The Reichstag Fire - Source related study.

in this account. He says firstly that Van der Lubbe had “acted alone”, but then goes on to say “Communists who had helped him start these other fires, might also have helped him with the Reichstag Fire”. This could show either his honesty or how he was unsure about the actual happenings on that day at least 12 years ago, which is understandable. However he may have just been showing how his mind was changed about whether Van der Lubbe was aided or not. On balance, I think this source is fairly reliable. Diels may have had access to files and reports on the fire, or may have indeed written one at the time himself as he was the chief of police. The fact that he contradicts himself could show his honestly or his uncertainty over the actual events. Also he seems to have considered the cause behind the fire in detail, examining the building’s architecture among other things. Even after his report to Goring and Hitler on the events, during which they put across their views, which normally as a Nazi he should have agreed to, he still continued to consider these events himself and concluded that Van der Lubbe had acted alone. His ideas seem well thought out and reasonable, they are not biased which adds to this source’s credibility. However, even though Diels claims that Van der Lubbe acted alone, I feel this was unlikely due to his mental and physical handicaps. The fact that this was around the time of the Nuremberg trials suggests that he was feeling worried and insecure about his future which could have lead to this contradiction, or just that he may have changed certain details slightly and presented himself in a better light so that he doesn’t get the blame.I don’t think source C was either for or against the Nazis. This cartoon was printed shortly after the German elections in a British magazine. The artist wouldn’t have known what Hitler was going to do in the future, so was unlikely to be solidly against the Nazis. Although he/she may have not agreed with Hitler’s idea of a dictatorship, they probably feared Hitler’s rivals; the communists. This could be why the cartoon was entitled “The Red Peril”. This also could suggest that the communists are dangerous and that they caused the Reichstag fire. I think they way Hitler and Hindenburg have been presented shows the artists disapproval of the Nazis and the president. The togas could be a reference to the Roman emperor Nero, who burned down Rome and after blaming it on the Christians, used it as an excuse to persecute them. So the cartoon could be suggesting that the Nazi’s started the fire in the Reichstag as an excuse to get “The Decree for the Protection of People and State” and have powers over the Communists. These emergency powers are clearly the subject of the cartoon. I think source D was for the Nazis, firstly because it was Nazi propaganda, a book written and published by a Nazi shortly after the Reichstag fire. The title “Armed Uprising” also implies violence, and the picture of Van der Lubbe with his armed followers supports this and links it with communism. The cloth caps the figures in the picture are wearing also implies that they are workers, again making a link with communism.I do not believe that sources E and G proves that Göring (source F) was telling lies. Source E was taken from General Franz Halder at the Nuremberg trials in 1946. Halder would have been worried that he might be sentenced to death, so could have been trying to shift the blame on to Göring. When faced with the possibility of death, it is understandable that Halder may have taken this veiwpoint to try and save his own life. However, if Halder was indeed speaking the truth, there is the possibility that Göring may have just told Hitler that he set fire to the Reichstag to impress him. Source G, the ‘confession’ (inverted commas around ‘confession’ suggest that this was a fake) of SA leader Karl Ernst, also has no strength in its conviction for two main reasons. Firstly, it was published after Ernst had been killed by the Communists. It is likely that as opposition of the Nazi party, the Communists published this to regain some support and more votes. Published in the same year as Hindenburg dies and Hitler becomes Führer, they may have been trying to get people to stand up against Hitler and give the leadership of Germany to someone else, possibly a communist as they are, and have always been, strongly against the Nazis. Secondly, as Karl Ernst was dead before this was published he can’t defend this statement which the communists have published. The communists could have easily altered it, or even made the whole thing up, but no one except Ernst would know whether they did or not, and as Ernst was dead, no one could prove anything. Both these sources are unreliable because of the conditions in which they were given/published, so do not prove that Göring (in source F) was lying.On the surface source H appears to show that it was less likely that the Nazis actually set fire to the Reichstag. It says how it happened at a time when the Nazis weren’t at their strongest “the Nazis had hoped to destroy the Communists after the election, when they would be in a stronger position to deal with them” It also comments on how the Nazis actions after the fire were “not carefully planned” and “out-of-date lists” were used which suggests that the Nazis weren’t ready for a Communist attack like this. However, this source is working on the assumption that the Nazis weren’t trying to make it look like it wasn’t actually planned. There is the possibility that to make sure it didn’t look like it was the Nazis who planned and carried out this crime they took the extra precaution of making people think that the Nazis were caught unawares. But to counter this again, if the Nazis handled the situation inefficiently, it wouldn’t have been very impressive to the voters. Although, as this is a source from a history textbook published in 1974, it should be unbiased and have the advantage of being able to look back with hindsight. However there is no detail of who by, or where the book was published, a German or someone else could have written them who had a biased point of view. Source I suggests that it was more likely that the Nazis were involved in the Reichstag fire. It is simply saying that Van der Lubbe didn’t do it alone, the Nazis or even the Communists could have put him up to it. The mention of Van der Lubbe’s lack of knowledge of the Reichstag links in with source G (Ernst’s ‘confession’) which shows that the Nazis or even the Communists (it is possible this source could have been written by the Communists) had a good knowledge of the Reichstag’s underground passageways. This is also a source from a history book published in 1974, so it should be balanced and have the advantage of looking back with hindsight. Source J, showing the remains of the Reichstag the morning after the fire, doesn’t show us anything about who set fire to it, but from the damage that has been caused it is unlikely that one man could have caused such devastation, however it could be showing the worst effected area and the rest of the building could be unharmed. You would need more details such as what the room was made of to be able to say that one man couldn't have done it all. So source J supports source I in the sense that the damage shown is unlikely to have been caused by one man. Overall these sources make it more likely the Nazis (or someone besides Van der Lubbe) planned the Reichstag fire. I am still unconvinced about who started the fire, but from these sources I believe that Van der Lubbe couldn’t have committed this crime alone, he was helped somehow, but I am unsure who by. It could have been either the Nazis or the Communists; there isn’t enough reliable evidence to tell who it was.Source A backs up the first interpretation, suggesting that Van der Lubbe was indeed a madman and could have set fire to the Reichstag by himself, but Hitler and Göring blew it out of proportion by blaming all of the Communists. Source B backs up the possibility that Van der Lubbe acted alone, but the reliability of this source is seriously flawed due to Van der Lubbe’s mental and physical handicaps. Source D clearly suggests Van der Lubbe’s involvement in a Communist uprising, but as this was Nazi propaganda, this source can be largely discounted. Source H suggests that the fire was started by the Communists or at least someone other than the Nazis. It was published long after the fire by a historian who in theory should have studied all the evidence and came to a balanced conclusion. This source supports the first idea that the fire was started by Van der Lubbe, and that the Nazis had genuinely believed that it was the start of a communist uprising. Source E supports the second theory and suggests that the fire was started by the Nazis. Halder says that Göring claimed to have set fire to the building by himself, which however is unlikely because of his status. A high ranking Nazi like Göring wouldn’t put himself at the risk of being caught when he could get someone else to do it. Göring denies Halder’s claims in source F, but both can be discounted as they were taken from the Nuremberg trials, in which both Halder and Göring would have been trying to save themselves from the death penalty, which mean they may have lied to present themselves in a better light or even to shift the blame. Source G supports the second explanation also, as it claims that the Nazis set fire to the Reichstag, but as it was published by the Communists and was the alleged ‘confession’ of the dead Karl Ernst this source has no weight. Source I supports the second interpretation in that it states that Van der Lubbe couldn’t have done it alone, but it doesn’t necessarily say that he was set up by the Nazis.  I feel that the Reichstag fire was all too convenient for the Nazis. It allowed Hitler to take “the decree for the protection of people and state” and have the power to gag his opponents. All a week before the election. The Nazis had the most to gain from the fire, and could have used it to remind people of the Communist violence from the Russian Revolution. This would have made people fear a similar ‘German Revolution’ and helped to lose the Communists many votes in the election. I think it is unlikely that a group of Communists would have started the fire, as this would obviously seriously damage their election campaign, so if it was a Communist plot then I expect Van der Lubbe would have acted alone, purely to get the fame. The fact that he was both mentally and physically handicapped explains why, if he did do it, he may have not considered the consequences of his actions for the Communist party. However I do agree with source I, in that it is unlikely that a man with Van der Lubbe’s handicaps could have committed this crime alone. I suspect that the Nazis used him, but only a select few knew about it, which could be why there are so many conflicting stories about the actual events. I don’t think Diels in source A knew about it, but from how he describes Göring’s reaction I suspect he knew something about it. It is impossible to come to a conclusion that will be accepted by everyone, none of the sources are reliable enough to convince everyone, and if indeed this was a Nazi plot, then they planned and covered it up well. Even though I believe the Nazis were involved in the fire, none of the sources offer sufficient, reliable support for me to come to a valid conclusion. Charlotte Harper 11MPC                Mrs Almond