World War I and World War II were completely different conflicts. They had very little to do with each other.
Which statement best represents a counterclaim to the claim made in this
passage?
A. Though many of the same countries fought in both world wars,
their leaders were different.
B. World War I was fought in the 1910s, while World War II was
fought mostly in the 1940s.
C. The peace treaty that ended World War I created conditions that
led directly to World War II.
D. Atomic weapons were used during World War II but were never
used during World War I.

C. The peace treaty that ended WWI created conditions that led directly to WWII

Explanation:

The Treaty of Veraillies signed by the allies and German would set the tone for years of tension between the countries involved. France wanted Germany to pay for the seige of Alsace-Lorriane as well as other damages, as well as the War Guilt clause. If I understand the question correctly, this is the most contradictory statement to the formentioned passage.

some people are just against it im not sure but i think everyone deserves to be treated equally i think people have a problem with it because its different and not like everything else i hope this !

< < < emily> > >

roosevelt believed that in light of the country's recent military successes, it was unnecessary to use force to achieve foreign policy goals, so long as the military could threaten force. this belief, and his strategy of “speaking softly and carrying a big stick,” shaped much of roosevelt's foreign policy.