WWII Speeches: Churchill vs. Hirohito

In both speeches, "Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat" by Churchill and Emperor Hirohito's speech on the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration use various rhetorical devices two very different ways  in order to get two different points across.  Churchill has just become the new Prime Minister 3 days before his speech and he is ready for a total war in order to save the entire "human civilization".  However, Hirohito is do the complete opposite.  He is graciously accepting defeat against America and Britain.  But both of them use pathos and logos to convince their audiences.

Churchill is an active user of logos throughout his essay. For example, in his first two paragraphs, he opens introducing the changes he is making, including "three fighting services" and "A War Cabinet of five members".  And because he is using logos to show the evident effort he has put into winning the war, he is indirectly building his ethos, showing the England that he ready to fight for them and bring them to justice. Hirohito takes a different approach with logos.  Since he is surrendering from the war, he uses logos to justify his reasons for withdrawing.  For example, in the fifth paragraph, he tries to explain that "the enemy is employing a new and most cruel bomb...taking toll of many innocent lives".  He uses the bomb and the effects of it to account for leaving the war.  This builds his ethos as well because his reason shows that he is only looking out for the well being of the population.

Later in Churchill's speech, he shifts from logos to pathos, to boost the audience's spirit towards to war more.  For example, in the last paragraph, he simply says that his policy is "to wage war, by sea, land and air,with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us".  His strong, emotional diction such as "war", "might", "strength", and especially "God", provokes the audience to action.  I mean, God has given us the strength, so we must do it, it is our duty!  Hirohito uses pathos a little differently.  Instead of calling his audience to action, he uses the sense of regret and guilt to invoke sympathy from the audience towards his decision.  For example, in the fourth paragraph from the bottom, he says, "We cannot but express the deepest sense of regret to our allied nations of East Asia..."  He uses a hyperbole by saying "deepest sense of regret" to express how hard his decision is and how sorry he is for having to give up on the war.

Both Churchill and Hirohito use similar rhetorical devices to express their decisions and views on the war but in two completely different ways, preparing for war and surrendering against war.

Thoreau vs. Machiavelli- Moral Righteousness for Different Audiences

Henry David Thoreau, author of Civil Disobedience and Niccolo Machiavelli, author of The Prince both have different perspectives on morals and usage of these morals.  Thoreau's point of view on morals is to stick to the principles.  He believes in standing up for injustice, such as the government.  He wants people to stand up for what is "right", whatever that may be to a certain individual.  However, Machiavelli believes that although morals are important for a ruler, they aren't necessary in order to rule over a population.  He believes that morals should be projected on the outside but inside, you should be shrewd and do whatever it takes to get things done.  Furthermore, their different perspectives are evident through their choice of audience.  Thoreau is writing to a population of civilians whereas Machiavelli is writing to rulers of these civilians.  Because of this, it is hard to find comparisons between the two philosophers.      

Audiences in both texts are an important aspect to touch on because Thoreau and Machiavelli are writing to two different types audiences.  Hence, their views on morals will be directed to that specific audience.  Through Thoreau's essay, he rarely mentioned improvement of morals on the government and when he did, it wasn't necessarily how they may be able to improve but simply on stating that the government has no morals.  Machiavelli, on the other hand, only targets princes and only mentions civilians when giving examples on how princes should go about dealing with them.  For Thoreau, his motive is to tell civilians to stand up against unjust rulers.  Obviously, Machiavelli can't say that to a ruler.  He says that rulers should not bind to morals because that may cause citizens to take advantage of them and create chaos.  Obviously, Thoreau can't say that to civilians.  You can't exactly pin point the rights and wrongs of both pieces because they are meant for different people.

Neither of them are wrong because they aren't talking to the same audience.  Machiavelli's ideas are efficient for a ruler, showing that in that particular situation, morals aren't needed as much as cleverness and shrewdness.  However, Thoreau gives good ideas for how a citizen should handle a ruler.  However, despite audiences, it is evident that Thoreau wants people in general to stick to their principles and stand up for something that is wrong.  But Machiavelli indirectly implies that citizens should obey the ruler, no matter what (precisely fear him).  But again, as said before, comparing and contrasting them it difficult because they aren't directed their advice to the same people.