Forum Post 7 - World War II

4/1/2014

Listen to the three speeches below. One is by Adolf Hitler (German leader), one by Joseph Stalin (Soviet Leader), and the last by Winston Churchill (British PM). As a comment rank them 1-3 by content, and then rank them 1-3 by general speech abilities (who is the best speaker). So that means you'll have two sets of rankings. For each one write a brief 3-4 sentence explanation for why you ranked them like you did.

10 Comments

Daniel Michelsen

3/18/2014 08:59:38 am

I would give Hitler a 3 in speeching abilities and 2 in content because he is a good speaker and get the audience motivated. I will say he has a good ability to keep his speech on track with what the people want to hear. I will say 2 on content because as I said he is good to say what the people want to hear, but this is more so pure propaganda. He say what he have to to get the people believe in him.

I would without doubt give Churchill one in speaking ability, and 3 in content, because he have a lot of good argument, and he have vice words, but it is really boring to listen to. The speech is of vice words. But he talks really slow, and without felling. The speech is good, but probably the most boring speech I ever heard.

I would give Stalin a 2 in speaking ability, and 1 in content because he don't get the people to really listen to him. He is not as bad as Churchill on ability to speak, but he don't really have anything smart to say. The speech is bad because of the content, but he isn't to bad in speaking ability.

ALBIE

3/20/2014 05:13:49 pm

1 best 3 worst
Hitler was the best speaker of the group, he gets 1st place there. He used the more emotion in his speech then the other speakers. I'll give him a 2nd for content. I don't think his speech would have worked as well on a crowd that didn't already believe in anything that comes out of Hitlers mouth.
Churchill gets last place on speaking ability and first on content. During his speech I couldn't help but think "Sir, have you been drinking tonight". That being said he did have the best content, even if parts were a little depressing. He made a convincing point about England having the backing of their colonies if all else fails.
The Russian finalist finishes with the silver in speaking ability, and dead last in content. Stalin had the driest speech of the three of them. It wasn't as logical as Churchill's and not as empowering as Hitlers. He did say himself at the end of his speech by putting some emotion into his few good lines.

Tim Goetz link

3/25/2014 06:51:03 am

Adolf Hitler is, for better or for worse (but most likely for worse), a brilliant speaker. For his own purposes, he 'earns' three points for content and speaking abilities. His content, while purely serving the purpose of propaganda, is exactly what the German people want to hear, and then some. He tells them that England and France want this war; that England's Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, *wishes* for this war to include the oncoming Blitzkrieg; that Germany is simply copying the concentration camp model that England, indeed, created; and that this war should pay no heed to age or sex, because when has the enemy, England, *ever* paid attention to these things? Hitler's brilliant speaking abilities allow him to put the blame away from the German "Volk" and squarely on the shoulders of the countries who ruined Germany after the First World War: France and England can be blamed entirely for the path the war takes, as far as Germany is concerned, because France and England wanted the war, they wanted the bombs, they invented the camps, and they wished to crush all of the Germans, if Hitler's Party would give them the chance. Hitler also requires some grudging praise of his speaking abilities for his ability to place himself below the German people in his speeches: around the seventh minute onward in the video above, Hitler asks, "Who am I?" and tells the people of his country that he is merely a spokesperson for Germany's rights as a people, and nothing more. His humility, in this sense, wins over the crowd, and gives his critics less firm footing to stand on: because to criticize Hitler, at this point, is to criticize the German right to rights themselves.

Compared to Hitler, Winston Churchill's speaking abilities and content falter before failing completely. He earns a '1' in content and another '1' in speaking abilities for his mumbling, his monotony, and his general lack of any energy or zest whatsoever. The content of his speech is repetitive in a way that does little to enliven his audience, whereas Hitler's reiteration of the same points only adds to the fervor of his people. Churchill's speaking ability is lame at best, if only according to this sample, because of his deadpan voice and his lifeless tone. He sounds reluctant to enter war, and certainly he is, but his reluctance could easily have resulted in his entire country faltering before conflict, and a single step backwards during wartime can be a fatal one. Therefore, he earns a paltry score in my book.

Finally, Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union earns, in my opinion, a 2 for speaking abilities and 3 for content. Like Churchill, Stalin seems to be mumbling, and his speech could be more coherent. However the extremes of this are not near to those of Churchill, thus earning him a better 'score' because he is far more understandable. He does not earn a '3,' however, because unlike Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany, Stalin does not ever raise his voice in passion nor in anger; he never calls upon his people like his life depends upon it, whereas Hitler does this often and effectively. Regardless, the content of his speech is superior to that of Churchill's as well, being that it recalls a time of even greater misfortune for his people, calls upon them to continue the fight, assures them that they are winning and "bleeding Germany white," and that they are on justice's side in this conflict. His mention of Lenin's inspirational role in history also furthers his cause, as does his mention of many Russian figures who will serve to inspire the Russian forces as they deflect Germany's "Nazi hordes." His assertion that the world is looking to Russia as the only force in the world who can conquer Germany, while perhaps overstated, is also effective in gaining the hearts of the Red Army, the Red Navy, and men and women "guerrillas" that he calls on several times within his speech.

Perhaps Adolf Hitler set the bar too high for the following leaders, but both Churchill and Stalin seem to pale in comparison to Hitler's speaking abilities, and their speech writers, while not as reliant upon propaganda as Hitler's, do not convey energy nor passion in the same enlivening way that Hitler's speeches do. While Hitler certainly manipulated his populace with his speeches and his morals were completely astray, his abilities - according to this assignment - were far above and beyond those of his fellow country leaders.

Tim Goetz link

3/25/2014 06:59:21 am

1. I know that looks long, but it's always three to four sentences (as prescribed).
2. The link with the Winston Churchill thing made me LOL.
3. Carry on.

Bridget

3/26/2014 06:16:00 am

Content: Hitler had the best content of the three. He worked to justify some of the actions of the Germans, such as in regards to the concentration camps, although he did seem to have some holes in explanation. Stalin had the next best content in terms of wartime motivation, encouraging the Russian people that the war will go well for them. In third place is Churchill because although he had some fine things to say, he did not really speak about confidence of doing well in the war, saying that the "New world" will hopefully come help.

Speaking Abilities: Hitler was the best speaker. He was interested in what he was talking about, which then makes the audience a little more interested in the message. Stalin was the next best speaker, mostly because of how poor Churchill's speaking was. Churchill (unless it was just the recording) mumbled, making it harder to understand what he was saying, and he wasn't really fired up about what he was speaking on, so the audience could not really catch on to his enthusiasm, which made him the worst of the three leaders in terms of speaking abilities.

Henry Schaller

3/31/2014 06:57:09 am

Hitler's speech is a three in speaking ability and a two in his content. He begins the speech very loudly yelling all his words and riling up the crowd. He uses a calm voice and yelling to complement each other. When he talks about the injustices done by the British it almost sounds like he is about to cry. But then he goes on to talk about how great Germany is and he yells every word to emphasize the power of him and the nation. As for content its pretty standard he tells the audience how great Germany is and how awful the enemy is. Hitler also ironically brings up the Boer wars and the concentration camps used by the British to show how evil the British are.

I give Churchill a one for speaking ability and a two for content. He speaks unclearly slurring all his words making it very hard to understand. He also speaks in a monotone and is very boring to listen too. But Churchill's content is better he is saying that the British will win even if they have to fight everywhere. If he was a better speaker these words would be much more powerful.

Stalin's speech is much better than Churchill's but no where as inspiring as Hitlers I give it a two for ability and three for content. He is a pretty good speaker but doesn't get as excited as Hitler, Stalin is closer to a monotone but he still speaks clearly. The content of Stalin's speech is very good he uses historical examples of when Russia almost lost but still won, he also complements his soldiers abilities and uses famous heroes to inspire the soldiers.

Barud Tesfaye

3/31/2014 09:44:25 am

Content:

1.) Hitler's speech included many persuading parts to it. He spoke very strongly about everything he said, he also spoke in a lively and powerful tone, and made himself clear as he spoke. He began talking about Churchill as a warmonger and someone who simply wants war. He spoke TO the German people and not FOR the German people. When I say he spoke to them, It was almost as if he where talking to people he knew and cared for; and when I mean talking for them, he didn't talk as if he where a god among men, instead he spoke at a leveled tone.

2.) Stalin's speech was not so up to par with Hitler's as it lacked emotion and enthusiasm, but he spoke to a very broad group of people. His words may not have been as powerful, but they where more personal and the message he was sending was almost as if he where trying to say he felt their pain. The war had a massive impact on the Russian people, so that made Stalin's message even more clear.

3.) Churchill's content was good, but what did not bring him up to par with Hitler or Stalin's speech, is his monotone and slurring of talking. Although he also spoke with a very personal tone, it did not par up with the others.

Speaking Abilities:

1.) Hitler's speaking ability was very powerful and enticing to his people. He spoke in a manner as though the war may be something that he did not wish to happen, they will power through. That he would bring the war that Churchill wanted and Germany would prevail. He spoke of the ill intentions of Churchill to entice the people of Germany and get them to join his side (which was very effective).

2.) Stalin has a less energized tone, but he still carried a powerful and clear voice towards the war Germany had brought upon Russia, though he had still talked a darker tone, he did keep a personal level with the people of Russia.

3.) Churchill lacked many speaking abilities, and the slurring of words and the monotone speech did not do him any favors, even though he had a good message, it was disrupted by him being the one giving the message.

Sir Robert Chuck Swaggedy III

3/31/2014 11:01:17 am

Stalin: Stalin receives a 2 for content, he addresses the most Important issue at hand delivering a message of confidence and hope. not once did he speak of failures; he remained optimistic the whole time. for speaking abilities he receives a 2, he was not passionate with his words but very clear an concise using a good word choice and remaining calm and confident and most importantly speaking rather slowly.

Churchill: Churchill receives either a 1 or 2 for content partly because I couldn't understand what he was saying but from what I did catch he speaks of helping allies and defending the island. for speaking ability he gets a 1, I couldn't understand 60% of what he was saying, he spoke in a monotone manner and slurred the crap out of his words.

Hitler: Hitler receives a 3 for content, he chose the right topic and right words to convey his message of war with Britain, using examples of their evils to justify war with them and ensure the people agree with his choice. for speaking abilities he also receives a 3, he was the most energetic and passionate of the three speakers and used his timbre to add weight to his words.

Florian Badidi

3/31/2014 12:44:46 pm

Hitler: Hitler was, for me, the most effective and also the best speaker between the two other one. I give him a 3 for the content because first his speech was full of emotions and very well made. He knew his history showing he was really smart and also able to use this facts to make a good and deep speech. Also he defend the idea where he does not want the war but the foreign countries want it and so he just defend his country and the German people. In general, I give also a 3 because his speech was strong, very deep and it revealed a huge German patriotism during this time and he used different tonalities when he had to do it making his speech better and more profound.
Stalin: For me I give him the second place as speakers and for that it's because his speech was good but not really. For the content I give him a 3 because, like Hitler, he knew his Russian history and was smart enough to use it in order to make remember to the people what the country crossed in his History. But his voice and his tonalities were really bad. They were empty, no powerful and mainly very slow and it was very hard for me to not do something else as hard and boring as his speech was and it's why I give him a 2 in general.
Churchill: Churchill, even if he was a great Prime Minister during the war, was not a good speaker at all. During his speech who was just a few minutes was not interesting but boring, slow and very hard to understand ( for me ) and it's why I give him a 1 for the content and the general speech. It was not good, he also did not say a lot of thing and mainly he did not make a reference to make his speech deeper. So for me between the three speakers he was the worst.

Darice Fowler

3/31/2014 05:14:11 pm

1(best) - 3(worst)

Speaking Ability:
Hitler had the best speaking ability, and Churchill definitely had the worst. Hitler used a combination of shouting and normal volume to emphasize certain parts of his speech. He was very enthusiastic and powerful while he was speaking and his voice drew everyone in. Churchill was the opposite of Hitler when he spoke. His voice was very monotone throughout the entire speech and he mumbled the entire thing. I had to look at a transcript in order to understand what he was saying, because the combination of the mumbling,the not-perfect recording and his accent made it difficult to understand certain parts. Stalin's speech was good, and definitely powerful, but not quite to the extent of Hitler's.

Content:
As far as just content, Churchill has the best, but Hitler's was very good as well because as long as you already agreed with Hitler's ideas, his speech would continue to successfully brainwash you into thinking and believing in the same ideas as he did. Even though Churchill's was the best, it got masked be the boring, mumbled monotony of his voice.

Forum Post 7 - World War II

Leave a Reply.

AP EURO FORUM

Archives

Categories

Home

Geography for Geographers

About