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 came to the conclusion that Van Der Lubbe had acted alone. His ideas seem well thought out and reasonable, they are also 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 therefor not easily forgotten. I believe that Rudolf Diels’ account of the fire is reasonably reliable. However, he does contradict himself: at first he says that he believed that Lubbe had worked alone but then he said that evidence showed that Van Der Lubbe had been helped. This could also mean that he was analysing all the evidence, and trying to get it right.3. The sources C and D agree that the communists started the fire. Source C does not directly say that t...
