Language and social engineering

Hi all,
I was always wondering in what percentage a language is important for social engineering purposes? For instance, the German language is better for propganda than Russian/Mandarin/English language? It is the language structure (romance, indo-european) better equipped for delivering a specific message more forcefully than the other?
There is this book by Bernard Henry Levy that says that the language is extremely important as a power vehicle for any regime.
Can we separate the speaker's talent from the language his speech is delivered to the audience?
I hope this thread will be interesting for everyone.

I think the orator is the main driver for the message delivery in his speech. I've listened recently to a record of Marthin Luther King's speeches on radio. It is difficult to describe, but the message was so incredibly powerful that English didn't seem as a second language to me. I got interested and I found excerpts from Churchill's speeches, JFK, Hruschev's and some old Russian war movies with Hitler's speeches.
However, I think the Germanic languages deliver the message better for me (naybe I'm subjective here because of all years I had to listen propaganda in Romanian socialist regime).

It's got nothing to do with language. Castro could deliver some beautiful speeches, and his language was none other than Spanish (though he speaks English too as much as he would love to deny it)

I beg to differ, it has to do with the language. For instance, the loans from Russian in Romanian never took off, although they were heavily promoted and used in all political speeches and in the administrative style language. For instance, comrade ("tovarishch") abbreviated to "tov" was demoted to the derogatory term "little comrade", which implied sarcasm and low IQ. The wooden tongue used in those times propaganda was full of loans from Russian. This approach backfired and they reworked the semantics of terms familiar to the older generations living then. For instance, "colhoz", the Russian version of land grabbing common property was removed and renamed agricultural production co-operative because it happened that a successful Institute of Cooperation existed bewteen first and second world war. However, they did not see the hirony, because that Institute of Cooperation was full of right fascist iron guard, the mortal enemy of Communist Party.
My question was merely related to the efficacy of propaganda with little or no loans from other language. Is a language more prone to re work word semantics for propaganda?

propaganda?

Yes, all regimes need this tool, because they cannot prove its existence with facts.