(c) Source D is stating that acts of terror against Jews were already being committed even before Kristallnacht; ‘notices reading ‘Jews not wanted’ appeared in various shops and cinemas’. The events written about in Source D describe the situation before and leading up to Kristallnacht and give the impression that there had been unrest building up amongst the German people, against the Jews, for some time before; ‘there was unrest amongst the masses’. This seems reliable, as it is true that in 1934 the Nuremberg Laws made life for Jews very bad, for reasons such as propaganda and the anti- Semitic education. This meant that attacks on Jews were more common at this time, so not supporting Source C in saying that Kristallnacht was spontaneous. This now questions the reliability of source C. Source D was written by a German Jew, which naturally makes it more reliable, as this was probably a personal experience. Although it could have been true that although anti- Semitism was building up around this time, the attack may still have been organised by the Nazis’. Source D makes Source C less reliable, as it contradicts it entirely. Whilst source C claims that ‘the violence was carried out by SS men and Stormtroopers’, source D clearly states that Kristallnacht could have been spontaneous as ‘already for a few weeks there had been signs of unrest among the masses’. Although source D could have been entirely false as the Jew who wrote it would naturally have been afraid of the Nazis and could have changed the facts in order to stay safe.
Source E is a note sent on 12 November 1938, to the British Consul in Cologne, Germany. It was signed a ‘Civil Servant.’ In this source it completely supports source C in saying that ‘most German people had nothing to do with these riots and burnings’ of the Jewish shops. It supports C further by saying that ‘the police supplied men with axes, housebreaking tools and ladders’, similar to where C says; ‘they had been provided with hammers, axes and fire bombs’. These sources agree and so this makes the other information in source C more reliable. However, we don’t know who wrote source E, as it was only signed ‘a civil servant’. This definitely questions the reliability, as the writer could have been biased. But in theory a civil servant should be a supporter of the Nazis- so would have to send it anonymously as they would have been in a dilemma if a Nazi had found out what was in this letter, meaning it is reliable, as they would have no reason to lie about Kristallnacht. Furthermore, the fact that it agrees so much with C increases its reliability.
Source C is an account by David Buffman, the American Consul in Leipzig. Buffman was an American diplomat- his job was to be the eyes and ears of America in order to give America an impression of what was going on in Germany. Along with the fact that the account was written at the time- making it a primary source, this makes it a very reliable, as he would have no reason to lie because he was American and was therefore safe from the wrath of the Nazis’ censorship. He recounts that the Nazi press described Kristallnacht as ‘a spontaneous wave of anger’, though contradicting this by saying; ‘the local crowds were obviously horrified by the Nazis’ acts’, thus suggesting that it was not a spontaneous attack on the Jews. Buffman describes to us what the Nazi press claims as the origin of the shattering of shop windows as ‘a spontaneous wave of anger, as a result of the cowardly Jewish murder of Von Roth in Paris.’ Ernst von Roth was an official for the German Embassy in Paris and the Jewish man shot him dead on the basis of revenge for the mistreatment of his parents by the Nazis. Buffman goes on to say that the local people were ‘obviously horrified by the Nazis’ acts’; he is obviously accusing the Nazis of committing vile acts of vandalism and murder, which he conveys by using the general publics apparent views.
Overall, Source E makes it more likely that the account given in source C is reliable, as they both agree that Kristallnacht was not a spontaneous, but a planned attack. But Source D disagrees with them both, suggesting that it could have been a spontaneous attack because of the build up of anti-Jewish feeling before Kristallnacht. This at first would seem to make source C less reliable, although the fact that source C and E agree so much perhaps indicates that source D is not reliable at all. Source E states quite clearly that these acts of violence and house breaking were carried out by SS men who were supplied with the necessary equipment and local knowledge by the Police. So clearly the whole operation was planned and carried out by the State. This account is all the more believable, and therefore supportive of source C because it was written by a German civil servant – somebody who was involved and would have knowledge of such plans of the State.
(d) Source F is a cartoon about Kristallnacht, published in a Russian newspaper on 10 November 1938. It depicts Tsar Nicholas II ‘who had encouraged attacks against Jews during his reign (1894-1917), who is looking down from what I assume is heaven. Communists murdered him and his family in 1918. Nicholas is saying to the Nazi who stands below him, ‘Attacking the Jews did not do me any good, my Fascist friend’. The Nazi is standing on what looks like a pile of wreckage and bodies with a bloody knife in his hand. He has obviously just committed some vile act of murder and vandalism against the Jews, and is standing atop his achievement- clearly as though he is proud of what he has done. The Nazi holds a large lethal looking club in his hand, and is depicted as very fat. The fatness signifies perhaps his wealth, his selfishness or his greed. This is obviously not a positive outlook onto what the Nazis were like and I doubt Hitler would be pleased with the image. Tsar Nicholas used the Jews as scapegoats for all of Russia’s problems during his reign, and this clearly links in to what Hitler was doing at this point. He too was using the Jews as a scapegoat for all of Germanys problems. The cartoon was published on the day the rioting began, and the message of it is clear, Nicholas is advising the Nazis not to kill the Jews, as it did not do him any good- he was murdered for it. The Russian’s were obviously anti- Nazi at this point, as they were communist, and were completely opposed to Fascism. They had obviously read ‘Mein Kampf’ (written by Hitler, and describing all of his views and agendas). Although this was launched by the soviet government in Russia- and was only what the government thought, so it is not reliable for judging what the Russian people thought.
Source G is another cartoon about Kristallnacht, published in a British magazine on 30 November 1938. As it wasn’t drawn after the war, the artist obviously acted on an immediate response- which makes it seem more reliable. The picture depicts a woman who is tied up and gagged, and who ‘represents the German people’. A man in uniform who represents the Nazis is standing over a lifeless body- presumably a wounded or dead Jew who has been attacked and his house ransacked. The SS man or ‘brown shirt’ is depicted as a murderer. Beside the tied and gagged woman lies a sword and shield on the ground. This symbolizes, along with the helpless woman, how the German people are disarmed- which makes the Nazis seem cowardly. The woman is gagged- which represents how the German people couldn’t speak out against the Nazis. The general sense of the image is that there is a very clear distinction between the German people and the Nazi party- which definitely suggests that Kristallnacht had nothing to do with the ‘unrest’ that had been building up beforehand in Germany but was all down to the Nazis. It also accentuates this by the fact that the woman wants to help the wounded Jew at the Nazis feet, but cant- she is tied up- which symbolizes the helplessness that most German people felt at this time.
Both cartoons depict the Nazis standing over victims- triumphant, but the messages are different. Source G shows how the innocent Germans are helpless to intervene with the Nazis, whilst Source F conveys a moral concept- that killing Jews does not boost ones popularity.
(e) Source H is an account by Albert Hermann Goering, who was in charge of Nazi rearmament policies, of a conversation with Hitler about Kristallnacht. Goering says in this source Goering explains how he was trying to get Germany ready for war by boosting the economy; ‘I was making every effort in connection with the Four- Year Economic Plan’. He then goes on to say that ‘Goebbels was not responsible for the economy’, and that his planning of the destruction of the Jewish property had given him difficult economic problems to take care off. He says how Hitler stuck up for Goebbels to a point, but that he thought on the whole ‘that such events must not be allowed to take place’. It suggests that up to a point Hitler was pleased with Kristallnacht, but realises that it wasn’t actually as good a result as it could have been. Goering was not defending the Jews- only the economy.
This account from Goering was made during his trial for war crimes at Nuremberg in 1945-1946. It is reliable because this was years after Kristallnacht happened, yet Goerings did not defend the Jews- which would have put him in a better light, nor did he defend the Nazis- as this would have got him off the death sentence. The fact that he did neither of these things puts him in a more truthful light- so we can safely say that this is a reliable source.
Source I is Hitler speaking to ‘Frau Troost’ shortly after Kristallnacht. But this is not a primary source- the conversation was reported by Frau Troost in 1971 in an interview with an historian researching a book about Hitler. Frau Troost’s husband was one of Hitler’s favourite architects. Hitler is claiming in this source that Kristallnacht was a spontaneous attack by the people; (‘The people responsible’), and that he knew nothing about it. He says here that he was ‘about to come to an understanding with France’ but now he cannot in light of what had happened.
This source I think is very unreliable. Firstly obviously because it was Hitler speaking, and naturally he would want to make it seem as if this was not the governments fault, as it makes him seem quite barbaric. Secondly this is not a primary source, as it was a report of Frau Troost from Hitler to a historian. In this way the account could have been either changed by Frau Troost- (who’s husband was Hitler’s favourite architect, and who naturally would want to change it to Hitler’s liking in order to protect her husband), or the historian.
We hear in both sources how Hitler disagrees with the events of Kristallnacht. In source H we hear Goering saying how Hitler ‘agreed that such events must not be allowed to take place’. In this way source I proves that Goering in H was telling the truth, as source I backs up the fact that Hitler had not ‘agreed that such events’ were to take place. Although on the whole Source I completely contradicts source H, meaning that we now question the truthfulness of H, as source I plainly states that the German people ‘have destroyed everything’, whilst in source H, Goerings clearly states that Goebells had organised Kristallnacht. Although looking at the reliability of source I, it is far more believable that Goerings in source H was telling the truth, as it was a primary source, and he was plainly not trying to defend anyone but the economy. So Source I proves the truthfulness of H to an extent, by saying that Hitler did not approve of Kristallnacht, but otherwise firmly contradicts it, although I think that H is the more truthful source as the origin is far more reliable.
(F) There is a great deal of debate over whether the events of Kristallnacht were a spontaneous rising by the German people against the Jews or whether it was in fact a planned event cleverly orchestrated by the Nazis.
Sources A, C, E, F, G, and H all sugest that Kristallnacht was not a spontanious event caused by an uprising of the German people, but a planned event.
Source A describes that because Goebbels was ‘out of favour with Hitler’ at this point in 1954, launching the attack on Synagogues and Jewish shops would ‘win back Hitler’s support’. ‘Fritz Hesse’ who was a journalist that worked for the Nazis wrote source A. Hesse infers that Goebbels planned Kristallnacht, and the SA executed the events of Kristallnacht on his orders, so it was not a spontaneous attack. Whilst Hitler was not part of the actual plan, he was nevertheless delighted by the events. Hesse wrote his account in 1954, and this is a summary produced of this, obviously at a later date by an historian. Hesse recollected this account, roughly sixteen years after the evening. This could have affected Hesse’s account in two ways. In sixteen years he may have forgotten, or misjudged some events that took place on the evening. Also within those sixteen years his views of the events may have changed which may have led him to invent his own details. Although Hesse was a journalist, making his report more reliable as his job was to report an accurate overview of the events.
Also, a significant point to make in regard to what the historian has done is that it is a ‘summary’ of Hesse’s account, and some important information may have been excluded from the source, or details could have been lost or altered. Though this is relatively unlikely, as it is an historian who produced this summary and would therefore have no reason for changing the reasoning behind the account. Therefore the only question is the reliability of Hesse’s original account.
Hesse worked for the Nazis, and therefore could have been present when this meeting happened, making it a primary source. It was written after the war, so he would have been uncensored and without repercussions, as he didn’t have to be scared of being sent to a concentration camp. Although Hesse could have been distancing himself from the Nazis, by showing Hitler and the Nazis in a very bad light.
Goebbels knew that an anti-Semitic attack would please Hitler, which is backed up in the source; ‘there was no doubting Hitler’s approval’. It is true that Goebbels was ‘out of favor with Hitler’ at this point, as he had had a public affair with a rebellious film star, and Hitler was not happy. All power derived from Hitler, so it is believable that Goebbels would want to win back his favor. In this way Source A is reasonably reliable, but it completely contradicts the statement ‘Kristallnacht was a spontaneous event by the German people’, as it clearly states that Goebells, who was ‘out of favor with Hitler at this point’, planned Kristallnacht in order to win back his support. This makes me question the truthfulness of the statement, as it disagrees completely with a reasonably reliable source.
Source C is an account by David Buffman, the American Consul in Leipzig. Buffman was an American diplomat- his job was to be the eyes and ears of America in order to give America an impression of what was going on in Germany. Along with the fact that the account was written at the time- making it a primary source, this makes it a very reliable, as he would have no reason to lie because he was American and was therefore safe from the wrath of the Nazis’ censorship. He accounts that the Nazi press described Kristallnacht as ‘a spontaneous wave of anger’, though contradicting this by saying; ‘the local crowds were obviously horrified by the Nazis’ acts’, thus suggesting that it was not a spontaneous attack on the Jews. Buffman describes to us what the Nazi press claims as the origin of the shattering of shop windows as ‘a spontaneous wave of anger, as a result of the cowardly Jewish murder of Von Roth in Paris.’ Ernst von Roth was an official for the German Embassy in Paris and the Jewish man shot him dead on the basis of revenge for the mistreatment of his parents by the Nazis. Buffman goes on to say that the local people were ‘obviously horrified by the Nazis’ acts’; he is obviously accusing the Nazis of committing vile acts of vandalism and murder, which he conveys by using the general publics apparent views.
Buffman then discloses how ‘one reliable source’ told him that the violence was committed by SS men and Stormtroopers ‘not in uniform’; and that there had been ‘no attempts made to put out the fires’ of the Jewish burning buildings. This supports his original opinion that this was not a spontaneous attack, as the SS men and Stormtroopers had already ‘been provided with hammers, axes and fire bombs’ before it even started. The source is completely challenging the Nazis’, making them out to look immoral and corrupt. Buffman also clearly completely opposes the acts when he claims that; ‘The slightest sign of sympathy for the Jews from the public caused fury among the Nazis’.
Buffman is suggesting in this source that Kristallnacht was planned, but the Nazis’ are pretending it to be spontaneous, which he conveys by claiming that the troops were ‘not in uniform’. The ‘transportation to concentration camps of male German Jews’ would obviously have been planned beforehand- backing up Buffman’s point that this was not a spontaneous attack. This again, completely contradicts the statement that ‘Kristallnacht was a spontaneous event by the German people’, as it claims that ‘all of the local crowds were obviously horrified by the Nazis’ acts’, therefore implying that Kristallnacht was a planned event.
Source E is a note sent on 12 November, 1938, to the British Consul in Cologne, Germany. It was signed, ‘A Civil servant.’ The source explains that most of the German people have nothing to do with these riots and burnings. It explains how the police supplied the SA men with the tools and the list of the names and addresses was given.
However, we don’t know who wrote source E, as it was only signed ‘a civil servant’. This definitely questions the reliability, as the writer could have been biased. But in theory a civil servant should be a supporter of the Nazis- so would have to send it anonymously as they would have been in a dilemma if a Nazi had found out what was in this letter, meaning it is reliable, as they would have no reason to lie about Kristallnacht. Furthermore, the fact that it agrees so much with C increases its reliability. In this source it completely supports source C in saying that ‘most German people had nothing to do with these riots and burnings’ of the Jewish shops. It supports C further by saying that ‘the police supplied men with axes, housebreaking tools and ladders’, similar to where C says; ‘they had been provided with hammers, axes and fire bombs’.
Source E is reasonably reliable, and so can be regarded as a useful source. It completely contradicts the statement that Kristallnacht was spontaneous, as it clearly states that ‘most German people have nothing to do with these riots and burnings’, therefore implying that Kristallnacht was a planned event by the Nazis.
Source F is a cartoon about Kristallnacht, published in a Russian newspaper on 10 November 1938. It depicts Tsar Nicholas II ‘who had encouraged attacks against Jews during his reign (1894-1917), who is looking down from what I assume is heaven. Communists murdered him and his family in 1918. Nicholas is saying to the Nazi who stands below him, ‘Attacking the Jews did not do me any good, my Fascist friend’. The Nazi is standing on what looks like a pile of wreckage and bodies with a bloody knife in his hand. He has obviously just committed some vile act of murder and vandalism against the Jews, and is standing atop his achievement- clearly as though he is proud of what he has done. Tsar Nicholas used the Jews as scapegoats for all of Russia’s problems during his reign, and this clearly links in to what Hitler was doing at this point. He too was using the Jews as a scapegoat for all of Germanys problems. The cartoon was published on the day the rioting began, and the message of it is clear, Nicholas is advising the Nazis not to kill the Jews, as it did not do him any good- he was murdered for it. The Russian’s were obviously anti- Nazi at this point, as they were communist, and were completely opposed to Fascism. They had obviously read ‘Mein Kamf’ (written by Hitler, and describing all of his views and agendas). Although this was launched by the soviet government in Russia- and was only what the government thought, so it is not reliable for judging what the Russian people thought. As the cartoon depicts a Nazi standing atop of destruction that obviously symbolizes Kristallnacht, it is safe to say that this source suggests that Kristallnacht was planned, and therefore completely contradicts the statement the Kristallnacht was a spontaneous event by the German people.
Source G is another cartoon about Kristallnacht, published in a British magazine on 30 November 1938. As it wasn’t drawn after the war, the artist obviously acted on an immediate response-, which makes it seem more reliable. The general sense of the image is that there is a very clear distinction between the German people and the Nazi party- which definitely suggests that Kristallnacht had nothing to do with the ‘unrest’ that had been building up beforehand in Germany but was all down to the Nazis. It also accentuates this by the fact that the woman wants to help the wounded Jew at the Nazis feet, but cant- she is tied up- that symbolizes the helplessness that most German people felt at this time.
Both cartoons depict the Nazis standing over victims- triumphant, but the messages are different. Source G shows how the innocent Germans are helpless to intervene with the Nazis, whilst Source F conveys a moral concept- that killing Jews does not boost ones popularity. Source G is clearly implying that the Nazis were to blame for Kristallnacht; consequently implying that Kristallnacht was planned. Therefore this source also contradicts the statement that Kristallnacht was a planned event. The source is reliable, as it was a first response, and it was not written for a German newspaper, which suggests that it would not have had to be exaggerated or understated.
Sources F and G both disagree with the claim because the two men in the cartoons have uniform’s on and are either Nazis or the SA.
Source H is an account by Albert Goering, who was in charge of Nazi rearmament policies, of a conversation with Hitler about Kristallnacht. Goering explains in this source how he was trying to get Germany ready for war by boosting the economy; ‘I was making every effort in connection with the Four- Year Economic Plan’. He then goes on to say that ‘Goebbels was not responsible for the economy’, and that his planning of the destruction of the Jewish property had given him difficult economic problems to take care off. He says how Hitler stuck up for Goebbels to a point, but that he thought on the whole ‘that such events must not be allowed to take place’. It suggests that up to a point Hitler was pleased with Kristallnacht, but realises that it wasn’t actually as good a result as it could have been. Goering was not defending the Jews- only the economy.
Source H is an account that Goering made during his trial for war crimes at Nuremberg in 1945-1946. It is reliable because this was years after Kristallnacht happened, yet Goerings did not defend the Jews- which would have put him in a better light, nor did he defend the Nazis- as this would have got him off the death sentence. The fact that he did neither of these things puts him in a more truthful light- so we can safely say that this is a reliable source.
In source H we hear Goering saying how Hitler ‘agreed that such events must not be allowed to take place’. In source H, Goerings clearly states that Goebells had organised Kristallnacht. It is believable that Goerings in source H was telling the truth, as it was a primary source, and he was plainly not trying to defend anyone but the economy. H is a truthful source, as the origin is reliable. This source completely contradicts the statement that Kristallnacht was spontaneous, as it explains fully that Goebbels was responsible for Kristallnacht, therefore stating that Kristallnacht was a planned event, not concerning the German people.
Source B is an extract from a secret report prepared by the Nazi Party Supreme Court after the events of Kristallnacht. This source talks about how the uprising had been initiated by the public where Jewish shops and synagogues had been demolished. The source explains how Dr Goebbels told the party on the evening of 9 November that there had been ‘anti-Jewish’ demonstrations. It had apparently been decided that ‘such demonstrations were not to be organised by the party, but neither were they to be discouraged if they started spontaneously’. Therefore saying that it was a spontaneous attack, which, agrees with the statement ‘Kristallnacht was a spontaneous event of the German people’.
Source D is stating that acts of terror against Jews were already being committed even before Kristallnacht; ‘notices reading ‘Jews not wanted’ appeared in various shops and cinemas’. The events written about in Source D describe the situation before and leading up to Kristallnacht and give the impression that there had been unrest building up amongst the German people, against the Jews, for some time before; ‘there was unrest amongst the masses’. Therefore this source could be implying that Kristallnacht was in fact ‘a spontaneous event of the German people’, although it is not completely clear, and it could have been true that although anti- Semitism was building up around this time, the attack may still have been organised by the Nazis’.
Source I is Hitler speaking to ‘Frau Troost’ shortly after Kristallnacht. But this is not a primary source- the conversation was reported by Frau Troost in 1971 in an interview with an historian researching a book about Hitler. Frau Troost’s husband was one of Hitler’s favourite architects. Hitler is claiming in this source that Kristallnacht was a spontaneous attack by the people; (‘The people responsible’), and that he knew nothing about it. He says here that he was ‘about to come to an understanding with France’ but now he cannot in light of what had happened. This source is very unreliable. Firstly obviously because it was Hitler speaking, and naturally he would want to make it seem as if this was not the governments fault, as it makes him seem quite barbaric. Secondly this is not a primary source, as it was a report of Frau Troost from Hitler to a historian. In this way the account could have been either changed by Frau Troost- (who’s husband was Hitler’s favourite architect, and who naturally would want to change it to Hitler’s liking in order to protect her husband), or the historian.
In this source we discover that Hitler had nothing to do, and thoroughly disagreed with Kristallnacht; Hitler had not ‘agreed that such events’ were to take place. Hitler plainly states in this that the German people ‘have destroyed everything’- which agrees completely with the statement that Kristallnacht was ‘a spontaneous event of the German people’.
Overall the majority of sources suggest that Kristallnacht was planned, some suggest by Goebells, some by the Nazi party. The few sources that do agree with the statement that Kristallnacht was a spontaneous event are mostly unclear. You are left to assume exactly what the author was trying to convey, and what hidden motives (which could be extracted from the position and status the author was, or the date it was written) that caused him or her to divulge this information. On the whole the majority of sources which do suggest that Kristallnacht was planned are in some cases very reliable, so I conclude that Kristallnacht was not in fact a planned event, and that although there was ‘unrest among the masses’ in the time leading up to Kristallnacht, it was still planned by either the Nazis or Goebbels.
