Reichstag Fire

[Pogue]

After this happened, the Nazis began restricting more freedoms and murdering Communists/sending them to the concentration camps. If this fire had not have been started, would they have created an excuse to persecute the communists anyway? Was it already happening? Did this fire excelerate the Nazis repression?

I have never studied it in history but I've heard abit about it and I wondered how much it affected things. Was it just an 'excuse' for the Nazis to create hysteria, was the guy framed? If he hadn't of done it, would anything have turned out differently? What do comrades think of the act? I'm assuming most people will see it as heroic anti-Nazi resistance but I'm interested ot see if anyone thinks it was a mistake because of the fact the consequences were even more repression. I don't know enough about it so basically I want to be educated.

[revolution inaction]

There's an article about it here

http://libcom.org/library/reichstag-fire-dutch-communism

[The Grapes of Wrath]

... was the guy framed? ... I'm assuming most people will see it as heroic anti-Nazi resistance

According to Len Deighton in his book Blitzkrieg: From the Rise of Hitler to the Fall of Dunkirk the Reichstag fire was begun by a mentally retarded Dutch anarchist. Deighton is pretty sure the guy was not framed although he doens't cite any evidence about it but does mention that William Shirer (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) and Gordon A. Craig (Germany 1866-1945) cite the old "the Nazis did it" myth and also cite no evidence.

(PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying that all Dutch or anarchists are mentally retarded, but just that this guy was both.)


If this fire had not have been started, would they have created an excuse to persecute the communists anyway? ... Did this fire excelerate the Nazis repression?


Probably.

[RedAnarchist]

According to Len Deighton in his book Blitzkrieg: From the Rise of Hitler to the Fall of Dunkirk the Reichstag fire was begun by a mentally retarded Dutch anarchist. Deighton is pretty sure the guy was not framed although he doens't cite any evidence about it but does mention that William Shirer (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) and Gordon A. Craig (Germany 1866-1945) cite the old "the Nazis did it" myth and also cite no evidence.

Marinus van der Lubbe was neither an anarchist nor "mentally retarded".


Marinus van der Lubbe was born in Holland in 1909. His father left home soon after he was born and he was brought up in extreme poverty.
Lubbe worked as a bricklayer but after an industrial accident in 1925 he spent five months in hospital. He never fully recovered from his injuries and was now unable to work and had to live on a small invalidity pension.
In 1926 Lubbe joined the Dutch Communist Party (KPH) and worked hard trying to recruit young unemployed workers into the party. He also organized demonstrations and spoke at protest meetings.
Lubbe decides he wants to live in the Soviet Union (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Russia.htm) but is unable to raise enough money for his fare. However, in 1933 he moves to Germany where he immediately begins protesting against the new government headed by Adolf Hitler (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm).
On 27th February the Reichstag (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERreichstag.htm) caught fire. When they police arrived they found Lubbe on the premises. After being tortured by the Gestapo (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERgestapo.htm) he confessed to starting the Reichstag Fire (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERreichstagF.htm). However he denies that he was part of a Communist conspiracy. Hermann Goering (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWgoring.htm) refuses to believe him and he orders the arrest of several leaders of the German Communist Party (KPD) (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERkpd.htm).
As well as Lubbe the German police charged four communists with setting fire to the Reichstag (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERreichstag.htm). This included Ernst Torgler, the chairman of the KPD (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERkpd.htm) and Georgi Dimitrov (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERdimitrov.htm) of the Soviet Comintern (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUScomintern.htm).
Marinus van der Lubbe was found guilty of the Reichstag Fire (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERreichstagF.htm) and was executed on 10th January, 1934. Adolf Hitler (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERhitler.htm) was furious he rest of the defendants were acquitted and he decided that in future all treason cases were taken from the Supreme Court and given to a new People's Court where prisoners were judged by members of the National Socialist German Workers Party (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERnazi.htm) (NSDAP).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERlubbe.htm

[Devrim]

According to Len Deighton in his book Blitzkrieg: From the Rise of Hitler to the Fall of Dunkirk the Reichstag fire was begun by a mentally retarded Dutch anarchist.

He wasn't an anarchist at all. I would suggest that Deighton has very little idea of what he is talking about.

Devrim

[Niccolò Rossi]

I believe the correct analysis of the arson of the Reichstag and of "individual acts" in general was offered at the time, and still stands correct today, by the likes of Pannkeok and GIC. To quote the article linked to above by 'radicalgraffiti':
"The task of a real revolutionary grouping can only be to reinforce the class by spreading a clear conception of social relations, of the questions of organisation and tactics. It is not up to us to make the masses move; that can only be the necessary result of social relations. Our task is only to help the masses in movement to find the right track" (GIC leaflet, in Spartacus no. 19, 9th March 1933).

More profoundly, Pannekoek - in an article in the PIC - showed that any personal act' like that of Van der Lubbe, could only obscure the class consciousness of the proletariat. The 'personal act' could only have value "as part of a mass movement": "In this framework, the audacity of the bravest finds expression in personal acts of courage, while the clear understanding of the others directs these acts towards their goal so as not to lose their fruits" (idem). Separated from mass action, all individual acts, far from weakening the bourgeoisie, can only reinforce it. This was the case with the burning of the Reichstag:

"The bourgeoisie has not been the least affected by the burning of the Reichstag; its domination has in no way been weakened. The government, on the contrary, has used the opportunity to considerably reinforce its terror against the workers' movement." (PIC no. 7, March 1933).
Ideologically such action had no value "against abject electoralism" and bourgeois democracy. Democratic illusions could always take "another track"; for example, when the 'right to vote' is suppressed, then the mystification of "the conquest of real democracy is put forward" by the "democratic" bourgeoisie. In the second place, historically, individual terrorist action has no mobilising effect on the class struggle. It corresponds to a bygone age, that of the 'bourgeois romanticism' of the revolutions of the 19th century, where some leaders thought to mobilise the 'passive masses' by providing the 'spark' for the social explosion. The proletarian revolution, by contrast, "has nothing in common with the explosion of a powderkeg". Finally, terrorist action can only confuse the workers' class consciousness: it reduces them to passivity. Individual action becomes a substitute for mass action. Its effect is thus totally negative:

"Even if such an act hit and effectively weakened the bourgeoisie, the only consequence would be to develop among the workers the conviction that such personal acts could liberate them... which would drive them still further from autonomous action as a class." (idem).

Consequently, the proletarian movement must reject all forms of terrorist action. which is nothing other than a revival of nihilism from the end of the 19th century. The GIC and Pannekoek thus showed clearly that the future of the revolutionary movement could only lie in mass action. This vision was not always understood by some militants of the Dutch councilist movement. - Dutch Council Communism and Van der Lubbe Burning the Reichstag: The question of "exemplary acts", Philippe Bourrine.
More on Pannekoek's reaction to the arson of the Reichstag and his position on "individaul acts" can be found in the article Individual Acts (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1933/individual.htm)

[Charles Xavier]

Read Georgi Dimitrov's works he was one of the accused in the Reichstag fire a fiercely brilliant mind of the communist movement, he turned the trial from a trial against him and the communists into a trial against the Nazis. Van Lubb wasn't who burned down the Reichstag, Van Lubb was heavily drugged in the trials so as not to speak coherently at the trial. It was proven at the trial that it would take many persons to have committed the act and it was impossible for it to have been a lone act.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Not to open a can of worms, but let me get this straight. Len Deighton has no idea what he is talking about while Spartacus.com does?

Why? He doesn't have "communist" attached anywhere near his name?

To give the guy some credit, the Reichstag fire was not the focus of his book but instead the German military, especially Panzer divisions, were.

[Pogue]

So Georgi, according to you and your sources theres no evidence suggesting it was even started by Communists?

[Devrim]

Not to open a can of worms, but let me get this straight. Len Deighton has no idea what he is talking about while Spartacus.com does?
Why? He doesn't have "communist" attached anywhere near his name?
To give the guy some credit, the Reichstag fire was not the focus of his book but instead the German military, especially Panzer divisions, were.

I meant on this issue. As I mentioned the guy wasn't an anarchist, and a little elementary research would have shown that. I am not sure what 'Spartacus.com' is.

Devrim

[Pogue]

I meant on this issue. As I mentioned the guy wasn't an anarchist, and a little elementary research would have shown that. I am not sure what 'Spartacus.com' is.

Devrim

History website, has alot on leftist history.

[black magick hustla]

Not to open a can of worms, but let me get this straight. Len Deighton has no idea what he is talking about while Spartacus.com does?

Why? He doesn't have "communist" attached anywhere near his name?

To give the guy some credit, the Reichstag fire was not the focus of his book but instead the German military, especially Panzer divisions, were.

It is quite well known between a lot of anarchists, "libertarian marxists" and left communists, that the guy was not an anarchist. He was an ex militant (or was he still a militant at that time?) of the KADP, which was not an anarchist organization.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

The nazis burned the Reichstag themselves to have an excuse to persecute the Communists.

[OneNamedNameLess]

The Reichstag fire was blamed on communists but this was not the only form of propoganda Hitler employed against them. For example, he continuously blamed communists, who were predominantly Jews according to Hitler, for agreeing on peace with the allies at the end of the great war therefore betraying Germany and her people who had fought hard for no reward, only reparations and inflation. So yes, the Nazis did and would have found even more ways to generate propoganda against Communists and other groups of the left. He also referred to the failed revolution to criminalise Communists. Rosa Luxemburg was of course one of the great losses of this failed attempt.

Assuming the Nazis were responsible for the fire, which I think they were, this was not designed to create mass hysteria. It was an opportunity for Hitler and Goebbels, who was responsible for the party's propoganda, to blacken the reputation of their opponents. More importantly, it allowed Hitler to pass the Enabling Act which created the Nazi dictatorship. This was made possible through much intimidation by the brown shirts and SS and of course socialists and communists were not in the political picture after this resulting in less resistance. Consequently, this did intensify Nazi repression and if he hadn't done it and the Nazis couldn't attribute the blame on the communists, Hitler would have ARGUABLY been unable to establish the Nazi dictatorship so maybe things would have been different.

This is just my interpretation of things, but I think it was probably the most significant turning point for Germany as the fire established the dictatorship of the Nazis. In my opinion of course.

Finally, I have came across no sources which claim that van der lubb was an anarchist. If he was, the Nazis possibly ignored this in order to launch their attack on the communists who were a major threat to the nazis. However, I think the chances that he was an anarchist were slim as there is little evidence to support this contention.

[Charles Xavier]

So Georgi, according to you and your sources theres no evidence suggesting it was even started by Communists?


Read the Trial transcripts.

[Invader Zim]

The debate on who started the fire is largely a moot point really; whether it was van der Lubbe, the Nazis or anyone else for that matter. We will probably never get to the very bottom of it. What is important is the fallout of the fire.

[Bilan]

The debate on who started the fire is largely a moot point really; whether it was van der Lubbe, the Nazis or anyone else for that matter. We will probably never get to the very bottom of it. What is important is the fallout of the fire.

Bingo.
Who started the fire isn't really the point. Were it not for the fire, it would have been something else - or nothing else, but the results would not have differed much.
Nazis were clashing with communists right from the start - it was a violent political battleground. The systematic persecution of political opponents by the Nazi state was something that was bound to occur, irrespective of the Reichstag fire.

[LOLseph Stalin]

After this happened, the Nazis began restricting more freedoms and murdering Communists/sending them to the concentration camps. If this fire had not have been started, would they have created an excuse to persecute the communists anyway? Was it already happening? Did this fire excelerate the Nazis repression?

I have never studied it in history but I've heard abit about it and I wondered how much it affected things. Was it just an 'excuse' for the Nazis to create hysteria, was the guy framed? If he hadn't of done it, would anything have turned out differently? What do comrades think of the act? I'm assuming most people will see it as heroic anti-Nazi resistance but I'm interested ot see if anyone thinks it was a mistake because of the fact the consequences were even more repression. I don't know enough about it so basically I want to be educated.

So it actually was a Communist setting it on fire? I was always taught that it was the Nazis setting it on fire and then blaming the Communists so they would have a reason to persecute them.

[PRC-UTE]

whether he was an anarchist or some exotic version of left communism is a moot point. though the arsonist was a known admirer of the SU but had been an anarcho-syndicalist in his youth and obviously still believed in direct action. (Evans, Coming of the Third Reich p 328-9)

and yes, they would've definitely found another excuse to suppress the left. that was really the raison d'etre of Nazism

[SocialRealist]

It was the powder-keg that started the Nazi war machine up if you ask me.

Now, would this have happened anyways? I could see it as happening without Reichstag burning down but in a different pace.

[Angry Young Man]

Completely irrelevant, but I heard Van der Lubbe was only 19 when he was arrested for the Reichstag fire. And was bullied into taking the rap.

[Annie K.]

Who started the fire isn't really the point. Were it not for the fire, it would have been something else - or nothing else, but the results would not have differed much.If the reichstag fire didn't exist, the nazis would have invented it.
I agree with what's been said, the history would be roughly the same.
But since this event serves often marxist-leninists to oppose activism, to describe it as blind terrorism and insinuate that we can blame it for the supression of the left under the third reich, as some have shown in this thread, I think the question of who started it is as relevant as the one about the importance of this action in the course of the events.

[jaffe]

whether he was an anarchist or some exotic version of left communism is a moot point. he was a council-communist.


though the arsonist was a known admirer of the SU
that's right he tried to travel to both the SU and china


but had been an anarcho-syndicalist in his youth No he was a member of the CPH (communist party holland) which was a Marxist-leninist party.


and obviously still believed in direct action.
Marinus van der Lubben was known in his city Leiden as a constant workers militant. Weither as an organiser on meetings or being in the front lines when riots occured.


and yes, they would've definitely found another excuse to suppress the left. that was really the raison d'etre of Nazism
correct, look at the Kristallnacht for example.

was the guy framed?
I think it's very importantly to note here that he wasn't persecuted by nazis only. Also European intellectuals made a bizare story in which Marinus van der Lubben was a homosexual and was having relations with SA leaders. The communist partys in Holland distanced from it (like all other ML partys saying it was a nazi frame-up) and started accusing him of being a former worker for the police and that was the reason he leaved the party.