What do you think?
Rate this book
Burning the Reichstag: An Investigation into the Third Reich's Enduring Mystery
In February 1933, Adolf Hitler had only a tenuous grasp on power. Chancellor of Germany for merely four weeks, he led a fragile coalition government. The Nazis had lost seats in the Reichstag in the recent election, and claimed only three of thirteen cabinet posts. Then on February 27th, arson sent the Reichstag, the home and symbol of German democracy, up in flames. Immediately blaming the Communists, Hitler's new government approved a decree that tore the heart out of the democratic constitution of the Weimar Republic and cancelled the rule of law. Five thousand people were immediately arrested. The Reichstag fire marked the true beginning of the Third Reich, which ruled for 12 more years. The controversy surrounding the fire's origins has endured for 80.
In Burning the Reichstag, Benjamin Hett offers a gripping account of Hitler's rise to dictatorship-one that challenges orthodoxy and recovers the true significance of the part the fire played. At the scene the police arrested 23-year-old Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch Communist stonemason. Though he was initially dismissed abroad as a Nazi tool, post-war historians since the 1950s have largely judged him solely guilty-a lone arsonist exploited by Hitler. Hett's book reopens the case, providing vivid portraits of key figures, including Rudolf Diels, Hermann Goering, Joseph Goebbels, and the historian Fritz Tobias, whose account of the fire has, until now, been the standard. Making use of a number of new sources and archives, Hett sets the Reichstag fire in a wider context, revealing how and why it has remained one of the last mysteries of the Nazi period, and one of the most controversial and contested events in the 20th century. Burning the Reichstag will stand as the landmark work on this subject.
In Burning the Reichstag, Benjamin Hett offers a gripping account of Hitler's rise to dictatorship-one that challenges orthodoxy and recovers the true significance of the part the fire played. At the scene the police arrested 23-year-old Marinus van der Lubbe, a Dutch Communist stonemason. Though he was initially dismissed abroad as a Nazi tool, post-war historians since the 1950s have largely judged him solely guilty-a lone arsonist exploited by Hitler. Hett's book reopens the case, providing vivid portraits of key figures, including Rudolf Diels, Hermann Goering, Joseph Goebbels, and the historian Fritz Tobias, whose account of the fire has, until now, been the standard. Making use of a number of new sources and archives, Hett sets the Reichstag fire in a wider context, revealing how and why it has remained one of the last mysteries of the Nazi period, and one of the most controversial and contested events in the 20th century. Burning the Reichstag will stand as the landmark work on this subject.
424 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2013
21 people are currently reading
290 people want to read
About the author
Benjamin Carter Hett
9 books113 followersBenjamin Carter Hett, a former trial lawyer and professor of history at Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York, is the author of Death in the Tiergarten and Crossing Hitler, winner of the Fraenkel Prize.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
January 31, 2015
This is a well-documented report of the facts as known and the still officially unresolved question of who lit the fire.
It does seem clear that the man who was found guilty and guillotined was guilty of something, but also that he could not have been the sole perpetrator. Either it was the Nazis who set the fire to justify accelerated violence against the Communists and other political enemies or it was the Communists who set it as the first step in a planned revolution. Since there never was a planned revolution, and since the Nazis did in fact begin arresting people the night of the fire using a list they had prepared before the fire, it seems clear to me the Nazis were culpable.
For my purposes in my novel-in-progress, there are numerous fascinating details that might be incorporated into my story ...
... the Berlin correspondent for the British Daily Express … one of the first reporters on the scene … tipped off by a source
... Goering & Hitler arrive at the fire while it is still burning … Goering: "This is the beginning of the Communist revolt; they will start their attack now! Not a moment must be lost!" … Hitler: "There will be no mercy now. Anyone who stands in our way will be cut down. Every Communist official will be shot where he is found. The Communist deputies must be hanged this very night. Everybody in league with the Communists must be arrested. There will no longer be any leniency for Social Democrats either."
... on the morning after the fire … Hitler secured Hindenburg's approval for what became known as the Reichstag Fire Decree … put an end to constitutional rights and the rule of law ... the "Reichstag Fire Decree" … FIRST PARAGRAPH: suspended civil liberties contained in the Weimar Constitution ... legalized imprisonment without trial for anyone the regime deemed a political threat ... effectively abolished freedom of speech, of assembly and association, confidentiality of the post and telegraphic communication, and security form warrantless searches ... SECOND PARAGRAPH: gave the Reich government the power to remove any state government from office
... the fire took place on the night of Feb 27 ... on Feb 18 … orders had gone out (from Goering) to all Prussian police … compile lists of leaders of the Communist Party and all related communist organizations … also union leaders … include home addresses and likely hiding places … submit no later than Feb 26
It does seem clear that the man who was found guilty and guillotined was guilty of something, but also that he could not have been the sole perpetrator. Either it was the Nazis who set the fire to justify accelerated violence against the Communists and other political enemies or it was the Communists who set it as the first step in a planned revolution. Since there never was a planned revolution, and since the Nazis did in fact begin arresting people the night of the fire using a list they had prepared before the fire, it seems clear to me the Nazis were culpable.
For my purposes in my novel-in-progress, there are numerous fascinating details that might be incorporated into my story ...
... the Berlin correspondent for the British Daily Express … one of the first reporters on the scene … tipped off by a source
... Goering & Hitler arrive at the fire while it is still burning … Goering: "This is the beginning of the Communist revolt; they will start their attack now! Not a moment must be lost!" … Hitler: "There will be no mercy now. Anyone who stands in our way will be cut down. Every Communist official will be shot where he is found. The Communist deputies must be hanged this very night. Everybody in league with the Communists must be arrested. There will no longer be any leniency for Social Democrats either."
... on the morning after the fire … Hitler secured Hindenburg's approval for what became known as the Reichstag Fire Decree … put an end to constitutional rights and the rule of law ... the "Reichstag Fire Decree" … FIRST PARAGRAPH: suspended civil liberties contained in the Weimar Constitution ... legalized imprisonment without trial for anyone the regime deemed a political threat ... effectively abolished freedom of speech, of assembly and association, confidentiality of the post and telegraphic communication, and security form warrantless searches ... SECOND PARAGRAPH: gave the Reich government the power to remove any state government from office
... the fire took place on the night of Feb 27 ... on Feb 18 … orders had gone out (from Goering) to all Prussian police … compile lists of leaders of the Communist Party and all related communist organizations … also union leaders … include home addresses and likely hiding places … submit no later than Feb 26
May 19, 2025
This is a book, published in 2013 by a Professor of History at Hunter College, on the Burning of the Reichstag in late February, 1933, shortly after Hitler has assumed power in Germany. The event is of crucial importance in the history of the Third Reich, in that it led immediately to a decree of full emergency powers that ended the Weimar Republic and made Hitler dictator and his regime totalitarian. The emergency powers granted after the Reichstag Fire remained in force until Germany’s defeat in WW2 in 1945.
If you read any history of the time, you will find the generally accepted explanation that the fire was the result of arson by a single Dutch Communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, who was apprehended at the site of the fire, tried for it, convicted, and executed. It long struck me as curious, convenient, strange that such a major event with long lasting consequences would stem from the idiosyncratic actions of a single minor character who seemed to come at exactly the right time. In more recent years, one occasionally encounters references to the fire in connection with the shift away from democratic governments towards more authoritarian governments. What sort of events happen when a regime changes and what can be learned from what happened in Germany 92 years ago?
As one might expect, while there is a general story about the fire and van der Lubbe’s role in it, the historiography surrounding the event is highly complex and heavily politicized owing to the subsequent history of the Nazi Regime and World War 2. Everyone associated with the fire is long dead and it is reasonable to think that junior historians would be hesitant about wading into such highly politicized waters, even if the “single culprit theory” was not well defended at all.
Professor Hett takes a masterful dive into the research history around the Reichstag Fire. This is a really complicated story that has been actively worked and reworked since the 1930s. The history of the Fire easily melds into the broader history of the late Weimar Republic and the early Third Reich such that there are a wide range of threads to disentangle about what happened, who got to say what happened, what changed once the war ended and Nazism was defeated, how the Cold War changed things, and what happened after the fall of Communism.
Where does the book end up? Read it and find out. But …. 1) It is doubtful that van der Lubbe acted along; 2) The forensic details tell a different story; 3) Some senior Nazis were involved - and some were not involved; 4) Political agendas of multiple parties shaped where the overall explanation stood over time and up to the present.
This is an important story about which there is little firm agreement. Anyone who thinks the job of the historian is boring and routine needs to read this book to find out about a real controversy.
This is a well written and thorough book by a capable, curious, and open-minded scholar. It is not a quick or easy read but it is worth the effort.
If you read any history of the time, you will find the generally accepted explanation that the fire was the result of arson by a single Dutch Communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, who was apprehended at the site of the fire, tried for it, convicted, and executed. It long struck me as curious, convenient, strange that such a major event with long lasting consequences would stem from the idiosyncratic actions of a single minor character who seemed to come at exactly the right time. In more recent years, one occasionally encounters references to the fire in connection with the shift away from democratic governments towards more authoritarian governments. What sort of events happen when a regime changes and what can be learned from what happened in Germany 92 years ago?
As one might expect, while there is a general story about the fire and van der Lubbe’s role in it, the historiography surrounding the event is highly complex and heavily politicized owing to the subsequent history of the Nazi Regime and World War 2. Everyone associated with the fire is long dead and it is reasonable to think that junior historians would be hesitant about wading into such highly politicized waters, even if the “single culprit theory” was not well defended at all.
Professor Hett takes a masterful dive into the research history around the Reichstag Fire. This is a really complicated story that has been actively worked and reworked since the 1930s. The history of the Fire easily melds into the broader history of the late Weimar Republic and the early Third Reich such that there are a wide range of threads to disentangle about what happened, who got to say what happened, what changed once the war ended and Nazism was defeated, how the Cold War changed things, and what happened after the fall of Communism.
Where does the book end up? Read it and find out. But …. 1) It is doubtful that van der Lubbe acted along; 2) The forensic details tell a different story; 3) Some senior Nazis were involved - and some were not involved; 4) Political agendas of multiple parties shaped where the overall explanation stood over time and up to the present.
This is an important story about which there is little firm agreement. Anyone who thinks the job of the historian is boring and routine needs to read this book to find out about a real controversy.
This is a well written and thorough book by a capable, curious, and open-minded scholar. It is not a quick or easy read but it is worth the effort.
November 16, 2013
It was a cold evening in 'Red Berlin' (as the Nazi's styled it) on February 27th, 1933. Adolf Hitler had only been in office as Chancellor for four weeks, heading a shaky coalition government - most of whom did not take him seriously as a political opponent. Yet, what should have been a quiet shift for Chief Constable Karl Buwert - posted to watch the west and north side of the Reichstag building, turned into a night of controversy which has never fully been solved. Although at the political and geographic heart of Berlin, the Reichstag was not in session, when at shortly past nine in the evening, he was approached by two different witnesses to tell him there was a problem. The Reichstag was on fire and, before long, would be totally ablaze. A young man was found in the building and arrested for the crime. He was Marinius van der Lubbe, a Dutch citizen, who was quickly taken to the notorious Alexanderplatz to be interrogated. Yet, could one man set alight such a huge building so quickly? Witnesses claimed to see more than one man in the Reichstag that evening - if so, who were they? Were they working with van der Lubbe, or did he begin the fire on his own?
In this fascinating account of an arson attack which had immense repercussions and which has never really been fully explained, author Benjamin Carter Hett, delves into the mystery of what really happened that cold night and who was responsible. He looks at all the main characters in events, including Goebbels and Rudolf Diels, the commander of the political department of the Berlin police. He takes readers exhaustively through that evening and all the events and witness accounts given, as well as looking at what happened afterwards. Hitler immediately announced the fire to be the work of Communists and it was deemed necessary by the Nazi's to defend security by investigating political extremists. Immediate arrests and the persecution of Communists and Social Democrats began and law was abandoned. Over five thousand people were arrested as Hitler stated the fire was the sign for a Communist uprising. Journalist Walter Kiaulehn later said the Reichstag fire, and the aftermath, was the "opening act." "First the Reichstag burned, then the books burned, and then the synagogues..."
It is fair to say that non-Nazi's were disbelieving of Hitler's announcement that Communists were responsible for the burning of the Reichstag - many openly so. Sceptical of much of what the Nazi party said, they felt that the fire had received a helping hand; possibly by the Nazi's themselves. This book looks at the investigation at the time, the fabrications, contradictions and progaganda, which forced the Nazi's into a defensive stance. The author says it was a "long and violent political struggle in which propagandistic shifting of the blame for violence was inseparable from the violence itself." The trial itself is absolutely gripping. Goebbels himself was under examination for nearly four hours, but felt he had conducted himself well and that, most importantly, "above all I got the better of Goering." As for van der Lubbe himself, he seemed to understand little of what was happening, but insisted he had set the Reichstag on fire for "personal reasons." However, was it really possbible for him to set such a devastating fire by himself in the short time he had available and, if not, who else was responsible? Lastly, this book looks at the aftermath, even after the war, including the Nuremberg trials and denazification proceedings, as well as later investigations and evidence.
I have to say that, although I was obviously aware of the burning of the Reichstag, I never fully realised the importance of what happened on later events. Hitler, so recently in power, used what happened to ignore law and order and attack his political opponents under the pretext of a possible Communist uprising. Some thought the fire was the birthplace of the Nazi regime, when fear erupted and the state took control. The author looks at whether there was a miscarriage of justice, assesses the importance of the events - both at the time and afterwards - and examines all the evidence of what actually happened, by whom and why. This is an important book, long overdue, and a fascinating account of what happened that evening in 1933 and why it had such an influence on what happened afterwards. An interesting read, in which you can examine the evidence and make your conclusions based on them, under the guidance of the author. My only criticism is that there were no illustrations in the kindle edition of this book. I am not sure whether illustrations exist in the 'book' version, but it would have been nice to have pictures of the people and places involved. However, overall, a really good read - an interesting account of the events and examination of the evidence.
In this fascinating account of an arson attack which had immense repercussions and which has never really been fully explained, author Benjamin Carter Hett, delves into the mystery of what really happened that cold night and who was responsible. He looks at all the main characters in events, including Goebbels and Rudolf Diels, the commander of the political department of the Berlin police. He takes readers exhaustively through that evening and all the events and witness accounts given, as well as looking at what happened afterwards. Hitler immediately announced the fire to be the work of Communists and it was deemed necessary by the Nazi's to defend security by investigating political extremists. Immediate arrests and the persecution of Communists and Social Democrats began and law was abandoned. Over five thousand people were arrested as Hitler stated the fire was the sign for a Communist uprising. Journalist Walter Kiaulehn later said the Reichstag fire, and the aftermath, was the "opening act." "First the Reichstag burned, then the books burned, and then the synagogues..."
It is fair to say that non-Nazi's were disbelieving of Hitler's announcement that Communists were responsible for the burning of the Reichstag - many openly so. Sceptical of much of what the Nazi party said, they felt that the fire had received a helping hand; possibly by the Nazi's themselves. This book looks at the investigation at the time, the fabrications, contradictions and progaganda, which forced the Nazi's into a defensive stance. The author says it was a "long and violent political struggle in which propagandistic shifting of the blame for violence was inseparable from the violence itself." The trial itself is absolutely gripping. Goebbels himself was under examination for nearly four hours, but felt he had conducted himself well and that, most importantly, "above all I got the better of Goering." As for van der Lubbe himself, he seemed to understand little of what was happening, but insisted he had set the Reichstag on fire for "personal reasons." However, was it really possbible for him to set such a devastating fire by himself in the short time he had available and, if not, who else was responsible? Lastly, this book looks at the aftermath, even after the war, including the Nuremberg trials and denazification proceedings, as well as later investigations and evidence.
I have to say that, although I was obviously aware of the burning of the Reichstag, I never fully realised the importance of what happened on later events. Hitler, so recently in power, used what happened to ignore law and order and attack his political opponents under the pretext of a possible Communist uprising. Some thought the fire was the birthplace of the Nazi regime, when fear erupted and the state took control. The author looks at whether there was a miscarriage of justice, assesses the importance of the events - both at the time and afterwards - and examines all the evidence of what actually happened, by whom and why. This is an important book, long overdue, and a fascinating account of what happened that evening in 1933 and why it had such an influence on what happened afterwards. An interesting read, in which you can examine the evidence and make your conclusions based on them, under the guidance of the author. My only criticism is that there were no illustrations in the kindle edition of this book. I am not sure whether illustrations exist in the 'book' version, but it would have been nice to have pictures of the people and places involved. However, overall, a really good read - an interesting account of the events and examination of the evidence.
November 8, 2020
This is a difficult book to read -- an exhaustive account of the fire, the legal and political actions that immediately followed it, and the after-life of the fire as part of the BRD's reckoning with Nazism and de-Nazification. His research is phenomenal and thorough, but that does not make for easy reading. For my part, I found it hard to keep track of the various individuals whose competing accounts drift in and out of the narrative.
October 18, 2015
I read the audio version of this book. While Hett seems to have done a good job proving his thesis (and I enjoyed the analysis of the other views), the audio book narrator sounded like a male version of Siri.
January 7, 2021
Good time to reread this book.
July 6, 2015
This is a riveting read, both in the earliest chapter --- a minute by minute account of the actual fire --- and then the unfolding story of the fire's use by the Nazis as a springboard to power consolidation. The real surprise is the discussion of the event's historiography, which makes up the bulk of the text. It is a salutary reminder that history is never written in a vacuum or without purpose. Hett is meticulous in trying to present all sides as equitably as possible (i.e. van der Lubbe did it by himself --- scientifically disproven, van der Lubbe acted as an unwitting dupe, the SA did it and then blamed an innocent van der Lubbe, the SA acted on their own, the SA acted with Nationalist party members, the SA acted under the direction of Goebbals, the party members acted at the behest of Goering, Hitler knew in advance, Hitler didn't know in advance, etc.). It gets fairly complicated, and while by the end it was pretty obvious upon which side(s) Hett comes down, he never discards as worthless any theory other than that van der Lubbe was a solitary arsonist. I would recommend this book to any student historians as an example of how to evaluate evidence as thoroughly as possible.
December 13, 2023
The fire that consumed the Reichstag building in Berlin on 27 February 1933 was a critical moment in the evolution of Nazi Germany. The pretext for the suspension of civil liberties and the suppression of the Communist Party, the Reichstag fire has puzzled historians: was Marinus van der Lubbe, the man executed for setting the fire, truly responsible? Alternatively, did the Nazis themselves set the fire to create a crisis-by-design? Benjamin Carter Hett does a great job detailing the known facts, the diverse and not always reliable testimonies, and the realistic scenarios surrounding the Reichstag fire. The book discusses numerous personalities and meticulously examines the historiography of the fire, from pre-war allegations of Nazi arson, to an early post-war consensus blaming van der Lubbe alone. Hett draws his own conclusions from the evidence and along the way examines the complex rivalries within the Nazi Party and state, and the success of many ex-Nazis in sanitizing their pasts after the war.
September 28, 2014
This is a very important work, but a frustrating read at times. Hett makes a compelling, detailed case against the long-held consensus that the Dutchman Marinus Van Der Lubbe was the lone arsonist. He goes on to present a largely circumstantial case that a team of SA men started the fires that destroyed the building's Plenary Chamber. The structure of the book is odd, and Hett does not do a very good job of explaining where he is going. The second half of the book is devoted to the contentious postwar historiography of the fire. Hett covers the disputes in exhaustive (and exhausting) detail. I also docked Hett a star for repeatedly referring to the National Socialist German Workers' Party as a "far right" group and for taking a gratuitous shot at George W. Bush in the Epilogue.
May 31, 2022
This is the definitive accounting of the Reichstag Fire and its enduring politics. I would add past and present, except this subject always seems flame-fresh and too hot to handle. Yet Professor (and former trial attorney) Benjamin Hett dons his asbestos gloves and delves into it with both hands. Much has survived in the ashes if you know where to look and - more importantly - *want* to look for it.
Hett's conclusion was obvious even to contemporary observers: the Nazis did it. Van der Lubbe was a dupe, the Communists a scapegoat, Goering and an SA Special Ops team the only logical perpetrators. Whether Hitler "knew" is immaterial, and most likely he would not have wanted any substantial briefing to keep his sense of shock genuine for the press. The Emergency Decree was, of course, already in his desk drawer waiting for his pen. The flames were still in process of consuming the Wilhelmine hardwood when propaganda smoke obscured facts on the ground. This continued through the Third Reich - also covered in blood from the Long Knives of 1934 - and reaching far beyond into the Cold War.
For by the early 1950s rehabilitating German nationalism in service to Western values against the Red Menace meant excusing Nazis, their crimes, and their legacy. Another van der Lubbe was found to feed these flames, in the form of historian Fritz Tobias. Such judgement may appear harsh - other reviewers have considered Hett's ongoing critique of Tobias' work, methodology, and behavior "unprofessional" - but Tobias willingly lent his efforts into this rehabilitation project. By pursuing the "lone perpetrator" theory, dismissing all others as "conspiracists," Tobias strong-armed his way through academia and journalism, courted by a fawning (and much-relieved) West German Establishment.
Hett was originally an admirer of Tobias, but in pursuing his own research he came to question not only Tobias' interpretations but his fundamental attitude: using history as a political tool to bury, not unearth the past. Using forensic evidence - availiable at the time, and often recorded - Hett established the nature of the fire, how and where it was set and by what form of agent, and how many perpetrators it must have taken for such a masterwork of professional arson. His review of van der Lubbe's trial is old ground, but from the glare of Hett's evidence an even harsher light is thrown on this showpiece.
Chronicaling the fire's post-war embers has been coated with even more deceit. More than ever is the old aphorosm - "History is a body of lies agreed upon" - never been more demonstrated as "impartial" academics (like Hans Mommsen) leaned their institutional weight onto the tilted scales. This work is thus highly recommended for those willing to wade into its controversy. There is no Zapruder film for this event: but thanks to dedicated forensic historians like Professor Hett, it's not necessary.
Hett's conclusion was obvious even to contemporary observers: the Nazis did it. Van der Lubbe was a dupe, the Communists a scapegoat, Goering and an SA Special Ops team the only logical perpetrators. Whether Hitler "knew" is immaterial, and most likely he would not have wanted any substantial briefing to keep his sense of shock genuine for the press. The Emergency Decree was, of course, already in his desk drawer waiting for his pen. The flames were still in process of consuming the Wilhelmine hardwood when propaganda smoke obscured facts on the ground. This continued through the Third Reich - also covered in blood from the Long Knives of 1934 - and reaching far beyond into the Cold War.
For by the early 1950s rehabilitating German nationalism in service to Western values against the Red Menace meant excusing Nazis, their crimes, and their legacy. Another van der Lubbe was found to feed these flames, in the form of historian Fritz Tobias. Such judgement may appear harsh - other reviewers have considered Hett's ongoing critique of Tobias' work, methodology, and behavior "unprofessional" - but Tobias willingly lent his efforts into this rehabilitation project. By pursuing the "lone perpetrator" theory, dismissing all others as "conspiracists," Tobias strong-armed his way through academia and journalism, courted by a fawning (and much-relieved) West German Establishment.
Hett was originally an admirer of Tobias, but in pursuing his own research he came to question not only Tobias' interpretations but his fundamental attitude: using history as a political tool to bury, not unearth the past. Using forensic evidence - availiable at the time, and often recorded - Hett established the nature of the fire, how and where it was set and by what form of agent, and how many perpetrators it must have taken for such a masterwork of professional arson. His review of van der Lubbe's trial is old ground, but from the glare of Hett's evidence an even harsher light is thrown on this showpiece.
Chronicaling the fire's post-war embers has been coated with even more deceit. More than ever is the old aphorosm - "History is a body of lies agreed upon" - never been more demonstrated as "impartial" academics (like Hans Mommsen) leaned their institutional weight onto the tilted scales. This work is thus highly recommended for those willing to wade into its controversy. There is no Zapruder film for this event: but thanks to dedicated forensic historians like Professor Hett, it's not necessary.
June 10, 2022
Πρόκειται για αριστουργηματική έρευνα και εξαιρετικό βιβλίο. Πιθανότατα η σπουδαιότερη δουλειά που έχει γίνει για το θέμα αυτό, με εξαιρετική έρευνα, εμβάθυνση και τεκμηρίωση. Από τις λίγες δουλειές για το θέμα, όπου ο συγγραφέας έχει μελετήσει πρωτογενείς πηγές. Σπουδαίο, όχι μόνο για το θέμα του εμπρησμού του Ράιχσταγκ, αλλά και για την εδραίωση του εθνικοσοσιαλισμού, αλλά και για την μεταπολεμική επεξεργασία αυτού στη συλλογική συνείδηση.
January 27, 2025
fascinating in a lot of ways, not only because it made me think about the reichstag fire differently (or more than i have really ever) but also because it made me think about the period of time post-war (and post nuremberg trials) differently. well written, a little dry, but i’ll be tracking down others by hett for sure.
December 8, 2021
After about 180 pages the author just keeps beating a dead horse.
June 30, 2022
Fascinating read.
April 25, 2024
Conclusions are overstated and are not as convincing as Hett presents them. Argues against prevailing historiographical conclusions without presenting much more than forcefully-states opinion.
February 9, 2014
The consensus for blame for the Reichstag fire has gone through a couple of phases. The original conclusion was that the Nazis set it up as a false-flag operation, blamed the Communists and used that as leverage to persuade President Hindenburg to pass decrees permitting the suppression of left-wing opposition parties. Starting around 1960, this was superseded by the belief that Marinus van der Lubbe, the only person to actually be punished for the fire, acted alone. The pendulum has returned to the original side with the new availability of former German records held in the former states of East Germany and the Soviet Union. A 2001 book on the subject, Der Reichtagsbrand by Alexander Bahar and Wilfred Kugel, is not, unfortunately, available in English. This has been rectified by Benjamin Carter Hett's book. Despite one basic flaw in design and some overreach, Burning the Reichstag at the very least reopens the question.
Hett proceeds chronologically, from the fire to the investigation and trial. He then spends much of the rest of the book on the historiography of the fire itself, analyzing the phase I mentioned above. His strongest argument for Nazi involvement is in the technical analyses of the fire, both then and later. The way the fire spread is arguably inconsistent with the sole-actor argument, especially since certain incendiaries would've been required that were not found on van der Lubbe. The existence of an SA unit with training in arson is also substantive.
The treatment of the Adolf Rall's evidence is an example of the occasional overreach on Hett's part. Rall was an SA member who was supposed to have stated that he and other SA men had been given orders to burn the Reichstag. Rall's murdered body was later found after the Gestapo had taken him into custody. Hett concedes that Rall could've been lying and that the Nazis wanted to kill him simply because his claims could've been an embarrassment. Hett then writes "Were this the case, however, there would have been no need to interrogate him so urgently nor to search his mother's apartment. The only reasonable inference therefore is that Rall "had to die" because his testimony was both dangerous to the SA and in at least essential points correct." (p. 213). It is certainly a reasonable inference, but the only reasonable inference? Why couldn't the SA have been seeing if anything could be found that could be used against Rall, or have simply been on a fishing expedition?
His treatment of the historiography of the fire raises questions as to the choice to cover it in the same book as an analysis of the fire itself. Fritz Tobias, a West German government official and amateur investigator of the fire, is the key person here as he his work kicked off the shifting of opinion to the lone-actor hypothesis. Here is where the second mission of the book impairs its first mission. Hett essentially argues that Tobias' argument gained traction to a large extent because of the imperatives of denazification and the Cold War need to quickly rehabilitate West Germany as an ally of the West. He also argues that this imperative was intensified by Tobias' involvement with right-wing German elements. The problem, of course, is that such has nothing to do with the accuracy of the arguments and serves as a protracted ad hominem. There is a good example on pg. 297 where Hett mentions how a right-wing supporter of Tobias defended him "...with the same enthusiasm and for the same reasons that he supported a Holocaust-denying neo-Nazi [David Hoggan]. This was not, of course, Tobias's fault. But it is important to understand that his argument went with the grain of such far-right positions..." It is not important at all to the question of who set the Reichstag fire but does skew that question.
The book's examination of the Reichstag fire is meticulous, well-researched and at the very least reopens the question. However, it doesn't appear possible to also analyze the historiography without skewing the issue of the fire itself.
Hett proceeds chronologically, from the fire to the investigation and trial. He then spends much of the rest of the book on the historiography of the fire itself, analyzing the phase I mentioned above. His strongest argument for Nazi involvement is in the technical analyses of the fire, both then and later. The way the fire spread is arguably inconsistent with the sole-actor argument, especially since certain incendiaries would've been required that were not found on van der Lubbe. The existence of an SA unit with training in arson is also substantive.
The treatment of the Adolf Rall's evidence is an example of the occasional overreach on Hett's part. Rall was an SA member who was supposed to have stated that he and other SA men had been given orders to burn the Reichstag. Rall's murdered body was later found after the Gestapo had taken him into custody. Hett concedes that Rall could've been lying and that the Nazis wanted to kill him simply because his claims could've been an embarrassment. Hett then writes "Were this the case, however, there would have been no need to interrogate him so urgently nor to search his mother's apartment. The only reasonable inference therefore is that Rall "had to die" because his testimony was both dangerous to the SA and in at least essential points correct." (p. 213). It is certainly a reasonable inference, but the only reasonable inference? Why couldn't the SA have been seeing if anything could be found that could be used against Rall, or have simply been on a fishing expedition?
His treatment of the historiography of the fire raises questions as to the choice to cover it in the same book as an analysis of the fire itself. Fritz Tobias, a West German government official and amateur investigator of the fire, is the key person here as he his work kicked off the shifting of opinion to the lone-actor hypothesis. Here is where the second mission of the book impairs its first mission. Hett essentially argues that Tobias' argument gained traction to a large extent because of the imperatives of denazification and the Cold War need to quickly rehabilitate West Germany as an ally of the West. He also argues that this imperative was intensified by Tobias' involvement with right-wing German elements. The problem, of course, is that such has nothing to do with the accuracy of the arguments and serves as a protracted ad hominem. There is a good example on pg. 297 where Hett mentions how a right-wing supporter of Tobias defended him "...with the same enthusiasm and for the same reasons that he supported a Holocaust-denying neo-Nazi [David Hoggan]. This was not, of course, Tobias's fault. But it is important to understand that his argument went with the grain of such far-right positions..." It is not important at all to the question of who set the Reichstag fire but does skew that question.
The book's examination of the Reichstag fire is meticulous, well-researched and at the very least reopens the question. However, it doesn't appear possible to also analyze the historiography without skewing the issue of the fire itself.
March 25, 2015
Intersting book about who did and who might have been behind the burning of the Reichstag in Germany prior to Hitler's takeover. I was a bit disappointed in his characterization of several people whom he obviously disliked, among them, Rudolf Diels, who he continuously tried prove was far worse then he actually was. Have read many books about him, and from William Dodd to George Messerschmidt felt he was one of the few decent people in Germany during this time. However I did learn much from the book about many of the people who lived at this time and what was behind the fire, which to this day is not fully explained.
October 10, 2016
Excellent book
I read this a couple years ago, a book from the library. I just picked up the Kindle version for myself. It's a very clear, fair relating about what is known about the Reichstag fire. Even more interesting is all the jockeying after the war, moving facts around to suit the needs of those involved.
The only improvement would be photos. I can't remember if the hardback had pictures. As I recall, no. The fire and all the people involved as the years passed--they would've been perfect subjects for photos.
I read this a couple years ago, a book from the library. I just picked up the Kindle version for myself. It's a very clear, fair relating about what is known about the Reichstag fire. Even more interesting is all the jockeying after the war, moving facts around to suit the needs of those involved.
The only improvement would be photos. I can't remember if the hardback had pictures. As I recall, no. The fire and all the people involved as the years passed--they would've been perfect subjects for photos.
February 13, 2014
This book was a little confusing, and it wandered around in time. It dealt more with the various characters involved in the history of the fire than the fire itself and spent way too much time with theories than events. I was surprised that so many people really believed in the single-culprit theory. To me, it is obvious that several people had to be involved.
August 14, 2019
5/12/19 -- moved this to "Behind the Wall" and eventually I will determine whether or not I want to continue with this. Seems well done but not sure I care to wade into great detail about a very narrow issue
8/13/19: decided life too short to go back to this. Nothing negative to say about it except too much detail about a narrow subject. Will take a look at the end, then give away.
8/13/19: decided life too short to go back to this. Nothing negative to say about it except too much detail about a narrow subject. Will take a look at the end, then give away.
March 25, 2017
In 1933 Germany’s Reichstag was set ablaze; however, perpetual question has remains whether it was it the work of communist saboteurs, the work of Nazis. However, Benjamin Carter Hett’s Burning the Reichstag: An Investigation into the Third Reich's Enduring Mystery makes it a compelling case it was the latter.
Among other evidence, Hett suggest that the timing of the fire—there was no one in the building at the time—and the acquisition of the chemicals required to make the fire spread as quickly as it did, were beyond the capabilities of the individual convicted and executed for the crime.
Although this question has never been conclusively settled, I am convinced by this book that the burning of Reichstag was an act of Nazi propaganda and not the work of communists.
Among other evidence, Hett suggest that the timing of the fire—there was no one in the building at the time—and the acquisition of the chemicals required to make the fire spread as quickly as it did, were beyond the capabilities of the individual convicted and executed for the crime.
Although this question has never been conclusively settled, I am convinced by this book that the burning of Reichstag was an act of Nazi propaganda and not the work of communists.
June 30, 2018
Het boek focust veel minder op de brand zelf dan op de evolutie van het de nken en de geschiedschrijving van de brand. Hdt beginhoofdstuk over de brand zelf vond ik nogal kort en er ontbrak, vobd ik, een plattegrond om al de bewegingen in de Reichstag te volgen. Na het lezen van het boek bleef ik op mijn honger zitten: wat isver nu gebeurt met het archief van Tobias na zijn dood? Het einde vond ik nogal abrupt.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews