"Lions led by donkeys". How valid is this interpretation of the conduct of British Soldiers and Generals on the Western Front 1914-1918.

History Assignment –

“Lions led by donkeys”. How valid is this interpretation of the conduct of British Soldiers and Generals on the Western Front 1914-1918

The First World War took place between 1914 and 1918. It was the first all-European conflict for a hundred years. Two extremely powerful states hurled against each other everything military science at the time could devise. It was the cause of millions of deaths and was the most devastating event that had ever occurred. Much of the First World War was fought at a stalemate where both forces fought in trenches. One of the main places for trench warfare was on the Western Front where the states fought in miles of trenches, separated by a few miles of “no man’s land”. This was the stage for the mass butchery of millions of British Soldiers.

The phrase “Lions led by donkey’s” is the common term used to describe the conduct of the British Soldiers and Generals on the Western Front 1914-1918. The phrase means that incompetent, inadequate generals led brave British soldiers. In this essay I will be analysing and studying sources of past and present to conclude whether or not this is a valid interpretation.

One of the major arguments that is often discussed when debating the interpretation “Lions led by donkeys” is that the generals did not have first hand experience of what it was like on the battlefield, as they led comfortable lifestyles many miles from the action at the fronts. This has led to many people believing that they could not be adequate when devising tactics and instructing the thousands of soldiers they commanded. Evidence of people believing that the generals did not really have a clue what happened on the battlefield can be seen when looking at a source from the magazine Punch in February 1917. The source is cartoon with a Major General addressing his men before practising an attack behind the lines saying

“I want you to understand there is a difference between a rehearsal and the real thing. There are three essential differences: first, the absence of the enemy. Now

(Turning to the Regimental Sergeant-Major) what is the second difference?”

Sergeant-Major: “The absence of the General, Sir”

This is a preview of the whole essay

“I want you to understand there is a difference between a rehearsal and the real thing. There are three essential differences: first, the absence of the enemy. Now

(Turning to the Regimental Sergeant-Major) what is the second difference?”

Sergeant-Major: “The absence of the General, Sir”

This source clearly supports the idea of “Lions led by Donkeys”. It does this by showing that the General does not really have a clue what was going on and that they were absent from the battlefield. Although the purpose of the cartoon is to make people laugh and mock the generals it is still reliable when seeing how valid the interpretation “Lions led by donkeys” is. The author, Punch magazine, was a magazine that made political jokes; therefore they would research information into their ideas, thus making the source reliable. Also there must have been some truth in the cartoon to make it funny, if people could not recognise the situation then it would not be mocking anyone. Another way the source can be seen as reliable is how it agrees with other sources. Such as, Source C3 which states

“He (Sir Douglass Haig) lived almost 50 kilometres behind the line and that is as near as he got”

However, the Punch cartoon is exaggerating what happened to make it funnier, therefore decreasing the reliability. Also the source was produced in 1917, after the Battle of the Somme, when the views of generals had become critical due to little progress and news of high casualties. Another reason why the source might be over critical is that Liberals who often criticised the war effort were the main readers of Punch. Despite this, I think this source provides sufficient evidence that generals did not know what was happening on the battlefields.

Another key factor when interpret ting “Lions led by donkeys” is the figures that show the vast amount of British deaths. Source C2 is evidence of the massacre in the First World War, especially on the Western Front. The source shows that nearly ninety percent of all deaths in the War came from the Western Front

This backs up the interpretation “Lions led by donkeys” as it shows that some bad tactics must have been used to cause a loss of life that big compared to all other fronts. This source should be reliable as its purpose is to inform, therefore there should be no point in lying or exaggerating. Also the source is “Official figures” so should be reliable. Although the “missing” list is not included in the figures it should not alter the trend of there being far greater amounts of deaths in the Western Fronts than anywhere else. Therefore I think this source clearly shows that too many lives were lost, thus supporting “Lions led by donkeys”.

The way that troops were sent to fight in impossible conditions and how generals used wrong tactics are other factors that supports the idea of “Lions led by donkeys”. Source A5 (ii), a description of a battle by Captain A. O. Pollard, describes the atrocious conditions the troops were sent to fight in and unsuccessful tactics employed. Evidence of poor tactics can be seen when it describes, after “weeks on end” of artillery bombarding the enemy’s barbed wire,

“Usually we ran up against large patches of uncut wire”.

This clearly supports the idea that the generals were donkeys and that their tactics did not work. One of the main tactics exercised by the British was to use heavy artillery to destroy the barbered wire, however, as the source shows this was usually unsuccessful. The patches of uncut wire left impossible conditions for the soldiers to fight in and to make matters worse troops were

“Burdened like packhorses”

With ammunition and rations. I feel I can rely on this source when inquiring, “Lions led by donkeys” as Pollard would just be stating his views of the war. However, his opinions might have been influenced by the cynical views of the generals of many people at the time. But, I do not think this jeopardizes the reliability as it agrees with a lot of other sources such as source C4 where it says

“Any Tommy could have told them that shell fire lifts wire up and drops it down, often in a worse tangle than before”.

Although many sources agree with “Lions led by donkeys” there is another side to the story where many historians argue that the generals did what had to be done and successfully won the war.

The way that the generals did successfully win the war is a key factor to be considered when justifying “Lions led by donkeys”. Today when remembering the First World War the focus is on the mass casualties and “donkey” generals, however, it should not be forgotten than Britain did successfully win the war. The way that the generals did win the war is often queried, as there were so many deaths, however, as Sir Douglass Haig, who was later appointed Field Marshal on the Western Front, described in source B3

“No amount of skill on the part of higher commanders, no training, however good, on the part of the officers and men, no superiority of arms and ammunition, however great, will enable victories to be won without the sacrifice of men’s lives”

Here Haig reveals how the type of warfare meant that there was no option but to have heavy casualties. I feel this source can be relied on, as Haig was not really trying to make himself look good, but just to prepare the nation for heavy loses. Yet sources on Haig cannot always be relied on. This is to do with him probably having to use propaganda. In source B4 (ii) Haig describes the battle at the Somme, he says

“the battle is going very well for us”

“The enemy is so short of men that he is collecting them from all parts of the line”

And “Our troops are in wonderful spirits and full of confidence”

I feel this source is very unreliable. This is because the purpose of the source was probably to boost confidence of the British troops and people. Also the source is dated as 1st July 1916, which is the first day of the Somme, where we know that about 20,000 soldiers were killed. This is a clear contrast to Haig’s words, therefore decreasing the reliability. Another indication that sources from Haig are unreliable is that there is some evidence that his diary entries were edited after they were written.

Although in many people’s eyes Haig has been seen as a murderer, “The biggest murderer of the lot was Haig”, he led the British army to the “greatest series of victories in the British Army’s whole history” between August and November 1918. This extract written by Peter Simkins shows how the generals were actually extremely successful. I think this idea of great success is reliable as the purpose of the source is just to inform. Also Simkins is the Senior Historian at the Imperial War Museum therefore his work should be researched and well informed, therefore meaning there must be truth in it. Also it is true that this period between August and November 1918 did exist, as it is still known today as “Hundred Days”.

In conclusion I feel that the interpretation “Lions led by donkeys” does have a lot of truth in it. Many sources prove that generals did lived many miles away, too many lives were lost, bad tactics were used and there were impossible conditions. However, it should not be forgotten that Britain did win and this stalemate warfare could only be won with heavy losses.