Both of these sources were written on very similar dates; almost immediately after the Reichstag building burned down. The British cartoon was originally published on the 8th March, 1933, whereas the Nazi book was published just a short while after by Eckart-Verlag, also in 1933. This tells us that the creator of both sources should have had approximately the same amounts of information concerning the incident available to them.
The first surface similarity is that both sources actually physically show the Reichstag parliament building covered in flames, whether it is in the background of source C, or the foreground of source D. This demonstrates that both sources and viewpoints do not dispute that the Reichstag building was set alight. Therefore, this also means that the topic that both sources are exploring is not whether or not the fire actually occurred, but in fact who lit the fire and why.
Another explicit agreement between the sources is how it is inferred that the Nazis blame the Communist party and in particular its extremist followers for the events that transpired on the night of 27th February 1933. This is clear from source C from the title; ‘The Red Peril’. Because the Communist party favoured red as a strong and powerful colour, it has always been considered as the official colour of the extremist left-wing political party. The word associated with the communist party in the title is ‘Peril’, which directly shows that Communism was considered dangerous and a threat to society by the Nazi party, in the opinion of the British illustrator. Source D explains how communism was considered a threat by depicting numerous communists in menacing poses armed with shotguns and rifles. Van Der Lubbe is also pictured, showing to readers that a Communist was actually being accused of committing the fire. The title of the book; ‘Bewaffneter Aufstand’ translates into English as ‘Armed Uprising’, which immediately shows the amount of bias that this book must show in favour of the Nazi party. This title would have been used in order to make the communist party seem more of a threat in the eyes of the German people. These are just some of the reasons why this document is considered to be purely Nazi propaganda, designed mainly to persuade the German population to abandon support of the Communist party.
Both sources also agree that the Nazi party has exploited the situation to gain a higher degree of control over the German government and its people. Source C does this by actually showing Adolf Hitler and Hindenburg (the head of the German Weimar Republic at the time) huddled together, scheming. Hindenburg is seen saying ‘If you can’t be a Dictator now, you never will be’ to his partner, who already is holding the Emergency Powers decree in his hands. This reveals that the Nazi party is not merely taking advantage of the situation; they could have also orchestrated and planned the whole event in order to gain total power over Germany. A great amount of plotting is also inferred from the facial expressions and costume of the two leaders. The book that source D is extracted from is evidence that the Nazi party tried to take advantage of the situation in any way possible. As previously stated, this blatant propaganda was wrote to remove any existing blame from the Nazi party, and emplace it all on the Communists.
One of the greatest and most significant disagreements between the sources is that one is of British origin; the other is of Nazi German origin. This means that both sources are very unreliable and will show a great deal of bias and difference of perspective. Due to source C being a completely external outsider’s impression, it will most likely contain the greatest deal of truth, when compared to source D, which is most likely total propaganda. From other sources and past experience, it is apparent that most Nazi documents produced in this time period are almost entirely fictitious, fabricated or alter the truth in favour of the Nazi party.
Another difference between the sources is that different people are being shown as doing the plotting. It is this difference that also informs who or what party is actually responsible for the Fire (in the opinion of the respective authors). Source C quite clearly shows that Adolf Hitler and therefore the Nazi party are the group suspected of being in total control of the situation, whereas source D directly illustrates that it was the Communist party. This inference is all done by the people shown and their actions in the pictures. Hitler and Hindenburg are both shown in togas, which in this case are referring to the immense power, greed and scheming that was undertook by the Roman Emperors. The sceptre that Hitler holds is also highly significant of this fact, as is the scroll that helps complete the image. Source D explicitly shows Marinus Van Der Lubbe holding some sort of paper document; obviously deep in thought or concentration. Pictured next to him are a group of armed communists, which signify that he was the one in charge and even planned the whole event. These points from the sources quite strongly disagree with each other.
Overlooking the great deal of bias and unreliability that is evident in these two sources, it is possible to form a conclusion that will answer the original question. To conclude, although sources C and D both explore some completely different aspects of the fire, both agree strongly that the Nazi party took extreme advantage of the situation, using it to gain more power over Germany. However, the sources do not agree who was responsible for the fire. Source C suggests that it was Hitler, Hindenburg and the Nazi party; whereas source D maintains that the Communists were responsible. Both sources still sustain that the Communist party posed a threat to Germany during that period of time, and that at least some plotting was involved from all groups involved. The main problem with forming a final conclusion is that both sources are mere conjecture, expressing the author’s opinion instead of established fact. I believe that on the whole, both sources agree quite strongly concerning the events that surround the Reichstag fire.
- Use the source and your own knowledge of the period to explain why the Nazis would want to publish a book like this one.
There are many reasons that the Nazi party would have wanted to publish such a book, some of which are more explicit and obvious than others. There are multiple perspectives that the book cover could be viewed from, the main standpoints in this scenario being the Nazi party, the Communist party, and the ordinary, undecided German citizen. Each of these different perspectives demonstrates the same main purposes and aims of designing and publishing the book in this manner.
Clearly, in context with the current events happening in Germany at the time of publishing, the most beneficial reason for the Nazi party wanting to publish this book is to dissuade the population of Germany from supporting the more radical left-wing groups. They have achieved this by picturing a scene that directly infers that it was Communists that were responsible for the Reichstag fire. The Reichstag building in this period was seen by most as the supreme governing parliament in Germany. Therefore, the person that controlled the Reichstag would in effect control Germany. The German people would see the person or group that was responsible for the desecration of the Reichstag as enemies of Germany, therefore showing less respect and possibly refusing to join the party. This would mean that the German people would be less likely to join the communist party, and may seek to join another radical, extremist party. In effect, the Nazi party is using this book as a piece of planned propaganda; to gain the trust, support and votes of the German people in the forthcoming election.
The book is entitled ‘Bewaffneter Aufstand’ or ‘Armed Uprising’ in order to make the situation appear to be more extreme and serious than it actually was to the everyday German inhabitant. Even this title alone would make the German people have a heightened sense of caution when confronted with communism. The cover is depicted with images of communist men with rifles, giving the impression that the threat was not detached from everyday life, but instead was involved with German society. Also apparent on the book cover is the picture of Marinus Van Der Lubbe scheming in the top right hand corner. It is inferable from this image that Van Der Lubbe is the main focus and blame of the book, trying to remind the German people that he is the brainwashed communist responsible for the desecration of the symbol of German government; the Reichstag building. Pictured under Van Der Lubbe is the burning silhouette of the Reichstag, trying to signify to the German people that Communism is burning down not only the parliament building, but the German way of life itself.
Other, more insignificant reasons that the Nazis published the book would be irrelevant from a historical standpoint. The book could also have been released in order to gain publicity and to raise money for the Nazi campaign, but these are not as important as the chief causes mentioned above.
In the election, the Nazi party won 233/500 seats, meaning that the Nazi party had to join with the Nationalist party in order to become an overall majority. Hitler used the fire to his advantage by accessing the emergency powers available to him and therefore passing the Enabling Act on the 24th March 1933. This allowed him to immediately pass laws and decrees without interference or involvement from any other party. This legally made Hitler the Führer (dictator) of Germany.
To conclude, the main reason for producing this book cover was to try and dissuade the German people from following Communism and instead for them to support the Nazi party. The ultimate goal for this piece of Nazi propaganda was to win votes, allowing the Nazi party to gain an overall majority and control Germany. Some of the secondary purposes of publishing this book may have been to raise awareness, campaign funds and publicity about the opinions of the Nazi party.
- Do sources E and G prove that Göring (source F) was telling lies? Explain your answer using the sources and your own knowledge.
Herman Göring was the highest ranking Nazi official brought before the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials. During his trial, Göring vigorously maintained that he had not planned or undertook any part in the arson of the Reichstag parliament building, despite allegations against him by General Franz Halder and SA leader Karl Ernst. He clearly denies all accusations and charges against him in his statement in source F, stating that ‘Even if I had started the fire, I would most certainly not have boasted about it’. Göring also claims that ‘What General Halder says is not true’, directly denying the claims made against him. In his trial, Göring frequently used his intelligence and wit to completely outwit the prosecuting counsel, proving that he had the ingenuity and adeptness to plan and undertake such a complicated assignment for the Nazi party and Hitler himself.
Clearly established historical knowledge informs the argument that Göring was most certainly capable of committing the crime. Possibly the most significant fact concerning Göring is that he was a very close friend of Adolf Hitler’s; therefore he would most definitely have been trusted with such a considerable task or mission. Another very important piece of background information concerning Göring is that he had a totally unguarded, fully functional tunnel stretching from his own private house to the Reichstag parliament building.
Source F directly disagrees with established facts concerning the Reichstag fire and the events of the 27th February 1933. In his statement, it is clearly stated that Göring claims to have had no knowledge of the fire prior to it breaking out. He says that; ‘The whole thing is ridiculous. Even if I had started the fire, I would most certainly not have boasted about it’. This contradicts everything that is known about Göring’s character; he had extravagant tastes and was mentally dependant on narcotic painkillers (mainly morphine). It is therefore quite possible that Göring did in fact boast about the events and was overheard by another officer or official in his company. It is also probable that the painkillers limited Göring’s ability to think as clearly as normal, lowering the degree to which he could remember events and harming his capacity to withhold confidential information. The statement should also be considered to be considered to be very unreliable due to the scenario it was given in. Göring was a desperate man at the point of the Nuremburg trials, trying vigorously to save his own life and his reputation. By this period of time, he is most likely to do anything to avoid the death penalty, whether it is lying, cheating or even trying to emplace the blame back on to his accuser (as he does when he denies Halder’s claim in his statement). These points and aspects of Göring’s lifestyle and his statement mean that source F is very unreliable, most probably not even showing a weak sense of truth.
Franz Halder was briefly the Commander in Chief of the German Army between the years of 1941 and 1942. He was then replaced by another high ranking general after a large disagreement with Adolf Hitler. Halder was later accused of being involved in a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler himself, and sent to Dachau Concentration Camp. He was later freed by the USA army in 1945 after the liberation of Dachau. Halder gave evidence a year later against leading members of the Nazi party at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trial.
In his statement, (source E), Halder claims that during a conversation with other high-ranking Nazi officers, Göring shouted ‘The only one who really knows about the Reichstag building is I, for I set fire to it’. This accusation would mean that Halder should not have been the only member of the party to hear Göring’s comment; it should have been overheard by numerous other Nazi officials. There is no record of any other officers corroborating or reinforcing this quote. Another discrepancy is how Halder appears to remember Göring’s exact quote a full 3 years after it was originally made. Although this is possible, the quote may not be word-perfect and should be treated with some care. However, because Halder generally disliked the Nazi party after being imprisoned in a concentration camp, he should have no real motive or anything to gain from lying or telling mistruths. Halder’s statement also can be confirmed from existing background knowledge, which claims that Göring was in fact quite pretentious and would have had no inhibitions about openly boasting about such an event at a gathering of high-ranking Nazis. One possible reason for slight exaggeration might be the want of revenge on Halder’s part. Although this should be taken into consideration, it is not a major point that should alter the reliability of the source dramatically. Source E appears to show very little bias and should be considered as containing and portraying at least a sense of truth.
Karl Ernst was a young, high-ranking SA officer, with approximately 300,000 men under his command in Berlin alone. When questioned informally by a fellow Dutch right-wing political supporter, he answered; ‘If I said yes, I’d be a bloody fool, if I said no; I’d be a bloody liar’. This quote backs up his statement in source G, because it is almost a confession of his guilt. Because it is a secondary source, however, it may still have been affected by bias. The quote seems to have been very vague and ambiguous, although Ernst seems too scared of the consequences to admit his view of the outright truth.
One of the main problems with source G is that there is no way to tell how much truth it contains. This is for several reasons, the primary cause being that the quote was only published (albeit on his own orders) after his brutal death on the ‘Night of the Long Knives’. Karl Ernst supposedly entrusted his confession in the hands of the Communist party and commanded that it only be published only if he received a vicious death. There is no evidence to suggest that the Communists didn’t merely fabricate this confession ain order to regain support from the German people. Although there are many faults with the source, it does compare well with background historical knowledge from the period. The section of the source where Ernst claims that; ‘We used Van Der Lubbe. He would climb into the Reichstag and blunder about while we set fire to the building.’ seems to agree particularly well with existing knowledge, as it is generally regarded as fact that Van Der Lubbe had serious mental problems and did not seem to be fully aware of his actions on the night of the fire. Although source G has got severe problems with reliability, it is still the source that offers the most support to the argument.
In conclusion, I believe that sources E and G cannot prove whether or not source F was truthful. None of the sources demonstrate enough reliability to form an undisputable final conclusion, although the other sources do help to suggest that Göring was not being entirely honest in his statement. To form a final conclusion, more reliable sources would be needed to provide a high level of accuracy when demonstrating if source F was honest or deceitful.
- Use all the sources.
- Van der Lubbe was a madman and he set fire to the Reichstag all by himself, but the Nazis genuinely believed the fire was the start of a Communist uprising.
- The Reichstag Fire was started by the Nazis to give them an excuse to take emergency powers and lock up or kill the Communists. Van der Lubbe was used by the Nazis.
Which of these interpretations of the Reichstag Fire is best supported by the evidence? Explain your answer using the sources and your own knowledge.
Although upon first glance both statements can be reinforced by comparable amounts of sources, examining background knowledge from the incident in question can further help make an informed conclusion. Each perspective demonstrated is an actual possibility and neither is known to be true or false, therefore any deductions made will be suppositions and the most probable suggested truths. Using all the sources available and other information surrounding the Nazi participation in the fire, it will be possible to reach a verdict on which scenario is more likely to be the truth. Because statement A is supported by a total of four sources, and source B is supported by 3, this small difference in number means that the actual reliability of the sources is required to be taken into consideration. This will be accomplished by comparing the sources with information on their authors, subjects and in some cases the events they document.
Source A claims that Van der Lubbe was in fact clinically insane and was unaware or did not have the mental capacity to control his actions. It also states that; ‘he set fire to the Reichstag all by himself’, suggesting that he had no direct help from either the Nazi or Communist political parties. It also claims that, ‘The Nazi’s genuinely believed the fire was the start of a Communist uprising’. For this to be true, it would be necessary for there to be significant evidence that unequivocally linked Van der Lubbe with the Communist party on the night of the fire. The statement also implies that Hitler and the Nazi party did not play any active part in the lighting of the fire; it was just a lucky coincidence that the incident allowed access to emergency powers that gave total control over Germany. Sources A, B, D and F agree with this first statement, whether explicitly or implicitly.
In his account (Source A), Rudolf Diels directly supports statement A, by giving numerous observations and interpretations of the events that occurred on the night of 27th February 1933. Diels claims in his description that Van der Lubbe spent the night telling ‘confused stories’. It can be inferred from this that Van der Lubbe himself was not totally capable of understanding or comprehending the events that preceded his arrest. This suggests that source A is agreeing with one of the main concepts that statement A proposes, that Van der Lubbe was indeed a ‘madman’. Diels continues to maintain in his report that Van der Lubbe’s confessions ‘made me believe he had acted alone’. This would most certainly agree with the second point made by the statement; that Van der Lubbe had acted on his own behalf or at least without any direct assistance. In the report Göring’s reaction to the fire is also documented, Diels claims that ‘he (Göring) came towards me shouting uncontrollably: “There will be no mercy now…”’. This extreme reaction from Göring demonstrates that he was unaware of any planning or plot surrounding the fire. If his reaction was in fact genuine, it would agree with the section of the first statement that proposes that; ‘the Nazis genuinely believed the fire was the start of a Communist uprising’. This point leads on to the part of Diels’ account where he ascertains that Van der Lubbe was under the influence of Communist propaganda. Diels states that ‘I read the Communist pamphlets he carried around in his trouser pockets’, suggesting that he believes that Van der Lubbe was part of a communist attack on the German Parliament.
While source A makes some very valid points in favour of statement A, it also contradicts some of the ideas expressed. Later in his account, for example, Diels claims that Van der Lubbe had been given assistance by other communists. Diels also demonstrates the Nazis taking advantage of the situation by using it to issue a manhunt of all Communist supporters. This is evident from the quote by Göring that Diels makes; ‘Police on an emergency footing; shoot to kill’.
Although source A agrees quite strongly with the first statement, there are some major discrepancies with the overall reliability and accuracy of the account. One of the main problems with the report is that it was actually written a full 12 years after the events occurred. Another huge problem when considering the consistency of the report is that a great deal of it is mere opinion and conjecture on Diels’ behalf. An example of this is the sheer amount of times that Diels uses words such as ‘suggested’, ‘thought’ and ‘might’. Although there is no doubt that Diels was actually at the scene of the fire and had both the authority and resources to publish an accurate report, he seems to be undecided about his opinions on the incident and what the evidence suggests. He demonstrates this by making an explicit contradiction between two of the key ideas he expresses; whether Van der Lubbe was alone or not. In one piece of text, he states that ‘The voluntary confessions of Van der Lubbe made me believe he had acted alone’, whereas elsewhere in his report he claims that ‘Several details suggested that Communists who had helped him start these other fires might also have helped him with the Reichstag fire’. From these details, it is clear that Diels’ account is very unreliable and cannot be considered as trustworthy evidence.
Source B is a statement given by Van der Lubbe at his trial in 1933. It is regarded as established fact that Van der Lubbe had a history of mental instability, in particular for taking credit for famous events. It is most likely that this pattern is being repeated in this scenario, with Van der Lubbe acting in an irrational manner for no real purpose but to gain acknowledgment for committing the crime. This knowledge directly supports the first part of statement A; that Van der Lubbe was in fact a ‘madman’. Van der Lubbe continues in his statement to say that ‘I set fire to the Reichstag all by myself’, explicitly admitting to have had absolutely no assistance in setting fire to the Reichstag. Van der Lubbe also claims that the other defendants (primarily the Communists suspected of helping him) are involved in the trial, but did not directly commit the arson. This corroborates and compares well with the points made in statement A.
Unlike source A, this account by Van der Lubbe fails to mention whether the Nazi leaders genuinely believed that this was all part of a communist uprising. This information would have to be gained from another source in order to fully support the statement, as it is not clear from this particular source.
Because Van der Lubbe was in actual fact most likely suffering from some sort of mental disorder, his statement is therefore very unreliable and cannot be considered as viable evidence for use in forming a valid conclusion. More information would need to be gathered and compared in order to ascertain any of the concepts suggested in this source. Additionally, there is one major difference between van der Lubbe’s statement and background knowledge. How would it have been possible for a Communist supporter to have entered and of the conventional guarded entrances of the Reichstag building? Van der Lubbe just claims to have committed the crime; he does not care to elaborate on further details, making the source even more unreliable.
Due to source D being the cover of a Nazi-published book, it is impossible to tell whether Van der Lubbe truly had mental disabilities or not. Putting this fact aside, source D most certainly supports the first statement, clearly showing Van der Lubbe and Communists plotting and scheming to burn down the Reichstag building. Because of the nature of this book, it is difficult to interpret any other details that would support statement A. One difference between the source and the first statement however; is that the book cover shows Communists helping Van der Lubbe, whereas for this to be fully supportive, only Van der Lubbe should have been actively involved in the lighting of the fire. This source cannot be considered to be even partially reliable, as it is a blatant piece of Nazi propaganda designed to alter the opinions of the population of Germany. Its main aim appears to be to persuade that the Communist party was responsible for the burning down of the Reichstag, demonstrating a flagrant amount of bias present.
Source F focuses more on the latter part of the first statement, foregoing any mention of Van der Lubbe or the Communist threat. Instead, the source is a statement by Herman Göring claiming that he knew nothing of any plot or scheme on behalf of the Nazi party to cause the Reichstag Fire. Göring claims that; ‘Even if I had started the fire, I would most certainly not have boasted about it’, inferring that neither Göring nor any other Nazi officer would have set alight the Reichstag building. Because Göring was one of the highest ranking Nazi officers and would most certainly have been in the position to know details like this, he has the ability to tell the truth under oath. Therefore, either he has decided to conceal the truth, or he genuinely believes what he is saying, supporting the statement. Because Göring is literally fighting for his life in this trial, it is accurate to say that he would have done anything to escape punishment. Therefore, this source should be considered as being very unreliable.
Source B claims that the Nazis completely orchestrated the events that occurred on the night of 27th February, 1933, in order to gain the emergency powers they needed to take full control of Germany. The statement goes on to say that the Nazis used it as a way to eliminate the Communist threat, by either locking up or killing anybody that had suspected involvement in the fire. It also states clearly that ‘Van der Lubbe was used by the Nazis’, inferring that the Nazi party used Marinus Van der Lubbe as a ‘Scapegoat’; a person designed to take the blame for the actions of others. This concept suggests that the Nazis specifically chose him because of his mental disability and sent him into the Reichstag building when the real fire was being set. For this statement to be true it would be necessary to find strong evident and admissions of guilt about the incident. Sources C, E and G agree with this first statement, whether explicitly or implicitly.
Source C explicitly shows that in the opinion of the artist, the Nazi party most certainly planned and carried out the Reichstag fire. This is evident from the illustration from numerous features, including (but not limited to) the attire of the main figures, and the positions they are standing in. The source demonstrates that there was a plot going on by showing Hitler and Hindenburg hunched together, wearing very Romanesque togas, which in this situation are symbolic of the plotting and scheming that was rife for the acquisition of power in the Roman Empire. This source directly supports the statement, also claiming by the title; ‘The Red Peril’ that the Communist party was being blamed for all of these events. Hitler is seen holding a scroll which are detailed with the words; ‘Emergency Powers’ which is showing just one of Hitler’s ultimate goals for burning down the Reichstag building. It is this exploitation of the situation that most directly reinforces statement A, which claims that the Nazi party planned the whole incident in order to gain from the event. One disagreement shown is how Van der Lubbe is not mentioned in this source, possibly inferring that he was not used in the plot to gain the Emergency Powers.
Because source C is in fact from the pen of a British illustrator, it is just one opinion from a certain perspective and cannot be considered as actual fact. Although this shows an isolated, third-party perspective on the matter, the source is most likely to be heavily biased against the Nazi party. Another problem with this source is how it is depicting an imaginary event that probably never actually occurred. Although there was plotting involved, the author is merely trying to exaggerate the situation by picturing the events in this particular way. Therefore, this means that source C cannot be accepted as a verified, useful source of evidence because of the high level of bias and conjecture it demonstrates.
Source E does not actually prove much about the actual circumstances of the planning of the fire; it only suggests that Göring was the one who initiated the fire in the Reichstag Parliament building. This statement by General Franz Halder does not suggest or even mention whether the Nazis used the event as a way of gaining the Emergency Powers, as a way of detaining the Communist party, or even whether Van der Lubbe was actually involved. Halder claims that ‘Göring broke into the conversation and shouted: ‘ The only one who really knows about the Reichstag building is I, for I set fire to it’, which suggests that the whole chain of events were at least partly planned by a senior, high ranking Nazi officer and possibly even Adolf Hitler himself.
Unlike many of the other sources available to use as evidence, source E actually appears to be quite reliable. Franz Halder was most certainly in the position and rank during the period to have access to such information, and he would most likely have nothing to gain from testifying in this manner. Halder was actually incarcerated by Hitler in Dachau Concentration Camp for suspected involvement with the July Bomb Plot that attempted to assassinate the Führer. Consequently, source E could be used as evidence as it shows very little bias and quite possibly factual information that compares well with established background knowledge.
Source G is the confession of Karl Ernst, the leader of the SA at the time of the Reichstag fire. This source strongly agrees with the second statement, as the author explicitly admits to being the one responsible for lighting the fire on behalf of Hitler himself, by stating that; ‘I and two SA men set fire to the Reichstag. We did so in the belief that we would be serving the Führer’. This would strongly reinforce with the section of the statement that claims that the whole incident was planned by the Nazis for a higher purpose. Another strong corroboration is later in the source, where Ernst admits that; ‘We used Van der Lubbe’. This would mean that what the statement suggests is true, that Van der Lubbe was used to cover up the real agenda of the Nazis.
Unfortunately, one of the strongest agreeing pieces of evidence is also one of the most unreliable. Because Ernst ordered that this confession be published if he received a brutal death, it was published by the Communist party in 1934 after the ‘Night of the Long Knives’. This immediately downgrades the merits that the source can be awarded, meaning that in essence, it comes from quite a weak source that is very unreliable and strongly biased in the favour of Communism. An ulterior motive for the publishing of this source would be that the Communists just wanted to clear their own name by any means necessary, regaining votes and supporters. For these reasons, source G must be treated as very unreliable.
In overall conclusion, although statement A gains more support from the sources available for study, statement B compares very well with not only the sources but also with clearly established background historical knowledge. Because the first statement has support from the most sources, it has still to be considered a distinct possibility, however unreliable the evidence presented in the sources is. Alternatively, the second statement still shows lack of reliability, but demonstrates much stronger points and a much more realistic and probable scenario. Statement B also can be reinforced with a great deal of other knowledge about the Nazi party and about the economic, social and military state of Germany during this period. At the time of the Reichstag fire, the Nazi party did not have the overall majority in the German parliament, meaning that future elections were planned. Hitler and the Nazi Party would have had so much to gain from planning and carrying out this fire, including the total control of Germany through the emergency powers available. It is regarded as quite common knowledge that Hitler, the NSDAP, the SA and SS were entirely capable of committing such a well-planned crime. It is certain fact that the only groups of people that could have gained access to the Reichstag building were the secret police organisations via the secret passageway in Göring’s residence. The strongest pieces of evidence are the alleged confessions of Karl Ernst and General Halder himself, which confirm this theory of the Nazis setting fire to the Reichstag. After the events in the Reichstag, Hitler won the elections, merged with the Nationalists and gained the overall majority. I believe that in final conclusion, statement B (‘The Reichstag Fire was started by the Nazis to give them an excuse to take emergency powers and lock up or kill the Communists. Van der Lubbe was used by the Nazis.’) is supported by the majority of the evidence available both within the sources and generally. Although this conclusion is not definite, I believe it is most likely from all the information accessible.
Question 1. Explain the nature and the purpose of the Hitler Youth Movement.
After assuming full control of Germany on 2nd August 1934, Adolf Hitler quickly began to see the importance and potential of the new, younger generation he ruled over. The Führer took great care to ensure that these young people were especially loyal to him and the Nazi Party. The Nazis reorganised and took control over every aspect of a child’s life in order to indoctrinate the youth with their philosophies and concepts. From school textbooks to the radio and cinema, everything a young person heard or saw was designed to ‘brainwash’ them into following the Nazi regime without question.
At school, children in Nazi Germany learned about how superior and great Germany was when compared to the rest of the world. The entire learning experience was in essence propaganda, designed to teach German children to worship the Führer and be loyal to Germany. Every subject was taught with immense bias; all from a very Nazi perspective. A question from a maths textbook published in 1933 asked children to calculate ‘the percentage of aliens [Jewish inhabitants] in Germany’. In maths and chemistry, children would learn about chemical warfare, ballistics and artillery and in biology, they would be told and forced to believe that they were special; superior in every way to the Jews. The school curriculum was strictly monitored by the Nazi leaders, who ensured that the German youth would be persuaded to remain loyal to Germany over anything else.
From 1933, German children could voluntarily join up to one of the divisions of the ‘Hitlerjugend’ (Hitler Youth) organisation. In effect, this was just an extension of the techniques used by the Nazis in their schooling programme. German boys could join The ‘Pimpfen’ from the age of six, ‘The Jungvolk’ from the age of 10 and ‘the Hitlerjugend’ from the age of 14. In later years, upon turning 17 many boys were conscripted for army service. Girls in Nazi Germany followed a slightly different route through the youth organisations; at the age of 10 they were able to join ‘the Jungmadel’, and from the age of 14 many joined the female version of the Hitlerjugend; ‘The Bund Deutsch Madchen’. Even the names of these organisations were quite patriotic and inspiring to the German children of the time. Each youngster was issued with a ‘performance book’, in which the details of any activities participated in were recorded. Those with the most details in their books were deemed to be the most loyal and worthy, and were often sent to the ‘Adolf Hitler Schools’ and given extra training. Members of the Hitler Youth organisations had to follow a rigorous timetable of physical training exercises and parades. In addition to this physical work, members of the Hitler Youth would participate in activities such as singing, dancing and more academic and political studies. These activities were all designed to encourage loyalty and discipline to the next generation of Germany; teaching then to think of themselves as ‘a whole’, not individuals. Another way of accomplishing this was to make the youngsters wear militaristic uniforms and contribute to huge rallies like those at Nuremburg. The support Hitler received at these rallies was immense. Each child and adolescent in the audience was mesmerised by the performance Hitler gave, to them he was not just the leader of Germany. He was God. Although at first membership to the Hitler Youth was not compulsory, many children were swept up with the frenzy of peer pressure and belonging to an organisation and so they joined. Other youth organisations were shut down and forbidden. By 1939, the vast majority of young Germans were members of one of the youth organisations.
The Nazi leaders focussed their main resources in recruiting and training the younger generation of Germany because they realised, that unlike the adults that may reject the Nazi philosophies, the children of Germany were more likely to stay loyal. Unlike the older age bracket in Germany, the children knew no other way of life or of democracy. If the Nazis targeted them in this way, they would most likely stay loyal without attempting to reject the Nazi teachings like their parents. This new generation of Nazis were bred and specifically trained to be at the peak of physical fitness, as is evident from the physical training they undertook. It was the ultimate goal of all boys in the youth organisations to serve Germany at wartime and fight on the military front, whereas the goal of the young girls was to become mothers and make Germany strong by creating an even better generation of children. The training and schooling of Nazi children reflected this concept, making young men into powerful fighting machines and young women into perfect mothers and housewives. Another purpose of recruiting young people into these organisations was so that the Nazi leaders had spies inside every home and school in Germany. Many children informed on their parents and teachers for rejecting their Nazi teachings. Although for the majority of the time these Nazi ideas were quite successful, some rejected them. The Edelweiss Pirates were another, independent youth organisation that had very different concepts to that of the Nazi youth. Many children were bullied into the Hitler youth organisations but still followed commands and followed the Hitler youth unquestioningly.
Question 2. Explain the reasons for Nazi policies towards German women.
After coming to power in 1933, the Nazi leaders tried not only to control Germany from a military and economic perspective, but also attempted to manipulate the social structure already in place. The Nazi regime that replaced this structure encouraged discrimination, inequity and extreme prejudice. These extremist policies led not only to racial intolerance and bigotry, but also to the creation of a significant rift between the rights of men in women. Although the Nazi party received the highest percentage of votes in the last democratic election before the war, and seized totalitarian control of Germany, these policies of intolerance were introduced by the NSDAP in the early 1920s. Many laws were passed in order to encourage the procreation of the ‘pure Aryan race’, most of which offered rewards in the form of prizes and monetary sums.
