1
   

Marinus van der Lubbe and the Reichstag fire

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Dec, 2007 08:15 pm
That's it. Smile

Gunga, you should have your answer now..
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Dec, 2007 02:52 am
I doubt that this case will be closed - anytime - to utter satisfaction.

I remember when I heard history at Hans Mommsen in the early 70's his ideas and conclusions: they seemed to be so correct. (First published in 1962.)

And after that ... the latest results and theories are published by Dieter Deiseroth ...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Dec, 2007 06:19 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Dec, 2007 12:30 am
The question is obviously far from resolved, I think.

Having looked through some of the recent publication in our university's library ... I really remembered those days in the 70's:
Mommsen explained all so clear, so logically.
And then we read the others.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2008 01:02 am
In today's The Guardian:

75 years on, executed Reichstag arsonist finally wins pardon

Quote:
Marinus van der Lubbe, 24, was beheaded after being convicted of setting fire to the Reichstag, an event Hitler used as a pretext to suspend civil liberties and establish a dictatorship.

But Van de Lubbe's conviction has been overturned by the federal prosecutor, Monika Harms, after a lawyer in Berlin alerted her to the fact that he had yet to be exonerated under a law passed in 1998. The law allowed pardons for people convicted of crimes under the Nazis, based on the concept that Nazi law "went against the basic ideas of justice".

But the exoneration is only symbolic and will not lead to compensation for Van de Lubbe's heirs.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2008 01:08 am
Nimh, you are quite a guy. (bm)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2008 05:54 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:


The view from Radio Netherlands:

Quote:
Justice at last for Marinus van der Lubbe

By Robert Chesal
11-01-2008

Neither a hero nor a villain, the Dutchman who torched Hitler's Reichstag has been given belated justice. A federal German prosecutor has annulled the death sentence passed on Marinus van der Lubbe, who in February 1933 set fire to the parliament building in Berlin. Van der Lubbe was beheaded the following January, at the age of 25, after his conviction on charges of treason and arson.

The remains of Marinus van der Lubbe lie in the Southern Cemetery of Leipzig, in eastern Germany. After his execution he was buried in an unmarked grave and was subsequently ignored by historians of the Cold War era because of the ambiguous role he had played. No one, not even Communists, was willing to claim the legacy of the poor fellow traveller Van der Lubbe.

According to his confession to Berlin police, he set fire to the Reichstag in an attempt to strike at the heart of the Nazi regime. He was a Marxist and wished to show support for the workers who were rioting in the streets against the Nazi brownshirts.

Hitler

However, the Reichstag blaze achieved precisely the opposite of what Van der Lubbe wanted. Adolf Hitler, just one month after becoming chancellor, seized on the fire to unleash a campaign of state terror against Communists. In this light, no one could consider this young Dutchman a hero. Not even his friends and family back home in the Dutch city of Leiden.

In 1999, the city of Leipzig dedicated a new tombstone to Van der Lubbe in an attempt to revive his memory. But as the city's mayor told me after the ceremony, the Dutchman could never be fully rehabilitated:

"In the former East Germany, we did not know how to view Marinus van der Lubbe. He was not a hero, but he tried to do something for a cause. Nowadays we can see that he was naive, but still he did something wrong and his deeds were also misused to terrible effect."

Shirtless

On the night of February 27, 1933, police responded to reports of an intruder and a fire at the Reichstag. The shirtless Rinus was caught in the act and he confessed immediately.

Outside the burning building, Reichstag chairman and Interior Minister Hermann Goering declared: "The Communist Party is responsible!" Within days, Hitler had disbanded parliament and assumed dictatorial powers.

Plot

At the trial, Nazi prosecutors fabricated a story of a communist plot against the state, with Van der Lubbe at its center. At the same time, German communists were busy telling the world that Van der Lubbe was a patsy, used by the Nazis to set the fire and create an excuse for the witchhunt. All the while, Van der Lubbe insisted he'd plotted and set the fire on his own.

Even today, historians still can't agree which version of events was true. Many still believe the communist version. During the cold war, several East German films, and even a Russian film, portrayed Van der Lubbe as an unwitting agent of the Nazis.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 02:20:25