Reichstag Fire Essay Research Paper 1

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 p

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать