WWI Allies Best General, John Monash of Australia (1 Viewer)

The Military Workshop

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
4,778
The following is an article recently published in The Australian newspaper and written by Tim Fischer a Vietnam Veteran and former Deputy Prime Minister.
It recommends the belated promotion to Field Marshall of John Monash described by many (incl. British PM Lyold George, Churchill and Monty) as the Allies best General in WWI.
On the eve of Remembrance Day I thought forum members might be interested in what Monash did as many may not have heard of him

"AUSTRALIAN lieutenant-general John Monash played a key role in turning the Allies' fortunes in World War I , yet is overlooked by history.

Monash, the Australian Army corps commander, made a huge contribution to victory at Hamel on the Western Front with his holistic battle method. This was followed by the Battle of Amiens, then on to Mont StQuentin and beyond.

"Monash was, according to the testimony of those who knew well his genius for war and what he accomplished by it, the most resourceful general in the whole British Army," wrote British prime minister Lloyd George. Anthony Eden, the PM after Winston Churchill, reputedly said of Monash: "There was no greater soldier in World War I."

Field marshal Bernard Montgomery said that if Monash had replaced Haig as commander-in-chief in early 1917, "World War I would have ended one year earlier".

Monash went ashore at Gallipoli one day after the first landings, learned much during the disastrous Dardanelles campaign and August offensive, and repaired to Egypt for retraining in December 1915. On April 25, 1916, the brigade commander initiated the first field Anzac Day service. Then it was on to the Western Front and the dreadful stalemates that dominated 1916 and 1917. It was not until July 1918 that he was given command and orders to conduct a battle from start to finish.

A thousand soldiers from the 33rd Division of the US Army swept into battle alongside 7000 Australians on July 4, 1918, at Le Hamel to take the village and surrounding plateau from the German army. Not only did it represent precision in battle, it was a turning point. Tanks were inserted with platoons for the first time. The artillery barrage was precisely co-ordinated to protect the infantry, and battle orders were explained up and down the chain of command.

Monash wrote in his diary that if all went to plan, the battle would take 90 minutes. In fact, it took 93 minutes, and far fewer casualties than expected. Never again did the German army move forward. They were broken in spirit and broken apart on the ground. After Amiens on August 8, the German leaders sought terms for an armistice. Within three months the war was over.

Monash is rarely recognised as our greatest general. He was Jewish, of Prussian descent, a colonial and too old for some. But the main reason was because he was not the product of a military academy. He should have been Australia's first field marshal.

Prime minister Billy Hughes denied him promotion to full general in late 1918. Monash resented being kept down the scale after all he had done. And now he is airbrushed or too often spun out of the history of Australia.

When asked to lead a coup during the Depression, he gave a firm no, adding: "There is not too much wrong with Australia that the ballot box and good education will not fix."

Monash deserves a higher place in the history of this nation. The Government can confer retrospective promotion, an option that should be considered between now and 2015 or 2018, key World War I anniversaries".


For Aussie Forum members note :
ABC1 will screen Monash: The Forgotten Anzac on Tuesday at 8.30pm.

Lest We Forget
Regards to all
Brett
 
As a student of WW1 i have heard of Monash and heard nothing but good things about him.He surely has been unsung for so long and richly deserves the promotion.Thanks for posting this Brett very interesting.

Rob
 
I read Monash's book, "Australian Victories in France" many moons ago and remember being very impressed. His abilities were rather obvious compared to those around him thus making his not being promoted to FM a glaring oversight. Was he a victim of typical "office politics"? Time to correct the injustice. -- lancer
 
Sadly, too often great leaders like Monash in WWI and Bill Slim in WWII are overlooked by history, which focuses on more publicized but less skillfull commanders. To me, one of the great injustices in history was keeping Douglas Haig in command of the British forces in WWI - he just refused to learn from his mistakes, and employed the same failed "over the top" tactics again and again, to the detriment of literally hundreds of thousands of men under his command. The man was simply imcompetent.
 
I agree with Louis....to a point.

Since the nineties opinion about Haig have begun to soften.Yes he made huge errors on the Somme and clearly hadn't learnt from them at Passchendaele.However there is no doubt he did play a large roll in the final advance and victory having finally learnt the lessons of using infantry,tanks and artillery in unison.Whilst he was very lucky to keep his job after the Somme and Passchendele,and having read his memoirs i do not believe he or any other general on the Western front was a cold blooded murderer as they are sometimes portrayed.I'm not defending him as such but we also have to remember the huge pressure he was under at the Somme to take the pressure off the French who were being 'Bled White' at Verdun.

I think the Lions led by Donkeys/Blackadder view (funny as Blackadder was)is a hugely unfair myth that is thankfully gradually being eroded over time.There are also few people who did as much as Haig after the War for veterans of the conflict,we would not have the Poppy fund if it was not for Douglas Haig.

Yes he made huge errors but still led the allies to victory in the end,this is often forgotten about Haig.

Rob
 
Rob,

I am sorry, but I have to completely disagree with you about Haig. Your post noted that opinions condemning Haig as a butcher are "being eroded over time" - that's what I have always hated about revisionist history.

Its very easy, a couple of generations on, to forgive a general who launched the battle at Paschendale (and declared it a great victory immediately) when he did so with intelligence about the condition of the field being a quagmire that any competent commander would recognize rendered a successful advance impossible, because he needed to declare a victory to save himself the disgrace of being sacked. Let's see, 60,000 good men dead in a day to save your job, and you are not a butcher? I think not.

And don't forget, if the tank is not invented, something Haig had nothing to do with, and if the U.S. doesn't infuse a lot of fresh troops into the Allied effort when the Germans had themselves been bled white, Haig is exposed is the incompetent he clearly was by a crushing defeat, rather than a pyrrhic victory. On my short list of the worst generals of all time, Haig is right at the top.
 
No probs mate,we can just agree to disagree on this one:).I fully admit he made some huge mistakes on the Somme and again the following year,but he no doubt played a large roll in the final victory.Whilst he did not embrace the Tank when it first appeared as he could, he propelled the British Army forward in a continous advance in the last hundred days of the war,an advance the Germans had no answer to.And belive me i mean no disrespect in any way to the US effort in the final push (it was as brave as it was vital)but it was the British army having finally grasped new tactics that drove the Germans back many miles and i think we have to accept Haigs involvement in it.

I should also just mention that if you are talking about the Somme and 60,000 dead in one day,it is actually 19,000 dead and 41,000 wounded.Don't get me wrong i'm not saying in anyway 19,000 dead was acceptable!!

Overall i feel that if we have every right to condemn a man for his failings we should also recognise when he did get things right-eventually.

Maybe we should talk about Monty Louis,we both agree on that one mate!;):D

Rob
 
Just to change Allies for a second, does anyone feel like defending Joffre? I find this man to have been of little imagination for an army commander. While his ability to stay cool under fire no doubt saved France at the Marne, his lack of tactical ability was responsible for the ghastly French losses of 1914, 1915, and into 1916. France was indeed bled white and Joffre was largely responsible. JMO. --Lancer
 
Just as an add on the this thread.
The only Field Marshall Australia has ever had was in WWII and his name was Blamey which is an unfortunate name for a military commander !
He was the top Aussie guy who had to put up with McArthur.
Regards
Brett
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top