Far from a Donkey

[Ste]

This isn't a review - I've only just started to read the book. However, I thought you would wish to be aware that the naval & military press are currently offering this respected title at £4.95, rather than the usual retail price of £29.95! I snapped one up, having coveted it for some time, but been deterred by the price.

I'm a couple of chapters in, and it is very promising so far. I'll post a review on this thread once I have completed it.

Cheers,

S

[Robert Dunlop]

It is an interesting book about a fascinating individual. You should continue to enjoy it. I read it some time ago and you have reminded me to look at it again in light of other reading I have done since, in particular Maxse's performance in the Fifth Army in March 1918.

[burlington]

Hello

Is there a website link for the booksellers?

Regards

[Robert Dunlop]

www.naval-military-press.co.uk

Very good service if the book is actually in stock. However, there have been several occasions where books or CDs are advertised but not available. This can lead to some pleasant surprises. My CD of captured German trench maps arrived after several months, quite unexpectedly on Christmas Eve. Nice.

Cheers

[Ste]

On this occasion I had an absolutely trouble free delivery. Ordered Sunday evening, on my desk Tuesday afternoon.

S

[armourersergeant]

Read this some time ago and found it a great read about a great General even if his reputation seems to get a hit from the Monash camp.

Keep reading and take notes when i was reading it I remeber i had many questions to ask but did not have the use of this forum to ask them. Perhaps i will re read this book.

Arm.

[Andrew P]

Read this some time ago and found it a great read about a great General even if his reputation seems to get a hit from the Monash camp.

Agree that Maxse was a great leader, but I have a problem with your statement Arm.

Most people in the 'Monash camp' agree that Maxse was a great leader.

Dr Pedersen in his bio of General Monash even comments on this fact.

I'd like to know if there is anywhere in print where Maxse has been criticised by someone in the 'Monash camp'.

Cheers

Andrew

[Raster Scanning]

I too read and enjoyed this book some time ago.

I have a particular interest in one of the 18th Division units trained by him in 1914/15.

His training methods were a model for others to follow. I have never noticed any adverse comments about him in any literature I have read.

Best wishes.

John.

[armourersergeant]

Oops,

Regarding 'Monash camp' i was referring not necesserily to a bashing he gets but to a meeting that the two men were supposed to have had where they disagreed on an aspect of men in units ratio.

I am going from memory here but i think it was that Monash believed that the battlion size should stay at its current level Maxse said it should drop but with more lewis guns etc. Monash argued that the carrying of these guns and ammo to make it worth while meant that the battalions strength was even more reduced due to the logisitics involved.

It is believed and probably so that Monash was proved correct in the long run.

I was not trying to infer that the Monash camp was belittling Maxse, if i gave that impression as it would be easy to see from the statement i made, oops! and sorry.

Arm.

[Andrew P]

Thanks for clearing that up Arm. I can now see what you were meaning.

Cheers

Andrew

[michaeldr]

I'd like to know if there is anywhere in print where Maxse has been criticised by someone in the 'Monash camp'.

Andrew,

This subject has come up previously and what Arm may have been thinking of was a reference/link which I gave in a post of 23 Sept 03; see

http://www.1914-1918.org/forum/index.php?s...98&st=30entry 36836

There the writer refers to a meeting on 05th Nov 1918 and claims that "Maxse got a fiery reception from the Australian Corps officers, particularly Monash and Blamey."

Dr. Pedersen knows his subject very well; does he mention this meeting? And does he have any comments on it which would suggest that the other writer's remark 'fiery reception' is out of place?

Regards

Michael D.R.

[armourersergeant]

thanks Micheal knew i had read it somewhere and forgot that thread.

Oops again got the numbers the wrong way round, trouble going from memory.

Arm.

[Paul Reed]

As an aside, Maxse continued live fire exercises in the Army, in his capacity as Traning Officer, until the mid-20s when he retired. All the other men who took on this post after him, up to WW2, cancelled the Live Fire training. One of the reasons why, in recent writings on the British Army in WW2, that the average soldier was so unprepared for war in 1939.

This is a very good book, and well worth reading.

[Robert Dunlop]

Most of what I know about Maxse comes from this book. Having read it, I found myself more aware of what the 18th Division achieved. What intrigues me is that when the consolidation of divisions took place in the immediate aftermath of Operation Michael, it was Maxse who got the axe (not the only one). Obviously, he ultimately went on to a post that seemed tailor-made for his abilities. Does anyone have any further information on this decision - the book skims over the issue?

[Andrew P]

I'd like to know if there is anywhere in print where Maxse has been criticised by someone in the 'Monash camp'.

Andrew,

This subject has come up previously and what Arm may have been thinking of was a reference/link which I gave in a post of 23 Sept 03; see

http://www.1914-1918.org/forum/index.php?s...98&st=30entry 36836

There the writer refers to a meeting on 05th Nov 1918 and claims that "Maxse got a fiery reception from the Australian Corps officers, particularly Monash and Blamey."

Dr. Pedersen knows his subject very well; does he mention this meeting? And does he have any comments on it which would suggest that the other writer's remark 'fiery reception' is out of place?

Regards

Michael D.R.

Hi Michael

Thanks for the link as I hadn't seen that before.

It would be interesting to know more about the meeting that occured between the two, though unfortunately I can see no mention of it by Dr Pedersen, which is strange.

I'll try and track down Monash's other biography by Geoffrey Searle to see if it gives it any mention.

Maxse is mentioned several times in the text of Pedersen's 'Monash as Military Commander'.

"Nor was Monash the only General of 'creative originality' in the war. Currie, Jacob, Lord Cavan and especially Sir Ivor Maxse share equally in the claim. Maxse's capacity for command was certainly no less than Monash's. His methods were similar and just as successful."

and later

"But by any standard Monash was a successful general and, with Currie and Maxse, a figure of major importance in World War 1."

[michaeldr]

I'll try and track down Monash's other biography by Geoffrey Searle to see if it gives it any mention.

Andrew,

Many thanks for those remarks and for the offer of a further check.

Some of my Monash material is out on loan at the moment, but from memory I cannot recollect him referring to this meeting of 5th Nov '18. I do recall that in a letter of about that time he referred to meeting Lt- Col Levey, who was then working for Maxse, but I recall nothing about a meeting between the two generals themselves.

I am inclined to take the words "fiery reception" with a pinch of salt, however that is not to say that any discussion with Monash on a subject which he took seriously would have been either easy or comfortable. As well as being an engineer, he had a legal degree and he practiced as a Patent Attorney. There is also evidence that he considered going into politics after the war but that he was not encouraged to do so by the 'professional' politicians. They not only recognised his popularity with the Australian electorate but foresaw in him a formidable opponent in debates in the chamber or the committee rooms.

If you dig up any more on this then please let us know

Best regards

Michael D.R.

[michaeldr]

it was Maxse who got the axe (not the only one). Obviously, he ultimately went on to a post that seemed tailor-made for his abilities. Does anyone have any further information on this decision - the book skims over the issue?

Robert,

This is covered by Prof Travers [in 'The Killing Ground'] who summed up as follows:

"...but in a private letter to Edmonds, Maxse admitted that although Lloyd George, Henry Wilson and Foch were all seeking scapegoats, only the official historian (Edmonds) had actually detected him! What this specifically meant was only revealed in 1937 in a private conversation when Edmonds told Liddell Hart that Maxse had actually been away from his Corps HQ from 22 to 24 March. These were the crucial days of XVIII Corps' abrupt withdrawl to the west of the Somme thus creating serious gaps for Fifth Army. The absence of the GOC XVIII Corps seems partly to account for the confusion at Corps HQ and the issuance of the XVIII Corps order to withdraw to the Somme. Edmonds kept this information out of the 'Official History' in order not to be harsh and damage the reputation of an otherwise excellent officer, who in May 1918 was appointed Inspector General of Training."

I recommend the book: first published in 1987, republished in 2003 by Pen and Sword Military Classics [iSBN 0 85052 964 6]

Regards

Michael D.R.

[Robert Dunlop]

Excellent. Thanks Michael. This might explain why it was not dealt with in his biography as well.

[Andrew P]

I'll try and track down Monash's other biography by Geoffrey Searle to see if it gives it any mention.

Andrew,

Many thanks for those remarks and for the offer of a further check.

Some of my Monash material is out on loan at the moment, but from memory I cannot recollect him referring to this meeting of 5th Nov '18. I do recall that in a letter of about that time he referred to meeting Lt- Col Levey, who was then working for Maxse, but I recall nothing about a meeting between the two generals themselves.

I am inclined to take the words "fiery reception" with a pinch of salt, however that is not to say that any discussion with Monash on a subject which he took seriously would have been either easy or comfortable. As well as being an engineer, he had a legal degree and he practiced as a Patent Attorney. There is also evidence that he considered going into politics after the war but that he was not encouraged to do so by the 'professional' politicians. They not only recognised his popularity with the Australian electorate but foresaw in him a formidable opponent in debates in the chamber or the committee rooms.

If you dig up any more on this then please let us know

Best regards

Michael D.R.

Hi Michael

I've looked through Geoffrey Searle's bio of Monash and there is only one mention of Maxse that I could see which is on November 11 1918 as follows and which talks about his previous days;

"Monash spent that day driving 120 miles through rejoicing villages to Le Cateau. He had been brooding on the future, filling in time at his headquarters at Eu, writing a long letter home at last, showing Springthorpe around the battle grounds (suffering many punctures on the way), visiting Dieppe, taking walks again, attending a conference of his commanders with General Maxse, the inspector general of training. He was instructed that the Prince of Wales would join him for a month as an aide"

Nothing about any argument with Maxse unfortunately. Also nothing I could see about it in the 'War Letters of General Monash' by Tony Macdougall 2002.

Cheers

Andrew

[michaeldr]

Andrew,

Many thanks for trying to get to the bottom of this; your trouble is much appreciated. If "a fiery reception" is to be believed, then it's beginning to look like Blamey was the probable stoker

I see that your research included a 2002 edition of Monash's war letters, edited by Macdougall; as I have the old Cutlack edition, is there anything new here beyond that previously seen?

Best regards

Michael D.R.

[Andrew P]

Hi Michael

I haven't actually compared the two as I don't have Cutlack's edition but in his intro Macdougall says about Cutlack's previous book "the work from which this volume has been drawn"

Interspersed between the letters are some commentary from macdougall giving background and such.

Definately agree that if a fiery reception took place it would be more likely to be Blamey.

Cheers

Andrew

[michaeldr]

Andrew,

Thanks again for that prompt response and extra detail

Best regards

Michael D.R.

[BFBSM]

I am currently looking at Maxse with regards to the development of his theories he mentioned in two letters written in August 1918 and paraphrased in Fire-Power: The British Army Weapons & Theories of War 1904-1945 by Bidwell & Graham on pages 128 -130. These theories include more:

Quote

extensive use of low-flying aeroplanes in the attack; more tanks in the attack; more tanks in the attack; more extensive use of fuze 106 which destroyed wire and men in the open with HE shells but did not crater the ground; instead of the linear formations laid down in the existing instructions 'a more elastic infantry formation for the attack, built up of platoons working in depth rather than battalions stereotyped in waves'; and mechanical carriers for infantry to lighten the men's loads.

(p.129).

Does this book provide further detail on this development of ideas? Does anyone have access to copies of these documents which are held in the Maxse papers at the IWM?

Any help greatly appreciated.

Mark

[Crunchy]

Are you sure the letter was written in August 1918? The reason I ask  is that many of those ideas were already in play by that date. The infantry were no longer attacking in waves, especially from early 1917 when the new tactical doctrine and restructuring of the infantry battalions occurred.

Regards

Chris

[BFBSM]

@Crunchy

You are quite right, I was thinking about 1918, and writing about 1917 and totally stuffed it up. 

Proof-reading would have saved some embarrassment here.

Mark