Monash, Brilliant Mind? Controversial Soldier

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30823, 7 August 1965, Page 12

Monash , Brilliant Mind? Controversial Soldier

(Specially written for "The Press">

pORTY-SEVEN years after the end of the First World War the appointment of John Monash as the first Australian to command the Australian Corps in France is still enlivened by controversy.

The year 1965 is the hundredth anniversary of the birth in Melbourne of the man who was to become Lieutenant-General Sir John Monash. He was born on June 23,1865, the eldest child of young Jewish immigrants who had been married two years before at Stettin, North Prussia.

This citizen soldier, a person of brilliant intellect and accomplishments, commanded the Australian Corps from May 31,1918, until after the Armistice. He followed General (later Field Marshal Lord) Birdwood, an Englishman who had a notably successful career in charge of the Australian forces before his promotion to command the newly-formed Fifth Army.

It was known in France that the British Commander-in-Chief, Sir Douglas Haig, would be genuinely glad to see the Australian Corps led by an Australian officer; at the same time it was true that the Australian Government in its requests to have the Australian Imperial Force commanded and staffed by Australians had never contemplated the replacement of General Birdwood—his service to the A.I.F. was far too highly appreciated and his personality too congenial to the troops and the Australian nation. However, Haig himself had made the discovery of an Australian officer who, as he strongly felt, was worthy of being commander of the Australian Corps. Haig Impressed In December, 1916. when the 3rd Australian Division first entered France after its thorough training under Major-General Monash in England, Haig visited it and, with Monash, inspected its reserve brigade. Monash’s ability was never more brilliantly displayed than on such inspections. His organisation for them was minute, the timing perfect, the programme untiringly thought out and his explanations to the visiting officer a masterpiece of clear exposition. That first impression Haig never relinquished. When the time had come for Birdwood to assume his new command with the Fifth Army he had been with the Anzac Corps for three and a half years; he had frequently stated his position that

rather than leave the corps he was ready to give up all prospect of promotion. It was pointed out that if he absolutely and definitely declined to take over the higher command Haig would consider his wishes, but he should reflect that by doing so he would block promotion in the A.I.F. and no Australian officer could ever hope to rise to command the Australian Corps. This appeal was decisive. “Ablest Soldier” A year earlier Birdwood would certainly have recommended General (later Sir C. 8.8.) White to succeed him. White was chief of the Corps Staff and an outstanding officer—but because of his very usefulness he had been retained continuously on staff work. Monash himself had written to his family in 1916 that White was “far and away the ablest soldier Australia had ever turned out.” Later in the Australian Corps, like nearly every other Australian leader, he constantly went to White for advice. It was sometimes argued that White, not having commanded a brigade or a division, would lack the experience for commanding the corps. Birdwood was most attracted by White’s qualities of mind and character, but it was impossible for him to pass over so capable and successful an officer as Monash. Moreover, Monash was White’s senior. Years afterwards Birdwood

said that for himself the choice had been a most difficult one. In fairness to General (later Sir J. J. T.) Hobbs, of the sth Australian Division, who in seniority came immediately between Monash and White, Birdwood said that he, too, was fit for a corps command. But Birdwood felt that the leadership of the Australian Corps required something more than the ordinary qualifications and, in the interests of Australia, should be filled by a leader of outstanding strength and personality. He had felt that Hobbs, though “thorough, able, loyal and courageous,” leant upon his corps commander for support and might find difficulty in standing alone. In any case, with White and Monash available, he was not really in the running. Birdwood’s approaching departure was almost completely unexpected at the corps headquarters. It is safe to say that everyone heard it with a sharp pang of regret. But the first shock was quickly followed by growing satisfaction that an Australian was now in command of the corps. Yet there was a small group mainly of staff or others closely associated with headquarters, who recognised the part White had played in building up the A.I.F. Decision Deplored That this maker of the corps should now be not merely passed over for its command, but actually withdrawn from its service (he was to go with Birdwood to the Fifth Army as its Chief of Staff), seemed to this section a deplorable circumstance. That Monash was in some respects an outstandingly capable officer was well recognised in staff circles; but though a lucid thinker, a wonderful organiser, and accustomed to take endless pains, he had not the physical audacity that Australian troops were thought to require in their leaders, and it was for his ability in administration rather than for tactical skill that he was then reputed. Moreover, a few of those who knew both men doubted whether Monash’s judgment would be as resistant- 1 as White’s to the promptings of personal ambition, or whether he was as well equipped to overbear a wrongly insistent superior or the strain of a great disaster. They knew that Monash had an almost Napoleonic skill in transmitting the impression of his capacity, and there was some belief —quite erroneous, as appeared later—that he had sought this appointment by every means in his power. , The matter was not settled before urgent cables were sent to the Australian Prime

Minister, Mr W. M. Hughes, then in the United States on his way to the Imperial War Conference in London, and to the Minister for Defence, in Melbourne. What manner of man was this middle-aged (then 53), Jewish-Australian citizen soldier who, amid controversy in a small but knowledgeable circle, was called to command the Australian Corps? His mother was a cultural woman who taught her little son at the age of five to play the piano, and trained her children, when a little older, to regard it as a privilege to read to her Dickens, Scott, Lytton, George Eliot as well as German and French classics in the original tongues. At school John Monash was not good at games but was oustanding at his studies. At 14 he matriculated for the University of Melbourne. Widely Read At university he conducted prodigious reading and acquired an amazingly deep and general knowledge. Reading was only one method in his onslaught upon the whole domain of knowledge. He attended the law courts to hear legal argument and Parliament to drink in debates; he was prominent in debating societies and took regular lessons in painting. He wrote essays and, for the newspapers, articles and letters. He practised carpentry as a hobby and had a passion for music. He became intensely interested in engineering construction and walked all over Melbourne to watch buildings being erected. In 1884 he entered the original company of the University Rifles of the Victoria militia, and in 1887 he applied for a commission in the garrison artillery. In 1891 he took his degree as a bachelor of civil engineering; by 1895 he had also take his B.A. and Ll.B. Monash became a consulting engineer, and in 1912 he was elected president of the Victorian Institute of Engineers and a member of the Council of the University of Melbourne. Rarely In Trenches Meanwhile his work in the militia had continued; by 1913 he was a colonel commanding the 13th Infantry Brigade of the Citizen Forces. He. led the 4th Infantry Brigade of the A.I.F. at Gallipoli. It was averred against Monash in those days that he was seldom seen in the front line. Undoubtedly there had been defects in his leadership in the lower command, but they had been largely compensated for by the great care and capacity with which his arrangements were made. It was predicted of him at Gallipoli that he “would command a division better than a brigade and a corps better than a division.”

In intellectual development John Monash was as catholic as Napoleon; his mind knew no horizon except that of the

universe, and every item of knowledge that it dailyacquired was docketed for future use. He could meet economists, artists, philosophers, educat'onists, lawyers, astronomers on their own ground. To military achievement, except as a means of renown and an instrument in saving the national or social order, he attached little importance. He grew to hate the cruelty and misery of war. It was as an engineer rather than as artist that he consciously built the great static battle plans, using the same care and, on the administrative side, largely the same methods with which he would design and organise the construction of a bridge. His last great fight at the

Hindenburg Line he described —before the battle and after —as “simply a problem of engineering.” Monash was eager for military glory: but of none of his battles can it be said that he embarked upon it for that reason. He was naturally humane. But his love of his garden, of walking in the bush and of the piano; and. later in life, his devotion to his grandchildren—all these attitudes were irrelevant to his attitude towards war, which was entirely that of a realist. “His was the most highly trained mind that I had to deal with in the war.” said General (later Sir T. A.) Blarney, the chief of his staff.