Study this source. Source B 'Germany's capacity to pay has been deliberately exaggerated by politicians who promised their voters that the defeated enemy wo...

Source analysis

Source B is a critique of the reparations settlement by a British economist, published in 1924. The author argues that Germany's capacity to pay has been 'deliberately exaggerated by politicians' and that the reparations figure of 132 billion gold marks (roughly two and a half times Germany's 1913 national income) is impossible for a country stripped of 13% of its territory, 10% of its population, and 75% of its iron ore reserves. The source cites the occupation of the Ruhr in January 1923 as proof that 'force cannot extract wealth that does not exist.' As a British economist sympathetic to Germany's position, the author provides professional expertise on economic matters, echoing John Maynard Keynes's influential critique in 'The Economic Consequences of the Peace' (1919).

Contextual knowledge

The source's statistics are broadly accurate, and its conclusion about the Ruhr occupation has historical support: French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr when Germany fell behind on payments, triggering passive resistance and hyperinflation. However, the source presents only the German economic perspective. It does not acknowledge the devastation caused to France and Belgium, which had to rebuild infrastructure destroyed during four years of fighting on their soil. France lost approximately 1.4 million soldiers and its industrial north was wrecked. The source also omits that Germany's industrial capacity recovered relatively quickly after the Dawes Plan of 1924 restructured payments and introduced American loans. Germany's economic problems in the 1920s were partly self-inflicted: the government deliberately pursued inflationary policies to demonstrate it could not pay. The bar chart data in the question reinforces the source's argument by showing the scale of resource losses, particularly the 75% loss of iron ore and 40% of coal output.

Mark scheme (Levels of Response) [8 marks]

• Level 1 [1-2 marks]: Simple statements. For example, 'The source is useful because it tells us about reparations.' No evaluation.
• Level 2 [3-5 marks]: Evaluates usefulness with some support. Notes specific economic data (132 billion gold marks, territorial and resource losses), the Ruhr occupation, and the author's professional credibility as an economist. May consider provenance but does not evaluate limitations in depth.
• Level 3 [6-8 marks]: Evaluates BOTH usefulness AND limitations using source details and own knowledge. Explains what the source reveals (the connection between territorial losses and reduced economic capacity, the failure of enforcement at the Ruhr) and what it omits (French devastation, Germany's subsequent economic recovery under the Dawes Plan, the element of deliberate German inflation). Recognises that even an Allied citizen criticising the treaty has a particular perspective and does not present the full picture. Links the bar chart data to the source's argument where relevant.

Exam reminder: When a source from an Allied country criticises the treaty's treatment of Germany, this is significant because it shows the criticism was not limited to Germans. However, being from an Allied nation does not make the source objective. Always consider what perspective the author represents and what they leave out.