What Do Historians Think?

Interpretation 1 — Hitler had a consistent plan (Trevor-Roper / Kershaw): Hugh Trevor-Roper argued that Hitler's foreign policy followed a consistent programme laid out in Mein Kampf (1925) — reversing Versailles, creating Greater Germany, and then conquering Lebensraum in the east. Ian Kershaw, in his biography Hitler (1998-2000), agrees that Hitler had clear ideological goals, though he also emphasises how Hitler exploited opportunities as they arose. On this view, war was not accidental — it was inherent in Hitler's aims.

Interpretation 2 — Hitler was an opportunist (AJP Taylor): A.J.P. Taylor controversially argued in The Origins of the Second World War (1961) that Hitler was not following a master plan but was a skilled opportunist who responded to circumstances. Taylor pointed to the spontaneous elements of the Anschluss and argued that Hitler exploited the weaknesses of others rather than executing a premeditated programme. Taylor's view is now largely rejected but remains influential as a historical argument.

Why do they disagree? Trevor-Roper and Kershaw emphasise the ideological consistency of Hitler's aims across 14 years; Taylor emphasises the contingent, improvised nature of specific decisions. The debate turns on whether long-term aims or short-term opportunism best explains the pattern of events — a question AQA essays frequently require students to evaluate.