'twas the night before Hindenburg

by

Lt Col. John Moore RFD

The title I have chosen tonight for a reason I will explain in a moment is

twas the night before Hindenburg when all through the Front

the creatures were stirring for this was no stunt.

Monash was there supreme and serene

preparing his troops to the best of his lore

because tomorrow will bring the assalt on the line

which would bring to an end the War, and Peace ever more

The ditty is of course a parody on the old favouite Christmas tale 'twas the night before Christmas; but it probably needs a little more explanation. Today's date is the 28th of September , exactly 86 years ago on the 28th September 1918, Australian troops under the command of Lt General Sir John Monash were preparing an assault to commence the next morning on the Hindenburg line. This would be the final battle of World War 1: The War to end all Wars, as we have already mentioned, the German Army was so compromised, the Battle in fact was a catalyst which caused the allied forces to acceded to a request that came some months earlier from the German High Command.

Now remember the German Army was not defeated as we know it in traditional terms. They whipped through the battle field in full order, banners flying, bands playing. And they were able rightly to claim that they were never really defeated. There is little doubt in my mind that failure by the allied high command to force an unconditional surrender laid the foundation for an unsettled world for generations to come.At that it could be argued that the Second World War may not have happened if we had forced that unconditional surrender on the British Army, but that's another story.

What is Hindenburg?

Let us return to Hindenburg. Lets start at the beginning: What is Hindenburg? What was the Hindenburg line? In summary the Hindenburg line was the last and strongest of Germany's army defences; they consisted of three well defended trench systems established in 1917, Peter Firkins in his very once over lightly but excellent publication Australians in Nine Wars says that it is probably the most famous defensive system in the history of warfare. I might pose the question if you have heard about the Great Wall of China, or Hadrian's Wall, but that is probably an unfair comment; the two walls were designed to repulse an enemy of the year in the field of swords and spears and all those good things. Whereas, the Hindenburg Line was a complex mass of mutually supportive defence systems, incorporated trenches, wires, guns, mines, watertight bunkers, it contained transport facilities, especially rails for the re-supply of equipment, ammunitions and other stores and for the transportation of re-inforcement troops. It was designed particularly for repulsing an enemy in the modern context of a well equipped mechanical war. So, it is much more intricate than either the great wall of china or Hadrian's Wall. In fact it is more intricate than some of the mediaeval forts and castles and their complex systems. Perhaps to give you a better idea I can quote Peter Firkins again: he describes it as follows;

The Hindenburg line consisted of three distinct lines of trenches, with 50 yards or more of barbed wire in front of each line cut across the defence zone, which in some places was four miles deep. Concrete emplacements were built for machine guns, a network of railways, and lanes to keep troops and supplies flowing steadily steadily in from the rear, and any gaps in the line were covered by huge concentrations of artillery. The German High Command believed that the line was impenetrable and proposed to stand on that defencive line and to stand behind it while they used the zone as a rest area for their divisions to come up in battle. More battle worthy troops could be deployed and used on either front or side. So, it was an extremely complex system, so strong in fact that they hoped the Allied Forces would expend themselves against it. Withdrawing troops from other fronts allowing for example the U-boat tactics to be brought in to bear with little hindrance from the British Army.

It was very complex but it didn't stop Monash.

I suppose the next thing we should say is: Where was the Hindenburg Line? It was to the north of Paris and it was in the area covering all those names we know so well from World War 1. Passchendaele, the Somme all those, in fact it has been a battle field for ten thousand years. It's that wide open plain where all the armies found the easiest approach to Paris; and every one from the ancient Romans through to the Brits fighting the Normans, all that did big battles there. So I think the locals are getting pretty used to it!! They have been at it a long long time.

Now, what I have described is complex and I don't intend is this talk to go into a complex study of Military history and strategy. I'm not going to even talk any more about Hindenburg. Believe it or not! It just happens to be the night before. What I propose to do is to present a pen picture of the commander under whom the Australians served in this final battle of the great war: and that Commander was Lt Gen. Sir John Monash. Without doubt in my mind Australia's greatest military commander. These days a virtually forgotten hero.

Australia's greatest commander

Now! Australia's greatest commander: That's a pretty big claim but I am not alone in that opinion, let me quote Field Marshall Lord Montgomery. Remember Montgomery was on active service in the Somme in 1918, a junior officer and he served in the British division serving beside the Australian Corps and the New Zealand Corps. So he had a chance to view Monash at first hand; as well of course as later on producing that magnificent book A History of Warfare. In that book Montgomery said I would name Sir John Monash as the best general on the Western Front in Europe. He possessed real creative originality and the War might well have been over sooner and certainly with fewer causalities had Haig, the British Commander, had Haig been relieved of his command and Monash appointed to command the British armies his place.

Monash centre

High praise indeed. But!! Appointed to command all the British armies in Europe? Thereby hangs a tale, I will talk a little bit more about that later on. But I will present a picture of Sir John Monash and it will be brief because of the constraints of time.

I will draw upon several references, a couple of those references I've already mentioned

Australians in Nine Wars , by Peter Firkins;

A History of Warfare by Lord Montgomery

the others are

The Somme : The Day by Day Account , by W McCarthy Brockhampton Press London 1993

The Official History of Australia in War , by Ernest Scott under the editorship of Dr Charles Bean

Monash: the Outsider Who Won a War , that is the latest biography on Monash written by Roland Perry and it is a very good read if you can get hold of the book.

 I might in this brief sketch be able to separate some of the myths from reality as well. 

Monash was born on the 27th June 1865 his father, while a naturalised Victorian citizen, was a Jew and from Prussia. His mother was also from Prussia, and a Jewess. Now, I am mentioning these factors specifically because they play a very significant part in Monash's later life and in fact the lack of being appointed as the commander of all British Forces in Europe. It has been suggested that the name of John, hardly a Jewish name, was a compromise by his father. It had biblical connotations that his father realised his son was going to be brought up in Anglo-Saxon community so the name chosen was John.  He was a very bright boy, he won a scholarship to Scotch College in Melbourne. Where he did very very well. He won an exhibition to Melbourne University; where he didn't do very, very well. The reason being that he got totally imbued with the undergraduate life, spent all his time in drama societies, musical societies, playing with the girls, and he failed. He re-sat them many times. When he did graduate he graduated with the unusual combination for those days: an Engineering Degree and a Law Degree. He used these to effect.

Monash was a very successful engineer. He was a pioneer of pre-stressed concrete, in Australia, and he actually founded the Monier Concrete Company, in Australia. He used his Law Degree to effect in his professional witness on engineering matters. He defended many of his own cases, and won. So he was a very bright engineer and a very good commercial operator.

Victorian Army

The Flag of Victoria

With the Military, Monash was originally an infantry man. He joined the university Company of the then established Militia Battalion. We are talking about the Victorian Army in these days, Federation wasn't there. When that company was disbanded he joined the Artillery, and remained a Gunner for the remainer of his military career. There is no doubt right from his early days, he was a natural in the army, he spent a lot of time as a militia Officer. In fact that was one of the factors that caused him to fail at university. He spent too much time playing soldiers. He was a stickler for discipline, effective and efficient administration, and he always had soldiers' interest as his first priority. And this came to the fore in WW1 particularly, and I will talk about that a little later on.

He was intelligent and he was innovative; he developed many innovative ways of training. He invented special equipment with which his gunners could train with guns; in those days as with now, their budget was short, never enough ammunition, they didn't have as many guns as they wanted, so Monash invented substitutes. And they trained on substitutes. It became recognised that when he finally the officer in command of the coastal battery of Fort Nepean on Phillip Bay it was the most efficient Artillery Unit in the Australian Commonwealth Forces; and that was because of Monash.

Now mind you he didn't always receive praise for his efforts and I'm going very quickly through here; one particular incident: as a Colonel Monash was responsible for important Military exercises in Lilydale in Victoria and it was very important because the Inspector General of the British Overseas Armies, who at that stage was General Sir Ian Hamilton, was out here as an observer. The exercise was an extraordinary success, but Monash made it and it was a demanding both physically and mentally for everyone who took part.  His performance, Monash's personal performance, got extraordinary praise from Hamilton who reported with very favourable time to Kitchener in the British War Office about this very bright young Colonel serving in the Colonies. In fact he officially described him as "an outstanding man of force and character".

But he was stunned by enormous and severe criticism here in Australia. `Too demanding' cried the headlines in the Melbourne Age, no different then to now!  The Government and the Military took much more notice of an uninformed press than they did of informed, experienced, reliable sources.  But in response to the criticism when the Military Board decided to investigate it, as the Government of the day thought it should do. He said

I shall adhere to my policy of training for war and not picnics. `How' he asked `should we prepare for real conflict? Armies have to march,sometimes in terrible conditions. Armies had to fight, and there was no comfortable conditions.

So that was his response.

Australian Army

At the outbreak of World War 1 Monash was a Colonel commanding 13th Brigade in the Australian Army. Despite his recognised Military confidence (and he was brilliant there was no doubt about it), he was not appointed Field Commander, he was offered the post of Deputy Chief Censor. Monash, (I am skipping quickly through this,) Monash had extremely severe criticism all through his career; partly because he was Jew, partly because of his German background, and there were other factors as well. And of course, he had made a lot of enemies because he was better than most, and that usually makes a few enemies; so he didn't get the Field Command when he should have.

Now while this posting was not to his liking, and it proved in many ways to be very stressful posting, he took the role very seriously. Introduces a range of innovations, which really are still the basis of the censorship operations which operated during World War 11. He really revolutionised the censorship code which was far ahead of what the American or the English were doing. However he bided his time. Fortunately General J.G.Legge Chief of the Australian General Staff had been sent a copy of General Hamilton's appraisal of Monash. And Legge had the sense to appreciate what Monash had to offer. And he recognised that the oversight, of the active Command role was the result of all the long standing petty jealousies, which came from many of Monash's opponents.

So on 15 September 1915, relieved, Monash happily quit his censorship role and was appointed as a Brigadier with the Fourth Brigade. Monash was now in his element. His natural military bent would take him to the top. It was he

* that broke the nexus of static trench war fare;

* it was he that developed the tactics which finally broke the offensive pattern of the German army;

* and which even now provide the basis of modern tactics used by armies throughout the world.

He had to put his force together in fifty days and get them combat ready. The task was made tougher by the fact that the brigade was to be a truly national unit two battalions would come from Victoria and New South Wales: the 13th 14th battalion another two 15th & 16th were composite battalions from other states.

Ignorance breeds prejudice

Within two weeks of his appointment these petty jealousies came to the fore once again. Hysteria broke out over Monash's origins, and it became a serious problem that lasted for some considerable weeks, but it was orchestrated and co-ordinated by one person. That one person was an army officer who had been sacked by Monash in a former command position. Monash made a mistake. He sacked a pillar of Melbourne society, a member of the Melbourne Club, a Member of Parliament and it was a bad public relations blue. And this bloke is very influential.

Over the decades for example, Monash had even as a school boy had to live with jibes about his jewish background so there began a campaign to describe Monash anatomically particularly with his big jewish nose. As if this background rendered him alien. Satirical Punch Magazine, which was allowed a little licence, was still malicious and gratuitous in remarks in an article which damned him with great praise. Charles Bean, later the official war Historian perhaps looking for something else that was unbritish with which to alienate Monash remarked later "we do not want Australia represented by men mainly because of ability nature inborne in Jews to push themselves" and Bean goes on. "Monash Major General", Rosenthal wrote "had both the quality although Monash had not used it". Rosenthal was a noted Sydney architect of Sydney Christian churches, he was an accomplished musician. 

Now as isolating as this was, such crude sentiments were fashionable at this time; when people were proudly and openly racist. Propaganda on all sides of racial superiority, any one who was not your race was inferior, now the Jews were on the receiving end of this for a millennium or two but still their culture prospered. Yet in Monash's case most of the comment were written in confidence or whispered; it was something that he could take as long as racism wasn't too great.

But another aspect of his background was a far bigger threat much more concertive than his jewish background was his German roots. A campaign to bring Monash down wrote anonymous letters to the minister for Defence and Kitchener of the War Office. They all contained bald facts mixed with a lot of mischievous errors. Each dwelt on something in Monash's background: he had dropped a `C' from his name which was Monasch! a German Monasch. He hadn't his father had; Monash was born with the name Monash; his family lived in Germania cottage! True, but his wife called it that. He and his children, they talked, had been born and educated in Germany! Wrong he only had one child she was born and educated in Australia. They had all been active members of the German Club! So had half of Melbourne society.

His father had been hostile to British interests! Wrong because he had shares in most of the major British companies in Australia. Monash had trouble speaking English correctly wrong! He was very fluent in English and a polished public speaker, he spoke with no accent whatsoever, [no British accent he had an Australian accent]. How could he be expected to lead his Australian troops against his true home country? In fact there was a petition created to protest against Monash appointment. Indeed, the Minister for Defence at the time Mr Pearce said:

If I had listen to all the gossip and slander Monash would never have gone to the war.

Now, as a foot note, these were so serious that by the end of 1915 the Military Board issued an official edict that they would not commission any officers that were born outside Australia. So depite the fact that they didn't come to anything concerning Monash and the other generals they certainly had their effect on the policy of the army.

Monash's love / hate affair with chaos

Monash treated any disorganisational problem as something he could handle with scientific analysis he would engineer his way out of it, as long as there was time and space to do so. Without time and space he was lost and his life was miserable; a sense of serenity came from solving chaotic problems or even better having completed preparation well enough to avoid them all together. So he was a planner, he was an organiser, he was an analysist and he didn't like himself when he couldn't do it. 

Now this obervation, to my mind is very telling, and it would put into perspective some of Monash's military genious. He had that innate ability to analyse and develop solutions and solve problems. Now of course in our modern era all the military leaders are trained for this role it is fair to say that some do it better than others. Monash not only proved that he was better at it but he was far better at it than his contemporaries. 

Friends in high places: Monash took his brigade to Gallipolli. However it was during the Gallipoli campaign Monash realised the limitations of his superior commanders, and style of war that they insisted on fighting. He detested the attitude of the British commander that the soldier was just cannon fodder; and Monash would change that.

But it was also significant that, during this period he developed excellent relationships with both General Hamilton, who we have already noted held a very high opinion of Monash, and also a young Cabinet Minister who visiting Gallipoli called Winston Churchill. Now these, I think, are friends which is not too much of a load to carry (future careers at stake!).

Militia v Regular Army

Monash did suffer some frustration during this period in that several of his contemporaries were promoted to General rank while he remained as a Brigadier. 

Now the facts of rank have been two fold: first the officers were all Regular Officers, and Monash was a Militia Officer despite the fact that he was very good he didn't get the promotion; and it is a long standing battle the militia or the reserve officer v the regular officer, and in addition they were all anglo-saxon! So the question is was there an anti-Jewish element coming to the fore again?

But to be fair, the officers promoted were good. Certainly none better than Monash, but could be said to be of his equal; and as the great majority of the Australian Army like 99.9% were all anglo-saxon, it is not surprising that a couple of anglo saxons were appointed to generalship. But never the less the facts rankled on Monash, being the character he was. His big fear at this stage is that his future promotion to General would continue to be overlooked because of the Duntroon establishment, (the first officers from Duntroon graduated in time to go to World War 1) to put the regular officers in command position. 

One thing that didn't help him at this stage was an assessment by General Birdwood, who was the commander of the British forces in Gallipoli, that Monash's leadership style was capricious. Now Birdwood's style was based on the fact that he was an officer who graduated from Sandhurst at about 1800 and his idea of leadership was to go out on to the battlefield and chat with the troops talk about their problems their wives their daughters, but of course Monash had realised that in the context of a modern mechanical highly volatile warfare this type of leadership was not valid. Monash had other forms of leadership which in the long run proved to be more valid than those insisted upon by Birdwood. Birdwood was continually being reminded of Monash's German roots, and this probably didn't help his cause. 

In February that year the ANZAC Corps under the command of Birdwood departed for the Western Front in Europe. Monash was still a Brigade Commander. Although he did have one week of glory on arriving on the Western Front when his divisional commander General Cox was ill, so Monash was the commander for a week.

Promotion for lower ranks

Another incident occured at this stage and he was a Brigadier of an Australian brigade which highlights his attitude compared with that of the British officers. He wanted to promote a sergeant of his to Lieutenant. And he had to put the proposal to General Cox, the Divisional Commander and General Cox vetoed on the basis of no lower ranks could become officers.

Monash persevered he said the sergeant had proved himself on Gallipoli, he was reliable, popular, strong, he wanted to lead, he wanted to make decisions and he wanted to inspire. Monash said that is how it is done in Australia, it improves efficiency, it sorts out leaders and followers and according to ability, skills and desires.

The Australian Flag

Cox was angered, lost his temper, and said he wouldn't have a working class man leading businessmen or those with university degrees. So the argument went on, but Cox had a great admiration for the military ability of Monash and eventually agreed to his proposal, and even at that stage offered to assist to get his promotion to Divisional Commander of the Third Division. Which Monash eventually achieves, so he became a Divisional Commander. 

Monash theories of warfare

Now as a Divisional Commander he certainly had his influence. I will move forward quickly through to a battle which happened very shortly after he took over command; called the Battle of Hamel. Peter Firkins in his book heads the chapter on Hamel as "The theories are tested" and tested they were. These are Monash's words; and they are not only used in Peter Ferkin's book, but Lord Montgomery uses them in the History of Warfare.

Monash said

I have formed the theory that the role of infantry was not to expend itself upon heroic physical effort, nor to wither away under merciless machine gun fire nor to impale itself on hostile bayonets, nor to tear itself to pieces in hostile entanglements, but on the contrary to advance under the maximum possible protection, of the maximum possible array of mechanical resources, in the form of guns, machine guns, tanks an aeroplanes.

To advance with as little impediment as possible, to be relieved as far as possible of the obligations to fight your way forward, to march resolutely regardless of the din and tumult of battle to the appointed goal and there to hold and defend territory gain, and to gather in the form of prisoners guns and storage, through to victory.

Now that was an extroardinary philosophy in the day remember, we have these people in static war, they were entrenched, and all they did was get up and run and be mowed down by machine guns or be blasted apart by.... Here was a theory that would put mobility to the wall and save lives, quite revolutionary. And is is probably worthy to note that that still provides the basis of modern tactics. Ted Love,[Colonel Retired] will know, if you read the modern definition of the role of the infantry in training our modern manual it is not dissimiler to that now. The language is a bit different, the roles slighty different, but it essentially says that.

Monash was a man way ahead of his time. They were the theory he wrote just before the battle of Hamel. Now the operations that Monash planned and carried out certainly tested those theories, that I just read out, but they succeeded with brilliance, which was not matched by any of his contempories on the inside the Allied forces or the German. A little more than a month after taking up the Command, Monash's theories were tested at the Battle of Hamel; and on the 14th July 1918, (before the end of the war) he did his planning for his battle Monash set up a new role for tanks.

Tanks were new. Tank tactics on the Western Front had developed to a stage where they were virtually replaced the infantry in advancing well ahead of the infantry. Monash changed that. He insisted that the tanks should advance with the infantry. And used as a tactical weapon under general control of senior Infantry commanded on the spot. 

A perfect battle plan

After this he turned to the order of battle, for his Infantry soldiers. He set about with meticulous attention to every detail which characterised his command. A perfect battle plan he wrote. It is like nothing so much as a score for a musical composition with all the various arms and units are the instruments and the task they perform are the respective musical phases.  Every individual unit must make its entry at precisely the proper moment, and play its phrase in general harmony. His planning introduced the command system, which became the standard pattern for the Australia Corps; and then for the British Army for the rest of the War; and was accepted as fundamental by all armies of World War 11. It is based on making absolutely certain that every participant knew exactly what they had to do and were thoroughly conversant with every relevant detail and plan.

Now Hammel went on to test Monash's military theories, but also his strength of character. Eight companies of the American 33rd Division had been placed under his command, of the fourth Australian Division. This was the first time that Americans had actually fought in battle, and it was the first command in WW1 to have American troops attached to them, that was done to give the Americans some experience. The Ausralians had been at it for four years. The Americans were brand new. But on the day before the attack General Percy, he refused to let the Americans serve under Australian Command. And he made orders that withdrew the Americans from the Australian Division. 

Now Monash had planned the battle meticulously there was no way he could easily change the plan. So he complained bitterly. Fortunately Haig and General Warburton, two senior British officers supported his stand; and went back to suggest to Percy that he should take only four Companies away. Monash said he could live with that but while the arguments were going on the flag went up and the attack went in. So all the American companies were with Monash on this final attack. 

Extroadinarily successful! It was all over in ninety three minutes. Remember some of these battles, in days gone by had taken a month, two months. Loss of 51 Australian officers, 724 ranks compare that to 45,000 at the Somme. Six American Officers, 128 other ranks. Three tanks were damaged, thirteen men wounded in the tank crews. The Germans lost 41 officers,and fifteen hundred other ranks a lot of the equipment.

Australian Flying Corps

So he developed not only modern tactics but he developed some innovations: He organised with the Australian Flying Corps for example, an innovation, he arranged with Captain Wackett whose name was given to an aircraft after WW1 he dropped supplies to the advancing troops from the air. About 100,000 rounds of amunitian were dropped and this set up a precident of course the first air drop in modern warfare; which the Australians used to great advantage in their advance over the Owen Stanleys in New Guinea in WW2 

Peter Firkins says:

The striking success of Hamel became the model for almost every attack made by British Infantry in conjunction with tanks for the remainder of the First World War.

So Monash was proved. So successful was his battle plan and so revolutionary that on 12th August King George's visit and he knighted in the field and Monash became Sir John Monash.

The British War Cabinet, which at that stage, had been expanded and included elements of the Dominions, Australia had two on the British War Cabinet, including Billy Hughes among one other, South Africa had two, the Canadians had two, New Zealand had one. 

It was very seriously discussed that Monash should be the Commander of all British troops but of course: a Colonial? German background? Jew? and a Militia Officer? No way! So it didn't happen.  (It's not the only time look at Morshead in WW11 after that extroardinary successful command of the defence of Tobruk; he should have gone on to bigger and better things. But He's a Colonial, and he's a reserve officer. No way! It's not going to happen!! )

In conclusion:

In this talk I chose Monash particularly for two reasons:

number one was the date before the big last battle,

and although he wasn't the commander of all the forces,

he was the one who drew up the plan for it,

he was the one who had the main thrust and 

commanded two of the American divisions at this stage

plus the ANZAC Corps

plus a British Division, of which although he wasn't the nominal commander,

in real fact he was the brains behind the whole thing.

It was unfortunate that he never ever became total commander of the British forces in Europe, but so be it. But I think we should remember with some reverence, what not only Monash contributed to Australia but, in fact, what he contributed to our modern Armies. So Australia has been a pioneer in the development of modern tactics for modern armies.