The Religious Appeals for Churchill and Goebbels

Joseph Goebbels’ “Nation, Rise Up, and Let the Storm Break Loose” and Winston Churchill’s “Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat” speeches may contain similar structures and appeals, but an appeal on religion establishes a significant difference between these two speeches.  Yes, these two pieces both make a point on religion and I reason why to fight, but both take very different approaches to the appeal.  Despite the different pathways, both speakers are able to use rhetoric to convince their audience and fight for their particular country prior to World War II. 

In a speech before the public before WWII, Winston Churchill stated, “what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land, and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime.”  In this sentence Britain’s new Prime Minister use God as an appeal on why the English should make sacrifices and be prepared to fight in a great war.  He directly uses God’s name and indirectly mentions the devil when referring to Germany as “a monstrous tyranny…etc.”  Nearby, in central Europe Joseph Goebbels made a similar speech on why Germany should fight against all enemies in the coming war.  He states: “International Jewry is the devilish ferment of decomposition that finds cynical satisfaction in plunging the world into the deeper chaos and destroying ancient cultures that it played no role in building.”  Omitting the fact that this statement is a complete fallacy, it takes a slightly different approach to religion by directly accusing Judaism as the devil and indirectly claiming that Germany would be God (in his mind). 

The morals of the Allies and the Axis were on opposite ends of the spectrum when it came to the war.  This is extremely significant when you look back on the two speeches.  Churchill directly referenced God in his speech and, as a result, took a more positive approach to the war.  He rarely downplayed Germany; he primarily promoted his own country.  Goebbels directly referenced the devil in his speech and made significant attacks on England, Judaism, “Bolshevism”.  As a result, his argument became primarily negative.  It is quite a coincidence that, if you look back on the Second World War, the Allies’ moral practice of war overcame the Axis’ immoral practices.  Fighting for the moral right surfaced on top while fighting to commit mass genocide plundered inevitably. 

     

   

Machiavelli and Thoreau

In Henry Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” we find that in order to counter complete deprivation of voice, typical civilians must devote their lives to stopping “the machine” that is the government.  “The Morals of the Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli displayed the idea that a prince who could manipulate his people in order to retain office would be the ideal goal for any prince of his time.  Though these two contrast each other through their conflicting viewpoints, they share some very common ground when referring to power. 

At one point in his essay, Thoreau states that politicians often resist the public’s viewpoints in order to further themselves personally.  Meanwhile, in Machiavelli’s piece he states that the underlying goal for a prince was to keep his throne.  Both of these scenarios display the major government’s efforts to steal power from the people.  First, in “Civil Disobedience”, Thoreau explains that many elected officials tend to serve themselves rather than the community.  Often they support the majority, silence the minority, and wreak the benefits of their own powers.  It is in this case that Thoreau calls government a “machine”.  With a bad connotation, Thoreau intended to argue that those who step in front of the government are the ones that will topple it down.  Machiavelli’s excerpt expresses the power of virtue and how many different core values both good and bad are necessary to keep one’s power in the kingdom.  One of these reasons was fear.  Many times politicians would try to intimidate their people so they will be inclined to vote for them or support them during reelections and wars.  This intimidation could be very responsible for the silencing of people to the point where they won’t stand in front of “the machine”.  By having the same core structure based on fear, Thoreau explains to his readers how to work around it while Machiavelli explains to his readers how to enforce it.  From either ends of the spectrum both philosophers had totally different viewpoints that, together, built the overall problem at hand for the public.