Shop Ireland

The Donkeys: A History of the British Expeditionary Force in 1915 by: Alan Clark

Click to tell a friend about this item...

More Product Details...

Review Pages: 1 2 3 Next »

Click here to add a review!

Average rating -

Rating: - Entertaining read, a polemic rather than a history

If you read this as a polemic - something that puts forward the case agaist the British generals, an opening sally rather than the last word on the subject, this is an entertaining and somewhat convincing book. Although current historiography is very much on the side of the British generals (as other reviews show) there is a case to answer for the terrible waste of life, despite the eventual success of the army. The descriptions of the offensives are very good. I enjoyed the outlining of the political machinations between British army and politicians, and the french.

Rating: - Appalling - Full of myths and nonsense debunked for 20 years

Professor Michael Howard summed this book up as "a worthless history", Dr John Bourne; the University of Birmingham justly cites it as "preserving historical writing about the Great War in its ridiculously protracted adolescence". This is generous. Clark is an agenda driven politician with an appalling grasp of the First World War.
Firstly, Clark lied about the title. The German General he claimed attached this phrase to the British Army had not said that at all. Clark admitted this before his death.
The British Army was a Colonial police force in 1914, with a core of highly trained men. By 1918 it was the most sophisticated Army in the World. British Generals began a learning curve in 1914 which reached its peak in 1918. Most of them had never commanded above Division level before. They were learning on the job. The Battles of Loos, Neuve Chappelle, the Somme and Ypres were a part of this learning process. The British Armies had not operated in such masses since Napoleon. They did not have the experience of the French or Germans. But within four years had matched and surpassed them in terms of tactics and technical quality.

The inconvenient truth for Clark is - the Allies won and the British played a vital part. He dismisses this as a result of numbers, and blockade. In fact it was three massive attrition damage done to the German Army on the Western Front that forced Germany to seek an armistice. It was the losses at the Somme, which force the German economy to move to total war in order to stave off defeat that was the driving force for the collapse.

There is much more: But Clark's 'work' is not scholarly or academic it just plays on casualties and the "six inches of ground won". Claiming Chateaux Generals threw away thousands of lives "doing the same thing" - utter nonsense.

For those who want to become academics - try reading Gary Sheffield's Forgotten victory.

Rating: - Money-making from poor history

Alan Clarke was not a historian. He just needed some money for his castle and his philandering. So hid did zero research and dashed of this tripe.

With its catchy title and telling people what they wanted to hear, plus a few generous revies from friends, it did very well.

Clarke repaired his castle and the graves and legacy of great men (5.8 million of them) were danced on merrily.


A dreadful book, completely beneath contempt.

Rating: - Always astounds me

Alan Clark (loathed) writes this piece and is the last person you would think of criticising the generals .
But this is what you get and it is as good an indictment you will get .

It is not written by some anti war revisionist but somebody who sees it for what it is.

The arguement that the archives are now open does not wash with me ,there is far to much evidence.

Read a genuine letter recently after the Battle of Loos and the quote was ''our artillery failed to break the wire ,same old problem as before''

So why was the same tactic used at the Somme .

This book is a triumph.

Rating: - Use By Date Reached !

1915 appears to be the forgotten year as far as the Western Front is concerned, with a limited number of books available which focus on events in that year.

Seeking to go beyond the coverage of the more general histories of the Great War, I picked up a copy of the "The Donkeys" and settled in for an entertaining read......and yes it is entertaining, but regretably that entertainment comes from the exaggerated writing style, value judgements, and hearsay that has been injected into the narrative. It's a polemic made palatable by a racy journalistic style.

As a "history", the book has been made redundant by the opening of the archives since the book was written at the beginning of the '60s. The subsequent outpourings of newer histories, even where 1915 and the British attacks are covered as part of a general review of the war, have much more to add to an understanding of the conflict in that year than this book.

It's "Use By Date" has clearly been reached!

Review Pages: 1 2 3 Next »