Communications during War
Introduction
Communication is extremely important during the battle. During World War 2, combatants needed better communications to achieve objectives. Many scholars have researched the causes and consequences of the war but the communication method has been a topic of little concern. The purpose of this paper is to examine communication during the Second World War and understand how soldiers communicated with their families, and communication between themselves. This is an important topic in that during warfare, there must be effective communication to enable the military transfer information and maintain security. Today, information and communication technology have improved ways of fighting a war. However, in the past, there were no high-tech digital systems and this raises questions like "how did soldiers communicate with their loved ones and their superiors"? Authors in history say that militaries had their ways of communication. For example, the United States Army Signal Corps provides strategic and tactical communications. FM radio was introduced before the end of the Second World War and homing pigeons were used for communication. However, the days of Army communicators were numbers in that by 1945, there was a communications revolution that led to electronic communications. In general, technological innovations such as newspapers, letters, V-email, FM radio, and watching Movie Theater connected soldiers with their families and the family received detailed information.
Scholars of communications technologies focus much on communications technologies during the Second World War. This is because there was a vast development of technology which had greatly impacted the war and led to the research and implementation of national war policies (Zeiler et al. 2013). It is important to note that during the First World War, the Army communicated using written messages or liaison officers could deliver the verbal message. Commanders also made orders and could travel to deliver the message. Carrier pigeons and dogs were also used to deliver the messages. However, during the Second World War, these methods of communication were less used and perceived as limited. A comparison was done between line and wireless methods to email and Web-based systems. It was seen that modern methods were necessary and methods such as email, web-based systems, telephone, and others were used (Godfrey, 2014). In general, telecommunication was seen as a simple, cheap, and inexpensive method that everyone could access. Telecommunication also was associated with communication quality in terms of voice recognition, privacy, human voice, political strategies, and confidentiality.
Another important point to note is that the command in an army played a significant role in accomplishing the mission. During the war, command and control were vital and this indicates that the two could operate effectively if there was effective communication between personnel (Godfrey, 2014). Thus, command, control, and communication worked together. During the Second World War, the British army employed the technology of that time such as wireless and written messages. The commander used these methods to formulate a plan and to provide detailed orders. A point to note is that during the Napoleonic wars, commanders used a restrictive command system where the commander could travel to deliver the message. However, the British army used wireless technology where the commander communicated the operation objectives and acted in mutual to meet the objectives. If the armies find the objectives unworkable, they were expected to adopt the plan but not referring back to the commander.
Communication during the war is vital but the technological tools during the war period were liable to technical failure, attack by enemies, and other factors. For instance, during the Second World War, sudden unplanned movements were made and movement could be affected by barriers such as the breaking of a telephone line, and an alternative means in case of communication breakdown was used (Sutton, 2002). Another point to note is that electronic methods had complications during the Second World War. These complications were associated with negative effects on performance and security breaches. The technological tools and resources that the British used during the war were ineffective. For example, the Germany army received strict orders from Hitler and they were expected to adhere to them regardless of circumstances. However, the restrictive command had a dysfunction effect in that the subordinates focused on maintaining the relationship with the commander instead of accomplishing the objective.
In comparing restrictive command to directive command, it is important to note that in directive command, the role of the commander is to make and pass orders and monitor the actions. Commanders also ensure that subordinates understand the goal of the action and both commanders and the subordinates create a 'union of views' (Samuels, 1995). In restrictive command, subordinates lack experience and confidence. They stick to the high command hence no opportunity to take the strategic point. For this reason, the British Army abandoned the restrictive command and adopted a mission-oriented command system (Samuels, 1995). The latter provided subordinates with freedom of action and during communication, commanders persuaded the subordinates to have obedience to precise orders. In general, during the Second World War, armies communicated with their commanders or seniors using a mission command where the commander communicated about the orders of attack and details of instructions (Samuels, 1995). An important point to note that in mission command is that, the army commander had the overall control including army orientation and re-orientation. The commander communicated with subordinates and informed about the reorientation. Also, the commander motivated armies and increased morale. The higher commander also ensured that subordinates received logistical services. In general, mission command during the Second World War is effective in that the commander communicated clearly about the missions, ways to achieve the mission, resources to accomplish the missions, and subordinates had freedom of action (Samuels, 1995). Godfrey (2014) says that the British doctrine differs from that of the Second War in that today, the command delegate’s responsibilities whereas during the Second World War, there was a decentralized system where armies received a command from higher authority but they were responsible for their operations.
According to Ford (2015), 'Army leadership' is critical in leading followers. However, the author affirms that leadership cannot be effective without effective communication. Leadership scholars use many attributes that define a quality leader such as adaptive, confidence, and other traits. However, little research has been done on communication trait yet without communication, there is no leadership. It does not matter how a leader is decisive or adaptive, what matters is how a leader communicates. Even though these traits are important, it is impossible to achieve the desired qualities without good communication (Ford, 2015).The reason as to why scholars are forgetting communication skills is that today, army leaders use modern communication tools such as PowerPoint, radio, television, Blue Force Tracker, and other tools. Even though forms of communications such as telephones, telegraph, radio, and others were used, the author says these tools are not effective in that they diminish communications (Ford, 2015). The author concentrates on mission command as a method of communication during the war and says that in Army Doctrine Publication, communication in leadership portrays one key theme: influencing people to accomplish the mission. For a leader to influence, he or she should state the purpose, give direction, and motivate followers. Also, for a leader to influence followers, he or she must listen actively, promote a shared understanding of the facts and opinions, engage followers in the communication, and respect everyone's values and beliefs.
In general, during the Second World War, seniors communicated with their subordinates using mission command. Note that mission command is a process where the seniors not only exchange information but they focus on building trust and shared understanding. Also, there is interactive communication between leaders and followers hence situational understanding (Godfrey, 2014). However, the author says that today, mission command is neglected. The Army officer education system does not provide competencies that army leaders need to exercise. Today, the increased technology has enabled leaders to exert too much control. For example, in operation in 2002, the role of the leader was to create instruction whereas the subordinate commander received the instruction, and rather than disseminate them to the army, he withdrew them (Godfrey, 2014). Furthermore, the commander could use forms of communication such as PowerPoint, Facebook, Excel, and more. A quote made by the Marine Corps. Gen. Mattis in the New York Times says that "PowerPoint makes us stupid" (Ford, 2015). This means that modern norms of communication contributes to the illusion of understanding and commanders are unable to express complex ideas.
In the National Museum of the Marine Corps, people can learn much about military warfare communication. During World War 1, there was a technological invention or new design of the communication system. For example, there were technologies such as telephones and radios but the tools were not effective. This is because, the technological tools were affected by weather, and also the electric lines were attacked by enemies. However, communication was critical and this means that the armies and commanders had to look for other means of communication since the warfare could not continue without effective communication. The military, marines, and allies realized that there were methods that were being used before the war and they could be applicable in their warfare (National Museum of the Marine Corps, n.d). Thus, they used signal flags which carried visual messaged such as the use of naval tactics and types of operations. They also used semaphore signals that revealed what was going on. Other methods include wigwag, electricity, telegraph, SOS, signal lamps, telephone, wireless telegraph, and animal messengers. For example, commanders could write a message on a piece of paper and attach it to the bird and the bird could fly and deliver the message. Dogs also played a significant role in navigating the battlefields and detected wounded soldiers. For example, a dog known as sergeant stubby could smell poison gas and alert the armies about the danger.
Dpherpner (2014) says that propaganda was an effective channel where the armies could read the message about the war. For example, women whose husbands were in the warfare could watch a movie and read posters and they could understand how the war is fought. Americans could also watch movies such as "The Best Years of Our Lives" and they could understand the positive effect of the war or in other words how the war is making a better society (DPHERPNER, 2014). Another interesting point is that armies in the war could read stories from newspapers and magazines and they could read about wives who are unfaithful while their husbands are on the battlefield. Generals and armies used radio to exchange information about the strategies to employ and how to position themselves while on the battlefield (DPHERPNER, 2014). Airplanes played a significant role in warfare such as letters written to family and friends. Armies communicated with others using telephones. Family and friends could write letters to the armies about family matters, local gossip, and other necessary information, and the message was delivered through the mail.
Conclusion
Communication is important in the battlefield. This is because, armies and their commanders need to share information about potential threats, tactics, data, situational awareness and other important information. However, sharing information is a challenge especially when the resources are limited. One thing that people would like to know is how armies communicated during that time yet there was no availability of communication tools. The research paper finds that armies, commanders, families, and friends shared large amounts of information through a wide range of tools such as animals, mail, telephones, radio, newspaper, and more. Another important point to note is that commanders delivered the message through mission command and this means that they provide detailed orders and rules to the armies through decentralized leadership. Since communication is important in leadership, it is worth saying that commanders and armies had a decentralized form of communication where they made decisions concerning the battlefield situation before the mission. There was a shared doctrine and trust between superior and subordinates which resulted to excellent performance.
References
DPHERPNER. (2014). COMMUNICATION DURING WOLRD WAR 11. Families @ War-2-
014 Edition. https://familiesatwar2014.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/communication-
during-world-war-ii/
Ford, C. (2015). Army Leadership and the Communication Paradox. Military Review: The
Professional Journal of the US Army.
Godfrey, S. (2014). British Army communications in the Second World War: Lifting the fog of
battle. Bloomsbury
NATIONAL MUSEUM OF THE MARINE CORPS. (n.d). War Communications during WW1. Retrieved from: https://www.usmcmuseum.com/uploads/6/0/3/6/60364049/nmmc_wwi_military_communication_resource_packet.pdf
Samuels, M. (1995). Command or control. Command, Training and Tactics in the British and
German Armies, 1888–1918, 255-62.
Sutton, R. J. (2002). Secure communications: Applications and management. Chichester: J.
Wiley.Wiley-Blackwell.
Zeiler, T. W., Zeiler, T. W., & DuBois, D. M. (2013). A companion to World War II. Hoboken:
