1. source A is an eyewitness account of the events in the Burgerbrauller on the evening of 8 November 1923. It tells us that at 8:30 in the evening the doors were flung open and steel helmeted men burst through, pushing Maxim guns into the hall. Then Hitler with his revolve went through the crowd and with two shots he demanded quiet and in an instant the silence was absolute. This shows that at the meeting after great calamity Hitler strode through the crowd and got immediate control after his shots, as they wanted to hear what he had to say also this shows us that it was easy for the Nazis to gain control.
2a. Source B is in complete contrast to source A in that source B shows a calm atmosphere with everyone intently listening to Hitler and there is no sign that there is no sign that there had been an uproar as everything seems to be in order in the hall with only one S. A. member in the hall. However in source A describes a completely different atmosphere, as when the many S. A. members stormed the hall there was a big melee with the door being smashed down. However the sources so agree on one point as they both show that Hitler got complete control with the shots after standing on the table and that people listened intently. b. Even though the sources are done about the same time they are done for many different reasons.
Even though source A is an eyewitness account of the incident and the person was a nazi member he left the nazi party and the source would be anti-nazi but it would be more or less the truth however source b would have been a propaganda poster by the nazis as it was painted by a nazi painter and it would show the perfect idea of how the room looked at the time. . Source C is a bill form the hall and source D is the true speech from Hitler made in the hall. I think that source C is more reliable as it shows what Hitler is thinking at the time and would not have been changed over time and it shows the other events that were going on in Munich that were happening at the same time even thought the speech as meant to stir up the crowd into making them support Hitler.
Even though Source C shows the impact on the hall it does not give a picture on the rest of Munich and some of the figures in the bill may have been changed so that the bar owner could have got more money. Also even though it shows what they damaged and how rowdy the place must have been all the things that that were consumed may not have only been by the nazis and could have been used earlier on in the night and it does not show what damage was caused. 4. Source F is a biography published by the nazi party in Germany in 1934. This describes Hitler closing the ranks of the lines.
Then the boy next to Hitler was wounded and with it Hitler’s arm was to injured and then Hitler tried to carry him through the crowd on his shoulder thinking that if he could get the boy to a car then he would surely be safe. This agrees with source G in that there was a march and that they all linked arms. However source G disagrees in that it says that at the first shot Hitler flung himself to the ground where he sprained his arm and then he fled to the mountains. Source H disagrees with source G in that the march was at 11 o’clock and not 12.
However the British historian is very objective on if Hitler behaved in a cowardly manner as he suggests that he could have been dragged to the ground or dropped to the ground like an experienced soldier at the sound of fire but the author does not go for one option. Overall I think that source H is the most reliable as it was published in 1970 so the author had time to balance up his evidence and he was not writing for any bias unlike F which was propaganda for the nazis and G that was written by an anti nazi. . Source I is a picture of Hitler with Ludendoff. In this picture Hitler is trying to show that he is a great man as he is a friend with the World War 1 hero Lundendoff and also to get more fame across Germany as with this picture being in the newspapers he would get the message of Nazism across Germany. This also would give him a little support in the army and would be used for propaganda later on in his career. Source J is a true statement from Hitler at his trial.
In this he tries to be very political to get his message across the country by attacking the people whop signed the treaty of Versailles and that he should not be convicted for this treason under that government and prophesising how history will recount him as a hero which give a hint at future plans. 6. I do not agree with the statement “the events of the 8/9 November 1923 greatly increased the influence of Hitler and the Nazi party in Germany” as even though some sources agree with it from my own knowledge I know that it didn’t.
Sources D, H and J does not agree or disagree on the statement as D is just Hitler’s speech in the Burgerbraukeller and does not comment on the future, H is just a biography of Hitler and does not hint towards his future even thought the event must have caused him to write the book form future events and Jas it was just a court statement that was only used at the time. Source A agrees with this statement as the person stayed with the nazi party after the time but it shows that he left the party in the 1930’s which shows that they bothered him later on with their policies.
Source B agrees with the statement, as the painting would not have been done unless the event went down in German history. Source C disagrees with this in that as the person would be annoyed that his hall was damaged it would give the party a bad name in Munich and maybe Germany. Source E agrees slightly with this as from the speech in the hall it made him join the party but it does not show the impact on Germany and he left the partying 1936.
Source F agrees this slightly as the biography would not have been written unless this had an impact on the rest of Germany but it does not show how this impacted Germany. Source G disagrees with this as the book was written as Hitler the pawn which shows that in the SDP the event was not accepted and that he was a coward in it. Source I agrees slightly as from this event it caused the trial that had newspaper coverage that was taken all over Germany but it does not show how this increased the influence of Hitler.
Source K disagrees with this as form this Hitler knew that he had to change his tact if he was going to take over Germany and so he would have to take over Germany using politics. From my own knowledge I know that the change in tactics had more of an affect to show the influence as form this they put members in all the different parts of the country and the main thing that influenced the word of Hitler to get across Germany was the wall street crash of 1928 which caused the loans to be recalled and mass unemployment and hyper-inflation.