All history is to some extent a succession of revisionisms. What is revisionism today is likely to be orthodoxy tomorrow, and what was once the orthodoxy overthrown by rebisionists can often turn up, topped and tailed, as a new revisionism, destined to temporarily become orthodox... And so on.

Among other things, historical study is a career structure. To get on a historian needs to find some new aspect of the past, some untapped resource of information, some new way of analysing the available information. That means there is an inbuilt tendency to revise how the events of history are understood.

If it was in fact true that there was a generation of scholars who viewed the Great War in the way Keith does, you can be very sure that there is another generation in the wings ready to demolish that view.