Semach 1

Aaron Semach

Professor Henderson

CAS 137

9 October 2017

Convincing a Nation to go to War

For as long as humans have been collectivized into tribes and nations, there has been war.

It has always been a leader's duty to set out a vision for his people in the course of war, but to

also persuade his or her fellow citizens of the necessity of war. Two such cases of persuasion is

King George VI’s famous radio address in 1939, calling on the British Commonwealth to fight

the Nazis and President George W. Bush’s speech to congress on September 20th, 2001 after

9/11, declaring war on terror. King George VI’s radio address adeptly adjusts its tone for the

constraints of a war weary audience by framing war as an ideological debate defending freedom.

President George W. Bush, likewise, frames conflict as a defense of freedom, but takes

advantage of the audience’s desire for justice to shame those who do not support his mission.

George VI’s radio address is incredibly reluctant in tone. In his speech he stresses the

attempts at diplomacy to prevent war with Germany. He acknowledges that in the lives of most,

Britain is at war again. The call to action is very hesitant and mournful because it is an action of

last resort. The tone of the speech is a reflection of the devastation and lasting impact that the

First World War had on England. The result of losing hundreds of thousands of men would be

felt by all families. Communities lost many of their most esteemed and capable members.

Mothers who lost husbands in the war would be very fearful of losing sons in the event of a war.

The public willingness to not go to war was displayed by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s
 Semach 2

concessions to Hitler. Instead of enforcing the Treaty of Versailles by forcing Germany to stop

territorial expansion and military buildup, Chamberlain went out of his way to ensure peace,

essentially throwing the nation of Czechoslovakia to lions when he let Hitler annex the

Sudetenland. Neville Chamberlain and the establishment Conservative Party’s anti-war efforts

were buoyed by their massive landslide victories in the British Parliament. After giving so many

concessions, the United Kingdom finally declared war after the German invasion of Poland.

Remember, Britain joined the First World War due to the invasion of neutral Belgium. Brits did

not desire defending another country at such a high cost to themselves and this was the greatest

constraint the King would have to overcome in his rhetoric.

After the great sadness evoked by the terrorist attacks on September 11th, President

George Bush directed the country’s anger towards those responsible for the attack. The terrorist

group al-Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin-Laden were responsible for the atrocity. The enemy

was not a sovereign state with one of strongest economies and militaries in the world like Nazi

Germany. Instead it was a fringe, extremist group that is rejected by the vast majority of

Muslims, as George Bush emphasizes very strongly so as to not alienate Muslims. As the only

superpower in the world and with the most capable military the world has ever known, there was

no fear that the United States could not defeat the enemy. The President speaks in a somber tone

regarding the tragic recent events, but it becomes more indignant when he begins to speak of

those responsible. The address to the American people then becomes a list of demands towards

the Taliban and the terms are not up for negotiation. The Taliban had allowed al-Qaeda to set up

base in Afghanistan and it must hand them over or share the fate of the terrorists. His demands

reflect the American commonplace of not giving into fear and not compromising until justice is

received.
 Semach 3

Both speeches are at their core ideological and warn of the threat against nationalistic

ideologies and commonplaces. Freedom is a commonplace and ideology present in both

American and British political traditions and freedom is under threat according to both heads of

state. The King says that if the Nazi ideology succeeded, “the freedom of our own country…

would be in danger.” The use of such a dearly held commonplace would alarm the populace and

motivate them to volunteer to defend freedom, a noble cause. The King defies the constraint of

skepticism of conflict by never justifying the war as a defense of Poland, instead he paints the

war in ideological terms of freedom pitted against tyranny. George Bush gives a similar warning

that “freedom itself is under attack.” Freedom is the founding ideology of the United States of

America. It has been long understood in the United States that freedom is something that must be

fought for and that it is the military that provides Americans their freedom. Out of a sense of

duty to continue the tradition of defending freedom many would be inspired to take up military

service. Another aspect in the American ideology of freedom, established by Franklin Delano

Roosevelt, is that Americans have a right to be free from fear. This theme is prevalent throughout

Bush’s speech. Freedom is at war with fear, fear being the ideology of the terrorists, Bush

declares. Pathos is an important component to both speeches by bringing up the danger to

freedom in order to create an emotional appeal. Both speakers are framing the wars as a war

between two ideologies. Freedom against Nazism in the case of the King’s speech and freedom

versus fear in the President’s speech which give both Americans and Brits a higher cause to fight

for.

One of the greatest differences in the speeches is their respective audiences and

constraints. There is a drastic difference in the English audience’s experiences of war and the

American audience's experience of war. The British audience would have been far greater
 Semach 4

impacted by war because over a million British soldiers lost their lives in World War One,

creating a generational void. Since it had been over a generation since the Vietnam War and

America had far fewer casualties, the American public was not war weary like the British of

1939. So, in his speech, King George had to change his message due to the constraints of a

public that was highly skeptical of war. He emphasizes the attempts to find peace and

reconciliation to prove that war is an action of last resort. He warns the audience that the freedom

that their country holds so dear is in danger. This creates a feeling of being trapped in a corner

and the only option is to fight their way out. George Bush on the other hand, was not limited by

such constraints, in fact the exigence of his speech amplified the persuasive effect on the

audience, still distraught over 9/11.

George Bush is very emphatic that there is no middle ground in the war against terrorism.

He gives the ultimatum, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” As the President

had already established in his speech, the terrorists hold an ideology of fear and oppression while

America is a symbol of freedom and prosperity, which is why the terrorists attacked. The

President is addressing all nations, but he is also addressing individuals. He puts the debate over

war into a dichotomy over supporting America and freedom or terrorism and fear. Not

supporting the war on terror would be unpatriotic, possibly tantamount to treason. No American

and no foreigner in the aftermath of 9/11 would want to be seen as sympathetic to the terrorist

cause and would thus feel compelled to support the President’s agenda. In creating this

dichotomy, Bush’s most ardent supporters are committed not just to support the war, but to label

skeptics as haters of America and not wanting to find justice for victims of the attack on the

World Trade Center. George Bush in this sense is using rhetoric not just to persuade individuals,
 Semach 5

but to make them into agents to further and defend that position. He motivates the audience to

make the message their own and denounce opposing views as unpatriotic.

Through the use of ideology, commonplaces and adaption to their respective audiences,

King George VI and President George W. Bush are able to persuade their countries to support

military action against their enemies. However Bush uses a dichotomy to guilt the unpersuaded

into falling into line. They both frame the conflicts, which they are discussing, as wars of

ideology. George VI turns World War 2 from a war between nations into a war between freedom

and tyranny just as Bush states that the War on Terror is a war between freedom and fear. In both

speeches, the commonplaces of inalienable rights and freedoms are abundant as a demonstration

of what needs to be defended and what is at stake if a corrupt ideology were allowed to take

hold. Both speakers adapt to their audiences, but in very different manners. The King calls on his

people hesitantly to show it is an action of last resort in order to rhetorically overcome the

constraints of a nation exhausted by war. On the other hand, the President conveys the anger and

desire to seek justice for the attack on the World Trade Center. By catering their messages to the

contexts of each audience, both speeches are able to persuade their countries of the necessity of

war.

Word Count: 1545

 Semach 6

Works Cited

Bush, George W. "Address to Joint Session of Congress Following 9/11 Attacks." Washington D.C. 20

Sept. 2001. Speech.

George, VI. "First Radio Address." London. 3 Sept. 1939. Speech.