Many historical analysis of the start of WW1 highlight the slow communication and mobilization processes as the main cause of why European military leaders thought they had to move first, just in case the other side had already started and they hadn't heard... Another way to see it is that oligarchies of the time thought it expedient to have yet another 19th century war, and didn't factor in advances in technology: machine guns, artillery, chemical warfare... A bit like with drones and AI now: the outcome and shape of the Ukraine conflict wil inform us all of the specific bloody taste of 21st century resource wars. To anyone reading this in countries dependent on Ukrainian wheat imports (eg. North-Africa) Stock up on the pasta!

"a guy" to describe the future emperor of the Austria-Hungary is an understatement. It's like saying that the world was shocked because in 1963 a guy was shot. Yes, technically true, but...

Yes. Tough to believe, but Austria-Hungary had the biggest army in the world, at the time.

I deliberately phrased it this way. Yes, he was an important guy. But ultimately, just a normal guy, like the rest of us.

The assassination was a pretext.

Austria-Hungary had been thinking about invading Serbia for decades.

I dislike this historical view where the little guy is blamed.

You are agreeing with OP here.

OP's point is that an act can seem small on the surface ("a guy got assassinated") but triggered a larger war because there are greater tensions and forces at play ("Austria-Hungary had been thinking about invading Serbia for decades").