Source 3 also agrees to a certain extent with the opinion, as the decision made from 1900-1914 was essentially “let the Schlieffen Plan determine events,” this is evident that it wasn’t a decision that would help Germany or at least the outcome of war as Keegan describes the Kaisers’ attitude as though “he panicked” into making the decision. This occurred in 1914 and so just before the outbreak of war in 1914 so the motives of the Kaiser at this time could be questioned. The source itself however should also be questioned to how far you could trust the Keegan’s opinion, which includes the publishing date in 1998 which could be seen as though he wasn’t there at the time it wouldn’t be as reliable as a source from the time for instance. This is also seen as many historians would have their own opinion and it could be difficult to determine whose are wrong or right. The fact it’s also a book also disputes this aspect as it was obviously made to make money and so certain interpretations such as this one which could be something of that intent.
Sources 1 and 3 also mention the aggressive nature of Germany which is a decision in itself to cause the outbreak of war. For instance in source 1 Wehler says that: “there was no doubt to Germany’s aims” ... “aggressive intent” which is based around the theory that they were preparing for war. This is proven from Germany’s War Council; though some agree it wasn’t on the agenda despite the name and the fact it seemed to be about discussing certain aspects to decide whether it was the best decision. This of course led to an increase in collisions with countries especially with the continuing disputes with Serbia which was based upon their fear of encirclement. Though, this isn’t to say that it was only these decisions that were to determine the war, as there were further decisions and events prior to 1900 that would increase the reasons for war. This is also seen in source 1 as it states “In the 1890’s, commercial rivalry in the world’s markets increased dramatically”, which indicates the possibility at least in this source that there were more events that were the reason for the war.
However, source 2 disagrees with the opinion that war broke out as a direct link from the decisions made in Berlin from 1900. For instance Ferguson states that “the Great General Staff we uncannily relaxed in July 1914” which could seem somewhat unbelievable due to the date, as a month before a war would show no real motive to go to war and this source theoretically protests Germany’s innocence in being responsible for the outbreak of war in 1914. As, the senior members to decide the fate of a possible war were on holiday and as he states sarcastically that they were “(in separate resorts,)” and so would relate to no discussions made to go through with a war as they were all too busy ‘relaxing’. This is even more evident in the first line of the extract that “the extent of German malice aforethought must not be exaggerated”, which would insinuate that Ferguson believes many people would exaggerate how aggressive Germany were despite evidence from various sources. However, this source is from a historian and as it is already shown is based upon opinions that are not factual and so can be interpreted in their own ways. The source is also from a book published at a much later date in 1998 to events just like source 3. This would show also that its intentions are to make money in order to publish certain beliefs.
Furthermore, source 2 suggests that it wasn’t just decisions in Berlin that determined the war in Europe but also other countries like the Russian military activity. So much so, that it would trigger Captain Kurt Neuhof to “step up surveillance” if such events were to occur. This protests Germany’s innocence further as spies were sent out to find out if France and Russia were to make the first move and so these decisions were based on those made first by countries they were threatened by such as France and Russia. This would disagree with the opinion due to not being a decision made from Berlin but a decision based on whether France and Russia were to make the first move, however this would lead to the tactic of the Schlieffen plan which is seen as a motive for war.
These sources argue whether it was decisions made in Berlin that triggered the war, sources 1 and 3 argue for this but not to the same extent as the opinion and this is the opposite effect from source 2. And so the decisions made in Berlin that were seen in these sources were responsible for some influence in deciding the outcome of war in Europe but not to the extent the opinion offers, due to the way it was the decisions made prior to 1900 and in areas other than Berlin. It also comes down to the fact that if it was Germany to blame for the war, and the outbreak itself. But as this opinion narrows down the blame to just decisions based in a certain time period (1900-1914) it’s difficult to agree with it to the same extent but decisions that were made were almost definitely another cause to add to the already colliding countries involved in the war.