Propaganda In 'Iron Curtain And Response To Churchill'
Short Essay 3
Propaganda is a useful tool for any politician or government, especially in unstable times such as during or after a war. Not surprisingly, aspects of propaganda can be found in both Churchill's "Iron Curtain Speech" and Stalin's "Response to Churchill". The speeches both contain elements of truth and distortions of that truth, and any dissection of them will reflect the author's cultural and national background. Keeping this in mind will serve to rationalize any conclusions reached during analysis.
Mr. Churchill's speech can be broken down into 3 more or less distinct areas. First, he up-sells the value of the United States in the post-war era. Second, he advocates the complete trust in the world organization, describing
its worth in maintaining a peaceful world through the cooperation of all involved nations. Third, he condemns the Soviet Union and the expansion of communism, proclaiming those areas under soviet influence as behind an Iron Curtain. The progression of Churchill's speech is engineered to evoke emotional sympathy on the part of the listeners, so that they will prescribe to his viewpoint, which is that the Soviet Union is a dangerous power and must be dealt with in the near future in some form. While not overtly lying, Churchill uses versions of the truth to exact the reaction he desires from the relatively uneducated masses, likening the coming future to the pre-war events of the early 1930s. This generates fear and when that is combined with his ideas about uniting the English-speaking peoples, he creates a sense of comradely and united resolve against the Soviet Union, a resolve that is not entirely just and is based on a largely emotional reasoning instead of logical one.
Stalin's speech however tends to take more of a logical stand to refute any claims or positions that Churchill has on the state of the countries of Eastern Europe and the post-war period in general. The interviewer's questions were likely doctored so that pre-determined responses could be given, however presenting it as an interview adds legitimacy to the answers as it appears that Stalin is thinking up the answers on the spot. This is a form of propaganda as it casts information in a different light, hiding its true origin from the readers. Stalin likes to focus on how Churchill is being rude and un-gentlemanly, instead of stating the truth about the situation he is, like Churchill, trying to rally his citizens and potential allies against this unsavory character. Stalin even goes so far as to liken Churchill to Hitler, comparing Hitler's German-speaking racial movement to Churchill's references to the English-speaking countries of the world. This propaganda casts Churchill as a villain for his statements, which were meant to simply encourage prosperity, and not as a precursor to a war, as Stalin might suggest.
Though biased, Stalin's interview was most importantly convincing, especially to the common people who would not have an educated opinion of international events. In this Stalin is more successful than Churchill's as the propaganda contained therein was harder to perceive than Churchill's emotional talk of grandeur for the English-speaking nations. What should be noted is that both men believed in their words, and it is likely that to them, a portion if not the majority of their words were untrue but were their actual world views, even if they were designed to change the views of others. In this it is hard to isolate propaganda in the speeches, though it was undeniably present.
Propaganda is a useful tool for any politician or government, especially in unstable times such as during or after a war. Not surprisingly, aspects of propaganda can be found in both Churchill's "Iron Curtain Speech" and Stalin's "Response to Churchill". The speeches both contain elements of truth and distortions of that truth, and any dissection of them will reflect the author's cultural and national background. Keeping this in mind will serve to rationalize any conclusions reached during analysis.
Mr. Churchill's speech can be broken down into 3 more or less distinct areas. First, he up-sells the value of the United States in the post-war era. Second, he advocates the complete trust in the world organization, describing
its worth in maintaining a peaceful world through the cooperation of all involved nations. Third, he condemns the Soviet Union and the expansion of communism, proclaiming those areas under soviet influence as behind an Iron Curtain. The progression of Churchill's speech is engineered to evoke emotional sympathy on the part of the listeners, so that they will prescribe to his viewpoint, which is that the Soviet Union is a dangerous power and must be dealt with in the near future in some form. While not overtly lying, Churchill uses versions of the truth to exact the reaction he desires from the relatively uneducated masses, likening the coming future to the pre-war events of the early 1930s. This generates fear and when that is combined with his ideas about uniting the English-speaking peoples, he creates a sense of comradely and united resolve against the Soviet Union, a resolve that is not entirely just and is based on a largely emotional reasoning instead of logical one.
Stalin's speech however tends to take more of a logical stand to refute any claims or positions that Churchill has on the state of the countries of Eastern Europe and the post-war period in general. The interviewer's questions were likely doctored so that pre-determined responses could be given, however presenting it as an interview adds legitimacy to the answers as it appears that Stalin is thinking up the answers on the spot. This is a form of propaganda as it casts information in a different light, hiding its true origin from the readers. Stalin likes to focus on how Churchill is being rude and un-gentlemanly, instead of stating the truth about the situation he is, like Churchill, trying to rally his citizens and potential allies against this unsavory character. Stalin even goes so far as to liken Churchill to Hitler, comparing Hitler's German-speaking racial movement to Churchill's references to the English-speaking countries of the world. This propaganda casts Churchill as a villain for his statements, which were meant to simply encourage prosperity, and not as a precursor to a war, as Stalin might suggest.
Though biased, Stalin's interview was most importantly convincing, especially to the common people who would not have an educated opinion of international events. In this Stalin is more successful than Churchill's as the propaganda contained therein was harder to perceive than Churchill's emotional talk of grandeur for the English-speaking nations. What should be noted is that both men believed in their words, and it is likely that to them, a portion if not the majority of their words were untrue but were their actual world views, even if they were designed to change the views of others. In this it is hard to isolate propaganda in the speeches, though it was undeniably present.