Showing posts with label essay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label essay. Show all posts

Saturday, March 29, 2014

The Serpent of Germany: A research paper on the Rhetoric of Joseph Goebbels

The Serpent of Germany
            A single word is power; a sentence is a trap; a speech is propaganda. Humans, by nature, are creatures ruled more so by emotion than logic.  They are easily swayed by passions making their invention of speech their own damnation.  Blunt force easily fuels hate, while sweetly, venomous words arouse blind seduction, thus making rhetoric the ideal tool in the eternal power struggle of the world.  Skill in the art of rhetoric was what allowed Goebbels to rise to the limelight he desired (Goebbels: The Man Who Created Hitler pg 15).  With it, he came to grasp Germany in his palm, and to dominate her people.  Goebbels was not a superman-like character; instead, he was a man that was once nicknamed "Little Joe": ugly and club footed (Goebbels: The Man Who Created Hitler pg 15).  However, his physical appearance did not falter his run at power.  He used his words to maintain a greater power with intelligence than ever achievable by blunt force.  At the dawn of World War II, Goebbels recognized the fact that Germany was a nation that had fallen from grace after its previous humiliating defeat from World War I.  It is at this point that Goebbels began his assent to power, grasping his nation's shame as golden opportunity.  He offered his nation a renewed sense of confidence, uplifting her fallen ego with words dripping with honey.  Joseph Goebbels sold a cycle of German superiority to the people, appealing to honor and moral duty in Nazi propaganda, exploiting the people's humiliation from Germany's defeat in World War I.

            Goebbels plays off the people's shame from World War I to bind them to national patriotism, enforcing German superiority.  He conjures imagery with the title of his speech: "Children with their Hands Chopped Off," to emphasize German resilience.  Germany has matured: no longer an innocent child but a wise and strong nation.  Goebbels immediately hits his audience hard with shame from its previous defeat in World War I.  He declares that "the results were catastrophic.  Germany was robbed of its honor and its land," that "[Germany] [was] disarmed and robbed of [its] merchant fleet and navy, and [its] colonies" ("Children with their Hands Chopped Off" par 11).  His retrospection of Germany's previous humiliating defeat pains and tugs at his audience's pathos as a painted image of Germany's fall from glory.  This blow of humiliation sets the audience up to willing accept any words of comfort to pacify its shame, making it now easily influenced.  Goebbels then offers solace to his newly complacent and ashamed audience declaring that Germany's defeat "did have one good result": the loss of blind trust and innocence ("Children with their Hands Chopped Off" par 12).  Now Germany is no longer an innocent fool:
[Germany] has learned much from the past. Above all, it has learned never to trust a treacherous foe. This lesson is deep in our bones ("Morale as a Decisive Factor in War" par 14).
This excuse, of an evident loss of trust, is used by Goebbels as the reason Germany has been able to realize its true potential and strength.  The hindrance of the "foe" has been realized and the hard lesson of trust learned, thus "[Germany] is not as defenseless today as [it] once [was].  Today [it has] the most powerful army in the world" ("Children with their Hands Chopped Off" par 17).  Goebbels's juxtaposition of "defenseless" in comparison to "powerful" aids to further  arouse national pride.  In being beaten and shamed, Germany has realized its true potential and strength, finally maturing while the rest of the world has suffered lassitude and festered from basking in their arrogant glory of earlier victory.

            Goebbels's radiance of confidence in his words erases doubt and offers reassurance to the people, compelling them to believe and remain faithful to Nazi propaganda.  He ardently states "someone once said that he did not know which people could be beaten to death, but he did know the German people had to be beaten to life" (Resistance at Any Price" par 6).  This juxtaposition offers a glorification of the German people that rings with his audience: Germany only gains strength from enemy assault, never faltering.  These words infuse his audience with passion for his propaganda.  It feeds the people the will to rise from the ashes of Germany's defeat in World War I and offers condolence for the necessity of the previous failure for the rise of the greater now.  He thus incorporates past failure as part of the long road to a destined glory.  Goebbels also forces an idealization upon the German people preaching "whatever may come, we will stand upright through all the storms, working and fighting" ("The Higher Law" par 9).  Here, hasty generalization asserts the fact the whole of the German nation is firm in faith of the Reich's cause.  This centralization of confidence calls for mass conformity of the German citizens whose conformed faith feeds the propaganda in a relentless cycle.  Knowing this key strategy, Goebbels constantly feeds the flames of the undying German spirit: "Never will we surrender our right to live in freedom and dignity as we ourselves wish" ("The Higher Law" par 9).  He then offers another juxtaposition between the wants of the singular to his faith in the nation.  This juxtaposition states that want of the singular to surrender now and be relieved of his current state of suffering; yet, the singular will never surrender due to his faith that "final victory will be ours.  It will come through tears and blood, but it will justify all the sacrifices we have made" ("Resistance at Any Price" par 12).  His chosen diction: tears and blood, ties closely to the moral ideal of sacrifice of the singular for the all.  Goebbels's words have turned his audience into gluttons, fattened from  the fantasy of high morality and ideals.  His strong appeal to inborn moral obligation: the ethos of his audience, grasps his people in a hypnosis of moral propaganda.

            Furthermore, to emphasize the innate honor of Germany, Goebbels paints a picture of shining morality, enforcing the idea the Germany is above the brutality of the "uneducated" allies allowing the people to gain a sense personal superiority.  His speeches highly moral ideals that are stated as a innate feature of the German propaganda.  His words feature ideals like: "Peace through victory!  That is our slogan." and "The truth is always stronger than the lie" ("Christmas 1941" par 15) ("The Racial Question and World Propaganda" par 27).  These ideas are set in moral code applying to any culture and his clear statement of these ideas in German propaganda reassures the people's ethos and draws them in.  When one is told that the cause he is fighting for is definitely and unarguably for a moral and good cause, a bond is forged within the soul that is hard to break.  Goebbels also brings to emphasis of the honor of German warfare declaring how "[he] saw German soldiers giving bread and sausages to hungry French women and children, and gasoline to refugees to enable them to return home as soon as possible" ("The Jews are Guilty" par 10).  The pleasantness of this honorable picture appeals to the pathos of the people drawing them further in towards the German cause.  However, using strategic climatic phrasing, Goebbels does not increase to mention more pleasant German deeds.  Instead he turns his words to the affects of the high morality of the deeds of these German Soldiers.  He follows with the idea that the enemy victims, after receiving German aid and care that allows them to return to safety, goes home only " to spread at least some of their hatred against the Reich" ("The Jews are Guilty" par 10).  This scenario of how "thanks" is offered  to the German soldier from offers of aid stimulates outrage in the morality of German citizens.  This blatant "betrayal" of good intentions easily allowed Goebbels to draw increasing numbers of "moral" people to Nazi Propaganda.

            Goebbels, also, uses the allies destruction of German cultural monuments to create a mutual sense of anger and superiority among the German people.  Goebbels makes a clear statement regarding the reasons behind the avid destruction of German monuments by enemy forces:
German or Italian cultural centers that were built over centuries were reduced to soot and ashes in brief hours...this is evidence of an historical inferiority complex that wants to destroy what the enemy is incapable of producing himself ("Immortal German Culture" par 4).
He evokes resentment and demonization of the allies due to their spiteful, jealous destruction.  Goebbels draws the inference that in seeking to destroy German arts the enemy seeks to destroy the German spirit, for "not only the buildings of our cities and cathedrals and cultural monuments of Europe are falling into ruins, but also a whole world" ("The World Crisis" par 8).  The pathos of his audience is affected from this statement as innate honor forces them to stand even taller against the assault. Catharsis, from the unnecessary and tragic loss of irreplaceable national treasures, also rallies the people in a rage that feeds Nazi propaganda's fire.  However, pride is generated alongside rage by Goebbels's careful mention of destruction from envy.  This pride is fed to the German people by the hasty generalization that German art is superior to the point of purposeful destruction by savage enemies, who destroy what they, themselves, cannot create:
Is it not interesting that the English leadership has destroyed dozens of German theaters, while England itself does not have even a single serious theater? And the Americans are not even worth mentioning ("Immortal German Culture" par 5).
Goebbels's sarcastic insult to the meagerness of artistic achievements of Germany's assaulters rouses national pride.  He draws a clear juxtaposition between "[Germany's] eternal artistic accomplishments stand against skyscrapers, cars, and refrigerators"; it is a comparison of aged, aesthetic beauty verses cold, gray metal ("Immortal German Culture" par 4).  This juxtaposition of unparalleled German art and its targeted destruction, caused by jealous spite, allows Goebbels to play his people's ego and maintain a lasting grip on his nation.

            In all his speeches, Goebbels's words ring that constant faith in German propaganda will insure all of Germany an inevitably bright future.  This clear demand of faith in Germany is demonstrated in Goebbels's speech "The Year 2000"  In this speech, Goebbels takes a clearly retrospective view of the world, talking of it from the point of view of the future.  Though his predictions could easily be called a bluff, Goebbels is careful to state "no one can predict the distant future" ("The Year 2000" par 2).  Instead, The careful phrasing of Goebbels's words allows him to keep himself from being viewed as idealistic, instead, factual as he states "there are some facts and possibilities that are clear over the coming fifty years" ("The Year 2000" par 2).  Goebbels's optimistic prediction creates the future of the year 2000 to be an utopia for the German nation, drawing the people's pathos in towards an idealized peace.  Goebbels use the idea of an utopia to bind the people's faith, stating that "[they]...like Atlas carry the weight of the world on [their] shoulders and [should] not doubt" ("The Year 2000" par 10).  His statement appeals to the people's pathos and logos, as he offers them a personal and societal award, for their actions and faith in his propaganda will help to create an ideal utopia for Germany.  To further simple necessity of faith to his audience, Goebbels makes a return to confidence:
Without wavering we know that a nation of brave men and sacrificing women, with an obedient and devoted youth, a nation that is risking its very existence in fighting for freedom, will gain it ("Morale as a Decisive Factor in War" par 14).
Here, Goebbels offers the idea faith will earn the people's ideal utopia; he becomes a propaganda salesman.  This blatant appeal to pathos: the guarantee of a definite personal benefit, plays on the human nature of greed and acts as a binding glue connecting him to his audience.

            Through the whole course of World War II, Josef Goebbels was able to hold the German population under a hypnosis of faith and manipulation.  Like the biblical serpent of Adam and Eve, he captured Germany in a psychotic frenzy and fed it with visions of superiority and honor.  Goebbels raised Germany's ego from its pit of shame, caused by defeat in World War I, offering "redemption".  He was the serpent of Germany: a short, ugly man whose beauty in language manipulated a nation to march under his hand.  To hold well strung words at the tip of one's tongue offers more power ever attainable by brute force.  Words can reach out and consume one's soul with unknown- silent- manipulation.  The true power holder is not one that harbors "high" morals of the god-like Clark Kent but one who can manipulate submission to an unaware audience.
  
Works Cited
Goebbels, Joseph. "Children with their Hands Chopped Off." Das Reich, 24 June 1939.
Goebbels, Joseph. "Christmas, 1941." Germany. 24 December 1941.
Goebbels, Joseph. "The Higher Law." Das Reich, 24 September 1944.
Goebbels, Joseph. "Immortal German Culture." 7th German Art Exhibition. Germany. 26 June 1943.
Goebbels, Joseph. "The Jews are Guilty." Das Reich, 26 November 1941.
Goebbels, Joseph. "Morale as a Decisive Factor in War." Das Reich, 7 August 1943.
Goebbels, Joseph. "The Racial Question and World Propaganda." Nuremberg Rally. Germany.1933.
Goebbels, Joseph. "Resistance at Any Price." Das Reich, 22 April 1945
Goebbels, Joseph. "The World Crisis." Das Reich, 17 December 1944.
Goebbels, Joseph. "The Year 2000." Das Reich, 25 February 1945.
Reimann Victor. Goebbels: The man who created Hitler. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company INC, 1976.
  
Works Consulted
Goebbels, Joseph. "Churchill's Trick." Das Reich, 1 March 1942.
Goebbels, Joseph. "German Women." Women's Exhibition. Berlin. 18 March 1933.
Goebbels, Joseph. "Youth and the War."  Germany. 29 September 1940. 
Holocaust Encyclopedia. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. 6 January, 2011.
            http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007429
Knopp, Guido. Hitler's Henchmen. Phoenix Mill, Thrupp-Shroud-Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing Limited, 2000.
Trueman, Chis. History Learning Site. 21 April 2012.
            http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/treaty_of_versailles.htm   

Monday, January 27, 2014

Draft 1: The Fault in Our Stars: An Analysis of Block and K. from The Trial by Franz Kafka

            In Shakespeare's famous work Julius Caesar, the Senator Cassius is famed for saying the line: "the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars". This line relates to the idea that our lives are not limited to a certain road by destiny but by the strength of our will to struggle. One must question however is it really our own will that defines our fate or is that what our ego wants us to believe. Perhaps, Cassius is wrong in his words, that the  fault is indeed in our stars with the end being the same for all men. Perhaps, it is only because of human ego that one wants to believe that he has control over his destiny. In the paradox between Kafka's characters Block and K., the two men react very differently to their dance with the court (one allowing himself to be reduced to the state of a dog and the other to a state mental fragility); yet in their struggle they both achieve an equal state of success at free will.

            Though K. chooses to pursue absolute acquittal and Block seeks to remain in the constant state of deferment, their faith in their decision allows then the freedom achievable in the constraints inflicted the court. The court in truth wants nothing of Block and K. It symbolizes the constraints in one's life; it symbolizes destiny and fate. The priest had clearly said to K "So why would I want anything from you? the court doesn't want anything from you. It accepts you when you come and it lets you go when you leave." This is what fate does. It constrains you. Block and K. follow Nietzsche's beliefs in wanting to transcend from the common man: achieving freedom from the court. They are only successful in achieving freedom in the fact that they do not accept their trial as the sentence it is but constantly fights these restraints. Block begins a love affair with the court with his obsession to find lawyers to save him. "Five petty lawyers", and the lawyer he shares with K is not enough to satisfy is will to struggle causing him to continue to "even [negotiate]with a sixth one". K in contrast sacks his lawyer, and allows himself to be consumed mind and soul into proving his innocence. Both these men will not let themselves be taken freely by the court instead "[want] to see some tangible progress" in finding innocence. This innocence of course is unfindable as fate is set and its boundaries unalterable. Though the court (fate) bind K. and Block by beginning and end, the differences in their journeys demonstrates the free will attempted.

            The parallelism between Block and K. and their interactions with the court is apparent in the doorkeeper's parable as they both are represented by the man waiting outside the door.   Both men believe in Camus' idea that they can transcend the absurdity to find innocence from the court. They have the faith that they can change their fate from its set boundaries. The fate of Block and K. fixed. It is to wait outside the door. However K. and Block's door differs due to their varying journeys to the end thus their doors are different. The doorkeeper himself had said to the man. "Nobody else could have got in this way, as this entrance was meant only for you.". These words reflect the ultimance of free will is in the struggle. Both K. and Block are limited by boundaries set by the court which they cannot escape yet knowing that each of their doors is different shows that the little resistance they were able to put up did make a difference. It was a difference in journey to destination. The doorman had said "If you're tempted give it a try, try and go in even though I say can't."and both men did try. Their differing struggles demonstrate the little amount of freewill they could thus making all the difference.

            At the end of The Trial, K is dead and Block still lives yet both men remain at an equal state of being. When K. is finally killed by the two policemen his last thoughts turn to the fact that "the logic cannot be refuted, but someone who wants to live will not resist it." At this moment K. is broken and he finds that everything he has fought for is pointless and that there never was a way out of the court as an innocent man. K. reflects to the fact of "where was the judge he'd never seen? Where was the high court he had never reached." At this stage K. and Block are parallels. Block from the very beginning has chosen deferment to avoid the court. His faith is in the fact that he will continue living by parasiting as many lawyers as he can. K. immediately  regards Block's choice as weak and hopeless for "he was no longer a client, he was the lawyer's dog". Similarly Block had noted K as a dead man for sacking his lawyer and trying to achieve absolute acquittal. Block only comes to view himself in the perspective of K after hearing the lawyer say "What do you think he'd say if he learned his trial still hasn't begun, if you told him they haven't even rung the bell to announce the start of proceedings." This serves as Block's revelation that everything he has been doing: succumbing, begging, groveling, is pointless. Block instead of submitting like K. his death to the point of the knife he submitted his death to his lawyer. At this state "if the lawyer had ordered [Block] to crawl under the bed as if it were a kennel and to bark out from under it, then he would have done so with enthusiasm." Block in using deferment to avoid his trial was killed by the court just like K. only mentally. The irony between these two men is that they each recognized that the other's struggle was pointless but could not see that his own was also. They are both victims to Camus theory of absurdity. In truth there may be no point to the trial and the court yet Block and K. still seek a meaning to it.

            K. and Block, through all the surface differences of their separate journeys, walked the same road down to the same fate. They were trapped by the stars, the court, and were unable to leave those limitations that bound them. Still though, they managed to grasp at in which ever direction they thought best to define the fact that though they were bound they were not broken. Both K. and Block did not give up. They took the situation were offered and worked as best they could. This is what gave them success, this is what made them unique even though they walked the same road. One is birthed and one dies, that is the rule of the world-that is everyone's fate. It is because that we are all Blocks and K's seeking our own definition of our fate that our lives differ. Free will is not the act of doing our actions but choosing to do them. It is the faith in the hope that even though our ends are the same we chose to make what we can our own.