Paper 2: Building a Comparative Thesis on Hitler and Mao
Paper 2, 40 minutes. Question: 'Compare and contrast the methods used by Hitler and Mao to consolidate their power.' Your one-page plan lists: Enabling Act 1933; Night of the Long Knives 1934; Reichstag Fire; Mao's Yan'an Rectification Movement 1942-44; land reform 1947-52; Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries 1950-51. Your essay describes Hitler for two paragraphs, then Mao for two paragraphs, then says 'both used propaganda and terror'. The teacher's comment: 'The comparison is implicit, and your thesis is a list.' You need a basis of comparison - for example, ideological purity versus legal facade - and you must explain why one difference matters for the outcome, not just that it exists. You have 40 minutes and must reach a judgement, not just describe.
1. Formulate a thesis that establishes a clear basis for comparison and states a judgement about similarity and difference.
Read the worked answer
Basis: consolidation as the destruction of independent power centres and the construction of mass consent. Thesis: Hitler and Mao both used organised terror and ideological mobilisation, but they differed in the sequencing and legal framing of violence: Hitler moved quickly through legal instruments and a single purge to fuse party and state, while Mao combined prolonged mass campaigns with land reform and class struggle to build a new social base. Judgement: the similarity is functional, the difference is procedural and explains different outcomes - Hitler's consolidation produced a highly institutionalised dictatorship within two years, whereas Mao's was more socially transformative and recurrently mobilisational. This is a comparison, not a list, because each point is measured against the same criteria.
2. Explain one similarity and one difference using specific evidence, and show how each supports your thesis.
Read the worked answer
Similarity: both used terror to eliminate rivals and signal acceptable loyalty. Hitler's Night of the Long Knives removed the SA leadership and reassured the army; Mao's Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries (1950-51) eliminated real and suspected opponents and consolidated control after 1949. In both cases, violence was not only coercive; it was communicative, telling elites and population who held power. Difference: Hitler's consolidation was compressed and legalistic - the Enabling Act 1933 provided a legal facade, and the purge was presented as restoring order. Mao's was extended and mass-based - Yan'an Rectification, land reform, and class labels mobilised ordinary people against local elites over years. This matters because Hitler's model produced a state apparatus that could be taken over by a party-state, while Mao's model depended on continuing campaigns and mass mobilisation, making consolidation less a single moment than a process.
3. Identify a counter-argument to your thesis and respond to it in two or three sentences.
Read the worked answer
Counter-argument: 'Both used propaganda, so the differences are superficial.' Response: the similarity is real but too general to explain outcomes; the relevant difference is how propaganda related to coercion and institution-building. Nazi propaganda worked with a legal facade and a concentrated purge; Maoist propaganda worked through land reform and class struggle, which reorganised social relations. Therefore the difference is not cosmetic; it changes the mechanism of consolidation.