Final Answer:
The statement "The possibility of war with France was neutralized when they no longer shared a border with the United States" is b) F = False. The absence of a shared border with France did not directly neutralize the possibility of war between the two countries.
Explanation:
The claim presented in the statement is factually incorrect (option b). Historical conflicts and diplomatic relationships between nations are multifaceted and complex, extending beyond the mere presence or absence of a shared border. The absence of a physical border between the United States and France was not the sole determinant in neutralizing the possibility of war. Diplomatic negotiations, treaties, international relations, political factors, and geopolitical circumstances play significant roles in avoiding or mitigating the chances of conflicts between nations.
Throughout history, countries have engaged in conflicts or maintained peaceful relations regardless of border proximity. The absence of a direct physical border does not inherently prevent or neutralize the potential for war between nations. Numerous factors, including diplomatic initiatives, economic ties, military alliances, and ideological differences, contribute to the dynamics of international relations. Therefore, stating that the absence of a shared border with France automatically neutralized the possibility of war with the United States oversimplifies the complexities of international diplomacy and historical context.
In essence, while geopolitical boundaries can influence relations between countries, asserting that the lack of a border directly neutralized the potential for conflict oversimplifies the intricate nature of international relations and historical events. The avoidance of war involves a multitude of factors that extend far beyond the geographical aspects of border-sharing between nations.