Different Perspectives for Reparations



3. Student explains or illustrates perspectives of people in their historical context

/ black discountcenter.com

During the Paris Peace Conference, the discussion of reparations for Germany was a very important topic for many of the Allied nations. Reparations are seen as providing payments or assistance to people that have been wronged. The Treaty of Versailles required Germany to pay 33 billion dollars in reparations to cover the damages of the war. A typical opinion about Reparations for Germany was that they needed some amount to pay back. This idea might have been popular because of the Allied nations, especially France and Britain, who fought with Germany and faced a lot of damages. For the perspective of the president of France, Georges Clemenceau, France experienced a lot of damage to their country and resources during the war. France’s population was also starving and in need of money. Clemenceau, therefore, wanted Germany to pay billions of dollars in reparations. David Lloyd George, the president of Britain, agreed about having reparations but not to the same extent as France. He wanted Germany to be able to pay off the reparations. These facts in mind might explain why Clemenceau and Lloyd had different sentiments towards reparations. France faced territorial damage while Britain did not face territorial damage. This suggests that it was common sentiment throughout Europe and even in other countries such as The U.S. to demand reparations from Germany. These countries neede money and many people were very angry with the number of lives lost. When many countries blame something in another country, it makes an argument sound much more justified since a collective group agrees on an issue.

However, Germany did not want to pay the same amount of reparations the Allied nations believed  Germany should. Germany felt guilty about Belgium because they had invaded Belgium which was a country not involved in the war. Germany felt that they owed money to Belgium fro wrongdoings, however, they didn’t feel as of they owed any other country Reparations. Germany believed that everyone was at cause for World War One. Therefore, Germany believed they owed a very small amount of reparations to Belgium and no one else for those reasons.


Swift, Dean. “The Paris Peace Conference 1919/1920.” General History, 9 Mar. 2015, general-history.com/the-paris-peace-conference-19191920/.

Guilt-Tripping Propaganda during WW1: Different Beliefs From the Past

Propaganda is defined as the spreading of information that is not objective used to influence an audience or further agenda. There are 7 main types of propaganda, for example, there is Bandwagon propaganda that tells an audience that there is widespread support, therefore they should join in on the cause. This is the main type of propaganda that will be discussed as well as guilt tactics such as using children and women. These types of propaganda will help show the different beliefs of people in the past compared today.


The above piece of propaganda is targeted towards Irish men to join into the British army. A woman is shown holding a gun standing strong and confident while the man appears to have a more relaxed and with a distant look. It’s important to take into consideration the viewpoints of the people at this time and the roles of man and women as well. At the time, it was expected of women to stay home and care for kids while men went out to work. Women were seen as caretakers and much weaker than men. Therefore this use of guilt propaganda was effective because men were not seen as very masculine if

Women on the front lines

they were able-bodied and did not go to war, or at least contribute to war efforts. The main presence of women in the military were nurses, however, as a good example today, there are about 200,000 women in the U.S. military according to the Huffington Post. This is the most it has ever been. To the left, there is a clear example of present-day propaganda that boasts of the skill level of women indicating that they are plenty strong to fight. It’s important to look at these two pieces of propaganda, and know the reasons why the propaganda was created as well as the reactions from the public as well. The poster from ww1 was not seen as sexist or wrong by the majority of the public, however people today will see it as such.


Image result for ww1 child propaganda

In the above piece of propaganda, a father with his two kids are shown. This propaganda is also aimed towards men as an attempt to guilt them into joining the war. Men in Britain were quick to sign up for war in 1914 and 1915 leading to over 1 million men joining the military in 1915, however, the number f men signing for war greatly dropped, which led to Conscription laws. The military service act of 1916 made any single men between the ages of 18-41 eligible to be picked and forced to serve. This spur of needing more men also led to other methods to get them to join such as propaganda. It targets the common practice of retelling war stories or simply important moments in life. This propaganda is guilting men into joining by saying they will be left out and seen as weak to their children if they never joined. At the time, it was important for men to be able to relive and tell stories of their bravery and this guilt propaganda fueled it. Today, however, this would seem like something quite strange to the average British citizen. The population in Britain in 1914 was about 46 million including 4.3 million from Ireland. However today the population is at about 66.5 million. Other factors such as the Gross National Income of the country as well play into its military capabilities, nonetheless, there is little to no propaganda that guilts men into joining war today in Britain and other western countries that fought in ww1.

Overall, it’s important to look at these pieces of propaganda from a different perspective. It is completely normal and expected of people to say that these posters are sexist, however knowing why this was accepted at the time is vital to understanding the change of perspectives during different historical times.



Ministry of Culture and Heritage. “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.” New Zealand History, nzhistory.govt.nz/war/united-kingdom-facts.

Crouch, Morgan. “What Are the Seven Techniques of Propaganda?” Classroom, 25 June 2018, classroom.synonym.com/what-are-the-seven-techniques-of-propaganda-12080912.html.

Marks, Ben. “Women and Children: The Secret Weapon of World War I Propaganda.” Collectors Weekly, 6 Nov. 2013, www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/women-and-children-the-secret-weapons-of-world-war-i-propaganda-posters/.

Follmer, Chris. “Women in Combat: Female Warriors.” Women in Combat: Female Warriors, 22 Apr. 2014, womenincombatfollmecs.wordpress.com/.


Different Perspectives During The Congress of Berlin

The Congress of Berlin was a way for German chancellor, Prince Otto von Bismark, to mediate the conflicts between Russia and Austria-Hungary in 1878. Bismark’s diplomacy policy to isolate France (since they were in conflict) could only work if he created an alliance with the other five great powers (which included Russia and Austria-Hungary), hence his desire for Russia and Austria-Hungary to make amends. The Ottomans still had to control over the Balkans and used their power to kill thousands of women and children angering the Balkans. This led to the Russo-Turkish war from 1877-78, which resulted in the defeat of the Ottomans. Bismarks policy would prove to be difficult as Russia and Austria-Hungary became involved in the Balkans when Russia aided the Serbs as they revolted against the Turks. On the opposite end, Austria-Hungary was against the Russian influence in the Balkans once they won against the Turks. For Bismark’s policy to stay put, he suggested a conference in Berlin for the two countries to sort out their differences.

During the congress, other powers were in the Congress such as England, France, and Turkey. The result of the diplomatic meeting was a replacement for the Treaty of San Stefano, the Treaty of Berlin. The San Stefano Treaty of 1878 was signed by Russia and Turkey and gave independence to three Balkan countries, and Russian control over a Bulgarian principality (a country ruled by a prince). The reason this treaty was replacement was because of the startled reactions of the other great powers as Russia gained a significant amount of influence in the Balkans. The treaty led to the independence of Montenegro, Serbia, and Romania. Most of the influence Russia had in the Balkans was lost. Bosnia-Herzegovina was also been put under  Austria-Hungarian control. This led to many different sentiments between the countries. For the perspective of Germany, Bismark felt accomplished since the Congress created a solution and the alliance with Russia and Austria-Hungary was still there, despite more arising conflicts. For Russia, however, it was quite an embarrassing turn of events. They lost most of their power in the Balkans and a lot of their access the Black and Mediterranean sea was diminished. Negative sentiments towards Germany and especially Bismark grew and their relationship with Germany began to falter. Austria-Hungary felt quite content with their control in the Balkans since they had more control over eyeing the future plans of Russi, which of course did not please Russia in the slightest. England at the time did not want Russia gaining power in the Balkans because Russia gaining control of the seas would lead to naval conflicts due to their desire for their navy to be the dominant and most powerful. Britain was very happy to see Russia lose their influence over the seas. However, growing nationalism and resentment towards Austria-Hungary grew in Bosnia-Herzegovina from the presence of military and the overall control contrasted many nationalistic Slavs at the time. This grew resentment towards Austria-Hungary and showed the dislike Bosnia-Herzegovina had towards them because they had little to no influence during the diplomatic meeting.

Through these different perspectives of the results of the Congress of Berlin, we can see conflicting sentiments and different perspectives. Many countries in the Balkans, overall felt excluded from the decisions creating a dislike for the imperialistic ideals the other great powers had. While the great powers alike began to show greater tension and resentments as some influences grew larger than other countries in the Balkans.


Singh, Raj. “Congress of Berlin (1878).” Owlcation.com, HubPages Inc., 8 Aug. 2016, owlcation.com/humanities/Congress-of-Berlin-1878.

The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. “Congress of Berlin.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 6 June 2018, www.britannica.com/event/Congress-of-Berlin.