Historian A: Dr. Emily Carter – Political Perspective "Dr. Carter argues that Poland's invasion was primarily a strategic move by Nazi Germany to expand Lebensraum and strengthen its geopolitical position. She emphasizes Hitler's aggressive foreign policy and the importance of territorial expansion in Nazi ideology. Her analysis suggests that the invasion was driven by political motives aimed at consolidating power and fulfilling ideological ambitions, rather than reacting solely to external threats or defensive reasons. Her view is supported by diplomatic records and Hitler’s own speeches that highlight territorial ambitions."

Historian B: Prof. Mark Hughes – Social Perspective "Prof. Hughes contends that the invasion was a result of deep-seated social tensions and the desire to reshape Polish society to fit Nazi racial policies. He highlights the brutal treatment of Polish civilians, the suppression of Polish culture, and the social engineering efforts carried out by Nazi forces. Hughes believes that the invasion served to impose Nazi social policies and racial hierarchies, which were central to Nazi ideology. His analysis draws on eyewitness accounts and sociological studies of occupied Poland."

Questions:

1. Summarize each historian’s view on why Germany invaded Poland. (4 marks)

• marking: { "indicative_content": [ "Dr. Carter focuses on political and strategic motives", "Prof. Hughes emphasizes social and racial policies", "Both refer to ideological reasons but from different perspectives", "Use of specific evidence or examples from the summaries" ], "model_answer": "Dr. Carter sees the invasion as driven by political and strategic ambitions of Nazi Germany, while Prof. Hughes believes it was motivated by social and racial policies aimed at reshaping Polish society." }

2. Compare the reasons given by both historians for Germany's invasion of Poland. (4 marks)

• marking: { "indicative_content": [ "Identify similarities and differences in their perspectives", "Note that Carter emphasizes political motives, Hughes emphasizes social policies", "Discuss the types of evidence each uses", "Explain how their perspectives reflect different historical approaches" ], "model_answer": "Both historians agree that Nazi Germany had strong motives for invading Poland, but Carter emphasizes strategic and political reasons, whereas Hughes highlights social and racial policies. Their differing perspectives reflect approaches focusing either on political ideology or social engineering, supported by different types of evidence." }

3. Analyse which historian’s interpretation is more convincing and explain why. (6 marks)

• marking: { "indicative_content": [ "Consider the strength and type of evidence used by each historian", "Evaluate the relevance of political versus social motives", "Discuss whether the context of the invasion supports one interpretation more", "Include your own reasoning about the credibility of each interpretation" ], "model_answer": "The interpretation by Dr. Carter is more convincing because it is supported by diplomatic records and speeches that clearly reveal Nazi geopolitical ambitions, making her focus on strategic motives more compelling. While Hughes’ social perspective is important, it is less supported by direct evidence of the invasion’s primary aims." }

4. Outline the different perspectives presented by the two historians. (4 marks)

• marking: { "indicative_content": [ "Describe the political perspective of Dr. Carter", "Describe the social perspective of Prof. Hughes", "Highlight the focus of each historian’s analysis", "Mention the types of evidence each uses" ], "model_answer": "Dr. Carter presents a political perspective, emphasizing strategic motives and ideology, supported by diplomatic records. Prof. Hughes offers a social perspective, focusing on racial policies and social engineering, supported by eyewitness accounts and sociological studies." }

5. Write a brief paragraph comparing the two interpretations and explaining which you find more convincing. (6 marks)

• marking: { "indicative_content": [ "Provide a balanced comparison of both views", "State which interpretation is more convincing and why", "Use evidence from the summaries to justify your opinion", "Reflect on the strengths and limitations of each view" ], "model_answer": "While both historians offer valid explanations, I find Dr. Carter’s political interpretation more convincing because it is supported by concrete diplomatic evidence showing Nazi intentions. Hughes’ social perspective is important but less directly supported by primary sources. Therefore, the political motives are more convincingly demonstrated." }

6. Explain how the different perspectives of the two historians influence our understanding of the invasion. (4 marks)

• marking: { "indicative_content": [ "Discuss how each perspective highlights different aspects of the invasion", "Explain the importance of considering multiple viewpoints", "Connect the perspectives to broader historical debates", "Show understanding of how interpretations shape historical understanding" ], "model_answer": "The different perspectives help us see that the invasion was motivated by both strategic political goals and social policies. Considering both views provides a more comprehensive understanding of Nazi Germany’s motives, showing that history can be understood from multiple angles." }

7. Which perspective do you think is more useful for understanding the causes of the invasion? Explain your answer. (6 marks)

• marking: { "indicative_content": [ "Justify your choice of the more useful perspective", "Use evidence from the summaries and your own reasoning", "Discuss the relevance of each perspective to understanding the causes", "Reflect on the importance of considering multiple factors" ], "model_answer": "I believe Dr. Carter’s political perspective is more useful because it directly relates to the strategic motives behind the invasion, which are better supported by diplomatic evidence. Understanding political aims helps explain the primary reasons for the invasion, making her view more relevant for understanding its causes." }

8. Summarize what you have learned about different historical interpretations from this worksheet. (4 marks)

• marking: { "indicative_content": [ "Identify that historians have different perspectives", "Recognize the importance of evidence in supporting interpretations", "Understand that interpretations can focus on political, social, or other factors", "Appreciate the value of comparing different views to develop a fuller understanding" ], "model_answer": "This worksheet has shown me that historians interpret events differently based on their focus, whether political or social, and that evidence plays a key role in supporting these views. Comparing these perspectives helps us understand the complexity of historical events." }