Talk:Lions led by donkeys: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:57, 14 July 2016

Military history: British / European / World War I C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

Comments

"The conversation was supposedly published in the memoirs of General Erich von Falkenhayn, the German commander-in-chief between 1914 and 1916. Hoffmann served the entire war on the Eastern Front and so never encountered British forces." - this is not clear. Not serving on the WF is no reason not to discuss the English soldiers with Ludendorff. Technically, it was entirely possible, so the context needs to be made clear. Dysmorodrepanis 20:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The expression refers to incompetent generals, not specifically British generals. This is made clear by the background. The article should be re-written with this in mind.124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Un-anchored sentence

The sentence "This term was directed at Haig, as the German soldier commented 'little english bastards'. (LT. Chapman)" lacks context as there is no definition of who the "German soldier" was. It is not really clear how the term was directed at Haig - unless he led the Russian forces, in which case this should be made clear. Also, there is nothing to indicate who "LT. Chapman" (Lieutenant?) was. KeithC (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the following un-anchored sentence: "This term was directed at Haig, as the German soldier commented 'little english bastards'. (LT. Chapman)"Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of The Donkeys and characterization of English generals as Donkeys

While I think this section has been improved by the addition of more balanced material and I have no objection to changing: "Current academic opinion has described this school of thought as 'discredited'" to "Some current academic opinion has described this school of thought as discredited'", I, myself, couldn't find any current academics who have anything good to say about Clark's book, which is why I didn't make that change myself. The closest I could find was a historian like Brian Bond who, while calling The Donkeys' viewpoints stereotypes, at least acknowledges that British generals made serious mistakes. I think Hew Strachan falls in this same category but he has little (no) good to say about Clark as far as I can tell. All help appreciated. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Clark's use of the phrase

Made a small change as it appears clear that Clark admitted to having invented the dialogue rather than the phrase itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.24.224 (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is my understanding as well. He invented the citation. IIRC it was Princess Bluecher and she was referring to the near debacle which befell the British Army in March 1918.Paulturtle (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CE

Did some tidying and added a few citations using the <ref></ref> form but I've forgotten how to do most of it.Keith-264 (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionism?

To say that the "viewpoint of incompetent military leaders have both been subject to attempts at revisionism" implies that the lions led by donkeys theory is mainstream. It is not. This notion is itself revisionism, the result on one man's book in the 1960's. The mainstream competent historians never adopted Clark's extreme viewpoint.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionism?

As noted, the thesis of the incompetence of various Entente general officers predates the end of the Great War itself, so books on the subject are -hardly- "revisionist". perhaps, like many others who throw such terms about, you are unclear as to its actual meaning. Also, your statements above are rather more opinion than containing any factual content, along with the earlier comment by another poster indicating that the basis for the severe criticism of WW I Entente generals was "one man's book", a statement of such broad dissemblance as to be pure fantasy, unlike the thesis under discussion.

I understand that there is a certain mindset which finds the notion of criticizing members of such an "elite" as general officers abhorrent, and that this clouds their judgment when it comes to looking at the subject dispassionately. But seriously, bro, take a deep breath before you fall face-first into it. Have you even read ANY of the many works that support this thesis, or do you restrict yourself to only reading material that supports your PoV?

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 To say that the "viewpoint of incompetent military leaders have both been subject to attempts at revisionism" implies that the lions led by donkeys theory is mainstream. It is not. This notion is itself revisionism, the result on one man's book in the 1960's. The mainstream competent historians never adopted Clark's extreme viewpoint.[[User:Royalcourtier|Royalcourtier]] ([[User talk:Royalcourtier|talk]]) 03:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
+== Revisionism? ==
+As noted, the thesis of the incompetence of various Entente general officers predates the end of the Great War itself, so books on the subject are -hardly- "revisionist". perhaps, like many others who throw such terms about, you are unclear as to its actual meaning. Also, your statements above are rather more opinion than containing any factual content, along with the earlier comment by another poster indicating that the basis for the severe criticism of WW I Entente generals was "one man's book", a statement of such broad dissemblance as to be pure fantasy, unlike the thesis under discussion.
+I understand that there is a certain mindset which finds the notion of criticizing members of such an "elite" as general officers abhorrent, and that this clouds their judgment when it comes to looking at the subject dispassionately. But seriously, bro, take a deep breath before you fall face-first into it. Have you even read ANY of the many works that support this thesis, or do you restrict yourself to only reading material that supports your PoV?