Why Fight For Russia?

Norman Angell (Author)

This is a leaflet by British Pacifist, Norman Angell in 1914 as it clearly states on the bottom right hand corner. It is also a leaflet because he is trying to get ‘members’ to partake in persuading the British government to stop them from getting involved in the war. The context as to why it was written was because Britain was just on the brink of a war (the first World War actually), thus seeing as how Norman Angell was a pacifist, he utilised his power in the media to get his ideology across of maintaining peace. Hence, is why he wrote this leaflet; to get his countrymen on the side of peace as well. This text is unique because it shows the evolution of what we know; how things were in the past to what we know them to be now, seeing as how eventually Britain did take part in the war, and actually fought on the same side as Russia. However, there was a time when this was not always the case and this leaflet is a testament to that.

The British public was the target audience for this leaflet and the reason being (as stated before) was to persuade and convince them to take part in his ideology, being a pacifist. An assumption could be made that there were already talks of Britain participating in the war, which is most likely why Normal Angell used his power of being in the media and wrote this leaflet. In addition why he sprung this ‘rebellious’ attitude in fight for peace, and for people to join that ideology.

The tone that is expressed by the author throughout the whole text is somewhat preachy. Starting with his use of diction and how the leaflet is set-up. His diction is very strong but short and brief; allowing his phrases and sentences to stick in the audience’s minds. In addition it was intended that the writing be basic and easy to follow, instead of using excess amounts of jargon. This was so that more people could understand and appreciate the overall message that was trying to be conveyed. For example: ‘Russia is the country to fight which we spent 50,000,000 (P) in the Crimea’. This example displays the strong phrasing, shortness of the sentence and the ‘easy/basic’ language that is used (relating back to his diction). The author also utilises statistics and vocabulary that all link back to the theme of being preachy. This tone leads to the left behind mood on the audience of feeling guilty, because since he is showing a very one-sided ideology people could be blinded to simply what and how he is saying rather than maybe looking at both sides.

There is a wide range of literary devices that were applied throughout the whole leaflet in order to help his argument and ideology. For example: the use of Logos in several places in the text like: “which we spent 50,000,000”. This can be considered logos due to the inclusion of statistics. And leaves the impact on the audience of just seeing a better well-rounded argument, and a more convincing one at that. In addition it sets the situation in the perspective that the author intended it, leaving a sense of shock in the reader’s minds. As well as the use of Pathos “Russia is the country to fight which we spent 50,000,000 in the Crimea. This is pathos since it is appealing to emotions and making the British feel bad for the Russian people. It basically pulls on the people’s heart strings, feeling for their country’s troubles. In addition Ethos as well, considering that Leaflet is written by a British Pacifist, which allows the audience (British people) to feel the reliability of what is being said in the text, and believing it.

In conclusion this leaflet by Norman Angel before the start of the first World War, was used to get new ‘members’ to join his ideology of pacifism. This was explained by how he used literary devices such as ethos, pathos, and logos to target the British public to join his movement of peace. In 1914. 

It is acceptable for a government to try to shape public opinion through information campaigns.

Firstly, public opinion is defined as a “citizens’ view on politics and government actions”. In the case of the documentary we watched in class yesterday (Control Room), I disagree with the statement that ‘It is acceptable for a government to try to shape public opinion through information campaigns.’, because the people of their nations have a right to know what’s going on in the world around them and what they are involved in. To fabricate lies like the Jessica Lynch example of her being a heroine, is a blatant lie and I believe it not only morally wrong to show the Iraqi state in a certain light, but it is morally wrong for the civilians of the United States as well.

               In addition for news stations of the United States and the Western world to be fabricating stories of what is ‘going on’ in Iraq, does not have benefit to anyone; because the American civilians are not only assured that everything is ‘under control’, but it builds more hate against their enemies hearing stories like the Pat Tillman case or the Jessica Lynch one as well. Thus it essentially doesn’t promote safety it makes people want the war more.

However in the case of Iraq, by them sharing footage of what happening in their own homeland, they are not only just telling them that this is what’s happening today but also warning their people about the situation. I feel like they should tell people what’s happening and let them decide what they want to do. As in nothing should be left hidden from the public, because they deserve to know what their country is involved in, in all cases not just this one.

Therefore, I do disagree however I do not strongly disagree, because in certain situations I believe it is okay to try and sway public opinion. For example: an election campaign, the candidates do have the right to be bias and try to get votes from their people. There is a flip-side to this though that correlates to what I was saying about the war because if there is a campaign the public should know everything about the situation. Because if they don’t that’s when it falls back onto the public negatively because they should have the right to decide for themselves. 

Bias Techniques Used in the Media.

Real Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/international/11WIRE-U2.html 

Title: Iraqi fighter jets pressured and threatened two American planes, making them return and abort the United States of America’s mission.

Someone from the Pentagon stated that the decision to conclude the mission was taken due to the ‘interest of our countrymen’s safety’.

Our planes were flying over Iraqi soil to get to the UN weapons inspections in time. According to two of our men, that’s when the Iraqi fighter jets threatened our soldiers.

The problem with this act put on by the opposition is that, usually, a lot of flights are permitted to fly over countries under a UN Security Council rule. Thus, everyone at the UN was saying how shocked they were that this had happened.

The worst part is that the army had told us that they warned Iraqi prior to their launch that they were going to be flying over Iraqi soil.

This threat is not only a threat against the US, but is a testament to the weak relationship that Iraq has with the UN.

The two American planes were already in the air and approved by the UN council and was a unanimous vote, the US official said.

 However Iraq “had to start a problem with USA”, the official stated and the two planes were recalled back. America is complying and staying level-headed as always checking with the UN before recommencing the flights again.

Everyone in the UN backed America up as Iraq had no justification for what they had done obviously. This backup of the US was for a new resolution to use force against Iraq as a last resort.

These flights were going to investigate whether Saddam Hussein is storing chemical and biological weapons to use against the US in terrorist attacks.

 Furthermore, ideally our nation’s men should be allowed to do their duty. And people trying to stop and restrict that are just causing more issues for the patriots fighting for our country. We should not let this go on. God Bless the United States of America.