Collin Lahr
History T335: WWII in the Soviet Union
Writing Assignment 1: Primary Source Analysis
The topic of this rhetorical analysis paper is a speech written by V.M. Molotov titled “The Meaning of the War in Finland.” Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov, or V.M. for the sake of time, was a diplomat and Soviet politician prominent from the 1920’s for 40 years until his retirement in 1961. This speech was given in March of 1940, during which time Molotov was the Minister of Foreign Affairs under Stalin, and he is briefly explaining the Soviet-Finnish War from the government’s perspective. The main conclusion drawn from analyzing this speech is that Molotov wants to explain the USSR involvement the war, but to completely place the blame on …show more content…
The decision was made to go to war. He blames the inability to come to a peaceful agreement on third party influence towards Finland. V.M. makes it very clear that all fighting has ceased and the two countries have signed a peace treaty, but he also wants to analyze the reasons why war was necessary. He mentions the line of militarized fortifications being built in Finland to mount an attack on the Leningrad. Molotov says that the war was not only fought against Finnish troops: There were British, French, and other soldiers present as well, and these countries provided weapons, aircraft, and men. He ends by explaining the terms of the peace treaty signed; to ensure the safety of the Leningrad, the port of Murmansk, and the Murmansk …show more content…
He seems to be addressing the Soviet populace as a whole, and the entire speech is very expository. There is a fair amount of negativity directed towards the Finnish. Molotov places the blame fully on Finland’s head. “…frenzied propaganda… for the purpose of instigating war against the Soviet Union…” He mentions the Finnish government’s “hostile policy” towards the USSR several times, always using the term hostile. “…because of the unfriendly attitude adopted by the Finnish Representatives. The decision of the issue passed to the field of war.” (Molotov Pg.2) Molotov also uses language to evoke an emotional response from the citizens; speaking of the glory of the Red Army as they defended the country, while also constantly reminding the audience of the threats posed to Leningrad and Murmansk. He uses the word safeguarding specifically several times, and makes sure we are aware of the danger posed by the third party nations that were involved in the conflict. Molotov uses words that invoke a sense of urgency so as to unite the
History T335: WWII in the Soviet Union
Writing Assignment 1: Primary Source Analysis
The topic of this rhetorical analysis paper is a speech written by V.M. Molotov titled “The Meaning of the War in Finland.” Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Molotov, or V.M. for the sake of time, was a diplomat and Soviet politician prominent from the 1920’s for 40 years until his retirement in 1961. This speech was given in March of 1940, during which time Molotov was the Minister of Foreign Affairs under Stalin, and he is briefly explaining the Soviet-Finnish War from the government’s perspective. The main conclusion drawn from analyzing this speech is that Molotov wants to explain the USSR involvement the war, but to completely place the blame on …show more content…
The decision was made to go to war. He blames the inability to come to a peaceful agreement on third party influence towards Finland. V.M. makes it very clear that all fighting has ceased and the two countries have signed a peace treaty, but he also wants to analyze the reasons why war was necessary. He mentions the line of militarized fortifications being built in Finland to mount an attack on the Leningrad. Molotov says that the war was not only fought against Finnish troops: There were British, French, and other soldiers present as well, and these countries provided weapons, aircraft, and men. He ends by explaining the terms of the peace treaty signed; to ensure the safety of the Leningrad, the port of Murmansk, and the Murmansk …show more content…
He seems to be addressing the Soviet populace as a whole, and the entire speech is very expository. There is a fair amount of negativity directed towards the Finnish. Molotov places the blame fully on Finland’s head. “…frenzied propaganda… for the purpose of instigating war against the Soviet Union…” He mentions the Finnish government’s “hostile policy” towards the USSR several times, always using the term hostile. “…because of the unfriendly attitude adopted by the Finnish Representatives. The decision of the issue passed to the field of war.” (Molotov Pg.2) Molotov also uses language to evoke an emotional response from the citizens; speaking of the glory of the Red Army as they defended the country, while also constantly reminding the audience of the threats posed to Leningrad and Murmansk. He uses the word safeguarding specifically several times, and makes sure we are aware of the danger posed by the third party nations that were involved in the conflict. Molotov uses words that invoke a sense of urgency so as to unite the