Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. In My Learning the same topic also comes with:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
The big idea: Authoritarian rulers tried to reshape who their people were. But their grip was never complete, and even the most 'total' state failed to control everything.
Imagine a ruler who does not just want to run the country. He wants to decide what your family looks like, what job you do, and even what you believe deep down.
That is the dream at the heart of this topic.
Two big questions run through everything here. First, what did the regime want its society to look like, and did men, women and minorities fit that dream or seem to threaten it?
Second is the question your exam really loves. How total was 'totalitarian' control in real life?
The honest answer changes from state to state, which is exactly why Paper 2 asks you to compare two states from different regions.
The key words, in plain English: A totalitarian regime aims to leave you no private space at all. That was always the dream it chased, not something it fully reached.
When a state uses propaganda to build worship-like love for one ruler, that is a cult of personality. And when ordinary people quietly obey just to stay safe, without truly believing, historians call that accommodation.
Spot it: W-M-E: Women: the regime's ideas decide whether they are pushed into the home or pushed into work.
Minorities: the regime chooses to discriminate, persecute, or destroy.
Extent of control: the state aimed at total, but always ran into limits. Three lenses you can point at any state.
Here is the pattern to watch for. A regime's ideas drive its policies, so a racial, old-fashioned regime and a class-based, modernising one wanted the opposite things from women and treated minorities very differently.
Then, for each state, ask the sharp follow-up question. Where did the regime's control actually stop?
Three lenses on 'total' control
1 · Women — the great contrast
Nazi Germany pushed women out of work and back into the home. The slogan was 'Kinder, Küche, Kirche' (children, kitchen, church), backed by marriage loans and medals for large families. This is pronatalism in action.
Stalin's USSR did the exact opposite. It pulled women into factories, farms and professions, because the planned economy needed every worker it could get.
2 · Minorities — from discrimination to destruction
Nazi Germany built a racial state. The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 stripped Jews of citizenship and banned marriage with non-Jews, and this persecution escalated toward the Holocaust.
The USSR turned on 'enemy' nationalities. During WWII, Stalin deported whole peoples, such as the Crimean Tatars and Chechens, far away to Central Asia.
3 · The extent of control — never quite total
No regime controlled everything. Churches, families, private jokes, black markets and quiet grumbling all survived under the surface.
Much of the obedience was really accommodation, people going along to stay safe, not deep belief. Historians now stress this gap between the regime's total ambition and its partial reach.
Women shaped, minorities targeted, control always leaks.
Nazi Germany (Europe) — racial & traditional
- Women: pushed OUT of work, toward home and motherhood
- Babies encouraged: marriage loans and Mother's Cross medals
- Minorities: Nuremberg Laws 1935, leading toward the Holocaust
- Goal: a 'pure' racial national community
Stalin's USSR (Europe) — class & modernising
- Women: MOBILISED into the workforce and professions
- Childcare and reading lessons freed women for labour
- Minorities: deportation of whole 'enemy' nationalities
- Goal: a productive socialist society
A different region: Mao's China: Mao's China (Asia) taught the slogan that 'women hold up half the sky' and pulled women into shared farm labour and Party work. That put China much closer to the Soviet model than to the Nazi one.
Even so, the control had limits. Out in the villages, peasant families quietly kept their old customs, which shows that even huge campaigns could not fully reach inside the family home.
| State (region) | Women | Minorities | Limit of control |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nazi Germany (Europe) | Out of work, into the home | Nuremberg Laws 1935, then the Holocaust | Churches and some youth resisted |
| Stalin's USSR (Europe) | Mobilised into the workforce | Deportation of 'enemy' nationalities | Black markets and private faith survived |
| Mao's China (Asia) | Into shared labour ('half the sky') | Pressure on religion and ethnic regions | Peasant family customs held on |
| Castro's Cuba (Americas) | Into work via the women's federation | Repression of dissidents and gay Cubans | Exile and quiet dissent remained |
See how examiners mark answers
Access past paper questions with model answers. Learn exactly what earns marks and what doesn't.
How this is tested (Paper 2): Paper 2 is a comparative essay with no sources. You must use two authoritarian states from different regions, such as Nazi Germany (Europe) plus Mao's China (Asia).
The markbands reward judgement and comparison, not storytelling. Run one thematic argument (women, then minorities, then limits) that compares both states all the way through.
'Authoritarian states achieved total control over their populations.' With reference to two authoritarian states, each chosen from a different region, to what extent do you agree? [15 marks]
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Common mistakes: Do not pick two states from the same region. Hitler and Stalin are both Europe, so pairing them breaks the rubric.
Do not tell each regime's story in turn. Compare them theme by theme. And answer the exact command word: 'to what extent' needs a weighed judgement, not a list.