Historians who would not agree with each thing you have said? Many of those you have quoted Keith, as demonstrated in this thread.

Historians who might agree with some of the things you have said?

Quite a lot, include some at least of those who you reject as irrelevant on account of the fact they have died.

For example it seems true enough that some soldiers on both sides believed passionately in the justice of their cause and believed that it was right to keep on fighting till the bitter end. Some saw it differently, on both sides.

It is also likely true enough that not all generals were cowards and fools and that some of the decisions they made were sensible. It is also true that they made sure to stay in safe places while they made those plans - it would be astonishing if the reverse was the case.

As for the responsibility for starting the war, The German Empire had a particular responsibility for that, though other countries played an important part in bringing it about. But the responsibility for continuing it after the initial attack had failed was shared very evenly between all.

After the failure of the Schlieffen Plan a ceasefire and armistice would have been possible and sensible. No efforts to bring it about were made, and no attempts were made to negotiate a ceasefire for the next four years.

Part of the background to the tragically partial Christmas Truce was the appeal by Pope Benedict XV for a general Christmas Truce (He described the war as "the suicide of Europe", a description that could hardly be improved upon) The Allies completely rejected it out of hand, and after some initial consideration, so did the Germans. If either side had declared support for it, or announced unilaterally that they were going to observe it., who knows what could have resulted.

Launching the war was indeed criminal, and Germany had a special role in that. But all parties played a role in ensuring that it continued so long.