Four long years of bloody conflict were finally over. The Armistice of November 11, 1918 saw an end to hostilities in Europe after it had been entrenched in war. Things would never be the same; the lives of everyone on the continent had been touched. From the soldiers on the front lines all the way back home, everyone had felt the loss of life, and generally knew that the world was forever changed. The reactions to the Armistice were many and varied, from the German civilian that felt as if some victory had been achieved, to the bereaved Englishwoman whose had lost most of her family. The Armistice may have largely meant that the actual physical fighting was done with, but the war was far from over. The Paris peace talks which followed were a source of controversy and conflict among the major powers of Europe and each person saw this through their own eyes, and of course, their respective government's propaganda machine. Working as an international affairs journalist, I made use of the ensuing relative peace to conduct four interviews with the following subjects not long after the Armistice. The Paris peace talks were a primary concern across the globe, as is reflected in each subject's interview. Each person seemed rather concerned with the outcome of the talks and all had differing goals as to what they hoped it would achieve, or prevent. Certain conclusions were universal among the interviewees; they had all been rather taxed by the war and as a result had formed very strong and different opinions. There were also, quite naturally, very intense lingering distrust towards their recent enemy. The war had been long fought and costly, and they all agreed there would be some pretty high prices to pay and conditions to be met for a lasting peace. The opinions about which conditions and whom should be made to pay that price were quite unfortunately incompatible with each other.

The first person I spoke to, and quite possibly the least accessible, was a German soldier fresh off the Eastern Front. I was rather taken aback by the confidence and bravery still present in this young man, even after all that he had seen and been through. The first thing he did was to make it entirely clear to me whom he thought were responsible for the war: British Politicians. After returning from the front, he had talked to several old friends of his, many having served on the Western Front. These friends told him of cease-fires to bury the dead and even a shared Christmas in the trenches between German and British soldiers. Oddly enough he did not seem to hate, even dislike the British all that much. He was, however, fervent about defending the Kaiser and German Military against the slanderous, treacherous British leadership. He spoke of a friend of his that he knew from Kiel, a theology student named Eduard Bruhn. He died on the Russian Front on September 17, 1915 and as he bled to death in the field, he managed to write one last letter to his mother. My subject, who shall remain nameless as part of our agreement over the interview, had a chance to read that letter when he went to pay his respects. He was quite broken up over the loss of such a talented person, but he took great comfort that he died for a good cause. He said what best summed up his feelings was another letter he had read, this time from a distant relative. This letter, addresses to his sweetheart read, in part, "The only thing that now inspires and uplifts one is love for the German Fatherland and the desire to fight and risk all for Emperor and Empire". He saw the German spirit as created by God, and all attacks made by its people as glorious. He was not fond of war, but he was all committed to his Kaiser. This at least in part can be seen as a reason for his view toward the future. He had little trust in the peace talks. He did not trust Wilson, thinking him in league with the duplicitous British politicians and could not comprehend his need for the democratically elected civilian government to be Germany's representatives. He distrusted politicians in general and feared these elected representatives might just stab Germany in the back. Many shared his opinions.

Next, as was most convenient, I spoke with a German civilian, who had a very different take on things. He generally agreed that British Politicians were to blame for the war, but he saw the whole incident as a victory for Germany. Germany, in his mind, had achieved its war aims on the Eastern Front, and as a result saw no need for further conflict. He spoke passionately of a military parade he had seen not long after the Armistice. He had the rather unique view that Germany had actually won the war. He saw Germany as the victors and was very proud to be a German. He admitted that economically, things had not improved since the war, indeed, he admitted they even declined, but he saw all that as temporary. He too, did not entirely trust the peace process. He was also distrustful of politicians and did not like who was representing Germany. The elected government was too new, not powerful enough, and he had doubts about both their abilities and loyalties. He also felt that the talks should have been held in Berlin, not Paris. He had seen many of his friends lost in the war and felt that Germany had paid a great price. He was aware of Wilson's points and agreed with most of them, and seemed to ignore the ones he did not favor. Despite what appeared to be serious problems at the time, he had an optimistic outlook on the future. The gains in Russia and the Eastern Front had just not trickled down to his level, and the country seemed to him frozen, waiting for the result of the talks. He was confident that once the treaty was signed, provided the politicians did not ruin things, everything would improve.

Next, in an effort to be objective and even-balanced, I interviewed a British soldier who had been on the Western Front. He was less interested in assigning blame, although for him it clearly rested on the Germans, but he was more keen on seeing it as a war that had 'got away'. He claimed that no one really knew how wide the scope of the war would be when they got into it. He said that this was true for the soldiers, the politicians, and the military leaders. He sighted numerous examples, which would seem to indicate that the strategists were not keeping up with the technology. Apparently the military heads would use old tactics with new weapons, usually resulting in the senseless deaths of many. Near the end of the war he said he saw an increase in the level of development of the plans, as would be necessary for victory. No one he knew ever expected the Western Front to be stretched so far or so thinly. He said he once had the honor of a chance meeting with Sir Haig himself, but he found the Field Marshal to be somewhat distant, a trait he found somewhat distressing. What surprised me was the way in which he saw Haig and the other military leaders. He seemed to think of them as ordinary people capable of making mistakes, far too many mistakes as far as he was concerned. He didn't think of the war's two fronts being east and west, but rather internal and external. Sure, there was the outside threat and force that one battled on the field, but there was also an internal battle going on in each of the soldiers, in his opinion of course. He saw an army trying to come to terms with new weapons, new tactics, and a new kind of war. This was not what they had been expecting at all, nor were many of them all that prepared. He also had a bone to pick with the army over what he thought to be an unfair promotion system, which seemed to him to be more focused of social standing and familiarity than with ability, experience, and sacrifice. He was very willing to critique the leadership during the war, and indeed gave me the impression these were complaints he had thought long and hard about and had voiced many times. His primary concern over the peace treaty was Germany. He wanted Germany to be controlled and regulated. All he seemed worried about was Germany's ability to strike again in the future. He had lost his taste for war and wanted to see it avoided at all costs, and he believed if there was to be another war, it would come from a vengeful Germany.

Finally I was able to converse with a British woman, that is as much as was possible given her considerable bereavement over the loss of her sons. She had lost both of her sons in the war. Both on the Western Front, but in different areas. She wasn't very interested in talking about the causes of the war or who was to blame, but of her sons and the future. Her sons had both been to university and had meant quite a lot to her. She did not know how she could possibly get on without them, but she supposed she would find a way. She believed in David Lloyd George, despite recent social problems like the strikes. She knew the Germans had to be stopped, and now that they had, she wanted them to pay. She did not think they would present a threat anytime in the future and seemed much more in the mindset of retribution. She was confident the peace conference would squeeze the Germans as they deserved and felt obliged to the Americans for helping to end that war. She did not personally like the Americans and was somewhat displeased with them waiting so long to join the war, but nonetheless felt some gratitude towards them. Her main source of comfort was that this would be the war to end all wars and she would never see the likes of it again.

Through my interviews I was able to get a rather good sense of the ideological splits and differing viewpoints of these groups. The German soldiers obviously felt much closer to the leadership and were less likely to question them than their British counterparts, and certainly more dedicated than the French soldiers were. Many German people were under the impression that they won the war, while the British citizens were somewhat complacent in their victory. The British soldier was concerned over containing Germany, his counterpart was too busy distrusting the elected politicians and fearing the outcome of the peace treaty. These last two views are rather understandable when one considers the military organizations they hail from. The civilians were a property of their day to day life, the Germans not having any real fighting on their soil, unlike the French, and even though the battle never got to the heart of Britain it certainly felt the pain more so than Germany. Britain's economy was under less command than Germany's and as a result, was more susceptible to things like strikes. Paying close attention to these views, one can easily see several components of what lead to the war, and what precipitated that which followed.