1. Vassilli1942 Well-Known Member

   Member Since:

   Sep 4, 2011

   Message Count:

   2,042

   Likes Received:

   509

   Trophy Points:

   143

   Location:

   Long Island, NY USA

   I would say harsh surrender terms and would most likely take land and colonies from the allies.

   Vassilli1942, Jun 7, 2012

   #441

   slydessertfox likes this.
2. General Mosh Citystates Founder!

   Member Since:

   Feb 14, 2011

   Message Count:

   5,310

   Likes Received:

   668

   Trophy Points:

   193

   Location:

   Scattered to the 4 corners of Earth

   I agree.

   General Mosh, Jun 7, 2012

   #442
3. Vassilli1942 Well-Known Member

   Member Since:

   Sep 4, 2011

   Message Count:

   2,042

   Likes Received:

   509

   Trophy Points:

   143

   Location:

   Long Island, NY USA

   Also I'm basing that idea on how Germany took land from France in the Franco-Prussian war and the idea that imperialism was a big thing at the time of World War I.

   Vassilli1942, Jun 7, 2012

   #443
4. JerBear Member

   Member Since:

   Dec 5, 2011

   Message Count:

   54

   Likes Received:

   4

   Trophy Points:

   12

   Location:

   Parma, Ohio, USA

   You are entirely right on your part, but they were lacking the troops, and the ability to mobilize of each fronts. The Allies ended up losing more, because they wanted to push the Germans out of France and having so the Germans picking mowing them down on their advances. And remember when US entered the war, they have a big army to begin with. They started small and went from there.

   JerBear, Jul 9, 2012

   #444

• Login with Facebook

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

Forgot your password?

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

Stay logged in