Crafting a thesis, especially on a sensitive and complex topic like the events surrounding

Kristallnacht, presents a formidable challenge. This pivotal moment in history demands meticulous
research, critical analysis, and a profound understanding of its historical, cultural, and socio-political
contexts. Delving into the intricacies of such a topic requires not only academic rigor but also
empathy and sensitivity towards the subject matter.

The process of writing a thesis on Kristallnacht can be emotionally draining and intellectually
demanding. Researchers often find themselves grappling with a vast array of primary sources,
secondary literature, survivor testimonies, and archival materials. Sorting through this wealth of
information while maintaining objectivity and academic integrity is no small feat.

Moreover, articulating one's findings and insights into a coherent and compelling narrative requires
considerable skill and expertise. Crafting a thesis that effectively communicates the significance of
Kristallnacht, its causes, consequences, and enduring legacy demands clarity of thought, precision in
argumentation, and eloquence in expression.

Given the challenges inherent in undertaking such a research endeavor, seeking assistance from
reputable academic writing services like ⇒ BuyPapers.club ⇔ can be invaluable. With their team
of experienced writers and researchers, they offer professional guidance and support at every stage
of the writing process. From formulating a research question to refining arguments and polishing
prose, they provide the expertise and assistance needed to produce a high-quality thesis on
Kristallnacht.

By entrusting your project to ⇒ BuyPapers.club ⇔, you can rest assured that your thesis will be
meticulously researched, thoughtfully crafted, and academically rigorous. Their commitment to
excellence and dedication to customer satisfaction make them the ideal partner for anyone tackling
the complexities of writing a thesis on such a profound and significant historical event.
The bias of Sources D and E means that they cannot justifiably be used to discredit Source C. It
provides a useful and unbiased insight into the background of the events that led to Kristallnacht.
This only affirms the idea that it was not the public's fault because they have been tied up so they
could not have had anything to do with it because they are immobile. It also symbolises that the
German people don’t go along with the Nazi ideas but don’t have freedom of speech. As a journalist,
he would have been there at the event so would have seen very clearly all that took place, enabling
him to write an accurate account, making the source reliable and useful. Along with the fact that the
account was written at the time- making it a primary source, this makes it a very reliable, as he
would have no reason to lie because he was American and was therefore safe from the wrath of the
Nazis’ censorship. In celebration of 40 years of Facing History and Ourselves, this new edition
offers full digital access for educators to a vast array of new scholarship, primary source material,
and a wealth of images, videos, and audio never before compiled in a single resource, that are ready
for classroom use. Firstly obviously because it was Hitler speaking, and naturally he would want to
make it seem as if this was not the governments fault, as it makes him seem quite barbaric. This
resource hasn't been reviewed yet To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have
downloaded this resource can review it Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms
and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch. ?4.00 (no
rating) 0 reviews BUY NOW Save for later ?4.00 (no rating) 0 reviews BUY NOW Save for later
Last updated 22 February 2018 Share this Share through email Share through twitter Share through
linkedin Share through facebook Share through pinterest Wayne Woods' Shop 4.02 38 reviews Not
the right resource. The Nazi is holding a knife in his hand symbolises that the Nazi's clearly use
violence to get what they want. Because it blames the Nazis, like Source C, it increases Source C's
accuracy. The source is completely challenging the Nazis’, making them out to look immoral and
corrupt. In his other hand, he is holding a baseball bat with nails sticking out. It also says that Frau
Troost’s husband was Hitler’s favourite architect and so Frau Troost obviously, greatly benefited
financially as her husband was his favourite architect so she may be trying to justify and divert the
blame from Hitler. At the front of the picture there is a women who is tied up and represents the
German people, women are not as strong as men so this might have been the reason why a women
was used instead of a man, the women is also tied up which make her even less powerful and capable
of doing anything, it is showing that the German people knew what was going on but they couldn’t
do anything about it. Along with the fact that the account was written at the time- making it a
primary source, this makes it a very reliable, as he would have no reason to lie because he was
American and was therefore safe from the wrath of the Nazis’ censorship. I have taken immediate
steps with the Under Secretary of State for the safeguarding of British subjects. Tsar Nicholas used
the Jews as scapegoats for all of Russia’s problems during his reign, and this clearly links in to what
Hitler was doing at this point. It could have been that people did not like the idea the “Jews not
wanted” messages on certain shop windows were appearing as opposed to hating the Jews. The Tsar
is saying “Attacking the Jews did not do me any good, my fascist friend” This makes it quite clear
that it is the Nazis who are attacking the Jews not the German people. To do this, we have to see
what the source tells us and how reliable it is. It says that on the ninth of November there had “been
anti-Jewish demonstrations in parts of Munich during which Jewish shops had been destroyed and
synagogues set on fire”. Lying, by the officer’s feet, there is a dead body. Source E is reliable as it is
signed “a civil servant” and therefore is anonymous. Frau Troost was the husband of one of Hitler's
favourite architects. Most non-Jews responded in silence, either because they were not personally
affected by events or they tacitly agreed with the pogrom against the Jews. This is because America
was not at war yet and therefore was not directly involved in the events. Which brings up the idea
that even though Goebbels was out of favour with Hitler, Hitler still used his advice. I think that this
source is fairly reliable because it was written before Kristallnacht so it shows truth in how the Jews
were being treated.
It also glorifies their old leader by putting him in heaven but the Communists (the current
government) hated their old leader, which is why he was murdered in July 1918. Source D also talks
about the horrors leading up to Kristallnacht, although not in as much detail as in Sources C and E.
The Tsar is saying “Attacking the Jews did not do me any good, my fascist friend” This makes it
quite clear that it is the Nazis who are attacking the Jews not the German people. You get some
precise detail in source A especially on Hitler's reaction. There is no need to lie in this source so it
shows the truth. I think this because it was written 16 years after the event and therefore ones
memory may be blurred. Also, the fact that it was written in 1954 makes it less reliable. This at first
would seem to make source C less reliable, although the fact that source C and E agree so much
perhaps indicates that source D is not reliable at all. Source E also backs up the statement Mr.
Buffman made in Source C concerning the action taken by the German population: “Most German
people have nothing to do with these riots”. He also says he was against the events because he cared
about the economy as he was in charge of Nazi Rearmament policies and so it was his job. Buffman
was an American diplomat- his job was to be the eyes and ears of America in order to give America
an impression of what was going on in Germany. This makes me question the truthfulness of the
statement, as it disagrees completely with a reasonably reliable source. Again in source E we see that
again the “German people have nothing to do with these attacks” so again telling us it was carried out
by SS men indicating that the attacks were indeed planned by the Nazi. Source G is clearly implying
that the Nazis were to blame for Kristallnacht; consequently implying that Kristallnacht was planned.
Source Investigation: Why did Kristallnacht take place? However, the most obvious similarity is that
both of these sources blame the Nazis for Kristallnacht. These sources agree and so this makes the
other information in source C more reliable. The source is likely to be biased because it is written by
a Jew and Jews were the victims of terror. This is important as these are two very different cultures
and different cultures do not always interpret the same things correctly. Tsar Nicholas used the Jews
as scapegoats for all of Russia’s problems during his reign, and this clearly links in to what Hitler was
doing at this point. Plans of the Auschwitz and Treblinka camps, reports from the Warsaw ghetto and
from Polish representatives in London, all show that knowledge of the murders was circulating. This
is what we presume to be a German Jew that the Nazi officer has beaten to a pulp. The man at the
back of the picture is a Nazi and is holding a weapon in his hand and standing next to a body which
is likely to be a Jew he has just killed; this is showing that they think the Nazis are responsible for
Kristallnacht. The events described certainly point to the fact that Kristallnacht was an organised,
brutal, vindictive and outrageous act against an ethnic minority by the Nazi Party. We know that this
man is a Nazi as he is in uniform. Also within those sixteen years his views of the events may have
changed which may have led him to invent his own details. Thus, a possible reason for Hitler
“squealing with delight” and slapping his thigh with “enthusiasm”. Reviews Select overall rating (no
rating) Your rating is required to reflect your happiness. So Source I proves the truthfulness of H to
an extent, by saying that Hitler did not approve of Kristallnacht, but otherwise firmly contradicts it,
although I think that H is the more truthful source as the origin is far more reliable. Perhaps “people”
does refer to the German public and maybe Hitler had never intended it to go that far.
I have learned that Frau Troost was a close friend of Hitler’s and in theory, as a close friend, she
would deny anything with Hitler being involved in Kristallnacht to try and defend him. The events
described certainly point to the fact that Kristallnacht was an organised, brutal, vindictive and
outrageous act against an ethnic minority by the Nazi Party. This impression is given because the
source mentions that they had been “provided with hammers, axes and firebombs” And so it would
seems obvious that they caused the destruction. Beside the tied and gagged woman lies a sword and
shield on the ground. However, it does say that “The Fuhrer, at Goebbles suggestion, had decided
such demonstrations were not to be organised by the party.” As it is claimed that Goebbles and Hitler
were against Kristallnacht, it is presumed that the people did it. Secondly this is not a primary source,
as it was a report of Frau Troost from Hitler to a historian. Although source D could have been
entirely false as the Jew who wrote it would naturally have been afraid of the Nazis and could have
changed the facts in order to stay safe. It may have been, as stated in source A, that Goebbels was
out of favour with Hitler and that he was trying to win back support from his leader. There are 3
different theories between these 9 different sources. He also says he was against the events because
he cared about the economy as he was in charge of Nazi Rearmament policies and so it was his job.
The author of Source C unlike these two is not allied to either of the parties directly involved in the
events of Kristallnacht. The reliability though is questionable because if it were Goering organising
Kristallnacht, he would have wanted to push the blame on someone else at the time because he was
on trial for war crimes. Someone would have had to research all these so it must have been planned.
However, when taken into account with other stories from other sources then the events from Source
A appear to be more useful. In Source H, Goering, a Nazi official, blames another Nazi party
member. It does not have any pictures in the source that would suggest that the German people had
nothing to do with the attacks and are not allowed to object or have any sympathy for the attacks on
the Jews, it is also not official. The knife in his right has blood dripping from it, showing that it has
been recently used. This means that they are likely to blame them for anything so this source is not
very reliable. This is one of many lessons that I have uploaded on the history of Germany for GCSE
pupils. I don’t think that there is enough matching evidence in the two sources to prove Goering was
telling the truth in Source H. In the background of the picture is fire, this is representing the fires that
the Nazis started in Synagogues. It also symbolises that the German people don't go along with the
Nazi ideas but they cannot do anything. The resources that I have created have helped my GCSE
History classes to sustain outstanding results over a period of time. Please include what you were
doing when this page came up and the Cloudflare Ray ID found at the bottom of this page. The
woman is gagged- which represents how the German people couldn’t speak out against the Nazis.
Hearing survivors’ detailed accounts of this night makes it much more accessible to students. It gives
the true Nazi point of view, as it is secret and not meant to be read by the public. It shows the reader
of the Russian magazine that it didn't do him any good and tells the Nazi's to watch what they are
doing. Thus, they, the British, would tried to have discredit the Nazi party and their ideas - making
them seem responsible for massacre was one way to do this.
Although Hesse could have been distancing himself from the Nazis, by showing Hitler and the Nazis
in a very bad light. Although Hesse was a journalist, making his report more reliable as his job was to
report an accurate overview of the events. This is because only three out of the nine sources supports
this claim and the evidence that backs it up is misleading, confusing and from unreliable origins. He
is situated in a cloud, which gives him a Gold-like figure and he has a message. Thus, many
incidents may have been altered slightly to suit any other evidence this historian may have. People is
the plural form of person, which means that more than one person was responsible for the event,
which means he probably does not blame Goebbles. This is because they offer two different
explanations of the nights events, so either one could be useful depending on which argument a
historian was trying to put forward. There was not one single, unidirectional policy that saw Jews
everywhere in Nazi-occupied Europe ghettoised and then deported to death camps. Challenge
questions are included throughout and higher skills are encouraged through the perspectives of the
report. Although this was launched by the soviet government in Russia- and was only what the
government thought, so it is not reliable for judging what the Russian people thought. Also, from my
evidence I can see that most German people were law abiding citizens and would not be involved in
these horrific attacks. Source Investigation: Why did Kristallnacht take place? The few sources that
do agree with the statement that Kristallnacht was a spontaneous event are mostly unclear. This is
clearly supposed to be a Jew that the Nazi officer has just killed. It was sent just three days after the
event so he could not have forgotten that much about what happened. There is no need to lie in this
source so it shows the truth. Hesse wrote his account in 1954, and this is a summary produced of
this, obviously at a later date by an historian. Although it was written long after the demise of Hitler
and the Nazi Party, when the author could speak and write more freely, it is debatable if this makes it
more or less believable. Because this is a secret and internal report it therefore sets out the official
party line. Because source F is published in a Russian newspaper the day after the event, they have
just heard what has happened so they don’t even know if it was the Nazis, they are just giving their
opinion. A women, representative of all German people, is sitting and tied up in ropes. The Nazis
have prevented the people from telling them what they think because they have prevented them from
doing so by covering their mouths. Both sources are similar in the way that they both disagree with
the persecution of Jews, and the way in which they portray the Nazis as ruthless. In this way the
account could have been either changed by Frau Troost- (who’s husband was Hitler’s favourite
architect, and who naturally would want to change it to Hitler’s liking in order to protect her
husband), or the historian. The knife is dripping with blood and this encourages the reader to assume
that he has just killed a Jew. This suggests that Goering may want to blame Goebbels for
Kristallnacht for the sheer fact that he hated him. This could either show that that Nazis are ignorant
of the effects their action are actually having or that they just do not care and are ignoring it. This is
clearly a Jew that the Nazi officer has beaten to a pulp. It is reliable because this was years after
Kristallnacht happened, yet Goerings did not defend the Jews- which would have put him in a better
light, nor did he defend the Nazis- as this would have got him off the death sentence. Our customer
service team will review your report and will be in touch. ?0.00 4.20 6 reviews Download Save for
later ?0.00 4.20 6 reviews Download Save for later Last updated 9 April 2018 Share this Share
through email Share through twitter Share through linkedin Share through facebook Share through
pinterest MissR's Shop 4.03 4125 reviews Not the right resource.
When it says there was a “sign of unrest amongst the masses” which shows that Kristallnacht was
spontaneous as there was a tense atmosphere building up between the German people weeks before
Kristallnacht which suggests that Kristallnacht was just a spontaneous outburst of built up tension
which may have been due to Nazi propaganda against the German Jews. Therefore meaning that the
Nazis had no reason to lie in it, as it was not being presented to the public. Therefore meaning that
the Nazis had no reason to lie in it, as it was not being presented to the public. Such messages could
have been put there by government seeing as the source describes the shops where they were put as
“various” so the shops were unrelated. Or should they not be read in isolation but placed in the
broader context of wartime issues, which might reveal that they were received and understood
piecemeal, so that no real comprehension of the extent of Nazi plans prevailed. The source sounds
more reliable when Goebbels tells actual facts about what had happened on the night, it makes the
Nazis seem innocent in organising the attacks. As it wasn’t drawn after the war, the artist obviously
acted on an immediate response- which makes it seem more reliable. But this is not a primary source-
the conversation was reported by Frau Troost in 1971 in an interview with an historian researching a
book about Hitler. However, when taken into account with other stories from other sources then the
events from Source A appear to be more useful. It also tells us that Hitler apologised on Goebbels
behalf. Kristallnacht. Source C is an account by David Buffman, from the American C. This is what
we presume to be a German Jew that the Nazi officer has beaten to a pulp. This is shown when it
says that Nicholas II and his “family were murdered by communists” which is meant to be a positive
image of the communists. Lesson Objective: to what extent did Kristallnacht smash the Jewish
problem. Along with the fact that the account was written at the time- making it a primary source,
this makes it a very reliable, as he would have no reason to lie because he was American and was
therefore safe from the wrath of the Nazis’ censorship. Because of these contradictions, and Source
A is more reliable than Source H, the latter source now seems less reliable and more likely to be
wrong. We know that this man is a Nazi as he is in uniform. In source H, Goerings clearly states that
Goebells had organised Kristallnacht. Source C is a well-balanced account of Kristallnacht and
reliable because David Buffman was an eyewitness of Kristallnacht and had interviewed many
people concerning the events of Kristallnacht. The artists are symbolising the Nazis oppression of the
people of Germany and how they ruled them with brute force. Hesse infers that Goebbels planned
Kristallnacht, and the SA executed the events of Kristallnacht on his orders, so it was not a
spontaneous attack. Source A is a summary so you might not get all the detail of the actual account
so the source could be missing some key facts. Furthermore, the fact that it agrees so much with C
increases its reliability. Firstly obviously because it was Hitler speaking, and naturally he would want
to make it seem as if this was not the governments fault, as it makes him seem quite barbaric. Source
D makes Source C less reliable, as it contradicts it entirely. This symbolises that the German people
are defenceless to the Nazis. I have learned that Frau Troost was a close friend of Hitler's and in
theory, as a close friend, she would deny anything with Hitler being involved in Kristallnacht to try
and defend him. The note is clearly inside information that was intended to be kept a secret. The
reliability of this source is also questionable because it calls the attacks “demonstrations” and whilst it
mentions damage to property, it does not include details of violence and Jewish fatalities. This
source is very very reliable as it was written by an American who was in Germany at the time and
saw everything that happened where he was staying.
So this is less likely to be biased because it was a primary account and he wrote it at the time,
therefore making the account more accurate. In this way the account could have been either changed
by Frau Troost- (who’s husband was Hitler’s favourite architect, and who naturally would want to
change it to Hitler’s liking in order to protect her husband), or the historian. You’ll find this and more
in the revised digital version of our resource, Holocaust and Human Behavior. It also states that the
“police supplied SA men with axes, housebreaking tools and ladders”. It shows a Nazi who has
probably just killed a German Jew and suggests that the German people are unable to react or speak
against the Nazis for fear of arrest or death. Bundle Anti-Semitism, Jewish Persecution and the
Holocaust Anti-Semitism, Jewish Persecution and the Holocaust. Though this is relatively unlikely,
as it is an historian who produced this summary and would therefore have no reason for changing the
reasoning behind the account. The Nazis have prevented the people from telling them what they
think because they have prevented them from doing so by covering their mouths. However, a factor
of unreliability is that it is reported over 30 years later by Frau Troost in an interview. The fact that it
is sent to the British Console, I think, is a cry for help because the Nazis are treating the Jews
appallingly and something needs to be done about it. There are several actions that could trigger this
block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data. It could
have been that people did not like the idea the “Jews not wanted” messages on certain shop windows
were appearing as opposed to hating the Jews. The account by him is not biased and shows both
sides of the story. A factor of unreliability is that it is reported over 30 years later by Frau Troost in an
interview. Buffman's account is not biased and shows both sides of the story. This seems reliable, as
it is true that in 1934 the Nuremberg Laws made life for Jews very bad, for reasons such as
propaganda and the. I can base my opinion on this because source C is a reliable source. Therefore
meaning that the Nazis had no reason to lie in it, as it was not being presented to the public. This
must be a good message because it comes from 'God'. Source G shows how the innocent Germans
are helpless to intervene with the Nazis, whilst Source F conveys a moral concept- that killing Jews
does not boost ones popularity. Source G is a cartoon about kristallnacht, published in a British
magazine on 30 November 1938.It is a primary source and at this time Britain were appeasing the
Germans. I have learned that Frau Troost was a close friend of Hitler’s and in theory, as a close
friend, she would deny anything with Hitler being involved in Kristallnacht to try and defend him.
He says that the crowds of German civilians were clearly horrified by the violence perpetrated
against the Jewish community, and also to witness the fire brigade only putting out the fires which
had spread to German buildings. The author of Source C unlike these two is not allied to either of the
parties directly involved in the events of Kristallnacht. The note is clearly inside information that was
intended to be kept a secret. It says that on the ninth of November there had “been anti-Jewish
demonstrations in parts of Munich during which Jewish shops had been destroyed and synagogues
set on fire”. Therefore this source also contradicts the statement that Kristallnacht was a planned
event. You are left to assume exactly what the author was trying to convey, and what hidden motives
(which could be extracted from the position and status the author was, or the date it was written)
that caused him or her to divulge this information. A historian said a Nazi journalist, Fritz Hesse
“could hear Goebbles explaining about a mass attack which he and the SA were going to launch
against the synagogues and Jewish shops”. This source talks about how the uprising had been
initiated by the public where Jewish shops and synagogues had been demolished.