I did. I cited same in the previous post. please read Kisch and his sources. He says "damage not collapse", with a quoted figure of 16 million francs lost trade for Berg, You say "complete collapse". Why do you say that ?
Is this so hard a question ? The German sources gave one conclusion, you gave a different one, and I ask you why ?
If you dont want to answer, just say so. I dont want to be a pest.