Discover a wealth of knowledge at Westonci.ca, where experts provide answers to your most pressing questions. Get quick and reliable solutions to your questions from a community of seasoned experts on our user-friendly platform. Get immediate and reliable solutions to your questions from a community of experienced professionals 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.
Thanks for using our service. We're always here to provide accurate and up-to-date answers to all your queries. We hope this was helpful. Please come back whenever you need more information or answers to your queries. Thank you for visiting Westonci.ca, your go-to source for reliable answers. Come back soon for more expert insights.
