Reichstag Fire Essay, Research Paper
1. Rudolf Diels, who was the head of the Prussian political
police at the time of the fire, wrote source A. In his account of events, he
explains that Van Der Lubbe was caught red handed at the incident, and after
questioning Van Der Lubbe he believed that the suspect was alone and there was
no evidence that other people could have been involved, even other communists. During the trial of Van Der Lubbe in 1933, he openly
confessed to setting fire to the building, but denied that he had been helped.
His statement in source B shows that he was adamant that he had worked alone.
This would seem to prove Diels? theory, however, Van Der Lubbe could easily
have been lying in order to protect the other arsonists, who would have
probably been high ranking members of the communist party according to Goring?s
theory, and therefore much more valuable than a simple member, although
extremely devoted, who was mentally unstable. If he was lying, he could also be
covering the tracks of the Nazi party, who could have set it all up and, as
they did, place the blame on the communists. All of this causes great confusion for anyone trying to
uncover the truth. Rudolf Diels? account could be seen as reasonably reliable
as he seems to have considered all the evidence and come to a thought out and
unbiased opinion. However, it was written 12 years after the incident so Diels?
memory could easily be distorted. Unfortunately, Van Der Lubbe is not a
reliable source as he could be protecting any amount of people. And to the best
of everyone?s knowledge, he was half-blind, mentally slow, physically
challenged and a boaster who loved getting attention. So it?s very hard to
believe anything he says. So to answer the question you could say B supports A quite
far in that they both say Lubbe acted alone, but both sources are seriously
flawed so its not really possible to use them together as evidence to prove the
theory of lubbe acting alone2. Source A, Rudolf Diels? account of the
fire, although coming from a high ranking Nazi official, seems to disagree with
Goring and Hitler?s theory that it was a communist plot with many operatives.
This is evidence that Diels was not acting simply on obedience to Hitler and
the Nazi party, even though it was published after the war and Hitler?s death
(its likely that Diels would never have dared speak a word to contradict Hitler
before the end of the war, for fear of being killed). As the head of the
Prussian political police at the time, Diels was one of the first people called
to the scene, so he was able to investigate at the scene, only minutes after
the crime had been committed (he also headed the full investigation
afterwards). He claims that he found Van Der Lubbe alone in the Reichstag, out
of breath and dirty; he also relates other evidence that seem to prove the
possibility that Van Der Lubbe started the fire alone, he studies the
architecture and materials that where found in the Reichstag, all of it was
mostly wood, old furniture and heavy curtains, all of these were highly
inflammable. He says that Van Der Lubbe could have easily set fire to the
Reichstag as he ran around the long corridors, waving his shirt around and
lighting every thing possible. Even after a consultation with Goring and
Hitler, during which they put across their views, which normally he should have
agreed to as a Nazi, he still continued to think it out for himself and
concluded that Van Der Lubbe had acted alone. His ideas seem well thought out
and reasonable, they are not biased which helps his credibility. His
descriptions seem very clear even though the account was written a number of
years after the fire, but then again it was a very important event and
therefore not easily forgotten. From this evidence I believe that Rudolf Diels?
account of the fire is reasonably reliable. However there are a few contradictory elements and flaws in
his statement. First of all he said he believed Lubbe has acted alone, but
later he says, ??several details suggested that communists who had helped him
start these other fires, might have helped with the Reichstag Fire.? Diels?
account was also written some 12 years after the actual fire but he can still
remember lots of small details such as the look on Van der Lubbe?s face and the
words he heard and said himself during the incident. However, he was chief of
police so he probably had access to a lot of notes and records that would have
helped him write the statement. Diels may also be protecting himself from
prosecution and criticism in the light of the Nuremberg Trials. And also
however Diels? account may be believable, you have to remember that Van der
Lubbe was mentally and physically handicapped and so its unlikely that he could
have acted on his own.Although Diel?s account is well written and on its own
would probably convince a person that Van der Lubbe acted alone, there are too
many factors working against it. So I do not think it is reliable enough to use
as evidence in finding out the real cause of the fire.3.
The sources C
and D agree that the communists started the fire. Source C does not directly
say that the communists started the fire, but it does not say that the Nazis
started it. Hindenburg speaks of the fire as an opportunity, not as a planned
operation, and at the bottom it says ?THE RED PERIL? which is referring to the
Communists. It was also from a British magazine, which shows it wasn?t just the
Nazis who blamed the communists for the fire. Source D is an example of typical
Nazi anti-Communist propaganda, it was published as a direct response to the
fire; its purpose was to make the German people scared and angry towards all
Communists. SourceC shows that Hindenburg thinks that
Hitler should use the event as to its full potential of getting Hitler to his
dictatorship. Source D shows one of the measures Hitler took to exploit the
fire. As proof of this, Hindenburg signed a decree the next day granting the
Nazis the right to prevent freedom of speech and therefore eliminating all
opposition to the Nazis. At this time the Nazi party is gaining more and more
control, the first source show that is Hitler trying to be dictator, that he is
using the fire as an opportunity, but Source D is just justifying the increased
power to Hitler by blaming the communists for the fire. This puts C and D in
agreement. 4. The Nazis would have many reasons for
publishing such a book. The most important reason would be anti-Communist
propaganda in response to the Reichstag fire. Before the fire, Communism was
becoming increasingly popular. Hitler saw Communism as a serious threat, which
was why the fire was so convenient. The book would have backed up the Nazi
theory that the fire was a Communist plot to commence an ?Armed Uprising?. The
book would have helped convince most Germans that Communists were planning to
inflict terrible damage to the country and take power. This would have
confirmed a fear quite strongly held by the German public, thus gaining the
Nazi party even more support which would greatly influence the elections that
took place a week later. The book would no doubt be only a small part in a
large scale propaganda organised by Hitler?s staff, they tried to get through
to people by posters, radio and party speeches, a lot like the strategies used
during elections. Soon the people would grow to hate communists, children would
be brought up to hate all communists. It was the Nazi strategy for getting rid
of all their opposition, as the Communist party and the Socialists were the
biggest and therefore most dangerous opposition. Although the socialists where
not as extreme as the Communists and therefore less of a risk, socialism was
still a form of communism. However, the communists still polled highly in the
elections, but not high enough. The book could
policy that was set out to remove the threat of communism. 5. The sources E and G do not prove at all
that Goring was telling lies. The authenticity of source G is very questionable
as the communist party published it after Ernst?s death. It would suit the
communists to publish such information as this as it would gain them support
and place some of them blame on the Nazi party. There is no other proof that
Karl Ernst had made that confession, so this piece of evidence is not very
reliable at all. If however there was more proof that Ernst was behind the
fire, then it would probably be deemed much more reliable, but in the meantime
it just appears as a feeble effort by the Communist party to place the blame on
the Nazis. However, General Franz Halder?s evidence is much more plausible, but
still not a 100% sure. The problem is that we need to understand his motives to
see if he is lying or not. The most likely motive is that he is going to jail
anyway, so he might as well tell the truth, this would make his account
credible as he has nothing to lose. But, he may be saying it to try and save
himself, he may have thought that by giving this evidence, it would be
considered in his favour when it came to his prosecution. In an extreme case,
he may even dislike Goring for some reason and decide to seek revenge by making
up evidence. Therefore these two pieces of evidence do not prove that
Goring was behind the fire, and more evidence would be needed to be sure, such
as more confessions and other evidence. Although Goring is also trying to save his skin as he is
also on trial. It is likely that he is telling the truth and did not start the
fire. I do not think such a high-ranking official would do a job as risky,
?dirty? and apparently easy as that, when he could just easily get someone else
to do it.?6. Source H actively suggests that the Nazis did not plan fire at all;
this was because they were not ready for it. With their out of date lists and
badly planned arrests, the response to the fire was not nearly as successful as
it should have been had the Nazis expected it. If the Nazis had really
organised the fire, they would surely have made ample preparations beforehand;
even if the operation was only known to few people, those people could have
given discreet orders to collect intelligence and give excuses to prepare for
an uprising. However, source I makes out that Van Der Lubbe, could not possibly
have done it alone and on impulse, it explains that he could not have set fire
to the building so quickly especially without knowledge of the building and
being mentally and physically handicapped. Both sources are unlikely to be very
biased because they are from history books, however, the origin of these books
is unknown, a German or someone else thus altering the point of view could have
written them. Source J backs up source I in that it shows the extent of
the damage and implies that one man could not have acted alone, however it
could be showing the worst effected area and the rest of the building could be
unharmed. Also you would need more details such as what the room was made of
and contained to say that one man couldn?t have done it all.So in conclusion, none of them prove whether it was more or
less likely that the Nazis started the fire as they are all questionable and
sources I and H were written a whole 40 years afterwards and are likely to be
just one mans opinion.7. Source A suggests that Van Der Lubbe was
in fact a madman, and it had all been blown out of proportion by Hitler and
Goring. He describes how it would have been easy for Van Der Lubbe to set fire
to the Building because of the old furniture, the dry wood and curtains. The
nest source, Van Der Lubbe?s confession, also confirms this point. It seems
that Diels believed this confession after interviewing Van Der Lubbe at length.
Source C does not expresses the opinion that the Nazis were not responsible for
the fire but saw the opportunity to take dictatorship of the country. It is
however a satirical cartoon from the time and was taken from a British
magazine, this means that its reliability is a problem, but it does show the
views of another country at the time, which seem to be very wary of Hitler?s
actions. However, in terms of Van Der Lubbe, it believes that he was not part
of the Nazi?s plans. The book about the fire, source D, clearly suggests that
Van Der Lubbe was part of a communist uprising, however, it was just Nazi
propaganda and so it was just part of the Nazi plot to take power and eliminate
the communists. It also was used to get the backing of German people. Source E suggests that the fire was started by the Nazis,
the General Franz Halder explains the Goring confessed to starting the fire,
but he said that it was him in person who set fire to the building, this is
unlikely because it would be difficult for him to get away without anyone
knowing he was there, it was also at a party so it is likely that he was drunk
at the time which would have clouded the thinking of both of them. This
evidence was emphatically denied by Goring at the same trial, he said that he
didn?t set fire to the Reichstag, it is likely that he said this simply as a
lie to save himself, however neither of the sources are very reliable, so the
evidence is very unclear. Source G, published by the communists, suggests that the fire
was started by the SA, and that they used Van Der Lubbe as a decoy. This piece
of evidence was published after the death of Karl Ernst, which means that he
was unable to confirm or deny any of this confession, the whole text is very
doubtful. The whole text seems to be exactly what the communists need to redeem
themselves, and there is absolutely no evidence that he had ever confessed.
Source H backs up the first theory, it is a text published long after the
incident and by a historian who should have studied all the evidence. This
fully supports the idea that the fire was started by Van Der Lubbe, and that
the Nazis had genuinely believed that it was the start of a communist uprising
and reacted as they saw fit. However, the next source suggests that Lubbe would
have needed help, this is a direct contradiction to the first source (A), but
it does not mention if communists or Nazis helped him. In addition, the final
source simply seems to back source I up, and has no suggestion of who caused
the damage. The fact that the fire happened one week before elections
held by the Nazis is very coincidental, it meant that Hitler was able to take
power much more easily as he convinced the voters that the communist were about
to take over. This would suggest that Hitler was behind the fire to help his
own election bid. Therefore, I think that the Nazis started the Reichstag fire,
so they could take power and crush all their opposition as there is more
reliable evidence to support this theory. But some of the evidence could lead
me to believe that Van Der Lubbe was alone in setting the fire. There has been
so much disagreement over the Reichstag fire because of the different stories
and accounts that were put forward. The main two were the arguments between the
communists and the Nazis. Ever since communism was being exported from Russia,
other Capitalist states have feared the effects of its policies. It was no
different in Germany, the Nazi party were essentially a capitalist party and
saw all other parties as a threat, especially the communists because they were
the ones prepared to fight for their beliefs, they also had an enormous
following. Despite the conclusion I have come to myself, that the
Nazis did it, it will always be nearly impossible to come to any universally
accepted conclusion as there have been so many different accounts of the fire
and nearly all of them are unreliable in their own right. I do not think the
mystery will ever be solved.