Source B Source Analysis

1.) Study sources A and B. How far is the account in Source A supported by Source B? Explain your answer.
The account in Source A is by the head of the Prussian political police. It outlines the arrest and aftermath of Van der Lubbe over the Reichstag fire. The statement in Source B is by Van der Lubbe himself, stating that he alone started the Reichstag fire. Both are in favour that Van der Lubbe was indeed guilty for starting the fire. Source A is supported by Source B because both of them state there was only on conspirator for the crime. Evident in Source A the policeman recalls, ‘’The voluntary confessions of Van der Lubbe made me believe he had acted alone.’’ In Source B, van der Lubbe states ‘’...I set fire to the Reichstag all by myself.”
The account shows arguably little signs of bias and is written in a fairly factual manner. However, the account was written after the Second world war, nearly a decade after the Reichstag fire. During this time there would have been a lot of changes, and the account is quite detailed considering a lot of time had passed since the fire. The time difference indicates that not everything written in the account can be taken for fact because one’s memory of the event would not be that clear. However, the information could not all be regarded as incorrect because Diel’s position as the head of police meant he was the first to question van Der Lubbe and get his statement that he indeed caused the fire. This is re-enforced by Van der Lubbe’s statement in Source B, saying he started the fire alone. He also had access to extra information that could support his account of the event stating ‘’i read the communists pamphlets he had in his pockets..’’ and explaining he was the first on the scene to witness the crime. This is shown in the introductory sentence of the account, ‘’I pushed my way into the building burning.’’ He served as both a witness and investigator to the crime, indicating a promising level of truth to the account because of his position of authority. On the other hand, his possible motive for writing in that matter could be to express his importance in the event and boost his
Source D is a book written by a Nazi about the fire titled ‘’Armed Uprising.’’ Source A and Source B both show the fire in the background, however Source A presents Hindenburg and Hitler as the main figures in the cartoon whereas Source B shows Van der Lubbe and his ‘conspirators’ setting fire to the Reichstag. Source C expresses from the British point of view that the Nazis may have had more involvement in the fire than was revealed because of the way Hitler and Hindenburg are the main attraction in the cartoon and are both dressed in god – like robes, with hitler holding a staff with the nazi sign on it. The cartoon could even trying to say the Nazi’s started the fire themselves for their own benefit. It describes the event as a ‘’heaven sent opportunity,’’ indicating that the Nazis saw it as a way to advance politically even more. Source D expresses from the Nazi point of view to the public that the Reichstag fire was all one big conspiracy by the communists. It portrays Van der Lubbe and fellow communists as being the enemy and attempts to highlight the danger of having them in Germany. This by default makes the Nazi party look like heroes to the public for being anti- communism and gains them more popularity, further advancing Hitler. Both the sources express that the Nazi party