Get help with any kind of assignment - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
The Reichstag Fire 1. Source A was compiled by Rudolf Diels, who was simply the top of the Prussian political law enforcement during the fire. In his account of events, he explains that he caught Van Der Lubbe red handed, the suspect was alone and there is no evidence that he could see that involved other folks, other communists even. He strongly disagreed with Goring and Hitler's theory that Van Der Lubbe was aided for some reason, and that the complete affair was a communist plot to seize power. Through the trial of Van Der Lubbe in 1933, he confessed to establishing fire to the building openly, but denied that he previously been helped. His declaration in source B demonstrates he was adament that he previously worked alone. This might appear to verify Diels' theory, however, Van Der Lubbe might have been lying to be able to protect the various other arsonists easily, who would likely have been high ranking associates of the communist party relating to Goring's theory, and for that reason much more valuable when compared to a simple member, although extremely devoted, who was unstable mentally. If he was lying, he may be within the tracks of the Nazi party, who could have set everything up and, because they did, place the blame on the communists. All this causes great confusion for anybody trying to uncover the reality. Rudolf Diels' account could possibly be seen as reasonably dependable as he appears to have considered all of the evidence and arrive to a considered and unbiased opinion. Regrettably, Van Der Lubbe isn't a trusted source as he could possibly be protecting any amount of individuals; there is also proof that he was mentally unstable, and this implies that his evidence is even more unreliable. 2. Resource A, Rudolf Diels' accounts of the fire, although from the high rank Nazi official, appears to d...