Why Did Kristallnacht Take Place Essay Example

underlying message, there seems little reason to doubt its accuracy. The primary concern therefore is with the reliability of Hesse's initial report. Since he was employed by the Nazi party and could have attended the meeting in question, his account can be considered a primary source. Additionally, since Hesse wrote his report after the war had ended, he would not have faced any consequences such as being sent to a concentration camp for reporting on what happened at that meeting. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that Hesse may have had reasons for depicting Hitler and the Nazis negatively – perhaps as an attempt to distance himself from their ideologies or actions.

As per the source, Goebbels knew that committing an act of anti-Semitic violence would make Hitler happy, as he was certain of Hitler's approval. Although Goebbels had fallen out of favor with Hitler due to his involvement with a defiant movie star, it is likely that he wanted to win back Hitler's favor since all authority came from him. Source B, which is a confidential report by the Nazi Party Supreme Court after Kristallnacht, corroborates this viewpoint.

The article examines the unplanned public uprising that resulted in the destruction of Jewish shops and synagogues. A "secret" report reveals that Dr. Goebbels informed the party on November 9th about ongoing "anti-Jewish" demonstrations, which were not organized by the party. Despite this knowledge, the party did not intervene to prevent it from happening, concluding that it was carried out by the public. Source B was intended solely for members within the Nazi party.

The fact that the information was not meant for public consumption implies that the Nazis had

no motive to falsify it, adding to its credibility. However, Goebbels had instigated a press campaign to incite unrest and at a dinner dedicated to the Munich Putsch, he advocated for retribution for von Rath's death.

According to the evidence, it seems that riots were led by Goebbels. Source A suggests that Goebbels may have been trying to regain favour with Hitler. While Source B is helpful in showing how the Nazi party wanted events to appear, Source A provides a more accurate understanding of what actually happened. Additionally, Source C comes from David Buffman, the American Consul in Leipzig.

Buffman was an American diplomat whose job was to give America an impression of what was going on in Germany, making his written account a primary source and therefore very reliable. As he was American, he would have no reason to lie and was safe from Nazi censorship. He notes that the Nazi press claimed Kristallnacht was a spontaneous wave of anger, which contradicts what he witnessed - local crowds were horrified by the Nazis' acts. According to Buffman, the Nazi press claimed that the shattering of shop windows originated from a spontaneous wave of anger due to the Jewish murder of Ernst von Roth in Paris. Von Roth was an official for the German Embassy in Paris and was shot dead by a Jewish man as revenge for the mistreatment of his parents by the Nazis.

In this passage, Buffman accuses the Nazis of committing heinous acts of vandalism and murder, which he believes the local people were obviously horrified by. He shares information from a reliable source that suggests the violence was carried out by SS

men and Stormtroopers who were not in uniform and were equipped with hammers, axes, and fire bombs before the attack even began. Buffman believes this contradicts the Nazi's claim that it was a spontaneous attack. According to Buffman, any expression of sympathy towards the Jews from the public would lead to anger from the Nazis. Overall, this portrays the Nazis as immoral and corrupt in their actions during Kristallnacht.

According to Buffman, the transportation of male German Jews to concentration camps must have been pre-planned, indicating that Kristallnacht was not a spontaneous attack. Source C suggests that despite the Nazis' attempt to portray it as such, Kristallnacht was not an impromptu assault on Jews, as they wished to avoid appearing corrupt or unpleasant. This implies a conspiracy, as the public were kept uninformed of the true reasons behind Kristallnacht, a major milestone in their own history. Source D indicates that anti-Semitic acts had already been taking place before Kristallnacht, with "Jews not wanted" notices appearing in various shops and cinemas. The events described in Source D portray the period leading up to Kristallnacht as one of unrest among the German population against Jews.

Confirming the reliability of Source C is difficult due to the Nuremberg Laws of 1934 which considerably worsened the lives of Jews, through methods such as propaganda and anti-Semitic education. As a result, there were more frequent attacks on Jews during this period, which casts doubt on the spontaneity of Kristallnacht that is supported by Source C. Source D, authored by a German Jew, is considered more reliable as it may draw from personal experience. Nevertheless, it is possible that while anti-Semitic sentiment

was escalating at the time, the Nazi party may have organized the attack itself.

Source C claims that the violence during Kristallnacht was carried out by SS men and Stormtroopers, while Source D contradicts this by suggesting that it could have been a spontaneous uprising as there had been signs of unrest for weeks. However, Source D's reliability is questionable as the author, a Jew, may have altered the facts to avoid persecution by the Nazis. In contrast, Source E, a note signed by a Civil Servant and sent to the British Consul in Cologne on November 12, 1938, supports Source C's assertion that most Germans had no involvement in the riots and burnings of Jewish shops.

According to source E, the police provided individuals with axes, housebreaking tools, and ladders, which supports the information in source C where it is stated that the individuals were given hammers, axes, and fire bombs. The agreement between these sources adds reliability to the information in source C. Although source E is only signed by "a civil servant," the anonymity of the writer suggests that they may have been a Nazi supporter who had to hide their true beliefs. The absence of a motive to lie about Kristallnacht therefore implies that this source can be considered reliable.

Moreover, the reliability of the account is enhanced by its agreement with source C which was provided by David Buffman, the American Consul in Leipzig. Buffman was employed as a diplomat by American authorities to cultivate intelligence on Germany's affairs. The fact that this account is a primary source as it was written at the time and that Buffman was a patriotic American

diplomat makes it very trustworthy. This is due to the fact that Buffman was not coerced to lie by Nazi censorship and had no reason to provide false information. In his report, he contradicts the Nazi press' portrayal of Kristallnacht as 'a spontaneous wave of anger' and affirms that 'the local crowds were obviously horrified by the Nazis' acts,' implying that the attack was not an impulsive assault on Jews.

Buffman explains the narrative presented by the Nazi press regarding the shattering of shop windows as a spontaneous outburst of anger resulting from the Jewish murder of Ernst von Roth in Paris. According to Buffman, Von Roth was a German Embassy official in Paris, and the Jewish man who killed him did so in revenge for his parents' ill-treatment by the Nazis. Buffman implicates the Nazis in lamentable acts of vandalism and murder, citing the local populace's apparent horror at their actions. This assertion corroborates with Source E, which bolsters the credibility of Source C. Both sources agree that Kristallnacht was a premeditated attack, though Source D dissents, hypothesizing that it may have been an unplanned attack triggered by a buildup of anti-Semitic sentiment preceding Kristallnacht. On its own, this divergence casts doubt on Source C's reliability; however, since Sources C and E align so closely, it follows that Source D might not be trustworthy.

According to Source E, the violence and housebreaking were executed by SS men who were aided by the Police with equipment and local information. Hence, the entire operation was devised and implemented by the State. This report is more credible and reinforces Source C as it was authored by a German government

official with inside information on State's strategies.