War Rhetoric Essay

Throughout time scholars have examined human history and many events come to mind. While many of these events have good explanations or just reasons why they occurred, there are a handful of events that had no rhyme or reason, and these events will continue to baffle scholars for centuries to come. There is one event that continues to stand out when considering the events of the 1900's. The events of World War II are extremely broad and abundant, from the advances in technology and warfare to the use of genocide to gain power. However, three main catalysts that brought the U.S. into the war include Adolf Hitler, the Holocaust, and the attack on Pearl Harbor.

In the 1940’s a series of propaganda films titled Why We Fight were produced for the purpose of defining the enemies of World War 2 to justify the necessity of America’s involvement in war. Hitler needed to be defeated, Nazism had to be destroyed, and tyranny had to be stopped for the sake of the American way of life by any means necessary. How could society argue against America’s role in the world war when freedom was being threatened? As Martin Luther King Jr. said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to everywhere.” No questions asked, Americans mobilized in the name of liberty and freedom. However the 2005 documentary film Why We Fight directed by Eugene Jarecki is not a sequel or war propaganda. The film informs the audience and questions America 's military industrial complex that has since dictated policy since the victory of World War 2. With the help of narration, soundbites, and credible speakers Jarecki shines light on the pernicious impact of the armed industry on our government, army, and citizens.

To find a piece that is currently looked upon as a paragon of rhetorical strategies, scholars would look towards President Abraham Lincoln’s “Second Inaugural Address”. This speech was given at the start of his second presidential inauguration with the purpose of establishing his point of view on the war and its effects. To elaborate his thoughts and hopes for the future of the United States of America, Lincoln’s “Second Inaugural Address” is riddled with rhetorical strategies such as installation of self-credibility, deliberately designated diction, and carefully supplemented repetition to succeed in his desire to sway the audience towards his views.

In the first chapter, “No Easy Answers” Adam analyzes the events that lead up to World War II. This analysis describes the events beginning from the French Revolution to the next hundred years, that led to World War II. Adam emphasises, the “folklore version” of World War II is too simplistic, meaning many accounts do not cover all the different stances of  the war (1). The version that is simplistic which only covers one side roughly without its entirety.  He describes the events that led up to the war by describing the occurrences in three key states: Italy, Japan and Germany. The

Ever since the beginning of time, there has been conflict and conflict will always play a role in the development of history. The world has experienced hundreds of wars with countless casualties, these wars date back to the 10th Century and forward to the present. The United States of America is no stranger to war having participated in over 100 wars either it being a small war or a world war. Michael C. C. Adams “The Best War Ever” gives a rational explanation on the events that led the U.S to become the powerhouse country after sacrificing so much for the war, or did they? In this paper we will support the argument made in Adams “The Best War Ever” Chapter four, appropriately titled “The American War Machine”, other primary sources used will be such as Harry S. Truman first speech to congress in April 1945 and General George S. Patton’s praise speech to the Third Army. The argument being that the U.S did in fact play an impacting role in the outcome of World War 2 but how it also used appearances as an advantage to further develop itself as an international force, just like the tale from the Trojan War, the Trojan horse was all about appearances but with a precise objective.

World War II is generally viewed to be a moral war, or, as Howard Zinn would put it, “a good war.” This conventional impression of World War II results from American propaganda, along with misinterpretations of related events. Quite the contrary, the United States’ foreign policy, especially during World War II, was driven by imperialist goals rather than humanitarian concern. These foreign interventions are usually justified using political ideologies that advocate the spread of democracy but the United States government fails to act in the interests of the common people in other countries; instead, the US government intervened in foreign countries to protect its own needs and those of its private corporations. In addition, the

Rhetoric gives you an avenue to tell a story from your perspective in a way that connects with the intended audience without having to be one hundred percent substantiated. This writing style is evident in almost everything we read from billboards to Internet ads and even political speeches.

In “The Rhetoric of Motives”, Kenneth Burke talks about the fact that rhetoric has a magnificent power to affect not only our action but also our attitudes. He says the purpose of rhetoric is to persuade one’s ideas, actions, and attitudes (Burke, 1969). I believe Burke ’s work key point is identification, where according to him the individual uses rhetoric to make himself “consubstantial” with another person (Burke, 1969, p. 21).

Introduction: Persuasive speeches are used to convince the audience about a speaker’ point on view of a particular subject. Persuasive speeches contain evidence and facts to keep the speech formal. Two persuasive speeches are Tom Collins’, “Eve of Battle,” and Martin Luther King’s anti-war speech, “Beyond Vietnam.” Each of these speeches are about war, one speech, Tim Collins’ urges troops into war, while the other by Martin Luther King is an anti-war speech.

The notion of an American way of war informs how scholars, policymakers, and strategists understand how Americans fight. A way of war—defined as a society’s cultural preferences for waging war—is not static. Change can occur as a result of important cultural events, often in the form of traumatic experiences or major social transformations. A way of war is therefore the malleable product of culturally significant past experiences. Reflecting several underlying cultural ideals, the current American way of war consists of three primary tenets—the desire for moral clarity, the primacy of technology, and the centrality of scientific management systems—which combine to create a preference for decisive, large-scale conventional wars with clear objectives and an aversion to morally ambiguous low-intensity conflicts that is relevant to planners because it helps them address American strategic vulnerabilities.

Is it possible to know what Americans thought of World War II, if they believed that the war was a just war or whether they did not agree for what the United States was fighting for? The historian Studs Terkel believes he knows this answer and that Americans saw themselves as liberators of an oppressed world fighting for the just war which can be concluded from his famous volume, The Good War. Of course one person’s beliefs should not be believed as easily just by reading a book. A person should base their opinions on something much more analytical than that. In order to decide whether some Americans actually thought that World War II was a just war, a thorough analysis should be done of American life looking at all the facts found. Beginning with American experience before the war then analyzing the experience of the war and the home-front itself and finally ending with the analysis of America after World War II a conclusion can be made regarding the American point of view.

This connects to the main idea of the book since World War II was also a conflict of political and economic

No one anticipated the international chaos that would emerge during the twentieth century, especially the devastation caused by World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. World War II was the most destructive war in human history and changed the history of the world forever, engaging the world’s most influential superpowers in the largest international event of the era. World War II was fought not only by the armed forces, but also by the home fronts of every belligerent nation, exhausting the economy, the industry, and the morale of those living at home, escalating the conflict into a total war that was larger and fought more expansively than any other conflict in history. The use of American propaganda in the World War II war effort

In the outcome of America's intrusion of Iraq, Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative polemicist and supervisor of Commentary, composed a long exposition contending that the fight against Islamist fanaticism added up to "World War IV." Podhoretz had an energy for the prophetically catastrophic coinage, however, numerous observers on both the privilege and left comprehended al Qaeda's stunning assault on American soil as the opening round of a war between the West and "Islamofascism," as Christopher Hitchens called it. That temperament died down as the terrorists neglected to mount likewise fantastic assaults in any event in the United States and as the peculiar disappointment of the war in Iraq cooled the passion of numerous easy chair soldiers

The fact that wars give rise to intensive propaganda campaigns has made many people suppose that propaganda is something new. The truth is, it is not. The battle with persuasion for power and men’s minds is as old as human history (Casey, 1994d)