Power and control are what Churchill and Goebbels seem to have over their countries. If they are upfront about their county’s unstoppable power, if they’re the “roadblock” between evil and the rest of society, if they are preventing their country from being consumed in monstrous tyranny, mass starvation, and anarchy, then why do they have the urge to go to war?
To be honest, Churchill and Goebbels are virulent when it comes to speaking on how they’re doing the best for their country. Churchill, who had been a new Prime Minister practically,forces a new politically diverse government system on the people. He make it seem justified by explaining it was for the “public’s interest.” Promoting the war against Hitler, he burdens the people to believe that this will be terrorizing to defeat, because they’re going against something practically “demonic.” He may not state it in those exact words but he wants them to fall for this charade so they will support him and his views.Fortunately, Churchill doesn’t seem as coercive as Goebbels.Instead of a new simple government system, Goebbels chooses this heavy propaganda to enforce his emphasis on National Socialism being good for the country. Goebbels states that Bolshevism and Jewry are going to cause this deadly danger. Even though Germany has done a lot of genocide, and Goebbels seems like a control freak, the people are kind of forced to trust his views. All of the war efforts and scarified luxuries under this “peaceful” homogenous society are to support the country and keep up this powerful imagine of a united Germany. Both Goebbels and Churchill are clear that they want victory at all costs, whether or not the people feel satisfied.
Promoting the unity and pride of the country is another step of Churchill and Goebbels. It’s either all or nothing when it comes to winning, and unity is a way to strengthen the country's. In both speeches the men make sure that they amp up their country’s with a sense of pride by being optimistic. It makes both leaders seem like they're running a strong country. Goebbels stated Germany is “unwilling to bow to this danger;” he is the one who “claims the right” to call upon it; yet he provides this insight of what'd it's be like if groups like Jewry took over striking fear and chaos. It's contradictory. Churchill demands he will obtain “victory at all costs,” with certainty. He's making his intended audience feel safe and like the country is in control.
From the evidence provided Churchill and Goebbels aren't as powerful as they seem; though some may disagree, it seems like promoting war is the only way they'll be looked upon as world powers. If they fail to win the war for their country then they won't be able to protect from other global tyranny.
That last line though! Killer. I didn't even think to myself that the devices Churchill and Goebbels used aren't powerful in general but maybe only in war times. So does that gain them any power after war? mhhhhmmm. Anyways , I love how you stated their speech device then compared that to how the country would react or what they would do. No matter how well they bashed their opponents as demonic , its the audiences response that makes them effective. You truly analyzed well. GOOD JOB CHYNA!
ReplyDelete