…“The barbed wire has never been so well cut, nor the artillery preparation so thorough”…
This suggestion from the Source, named Source F, is subjected to a bias opinion with a clear attitude of over confidence; as the fact of battle, recorded by British soldiers suggests that many areas were undamaged from planned artillery bombardments, which created a funnelled effect of troops in areas of gaps within the barbed wire. This caused mass casualties of British soldiers, around 57,000, due to the undamaged areas of barbed wire creating a confluence of troops entering German fire. This false pretension created by Sir Douglas Haig, supports the statement of Lions led by Donkeys, as the British Commander himself was contradicting the events of the battle, for his own status within the public eye. This leads to the un-reliable context of the source, as the Commander was expressing his own opinion on the battle, forgetting the mass casualties of lives involved with his tactics of battle, but the source was written at the time of battle, including the main points on a primary basis. The diary may have been written for the future publication after the war, for the Commander to illustrate himself as a powerful and important figure within the success of war.
The pace of the British soldiers created confusion in the opinions of the German officers, as the heavy packs for trench repair created a slow offensive of British soldiers, across No-Man’s land, compared to a planned walk to victory, which indicates poor planning and over confidence for the tactics of trench repair. Source A illustrates two German officers contemplating the British tactics of battle, as the German officers use the opinion of Lions led by Donkeys to explain the strange failed offensive of the British army.
…“First German Officer: The English soldiers fight like lions.
Second German Officer: Yes but they are led by donkeys”…
This primary source of information explains the slow pace of the planned attack, which would have overwhelmed the German forces if the heavy trench packs had not held back the forces. This source explains the interpretation of the unclear leadership of the English Commander Haig, an interpretation that was present in the public opinion in the aftermath of the war. The source is subjected to a bias opinion as the comment was produced from German officers, which means the suitability of the source is un-reliable. The source is useful for the illustration of the “Lions led by Donkeys” statement, as the opposition itself commented on the poor tactics of the English Commander, yet the English soldiers did not comment on the poor tactics of Commander Haig.
The contemplation of the leadership of Commander Haig has created suspicion of the tactics used within battle, as Commander Haig certainly knew about the German dugouts and the mass of barbed wire at the front of the German defence at present. The planned bombardment of the German trenches turned into a negative offensive, as the huge shell attacks created an uplift of the barbed wire, creating a more difficult challenge for the penetration of the barbed wire. The German’s were positioned upon high ground, an advantage for the view of attacks within fortified dugouts situated since 1914. This fact was under-estimated by the British Commander, creating the up rising of a negative opinion within the public.
…“It was pure bloody murder, Douglas Haig should have been hung, drawn and quartered”…
This statement from a source of personal account suggests that Douglas Haig was an over-optimistic Commander at the fate of Britain’s soldiers, as the first day of battle turned into a massacre of death and casualties. This source displays a primary account of a soldiers view on his personal battle on the Western Front, explaining his hatred for the casualties involved with the battle. This rational witness account is an eye witness source, as the soldier displays his views on the agreement of the Lions led by Donkeys statement. This statement suggests that the British soldiers did not believe in the British Commander, due to the hatred involved with Haig’s tactics, but sources in the case of this personal view may be subjected to bias opinions, due to the death of relatives involved in the battle of the Western Front. The news reported back to the British Isles consisted of positive morale, due to the censorship of the DORA act for the control of news and reports. Media companies comprised their story material around the fact of the victorious events of battle, to successfully meet the action plan of DORA. A News of the World article produced in 1916 conveys the positive events of the battle at the Western front, illustrating the picture of success in the actual deadly military advance. The article does not include the fact of the huge massacre of soldiers on the first day of battle, in a convenient message of censorship.
…“ On remainder of British front, raiding parties again succeeded in penetrating enemy’s defences at many points”…
This statement creates a positive situation of the Western Front, for the British public to believe in the efforts in progress for a confident victory for Britain. The source is a primary source, as it was created at the time of the events of battle, but this is a strong element to conclude that this source is subjected to the “Good News Only” censorship act in place at this time as ordered by the British government. The article conveys the successful attack in conjunction with the French forces, but the fact of battle suggests the French forces were in need of help, creating a main British offensive on the Somme, a reversed situation to the original attack. This suggests that this article included positive manufactured information, preventing the release of statistics of death tolls and bad leadership within tactics, as a successful way of meeting the censorship act. This source proves the “Lions led by Donkeys” statement as false, as it illustrates the successful attack under the leadership of the British Commander, illustrating Haig was following orders.
The Battle had certainly devastated the lives of many soldiers within the first day of fighting, leading to a pointless non-military advance causing doubts in the mind of General Rawlinson for the continuation of the battle. Commander Haig insisted that fighting should prevail over the months of July and August, but this action created minor gains of French territory (as with the capture of the village Pozieres), with many lessons to be learnt from the devastation of the battle. The devastation of the battle created mass- criticism for the British Commander Haig, as the primitive Cavalry charges and massed defences of men; caused the brutal climax to the most blood thirsty battle in British history. The criticism created a plan for new tactics, with the introduction of tank charges in a different section of the Somme area, undertaken on the 15th September. This new plan of attack created minor gains, with a gain of 25Km length and 6Km width of land, totalling British casualties of 420,000, a costly consequence for the minor territory gained. This fact is the main subject surrounding the “Lions led by Donkeys” statement, as the poor tactics planned by the British Commander Douglas Haig; resulted in the minor gains of land, creating a questionable opinion of the British public, as to why their relatives were subjected to the brutal warfare of battle for a gain of 150Km² of land?, but we must remember Haig was following orders from government.
The aftermath of the battle created the bitter criticism of the politicians directed at the British Commander, as with the media opinions of the soldiers present at battle, presented the title of “The Butcher of the Somme”. Commander Haig did not believe in the personal statement issued by the media, as he believed the key objectives of the battle had been achieved with the Verdun area of France saved, with the aim of a “War of Attrition” successfully met, due to the 500,000 German casualties. Sir Douglas Haig stated that he warned the politicians in 1916 that the country had to be prepared for huge losses, for Britain to become successful within the war against the German offences. This is in direct contrast to the British Prime Minister David Lloyd George’s opinion on the tactics of Sir Douglas Haig, as the prime Minister questioned the intellectual qualities of the Commander, stating he was not good enough for the command of the Thousands of British soldiers. The source states the opinion of the Prime Minister, within the cabinet of the British Parliament, but it illustrates the lack of action of David Lloyd George, as he did not appoint a new Commander.
…“I thought Sir Douglas Haig was intellectually and temperamentally unequal to the command of an Army of millions”…
This quote taken from Source D, illustrates the opinion for the “Lions led by Donkeys” statement, as the Prime Minister is questioning the tactics used by the British Commander in charge, questioning his intellectual insight into the tactics of battle. This main fact created damaged confidence for the leaders within the public eye, as the poor relationship between the Commander and the Prime Minister displayed a poor stability of power, due to the Prime Minister’s personality clash statement with the Commander. This source is not a totally reliable source, as Lloyd George disliked the Commander, which subjects the comment made by Lloyd George as a conflict in opinion. The source was taken from a war memoir of David Lloyd George written twenty years after the war, which may include bias opinions of his successive role, with his opinion of the Commanders negative tactics of battle.
The changing opinions within the British public, created a two-sided fact of whether Commander Haig was successful in the tactics used within the battle, or whether his careless tactics were the cause of the thousands of casualties recorded. An article published on a modern day website stated the victories of the Somme attack, outlying the forgotten bravery which Commander Haig had achieved.
…“During the period known as the “Hundred Days” a dozen major victories were won, the greatest series of victories in the British Army’s whole history”…
This source is suggesting that great courage was undertaken within the battle, within the determination of leadership which displayed huge successes, not just negative outcomes. This source is a secondary source of information, as the article is taken from a present publication, which may not include relevant facts. This article displays the changing opinion of the public, as the hatred of casualties caused a first hand interpretation of blame, but over time we have analysed the facts and have observed the achievement within the battle. This article does not agree with the “Lions led by Donkey’s” statement, as the article is supporting the input of Commander Haig’s leadership as a positive element of the battle as more material of sources becomes available over time.
In conclusion, I believe the “Lions led by Donkey’s” interpretation was a valid comment to explain the devastation of battle under the leadership of Sir Douglas Haig, as the Commander planned tactics which were poorly planned due to the lives of many brought to a death due to poor leadership. The shocking figure of a 58,000 death toll on the first day of battle illustrates the severe argument of the leadership at the time of the battle, as the Commander carried out un-successful attacks on the breaching of barbed wire defences, with the written statement of a successful first day at battle within the second part of source F.
…“The battle is going very well for us and already the Germans are surrendering freely…”
This is one of the opinions taken from the diary of the British Commander, which displays the un-reliable effect of the source, due to the thousands of deaths recorded. The leadership was the main factor for the loss of lives within the battle, concluding the statement to be true in my own opinion of the Battle of the Somme.
