Picture of the day

762shooter said:
The last line in the video clip: "It truly was lions led by donkeys." That about sums it up.
Click to expand...

The Lions led by Donkeys quote is extremely inaccurate and probably one of the worst lines to ever been picked up. Here is a good summary of the main myths of the 'Great War' and how they are wrong (if you want more evidence look up 'Lions led by Donkeys lie' on google).

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25776836
 
Eaglelord17 said:
The Lions led by Donkeys quote is extremely inaccurate and probably one of the worst lines to ever been picked up. Here is a good summary of the main myths of the 'Great War' and how they are wrong (if you want more evidence look up 'Lions led by Donkeys lie' on google).

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25776836
Click to expand...


I'm going to have to go with Eaglelord on this one. WWI was a disaster by any measure, however, it was a disaster that was only predictable in hindsight. Every army goes into a war "fighting the last war" - with the tactics and mindset of previous conflicts. There had been some fairly large scale conflicts within living memory in Europe between major powers (the Franco Prussian war comes to mind) that were still fought in classic battles of manoeuvre between massed formations. That's what everyone was expecting, and even though everyone had gone through some fairly significant equipment upgrades (the Franco Prussian War was the first time major European powers weren't using muzzle loaders - both armies used single shot breach loaded paper cartridge "needle" guns - the Dreyse and Chassepot), no one really understood the impact that repeating rifles would have in a conflict between massed armies.

Even the repeating bolt action rifle was a fairly new, untested in big battle, technology. The senior officers would have come up from a time of single shot breach loaders, and in some cases even, muzzle loading days. As for machine guns and industrial massed artillery? This was almost science fiction equipment for the leadership.

But they did adapt, and quite quickly. "Dash and panache" tactics quickly fell by the wayside. Trench warfare was, in fact, a throwback to the middle ages. All the armies involved were desperate to come up with a way to break the stalemate. Eventually they did, even if there was a sad amount of "error" in the "trial and error" aspect of coming up with a solution.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
The Lions led by Donkeys quote is extremely inaccurate and probably one of the worst lines to ever been picked up. Here is a good summary of the main myths of the 'Great War' and how they are wrong (if you want more evidence look up 'Lions led by Donkeys lie' on google).

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25776836
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with many of the points made in the article you link to but I will stand my ground on my poor opinion of the British officer corps.

The problem was that the British officers were a product of the British class system and had both a deeply internalized sense of superiority and extreme deference to authority, both of which made quick adaptation difficult.

The article you linked mentions Gen. Currie as an example to prove that British generals were able to adapt. In fact, Currie proves just the opposite. He was not a Sandhurst product, he didn't buy his commission, he wasn't burdened with a deep, class based contempt for anyone not of his own social class, he wasn't married to the dogmas of old tactics and as a result he could think analytically and solve new problems flexibly despite his relatively low social background. Now name a WW I British general who could fit that description. Yes, they did change considerably over the course of the war but it didn't come quickly or naturally to them.
 
762shooter said:
I don't disagree with many of the points made in the article you link to but I will stand my ground on my poor opinion of the British officer corps.

The problem was that the British officers were a product of the British class system and had both a deeply internalized sense of superiority and extreme deference to authority, both of which made quick adaptation difficult.

The article you linked mentions Gen. Currie as an example to prove that British generals were able to adapt. In fact, Currie proves just the opposite. He was not a Sandhurst product, he didn't buy his commission, he wasn't burdened with a deep, class based contempt for anyone not of his own social class, he wasn't married to the dogmas of old tactics and as a result he could think analytically and solve new problems flexibly despite his relatively low social background. Now name a WW I British general who could fit that description. Yes, they did change considerably over the course of the war but it didn't come quickly or naturally to them.
Click to expand...

The British officers of the time were much better then contemporary armies officers. British officers had a much higher respect for troops then other militaries. Yes they had a class system but that is part of what helped the British soldiers during the war as it required the officers to look after there troops. Here is a good article that details it.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world-war-1/453259/The-lions-were-not-led-by-donkeys
 
Last edited:
Eaglelord17 said:
The British officers of the time were much better then contemporary armies officers. British officers had a much higher respect for troops then other militaries. Yes they had a class system but that is part of what helped the British soldiers during the war as it required the officers to look after there troops. Here is a good article that details it.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world-war-1/453259/The-lions-were-not-led-by-donkeys
Click to expand...

I won't deny that British officers were some of the best in the world and still are.

IMHO, they are better now than they were at the turn of the 20th Century. I say this because they no longer allow commissions to be bought. Now, they have to be earned.

Selling commissions wasn't just a British practice. Up to and maybe even after WWI, most nations practiced this policy. It established a special class system within the militaries that went beyond the confines of their rules and regulations.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
The British officers of the time were much better then contemporary armies officers. British officers had a much higher respect for troops then other militaries. Yes they had a class system but that is part of what helped the British soldiers during the war as it required the officers to look after there troops. Here is a good article that details it.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world-war-1/453259/The-lions-were-not-led-by-donkeys
Click to expand...

I suppose you respect that great butcher Lord Kitchener. A self serving prat that sent many good men to their death.

I believe he termed his troops to be "cannon fodder". What a great example of the English class system.

That said there were many good officers but sad to say they were not the one's making the disastrous decisions. Those decisions were made by generals that were still living in the 19th century & leading cavalry charges.
 
Just for the sake of clarity, the Cardwell Reforms in the 1870s abolished the purchase and sale of commissions. The only exception to that was in the case of those wealthy enough to outfit their own units, which with some limitations they thereby gained the right to lead. A very rare event, but one in which there were some notable successes and almost no outright failures.

The Royal Navy had never allowed the purchase and sale of commissions and entrance was by competitive examination even in the 1700s. One reason the prestige of the Navy was generally much higher than that of the Army.

The truth about "the British officer" lies between the cliches, but in general their greatest weakness was their lack of training compared to some continental armies and the somewhat affected aristocratic distaste for "shop" and "professionals". An officer was expected to know how to control himself, his men and his horses and women(!) by virtue of his birth and education: "breeding" as it was called at the time. If he had to "study" those things he was probably not a gentleman it was felt! And of course when you tell a man from a young age that he has in the words of Cecil Rhodes, "won first prize in the lottery of life", it's not surprising how often that young man comes to believe it and to actually live up to it.

Their lives in the Victorian era were not without privilege, but compared to our modern lives, their service was harsh, unforgiving and very often debilitating, if not fatal. There was in general no molly-coddling of those who failed to behave as an officer and gentleman should, in or out of service. Valentine Baker for example was Colonel of the 10th Hussars, one of the most prestigious regiments in the Army, and a friend of the Prince of Wales, until he was found guilty of assaulting a working class woman. He was imprisoned, thrown out of the army in disgrace and left the country, never to return.

Say what you like about the officer class, but with few exceptions they had a much higher moral code than many people today, including many professional officers. They also knew how to die.

In this year of the centenary of 1914 there are many photos of WWI casualties, including many officers. Take a look, many of those men would stand out in a crowd today, and they were slaughtered in their millions. Their descendants are not with us for they were never born, and that friends, is the principle reason IMHO why we are where we are today!
 
Last edited:
Rod B said:
I suppose you respect that great butcher Lord Kitchener. A self serving prat that sent many good men to their death.

I believe he termed his troops to be "cannon fodder". What a great example of the English class system.
Click to expand...

From what I can tell he was the most farseeing general of the time, predicting that the war would go on for at least 3 years when everyone was saying they would be home by Christmas. He was also key in organising what Britain needed for a sustained war like WWI. Some of his thoughts were old fashioned but he was also better at predicting what was needed at the time and ensuring that what was needed was there. Yes he some of his actions resulted in a strategy of attrition but so have many others in history (look at the Vietnam War or Verdun). Also the war did not end until the Germans were exhausted from attrition. I am mixed on my opinion of Kitchener, realistically he is a great tactician who if he hadn't organised the war effort when he did then the war would have gone a fair bit worse for Britain, in other ways though he did result in a fair bit of deaths. I tried to google your cannon fodder statement and could not find any reference to it if you have one could you please source it.
 
Last edited:
My own Great Uncle was quoted as saying that he would "take a bullet for Lord Lovat" if asked to do so {Alexander MacRae}...streams of a feudal Clan system still ran strongly in Northern Britain in the 1940's. His statement is based on 2 realities; 1) Lovat was Chief and therefore absolute support must be given in the same manner as his ancestors did, anything less would have been shameful beyond words, and 2) Lord Lovat was a competent leader and gentleman who had genuine concern for those who wore "his" badge.

I am unsure if Lovat purchased his commission through outfitting the regiment.
 
A little more clarity ....

even prior to the 1870 Reforms, a commission could not be purchased in the Royal Artillery or Royal Engineers (Sappers & Miners prior to 1858). Candidates were the crème de la crème of the military colleges and promotion hinged solely on proven ability and service.
The Infantry and Cavalry regiments were not as selective, many commissions due to family history and connections; a way of getting rid of a n'er do well son in the hopes that he might yet amount to something in the service of the Empire.

RRCo. said:
Just for the sake of clarity, the Cardwell Reforms in the 1870s abolished the purchase and sale of commissions. The only exception to that was in the case of those wealthy enough to outfit their own units, which with some limitations they thereby gained the right to lead.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the clarification on the purchase of commissions. I based my words on limited knowledge.

Ross and another fellow whose name I forget, both had commissions that weren't earned. They did raise and fund their own regiments though.
 
aOqAyxM_460s_v1.jpg
 
Hamilton Gault - raised the initial PPCLI contingent, I believe.

bearhunter said:
Thanks for the clarification on the purchase of commissions. I based my words on limited knowledge.

Ross and another fellow whose name I forget, both had commissions that weren't earned. They did raise and fund their own regiments though.
Click to expand...
 
Eaglelord17 said:
From what I can tell he was the most farseeing general of the time, predicting that the war would go on for at least 3 years when everyone was saying they would be home by Christmas. He was also key in organising what Britain needed for a sustained war like WWI. Some of his thoughts were old fashioned but he was also better at predicting what was needed at the time and ensuring that what was needed was there. Yes he some of his actions resulted in a strategy of attrition but so have many others in history (look at the Vietnam War or Verdun). Also the war did not end until the Germans were exhausted from attrition. I am mixed on my opinion of Kitchener, realistically he is a great tactician who if he hadn't organised the war effort when he did then the war would have gone a fair bit worse for Britain, in other ways though he did result in a fair bit of deaths. I tried to google your cannon fodder statement and could not find any reference to it if you have one could you please source it.
Click to expand...

Not only Kitchener but Joffre and Moltke also forsore a long war. neither of them actually spoke to their goverments directly however although Joffre alluded to it.
 
Kitchener's greatest failure was not insisting on conscription from the outbreak of war, if not before. (Kitchener showed he was not much of a tactician in Egypt and South Africa; strategy was more his line.) Hundreds of thousands of the best volunteers were wasted in "Kitchener's New Army" in 1915/16 who should have been NCOs and officers, not private soldiers. The shirkers and the cowards all hid themselves away until they were conscripted in 1917 and 1918. By that time the old professional army and most of the New Armies were dead and gone and the low grade material that was left couldn't stand alone, witness the collapse of the 5th Army in March 1918.

Of course if Haig and his wooden-headed subordinates had not thrown away those armies to the tune of 35,000 men a week with their insane tactics of "attrition", the situation would not have been as bad. When you read about the incredible struggles to create the Machine Gun Corps and the Tank Corps, and to keep them going against the opposition of Haig and GHQ and their attempts to reconvert a large part of them into infantry in 1917/18, you can understand why Haig is supposed to have said after WWI: "How did we win the war?"

The answer is only thanks to the "colonial forces": Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. The infantry of the Indian Army Corps couldn't stand the trench conditions in France and had to be withdrawn in 1915.

And all the while the Cavalry Corps, dear to the hearts of cavalry men like Haig and his clique, sat behind the lines, consuming half the shipping space to France with their forage requirements, waiting for the great breakthrough that never came; at least not for the cavalry.

Speaking to a lady I know recently she said her mother burned her father's WWI diary, and he was a Canadian "original" from 1914 until he was wounded in 1916. The things it said about the high command weren't very nice to read I was told.
 
Last edited:
I've heard criticisms of the Indian Army during the first world war that have been posted here in the past, but I've also heard of Sikh regiments that not only fought bravely, but held the line against punishing, insurmountable German offensives with little to no support save that of they're own support trenches. I believe that a lot of the "Indians can't/refuse to fight" issue was more politically driven than anything. To suggest that an entire race of human beings "couldn't stand the trench conditions" smacks of a racist comment. RRCo, I'm not suggesting you're a racist, rather you may be quoting/citing a dated position that was taken in 1915. There were more than a few racially separation type opinions at that time...I'm just saying they hold little water with me is all.
 
plinker 777 said:
I've heard criticisms of the Indian Army during the first world war that have been posted here in the past, but I've also heard of Sikh regiments that not only fought bravely, but held the line against punishing, insurmountable German offensives with little to no support save that of they're own support trenches. I believe that a lot of the "Indians can't/refuse to fight" issue was more politically driven than anything. To suggest that an entire race of human beings "couldn't stand the trench conditions" smacks of a racist comment. RRCo, I'm not suggesting you're a racist, rather you may be quoting/citing a dated position that was taken in 1915. There were more than a few racially separation type opinions at that time...I'm just saying they hold little water with me is all.
Click to expand...

When you have say 400 men out of a regiment with self-inflicted wounds in a short time you have men who cannot stand the conditions they are in.

Those are the historical facts. The explanations are no concern of mine; you are at liberty to investigate the matter and draw your own conclusions.

In fact the British officers and authorities were at some pains to conceal the matter at the time and there were few prosecutions.

IMO it simply shows the level of your conditioning, or else your agenda, that you get all antsy about this and start talking about "entire races" and otherwise trying to distort what I said.

Again, check the facts for yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom