Next summer, on August 4th, Europe will mark the 100th anniversary of the day on which Britain and Germany, at that time the two great military powers, began the four years of hostilities that came to be known as the First World War.

The British government is providing 50 million towards a commemoration which will continue until every major event in the 'Great War' has been remembered, from the August 1914 declaration of war to Armistice Day in November 1918.

But as the plans were announced in the UK this week, there were skirmishes between ministers, historians, and journalists over the nature and tone of the commemoration.

Sir Max Hastings, the author of military history books, criticised the reluctance of British ministers to define WWI during their announcements as a just war, arguing that it was 'as important that we prevailed over the Germany of that period as it was over the Germany of the Nazi era.'

A cabinet minister retorted by writing that the chosen theme for the events, reconciliation, was appropriate because 'it would be a tremendous tragedy if this [the centenary] became an anti-German or anti-Turkish festival.'

Academics say that perceptions of the war already differ markedly. In Germany, defeat has been denied, and history has a strong focus on the injustices foisted on the Germans in the Treaty of Versailles; meanwhile, it is considered a painful victory in France; and as a mixture of futility and victory in Britain.

Unsurprising, then, that politicians, who deal with the here-and-now of Britain's diplomatic relationships, are worried about events that might rekindle old enmities. Instead of disputing endlessly about the European causes of the war, some insiders are recommending a more global focus for the events, because the clash of two enormous empires drew the whole world into bloodshed and disruption.

The official version of history is likely to be smoothed over for public consumption next year, moulded to include the Home Front, the troops fighting beyond the trenches in Flanders Fields, and to force the focus onto reconciliation.

But this is unlikely to deter the historians, journalists, and teachers of history from continuing their 100-year debate about how to interpret the facts and sources. These lively discussions may turn out to be as far from the Government-sanctioned version as then Wipers Times was from contemporary propaganda.

Surely a century after the events under dispute we can be confident that a frank discussion and full investigation of the war will not - or should not - lead to blame and recriminations on either side. And is total agreement on the meaning of these bloody and controversial events even possible?