The correct answer to this open question is the following.
The suggestions that I think he might have made to the two sides if he had gotten them together to discuss a peace treaty would have been the following.
First, I would have recommended US President Woodrow Wilson to tell both sides of the conflict to meet at a neutral site; in this case, I would have invited them to New York City.
Then, President Wilson would open a series of meetings and negotiations letting the European countries know the kind of suffering, pain, and damage the war would produce to each and every country involved. President Wilson could show a forecast of the possible consequences.
Finally, showing the moral authority of the US at that time, he could have invited both sides to leave their expansionist interests and leave the occupied territories and stop the threats of invasion. This could have been a good-will sign to move on with diplomatic agreements.
The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation. The results of Reaganomics are still debated.
Yes it is. I hope it helps man.
The person in question is Woodrow Wilson:
He was the president of the United States from 1913 to 1921, which means that he was the president before, during and after the First World War.
He was very active in the peace process after the war, including proposing the formation of the League of Nations.
Historian Odd Arne Westad says the Communists won the Civil War because they made fewer military mistakes than Chiang Kai-shek and also because in his search for a powerful centralized government, Chiang antagonized too many interest groups in China. Furthermore, his party was weakened in the war against the Japanese.
