Compare and Contrast the Rise to power
of Mussolini (up to 1926) and Hitler (up to August 1934)
When you see dotted lines you must add in EVIDENCE and /or EXAMPLES and/or
EXPLANATION and/or HISTORIOGRAPHY. PLEASE DO THIS IN BOLD
TYPE.
Introduction
Mussolini and Hitler both came to power in Europe during the interwar years. Both were
fascist dictators who not only shared many similarities in their ideology and the manner
in which they ruled, but also in the methods they employed in order to achieve power as
well as the circumstances which surrounded their respective rises. This essay will
examine the conditions which allowed the Italian Fascist Party and the NASDP to emerge
and grow, and will also consider the methods and manipulations used by the two leaders
and their parties to attain power.
Paragraph One
In both Italy and Germany the Great War played an important role in producing the
conditions under which extremism could flourish. In Italy the war caused unrest in an
economic sense
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Similarly in Germany the Great War produced economic problems
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
However it is interesting to note a difference here. Italy was not able to recover from any
of these economics difficulties prior to Mussolini’s appointment as Prime Minister in
1922, while Germany to some extent did recover with the help of US aid such
as…………………………………… Nevertheless the memory of the economic
destruction of Germany may have played a role. What clearly did play a role were the
effects of the Wall St. Crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression.
………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………….
Evidence shows clearly the effect on the Nazi Party’s popularity
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thus we can see that dire economic conditions and the governments’ failure to solve
these problems were important in both Italy and Germany as they led to the desire by the
population for a new type of political solution to the problems.
Paragraph Two
In both countries the governments’ inability to solve the economic problems was partially
due to the political weaknesses with the existing systems. Italy, since unification in 1871
had suffered from successively weak governments
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Since World War One
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
In Germany the Weimar Republic had suffered particularly badly since 1930
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
But also had been beset by problems since it’s creation in 1919
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Had either country had a more effective and stronger political base, the rise of the
dictators may have stood more chance of being blocked. But also, many voters were
anxious to replace their seemingly ineffective and indecisive governments.
Paragraph Three
Both countries were also beset with problems in foreign relations, many of which were
as a result of World War One. Italy, although one of the victorious allies, had not gained
all that she expected from the Treaty of London of 1915
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………….. despite Prime Minister Orlando’s
presence at Versailles. This led to the occupation of
……………………………………………………………………, an embarrassing
incident for the Italian government which showed the extreme dissatisfaction of some
elements in Italian society, particularly the extreme nationalists. A combination of this
and the economic effects of the war led to it being referred to as the “mutilated victory”.
The German situation was probably far worse. The Treaty of Versailles not only hurt
Germany economically but it also diminished her status as a world power by
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
The Weimar government who signed the treaty was of course blamed for the ‘stab in the
back’. Germany had then suffered a period of isolation and exclusion up
to……………………………..which added to the humiliation. The feelings of resentment
and blame were to resurface in the atmosphere of the early 1930’s. Again, in both
countries we see a failed foreign policy which resulted in national humiliation and a
desire for revenge. In both cases the governments were blamed for the failures.
Paragraph Four
Both the Italian fascists and the NSDAP claimed to be able to solve the problems
discussed above. In addition they offered a new ideology which appealed to large
numbers of people in desperate conditions. Fascist ideology offered
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
In Italy these appealed to
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
In Germany this appealed to
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
In both countries the anti-communist nature of fascism was very important as in both
countries communism seemed a real threat
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thus we can see that in the circumstance of the time, a new ideology which offered
solutions to long term problems proved popular in both countries.
Paragraph Five
Both Hitler’s and Mussolini’s personal role should not be underestimated. Both were
charismatic characters who personally were popular with audiences
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
As well as the projection of a cult figure other propaganda ploys played an important
role
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
In the case of both men, personality and how it was projected played a crucial role in
gaining the support of the public.
Paragraph Six
The use of paramilitary groups is a common theme in the rise of many single party
states and Hitler and Mussolini are leaders who illustrate this very clearly.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………
These groups were used against opponents, particularly communists. Examples of this are
………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………..
The paramilitary organizations seemed to deal with a threat that the government could
not and at the same time were a threat of force themselves. It is interesting that both
Mussolini and Hitler did have to distance themselves from the activities of their
respective paramilitaries in order to maintain a respectable image with the public..
Paragraph Seven
Perhaps the greatest difference between the achievements of power of these two dictators
lays in the manner in which they finally achieved power. Mussolini was offered the job
of Prime minister by King Victor Emmanuel after the March on Rome in 1922
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Hitler tried a similar coup in1923 but failed
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
He vowed to gain power through parliamentary means and eventually Hitler too, was
offered the equivalent position of Chancellor by his Head of State, President Hindenburg.
However the situation was a very different one.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thus Mussolini and Hitler both gained power in more or less legal ways but with varying
degrees of manipulation and/or threats of force. Hitler took advantage of a ‘court
intrigue’ whilst Mussolini typically chose the dramatic, legend-making route.
Paragraph Eight
This should be on the consolidation of power up to 1926 (for Mussolini) and August
1934 (for Hitler). Remember to compare and to contrast.
Conclusion
Therefore it is clear that the circumstances surrounding the growth in popularity of the
Italian fascists and the German NASDP are similar. Both were suffering the effects of the
Great War in terms of their weak economies, unstable governments and failed foreign
policies. The two emergent political parties also have their similarities; ideology, a
charismatic leader, paramilitary groups. The main differences are the actual method of
achieving power and the fact that Mussolini gained power much earlier in the period than
Hitler. In the early 1920s Mussolini seemed far more acceptable to the Italian political
elite than Hitler did the German equivalent.
You will be graded using the Knowledge and Context and Processes criteria only
(see below)
IBHL Grading Rubric
IB Grade and Score
ISM Grade and %
Demands of the
Question
Knowledge
Context and
Processes
Historiography
Organization
7
Answers are clearly
focused responses,
showing a high degree of
awareness of the demands
of the question. Where
appropriate, answers may
challenge the question
successfully.
.
In-depth and accurate
historical knowledge
is applied consistently and
convincingly to support
critical commentary.
In addition, answers may
reveal a high level of
conceptual ability.
Events are placed in their
historical context.
There is a clear
understanding of historical
processes and (where
appropriate) comparison
and contrast.
There may be evaluation of
different approaches to,
and interpretations of,
historical issues and events.
This evaluation is
integrated effectively into
the answer to support and
supplement the argument.
In addition, an awareness
of the reasons for
circumstances that
produced differing and
often conflicting historical
interpretations is present.
Answers are well
structured and clearly
expressed, using evidence
to support relevant,
balanced and well-focused
arguments.
Synthesis is highly
developed, with knowledge
and critical commentary
fully and effectively
integrated
Answers are clearly
focused responses,
showing a high degree of
awareness of the demands
of the question. Where
appropriate, answers may
challenge the question
successfully.
In-depth and accurate
historical knowledge is
applied consistently and
convincingly to support
critical commentary.
Events are placed in their
historical context.
There is a clear
understanding of historical
processes and (where
appropriate) comparison
and contrast.
There may be evaluation of
different approaches to,
and interpretations of,
historical issues and events.
This evaluation is
integrated effectively into
the answer to support and
supplement the argument.
Answers are well
structured and clearly
expressed, using evidence
to support relevant,
balanced and focused
arguments. Synthesis is
well developed, with
knowledge and critical
commentary fully and
effectively integrated.
Answers are clearly
focused responses to the
demands of the question.
Relevant in-depth
historical knowledge is
applied as evidence.
Critical commentary
indicates some in-depth
understanding but is not
consistent throughout.
Events are placed in their
historical context. There is
a sound understanding of
historical processes and
(where appropriate)
comparison and contrast.
There may be awareness
and some evaluation of
different approaches to,
and interpretations of,
historical issues and events.
These are used to
supplement, in a relevant
manner, the arguments
presented.
Answers are well
structured using evidence
to support relevant
historical arguments.
Synthesis is present but not
always effectively or
consistently integrated
18 19 20
94 97 100
A A A
In addition to the objectives
opposite
answers in this level must
demonstrate at least one of the
additional qualities outlined in
italics.
6
15 16 17
87 90 93
B+ A- A-
5
12 13 14
80 83 86
B- B B
4
9 10 11
73 76 79
C C C+
3
7
8
9
63 66 69
D D D+
2
5
6
60 62
D- D1
3
4
Answers indicate that the
demands of the question
are understood and
addressed, though not all
implications are
considered.
Relevant, largely accurate
in-depth historical
knowledge is present and
applied as evidence.
Critical commentary
indicates some
understanding.
Events are generally
placed in their historical
context. There is an
understanding of
historical processes and
(where appropriate)
comparison and contrast.
There may be some
awareness of different
approaches to, and
interpretations of, historical
issues and events.
However, responses that
mainly summarize the
views of historians and use
these as a substitute for,
rather than a supplement to,
the deployment of relevant
historical knowledge
cannot reach the top of this
band.
There is a clear attempt to
structure answers
chronologically or
thematically. Synthesis is
present but
underdeveloped
Answers indicate that the
demands of the question
are generally understood.
.
Relevant in-depth
historical knowledge is
present but is unevenly
applied throughout.
Answers are presented in
a narrative or descriptive
manner. Alternatively,
there is a limited argument
that requires further
substantiation. Some
attempt at analysis may be
present but limited
There has been some
attempt to place events in
their historical context and
to show an understanding
of historical processes and
(where appropriate)
comparison and contrast.
There is no awareness of
different approaches to,
and interpretations of,
historical issues and events.
There is evidence of an
attempt to follow a
structured approach, either
chronological or thematic.
Answers indicate some
understanding of the
question.
There is some relevant,
accurate historical
knowledge but detail is
insufficient.
Understanding of
historical processes and
(where appropriate)
comparison and contrast
may be present but
underdeveloped.
There is no awareness of
different approaches to,
and interpretations of,
historical issues and events.
While there may be a
recognizable essay
structure, the question is
only partially addressed.
Answers reveal little
understanding of the
While historical details are
present, they are largely
There is little or no
understanding of historical
There is no awareness of
different approaches to,
While there may be a
recognizable essay
55 59
F F
question.
inaccurate and/or of
marginal relevance to the
task.
context or historical
processes.
and interpretations of,
historical issues and events.
structure, answers consist
of little more than poorly
substantiated assertions