http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcvjoWOwnn4
The Great Dictator, Charlie Chaplin’s controversial satire on Nazi Germany, is set in the fictitious nation of Tomainia under the rule of the remorseless Adenoid Hynkel (a barefaced representation of Adolf Hitler). Chaplin’s character, an unnamed Jewish barber, bears a striking resemblance to Hinkle. Following a series of comedic mix-ups, the barber is mistaken for the dictator, and is set to enact a victory speech to the nation of Tomainia. Despite its short length, Chaplin directs his dialogue not only to the Tomainian citizens, but more significantly, to the American viewing audience of late 1940.
Viewed solely through the context of the film, it is easy to describe Chaplin’s speech as a resounding success. In this case, his intent is to bring about the end of the oppressive regime led by Hynkel, and to empower the soldiers to unite in the fight for democracy. The effectiveness of this speech is enabled by the audience’s assumption that it is Hynkel, not the barber, who is delivering the address. Hynkel’s “ethos” provides a level of credibility that is made truly convincing through Chaplin’s emotional and inspired delivery.
In its broader historical context, The Great Dictator was released in October 1940: a time at which American public opinion was largely ambivalent towards the oppressive policy of Nazi Germany. With this speech, Chaplin sought to inspire viewers to take interest in the fight against both Nazism, as well as oppression as a whole. This ambivalence stemmed not from a logical agreement with fascist policy, but rather from the emotional disinterest of the American public. As such, Chaplin used “pathos” to generate an instinctive emotional appeal from the viewing audience – drawing upon motivational language delivered with genuine passion.
As a whole, Chaplin’s speech achieves its intended effect in both the context of the film as well as in the greater historical framework.
Pop Studies and Rhetoric 
I don’t think that it is an ethos invention so much as it is pathos. His speech is delivered with a very seriuous and concerned tone to convey a message that reads as almost urgent. We need to make these changes now if we want to see improvement later, is what I think he is trying to say. This speech generates a certain level of emotion that the audience is suppose to feel; however, it does not necesarily give light to the kind of person that Charlie Chaplin’s character is.
This speech is fantastic! It’s interesting how relavent it still is today. And to think this one of Chaplin’s only voice films.
In the context of the movie, it is an incredibly inspiring and thought provoking moment, when the entire movie is spent satirizing, and poking fun at the absurdities of a dictatorship, is concluded with an introspective and human view on the tragedy of war, and murdering your fellow man.
In the context of Chaplin’s career, it is inspiring that someone renowned for his career in the silent film era is able to step into the age of sound without faltering.
In the context of the time that this was made, it is impressive that he was willing to make this movie at the height of Hitler’s regime. Overall a great movie, and a great scene.