Westonci.ca connects you with experts who provide insightful answers to your questions. Join us today and start learning! Experience the ease of finding accurate answers to your questions from a knowledgeable community of professionals. Explore comprehensive solutions to your questions from knowledgeable professionals across various fields on our 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.
Visit us again for up-to-date and reliable answers. We're always ready to assist you with your informational needs. We hope you found what you were looking for. Feel free to revisit us for more answers and updated information. Stay curious and keep coming back to Westonci.ca for answers to all your burning questions.
