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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

@davidbrims5825

Жыл бұрын

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

@andmos1001

Жыл бұрын

In war, we fight the previous war.

@jwadaow

Жыл бұрын

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

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

@nowthenzen

Жыл бұрын

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

@feliscorax

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

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

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

@anthonyeaton5153

Жыл бұрын

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

@anthonyeaton5153

Жыл бұрын

Ypres and Passchendale were virtually one and the same.

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

@DidMyGrandfatherMakeThis

Жыл бұрын

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

@fod1855

Жыл бұрын

He certainly lived up to that

@Aurelian369_

Жыл бұрын

​@@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

8 ай бұрын

That’s not too bad.

@Angelcynn_2001

4 ай бұрын

Britain should have sided with the Germans

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

@JZsBFF

Ай бұрын

I can't even start to imagine what it must be like for a frontline soldier in a war, any war. One thing I know though: I'm glad I'm not in one.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

True, that.

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

@gkewley42

Жыл бұрын

No. RIP to OUR war dead.

@DannyBoy777777

Жыл бұрын

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

@tooyoungtobeold8756

Жыл бұрын

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

@rikterandersson3568

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

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

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

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

@williamrubinstein3442

Жыл бұрын

He is Australia's greatest national hero.

@willmunny9279

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

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

Жыл бұрын

Spot on!

@willmunny9279

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

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

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.

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

@PotatoSalad614

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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.

@PotatoSalad614

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

This is a myth that has been consistently debunked

@skibbideeskitch9894

Жыл бұрын

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 🙂

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

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..

"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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

​@@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

Жыл бұрын

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

@LouisL1963

Жыл бұрын

Good old General Melchett 😉

@davidgaskin5417

Жыл бұрын

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

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

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

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 👍👍.

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

Жыл бұрын

^^ 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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

@petergaskin1811

Жыл бұрын

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

@lupodimontenero661

Жыл бұрын

@@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

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 .

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

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

Жыл бұрын

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

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.

@thebenevolentsun6575

Ай бұрын

Even if WW1 had the greatest generals on earth millions still would have died and half of Europe would be in ruins. The generals did as best as they knew how. Its silly to assume they didn't care about losses. Even a complete psychopath would want to minimize losses for his own benefit. I mean thats what it comes down to, no one would have died if the war never happened in the first place. At least the generals did the best they could.

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.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

Жыл бұрын

The difference is the bef NEVER learned

@gerardhayden6568

Жыл бұрын

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

@kestrel5065

Жыл бұрын

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

@gerardhayden6568

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@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'.

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

10 ай бұрын

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

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

Жыл бұрын

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_

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

“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

Жыл бұрын

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

@remittanceman4685

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

10 ай бұрын

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

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

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

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

Жыл бұрын

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 KZread video.

@alganhar1

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@peterslocomb152 Mostly rubbish.

@markjennings1036

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

@donaldduck4888

Жыл бұрын

There were around 250 British generals killed in WW1.

@simongardiner949

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@donaldduck4888 The number was 78.

@Demun1649

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

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?

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

Жыл бұрын

Remember Gallipoli.

@rednaughtstudios

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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?"

@PotatoSalad614

Жыл бұрын

@@Poliss95 Gallipoli was 1915

@PotatoSalad614

Жыл бұрын

@@rednaughtstudios but it shows they had other ideas

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

Жыл бұрын

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

@OLDCHEMIST1

Жыл бұрын

​@@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

Жыл бұрын

How are going to take anything with dead soldiers

@OLDCHEMIST1

Жыл бұрын

@@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?

So, lions led by donkeys then.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

@GrrMeister

Жыл бұрын

*He was unaware of the full picture !*

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

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

@Johnnie10ponnies

Жыл бұрын

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)

Predictably, this vid shows the IWM as apologist for the British upper class. There are more Red Herring non-issues cited than sardines in a sardine factory. Haigh's only redeeming feature was he was no worse than so many other donkeys in the British, French, German, Russian, Italian, American, Austrian, etc etc armies, government and diplomatic corps of the time.

@MichaelHill-we7vt

Жыл бұрын

dont let facts or common sense get in the way of a dearly-held opinion.....Generals and staff officers of the 1914 period had no idea how to fight a modern war simply because no one had ever had to do so up to then........weapons, tactics and circumstances were all so very different from anything that had gone before, no one knew what heavy artillery, tanks, flamethrowers, heavy machine guns, barbed wire, poison gas and planes could do, no one knew how to use them properly or how to combat them, so it's so easy for armchair generals a century later, with all their accumulated combat experience from playing "Call of Duty" on their computers safe and warm at home, to be so critical and scathing about generals and armies a hundred years earlier who had REAL deaths and REAL carnage, REAL bullets and REAL bombs to face.....the Military High Commands did the best they could under appalling circumstances, the senior officers were there at the front and they learned the harsh lessons well........the 100 days offensive in 1918 proves THAT point quite conclusively. As for the myth of "chateau generals" which seems prevalent these days, I draw your attention to these figures, all fully authenticated and genuine, and not the works of "apologists for the British Upper class" .....during the Great War, 4 British Lt-Generals, 12 Major-Generals, and 81 Brigadier-Generals lost their lives, and another146 officers of General rank were wounded or taken prisoner........whatever else they were doing, British General Officers were at the sharp end, at the front, and NOT sitting safely in Chateaus and warm Barracks like so many people want to believe......as a footnote, if Haig were so incompetent, uncaring and callous as modern writers paint him, why, when he passed away, would over a third of a million people visit his body as it lay in state and pay their respects at his passing?... I suggest you stick to facts, not fiction.....

@zetectic7968

Жыл бұрын

@@MichaelHill-we7vt Your first statement is not correct. European countries including UK had sent observers to the US civil war and saw siege works, trenches, barb wire & use of artillery. Sadly the British and other concluded that it was not applicable to Europe. There is also the decision to limit the number of machine guns provided compare to say the Germans who had about 6 times as many. The idee fix of the British commanders was war of movement and the importance of cavalry. It wasn't until late 1916 that tactics started to change. You also overlook the fact that the British army nearly mutinied in 1917 like the French Army did due to the slaughter. One last point, there was a great deal of resistence to the ideas of how best to use tanks developed by Major-General JFC Fuller (and that carried on into the start of WW2)

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.

@PotatoSalad614

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

@davidscarrett3804

Жыл бұрын

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

@davidcolley7714

Жыл бұрын

@@PotatoSalad614 Oh really? Read the history of 1917 as it is clear that you haven't

@PotatoSalad614

Жыл бұрын

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

middle and upper class historians are. Perhaps it would be best that WW1 history is left to those who had to fight it, the Working class.

@thebenevolentsun6575

Ай бұрын

Let's leave it to the actual historiąns maybe. Class has nothing to do with it. Also middle class men fought in WW1, in fact they had the most dangerous job. Captains had the highest death rate of any soldier. Besides the whole point of history is that you collate lots of different stories into one narrative.

@jackdoyle7453

Ай бұрын

@@thebenevolentsun6575 no it tends be the powerful write history and the rest is forgotten. Yet I the past century we have started wresting that away from people like you. So history reflects the truth. Class had everything to do with it and you only betray your bigotry with your statement

@thebenevolentsun6575

Ай бұрын

@@jackdoyle7453 I live on a council estate lol. My point is that history should be written by the people who study history for a living. In the past that was rich people, because they were the only ones with enough money and time to sit around reading books. I grew up poor, I'll never understand why my neighbours celebrated it like it was an achievement, like they chose to be poor and uneducated. There's this ideal of these honest working men, who call a spade a spade and work hard to feed their families. They obviously exist but just as many will borrow money and never pay it back, litter in the street, steal bikes and sell them for scrap, rev their little shit mopeds at 2AM. My Dad and all my uncles left school at 15, they all work labour jobs. It wasn't a noble sacrifice to keep the country running, they did shit at school and so they got shit jobs. I respect them all because they're good people, but they aren't good BECAUSE theyre working class they're good because they're good people. Class actually has nothing to do with it and if you actually lived in a shit hole you'd know that.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

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.

Not donkeys but Dinosaurs

@petergaskin1811

23 күн бұрын

And not Lions either.

You claim that, until his death, Haig was highly regarded. When I started work in 1962, my workmate (Charlie Smith, ex-Royal Signals) had fought in the Great War, including being in the front line on the Somme from start to finish. I asked him about something I'd read, that staff officers daren't go near the front line for fear of being shot by their own troops. All those years later, his face went purple with rage. Shorn of all the swearing, he said: 1. Yes, that was perfectly true. 2. No, he'd never shot a staff officer - because he'd never had the chance. 3. If he had, he'd have done it and been *PROUD* to do it. Ask yourself this; if YOU had been ordered to stagger across deep clinging mud, towards a line of machine guns and riflemen in trenches, again and again, month after month after month, seeing over 400,000 men wounded, maimed for life, or killed - and all for the sake of capturing a lousy SIX BLOODY MILES from the Germans - do you seriously expect me to believe that YOU would have "thought highly" of *Bloody Butcher* Haig? I agreed with Charlie when he said "Haig? Made an effin EARL? He should have been publicly executed for what he did!" And, FWIW, I still do. RIP, Charlie.

The Butcher of the Somme. My great-grandfather (just an ordinary Tommy) despised Haig.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

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

@davidbuckley2435

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

Sure. *This video was posted by the Douglas “Cavalry Charge” Haig Gang, One of the war’s biggest donkey. Thank goodness for the likes John Monash, Arthur Currie, Adrian Carton de Wiart, Lionel Dunsterville, Herbert Plumer, etc.

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

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

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

@davidfindlay878

Жыл бұрын

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

@originalkk882

Жыл бұрын

Moe British died at Gallipoli than Australians.

@davidfindlay878

Жыл бұрын

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

I read a review of Sir Douglas Haighs post WW1 autobiography, in which he wrote, and I paraphrase, '' The Tank and Aeroplane were wonderful inventions and a great addition to out attacking ability ,BUT-They will never replace , The man on a Horse'. At least two of his close friends told him to remove that sentance, for obvious reasons, which was rejected. Further, believing in God is a personal choice, but, in his many letter's to his wife, he relies far too much on 'GOD's help, to win battles, and the War itself. Personally, I think the criticism of Haigh, is well deserved.

@harold5337

Жыл бұрын

Earl Haig was inept, but he was not evil. Remember his strategies had worked for centuries, and only in the last few years had they become obsolete. Blackadder goes Forth was a good comedy series, but to call it an accurate portrayal of trench warfare is like calling The Flintstones an accurate portrayal of the Stone Age.

@TheGrenadier97

Жыл бұрын

Considering this phrase alone, the faith on horses was normal at the time and stubbornly survived up to the early months of the II World War. Meggido was a wonderful proof of effective cavalry employment but also a writing on the wall. After 1918 it took nearly twenty years for the tank to become a faster and long-legged machine, for the plane to become more resistant and powerful beyond machineguns and small bombs and for tactics to work properly to both weapons systems, combined and separated. The horse on the other hand had better range, speed, wasn't so cumbersome off-road and could carry a rifleman nearly everywhere - before before a perfection in mechanization took all over. Nevertheless, in this phrase Haig recognized the advantages of the new machines as they existed at the time. Can't blame him on that or on his reliance on God.

@mortimersnerd8044

Жыл бұрын

@@harold5337 The OP wasn't talking about Blackadder, never mentioned it once. He was talking about Haigh's own hopelessly outdated and faith-based attitude to warfare, expressed in his own words years after the event. Perhaps you would care to comment on the topic being addressed instead?

@stephena1196

Жыл бұрын

@@TheGrenadier97 his relying on God is the equivalent of someone I once knew who relied on wearing his lucky underpants for job interviews.

@mortimersnerd8044

Жыл бұрын

@@TheGrenadier97 The value of horse-bourn combatants on the Western Front had become useless by the end of the first year, and they spent the remainder of war wasted and unused in the rear, reserved for a breakthrough that never came. Leaders like Haigh completely misunderstood the nature of the war they had been given command of, even in hindsight as the OP's comment points out. That the Central Powers also equally failed to understand the nature of the war they were fighting was the only saving grace of allied leadership. Reliance on faith in combat, be it Sabre charges (into machine guns), "élan", or divine intervention, is a recipe for disaster, and one that was prolonged throughout the war.

I heard nothing that would shatter the "lions led by donkeys" analysis. The video only demonstrates that the same was true for the German side and that the British leadership was not "that bad" by comparison. But that is something we knew before.

@jodij2366

Жыл бұрын

And no comment about the orders at the Somme for the troops to walk across no man's land...

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

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.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

'Don't worry old boy, if you falter im behind you" - General Douglas 'About 35 miles behind you' -Blackaddar.

I wonder if the parents of all the young men killed, thought their sons death was a “strategic necessity “?

@pch2230

Жыл бұрын

Well put. That's exactly what's wrong with the "numbers game" used in this type of historical approach.

French was genuinely incompetent. Smith-Dorrien should have got the job and was a good commander.

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

8 ай бұрын

I have know veterans who admired Haig.

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

“Good-morning, good-morning!” the General said When we met him last week on our way to the line. Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of 'em dead, And we're cursing his staff for incompetent swine. “He's a cheery old card,” grunted Harry to Jack As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack. But he did for them both by his plan of attack. Siegfried Sassoon, 1917

@davehopkin9502

Жыл бұрын

An unbalanced perspective, the "anti war" poets were taught in the post ww2 era, but the many writers who wrote in support of the war are forgotten

@Poliss95

Жыл бұрын

@@davehopkin9502 And rightly forgotten too.

@stewartellinson8846

Жыл бұрын

@@davehopkin9502 not at all; he point being that there was significant opposition to the war and this revisionist view is a convenient one in a rear view mirror that ignores opinion at the time.

@Design_no

Жыл бұрын

@@davehopkin9502 anti war? Or just anti incompetence?

@jamiegray6931

Жыл бұрын

@@Design_no Anti-war, wholly understandable, but in some cases wholly misleading about what was going on at the strategic levels of warfare.

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.

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

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

@davesherry5384

Жыл бұрын

@@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

Жыл бұрын

​@@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

Жыл бұрын

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

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.

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

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.

Donkeys are brave AF. Clearly whoever figured that was an insult had never seen a donkey whooping wolves before.

Interesting…..but why am thinking Whiter than the Whitewash on the wall ? Regarding Chateau Generals , this was certainly the view formed by Montgomery.

We Americans were butchered pretty badly in the few months that we actually engaged in combat. 116,000 KIA in 6 months is appalling when all we had to do was occupy a French sector. Guess our donkeys had to learn some lessons the hard way, too.

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.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@arniewilliamson1767 Thanks, Arnie

@knoll9812

10 ай бұрын

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

@anthonyeaton5153

8 ай бұрын

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

How did that dispel the myth?

@PotatoSalad614

Жыл бұрын

Did you even watch the video?

@rustybollocks3827

Жыл бұрын

@@PotatoSalad614 Yes

Lions led by donkeys, that literally sums up Italy during ww2 😂😂🤣🤣

All IWM automatically gets a 'like' from me purely on historical grounds. But, I'm sorry, not this time. To say they were not lions led by donkeys is wrong. In 1897 Sir Hiram Maxim displayed what his machine gun was capable of doing. The fact that this wasn't taken on board, even 17 years later, by such a 'cavalry' biased eherm, leader, shows just how much of a donkey he was. And for IWM to try and validate his statues and bronzes, shows that the upper class are willing to fight to the last working class soldier. Disappointed to say the least. My great grandfathers name is above our local church doors, as are all of those who were in his pals battalion. Lest we forget.

WW1 is far more interesting than the popular myths, the British army had to order generals at the Somme not to be at the front as they were losing a shockingly huge number to snipers and artillery. For me the real amazing story is how the army developed from a small colonial empire force to the coordinated modern force of 1918. That was done, while the RN maintained a strategic blockade which slowly strangled the central powers economies. As for the mysterious war causes, it came down to the pretexts and opportunism of powers seeking advantage through violent force. Not so different from the reasons for fighting WW2 or supporting Ukraine's struggle for freedom. Yes, deterrents failed and mistakes were made. Those seeking power through division and nationalistic mind sets should take heed of the historical consequences of such rhetoric.

@bernarddavis1050

Жыл бұрын

Division and a nationalist mind set are precisely what have led the Ukrainians into their current disaster. Their struggle is for ethnic cleansing, not freedom, and they are losing.

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.

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.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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.

Just read a memoir written in 1934.....most plans passed down for attacks from brigade and above were made by officers who had not even been bothered to visit (recce) the ground for the attack and talk to subordinates about their needs and conditions. Much dripping in the memoir of insane plans of attack issued by people who had no clue yet commanders on the ground fulfilled their orders knowing they were going to fail. The opposite of Mission Command. The Germans were much more switched on.

@dulls8475

Жыл бұрын

Yet they lost and most of what you said is a sweeping untrue generalisation.

@thesickrobot6924

Жыл бұрын

@@dulls8475 Elaborate.

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

@anthonyeaton5153

8 ай бұрын

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.

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"

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....

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.

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).

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.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

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

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

@104thDIVTimberwolf

Жыл бұрын

..we will remember them...

@khoa2480

Жыл бұрын

Rest In Peace for your grandfather ❤❤❤

You make the case Haig was not a "donkey" but lets look at the other side of the argument. Haig was enthusiastic about the death penalty for "cowardice" in a bid to strengthen the 'fighting spirit' of his troops. In fact he issued orders that more officers needed to be shot to encourage the men underneath them that there weren't double standards. 306 British soldiers were executed in World War I versus 46 in Germany and 18 from US. Haig also took part in the burning of homesteads during the Boer War as well as the rounding up of women and children to be placed in the worlds first concentration camps. This was recognized at the time as barbaric.

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

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.

The only positive thing you can say about Douglas Haig's capabilities as a commander is that he was better than the French senior commanders Foch and Petain, but that is a very low bar of achievement. It's also not his fault that equipment was poor, shell detonators were both a problem for the Navy and Army, that was the fault of the politicians not sorting out a reliable supply. However this is about Haig and not the lack of foresight by politicians (it's still an issue today so that issue will probably never be fixed) Haig should have been replaced in 1916 after the failure of the Somme offensive, because after 2 years of war he failed to understand that tactics had completely changed. He as always poor at maths he also tried to hide this and recommended that a maths requirements were removed from the entrance requirements for officers to staff college, so his incapability to understand statistics of this war has to be a consideration in his failures. His over reliant thinking on cavalry as still having a use on a battlefield with trenches and wire, is an extension of his studies at staff college and a reflection that he himself was a good rider- the horse was useful in areas where mobility was possible (the middle east and the Eastern front.....but France from 1915 onwards....err no!!!! So he was just the wrong officer in the wrong place at the wrong time, who you would have replace him with is a difficult decision. It's too early for Rawlinson to take over and French had had his time as the commander of the BEF and there is no way Monash gets a chance could have got the job because he was Australian and not seen as senior commander in charge of all imperial troops after Gallipoli....so maybe bring in Alenby is my only suggestion. If you have an opinion or suggestions feel free.

@appro-ontariospowerproduce344

Жыл бұрын

One forgets Currie, who was and is regarded very highly.

@steveclarke6257

Жыл бұрын

@@appro-ontariospowerproduce344 Apologize for not including him with Monash but again his problem for the Edwardian war office is "he isn't British- we can't have a colonial lead our army!". Yes snobbish and condescending attitude I know, but very much the thinking of the army at the time.

@davidgaskin5417

Жыл бұрын

But Haig supported and actively encouraged Monash new ideas and tactics. Sounds like the hallmarks of a good leader/manager who supports and listens to his subordinates.

@dc-bueno.2262

Жыл бұрын

U that guy who i see in VTH live streams. Hello, my friend.

@steveclarke6257

Жыл бұрын

@@dc-bueno.2262 hi yes I watch Chris too, he has good knowledge read around his subjects well, which is something I appreciate.

This completely erases the experience and anti-war sentiment of the veterans of World War 1. Veterans refused to wear their uniforms to Rememberance Day for decades, and in the wake of the Falklands Michael Foot was criticised for carrying on this tradition in his duffel coat. The vast majority of soldiers felt their commanders were incompetent, and some of the wars greatest heroes were anti war poets. The Imperial War Museum has since scaled down or completely removed their anti-war exhibit explaining this over the last 15 years. I'll take Sassoons account over any 21st century British rehashed nationalism thanks. This was not some "popular culture idea" taken out of context.

When most officers were 20 miles behind the front line.

@neilwavg

Жыл бұрын

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

@wizardapprenticeIV

Жыл бұрын

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

@CB-fz3li

Жыл бұрын

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

@tomhenry897

Жыл бұрын

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

@llynllydaw

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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

Жыл бұрын

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

@lupodimontenero661

Жыл бұрын

well said!

@HarryFlashmanVC

Жыл бұрын

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

@tbuxt3992

Жыл бұрын

@@HarryFlashmanVC I did. I stand by my statement

"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.

I judge on the results - 850,000 British and Commonwealth dead and all we got from it was WW2.

Haig was unpopular during ww1 and its an outright lie to claim he only began to be criticised years after the war.

WW1 was a horrific, barbarous war .

@ElCharvo

Жыл бұрын

Cull

@anthonyeaton5153

Жыл бұрын

So what was World War 2?

@LoudaroundLincoln

Жыл бұрын

@ANTHONY EATON same. Just bigger.