Lions led by Donkeys?

[Darth_Pugwash]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwone/lions_donkeys_01.shtml

My knowledge of WW1 is very thin, but I found this article interesting. It challenges the traditional view that the British Army of WW1 was commanded by incompetent technophobes.

So, does the "Lions led by Donkeys" tag contain some truth, or is it a myth? Or a mix of both?

I tend to think that it is a mix of both, but, as I say, my knowledge of WW1 is very thin, so I am interested to hear what ya'all have to say about this.

BTW, it is the 90th anniversary of the start of WW1 in afew days, IIRC.

 

[Tallanas]

Like many "soundbite" style descriptions of history, which by their very nature are sweeping generalisations, there are grains of truth and no small amount of exaggeration.

I can't think of any circumstances under which a war was fought after a period of such frantic technological and military advancement, coupled with a new-found and desperate need for tactical advances which simply weren't put in place soon enough.

Technophobes is the wrong word to describe the British high command. If anything, they were too eager to embrace new technology such as tanks. Their use of modern weaponry combined with tactics that had not changed greatly since Waterloo was inevitably going to cause insane casualties.

But both sides did the same thing, which is why it just became a war of attrition.

Many of you who are not English may never have heard of the comedy programme Blackadder, but it was a comedy set during the Great Push of 1917. One of the gags runs along these lines - Captain Blackadder feigns surprise when a General tells him that there is a secret master plan behind British strategy. He then asks if the plan is to continue with total slaughter until there is no one left except Field Marshal Haig, his wife, and their Dachshund, Colin. To which the General replies, "Gah, even you know it!"

Funny programme, well worth watching if you can find it.

 

[WS78]

Black Adder 3 or was it 4? Loved them all.
"eat knuckles Fritz!"

 

[Tallanas]

That's 4

 

[Adversary]

'Lions led by donkeys' was what Adolf Hitler said when describing the British army in world war one.He also said that the most formidable army would be the British army led by German officers.
The saying isn't a myth it was actually said.A pretty good description in my opinion.Another quote which i consider to be absolutely spot on is this one: World war 1 was a 19th century war fought with 20th century weapons.

EDIT: I just remembered.Iam sure it was said by Adolf Hitler when the Germans were weighing up their plans at the beginning of world war 2.They were considering each of their potential opponents and on discussing the British it was said then.

 

[Tallanas]

Hitler may well have said that ("Lions led by donkeys"), but it would be wrong to attribute the quotation to him as if he coined it.

Ludedndorff and Hoffman, two very senior German generals in the Great War are said to have had the following exchange:

Ludendorff: ‘The English soldiers fight like lions.’
Hoffman: ‘True. But don’t we know that they are lions led by donkeys.’

In addition, the phrase was, according to the Centre for First World War studies, certainly used as early as 1870 to describe the French at the siege of Paris.

It would seem that Hitler relied on others' wit...

 

[Adler17]

This was not said about the British but the Russian soldiers shortly before the battle of Tannenberg. However both officer corps were full of incompetent persons. Haig or von Rennenkampf are only a few example. The biggest moron IMO was not Haig but General Aitken who landed at Tanga. He could have achieved his objective to crush the German defense, if
1. he landed in Tanga and not several km south of it. There was a big mongrove jungle full of crocodiles and snakes- and a dam which now was a fortifcation.
2. he at once took Tanga and attacked the few Germans defending Tanga. But he had to land every thing on the ships, from gala uniforms to corned beef- without securing his landing area. So v. Lettow- Vorbeck was able to drive with new troops tp Tanga, but he was only able to form there a force of 1000 men with mostly outdated guns and a few MGs. Artillery was not available until the last day of the battle when two old guns arrived from Daressalam. Aitken on the other hand had 8000 men and the artillery of two cruiser.
3. he made reconnaissance patrols. Then he knew about the snipers in the trees and the fortifications. But he had to attack without any recon missions. So the British were trapped and at first attacked by a German company which suddenly appeared out of the jungle and frightended the British / Indian troops so that they flew at once back to the ocean. The brigadier gave the report he was attacked by 2000 Germans instead of the 200 in reality.
4. he made a core from his few good companies and form the 3rd rate troops around them instead of mixing. And he had to attack again without any scouts . So they were trapped again. They had to fight against heavily fortified German MG nests as well as snipers- without artillery because Aitken denied the requests. Although loosing many men the British Elite soldiers were indeed able to take Tanga but the German counterstrike was so effective taht most of the Ghurkhas died in fights man to man. The German Askari fought there even with swords as well as the Ghurkhas. Nevertheless the British would have won the battle because the Germans had nearly no ammo left. But in this jungle were also bees which now were not very amused by the shootings and attacked the incoming British soldiers. So they again run into the sea. Aitken only saw his men waving and running away with crys of pain but without hearing shots. Now he gave the order to bombard the German positions but the grenades hit the German ambulance- full of wounded British soldiers- and the retreating British troops.
At the very end 78 Germans were dead but over 1600 British soldiers were dead or missing in the swamps.
This is one of the best examples for the British leadership quality of ww1. There are some other examples: Dardanelles, Jutland or Somme. Oh at Tange the Brits tried an invasion again- and were repelled again. It seems to be they learned a lot . Oh with the British equipment general Paul von Lettow- Vorbeck was able to give his troops new weapons. He got only three times supplies in the war: Twice via German blockade runners and once by the Brits.


Adler

 

[nonconformist]

They are definitely Lions led by Donkeys. Soldiers of extreme courage led by incompetent leaders with outdated tactics. The use of attrition is horrible. It is saying you do not care how many of your own men get slaughtered, as long as they take an equal number of enemy with them.
Didn't German officers figt in the trenches more often than the British?
Anyway, the way the army behaved was appauling. The order was to get out of your trench, fix bayonets, and walk across no-man's land, nom running, and no firing untill the enemy trench was reached.
Also, the number of children fighting because the government didn't care is appauling. Even more so the 15 year olds who ran away, and were shot, murdered by their own side. It is a horrible and poignant piece of British history. The government still refuses to pardon the soldiers shot for falling asleep, shell shock, throwig weapons away in the face of the enemy (dropping your rifle, and not picking it back up) and ther such "crimes". It is absolutely appauling, enough to make me ashamed of being British.

 

[Kafka2]

The fact that British officers were screamingly incompetent was long-established by WW1. In fact, WW1 represented a marked improvement from the truly surreal leadership displayed in the Boer War.

 

[Verbose]

Senior commanders on all sides took a beating, but the British most consistently. In France you either became a hero (Joffre, Pétain) or a villain (Nivelle, Mangin). German commanders seem to have gotten of lighter (Hindenburg even supplanted the Kaiser as the father-figure of the nation), but commanders like von Falkenhayn probably wouldn't have won any popularity contests. (He started Verdun as "the anvil upon which we will beat the French nation to death"; pity he would be using the German nation as the hammer.)

Even if their options were limited as far as battlefield tactics were concerned, they all failed to grasp how the new mass-armies of conscripts differed from the smaller professional ones. They kept treating them in the same way, only on a larger scale. You can order professional soldiers to go out to die without giving them reasons. They accept it as an occupational hazard. If you do it to civilians-turned-soldiers for the duration of the war there will be trouble.

One of things learned by junior commanders in the field in WWI was that this kind of soldiers need motives and explanations (even if simplified) for why they are going somewhere and what they will be doing. Those officers who rose to senior command in time for WWII (Montgomery, De Gaulle) were a lot better at it than their predecessors.

 

[Adversary]

I'll go along with that Kafka2.I disagree with the previous post though.I cant remember all the ins and outs but it was definetly said about the British.If it was also said about the Russians then i haven't heard that.

 

[philippe]

Incompententcy because of nobility.
Napoleon realised it. The Brits didn't
Napoleon destroyed.
WW1
Brits get ass kicked

 

[Tallanas]

It is a horrible and poignant piece of British history

Well, the Great War is not just British history...

It is absolutely appauling, enough to make me ashamed of being British.

I never understood why people feel this way...

Brits get ass kicked

Are we talking about the same war? Everyone took a beating in that war, in terms of casualties, but singling out one nation as "getting their ass kicked" is asinine...

 

[Adversary]

@Philippe - Trying to draw a parallel between horrendous casualties and nobility..
what utter rubbish.How come the French and Germans etc fought in the
same way.So what did Napolean contribute to the French's Performance
in WW2.
If your'e looking for a reason for such high casualty figures in WW1 in all the big battles think -- Outdated tactics and 20th century weapons.

 

[Verbose]

@Philippe - Trying to draw a parallel between horrendous casualties and nobility... what utter rubbish. How come the French and Germans etc fought in the same way.

Especially since the Prussian officer corps (the biggest of the German armies) was a very aristocratic club. And they were still good at their job. (Though the Germans did look to merit when picking people for the general staff; like the un-aristocratic Hoffmann and Ludendorff.)

 

[nonconformist]

Well, the Great War is not just British history...






I never understood why people feel this way...



Are we talking about the same war? Everyone took a beating in that war, in terms of casualties, but singling out one nation as "getting their ass kicked" is asinine...

Tallanas, those remarks were primarily aimed at the officers who ordered the shooting of their own men.

 

[Tallanas]

Tallanas, those remarks were primarily aimed at the officers who ordered the shooting of their own men.

Yes, but why should something that was common practice amongst every nation that fought in the war (the French and Germans did exactly the same) make you feel ashamed to be British...?

You might as well feel guilty that we once had an Empire, or that the Druids used to perform human sacrifices...

Let me guess, you do feel guilty that we had an Empire...

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

What do you all think of the article's claim that the British army had evolved into a formidible and effective force by 1918? The Brits won the battle of Ameins, through new and sophisticated use of tanks, air support and 'creeping' artillery. They advanced over 8 miles, and the Germans lost 27,000 men.

I know next to nothing about WW1, but I have been reading up on it recently, and it sounds to me as if the Brits learnt some valuable lessons, and put these lessons to good use in 1918. Why, then are the commanders considered to be so incompetent?

I have heard all the stories about sending thousands of men 'over the top', and straight into certain death, attrition warefare, and I find it utterly disgusting, but maybe the incompetence of the commanders has been exagerated over the years?

 

[samildanach]

My understanding of Tanga is that the bees turned both the British and the Germans on their heels. Of course, perhaps you are right Adler and the German supermen took the swarms of african bees in a stoic manner.
Do you think your comparison of Arthur make short work of a lot niggers Aitken at East Africa and Beattie at Jutland is a fair one or is it just an anti-British troll?
Aitken was perhaps the worst commander in British military history, apart from the thousands of British soldiers he managed to lead to their deaths, he managed kill 1000s perhaps 10,000s of African porters.
Yes, germany came out on top in the East African theatre, but it took someone like Aitken for it to happen. Other than him Britain seemed to do quite well against the military genuis of Germany.

 

[stormbind]

Incompententcy because of nobility.

It was nothing to do with background

1. Tactics weren't inherited, they were learned at Officer School.
2. Most officers were not nobility.

1. British soldiers were led to believe they were physically inferior and thereby scared into training twice as hard = Lions.
2. British officers were trained in superior old-school tactics and discouraged from reinventing the wheel = Donkeys.

There are many sick examples of blinded leadership in the British military throughout WW1 and fewer, but still too many in WW2.