I like listening to HCH but I gather much of it is inaccurate or poorly representative of actual history. As much as most Historians probably hate Dan for this, you have to admit he has popularised History and he is everyone's first exposure to historical subjects. I have only seen rough critiques of his storytelling but no really objective breakdowns of where he goes wrong or on a tangent. I thought it might be a good way for us laymen to learn the intricacies of his subjects first hand from another perspective broken down objectively. Anyone care to critique his Blueprints for Armageddon first? Apologies if I'm asking too much or in the wrong subreddit.
You will get much better answers if you ask specific questions. Unlike Dan Carlin, contributors to AH do not make a living out of their work here (not that I know of). There have been plenty of questions on Dan Carlin and even better, specific claims that he has made. And please don't forget to browse through our list of Frequently Asked Questions linked on the sidebar ;-).
I would say that you overestimate how inaccurate it is. His shows usually mostly get accused of focusing to much on one point or not giving the full complexity. If you just want some entertainment with a broad overview of a historical subject, its fine to listen to his podcasts. Just don't go around sight him as a source and you will be fine.
If you want to really want to digg in one different aspects of WW1 and getting the full complexity, you will have to get books that focus on individual aspects, not overviews.
If you don't belive his clames, or want more information, ask about those things on here. Many of the questions you may have probebly allready gotten some discussion on r/AskHistorians. Look for those first.
Carlin usually lists all the sources he used for a specific podcast, so you can always read some of those, or look for academic reviews of those books.