Churchill's "We Shall Fight" Parliament Speech (Reaction & Analysis)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лип 2023
- In today's video, we listen to the legendary words of Winston Churchill's iconic parliament speech. The impact of this historical moment and speech cannot be understated, and it's important to understand why his words were so revered at the time.
#reaction #churchill - Розваги
![THEIR FINEST HOUR speech by Winston Churchill [BEST SOUND]](/img/n.gif)
Many nowadays have no idea the impact and importance of this speech.
Proud to be British ! 🇬🇧🏴
He really knew how to dig under the skin of his people. The appeal to history, the frequent references to 'our island' . He was a genius.
Most inspirational speech in WW2 era!
This is why they say the pen is mightier than the sword. You can kill 1 enemy with the sword, maybe 10 or 100 if you are an incredible warrior. But you can kill a million enemies with a speech such as this one. Shit this speech made me want to time travel back to the 1940s so I can go and fight for Britain myself
The hand is mighty which knows when to wield the pen, or the sword.
The most thought out part of the speech was the part about the “fleet”. Roosevelt was looking for assurance the British fleet would not fall into German hands.
Rhetoric, oratory, and debate was a subject at my junior school in England over 60 yrs ago. Our English master had us boys look and listen to the styles of great 20th century political leaders, rank them, and explain our reasoning verbally. It was an important lesson, as we attended a choir school and thus diction and enunciation were important for us. We finally ranked Sir Winston second on our "hit parade" for public oratory. We put FDR second. Our almost unanimous winner was David Lloyd George.
He went from being an anathema whose career was essentially over. Then when the shit hit the fan, they activated him.
If I remember correctly, and it may be that I do not, I believe that Churchill recorded a lot of his wartime speeches in the early 50s just before he became prime minister for a second time. I believe that some of his wartime Commons speeches were repeated for the BBC for broadcast at the time but that Parliament did not have broadcasting for many more years. It is essential to remember that this speech could have been made about a decade after he actually made it in Parliament, and he had been though bouts of ill health which would have prostrated a less determined man.
Hope you share any good information you get about this issue
Interestingly, Hitler's style was somewhat similar to Churchill's in many areas, such as appealing to his people, to God (whatever that means in this context), to history, to victory, and using various devices and forms of repetition of clauses or ideas or commands. Churchill was often a bit more introspective and rhetorical, and spoke more on behalf of the people and to them; whereas, Hitler spoke at them. But you see this in Hitler's speeches, as well. This is clearly of import as two of a mere handful of the very best speech-writers at the time, and likely the two most important between 1940 and 1941, at least.
Obviously, most war-speakers write such speeches, but these two men were relatively close whilst also being extremely different. It's worth studying them both side-by-side if you're into this sort of thing. The subtextual, psychological, and cultural differences are key.
If you pay close attention, you notice profoundly important differences in word choice, speech patterns, inflections, focus (i.e. themes), and requirements (duties). Although Churchill often makes mention of some kind of 'British duty that must press on', Hitler often makes it very clear that what he's demanding is 'total sacrifice of one's free spirit for the greater good'. Those are two very different positions, though the raw speeches/transcripts sound quite similar.
Obviously, Hitler appealed to emotion much more and lied a profound amount, whereas, Churchill was much more honest and 'British' in his mannerisms and emotionality, and heavily appealed to the Empire, individual spirit, and logic. This also explains why Churchill was almost weirdly calm and stable during his speeches. Hitler, though relatively 'normal' for large sections of his speeches -- some of which lasted hours -- had a habit of turning into a megalomaniacal god-king for minutes at a time, filled with almost Biblical fury, self-deification, and spleen. However, in my minor studies of Hitler, I find a certain rhythm to his speech. This is not shocking if we consider that Hitler was not an oafish insane person so much as a tabulated shark. He spent weeks on his important speeches, like Poe might have done with his poems. They are some of the greatest hand-crafted works of evil I've ever seen. Hitler was so efficient at both writing and speaking that you almost believe him, despite the fact you know he's lying half the time, and the other half he's just misleading and going full-blown Roman tyrant due to the benefit of being born 50 years later. The fact Hitler's speeches don't just look like an insane person is quite impressive (though the famous clips of him do, more so, when you don't know what he's saying). It's the points where he goes over the edge. That's when it's unworkable, when he talks about the 'great need to obey'. Hitler had a fetish around this idea of 'need' (drive/desire) in the context of total Germanisation and self-imposed pseudo-slavery for the 'greater good'.
Here's something to think about: a man who believes the highest form of honour is to enslave yourself likely has no regard for enslaving other people. This gives some clearer insight into how Hitler functioned and helps to make sense of WWII. We saw the same thing with the Japanese: they famously overly abused prisoners of war, since they believed that being a prisoner was far worse than death itself; thus, if you surrendered to them, you had removed your very rights to basic life, and had disrespected life itself. They were thought much more in terms of groupism, as with the Nazis. This is why the Japanese were so suicidal and abusive compared to the Allies. The Russians are an odd-ball, so just setting them aside for this comment. The Nazis themselves were a bit weird: they had many elements of a classical empire fused with this Japanese-like culture, which made them an ungodly force of both creation (buildings, highways, cars, etc.) and destruction (tanks, death camps, etc.), followed by self-destruction (bombs, suicide, etc.).
Anyway, Churchill was a great speech-writer, and he was not lying: England DID stand alone, for almost 1 year between about mid-1940 and mid-1941. Before Churchill, they were just trying to make peace with Hitler. After 1941, England had various Allies and otherwise aid. People don't seem to remember just how earth-shatteringly powerful Nazi Germany was between 1934 and 1941, more so, 1939 and 1940. They literally had the greatest empire to ever exist, with the largest, most advanced military, and possibly more control than anybody since the Roman Empire. It was looking like Hitler was going to take Europe entirely. That is, until the British actually pulled themselves together, and the Americans and Russians ended up attacking him, as well, some time later. By 1942, Hitler was dead in the water, he just didn't fully know it yet. The innate weaknesses of the Nazi machine and the foolish military structure became unworkable. Hitler radically changed everything to try and adjust whilst still keeping his position at the time, but this did not help. By 1943, the Americans and British were so organised and advanced that there was no hope for Hitler -- more so, when you consider the mass of Russians now fighting him due to his failed invasion of Russia.
We must remember America's key roles by 1942, more so, 1944. America went from a fairly backwards, minor military in 1940 -- still stuck in the days of WWI (itself a fairly major upgrade since the Civil War, of course). Either way, America's army went from about 200,000 to 10 million by 1946. George C. Marshall (so-ranked General of the Army in 1944 instead of Field Marshal due to his name being the same) stood down the greatest and largest army in the world in 1946, on the famous USS Missouri (BB-63), I believe, just off the coast of Japan. (If you want to study good generalship and leadership, look into George C. Marshall.)
What you talkin' bout?
He even mentions the 1000s of soldiers he had hiding around england in bunkers. #hiddenarmy
Ok. Here I'am ramdom guy from Spain. And old ehemy of England historically speaking. I have to say. Props to this man and speech. Shame on England after the war for not electim him again. Not only that, the UK advocated for the exclusion of Spain from the international community. The US saw it clear that Spain should be included. And it was. Why England opposed this is an iteresting matter. Old riveraly matters? Or why? In any case, dispite the "dictatorship" (soft in any case) the US incorporated us into the western community dispite UK opposition. I'm still curious, why?
apologies for the typos
I'll admit that I am no expert on matters concerning the UK isolating Spain and the Spanish people from the international community. However, I may be able to help clarify why the British people did not re- elect Churchill after the second world war.
One of the main factors that decided how Churchill was not elected is that he was seen as a strong war- time prime minister. He had become prime minister in the middle of the second world war after a series of crushing defeats for the French and British and whilst he did become perhaps the greatest PM in The UK's history, nobody knew how he would perform in peace time.
Also, by 1945 the British public had become sick of war and whilst Churchill has been an incredible prime minister his identity and the war's were intertwined. Thus he was not re- elected as the people did not want to be reminded of war in anyway.
I hope that these points helped clarify some of your questions- as a British person myself I am interested in British history and whilst I may not know much, I believe that I know enough to answer your question. I am sorry that I could not answer the question concerning the UK blocking Spain from the international community- I am not familiar with that piece of history at all. I will attempt to research this further.
Hope you have a great day
-Onioned
P.S Your Punctuation is fine- whilst it may not be 100% correct it is understandable.
Really simple bud. Franco was basically a nazi sympathiser who, although outwardly spoke of neutrality, was directly assisting the nazi cause wherever he could.
Muhammadfaisalshaik....... If it were so hurtful why is India still a much revered member of the British Commonwealth ?
When you have inconsiderable, unapologetically, fearlessly, shamefully and pathetically stripped India of all its resources, made yourself outrageously rich, you obviously have the resources and consequent confidence to spew a speech like that.
Not if all of those resources from overseas territories and colonies are being sunk to the bottom of the ocean
We stole so many of India’s resources that they’re now richer than us?
Churchill did none of those things and wasnt particularly rich edgelord.
sources?
@@marifaceawl7192 ua-cam.com/video/2KOw_R5s5Qc/v-deo.htmlsi=qVYdi-_0fDEa30TD
The speech that gave europs freedom... 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧