Reichstag Fire Essay Example

be true. Consequently, I question the reliability of Source A.

Regardless, Source A and Source B both offer statements that support each other to some extent. However, it is important to note that neither source provides a definitive answer, making both sources unreliable.

How reliable is Source A?

Source A, authored by Rudolf Diels, the Head of the Prussian Political Police during the Reichstag fire, was composed at an unspecified time between the Second World War and the Nuremburg Trials. Notably, Diels was among the first individuals present at the scene of the Reichstag fire, which enhances the credibility of this source.

Diels, the author of this account, was the Head of the Prussian Political Police. It should be noted that his involvement in investigating the Reichstag fire may have influenced his description of the incident, possibly downplaying any errors made in convicting Van der Lubbe. Additionally, since this account was written after World War II, Diels' memory of the event may have become somewhat distorted over time. However, as Head of Police, it is likely that he documented notes during that period. It is important to remember that this account was written before the Nuremberg trials and Diels may have been concerned about potential convictions for war crimes, leading him to alter his version of events to portray himself as a more virtuous figure and shift blame onto others. In fact, Diels even quotes Goering saying, 'There will be no mercy now. Anyone who stands in our way will be cut down.'

Every Communist will be executed. Those who support the Communists will be arrested. Goering

is portrayed as a villain to divert attention from himself. Diels' statements in this source contradict each other, causing doubt on their accuracy. On one hand, he believes Van der Lubbe acted alone based on his voluntary confessions. On the other hand, he suggests that Communists may have aided him in starting other fires, including the Reichstag Fire. This inconsistency diminishes the reliability of the source. Additionally, Diels mentions reading Communist pamphlets found in Van der Lubbe's pockets. It seems improbable that someone planning to commit arson and face arrest would carry incriminating evidence of their Communist affiliation.

If Van der Lubbe were a Communist, he would have been discreet about it. Moreover, party members usually do not carry promotional materials with them, especially if their intention is to commit arson. This implies that Van der Lubbe might have been falsely implicated and raises doubts about the credibility of this source. Source A could be undermined by Source B since Diels suggests that "others might also have helped him with the Reichstag fire," whereas Source B maintains that Van der Lubbe acted alone in setting fire to the Reichstag.

Although Source B may be ambiguous and Source A contradicts itself, making it unreliable as evidence, there is still some reason to trust it. However, there is potentially too much that could be faulty, so it should not be used as a reliable piece of evidence about the event.

Were the artists of Sources C and D in favor of or against the Nazis?

Source C is a depiction from a British magazine on the 8th of March 1933, just nine days after the Reichstag fire. It portrays Hindenburg, the

President of Germany at that time, presenting Hitler, the Chancellor of Germany, with 'Emergency Powers'. The background features an image of the burning Reichstag. Both men are depicted wearing Roman-style togas. The caption beneath the picture quotes Hindenburg as saying, 'This is a heaven-sent opportunity, my lad. If you can't be a dictator now, you never will be'.

The image titled 'The Red Peril' depicts Hindenburg handing a decree to Hitler. This decree, known as the 'Decree for the Protection of the People and the State', was issued by Hindenburg on February 28th and granted Hitler the power to arrest leading Communists. It was enabled by Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which allowed Hindenburg to issue emergency decrees. The Reichstag fire, which occurred just a week before the German elections organized by Hitler, greatly benefited his quest for power. Hitler had hoped to secure over 50% of the votes in order to establish himself as a dictator.

The fire was advantageous to Hitler as he could attribute it to Van der Lubbe, a Communist. Since the Communists were major rivals in the elections, Hitler utilized the fire as Nazi propaganda to discredit the Communists. The togas worn by the two individuals in the image have various interpretations. In times of emergency in Rome, the emperor and his loyal followers held dictatorial powers similar to Hitler's authority in Germany. If the togas symbolize this, then it neither supports nor opposes the Nazis. However, another interpretation can be derived from Nero, a renowned Roman emperor who deliberately set fire to Rome to shift blame onto Christians, garner support for himself, and generate more animosity towards Christians.

The image depicts

a suggestion that Hitler purposely had the Reichstag set on fire to gain support and blame both Van der Lubbe and the Communists. This portrayal indicates the artist's strong opposition against the Nazis, emphasizing their setup of the fire for personal gain. The title of the cartoon, 'The Red Peril,' is significant as it could have different interpretations. It could imply the danger posed by the Communists, illustrating either the artist's support for the Nazis or neutrality while recognizing the threat of Communism. Alternatively, it could portray the danger faced by Communists, demonstrating the artist's opposition to the Nazis and perceiving them as a threat to Communism, albeit not necessarily a direct threat to the artist.

The artist's title of the artwork likely employs sarcasm to suggest that the Communists are not the true threat, but rather the Nazis who have gained significant power. This implies the artist's opposition to the Nazis and their increasing dominance, potentially leading Germany towards dictatorship. The interpretation of this picture can be twofold: viewing the Nazis as individuals making the most of a situation to combat the evil Communists, or as the actual culprits behind the Reichstag fire who have now become excessively influential. Source D is a German book cover that focuses on the Reichstag fire, authored by a Nazi and published shortly after the incident. The front image showcases Van der Lubbe beside a fire, protected by two men wearing cloth caps and scarves while armed. The book is titled 'Armed Uprising'.

The purpose of the men wearing cloth caps and scarves in the illustration is to visually depict them as "lower-class" workers, thereby associating them with Communists.

This association is reinforced by the title "Armed Uprising," which is connected to the men carrying guns on the book cover. The word "Armed" refers to weapons, just like those held by the men on the cover, while "Uprising" is a synonym for "rebellion/revolution," often associated with Communism. Thus, this book focuses on a Communist rebellion and portrays Van der Lubbe, a Communist himself, at the scene of the Reichstag fire alongside his armed Communist comrades protecting him. Its intention is to suggest that more uprisings like this will occur as part of a Communist "revolution," aiming to instill fear in people's minds regarding Communism.

Therefore, this source can be identified as Nazi propaganda, as it was created by a Nazi shortly after the fire. Its objective is clearly to gain support for the Nazis and incite animosity against the Communists during a period when the Nazis were seeking to increase their votes. Although the source does not explicitly mention Nazis or Communists, it is evident that the artist who produced it favored the Nazi campaign, otherwise they would not have been affiliated with the Nazi party.

Do sources E and G prove that Goering (Source F) was being untruthful?

Source E consists of a statement made by General Franz Halder during his war crimes trial in Nuremberg in 1946. He asserts that at Hitler's birthday celebration in 1943, Goering interrupted a conversation and exclaimed, "The only one who truly knows about the Reichstag building is me, for I set fire to it." While it is possible that Halder's account is accurate and Goering disclosed the truth under alcohol's influence, it should be noted that Hitler did not

consume alcohol and there probably wouldn't have been any present at his birthday event. Furthermore, Halder was facing trial for war crimes and may have wanted to deflect blame and attention away from himself by fabricating false accusations against others.

Source G, a document created and released by Communists in 1934, lacks credibility due to its origins. It purports to be the confession of Karl Ernst, leader of the SA, after his death during the 'Night of the Long Knives'. According to Source G, Ernst and two other SA members set fire to the Reichstag and utilized an underground passage connecting Goering's residence to the building. The document also reveals their collaboration with Van der Lubbe, who entered the Reichstag while they carried out the arson.

The following statement was released by Communists with the clear intention of discrediting the Nazis and revealing them as impostors. However, I fail to understand why Ernst would choose to confess to the Communists or confess at all, even if the confession is true. Additionally, it is worth noting that it is highly convenient for the Communists that Ernst has recently passed away, preventing any potential arguments or denials from him. The only verifiable aspect of this excerpt is that Goering indeed had a passageway connecting his house to the Reichstag. In my opinion, this source appears to have been authored by Communists in an attempt to attract support from the Nazis; therefore, it lacks credibility. Source F is a quote taken from Goering's trial in Nuremburg in 1946, where he faced charges for war crimes.

According to the text, General Halder's statement is disputed as untrue. Additionally, the text notes that

even if the speaker was responsible for the fire, they would not acknowledge it. Given the speaker's trial, it is expected for them to dismiss General Halder's claims. However, there is no evidence either proving or disproving their involvement. Ultimately, it becomes a matter of conflicting testimonies between Goering and Halder without any substantiating proof. In comparing Source F and Source G, Goering denies setting fire to the building but does not address whether they assisted with the planning.

The validity of Source G's claim that Goering planned the fire while Ernst carried it out is uncertain, as Source F is biased and Source G appears to be a clear lie. Thus, neither can be considered proof. Although Source E accuses Goering of lying, it is also biased and unreliable, making it inconclusive as well. Considering these sources, it is difficult to determine whether the Nazis planned the Reichstag fire.

Do sources H, I, and J provide evidence supporting or contradicting the Nazi's involvement in the Reichstag fire?

Source H, derived from a history book published in 1974, may offer insights into this matter.

Published 41 years post-fire, the text may possess questionable accuracy, reducing its reliability. It asserts that the actions following the Fire lacked meticulous planning. If the Nazis had orchestrated the fire, one would assume they would have also strategized their post-fire course, unless they intended to present it as an unexpected event. The text further suggests that the apprehension of Communists relied on outdated lists and was not as triumphant as purported.

The Nazis would have wanted to capture well-known Communists after the fire, regardless of their involvement. Ineffectively using outdated lists and arresting

the wrong individuals did not benefit the Nazis in any way. If the fire had been planned by them, they would have had updated lists of prominent Communists to take advantage of the situation they created. The passage also mentions that 'The Nazis intended to eliminate the Communists after the elections when they would be in a better position to deal with them'. It would have been easier for the Nazis to suppress Communism after the elections, especially if they were successful.

The source suggests that the Nazis did not actually set fire to the Reichstag as previously believed. Instead, they had different intentions for handling the Communists and may have organized the fire in order to gain more support prior to the election. Published in 1974, this source highlights the impracticality of a single individual, particularly someone like Lubbe who faced visual and mental challenges, being able to ignite such a massive structure within a limited timeframe. It is important to acknowledge that like any historical publication, there may be inaccuracies present in this source's credibility.

This source states that Van der Lubbe could not have acted alone and suggests that either he had assistance or someone else entirely was responsible. It also puts forward the idea that it was more probable for the Nazis to have set fire to the Reichstag rather than Van der Lubbe acting alone. Source J, in contrast, only contains a photograph of the remaining structure of the Reichstag. It does not provide any clues about whether the Nazis were behind the fire or not.

The Reichstag Fire has been interpreted in two different ways. According to one interpretation, Van der Lubbe,

a madman, acted alone in setting fire to the Reichstag. However, he believed that the fire was part of a Communist uprising. On the other hand, another interpretation suggests that the Nazis started the fire as a pretext to gain emergency powers and eliminate the Communists. They manipulated Van der Lubbe to carry out the act. To determine which interpretation is better supported by evidence and historical knowledge, Source A presents some information. It indicates that statement i) is supported by Source A, although the author, Diels, modifies certain aspects of the account over time. The source describes Van der Lubbe as half-naked, covered in dirt and sweating, breathing heavily as if he had accomplished a significant task.

The wild, triumphant gleam in the eyes of his pale, young face gives the impression that Van der Lubbe is a madman (as indicated by the word 'wild'), which supports statement i). According to the source, '(I) listened to his confused stories and read the Communist pamphlets he kept in his trouser pockets'.

'His confused stories' also indicates that he had mental issues, potentially connected to statement i). However, the mention of 'Communist pamphlets' raises doubts about the reliability of this source, as it seems unlikely that Van der Lubbe would be carrying them. The second paragraph confirms that Van der Lubbe acted alone in starting the fire in the Reichstag, supporting statement i) that he acted alone. However, in the third paragraph, Diels suggests that Communists may have assisted Van der Lubbe in starting other fires, raising doubt about his sole responsibility for the Reichstag fire. While this does not support statement ii), it challenges statement i).

Goering's remark about 'hanging or shooting' every Communist implies that the Nazis believed this incident marked the beginning of a war against Communists, aligning with statement i).

Diels claims that he believed Van der Lubbe to be a 'madman', which supports claim i). However, it is important to consider that Diels wrote this account 12 years after the fire, so his memory may have faded and his perspective could be biased. Additionally, Diels may have been concerned about being tried for war crimes in Nuremburg and therefore would not want any responsibility for the fire. Source B also supports claim i), as Van der Lubbe himself states that he acted alone in setting fire to the Reichstag. On the other hand, source C does not provide any evidence to suggest who actually caused the fire.

The evidence indicates that the Nazis found the Reichstag fire advantageous. One could argue that they purposely started the fire to gain support and blame the Communists, enabling them to utilize emergency powers as suggested in point ii). However, this does not serve as proof and does not address whether Van der Lubbe acted alone or not. In support of point i), Source D includes a picture of Van der Lubbe and the words 'Armed Uprising' in a book specifically about the fire. The term 'Armed Uprising' is used synonymously with 'Communist Revolution', aligning with the statement in i). Source E supports point ii) by claiming that Goering admitted to setting fire to the Reichstag, stating that "The only one who really knows about the Reichstag building is I, for I set fire to it."

In summary, this implies that if the source

is credible, the Nazis intentionally caused the Reichstag fire to gain emergency powers and combat Communism. Nonetheless, it should be noted that this source may not be entirely trustworthy since it was presented by Halder during his trial in Nuremburg, suggesting potential bias or falsehood to divert blame from himself. Source F effectively dismisses Source E and supports the same viewpoint (i). However, it is important to recognize that Source F is equally biased as it was created under the same circumstances as Source E. Essentially, it becomes a matter of Goering's word against Halder's, resulting in mutual cancellation of their claims.

Source G supports statement ii), stating that Ernst, the leader of the SA, and two SA men intentionally set fire to the Reichstag using Van der Lubbe as a decoy. According to this source, they set fire to the building in the belief that it would serve the Fuhrer. However, it is crucial to highlight that this source is highly unreliable, as it is a posthumous 'confession' of Ernst published by Communists.

In my opinion, it is incredibly fortunate for the Communists to have obtained something like this. It seems that they deliberately chose to release it only after Ernst's death in order to prevent him from dismissing it. Furthermore, I fail to see any compelling reason for Ernst to write this confession, even if it were true. Source H, a history book published 41 years after the fire in 1974, may contain inaccuracies due to the extensive time gap. According to this source, the Nazis were unprepared for the fire and apprehended Communists whose names were listed as outdated. If the Nazis had planned

the fire, they would have been prepared to take appropriate measures afterwards. However, this was not the case, supporting the accuracy of statement i). Source I is also from a history book published in 1974 and may contain some factual errors.

The text supports statement ii) as it disagrees with i). It states that Van der Lubbe, due to his limited time and handicaps, could not have set the building alight alone. Source J is neutral and unrelated to both statements. Despite more reliable sources and evidence suggesting that Van der Lubbe acted alone in setting fire to the Reichstag (with possible help in planning), I still believe in statement ii). It appears too convenient for the Nazis that the fire happened at a beneficial time. The evidence contradicts this, but I believe the Nazis were excessively fortunate.