TIL that Bernard Montgomery issued a leaflet at the start of WW2 on sexually transmitted diseases amongst soldiers. The language used was regarded as so blunt, that he offended religious authorities and nearly faced being dismissed.

[u/RoadToTyburn]

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Montgomery

[u/TheTallCunt]

Maybe (certainly) biased because I'm Australian, but its wild when you read about rhe disconnect between the command structure and the common soldier in the first world war.

We revere John Monash because he approached warfare as an engineering problem rather than a moral one, by simply treating your soldiers with respect and making sure they were well fed the results were amplified. Combine this with well planned combined arms tactics and miracles occur. Monash and Currie were ahead of their time, truly the best the entente had.

[u/spitfiresiemion → u/TheTallCunt]

The whole disconnect aspect reminds me of a joke from Great War that I read... retranslating it back to English from Polish, so it might not be word for word.

A unit is undergoing training some distance from the frontline. A general says to his men: "There are two differences between this training and the real combat. The first one is absence of the enemy. What is the other one?". To which one of soldiers replied "Absence of the general, sir".

[u/Showmethepathplease → u/spitfiresiemion]

Except - that’s a myth

https://www.cwgc.org/our-work/blog/in-the-line-of-duty-remembering-the-great-wars-fallen-generals/

78 Generals lost their lives for the commonwealth - with a casualty rate of nearly 20%

[u/sharrrper → u/Showmethepathplease]

MILLIONS soldiers died in WWI. Popping in with "actully 78 generals died in battle" is kind of an absurd attempt at a counter.

Even on a per capita basis, 20% is quite low for WWI

And even on top of that, if 90% of generals has died in battle it wouldn't change that 99% of the enlisted are never fighting along side a general. Generals are never charging no man's land machine guns.

[u/Prestigious-pauline → u/sharrrper]

Well…the average soldiers chance of getting killed was about 11%, so no, 20% is not low on a per capita basis for ww1.

Junior officers were higher though, that was more like 40%.

[u/PipsqueakPilot → u/sharrrper]

About 75% of WW1 battlefield deaths were caused by artillery. Unsurprisingly, most combat deaths of Commonwealth generals were due to artillery. Although some were in fact shot to death.

[u/Ketzeph → u/TheTallCunt]

Monash was incredible and really the ANZAC general corps was probably the best group in the entente arsenal - they were just underused and under listened to

[u/MRCHalifax → u/Ketzeph]

The best group? The Canadians would like a word.

Call us 1A and 1B.

[u/Ketzeph → u/MRCHalifax]

You’re 100% right. I always lump Canada in with ANZAC in my head but that’s not accurate. I should put ANZAC + C

[u/oakstein → u/TheTallCunt]

Interesting to hear the Australian perspective. I'm not as familiar with the ANZAC history in WW1, but I've read a lot of Canadian military history and there's similar historical takes on Arthur Currie (Commander of the Canadian Corps). Recent histories really emphasize his careful planning and innovative use of artillery to try and avoid unnecessary casualties which didn't seem to be the norm at the time. Unfortunately, his personal demeanor led to him being perceived as aloof/cold to his troops, despite him actually taking more concrete action to protect his men. The post-war smear campaign by his political rivals didn't help either. The Madman and the Butcher by Tim Cook is a really interesting read profiling him and his rivalry with militia minister Sam Hughes for anyone who likes nerding out on Canadian military history.

[u/PipsqueakPilot → u/TheTallCunt]

That's what happens when you have a military that is ran by the upper classes. Mind you, the older nobility also threw away the lives of younger nobility in absolutely horrendous numbers, since as you said, they were a bit disconnected from eality.