Goebbels vs. Hirohito

       Hirohito and Goebbels both give speeches to attempt to lighten the mood and conceal the truth of their losses while trying to maintain unity and loyalty among the citizens of their countries, even through the times of sacrifice and hardships they have to face, explaining the sacrifices the citizens need to make to maintain unity and loyalty. Although Hirohito and Goebbels goal is to attempt this retention of loyalty, and advise the times of sacrifice, each man has his own different position to take on the issue.

       Hirohito and Goebbels both give speeches to their countries after suffering a great loss. In both speeches,they make it so that the losses were not as bad as they seemed. Both speakers'main goal is to conceal the true weight of their losses,keeping the citizens unified and loyal, not questioning anything. Hirohito tries not to alert citizens of the fact that Japan had to surrender. He does not want to make Japan seem weak, to make it seem as if Japan fell while in his responsibility. Hirohito says “…the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage," when the truth is that Japan had to surrender, which he conceals to keep the people loyal . Goebbels also used a similar method when he calls the great losses at Stalingrad merely "blows and misfortunes," as if they did not cause any harm to the nation.


       Both Hirohito and Goebbels also explain the hardships their respective country will face in the near future. They explain that although they will go through sacrifice and times of hardship, it will help strengthen their nations that is constantly receiving blows. Goebbels says that the people must give up their living standards to increase war efforts, while Hirohito says that japan has to endure the ultimate suffering; that of having to surrender, to make way for peace in the world.

       Although Hirohito and Goebbels' goals are to maintain loyalty, and to alert the people of the sacrifices that need to be made, their positions are different. Goebbels is rallying the citizens of his country. He wants to call the nation to action in the war. While maintaining loyalty, he wants the people to start making sacrifices of their own to help with war efforts, that will in turn benefit the country. Hirohito, on the other hand, has a more moral approach. He does not want to rally his people for war , because the fight has already been lost, but he wants to calm the people down, and assure them that although Japan had to surrender, which isn't such a big deal, the country is paving the way for a more peaceful world, and that what they did is noble. He wants to make the citizens assured that what they did helped the whole world, and helped themselves to become better people for the ultimate sacrifice they made of surrendering, and keep them unified, loyal, and spirits lifted.

Machiavelli and Thoreau On: How One Governs and is Governed

    While both authors attempt to answer the question of how a government can maintain order and the safety of its people while preserving its citizens' natural right to be free, Machiavelli's idea of how one should govern and how one is governed is very different from Thoreau ideas. Thoreau has a more liberal approach on how one governs, and suggests reform or immediate action against the higher power. He is very critical of the government, and thinks much of it has to change for it to serve its purpose maintaining order and the safety of its people while preserving its citizens' natural right to be free. He suggests that the government be reformed, and that the people should be governed fairly. Machiavelli, on the other hand stresses the importance of the government maintaining order above all else, regardless of whether the actions done to maintain this order are moral or immoral.
           

Thoreau's approach may be in a mildly aggressive tone, but he proposes nonviolent acts such as getting the governments attention by not paying taxes to suggest reform. Machiavelli's approach and proposal are both aggressive, insisting that a ruler must do whatever is in his power to rule his people regardless of whether his actions are moral or immoral and that "...it is safer to be feared than to be loved." But, one thing both authors seem to agree on even though they are ages apart is that one should never be passive. Thoreau describes that a man should never be passive saying, "A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be “clay”..." and Machiavelli says a ruler should never be passive and should do what it takes to maintain order.

Thoreau and Machiavelli's ideas also differ in terms of the governed. According to Machiavelli, the governed are "feeble and effeminate," and "always impressed by the superficial appearance of things." He believes that the "masses” are gullible, passive, will fall for everything, and do not dare to stand up against higher power. He says, "... few know what you really are: and those few do not dare take a stand against the general opinion, supported by the majesty of the government." Thoreau on the other hand, strongly believes that man should not be fooled by the government, and should rise against it if he believes it is right for reform. Thoreau believes that when someone notices something is wrong, they have to make the choice to stand up and do something. He encourages us to not submit to be clay, easily molded by others ideas and forced to stand upright by someone else’s beliefs, rules, and morals if not coherent with your own. Thoreau says, "Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine." This means that even if you have to give up your life to a cause and throw yourself into the gears of the machine- the government, then do it. You will sacrifice a lot in the process, but it will stop the machine.