Get the information you need with the help of IDNLearn.com's expert community. Discover comprehensive answers to your questions from our community of experienced professionals.
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 being part of this discussion. Keep exploring, asking questions, and sharing your insights with the community. Together, we can find the best solutions. IDNLearn.com is committed to your satisfaction. Thank you for visiting, and see you next time for more helpful answers.
