Lions Led By Urban Myth

It is often said that in the First World War, the British soldiers were "Lions led by Donkeys" ....

Lions Led By Donkeys ... Popular View

... whilst the statement is not original to the first world war, or even especially to British troops, this is particularly quoted by left wing academics, and lazy journalists, in reference to the perceived class differences between officers and men at the outset of that particular war.

After all it makes a good pithy quote, and quickly and simplistically explains away the carnage of the war, without having to explain to an audience often too idle to read about the war, the complexities of a society and warfare that were being utterly changed by mass industrialisation. 

How in fact that Great War (as it was known by the generation that fought and survived it), was partly fought in that sterile manner (mass charges against the trenches and barbed wire that were strung across western Europe), simply because the invention of machine guns and powerful artillery by 1914, had not yet been countered by the invention of tanks (which came on late in that war, and did open up the trenches by 1918) .... the second world war just 20 years later showed that tanks and mobility had once again been introduced into warfare.

Donkeys And Lions Are A Popular Trope

So the idea that British (and French) troops were being led by generals simply too callous and uncaring of the loss of life caused by their campaigns, is at best simplistic, and worse complete rubbish. Some generals, such as General Haig are often cited as being one of the 'Donkeys' (although modern historians are revising this opinion), and in fairness it could easily be said that he often carried on attacks that had failed their objectives by day one, thus leading to more loss of life than necessary. 

This tendency seems to have been developed after the first battle of Ypres, in which a bloody fight had been won, when the Germans withdrew (at the point of winning), and from which Haig apparently drew the lesson that attacks needed to be maintained so long as there was even the slightest chance of success.

A Donkey Disguised As A Lion Fools No One For Long ....

In fact battle management incompetence was often more of a factor in British losses, than outright callousness. For instance on the first day of the battle of the Somme, the French had gained all their first day objectives for the loss of a few thousand men, the British on the other hand had gained few objectives and lost 57,000 men. The reason, the French didn't plough up no mans land with artillery bombardments prior to battle as the British did. But rather they had a short sharp barrage on the German lines and in front of their troops, so they could get to the German trenches in minutes, unlike the bogged down British troops, who were then mown down by German machine guns.

However, whilst Haig was the poster boy for the post war vitriol against the generals, who were often described as living in châteaus and villas miles from the trenches, while sending millions to their certain deaths ... even if this was ever true, it certainly wasn't the case for hundreds of lesser known generals, who conducted the war in a much more up front and personal manner. Most of the generals were no callous monsters, but were realists who accepted that that war couldn't be won by holding defensive positions in trenches, and only repelling enemy attacks. That given the tactical and strategic realities of the time, offensives had to be launched, and that until tanks came along, that meant throwing millions of men against the enemy positions across large fronts.

Many of these lesser known generals were also brave soldiers in their own right .... often leading their men from the fronts, where fierce fighting was taking place. One general even rode inside an early tank during the first wave in one battle ... in fact so close to the action were many of these generals that:

• 71 German Generals
• 55 French Generals, and
  
• 78 British Generals
  

.... were killed in action during the war. Hardly the result of personal cowardice by these men, who were often brave and distinguished soldiers.

As to whether in fact the politicians are to blame for the war going on past 1914, well that's a different argument .... as soon their 1914 attack in the West, not only failed to sweep the French aside and capture Paris (as in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870), but also brought the British into the war by using neutral Belgian territory to attack through, the German military should have given way to German politicians to start discussions with politicians in Britain, France and Russia to end hostilities, and discuss the latest Balkan crisis (between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia), which had started the mobilisations of troops across Europe. 

However, none of the politicians across Europe had the courage or power to advice (as Winston Churchill once later described it) 'Jaw, Jaw instead of War, War!' ..... the cost of this political cowardice and paralysis was millions dead, and another war twenty years later that cost even more.