The article doesn't really cover this. It makes it sound like there was only "one British doctor" in 1916 who thought the cause was physical trauma, whose "views were soon eclipsed by those of other doctors who saw shell shock more as a matter of emotional trauma", a consensus that thereafter "held sway for decades", not to be questioned again until "yet another European war broke out", the Balkan Wars of the 1990s.

That is not really an accurate picture. There was more than just Mott with that view even in the World War I era, and the article forgets one minor European war between World War I and the Balkan Wars, during which the question was reopened, with a number of physicians in the 1930s-50s arguing for a physical cause. The article wants to position this as a radical new proposal overturning 100 years of ironclad consensus, while in reality it's more of a recurring proposal that has had periodic champions.