1.

Katie Conti
Kellie Martinucci
Lauren Natalie
Katie Nixon
Kate Spiegel
Group Document Exam: Ruhr Crisis
1.A) According to Source D, the occupation of the Ruhr was disastrous for France because it
took the control of the responsibility of disarmament out of France's hands and put it into the
jurisdiction of the USA. This act tainted the image of France on a global scale, as "the United
States became the arbiters for everything commented with the implementation of one of the
most important parts of the treaty of Versailles which they had not ratified." France basically
voided the rights of collective security that membership in the League of Nations and
acceptation of the Versailles had given them by acting as aggressor on another nation.
B) Source C portrays a man in a French helmet on the right of an aged and poverty stricken
man with a cap labeled Germany. The French man is pushing the German man into a large
pair of hands labeled Bolshevik. This political cartoon conveys the message that French
prime minister Raymond Poincare is being too harsh to the Germans. This is seen with
Poincare shoving a rifle at the German. The cartoon suggests that it is France's fault for their
economic collapse due to the tattered shirt, pants, and shoes worn by the German. Finally,
the cartoon conveys that the Germans will have no choice but to fall to Bolshevism if the
French continue their aggression which is represented with the man with a bayonet pushing
the man with a helmet marked "Germany" into the large hands labeled Bolshevik.
2.Among the similarities and differences between sources B and D, the most immediately
clear is the similar victimization of the French. Where source B paints France as having its
autonomy stripped by the interference of the States and Britain in the Dawes plan and the
revision of the Treaty of Versailles, source D paints the same picture with a focus on the
States "interference" in the implementation of the Versailles Treaty--a treaty the States had
not even ratified. The only large difference between the two seemed to be the focus on
Britain in source B and the focus on the States in D, as source B seems to suggest Britain
was solely out to support and restore Germany for British security. Source D only glances at
the British role and focuses instead on the American meddling that took place.
Both sources acknowledged the involvement of the United States how the Source b is
discussing how the allies push French away and how it was up to Britain and the USA to fix

the circumstances so Germany wouldn't fall to economic collapse. It's very positive saying
that Britain fixed everything that France messed up.
3.Source A originates from a public statement made by the German president Friedrich Ebert
on January 10, 1923. The purpose of the words in this statement was to create an emotional
response from the German people in regards to French occupation in the Ruhr and to
condemn the French move as a violation of the Treaty of Versailles. One value of this
statement is that it came from the German president, Friedrich Ebert, himself, right around
the time of the Ruhr Crisis' occurrence in 1923. This would be of additional value to the
source as the source gives the historian studying this crisis a valid primary source's insight
into the emotions of the german side of things in regards to this invasion of their land and
breakage of trust. Another value of this source is that it came from the president who was
likely very aware of the military implications of the Ruhr crisis. This source likely knew what
he was talking about on an intimate level. This source is limited as it is a verbal speech that
was probably pronounced originally in German. This brings two limitations. First, verbal
speeches are verbal, meaning the written down version may not have been exactly what was
said at the time of the given. Also, the translation of the speech from German to English may
not be 100% accurate to portray the true intentions and emotions of the speakers. The timing
of the speech could be a limitation of the source as it was probably a very spontaneous and
hastily given speech since it came right at the beginning of the Ruhr Crisis. The speech,
given its timing, was likely reactionary which may explain a historian's interpretation of the
source as emotionally charged on the part of this German leader. Because this speech was
given by a German leader it only portrayed the German opinions on the Ruhr Crisis- it is not,
in any sense, a holistic viewpoint of the issue.
Source E originates from the print source, Toward an Entangling Alliance: American
Isolationism, Internationalism, and Europe, 1901-1950, written by Ronald E Powaski in 1991.
This author is an American historian specializing in twentieth century history. The purpose of
this source was to analyze "why the United States pursued the isolationist policy after WWI,
and the factors, events, and personalities which challenged it and finally necessitated its
abandonment" (NY Times Book Review). The purpose of this exact excerpt was also to
inform the reader of the effects of Ruhr invasion on international relations between France
and its allies, Germany being on the verge of collapse, and the involved parties' unstable
economic problems. A value of this source is that the author, Ronald E Powaski, is an
extremely successful historian and has written many books about history, some of which were
New York Times Best Selling Novels. Another value of this source is that it came from a book

that covered a fairly extensive time period (ranging from 1901-1950), material of which could
allow the reader further options to expand knowledge on other potential influences to this
specific material. Due to his profession, the author has likely spent a huge amount of time
researching this age in history, meaning that the information put forth in this novel was likely
accurate adding greater value to this source. A limitation of this source is that it was written at
a time long after the time period in which the Rhur Crisis occurred, leaving the source with a
certain lack of contextual accuracy.
4.As learned previously, World War I had left Germany with many economic, social, and
political problems. In addition to enduring high inflation and a large national debt, Germans
were deeply angered by the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, signed in June 1919,
which formally ended the war. The treaty called for German disarmament and massive
reparation payments to the Allies of $33 billion. Unable to meet the payments, Germanys
currency collapsed and the German people suffered large financial losses. In January of
1923, French and Belgian forces occupied Germanys main industrial region, the Ruhr,
claiming that Germany had stopped making reparation deliveries. German workers were then
encouraged to strike in protest at the French and Belgian occupation, resulting in a period of
hyperinflation when the German mark became worthless. This period in time, known today as
the Ruhr Crisis, greatly impacted international relations between 1923 and 1929 with short
term and long term effects. It proved the League of Nations to be ineffective as a whole,
despite their efforts to create peace in Europe.
The short term effects of the Ruhr Crisis may have appeared to be a positive change
despite the political unrest. In 1924, the Dawes Plan, created by the United States, enabled
Germany to pay reparations to both Britain and France so that these major powers could
then repay the United States for war debts. The Dawes Plan was created to end tensions
from the Ruhr Crisis and promote peace between the tension ridden Nations and eventually
led to the Locarno Conference. This conference in1925 provided yet another glimmer of false
hope for Europe's unstable international relations. In the conference, Germany agreed to join
the League of Nations and respect the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Locarno was
beneficial in "restoring Germany to equality and itself to the centre of power. When the
Locarno Treaties were signed, the Ruhr occupation had ended" (Source B). The agreements
formed withing Locarno Conference ensured protection to fearful European countries such as
France and Belgium from Germany. In trying to repair broken relations destroyed by Ruhr
Crisis, the United States and United Kingdom established the Kellogg-Briand Pact in 1928
which idealistically banned war and the Young Plan in 1929 that reduced reparations for

Germany thus trying to make German economic growth more palpable. The United States
acted as the "arbitrators for everything connected with the implementation of one of the most
important parts of the treaty of Versailles which they had not ratified" (source D). The
tensions brought about by the Ruhr Crisis were somewhat mitigated by these plans and
treaties, however proved to be too much for the world to handle in the long run.
Although the short term effects presented a positive light on the future for Europe, the
long term effects of the Ruhr Crisis were quite harmful to the international political economy.
The United Kingdom began printing more money thus throwing themselves into a depression
from self-induced hyperinflation. Additionally, the United Kingdom could not pay their war
debts, forcing the Dawes Plan to become null and void, as the circulatory reparation system
could not be fulfilled. The failure of the Dawes Plan also left Germany to an economic
collapse with a side of anarchy. As said in Source E, "the Germans lost more revenue from
the Ruhr in the nine months of passive resistance than they had paid in reparations in all the
years since the war."
This economic collapse in Germany caused a political uproar over fact that "the German
currency increased agitation for both the extreme left and right and called into question the
continued existence of the Weimar Republic" (Source E). The German people blamed France
for "a continuation of wrong and violence and a violation of the Treaty aimed at a disarmed
nation" (Source A). Even though Great Britain "succeeded in restoring Germany to equality
and itself to the centre of power," (Source B) the Germans still felt that France and France's
allies had been "trampling on the bread of German industry and the entire working classes"
(Source A). Germany felt bullied and abused by France, saying the French had damaged
"the right of self determination of the German people" (Source A). Weimar Republic leader,
Gustav Stresemann, worked to improve the German mindset and comply with the treaty of
Versailles, though the German people were outright ridden with anger.
International relations between 1923 and 1929 grew stressful and potentially dangerous
with the onset of strained tensions between all nations affected by the Ruhr Crisis. All
countries, especially the United States, "could [not] escape the consequences of a German
economic collapse" (source E). The world viewed France as an aggressor after this act,
leaving "French policy at the Anglo-American mercy"(source B). France felt as though they
were being forced to surrender their "complete independence, as well as the rights
conferred... by the treaty of Versailles" (source B) and was upset that the "allies turned
against France in the autumn" (Source B). Britain was ridden by debt and had "approached
the United States about a new reparation inquiry with the US involvement (source b)." As

source C conveys, France had pushed Germany to a complete political and economic
collapse. On the German side of things, the Ruhr Crisis resulted in the German people being
thrown into the hands of a government capable of spreading radical political theories
(Bolshevism) worldwide. The nations' economic troubles placed responsibility upon the
League of Nations to salvage the final scraps of the political and economic relations within
Europe, however effective their "too little too late" actions could ultimately be.