yes of course it can be both-
quoting hitler or riefenstahl would be an example of using a primary source - if it was something they said at the time, whilst if it was something Riefenstahl said later in an interview that's a secondary source
-quoting historians is an example of a secondary source
-using both will increase the sophistication of your response
-however, the advice i have heard is to ensure you have your own argument, and use historians to back it up, rather than simply giving a recall of what other ppl think- in fact if you look at the criteria for history essays one of them is about sustaining a line of argument. therefore this is important and perhaps more so than even mentioning other viewpoints, as this isn't specifically mentioned in marking criteria for 2unit history... although it's definitely in the syllabus.
-it's also sophisticated to demonstrate an awareness of historiography. e.g. in Germany intentionalist vs. structuralist debate, or in the Conflict of the Pacific, the affect of national perspective when viewing history. [many japanese historians don't even acknowledge the rape of nanking]...but again, it should only be a sidepoint, facts are equally important in this course.
