War Speeches Comparison

Although World War II was a time in which many speeches were written and made, three stand out in particular: "Nation, Rise Up, and Let the Storm Break Loose" by Joseph Goebbels, "Jewel Voice Broadcast" by Emperor Hirohito, and "Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat" by Winston Churchill. Each represents a very different kind of speech: Goebbels was trying to reinvigorate the nation's morale after the stunning loss of the German attack on Stalingrad, Emperor Hirohito was trying to resign his nation to the fact that Japan had surrendered to the allies, and Churchill was issuing a call-to-arms to both motivate the nation to fight the war and prepare it for the utter turmoil that it would bring to all who lived there. However, there are many common claims, themes, and rhetorical devices in all of them. One of the most important--and revealing--devices that all three speakers use is hyperbole based on the fact that their nation is central to the perpetuated existence of mankind.

All three speeches make reference to the fact that, if his audience does not do what they ask, then the result will be the destruction of their nation and therefore of any meaningful human activity. Hirohito is the most dramatic in this sense, saying that should Japan continue to fight, not only would the nation itself be obliterated, but the rest of human civilization would as well. Goebbels is slightly less dramatic when he describes how unless the German army succeeds in defeating the Soviet Union, the entirety of Europe will have its culture destroyed by the invasion of Bolshevism (although he hints, making reference to America, that the "threat" of Bolshevism will spread elsewhere). Churchill is the least dramatic. He mentions how if they lose the war, the British way of life and everything that the empire stands for will be destroyed, then adds that mankind's desire to improve and "move through the ages" will also be destroyed as a direct result of this.

The important thing about this common theme is that all three of them are applying the same rhetorical tactic, apparently successfully, to vastly different situations with vastly different audiences. The British House of Commons, the Japanese populace, and the German people that Goebbels selected to hear his speech are all very different groups of people with very different values and assumptions, but somehow, they all respond to the idea that unless they act, unless they, as a nation, do something, then the very essence of what makes life worth living will be destroyed. Objectively, this idea seems ridiculous. Human initiative as a concept was not likely to be eradicated forever by the destruction of the British empire. Very wealthy and stable capitalistic economies were not likely to suddenly choose communism just because the Germans did not win the conflict with the Soviet Union. Nor was the destruction of the entire planet likely if Japan chose to seal its own fate and continue in its war with America. I think that the fact that the audiences of these speeches accepted these statements is very revealing both of the rhetorical genius of the speeches' authors and the prevailing sense of nationalism at the time. More than anything, I think that all three speeches prove that, by appealing to a group's sense of unity and differentiation from other groups, you can motivate that group to do or believe just about anything.