I read this book for the European
Reading Challenge 2015.
The Donkeys –
Alan Clark, 1961
World War I started in late 1914. So in the centennial of
2015 I decided to read this book about 1915, the year that saw the destruction
of the old regular British army. In the introduction to this book, Clark
observes with amazement the fact that the British Empire alone lost more men
killed in the first two hours of Loos in 1915 than all three armed services on
both sides on D-day in 1944.
Clark examines the reasons why British generals in 1915 failed
to win their battles at Arras and Loos with the intelligence,
improvisation and talent of Moore of Corunna or the Dukes of Wellington and
Marlborough. His thesis blames pigheaded incompetence, self-seeking ambition,
and back-stabbing rivalries among the senior British staff.
Though a Tory (he worked for Thatcher and Major in the
1980s), Clark writes with much anger toward the officer caste whose strategic
and tactical mistakes lead to the death and injury and maiming of thousands of
men. He’s as savage in his criticism of hopeless offensives as writers in the
1920s and 1930s like Robert Graves, Siegfried Sassoon and Vera Brittain.
The book is about not only battles.
Clark also describes the political intrigues behind the scenes as
commanders and cabinet ministers jockeyed for influential positions in London,
with all of them against the Secretary of State for War, Lord Kitchener. Clark also briefly but clearly goes over
Field Marshal Sir John French's ambivalence dealing with the French allies.
This book is short and not scholarly. But back in the early Sixties, it contributed
a great deal to the debunking of generals and anti-war sentiments for the
generation born after WWII. To my mind, Clark makes a strong but narrow case.
He suggests explore how strategy and tactics could have made the war any less
of a mess. But I still figure war is always a mess. Haig and his staff didn’t
even have radio communication and phone lines were easily disrupted by bombardments.
Still, it is passing strange – veterans
who returned from France were in fact angry about brass hat incompetence –
don’t soldiers, sailors, marines, and air troops always complain about
officers? - but they were angrier about
a lack of jobs and respect from clueless civilians and jingoes. Haig, French,
Rawlinson, etc. all received respect and homage, honors and titles. They
attended countless memorials in the 1920s, apparently without being spit on by
angry people. About a million people turned out for Haig’s funeral in 1928. It
was in the late 1920s and 1930s when the writers and war poets depicted the
agony of the PBI (poor bloody infantry) in contrast to the perceived callousness
of the generals. Clark’s whole thesis may be an artifact of his time.
No comments:
Post a Comment