Source B Source Analysis

1.) Study sources A and B. How far is the account in Source A supported by Source B? Explain your answer.
The account in Source A is by the head of the Prussian political police. It outlines the arrest and aftermath of Van der Lubbe over the Reichstag fire. The statement in Source B is by Van der Lubbe himself, stating that he alone started the Reichstag fire. Both are in favour that Van der Lubbe was indeed guilty for starting the fire. Source A is supported by Source B because both of them state there was only on conspirator for the crime. Evident in Source A the policeman recalls, ‘’The voluntary confessions of Van der Lubbe made me believe he had acted alone.’’ In Source B, van der Lubbe states ‘’...I set fire to the Reichstag all by myself.”
Both statements indicate they supported the belief that Van der Lubbe was the perpetrator over the other theory that the Nazi party started it for their own benefit that had emerged. Source A is also supported by source B because they both mention the involvement of other communists in the trial. Source A recounts Goering yelling ‘’...anyone who supports the communists must be arrested.’’ Source B reads “The other defendants (including the communists) are at this trial..” Both sources suggest that there was suspicion that the communists were involved in the Reichstag fire. However, Source B disagrees with Source A over the role of the communists – Source B states ‘’they were not at the fire,’’ Whereas Source B says ‘’they were involved in the fire.’’ However, there is difference between Diel’s account and his actual opinion on the matter. He states ‘’this is a madhouse,’’ suggesting that he agrees more with source B – that the communists should not be persecuted for the fire. Overall, the account is mostly supported by Source B, but only to the extent of the main involvement of Van der Lubbe in the fire – Source B does not support the ideas expressed in source A that the communists had set a ‘’cunning’’ plan to burn down the Reichstag.

2.) Study Source A. How reliable is this account? Explain your answer.
Source A was written after the second world war by the head of the political police in Prussia.
The account shows arguably little signs of bias and is written in a fairly factual manner. However, the account was written after the Second world war, nearly a decade after the Reichstag fire. During this time there would have been a lot of changes, and the account is quite detailed considering a lot of time had passed since the fire. The time difference indicates that not everything written in the account can be taken for fact because one’s memory of the event would not be that clear. However, the information could not all be regarded as incorrect because Diel’s position as the head of police meant he was the first to question van Der Lubbe and get his statement that he indeed caused the fire. This is re-enforced by Van der Lubbe’s statement in Source B, saying he started the fire alone. He also had access to extra information that could support his account of the event stating ‘’i read the communists pamphlets he had in his pockets..’’ and explaining he was the first on the scene to witness the crime. This is shown in the introductory sentence of the account, ‘’I pushed my way into the building burning.’’ He served as both a witness and investigator to the crime, indicating a promising level of truth to the account because of his position of authority. On the other hand, his possible motive for writing in that matter could be to express his importance in the event and boost his
morale to the public without necessarily writing the account truthfully. This can be seen in the way Source A suggests that Goering spoke to him personally about the crime ‘’ , shouting uncontrollably. 'There will be no mercy now..’’ This reinforces Diel’s importance that Goering includes him in his discussion. Also the account contradicts itself - Diel’s opinion changes a lot throughout the account. He initially states Van der Lubbe was ‘’triumphant’’ then later calls him a ‘’madman.’’ This indicates that Diel either did honestly have a change of opinion or that he has edited the truth for his benefit. Overall the account is not entirely reliable because of several factors, including time difference, reputation and memory. However it is not totally unreliable either because it still states the main facts that agree with Source B. 3.) Study sources C and D. How far do they agree about the events surround the Reichstag fire? Explain your answer.
Source C is a cartoon from a British magazine, basically showing Hindenburg encouraging Hitler to grasp the opportunity given to him by the Reichstag fire to make himself an invincible dictator.
Source D is a book written by a Nazi about the fire titled ‘’Armed Uprising.’’ Source A and Source B both show the fire in the background, however Source A presents Hindenburg and Hitler as the main figures in the cartoon whereas Source B shows Van der Lubbe and his ‘conspirators’ setting fire to the Reichstag. Source C expresses from the British point of view that the Nazis may have had more involvement in the fire than was revealed because of the way Hitler and Hindenburg are the main attraction in the cartoon and are both dressed in god – like robes, with hitler holding a staff with the nazi sign on it. The cartoon could even trying to say the Nazi’s started the fire themselves for their own benefit. It describes the event as a ‘’heaven sent opportunity,’’ indicating that the Nazis saw it as a way to advance politically even more. Source D expresses from the Nazi point of view to the public that the Reichstag fire was all one big conspiracy by the communists. It portrays Van der Lubbe and fellow communists as being the enemy and attempts to highlight the danger of having them in Germany. This by default makes the Nazi party look like heroes to the public for being anti- communism and gains them more popularity, further advancing Hitler. Both the sources express that the Nazi party
exploited the Reichstag fire in different ways. They agree that the Nazi party gained from the burning of the Reichstag building because they both indicate Nazi involvement – either in the fire or in the publicity after the fire. Both sources agree that politically, the Reichstag fire was the best thing that happened for the Nazi party.

Study Source D. Use the source and your knowledge of the period to explain why the Nazis would want to publish a book like this one.
Source D shows the cover of a book published by a Nazi shortly after the fire, titled ‘’Armed uprising.” The Nazis would want to publish a book like this one for both political and financial reasons. As well as the money the book would bring to them which could go to building up their empire in Germany, the Nazis wanted to display to the public that the communists were traitors in Germany, doing nothing but harm and crime. This would help eliminate the communist party, which were the only opposition Hitler and the Nazi party faced at the time. One of Hitler’s aims was to eliminate communism from Germany once in power, which he had promised German working class to do so. By publishing a book highlighting the Communists further betrayal of Germany after world war I, the Nazi party would effectively cause the communist party to lose votes. It would also support the Decree for the Protection of People and State that Hitler encouraged the Reich leader to sign, allowing the arrest of leading communists because it would receive little outrage from the public. It would also allow Hitler to advance politically with the use of The enabling act, guaranteeing him full power over the elections. The Nazis would also want to publish a book like this to put aside any rumours that the Nazis had any involvement in the fire itself, by placing the blame entirely on the Communists, maintaining the image of nationalism working for Germany’s benefit. The title of the book also suggests that the Communists would strike again if the Nazi party did not contain them, making the Nazi’s aim for elimination of communism all the more valid to German people. The Nazis would want to publish a book like that to boost their financial records, eliminate the competition and opposition, boost their reputation and get even more popularity and votes.