It depends who for, for every1 then probally yes. Hitler gave up in the end and poisined himself.
World War 1
There was no Paris Peace Settlement at the end of World War 2. There was the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War 2. At the end of the Vietnam War for the US and France there was a peace settlement in France but that was called "The Paris Peace Talks".
i don't know that's what im trying to figure out it just brought me to this page.
The leader of Russia who sued for peace to end the war with Germany in World War I was Vladimir Lenin. After the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917, Lenin sought to withdraw Russia from the war, believing that peace was essential for the revolution's success. This led to the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918, which officially ended Russia's involvement in the conflict.
Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles, resulting ini peace at the end of World War 1.
peace came to World War 1 was that four people came to Versailles to discuss the plans for peace.
the conflict came to an end because Germany backed down
killing
the united nations
The opposite of war (conflict) would be peace, or lack of conflict.
This is a debatable if not arguable point. Some felt that the secession of armed conflict was not the end of the war but the beginning of the reconstruction that drove a wedge between the north and south states. If the stopping of shooting is peace then YES. If the success of the reconstruction is peace then NO.
The peace conference to end World War I was known as the Paris Peace Conference, which took place in 1919. The most significant outcome of this conference was the Treaty of Versailles, which formally ended the war between Germany and the Allied Powers. The conference involved representatives from numerous countries, and it aimed to establish a lasting peace and address the issues that had led to the conflict.