The First World War was an infinitely more complex historical phenomenon than British popular memory makes it. Instead of being approached with caution and examined - and learned from - as a multilayered event, it has become almost a "fixed point" in the historical calendar, a vision of war not as it was but as we think it should be taught.

This is neither desirable nor wise: it cheapens the contributions of those who served in full knowledge of what their service meant; it makes generals who may have been slow to learn but were ultimately highly effective into callous villains; and it substitutes an easy, allegedly historical lesson for a much harder set of truths.

The centenary of the First World War must not be a chauvinistic cavalcade but nor should it be a pacifist's parade. We should hope for an open, honest debate about the multifaceted meanings of this war, the diversity of the experiences of those who fought in it, and what lessons we can draw from it today. The rattle of the machine guns has long since fallen silent, but a fierce contest between popular memory and historical evidence is still taking place in the trenches of Flanders, on the sands of Gallipoli and on the alpine slopes of the Austro-Italian war.

Because of that battle, we should hope that this centenary leads to a profound public conversation about the First World War, challenging received wisdoms and raising uncomfortable truths. If it does, that may be the most suitable commemoration of the fallen we can make