Seems pretty obvious that James Edmonds, the British Official Historian for WWI really had it in for Haig with an obvious impact on the historiography of the war.
But why? What was the cause of this animosity?
Could you clarify a bit? James Edmonds is usually portrayed as a Haig apologist, presenting the data in his official history very selectively to exonerate Haig of any misdeeds; Haig is believed to have been involved in the writing of the official writing himself. As Andrew Green points out in his Writing the Great War: Sir James Edmonds and the Official Histories 1915–1948, the reality is more complicated, but can you say what gives you the impression Edmonds really had it out for Haig?