'Lions led by Donkeys' - Is this a fair assessment of British generals in the Great War?

        Another fault that the generals are often regarded for was their apparent inability to comprehend, or rather, see the potential of new ideas. General Douglas Haig was one of the few that recognised advantages that could be bought by new weapons and techniques, and one of the few who eagerly sampled them. These new ideas included the use of tanks, gas and radio. Another method that was used was the infamous 'creeping barrage' that proved very effective upon many occasions, and using aircraft together with other techniques in order to determine the enemy's whereabouts. New effective tactics and weapons only came into full use in 1917, but continued to play an important role. It is true that some generals, such as Haig, were over confident at the start of the war, relying too much upon the power that they attributed to their artillery and becoming practically blind towards the negative reports streaming in from the trenches. However, perhaps these generals' optimistic faith was what helped keep the people's morale up, and what helped them to continue aiding the war effort through till the end. This arrogance though also caused several of the leaders to underestimate their opponents - and the machine gun, which only worked to cause more unnecesary casualties.

        Also, a lot of the 'slaughter' was simply unavoidable as the British army was just unacustomed to fighting in 'new-age' circumstances or using new techniques and methods, so it is really no surprise that for the first portion of the war the British tactics were mainly limited to firing at the enemy before sending the infantry 'over the top' at an almost egotistical walking pace as if expecting no opposition - this is one of the occurances that would justify the 'donkey' alias. The fact remains however that the British troops were, in a way, venturing into unspoken territory and had had to adopt a very speedy learning pace. Between 1915 and 1918 the British Expeditionary Force learned how to fight a modern high-intensity war against a powerful and well-trained opponent. The Germans provided a continuous stream of well-armed and experienced soldiers, making it all the more difficult to capture their trenches as they were well guarded; trenches were another new aspect the generals had to deal with. Before 1914 the British army was mainly a colonial police force that was efficient but small; by 1916 it had expanded vastly and had taken on a large amount of totally inexperienced civilian volunteers. As the war progressed, the army had been forced to introduce conscription in order to sustain their forces; again relying upon civilian conscripts. So basically, throughout the war the British battalion was more of a citizen army rather than a professional force, undoubtably making battle more difficult and preparation more time consuming as it would have been had the soldiers been professionals ready-trained. This was too a challenge for generals, so used to traditional cavalry wars and unprepared for modern warfare, that serious casualties and bloody setbacks were ofcourse to be expected during their nevertheless steep learning curve. However, by 1918 the citizen army had proved itself a strikingly formidable fighting force.

        The French called the shots - upon occasion the British generals didn't have a choice in stopping a particular battle. Take again, for example, the Battle of the Somme; albeit there was an exsesive and unnecessary amount of death and injury, but the battle could not have been called off after the first catastrophic day as this would risk the tight aliance between Britian and France as more pressure would have fallen upon Verdun - after all it was the French that had requested British reinforcement in the Somme, so as to effectively sparse out enemy forces. Also, not all the battles fought were failures; for instance, the 'Hundred Days', the last of the war that caused the Germans to call for a cease fire, was a spectacular final achievement for the allies.

        The First World War omitted countless lives on all sides, and though the generals were indeed responsible for a portion of that loss they ultimately achieved their goal by winning the war - therefore, they musn't have been complete 'donkeys'. It is wrong that these men were reffered to as beasts - if not for them, if not for leaders, there would have been no strategy at all and the entire conflict would surely have been won by the Germans. In order to fight effectively there must be strategy, for there to be strategy there must be order, for there to be order there must be leadership; whoever the leaders are must be able to make difficult decisions and choices of literally life and death. Mistakes cannot be avoided, but they are important to learn from and to better the strategies from. The soldiers of the First World War were indeed lions; but their generals were far from donkeys.