Joseph Goebbels and Winston Churchill

You would expect Joseph Goebbels and Winston Churchill to be totally opposite since one man was for Nazi Germany and the other was opposing them. However, when it comes to the idea of gaining and retaining power they aren’t that different at all. Both of them knew with the war going that retaining power is crucial if you want to win.

            Even though the men took very different approaches to retain power and gain support, their strategies had the same effect. Churchill had built his listeners up with strategies on what he was going to do and the circumstances of the war. He did this so the people he was speaking to could trust him. Another thing he did was being honest, and during a war of this nature, people value honesty because then they feel that this man is truthful and could lead them to victory. Churchill reeled the people in to get his support. Goebbels also reeled the people in; however, it was to make them go along with his demands at the end of his speech. He jumps right in by calling Bolshevism evil and how Jewry is the work of the devil. He follows with explaining that they need to fight this evil and try and save Europe. He then starts to quickly gain support and cheers from his “followers.”

            They also know that this concept of adding the “devil” into the speeches will make the crowd go wild. The “devil” was always associated with evil, torture, and terror, even if you aren’t religious. And this is why both men either implied about the devil or explicitly say it. They did this because it’s a trigger. When a person hears words like monster, devil, and torturer pertaining to the people that they’re fighting, they’re going to want to fight them back to try and restore “goodness” and “peace.” Both of the men used this strategy because they knew it would have that effect on the people. However, Goebbels used this strategy a lot, which he knew he had to because he knew the crazy things that Hitler and him were doing. He made it seem like Jewry was a contagious, infectious, evil disease that’s going to spread throughout the world. So he said to his people that we are going to fight the evil and save the world, more specifically England. This made the crowd go wild because who doesn’t want to be the superhero? While Churchill was a little more subtle and clear, he made it clear that Germany was the devil and they had to protect themselves. Even though Goebbels used a lot of false statements and Churchill did not, they both had a tremendous effect on the people. This is because they both knew they had to do anything to gain and retain the power they had to try and win the war.

Machiavelli and Thoreau

In the world, people have different views about each other all the time. Some say that people are lazy; some say people are compliant, and others say people are safe. Henry David Thoreau and Niccolo Machiavelli also have two different views on the masses. In “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau and The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli seem to be passionate about their point of view on government, but they also seem to have two different distinct views on the masses of the people.

            A person who’s focused on major change is worried about the “masses.” This is because most of the time majority rules, and that’s how things get done. However, to gain support a person has to appeal to the masses, and this is done by understanding the majority. This is exactly what Machiavelli and Thoreau did when they were talking about their ideologies. They both made generalizations about the people, and both of their generalizations seem to be correct, despite the fact that they were different. I say that they both seem to be correct because they inspired people who changed the course of history. Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” inspired Ghandi, Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr. But Napolean, Mussolini, and Hitler seemed to be inspired by Machiavelli’s The Prince. These people had major impacts on the world, and to be successful they had to take the generalizations about the masses that were made by Machiavelli and Thoreau and apply it to their purpose.

            Even though both of their generalizations seem to be correct, they were completely different. Thoreau and Machiavelli both had strong opinions about the masses that either worked against the majority or worked in favor of the majority. Thoreau believed that the masses could be a strong and influential force. He didn’t explicitly say this; however, it was implied because he believed that if a person were to put their whole life into a cause there could possibly be a change. Whereas Machiavelli believed that the masses had no power because he saw them as feeble and weak. He felt that the masses take everything for face value and that’s one of the reasons why a tyrant can hold their position.

            I don’t know how true these ideas about the masses are, but I do know that they’re true to a certain extent. Everyone is different and everyone has a different way of thinking. However, if these ideas on the masses aren’t correct they wouldn’t have worked in favor of the major figures in history so well.