When I read about the events of the two world wars, I can't help but feel some pride in the United States and the role we played to end them. I feel a strong sense of patriotism to think that we were able to go in and end what no other country seemed able to do. Of course I also think that it could be just biased opinion and that the other countries involved surely didn't feel that way. But then listening to "Sinews of Peace," it felt nice to know that the other countries did see that and appreciate it. I wanted to cheer when Winston Churchill recognized our great efforts, and I felt enormous pride knowing that we were trusted with our power. I felt moved by not only his appreciation but also his call for peace. I felt the urgency to break down the "iron curtain" and free the world from the oppression of communism.
Now if I felt that way listening to it on my cellphone over seventy years later, sitting in an office, never having been personally affected by the devastation of war, imagine what those listening to him in person, recovering from destruction and death, must have felt. Churchill knew what his audience felt because he was in the middle of the carnage. He watched his country get blown to pieces; he watched the brave soldiers lay down their lives for their country;
 |
| Churchill inspecting Polish troops. 1943 |
he knew the consequences abused power. He hardly needed to establish authority in this speech, but he drew on his experience as a leader in the war to convince the people that their could have been another way. Telling the people that if he had been allowed to make the decisions, World War II could have been avoided was a perfect way to establish credibility to people who are picking up the pieces and are desperate to avoid war. They will do anything to prevent more destruction.
This kairotic moment allowed him to tap into the emotions of those listening and also the reality of the situation, satisfying their pathos and logos needs. He knew they didn't want war and that the memory of the war would be enough for them to want to establish peace, but he didn't rely on that. He brought in a logistical side as well. He related the situation to the world, discussing how the current issues would affect the governments of different countries and the UNO.
Churchill's brilliance shows undeniable in this speech. He makes a call for peace, and I can't imagine there was anyone listening who didn't answer.
image credit: public domain images via Wikimedia Commons
I like what you said about how Churchill was able to tap into the emotions of the audience. At the start of his speech, he made a lot of jokes to help lighten the mood. After many years of war, that's a good place to start. He then moved on to deeper emotions and really captivated the audience.
ReplyDeleteI think it´s true that a lot of inspiration is situational. When we look at the speeches of past heroes, it´s hard to imagine the full extent of the message to people who were looking for a leader. Wouldn´t it be nice to have a strong leader in whom we felt we could really trust? I think that´s what Churchill offered through his frequent speeches. I liked that he appealed to our emotion, as he said, as a man instead of a political entity.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrew's comment about how he Churchill was a man rather than a political figure. I think that is what made him so convincing in a pathetic sense. Churchill was a big fan of American philosophy of the sovereignty of the individual and he showed it in the way he lived.
ReplyDelete