Sadat+and+Ho+Chi+Minh

__Origin and nature of authoritarian and single-party states__ · Conditions that produced authoritarian and single-party states · Emergence of leaders: aims, ideology, support · Totalitarianism: the aim and the extent to which it was achieved **1.** **Select two leaders of single-party states, each chosen from a different region, and explain how and why the conditions of their state helped them to rise to power.** 2. Analyze the conditions that enabled one left-wing leader to become the ruler of a single-party state. __Establishment of authorities and single party states__ · Methods: force, legal · Form of government, (left- and right-wing) ideology · Nature, extent and treatment of opposition 1. Analyzing the ideology of (a) one right-wing ruler, and (b) one left wing ruler. 2. Select one leader of a single-party state, and explain why there was opposition to his rule, and why the opposition succeeded or failed. 3. Discuss (a) the ideology of, and (b) the support for, one right wing ruler of a single-party state. **4.** **Evaluate the methods used by either // Peron // or // Nasser // to maintain power. (for our purposes, you will select any two leaders from different regions)**

Similarities Both leaders came into power legally. Sadat and Ho Chi Minh led their countries during war time that dramatically effected their people, their country and history (Six-Day War and the Vietnam War). Both leaders desperately needed to make peace with their opposition to solve their huge problems. Both wanted to make major changes for their country once taking power; Ho Chi Minh wanted to end colonialism for good and Sadat wanted to end Nasserism in his country.

Differences Sadat took power right after the death of an Arab and Egyptian figure that united the region. People did not have confidence in him and did not think he would make a good leader like Stalin. Ho Chi Minh, however, did not have such big shoes to fill. He was more of a hero to his people pushing out the French and ending colonialism. Ho Chi Minh was fighting for Communist takeover and end to colonialism, however, Sadat was more fighting for land with Israel that had originally belonged to them. Sadat, who was representing the Arabs and the Egyptian people was definitely a bigger figure than Ho Chi Minh concerning power. He had more people, a bigger army and more influence. Ho Chi Minh only had support from one half of his country. He had to push the bigger force out of his country. Ho Chi Minh became President and was already a well known figure while Sadat was relatively unheard of from his people when taking over.

__Domestic policies and impact__ · Structure and organization of government and administration · Political, economic, social and religious policies · Role of education, the arts, the media, propaganda · Status of women, treatment of religious groups and minorities 1. Compare and contrast the religious policies of Hitler and Peron. 2. In 1952 Kenyatta said, “God said this is our land, land in which we flourish as a people”. In what ways did the people of Kenya (a) benefit, and (b) suffer from Kenyatta’s policies? 3. To what extent were the social and economic policies of one of the following successful: Mao, Nasser, Stalin? **4.** **Compare and contrast the domestic policies of two of the following: Castro, Kenyatta, Stalin. (for our purposes, you will select any two leaders from different regions)** 5. Examine the role of education in one single-party or authoritarian state. 6. In what ways, and to what extent, was propaganda important in the rise and ruler of Hitler?