e time and was taken from a British magazine, this means that its reliability is a problem, but it does show the views of another country at the time, which seem to be very wary of Hitler’s actions. But in terms of Van Der Lubbe, it believes that he was not part of the Nazi’s plans. The book about the fire, source D, clearly suggests that Van Der Lubbe was part of a communist uprising, however it is very biased towards the nazis, so it could be considered as Nazi propaganda and so it is part of the Nazi plot to take power and eliminate the communists. It could also be a quick reaction from the Nazi party to get the backing of the Germans. Source E suggests that the fire was started by the Nazis, the General Franz Halder explains the Goring confessed to starting the fire, but he said that it was him in person who set fire to the building, this is unlikely because it would be difficult for him to get away without anyone knowing he was there, it was also at a party so it is likely that he was drunk at the time which would have clouded the thinking of both of them. This evidence was emphatically denied by Goring at the same trial, he said that he didn’t set fire to the Reichstag, it is likely that he said this simply as a lie to save himself, however neither of the sources are very reliable, so the evidence is very unclear. Source G, published by the communists, suggests that the fire was started by the SA, and that they used Van Der Lubbe as a decoy. This piece of evidence was published after the death of Karl Ernst, which means that he was unable to confirm or deny any of this confession, the whole text is very doubtful. The whole text seems to be exactly what the communists need to redeem themselves, and there is absolutely no evidence that he had ever confessed. Source H backs up the first theory, it is a text published long after the incident and by a historian who should have studied all the evidence. This fully sup...
