Joseph Goebbels and Emperor Hirohito both gave war speeches
in a time where one was very much needed for their nations. Hirohito graciously announced the
surrender of his nation, while Goebbels only wanted to motivate his country to
fight harder after a gruesome defeat at Stalingrad. Although both men had different intentions for their
speeches, they used similar rhetorical techniques and appeals in order to
affect their audiences.
Emperor Hirohito’s tone in his speech was not exactly what
you would expect from a leader who had to tell his nation that they must
surrender before their country is obliterated. On the contrary, Emperor Hirohito speaks with such a proud,
nationalistic tone that the citizens of Japan probably didn’t even think of it
as surrender, but rather saving the rest of the world through their own
sacrifice. Hirohito soothes the blow of defeat by instilling a strong sense of
pride for the nation, saying “Despite the best that has been done by
everyone—the gallant fighting of our military and naval forces, the diligence
and assiduity of our servants of the State and the devoted service of our
100,000,000 people…” Rather than straightforwardly stating that they lost,
Hirohito twists the situation saying that the war didn’t go exactly to “their
interest.” The Emperor further manipulates the information, going as far as
saying that “Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an
ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would
lead to the total extinction of human civilization.” This makes Hirohito sound almost heroic for saving human
civilization, like he should be praised for his nobility. Hirohito did a marvelous job at making
the situation seem like a positive gain for him and his nation. Bravo Hirohito, bravo.
Goebbels uses a similar method in his own speech.
Though his speech is much longer, and cover’s several different points, there
are some notable things it has in common with Hirohito’s. “This is a threat to
the Reich and to the European continent that casts all previous dangers into
the shadows. If we fail, we will have failed our historic mission. Everything
we have built and done in the past pales in the face of this gigantic task that
the German army directly and German people less directly face.” Goebbels
warrants this claim throughout, listing the ways that the German people must
help, how they MUST make sacrifices to support the troops. However there is a
significant difference between the two speeches; Goebbels is obviously much more
enthusiastic, I mean, he IS trying to bring his people up from defeat after all,
compared to Hirohito who is just trying to bring his people down from…already being
down… Goebbels also implies consequences for any that don’t support the
Fuhrer’s reign, saying that those who don’t “must lose their heads.” While
Hirohito tries to comfort the people of his nation, Goebbels focuses on not
only nationalism, but also heavily on fear. His whole speech is filled with implications
and dark undertones threatening any who does not contribute to the war effort.
So
in essence, both speeches had opposite goals in mind, but ultimately ended up
using similar rhetoric, and similar appeals. So whether you’re a Japanese
Emperor facing unconditional surrender, or a German leader serving under
Hitler, it’s always within your best interests to make your country feel
responsible for the world itself.
Something that I have always enjoyed about your writing is your unique wording, like "Marvelous." Thats something I always try to do, but I can never think of a creative enough word on the spot. Your thesis is well written, but it could be a little more specific like which rhetorical techniques? It can sometimes be tricky doing that since it often times becomes a run on. You organized it by idea very well and backed everything up. Bravo Reuben, Bravo.
ReplyDeleteI like your thesis that both leaders made their points by making their people feel like they were responsible for the fate of the world, but I feel that you stated it much better in your final paragraph than in your introduction. The thesis you use in your opening paragraph is a bit vague, and says nothing except for the fact that the two speeches had similarities and differences; your conclusion gets the same point across, but it does it much more clearly and does a better job of summarizing the points you make throughout your post. Apart from that, I think that you did a great job of organizing your thoughts so that you comparison flowed clearly, and you've certainly got a good grasp of the rhetoric of both speeches.
ReplyDelete