- Both sources F and G give out a similar message about the Nazis. They both show the Nazis as thugs and powerful over the German people. Both these source show he same thing as sources C and E, they all suggest that the Nazi Party planned Kristallnacht. Source F shows a Nazi SA man holding a knife dripping with blood in one hand and a club in the other. He is deliberately portrayed as a thug, and the cartoonist has drawn him as a stereotypical Nazi. This source also shows Tsar Nicholas II advising the Nazis to stop attacking the Jews, but it sounds as if he is using a sarcastic tone of voice, as the Nazis and Russians did not trust each other. It also sounds sarcastic as it sounds like he is saying that they won’t always be powerful, like they think they will, and that they’ll get what’s coming soon enough if they do not stop terrorising Jews. Source G shows a woman, who is meant to represent the German people, and a man in uniform representing the Nazis. The woman is tied up; in my opinion I think this means that the Nazis had a hold over the Germans. The man in uniform is seen to be powerful and is standing over a person who is probably Jewish. This picture tells us that ha Nazis were involved with the events of Kristallnacht and the German people had no say in the matter. But these sources were drawn by the Russians and the British, so they may have been biased. They look at the events from different viewpoints. Source F, drawn by the Russians, hated Nazism, so they may make Kristallnacht look more like the Nazi’s idea. Whereas source G, drawn by the British, were concerned about Nazism especially the repressive aspects. Source F is the Russians verdict, therefore they took some perverse pleasure out of what they saw, as the Nazis actually making trouble for themselves, whereas in source G is the British point of view and they are more concerned with the lack of freedom for the German people. So source F makes it look like the Nazis were thugs and caused all the destruction, and source G makes it look as if the Nazis were involved but is more concerned about what was happening to the Jews than making the Nazis the focus of the picture.
- In one way source I does not back up Goering’s account in source H but in another way it does. Source H is Goering’s account and he is saying that Hitler did not agree with events, but blamed Goebbels for Kristallnacht. He was part of the Nazi Part, so he may have been lying to cover up, even if he was under oath, because he had to make himself and the Nazis look as good as possible. Source I does not prove if Goering was telling the truth because it says that Hitler thought that Kristallnacht shouldn’t have happened and that people responsible ruined any chance for peace with France, and this implies that Hitler was not to blame. So this does not say who was responsible but there is a chance some information was left out. I think this because it was written 33 years after the conversation and Frau Troost may not have remembered it fully or she may have withheld information as she was biased and supported Hitler. This source does not really reliable, as it is not entirely believable because at that time there was hardly any chance of France making any kind of agreement with Germany. Germany had been re-arming openly since 1934/35, and had broken the Treaty of Versailles a few times, so they were not concerned with making peace with France or Great Britain. There is also the chance that she chose very carefully about what she said, maybe it was out of loyalty to Hitler, even after all those years. Source I does not really prove that Goering was telling the truth in source H because source H blames Goebbels, indirectly, for Kristallnacht whereas in source I Hitler does not say who is responsible, and it sounds as if he does not know who is to blame.
- ‘Kristallnacht was a spontaneous event by the German people.’
This claim is supported by three of these sources and six of them disagree with the statement. So more sources agree that Kristallnacht was a planned event by the Nazis, but you cannot be sure of this as it depends on the provenance of the sources.
Source A tells you that it was a planned attack as Hesse wrote that that he overheard Goebbels telling Hitler about the attacks before he event took place. This source is not very reliable because he worked for the Nazis and could he really of heard the ‘whispers’ in great detail? This source is also a summary, so important details may have been left out. But Hesse was there at the time, so there may be some truth in his account.
Source B is a secret report, which says that the Nazis were not involved but were not to discourage any spontaneous attacks. This is the Nazi version of events, so they would want it seem as if the attacks were spontaneous, this may affect its reliability, and make it less reliable. But you could argue that it was a secret report, so it was not for publication, which would make it more reliable.
Source C says that local crowds were horrified by the action of the Nazis, and it also says that SS men and Stormtroopers, out of uniform, carried out the violent attacks. This source seems to be reliable as Buffman (the writer of the source) was American, so therefore is neutral as he is not on either side. It was written at the time and he was an eyewitness, and he also gathered information from interviews, but we do not know what questions he asked, so this affects its reliability. This source implies that Kristallnacht was planned as it says ‘Nazi acts’ and ‘so called ‘spontaneous’’, this tells us that Buffman thought it was planned.
Source D says that the public were unsettled and notices were put up, in shops and cinemas, to warn away Jews. This source was an account of someone who was on the receiving end of the hatred. Therefore they may be biased and said these things out of spite. But there is a possibility that some of these things they say are true, as the Nazi did dislike the Jews. Because the Nazis disliked the Jews they used propaganda to make Germans hate them, and many Nazi followers listened to the propaganda. It is also true that the Nazis mistreated the Jews, as they campaigned against them by telling them that they were not welcome in certain places, and later after Kristallnacht there was the Holocaust, where thousands of Jews were sent to concentration camps.
Source E says that most German people did not have anything to do with Kristallnacht and that SA men were provided with tools and weapons. This source relates to source C, as they both say that the attacks involved Nazi police. This note was given to the British Consul and written by ‘A Civil Servant’, so if he was who he said he was, he would have had access to that information. But as he did leave his name so we no way of knowing. This affects its reliability. As it was given to the British Consul, it could mean that he was concerned about the events and wanted to British to know about it so they could intervene if it got worse.
Source F if a cartoon which shows a Nazi SA officer and Tsar Nicholas II. The Nazi officer is deliberately portrayed as a thug, because he has been drawn with a knife dripping with blood in one hand and a club in the other, he is also standing on debris from the destruction. Tsar Nicholas is shown as advising the Nazi, basically saying that attacking the Jews was a bad idea, as he was speaking from experience. He uses sarcasm by saying ‘…my fascist friend.’ He says this because Russians and Germans were enemies. I think this cartoon criticises the Nazis for thinking they are and will always be powerful, I think the basic message that is being given is that what goes around comes around. This source was drawn for a Russian newspaper, so they would have been biased, as they did not like or trust the Nazis, it could have also been drawn by second-hand reports – which could also be biased. As they did not like the Nazis they probably got some kind of pleasure out of seeing the Nazis making problems for themselves, and were probably amused by their actions.
Source G is a cartoon that shows a Nazi SS officer and a woman who is tied up – this woman is a representation of the German people. It shows the German people having no say or no control over the violent actions of the Nazis. I think the cartoonist is sympathising with the German people, as they have no freedom of speech. This source was published in a British magazine so it is the British point of view and as they did not trust the Nazis their opinion was biased. This source relates to source C and E as they both say the German people had no say in the events.
Source H says that Hitler did not agree with the events. Goering is also blaming Goebbels for Kristallnacht by saying it was not his place to destroy and disturb economic life. This source is not very reliable as Goering was a part of the Nazi Party, so even if he was under oath; he still may have lied to cover up, as he has to make himself look as good as possible. He was also involved in the power struggle against Goebbels, so it could be possible that he was trying to blame it all on Goebbels.
Source I says that Hitler thought that Kristallnacht should never of happened, because he wanted to make peace with France. But his chance was ruined. This source is a conversation Hitler had with Frau Troost shortly after Kristallnacht, but it was reported 33 years later. This makes it fairly unreliable as she may have missed out some important details, but I think she was biased, as her husband was one of Hitler’s favourite architects, so she gained from Hitler. There is also the possibility that Hitler had lied to her, as there clearly was no chance that France and Germany would make peace at that time.
Most of these sources disagree with the statement and imply that Nazis were involved indirectly with Kristallnacht, some more subtlety than others. But with most of these sources there something unreliable about them, so you do not know whether to believe it or not. Most of these sources do not support this claim so all of them point towards the Nazis planning the event. I think that the Nazis planned the event, and I think that the killing of Roth was the perfect excuse to start it. I think this because the sources that are the most reliable point towards Kristallnacht being planned, and because it makes more sense if it was planned. I think there might have been some aspects of spontaneity, as the propaganda may have influenced some Germans to hate the Jews so they may have started some with the help of disguised Nazi police officers. More than one source tells us that Goebbels had a part in the planning of the Kristallnacht, so that’s another possibility. I do not think these sources support the claim very much, because a lot of them are unreliable and some of them seem to be biased, either against the Nazis or for the Nazis.