Why you should stop believing this WW1 myth

The First World War is often remembered as a futile waste of life. A pointless slugging match that saw uncaring commanders send thousands of young men to their untimely deaths - lions led by donkeys. In Britain in particular, it’s the mud-soaked trenches of Passchendaele which capture public imagination. While Field Marshall Sir Douglas Haig is remembered as the butcher of the Somme.
But were British soldiers really lions led by donkeys?
Modern historians are challenging this idea and looking anew at Haig and his commanders to produce are more nuanced view of their command and generalship in the First World War.
Find out more:
Watch more First World War stories: • How did WW1 Start? | C...
What happened during the battle: www.iwm.org.uk/history/what-h...
Field Marshall Sir Douglas Haig: www.iwm.org.uk/history/field-...
Explore these stories with a visit to an IWM site: www.iwm.org.uk
Order and license the HD clips used in this video on IWM Film’s website:
film.iwmcollections.org.uk/my...
Follow IWM on social media:
Twitter: / i_w_m​
Instagram: / imperialwarmuseums
Facebook: / iwm.london

[@ScienceChap]

I'm a former British soldier. I learned once that the armies of 1914 fought in a way that Wellington would have recognised, while the armies of 1918 fought in a way that I would have recognised.

[@peterh7594]

Correct, in a sense. AIUI and from memory, British light artillery began the war by using grape shot to great effect. Fairly soon after the enemy began using heavy artillery to wipe out light batteries. In Wellington's time they would have immobilised what we would call light guns by removing the wheels, and bowling them into the infantry square, firing until the last sensible moment, using grapeshot.

[@jamesrowlands8971]

Are you one of the ones who contributed to the war crimes in Iraq or Afghanistan?

[@davidbrims5825]

@@jamesrowlands8971 They’re not very bright, look at Prince Harry, they’re just cannon fodder.

[@andmos1001]

In war, we fight the previous war.

[@jwadaow]

@@jamesrowlands8971 irrelevant. As a citizen you bear collective responsibility.

[@104thDIVTimberwolf]

One of my favorite modern historians, Major General Sir Julian Thompson, who commanded the British 3rd Commando Brigade in the Falklands, and whose father fought at the Somme, said it best, "No army trains for the next war. We all train for the last war." In the First World War, the technology advanced faster than the lessons learned for the first 3 years.

[@markrounding2731]

It is a pity that the German army of 1939 did not read that, then we would not have had the blitzkrieg tactics, and no prolonged WW2.

[@caelestigladii]

@@markrounding2731 The Germans, in fact, have not, in their entire military history, used “blitzkrieg”. The German military doctrine used during WW2 was bewegungskrieg.

[@nowthenzen]

@@caelestigladii You forgot to say "well, actually .."

[@feliscorax]

@@markrounding2731 Technically, that’s actually an evolution of the combined arms operations developed by Generals Byng, Currie, and Monash towards the end of the First World War. So you could also say that the Germans fought the Second World War using the lessons they had learnt from the First - in which case, the principle is sound.

[@feliscorax]

I read Thompson’s book, too: excellent insights.

[@bethzolin6046]

My grandfather was in WW1, at the Somme, at Paschendaele and at Ypres. He went out in 1916 with a service battalion, the 21 West Yorks ( Textile) Regiment. He had a lot to say about their general, Rawlinson, and none of it was good. He bitterly remembered them involved in a hard fight at the front, struggling back to base after a tough time, and being lined up for General Rawlinson to address them : ‘ I know you are just back from having a tough time at the front, but you’ll be pleased to hear that we are going to send you straight back so you can get your own back’. Apparently there was nearly a riot. He wasn’t impressed by Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston either, who had the greatest number of casualties at the Somme, Grandfather was also very upset about two of their number who were shot at dawn. The two, Herbert Crimmins and Arthur Wild, both from the Bradford Pals, had slipped out to meet some local lasses at a local bar, and when they got back it was to find their comrades had gone up to the front. They tried to find them but couldn’t before the fight started, so fought with some other British troops during the battle. However they were found guilty of cowardice and desertion, - despite pleas from their officers because they had fought - and both were shot at dawn on September 5 1916Grandfather must have known them as he knew all about them. Ref www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/tahistory/14615343.the-bradford-men-killed-by-their-own-side-during-the-great-war/ Finally they did a lot of marching. I believe they marched for an hour and then had a 10 minute rest. At one point they had to line up to get water, grandfather at the end of the line. He had just got his water when the order came to move out. He drank up and put his cup back in his tunic, but not quickly enough as a senior officer saw him with his top tunic button still undone, as he was doing it up, and put him on a charge. He had to spend 24 hours doing observation from a shell hole in No Mans land. The young soldier with him during that night became hysterical with fear, and began to scream out in the dark so grandfather knocked him out. He was very pleased to see their relief a day later. However the couple who relieved them were never seen again - the hole took a direct hit from a shell. My grandfather, like so many others, had nightmares for the rest of his life, and the shrapnel they were unable to remove from his wounded body went with him to his grave. He was a clever man - a manager later in Civvy street - but always felt they were not well led.

[@stuartguyan106]

This story typifies why the term " lions led by donkeys" ( wether made up or not ? ) Is fundamentally correct . Most of the officers had paid commission s ( rich mater's & paters ) no empathy or social mind set nor any compation for their charges ( connon fodder ) . YOU sir should be very very proud of your grandfather

[@pauljenks4901]

Your reply also reflects my grandfather's experience in WWI, he highlighted the lack of planning, poor logistics, over the top discipline measures and a system based on class and not on merit or ability.

[@anthonyeaton5153]

@@stuartguyan106 paid for commissions was phased out before Haig joined the army.

[@anthonyeaton5153]

If that story is true? Then they would not have been charged with cowardice but for AWOL or desertion.

[@anthonyeaton5153]

Ypres and Passchendale were virtually one and the same.

[@Swaggerlot]

My grandfather fought in Flanders from 1916 and later spent time in the occupation of Germany, mainly Cologne. He related many stories, made surprisingly lucid due to the onset of dementia. One thing that did come through, was his first hand stories of the appalling treatment metered out to those that were probably suffering shell-shock and similar psychological conditions. Disgraceful treatment, even for those times.

[@ScepticGinger89]

Did they also torture them with electric shocks? That's what the Germans did (at least during the first years of the war), believing they were just cowards pretending to be ill.

[@Swaggerlot]

@@ScepticGinger89 Look up 'field punishment', there is a Wiki page too. Tied to a gun carriage wheel in the open overnight might not be as bad as electric shocks; I'll let you make up your own mind.

[@jds6206]

True, that.

[@allseeingotto2912]

RIP to all the boys that were slaughtered needlessly on all sides 🙏🏻

[@gkewley42]

No. RIP to OUR war dead.

[@DannyBoy777777]

@ All seeing Otto You clown. War is not needless.

[@tooyoungtobeold8756]

It wasn't needless at the time. The way things have gone since, yes.

[@rikterandersson3568]

@@tooyoungtobeold8756 It was absolutely needless. Caught in the maelstorm of paranoid seats of powers the world devolved into a state war for no other purpose than for the old order to keep their power. There were no gains and ww1 didn't even end in a victory but in a devolved state of order that would lead to an even greater conflict. More open and less power-hungry elites could have avoided it. A less paranoid Tsar could have avoided it. A less senile emperor could have avoided it, a less childish kaiser could have avoided it, a government that could see clearly that Britain would one day have to open the seas to free commerce could have avoided it. In the end it was all avoidable, the steel-coal union after ww2 would serve as the precursor to todays European Union. Never again would Germany and France have to go to war over coal or steel as they could simply trade it between them at fair prices. Far before the ideas of this existed. It took two lunatic world wars that served nothing but to spawn an equal cold one. It was only due to the diligence of organized non-military-loving groups to tear down the walls of paranoia and usher in an actual international order that could cooperate. World war 1 was never something that needed to happen. It took the combined lunacy of several 'great' nations and the utter greed of an elite that had nothing but contempt for the ordinary citizenry that they sent into battle to provoke it.

[@eleveneleven572]

@@gkewley42 The ordinary soldiers on both sides were pushed into the trenches by aristocrats and politicians....I say RIP to all of them.

[@rhobatbrynjones7374]

"Despite the losses", delivered in a chillingly trivialising way.

[@ddjay1363]

"It takes 15,000 casualties to train a major General" - Marshal Ferdinand Foch

[@DidMyGrandfatherMakeThis]

Ah yes, that wonderful french Marshal who loved nothing better at the start of the war than to send men to their deaths.

[@fod1855]

He certainly lived up to that

[@Aurelian369_]

​@@DidMyGrandfatherMakeThis wasn't Foch the one who wanted to end WW1 at 11:11 on November 11? I can't imagine being a soldier and dying on the last day of the war because the field marshal wanted a funny date 🤣

[@anthonyeaton5153]

That’s not too bad.

[@Angelcynn_2001]

Britain should have sided with the Germans

[@mckaypaterson2519]

You should give credit to Australian General Monash, who was Haig's subordinate and later became his friend. General Monash an engineer and lawyer and who kept up to date with emerging technologies, created and tested combined operations at the battle of Hamel. Haig encouraged him to promote this operation as a template for British and French forces in future combat operations on a larger scale.

[@alganhar1]

Yes, he should get due credit, but it should also be remembered that while Monash was responsible for developing some aspects of that template he did not develop all of it. He did however have it available, was given the resources to pull it off, and fought Hamel, which is probably his outstanding Battle of the war.

[@terrymcmaster2787]

Monash would have been the Commander in Chief but for the war ending.

[@williamrubinstein3442]

He is Australia's greatest national hero.

[@willmunny9279]

Monash definitely deserves credit but so do Byng (British) and Currie (Canadian). Combined arms was first used properly at Cambrai - well before Hamel. Monash built on what had been learned during the battle , and critically, so did the British Tank Corps.

[@anthonyeaton5153]

@@terrymcmaster2787 please tell us why re why Monash would have been CinC

[@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground]

“WW1 generals only used Napoleonic tactics” I don’t remember the Grand Armeé using fire and manoeuvre tactics, creeping barrages, tank assaults, and combined arms warfare at Austerlitz

[@andrewstevenson118]

True. And the change between 1914 and 1918 tactics is very marked.

[@remittanceman4685]

But if you read about Napoleonic battles the good Generals and good armies did use combined arms tactics. Cavalry would hover near infantry forcing them into square. Horse artillery would then pummel the squares until they were weakened. Then infantry would advance leaving the defending commander few good options. It might not have been "Blitzkrieg" as we understand the term, but within the limitations of technology of the day, it came close. Add to that the relearning of light infantry tactics* (fire and movement, use of ground etc) and you can see the germ of modern tactics beginning to sprout. *Bothe the Brits and the French had been pretty good at them in 1757 during the French and Indian War (Seven years War) in North America.

[@timfirth977]

Creeping barrages were after 1915, tank assaults/combined arms post-1917. So to be fair, for most of the war neither did the British army. In fact considering the training needed to fight in squares, it could be argued the British Army was better trained in Wellington's time.

[@andrewstevenson118]

@@timfirth977 That's a good point. But the army in Wellington's time was smaller proportionally (?) and not a lot of, basically, raw recruits. Was it lions led by donkeys? Dunno. Some good docos on it.

[@knoll9812]

Silly thing to say. Franco Prussian war was the recent example but provided wrong answer. In that war the modern weapons killed thousands but the mass of men still won. A few decades later the balance had shifted. Mass of men defeated by modern weapons. Logical for generals to expect a bloody and short war. Nobody could imagine a huge war lasting years

[@sergentcolon1]

Haig didn’t have much experience of commanding men in battle before his elevation to field marshal. His rise through the ranks was helped by the loan of £50000 to a senior officer and his wife was a lady in waiting to the queen. British officers took a very long time to learn from the mistakes of their tactics that cost thousands of ordinary soldiers their lives and kept on repeating the same tactical mistakes time after time. There seems to be a concerted effort to downplay the inadequacy of the British officer class where promotion was more reliant on class and social relationships than ability.

[@archer5614]

Spot on!

[@willmunny9279]

But British high command was no different to that in France or Germany. Haig was by no means a tactical genius and I'm certainly not a fan but the narrative that has been created following the war is unfair. The Somme is a good example of this. Haig's hand was forced by French pleading during Verdun. Despite his failings, he stated that the British Army wasn't ready and had concerns about what was being asked. There was also autonomy at division level - compare the approaches taken by e.g. the 18th and 48th divisions on the first day. Haig and Rawlinson weren't responsible at ground level so to speak. What can be said is that it was harder for British NCOs to advance through the ranks compared with say the ANZACS or Canadian Corps. This barrier was class based and it did impact the fighting quality of the British Army later in the war (as it became harder to recruit the "right" officers). No doubt the Canadian Corps benefitted from having a large number of former British soldiers as NCOs.

[@deweywhitley4127]

@@willmunny9279 Haig wanted to attack. He just wanted to save up more artillery and resources. Its disingenous to say he was pressured into attacking. He was pressured to change his time table. Waiting would not have improved the Somme.

[@willmunny9279]

@@deweywhitley4127 He was pressured to attack before he felt the BEF was ready. Waiting would've allowed for better preparations and the eager but very inexperienced New Army troops to gain more experience. No doubt there would have still have been bloody lessons but these were the same lessons being learned by the French and Germans at Verdun.

[@anthonyeaton5153]

He was active as a Corps Commander in 1914 and was successful.

[@remittanceman4685]

There's also the small fact that the "Lions led by Donkeys" quote was made up. The historian and disgraced MP, Alan Clarke, claimed it was spoken by a German officer of the British Army. But, when pressed for sources or evidence he admitted he'd simply made it up because "it sounded good." The closest it ever came to being true was 45 years earlier uttered by a Prussian officer about Napoleon III's French army at Sedan. Wrong Army, wrong war, but at least it was spoken in German.

[@Jamtoastbutterlovely]

At the end of the day the Generals knew exactly what machine guns were capable of and still sent thousands walking towards Enemy lines...

[@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground]

1. They didn’t walk, that’s a myth. Nobody walks when bulllets are whizzing by you. 2. Fast moving armoured personnel carriers weren’t invented so the only way to move men into action was to cross open ground, your going to take casualties.

[@richardsinger01]

Well, yes, but this was in the belief that six days of HE and shrapnel bombardment would have destroyed the enemy wire and killed all the front line troops.

[@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground]

@@richardsinger01 The bombardment didnt work because 1/3 of shells didnt detonate and because they mostly used air burst shrapnel shells for the opening bombardment, which were useless at cutting barbed wire

[@ciaranthompson3375]

This is a myth that has been consistently debunked

[@skibbideeskitch9894]

At the end of the day the Generals planned some of the largest & most complex artillery barrages in history which, most of the time, succeeded in destroying enemy defences and machine gun nests so that their infantry could get into German positions. Your comment is a misrepresentation of 1 July 1916. Funnily enough, the companies that "walked" across No Man's Land in rigid formations enjoyed the most success that day 🙂

[@andrewrobinson2565]

My grandfather joined up in 1915 aged 16 - Royal Engineers. Got "his buttocks shot away" (Oh What a Lovely War) by a German sniper, running away from a burning fuse under a bridge over a Belgian dyke. Family jewels undamaged, he finished off with Passchendaele in 1918 and here I am 👍👍.

[@davidwhittington7638]

As a British soldier and historian, I have learned that cockups however small do happen, either by accident or poor planning. What this video over looks, is the attitudes of upper-class officers towards their men and the small and large mistakes that killed thousands. The Somme for instance, an attack that was to bolster the French. The bombardment on the German trenches used the wrong ammunition. Instead of high explosive, most of the ammunition fired were shrapnel canisters. Not enough maps for officers in the field, the rations offered to the men were often inedible and caused diarrhea. And orders that did not allow officers in the field to deviate from orders to take advantage of the situation. In fact, the only ground gained, was only gained, due to an officer deviating from orders.. Regarding Haig, David Lloyd George tried to sack Haig a number of times for his incompetence, but due to Haig's connections with the aristocracy, the butchery continued.. The term Lions led by donkeys from Captain P. A. Thompson, a subtitle of this book was "Showing how victory in the Great War was achieved by those who made the fewest mistakes". There are those who for dubious reasons (a patron demanding something perhaps) would like to whitewash history and maintain god like reputations for fallible people. Mistakes were made, from the top to the bottom. The disregard for those thought to be born bellow them by the top brass cost thousands of lives. Orders and attitudes like, "don't build permanent trenches, for the men won't fight", or "don't give pilots parachutes, for the cowards may jump instead of fight", were numerous among officers. In the end, my problem is, that there is no middle ground being shown between those who hate Haig and those who love Haig. People with common sense, will look at both parts to this human, the good and the bad..

[@cuggyboysmith81]

"There is, however, one small problim....." "Everyone always gets slaughtered in the first ten seconds" "Exactly! And we're worried this might be bringing the men down a tad"

[@michaelrankine1825]

Never true words ever spoken.wars are caused by little men behind desks.while the real men and women fight and die for weaklings sitting at their desks with brandy and cigars.

[@stevej71393]

​@@michaelrankine1825 A myth if there ever was one. Wars are started for all kinds of reasons. Most of the people responsible for starting WW2 were themselves front line combat veterans. It's easy to sit in judgment over those in leadership when you have no responsibilities of your own.

[@TitusCastiglione1503]

@@michaelrankine1825 Given the massive frequently massive death rate of officers during wartime, I’d say thats a massive caricature.

[@LouisL1963]

Good old General Melchett 😉

[@davidgaskin5417]

Very funny, humorous line from a great show. But not really worth using for historical research.

[@TomFynn]

According to the book "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" an order was given prohibiting officers of General rank to visit the trenches as too many were killed doing so.

[@remittanceman4685]

Possibly true, but also think of this. Haig had 58 infantry divisions in the BEF. That means 754 infantry battalions (12 plus a pioneer battalion per division). If he visited one battalion every day, which isn't an unreasonable time to see a unit, he'd take more than two years just to see all his infantry. Then there were all his other units. Meanwhile he actually had to run an army of two and a half million men engaged in a war.

[@TomFynn]

@@remittanceman4685 That's why in the German army communication via telephone was standard. A commander of half a million men or more could no longer afford to visit front-line troops without his vital communication centers. He'd be out of the loop completely.

[@remittanceman4685]

@@TomFynn It's not just communication. Any leader needs to be "at the office" for a lot of the time. That's where people come to find him. That's where all his experts are. During lockdown a lot of people thought this would finally prove we could work from home. Except in a lot of cases it didn't. Most of my colleagues (including myself) found we couldn't function half as well in isolation. I'm pretty sure running an army is the same.

[@TomFynn]

@@remittanceman4685 Also, to clarify, the book - which I can only recommend - states that with every dead General decades of experience and skill were lost, so one dead General, in the grand scheme of things did count for much more than the life of one squaddie. It also recounts an incident in which British officers were gathered in a chateau, planning stuff. As you do, since large maps and dozens of telephones ill-fit in a dugout. The chateau stood out like a sore thumb, as did the rows of vehicles indicating the presence of officers. So German artillery observers quickly twigged on. The officers in the chateau lost a few of their number, when they had to vacate premises somewhat sharpish.

[@remittanceman4685]

@@TomFynn I've also read Corrigan's book and agree with you. But the loss of experience was only one aspect. Generals also have a war to fight and win. This expectation they must be constantly visiting their units is one based on a total misunderstanding of the military.

[@MrNickjcook]

My grandfather joined 2 weeks after the start of the war in August 1914, over the top at the Somme (one of 73 left the next day), fought at Cambrai, was invalided out gassed in 1918, MM + bar, Croix de Guerre, mentioned in despatches. He stated to me, unequivocally, that they were lions lead by donkeys.

[@lupodimontenero661]

^^ my grandfather, wounded above 3000 m in the Alps (1915) while he was an artillery observer with Alpine troops, the Alpini, every time he heard the name Cadorna, he cursed

[@simmo.261]

Your Grandfather was not a Lion, he was a trained soldier. The issue at hand was he was trained for a 19th century war.

[@arslongavitabrevis5136]

Your grandfather was right! The British were excellent soldiers that did not deserve the mediocre numskulls who lead them. Greetings from Italy!

[@petergaskin1811]

Using a phrase which he had learned in the 1930s and not during the War.

[@lupodimontenero661]

@@simmo.261 so true , even if perhaps the artillery of the royal army was the most "modern" specialty of the Italian army; * much cared for by the state even before the unification of Italy (Regno Sabaudo ) * it must be said that in WW I the heavy pieces were above all 149A, ballistically good but with a rigid carriage and a useful range of less than 18,000 m, therefore a little obsolete, the project dated back to 1890

[@yellowjackboots2624]

Haig, in 1917, was keen on an attack plan to load tanks onto landing craft and have them come ashore at Zeebrugge behind German lines in Belgium. The plan was never followed through, but it shows he was not unimaginative when it came to tactics

[@Poliss95]

Remember Gallipoli.

[@rednaughtstudios]

Contested amphibious assaults are one of the hardest logistical exercises to coordinate. Thinking it and doing it are two different things. Consider the Dieppe raid in WW2, there were still many lessons to learn so the likelihood of doing it successfully in WW1 seems low.

[@yellowjackboots2624]

The attack was cancelled for all the reasons commenters have given. But the point is, Haig more than the mindless butcher of Blackadder and the like. However, in that war, there weren't many realistic options. "Remember Umboto Gorge?"

[@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground]

@@Poliss95 Gallipoli was 1915

[@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground]

@@rednaughtstudios but it shows they had other ideas

[@thomaswilga735]

The fact remains old men send young men to war ,there wasn’t much regard for the lives of young men officers or other ranks in what was basically a family fallout that after hostilities had ceased the seeds were sown for the second .

[@michaelwescott7649]

My paternal great grandfather served on the western front. One family story is that he was carrying an artillery shell and had had enough, and so threw himself to the floor in the hope that it would go off and end it all. After a few minutes of just lying there he just got up and went back to his job. Don't know how true it is but there does seem to be a believably bleak pragmatism to his, "Well, might as well carry on" conclusion.

[@jimlofts5433]

many of them were very fatalistic and knew they would get knocked after what they endured

[@frankmorton1920]

Almost eighty British Generals were KIA on the Western Front. By 1916 the army had to commission hundreds of SNCOs to replace officers KIA.

[@robertreid9856]

I had two Canadian grandfather's, who served in WWI. One was at Passchendaele and Walter held quite bitter feelings toward Douglas Haig. In fact, according to my parents, both of my grandfathers considered Haig's decisions to fight a battle over a non-strategic target, as nothing short of bloody incompetent. The Canadians went into that battle over the strenuous objections of General Arthur Currie, who only acquiesced under threat of a insubordination charge and the switch from reporting to General Gough to reporting to General Plumer. After taking Passchendaele, with 16,000 casualties, the Canadians were dismayed that Passchendaele was given up without a fight five months later. I think your viewpoint, of how British leadership was viewed by Commonwealth armies, is not entirely supported by Canadian and Australian sources. In particular, my reading of Tim Cook's books "At the Sharp End" and "Shock Troops" paints a different picture of Haig and some other British Generals. That there were Generals, such as Byng and Plumer, who were well respected by the Canadians, does not obviate a harsher opinion of Haig's leadership and, in particular his choices in subordinates. I also somewhat suspect that Canadian and Australian historians have access to records that paint a different story. As to why that may be, I don't know. However, your assertion that Commonwealth nations had a high opinion of Haig and company, is something I do not buy. My grandfathers certainly had strongly negative opinions of them and I think they were far from alone in that.

[@francoistombe]

The experience of ANZAC troops in the Boer War with British command left a bitter taste and resulted in Anzacs insisting thereafter on their own command and operating as forces independent of the Brits. Canada came to the same conclusion during WW1. Currie was very strategic and avoided any unnecessary casualties. Haig was driven partially by politics and acted on how things appeared as much as how necessary they were.

[@skibbideeskitch9894]

@@francoistombe The Dominions did not "operate independently of the Brits" during the First World War. They had Corps formations that were a component of the BEF, which spent most of the war commanded by British GOCS, and were under 1. A British Field Army Commander and 2. Under the C in C, Haig. The Dominions were not independent during the war

[@skibbideeskitch9894]

What sources would Australian & Canadian historians have access to that UK ones don't have? The Dominion Corps spent most of the war commanded by British Divisional & Corps-level commanders; Byng (Canadian Corps), Birdwood (ANZAC Corps, AIF), Alexander-Godley (ANZAC Corps, New Zealand Division)- all were Officers from Britain and the Raj that led Empire troops and enjoyed their men's esteem. The aggressively mythologised Monash not only liked Haig, but (rightly) saw himself as totally under & at one with Haig's G.H.Q. What did Currie think about Haig? There are people from Britain who will trot out the anecdotal "my grandfather didn't like Haig", as if this is indicative of the BEF's overall attitude towards the man. The cumulative evidence about Haig's army- including its generally high levels of morale- suggest otherwise.

[@francoistombe]

@@skibbideeskitch9894 The intended function of ANZAC troops from the Brit point of view was that they would be individually integrated into existing British units. As was the case with the navy.. There was by then a well identified cultural incompatibility which resulted in dominion soldiers being in their own units with their own NCOs and officers. These units operated under overall allied commands of course.

[@redwater4778]

All these commanders were warned about to potential of the machine gun and how it would change warfare , before the war broke out.

[@NoName-ds5uq]

I would agree that Haig was unfairly vilified after his death. He did his best in the worst circumstances, and I note that he later mentions his torment(I can’t remember exactly how he phrased it) at the loss of life under his command. War is hell! I’ve known this as long as I can remember from my grandfather(we were extremely close) who served in the 2nd AIF during WWII. I joined up in the 80s anyway… One name which should be mentioned in this video in regard to combined arms tactics is General Sir John Monash! He was the true architect of that first breakthrough, and he used brand new tactics, such as concealing the sound of the advancing tanks by having the noisiest aircraft he could find to fly overhead to conceal the noise of the approaching tanks, a week of gas artillery attacks at the same time every day in the lead up, of course the creeping barrage mentioned in this video, and the first ever airdropping ammunition to advancing troops. The week of gas attacks made the German troops don gas masks automatically on the day which inhibited their ability to fight, but there was no gas used during this offensive. The entire operation was planned to take 90 minutes. It took 93.

[@87ecosse]

It's worth remembering that when we went into Afghanistan 20 years ago the troops were going around in the "snatch" landrovers. They had limited armor against small arms and not a hope at surviving the threat of IEDs. The Americans were in a similar position with their Humvees. Now we have the foxhound, husky and mastiff vehicles and the Americans have the MRAP etc. We didn't have any more foolish leaders at the start of the Afghan invasion than the end... Some lessons just get learned in a brutal way.

[@tommcguire6472]

The difference is the bef NEVER learned

[@gerardhayden6568]

I am surprised at the Land Rover issues then given the strength of RUC vehicles perfected in the preceding 30 years

[@kestrel5065]

I deployed to Iraq in 2003 my LR's were 20 years old then.

[@gerardhayden6568]

@@kestrel5065 I played chicken with the RUC variety once in Derry back in 93. Fearsome beast to have bearing down on a trusty Ford Fiesta!

[@alganhar1]

@@tommcguire6472 Which is provably false, and shows your utter lack of actual *knowledge* of the changes that occurred in the British Army from 1914 - 1918. Lets take the British Infantry Platoon to illustrate a point shall we? In 1914 it was around 50 men in all, every single one of them other than the Officer was a rifleman. This was standard for infantry platoons in every army in 1914, so was not unique to the British. By September of 1916 the Platoon had utterly changed. It was small, around 38 men, but its four Sections looked VERY different. The first was a rifle Section, which made up one of the two manoeuvre elements. It had 6 riflemen and two grenadiers. The second manoeuvre element was the Grenadier section, consisting of six grenadiers and two riflemen who acted as flankers to cover the grenadiers flanks. This was also the primary Assault Element. You then had a Gun element, consisting of two two man Lewis gun teams, and four ammunition carriers who also acted as flank guard and security for the guns, as well as spare crew. Finally you had either a Mortar Section armed with two 3 inch stokes mortars, or, more usually a Rifle Grenadier Section consisting of four rifle grenadiers and four riflemen. The Gun Section was your suppression element, while the Mortar/rifle grenadiers were indirect light fire support. That was in place by 1916. That ALONE demonstrates why your words are so much horse crap. You do not fundamentally change the basic small Unit of an army to that extent by 'not learning'.

[@jonathantanburn8532]

Field Marshall Lord Bernard Montgomery of Alamein was decidedly of the opinion that the General Staff had been unprofessional and callous of losses.

[@markpayne2057]

There were in my opinion two factors that contributed to Haighs problems during the war, one that is alluded to in the commentary, that is the lack of communications. Previously a Commander could sit on his horse and direct the battle, and by the time of WWII, radio and wireless enabled a Command to pass his instructions down to at least company level and receive information back. Front line troops could also communicate with the artillery, armoured and aviation support directly. The other factor that is never mentioned is education, the average British soldier in WWI, had left formal education at the age of twelve, with only very basic reading writing and mathematical skills, and thus had had to be taught everything he needed to know by drills and rote. By WWII, the equivalent soldier would have had three more years of formal education, as the school leaving age was now fifteen. And thanks to his exposure to the cinema, a much better understanding of technology, some of which he will have seen on the big screen.

[@Poliss95]

Maybe they could have retreated from the fixed trench line and fought the Germans in open country, but that would have meant retreating in the face of the enemy in the donkeys minds, and they didn't like to retreat an inch even though it would have improved their position. Hitler did exactly the same thing in WWII. Neither WWI generals or Hitler could conceive the idea of a tactical retreat.

[@wessexdruid7598]

Also for comparison, the average size of a WW1 soldier was the same as a 12 y.o., today. There are piles of abandoned boots, left on the Somme - they are tiny.

[@greg_mca]

@@Poliss95 retreating from the fixed trench line to get a better position to defeat the advancing enemy was exactly what the Germans did in 1917. And what did they do? They built more and better trenches, because trenches work. There is no 'open country' to fight in when artillery was as powerful as it was and trenches were as effective at keeping people alive as they were

[@dulls8475]

@@Poliss95 Not sure what you are taking.....

[@Johnnie10ponnies]

You also have to remember, as was mentioned in the video, Britain was subordinate to the French military command and they would never willing give up ground on their own territory which exactly why the Germans choose Verdun the French in a battle of annihilation (in their planning it was only meant to happen to the French)

[@annshenton119]

His sandwich box provides outstanding evidence he was a good man right in the thick of it

[@barrettcarr1413]

The Australian General Monash developed the combined attacking forces, making sure the reserves were not miles behind the attacking forces and even had aircraft dropping ammo to the front line troops as they advanced, thus no shortage as happened on many previoous attacks

[@peterslocomb152]

There was no evidence really that the British generals were successfully learning on the job until Sir John Monash's battle plan for the Battle of Le Hamel. This successful battle plan became the template for the larger Battle of Amiens, which broke the German lines. And he didn't even get a mention in this KZbin video.

[@alganhar1]

@@peterslocomb152 Except there is evidence for exactly that. Nothing Monash used was unique, it had *all* been used before. Hamel was the first time that and Empire officer had the resources assigned to be able to put all those things together, because it was the first time they were all available in the numbers the British Combined Arms Doctrine of 1917 - 1918 required. And sorry, but no, Hamel was not the Template. The planning and preparation for Amiens started before the Battle of Hamel was fought. The template already existed, Monash was simply the first to put it into action. To claim he *invented* it is ignorant at best and outright disingenuous at worst. Those tactics were a culmination of tactics that had been tried and adjusted over the entire war. The Combined Arms Platoon for example was instituted in 1916, when Monash had absolutely zero ability to affect the British Army as a whole given that he was a Divisional Commander at the time. Yet it was in 1916 when the four Section Combined Arms platoon was instituted. Neither Monash nor Currie had *any* say in that. The use of aircraft to cover tanks engine noises was first used in the Battle of Cambrai in 1917. Aircraft were used in the Ground Attack role on the Somme in 1916. Hurricane bombardments were first used in 1917, In fact the way artillery was used developed at a staggering pace through the war and the innovations came almost entirely from the British, as the vast majority of the Artillery crews, even in the Australian and Canadian Corps, were British. The list goes on. Monash is rightly regarded as one of the best Empire General Officers of WWI, but he was NOT the only one of such high calibre, and not all of the really good Empire Generals were Australian or Canadian. Contrary to your denigration of those British General officers the British actually had some very good ones of their own who ALL contributed to the Combined Arms Warfare the Empire Army used in the summer of 1918.

[@dulls8475]

@@peterslocomb152 Mostly rubbish.

[@markjennings1036]

Again Monash does not get a mention. Nor do the Canadians. No mention of Empire forces at all. The Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders served as spearheads in the 1918 offensive. Unfortunately, a typically blinkered presentation.

[@59jalex]

@@markjennings1036 You can't expect a 10 minute video to go into much detail. This video was purely rebutting the cliche of Lions led by Donkeys.

[@zetectic7968]

Good to see the Bristol fighter. My maternal grandfather was a mechanic on them at Boscombe Down. He was fortunate having been gassed at Ypres during 1916 & left totally blind for over 6 weeks & invalided back to Blighty. The army wanted to send him back to the front but with a bit of help from his brother he managed to get a transfer to the RFC

[@andrewfanner2245]

The casualty percentage of officers was higher than that of the other ranks. Even colonels and generals feature as casualties killed.

[@donaldduck4888]

There were around 250 British generals killed in WW1.

[@simongardiner949]

A junior officers life span on the Western Front was 3 WEEKS, while the enlisted men could expect to live for 8 WEEKS. The junior officers (subalterns) trained their troops PERSONALLY and lead them 'over the top'. Those are NOT 'donkies. Read CONEMPORARY ACCOUNTS of soldiers there in the line - dont bother with the ridiculous rubbish written by later 'authors' who would not know one end of a shell from the other!

[@wuffothewonderdog]

@@donaldduck4888 The number was 78.

[@Demun1649]

@@wuffothewonderdog donald duck seems to be, maybe, an American. Americans don't care about the truth, they take any facts, forget where the info came from, and triple the figures. Americans do that a lot.

[@rexguy7823]

I think you've missed the whole point of the saying. It means brave men led by incompetent officers, not brave men led by cowards. The saying wasn't that they were lions led by mice or rabbits. Have you been watching Shrek maybe?

[@ddjay1363]

"That old man got my Division killed" - Georges Picket, after Gettysburg

[@philipqvist7322]

I think the biggest problem was that communications did not keep up with weapon technology. Field telephones and flags were no match for artillery and machine guns. There were lessons that could have been learnt from previous campaigns, such as the US Civil War and the Boer War, but many campaigns were still fluid at that stage. WW1 was a "learning" War - where mistakes were always going to happen. Fire and movement tactics were only perfected in the last years of that war. I doubt many modern commanders would have performed any better than their WW1 counterparts throughout 1915 to 1917

[@Brockza]

WW1 generals were obsessed with the idea of a esprit de corps that could overcome any obstacle. I think the modern general has a much more nuanced idea about psychology and the ability of the fighting man to endure

[@dulls8475]

@@Brockza So how do you explain the endurance of British units throughout the war if they had a poor idea?? I doubt the modern soldier from the west could face what they faced, nuanced or not.

[@Brockza]

@@dulls8475 some decided to endure because if they didn't they would have been shot. The generals believed that a well motivated soldier could overcome any obstacle. Which is a fine idea when the only people the British army fought until the Boer war were people whose only weapons were arrows and shield. A machine gun seems to care very little about your spirit. The SAS, despite having the best esprit d core in the British army, doesn't send their soldiers to fight with weapons that don't work and tactics that can't achieve victory.

[@philipqvist7322]

@brock296 in fairness the French, Russian, German and Austro-Hungarian leaders all thought exactly the same as the British leaders.

[@davidbuckley2435]

@@desperateneedofscotch the Zulus, the Mahdists in Sudan, the Boxer Rebellion in China. All examples of poorly-armed foes going up against machine guns, artillery and fast-firing rifles.

[@CharlesStearman]

The book "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" by Gordon Corrigan (Cassel, 2003) dispels a lot of the myths regarding the British army on the Western Front in WW1.

[@davidfindlay878]

So does the excellent 'The War the Infantry Knew' by Capt J C Dunn. Captain Dunn was a long serving colonial medical officer who served as MO for the Royal Welch Fusiliers between 1914 and 1917 on the Western Front. His book collects his own memories and those the (mostly) officers he served with and was first published in 1938. There are aspects in Dunn's book that Corrigan fails to mention or even denies - I was genuinely surprised to see it was not in his bibliography as it is a non-critical first hand account of the First World War. I recommend it .

[@paulmadryga]

I agree fully - _Mud, Blood, and Poppycock_ is essential reading for any WWI historian, professional or otherwise.

[@davidmcc8727]

The Somme disaster gave rise to a change in tactics and in particular the development of the rolling barrage. The attacking troops attacked behind a rolling barrage of artillery fire aimed just in front of them. WW1 generals did learn and change tactics as the war progressed

[@mikedevere]

I'm not sure the lions versus donkey metaphor is at all fair. As a Briton I've always felt a sense of hubris that infected all strata of British society and which was only partially deflated during World War 1. The same hubris that led Scott to think he could reach the antarctic with horses rather than dogs; a sense that the British empire was born of a god given superiority: in Scott's case 'we are British and so we don't use dogs for transport ". Look where that got him and his team! My point is that everyone seemed to believe in the myth of British superiority, not just the generals.

[@darrenowen3338]

And yet English is the world language. That same hubris allowed Livingston to discover the source of the Nile. Why so many British people nowadays are so critical of our history is a mystery to me.

[@LumpyCustard_]

This statement about Scott is also a myth. The closest anyone had ever gotten to the pole was Shackleton two years before using only manpower to pull the sleds! So this appeared to everyone to be the best way to do it. Scott and Shackleton had also used dogs in a previous expedition and thought the way to get the best out of dog teams was too barbaric - whipping them until they collapse and die, and then feeding the dead dogs to the still alive ones was the Norwegian way.

[@caniconcananas7687]

@@darrenowen3338 You fully understand that if people learn to speak English at Phillipines, Japan, Russia or Spain is not because of the British Empire, but because of the USA cultural invasion after WW2, don't you?

[@petecottham5385]

In this period of history didn't Britain control in one way or another 1/4 of the world resources?... indicated pink in the maps of the day if I recall. I suppose it depends on how you define 'superior'. I recall a conversation between an American and Spanish engineer on the differences in education, the American guy was bemused at the Spanish guys declaration that Spanish higher education was 'superior',... of course all the Spanish guy was saying was that the university was the upper or higher level of education in their system, but the American guy mistook the term superior to mean better!... depends on your point of view I suppose.

[@skepticalbadger]

@@caniconcananas7687 That's a disingenuous reply. English is the world language primarily due to the success of the British Empire, for better or worse. It's not necessary to include countries that use at as a result of US influence to make that point, although obviously even that is a secondary effect because Americans speak English also because of Empire.

[@54mgtf22]

Love your work 👍

[@stevebass-rees4750]

The lion of lion’s was General John Monash…. Why didn’t you give him credit of formulating the strategy that broke the Western Front…. He cared about the men under his command. Not only his Australian forces but the Americans and British as well. He was Knighted in the field for his service, the King came to him to Knight him.

[@robertstallard7836]

Yes, he was one amonst a number of very capable senior officers. He did particularly well at Hamel, but he wasn't on his own!

[@douglasmckegney1703]

Add Arthur Currie and the Canadian Corps. They mastered combined arms and were the spearhead of the last 100 days along with the Anzacs

[@davidcolley7714]

What nonsense the Germans had to surrender as they had given all. The Allied blockade was forcing many into starvation but still the modern day General Blimps have it that it was purely force of arms that defeated the Germans

[@robertstallard7836]

@@davidcolley7714 You're right that the blockade had a considerable effect. However, the Hindenburg Line still had to be broken and it was hugely innovative combined arms tactics during the 100 Days that enabled that to happen. Innovations that had never been seen used in such a way before (personnel carriers, wireless etc.) also contributed greatly, along with flexible platoon-level tactics that are still reflected in infantry fighting even today. The British Army during that period was probably at the best it had ever been.

[@alganhar1]

Because he was not the only one who formulated the strategy, and he did not formulate all of it. Just as Sir Arthur Currie did not. While both outstanding officers neither can claim all the credit. The reality is the strategy and tactics used by the British, ANZAC's and Canadians in the last 100 days of the war were learned and developed over the course of the war by multiple people. Monash's tactics at Hamel for example were not unique to him, what *was* different is that it was the first time ALL of those lessons were gathered and applied in the same battle. Trying to claim everything was either Monash or Curries brain child is belittling the very real efforts of British officers who also developed many of those same tactics.

[@georgemorley1029]

The late Richard Holmes wrote with great clarity and insight on the misconceptions surrounding British commanders of the First World War in his excellent book “Tommy”. I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the British Army during that period.

[@Jarod-vg9wq]

I quite enjoy these videos, can you guys do a video on the subject of a cavalry in the Great War?

[@johnvarricchio6856]

Brilliant counter point Really enjoyable and informative 🏆🙏🏻

[@jaredw9171]

IWM I love your videos and keep it up! I use your videos and online articles as a talking point for my high school history courses. One of my students was struggling and he found himself enthralled with WWI and I believe it's in no small part to these videos.

[@19nick57]

I'm afraid I don't think this video is particularly useful as an educational or informative tool and this is why - to argue the case for Haig may be one thing but to use that ONE story to say that there were no donkeys or donkey-like decisions is astonishing - a) because they are separate issues and b) because there were MANY incidents of pointless attacks etc etc. And it wasn't only the French who overruled Haig about his ideas re the Somme - it was the British High Command too! So I'm afraid I think this is actually a very poor and misleading video - fine if IWM etc want to make a video about rescuing Haig from the ranks of donkeys but not to make that an argument against the fact that there were not plenty of donkey-like decisions made in local incidents or those on a wider field. Those are two separate matters. Sorry if I sound negative but I am concerned about perceptions as my grandfather fought on the Somme but would never talk about it - which made me want to find out what it was like - firstly as a teenager and now , in later years too 🙂 I've just finished reading Armageddon Road, the diary of Maj Billy Congreve VC who was killed in 1916. In it he describes MANY incidents of pointless attacks or attacks doomed to failure because there was no back up or not enough ammunition or of incidents where those higher up refused to listen to those nearer the front. One ordered attack he simply calls 'murder'. And no, Armageddon Rd is not a one-sided rant against the injustices of so-called 'donkeys' - Congreve was definitely 'officer class' and was latterly Brigade Major - but it is one of the more truthful books about WW1 that I have read. Incidentally, and relevant to the context of this video, is a rather telling event when Congreve's father General Sir Walter Congreve was relieved of some of his command in 1916 because he was thought to be 'not dashing enough' - but by all accounts he was loved by the men he cared about. I hope this is of interest or helpful.

[@bigblue6917]

Before the start of the 100 Days Campaign the Royal Artillery had used sound location devices to find the positions of the German artillery. So when the artillery opened up on the first day only a few positions of the German artillery were not hit. My paternal grandfather served with the Royal Garrison Artillery 60 pounder guns in WW1. So when I see the film footage of the 60 pounders I often wonder if he is amongst those in the film.

[@arniewilliamson1767]

The sound ranging was perfected and first used at the battle of Vimy Ridge. Col. Andy McNaughton engaged the scientific people to use the technique to locate German guns. That and flash spotting were used to great effect. By the time the Canadian Corps rose out of their trenches to assault the ridge, 80% of the German guns had been silenced.

[@bigblue6917]

@@arniewilliamson1767 Thanks, Arnie

[@knoll9812]

​@@arniewilliamson1767the precision and weight of artillery increased a hundred fold.

[@anthonyeaton5153]

@@knoll9812Yes and it was a deciding factor at Hamel etc.

[@nozrep]

what the heck? a sandwich box made out of actual silver? A silver sandwich box?! I want one!

[@olmostgudinaf8100]

None of that really challenged the "led by donkeys" part.

[@charlescawley9923]

Three of my great uncles, all from one family were killed in WW1. 2 were MPs and the third a professional army officer who, incidentally, was one of three who refused to join the Curragh mutiny shortly before. They were from an immensely wealthy family. You can go around Berrington Hall to see where the family lived. One, Harold Cawley is commemorated by the name of a crater in Gallopoli. Cawley's Crater. He died because he wrote to his father, also an MP, telling it as it was. Asquith was then informed and this suicidal act sent him to the front where, in an act of lunatic bravery, he died. Put Cawleys Crater into google. A disproportionate number of officers were killed in WW1 compared to the general futile and appalling slaughter.

[@philipbrooks402]

Important to remember that Asquith lost his son Raymond, on the Somme I think it was. So he was probably well informed of much of what was going on. We know Lloyd George was an absolute scoundrel writing to his wife, his real one, to do her utmost to keep his sons out of uniform whilst urging the sons of other mothers to join up.

[@spacemanclips]

It wasn't totally futile. Germany lost the war.

[@davesherry5384]

@@spacemanclips Had Germany not invaded Belgium, Britain would not have entered the war at all. So it is ironic that the Germans showed the seeds of their own destruction not just once, but twice. Mind you, one cannot say the Germans have learned since then, can one given their antics of today.,

[@charlescawley9923]

​@@spacemanclips No one really wins a war, only some lose less than others. Because some are thought more culpable and dangerous than others does not change this fact. I am of course glad Germany was defeated in WW1 but everyone lost in the process. There is no such thing as a good war despite the fact there is something as a necessary war.

[@roryobrien4401]

Man deserves a plaque in the Curragh Camp. Thanks for the (brief) story

[@graham2954]

So, lions led by donkeys then.

[@robertcruikshank8864]

I don’t think anybody in Australia doubts the donkey tag after Gallipoli.

[@davidfindlay878]

You can thank one Winston Spencer-Churchill for that mess.

[@originalkk882]

Moe British died at Gallipoli than Australians.

[@davidfindlay878]

@@originalkk882 they certainly did - and they still call Spencer-Churchill a 'great war leader'.

[@Algux]

It isn't that Haig did not care, he clearly did; it is just he was not up to the job.

[@xgford94]

12:25 Credit is due to Sir John Monash for the 100 Days, A Loin leading Lions 12:25

[@anthonyeaton5153]

Well that will include the British then,Thanks. By the way it was the brilliant British army and the British Army Service Corps that facilitated that quick short battle. It was all down rifles and bayonets.

[@williamgentry5855]

While many veterans were still alive the notion of lions led by donkeys was commonly accepted, yet once those men had mostly passed the revisionist history became more widely accepted. We’re the actual veterans wholly wrong? I doubt it.

[@cdub5033]

An old relative served in the Artillery at the Somme & others. He would never talk about it, changing the subject whenever any questions were asked.

[@alexbowman7582]

An incident late in the Somme which in previous comments the actual time and occasion of the event was told, but anyway British soldiers were ordered to attack these German lines, the British officer in charge refused due to enfilading machine guns, he was then re-ordered to attack to which he responded no, it’s pointless come down yourselves and see, so senior officers did come down and agreed it was pointless to attack. News got back to Haig and he insisted in an attack anyway and many soldiers died without reaching enemy lines.

[@Furniture121]

I'm sure 68 men of Royal Newfoundland Regiment who attended roll call on July 2nd 1916 would be appreciative of your nuanced view of the Somme offensive, but I suspect the other 732 who participated in the attack the day before might have felt less charitable.

[@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground]

But the British Army never again suffered casualties anywhere close to July 1st 1916 for the rest of the war so that tells me that they adapted and lessons were learned

[@fod1855]

A significant number of those were officers, funnily enough. There's a difference between not adapting tactics, because of unknowingness, and wilful murder.

[@davidscarrett3804]

What people don't realise is that in 1918 there were more casualties than 1916 and 1917 combined.

[@davidcolley7714]

@@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground Oh really? Read the history of 1917 as it is clear that you haven't

[@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground]

@@davidcolley7714 i have. show me casualties in the british army close to the first day of the somme

[@Gungho1a]

WW1 was a transitional war, and without making excuses for the massive loss of life it resulted in, the reality was that no one was prepared for what the war would become, and very few were capable of transitioning to a modernised way of thinking. My family lost three sons, Gallipoli, Paschendale, Somme.

[@philipsteel414]

They were donkeys. There were British observers at the Battle of Gettysburg (at least). At this battle the effects of massed rifle fire and artillery on infantry on the field was graphically illustrated. There is no excuse for the donkeys. they knew....

[@Deepthought-42]

8:12 Hmm Silver sandwich box and drinks flask. Really roughing it with the troops on the front line. Contrast that to Churchill and De Gaulle in WW2 who had to be kept away from the battle.

[@grosvenorclub]

My grandfather was in a Canadian regiment , he lasted just over a month before being killed .

[@104thDIVTimberwolf]

..we will remember them...

[@khoa2480]

Rest In Peace for your grandfather ❤❤❤

[@williamkennedy5492]

Straight from the horses mouth from someone who was there, My grandfather would agree Lions led by donkeys. A regular in the army in 1914 and then again in 1939.

[@anthonyeaton5153]

I have know veterans who admired Haig.

[@MWM-dj6dn]

Greetings of great admiration and greater respect. Your wonderful and esteemed channel for the wonderful and accurate information you provide. I wish you good luck and lasting success. Sincere respect, appreciation and pride for all your great efforts and all your wonderful work. A very beautiful and accurate way to raise topics.

[@captainbuggernut9565]

I suspect many will disagree with the assertion in your headline. Your sincerely, Captain Darling.

[@gamingledgens2112]

Most generals in ww1 were not "lions led by donkeys", however the most influential generals were. Examples are Robert Nivelle, Erich Von Falkenhayn, Luigi Cardona and Conrad Von Hotzendorf.

[@tbuxt3992]

Haig is still pretty high up there. Man caused 57000 casualties in a day. That's literally absurd

[@lupodimontenero661]

well said!

[@HarryFlashmanVC]

@@tbuxt3992 you didn't watch this, did you?

[@tbuxt3992]

@@HarryFlashmanVC I did. I stand by my statement

[@wraithcadmus]

The only place I've ever heard of where some of these lessons might have been learned from was during Mike Duncan's Revolutions on Mexico, later on in that series in 1910 or so(?), where fast mounted soldiers had been stopped by barbed wire, trenches, and machine guns.

[@Brockza]

The Boer war was a great example of trench warfare and the dangers thereof. What's surprising is that both Haig and Kitchner were actually in South Africa and saw the difficulties of trench warfare.

[@timfirth977]

@@Brockza Exactly. Haig was a cavalry officer in charge of an army that was mainly infantry, and well out of depth.

[@Kirk1914]

Of course the IWM would not call British generals ‘donkeys’. Alan Clark’s book The Donkeys published in 1961 remains a contrary and, in my view, more considered viewpoint.

[@iamcarbonandotherbits.8039]

I'm an ex-soldier and not a lover of the officer class, a lot of them when I was serving were university drop outs who looked down on the other ranks. But anyway if you put the men who fought in the 1st WW into social classes the upper class lost over half of thier sons compared to 32% of the working-class. That's a big chunk of males from one social class. Just saying.

[@knoll9812]

Part of problem Officers expected to be brave and lead. Suspicious of clever chaps. One of the thing that got better as war progresses is that more officers from outside traditional aristocratic class were recruited

[@rustybollocks3827]

How did that dispel the myth?

[@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground]

Did you even watch the video?

[@rustybollocks3827]

@@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground Yes

[@Musrusticus6890]

Very interesting, thank you.

[@richardcall7447]

As an American, I think that a more careful study of the American Civil War by European militaries may have helped reduce casualties. They certainly would have gained an understanding that the COST of assaulting prepared defensive positions was only going to get HIGHER with the advancement of weapons since then.

[@stewartellinson8846]

The reputation of WW1 leaders was criticised during the war; look at the war poetry of Sassoon, Owen et al whilst the war memoirs of pretty much all of those who fought on both sides make the point that the war was one of slaughter and that commanders were isolated from the reality of the front line. Whilst armies and their commanders in WW1 did evolve, they did so at a very slow pace and in a way that meant that ordinary soldiers bore the brunt in the bloodiest way possibly. Maybe Lions lead by Sloths?

[@robertmiller5258]

Good morning, good morning the General said. He’s a cheery old card said Harry to Jack As they slugged up to Arras with rifle and pack. But he has done fir them both with his plan of attack.

[@vernongoodey5096]

No please don’t keep on about the poets they were mostly men who had grown up in upper class families with nannies to look after them. Read the diaries of the coal miners and steel workers who for the first time in their lives had 3 meals a day

[@Kizron_Kizronson]

The idea that the generals sat safely behind the lines ordering attacks while safely sipping champagne has repeatedly been shown to be a fiction. But the whiners don't like to have their favourite targets taken away from them. People like you for example. It's far more comforting to believe that there is some sort of class war that has always existed, that they can hang their anger on. Except that it hasn't always existed it's a recent construction by those who want to create friction and foment anger in the population for their own benefits. Officers in the Commonwealth forces overall and Generals in particular had higher casualty rates than the enlisted men did. This is not difficult to verify, ww1 casualties are well recorded. IF you want to continue pushing the narrative of feckless leadership then base it on facts, not anecdotes and the fictions of rabble rousers.

[@Johnnie10ponnies]

I was on a battlefield tour in Flanders and the guide said something similar. The troops had so much food that in some cases used the bully beef tins to reinforce the bottom of their trenches from the mud. The vast majority of Kitchener’s Army when first recruited were malnourished and to weak to be considered for active military service under normal circumstances, so their health and fitness was the first problem to overcome. Thanks to Industrial Britain treatment of the workers/poor

[@johnfisk811]

@@Johnnie10ponnies True but this had already become an issue with the South African War and that began actions for the government to take responsibility for the general health of the population. The ‘vast majority’ is perhaps overdoing it but the problem was very real. My grandfather was a professional soldier, serving in South Africa, The Great War and in WW2. He joined up through poverty.

[@jacknastyface5623]

My grandfather fought from early 1915 until November 1918, so shell shock had to be explained to me at a very early age. Grandfather would take issue, I believe with much of this revision. There were good officers of course and Junior Officers suffered an appalling attrition rate. However steep the learning curve and whatever was achieved was at the expense of those going over the top or those exposed to the shelling in rear areas. My grandfather preferred the trenches over the rear areas as the trench offered at least some protection from the shelling. The amount of men shot at dawn and the reasons for doing so, just about sums up the attitude of the 'top brass' when it came to the 'common soldiery'. Montgomery, as I recall was not a fan of the waste of men's life's in WW1. Lessons were learnt, but at a very high cost. The stupidity of some and the achievements of others are not mutually exclusive to what happened in WW1, they existed alongside each other, one fact does not cancel out or whitewash another fact, both exist to provide balance for a truer narrative! Lions led by donkeys is not a myth, but it is not the only story, things were achieved in spite of the donkeys!

[@19nick57]

Well said Jack - I've just written something similar. This is a poor - almost silly - video in the way it argues one thing and applies it to another, wider concern. I believe Haig was OK but that in no ways means there were NOT others (many others) who were actual donkeys or decisions made which were not donkey-like. Also - on a slightly different note - so much padding in this video !

[@jackx4311]

And that's the point; that so many things were achieved IN SPITE of the donkeys. But hundreds of thousands of lives were just thrown away for nothing.

[@maiqtheliar789]

Still as true today as it was then and probably always will be. There are good leaders and bad leaders in all levels of the military. All that can be done is try to minimize the amount of damage the bad ones cause and pray you never serve under one of the bad ones.

[@jimlofts5433]

After the execution of morant and handcock by Haig - No Australians were shot for any offence during WW1 despite butcher haig and his ilk wanting a repeat but was told to go furk himself - never again was an Australian shot by british soldiers at dawn - the Brits still had plenty of their own too shoot which they did with gay abandon but it never put them off a hearty lunch

[@apzzpa]

To even consider this is a total disgrace to the men who lost their lives. A total disgrace If they had poor communication then why did they have the confidence to make decisions to send their men to slaughter? If they had tanks why did they not use them as cover for the infantry to follow behind?

[@Chatboy_GPT]

Research the battle of Mount Street Bridge in Dublin during the 1916 rising. I find it hard to believe it was anything other than lions led by donkeys given the casualties that such few barely trained rebels were able to inflict on a full British army battalion.

[@terryjacob8169]

My late grandfather lost two younger brothers on the first day of the Somme. He always talked of the WW1 British Army as 'Lions led by donkeys'. He would be absolutely appalled to hear latter day, revisionist, military historians defending Haig and his generals.

[@nowtelsematters]

Then perhaps we shouldn't listen to people guided by emotion and personal suffering and instead look at the historical fact.

[@GrrMeister]

*He was unaware of the full picture !*

[@rnp497]

I think many and probably Haigh knew that the almost one attack method of going over the top would result in huge casualties. But in 191 what other options did they have

[@rahowherox1177]

Well, not going over the top - for 1.

[@ricardosmythe2548]

"It had to go on" did it? The only difference in outcome between suing for peace then and the real outcome was the terms of the treaty of Versailles, another top level f up.

[@Hibernicus1968]

The U.S. army had to undergo a similar rapid expansion from a tiny pre-war force (just 127,500 officers and soldiers) to an army of over 4 million. As with the British army, there was a core of well-trained officers, but not _nearly_ enough, and therefore a lot of what would, in later wars, be called "shake and bake" officers and NCOs as men were rather hastily trained to fill those roles. But it's hard to think there wasn't some pure dunderheadedness, or bloody-mindedness at play when, at the end of the war, when the armistice had been agreed upon, but had not yet taken gone into effect, men's lives were being expended in totally pointless attacks against objectives that they would be able simply to walk into in a few hours or days. American Expeditionary Forces in France suffered more than thirty-five hundred casualties on November 11, 1918, Armistice Day, even though it had been known unofficially for two days that the fighting would end that day and known with absolute certainty as of 5 o’clock that morning that the war would end at 11 a.m. These casualties were, I think, down to the ambitions of careerist officers, who saw a fast-fading opportunity for glory, victories, and especially promotions in the postwar army that they expected to shrink back to its small, prewar size (which it did). The excuse invariably given was that, with rumors of enemy capitulation in the air, this was no time to relax but rather to tighten the screws. Maybe that was understandable _weeks_ prior to the armistice, when they were just rumors, or even once the rumors started to become reliable intelligence, but not in the last days and hours, when it became incontestably clear the armistice was going to happen. After that, it was just throwing lives away. In questioning Brigadier General Fox Conner, in postwar congressional hearings, Rep. Oscar Bland (R) of Indiana, pulled no punches. Bland: “How many generals did you lose on that day?“ Conner: "None.“ Bland: “How many colonels did you lose on that day?“ Conner: “I do not know how many were lost.“ Bland: “How many lieutenant colonels did you lose on that day?“ Conner: “I do not know the details of any of that.“ Bland: “I am convinced, that on November 11 there was not any officer of very high rank taking any chance of losing his own life." That statement infuriated Gen. Conner, but as far as I'm concerned, it was a _completely_ accurate statement of things. Alas, the U.S. army was not alone in such behavior. The British army felt some inexplicable need to retake the city of Mons on the war’s final day, and suffered 2,400 casualties. The French also conducted attacks that day, and took an estimated 1,170. The Germans suffered some 4,120 casualties. Indeed, losses on Armistice Day, 1918 exceeded the total number of casualties sustained by all the combatants on D-Day, June 6, 1944. But the men who fell in Normandy on D-Day were giving their lives to win a war. The ones who fell on November 11, 1918, lost theirs in actions that changed _nothing_ in a war the Allies had already won.

[@OLDCHEMIST1]

Really don't agree, as they could have learned that assault by infantry was just a pointless loss of life. They did order men "over the top" and so were responsible for the deaths and horrendous injuries of many men. The communication issue - next to useless telephones - could have been dealt with by more traditional means, for example signalling. The quote is due to von Ludendorff, perhaps a simplification, but I think all the "leaders" were only interested in the benefits to their own class and ordinary men were disposable.

[@wizardapprenticeIV]

How are you meant to take ground in the first world war without infantry?

[@OLDCHEMIST1]

​@@wizardapprenticeIV The point is not that infantry was used, at that time I agree any other way would be virtually impossible, it was the senseless loss of life and imo the officers really didn't care about the number of people who died, just as long as the salient was moving towards the enemy. Which is more important, taking ground with terrible losses or holding what you have with far fewer deaths?

[@tomhenry897]

How are going to take anything with dead soldiers

[@OLDCHEMIST1]

@@tomhenry897 ??? What have dead soldiers got to do with what I was saying? If you mean that it was senseless to send troops out of trenches to lose their lives I agree. The assaults were often against heavily fortified positions, so ensuring many deaths, I absolutely agree. Otherwise?

[@RicktheRecorder]

Also read the book "Blood, Mud, and Poppycock" published some tears ago for a balanced view.

[@davidfindlay878]

Please do read it alongside 'The War The Infantry Knew', by Capt. J C Dunn. There are a number of things in Dunn's book - a collection of writing by mostly officers who served in The Royal Welch Fusiliers - that Corrigan fails to mention or even denies. Captain Dunn himself was a long serving colonial medical officer who served as MO for the Royal Welch between 1914 and 1917 on the Western Front. I'm slightly more inclined to take him at his word.

[@RicktheRecorder]

@@davidfindlay878 Thank you.

[@martinswiers6653]

Haig survived in command throught the course of the war. He was incharge when this new mechanised warfare took off and adapted to suit. Introducing aircraft, tanks and new techniques.

[@Smog104]

WW1 was a horrific, barbarous war .

[@ElCharvo]

Cull

[@anthonyeaton5153]

So what was World War 2?

[@LoudaroundLincoln]

@ANTHONY EATON same. Just bigger.

[@tomsheppard378]

WW2 was also a bloodbath but it was Russian blood that really defeated the Nazis

[@Design_no]

Not sure about the British soldiers, but try saying that to the Australians. I imagine they saw the Brit leaders as something far worse than donkeys.

[@robertstallard7836]

The Australians had numerous problems at the start of the war. They lacked experienced leadership, both at senior and junior level (no surprise there as the country had never taken a force to war before!), thus they had a steep learning-curve to contend-with. The troops themselves were willing but inexperienced and also indisciplined, mainly due to the lack of leadership already noted. British troops slotted into a military machine that already had the traditions, discipline and loyalty systems in place, wheras the Australian recruits didn't have that basis to work from. Hence, for example, there were far higher rates of desertion amongst Australian troops and their troop trains had to be guarded to stop them disappearing at every stop - a situation hugely embarrassing for their home country. In their origins, the men were really no different to British troops (40% were born in Britain, most of the rest had parents born in Britain and, just like in the UK, most were rcruited from the cities), so there was no reason they couldn't perform to the same standards, but the leadership experience simply wasn't there at the beginning. Once, however, they had gained that necessary experience, they improved considerably and by the end of the war they were as effective as equivalent British formations, and surpassed many. In addition, once they had gained the necessary experience, some very capable leaders emerged, not least Monash who was given the opportunity to run his own show at Hamel, and did an excellent job of it. By WW2, the lessons had been learned and they performed much better from the start.

[@bernarddavis1050]

@@robertstallard7836 What a load of condescending drivel. The Australians began the war looking up to Britain and its military leaders (the result of years of colonial brainwashing). By its end they had little but contempt for the cowardly starveling British conscripts and their incompetent officers. Australia paid a very high price indeed for British military idiocy.

[@nigeltown6999]

Over 60 Generals were killed, in action, in WWI and the rate of casualties is matched all the way down, through all the ranks, in the line of command. Often times the officers went over the top with nothing more than a revolver and a whistle... Clearly; the tactics were pants, and, took literally, years to evolve into something more effective, given the circumstances that pertained. However, I'm more concerned that the next generations did not keep their promise to the millions of brave souls who walked, line abreast, into the killing grounds, on the expectation that their sacrifice would deliver a war to end wars. Shame on us.

[@Andrea-1998]

Nigel what you said in the last section is totally right on, what a waste really. (As are all wars for the most part, in my opinion)

[@bernarddavis1050]

The officers leading advances soon learned to ditch anything that identified them as officers, e.g. revolvers, swizzle sticks, riding breeches, leather straps etc. They were prime targets for enemy snipers.

[@Iain1957]

Credit where credit is due you say - but you haven't given any credit. Maybe generals like Plumer who really was able to get the whole combined arms thing going and Monash who methods during the 100 days you described in your video could get some credit. Goughs was more of the donkey type general. It would be useful to note that the significant problem in 1915 was the shortage of ammunition as far more was expended than expected in pre war planning and that the artillery lacked high explosive rounds relying on shrapnel which was not very effective in trench warfare.

[@epone3488]

it's hard for us with ubiquitous communication to imagine the lack of good communication across the front. Although telephone cables were run and were of course useful they had to be run by hand and running them in combat was extremely difficult. Runners could take messages but the lag engendered by runners made the information unreliable over any true distance. Thus things as elementary as combined arms maneuvers were complicated to nigh impossible due to the communication situation.

[@worldcomicsreview354]

The highest proportion of casualties was among junior officers, who would have belonged to exactly the the same public-school-educated class as the "donkeys". Might even have been related to them in some cases.

[@danielchinn3536]

Certainly during the war's early years there was the deadly combination of the facts that military technology of the day heavily favoured the defender and that as Germany had invaded and occupied lands in France & Belgium, allied war aims were to expel the invader from theses territories. Therefore, the Western Allies were compelled to attack despite tragically predictable losses.

[@tellthemborissentyou]

Or they could have waited and developed the weapons they needed to go on the attack. Recognising the advantage of defense is what put Ludendorf so far ahead of Haig as a modern general.

[@franzfanz]

​@@tellthemborissentyou The French lands that were lost to the Germans were where some of the best industrial assets of France were located, getting them back was a priority. There was also no way of knowing if weapon technology would develop to the point that an easy victory could be achieved. The Germans could equally have developed that technology. Also, Ludendorf was on the losing side. Von Hindenburg and him were ultimately unsuccessful in the one big offensive that they attempted in 1918. He also never accepted that the Entente won and he helped create the stab in the back myth, which the Nazis exploited to start WWII.

[@Terra-YT]

Wow Imperial War Museums this might be my favorite video of yours yet. You're a total inspiration and actually because of seeing your success I've decided to start making videos too! Keep grinding, your hard work clearly pays off!

[@FilthyBritain]

w

[@ethansstopmotionstudio1254]

grand

[@bobfry5267]

If it's not working, stop doing it. Don't repeat it for four years.

[@quuaaarrrk8056]

Spoken Text: "Within six weeks the 1.5 million strong French army had taken 25% casualties" Subtitles: "Within six weeks the 1.5 million strong French army had taken _25_ casualties" If casualties were actually as high as in the subtitles, WW1 would probably be known as the "European 1914-18 border skirmishes"

[@davesheldon2874]

I think this video is attempting to resurrect General Hague's reputation. My Grandad fought from 1914 to 1917 ( when he was captured) He despised Hague, thought he was an uncaring unthinking unempathetic fool who just kept doing the same thing, with predictable carnage ridden results. He would be appalled by this video.

[@michaelmcvey1442]

78 British generals killed in WW1.

[@Poliss95]

How many of the general staff?

[@Design_no]

How many generals did they need?

[@robertstallard7836]

@@Design_no You will have one commanding each Brigade, Division, Corps and Army plus, of course, specialist commanders for the various assets within each - artillery, medical, engineers etc.

[@Liam_Mellon]

Just because Lions led by Donkeys doesn’t capture the whole story, doesn’t mean that isn’t still essentially true. It’s mostly just Haig who’s gotten too much blame (though not all of it undeservedly).

[@alexnicole7431]

IMHO one of the worst ideas of WW1 was the idea of the Pals Battalions a single offensive could leave a town or area of a city empty of young men or worse just leaving those mentally and physically scarred from the experience.

[@Trebor74]

Troops were required. They needed to encourage enlistment as much as possible. Pals battalions would be thought of as tougher then general conscription as they would be fighting with friends

[@alexnicole7431]

@@Trebor74 at least with conscription the units would be mixed from regions. Pals battalions were from the same town so the casualties was far more local.

[@bauer9101]

Watched whole thing. Still Donkeys.

[@friendlygarfield]

I watched your video with interest 🙂 I ask , as you sound like a well learned man - please explain this term in light of Gallipoli Churchill went on to become a "great man " in the UK after the Gallipoli tragic massacre lions led by idiots (Donkey is no stupid animal )

[@robertwaye803]

When most officers were 20 miles behind the front line.

[@neilwavg]

No they weren't, officer casualty rates were higher, do some research numpty

[@wizardapprenticeIV]

what do you think Officers do? Most officers (being Captain and below) would have been at the front, commanding men.

[@CB-fz3li]

Officers had a higher mortality rate than the rank and file.

[@tomhenry897]

Lt.col. And below Generals lived behind the front in luxury and had no idea what was happening

[@llynllydaw]

@@tomhenry897 But you can't run a war from a front line trench? In a war today the commanding general possibly might not be in the same country.

[@gregabidwalapgwilymgoch956]

Nice try at rehabilitation for the Generals, but i'm not buying it. They were more careful by 1918 only because they were running out of troops. There were martinets like Brigadier Price-Davies VC walking around with a measuring stick and having a dizzy fit if the defences weren't exact, while the troops under his command didn't have food and ammo ; ordering men to attack machine guns across open fields in broad daylight without support ; sending men to fight in woods without a proper recce taking place, etc. Of course there were some good ones, but not many, imo

[@paulstack2431]

All wars are started by the most selfish beings alive whom would never risk themselves or those closest to them in any way shape or form. And those that benefit the most risk the least.

[@alisterbennett]

I started reading "The New Zealand Division, 1916-1919: A Popular History Based on Official Records" in about 2015.... I still have not finished it. It does show the development and change in the tactics of the New Zealand Division, even in the Battle of the Somme (they joined that later in the battle) It is an 'official' history so is factual rather than literary, but does cycle through events at different levels, down to individual actions and people. It is a slog.... like the war I supose. Even now as I read, they are in the 'last 100 days', it is no picnic. In that sense it is profoundly depressing ... with the end only now coming into sight... (That is why I keep stopping - then picking up again) I have been profoundly blessed as the 1st generation not required to go to war nor experience family going to war (both my grandfathers served - 1st and 2nd world war, but I never knew them). It terrifies me that my grandchildren might have to step up one day.....

[@warren3967]

I've been trying to get through that as we speak, mainly to piece together what happened to my grandfather's brother who died on the Somme and is buried at Flatiron Copse in Mametz, I have also been resourcing the battle diary of the No. 2 NZ Field Ambulance. It is interesting reading and gives a better understanding of what these soldiers went through.

[@Mude-wv9bj]

4:10 I love how the still are throwing snowballs at each other while marching through the trench