Patton's Presentation Of Emotions In The Film Patton

His Speech to the Third Army starts off in an almost lighthearted tone, “Men, all this stuff you hear about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of bullshit. Americans love to fight” (1). This general mood is kept throughout Patton's speech, including an excess of profanity. Unlike a formal address to a similarly large audience, Patton's way of speaking and structure of words is akin to that of close friends, or soldiers talking in the barracks. As Patton continues to speak, he frequently brings up the importance of a team and the role a soldier has as unit. Even if you are the lowest on the totem pole, he believed that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If every man did his job with the

The fear of killing and being killed in battle is no easy thing to contemplate or to inspire. Inspiring soldiers to participate earnestly in battle is crucial to winning wars. Approaches to accomplish this have been studied and tried by military leaders for millennia. George S. Patton attempted this very thing in his speech to the Third Army. Patton delivered a profane and vulgar speech to untried soldiers who have yet to see combat. Patton is able to inspire his soldiers by using his reputation while dismantling his authority, using obscene humor, and appealing to their sense of honor and courage.

The famous speech Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation by Franklin D. Roosevelt shows us a vast amount of rhetorical appeals: Pathos, Ethos, and Logos to the nation. The speech given by Franklin D. Roosevelt shows us the intended audience and the persuasion used in order to change the peoples’ minds to defend our nation. Let’s begin with the Pathos for this particular speech.

There is one scene where the three flag raisers entered a crowded stadium before a football game which typified how an image of war can be so different to the reality of war. The flash photography, the cheering, the roar of the crowd all went to John Bradley’s head and he had flash backs of the fighting on Iwo Jima and the genuine heroes that he had left behind. This scene contrasts what the reality of war, were all the men are dug in and fighting for there life, and the images of war. Ira Hayes says “I know it’s a good thing, raising the money and that, ‘cause we need it. But, I can’t take them calling me a hero. All I did was try not to get shot. Some of the things I saw done, things I did, they weren’t things to be proud of, you know?” Clint Eastwood shows continuously, through his characters physiology shows how one single photo can be so different what really makes up the battle of Iwo Jima. The aim was to get war bonds; the minds of the three main characters through Clint Eastwood’s directing showed a strong insight to how the reality of a war and an image of war can be so contrasting.

Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; Ffor the very idea of losing is hateful to an American(paragraph #).” This section of the speechquote exemplifies that Patton is using American appeals to conjure up motivation into the troops because so they can feel more encouraged and willing to fight and possibly die by the fact that all Americans are winners and hate to lose. All Americans are the best and real men who like to fight, Patton does this to make the troops want to win. He makes them feel like it’s in their identity and blood to win, he wants them to have the courage and perseverance to win. Also Patton later conjures the image of the comic book superman, He Man, to encourage all men to tap into their own super powers. on says “ Americans pride themselves on being He Men and they ARE He Men. He validates their own superiority by stating, “Remember that the enemy is just as frightened as you are, and probably more so. They are not supermen.” Patton says this to further explain that Americans are winners and they will win this war. Patton is trying to inspire these soldiers by also lowering their reputation of the enemy saying

Although at first glance General George S. Patton is anything but creative, if you think about it, he is one of the most creative people of all time. Both his battle strategies and speeches were creative, bold, and extremely powerful. Each of his speeches, particularly his speech to the Third Army, are some of the most powerful and motivated I have read. Each and every speech he spoke riled his troops and made them want to crush the Nazis and win the war. Many people dislike Patton and his speeches because of his vulgar language, but there is no denying the effect the speeches had on the troops who served under him and the power in each word he spoke. http://www.wjpbr.com/patton.html

He goes on to use pathos in the 2nd paragraph with the quote “their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and die in extraordinarily high proportions” he does this in this quote by putting a identity on the soldier that is fighting in the war. This uses people's emotions to get people to speak against the war. He continues to use the emotions

“War at its basic level has always been about soldiers. Nations rose and fell on the strength of their armies and the men who filled the ranks.” This is a very powerful quote, especially for the yet young country of the United States, for it gives credit where credit is truly due: to the men who carried out the orders from their superiors, gave their blood, sweat and tears, and in millions of cases their lives while fighting for ideals that they believed their country or government was founded upon, and to ensure the continuation of these ideals. Up until the end of the 20th Century, they did so in the worst of conditions, and this includes not only the battle scene, but also every day life. In

notion that the war wasn’t going to be an easy win, and the chances of winning the war

The notion of an American way of war informs how scholars, policymakers, and strategists understand how Americans fight. A way of war—defined as a society’s cultural preferences for waging war—is not static. Change can occur as a result of important cultural events, often in the form of traumatic experiences or major social transformations. A way of war is therefore the malleable product of culturally significant past experiences. Reflecting several underlying cultural ideals, the current American way of war consists of three primary tenets—the desire for moral clarity, the primacy of technology, and the centrality of scientific management systems—which combine to create a preference for decisive, large-scale conventional wars with clear objectives and an aversion to morally ambiguous low-intensity conflicts that is relevant to planners because it helps them address American strategic vulnerabilities.

In the two hundred years since 1775, there has been thirty-five years of fighting in what we consider major conflicts or wars. This averages out to about one year of war to every almost 6 years of our existence as a nation and during that time, we have not been without formal military organizations. Over the course of history, the United States has engaged in many battles that were a crucial phase in developing who and what we have become. Throughout this assessment, we will analyze what were some of the true tipping points that shaped (1) America’s paradoxical love-hate relationship with war and, (2) How this relationship influences American warfare.

Patton’s beliefs have and will continue to echo through eternity. It is with these sets of beliefs that men and women who serve everywhere will grow to be the leaders they can be. Speaking out based on your own belief, leadership and pride are just a few of the principles that we continue to live by to this day. What we do in life echoes in eternity and I hope to become as good an officer as Patton was and do honor to the men who was ahead of his time and widely respected by

During the war, many Americans viewed the war as a fight for the survival of freedom and democracy against fascist and militarist ideologies (Concept 1). Desmond Doss, the leading protagonist, exhibited the concept in his absolute entireness. First, Desmond Doss was a shipyard worker before the war and a seventh-day Adventist. When the war broke out and America joined the war, Doss was offered a deferment. Eventually in the movie, Doss ended up joining the war efforts, and believed he could help win the war with his medic abilities and no guns. However not directly stated in the movie yet in an interview, Doss believed that he could help, in someway, win the war, so his fiancee and family could live in a peaceful democracy and free. Not only Doss, but also his fellow war brethren shared the same views. In the movie at boot camp for war preparation, some of the soldiers stated that they were there because they wanted to give their families a good life and freedom. Ironically, many believed that Doss might cost the unit their lives and possibly the war. After his unit finally accepted that Doss was antigun, the group proceeded to the battle of Okinawa. After sustaining heavily losses in the first few days, the team tried for one last all or nothing push. During the rush, many shouted “For freedom,” “USA,” and other patriotic remarks. Thus, it was clear that

In "Who's for the Game?", the point of view of Jessie Pope is that war should be something that is fun and encouraging

“Americans, traditionally, love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle…Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time…That 's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans” – This quote from the 1970 biopic of General George Patton illustrates the worldview of Americans during and immediately following World War II. When the new battle of the Cold War began, the Soviet Union became our new enemy, to be absolutely and utterly defeated by any means necessary. Not only was each advancement by the U.S. a victory, but each one by the USSR was implicitly a failure. This mindset culminated in the U.S.-Soviet Space race, a struggle to obliterate the other side technologically while leaving no room for collaboration. This presentation seeks to explain the history of the event, as well as the positive and negative effects of the competitive factor.