What Do Historians Think?
Part of Steps to War — GCSE History
This interpretations covers What Do Historians Think? within Steps to War for GCSE History. Revise Steps to War in Conflict and Tension 1918-1939 for GCSE History with 8 exam-style questions and 4 flashcards. This is a high-frequency topic, so it is worth revising until the explanation feels precise and repeatable. It is section 6 of 13 in this topic. Use this interpretations to connect the idea to the wider topic before moving on to questions and flashcards.
Topic position
Section 6 of 13
Practice
8 questions
Recall
4 flashcards
🔎 What Do Historians Think?
Interpretation 1 — Hitler was an opportunist, not a master planner (A.J.P. Taylor): A.J.P. Taylor caused enormous controversy in 1961 by arguing that Hitler had no fixed programme for European domination. In Taylor's view, each step in Hitler's foreign policy was a response to opportunities created by others' failures — the Rhineland happened because France was in political crisis; Anschluss happened because the Austrian Chancellor miscalculated; Munich happened because Britain and France were desperate to avoid war. Hitler was "a politician in search of a programme," reacting rather than planning. Taylor argued the real responsibility for war lay with the appeasers who gave Hitler the opportunities.
Interpretation 2 — Hitler had a deliberate master plan (Hugh Trevor-Roper): Hugh Trevor-Roper insisted that Hitler had a consistent ideological programme laid out in Mein Kampf (1925) and confirmed by the Hossbach Memorandum (1937). The steps to war — Rhineland, Anschluss, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, Poland — were not opportunistic reactions but the deliberate execution of aims Hitler had stated publicly years before. Trevor-Roper argued that to treat Hitler as a conventional politician responding to circumstances was to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of Nazi ideology and the Holocaust that resulted from it.
Why do they disagree? Taylor and Trevor-Roper differ on whether Hitler's actions were driven by ideology or circumstance. This debate matters for AQA exam answers: Taylor's interpretation shifts blame towards the appeasers, making Chamberlain and the democratic powers more responsible; Trevor-Roper's interpretation makes Hitler the primary cause. The Hossbach Memorandum (1937) is the key piece of evidence — Taylor dismissed it as informal speculation; Trevor-Roper used it as proof of deliberate plans. The mainstream historical consensus today leans towards Trevor-Roper, but Taylor's emphasis on appeasement's enabling role remains significant for balanced essays.