a rebellious film star, and Hitler was not happy.

  2. Source Investigation: Why did Kristallnacht take place?

    Similarly, Source C presents this same opinion; thus, here, Source E is supporting Source C. Further similarities are found when both sources blame the Nazi police force for the bulk of the damage of Kristallnacht; Source E says that 'the police supplied SA men with axes', and Source C that 'the violence was carried out by SS men and Stormtroopers'.

  1. What impression of 'Kristallnacht' does source c give? Explain your answer.

    in Source C is accurate as, like before, certain factors link up. For example, Source D comments on the build up of 'Kristallnacht' and Source E supports the idea that the SS and SA had intervened with 'Kristallnacht'. All three sources are fairly reliable and both source D and Source E support the information given in Source C.

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

    However, in the third paragraph, Diels states 'Several details suggested that Communists who had helped him start these other fires, might also have helped him with the Reichstag fire'. This contradicts what he has said about Van der Lubbe starting the fires on his own, so although this doesn't support statement ii), it is suggesting that i)

  1. Nazi Germany - Why did Kristallnacht take place? Source based work.

    Source E is apparently the "true report" on Kristallnacht. It tells of the destruction "of Jewish businesses, houses and synagogues" and goes on to say that "Most German people have nothing to do with these riots and burnings" The Source also mentions that the SA were supplied by the police "with axes, housebreaking tools and ladders" they were also

  2. History Sourcework - Do Sources D and E make it more or less likely, ...

    What experience of the events that night the 'servant' had or if he was even there we do not know. '' I feel the need to present you a true report'' this use of language and tone indicates that his own thoughts and opinions.

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

    As he was dead at the time of publication, he was obviously was not able to accept or deny what had been written, so it could be suggested that the Communists were at liberty to change what was actually said.

  2. The Italian Conquest of Abyssinia: How far was the LoN to blame?

    On the other hand, the speech (Source E) was said by a British person and was said just after the time of the incident. Therefore, if Samuel Hoare hated the LoN years later, nothing would be different in terms of the speech as it has already been made. As mentioned earlier, time plays a huge part in reliability.

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