Source 16 The Nazis example essay topic

" The Nazis had nothing to do with the burning of the Reichstag. The young Dutchman, Van der Lubbe, did it all alone, exactly as he claimed. Hitler and the other Nazis were taken by surprise. They genuinely believed that the Communists had started the fire, and they introduced the Enabling Law because they believed absolutely that they were threatened with a communist rising".

1. The Communists were blamed for the fire according to sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Here is the evidence I have found to support this. In source 1 Von Papen's diary it is clear that Goering is convinced that " this is a Communist crime against the new Government".

The newspaper reporter Delmer reporting in "der Spiegel" is also firm in his recording of the exchanges between Goering and Hitler, Goering informed Hitler that it was "undoubtedly the work of the Communists". And that several of the Communists were present at the Reichstag before the fire started. Delmer also tells us that whilst Hitler appeared initially unconvinced of Communist involvement in the fire, he was eager to believe that the Communists were responsible. Goebbel's diaries record details of his opinion of the fire, he is plain, there is again, "no doubt that the Communists" are to blame.

The Nazis said it was an attempt to seize power by creating an atmosphere of panic. They also believed that Van der Lubbe was one of a number of communist arsonists responsible for the crime. "The Times" newspaper Source 4, reports using a communication from the Prussians, in which very emotive language is used. ."..

The most outrageous act yet committed by Bolshevism... ". Diels in Source 5 tells in his memoirs of the fire and reports Hitler's reaction to the scene quite emotively. Hitler is screaming in rage about his desire to have all Communists shot. Plainly all these sources agree that the Communists and not the Nazis were to blame for the Reichstag fire. 2. a) According to sources 1, 2 and 3 the reactions of the leading Nazis were of varying degrees of shock and disbelief. An extract from Goebbels' diaries proves this.

"At nine the Fuhrer came to supper suddenly the telephone rang. The Reichstag is burning. I thought the news was pure fantasy and wouldn't even tell the Fuhrer about it. After a few more calls I got the terrible confirmation it was true.

I informed the Fuhrer and we raced downtown at 70 m. p. h. The whole building was in flames. Goering met us and soon von Papen arrived. It had already been established that the fire was due to arson". It is interesting to note that one of the reasons Goebbels did not believe Dr Hanfstaengl's call at first was because he had played a practical joke on him and thought Hanfstaengl was getting his own back on him! Von Papen recalls finding Goering issuing orders to the fireman.

He offers no real detail about his reactions other than his belief that it was a Communist plot. Delmer offers more actual detail about the appearance and demeanour of Hitler, Goebbels and Goering. He tells us that initially Goering was, "flushed and excited", in the face. Hitler was initially hesitant about the cause of the fire. He did not seem to be flustered as he was walking through he building with Delmer.

However on the arrival of von Papen, he grabs his hand in excitement. Delmer comments clearly that neither Hitler nor Goebbels had anything in their behaviour to indicate they were involved. b) Von Papen in Source 1 may be the more reliable of the two. He was closer to the scene and entered the building to see the Prussian minister ordering the firemen around. Goebbels, as an extreme right wing Nazi would be in favour of this being a Communist uprising as a way of gaining power.

Goebbels' own diary (Source 2) must however be regarded as being as reliable as each other. They record the personal observations and opinions of both men. 3 a) Delmer is certain that the Nazis were not responsible for the fire because he was able to over hear the report that Goering made to Hitler and report this first hand. Goering talks only of a Communist plot and the arrest of one of the arsonists. Goering is convinced more than one person is involved.

He uses the plural "they hung clothes soaked in petrol over the furniture and set it alight". However further on in his report Delmer himself disputes this. "But as I looked at the rags and the other evidence, I could see nothing that one man could not have done on his own". He goes on to describe Hitler's reaction as uncertain initially he goes as far as to say that he saw "nothing in their behaviour to suggest that they were party or privy to the Reichstag fire plot". b) Delmer may be unreliable because he was a Berlin correspondent for "The Daily Mail" making the Nazis look good in Britain. He could have been receiving some payment from the Nazis. In Source 3 Delmer stands up for the Nazis " I do not believe that the Nazis were responsible".

The fact that he names Hitler and Goebbels specifically might indicate that he did not completely believe that Goering was innocent. 4 a) Source 4 says the Communists set the Reichstag on fire as a symbol for a Communist uprising and a civil war to begin throughout Germany. b) The Nazis justified this accusation by c laming that a raid on the Communist HQ had found documents showing plans for an arson attack on numerous important buildings including the Reichstag. c) The source is fairly unreliable because every public service including law enforcement services were under the control of the Nazis. Also if their documents existed, why didn't the Nazis publish them to prove beyond doubt that the Communists were the guilty party. 5) Source 5 useful to a historian of this topic because Rudolf Diels was the head of Berlin police. Also the source was written in 1950 and makes this a secondary source. The source is a recall of Hitler's reaction to the fire from the memories of Rudolf Diels.

The source tells us that Hitler was angry with the Communists and that he hated Communists. This source is most useful because it gives us Diels' view some twenty years after the event. His description of Hitler is vivid. The point I note with interest is his comment that the arsonist had, "been so active that he had laid several fires". Is this a clue that Diels feels more people than Van der Lubbe, or that in fact other sources were to blame?

6) Source 6 and source 3 both disagree and agree on a few things. They both agree that Van der Lubbe was an ex-Communist, they both agree that the fire was started because of political reasons. Source 6 is Van der Lubbe confession and it says, "My actions were inspired by political motions". Source 3 says it was the Communists who after the police raided their HQ allegedly found documents stating plans for the burning of political buildings. The sources also agree on another point that there was no one in the building before it went up in a blaze and no one was hurt. However both sources disagree that the Nazis had nothing to do with the burning of the Reichstag.

7 Sources 6 &7 tell us that Van de Lubbe was an ex-Communist and that he was interested in German politics. He was a Communist until 1929. In source 6 it says he set fire to the Reichstag buildings because of his political motives and that there was no intent to hurt anyone. He just wanted to make protest. Furthermore he did it alone and stuck to his story even though he knew he faced the death penalty. Both sources say that he acted alone and no one aided him but only source 6 states he did not meet anyone in the Reichstag.

8 At first glance, Source 8 seems to be less than reliable even thought it was an account actually spoken by Dr. Sack, a Nazi lawyer. Therefore his loyalty to the Nazi party makes him a source whose account would be obviously biased. On more detailed appraisal it still seems unreliable. It maintains his defence of the Nazi party.

However, it does make one interesting point, who would the Nazis have picked a tramp as the best person to carry out their plot to burn the Reichstag? After all they Nazis were masters of the act of propaganda, you'd think they could have come up with someone more impressive. Or, was this perhaps a double bluff? Yes, picking a tramp for such an important mission seems incredibly stupid and yet, it could have been the perfect plan. He was a tramp, so no one in their right minds would pick him, therefore the idea that he was a plant by the Nazis would be dismissed as ludicrous. 9 Source 12, has affected my opinion of A.J.P. Taylor's theory as given in Source 9 because it tells us that other Historians saw him as being a man who liked to cause trouble in historical circles by touting controversial ideas which were bound to cause uproar.

Basically it would appear that he came up with the most bizarre of interpretations or ideas and printed it. This has made me reconsider his statement carefully, and consider whether it may actually be too far-fetched in the extreme. Does he genuinely believe his reasons, or is he just seeking publicity and notoriety in his desire to stir things up? Nevertheless, we have to remember that there is evidence, which could support his controversial interpretation of event.

10 Source 10 is regarded as fairly reliable. It maintains that Goering liked art and literature he was "thunderstruck" on finding that the building was ablaze and his first thought was for the valuable tapestries and library. This plainly contradicts theories that he had planned and gone ahead with the fire himself, surely he would have removed the precious artefacts and books before setting his fires? The weakness in this source is the fact that it was written by the German historian Mommsen, who may well have been biased towards Goering and have wanted to do whatever he could to prove it wasn't him. Indeed he may have been trying to be as controversial as A.J. P Taylor was in 1961.11 Source 11's interpretation as put forward by A. Bullock in 1991 suggests that Diels' evidence is fairly accurate. It was published in 1991 giving the author access to a far wider range of evidence.

It concludes that "most historians" regard the Diels view as the most reliable. This lends weight and authority to Bullock's interpretation. Diels, as head of the police in Berlin, lends him credibility. Only his comments in Source 5 give a less than flattering description of Hitler's reaction to the fire. Also the fact remains, that it was not so much who started the fire, as who was able to get the biggest gain from it.

It may well have been an event that played into the hands of the Nazis who seized the moment, and turned it into a propaganda exercise for their ultimate gain. Is this also a bit of a smokescreen? Blustering around the fact that reasons behind the starting of the fire were not as important as the benefit that was made of it? Is this saying that the end justifies the means? 12 In Section A I have found that Source 5, Diels' account is the most reliable as evidence for the Nazis not being involved in the plot to burn the Reichstag. Diels was the police chief and would have been able to look at all the evidence and "forensics" before giving his findings.

He wrote this account in 1950, when the Nazis were no longer in power or able to have any influence on his writing, as they would have in 1933.13 To me Source 4 is the least convincing. It appears to me to be a complete piece of propaganda, as Prussian Minister Goering was surely able to have influence in its composition. Nothing in it relates to any of the other Sources I have considered. No one else mentions "masses of subversive literature". It's sole purpose is to turn people against "Bolshevism" it uses inflammatory language, "revolution", "bloody uprising"civil war".

All intended to give credibility to the Nazis seizing control. It suggests that "peaceful citizens" and their homes are at risk. No such outbreak occurred. Composed by a right wing journalist, it would undoubtedly lay the blame at the door of the Communists to support the Nazis stand against them. Fuelling anti-Communist emotions and encouraging the population to see the Nazis as their defenders. Section B 1 a.

Source 13 may prove that Hitler and Goebbel's had possibly discussed a way of defeating the ever-growing Communist's threat. Goebbel's diary was written in on January 31st 1933 and he said", The Communist rebellion must first of all FLARE UP, only then shall we hit back". The words FLARE UP could be a sort of code for the Reichstag fire. It smacks of a play on words a little personal joke. b. However I think that source 13 may be an unreliable source because originally the source would have been written in German I have to consider that a translator could easily have made a mistake and have changed the original meaning of the true sentence. The words "flare up" may have been a figure of speech or a pure coincidence.

Yet again they may in fact indicate what the Nazis were up to and that Goebbels knew of it. 2 a. Source 14 shows that Hitler and the Nazis were under threat by the Communist vote. The source suggests they became so desperate to boost their own votes, and one way of doing this was to set the Reichstag on fire and blame the Communist for it. After that Hitler declared for an Enabling Act, which gave Hitler the power, which he wanted, and eliminate the Communists as major opponents. b. However source 14 is not a useful source because the book that the source is from was published by the Comintern based in Paris, which was the propaganda organisation of the Communist party.

Which means that the book is obviously going to be against Hitler and try and convince people of Nazi guilt. 3. Source 15 tells us that the Reichstag could go on fire very easily because of the interior this was proven when Windsor castle caught fire and major damage was caused. Both the Reichstag and Windsor castle show that the fire could easily have been stated by one person and cause large amounts of damage. 4. The number of votes in favour for the Nazis increased and the Communist party lost votes.

May 20 1928 March 5 1933 Nazi party: votes: 2.6% seats: 12 votes: 43.9% seats: 288 Communist party: votes: 10.6% seats 54 votes: 12.3% seats: 81 This proves that before the Reichstag fire the Communists were ahead in the polls and that the Nazis were a good way behind with the voter. They were not popular nor were they in a position to take control of the Government. The Communists were the party of choice. b. According to source 16 the Nazis used the Reichstag fire to blame the Communists and an Enabling Bill was provided for the Chancellor to draft and enact legislation without paramilitary approval. Which meant that Hitler had the power he needed to lower votes for the Communist party by putting them in prison, which meant that the public would start to turn in favour of the Nazis. Most Communist deputies were already in prison and those social democrats still had to brave the intimidation of massed ranks of SS and SA men who ringed the opera house.

5 a. According to source 17 Karl Ernst who was the group leader, two SA men, Heines and Schulz, Goering, Goebbels and Hell dorf were involved in planning and setting fire to the Reichstag. b. The plan was to use an underground passage from Goering's residence to the Reichstag. Karl Ernst would meet Heines and Schulz at 8 pm within a few minuets they were at Goering's residence and slipped into the passage unnoticed. At 8.15 they reached the dead end branch it was there were they waited until 8.40.

They entered the session chamber at 8.45. A number of fires were prepared by smearing chairs and tables with a phosphorous mixture, carpets and curtains were soaked in paraffin. At 9.00 pm they had finished and at 9.15 pm they climbed across the wall. C. It was because the Communist party was winning in the votes and looked like the Nazis were not going to become the winning party. d. Source 17 is an unreliable because the source was published in Paris by the comintern, which was the propaganda organisation of the Communist party, and they will deliberately try to make the Nazis look bad in the public's eye. They will have published anything that they could get hands on whether it was true or false.

6 a. In source 18 when Karl Ernst said "If I said 'yes', I'd be a bloody fool, if I said 'no', I'd be a bloody liar". He actually is saying that he and the SS men were responsible for the fire but didn't want to admit it because he must have been in fear for his life. b. Source 18 is what I think a reliable source become a Dutch Nazi recorded the answer. To the question asked whether he and his storm troopers were responsible for the fire. c. Source 18, reinforces my conviction that Karl Ernst was being truthful.

In source 18 Karl Ernst is saying that if he admits he did set the fires, he's dead because the chief Nazis would try and silence him but if he denies his part in the fire he's lying. He is in no win situation and I think he knows he is a marked man. How do you make certain they can't talk. To me this makes source 17 more reliable.

7. Both sources 19 and 20 would seem to offer strong credibility to the theory that it was a Nazi plot to discredit the Communists and seize control. Rauchsning describes jokes and boasting expressed by the conspirators. He goes further and tells of Goering's admission that they had almost been discovered.

Halder (Source 20) also identifies Goering as the man who claimed "I set fire to it". These two sources must be reliable because Rauchsning left the party in 1934 and this proves that Rauchsning was not happy with the Nazi party otherwise he would not have left. I think Halder's source could be unreliable because he was removed as the Army's Chief of staff after disagreeing with Hitler. So he might have said anything to make the Nazis look bad because he was removed from his position, . 8 a. Goering in Source 21 is facing the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials.

I suggest this infers that his statement is not going to be truthful. He is facing the death penalty - (which he is ultimately given, choosing to commit suicide instead) people will say anything to save their own skins! b. I think it lends credibility to Source 20 - Halder is an ex Chief of Staff - he has nothing to lose, although it could be argued that, since he was removed from the prominent position, he could have been eager to discredit Goering. 9.

Sources 22 and 24 both agree that Goering and Goebbels were involved in the burning of the Reichstag. Source 22 states "all the evidence pointed in his direction". It reiterates the involvement of the Storm Troopers (under Goering's command) as they befriended Van der Lubbe who was indeed, "blind, mad and incapable of any co-ordinated movements". Source 24 mentions Goebbels' involvement as they plotted to "smash the Communist Party". Source 23 seems to disagree as Fest claims that the Nazis made the deed their own. I think he is convinced that it was a badly executed Communist Plot - a similar view to that expressed by Bullock in 1991.10.

Source 10 tells us that "Goering seems to have been utterly thunderstruck" - in other words, he knew nothing. Source 23 by J Fest in 1934 also stresses the Nazis "made use" of the fire and seized the moment. They both infer that they had not actually started the fire. Goering wants to save the tapestries and the library - in Mommsen's opinion, this proves he was not involved because he was an aesthete. It is obvious that a historian's nationality, heritage and beliefs affect how they see things. Scottish people view William Wallace as a hero - English people see him as a traitor or terrorist.

National pride / loyalty is a powerful thing. 11. In Source 24, Bullock lays the blame on Goebbels and Goering. They wanted to "smash the Communist Party". Bullock wrote this in 1952 when there was still strong anti Nazi feeling. In Source 11 he claims Diels' view is definitive, however, he also states that speculation about the actual arsonists is pointless.

What matters is the fact that the Nazis managed to benefit from the fire. Clearly there are also 39 years between the two sources. Bullock has had access to more sources and this may have altered his view. Also almost forty years on it is perhaps easier to take a more dispassionate view. 12. I find Source 17 to be the most convincing.

Ernst is meticulous in the detail of his explanation of how the fire was started. He explains how Van der Lubbe is someone "they could use". Above all Ernst is a loyal, faithful servant of the F"fuhrer, he confesses his part in the Reichstag fire because he suspects "the evil plans of Goering and Goebbels. It is not surprising that he was targeted in the "Night of the Long Knives". I consider Goering's statement (Source 21) to be the least convincing. He was at the Reichstag before everyone else, this is supported by Sources 1, 2 and 3.

He was described as being "flushed and excited". It is obvious that he saw himself as Hitler's "Spin Doctor". Was he flushed an excited because he could see that the plan had worked? Consequently Source 24 sounds like the bluff and bluster of a trapped man.

Conclusion: I think that the Nazis did start the Reichstag fire. Sources 17, 18, and 19 Section B helped to make up my mind after due consideration. But I also think it is reasonable to consider that Hitler and Goebbels on the surface may possibly not have know about the plans. Source 3 by S. Delmer Section A said "What I saw of Hitler's and Goebbels' behaviour in the Reichstag does not fit in with the theory that both were party or even privy to the Reichstag fire plot". Source 2 an excerpt from Goebbels diaries also fits in with my ideas because it took "a few more calls" to confirm the news about the fire was true and not a practical joke.

However, I do also feel it must be remembered that both Goebbels and Hitler were accomplished in the art of political manoeuvring and intrigue. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Goebbels was aware of the plot, and given the closeness of them all it seems unlikely then that Hitler was ignorant of the fact. When you consider source 8 by Sack who clearly states that "only a fool would have instructed van der Lubbe to scale up the wall of the Reichstag, break windows and risk discovery", it does seem that Goebbels and Hitler were ignorant of the plot on the surface neither man could be considered a fool, but if you wanted to pull off a bluff, or set someone up to take the blame, then you would choose a fool who could be programmed to say what you wanted. To make the plan look totally convincing you'd make sure he was caught at the scene. Sack describes Goebbels as a "master of the art of propaganda".

I think this sums up the whole Reichstag Plot. A master stroke of propaganda putting the blame on the shoulders of the opposition to the Nazi party, discrediting Communists and getting the population on the side of the Fuhrer. The fact that the Nazi plot wasn't discovered deliberately owes, I think, more to the ability of the Nazis to suppress those who would speak out against them. How do I think it happened?

This is the scenario as I see it: The Communists are ahead in the polls, the Nazis are not going to be able to seize control... problem, they need something that will increase their share of the vote and allow them the control they want. So they need something that will grip the nation, outrage them and get them on their side. You need a "flare up". What would cause such a reaction? How could you discredit the Communists and convince the voter that they are in real danger of losing all they hold dear.

A plot! An outrage! An insult against the nation. A fire in the Reichstag the seat of parliament of Germany, and not only that a fire set by the Communists the Nazis oppose. To make sure you can prove it's the Communists, set up one of them to take the blame, even better if you can choose an idiot. It's not so good that he's a bit blind and short of several marbles, but all of that can be covered up afterwards once complete control is obtained.

Yes, to make sure the fire is effective and dramatic enough they'd need a few stormtroopers like Karl Ernst to do much of the dirty work. But he can be got rid of easily enough later on. Once the objective has been achieved, control of the Government then anything is possible, it can be spun anyway they want. Power and control of the Government are the main objectives, and the Nazis were more than capable of gaining that by any means possible. In short, I cannot agree with A.J.P. Taylor's interpretation of the events, they seem almost too simplistic. They fly in the face of much of the historical evidence surrounding the Third Reich.

It is, in my opinion, a plot that was well within the capabilities of people like Goering and Goebbels.