nd more evidence would be needed to be sure, such as more confessions and other evidence.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 With their out of date lists and badly planned arrests, the response to the fire was not nearly as successful as it should have been had the Nazis expected it.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, they could have been written by a German or someone else thus altering the point of view. 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.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 Goering. 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 th...
