GSAP Rhetorical Analysis Outline

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s Speech at the National Convention of the People’s Party of the Republic held in Ankara in October, 1927

 Purpose: To convince the members of the party that his previous actions after World War I, and during the Turkish War of Independence were necessary in order to establish Turkey as a free state. Audience: The members of the People’s Party of the Republic of Turkey, potentially Turkish citizens. Context: Speaking as the leader of the People’s Party of the Republic of Turkey. After the Ottoman Empire lost in World War I, Ataturk established Turkey as an independent state in order to preserve its honor and dignity. He did this by defying orders from higher-ups and leading the Turkish War of Independence.

 “Section 1” Beginning-Educating the People
 Purpose: Provide background information and context. Explain why he felt Turkey should be an independent state. Prove why other people’s solutions were wrong/ineffective.
Claim: The only way to preserve/maintain some of the fallen empire was by establishing Turkey as an independent sovereign state.
Evidence: The Ottoman Empire had fallen and it was never going to be the great power it once was. Foreign powers believed it was already done. Other people’s ideas to let foreign nations help weren’t worthy of being accepted.
Warrants: Asking for help means someone is weak. Someone who is dignified and proud never ask for outside help. Outside powers were going to completely take over the area. (Which is very likely, but still not a cold hard truth.)
Appeals: Creates his image. Pathos-feelings of anger towards the enemy, “Independence or Death” Logic-establishing Turkey as an independent state is the most logical thing to do
Technique: Straightforward tone-this is what happened, no sugar coating. Inclusion of counter-arguments to boost credibility. Provides names of those organizations offering those opinions. (Trakya-Pasaeli Union, Union for the Defense of the National Rights, League for the Secession of Trabzon and District, etc.) Either-or logical fallacy.
 Effectiveness: His opening paragraphs are pretty effective. He clearly sets the stage for his claim, something needed to be done quickly and he took action. His either-or logical fallacy is has a lot of problems, from a technical standpoint, but he remained the leader of Turkey for quite some time so enough people agreed with him.

 “Section 2” Educating the People to Going to Sivas”
 Purpose: Explain step by step how he went got people on his side. Provide a clear timeline for his audience.
 Appeals: Continues to develop his ethos, “proactive” “action person” “I” Creates a sense of unity with occasional “we.” Emotion stirring diction, “dismemberment of our country.”
 Technique: He frequently changes his diction/word choice by switching between the pronouns “I” and “me” and “we” and “us.” He wants to give himself credit, but also make everyone feel included. Harsh dogmatic statement, entente powers would dismember the nation. Little evidence to back up that claim.
Effectiveness: The confidence and lack of wariness in his words makes him seem extremely credible. That, plus his clear and thought out explanation of his actions makes this section pretty effective to most listeners. However, to anyone who disagreed with his opinion that the Entente Powers were going to dismember the nation would not be convinced by his dogmatic statement. He provided little concrete evidence to back up that opinion, he just assumes that people already agree with him. 

“Section 3” Going to Sivas to the End”
 Purpose: Continue the historical context, what else he did to put his plan into effect. Creation of basic constitution.
Appeals: Further builds on ethos, trying to justify and make up for his disobedient actions. Showing he’s loyal to his people and his cause. Logical reasoning for his decisions.
 Technique: Maintained straightforward tone, sharing little details about the encounters, (he was picked as the leader, he didn't make himself it.) Almost completely stuck with the pronoun “I.” A lot of justification through logical reasoning that his actions would helps. I did this to help us. Rhetorical questions-1. to boost ethos 2. to tie up his argument logically.
 Effectiveness: The last section has some really effective moments and some not so effective moments. This in part is because what I've read is excepts, not the entire speech.The beginning is somewhat effective. The section titled “Going to Sivas” seems a little unnecessary because from what I can gather it’s a city he simply passed through on the way to the more important Erzurum. The Erzurum section is better, he shows he didn't self-appoint himself. He was happy holding a lesser position, but the people thought he should the leader. That does wonders for his self-image, he doesn't absolutely need to be the head honcho. The inclusion of the Erzurum constitution is effective, it clearly lays out the principles that Ataturk and his comrades wanted for Turkey. However, the first couple of paragraphs at the very end are confusing and oddly placed. It may be because this is just an excerpt, but Ataturk seems to insult his representatives. The very last paragraph is the most effective. Each sentence builds of the previous one, resulting in a tidal wave of emotional logic. Ataturk explains he couldn't be a follower, he had to stand up for what he believed in.

 Overall: This speech contains a consistent straightforward tone and logical reasoning put in a template structure. The entire speech, with the exception of the last paragraph imitate this tone of “this is what happened and what it means.” It makes the speech easy to read and follow and seem extremely logical. However, some of Ataturk’s claims aren't followed by strong enough evidence. His diction is emotion-stirring and moving, but there aren't many hard facts. From a superficial standpoint the speech is effective, and history shows that Ataturk was effective at persuading people to agree with him. However, from an “Everything’s An Argument” lens, there are a lot of flaws with his claims and evidence or lack there of.