It's completely fine either way. It's important that you engage with historiography by showing why the historian's view is consistent (or inconsistent) with available evidence.
E.g. from one of my essays on Society and Culture in Nazi Germany
Historian Mary Nolan interprets this as successful “penetrating, politicising and restructuring of the private.” However, the limited success of pro-natalist initiatives significantly undermines her assertion. Although the net reproduction rate increased marginally from 0.7 to 0.9 from 1933 to 1939, it failed to exceed pre-depression levels, indicating that the increase in births was mostly attributable to the improved economic climate. Indeed, the majority of women took advantage of Nazi policy but failed to wholeheartedly ascribe to party ideology, acting as what historian Jill Stephenson refers to as “a la carte Nazis.”
Initial post-war scholars emphasise the tremendous appeal of the Hitler Youth. However, their contention is inconsistent with the need for such draconian measures as the establishment of the SRD in 1934 and the Youth Ordinance of 1939 to punish nonconformity. Far more credible are revisionists Burleigh and Wippermann, who cite organised resistance such as the Edelweiss Pirates as evidence that increasing militarisation of the Hitler Youth resulted in many becoming “progressively disillusioned, recalcitrant and rebellious.”