“The Germans had perfectly timed their responses to the start of English attacks. It took them less than thirty seconds to emerge from their dug-outs and man their machine guns.” A.J.P. Taylor wrote this source in 1969 for the book ‘War by Timetable’. This source could be taken to support or oppose the view that lions were led by donkeys. It could support the view that lions were led by donkeys, because it refers to the Germans quickly and easily manning their machine guns at the start of English attacks because the English attacks were badly planned by General Haig, allowing the Germans to kill so many people and gain the advantage over Haig’s army. On the other hand, this source could be against the view that lions were led by donkeys because it says that the Germans had ‘perfectly timed their response’. This suggests that the Germans had a large amount of training and skill. If this is true, then Haig might not have been a bad General after all, and the Germans were just extremely skilled. This source might not be very reliable, as Taylor was a controversial historian, and liked to get into arguments, so the source may have been written just to make people believe/ oppose him.
“Haig won the war. That’s what he was asked to do. The methods he employed may be questionable, but what alternative did he have?” This source, written by John Terraine in 1993, does not support the view that lions were led by donkeys. This is because it says that General Haig won the war using the only method that he could, he had to sacrifice the lives of soldiers; he would have lost otherwise. The source implies that Haig was a good General, and that he won the war, which was what he was asked to do, and that the loss of lives was unavoidable. However, this source may not be very reliable, because of a number of reasons. Firstly, it was written in 1993, 79 years after the war in 1916. So it may not be as reliable as a source written at the time, because the writer has not experienced the war first hand, so he could not have witnessed the events that he was writing about.
“Without the support from the air and from reliable motorised units (tanks) it was not easy to have won a war at the time. But sending out thousands of young men to their deaths was not the only solution to this problem.” Lance Thompson wrote this source, in 1978. I think this source agrees with the view that lions were led by donkeys, because although it says that Haig managed to win the war without help from airplanes or tanks, he should’ve used a different method to win the war, instead of killing all those people. Although there must have been another way to win the war, I don’t think that General Haig knew any other way to win, except from sending in lots of men until the enemy is wiped out. I think this source is reliable because Thompson was a historian, so this observation would have been based on fact.
“I believe that the horse is, and will remain, of great value to the armies. Airplanes and tanks are only accessories to man.” This source was written by General Haig, in 1926, and supports the view that lions were led by donkeys because it shows that General Haig holds on to his old fashioned and out of date beliefs about how to win a war, that were probably derived from war books that were written in the 1890’s. The views and tactics in these books, such as the horse being of great value to the armies, were written to be put in to practice in the late 1800’s. They were true at the time, but became obsolete as times changed, and more advanced tactics and weapons were being used. The fact that Haig held on to these beliefs, even though they were not reliable as they once were, suggest that he was not open-minded, and couldn’t keep up with new technology and more effective tactics to stay one step ahead of the enemy. In my opinion, this shows that he was a bad General, although I don’t think that this was necessarily his fault, as he was (probably) taught these tactics when he was training, which would’ve been in the 1890’s when the tactic books were up to date. But this would’ve been a problem for most Generals, as they were all taught at that time, so it doesn’t show that Haig was worse than any other General.
“ ‘Butcher Haig’. That’s what we called him. He’d think nothing about sending thousands of men to die. But then that’s what you’d expect from the so-called ‘educated’ classes.” Bill Brooks, a private in Haig’s army, wrote this source in 1993. This source agrees with the view that lions were led by donkeys because it says that Haig didn’t care about sending thousands of men to die, and this made him a bad General. Bill Brooks perhaps thought that Haig believed that people were expendable because they were uneducated. This source might be biased, because of the following reasons: Firstly, at the time of the First World War, people were prejudiced, because they thought that General Haig was a ‘butcher’, and secondly, Bill Brooks’ friends were killed in WW1, so he had a very bad opinion of General Haig, which he has had over 79 years (this source was written in 1993). Because he has had this opinion for so long, his view of Haig may have become distorted over the years, so it seems to him that Haig is a terrible General, when he might not have been. Even so, this source is backed up by sources written by Bernard Montgomery, Liddel-Hart, and George Coppard.
“The … generals in WW1 appeared to have a complete disregard for human life,” This source was written by Bernard Montgomery, a General in WW2, in 1969. This source agrees with the view that lions were led by donkeys in WW1, because it denotes that the Generals in WW1 were bad. This source may be biased because Bernard Montgomery was a general in World War 2, and may have been written in order to make people think that the Generals in WW1 were bad, making Montgomery seem like a good General. Although he may have been exaggerating slightly about the Generals having a ‘complete disregard for human life’, many other sources agree that Generals didn’t care about loss of lives, such as Bill Brooks, James Lovegrove, and George Coppard.
Lovegrove, a lieutenant in the British army, wrote in 1930: “Haig cared nothing about casualties. Of course he was carrying out government policy.” This source disagrees with the view that lions were led by donkeys because although it says that Haig didn’t care about casualties, it goes on to say ‘he was carrying out government policy’. This implies that it wasn’t actually General Haig who didn’t care about casualties, but the government, so Haig was just acting the way he was told to, not the way he chose, to please the government.
“I feel quite sad… knowing the penalty they must pay.” This source was written by Douglas Haig, watching troops going to the Somme on the first day. This source disagrees with the view that lions were led by donkeys, because it shows that General Haig didn’t want his troops to be killed, but felt it had to be done in order to win the war. I think this source is reliable because it is by General Haig, so it is not someone’s opinion of what Haig thinks, but Haig’s actual words.
“He is brilliant to the top of his boots.” This source was written by Lloyd George, about Haig the PM. This source agrees with the view that lions were led by donkeys because it suggests that General Haig is partly brilliant (‘to the top of his boots’), because he managed to win the war against all odds, but that the rest of him is bad, because he killed so many people trying to win the war.
In 1916, Haig wrote: “Closest cooperation between us and the French is the most important part of our policy.”
This source agrees with the view that lions were led by donkeys in WW1, because it implies Haig just wanted to do what the French said. This may have been because Haig wanted the French to remain allied with England. In addition to this, a source by Henry Hamilton Fyfe, a journalist, said: ‘Most of them were middle-aged, none of their uniforms fitted.’ Also, a source by William Preseey, a British gunner, said in ‘All For a Shilling a Day’: ‘If only the cavalry officer had stopped for one minute and talked to our officers they would have told them of the mounted machine guns…Who had sent that … troop to certain death?’. Both of these sources were written about the French army, and both imply that the French army were bad. If these sources are true, then in my opinion, Haig must have been very desperate for help in the war.
Basil Liddel-Hart, a tank expert and military historian, said, in 1936: “Haig does not seem to have looked upon the ground that the battle was fought on.” This source agrees with the view that lions were led by donkeys in WW1, because it says that Haig didn’t know the conditions of the battleground, implying Haig didn’t make good decision, because he didn’t know the situation at the front line. I think this source is reliable because Liddel-Hart was a military historian, so he would have made this statement based on fact.
“Men must learn to obey by instinct and not question orders.” This was written in a training leaflet of the British army. This source does not agree with the view that lions were led by donkeys in WW1, because these words are still true today, as people join the army expecting to obey orders without question. If every soldier doubted the validity of his orders and refused to obey, there would be chaos. The soldier at the front line of battle is not aware of all the circumstances that have led to orders being given, so cannot be expected to come up with a better alternative.
“You will find all the Germans dead. Not even a rat will have survived.” Haig said this in a speech to his men before battle. I don’t think this source supports the view that lions were led by donkeys. This is because Haig seems completely certain that his plan to win the war will work, and the only thing that will stop it from working is if the army realise they will probably die, and back out of it. I think that General Haig wanted the troops to think about succeeding and winning the war, so that they would not be as scared and would believe they would win.
I think that Haig was a bad General, but it was unintentional, and the result of poor training by the government and out of date beliefs about fighting wars. However, this was a trait of most Generals of the time, because they had all received the same instruction, in their youth (they were mostly aged about 50 –60).
The ‘brave lions’ in the trenches may not have been as brave as they were thought to be by most people of the time and any private that saw fellow soldiers die in battle. The truth was that they had no choice in the matter: if they had refused to go ‘over the top’, they would be shot anyway for cowardice. So in conclusion, Soldiers, not lions, were led by Donkeys in World War One.
