Winston Churchill and His Reinnvent of the Art of War

How should leaders approach the ideas of peace and war? This question has fascinated those in positions of power for ages. Ancient Chinese philosopher Lao-Tzu believes that war should only take place in the direst of situations and should not be considered virtuous (61; sec. 31). On the contrary, Niccolo Machiavelli, a fifteenth-century Italian philosopher, states, “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war…” (86). While Lao-Tzu formulates an ideal approach to war and Machiavelli a practical one, neither one of their strategies would be effective in the real world; leaders must conduct their military with a balance of serenity and brutality.

Nicolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and Sun Tzu’s The Art of War both both provide directions for leadership with similar goals. The Prince is primarily geared towards providing valuable information about how a ruler of many principalities may govern different populations and acquire new lands. The Art of War provides us with a schematic of the optimal path to victory. This book is instead directed towards generals of powerful militaries with only the goal of winning. Concepts such as Machiavelli’s view of destruction will be contrasted with Sun Tzu’s victory-oriented argument for taking whole and several of their other ideas will be compared. Although Machiavelli and Sun Tzu have different intended audiences, many of their ancient tactics can

The year was 1940; the world’s second great World War was in full swing, with Britain and Germany at the forefront. The fall of Britain’s closest ally, France, stunned the British Empire and threw it into disarray. Through the chaos, Winston Churchill emerged. Churchill would be an inspiring leader who was able to rally the entire nation in times of hardship. Through his leadership, the “British Bulldog” would face the Axis powers and come out victorious, as well as become a public hero for the British people. Yet, immediately after the war, Churchill did not return to the prime minister seat because of a shocking defeat in his re-election, despite his immense reputation he gained from the war. Though lauded by the British population for his prowess as a wartime leader, Churchill’s conservative politics were out of touch with a population ready for post-war relief and led to his defeat in the 1945 election.

On the brink of war, with the enemy force appearing impenetrable and unstoppable, new Prime Minister Winston Churchill has the daunting task to rally parliament to enter the war. While speaking to the House of Commons, the representing body in the United Kingdom, he must not only create a lasting impression, but illustrate the logistics of the meeting as well as the dire importance of victory for the Allies. He opens with the immediate facts to answer any of the parliament’s doubts or concerns, then he focuses his attention to unity and expands his audience to the entire country of the United Kingdom to express the sentiment of unity and the importance of the call to arms.

It is vital to attempt to take alternate routes before deciding such a drastic measure as conflict. Doing so will save lives, supplies, and figuratively speaking, morale of the country as a whole. Even so, the natures of war can happen without it being existing, such as feelings of hostility or lack of peace. Just like a human's emotions and temperament, war's nature can be quick, ruthless, and detrimental to one's goals, if no military strategy or planning is put in place to secure victory. But no matter how much planning and precision goes into effect, it is not possible to avoid one main factor of war's nature; chance. It can affect all levels of combat and can be unpredictable in most situations. The leader's ability to adapt to new problems and quick thinking can save a strategy that's been eradicated due to chance or surprise, greatly reducing the likelihood of loss of troops or

In Winston Churchill’s speech, ‘We Shall Fight On the Beaches’ he presents a powerful call to action directly to the British House of Commons in the year of 1940 on the forth of June. Winston uses the techniques of figurative language to capture his audience’s attention in a way they could understand the importance of his message, without disregarding his high level of intellect. In order for one to truly understand Churchill’s message one must understand the difficult task he was coined with prior to delivering this powerful message.

Even before the climactic World War II, Churchill’s mental war starts with the Indian Independence movement. Churchill was brusque about his opinion on the movement, knowingly showing his opposition to the public. “To Churchill, all Indians were the pedestal for a throne. He would have died to keep England free, but was against those who wanted India free.(Tondon, n.d.)” With this ornery still in the mind of the public and government officials, Churchill’s 1940 election was met with opposition. In Churchill and Orwell, “Peter Eckersley, a Tory MP, predicted that “Winston won’t last five months.”(Ricks, pg. 91)” The general public were critical of such a disposition leading the United Kingdom during a time struggle. Even with the public’s pessimistic prospect of him, Churchill’s resilience will become a favorable trait to exhibit in this psychological war.

Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) is one of the most influential presidents in history of the United States. In FDR’s 1941 speech, “On the War with Japan,” he discusses the necessity of going to war in Europe and what it means for America’s future. His leadership skills in combination with his speech causes society to go from an isolationist policy to being motivated to enter and win the war. Through the use of rhetoric, FDR is able to captivate the listeners and encourage them to actively participate in the war. Not only does he play on the emotions of the audience, he also appeals to their sense of patriotism and logic in order to persuade them to get involved in World War II.

"The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on." Ulysses S. Grant.

Sir Winston Churchill’s speech, ‘We Shall Fight on the Beaches’ was a wonderful piece of moving rhetoric. The diction that Churchill uses to deliver his message is not so advanced that one cannot understand him easily, but still manages to portray a sense of Churchill’s deeply intellectual status

Ever since the beginning of time, there has been conflict and conflict will always play a role in the development of history. The world has experienced hundreds of wars with countless casualties, these wars date back to the 10th Century and forward to the present. The United States of America is no stranger to war having participated in over 100 wars either it being a small war or a world war. Michael C. C. Adams “The Best War Ever” gives a rational explanation on the events that led the U.S to become the powerhouse country after sacrificing so much for the war, or did they? In this paper we will support the argument made in Adams “The Best War Ever” Chapter four, appropriately titled “The American War Machine”, other primary sources used will be such as Harry S. Truman first speech to congress in April 1945 and General George S. Patton’s praise speech to the Third Army. The argument being that the U.S did in fact play an impacting role in the outcome of World War 2 but how it also used appearances as an advantage to further develop itself as an international force, just like the tale from the Trojan War, the Trojan horse was all about appearances but with a precise objective.

“The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on”.

Stoler presents three perspectives on the U.S strategy and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s strategic leadership with the allies during the Second World War . The first argument is Hanson Baldwin’s claims of a “political shortsightedness” of the U.S strategy during the war. Baldwin observed that the United States entry into the war only considered the immediate conquest rather than pursuing the objectives of ultimate peace. Additionally, Baldwin asserted that this lack of a clear political objective has been common in the U.S strategy. These sentiments regard the failure of the U.S under Roosevelt to acknowledge that war would be senseless mass murder if it had no elements of politics extension. The opinion presented by Baldwin suggests that in the actual sense, war is a nation’s enforcement of available strength towards a more stable peace. In joining the allies, the U.S only targeted military objectives for victory rather than the realization of political goals through victory. Baldwin also expressed the thoughts that America’s involvement in the war was single-minded, only forging an alliance with the Allies to overcome the enemy. Hence, the U.S entry into the war was more of idealistic than pragmatic, only driven by the desire for conquest without acknowledging the motivations for the war. This argument served to highlight the absence of an assessment of the military and political policy integration as a weakness in Roosevelt’s strategy. Baldwin also discussed the presence of an

Winston Churchill symbolized Britain during World War II. His image, and that of the British people as a whole, was one of defiance in the face of overwhelming adversity. His galvanizing and courageous leadership as Prime Minister of Britain during World War II was the catalyst for the stubborn resistance of the British and the ultimate victory of the Allied forces over Hitler. His speeches stirred the masses and mobilized the British. When everything continued to go wrong, when things could seemingly get no worse, he was there to encourage and give support to the Allied armies. With his inspiring speeches, he motivated the nation of Great

Sun Tzu understood the nature of war as “the province of life or death,” and a “matter of vital importance to the state.”1 I agree. In my own experience, war awakens your primordial instincts and strips you of your self-rationalizations. Sun Tzu defined the character of war when he wrote, “water has no constant form, there are in war no constant conditions.”2 Accordingly, Sun Tzu’s principals of war offer a framework adequate to explain the nature and character of 21st century warfare, which I rationalize as a near-continuous battle of ideologies fought through asymmetric means to advance the values and interests of state and non-state actors.