Plain Old Dave wrote: ↑02 Oct 2018, 05:54
Well, I would prioritize them over any peer reviewed academia then.
This is where you may find a problem with your method then. With regards to the German 1st and 2nd Armies, Kluck and Bulow respectively, they famously blamed each other for almost everything that could be said to have gone wrong, each making out they were just about to win a crushing victory when the other snatched it away from them. Obviously both cannot be correct. Sir John French was one of, if the THE, most unprincipled liar ever to have held the rank field marshall in the British armed forces of the 20thC. Prior to the Marne he insisted the BEF needed months to refit and replenish its losses and had no option but to sit out of any fighting until that was complete. This led to Kitchener visiting him, in full field marshalls uniform, and in a meeting with just the two present we are expected to believe that French not only made clear he was unappreciative of Kitchener appearing in uniform in front of him (despite Kitchener outranking him as the senior holder of the office, not to mention being minister of war too!) and that after a frank exchange, Kitchener had accepted French's assessment of the situation. However, the problem with this version of events is that French turned his forces around and did exactly as Kitchener had gone to France to intruct him to do, with no more heard about how impossible it was for the BEF to fight again. He later went on to have his senior general (Smith-Dorien, who he had despised for years due to having replaced him at the Aldershot command and not placed such a high value on cavalry) removed and his reputation smeered despite all other generals present insisting French's version of events had never happened.
Finally, the most notable example of this sort of problem I can think of is the famous 'Jutland Controversy' where Beatty, the BCF commander who had done next to nothing to win the battle, been confused enough to steam in a complete circle while 'chasing' the enemy, and who had been forced to send his ships for gunnery practice, was by the time of the writing of the 'Official History' then the head of the navy as First Sea Lord. When he saw the account written up by Harper (including his 'circle') demanded it be rewritten to place his ships in the main role and to diminish the efect of the main fleet under Jellicoe. Fortunately, once Harper retired (although Vice Admirals do not retire as such he left the serving list) he published his account 'The Truth About Jutland' to expose the lies Beatty had built much of his later career and reputation off of. Beatty had instructed him that the circle must be explained as 'two successive 180 degree turns' with no order between the first and second turn, so it looked as though he had known what he was doing to the causal reader. A nice neutral link to a outline of this here;
https://navalinstitute.com.au/the-jutla ... ea-battle/
So, as is easily demonstrated, memoirs and official histories are not really too reliable at all. This becomes more notable with time as more details become available to people with far less of an agenda to secure their reputation, often many decades later. Harper's account of Jutland has since proven instrumental in finding the wreck of Beatty's first loss of Jutland (his own charts and version of events being miles off) within a mile or two of where Harper stated the loss had taken place, and in the condition he stated too (the stern destroyed by an explosion not mentioned in most accounts since)! Look up every example I have cited in this post, all are memoirs that are known to be highly unreliable!
Finally, the all important outbreak of WWI was covered by publications from almost every nation involved within weeks of the war begining. These are the 'coloured books' that have become quite infamous, as all are official versions of events and full of lies or notable for omitting anything even slightly unfavourable to their own side! Historians are also not always reliable, but as their reputation rests on peer review well into the future, those who lied in one way or other, find nobody cites their work anymore or even worse, people in forums laugh about them. Like Mosier.