Józef Piłsudski’s Speech in the Sejm, 10 February 1919

Józef Piłsudski's speech in the Sejm, 10 February 1919

The English text below is our own translation of the Polish original.

Author's note: This analysis was made on a speech whose text had been written down on paper. Treat it as a starting point for thinking about your own speeches rather than as a standard to follow, because delivering a written speech is a very different activity from speaking (even when you speak from a prepared structure).

Text of the speech (without annotations)
Analysis of the speech

Text of the speech

A century and a half of struggles, often bloody and full of sacrifice, has found its triumph today. A century and a half of dreams of a free Poland has awaited its fulfilment in this moment. Today is a great holiday of the nation — a holiday of joy after a long, hard night of suffering.

In this hour of the great beating of Polish hearts I am happy that the honour has fallen to me of opening the Polish Sejm, which will once again be the sole master and host of its native home.

The joy of this day would be a hundred times greater were it not for the worry that you are gathering at an exceptionally hard moment. After a long and ruinous war the whole world, and Poland with it, waits with longing for the peace it desires. In Poland that longing cannot be fulfilled today. The sons of the Fatherland must go to defend its borders and to secure for Poland its free development.

Our neighbours, with whom we would wish to live in peace and concord, do not want to forget the age-old weakness of Poland, which for so long lay open to invasions and was the victim of a foreign will imposed on her by violence and force.

We do not want to interfere in the internal life of any of our neighbours, but we cannot allow our right to an independent life to be violated under any pretext whatsoever, even under the pretext of a supposed benefaction.

We shall not give up a single span of Polish soil, and we shall not allow the borders to which we have a right to be diminished.

The aspirations of our neighbours have brought it about that we now find ourselves in open war with all of them, or at the very least in severely strained relations.

The bright side of our external relations is the tightening bonds of friendship with the Entente powers. A deep sympathy has long united Poland with the democratic world of Europe and America, which does not seek glory in conquests and the oppression of other nationalities, but desires to order relations according to the principles of justice and right.

That sympathy grew stronger when the glorious armies of the Allied powers, shattering the last might of our oppressors, freed Poland from bondage.

I am convinced that cordial feelings and an undeniable community of interests with these powers will make substantial and effective help on their part a necessity for us.

For a century and a half the Polish nation was forced to conform to laws imposed by foreign violence. Unable to order its life according to its own will, it lost over that long period its sense of law and its faith in its own strength. Endowed today with the nation's trust, you are to give it the foundations of its independent life in the form of the Constitutional law of the Republic of Poland. On that foundation you will form a government resting on laws established by the nation's chosen representatives. The laws passed by you will be the beginning of a new life for a free and united Fatherland.

Poland, surrounded on all sides by enemies, must have an army equal to its heavy tasks. You are to support and develop the building of the army that has been begun, so that the Fatherland, shielded by the breast of the soldier, may feel safe and certain that the honour of its cause is defended by a strong and well-equipped army.

Finally, Gentlemen, you will without fail turn your close attention to the ailments of our economic life, crippled by the rule of foreigners and badly ruined by war and occupation. In this field, the proper regulation of the affairs of our declining industry and of the necessary agrarian reforms, in the spirit of progress and of the great democracies of the West, will create sound foundations for the spiritual strength of the nation and give a lasting base on which to build its future.

Wishing you, Gentlemen, success in your difficult and responsible work, I declare the first Sejm in a free and united Republic of Poland open, and I call upon the eldest among you, Deputy Ferdynand Radziwiłł, to assume the provisional chair.

Analysis

Józef Piłsudski's speech is a ceremonial speech, delivered at the opening of the first sitting of the Sejm of the Second Polish Republic, known as the Legislative Sejm.

Ceremonial speeches belong to the epideictic kind of speech: they refer to the present, praising or criticising it. Later in this speech, however, there is a shift from the current situation to the future, to the deliberative kind, which argues for the steps that the audience, the deputies of the Sejm, should take.

Photograph of the event. The building of the Alexandrian-Marian Institute in Warsaw. — Józef Piłsudski opens the first sitting
of the Legislative Sejm, 1919

Introduction

A century and a half of struggles, often bloody and full of sacrifice, has found its triumph today. A century and a half of dreams of a free Poland has awaited its fulfilment in this moment. Today is a great holiday of the nation — a holiday of joy after a long, hard night of suffering.

In this hour of the great beating of Polish hearts I am happy that the honour has fallen to me of opening the Polish Sejm, which will once again be the sole master and host of its native home.

He begins the speech solemnly, using elevated words to raise the standing of the day.

"the honour has fallen to me"; "a century and a half of dreams"; "this hour of the great beating of Polish hearts"

The joy of this day would be a hundred times greater were it not for the worry that you are gathering at an exceptionally hard moment. After a long and ruinous war the whole world, and Poland with it, waits with longing for the peace it desires. In Poland that longing cannot be fulfilled today. The sons of the Fatherland must go to defend its borders and to secure for Poland its free development.

Here the earlier tone is broken. The dominant feeling is no longer pleasure and joy, but unease and worry.

A conclusion also appears (The sons of the Fatherland must go [...]) before the premises that justify it. This adds force to the statement, and at the same time makes us ask Why?.

Body

Our neighbours, with whom we would wish to live in peace and concord, do not want to forget the age-old weakness of Poland, which for so long lay open to invasions and was the victim of a foreign will imposed on her by violence and force.

We do not want to interfere in the internal life of any of our neighbours, but we cannot allow our right to an independent life to be violated under any pretext whatsoever, even under the pretext of a supposed benefaction.

We shall not give up a single span of Polish soil, and we shall not allow the borders to which we have a right to be diminished.

The argument set out next starts from the premise "there are neighbours (other countries) who remember that Poland was historically weak". Therefore:

The borders must not be allowed to be diminished
The sons of the Fatherland must go to defend its borders

A further premise of this argument is the comparison drawn between Poland, which does not want to interfere in the affairs of other states, and the assumption (unspoken here) that the neighbouring states will intend to interfere in Poland's affairs.

Argument

Present information that supports main points of your speech.

If a speech contains a thesis, this thesis must be supported by arguments.

Arguments can refer to different modes of persuasion - Aristotle pointed out three: pathos (simply put, emotions), ethos (simply put, your credibility and authority) and logos (data, logic - or tricks merely imitating logic).

It's worth to mention that arguments do not need to be logic-based in a formal sense. A good rule of thumb is the ARG rule (described by Trudy Govier) which says that an argument can be deduced from premises that meet the following criteria:

are acceptable to the audience (they refer to common knowledge, topics or in any other way are hard to falsify)
refer to a main premise which we want to prove with our argument (as a counterexample: Poland does not need to introduce Euro because China does not have the currency and experiences economic growth - both countries are unrelated to each other)
together all premises give a satisfactory ground to persuade audience that the main premise is also true (as a counterexample: all people I know earn less money than the average, so the average must be wrong)

We recommend constructing arguments that use logic to infer some premise from statistics, data, and research - if that research was conducted in an impartial manner to minimize error (for example, by using scientific method).

At the same time, a well-narrated anecdotical evidence that taps into emotions can be of similar strength (in reception) to a logical argument. However it depends strongly on the target audience. Appeals to authority are similar in this perspective.

A decision which arguments and which types of arguments should be chosen depends on the goal, message, audience expectations. If the audience needs to make a decision on their own, it's desired to put more data and logical arguments. If the speech should motivate people to do some action, arguments relying on personal stories and emotions can persuade audience.

See also: argument with omitted preposition, argument from deduction, simple conclusion, present a fact.

from 30s

The close of this passage is compelling, built on repetition: we shall not give up... we shall not allow....

The aspirations of our neighbours have brought it about that we now find ourselves in open war with all of them, or at the very least in severely strained relations.

The bright side of our external relations is the tightening bonds of friendship with the Entente powers. A deep sympathy has long united Poland with the democratic world of Europe and America, which does not seek glory in conquests and the oppression of other nationalities, but desires to order relations according to the principles of justice and right.

That sympathy grew stronger when the glorious armies of the Allied powers, shattering the last might of our oppressors, freed Poland from bondage.

I am convinced that cordial feelings and an undeniable community of interests with these powers will make substantial and effective help on their part a necessity for us.

The next argument invokes hope, resting on the fact that there are also countries with a shared form of government, among them the Entente powers (Great Britain, France, the United States and so on).

At this point, still in a mood of hope, the speech changes from epideictic to deliberative.

From this moment on, Józef Piłsudski addresses the deputies of the Sejm in the imperative, and the next three paragraphs of his speech form a single call to action with one general message.

Call to action

Persuade and empower your audience to take action.

This element will typically be used in your conclusion. It is here that you paraphrase your whole speech into actionable points for your audience to follow. The speech up to this moment was explaining problems and possible solutions, but at this moment you are going to put the tools into the hands of your audience. You can call to do a specific thing, to stop doing a specific thing or to maintain status quo.

How to end with call to action? E.g.:

Self-reference your opening statements.
Make an example - I'm already doing that. Will you?
With a simple anecdote that visualizes what would happen if we started doing the action now (or in near future).
Presenting data in memorable format - If all of us spent one less minut with lights on...

Focus on the power to spread the idea by using memorable, short sencences. Consider answering the question: What your audience should tell somebody who does not know anything about the topic?

from 60s

Each of the paragraphs, however, refers to a different sphere of governing the state.

For a century and a half the Polish nation was forced to conform to laws imposed by foreign violence. Unable to order its life according to its own will, it lost over that long period its sense of law and its faith in its own strength. Endowed today with the nation's trust, you are to give it the foundations of its independent life in the form of the Constitutional law of the Republic of Poland. On that foundation you will form a government resting on laws established by the nation's chosen representatives. The laws passed by you will be the beginning of a new life for a free and united Fatherland.

The first paragraph concerns establishing an effective system of law. It is also a chain of conclusions: sentences in which each one is built on the one before. This creates the impression of a sudden quickening of the speech, even though its pace has not changed.

Simple conclusion / Conclusion chain

A direct conclusion frawn from a single premise. Allows for chaning premises.

Also known as signum.

A few conclusions following one another construct a chain of conclusions (sorites - a stack in Latin). These allow to gradually transform one premise into another in a way that is understandable for audience and avoid mental shortcuts.

Note that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so try to draw only strong conclusions that cannot be simply refuted. It's like multiplication of probabilities - one in two times one in three makes the whole only one in six. A chain of conclusions grows weaker with all of its weak claims and may result in you being perceived by your audience in a bad light.

Example: We've seen a smoke from a couple of streets away from here. There's probably a fire in there (conclusion). There might be people that need help (conclusion). Let's go there and find out (conclusion).

Conclusions are drawn from one premise and because of that these are simple and can be condensed in time.

from 30s

Poland, surrounded on all sides by enemies, must have an army equal to its heavy tasks. You are to support and develop the building of the army that has been begun, so that the Fatherland, shielded by the breast of the soldier, may feel safe and certain that the honour of its cause is defended by a strong and well-equipped army.

The second paragraph concerns establishing a strong army that ensures the security of the state. It takes a similar form to the previous paragraph.

Finally, Gentlemen, you will without fail turn your close attention to the ailments of our economic life, crippled by the rule of foreigners and badly ruined by war and occupation. In this field, the proper regulation of the affairs of our declining industry and of the necessary agrarian reforms, in the spirit of progress and of the great democracies of the West, will create sound foundations for the spiritual strength of the nation and give a lasting base on which to build its future.

The third paragraph concerns economic reform, consisting of land reform and the rebuilding of industry.

It is worth considering what effect invoking the three {law, army, economy} has in a call to action. Did Józef Piłsudski want his audience to remember all of his points?

We may suppose that at the level of single keywords ({law, army, economy}) it will be remembered. Why, then, did he not simply say for the country to function, a strong law, a strong army and a strong economy are important?

The purpose of a structure used this way is to reach different groups within the audience. If among the deputies of the Sejm there were those for whom making law mattered most, or those who wanted to look after a strong army, and also those who cared most about rebuilding the state, then each of them would find in this call something for them personally.

A speaker should not worry that a given listener may have no interest in the other two categories, if while hearing the third they feel as though the words were addressed to them in particular.

It is worth adding that you cannot speak in this form for too long either. In a longer speech you could lose, this way, the two thirds of the audience who are not interested.

Conclusion

Wishing you, Gentlemen, success in your difficult and responsible work, I declare the first Sejm in a free and united Republic of Poland open, and I call upon the eldest among you, Deputy Ferdynand Radziwiłł, to assume the provisional chair.

Short and to the point. With content this spare, attempting a summary and repeating what was said a moment ago would make no sense.

Proportions

The great majority of this speech is the body; the introduction and (especially) the conclusion are reduced to a minimum.

Thanks to this, the speech supports its purpose: to show that stagnation cannot be afforded now, because it is the actions taken at this very moment that will decide the future of the country.

See our other materials too.