Who was the best political orator in WWII?

[punisa]

There were many, but listed here are mostly the leaders of the confronted nations and alliances.

RELATED VIDEOS:

Winston Churchill
6llT2ZYg-4E

Franklin D. Roosevelt
8-weBUzQleo

Joseph Stalin
8IGbjPqFFvA

Benito Mussolini
TGXU_20_PBs

Adolf Hitler
-KgJQUXr2Ws

Philippe Pétain
bFLWMOQ-kfI

Mao Zedong
ztYnr2MV3mY

Charles de Gaulle
-tLi8ADZDxM

[mykittyhasaboner]

Adolf Hitler.

[KC]

Hitler by far.

[Hoxhaist]

I had no idea that Stalin was such a great speaker!! (but I am biased ;))

[Brother No. 1]

Hmm to choose between Joseph Stalin,Adolf Hitler, and Mao-Tse Tung. Hard choice for all were good speakers. But I'd go with Stalin.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I have to say Hitler. Despite how much I disagree with him he was an impressive speaker. Honestly, I don't blame people for getting drawn to that...thing...

[Comrade B]

Benito Mussolini
haha, ah.... no....
Churchill was an idiot also, people just like to quote him because he was an idiot with catchy anti-communist phrases... rarely supported by an argument.

Adolf Hitler
Really not as good as people work him up to be. He kind of just yells the same shit in different patterns over and over. They all have the same tone, and the same message.

I have never actually read a translation of de Gaulle or Mao.

FDR gets my vote.

[LOLseph Stalin]

haha, ah.... no....
Churchill was an idiot also, people just like to quote him because he was an idiot with catchy anti-communist phrases... rarely supported by an argument.


"A Communist is somebody who reads Marx and Lenin, an Anti-Communist is somebody who understands Marx and Lenin."- Ronald Reagan. Now that's probably my favorite anti-Communist quote. Catchy too.

[DancingLarry]

Really not as good as people work him up to be. He kind of just yells the same shit in different patterns over and over. They all have the same tone, and the same message.



I take it you've only ever seen short clips of Hitler. One of his great strengths as an orator was a mastery of various tones and the feel to give an audience what it needed at the moment. For instance, he would always start speaking very quietly, barely above a whisper, as a means to get the audience to focus 100% of its attention. He could also be quite humorous; I saw one piece where he absolutely skewered all the German political parties across the spectrum. The shouting scenes were useful for the Allies in presenting an image of Hitler so that's mostly what's survived in memory, but he would never have risen to such power if that was all there had been to him.

[benhur]

Hitler, obviously. He had a good sense of humor as well. When someone asked whether the very foundation of Russian civilization was arts or culture or literature, Hitler replied with a sarcastic grin, "No, it's vodka.":laugh:

Now that's what I call wit.

[punisa]

Hitler, obviously. He had a good sense of humor as well. When someone asked whether the very foundation of Russian civilization was arts or culture or literature, Hitler replied with a sarcastic grin, "No, it's vodka.":laugh:

Now that's what I call wit.
Haha, good one :laugh: Haven't heard that one before, but there is some degree of truth in it :lol:

[Pogue]

Hitler, obviously. He had a good sense of humor as well. When someone asked whether the very foundation of Russian civilization was arts or culture or literature, Hitler replied with a sarcastic grin, "No, it's vodka.":laugh:

Now that's what I call wit.

Thats what I call racism.

[Pogue]

I voted Churchill because of the 'We will fight them' speech which was very well delivered. He had a good speaking style. Hitler just screamed, in my opinion, and his speaking style would be found annoying and immature for most people.

Stalin doesn't really have a reputation for being a particularly good speaker, does he?

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

I voted Churchill because of the 'We will fight them' speech which was very well delivered. He had a good speaking style. Hitler just screamed, in my opinion, and his speaking style would be found annoying and immature for most people.

Stalin doesn't really have a reputation for being a particularly good speaker, does he?

Considering the fact that Stalin gave like, 3(ish) speeches during his entire leadership period, no.

Hitler was the best speaker, by far.

[punisa]

I voted Churchill because of the 'We will fight them' speech which was very well delivered. He had a good speaking style. Hitler just screamed, in my opinion, and his speaking style would be found annoying and immature for most people.

Stalin doesn't really have a reputation for being a particularly good speaker, does he?

I agree, if we ever stumbled upon a politician that used screaming so much, majority of people today would probabbly dismiss him as mentally challenged.
But for many reasons back in the nazi Germany, people were in ecstasy when he delivered his speeches.
I believe Hitler calculated his speeches all the time, he had a huge talent for, let's call it PR. Knowing exactly what to say and even more how to say it at given time.
Also he had a very good and strong pronunciation of the letter "R" which by some is somewhat crucial for emotional speech.

As for Stalin, I believe his charisma lies in his strong stance without an ounce of fear in his voice. Although German army was actually at the Moscow gates, he fully justified his nickname "man of steel", delivering a speech where he assured his soldiers that Red Army is unbeatable.
Although today we know that the man was indeed very paranoid, but in his speeches he is always calm, sometimes that calmness is even scary :lol:

[Cumannach]

Stalin's speeches are all the more powerful because of the moral weight behind them. I don't know how anyone can consider a speaking style apart from the substance. This is why I'm never impressed by Hitler. I feel the power of a speech is in the joint combination of substance and style.

[hugsandmarxism]

Stalin's speeches are all the more powerful because of the moral weight behind them. I don't know how anyone can consider a speaking style apart from the substance. This is why I'm never impressed by Hitler. I feel the power of a speech is in the joint combination of substance and style.

This. Although it's hard to deny that Hitler was an able speaker, and certainly knew the tricks behind rallying a crowd, the power of Stalin's speech makes up for a less than spectacular delivery. This was a moment of doubt, of fear, of uncertainty and impending doom. Stalin made the case that the Soviet people, the Red Army, Navy and workers behind it, must stand strong in the face of this incredible adversity. He might not have been the best in terms of oratory skill, but this speech is powerful indeed, and on that principle, Stalin wins.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I like both FDR (whose most memorable lines may have been in the 1930s) and Churchill. They certainly had a skill that has disappeared in recent years, the ability to cal people to sacrifice. In my opinion, I think Churchill is way overrated here in the US. But something about the whole 'If any man surrender, let him choke on his own blood' is pretty badass, I have to admit.

I voted for Hitler however, and I think he was the better speaker by a little ways. Though I'm a softy for plainspoken, populist, loud oratory I have to concede. And I'll have to concede I haven't heard much Mao or Stalin oratory.


Interesting thread topic, by the way.

[Brother No. 1]

Hitler spoke so well for he planed what he was speaking and added the Nationalism of germany in there. Plus he always yelled in his speechs and always did his own body language in his "famous" speechs. Lets also not forget that he came from the bottom up in germany and his speechs are powerful but sometimes to powerful. He was a person who know what to say and at what time to say it. He turned his own people into puppets and germany into a facist state so yes he was a good speaker.

Stalin's speechs focused mostly on the Soviet Union. He was a good Socialist speaker for the Soviet Union but sadly didnt make more speechs. Most likely for the Soviet Union mostly fought and didnt speak in the War. He also didnt show much motion in his speechs so thats why I think some people wouldnt vote for him and didnt have such a strong voice. Though he didnt show fear in the WW2 speechs and with his nick name "Man of Steel" it really improved the over all moral of the Red army showing they were unbeatable.



Mao's speechs I find better after WW2 more during the Peoples Republic time.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I think speaking German was another advantage Hitler had, too, honestly.

I don't, but something stirs in me when that language is properly yelled.

[tavariskommisar]

I voted to Stalin. He spoken the truth, and he called the peoples to a Sacred War against the Nazi hordes.

[Small Geezer]

Stalin was a boring master-bureaucrat speaker ( I do admit some of his speeches get my blood pumping); Mao had this staccato brilliance and commandism that resonated in his speeches.

[KC]

I agree, if we ever stumbled upon a politician that used screaming so much, majority of people today would probabbly dismiss him as mentally challenged.

You have never seen a full speech of his, then, I take it, as he didn't "just scream". He is probably one of the most powerful speakers in the modern world.


This. Although it's hard to deny that Hitler was an able speaker, and certainly knew the tricks behind rallying a crowd, the power of Stalin's speech makes up for a less than spectacular delivery. This was a moment of doubt, of fear, of uncertainty and impending doom. Stalin made the case that the Soviet people, the Red Army, Navy and workers behind it, must stand strong in the face of this incredible adversity. He might not have been the best in terms of oratory skill, but this speech is powerful indeed, and on that principle, Stalin wins.

I disagree. His speaking is about as mechanical and awkward as his writing. Whenever I read any of his works I feel like I'm reading the writings of a 6th grader.

[Communist Theory]

Right now I'm going with Hitler simply because the only other speaker I have seen videos of is Winston Churchill and Hitler somehow managed to convince millions of people that Jews were bad and genocide was good. He also was very dramatic with his hand gestures and facial expressions looked like he was going a bit crazy when he spoke.
Haven't voted yet I've got to wait till I get home to watch the videos.
Great thread btw.

[Bilan]

You mean which which bourgeois politician was most able to have millions of workers sent off to be slaughtered through their powerful, nationalist rhetoric?
Frankly, I don't give a fuck.

[Cumannach]

I disagree. His speaking is about as mechanical and awkward as his writing. Whenever I read any of his works I feel like I'm reading the writings of a 6th grader.

No, he's not mechanical, he's composed. He's not a demagogue making a fool out of himself jumping around the stage and pulling faces in histrionics like Hitler. His delivery in the speech above is masterful.

If Stalin's works are the writings of a 6th grader, Trotsky's are the scribblings of a chimp.

In fact Stalin's writing is exceptionally brilliant, as Lenin clearly recognised, along with the other Bolsheviks, entrusting Pravda into Stalin's hands.

[Rjevan]

As much as I hate to admit, Hitler's speeches, mimic, gesture, mob psychology and rhetoric talent was highly impressing.
Stalin's speech is well delivered, impressing, well-thought out and much better than Hitler's hate tirades in best lunatic/fanatic style but Hitler gets more emotion in his speeches and had undeniably the talent to capture and enthuse the masses and convince even people who opposed him.

[Brother No. 1]

Hitler's speeches, mimic, gesture, mob psychology and rhetoric talent was highly impressing.

Well if they werent impressive would he have become "chancelor of Germany?"

[Pirate Utopian]

Even better Hitler speech here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vi3nIqUhfY

I voted Hitler. All politics he is a great speaker and nazi's were great at aesthetics and propaganda, luckily that doesnt win a war.

FDR/Churchill dont give me no feeling. Their speeches are nicely written though.
Stalin is probably the dullest of the pack.
Mussolini is okay, I honestly expected more emotion though.
Pétain takes second place in the dullness contest.
Mao was pretty good, but put down the paper. C'mon you didnt even prepare your damn speech?
DeGaulle is average.

[Brother No. 1]

Mao was pretty good, but put down the paper. C'mon you didnt even prepare your damn speech?


Remember The Imperialist invasion of China and the Nationalists trying to take control of China? I think he was to busy helping the Communist party and preparing gurrilla tactics then speechs.




Stalin is probably the dullest of the pack.

He is dull for he barely shows movement or anyother emotion?

[Led Zeppelin]

You have never seen a full speech of his, then, I take it, as he didn't "just scream". He is probably one of the most powerful speakers in the modern world.

I read somewhere that he admired and took over his oratorical style from the likes of Lenin and Trotsky who became well-known for their abilities during the revolution.

Hitler is a pretty good speaker, there's no doubt about that. He's certainly not one of the most powerful speakers in the modern world though. Castro and Che, who are also pretty good speakers, are more powerful speakers than Hitler, or at least just as. Check out some of Castro's speeches during the revolution and Che's as well.

As for Stalin's "ability", well yeah it's boring as hell to listen to, and his writings are boring as hell to read, so we can agree on that. :)

[Pirate Utopian]

Remember The Imperialist invasion of China and the Nationalists trying to take control of China? I think he was to busy helping the Communist party and preparing gurrilla tactics then speechs.
Yes, like it was yesterday. Quite shocking to hear on the radio. Luckily after that I could go back to this fabolous new music called jazz.
Oh how we swinged! ;) (friendly banter)

Also where does it say this is during the civil war?


He is dull for he barely shows movement or anyother emotion?
Bingo.

[KC]

If Stalin's works are the writings of a 6th grader, Trotsky's are the scribblings of a chimp.

What does Trotsky have to do with anything? Why do you always bring up Trotsky when Stalin is criticized? I clearly wasn't even making mention of Trotsky, much less comparing their writings to one another.


In fact Stalin's writing is exceptionally brilliant, as Lenin clearly recognised, along with the other Bolsheviks, entrusting Pravda into Stalin's hands.

No matter how hard you try to "prove" that Stalin has a good writing style or is a good speaker, you won't be able to because it's an opinion. So regardless of what you say, my statement stands, as it is my opinion, and you cannot "disprove" it.

Stop trying to start an argument.

[Cumannach]

Stalin is subtle, this no doubt is very boring to a certain type of person.

[Brother No. 1]

Also where does it say this is during the civil war?

Comrade Nationalists were still trying to gain power even before the Civil War.


Bingo.

It made people think he was very clam, which he was, about the War and knew the allies, Red Army mostly, would win this War. Would you should calm if the enemy was right at your front gate?

[KC]

Stalin is subtle, this no doubt is very boring to a certain type of person.

I don't think you know what the word "subtle" means then, as he is not subtle at all. He explicitly states everything he means to communicate; the problem is that most of these statements are rather simplistic and obvious. I can't even count the amount of times I've read his work and just thought "duh" in my head because he's pointing out things that are so obvious.

Anyways, call me stupid again if you want; I don't really care, and if it makes you feel good about yourself then go for it.

[Cumannach]

It's his oratorical style which is subtle. A pity his stuff is still not 'simple' enough for trots to understand, even though he communicates it clearly.

[KC]

It's his oratorical style which is subtle.So what is subtle about it then? Please, do tell us what you "gifted" people are getting out of it that us "stupid masses" are not.

What about this quote:



“HOWARD: Does this declaration of yours imply that the Soviet Union has in any way renounced its plans and intentions to bring about a world revolution?
“STALIN: We never had any such plans or intentions.
“HOWARD: It would seem to me, Mr. Stalin, that quite a different impression has been current in the world for a long time. “STALIN: That is the result of a misunderstanding.
“HOWARD: A tragic misunderstanding?
“STALIN: No a comic one. Or perhaps a tragi-comic one.
Source (http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/red-army/1937/wollenberg-red-army/ch05.htm)

What do you get out of that that's so ingenius that I don't?


A pity his stuff is still not 'simple' enough for trots to understand, even though he communicates it clearly.Do you ever make a post about Stalin where you don't make a remark about Trotsky? You sound like one of those homophobic social-conservatives that bashes homosexuality in public until he gets caught tapping his foot in a public restroom.

[Pirate Utopian]

Comrade Nationalists were still trying to gain power even before the Civil War.
Who says it wasnt after the war?


It made people think he was very clam, which he was, about the War and knew the allies, Red Army mostly, would win this War. Would you should calm if the enemy was right at your front gate?
I'm always cool :cool:

[Brother No. 1]

Who says it wasnt after the war?


Isnt this World War 2 political speechs not Postwar political speechs. Plus after the War he didnt really read a paper.

[Cumannach]

What about this quote:

Source (http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/red-army/1937/wollenberg-red-army/ch05.htm)

What do you get out of that that's so ingenius that I don't?

Stalin was wrong not to open his heart to Howard. Seriously, have you honestly ever read a work by Stalin? Be honest now, have you? I've read many hundreds of pages of Trotsky. I don't need to critique his writing style or his compositional structure or his punctuation to disagree with it though, I focus more on the actual substance of it.


Do you ever make a post about Stalin where you don't make a remark about Trotsky?It's annoying isn't it? Imagine if I could scarcely talk about any subject without bringing up Trotskyism and railing against the black evil Trotsky.

[KC]

It's annoying isn't it? Imagine if I could scarcely talk about any subject without bringing up Trotskyism and railing against the black evil Trotsky.


I've read many hundreds of pages of Trotsky.

Inorite?:rolleyes:

[LOLseph Stalin]

black evil Stalin.

Correction. :rolleyes:

Anyway, my point is that when people stop calling Trotsky evil, i'll stop calling Stalin evil. It goes both ways.

[Cumannach]

Inorite?:rolleyes:

i dont know what that means

[Brother No. 1]

black evil Stalin.

Inoccrect on so many boundries.




Anyway, my point is that when people stop calling Trotsky evil, i'll stop calling Stalin evil. It goes both ways.

when people stop calling Stalin Evil then alot of problems will be sloved but some people are to proud to do that. Also is its really accurate to call Stalin evil??

[LOLseph Stalin]

Polish Soviet, I was trying to prove a point. You totally missed it completely didn't you?

[Brother No. 1]

Polish Soviet, I was trying to prove a point. You totally missed it completely didn't you?

I saw your point comrade Insert. But back to the point... I still think Mao's speech was done maybe 1930s.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I'm pretty sure the de Gaulle speech was from like the 1970's. His "Long Live a Free Quebec" thing caused quite an outrage among Canadians, eventually leading to de Gaulle getting kicked out.

[Hoxhaist]

I couldnt not vote for Stalin :D

[Black Dagger]

Moved to chit-chat.

This thread is not really a discussion of history but an exchange of personal opinions about an assortment of historical personages. That's kind of what 'history' is - but this thread falls short of 'history' because it does not deal in any critical or otherwise engaging way with the past. In that sense discussing who sounds better in a youtube video is not really a matter of 'history'.

Please note, just because this thread has been moved to chit-chat does not entitle people to start spamming it with off-topic content.