World War 2 Least and Most Effective Leaders

  

Date Posted: 10/16/2012 4:11:51 PM

Posted By: Geekeijoe  Membership Level: Silver  Total Points: 453

---

Naturally, arguments have been made that without Hitler there would not have been a WW2, but surely without leaders like Mussolini and Tojo, the aggressor''s side would not have been as strong; without the defense side led by Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, the WW2 could not have been as competitive; similarly, Hirohito, Yamamoto and Chamberlain played major roles. These leaders had effective leadership; however their effectiveness varied. "Who among them was least effective and who was the most effective? Effective leadership requires foundation of strong relationships to construct a clear outline of the responsibilities they must uphold (William Shakespeare, 1971).
Contents
1. Aggressive dictators'' role
2. The defensive leaders'' role
3. Conclusion
1. Aggressive dictators'' roles (Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo)
Hitler; Nazi dictator of Germany (1933-1945) was a conferred speaker, all the same he was an incomprehensible racist; his racial pureness was omnipotent. He was responsible for the holocaust which left 11 million people exterminated. Effective leadership is not brutal.
Mussolini; Prime Minister, Italy (1922-1943); his aggression of fascism led to his failure, he had unorganized military and ultimately this made his nation a puppet for Hitler. Effective leadership involves firm support system.
Tojo; Prime Minister, Japan (1941-1944); when his attempt to improve his relation with US failed, he ordered an attack on Pearl Harbor. Tojo took his nation''s power to revenge over his failure; effective leadership is not personal. (Ando 2008)
2. The defensive leaders'' role (Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Yamamoto, Hirohito, chamberlain)
Churchill; Prime Minister, Great Britain (1940- 1945); was elected to replace chamberlain, by the time Britain was under threat by the powerful Germans but the ''British lion'' used

his fighting spirit to raise his people''s morale. His strong alliance with Roosevelt led to the great victory on defensive side. He was the most prominent leader and greatly effective (William Hitchcock).
Roosevelt; President USA (1933-1945); declared war on Japan after the bombing at Pearl Harbor. He manipulated Stalin after gaining his confidence and by so doing, Russia joined the defensive side. Manipulation is not an effective characteristic in leadership (ILLIAM HITCHCOCK).
Stalin; Dictator of Russia (1928-1953); weakened his army by killing his officers; he ignored warnings of German invasions later to realized the need to allow his generals to fight professionally. His political terror was not an effective character (Clausewitz vs.) Yamamoto; Admiral Japan, pearl attack planner; fought for his country''s royalty but against his will. Favored loyalty but demised principles. Hirohito; Emperor; was swayed by army and navy against his will to order the Japanese surrender of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, He was cowardly and unprincipled. Chamberlain; Prime Minister Great Britain (1939-1940); gave up a lot of land to Hitler and allowed him to recreate an army; caused Norway to lose to Germany. He also was uninspiring war leader. He resigned when he failed to make a national government. (Ando 2008)
3. Conclusion
Chamberlain failed enormously just as his ambitions for a national government. Being a pattern failure makes him the least effective; Churchill was not only effective but also observed values of effective leadership; on the whole he was the most effective.

---

Next: The catchy history and arms of music
Previous: Challenges facing adult education in Kenya.