Quote:Der Herausgeber nennt fünf konkrete Beispiele, die auf Täter im NS-Bereich hindeuteten, denen aber nicht näher nachgegangen wurde. [..]
Die in Deiseroths Band vorgelegten Forschungsergebnisse des Historikers Alexander Bahar und des Publizisten Hersch Fischler erschüttern die These vom Alleintäter van der Lubbe schwer
Hmm, interesting.
Bahar and Fischler were two of the three researchers
described in the article I posted above as "a loose coalition of leftist publicists (the 'Luxemburg committee')" that "still holds to" the version of the Nazis having engineered the fire today. Van der Lubbe's biographer Schouten dismissed them in harsh words.
But then, that article was from 1999, while the publication you've linked in is from last year. And personally of course I dont know which of them is right, to me it's just "he said she said". I can only go on what appears to have become the generally accepted account.
I do think that I was wrong to categorically say, "It wasnt the Nazis that set fire to the Reichstag building". Take the Encyclopedia Brittanica (EB) entry, for example. It clearly proved Flaja wrong, that's not the issue. Flaja had written that "by any reputable account," it was the Nazis that set fire to the Reichstag building, and that this claim was not disputed "by reasonable people". And yet there you have the EB doing exactly that, disputing that this claim is any kind of established fact. Giving equal credence to the opposite theory. But the EB's equal billing of both theories also put a question mark over my categorical assertion of course.
The other sources I checked, and linked in here - including as reputable a source as the Institute for Dutch History's
Biographical Dictionary of the Netherlands - certainly seemed to confirm that the current consensus among historians is that Van der Lubbe acted alone. But the EB entry was a warning sign that the matter is not unambiguously settled. Old Europe was better than me in putting that in the forefront of all his posts.
This new publication seems to underscore that. The question is obviously far from resolved. Is the historical consensus once again shifting?
Flaja wrote that "anyone who thinks the Nazis didn't start the Reichstag fire is a fool." That no reasonable people dispute that claim; that it's true by any reputable account. That's bollocks, obviously; if anything, it is the opposite theory, that Van der Lubbe acted alone, that appeared to become the consensus opinion over the decades since Tobias published his book in 1962. But that theory has not been proven beyond doubt either, and apparently, the question is now wide open again.