What is the reason historians often interpret historical events in different ways A. Historians often make intentionally invalid interpretations to support weak arguments
B. Some historians refuse to recognize the correct interpretations of historical events
C. Historians own point of view influence how they draw conclusions from evidence
D. Most historians offer contradicting interpretations of an event when forming a thesis

i think its C but idk

yes it is c almost sll all are like that

alliances in ww1 were different from ww2 because the entente in ww1 made up of serbia,russia,france,britan,japan and italy later america  and all allied in a sort of balance of power and too keep germany,austria-hungary,and the ottomans down. russia allied the serbians in order to exert its influence in the balkans while france allied the russians because france was still in dismay and insulted after the defeat to the germans during the unification of germany and britian allied the belgians after the germans invasion of belgium.in ww2 the alliances were in a preemptive attempt to deter any further wars into happening while germany and italy allied since they were insulted and humiliated after the previous war while also sharing a similar ideology of facsim along with japan which all 3 had a want for world domination and agreed to assist one another in the endevours 

explanation:

i dont know but i need points