Churchill and Goebbels: Winning The War

Winston Churchill and Joseph Goebbels had very similar ideals on the concept of winning the war. They both believed that if their citizens were united, did all they could possibly do, and have faith in their leader, they would overcome the obstacles of war and bounce back stronger.

Churchill and Goebbels felt very strongly about a nation’s unity. If all the citizens were not of one accord then everything would fall apart. This means that everything that Churchill has to say and everything that Goebbels has to say is correct and all the citizens should just accept it (sarcasm). Goebbels believe that the Germans gathered in such a great mass to “display” their “unity” and “unanimity” as well as “strong will to overcome the difficulties” they “faced in the fourth year of the war.” In Goebbels eyes, if they were not on the same page about war, they would not get far and basically lose the war as well as all human civilization. Churchill believes that his nation should just “go forward together with” their “united strength.” If some citizens were weaker than others, meaning not progressing towards the war, then they would not be in unity and Churchill’s war efforts would crumble. That is why Churchill and Goebbels want everyone to be unified because then there will be a nice flow through the country and also no problems on top of an already brutal war.

Goebbels and Churchill also felt passionately about everyone pulling their own weight. This meaning that everyone does everything they possibly can to contribute to the war efforts. Goebbels is notorious for this kind of thinking. Churchill knows that they are in “one of the greatest battles in history” so therefore he knows that “many preparations have to be made here at home.” This is a great strategy to use on a big crowd of people who you want to follow you. Churchill makes them feel like it is their obligation to participate in the war efforts since it is such a drastic war. Goebbels does a fantastic job at this strategy as well. The only difference is that he actually adds action to force people to get involved in the war. Goebbels understands “what an example German soldier have set in this great age! And what an obligation it puts on us all, particularly the entire German homeland!” so he closed down bars and night clubs, “countless luxury stores”, and makes people “work until the work is done”. Basically he cuts off all happiness for the German citizens so that they had no choice but to participate in the war effort.

Goebbels and Churchill also wanted their citizens to have faith in them. Goebbels let his people know that “the leadership’s measures are in full agreement with the desires of the German people at home and at the front.” That makes the citizens rely on him more and trust him. The same goes with Churchill; he lets his citizens know that he takes “up his task with buoyancy and hope” and that he feels “sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men.” This makes the citizens feel as if he really know what he is speaking about and that if they do work hard they will win. He gained their trust and they gave him their safety.

Machiavelli and Thoreau on: What A Man Should Be

     Machiavelli and Thoreau had similar ideas about how a man should act and present himself. Machiavelli believed that a man should be well balanced, meaning that he should have all the good characteristics of a human being as well as the bad characteristics. Thoreau believed that a man should have his own mind and think for himself. Machiavelli had many beliefs about how a man should act such as being feared over being loved. Thoreau and Machiavelli’s ideals about what a man should be may be questionable but are also accurate.

      Thoreau goes to state that “A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be “clay” and “stop a hole to keep the wind away”, but leave that office to his dust at least” Pg 278. What Thoreau means by this is that a man should not be used as a puppet for the benefit of the Government. He should have knowledge and conscience to think of his own words and actions. I believe that if Machiavelli were to read this he would agree because he states in his writing that some men are “feeble and effeminate, another fierce and spirited” pg 458. Fierceness goes with speaking up for yourself and not being afraid to say what you feel.

       Thoreau and Machiavelli have a strong opinion of being passive. They both do not like it at all. They believe a man should do whatever it takes to get what he needs done. When it comes to wrong doings, Thoreau believes “If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law pg 284. What Thoreau is saying is that if a law you have to follow is hurting other people, then by all means, don’t follow it. Machiavelli is saying the same thing but with a different situation. Machiavelli says that, “Thus a prudent prince cannot and should not keep his word when to do so would go against his interest, or when the reasons that made him pledge it no longer apply” pg 463” Basically Machiavelli is saying that a man can break his promises if they are no longer in best interest or are no longer needed.

       Machiavelli and Thoreau are very similar in ideals, not saying that they don’t have their contradictions with each other but they still have a lot in common. They are both passionate and strong about the topics they discuss in their writings and although the topics may be questionable, their responses are very close to accurate.