Westonci.ca connects you with experts who provide insightful answers to your questions. Join us today and start learning! Our platform offers a seamless experience for finding reliable answers from a network of experienced professionals. Get detailed and accurate answers to your questions from a dedicated community of experts on our Q&A platform.
Sagot :
I think that the best answer is realist: he knew that a peace with victory, that is a definite victory over Germany and its allies, would bring more bloodshed, then if either side were victorious, so he offered this, even though neither side would be satisfied.
In a certain way you could also argue that he was an idealist, that is that he believed that human life was worth more than a victory.
He was definitely not a coward.
I wouldn't call him a negotiator, as he addressed this to the US senate, but if this option were chosen, we would end up being one, as he'd need to negotiate such a peace with both sides.
In a certain way you could also argue that he was an idealist, that is that he believed that human life was worth more than a victory.
He was definitely not a coward.
I wouldn't call him a negotiator, as he addressed this to the US senate, but if this option were chosen, we would end up being one, as he'd need to negotiate such a peace with both sides.
Thank you for choosing our service. We're dedicated to providing the best answers for all your questions. Visit us again. We hope this was helpful. Please come back whenever you need more information or answers to your queries. We're here to help at Westonci.ca. Keep visiting for the best answers to your questions.
