Churchills Key Elements of Strategic Outlook: Technological Innovation and Military Transformation - Case Study Example

1.Introduction Churchill (1874-1965) was a sman, Nobel Prize winner for literature, avid researcher, historian and military man who led Britain when its very existence was threatened in WWII. After three months of WWII, in the age of 65, Churchill’s greatest achievement was yet to come (Severance 1996, 83). Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) was an Italian dictator, journalist and leader of WWII. He led National Fascist party and was one of the key figures who created Fascist ideology. Italians either loved or hated Mussolini, he was a brutal dictator and was atrociously executed by his own people on April 28, 1945(Haugen 2007, 9).Both of these leaders were brilliant and arrogant figures of WWII who ruled with vigor and people followed them. This paper discusses that Winston Churchill was a better leader than Benito Mussolini because of his military strategies, speaking and writing skills. 2.Early life Churchill was a colorful personality. Due to lack of parental attention, he was a lonely child who translated his loneliness into imaginations that lead him to adventures. Be it his childhood, military endeavors, journalistic experiences or political perceptions, he always choose the way where the activity was most exciting (Severance 1996, 9-10). Mussolini born in a poor family and his struggle started in early age. He unwillingly served as teacher and then became an influential journalist who drove the masses for his own purpose. He was an ardent socialist in his young age but eventually broke with that movement in order to advocate his fascist ideology and Italy’s participation in WWII. He formed Fascist Party and within few years he formed a single-party dictatorship (Weinberg 2005, 41). 3.Writing skills “In 1908,an anonymous author for The Bookman wrote “Winston Churchill, MP,As a Man of Letters,” based on his early writings which had received considerable attention”(Rasor 200,28). He was a Nobel Prize winner for literature in 1953.The spirit of a researcher made him discover the right and soul of a patriotic leader inspired him to present the right thing to public even if they don’t want to listen it. Churchill had some unique combination of determination, imaginative capabilities and courage which differentiate him from other people holding the same qualities. Even fewer are able to express these characteristics in magnificent language. Either we consider Churchill’s essays, books or speeches to British parliament and nation; his word selection is remarkable (Severance 1996, 10). “Winston Churchill chose words for their resonant sounds and arranged them in sentences with rolling rhythms that inspired millions of people and settled in the memory of history” (Severance 1996, 10). Churchill is best remembered as a leader of Second World War and his leading role in giving direction to Britain’s policy and strategy during two World Wars and opening of Cold War. He wrote detailed works on war and politics, his writings are incredibly rich source for studying political and strategic decision making (Maurer 2003, 1). On the other hand, Mussolini avoided getting the job after graduation. For money he tried to get his poetry published but couldn’t succeed. From a troubled youth, Mussolini struggled in his life as a school teacher but he failed. He gained attention as a political writer that changed his position quickly. His articles for a socialist group magazine made him organization’s secretary in no time. In order to avoid joining military he came to Switzerland and even begged and stole to survive. He has the power of words which easily persuaded people. He strived hard to make living as a writer and after two years editorship of a socialist newspaper Avanti, he left that and founded his own newspaper Il Popolo d’Italia which promoted socialist party and trade unions. However, he changed his beliefs and opinions according to the situation and his interest. Throughout his life, he switched from one platform to another depending on his assumption of getting more power (Haugen 2007, 20-25). 4.Speaking abilities Churchill’s words do not narrate, but connote that he was a communicator by birth. He had command over how to portray a scene, present a point of view, and tell a good story. According to his biographer, Geoffrey, he always put his audience as a center of action. In his speeches and broadcasts of war years, he crafted his communication in order to boost the confidence and sense of self esteem of British people. He positioned British people as center and communicated with them as they are the actors on world stage. This step was to inject a sense of courage and to urge them to take ownership of the issue as they say in management today. In the situation of crisis people may feel insignificant and incapable to influence the outcomes. Churchill’s speeches neutralized this sentiment by highlighting individual contribution of British people continuously. Churchill ensured that his message is clear and recorded in everyone’s mind and feelings. His speeches in Parliament were extensively covered and when he went on airwaves, people stop doing whatever they were doing; they just listen to him. He helped press barons of that time; particularly he made Lord Beaverbrook a member of his cabinet (Baldoni 2003, 11). Churchill also made frequent use of memos, or, in his parlance, “minutes.”Reading samples of them, one gets the feeling that he was totally immersed in the activity, quick with suggestions or requests for follow-up. His memo writing enabled him to use his pen when he did not have the luxury of face-to-face communication. These memos also documented what occurred and what follow-up actions resulted. Again and again, Churchill insisted on written communication for precisely this reason: He wanted to be in the loop on important decisions (Baldoni 2003, 11). Mussolini was a skilled speaker who crafted speech with such grace and beauty that Italian young people had learnt some of the portions of his speeches by heart. He was the master of spoken word and could manipulate masses by his speech. He created new style of persuasion and was a great poet. His working capacity was limitless as he virtually never slept and concentrated on work(Laqueur 1990,86).He came to power due to his charismatic leadership and power of his words to move the mass for his movement while positioning himself as a center of idea(Mawdsley 2003,12). No doubt, he was a futurist spokesman and great public speaker who excelled at a kind of rhetoric which promoted rejection of the past and the necessity of war. However, unlike Churchill, Mussolini used his public speaking skills quite destructively by organizing public gathering and raising support for his fascist ideology. He was a Piazza Politics and engaged in squadrismo, a kind of guerrilla warfare. As a dictator he organized bands of blackshirts who burnt and destroyed opposing politicians and journalist offices and murdered them (Hendrix 2003, 50-51).Mussolini, like most dictators was an astute communicator who used his word power for achieving his objectives. With incessant propaganda, using all available means, Mussolini, a great communicator and an expert in the psychology of the masses, built his myth and superimposed it onto the myth of Fascism, so much so that in the following years Fascism increasingly coincided with ‘Mussolinism’(Gori 2005,15). 5.Military Strategies “In the twentieth century, very few individuals occupy as prominent a place for both high leadership in wartime and a writer on politics and strategy as Winston Churchill does”(Maurer 2003,1).Consistency is a key element of Churchill’s strategy(Rasor 200,129).As a military strategist, Churchill cut down the cost of victory by finding out a competitive advantage in wartime. A crucial aspect of his strategic outlook is his interest in intelligence. He enthusiastically sought and engaged intelligence about the political and strategic environment in which he performed. Intelligence provided information about the structure, design and intention of enemy’s force. He saw deception as providing a cover for one’s own actions and its ability to confer strategic surprise (Maurer 2003, 1). Technological innovation and military transformation were Churchill’s key elements of strategic outlook. Technology provided a magic potion to tricky strategic problems. In his view, a skilled enemy force might find ways in strategy to counter technological innovation. However, he considered military transformation can still give vital strategic and operational advantages to one side in a conflict. He closely observed that technological innovation can transform the strategic environment. His support of the tank during the First World War is quite an impressive example of the way a wise political leadership can encourage transformation in a military. He sought to control war’s interactive nature, and technology provided him the way to seize the strategic initiative. Technology enabled Britain to defeat its enemies by providing an element of surprise and controlling the cost simultaneously. He considered it crucial for leadership to provide direction to stimulate the development and use of technology (Maurer 2003, 1-5).With an enemy like Hitler, Churchill realized there can’t be any compromise. He was very sure about his judgment of fighting with Germany. For him, the main issue was when to fight rather than fight or no fight. He considered that military power and its use is vital for survival and freedom. He concluded very accurately about much lesser consequences of fighting with Hitler sooner in terms of bloodshed, wealth and relying on ally support later (Frankel 1996, 333). On negotiation with Hitler, to the War cabinet Churchill said, “I have thought carefully in these last days whether it was part of my duty to consider entering into negotiations with that man,” and concluded: “If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.”He spoke to them, to the House, and then to the English people as no one had before or ever would again. He said: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.”Another politician might have told them: “Our policy is to continue the struggle; all our forces and resources will be mobilized” (Manshester 1983, 6). A method Churchill used to control the situation and his grip over issues was interrogation. As military analyst Eliot Cohen says he didn’t ask questions and forget but he continuously follows with persistent querying of their assumptions and point of view, not just once but continuously in form of debate. Sometimes it proved annoying for his generals but it kept Churchill informed and generals on their toes. Contrary to other leaders (in particular Mussolini) Churchill was a military man and historian, his questions may drove his generals crazy but his comprehensive knowledge provided him a superior credibility in military matters (Baldoni 2003, 12). Another prominent aspect of Churchill’s strategic makeup was his advocacy of indirect strategies for winning in war. Of course, Churchill played a well-known role as one of the sponsors of the ill-fated Dardanelles campaign during the First World War .In the Second World War; Churchill supported the campaigns in North Africa and the Mediterranean (Maurer 2003, 2).Contrary to Mussolini’s stance of entering war when suited him, on fighting a defensive war and fulfilling Britain’s duty to its ally Churchill said: Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous states have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be… we shall never surrender (Churchill 1949, 104). Mussolini’s military vision was not as strong as Churchill’s, neither he was strong about the decisions he made. He is executed and still cursed for his decisions in WWII. Mussolini considered that he is the first fascist leader who attained power and became senior partner in alignment with latecomers as Adolf Hitler. It is due to the perception of his initial reluctance and resentment later for he had to depend on Hitler’s forces to save Italy from military disaster and himself from captivity. For his war aims, Richard J.B. Bosworth argues that Mussolini had limited war objectives that he might be arrived at in alignment with Britain and France, and the point of Macgregor Knox and Robert Mallett that Mussolini always considered and thought about a massive expansion plan. He realized that it can be only achieved by becoming an ally with Germany and against Italy’s WWI allies. German initiation of WWII gave Mussolini a chance to realize his dream of expansion. He was very well aware of the fact that country is neither ready for war nor people are enthusiastic about it. He preached the virtues of war, and he wanted to avoid any blame for being unreliable for Germany. Despite his strong desire, he appeared to be hesitant of joining Germany but eventually entered at a point where he was sure of Italy’s share of the swag, he stressed that frequently to the doubting Ciano (Weinberg 2005, 41-45).Unlike Churchill he lacked foresightedness as military strategist. Certain that Germany would defeat the Western powers, he had decided in his own mind by March 23, 1940, that Italy would enter the war on Germany’s side. As he explained to the still skeptical Ciano, Italy would acquire a Mediterranean empire and access to both the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. He assumes that Hitler would be prepared to split the spoils of war, an assessment that was surely correct at that time but presupposed an Italian military effort that events would show was not forthcoming(Weinberg 2005, 41-46). Mussolini often promoted ostentatious plans that required more talent or the resources than he had. For instance, his theories of naval strategy that emphasize oceanic power, he dreamt of reaching for the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. Nevertheless, he would have to break British and French powers at both ends of the Mediterranean in order to realize this dream. He visualized Italy to be an empire that would had to free from the prison represented by British and French bases in the region, however the Italian navy and his generals were in not in position to do this(Davies and Lynch 2002,166). All of Mussolini’s shortsighted assumptions about the stage of WWII and Italy’s share proved to be completely erroneous in addition to his dream of expansion from all sides. Another military blunder was not informing the people about the soldiers in their least desired battlefield which dramatically weakened Mussolini’s position within the country. Undermining United States’ strength, loss of entire Italian colonial empire and killed or enslaved army portray Mussolini as disastrous for Italy (Weinberg 2005, 47-53). Mussolini was seen as the new Augustus and Churchill as the man of the moment in WWII (Murdoch 1990, 100). Mussolini, despite all his capabilities, could not realize his dreams rather lost credibility of his word and wisdom during WWII. Churchill was a more of a defender who urged his nation to fight for their pride by his deep insight and speech while Mussolini was an aggressor who imposed a war for which his people were not even ready. Churchill proved to be far better than Mussolini as a writer, speaker and military strategist. No doubt, his words and decision will always be appreciated.British nation will remember him as a savior and world as right man of the moment. Work cited Baldoni, John.2003.Great Communication secrets of great leaders. New York: McGraw-Hill. Churchill, S.Winston.Their Finest Hour.Ne York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Davies, Peter and Derek Lynch.2002.The Routledge companion to Fascism and the Far Right. New York: Routledge. Frankel, Benjamin.1996.Roots of Realism.London: Frank Cass and Company, limited. Gori, Gigliola.2005.Italian Fascism and the female body: Sports, submissive women and strong mothers. New York: Routledge. Haugen, Brenda.2007.Benito Mussolini: Fascist Italian Dictator.Minneapolis: Compass Point Books. Hendrix, John.2003.History and the Culture in Italy.Maryland: University Press of America. Laqueur, Walter.1990.Soviet Realities. Culture and Politics from Stalin to Gorbachev. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Manshester, Willian.1983.The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill 1874 Visions of Glory 1932.USA: Library of Congress. Maurer, H.John .2003.Churchill and Strategic Dilemmas before the World Wars: Essays in honor of Michael I. Handel.London: Frank Case Publisher. Mawdsley, Evan.2003. The Stalin years: The Soviet Union 1929-195, 2nd edition.Manchester: Manchester University Press. Murdoch, Brian.1990.Fighting Songs and Warring Words: Popular lyrics of two world wars.London: Routledge. Rasor, L.Eugene.2000.Winston S. Churchill 1874-1965: A comprehensive Historiography and Annotated Bibliography.Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. Severance, John B.1996.Winston Churchill: Soldier, Statesman, Artist. New York: Clarion Books. Weinberg.L.Gerhard.2005.Visions of Victory: The hopes of eight World War II leaders. New York: Cambridge University Press. Read More