ww2 was fought in part fought because of ww1. Germany felt humiliated and had to abide by a unfair treaty which set the stage for ww2. The brief hiatus between the wars can be seen as a time to regroup and rearm. Also most of the main countries fighting were the same. So given these points is it safe to draw this conclusion.
This one has been asked a few times before. Not to discourage fresh answers, but these older ones might be of service:
• How is the concept of "Second Thirty Years War" (1914-1945) view by most historians?
• Do any historians actually consider World War I and World War II as one big, long war?
• Can WW1 and WW2 be seen as one single, huge war, with a 20 year ceasefire?
• Could it be reasonably argued that WWII was just a resumption of WWI?
• Can WWII and WWI be considered two phases of the same war fought years apart?