What did exactly occur during the Great War? Essay

From the initial shot fired, the Great War has been argued over by historians wishing to understand what occurred and why.
There is a substantial distinction between recording the history of a topic where sources remain alive and available, and a topic where the sources are exclusively textual. The First World War has undergone a progression from the former to the latter. Currently the text of War Office memorandums, soldier's diaries and recorded interviews shape the foundation of our comprehension of World War One.
The vast array of primary eyewitness accounts has significant merit but many facts get forgotten over time with the ravages of old age. History is peppered with instances of memory distorting actuality. Also, the old soldiers witnessed only their own microcosm of combat. The concomitant documentation, may well be better, on condition that historians have the discernment to see when for propagandistic reasons it has been edited or may be biased, or expurgated. Presently no serviceman is still alive who fought in the trenches or aboard a naval battleship, and as the dependence is solely on documentation and recordings, there can be far more meticulousness in the examination, as sources are analysed against one another, and the undependability of recall is no longer an issue. It is vitally important for modern historians, when wanting to prove their argument, to look at all sources relating to a topic, both primary and secondary, in order that all the available information can be assessed, before a conclusion is reached.
Contemporary World War One history began in the 1960s. Paradoxically, however, the new vogue for revisionist history of World War One originated with a book that exhibits none of the above mentioned merits, "The Donkeys" by Alan Clark, first published in 1961.
This is a candid assault on the standard of the British generals, particularly an attack on Sir Douglas Haig. Although commended upon its release for its easy to read style and humour, it was also condemned by reputable historians for its deficiency of thoroughness, and the resentment towards it has grown over recent years. This was in no small part due to the fact that Clark, who had earlier credited the phrase which served as the title, "lions led by donkeys", to a senior German officer, finally admitted no such statement had been made. Sir Haig's diaries are frequently quoted, although biasedly. It is a clever work of propaganda, forming an utterly new perspective of the conflict. It is a view that historians of good repute have attempted to revise for the past fifty years.
Professor Richard Holmes stated that Clark had brought "a streak of sheer deception" into the historiography of the war. Sir Michael Howard claimed it "worthless" as evidence due to its "slovenly scholarship". It would seem Clark made no attempt to investigate whether there might be opposing fact and opinion with regards to poor British leadership. As such when weighed up against all available sources should be disregarded as an accurate portrait of events.