Historian e. h carr's thesis that all debates concerning the explanation of historical phenomena revolve around the question of the priority of causes is so familiar to historians as to constitute orthodoxy within their profession.

It revolves around challenge an orthodox position concerning historical explanation. Historical explanations often designed in such a way that always favor the one who live to tell the tell. E.h carr's on the other hand pointed out that the version given by so called 'winenrs' in the history often does not reflect the truth.

It's most likely choice a, it makes the most sense in my opinion.