Historians have differing views due to a range of different reasons including the selection and interpretation of evidence, their upbringing and their political and social views. Germany's economic state was argued by Timothy Mason to be the driving force pushing Germany into war. This was heavily opposed by Richard Overy. They argue also about the importance of the time periods and the state that society was at within these time periods.
Mason argued that the German economy was under strain from rearmament and that the regime felt insecure in demanding sacrifices from civilians such as wage reductions and food shortages and therefore, opted for war. Mason is a Marxist historian meaning the Marxist perspective causes him to be far more likely to exaggerate the extent of working-class rejection of the government. In the past he has focused on 'history from below' which could perhaps mean that he has additional sympathy towards the working class and therefore add to his views. However, Overy claims that Mason is exaggerating the degree of working class rejection as there is no evidence of panic from decision makers. The two historians concentrate on different dates within the timeframe and their importance in the economic state of Germany by September 1939. Overy states Germany faced economic problems in 1939 which had no correlation with Germanys war against Poland in September. Mason's "Flight into War" theory meant Hitler was going into war with Poland as a result of the agitated German economy in the late 1930s, caused by workers wanting a rise in wages, being a form of political resistance. The contradiction between Mason's and Overy's debate may be related to Mason's past of having a Marxist view and focussing on social history of the 3rd Reich, predominantly based on the working class. This perhaps caused his interpretation to be sympathetic towards the working class. Additionally, Mason argues that the economic crisis started after 1936 because of the combination of German industrialists being excluded from a decision-making process and the introduction of the first four-year plan which meant that government played a dominant role in the economy. Overy highlights that his opinion is based on the evidence of the 'history from below' and claims there is little evidence to suggest a social revolution. Figure (1) demonstrates the steady decrease in unemployment levels which would support Overy's view, although may not be exact due to women and other groups of society being excluded from statistics under Nazi rule. Consequently, Overy's theory of the economic state and the time in which this occurred can be evidenced.
Overy opposes Mason's thesis by stating it is based upon evidence that does not contain direct, legitimate records such as documents put forward by the Nazi regime which could have been forged or exclude certain sections of the German population. Thus, Overy argues that Mason can only make assumptions instead of being able to back his statements with hard evidence. This means that Overy's thesis is more likely to be trustworthy than Mason's. Overy's theory is centred around the clear events of the importance of the Four-Year Plan and its preparation which included seizing raw materials and foreign reserves which took place from 1936-39. However, Mason challenges this by stating "the product of an increasingly bankrupt political system, which sought to stave off the inevitable tensions between the masses and leaders brought about by rapid rearmament and subsequent economic crisis" (2). This could be demonstrated by the Wall Street crash in 1929 which shows the economic state that Overy opposes. The events that occurred within the timeline produced a wide range of evidence that is carefully selected by each historian in order to support their argument. This displays that Overy's argument is more convincing as his evidence is based off of events that could be proven with evidence that is seen to be more reliable. Despite this, the evidence that Mason has selected can be partially credited as it showed the gradual progression of the economy decreasing until September 1939.
To conclude, Overy and Mason clearly disagree over the extent Germany was going through a rearmament process. Overy states that there was a moderately low level of remilitarisation compared to Mason who emphasises that the rapid rate of rearmament alongside other factors slowly built up towards the point that sent Germany into war. Mason stresses that different sectors of society were struggling and that there was a pressure on wages as well as a lack of raw materials. Contrastingly, Mason argues that there was actually little evidence of social unrest which could be proved by society fitting into the Nazi regime and accepting Nazi rule as events like the Summer Olympics in 1936 kept people entertained and occupied enough to prevent revolts. Mason's background as a Marxist is questioned by Overy as making his view more favourable and sympathetic towards the working classes having to cope against the states regime which could be the cause his perception that there was a social unrest during this time period. The evidence selected by both Historians differs and may lead to question the validity of the historian's interpretation which is probably the most prominent factor contributing to their differing views.