Paper 1: Evaluating Provenance on the Night of the Long Knives
Paper 1, 45 minutes remaining. The enquiry question is: 'How far did the Nazi regime face serious internal opposition in 1934?' You have four sources on the Night of the Long Knives. Source A is an excerpt from Joseph Goebbels's diary, entry dated 1 July 1934, published in 1987. Source B is a report by the Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the Nazi Party intelligence service, dated 2 July 1934, marked 'strictly confidential'. Source C is a dispatch from the British ambassador in Berlin, dated 5 July 1934, sent to the Foreign Office. Source D is an extract from a 1998 monograph by a British historian, citing party and army records. You wrote: 'Source A is useful because it is a primary source. Source C is biased because the ambassador is British. Source D is reliable because it is by a historian.' The examiner's comment says you have described sources, not evaluated them.
1. Explain how the provenance and purpose of Sources A and B affect their value and limitations for the enquiry question.
Read the worked answer
Provenance is not a label ('primary' or 'biased'); it is a set of conditions that shape what a source can support. For Source A, Goebbels wrote as propaganda minister and the diary was published in 1987, so the entry is a self-conscious justification of the purge, not a private record. Its value is for showing how the regime wanted the purge to be understood by later readers; its limitation is that it cannot evidence the extent of internal opposition, only the regime's narrative. For Source B, the SD report was confidential and produced by a party intelligence body for the leadership. Its value is that it was close to decision-making and not written for public consumption, so it may reveal the regime's internal framing and fears. Its limitation is institutional: the SD had an interest in reporting threats, and there is no independent verification. Therefore A is more valuable for purpose and representation, B for internal perceptions - neither is 'useful' in the abstract.
2. Which two sources, used together, best support the argument that the purge was premeditated rather than a response to an imminent coup? Justify your choice.
Read the worked answer
Best pair: B and D, with C as corroboration. B is close to the regime and confidential, so it can show whether the leadership was already monitoring and framing the SA as a threat before the purge; D is independent and cites party and army records, so it can test whether B's claims are corroborated by other documentation. Used together, they allow a claim about premeditation that does not rest on a single institutional perspective. A is weak for premeditation because it is a public justification written to make the purge look necessary; C is useful but it is a foreign diplomat's dispatch, likely reliant on rumour and official briefings. The judgement is not that B and D are 'unbiased'; it is that their provenance makes them more suitable for the specific claim, and their independence from each other increases confidence. If B and D conflict, that conflict itself is evidence of contested planning.