Lions Led By Donkeys Analysis Essay Example

the situation was like, the result would be more men dying than in any other war.

The source could've been biased either way because Gerard de Groot was a biographer, and he could have written this for a biography of Douglas Haig that was for Haig's family, (so he would appear kind), or for someone who didn't like Haig, and wanted this biography to portray him as an evil man. However, I don't think this source was biased, because it does not show the opinion of the writer, just the fact that Haig preferred his chateau rather than the trenches.. 'He was a butcher. We had no chance.

Most of my mates were dead in the first ten yards. ' Private George Coppard, who took part in the battle of the Somme in 1929, wrote this source. I think it was written to try to make people feel sorry for him, and make people dislike General Haig because his friends were killed. But although this may be biased, it is backed up by sources written by Gerard de Groot, Bill Brooks, Bernard Montgomery, etc. It is also backed up by historical evidence, which says that almost twenty thousand men were dead in the first day.

This supports the view that lions were led by donkeys because it suggests that George Coppard's 'brave' friends were killed by General Haig wrongly ordering them to go over the top and carry on advancing even though they were being mowed down by the enemy. Sources from textbook: Haig wrote just before the Battle of Somme, 1916. ‘The nation must be taught to bear losses... The nation

must be prepared to see real casualties.... three years of war and the loss of one-tenth of Britain’s men is not too great price to pay’.

This suggests that Haig did know that so many people had already died and yet he still ordered more attacks. This shows he didn’t care about all the losses, making him an inconsiderate fool. Instead he said the nation must be taught to bear losses, meaning there would be many more deaths to come. Although some people may think that Haig was just telling it straight to the public, he wasn’t covering up the truth of the terrifying war and he was informing the public to expect many deaths, making him a wise general and not a donkey. From Josh Brooman’s book ‘The Great War’, 1991. On that first day of the Battle of the Somme, 20 000 British soldiers were killed and 35 000 wounded, but this did not make General Haig want to change his methods’. This author of this book is basically saying despite General Haig knowing the number of soldiers killed or wounded he didn’t want to stop sending them over the top, this is what Josh Brooman thinks of General Haig, that he was a donkey but he may not think all generals were donkeys. From a modern history book ‘In one regiment, the Newfoundlanders, 684 out of 752 (91%) were killed or wounded in half an hour.

No Germans were killed’. This shows us that so many people were killed because the generals ordered attacks, if they had thought carefully and planned out these attacks properly, so many people may not

have been killed. I trust this source as it is not biased in any way because it shows plain facts and figures, statistics. From one of Haig’s generals who said this in 1915 when told that the Battle of Loos had cost 60 000 lives. ‘What the hell does that matter? There are plenty more men in Britain’. This shows the generals didn’t care bout lives, they just wanted to win in any way whatsoever. If those generals had to fight themselves they would hate the idea, but just because it’s not them who have to fight they think it’s alright for the other soldiers to ‘go over’ and die. One of Haig’s generals said this about the area where the Battle of Passchendaele, 1917 was fought. He said: ‘My God, did we really send men to fight in that? He was questioning what they did; only fools would do that. The generals should be sure and certain about sending men to fight; they should know what will happen and the consequences.

If they made careful decisions they should know the outcomes and not question their decisions. Haig believed that horses were going to be very important for the future of warfare; he thought machine guns were hardly needed. ‘The horse is the future. Aeroplanes and tanks only aid the man... ’ Now this is the talk of a real idiot, he thinks horses are better than the powerful machine guns. Machine guns themselves can destroy, but a horse cannot, if a horse is injured, you cannot go on. Horses can be injured or killed very easily and if they are hurt on the

legs they will fall and so will the rider.

Not all Generals were Donkeys and Soldiers were Lions... There are many counter arguments saying that it was not all the generals’ fault and they were not all donkeys. Also I will look at a wide range of sources that suggest soldiers were lions because I think they link in with ‘Not all Generals were donkeys’ as teamwork from both leaders and participants is required for success. Before the Battle of the Somme, the generals provided the soldiers with plenty of encouragement and assured their troops that the shells would destroy the enemy before the men went into battle. You will not need rifles... you will find the Germans dead, not even a rat will have survived’. These words do not sound as if they came from a donkey’s mouth; they sound encouraging and know what they’re talking about. This makes me think if the generals were as bad as they were made out to be. Another piece of encouragement was from General Haig himself ‘In another six weeks the enemy will find it hard to get enough men’, Haig is supporting the men and telling them not to give up, telling them they will win in another six weeks. There is also evidence from photos which can help us in many ways.

For example from a photo we can tell who the Germans and British are and how many soldiers are dead. From one particular photo where there are dead German soldiers at the Battle of Somme; ‘The British fired over a million shells at the German trenches for five days’. This tells

us that generals were wise because of the planning they did for such a successful result. Some people may think it was all because of the soldier’s bravery and courage that they destroyed German trenches and killed so many Germans. Some may think it was due to both Generals and Soldiers working together effectively. We had heavy losses in men and material’, this quote is from a German general Ludendorff. This quote tells us that if there were heavy losses in men and material for the Germans, this must have been due to the good organisation of the generals. It also could mean this was due to the guts and spirit of the brilliant soldiers, who stayed determined and fought without being cowards. There is a statue of Field Marshall Haig in London. There has recently been a campaign to get it removed. Some say that the memorial should be of an ordinary soldier not of a general who sent so many to their death.

I think why would a statue be made of a brainless donkey or fool? I though statues were only made of respectable people who have achieved something great in life. They must have made the statue because they thought Haig was a good leader who enabled in the victory of World War 1. Not all Soldiers were Lion’s World War One soldiers knew their king and country expected them to fight to the death. Such was the expectation of their military commanders, their political leaders and even their loved ones that there was no question that if mortal danger came, they should face it like men.

It was

the only way for good to triumph over evil. But this conflict quickly became the most brutal war in history and not even the most seasoned serviceman was prepared for the scale of carnage (bloodshed) that unfolded before him. For many the horror proved too much. Hundreds were unable to cope, many were driven insane and several simply ran away. But the army could no more afford to carry cowards than it could traitors, and many of those who did flee faced death and torture: shot at dawn.

An overall 306 men were killed for cowardice by the firing squad, for example: J H Abigail, J S Adamson, Timothy Hope, Tom Hopkins and William Jones, these are just a few out of the countless shot at dawn. Conclusion To conclude, overall there is a lot of evidence to prove that ‘Lions were led by donkeys’ but there are also many counter arguments saying that this was not the case for all generals and soldiers. Everyone has different opinions and I believe Lions were not led by donkeys, I think the key to success in WW1 was down to the teamwork and joint effort from both the soldiers and the generals, if one of them were lazy, they failed.

The soldiers needed to be encouraged by their Generals. For example: There is a statue of Field Marshall Haig in London. There has recently been a campaign to get it removed. Some say that the memorial should be of an ordinary soldier not of a general who sent so many to their death. And some say that statues are not made of donkeys but of

respectable people. There are two arguments to this statement and both are right. I believe instead of there just being the one statue of General Haig there should still be his but around it statues of ordinary soldiers too so it shows fellowship and co operation between a general and his troops.

At times the statement ‘Lions led by donkeys’ is proved right but this is talking about some Generals, mainly Haig because he was so popular and not all Generals, so we can’t really make a judgement from a few cases. Same with the soldiers many were brave but there were a few who were not lions at all. ‘Haig believed that horses were going to be very important for the future of warfare; he thought machine guns were hardly needed’. This is what Haig thought, not all Generals so we can’t say they were all donkeys. ‘We had heavy losses in men and material’, this quote is from a German general Ludendorff.

This quote tells us that if there were heavy losses in men and material for the Germans, this must have been due to the good organisation of the generals. It also could mean this was due to the guts and spirit of the brilliant soldiers, who stayed determined and fought without be cowards. This is a case of teamwork and there are many more cases like this where Britain succeed. Overall I believe the success to WW1 was due to teamwork and the fails were because of lack of joint effort by both Generals and Soldiers.