After World War II, Germany split through Berlin, making an East and West Berlin. The economic standpoint in East Germany was not sustainable, so that made those citizens want to move over to the West side. Being under Soviet control, the migration of these people started to collapse the East. By August 1961, the Soviets stopping the flow of people by building the Berlin Wall, a infamous symbolic landmark of the Cold War. Two US Presidents, those being JFK and Reagan, commented and wrote speeches to those stopped from achieving their wants and freedoms to those in East Berlin. Each speech has good points, but different reviews to the situation.
Regarding this situation, President Reagan made an Address at the Brandenburg Gate in June 12, 1987, …show more content…
The president stated, “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Which is odd for a president to use the second person point of view, he was more defensive. Stating how this wall is crushing acts of love, worship and they should not be suppressed. He went into detail about the past, and talked about other countries’ freedoms, and economic stance. His structure was very vast, contained a lot of parts, he opened with why he was there, and his acknowledgment of the wrongdoing that is happening in Germany. He then proceeded to state different countries, and their stances of freedom, almost comparing them to Germany. The rest of the speech is him relating to Germany, telling them what should be changed and getting defensive in the way of taking down the wall. The tone is almost tense, and overly scripted. I believe he was trying to hard to top JFK’s speech, and he delivered the speech as Berlin’s pain was winding down, which seems sort of shameful to Reagan, …show more content…
His claim of his speech is basically saying that people who think they know the real problems or differences of a free world and the Communist world. He uses repetition of “Ich bin ein Berliner” which means “I am a Berliner” showing he is there to stand with him, and gives the people of Berlin reassurance that he cares about their situation. Another line he repeats is” Let them come to Berlin” showing that you will not truly understand how wrong and terrible communism is until they experience it themselves.This structure is short and sweet, but gives very crucial points to drive his speech to seem powerful. His use of the German language and backing up their rights to be free. HIs central claim is seen with this statement, “Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.” He believes that these German’s after all they have been through, believe to be free. The tone is caring, and compassionate towards these people in suffering, yet very mature with his stance against those who say otherwise. I appreciated this speech more due to his want of unity between him and the Berlin people. He did not ramble on about their sad past, but said that this wall is only destroying the citizen’s freedoms and spirits, so he will stand with them to regain it. Some listeners may say they like Reagan’s speech better, but I do not stand with them. JFK’s speech is more connected to them
Regarding this situation, President Reagan made an Address at the Brandenburg Gate in June 12, 1987, …show more content…
The president stated, “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Which is odd for a president to use the second person point of view, he was more defensive. Stating how this wall is crushing acts of love, worship and they should not be suppressed. He went into detail about the past, and talked about other countries’ freedoms, and economic stance. His structure was very vast, contained a lot of parts, he opened with why he was there, and his acknowledgment of the wrongdoing that is happening in Germany. He then proceeded to state different countries, and their stances of freedom, almost comparing them to Germany. The rest of the speech is him relating to Germany, telling them what should be changed and getting defensive in the way of taking down the wall. The tone is almost tense, and overly scripted. I believe he was trying to hard to top JFK’s speech, and he delivered the speech as Berlin’s pain was winding down, which seems sort of shameful to Reagan, …show more content…
His claim of his speech is basically saying that people who think they know the real problems or differences of a free world and the Communist world. He uses repetition of “Ich bin ein Berliner” which means “I am a Berliner” showing he is there to stand with him, and gives the people of Berlin reassurance that he cares about their situation. Another line he repeats is” Let them come to Berlin” showing that you will not truly understand how wrong and terrible communism is until they experience it themselves.This structure is short and sweet, but gives very crucial points to drive his speech to seem powerful. His use of the German language and backing up their rights to be free. HIs central claim is seen with this statement, “Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.” He believes that these German’s after all they have been through, believe to be free. The tone is caring, and compassionate towards these people in suffering, yet very mature with his stance against those who say otherwise. I appreciated this speech more due to his want of unity between him and the Berlin people. He did not ramble on about their sad past, but said that this wall is only destroying the citizen’s freedoms and spirits, so he will stand with them to regain it. Some listeners may say they like Reagan’s speech better, but I do not stand with them. JFK’s speech is more connected to them