Source B states that Lubbe set fire to the Reichstag himself and that no other communists helped him. The two previous justifications both show that Source B only supports Source A by the fact that van der Lubbe started the Reichstag Fire by himself and not with the support of other communists. However, this is only helpful is both the sources are reliable and true- therefore the provenance must also be analysed. Source A was written after World War 2 and so, over time the Diels account may have been altered by memory or even deliberately changed. Diels would not have wanted to go to prison. Therefore, we would need to make himself seem innocent, however his account could not come across to be too innocent as the judge would not believe him- he needed the right balance. Source B is a small quote from van der Lubbe’s trial in 1933. Van der Lubbe may have been tortured into saying what the Nazi Party wanted because by saying that a communist/s started the fire, Hitler would have an excuse to arrest many of his political opponents (using the decree for the protection of people and state.) Both sources are very convenient towards the Nazis and are suited to what the audience want to hear- Source A was to be suited to the judges at the Nuremberg Trials of 1945-47 and Source B was to fulfil what the Nazis wanted to hear and do. Therefore, both sources may be inaccurate and therefore not very reliable.
2. When Diels wrote his account, it was well after World War II- This may mean that the source is inaccurate. Straight after the war had ended another one started; this one was called the Cold War or ‘the War of Words’. USA, Britain and France were fighting against the communist (USSR). From 1945 to 1989, Germany was split into two parts- Western democratic Germany and Eastern communist Germany. The Nuremberg trials were held in the democratic part of Germany. As Diels would not want to be arrested during the trails, he would try and make his account as ‘pro-democrat’ as possible. This would mean that he would gain more support from the anti-communist democrats at the trials. This is one reason why the source may be unreliable- in order to keep himself alive he would have altered his account to please the democrats, making it an inaccurate reflection of his thoughts/actions.
Another way that the judges could prosecute him was by saying that he was a top, influential Nazi. Diels was Göring’s apprentice this meant that Diels would try to protect him and in return, Göring would protect Diels. To back this up, Diels account only briefly mentioned Göring by saying ‘Göring then shouted out the order to me: 'Police on an emergency footing; shoot to kill.’ In order to protect Göring, Diels most probably toned down what he actually said and didn’t mention many more of Göring’s cruel deeds. This is another reason why the account may not be fully reliable. In addition, there are some major concerns when using this account as a primary source. These concerns are due to the content and motive for writing the account. One of the major problems with the account is when it was written- a full 12 years after the events occurred. Although the burning of the Reichstag may be hard to forget, there is no way that Diels could remember everything that happened in the source, especially in such detail. Diels gives hugely complicated quotations, such as Göring shouting; 'There will be no mercy now. Anyone who stands in our way will be cut down. Every communist will be shot or hanged. Everybody supporting the communists must be arrested.' This quote could not have so accurately remembered from such a long time ago, it is probably made up, making the account even more unreliable and inaccurate.
As a result, the point of view of the account Diels put himself into may not represent of what he truly believes. Clearly, Source A is not a very reliable source due to the circumstances Rudolf Diels was in.
