This analysis has been written in response to Winston Churchill's speech, "The Sinews of Peace," better known as the "Iron Curtain Speech" and is regarded by many as his best speech.
Winston Churchill became a member of Parliament when he was aged only 26 years. Born into a family of high esteem, Churchill knew privilege and was also unfortunately privy to estranged relations with his immediate family. His father spent a bulk of his time on political matters and, “Winston could recall only two or three long and intimate conversations with him. Lady Randolph (his mother), meanwhile, reveled in high society. ‘She shone for me like the Evening Star,’ Churchill wrote. ‘I loved her dearly—but at a distance.’”[i]
In a biography of Churchill, Sebastian Hastner, believes that Churchill was a restless man driven by two beliefs: that he was destined to do great things, and that he will die young, like his father.[ii] The combination of the two caused a restleness to out move his ‘dwindling days,’ or so he believed, and according to commentators, he, “shuffled from foot to foot with impatience.”[iii] Further, as he did not actively practice any sort of faith and so was highly superstitious, he held “himself in constant readiness for the unknown signal…. He was just as firmly convinced…that he would die young, and was consequently in a hurry to fulfil his unknown destniy.”[iv]
Churchill did not die young after all; however, he did become one of the most prolific figures of the 20th century. His résumé includes esteemed positions such as a long-time member of Parliament, Home Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer and finally Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. His life within England’s political arena span 55 years.
The year was 1946 and Churchill just saw the end of WWII as well as the end of his political career as he was not reelected as Prime Minister. Though Churchill was not reelected, this by no means silenced the mouth of the ‘lion’, and his roar was heard across the Atlantic. Churchill was invited to lecture during the spring term at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri.[v] In the presence of America’s greenhorn president, Truman, on March 5, Churchill warned the world of, “the dangers of Soviet expanisionism.”[vi] Though up to this point Russia had been allied with Britian and America, growing communist influence took over the already damaged European landscape. “Prevention is better than the cure,”Churchill feared that if action didn’t take place at the very onset to tear down the ‘iron curtain,’ than there were be yet another war, more terrible that the last.
Ultimately, Churchill’s concerns went unheeded and the peace and victory of WWII that the allies experiecned were short lived. And though Churchill spoke before a crowd of 40,000 people[vii], expounding upon what “sinews of peace,” would look like within the current status of the world, it was not enough to stop the Allies from entering into the Cold War against the Soviet Union a year later. One journalist writes about this tranistion from one war to the next, “no American or Russian president or general would call the outcome of the war in Europe a tragedy. Churchill did.”[viii]
Churchill performed this speech at Westminster College, the audience was a mixed crowd of scholars, citizens and American politicians. His prescence caused a flooding of the small town of Fulton, which is used to population counts of 7,000. And though he was, “accepting an honorary degree from the college, Churchill made one of his most famous post-war speeches.”[ix]
“The Sinews of Peace” by Winston Churchill, or more commanly known as the “Iron Curtain” speech, primarily has a topical structure. Congruently, Churchill uses spatial as well as problem—soultion in his organization. It is simple to find the topical approach that he takes in the organization of the speech. He first begins uplifiting America and appealing to the nationality of her citizens. He refers to America and England as kindred nations. In the second paragraph of his speech he says, “the Presdient has travelled a thousand miles to dignify and magnify our meeting here today and to give me an opportunity of addressing this kindred nation, as well as my own countrymen across the ocean, and perhaps some other countries too.” Not only does Churchill acknowledge the nations president, a wise political move considering Truman only recently took office, so it is safe to gaurantee that Truman’s approval rating remains high and that he retains the favor of the majority of the country. At the same time, Churchill identifies with their nationality by paralleling the citizens of America with his own countrymen.
Very early on in this speech, it is clear that Churchill is trying to establish a ‘brotherhood’ or familial feel. He begins looser, he gets laughter from the audience and he tries to identify with the American nation by more or less claiming, ‘we are the same.’ He further strengthens his persona as a brother by asking for public clarity, “I have no official mission or status of any kind, and that I speak only for myself. There is nothing here but what you see.” At this point, he receives a round of applause and laughter from the audience, and it seems obvious that he was successful, at least in the beginning to forge a relationship between himself and the audience.
He then uses a spatial pattern of organization by first using his quip in the beginning about the Westminster he graduated from and the Westminster College at which he is speaking. Which by the way, furthers his metaphor of brotherhood. That the US and Britain are connected not only in beliefs, democracy and military status but in more frivoulous things like similarity in the names of institutions of higher learning. He later requires the audience to tap into their surroundings, “When I stand here this quiet afternoon I shudder to visualise what is actually happening to millions now.” With this phrase Churchill is planting the audience where they are but at the same time requiring them to reach across ocean, seas and foreign lands to imagine the need around the world. Then in the second half of his speech, Churchill utters the famous lines, “from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriactic, and iron curtain has descended across the continent.” This is visual imagery, as audience members and readers are actually able to see an iron curtain being pulled across the continent, but it also requires us to geographically see Stettin and Trieste. Churchill then finishes in the spatial pattern by mentioning different places in world that were touched by the red tools of Communism.
The speech also uses a problem—solution pattern. When Churchill asks’ the assembly to “visualize what is actually happening to millions now and what is going to happen in this period when famine stalks on earth.” He requires everyone to imagine what it were to be like to live in a world where nothing were to change for the better. A series of biblical allusions are used to build up the audience, presumably to build up hope, confidence and to plan the realization that action is necessary. And not just any kind of action, but the action Churchill recommends. He makes the transition directly from this exhortation to a solution, “if we persevere together as we did in the two world wars…I cannot doubt that we shall achieve our common purpose in the end (he exhorts and builds up confidence in the idea of Britain and America joining). I have, however, a definite and practical proposal to make for action (he then gives his solution).”
Churchill further asks the audience to visualize a difference, “what we have to consider here today while time remains, is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries.” He attempts to both salve the bleak reality that even he confeses to partaking in just a moments before, “I do not see or feel that same confidence or even the same hopes in the haggard world at the present time.”
At first this sentence, seems like a blatant and obvious mistake for someone like Churchill who has studied rhetoric. To admit to lack of confidence towards peace and a lack of confidence that wars are over, when he later says, “I repulse that idea that a new war is inevitable,” seems faulty. This section is chaotic and confusing; however, in closer examination it would seem that perhaps Churchill is not making a ‘mistake’ at all. Rather, he is attempting to make the situation as dire in the minds of Americans as it is in his own mind, in order to further entice them to action.
The speech itself seems to be separated into two separate parts. There is a very obvious change in tone that in the audio when he begins talking about the difficulties with Russia, “a shadow has fallen upon the scenes so lately lighted by the Allied victory.” His voices lowers as if a friend is whispering secrets into another’s ear about something scandalous or horrifying, bestowing knowledge to a friend who has been a while about another who has perhaps ‘gone of the deep end.’ In doing this, he tries to deepen this fraternal relationship between England and the United States.
The end of the speech finds America in a different position than before. Up to this point Churchill has been talking about the benefits of America and England as kindred nations. However, two paragraphs from the end Churchill changes this tactic with this sentence, “last time I saw it all coming and cried aloud to my own fellow-countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention.” With this simple phrase Churchill charges the United states with some of the burden and responsibility for allowing WWII to become as far-reaching as it became. He goes on to further rub salt in the wound, so to speak, by saying that if there were a war that could’ve be prevented, it would have been WWII. In just a few lines, Churchill not only shifted the tone of the speech from war rhetoric to blame. In doing so it is almost as if Churchill says, ‘look what happened when no one took me seriously. Listen to me now and let us prevent a repeat of WWII.’ However, Churchill decides to end with the fraternal plug that he has employed throughout the rest of the speech.
Some of the most prevalent rhetorical techniques that Churchill uses include ethos, identification and war rhetoric. Some of were touched on earlier, but Churchill establishes ethos a lot in the first few paragraphs of the speech when he recites his experience in politics. He later establishes credibility when he gives a brief history of the withstanding alliances England has held, the oldest dating back to 1384. Then when he is speaking about Russia’s affairs within Europe, he assures the audience by saying, “whatever conclusions may be drawn from these facts – and facts they are – this is certainly not the Liberated Eurpose we fought to build up.” Making sure to clarify that everything he has just mentioned regarding Russia are simply facts, builds up the credibility in which Churchill’s opinion is founded upon. Furthermore, doing so omits him from accusation of slander towards Stalin or any other Russian political figure.
Identification was also a large part of the rhetorical devices used in this speech. First, the audience is able to identify with the situation in that he uses personal prounouns to make it feel relevant to the audience. Another interesting way in which he attempts to identify with the value base of America is in his biblical allsuions. According to biographers, “Churchill was not a religious man. He was never a Christian.”[x] Knowing this, it would seem strange to think Churchill would refer to the League of Nations as a “temple of peace” and not a “cockpit in a Tower of Babel.” Or it may seem strange that he would cling on to the metaphor that England and the United States in a fraternal relationship, is representative of two mansions, “In my Father’s house.” It is not strange, however, to think that the sole purpose in why he is using these phrases and metaphors are to identify with the fact that regardless of his own personal belief, both America and England are faith-based nations and to acknowledge this faith would be beneficial for his rhetoric. War rhetoric is also seen throughout the speech as he rallies the, “west democracies (to) stand together in strict adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter,” with the hope that this simple unwavering maneuver will keep the advancing influence of Russia in Europe at bay.
He also identifies with the situation, which also positively affects his pathos. He identifies with the pain and the suffering of war, “now at this sad and breathless moment, we are plunged in the hunger and distress which are the aftermath of our stupendous struggle; but this will pass and may pass quickly, and there is no reason…which should deny to all the nations the inauguration and enjoyment of an age of plenty.” Churchill does an excellent job here on playing upon two vastly different and powerful emotions. First he acknowledges the pain and hurt wrought of war. But then he offers hope and joy and freedom associated with promises of plenty and progression.
Other rhetorical techniques used include repetition, antithesis, parallelism, alliteration and personfication. The following line is a good example of personification and it embodies this idea of kinmanship and ‘reaching out’ over the seas.
“Eventually there may come – I feel eventually there will come – the principle of common citizenship, but that we may be content to leave to destiny, whose outstretched arm many of us can already clearly see.” Churchill uses the articulate rhetorical techniques to seal in the idea that it is best for everyone that the United States and Great Britain unite, join forces, to be equal entities. Chruchill draws on his own past relations with America to seal it in by claiming that this realtionship is something that, “many of us can clearly see.”
To highlight just a couple other techniques, Churchill would incorporate alliteration in instances where he wanted a phrase to stand out to the audience from the rest like, “If we adhere faithfully to the Charter of the United Nations and walk forward in sedate and sober strength seeking no one’s land or treasure.” There Churchill was laying out the practical steps America would need to do to keep this kinmanship strong.
Though Churchill was unable to clear “the high roads of the future,” or unable to keep the Cold war from beginning, it is undoubtable that his efforts towards peaces indeed foreshadowed that the end of war had not yet come to pass. However, Churchill has outlined the “sinews of peace” clearly. And perhaps in this time as America is in the midst of war, a realization comes that there is comfort and stablity in strong alligences.
[i] Paul Addison, Churchill: The Unexpected Hero (Oxford University Press, 2005), 11
[ii] Sebastian Haffner, Churchill (Haus Publishing,2003), 32
[iii] Ibid 32
[iv] Ibid 32
[v] Paul Addison, Churchill: The Unexpected Hero (Oxford University Press, 2005), 221
[vi] Ibid 221
[vii] About, “Iron Curtain Speech by Winston Churchill”; available from http://history1900s.about.com/library/weekly/aa082400a.htm; Internet.
[viii] John Lukacs, “Churchill Offers Toil and Tears to FDR,” American Heritage Magazine 58, no. 4 (Spring/Summer 2008)
[ix] About, “Iron Curtain Speech by Winston Churchill”; available from http://history1900s.about.com/library/weekly/aa082400a.htm; Internet.
[x] Sebastian Haffner, Churchill (Haus Publishing,2003), 32
