Lions led by Donkeys? (2 Viewers)

[UKReb]

Rob mentioned this quote on the Monash thread and I am interested in the views on whether forum members-- especially as we commemorate today the ceasefire on the Western Front- believe this phrase to be still extant today.

I believe Ludendorff coined the phrase in WWI to describe the bravery of the British/Allied Infantryman who faced machine-gun fire with no more than his valiant breast having been ordered over the top by blundering, incompetent British Generals who had grown up with cavalry dominated armies of the late 19th Century.

WWI astonished it's generation with the wholesale slaughter of it's primarily citizen armies therefore it is understandable that some exaggeration should grow up about it that has now proved durable. But leaving Haig to one side (and as the C in C that will be difficult) but:-

Who were these Generals? very few are household names which in itself is a little odd when compared to famous personalities in previous and later wars.
Were they all incompetent?
Did they really all believe that Cavalry and Infantry was the answer against well defended machine-gun positions?
Did they all live luxurious lives in magnificent chateaus miles behind the lines whilst their troops drowned in mud?
Did they all believe that tanks and aircraft were just not cricket and merely a passing fad?
Did they believe that the nature of this war-a conflict of whole nations-meant there was no alternative but a continual wearing down of the enemy by waging a war of attrition?
And if they were incompetent "cowards" How come 78 British/Dominion officers of the rank of Brigadier General and above died in active service on the Western Front?

Just a few of my wild thoughts guys and would be very interested in yours.

Reb

 

[trooper]

I, for one, believe this phrase to be in correct. Were the Generals all incompetent? No, many were but the majority were just out of their depth dealing with a situation beyond their experience or training.
Did they believe cavalry and infantry were the answer to defended positions?
They couldn't break the line with cavalry so they had to use whatever else they had i.e. artillery and infantry.
Did they live in chateaux while their troops drowned in mud? Yes, many did live in chateaux, primarily because they had the room to accomodate all the staff. You could hardly incorporate an army's headquarters in a terraced house or a barn.
Did they believe that tanks and aircraft were just a passing fad? No, aircraft reconnaisance and photography were recognised as fulfilling the function of cavalry scouts and provided necessary intelligence. Tanks were an unproven weapon and as such were viewed with mixed feelings.
Did they believe in attrition?
No, but manpower was a serious consideration, as was proved when the divisions released from the Eastern Front became available in 1917/18.
The figures of staff casualties speak for themselves.

 

[Rob]

Funny thing Reb,i'm reading 'Tommy' by Richard Holmes at the moement and he says there is no evidence at all that the phrase 'Lions led by Donkeys' was ever uttered at all.He also pours scorn on the book 'The Donkeys' by Alan Clark calling it a 'pure streak of deception'.He goes on to say; ' The problem is that such histories have sold well and continue to do so.They reinforce historical myth by deliverying to the reader excactly what they expect to read'.To me this rings true,many people see the first world war as pointless slaughter and the use of millions of young men as dumb cannon fodder,believe me from talking to veterans myself and reading many books on the subject i do not belive this one tiny little bit.

There is no doubt these generals did indeed not only make terrible mistakes but also in many cases continued to do so.Sorry to return to Haig Reb,but there is pretty much no doubt he did think he would blast a hole in the German lines on the Somme and send his cavalry galloping through the gap and into open countryside beyond.He is also suspected of not thinking the machine gun,Tank etc would make a big impact.The machine gun ruled the fields of Picardy that day with terrible effect.

However i do think other local infantry and artillery commanders must shoulder some of the blame here.Call me old Mr faith in humanity,but i do not think if Douglas Haig had truly expected 60,000 casualties on the first day for very few gains he would have launched the attack.Its very easy for us almost a hundred years later to condemn him outright,we probably have no idea the pressure this ageing cavalryman was under to help the French.We cannot blame a cavalryman for wanting to use his cavalry,Ney did the same thing at Waterloo.

There are many examples of incompetance in senior officers in all armies in WW1,Holmes says even Monash was not 'without mistakes'.There are also some attacks that did border on murder.As i stated in my thread on the BBC the US officer who ordered an attack on a French town on the 11th Nov 1918just for the sake of hot water,should have been strung up.But often these generals kept their positions either through having friends in very high places (like Haig)or simply there was no one else to do the job.As in a lot of things its a mix of truth and expected truth.Many commanders were indeed far behind the front and pitifully out of touch of developments and conditions on the ground (British General Thomas on the Somme springs to mind).A lot of people had never experienced fighting conditions like that of the first World War and were totally out of their depth,others did their best and muddled through whilst some went onto shine.Its far to simplistic to paint all with the same brush and it does a great insult to the many men who gave their lives in conditions we hope never to see again.

Right Reb,i'll put on my tin hat and take cover!

Rob

 

[UKReb]

Funny thing Reb,i'm reading 'Tommy' by Richard Holmes at the moement and he says there is no evidence at all that the phrase 'Lions led by Donkeys' was ever uttered at all.He also pours scorn on the book 'The Donkeys' by Alan Clark calling it a 'pure streak of deception'.He goes on to say; ' The problem is that such histories have sold well and continue to do so.They reinforce historical myth by deliverying to the reader excactly what they expect to read'.To me this rings true,many people see the first world war as pointless slaughter and the use of millions of young men as dumb cannon fodder,believe me from talking to veterans myself and reading many books on the subject i do not belive this one tiny little bit.

There is no doubt these generals did indeed not only make terrible mistakes but also in many cases continued to do so.Sorry to return to Haig Reb,but there is pretty much no doubt he did think he would blast a hole in the German lines on the Somme and send his cavalry galloping through the gap and into open countryside beyond.He is also suspected of not thinking the machine gun,Tank etc would make a big impact.The machine gun ruled the fields of Picardy that day with terrible effect.

However i do think other local infantry and artillery commanders must shoulder some of the blame here.Call me old Mr faith in humanity,but i do not think if Douglas Haig had truly expected 60,000 casualties on the first day for very few gains he would have launched the attack.Its very easy for us almost a hundred years later to condemn him outright,we probably have no idea the pressure this ageing cavalryman was under to help the French.We cannot blame a cavalryman for wanting to use his cavalry,Ney did the same thing at Waterloo.

There are many examples of incompetance in senior officers in all armies in WW1,Holmes says even Monash was not 'without mistakes'.There are also some attacks that did border on murder.As i stated in my thread on the BBC the US officer who ordered an attack on a French town on the 11th Nov 1918just for the sake of hot water,should have been strung up.But often these generals kept their positions either through having friends in very high places (like Haig)or simply there was no one else to do the job.As in a lot of things its a mix of truth and expected truth.Many commanders were indeed far behind the front and pitifully out of touch of developments and conditions on the ground (British General Thomas on the Somme springs to mind).A lot of people had never experienced fighting conditions like that of the first World War and were totally out of their depth,others did their best and muddled through whilst some went onto shine.Its far to simplistic to paint all with the same brush and it does a great insult to the many men who gave their lives in conditions we hope never to see again.

Right Reb,i'll put on my tin hat and take cover!

Rob

Well articulated Rob and you can take your tin-hat off.

Black Jack Pershing often quoted that Haig was "the man who won the war" and he should be given credit for the final victory as those crucial battles fought in 1918 (almost forgotten by historians who would rather dissect the Somme and Passchendaele) rate as the greatest series of victories in British history.

You are right that following the war Haig was regarded as a hero and devoted himself to the welfare of the men who served. Also a million people watched his funeral procession through London in 1928 and a further 100,000 queued to walk past his coffin as it laid in state in Edinburgh.

Historians have not been kind to Haig whose reputation has been much maligned which began with Lloyd George's memoirs and has carried on unabated ever since.

But my OP was to garner a few views from others on the leadership of the British Generals during the conflict. However, you could quite easily turn it around and ask What of the German Generals? Have they been maligned by historians as much as the British? I don't think so but that maybe because in my opinion they fought more of a defensive war than offensive and trench warfare lends itself more to the former. It appears to me that following their initial thrust the German strategy was just to dig in and hold their ground while they concentrated on destroying the Russian army in the East. Afterall the Somme was a supreme example of sustained German courage in what must be one of the greatest defensive battles ever fought in the history of warfare.

Reb

 

[Rob]

Well articulated Rob and you can take your tin-hat off.

Black Jack Pershing often quoted that Haig was "the man who won the war" and he should be given credit for the final victory as those crucial battles fought in 1918 (almost forgotten by historians who would rather dissect the Somme and Passchendaele) rate as the greatest series of victories in British history.

You are right that following the war Haig was regarded as a hero and devoted himself to the welfare of the men who served. Also a million people watched his funeral procession through London in 1928 and a further 100,000 queued to walk past his coffin as it laid in state in Edinburgh.

Historians have not been kind to Haig whose reputation has been much maligned which began with Lloyd George's memoirs and has carried on unabated ever since.

But my OP was to garner a few views from others on the leadership of the British Generals during the conflict. However, you could quite easily turn it around and ask What of the German Generals? Have they been maligned by historians as much as the British? I don't think so but that maybe because in my opinion they fought more of a defensive war than offensive and trench warfare lends itself more to the former. It appears to me that following their initial thrust the German strategy was just to dig in and hold their ground while they concentrated on destroying the Russian army in the East. Afterall the Somme was a supreme example of sustained German courage in what must be one of the greatest defensive battles ever fought in the history of warfare.

Reb

Thank you Reb,Haigs efforts in the final phase of the war are totally overlooked because of the Somme and Passchendaele.

But having talked about Haig i'll steer your post back to its more broader subject.It certainly is true there is not half the criticism aimed at German generals than was/is the case with the British and Allied.However this maybe because the Somme and Passchendaele scarred this nation much more than it did Germany.As you say apart from the start of the war,Verdun and in 1918,the Germans fought on the defensive a lot.This involved a lot of digging and as you said sustained bravery and determination over a long period.The bravery and stubborness of the German army (along with the weather of course)contributed to the drawn out misery of third Ypres and to a slow sapping of British manpower and morale.It would always be hard shifting them from foreign soil but i don't think anyone knew just how hard.Their dugouts and trench systems were far superior to ours and were designed to last.The bravery of the ordinary German soldier on the Somme is often overlooked.To stay below ground in a dugout for a week of one of the most ferocious bombardments in History must have been a hideous experience,an experience many went mad from i understand.

I have a point i'd appreciate your views on Reb.Many German veterans of WW1 did not believe they were beaten in the field in 1918.However having retreated for a hundred days is this a realistic view do you think?.

Rob

 

[lancer]

I hesitate to interject my opinion in a U.K. oriented discussion but I would like to say that FM Haig has gotten a bad rap from many historians and public opinion. He was a proffesional to the hilt and I am sure was personally devastated by the features of a war no one was prepared for. Never the less, he did his job and saw it through to the end. Few are aware of the challenges he faced as commander of the largest army ever fielded by Great Britain, both in front and rear. This man did not shirk and should be appreciated for taking on a job that no one was prepared to do. He certainly was not alone in having a long and destructive learning curve, but who in that war did not? He never broke under the tremendous pressure. Pershing was right. JMHO. -- lancer

 

[Rob]

I hesitate to interject my opinion in a U.K. oriented discussion but I would like to say that FM Haig has gotten a bad rap from many historians and public opinion. He was a proffesional to the hilt and I am sure was personally devastated by the features of a war no one was prepared for. Never the less, he did his job and saw it through to the end. Few are aware of the challenges he faced as commander of the largest army ever fielded by Great Britain, both in front and rear. This man did not shirk and should be appreciated for taking on a job that no one was prepared to do. He certainly was not alone in having a long and destructive learning curve, but who in that war did not? He never broke under the tremendous pressure. Pershing was right. JMHO. -- lancer

Excellant post Lancer.We can never forget that the Somme and third Ypres cost a huge loss of liife and many wounded.However in the same way we remember the bad experiences we also must remember the positive.There is no doubt Haig was responsible for the final British victory,he stuck to his guns and saw it through as you say.May i suggest for a truly impartial telling of the Haig story 'Haig-The educated Soldier' by John Terraine.Very interesting and even handed book.

Rob

Once again apologies to my friend Reb,i've unintentionally turned this into a Haig thread!.Sorry mate

 

[lancer]

Hi Rob. To coin an old phrase, "Great minds think alike." I have owned the Terraine book for 30 odd years and find it the best of the Haig biographies although I liked the Cooper work too. There are many British commanders who took unfair beatings to their reputations and need to be ressurected. -- lancer

 

[Rob]

Hi Rob. To coin an old phrase, "Great minds think alike." I have owned the Terraine book for 30 odd years and find it the best of the Haig biographies although I liked the Cooper work too. There are many British commanders who took unfair beatings to their reputations and need to be ressurected. -- lancer

Hey Lancer,its a great book isn't it.(have you read anything by Lyn Macdonald-superb books)Once again theres a good point in your post.A lot of people think the first world war was one huge waste of human life with no purpose at all,and as a result a lot of people turned their (understandable)anger at the Generals.As we've seen before many generals made some bad decisions and probably should not have been commanding men.However to paint all with one historical brush is both unfair and disrespectful for those men who gave their all (many their lives)in doing the best they could for their country.As you say some these men should have their reputations re examined.

Rob

 

[lancer]

I have read and owned the books by Macdonald although the only one I currently own is "Somme". These are absolutely top notch books, valuable for not only the history but for their telling history thru the eyes of those who were there. They are indespensible. I also found Martin Middlebrook to be a great author. His "First Day On The Somme" should be required reading. A superb telling of a tragic, yet heroric effort. I salute them all. -- lancer

 

[marco55]

The British generals learned their soldiering in the small colonial wars in Africa and India and had great personal courage and lead from the front in small company/battalion size actions where personal courage counted for much.I believe their concept of nation in arms was very much behind the continental powers especially at the start of the war were the professional army was practially destroyed.In their younger years they saw time and time again where the personal courage of the British soldiers overcame all odds and this outlook on war was shattered by the first truly modern war.
Mark

 

[Rob]

Far more Generals and Brigadier generals were killed in the First World War than in the second.Thirty four were killed by Shellfire and twenty two by small arms fire,(one-General Frank Maxwell VC- was killed by a sniper at a range of forty yards)i think this does say a lot about how near the front line many of these officers placed themselves.Quote from 'Tommy'

In October 1915 Wully Roberstson CGS warned senior commanders;

Three divisional commanders have been killed in action during the past week.These are losses the Army can ill afford,and the field Marshal Commanding in Chief desires to draw attention to the necessity of guarding against a tendency by senior officers such as corps and Division Commanders to take up positions too far forward when fighting is in progress.

Its difficult to question the bravery of many of these senior officers when at least ten of them held the VC.In his book Richard Holmes accuses Lloyd George of being behind the 'Donkeys' legend in an attempt to cover up his own lack of physical courage.Must confess i don't know enough about LG to know if this is true or not.

Rob

 

[UKReb]

I have a point i'd appreciate your views on Reb.Many German veterans of WW1 did not believe they were beaten in the field in 1918.However having retreated for a hundred days is this a realistic view do you think?.

Rob

Good question Rob but I think the answer is purely down to the tenacity of the fighting soldier, his abhorrence of defeat especially after 4 years of bloody warfare and not having possession of all the facts.

After the German push of early 1918 had ground to a halt and the Allies for the first time actually co-ordinated their attacks they pushed the Germans all the way back to the Hindenburg line. And although it saw the greatest Allied advances it also produced the fiercest fighting of the war out of the trenches. The German soldier was surprised that an armistice had been signed which quickly turned to anger and humiliation, an almost natural reaction-a comparative historical fact:- before Lee signed the surrender at Appomattox a large number of the remaining officers and men of the Confederate army pleaded with him to continue the fight and following the surrender the Reb soldier remained bitter and frustrated over his defeat with a number of die-hards firmly believing they could have won.

But Ludendorff like Lee knew all the facts; Revolution in Austria; the German population starving that was generating unrest; 30,000 Doughboys arriving in France every month; and the German army fast running out of able bodied men. After the armistice was signed in the Compiegne forest in Foch's train and the full terms decided at the Treaty of Versailles re-ignited and fuelled the ordinary German soldier's view that this was a betrayal and they should have gone on fighting.(exactly the same view was expressed by the Reb soldier during the Reconstruction of the South following the ACW)
Many historians today state that in hindsight the Treaty was too Draconian and extremely over harsh for Germany but I have always thought what if the Germans had won? I believe their demands would have been more severe with the annexation of Belgium and Holland plus a good chunk of Eastern Europe and lord knows what else.

As an aside an interesting fact which has almost been forgotten today is that Foch did not believe the Treaty went far enough and boycotted it by refusing to sign the treaty stating
"This is not peace. It is just an armistice for 20 years" that's what one could call a very prophetic statement!

Reb

 

[Rob]

Good question Rob but I think the answer is purely down to the tenacity of the fighting soldier, his abhorrence of defeat especially after 4 years of bloody warfare and not having possession of all the facts.

After the German push of early 1918 had ground to a halt and the Allies for the first time actually co-ordinated their attacks they pushed the Germans all the way back to the Hindenburg line. And although it saw the greatest Allied advances it also produced the fiercest fighting of the war out of the trenches. The German soldier was surprised that an armistice had been signed which quickly turned to anger and humiliation, an almost natural reaction-a comparative historical fact:- before Lee signed the surrender at Appomattox a large number of the remaining officers and men of the Confederate army pleaded with him to continue the fight and following the surrender the Reb soldier remained bitter and frustrated over his defeat with a number of die-hards firmly believing they could have won.

But Ludendorff like Lee knew all the facts; Revolution in Austria; the German population starving that was generating unrest; 30,000 Doughboys arriving in France every month; and the German army fast running out of able bodied men. After the armistice was signed in the Compiegne forest in Foch's train and the full terms decided at the Treaty of Versailles re-ignited and fuelled the ordinary German soldier's view that this was a betrayal and they should have gone on fighting.(exactly the same view was expressed by the Reb soldier during the Reconstruction of the South following the ACW)
Many historians today state that in hindsight the Treaty was too Draconian and extremely over harsh for Germany but I have always thought what if the Germans had won? I believe their demands would have been more severe with the annexation of Belgium and Holland plus a good chunk of Eastern Europe and lord knows what else.

As an aside an interesting fact which has almost been forgotten today is that Foch did not believe the Treaty went far enough and boycotted it by refusing to sign the treaty stating
"This is not peace. It is just an armistice for 20 years" that's what one could call a very prophetic statement!

Reb

Thanks for your answer Reb,much appreciated.When you lay it out like that it does seem the German High command had little choice indeed,events were swinging fully against them.And as you say its perfectly understandable that some German soldiers did not feel they were actually beaten in the field and you put a very interesting comparison to Southern troops in the ACW.It can't be easy for an experienced fighting soldier,still on his feet,still holding his rifle to be told he's lost.And of course we know of one particular German Soldier who took this very badly indeed,and wreaked a terrible revenge on the world as a result.Foch's words were indeed prophetic and twenty odd years later Foch's train was once again called into action for the French surrender.Its hard to believe isn't it that after all that suffering and human sacrafice in WW1, mankind had to do it all over again.I can't help feeling that some of the utter destruction and huge loss of life Germany suffered in bombing raids towards the end of WW2 was a not so subtle message; you will not be allowed to do this again.

Rob

 

[Louis Badolato]

Not wanting to be the one to stir the pot, but I have to ask UK Reb one simple question: If all the mistakes we are discussing concerning attacking fixed positions with infantry and artillery were made by the Union Army in 1864 under Grant (whom history has repeatedly condemned as a butcher) at places like Cold Harbor, when there weren't even true machine guns yet, how could a general in 1914-1918 who made the same mistakes, not once but over and over again for years, with literally hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of his own men killed and maimed as a result, not be condemned as an incompetent butcher? To me the conclusion that Haig was either incompetent or utterly uncaring of his men's safety is self evident from the results. You make a mistake like that once if you are a competent feeling human being. And if your position is threatened by the politicians at home because the war is not being won because you can't come up with a viable alternative to the "over the top" tactic, you step down and let another commander think up a different tactic. Men (and I use that term loosely) like Haig and Joffre should have been shot by their own troops.

 

[Rob]

I honestly do not believe that we a hundred years later can begin to understand the pressure Haig and others were under.Fighting a totally new war in atrocious conditions with huge pressure of the high command of two nations on his shoulders,the man did his best as best he knew how.We have been fed a long lasting myth about allied commanders in WW1,of course there were serious failings but this 'Butcher' tag is nonsense.Haig set up the Poppy (Haig)fund after the war which has and continues to help countless thousands of ex servicemen.Hardly the act of an uncaring man.As one of the soldiers in the book i'm reading said,all these critics of his did not fight in the war and waited until after he was dead.As to Louis's point about him being replaced,i would say who would have replaced him and what would they have done differently?.The main task given to Haig and the desire of the French people was to drive the Germans out of France,this was always going to be a long drawn out and bloody task.

Once Haig had evolved tactics he drove the Germans back in a long retreat to the end of the war.I've said all along yes we have to face the mistakes but we also have to acknowledge the final victory in which he played a large part.

Rob

 

[jazzeum]

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose .

 

[lancer]

I believe that we have to be really cautious in our being critical of past events and the way the man on the spot proceeded. When WW1 broke, no one was ready for a war of such magnitude or the change in tactics that occurred. In simple terms, one weapon, the machine gun, changed everything the generals knew or were prepared to deal with. The days of the glorious infantry and cavalry charges were gone and it would take a LOT of trial and error to develope new tactics to win a conflict where old knowledge and past experiance meant nothing. With a very few exceptions (Petain - firepower kills) no one saw what the machine gun and the new artillery was going to be capable of. Every war requires a learning curve that results in unneccesary slaughter and tragedy. Every war is fought with new weapons and old tactics. The side that adjusts first, wins. I do not believe that any solution to the machine gun was possible without the tank and even when these showed up it took time to wield them into viable weapons in terms of tactics and numbers. Most of the WW1 generals were good professionals who did the best they could with what they had and knew. Some were harder to teach the lesson to. It is a UNIVERSAL problem with all war and militaries. -- lancer

 

[UKReb]

Not wanting to be the one to stir the pot, but I have to ask UK Reb one simple question: If all the mistakes we are discussing concerning attacking fixed positions with infantry and artillery were made by the Union Army in 1864 under Grant (whom history has repeatedly condemned as a butcher) at places like Cold Harbor, when there weren't even true machine guns yet, how could a general in 1914-1918 who made the same mistakes, not once but over and over again for years, with literally hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of his own men killed and maimed as a result, not be condemned as an incompetent butcher? To me the conclusion that Haig was either incompetent or utterly uncaring of his men's safety is self evident from the results. You make a mistake like that once if you are a competent feeling human being. And if your position is threatened by the politicians at home because the war is not being won because you can't come up with a viable alternative to the "over the top" tactic, you step down and let another commander think up a different tactic. Men (and I use that term loosely) like Haig and Joffre should have been shot by their own troops.

Louis

My OP deliberately stated -leaving Haig out of the equation-What I was asking was who were these other blundering and incompetent British generals that have gone into the history books as "donkeys"? and did they deserve the brand. Unless you are a serious student of the war- such as Rob obviously is- these other generals names do not slip readily off the tongue. I know of Lt Generals Sir Hubert Gough and Sir Henry Rawlinson after that I'm struggling to come up with another throughout the whole war. And as nobody has posted these or any others (apart from Rob) then I assume they also know few others by name.

Sure Haig was the British C in C who took over from Sir John French but the "donkeys" is plural-Who were the others? I cannot defend Haig as I was weaned on AJP Taylor's type books on WWI in the '60's where he and other sterling British authors clearly stated that Haig was indeed the "Butcher of the Somme" and as far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on that one.

However, you cannot ignore the contents of Rob's post and in particular Haig's decisions at the Somme. Historical archives state that Haig was ordered to attack the Somme although he wanted to attack at the Ypres salient, the British Government were sure that the French army was at the point of disintegration and if that happened there wasn't a chance in hell that the BEF could hold back the Hun. He attacked at the Somme to relieve the pressure on the French at Verdun and he was ordered to continue that attack for five murderous months.

My question for years has been after that first morning in July and the casualty list that must have been presented to him what kind of man could order troops to continue that offensive for five bloody months. The answer I was given by a teaching colleague "Orders are orders"
Reb

 

[UKReb]

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose .

Exactement! mon ami.