Winston Wins Fallacies

Sir Winston Churchill once said, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” This is not in the speech above, but is a clear example of fallacy of antecedent. Anyways, let’s get to the speech.

On march 18^th 1931 Winston Churchill gives his famous speech in Albert Hall, he talks about what exactly is British rule in India and to what extent is the duty of them in India.

Right now, I’ve read two very famous speeches and both seem to have the many questions fallacy, it seems to be a very popular technique in terms of rhetoric.

The first fallacies I spotted in his speech were the many questions. In about the fourth paragraph of his speech he starts asking a lot of questions which he doesn’t really give the answer to. He concludes something with a question to prove his previous conclusion. In this case he presents several questions in one single sentence.

He starts of with something more simple, in which the editors note says is an allusion to the great amount of people that filled the building that day.

“Is it not wonderful in these circumstances, with all this against us, that a few of us should manage to get together here in this hall to-night?”

Then he continues with many questions, “What spectacle could be more sorrowful than that of this powerful country casting away with both hands, and up till now almost by general acquiescence, the great inheritance which centuries have gathered? What spectacle could be more strange, more monstrous in its perversity, than to see the Viceroy and the high officials and agents of the Crown in India labouring with all their influence and authority to unite and weave together into a confederacy all the forces adverse and hostile to our rule in India?”

Notice how he starts both of his questions with “What spectacle could be more ‘sorrowful’ and the next one ‘strange’” was that alliteration?

“If you took the antagonisms of France and Germany, and the antagonisms of Catholics and Protestants, and compounded them and multiplied them ten-fold, you would not equal the division which separates these two races intermingled by scores of millions in the cities and plains of India.”

Why did he suddenly start talking about France and Germany and Catholics and Protestants, maybe to make a comparison which the audience could relate to, but also to use the Chewbacca defense, he did exactly that, he brought up and irrelevant issue to compare it to his.

He then heads towards the straw man technique very sneakily to avoid a very controversial topic, he starts a new topic instead of going further into the one he was in. He was able to dig out of that hole. “we cannot recognize their claim to the title-deeds of democracy.”