This study analyzed and compared Kim Il-Sung and Pericles’ speeches before and after the wars as political discourse. To analyze speeches, this article used a political discourse framework based on the three principles suggested by Aristotle: ethos, pathos, and logos.
 The analyses of four speeches shows that to persuade the audience, both Pericles and Kim Il-Sung successfully used pathos to make their speeches more compelling. 
However, Kim Il-Sung’s speeches were less persuasive than Pericles’ speeches in terms of logos. Furthermore, in light of ethos, Pericles’ speeches had persuasive power, while Kim Il-Sung’s speeches had varying degrees of persuasion contingent on the audience. 
More particularly, Kim Il-Sung’s speeches were compelling for North Korean residents who believed he brought freedom to Koreans, but not to others, in terms of ethos. These analyses demonstrate that Kim Il-Sung’s speeches were less persuasive than Pericles’ speech, and the power of persuasion could be stronger or weaker depending on whether the audience had faith and trust in Kim Il-Sung.

Ⅰ. Introduction

Ⅱ. Analysis of Speech as a Political Discourse

Ⅲ. Analysis of the Kim Il Sung’s Speeches Before and After the Korean War

Ⅳ. Analysis of the Pericles’ Speeches Before and After the Peloponnesian War

Ⅴ. Comparison between Kim Il-Sung’s and Pericles’ Speeches

Ⅵ. Conclusion

References