Belittling of Monash?

[armourersergeant]

I was wondering if any one had any references to the fact that Monash was belittled and oft reminded that he was jewish and a militia colonel to boot. I have often seen this mentioned and most recently in an small article but have not seen the real eveidence of this accusation.

I have read that Haig thought highly of him.

Arm.

[michaeldr]

Arm,

I haven't come across anything of a really negative nature in my reading on Monash, but perhaps that's more of a comment on my reading?

My impression is that you are right when you say that Haig thought highly of him.

As far as I can tell Rawlinson and Birdwood were also happy to work with Monash.

When Birdwood was promoted to Army command and entitled to a Rolls-Royce from the War Office, he gave his own to Monash; a nice gesture I think.

Amongst the feed-back which I got to a recent essay on Monash, was one from a chap who had accompanied a Veterans' trip to Gallipoli back in the 1950s [or was it the 1960s ?] He said that he remembers that the Veterans spoke well of only two generals: one was Lord Longford, who was killed, and the other was Monash.

What is possible is that if the war had continued and Monash had risen to higher command, then who knows what jealousies might have been aroused and what they in turn might have led to, but that is just speculation on my part

Regards

Michael D.R.

[jhill]

The author of the only book on Gallipoli in my personal library, Robert Rhodes James, makes some negative comments about Monash's performance as a Brigade commander. Unfortunately, this author is frustratingly stingy in providing references for many of his quotes. The only two named sources are Lt. Col W. G. Malone of the New Zealanders, who supposedly wrote in his diary that Monash's Brigade was the least effective of the ANZAC units, and Major C.J.L. Allanson of the Gurkas who supposedly left an unpublished account suggesting that at one point Monash had lost his head.

Pretty slim pickings, in my opinion. The author himself seems to be one of those who tended to the iconoclastic school of military history, and certainly says few good things about generals. Further, offhand comments in diaries and after the fact letters of junior officers not always in a position to know must be used with care.

Monash must be judged by the results he achieved as a Corps Commander( in my opinion).

[armourersergeant]

The reason i raised this point is that i read this morning an article on another site that gave a short essay on Monasch and was not very long or in detail but then spent a few sentneces at the end saying that he was often reminded of his race and military inexperience by his British superiors and collegues.

Of course i at once e-mailed the appropriate author and am awaiting a reply as to her sources. I hate this type of perpetual reporting of inaccuracies, or atleast the unatributed distorsions of the truth.

Out of rumour myths and legends are created, but out of fact History should be made.( Hey i quiet like that maybe i'll have that as my family motto, anybody know hows it is written in latin.)

Arm.

[Guest Hussar]

Hi Arm,

Check this site out.

http://www.stu.magd.ucam.org/~ngb22/beffra...ance/monash.htm

[jim_davies]

James,

Its interesting to note that both Malone & Allanson reached the crest of their respective objectives in early Aug 1915, during the Sari Bair fighting. While Monash comes in for some criticism for his leadership during this same time frame (Hill 971). However given the difficulties that other units & commanders suffered along the terrain of Aghyl Dere, he certainly was not alone in having problems.

Hussar,

Interesting article. It appears that he might have had a little selective memory on occasion (ie the Gallipoli evac), but that's kind of typical of most of us...remember the best and forget the rest.

Arm,

I would imagine that some officers may have had issues with Monash based on his background, and religion. However, how much evidence you'll find may be a different matter.

Often when someone feels out of place, they can get to thinking people are out to get them regardless of what's really happening....And perhaps (for some authors) it makes Monash's achievements look even better if they were made against some type of opposition within his own camp.

Just some random thoughts,

Jim

[Andrew P]

When I get home I'll have a look at Pederson's bio of Monash as I do recall reading somewhere that Rawlinson didn't particulary like Monash.

A recent book called 'German Anzacs' put forth the opinion that Monash had enemies more for his Jewish rather than German background.

When it comes down to it Monash made a few mistakes at Gallipoli(eg during the August battles), but he was able to learn from the mistakes he made there which undoubtedly improved his later performance as Divisional & Australian Corps Commander.

[michaeldr]

James,

Did Robert Rhodes James have an agenda when he wrote his history 'Gallipoli'?

Yes he did and he said as much himself in his preface to the 1989 edition where he comments that Moorehead's 1956 book, also called 'Gallipoli,' was "thinly researched" and "seriously flawed."

James sought to put this to rights.

He was particularly interested in the August battles and complained that "Moorehead makes no reference to, or comments upon, the crucial part played by Monash." James' interest here is also a family one. His book is dedicated to his uncle L.R. Lemon who died just two years the publication date. Lemon, "while attached to the 1st Batt. The 6th Gurkha Rifles, served and suffered in Gallipoli, August 1915." James made extensive use (quoting 8 paragraphs at one point) of the privately printed 'Personal Diary, July-December 1915' written by Maj. C. Allanson. Like his own book, Allanson's too was dedicated to James' uncle.

In his writing Allanson opinions that Monash "seemed to have lost his head" and "had come up against a dead-end." Monash himself in his letter home of 16 Aug 1915 admits to "a momentary confusion and a few tense minutes when anything could have happened" but I feel this falls far short of what Allanson implied.

Allanson was no doubt a very brave officer and a good leader of his Gurkha soldiers, however more recent research has thrown up some questions about his reliability as a witness. For example, Prof. Tim Travers in his book 'Gallipoli 1915' found that "Allanson's story of the naval shelling was later undermined by his own letter to Aspinal in 1930." Also in his notes Travers records that after reading Godley's papers he found that generals "Godley, Birdwood and Cox all saw Allanson as an unreliable witness and excitable."

Robert Rhodes James is generally recognised as having achieved his objective in improving on Moorehead's work, however it is my personal feeling that with respect to Monash he strayed from the historians' strait and narrow path and perhaps he let other factors (family ?) have more weight in this particular case than they deserved.

Rome was not built in a day, neither are reputations; I agree with your final opinion

Regards

Michael D.R.

[paul guthrie]

I do not know enough about this to join in the debate but do urge you to read the Tim Travers book mentioned by Michael. He is a fine Canadian historian, has two relatives who remain on the peninsula. He did some truly original research in French and Turkish archives. He really demolishes two widely held beliefs. It has been said one more try by the Navy,as some advocated before withdrawal, would have carried the straits since Turks were nearly out of shells. Turns out they had thousands. Also at Suvla, some have said a British force came within hours of seizing a key position which could have turned the tide; I think it was Lala Baba but that's from memory, I do this at work, books are at home. The Turks were actually there the day before or at least by a wider margin than the close thing that we have believed before.

A really fine book , I think the best on Gallipoli I have read: unfortunately it does not cover the later stages of the battles.

[Bryn_Hammond]

Have a look at pages 66-67 of Alex Danchev's biography of Liddell Hart 'Alchemist of War' for some directly relevant info about Monash and Liddell Hart's own view on him.

I'm not exactly enjoying Danchev's book - finding it hard going - but it's educating me.

As for Tim Travers' book on Gallipoli, there's a review by yours truly on the Centre for First World War Studies site.

[Nicolas G.]

Goodday,

I feel concerned by that thread ! In the little bio I made for my website I also relay what is said about Monash jewish origin : "...Even if British senior officers often reminded him that he was only a simple Jewish colonel."

This sentence is based on what I read on the net but more on those lines :

" Monash was jewish - the fact he reach that rank [corp general] reflected his

capacities, members of his race were not particularly appreciated in army background and in Dominions"

Found in the French edition of Barrie Pitt, "1918, The last act", 1963. The author

don't mention his sources. But his book seems serious and well built. What do you think ?

I also believe that having Prussian origin and also not being a carreer high society

officer is part of explanation. But have no specific knowledge on that subject.

Nicolas

[Guest Geoff Moran]

There are a number of biographies on Monash, nearly all of which answer nearly all the questions raised here.

Perhaps the most relevant is "Monash as Military Commander' by P A Pedersen.

[armourersergeant]

" Monash was jewish - the fact he reach that rank [corp general] reflected his

capacities, members of his race were not particularly appreciated in army background and in Dominions"

Found in the French edition of Barrie Pitt, "1918, The last act", 1963. The author

don't mention his sources. But his book seems serious and well built. What do you think ?

Does this mean that what we are perhaps quoting as british is in fact all denominations , that is British ,Australians Canadians etc had a 'dislike' of the jewish as a generalisation.

Thus what British generals get quoted as saying was perhaps a general dislike of the jewish race as a whole by many counties and peoples and not just the military. It was a society issue and he would have come across this in working life as well?

Arm.

[Geoff S]

Chooms,

Interestingly, his most famous enemy was apparently none other than C. E.W Bean (the official Australian War correspondent). The story goes that Charles Bean and Keith Murdoch plotted unsuccessfully to have the Prime Minister Billy Hughes, appoint Brundell White head of the Australian Corps in 1918. Neither were great admirers of Monash. But in later years Bean noted that he had misjudged John Monash.

Birdwood was also not a great admirer of Monash, but he may have been prejudiced by his earlier experiences of Monash as a Brigade commander on Gallipoli. As for Malone for whom I have the deepest respect—well he had his criticisms of many officers. Allanson as has been noted had his fair share of difficulties at Gallipoli as well.

I also believe the author of the article supplied by Hussar goes a bit too far with idea that Australia somehow needed to create it's heroes, especially a senior officer, and that somehow John Monash had been mythologised?

It is clear Monash had his critics in 1918. He was Jewish, he was not a Regular, soldier, he was of German descent, etc. Surely this was enough ammunition for his critics to not want to propel to him to tall poppy status within Australia & elsewhere in the Empire, unless his record warranted it.

Also the idea that because he was outside the British military hierarchy, he was able to survive and been elevated in command is incorrect. The Australian government and miltary establishment had weeded out many non performers by 1918. Of course, Monash like anyone else could falter under pressure. I would rather focus on the fact that Monash had a natural disposition to learn from mistakes (unlike many others perhaps).

In his war memoirs, Mr David Lloyd George, Britain's War-time Prime Minister, describes General Sir John Monash as the most resourceful General in the British Army. "The amblest brains did not climb to the top. They did not even reach the heights where politicians could see them," he asserts. "Senioririty and societism dominated promotion, deportment counted greatly, brains were a bad fourth". "The only exceptions were found in the dominion forces - Monash and the Canadian Commander-General Currie. Their brilliance took them right to the top"

John Monash was not perfect, he commanded a single Corps out of about 18 in the British Army in 1918, but it would be unwise to think that the AIF would have been as successful without his intellect and wisdom.

A few Aussie thoughts!

Regards

Geoff S