I was impressed with Fitzsimons style. A little irreverent but stylish. His account is accurate and reflects Australia's significant contribution to the outcome of WW 1 by Monash' inventiveness and tactical planning, using and coordinating use of modern tools of war such as aircraft and tanks. He also highlights Monash as a caring General whose ultimate aim was to minimise the horrific human wastage then experienced on the Western Front. Monash was the ultimate general of WW1. Others such as Pershing for the Americans, who in effect did little but later eulogised as winning the war as far as they were concerned, Haig, and, T.E. Lawrence who again did very little and the latter eulogised by the British as having taken Damascus and evicted the Turks from the middle east which he did NOT. The ANZAC mounted corps under Chauvel did. Yet Monash was consigned by later history to a minor role. Absolutely wrong as Fitzsimons convinces us. See also Roland Perry," Monash and Chauvel"
Sunshine coast Qld