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.