History-Lions Led by Donkeys Essay Sample
Written by Alan Clark a politician in the 1960s this citation describes the leading of the British Military and their schemes used in the Great War. It suggests that soldiers contending in the World War were courageous and brave as he refers to them as king of beastss. In comparing their leaders. the generals were mindless and stupid like donkeys. By keeping these features many believe generals exposed 100s of 1000s of British soldiers to their decease. The term concentrates specially on the attempts of Field Marshall Sir Douglas Haig Commander-in- Chief of the British Army on the Western Front from 1915 through to 1918. Haig was given the duty of interrupting deadlock and hopefully conveying an terminal to the war. He was subsequently given the name ‘The Butcher of the Somme’ because of the huge sum of British soldiers that died in his presence. Many assume he deserves his bad repute but there is besides grounds to explicate his tactics and other generals like him. Generals were detached and withdrawn. They lived a surprisingly epicurean life as the war went on. They were nicely housed stat mis from where the frontline ballad and fed so they were ne’er left with an empty tummy.
In the trenches soldiers were faced with atrocious conditions on the frontline with a deficiency of good nutrient and the menace of diseases due to the disintegrating organic structures of fellow work forces and large sized rats hungry to feed. They were ne’er safe and would hold to populate in the fright of being gassed or shelled. The generals seldom fought or even visited the frontline but alternatively were kiping ‘in a cozy bed in a quiet state chateau and dined on the best nutrient available’ wrote Gerard De Groot in a life of Haig. With this it appears that generals were contending a more comfy war than the work forces in the trenches giving them an detached attitude. They did non see the full impact of warfare but watched and commanded from afar. Tacticss used by generals were insistent and out-of-date. Field Marshall Haig was 54 in age and was a great horse commanding officer in the Boer War which had taken topographic point 15 old ages earlier. His military calling was a long and successful one but he was sterile in his schemes and relied on those that he had successfully used in the yesteryear.
In 1916 the Gallic were faced with a hard state of affairs as the Germans attacked around the town of Verdun killing about 700. 000 Gallic soldiers. The British High Command led by Field Marshall Haig set about seeking to alleviate the force per unit area on the Gallic. He decided to be after a major onslaught along the River Somme in hope that it would pull the German soldiers off from Verdun. There was an artillery barrage for a whole hebdomad before Haig gave the order to travel over the top. It was about five months that it took to raise the force per unit area off of Verdun with 100s of 1000s of soldiers deceasing and hardly any more land being gained. Mammoth heavy weapon barrages simply warned the Germans that an onslaught was coming taking off the component of surprise. Trench warfare was a new sort of contending which Haig and other generals did non set into as they did non cognize how to get by with it and unaware of other ways they could hold used that may hold been less dearly-won in lives.
They besides did non O.K. of modern military equipment with Haig stating in 1916 ‘The machine gun is a much overrated weapon’ even though it could hold been much to their advantage with arms being much more accurate than of old old ages. Generals would be after attack after onslaught which sometimes were successful but dearly-won. Full- frontal onslaughts sometimes did non work but even when realised the generals would still travel in front once more doing foolish determinations and directing work forces to an unneeded decease. Defence was barely used by British generals although sometimes it proved best in a hard state of affairs and easier. They besides believed in the ‘Big Push’ believing the key to triumph was to overmaster the enemy with greater Numberss. This could be true to a certain extent but it besides depends on how good trained and skilled soldiers are and how they approach the enemy lines. Generals did non accept the fact that there were options which could hold had instant consequences. However. whatever military methods used in the war. lives would be lost particularly because they were contending against one of the most powerful ground forcess of the clip. Haig did hold an account for his tactics.
Defence entirely can non win a war so Haig attacked whenever possible. He was cognizant that onslaughts were dearly-won but believed there was no manner of avoiding losingss in life which was true. Soldiers who were frequently voluntaries knew what they had let themselves in for which was one of the bloodiest conflicts in war history so they were brave. Some besides would knock those in authorization stating their comrades were murdered through the stupidity of those in charge. Before the conflict began Haig warned the populace to anticipate huge casualty Numberss. ‘The state must be taught to bear losses…The state must be prepared to see heavy casualty lists. ’ Therefore people should non hold been so shocked at the Numberss reported back. Attacks did go less dearly-won with better preparation and engineering being introduced and finally the war was won. Generals were under a batch of force per unit area. Bing a general is a tough occupation as there are many factors that can alter the result of their actions. it is all a game of fortune and the enemy can ne’er be underestimated. It does non assist being doubted by people around you peculiarly politicians. Members of the authorities began to oppugn Haig’s attack even after force per unit area had been lifted off the Gallic in Verdun.
Winston Churchill wrote approximately barely any land being gained. Bing criticised by an of import individual like a member in parliament would hold truly lowered generals’ self-esteem and added on the force per unit area doing their occupation ten times harder. They besides earned themselves a bad repute for non personally sing the frontline. Although this may come across as an detached attitude towards their soldiers it can be argued that generals could pull off the frontline easier from a farther distance as they would hold a good position of all of the trenches and could place what the fortunes were at each subdivision. In decision it is apparent that methods of onslaught were frivolous and expensive in the cost of lives. The chief points being that onslaughts were overused. the resistance was strong and generals carried an unpleasant attitude. Nevertheless the populace were speedy to knock when truly no 1 knew how to contend a war like it as it was a new experience in warfare and so no 1 could offer options in that minute of clip. Generals handled the state of affairs every bit best as they could and worked with what they knew and trusted which finally bore the fruits of their labor. Soldiers were heroic in giving their lives but generals should besides be commended for their assurance and finding in the pursuit to winning the Great War.
