Reichstag Fire "Lone Nut" Marinus van der Lubbe, finally gets his name cleared.

It took 75 years, but the Reichstag Fire patsy, Marinus van der Lubbe, has been exonerated of his "crime". The Guardian covered the news on January 12, and the New York Times mentions it today, 7 paragraphs into this article.

The innocence of van der Lubbe has been common knowledge to some for decades, and the truth of his "crime" was popularized by William Shirer in his classic book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" back in 1960;

"That it was a crime, a Communist crime, they proclaimed at once on arrival at the fire. Goering, sweating and puffing and quite beside himself with excitement, was already there ahead of them (Hitler, President von Hindenburg, etc.) declaiming to heaven, as Papen later recalled, that "this is a Communist crime against the new government." To the new Gestapo chief, Rudolf Diels, Goering shouted, "This is the beginning of the Communist revolution! We must not wait a minute. We will show no mercy. Every Communist official must be shot, where he is found. Every Communist deputy must this very night be strung up."

The whole truth about the Reichstag fire will probably never be known. Nearly all those who knew it are now dead, most of them slain by Hitler in the months that followed. Even at Nuremburg the mystery could not be entirely unraveled, though there is enough evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the Nazis who planned the arson and carried it out for their own political ends.

From Goering's Reichstag President's Palace an underground passage, built to carry the central heating system, ran to the Reichstag building. Through this tunnel Karl Ernst, a former hotel bellhop who had become the Berlin S.A. leader, led a small detachment of storm troopers on the night of February 27 to the Reichstag, where they scattered gasoline and self-igniting chemicals and then made their way quickly back to the palace the way they had come. At the same time a half-witted Dutch Communist with a passion for arson, Marinus van der Lubbe, had made his way into the huge, darkened and to him unfamiliar building and set some small fires of his own. This feeble-minded pyromaniac was a godsend to the Nazis. He had been picked up by the S.A. a few days before after having been overheard in a bar boasting that he had attempted to set fire to several buildings and that he was going to try the Reichstag next.

The coincidence that the Nazis had found a demented Communist arsonist who was out to to do exactly what they themselves had determined to do seems incredible but is nevertheless supported by the evidence. The idea for the fire almost certainly originated with Goebbels and Goering. Hans Gisevius, an official in the Prussian Ministry of the Interior at the time, testified at Nuremburg that "it was Goebbels who first thought of setting the Reichstag on fire," and Rudolf Diels, the Gestapo chief, added in an affadavit that "Goering knew exactly how the fire was to be started" and had ordered him to prepare, prior to the fire, a list of people who were to be arrested immediately after it." - William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pp. 192-193 (Emphasis added.)

Will we have to wait this long for Oswald to be cleared? How about the 9/11 nineteen?

75 years is too long.

Larry Silverstien already

Larry Silverstien already has his name cleared, I wonder if he will ever stand trial for his fraud on 9/11

Maybe later.

If you're willing to wait around till 2076 maybe justice will be served judging by the speed of this case.

Not so fast

The Guardian writes: "However, historians remain divided over the event. The Nazis said it was a communist plot and used the fire in propaganda. Most modern historians are in agreement that Van der Lubbe was involved in the fire, but whether he acted alone or with accomplices is still open to debate."

So, is there still uncertainty about whether Karl Ernst really led a detachment of storm troopers on the night of February 27 to the Reichstag and set it on fire? On which does William Shirer base this?


I don't know the answer to your question, however, Shirer's work has stood the test of time, and to my knowledge his claims on other topics haven't been seriously challenged.

He was on the ground in Berlin and was witness to the politics behind the Nazi regime in a way that few other foreign journalists were.

His "Berlin Diary" is also a great book.

He seems to have been a very good journalist, and I assume that he had some sort of source for his claim. Let me know if you find counter information about Shirer.

Yes, I think the sentence about whether van der Lubbe acted

"alone" or with "accomplices" is unnecessarily confusing.

There is no doubt that van der Lubbe was utilized as a patsy for the Nazi's Reichstag Fire.

van der Lubbe's "accomplices" are twofold: those who may have physically helped him light the fire, and his Nazi "handlers" who cultivated & encouraged him to commit the crime. William Shirer should've differentiated this for us.

(I'm sure Mohamed Atta & the other 18 patsy misfits had "handlers" who recruited, cultivated, & encouraged them too.)

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here:


As in the case of the '93 WTC bombing and the FBI connection


And it continues...

Also the examples of Moussaoui, and 'shoe bomber' Richard Reid. And how about the supposed perps in the Madrid '04 and London '05 cases? Or the incidents in London and Glasgow last June, as discussed in the article in this post?:

(though unfortunately, it does seem to veer into 'blowback' theorizing at times).

Historians should learn some history...

Historians were also "divided" over the Gulf of Tonkin until now, with new evidence, it is way beyond doubt that the Gulf of Tonkin was staged/faked.

Same with the Reichstag fire.


Even McNamarra said Tonkin was a bogus.

"Modern historians" can kiss their ass

- However the judges decided otherwise.
Most of the "(modern) historians" are bitches they kiss the (Bush) ass in case of 911 even there is clear that the government story is a utter bogus. There is a milion of the evidences of it. One of the most important principle of the judicial investigation is "cui bono" - it clearly points to the clear direction - in Lubbe's case as well as 911. Thats why most of the real historians point exactly to Hitler, because there are real testimonies for it from Nuernberg. Anyway -The english papers - who realy believes a letter there....

Finito...decided by court!
historians can kiss their as
lump it