Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Cachecoins, post: 4255000, member: 111237&quot;]To be honest it is a bit more nuanced than that but that is roughly the case. </p><p><br /></p><p>The Germans had just had a rather successful offensive that they could not defend because of exhaustion and lack of supplies. They were then hit with a counter offensive that left them on the brink of colapse.</p><p><br /></p><p>They still had several million in service, cycling front to fight and back to work in factories. If they had supplies they probably could have continued that war but their lack of supplies was not the fault of those they blamed but just a natural consequence of blockades and sanctions. </p><p><br /></p><p>There was some civil unrest in the populous, mainly because of severe shortages combined with the expectation of prolonged labor without pay. It should be noted that a growing communist presence in Germany, which would fight for control of Germany after the war, was a factor and probably did share blame.</p><p><br /></p><p>I would say that if they had resources and could supply troops and provide for those at home. They may have been able to hold out a little longer but without doubt they would have been alone and isolated with no allies or trade against the rest of a weary but resolute Europe and a relatively fresh U.S. contingent.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in