Cambridge Speechwriter

Last week I looked at Malenkov’s ridiculously long sentences and somewhat meaningless statistics. This time, I want to look at his use of threats! 

Despite starting with boring statistics, Malenkov’s speech picked up when he started talking about international affairs. He placed a great emphasis on characterising the USSR as friendly but powerful if it needs to be.

On the one hand he said…

As you know, the Soviet government has undertaken steps to ensure friendly relations with all neighbouring countries. 

On the other hand, he also said… 

However, should the aggressive circles, with their hopes set on atomic weapons, be mad enough to want to test the strength and might of the Soviet Union, there need be no doubt that the aggressors would be suppressed by the same weapon, and that such a venture would inevitably result in the disintegration of the capitalist social system. (Tumultuous, prolonged applause).

Reading through Malenkov’s speech made it harrowingly clear that the rhetoric of today is not too dissimilar to that of 1954.  

We still have authoritarian leaders who are parading as defenders of peace in one sentence and then threatening an entire people in the next. If you want an example, take a look at this extract from a speech by Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, which was delivered on October 3^rd 2023… 

Of course, it is clear and we have said many times before that we do not encourage war or military action and we avoid it as well. But I declare that we must stand together in order to prevent America’s warmongering.

In the same way that Malenkov characterised the USSR as peaceful while backhandedly warmongering so too did Ali Khamenei do the same with Iran. They both essentially said, ‘we are the good guys but…’

Both also issue explicit or implicit threats to the USA. While Malenkov used a rather explicit threat of nuclear war, Khamenei used a more ambiguous message of standing together to ‘prevent’ warmongering. Which, in the context of warmongering, is ironically just more warmongering… 

These sorts of threats often come hand in hand with a vilification of the other side. In the case of Malenkov, he attempted to characterise the USA as the ‘aggressive circles’ who are hungry for power. Vilifying the ethos of your opponent is known as argumentum ad hominem. It is the same technique that Khamenei used when he accused America of ‘warmongering’. 

Argumentum ad hominem often presents the audience with a false dichotomy – the good and the bad. This idea of good and evil creates an easy and persuasive narrative for the audience to follow – sadly, with any communications, the easy to follow stories are often the most effective. 

This sort of divisive rhetoric commonly drips off the tongues of tyrants and can be found littered throughout history by aggressors who parade as benevolent and peaceful leaders. 

Next week’s post will look at how statistics were used by Malenkov, Enoch Powell, and history’s most evil orator… 

This blog is part of a series on the rhetoric of tyrants ahead of the launch of my next book with Canbury Press: The Language of Evil.

If you want to know more about rhetoric, you can check out my first book: How to Apologise for Killing a Cat: Rhetoric and the Art of Persuasion.