Interpretations, and why historians differ
History · GCSE · The School
Why they differ
Four reasons, and naming which applies is the skill: historians had access to DIFFERENT EVIDENCE; they asked DIFFERENT QUESTIONS; they wrote at different times with different concerns; or they weighed the same evidence differently. Archives opening decades later has changed the history of the twentieth century repeatedly.
Comparing two
Identify what each argues, find the specific point of disagreement, and explain it using the four reasons above. 'One is positive and one is negative' is not a comparison. 'A stresses long-term economic causes while B stresses individual decisions, because A is writing an economic history and B a political biography' is.
Making a judgement
The top band needs a judgement, not a summary. Say which interpretation you find more convincing FOR THIS QUESTION and why — better evidence, wider scope, fewer assumptions. It is entirely legitimate to say each is stronger on a different aspect, provided you say which and why.
Historian A, writing in 1950 with access to official despatches, presents a battle as a triumph of generalship. Historian B, writing in 1990 with soldiers' letters newly deposited and a different set of questions, presents it as a costly muddle survived by the men. Neither has the facts wrong. What differs is the evidence available, the question asked, and what each generation thought worth explaining.