Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg
8th December 2007, 11:01
Reichstag Fire
At 21:15 on the night of February 27, 1933, a Berlin fire station received an alarm call that the Reichstag building, the assembly location of the German Parliament, was ablaze. The fire was started in the Session Chamber, and by the time the police and firemen arrived, the main Chamber of Deputies was in flames. Inside the building, the police quickly found a shirtless Marinus van der Lubbe. Van der Lubbe was a Dutch Jewish insurrectionist council communist and unemployed bricklayer who had recently arrived in Germany, ostensibly to carry out his political activities.
Dispute about van der Lubbe's role in the Reichstag Fire
Historians generally agree that van der Lubbe was involved in the Reichstag fire. The extent of the damage, however, has led to considerable debate over whether he acted alone. Considering the speed with which the fire engulfed the building, van der Lubbe's reputation as a mentally disturbed arsonist hungry for fame, and cryptic comments by leading Nazi officials, it was generally believed at the time the Nazi hierarchy was involved in order to reap political gain. Some have contended that van der Lubbe acted alone, and the Reichstag fire was merely a stroke of good luck for the Nazis. It is alleged that the idea he was a "half-wit" or "mentally disturbed" was propaganda spread by the Communist party to distance themselves from an insurrectionist anti-fascist who was once a member of the party and took action where they failed to. The historian Hans Mommsen concluded that the Nazi leadership was in a state of panic the night of the Reichstag fire, and they seemed to have regarded the Reichstag Fire as a confirmation that all their propaganda about a Communist revolution being imminent was actually true.
British reporter Sefton Delmer witnessed the events of that night firsthand, and his account of the fire provides a number of details. Delmer viewed van der Lubbe as solely responsible, that the Nazis sought to make it appear to be a "Communist gang" who set the fire, whereas the Communists sought to make it appear that van der Lubbe was working for the Nazis, and that they had plotted the whole thing.
In 1960, the West German Social Democratic journalist Fritz Tobias published a series of articles in Der Spiegel, later turned into a book, which showed that Van Der Lubbe had acted alone. At the time, Tobias was widely attacked for his articles, which showed that Van der Lubbe was a pyromaniac with a long history of burning down buildings or attempting to burn down buildings. In particular, Tobias established that Van der Lubbe had attempted to burn down a number of buildings in the days prior to February 27. In March 1973, the Swiss historian Walter Hofer organized a conference intended to rebut the claims made by Tobias. At the conference, Hofer claimed to have found evidence that some of the detectives who had investigated the fire may have been Nazis. Mommsen commented on Hofer's claims by stating "Professor Hofer's rather helpless statement that the accomplices of Van der Lubbe 'could only have been Nazis' is tacit admission that the committee did not actually obtain any positive evidence in regard to the alleged accomplices' identity".
Who ever did it, it had hude political conciquences...
The day after the fire, Hitler asked for and received from President Hindenburg the Reichstag Fire Decree, signed into law by Hindenburg using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended most civil liberties in Germany. As a consequence of the Reichstag Fire Decree, the Communist Party of Germany was banned on March 1, 1933 under the grounds that they were preparing a putsch (revolution/uprising). In the March 5, 1933 Reichstag elections, the Nazis increased their share of the vote to 44 percent, which gave the Nazis and their allies (the German National People's Party who won 8% of the vote) a majority of 52% in the Reichstag. The gained form porpoganda spread against the socialists and the baning of thier magazines and papers. The Nazis emerged as winners, but they had fallen short of their goal, which was 50%55% of the vote. This would make it more difficult to obtain the two-thirds majority needed to pass the Enabling Act, to allow Hitler to rule without the reichstag. Nevertheless, the Nazis were able to capitalize on national security concerns and obtain the additional support needed, thus granting Chancellor Hitler the right to rule by decree. The vote took place on March 23, 1933, and only the Social Democrats opposed the measure, which came into effect on March 27. Had the Communist Party participated, its representatives would have contributed 17% of the Reichstag votes, persumably all against the meassure. Instead, their representatives were under arrest for their suspect role in the Reichstag Fire.
What are your opinions on this.....?
At 21:15 on the night of February 27, 1933, a Berlin fire station received an alarm call that the Reichstag building, the assembly location of the German Parliament, was ablaze. The fire was started in the Session Chamber, and by the time the police and firemen arrived, the main Chamber of Deputies was in flames. Inside the building, the police quickly found a shirtless Marinus van der Lubbe. Van der Lubbe was a Dutch Jewish insurrectionist council communist and unemployed bricklayer who had recently arrived in Germany, ostensibly to carry out his political activities.
Dispute about van der Lubbe's role in the Reichstag Fire
Historians generally agree that van der Lubbe was involved in the Reichstag fire. The extent of the damage, however, has led to considerable debate over whether he acted alone. Considering the speed with which the fire engulfed the building, van der Lubbe's reputation as a mentally disturbed arsonist hungry for fame, and cryptic comments by leading Nazi officials, it was generally believed at the time the Nazi hierarchy was involved in order to reap political gain. Some have contended that van der Lubbe acted alone, and the Reichstag fire was merely a stroke of good luck for the Nazis. It is alleged that the idea he was a "half-wit" or "mentally disturbed" was propaganda spread by the Communist party to distance themselves from an insurrectionist anti-fascist who was once a member of the party and took action where they failed to. The historian Hans Mommsen concluded that the Nazi leadership was in a state of panic the night of the Reichstag fire, and they seemed to have regarded the Reichstag Fire as a confirmation that all their propaganda about a Communist revolution being imminent was actually true.
British reporter Sefton Delmer witnessed the events of that night firsthand, and his account of the fire provides a number of details. Delmer viewed van der Lubbe as solely responsible, that the Nazis sought to make it appear to be a "Communist gang" who set the fire, whereas the Communists sought to make it appear that van der Lubbe was working for the Nazis, and that they had plotted the whole thing.
In 1960, the West German Social Democratic journalist Fritz Tobias published a series of articles in Der Spiegel, later turned into a book, which showed that Van Der Lubbe had acted alone. At the time, Tobias was widely attacked for his articles, which showed that Van der Lubbe was a pyromaniac with a long history of burning down buildings or attempting to burn down buildings. In particular, Tobias established that Van der Lubbe had attempted to burn down a number of buildings in the days prior to February 27. In March 1973, the Swiss historian Walter Hofer organized a conference intended to rebut the claims made by Tobias. At the conference, Hofer claimed to have found evidence that some of the detectives who had investigated the fire may have been Nazis. Mommsen commented on Hofer's claims by stating "Professor Hofer's rather helpless statement that the accomplices of Van der Lubbe 'could only have been Nazis' is tacit admission that the committee did not actually obtain any positive evidence in regard to the alleged accomplices' identity".
Who ever did it, it had hude political conciquences...
The day after the fire, Hitler asked for and received from President Hindenburg the Reichstag Fire Decree, signed into law by Hindenburg using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended most civil liberties in Germany. As a consequence of the Reichstag Fire Decree, the Communist Party of Germany was banned on March 1, 1933 under the grounds that they were preparing a putsch (revolution/uprising). In the March 5, 1933 Reichstag elections, the Nazis increased their share of the vote to 44 percent, which gave the Nazis and their allies (the German National People's Party who won 8% of the vote) a majority of 52% in the Reichstag. The gained form porpoganda spread against the socialists and the baning of thier magazines and papers. The Nazis emerged as winners, but they had fallen short of their goal, which was 50%55% of the vote. This would make it more difficult to obtain the two-thirds majority needed to pass the Enabling Act, to allow Hitler to rule without the reichstag. Nevertheless, the Nazis were able to capitalize on national security concerns and obtain the additional support needed, thus granting Chancellor Hitler the right to rule by decree. The vote took place on March 23, 1933, and only the Social Democrats opposed the measure, which came into effect on March 27. Had the Communist Party participated, its representatives would have contributed 17% of the Reichstag votes, persumably all against the meassure. Instead, their representatives were under arrest for their suspect role in the Reichstag Fire.
What are your opinions on this.....?