The Reichstag Fire

[andrew184]

Robert Jackson was the chief prosecutor during the primary war crime trial against Nazi Germany. Whether you agree or disagree, his comments carry some weight.

As a prosecutor, Jackson's primary task was to get Göring hanged, not to establish the truth. As a result, his opinion as expressed in the quote above, is pretty much worthless in ascertaining historical truth about the fire.

[Avalancheon]

As a prosecutor, Jackson's primary task was to get Göring hanged, not to establish the truth. As a result, his opinion as expressed in the quote above, is pretty much worthless in ascertaining historical truth about the fire.

So we should not trust anything Robert Jackson said during the Nuremberg trials, simply because he was the chief prosecutor? All his statements should be trashcanned because of that reason alone?

[john2]

Sorry to wade back into this topic but the issue is evidence. Yes the nazis had the means, motive and opportunity to set the fire BUT... no evidence was ever found tying to them the fire. Van Der Lubbe was there and he confessed. Was he lying? Could he have set the fire on his own? Hett's book which I mentioned earlier raised serious issues with this last part but again all things considered what we have are theories and hearsay. So Robert Jackson believed the nazis did it. Fine. Did he cite evidence to back up his opinion? He was after all in court. Any opinion without evidence is worthless.

[andrew184]

As a prosecutor, Jackson's primary task was to get Göring hanged, not to establish the truth. As a result, his opinion as expressed in the quote above, is pretty much worthless in ascertaining historical truth about the fire.

So we should not trust anything Robert Jackson said during the Nuremberg trials, simply because he was the chief prosecutor? All his statements should be trashcanned because of that reason alone?

By nature of his position, he is heavily biased. Lawyers will say anything, even if they know it isn't true, in order to win a case. Establishing historical truth is not their concern, only getting the defendant convicted. Such is the job of a prosecutor after all and I don't hold that against Jackson.

[J. Duncan]

Yet another book (15 years of research) refuting
Hett and the Nazi conspiracy theory

Sven Kellerhof “The Reichstag Fire”

https://www.amazon.com/Reichstag-Fire-C ... 545&sr=8-1

[john2]

I actually just read that book. Hett's book has problems but I was trying to avoid dragging this topic out more. Instead of concentrating on the fire itself he argues there was a conspiracy to push a single person theory and Fritz Tobias was the ringleader with the goal being to whitewash the nazis. His most outrageous charge is that historians don't think for themselves and simply go by others - mainly Tobias. But even if we concede political motivations it doesn't change the facts of the case. That Van Der Lubbe acted by himself is easier to explain then the nazis did it. This is still doesn't mean they weren't somehow involved. A few issues with the nazi theory to consider are:

-Who ordered the fire? Did Hitler know? Did the SA go rogue and set the fire themselves?
Why did the nazis choose Van Der Lubbe who had only been in Germany for 2 weeks?
The nazi leaders acted genuinely surprised - see quotes I posted earlier.
The fire decree wasn't ready to go at the beginning like I had thought it was but was decided in 2 cabinet meeting on the 28th. It wasn't passed until the evening. The point being that the nazis didn't seem sure how to react.

-On the other hand a number of suspicious circumstances took place around the time of the fire. It's clear the nazis were getting ready to move against the communists and were looking for a pretext but... Did Hitler plan to act before or after the election? What measures did he have in mind? Did the fire cause him to move up his plans or was it the plan all along?

-Hett presented convincing evidence the fire could not have been set by one person- this is the biggest obstacle to the single man theory. Hett's argument is that Van Der Lubbe must have had accomplices and they must have been nazis. Could Van Der Lubbe have had non nazi help? He had talked to people about burning down a welfare office. Maybe some other people did help him and got out before Van Der Lubbe.

-Despite the strange circumstances all theories of nazis or others being involved are speculation with no evidence. This is why many historians either leave it as a mystery or say Van Der Lubbe did it alone. Regardless of what agenda Tobias might have had those are the facts and Hett never added any others then to attack Tobias.

[DavidFrankenberg]

-Who ordered the fire?

Hitler.

Did Hitler know? Did the SA go rogue and set the fire themselves?

It was an inside job.

Why did the nazis choose Van Der Lubbe who had only been in Germany for 2 weeks?

A lonely communist known for his arsonry and hate of the nazis.

The nazi leaders acted genuinely surprised - see quotes I posted earlier.

They were surprisingly all there that day in Berlin.

The fire decree wasn't ready to go at the beginning like I had thought it was but was decided in 2 cabinet meeting on the 28th. It wasn't passed until the evening. The point being that the nazis didn't seem sure how to react.

The decree is so long that its is hardly imaginable that it wasnt already written before the arson.

-On the other hand a number of suspicious circumstances took place around the time of the fire. It's clear the nazis were getting ready to move against the communists and were looking for a pretext but... Did Hitler plan to act before or after the election?

Before.

What measures did he have in mind?

The one that he applied after the arson : all powers in his hads.

Did the fire cause him to move up his plans or was it the plan all along?

It is part of the plan of course.

-Hett presented convincing evidence the fire could not have been set by one person- this is the biggest obstacle to the single man theory. Hett's argument is that Van Der Lubbe must have had accomplices and they must have been nazis. Could Van Der Lubbe have had non nazi help?

The nazis were unable to prove this nor to prosecute another man than VDL.

He had talked to people about burning down a welfare office. Maybe some other people did help him and got out before Van Der Lubbe.

These other people who helped him in order to make him a scapegoat, were the nazis themselves.

-Despite the strange circumstances all theories of nazis or others being involved are speculation with no evidence. This is why many historians either leave it as a mystery or say Van Der Lubbe did it alone. Regardless of what agenda Tobias might have had those are the facts and Hett never added any others then to attack Tobias.

The Hitler's theory is more credible than the lowe wolf theory.

[john2]

john2 wrote: ↑
Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:30 pm
-Who ordered the fire?

Hitler.

Evidence? Hett himself at the end of his book mentioned that there is no record of an order or conversation from any of the nazi leaders saying to set the fire. Again this doesn't mean they didn't order the fire but there is no evidence and that is the problem here.

They were surprisingly all there that day in Berlin.

Hett mentioned this in his book however looking at Hitler's schedule he had been moving back and forth between Berlin and campaign stops. So it could have been a coincidence. Hitler in fact was there for a cabinet meeting and was discussing passing a decree against the communists. I will have to look it up again but this decree only extended penalties for criminal acts. If Hitler knew the fire was going to take place that day why waste time with a mild decree just wait until the next day when he can pass the main one.

The Hitler's theory is more credible than the lowe wolf theory.

I think both theories are possible but both have problems.

[DavidFrankenberg]

john2 wrote: ↑
Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:30 pm
-Who ordered the fire?

Hitler.

Evidence? Hett himself at the end of his book mentioned that there is no record of an order or conversation from any of the nazi leaders saying to set the fire. Again this doesn't mean they didn't order the fire but there is no evidence and that is the problem here.

Of course, Hitler would not claim for the responsability of the event. It should be a communist crime.

They were surprisingly all there that day in Berlin.

Hett mentioned this in his book however looking at Hitler's schedule he had been moving back and forth between Berlin and campaign stops. So it could have been a coincidence. Hitler in fact was there for a cabinet meeting and was discussing passing a decree against the communists. I will have to look it up again but this decree only extended penalties for criminal acts. If Hitler knew the fire was going to take place that day why waste time with a mild decree just wait until the next day when he can pass the main one.

Coincidence... or not.

The Hitler's theory is more credible than the lone wolf theory.

I think both theories are possible but both have problems.

You have to think it as a whole.
Do you really think it is about chance when Hitler and his clique is around ?

[john2]

You have to think it as a whole.
Do you really think it is about chance when Hitler and his clique is around ?

Sometimes Hitler staged incidents and sometimes he got lucky. That Van der Lubbe did it by himself seems to have less holes in it but there are 2 reasons why I have been reluctant to go along with the lone wolf theory.

-As I said before there are problems as to whether or not Van der Lubbe could have set the fire by himself. He apparently ran around in the dark setting about 60 fires I believe and the whole thing was done in about a half hour. I find that somewhat hard to swallow especially when he apparently had poor eyesight. But even if it can be proven that he had accomplices it does not necessarily mean nazis. One does not automatically equal the other.

- As you pointed out the nazis were nefarious and they did in fact stage incidents sometimes. However there is no evidence connecting them to the fire. You clearly have an opinion and that is fine but it is not supported by evidence.

[ljadw]

There is no proof that the nazis set the Reichstag on fire, but there are a lot of very convincing indications that it was the work of Van der Lubbe ,
No one has been able to prove that Tobias was wrong .
After the war the communists have tried to convince the public opinion that it was the work of the nazis . They have failed .
Ian Kershaw said that almost all historians said that it was the work of van der Lubbe .

[DavidFrankenberg]

You have to think it as a whole.
Do you really think it is about chance when Hitler and his clique is around ?

Sometimes Hitler staged incidents and sometimes he got lucky.

When ?
Hitler was not poker player.
From 30 to 40 he makes no error. His only error, named Churchill, was that England does not make peace in summer 40.
Otherwise he was ALL GOOD.
And it's not about chance.

[Rainfall]

I think there is a high possibility that Lubbe did not act alone. In January 1933, he had 15 percent vision in the left eye and 20 percent in the right.

Is there a way to prove that Hans-Martin Lennings was a member of the SA? The historian Sven Felix Kellerhoff has objections against Lennings' account:

1. Lubbe's confession does not match up to it. (But: Lubbe might have been threatened by the SA to keep their involvement a secret from the police.)
2. According to medical reports from 1936 and 1937, Lennings had mental disorders, among others, anxiety disorders, epileptic seizures, and memory loss. (But: He might have developed anxiety disorders during Gestapo imprisonment. It could also be that these mental disorders were invented to make his story seem unreliable.)