Why do historians' accounts of the Night of the Long Knives differ?

Historians' accounts differ because they ask different questions about the purge and give different weight to the evidence. Some focus on its causes, others on its consequences. An account of Hitler's bargain with the army can fit alongside one showing how the killings undermined the rule of law. Neither requires accepting the Nazi claim that a coup was about to happen and made the killings necessary.

The killings of 30 June to 2 July 1934 targeted the leadership of the SA, including Ernst Röhm, but also other people whom Hitler or his associates regarded as enemies. Start by separating three kinds of interpretation.

Propaganda produced at the time is another source, but it answers a different question. The Nazi newspaper Völkischer Beobachter presented the purge as a protective achievement in July 1934. That is strong evidence of the explanation the regime wanted readers to accept. It is weak independent evidence that the alleged conspiracy actually existed. The newspaper and the law show how the regime justified the killings; records of the victims and the decisions behind the purge are needed to test that justification.

When comparing two historians, identify their precise disagreement. Are they disputing who initiated the violence, the seriousness of the SA threat, or the purge's most important result? A difference of emphasis is not necessarily a contradiction. Conversely, two accounts cannot both be right about an incompatible factual claim simply because each has a perspective.

A strong judgement explains which evidence supports each interpretation and what remains uncertain. Calling one historian 'biased' does not do this. Ask whether they consider a fair range of evidence and check accounts by people with a stake in the events against other sources. Hitler's public justification is something to investigate, not simply accept as the explanation.

Explore the Night of the Long Knives exercise in the authoritarian Germany and Hitler questions. Which evidence would help you explain why the same event looked different to its supporters and its victims?