Starting a historical analogy with complete horse manure doesn't really work.
As Christopher Clark explains, what set the stage for WWI was Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War. This moved Russia's probing for imperial advance away from East Asia and towards the Balkans, where unbeknownst to the court at St. Petersburg, the Russian ambassador in Belgrade was aiding and conspiring with Serb ultra-nationalists against Austria-Hungary. This would eventual result in the Black Hand assassinating Archduke Ferdinand.
Meanwhile, the French panicked because with Russia defeated, their defensive alliance with Russia seemed on shaky ground. As a consequence, France increased the tempo of its conscription, dramatically increasing the size of its trained reserves. France also made enormous loans to Russia for it to re-equip its armed forces and expand its rail network to deliver them more quickly to an eastern front against Germany.
This, of course, did not go unnoticed in Berlin and made the Germans think they had to strike first and strike quickly against France in the event of hostilities before Russia's vast resources (on paper) could be brought to bear.
The major power with the least to gain and least involvement was actually Great Britain, which had not joined any alliance structure. Unfortunately for them, the British Minister for War had given the French assurances that Britain would come to their aid. He just neglected to inform the Cabinet or Parliament. So when the French ambassador in London met with the British Cabinet upon war breaking out, they were aghast when they heard that the French had moved almost all their Navy to the Med because they expected the Brits to defend the French coast. The first vote for war was "No." Only in the morning did the Cabinet feel that honor required Britain to meet the promise of their Minister for War. That decision cost Britain and the Commonwealth almost 1 million dead.
Not just Christopher Clark, but Margaret McMillan and pretty well every other historian making yet another attempt to unscramble the causes of WWII. Although with differences of emphasis, there's pretty well general agreement that principal responsibility lies with neither Germany or Britain, but with the Austro-Hungarian Empire: which, alone of the Great Powers, was actively pursuing war throughout the complex diplomatic gaming of the previous decade. All the others, Germany included, were drawn in with varying degrees of reluctance.