No. A good historian reports what people said and did. Revisionists publish something else entirely.
1. It's a fact,
2. It makes logical sense, and [...]
We get facts from books. I quoted mine. You did not, -- you reflect the common belief that the Axis were wrong in everything. I explained the logic of events amply.
3. The most authoritative source WHO WAS THERE [Kaiser Wilhelm] said that, specificly.
I explained that about four times. The Kaiser said that diplomacy succeeded in preventing the war, then, after his generals explained their war doctrine, changed his mind, as he should have. When your military tells you that they cannot defend the country unless the country mobilizes right away, you listen. All that you quote shows is that the Kaiser was trying to find a peaceful resolution till the very end.
Keegan is a historical revisionist, as are you.
A job of a historian is to examine evidence afresh and make his own conclusions. A good historian is a revisionist. Now, the term is sometimes used to identify someone with a preconceived, usually ethnic, bias, who makes the facts fit the bias. None of that here: Keegan is English. I am just quoting him, but I have no attachment of any kind to Austria; ethnically, I am Russian.
No. A good historian reports what people said and did. Revisionists publish something else entirely.
You've explained nothing save for your own misunderstanding.
To wit: Mobilization for the Balkan War of 1912 did *not* lead to a Great Power conflict. Two years later, mobilization did not have to mean world war, either.
That you claim otherwise shows how far off-track you've gotten.
You got your "facts" from a revisionist book writer who wasn't even there at the time.
In contrast, I quoted the ACTUAL PEOPLE INVOLVED.