The fight for morals in Churchill's and Goebbels' speeches

Moral rightness is commonly used as a call to unite a group of people against a common enemy. Both Churchill and Goebbels use this technique in their speeches. Even though these two men are complete opposites of each other in their beliefs, it is odd that they have the same major point, about fighting a moral war against an enemy that mirrors the devil, however they have different enemies which they feel are a threat to the world.

Churchill uses very strong language especially pathos to support his claims that the British must unite against the "Monstrous Tyranny" of Nazi Germany (1). By using the word monstrous that provides the image of a demon like monster attacking and destroying anything in its past, which Churchill uses to label the Nazis. He explains what the point of fighting is to the British, which is achieving victory by all the strength "God can give us (1)." He states that God is on the Side of the British, and how they are fighting a moral war in order to protect what is right. Goebbels speech is very similar when it comes to moral rightness. He even explains how the Germans are trying to achieve a "European mission (6)." This shows how he views the Nazi mission in the war, almost as a religious mission in ridding Europe and the world, from the tyranny of Bolshevism. He describes the Bolshevists as "the incarnation of evil, as the plastic demon of decay (6)." This is certainly a very strong pathos filled statement that again just like Churchill brings in the image of fighting the Devil. He calls the Jews a "Culture destroying chaos," which also emphasizes how the Germans are the good people in the war who are fighting for what is morally right.

While Churchill is talking about fighting the tyrannous Nazis, Goebbels is talking about fighting Bolshevism in the East. It is quite odd that both Goebbels and Churchill use the same moral tactics in both of their speeches, especially because their view of enemy differs, as well as what they are actually fighting for. Churchill throughout his speech describes the British responsibility to ridding Europe of Nazi control, while Goebbels talks about the moral responsibility of Germany to Free Europe from Bolshevism, and Jewry. Both men are talking about freeing Europe in some way, however the tactic Goebbels applies uses much more violence in order to achieve his goal. Even though Churchill talks about fighting with as much force as possible, Goebbels talks about Fighting not only Russia, but in simple terms exterminating the Jews from the European continent. Churchill only talks about getting rid of Nazi control, not exterminating the entire Nazi German population. Yet both men still use the tactic of moral rightness, even though it may not seem right to say that any war can be moral whatsoever.

It is very odd that two men with entirely different political views, use the same tactic of fighting a war for what is morally right. Through Goebbels speech he emphasizes the Nazi objective to exterminate the Jews and Bolshevism, which is very unlike the speech of Churchill. Churchill only focuses on fighting the Nazis in order to get rid of Nazi power, not to exterminate all Germans. Is it even right though to say that fighting for any war is supporting a truly moral cause. If that is the case then in future wars should the moral cause tactic even be used, just as it has been used by leaders of all nations for hundreds of years?

Machiavelli and Thoreau

Morals are the way we believe what is right and wrong. This accounts for everything we do, like talking to elders and obeying laws. The reason why we do almost everything we do, is because we think it is morally right. Both Machiavelli and Thoreau believe in being morally right, however Machiavelli’s thoughts of morals are contradicting, while Thoreau believes very directly that men only somewhat act  morally.

Power and control is usually thought to be at its best, when a leader is morally just. Machiavelli however believes that a prince should appear moral, because he will influence people to obey him, yet he should be feared, and sneaky. How can someone have morals yet be both sneaky and frightening? Thoreau has very direct views that a government that is unjust, and is not morally right, should be overthrown by the people. He thinks that following what is morally right, is most important when it comes to power, and control, yet he says that as a whole, man does not follow morals.

Man in general should be moral, which is why we have a system of laws, in order to keep the masses of people on track, and behaving properly. Machiavelli believes that men in a way are idiots, because they can be deceived by the craftiness of the person in control. He is saying that men believe in morals but are deceived by their rulers, who are more successful than a ruler who is an honest man. Could he be saying that believing solely in morals makes you stupid? Thoreau is saying that the individual is somewhat moral, but the masses of men are not. He believes that men have a moral sense of what is right and wrong, yet for example in the issue of Slavery they just decide to ignore the issue, even though they know it is morally wrong. I think this means that the individual is not strongly a follower of morals.

Appearing good at heart means that you appear to strictly follows morals and can be respected. Machiavelli explained how it is good to appear moral because people will trust you, however you must also appear frightening. He says that a prince should be man and beast, meaning he appears with two sides, the moral, and the frightening beastly side. Thoreau however is very direct with saying that voting is not a good way to achieve the best person as a leader, because they appear moral, yet are then you find out the virtues they promised are all lies. He says "There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men," which in some way actually connects to Machiavelli’s belief about morals and how one should appear moral but actually be the opposite (Thoreau 280).

In conclusion Machiavelli and Thoreau believe you should follow morals, however Machiavelli’s thoughts of morals are contradicting, while Thoreau believes that deep down men do not act morally right.

(492 words)