I have just started reading Peter Fitzsimons “Tobruk” and came across this passage:


Quote:

Perhaps most importantly, with various of the remarkable escapes he had in battle, Hitler came to believe he was ordained to survive the war, and that there was a higher purpose he was destined to fulfill

(He was also recommended for the Iron Cross class 2 then Class one by his company adjudant who was Jewish!)

Anyway, not in WWI but in a different war, there was another person who also became a Leader in WWII and who also felt the call of destiny and took risks because he “knew” he would not be killed but was destined to survive to fulfill his destiny.

Who was the Leader?

What was the war?


Probably millions felt they would not be killed for various reasons, these two did actually survive.

Raven is inclined to think Isoroku Yamamoto, Russo-Japanese war

Raven could be right—I really don’t know much about Yamamoto at all.

But that was not who I was thinking about.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 3:31am:

I have just started reading Peter Fitzsimons “Tobruk” and came across this passage: Quote: Perhaps most importantly, with various of the remarkable escapes he had in battle, Hitler came to believe he was ordained to survive the war, and that there was a higher purpose he was destined to fulfill (He was also recommended for the Iron Cross class 2 then Class one by his company adjudant who was Jewish!) Anyway, not in WWI but in a different war, there was another person who also became a Leader in WWII and who also felt the call of destiny and took risks because he “knew” he would not be killed but was destined to survive to fulfill his destiny. Who was the Leader? What was the war? Probably millions felt they would not be killed for various reasons, these two did actually survive.

An Amrerican General, led in the Desert Battles ?

Ah, Montgomery !!

Monty was English you tit!

Monty was a great General. In the BEF as the panzers were closing in Monty was the only general with still a whole division, other divisions had lost thousands of men. When the Belgian King surrendered opening a huge hole in the English flank it was Monty led his men on a night march to fill that hole.

He stopped Rommel then, at El Alamein, broke through the German lines causing Rommel to flee with his armor leaving his infantry behind. Monty also planned the Normandy invasion and, as importantly, the strategy whereby the Brits held a line while behind them the yanks cleared the Normandy and Brittany peninsulas, gaining the ports for the flow of supplies and reinforcements any modern army needs.

A much lesser general and an American, Patton, would have just gone hell for leather for Paris without securing his supply lines.

But Monty was a soldier not a Leader, Sprinty.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 3:31am:

I have just started reading Peter Fitzsimons “Tobruk” and came across this passage: Quote: Perhaps most importantly, with various of the remarkable escapes he had in battle, Hitler came to believe he was ordained to survive the war, and that there was a higher purpose he was destined to fulfill (He was also recommended for the Iron Cross class 2 then Class one by his company adjudant who was Jewish!) Anyway, not in WWI but in a different war, there was another person who also became a Leader in WWII and who also felt the call of destiny and took risks because he “knew” he would not be killed but was destined to survive to fulfill his destiny. Who was the Leader? What was the war? Probably millions felt they would not be killed for various reasons, these two did actually survive.

This far car? 

Charles de Gaulle.

I think that is a good answer, Aussie. DeGaulle definitely thought he was the spirit of France, so that satisfies that.

However, I don’t think he was in a war previous to WWII where he showed he believed he would not be killed because he was destined for great things, doubt he was in a war before WWII. Could be wrong, of course, some French colonial war?

So, I don’t think your answer is right. DeGaulle too was a soldier not a Leader in WWII.

I was astounded and impressed by the Yamamoto answer.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 1:44pm:

I think that is a good answer, Aussie. DeGaulle definitely thought he was the spirit of France, so that satisfies that. However, I don’t think he was in a war previous to WWII where he showed he believed he would not be killed because he was destined for great things, doubt he was in a war before WWII. Could be wrong, of course, some French colonial war? So, I don’t think your answer is right. DeGaulle too was a soldier not a Leader in WWII. I was astounded and impressed by the Yamamoto answer.

He was an Officer in WW1 and was wounded many times, imprisoned and escaped many times.  He also led the French Government after the allied liberation of France in WW2.  He'll be your man.

Yes, Aussie, he wasn’t a Leader until WWII was over. Not quite what I asked. I also don’t think he thought he was the destiny of France until well into WWII.

The person I am thinking of knew he had this destiny to fullfil decades before WWII.

Stalin

Polish-Soviet War?

Did he know he had a destiny to fullfil?

These guys had to know, as young men, that there was a destiny they had to fulfill and that carried them through dangers.

You could almost add Mussolini, who hated the Germans after WWI, and the Italian govt, for the humiliating defeat the Germans inflicted on Italy.

But no inkling of destiny until after WWI so not the answer.

Quote:

But Monty was a soldier not a Leader, ....

I know it is not him....but.....he fits your description  'another person who also became a Leader in WWII.'  He definitely was a Leader....a great Leader in WW11.

You need to tighten that expression up.

If I mean someone who leads I say “leader” if it is a national leader I say “Leader.”

But good point, should tighten the language up.

Who was it, well before WWII knew he had a destiny to fullfil and that feeling made him feel brave in battle and in WWII he was the Leader of the nation and the government.

Yamamoto sounds like one good answer. Monty isn’t, not a leader of the nation and the government. Stalin may be, and to give the devil his due he did not flee Moscow when the German panzers were in the suburbs of Moscow.

The answer I had in mind was Winston Churchill. As a correspondent in the Boer War he felt that there was a Destiny awaiting him and that that would protect him and was rather reckless on at least one occasion I read about.

About 40 years, mostly in the wilderness, but destiny had him in mind alright!

The two soldiers who most contributed to victory in the European part of WWII were Alan Brooke and Montgomery.

Someone else want to pose a question in the Pub Quiz?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 3:50pm:

If I mean someone who leads I say “leader” if it is a national leader I say “Leader.” But good point, should tighten the language up. Who was it, well before WWII knew he had a destiny to fullfil and that feeling made him feel brave in battle and in WWII he was the Leader of the nation and the government. Yamamoto sounds like one good answer. Monty isn’t, not a leader of the nation and the government. Stalin may be, and to give the devil his due he did not flee Moscow when the German panzers were in the suburbs of Moscow. The answer I had in mind was Winston Churchill. As a correspondent in the Boer War he felt that there was a Destiny awaiting him and that that would protect him and was rather reckless on at least one occasion I read about. About 40 years, mostly in the wilderness, but destiny had him in mind alright! The two soldiers who most contributed to victory in the European part of WWII were Alan Brooke and Montgomery.

I did check him out, but found no reference to any abnormal risks he took, or any talk of destiny.  But....it's your Quiz so you get to be Eddie, and I get to shut up.

Who am I kidding....me, shut up!  Hrmpfffff!

Link.


Quote:

Between 1895 and 1900 Churchill sought to get himself transferred into as many dangerous military zones as possible – writing up his narrow escapes from the front line for papers including the Daily Graphic, and Daily Telegraph. By 1899, working as a correspondent for the Morning Post, Churchill negotiated a salary of £250 a month and all expenses paid – equal to more than £27,000 today – making him the highest-paid war correspondent of the day.

If you don't talk yourself up as a War Correspondent (bullshit about the personal danger you were in ~ look at 60 Minutes and even Four Corner today)  you don't get paid that money.  No reference to 'destiny to lead' or any destiny that I can find.

There was in this book on Churchill I was reading—but the Boer war is a loooong time ago.

He stayed faithfull to his message in the years in the wilderness.

Gallipoli was one of his stupid mistakes—he was no military commander—but Kitchener made it worse by procrastination. Gallipoli should have been launched at the same time as the attempt to force the straits in which 15 British battleships were sunk.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 4:40pm:

There was in this book on Churchill I was reading—but the Boer war is a loooong time ago. He stayed faithfull to his message in the years in the wilderness. Gallipoli was one of his stupid mistakes—he was no military commander—but Kitchener made it worse by procrastination. Gallipoli should have been launched at the same time as the attempt to force the straits in which 15 British battleships were sunk.

The dead were just numbers to Churchill.

The dead were just numbers to Monty, too, he kept throwing divisions at the German lines at El Alamein. That’s war.

Churchill did visit bombed areas etc. Hitler didn’t.

Unforgiven wrote on Mar 26^th, 2017 at 4:43pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 26th, 2017 at 4:40pm: There was in this book on Churchill I was reading—but the Boer war is a loooong time ago. He stayed faithfull to his message in the years in the wilderness. Gallipoli was one of his stupid mistakes—he was no military commander—but Kitchener made it worse by procrastination. Gallipoli should have been launched at the same time as the attempt to force the straits in which 15 British battleships were sunk. The dead were just numbers to Churchill.

Including the Aussie Diggers he threw to the wolves in Singapore.

And the ME diggers on the way home he wanted to throw at the Japs in Burma. Without their heavy gear they would have been wiped out quick smart.

Fortunately we had a truly great PM at the time, Jack Curtin!

OK, quiz question two.

This one does not have a clear cut answer but have a bit of fun reading up and arguing about it.

We know civilisation started in river valleys (Tigris/Euphrates) and the Nile, the Indus Valley and same in China.

What caused the hunter/gatherers to abandon their nomadic ways and begin agriculture?

Was it because of better and more assured supply of food? Or was it because of beer?

Despite what you might think, there is an arguable case for beer!

So—food or beer?

One bit of information to get discussion started:

There was beer in all the ancient cities like Ur in what is now Iraq.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 27^th, 2017 at 8:45am:

OK, quiz question two. This one does not have a clear cut answer but have a bit of fun reading up and arguing about it. We know civilisation started in river valleys (Tigris/Euphrates) and the Nile, the Indus Valley and same in China. What caused the hunter/gatherers to abandon their nomadic ways and begin agriculture? Was it because of better and more assured supply of food? Or was it because of beer? Despite what you might think, there is an arguable case for beer! So—food or beer?

It appears that civilization was introduced to Britain by the use of beer. Before Romans and beer the British were tribal savages.

Now none of them want to live more than a short walk from a pub or liquor retailer.

Romans drank wine. Tiberius(?) said beer made Britons smell like the billygoat.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 28^th, 2017 at 10:19am:

Romans drank wine. Tiberius(?) said beer made Britons smell like the billygoat.

Could it have been used as a way to dull the population of Britons like England did with the Chinese and opium?

Roman times are far from the dawn of history tho.

Romans drank wine, the Britons made beer long before the Romans arrived.

Most of us like to have a drink or two too many at times. To the nomads it must have felt religious, god like. Could it be they wanted that feeling so much that they abandoned nomadic ways and settled down to guard their grain growing in fields?

Would a nomad abandon his traditional ways just for a loaf of bread?

It makes sense. All creatures love to get plastered.

For instance in Africa there is a tree that once a year bares fruit that becomes fermented and animals come from miles to eat it and essentially get pissed. Even the carnivores.

It's like one big piss up

The natives of Australia had no alcohol, was that to their detriment, I believe so.

Johnnie wrote on Mar 29^th, 2017 at 9:05pm:

The natives of Australia had no alcohol, was that to their detriment, I believe so.

Correct which is why it's such a big problem today. Alcohol has only been readily available to the Aboriginal people for the last 40 odd years. They haven't had thousands of years of social drinking like the rest of the world.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 29^th, 2017 at 11:21am:

Most of us like to have a drink or two too many at times. To the nomads it must have felt religious, god like. Could it be they wanted that feeling so much that they abandoned nomadic ways and settled down to guard their grain growing in fields? Would a nomad abandon his traditional ways just for a loaf of bread?

So says the alcoholic.

You are getting boring Sprint. Stay at irrelevant is my advice.

Raven wrote on Mar 29^th, 2017 at 8:53pm:

It makes sense. All creatures love to get plastered. For instance in Africa there is a tree that once a year bares fruit that becomes fermented and animals come from miles to eat it and essentially get pissed. Even the carnivores. It's like one big piss up

Yeah, booze or drugs: there are dogs (and some people) get a high from cane toads, licking their backs just enough. Those people must be a bit desperate.

Yeah, would just a bit more food cause nomads to abandon their nomadic ways? Bread instead of hunting for meat?

We will never know, of course, but like I said, the idea that the nomads settled down to look after their patches of land growing grain (ancient varieties of wheat, oats and barley I guess) to ensure that beer could be brewed is at least arguable. I am a bit of a history buff, love seeing the interplay of technology, laws, economics and changing public tastes.

Like beer and ale.

Vikings drank øl, ale.

In England the Church kept control of the herbs used to brew ale: yarrow, tansy, bog myrtle etc etc. Then hops were brought from the continent and ale became beer until eventually nobody used herbs and all used hops and it was called ale again.

In the early 1800s lager brewing was developed on the continent and ale was beer fermented in open fermenters at room temperature and lagers were fermented at low temperature in closed fermenters.

Most drinkers of lagers (XXXX, VB and other so–called beers) would not like a real lager.

Me, I prefer ales: bit more fullbodied than an equivalent lager, more complex, better aroma.

India Pale Ale was the impetus behind the development of the iconic lager, Pilsner. IPA, the iconic ale, was only produced for 20 or 30 years. Lesser beers called bitters replaced IPA.

Stout and Porter, unless specifically identified ad lager, are ales, ales where the grist, the mix of grains, contained dark grains. Coopers Extra Stout contains chocolate and roasted malts giving the ale its color.

London Porter was made until the early 1900s. At that time a 14yo housemaid would receive 8 pints of porter a day as part of her wages. She would have needed it, 14 hour days were common. Similarly, navvies working on big construction projects like canals and later the railways were given a fair bit of beer.

These days where we all drive cars light beers are big business. Ironically, light beers are all malt beers brewed (boiled) with good hops. These beers are then fermented, pasteurised, filtered to remove the yeast—and drowned in water. Pity, they would be fine beers before being way diluted.

Raven wrote on Mar 29^th, 2017 at 10:01pm:

Johnnie wrote on Mar 29th, 2017 at 9:05pm: The natives of Australia had no alcohol, was that to their detriment, I believe so. Correct which is why it's such a big problem today. Alcohol has only been readily available to the Aboriginal people for the last 40 odd years. They haven't had thousands of years of social drinking like the rest of the world.

I call BS on that .... I'm 61 & I can tell you they have had access longer than 40 years.

Especially urban aboriginals.

Gnads wrote on Mar 31^st, 2017 at 1:23pm:

Raven wrote on Mar 29th, 2017 at 10:01pm: Johnnie wrote on Mar 29th, 2017 at 9:05pm: The natives of Australia had no alcohol, was that to their detriment, I believe so. Correct which is why it's such a big problem today. Alcohol has only been readily available to the Aboriginal people for the last 40 odd years. They haven't had thousands of years of social drinking like the rest of the world. I call BS on that .... I'm 61 & I can tell you they have had access longer than 40 years. Especially urban aboriginals.

Around 50 then, until the 1967 referendum every state had their own laws for aboriginal people and each one prohibited the sale of alcohol to Aboriginals. It wasn't until the 60s that this ban was lifted.

WA and the NT in 1964, SA in 1967, QLD 1965

This right to buy and consume alcohol remained a legal eater then practical right until the 70s.

If they had have come across alcohol at the same time as the rest of the world Australia would have been teeming with natives, and white man would have never gotten near the place, they would have gotten adventurous and built stone shelters to sleep of hangovers, irrigation etc, everything was plentiful so they just mozied around and went to sleep at sunset, Yawn,