Rhetorical Analysis 12: Historical Speech

The speech I chose was Hitler's "Berlin: Proclamation to the German Nation" (http://www.hitler.org/speeches/02-01-33.html.) The argument he's making is that the Marxist government has done nothing to help the German people in fourteen years and his government should be given four years to attempt to fix the country. His audience is the farmers and working class of the German nation, particularly those that were negatively affected by the post-war government.

Though I couldn't find footage of this particular speech, I did watch other speeches of Hitler's, and he is always passionate. He truly believed what he was saying, and it's easy to understand how he convinced others to believe it as well. He uses a great deal of emotion in his words as well. He begins this speech by justifying their part in WWI, saying that they were only "filled with the desire to defend the Fatherland" and to "preserve the freedom, nay, the very existence, of the German people." He then tries to anger the people by talking about "the misery of our people." Hitler explains the situation of the working class by calling them "unemployed," "impoverished," and "starving." Then he lays out his plan for helping the farmers and ending unemployment.

His conclusion appeals to logic. He says, "The Marxist parties and their lackeys have had fourteen years to show us what they can do. The result is a heap of ruins. Now, people of Germany, give us four years, then pass judgement on us." This seems so simple, what is four years after fourteen of misery? After being convinced of how terrible the situation is currently, any change seems to be good change.

The argument is mostly sufficient, though he doesn't give specific examples of what he will do to end unemployment, just that he will do it. The argument is typical, first empathizing with the audience and making them feel better about themselves before uniting them against a common enemy...in this case, the Marxist party. I don't know history well enough to know if the argument is accurate, but I do know that the German nation was doing poorly financially after WWI, so that part is correct. The argument is relevant, because the people were upset about their governement and he was giving an option to replace it.

I believe that this speech was effective. When dealing with a big group like this, drilling them with specific facts would only bore them. The situation required passion, and Hitler delivered beautifully. They wanted to feel united against an enemy, and Hitler fed them Marxism on a silver platter. They wanted to feel that a solution was in the near future, and Hitler promised it to them. I do not mean this as a political statement, but there are many similarities in this speech and the recent election promises. We are also a country that is torn apart financially by a war, and Obama has created an enemy of the Bush administration. His promises worked for us in the same way that Hitler's promises worked for the German people.