history coursework
Who burned the Reichstag?
On the evening of the 27th of February the
Reichstag parliament building was burned down. The fire started
at approximately 9pm. a lecturer from Bremen, Floeter, saw as he
was walking past the Reichstag, a man breaking in through the
window of the building. He quickly found a policeman and when
they returned they saw a mysterious figure in the Reichstag, but
more importantly he saw flames. The time was 9:03 p.m. Thaler
was next on the scene and he told the policeman to shoot the
figure. The policeman fired his gun, and the figure disappeared. at
9:13pm the first report reached the fire station, and at 9:15pm
the first fire engine reached the scene. At 9:22pm a policeman
tried to enter the building but the flames were so fierce he had to
retreat. At 9:27pm the police found a half naked man, the man
was Marina Van Der Lubbe. At 9:42pm the 60 fire engines from
Berlin all arrived at the Reichstag. However they could not control
the blaze and the Reichstag was ruined. The Reichstag was
important in German history, because it was vital in the increasing
the Nazi's election results. I will study a number of sources' that
have been produced, primary and secondary, and try to determine
who started the fire, for this I will consider the Nazi's, the
Communists and Van Der Lubbe himself. After I have read all the
sources and wrote down all relevant details, I will write a
conclusion saying who I believe burned the Reichstag.
The first group of people to be accused of
burning the Reichstag, was the Communists, I will study all
sources on them.We know the Communists were the first to be
accused because Herman Goering was inside the smouldering
Reichstag when he shouted over to Von Papen, "This is a
Communist crime against the new government." When Joseph
Goebbels joined them, he claimed this condemnation of the
Communists, " There was no doubt that the Communists had
made a final attempt to seize power by creating an atmosphere of
panic and terror!". On the day after the fire, the Prussian State
government produced an official announcement blaming the
Communists, its claimed " This... act of incendiarism... the most
monstrous act of terrorism so far carried out by the Communists
in Germany." A book was soon published (by the Nazis) called
"Armed Uprising". This book claimed to tell the story of the fire,
and how the Communists did it, and on the cover there is a
picture of Van Der Lubbe with a box of matches and too other
Communists, each holding guns, they appear to be helping Van
Der lubbe. The most important piece of evidence against the
Communists was that Van Der Lubbe was arrested at the scene of
the fire and Van Der Lubbe himself had Communist connections.
Van Der Lubbe, as well as four other communists, was put on trial.
They were, Dimitrov, who was a famous Bulgarian Communist,
Torgler, who was a leader of the Communist party of Germany.
There was also Popov, a Bulgarian Communist and Tanev also a
Bulgarian Communist. On the 24th of February, three days before
the fire, the police raided the Communist head quarters in Berlin
and they found plans for a Communist putsch. All this evidence
points the finger firmly at the communists.
However there is a substantial amount of evidence that
suggests that the Communists were not responsible. The
Communists had increased their vote in the elections and the
Nazis saw this as a threat. The Communists therefore in the
Brown Book claimed that the Nazis organised the fire and then
placed the blame on the Communists. Whilst most Nazis blamed
the Communists, Hitler himself was not sure that it was the
communists who burnt the Reichstag. Sefton Delmer a journalist
from Britain heard Hitler say " If this fire, as I believe turns out to
be the handiwork of the Communists, then there is nothing that
shall stop us from crushing out the murder pest with and iron fist."
Von Papen's account may not be reliable because his memoirs
were printed in 1952, this ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
placed the blame on the Communists. Whilst most Nazis blamed
the Communists, Hitler himself was not sure that it was the
communists who burnt the Reichstag. Sefton Delmer a journalist
from Britain heard Hitler say " If this fire, as I believe turns out to
be the handiwork of the Communists, then there is nothing that
shall stop us from crushing out the murder pest with and iron fist."
Von Papen's account may not be reliable because his memoirs
were printed in 1952, this was 19 years after the Reichstag fire,
so Von Papen's memory of the event may not be that clear. Also
Von Papen wrote these words in his memoirs so he may have been
trying to make his memoirs sound more colourful by exaggerating,
and also Von Papen and Goering were in the Reichstag at the time
when it was burning and Goering shouted this information to Von
Papen, "This is a Communist crime against the government.",
Although in the Reichstag would have been noisy with all the
people running about so Von Papen may have misheard Goering.
The people who accused the Communists, I.e.: Goering and
Goebbells were both Nazis and as such hated the communists.
They have a motive to be biased, because if people think that the
communists were responsible then the Nazi's would get a lot more
votes. The Prussian state government announcement may have
been inaccurate because Herman Goering was in control of the
Prussian ministry and he himself was anti- communist. The book
"Armed Uprising" is also unreliable because it was written by
Nazis so it would have been biased against the communists. The
four Communists, Dimitrov, Torgler, Popov and Tanev were all
acquitted of burning the Reichstag because there was not enough
evidence to link them to the fire. The police seizure of plans from
the Communist headquarters could not be trusted because even
though it was promised that they would be published they were
never shown. The biggest problem with blaming the communists,
was that Van Der Lubbe was not a Communist at the time of the
Reichstag fire. He had been a member but had left the party years
before the fire.
There is however much evidence to sugest that the
Nazis were behind the Reichstag fire. The Nazis had a clear
motive to burn the Reichstag. In the elections prior to the
Reichstag burning the Nazis votes had dwindled while the
Communist vote had shot up. In their brown book (1933) the
Communists emphasised that they were innocent and the Nazis
were guilty. Because the Nazis were losing votes they needed to
"Change the situation by some act of provocation". The burning of
the Reichstag would be an ideal way to hurt the Communists and
boost the Nazi's. Unsurprisingly in the elections held shortly after
the fire the Nazi's did well- 288 seats in the Reichstag, which was
their best result. Both Goebbels and Goering have been accused of
organising the crime. Hans Gisevius, an official in the Prussian
Ministry claimed that "it was Goebbels who first thought of setting
the Reichstag on fire", however Rudolf Diels, the chief of the
Gestapo (secret police) said "Goering knew exactly how the fire
was to be started" and has ordered him "prepare, prior to the fire,
a list of people to be arrested immediately after it". John
Heartfeild, an artist, drew a picture of Goering in front of the
burning Reichstag. Goering is wearing an apron and holding and
axe and the caption reads "Goering- the executioner of the Third
Reich". Possibly the most important piece of evidence that we
have against Goering is a testimony by General Franz Hadler in
which Hadler claimed that Goering confessed to starting the fire,
at Hitlers birthday party in 1942. Goering said "The only one who
really knows about it, is I, because I set it on fire!" In Goerings
presidential palace, there was an underground tunnel, leading
straight into the Reichstag building. This means that the Nazi's
had a direct route to the Reichstag and no-one would see them.
Shirer argued that Karl Ernst led a team of storm troopers down
the tunnel and when they popped up in the Reichstag they
scattered petrol and other such incendiaries. Van Der Lubbe was
"duped" into starting the fire, but the Dutch "half-wit" had no idea
of what the Nazi's had done. In the 1950's TL Jarman propped up
Shirers' version by writing "Actually, it appears certain the Nazi's
themselves had used an underground passage leading to the
Reichstag building to fire it, and used the Dutchman as a cover-
up".
There is however considerable evidence that
suggests the Nazis did not burn the Reichstag. The "Brown Book"
which insists that the Nazis did burn the Reichstag is biased,
because it was written by the Communists who regarded that
Nazis as their worst enemies. The Communists have therefore a
good reason to be biased. Whilst Goebels has been accused of
organising the fire there is evidence to undermine this claim.
When Goebels received the phone call to tell him the Reichstag
was on fire, he did not believe it, and he had to get a number of
calls before telling Hitler. Goebels was convinced that the news
was "pure fantasy", why would Goebels be suprised if he knew all
along that the Reichstag was to be burned. As Goebels wrote this
down in his diary he is probably telling us the truth- only he was
supposed to read his diary so there would be no point in lying to
himself. Goering was also blamed but the evidence against him is
not foolproof. John Heartfield is famous for his photo montage of
Goering standing in front of the burning Reichstag wearing an
apron holding an axe in his hands. Heartfeild is biased because he
was a Communist and would like to have seen Goering's
reputation in shreds. The strongest piece of evidence against
Goering was his confession, however the confession was made at
a party and Goering may have been confused or maybe just trying
to impress Hitler, so this piece of evidence may be unreliable.
Also the three Nazis (Gisevius, Diels and Hadler) who gave
evidence at the nuremburg trials, may not be reliable, because
they may have been trying to get themselves a lighter sentence
by inventing stories about Goering. They may have been
essentially trying to save their own skin. William Shirer's idea that
the Nazis used the underground tunnel to the Reichstag also has
flaws in it. If the Nazis did use the tunnel then they would have
made a lot of noise as the tunnel was made of steel, and as there
was a night porter, he would have heard them. Also after the fire
Goering checked the tunnel with the police. If Goering had prior
knowledge of the fire he should have inspected the tunnel with
Nazis who could hide any incriminating evidence. The doors to the
tunnel were locked at both ends, if Goering had set this up to look
like the Communists did it he would have made sure the doors
were left open. There was a night post man who delivered mail to
the Reichstag at midnight. The post did not smell any petrol or
any other incendiaries in the building. If as Shirer claims the Nazis
used Van Der Lubbe as a "dupe" then they did not pick a good
one, as Van Der Lubbe did not name any Communists, and they
were all released after the jury found them innocent, and if the
Nazis did use Van Der Lubbe he could have said it was the Nazis
had put him up to it and the Nazis would have made sure Van Der
Lubbe was left alone. Walter Laquer, a famous historian believes "
latest evidence tends to acquit the Nazis of this particular crime".
However there is also a third possibility, that Van
Der Lubbe did it himself. Van Der Lubbe was arrested at the scene
of the fire. He was found with some fire lighters and he had no
shirt on, he had used his shirt for tinder to start the fire. Van Der
Lubbe confessed to burning the building, explaining to the police
"... acted alone I declare emphatically that this was the case." Van
Der Lubbe was adamant that he was guilty- he told the police
exactly why he burned the Reichstag " At the outset, I must insist
that my action was inspired by political motives... I was a member
of the Communist party until 1929... in Holland I read that the
Nazi's had come to power in Germany... since the workers would do
nothing I had to do something myself. I thought arson a suitable
method. I did not wish to harm people, but something that
belonged to the system..." Van Der lubbe knew he was going to be
executed but he still stuck to his original statement. Van Der
lubbe described exactly what he did, were he got the fire lighters,
where he started the fire. The police checked every detail, they
even timed Van Der Lubbe going round the Reichstag. Everything
Van Der Lubbe said checked out. AJP Taylor wrote in his article, "
who burnt the Reichstag? the story of a legend" that he believed
Van Der Lubbe could have set fire to the Reichstag, " Van Der
Lubbe had twenty minutes in which to start fires. This was more
than enough.
It is also possible that Van Der Lubbe was helped
to burn the Reichstag. An historian, William Shirer, said that the
building was far to big for Van Der Lubbe to burn down by himself.
However, another historian, AJP Taylor, believed that the
Reichstag could have been destroyed by one man. The Reichstag
had wooden panelling and it was quite drafty, these things would
have allowed the fire to spread with ease. He also give examples,
the Houses of Parliament in 1834, was burned down by somebody
leaving a cooker on, the heat built up and the Houses of
Parliament was ruined, and also the Vienna Stock Exchange was
burnt out in 1956 by somebody putting a lit cigarette in a bin, and
Van Der Lubbe was deliberately trying to set the Reichstag on fire
so it would have been very easily done. Shirer then said that
scientists went in to the Reichstag and the found a vast quantity
of a liquid which had been used to start the fire Van Der Lubbe
could not have carried this himself, he must have had assistance.
Curiously Taylor says that the firemen did not smell or find any
trace at all of any incendiaries. Shirers last argument was the Van
Der Lubbe was a half wit and he had a clubbed foot, which meant
that Van Der Lubbe would not have carried out the plan- Van Der
Lubbe was too stupid and too slow to get around the Reichstag in
the space of time he had. Taylor considered that Van Der Lubbe
was intelligent and when the police interviewed him, they thought
he was "... more than usually intelligent, with an exceptionally
accurate sense of place and direction." Van Der Lubbe was not a
half wit in Taylor's eyes.
There are three different interpretations/
representations of the Reichstag fire. The first is that the
Communists burned the Reichstag. Those people who blamed the
Communists were mainly the Nazi's, who hated the Communists
and saw the benefit in blaming the
Communists to get more votes in the Reichstag. However
historians do not accept that the Communists were responsible for
burning down the Reichstag as they appreciate that the
Communists were the victims of a Nazi propaganda machine. The
second interpretation/ representation is that the Nazi's burnt the
Reichstag. A lot of historians blamed the Nazi's, such as William
Shirer and TL Jarman, who both wrote in their books in the early
950's. The Nazi's were responsible for starting the second world
war and killing millions of people so they would not have thought
twice about committing a crime like the Reichstag fire. People
blamed the Nazi's because the despised them. Historians such as
Shirer wrote their book after the war and as there would have
been a lot of hatred and bitterness towards the Nazi's. The third
and last interpretation/ representation is that Van Der Lubbe
burned down the Reichstag on his own. A few historians support
this idea, such as AJP Taylor, Walter Laquer and Fritz Tobias.
These three historians wrote their work in the 1960's and 70's so
people woul have been less biased towards the Nazi's because
time had softened the bitterness. These historians would have
therefore have studied the evidence more clearly and would have
a more open minded approach towards it.
After studying all the evidence and sources that I have been given, I have come to
the conclusion that Van Der Lubbe burned the Reichstag on his own. I do not think that the
Nazi's assisted Van Der Lubbe but the Nazi's did get massive gains from the fire. I believe this
because after looking at all the evidence I was not convinced by shirer and saw clearly that AJP
Taylor's criticisms of Shirers interpretation/ representation, crucially Van Der Lubbe's
confessions that he acted alone, helped to convince me that Van Der Lubbe was guilty. The
police were satisfied that they caught the right man and so am I. It was quite difficult to study
the evidence because it is, at times contradictory, some of them suggest that the Communists
started the fire, others the Nazi's and still others just Van Der Lubbe. Therefore it is hard to
come to a definite conclusion. Some of the evidence is biased such as "Armed Uprising", the
book written by the Nazi's, blaming the Communists. Although "Armed Uprising" is very useful,
because it shows who the Nazi's considered was guilty. A further difficulty was that I did not
have all the evidence, Van Der Lubbe was executed before all information could be extracted
from him and leaving several areas of mystery. Even though historians have examined the
same evidence they can come to very different conclusions, for example AJP Taylor thought
that the Nazi's had Burned the Reichstag, but once he read what another historian had to say,
he changed his mind and claimed that Van Der Lubbe had burned that Reichstag on his own with
no help. Therefore although I have studied the sources and I believe Van Der Lubbe to be
responsible someone else studying the same sources could easily come to a different
conclusion. If there was however, a chance that somebody found new evidence I may have to
change my conclusion, if the evidence was strong enough to suggest Van Der Lubbe was
innocent.
Andy Clarke History
