Lions led by donkeys
"Lions led by donkeys" is a phrase popularly used to describe the British infantry of the First World War and to blame the generals who led them. The contention is that the brave soldiers (lions) were sent to their deaths by incompetent and indifferent leaders (donkeys). The phrase was the source of the title of one of the most scathing examinations of British First World War generals, The Donkeys—a study of Western Front offensives—by politician and writer of military histories Alan Clark. The book typified the mainstream First World War history of the 1960s , was vetted by Basil Liddell Hart, and helped to form a popular view of the First World War (in the English-speaking world) in the decades that followed. However, the work's viewpoint of incompetent military leaders was never accepted by some mainstream historians, and both the book and its viewpoint have been criticised. Origin. The origin of the phrase pre-dates the First World War. Plutarch attributed to Chabrias the saying that "an army of deer commanded by a lion is more to be feared than an army of lions commanded by a deer". An ancient Arabian proverb says  An army of sheep led by a lion would defeat an army of lions led by a sheep. During the Crimean War, a letter was reportedly sent home by a British soldier quoting a Russian officer who had said that British soldiers were "lions commanded by donkeys". This was immediately after the failure to storm the fortress of Sevastopol which, if true, would take the saying back to 1854–55. The phrase is quoted in Anna Stoddart's 1906 book "The Life of Isabella Bird" in the scene where Isabella, en route for America in 1854, passes a troopship taking the  Scot's Greys out to Balaclava. These and other Crimean War references were included in British Channel 4 television's "The Crimean War" series (1997) and the accompanying book (Michael Hargreave Mawson, expert reader). Karl Marx and Frederick Engels used the phrase on 27 September 1855, in an article published in "Neue Oder-Zeitung", No. 457 (1 October 1855), on the British military's strategic mistakes and failings during the fall of Sevastopol, and particularly General James Simpson's military leadership of the assault on the Great Redan. "The Times" reportedly recycled the phrase as "lions led by donkeys" with  reference to French soldiers during the Franco-Prussian War: There were numerous examples of its use during the First World War, referring to both the British and the Germans. In "Rising Sun and Tumbling Bear: Russia's War with Japan" (2003), Richard Connaughton attributed a later quotation to Colonel J. M. Grierson (later Sir James Grierson) in 1901, when reporting on the Russian contingent to the Boxer Rebellion, describing them as 'lions led by asses'. More recent usage. In the Second World War Erwin Rommel said it about the British after he captured Tobruk. In early 2019, the hashtag "#LedByDonkeys  was coined by an anti-Brexit campaign group that highlights perceived hypocritical statements by British politicians. Attribution. Evelyn, Princess Blücher, an Englishwoman who lived in Berlin during the First World War, in her memoir published in 1921, recalled German general Erich Ludendorff at German General Headquarters () praise the British for their bravery: I will put it exactly as I heard it straight from the Grosse Hauptquartier: 'The English Generals are wanting in strategy. We should have no chance if they possessed as much science as their officers and men had of courage and bravery. They are lions led by donkeys .'" The phrase "Lions Led by Donkeys" was used as a title for a book published in 1927, by Captain P. A. Thompson. The subtitle of this book was "Showing how victory in the Great War was achieved by those who made the fewest mistakes". Alan Clark based the title of his book "The Donkeys" (1961) on the phrase. Prior to publication in a letter to Hugh Trevor Roper, he asked "English soldiers, lions led by donkeys etc. – can "you" remember who said that?" Liddell Hart, although he did not dispute the veracity of the quote, had asked Clark for its  origins. Whatever Trevor Roper's reply, Clark eventually used the phrase as an epigraph to "The Donkeys" and attributed it to a conversation between German generals Erich Ludendorff and Max Hoffmann: The conversation was supposedly published in the memoirs of General Erich von Falkenhayn, the Chief of the German General Staff of the German Army between 1914 and 1916, but the exchange and the memoirs remain untraced. A correspondent to "The Daily Telegraph", in July 1963, wrote that librarians in London and Stuttgart had not traced the quotation and a letter to Clark was unanswered. Clark was equivocal about the  source for the dialogue for many years, although in 2007 a friend Euan Graham, recalled a conversation in the mid-sixties, when Clark on being challenged as to the provenance of the dialogue, looked sheepish and said "well I invented it". At one time Clark claimed that Liddell Hart had given him the quote (unlikely as Hart had asked him where it came from) and Clark's biographer believes he invented the Ludendorff-Hoffmann attribution. This invention has provided an opportunity for critics of "The Donkeys" to condemn the work. Richard Holmes, wrote of "The Donkeys": Popular culture. The musical  Oh, What a Lovely War! (1963) and the comedy television series "Blackadder Goes Forth" (1989) are two well-known works of popular culture, depicting the war as a matter of incompetent donkeys sending noble (or sometimes ignoble, in the case of "Blackadder") lions to their doom. Such works are in the literary tradition of the war poets like Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon and Erich Maria Remarque's novel (and subsequent film) "All Quiet on the Western Front", which have been criticised by some historians, such as Brian Bond, for having given rise to what Bond considered the myth and conventional  wisdom of the "necessary and successful" Great War as futile. Bond objected to the way that, in the 1960s, the works of Remarque and the "Trench Poets" slipped into a "nasty caricature" and perpetuated the "myth" of lions led by donkeys, while "the more complicated true history of the war receded ... into the background". Producers of television documentaries about the war have had to grapple with the "lions led by donkeys" interpretive frame since the 1960s. The 1964 seminal and award-winning BBC Television "The Great War" has been described as taking a moderate approach, with co-scriptwriter John Terraine  fighting against what he viewed as an oversimplification, while Liddell Hart resigned as an advising historian to the series, in an open letter to "The Times", in part over a dispute with Terraine, claiming that he minimised the faults of the High Command on The Somme and other concerns regarding the treatment of Third Ypres. "The Great War" was viewed by about a fifth of the adult population in Britain and the production of documentaries on the war has continued ever since. While recent documentaries such as Channel 4's 2003 "The First World War" have confronted the popular image  of lions led by donkeys, by reflecting current scholarship presenting more nuanced portrayals of British leaders and more balanced appraisals of the difficulties faced by the High Commands of all the combatants, they have been viewed by far fewer members of the public than either 1964's "The Great War" or comedies such as "Blackadder". The name of British anti-Brexit political campaign group Led By Donkeys was inspired by the saying. The activists thought it aptly described the relationship between the British people and their Brexit leaders. Criticism. Brian Bond, in editing a 1991 collection of essays on First  World War history, expressed the collective desire of the authors to move beyond "popular stereotypes of "The Donkeys"", while acknowledging that serious leadership mistakes were made and that the authors would do little to rehabilitate the reputations of the senior commanders on the Somme. Hew Strachan quoted Maurice Genevoix for the proposition "[i]f it is neither desirable nor good that the professional historian prevail over the veteran; it is also not good that the veteran prevail over the historian" and then proceeded to take Liddell Hart to task for "suppressing the culminating battles of the war", thus "allow[ing] his portrayal  of British generals to assume an easy continuum, from incompetence on the Western Front to conservatism in the 1920s..." While British leadership at the beginning of the war made costly mistakes, by 1915–16 the General Staff were making great efforts to lessen British casualties through better tactics (night attacks, creeping barrages and air power) and weapons technology (poison gas and later the arrival of the tank). British generals were not the only ones to make mistakes about the nature of modern conflict: the Russian armies too suffered badly during the first years of the war, most notably at the Battle  of Tannenberg. German tactics are routinely criticised for involving the immediate counterattacking of lost ground, leading to lopsided losses in essentially defensive actions. To many generals who had fought colonial wars during the second half of the 19th century, where the Napoleonic concepts of discipline and pitched battles were still successful, fighting another highly industrialized power with equal and sometimes superior technology required an extreme change in thinking. Later, Strachan, in reviewing "Aspects of the British experience of the First World War" edited by Michael Howard, observed that "In the study of the First World War in particular, the divide  between professionals and amateurs has never been firmly fixed". Strachan points out that revisionists take strong exception to the amateurs, particularly in the media, with whom they disagree, while at the same time Gary Sheffield welcomes to the revisionist cause the work of many "hobby"-ists who only later migrated to academic study. Gordon Corrigan, for example, did not even consider Clark to be a historian. The phrase "lions led by donkeys" has been said to have produced a false, or at least very incomplete, picture of generalship in the First World War, giving an impression of Generals as "château Generals , living in splendour, indifferent to the sufferings of the men under their command, only interested in cavalry charges and shooting cowards. One historian wrote that the idea that they were indifferent to the sufferings of their men is constantly refuted by the facts, and only endures because some commentators wish to perpetuate the myth that these generals, representing the upper classes, did not give a damn what happened to the lower orders". Some current academic opinion has described this school of thought as "discredited". Strachan quotes Gavin Stamp, who bemoans "a new generation of military historians", who seem as "callous  and jingoistic" as Haig, while himself referring to the "ill-informed diatribes of Wolff and Clark".