Question

I will give you the points help!

read the following excerpt from winston churchill's 'their finest hour' speech:
here is where we come to the navy - and after all, we
have a navy some people seem to forget that we have a
navy. we must remind them. for the last thirty years!
have been concerned in discussions about the
possibilities of oversea invasion, and i took the
responsibility on behalf of the admiralty, at the beginning
of the last war, of allowing all regular troops to be sent out
of the country. that was a very serious step to take
because our territorials had only just been called up and
were quite untrained. therefore, this island was for
several months particularly denuded of fighting troops.
the admiralty had confidence at that time in their ability
to prevent a mass invasion even though at that time the
germans had a magnificent battle fleet in the proportion
of 10 to 16, even though they were capable of fighting a
general engagement every day and any day, whereas now
they have only a couple of heavy ships worth speaking of
- the scharnhorst and the gneisenau. we are also told
that the italian navy is to come out and gain sea
superiority in these waters. if they seriously intend it, i
shall only say that we shall be delighted to offer signor
mussolini a free and safeguarded passage through the strait of gibraltar in order that he may play the part to which he aspires. there is a general curiosity in the british fleet to find out whether the italians are up to the level they were at in the last war or whether they have fallen off at all.
analyze the effectiveness of this excerpt. how does it function within the speech as a whole? how does the structure of the excerpt help to convey the speech's purpose and arguments? support your argument with evidence from the speech.

Answer 1

Step-by-step explanation:

House of Commons

I spoke the other day of the colossal military disaster which occurred when the French High Command failed to withdraw the northern Armies from Belgium at the moment when they knew that the French front was decisively broken at Sedan and on the Meuse. This delay entailed the loss of fifteen or sixteen French divisions and threw out of action for the critical period the whole of the British Expeditionary Force. Our Army and 120,000 French troops were indeed rescued by the British Navy from Dunkirk but only with the loss of their cannon, vehicles and modern equipment. This loss inevitably took some weeks to repair, and in the first two of those weeks the battle in France has been lost. When we consider the heroic resistance made by the French Army against heavy odds in this battle, the enormous losses inflicted upon the enemy and the evident exhaustion of the enemy, it may well be the thought that these 25 divisions of the best-trained and best-equipped troops might have turned the scale. However, General Weygand had to fight without them. Only three British divisions or their equivalent were able to stand in the line with their French comrades. They have suffered severely, but they have fought well. We sent every man we could to France as fast as we could re-equip and transport their formations.

I am not reciting these facts for the purpose of recrimination. That I judge to be utterly futile and even harmful. We cannot afford it. I recite them in order to explain why it was we did not have, as we could have had, between twelve and fourteen British divisions fighting in the line in this great battle instead of only three. Now I put all this aside. I put it on the shelf, from which the historians, when they have time, will select their documents to tell their stories. We have to think of the future and not of the past. This also applies in a small way to our own affairs at home. There are many who would hold an inquest in the House of Commons on the conduct of the Governments-and of Parliaments, for they are in it, too-during the years which led up to this catastrophe. They seek to indict those who were responsible for the guidance of our affairs. This also would be a foolish and pernicious process. There are too many in it. Let each man search his conscience and search his speeches. I frequently search mine.

Of this I am quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future. Therefore, I cannot accept the drawing of any distinctions between Members of the present Government. It was formed at a moment of crisis in order to unite all the Parties and all sections of opinion. It has received the almost unanimous support of both Houses of Parliament. Its Members are going to stand together, and, subject to the authority of the House of Commons, we are going to govern the country and fight the war. It is absolutely necessary at a time like this that every Minister who tries each day to do his duty shall be respected; and their subordinates must know that their chiefs are not threatened men, men who are here today and gone tomorrow, but that their directions must be punctually and faithfully obeyed. Without this concentrated power we cannot face what lies before us. I should not think it would be very advantageous for the House to prolong this Debate this afternoon under conditions of public stress. Many facts are not clear that will be clear in a short time. We are to have a secret Session on Thursday, and I should think that would be a better opportunity for the many earnest expressions of opinion which Members will desire to make and for the House to discuss vital matters without having everything read the next morning by our dangerous foes.