Germany's "Punishment" for WWI

After WWI ended the Big Four decided that Germany would suffer for the costs of the war. This was because they had lost the war and from the French and British perspective they were the cause of the war. America (Woodrow Wilson) was against the idea of punishing any country for the war as it would only cause more tension and Woodrow Wilson was aiming for this war to create a world "safe for Democracy" and a "peace without a victory". The choice to punish Germany for the war in the Treaty of Versailles at the Paris Peace Conference is still a source of resentment among the countries. France and Britain were major advocates for Germany paying reparations and claiming war guilt. Under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was made to reduce their military force as a security insurance. This was advocated for by France as they did not want to risk being invaded by the nation as they were neighbors. Germany also lost territories as payment for the war. They lost  Alsace-Lorraine to France and gave up around 13% of their European territories. Germany also lost all its colonies outside Europe. Besides shrinking in military power and territory, Germany also had to pay reparations of over $33 billion in U.S currency. On top of paying with currency, they had to take the moral weight of the war in the form of war guilt (article 231) and allow the Rhineland (Western Germany) to be occupied by allied forces. What effects of these war punishments or the Treaty of Versailles so we see today in world affairs or other aspects of our lives?

President Woodrow Wilson's 14 points and the League of Nations

After WWI, the countries involved in the war set out to create a a treaty. This treaty was called the Treaty of Versailles and President Wilson hoped to add his 14 points to the treaty and set up a League of Nations that would guarantee world peace and collective security. Wilson had an internationalist  perspective that many Americans, especially Republicans, did not share. His 14 points had three main parts: rules for international conduct, self determination, and the League of Nations (a general association of nations to promote collective security and resolve conflicts). At the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 the "Big Four" met (Britain, France, U.S, and Italy) and it was clear that Britain and France wanted to punish Germany and make them pay for the war that had taken many lives and destroyed much of their resources. Italy wanted the land they were promised and that left the U.S led by Wilson as the only country that did not want to punish Germany. The U.S had lost the least men and had not been in the war as long as the others and it was clear to see why Wilson would promote peace and a "war without victory". The topics discussed at the Paris Peace Conference ranged from reparations Germany would have to pay and war guilt to Wilson's ideas for self-determination and peace. Wilson was overly-confident that his perspective would win over the rest, but as the conference progressed he was met with large opposition. Wilson not only faced opposition from other nations but also from members of the Republican party who disagreed with the idea of collective security (article 10) and thought that the league would pull the U.S into unnecessary war. The people who would never support the treaty were called irreconcilables. Those would accept the treaty under certain revisions were called reservationists. Wilson made the mistake of not taking any republicans with him to the Paris Conference and as they had won the Senate and where in charge of ratifying treaties most of them were already against the treaty. Wilson was set on not compromising and decided to turn his back on the reservationists. He thought his ideas were the only way to guarantee peace so he decided to embark on a nationwide tour, promoting his 14 points to rally American support. A major reason Wilson was so set on his points was the moral guilt he would feel if he failed those who had fought in the war for the ideas of world peace and no more war. He was also not in the best state of health and was a bit delirious so the combination of conditions surrounding his tour were likely to end up disastrous and they did. He suffered a severe stroke and had to end his tour abruptly. Wilson's 14 points were rejected in the vote and so was the Treaty of Versailles. The main point of Wilson's 14 points, The League of Nations, did form, just without it;s founder, the U.S.

President Wilson

What are your thoughts on president Wilson? Do you think if you were around at the time he was president would you like him? For me, the answer is simply 'no'. For one, Wilson didn't promote women's rights, so for me, that is automatically bad since I am a female. Additionally, he wasn't really in favor of giving nonwhite men the opportunity to vote. I am also aginst this idea because I believe everybody no matter what they look like should have equal rights and opportunity.
While Wilson was president, the US gained Puerto Rico as a territory which is important for me do to the fact I am Puerto Rican. This is something positive about Wilson that he agreed to the Treaty of Paris and Puerto Rico was then given to the US. For the most part, the US was able to give Puerto Ricans a steady government, but it was mainly run by US officials. Unfortunately, though, the US tried to imperialize and take over Puerto Rico by Americanizing the citizens. They tried to force upon them language and political systems. However, without them getting Puerto Rico my life would have been a lot different due to the fact that it would have made it a lot harder for my family to come to the US.
So what are your thoughts? How have his choices affected you?

The Platt and Teller Amendments

We covered in class the Platt Amendment and Teller Amendment but I was still a little confused. I decided to learn more about the two.

The Teller Amendment was introduced in 1898. It was added to the declaration of war against Spain. In short, it promised that after the War, they would leave Cuba and allow them to rule themselves. Basically, they weren't trying to establish Cuba as an American colony. It said the US, "hereby disclaims any disposition of intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island except for pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people"

The Platt Amendment was passed in 1901. It came about as a way to withdraw military troops from Cuba and allow for the Cuban government and its own people to take charge. Part of the amendment included 8 conditions that Cuba would agree to so that the US would take its troops out. Cuba was not allowed to sign agreements that would allow other countries, besides the US, from using the island for military purposes. The United States also added that they could intervene in Cuba to manage "a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty" Cuba also had to give up their claim to the Isle of Pines (Isla de la Juventud) and upgrade sanitation on the island. Another large part was that Cuba had to allow the US to use them, by buying or renting land, as a naval base and for mining coal. The Platt Amendment allowed the US to have a say in Cuba without directly going against the Teller Amendment. This treaty was eventually agreed to by Cuba after much pressure, despite the fact that they knew they would lose some of their sovereignty. However, with a treaty like this, Cuba's sugar trade would have access to the full US market. The Platt Amendment was cancelled in 1934. 

I hope that this gave you more insight into the laws passed around the Spanish-American War. Do you think that the Platt Amendment was fair to the Cubans? 

Russia in WWI

Despite the fact that Russia was a major force in WWI, we hardly ever mention Russia's activities in WWI. However, Russia's activities set the stage for a lot of the rest of the 20th century. Millions of Russian soldiers died fighting Germany and Austria-Hungary, which made the Russian people so upset that they started a revolution So many Russians were hurt in WWI that Russian people rose up, under Lenin, and had a communist revolution, which led to the rise of the Soviet Union, and eventually the cold war, along with everything else that happened between the United States and Soviet Union. This means that Russia's involvement in WWI, along with many other things that happened in WWI, was directly responsible for a lot of modern politics and geography.
Russia's involvement in WWI also probably allowed Britain, France, and the United States to eventually win the war, even though Russia had stopped fighting before the war ended. Russia was able to fight Germany for a while in the war, and without Russia, Germany would have probably had enough soldiers to win WWI long before America joined the war.
As such, we should pay more attention to Russia's role in WWI, as it was very important.

Wilson's Last Efforts

Yesterday in class we learned about President Wilson's last attempts to get the United States to join the League of Nations. After months of trying to get it to work, Wilson became very sick. His personality shifted from working together with others and making a combined effort to refusing to compromise and believing he was always right. The Republicans would not compromise on the treaty either, leaving them in a stalemate. Realizing he could not win the Senate over, Wilson decided to go on a speaking tour to raise public support for the treaty. Even though he was still sick and his wife and doctor advised him not to go, he went anyway. After a speech in Colorado, his condition became worse and they had to rush him back to the capital. When they arrived, they found that he had suffered a big stroke and the left side of his body was paralyzed. His wife and doctor hid this for months, saying he had nervous indigestion so he could stay president. His wife made most of his decisions, which led to there being no advances on the treaty. In the end, the treaty was not ratified, and Wilson's dream faded away.

Wilson's Flawed Plan

During the last few weeks, we wrapped up World War I and focused on the League of Nations and Wilson's 14 points. While from an American viewpoint, his ideas may seem sound, it was not for the other countries that were in the war. From numerous charts and graphs, we can tell that America suffered considerably smaller casualties and costs from the war. For example, France suffered about to 1.7 million deaths while America was close to 100 thousand. Because of this, of course Wilson would be more willing to adopt a "peace without victory" while countries like France would not. Since the allies suffered so much damage, they were set on revenge. Likewise, the Germans were only interested in making a deal with Wilson because they knew that it would be the "easiest" on them. Wilson's fault was that he believed too firmly in his points and did not want to consider any change to his plan. Because of many mistakes that he made before his trip to France, he did not even have the support of his own government. Considering all of this information, it seems clear that Wilson's plan was flawed from the start, however, had Wilson been more open to a change, perhaps he would've been a bit more successful.

Why the League of Nations Failed

The League of Nations was created at the end of WWI in order to keep peace between European countries. Proposed by President Woodrow Wilson as a way to create a sustainable peace throughout the continent, the president refused to compromise. He did all he could to make the League a reality, and eventually achieved his vision.

On paper, the League looked like a fairly decent idea. It consisted of a "covenant" that was used to settle disputes between countries. The covenant would address issues by discussing them, and then if an aggressive nation still would not cooperate, they would economically damage the offending country. If that still failed, military force could be used to bring the peace once again. However, the League did not have much of a military after WWI.

Military is just one of many reasons why the League failed. After all, the first world war caused nearly every country that was participating in the League of Nations to have a severely damaged army, and thus none of the countries were in a position to expand their military prowess.

Additionally, the United States did not join. As an additional, powerful outside country the US could have been a very strong force that would keep the League together.

Finally, it is debatable that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh. Although Wilson desired for the punishment to be more modest, France and Britain were ruthless in making Germany pay. This kind of attitude towards Germany made Germans extremely unsatisfied with the League and the war in general. The fact that they were unable to join the League until "they were peaceful" only served to rub salt on their already open wounds.

The failure of the League of Nations can be attributed to a variety of factors - but the above are perhaps some of the most important.

League of Nations and Fun Things

While Wilson had various ideas for how to prevent future wars, I think his ideas were doomed to fail for various reasons. No matter what happened, after WWI, the British and French would resent the Germans, and the Germans would also resent the British and French, because of how much the war hurt each country. His ideas for a league of nations would not prevent future wars, just like how the modern UN doesn't do much to prevent wars. There would still be countries that were closer to one another in the league of nations, and they would still fight because having a league of nations doesn't actually help countries all that much. In addition, going against ideas of Britain and France would not work well, as then nobody would support Wilson's ideas. If Wilson wanted future peace, it would have been best if he just convinced the British and French to not hurt Germany as much, maybe by not making all of those small countries and taking land from Germany. If Britain and France still got some money from Germany, but otherwise Germany was left alone, this could have stopped wars.

Chemical Warfare in World War I

The most dangerous weapon in World War I, by far, was chemical warfare: the use of toxic chemicals to kill or injure people in a war. In the specific case of World War I, World War I was the first successful large-scale use of chemical warfare, which is why the Great War is sometimes referred to as the chemist's war (NCBI). Chemical weapons, overall, revolutionized warfare in World War I.



Some examples of chemical warfare include tear, mustard, chlorine, and phosgene gas. The first time chemical warfare was utilized was in 1915, when the Germans opened specially-placed pressurized liquid chlorine cylinders around the French trenches. As the gas slowly moved across the French troops, more than 1000 soldiers died and even crops were destroyed. Mustard gas would decay skin on contact by creating large blisters, and had the potential to cause permanent eye damage at substantial exposure. Tear gas irritated the eyes and lungs, and was meant to incapacitate enemies from fighting back, but actually did not end up as effective as intended. Phosgene was a colorless, highly toxic compound that could lead to suffocation. All of these types of gases were used for offensive purposes at first, then later for defensive purposes.

Why did the use of chemical warfare end? Though chemical warfare seemed to prove effective at first, it posed a great risk to manufacturers of toxic chemicals and obviously to those who used them on the battlefield. Both sides of the war eventually stopped using chemical weapons because if one side used them, the other side was basically guaranteed to do so as well.



We must keep in mind the dangers of chemical warfare as a physical, and especially psychological, weapon. Even though it marked a significant point in military history, the use of chemical weapons caused more than 90,000 deaths and 1.3 million casualties by the end of the war. Chemical weapons were not like guns, cannons, or other visible artillery: they were the only enemies in the Great War that could not be detected until it was too late.

Sources:

1. NCBI: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376985/

2. Compound Interest: http://www.compoundchem.com/2014/05/17/chemical-warfare-ww1/

Americans in WWI

In class, we watched a documentary about Americans entering the war. It seemed that war was somewhat glorified and seemed as an interesting activity to take part in. Many Americans entered the war because they didn't have anything more important to do, they wouldn't be broken up from their friends, and they would be committing a heroic act. In addition, Americans also saw many propaganda posters that also seemed like they needed to be in the war. Some posters were innocent, like showing dogs on the poster and asking people to join, while others were not so innocent. Americans who didn't enter the war also felt the need to be patriotic which included them not wasting any food because it could have gone to the soldiers. This resulted in too much food in America. Additionally, Americans could now be put in jail for disagreeing or critiquing the US Government and at this time there couldn't be any strikes.
Looking at data, after the war the US lost significantly less lives than other countries such as Germany and France, which called for 'revenge'. what might this 'revenge' be?

What was a human life worth in WW1?

In World War 1, many people signed up to serve and many others were drafted. Close to 5 million men served during the war. They were asked to join a crusade and make the world safe for democracy, even if they had to sacrifice their life. Over 50,000 American men died during WW1. The soldiers themselves were fatalistic and realized their lives were expendable. Some compared themselves to currency that the government was willing to spend. I think that this is not how human life should be seen. But what do you think? Is this right? Should people be seen as just an expense for a greater cause or do individual lives matter?

For or against chemical warfare

During world war I chemical warfare was used regularly first by the germans and later by both sides. First, there was tear gas and later mustard gas, phosgene, and chlorine gas. Later on, these weapons got banned through the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Asphyxiating Gases and the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare, which stoped the use of "poison or poisoned weapons" in warfare and were not allowed in the other wars, but they allowed nukes. Should a nuke be considered a chemical weapon and banned too if it is?

Trench Warfare

Yesterday, in class we learned the basics of trench warfare, and in this blog I would like to review the key subjects we learned about it. One thing we learned was the basic technique of moving out of the trench and attacking. Basically, the process was that the artillery would move up slowly with the soldiers right behind it. If the soldiers were too far ahead, they would get shot down by friendly fire, while if they were too far behind, the artillery would not have enough support to keep going. The artillery would then shoot at one section of barbed wire to destroy it and create a path for the soldiers. After this, most of the fighting would be done inside the trenches with close ranged combat. Another technique both sides used in WW1 was chemical warfare. An example of a gas they used was mustard gas. This weapon would create large clouds of poisonous gas that could eat away at flesh and cause whole sections of the enemy to evacuate. Another strategic use of gas was the stress it would put on the opposing side. To counter the use of gas both sides used gas masks. Although these masks prevented the gasses from killing, it would put a lot of physical and mental stress on the users of the masks. Overall WW1 had a completely different type of warfare compared to the wars before it.

The Paris Guns

The Paris Guns are known as the largest pieces of artillery of World War I. These long-range cannons were called "Paris Guns" because they were built to shell Paris from far away. Built by the Germans, they were able to fire a 200+ lb shell over 70 miles. While they were able to destroy parts of Paris, they were also built as a psychological weapon. The Parisians had never been attacked by something like this, so it must have been absolutely terrifying to have bits of your city blown up by an unknown force.

The guns were managed by crews of 80 Imperial Navy sailors. Usually they were surrounded by other standard army artillery, creating "noise-screens" so they couldn't be located by French or British spotters. These guns killed about 250 Parisians and destroyed many buildings, but they didn't affect the French civilian morale or the larger course of the war.

The projectiles from these guns were the first human-made objects to reach the stratosphere. Paris Gun shells weighed 234 lbs. They were mainly made of thick steel, containing 15 lbs of TNT. The barrels weighed 183 tons and needed supports to hold them straight. About 550 lbs of gunpowder were used to propel a shell out of the barrel at 5,260 ft per second.

Info from https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/the-paris-gun.html and https://www.britannica.com/technology/Paris-Gun

Women Advancing Society; Society Advancing for Women

I would like to take a break from the discussion of the simulation and talk about some of the powerful women progressives.

Ida Tarbell, best known for investigative journalism that exposed Standard Oil, was the only female in her graduating class at college. After holding a position of editor at her local newspaper, she quit in order to study writing at La Sorbonne in Paris. Her first book about Standard Oil was so successful that she turned what was supposed to be a 3 part series into a 19 part work.

Alice Paul was a women's rights activist. Her dramatic acts in England for the women's suffragist movement transferred over to America where she formed the Congressional Union of Women's Suffrage, later named the National Women's Party with Lucy Burns. She was jailed multiple times and went on hunger strikes.

Jane Addams was one of the first to make a settlement house and was a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. She cofounded Chicago's Hull house and served on Chicago's board of education. She was a pacifist and was the chair of the Women's Peace Party. She was also president of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.

Florence Kelley was hired by Illinois to investigate factory safety. She played a large part in  minimum wage legislation and the formation of the Children's Bureau. She was the leader of the National Consumer League for more than 30 years. She assisted in founding the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)

Jeanette Rankin was the first woman to serve in Congress. She aided in the passing of the 19th amendment. She was the only person in congress who voted against World War I and II because she was a pacifist. She was the sole vote cast against going into World War II.

These admirable women not only aided in social issues that affected their communities but helped advance the rights of women by either directly helping the cause or by showing men that women could do the same things as them. Either way, both men and women today should respect and appreciate all of their contributions. 

Why did America enter WWI?

In the start of WWI America was neutral and could afford to do so as they were across an ocean from the conflicting European countries. Even though they were not militarily involved in the war, America as a nation, seemed to largely side with the British and French people. The American government did not oppose the British blockade enacted against the German government and even sold weapons to the allies side of the war, while they greatly opposed the German use of submarines to break the blockade. The Germans knew that if the U.S joined the war it would be on the side of the French and British and so they obeyed the American order to seize unrestricted submarine warfare to prevent the added support of the Americans on their opposers side. When a German submarine sinked the British Lusitania and killed 128 Americans aboard the ship, President Woodrow Wilson demanded that the Germans follow the established rules of submarine warfare (that did not benefit the Germans) or there would be a risk of war.

 In the Election of1916 Wilson won because of his popularity gained by "keeping the country out of war", in his mind he was prepared to go to war as he watched the progression of events in the war and his reelection allowed him to prepare for war. He believed that if America were to be involved in war it would be for progressive ideals. He promoted ideas like "Peace among equals" and "peace without victory". He thought of America as a country of democracy and believe the world would only be safe with democracy in all nations.

 The Germans knew America was not neutral and they felt the need to win the war soon as they were running out of resources and were afraid of the American engagement in the war. They saw submarines as the way to win the war and so on February 1,  1917 the German government declared they would sink all ships around Great Britain. This was one trigger to the American entrance to WWI. The Zimmerman note was the next trigger that caused America to enter war. It was discovered that Germany had contacted Mexico, encouraging it to declare war on America if it were to enter the war with the incentive of Mexico being able to claim land they lost to America. This largely angered the American public, who already had a negative image of the Germans, due to the propaganda by France and Britain. 

The final straw was when a German submarine attack sinked several American ships. President Wilson, not long after, requested congress declare war. Wilson brought up his point that "the world was be safe for democracy" and he strongly believed in this as he lead the country into a war against the Germans with the British and French. There were many reasons America sided with the British and French in WWI. I only touched on some, but what were other reasons why America would side with the allies?

Is world peace possible?

Earlier this week as a class we went through a simulation where we were divided into 6 groups that each represented a country. We didn't know in the beginning that if we went to war, we failed the simulation. From the beginning of the simulation when we were told that our goal was security, my group thought of an idea for an alliance between all the countries. I am sure that we weren't the only ones. However, none of us would stand up before the class and propose this. So then we just carried on with the simulation trying to save ourselves because we were the weakest country. We made allies with anyone we could because we needed all the allies that we could get since we were practically powerless without them. We were eventually part of this huge alliance with the rest of the countries but one. We decided to attack the country that stood out because it wasn't a part of the alliance. This is when we failed. We couldn't even have classroom peace in this simulation, yet we probably could've accomplished classroom peace if one of us had of spoken in the beginning of the simulation. Looking back on it, it seems like it could've been so easy, but we didn't do it. So if you take this simulation and apply it to the real world, could world peace be this simple? Just someone needing to stand up before the world and make the proposition. I personally think it is impossible because there much more than 6 countries in the world, with far more than 6 people in each country. And with more people come more ideas and more conspiracies. But what do you think?

Post-Simulation War

The war simulation we did in class Tuesday illustrates perfectly how world war one was started. The simulation was an in-class activity in which separate groups acted as countries, and tried to gain "security". Throughout the class different groups looked at gaining security in a variety of ways. Some believed security was the amount of alliances, while some viewed it as gaining military power. These opposing views led up to the failure of the activity. Group five thought that to gain security the best measure was to try to eliminate the weakest group through the use of war. This, in turn, led us to failing the activity. If this war would have taken place it would also have been a disaster due to the fact that group four (the ones being attacked) had a secret alliance with group 3. This would have caused major issues, because our group (group 1) also had an alliance with group 3. As one can clearly see these secret and public ties between countries would have made this war from being a small endeavor to becoming a war amongst all of the countries. This activity ties back to world war one because the starting of world war one was caused due to the alliances of major countries.

More Post-Simulation Thoughts

Here are some things I thought about after the simulation discussion:

1. If each group was told which country they were representing BEFORE the simulation started, would the entire course of action of the simulation have been altered? Because we've learned the roles each country played in World War 1 in MEHAP/CWI, there may have been a bias as to what each country could do that extended past the limits of its military resources and economic units. Before the first round started, did anyone else suspect that this simulation was supposed to model World War 1?

2. If the moderator added an new factor that measured the quality of human life, would that have changed the outcome of the simulation? I believe that the power level and citizens' level of satisfaction were very important factors that definitely contributed to the countries' actions. However, we could consider if it would have even been necessary to have the "quality of life" factor in the first place.

World War Simulation

On Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, the class was separated into six groups where each group was assigned a country that they would represent. The goal was simply "security". Our group was country 1, which was the most economically powerful nation. We immediately made a peace treaty with the other massive nation (2) and several turns later joined an alliance between groups 2, 5, and 6. They intended to attack the small nation 4, which was separate from the rest of the nations. As soon as this was announced, the simulation was finished. Looking back, the entire class seemed to misunderstand the idea of security. Rather than ensuring that a conflict would not occur, it was interpreted as becoming the strongest nation. Because of this, there was an overall aggressive theme, consisting of powerful alliances, expansion of militaries, and stockpiling of economic units. In the end, country 4 was the target. However, if the simulation continued, it is very likely that the other smaller nations would also be taken out in order for the large nations to acquire more and more resources.

I think the whole class failed the simulation. Even group 4, which was not behaving aggressively, did not pass since they were unsuccessful in preserving the security of their nation. If it were done again, I think the simulation would play out differently. My guess is that the class would form one massive alliance and stockpile resources until the moderator would finally say "fine, you win".

In Class Simulation (Some Notes)

This simulation was very interesting and had some of us feeling some type of way. I really enjoyed the conversation we had today. I loved Anne's point about security for all, rather than security for some. Many countries were geared towards war immediately because of fear and paranoia of being attacked before they were ready. Security became stocking up for war and aligning with other countries to protect common interests, rather than taking care of problems at home. I think this simulation brought out a very real side to human nature. We tend to look for enemies to define us and make us feel safe. We connect over common enemies and feel power only when we take it, rather than remaining in a neutral state of peace. In our simulation Country 4 became the scapegoat. There needed to be an objective and that became to conquer, even without reason. Country 4 was not in any clear alliances and though they were weak in other ways, they had the most soldiers so they became a target. This happened due to the fear of a conspiracy and the choice to take over the country for "resources". These resources were minimal, yet they were enough to incite a full-on war. The two strongest countries were 1 and 2 and they aligned themselves with weaker countries. Country 2's plan was to slowly pick away at weaker countries and as Jia pointed out world domination seemed to be the path being traveled. Many other countries aligned just to be protected and went along with choices to remain in these alliances, but the loyalty in alliances was not clear. It's interesting that people exchanged lives for pieces of paper that no one could be sure would be upheld. If country 4 was up for domination for no real threat, but the suspicion of a weak threat, then what would have prevented other countries from being considered "threats" or "easy targets"? There were so many other things going on in this simulation and, as in real life, things got messy, but these are a few I wanted to note for this blog. What aspects of this simulation have we seen play out in real life?

In-Class Simulation Reflection

For the past two days, we had the opportunity to engage in a simulation involving the entire class. In essence, the class was divided into six "countries", with around six people each. Every country was allocated varying numbers of soldiers, artillery, ships, planes, and each country had a unique and set amount of "economic units" that it could use to build its army. Rank was determined by a power level and citizen satisfaction, both of which were displayed on the board along with each countries' resources and determined by the moderator.

Starting off with the first round: most countries seemed to be slightly confused with the system and were still working out alliances. However, by the third round, all countries declared war on country 4. It was later revealed that this was so due to 4's large stock of soldiers (600). At this point, most countries were not looking enough at the long-term benefits or harms of declaring war, because they did not thoroughly consider the consequences of defeating country 4. These countries planned to distribute 4's resources, including economic units, among themselves. However, these newly acquired resources would eventually get sucked up because it is the nature of resources to be more carelessly squandered when they exist in abundance. After putting these resources to waste and living through  more dehumanization of those who were starved, the dominant countries (namely 1 and 2) would aim to kick out those who could not fend for themselves, and repeat the same course of action as the countries did with 4. The problem with this is that, after a while, countries 1 and 2 would be the only ones left; they could either lean towards world domination or kick the other out -- this entire process would inevitably leave all of the countries in a desolate state.

Simulation Strategy from Group 1

In our simulation, I was worried that our simulation would devolve into a war, like how the world went into WWI in 1914. To stop this, I was in country 1, so I wanted to make allies with the other strongest country, country 2. I thought that the best way to have security would be if everybody was allied together. Countries 1 and 2 wouldn't want to fight each other because there was no clear winner between a war between them, so nobody would invade us and we could be secure.
Also, because of group 1's economic and military power, we would have been able to discourage other countries from invading one another, which could have led to lasting peace. We were allied with groups 2 and 3, with 3 giving us general terms to our alliance. When group 5 proposed an alliance with my group, in exchange for help in what would be a war we would probably win, I accepted, as I saw that group 4 was not making alliances with any other group besides maybe group 3, group 3 probably wouldn't want to fight groups 1, 2, 5, and 6 combined, and I saw an opportunity to make alliances with every country besides country 4.
Once group 4 was destroyed, my plan was for country 1 to just keep accumulating power, make an alliance with group 6 as we already had a lot in common, and to stay friends with everybody. This would ensure a lot of security, as with everybody being in a common alliance, nobody would want to go to war with anybody else, as no one country would be strong enough to take on all of the other countries and we were already secure and had no need to invade one another. If one country made a move on another, I would expect everybody else to fight the aggressor.
The reason I joined with the war, and was willing to help with it, was because it helped secure our alliance with a side that would almost surely win, so we would be friends with all remaining countries. There was no actual reason for war for us, but it was advantageous to join in, and I think the war would have been avoided if country 4 had made an alliance with 1 or 2, as countries 3, 4, 5 or 6 wouldn't have wanted to potentially anger countries 1 or 2, and countries 1 and 2 didn't want to fight each other because neither side had a major advantage over the other.

Class Simulation from Group 6

From the perspective of Group 6, we were mostly acting in self defense. We started out thinking about what we could do to prevent being attacked for as long as possible. When Group 5 came to us and offered an alliance with them and Group 2, we accepted because of the security Group 2 could provide. We were more worried about gaining economic units than attacking other countries, since we had a small army and it would take lots of economic units to stand against one of the bigger countries. We were building our economic units, but when Group 5 told us we were attacking Group 4, we had to build more soldiers since we couldn't afford backing out of the treaty, and possibly being attacked. We didn't want to go to war, and even thought about making a peace agreement between all the countries, we didn't manage to come up with a way that Group 5 and 2 would have stopped from attacking and negotiated with Group 4. In the end, we were forced to go to war with Group 4 or risk being attacked and lose our small amount of economic units.

An Overview of the in Class Simulation

 Throughout the past couple days, our class has been participating in a simulation where the class is divided into groups - with each group representing a certain country. Each country had pros and cons, with groups one and two having a distinct advantage.

Eventually, groups 2, 5, and 6 united against group four. Group four initially had the largest military presence, so together these three groups could prevent their military from becoming even stronger, along with obtaining their resources.

The simulation ended after the declaration of war, and group four made a strong argument for why attacking them recklessly after three turns was not a good idea. After all, even though the other groups would benefit from their defeat, group 2 would eventually take over.

But what would happen if nobody attacked? Would we be able to sustain peace between all countries?

Certainly, groups 1 and 2 would still have a distinct advantage over the others, and would have been able to mass resources significantly faster than the others. Additionally, group 2 likely would have continued their long term plans - their plans to dominate everyone else.

The way we played the simulation, groups 1 and 2 were very likely to win. And even without the war, groups 1 and 2 still would have been more likely to win.

Thus, the game would have a high possibility of ending up with a showdown between these two groups, with one of them winning.

Simulation of the Countries

On Monday and Tuesday we did a simulation between each of the 6 countries. We all different amounts of power levels. We were given many different instructions but we mostly had to figure out things ourselves. My group was Country 2 and we seemed to have more than the other 5 countries. We seemed to make an alliance with other countries, some which were private and some which were told aloud. We allied with country 1 at first and the allied with country 5. When we became allied with country 5 we made a secret treaty to invade country 4. They way we did that was to have enough power, soldiers, and not to have the fear of being attacked. When talking in our group, at first after the second round we just wanted to chill and not doing anything but soon other countries were coming to us trying to make a pact. There was a lot of disagreement about why each of the countries should or should not be attacked. Would it have changed the way this simulation might have worked between each of the countries?

In Class Simulation Overview

During the last few days, we participated in a classroom simulation activity which simulated different countries controlled by a few people which made up each group. Each country started with a certain amount of power and potential. We were allowed to perform many tasks, which included forming treaties and going to war. 

Our country, number 5, started out as the weakest country on the board. Realizing this immediately, we quickly formed an alliance with group 6, which was the second weakest country. The reason this alliance was formed so quickly was because we both realized how risky it was to stand alone against the other countries, especially since they were very powerful compared to us. 

Seeing that country number 4 had the most starting economic units, we decided that we should quickly erase them from the picture so we would not have another powerful country to worry about. Our group had an idea to form a coalition with group 6 and group 2, and then declare war on group 4. Group 2 was the most powerful country on the board, and we were already allied with group 6. 

Before war was declared, the simulation ended, and we discussed the path of the simulation in class. It was very interesting to hear the different angles and treaties each country had, and what could have potentially happened if the simulation continued. 

If I were to go back and redo the simulation, I would definitely reconsider war with 4, as group 2 said that they would cut off our treaty with us, and we could have potentially lost the war, resulting in our elimination. However, it seems that war was inevitable, as countries 1 and 2, the most powerful countries, were looking to have every country eliminated besides their own, and then fight for world domination.   

In class simulation

Yesterday we did a simulation in class. I was in group 4 and everyone decided to attack us at the end. I do not think they thought about what would happen if we got eliminated, another group would have to be eliminated after us. Today we all had a discussion about everyone wanting to attack us. Mainly everyone was just arguing and making good points to each other. My group and I made a secret treaty with group 3 but after they heard everyone wanted to attack us they started to back off from the treaty. People thought that their treaty with others would always stay there and they would not be broken but they could get broken. Mr. Stewart said we could lie and I am sure a lot of people would have broken their treaties with others just to save themselves. Why weren't they afraid of other groups? Who cares if we were being quiet whats the difference if we were being loud?

Simulation

This is probably one of the most effective simulations I've been a part of. However, it was unfortunate that I happened to be part of the group that was targeted as the first to be kicked off the island. After the simulation ended, the debrief was very helpful, as every was able to talk about their plans in the open. It was interesting to see the different alliances that occurred, but also why certain other alliances should have happened. For example, logically Group 1 and Group 4 should have allied because where one group faltered the other succeeded. But Group 4 didn't make public alliances, and that deterred the other groups from making alliances.

It was interesting to see the paranoia and fear that caused other groups to attack. Apparently, Group 4 was the threat because they didn't have any alliances but had reasonable resources. So the other groups were going to gang up on them and take their resources (which in the long run wouldn't last long). However, that was actually bad decision making because once we were eliminated, other groups would turn on each other and there wouldn't be complete security for everyone. An interesting point that Mr. Stewart brought up was that when we were given the assignment to attain security, immediately most of us thought, "security for me" instead of "security for all of us." That type of thinking was very evident as groups revealed their plans after the simulation ended. Certain groups planned to cut off alliances and conquer since there was no one to answer to if the alliance was broken. While it could be seen as logical to pick off the smaller groups until there is only one left standing, it isn't very effective to attain security. As I said in the little speech in the beginning of class, the only way to absolutely ensure security is to make peace with everyone and have all our plans in the open with one another. I guess it can connect back to Machiavelli's idea (thanks MEHAP) about being feared or loved. While being feared can give you security in the short term, being loved will get you security in the long term.

Group 3's Attempts to Cooperate With Other Nations

Throughout our country simulation where there were six different nations composed of students who had different amounts of money, soldiers, and power levels, Group 3 ended up having the smallest military (least amount of soldiers and artillery) and very few economic units even though the nation had started off with the 3rd best economy and a sizeable military. I strongly believe that this was as a result of our lack of cooperation with other nations, as can be seen through how alliances allowed even the weakest countries such as Countries 5 and 6 to succeed, meanwhile Country 4, a nation with only 1 alliance that was kept a secret, ended up getting isolated and then attacked by everyone else. However, even though our nation did only have 2 alliances, one of which being a secret military agreement with Country 4, we were still actively pursuing alliances with other countries that ended up failing due to a general distrust for our country. For example, during the first round, Country 3 wrote up treaties to form military alliances with Countries 5 and 6, which would allow all of these countries protect each other. However, both countries strongly refused our treaties for reasons unbeknownst to us at the time, even though we were stronger than them at the time and even though we were willing to protect them. Additionally, this general distrust for Country 3 was exemplified through how we did end up forming treaties with other countries during the second and third rounds. During the second round, we rewrote our treaties with Countries 5 and 6 and tried to wrote one for Country 2 which agreed that we would go as far as to pay these nations per turn in favor of a military alliance between our country and others, and still, all three nations refused our proposals. It wasn't until the end of round 2 and early round 3 that we were able to form treaties with Countries 1 and 4, both of these originally being secret treaties, and the main aspect differentiating these treaties between our proposed agreements with the other countries was that in these treaties, we were paying both Country 1 and Country 4 5 economic units per turn. This essentially meant that we were paying all of our per-turn income in favor of military alliances with other nations in order to promote our domestic security if a war were to take place involving Country 3, which would allow us to have allies rather than being isolated by everyone else. However, because Country 4 did end up being isolated by the other countries for not forming alliances, they were able to emphasize the importance of public alliances between nations, as their decisions to be mostly independent affected how other countries trusted them. Even so, Country 3 was still treated poorly and ignored due to us being theoretically untrustworthy, which prevented us from forming treaties, and therefore limited our ability to secure our nation and protect ourselves.

Class Simulation 10/12

In class we did a simulation where we split into six countries and formed alliances/gained power similar to a real war. It appeared that most of the countries began by making as many resources as possible. Then groups 2, 5, and 6 decided to go to war against 4. Whether or not the reason behind it was because of economic power or Matt's hurt feelings, the end result would have been a defeat of group 4 because it seemed apparent that group 3 had no intentions of backing their alliance with group 4. In the debriefing today, many members of group 4 expressed discontent with the way the simulation went down. They openly criticized other groups for their intentions and went on about how world peace was the obvious choice all along. Tino made the argument that "actions speak louder than words," when referring to peace. However, group 4 only seemed to make these efforts for peace after they realized that they were the target of the attacks. This idea seems to demonstrate a little bit of hindsight bias, because had the situations been reversed, I don't think that they would have any problems with being on the offensive side.

WW1 Simulation

In the simulation, there were 6 countries with different starting armies, and each earning a different amount of credits per turn. Out country started off with the most power, and the most money per turn, but we had weaker soldier building power. Group 2 was the other starting powerful country, with 3 and 4 in the middle power range, and 5 and 6 in last place for power. Each country's money went down as the list went down (1 got the most, 6 got the least. At the beginning of the first turn, 2 and 1 made an alliance, and 5 made alliances with 2 and 6. 1 made an alliance with 3, and 4 made no alliances. In the second turn most countries built up some army units, and 1 made an alliance with 5. At this point, 5, 2, and 6 were planning to attack 4 because they had the lowest power rating, and they made a lot of starting units, and also because they refused to communicate with other countries. This led to suspicion and everyone agreed to attack 4 in the next turn. This led to the start of a war, which in turn ended the simulation. 4 was attacked because they had the most starting units, and because the had the lowest power level, so they could be taken out quickly, and so they wouldn't be a threat in the future. They were also attacked because they were acting fishy, they didn't make any alliances, and were refusing to talk to country 5, and they pushed away anybody trying to talk with them. I think that 4 was mainly attacked, because they posted the biggest threat to other countries, and everyone wanted them out of the way for maximum security. It was basically everyone against 4, and if 4 was taken out, the rest of the countries could live in peace, because they all had treaties and alliances with each other.

RIP - Group 4

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Simulation De-Brief

For the past few days, our class has explored a simulation of opposing countries, and what security truly means.  There were six groups of students, each representing a different country, each given different resources and growth capabilities. There were two obvious stronger nations from the start, with the four others much smaller. The nation I was a part of, 5, was one of the smallest, so we immediately tried to create alliances with stronger nations. We created a strong alliance with country 2, the strongest nation, and went on to ally with countries 1 and 3. We then, as an allied group, declared war on country 4, who had a strong military and we perceived as a threat. This is when the simulation ended, and we came to discuss all that had occurred. Through this discussions, we realized that we should not have created so many alliances, and instead created a much stronger bond with only nation 2. If we had done this, we could have held better security long term. The war would have been destructive to everyone, and was not a good idea.

In Class Simulation

In yesterday's simulation my group, group 4, was attacked. Why was my country attacked? The rationale behind this, according to other countries, was because my country seemed that it had a strong military power, yet is was the least powerful- making it the easy one to fight. Also, a point was brought up that the other countries were afraid of my country because we were not making allies with anyone, so it seemed as though we may actually attack someone. This didn't particularly make sense to me, why did they think they my country would attack? Why didn't they just come talk to my group and try to negotiate?
Also, according to the other groups, they felt secure because they had allies, but may I ask why they felt so secure by this? In the beginning of the simulation Mr.Stewart clearly said that people could lie, he never said the treaties would be properly enforced by him. Why was it that the groups had faith in their allies, but not my group who was quietly sitting in the corner. Many groups argued that the treaties wouldn't e broken because there were fines the country would have to pay if they broke the treaty, but that argument didn't seem too valid. Group 2's leader said that 'ten economic units would be a chip off the shoulder', which meant that they were planning to break off their treaty and pay the minuscule fine that came with it. But what would happen if group two didn't pay the fine? Probably nothing. If group two, the most powerful group, promised their other alliances something if they allowed them to break off from group five (the next smallest group) and they all conquered group five together then group one probably wouldn't lose much, if anything.
So, why was it that groups were afraid of the quiet, unpowerful Group 4 but felt secure under their treaties?

group four problems

I feel that Group four had some valid points on what they said, but was ultimately wrong because they didn't do anything to protect themselves, like not making any public treaties with anybody and only making one ship. I feel that if they had more treaties and made more protection groups one, two, five, and six wouldn't have declared war on them because it would be a long bloody battle. If they would have gotten more powerful we might have made a treaty with them if they were up to it. Also, if they were nicer in the first place and offered to make treaties with other people there would be an overall peace.

Country Simulation

In class, we did a simulation in which we split into multiple countries and built resources based off  a number of economic units that we got per turn. The simulation ended with countries 2,5,6 declaring war on country 4. After the simulation, we debriefed and had a discussion about what the best option for having all of us gain security would have been. There was a lot of disagreement about why countries should or should not have attacked others, and world peace was proposed as an option. My question is, would world peace really have worked, or would it have ended up the same way as it did simply because one of the more powerful countries might decide it didn't want peace, and instead try and conquer the other nations by itself?

Simulation game

In our simulation, our country started off normal. We made alliances that favored both the countries in the alliance. In the end war broke out and our country (1) got involved because we were in alliance with Country 5, the country that started the war. After this class discussion, we now know that if we went to war it would've benefitted us greatly as we could've went to war with smaller countries taking over them. But since we have an alliance with 2 which was the most powerful we'd eventually have to break it up if we went to war otherwise the two countries standing would have been country 1 and country 2. My opinion is that we shouldn't have gone to war because the game ended early.

This activity proves that you need alliances or you will be "ganged" up against if you have no other countries to protect you. But on the other side you don't want too many alliances otherwise if they start a war you will be dragged in. Countries should think ahead and make different thoughts of whether or not their alliance country could start a war with either an enemy country or a country you have an alliance to. A country could get caught in the middle of a war and be under immense pressure if two of the alliances they're with go against each other so you have to decide which country to fight for.

Country Simulation

Monday and Tuesday in class, we did a simulation in which there were 6 countries which all had different levels of power. The instructions were very vague, with the only goal being security. While some took this to mean security for all, most people tended to think that it meant security for only them. Immediately people began to get very defensive, thinking everyone else was a threat. Rather than try to create alliances with all of the countries to support each other, people made alliances out of fear of being attacked. They only thought of what their own country was getting out of the alliance, which led to apathy when it came to what the other country in the alliance needed. Many alliances were meaningless, for they were made just to be broken later. There was nothing stopping a powerful country from breaking off an alliance with a far weaker country. Country 2, the most powerful, along with countries 5 and 6, two of the weakest ones, declared war on Country 4, which had a medium amount of power. The weaker countries believed this brought them security, however it was very likely that they would become the next targets. After people's fear subsided, it was greed and the need for power that would have continued to fuel world domination for the most powerful country, continuing to wipe out smaller ones, because that is the only way to have no fear and suspicion.

Mr. Stewart wanted us to think about the logic behind our actions. The simulation ended once war was declared because this brings the opposite of security, it brings destruction. If people had thought about how all could benefit and be secure rather than just themselves, we would have all been more successful.

Simulation

After further discussion of our simulation results, it has become clear that countries did not think about how other countries would turn against each other.  Countries did not take into account that alliances could be broken, instead countries relied to much on what countries signed, instead of if when the time came does certain countries have the power to end that alliance? For example country 2 had enough power to pay off the alliance with 5 to later over take them, still having enough power to produce mass resources to help. Overall it is seen that countries must look at this simulation as a chance to think deeper about what other countries could have accomplished based off of the power they obtained.

Conservative vs. Liberal Imperialism Theories

Just to simplify both conservative and liberal theory on imperialism, I wanted to compare the two and show on what points they clashed. The conservative view of imperialism is that it is necessary in order to maintain the existing social order and balance. The conservatives state that imperialism is the only way to secure trade, markets, and maintain employment, but in reality it was a way to maintain power and wealth within the small elite group. It is based on the idea that WASP individuals are superior and have the right to "improve" the lives of lesser people by imposing their views and taking over their nations through imperialism. This view was the common way in which people supported imperialism. The counterpart to that view is the Liberal theory, which states that imperialism is a choice and that economic stability and security is maintained and can be gained through various other means that do not exclusively include imperialism. The liberal idea points to increasing the income of the majority through increasing wage levels and legalizing unions. All these are proposed way to fix the issues at home with legislation rather than imperialism. This view is what makes the liberal view of imperialism and the conservative view of the subject so different. In what other ways do these views differ?

Understanding on Views of Imperialism

Conservative Theories: States that it imperialism is a positive thing; giving all the resources to the superior people and giving all the problems down to the poor or not wealthy. Like Social Darwinism, the strong countries should get stronger and keep the weak weak, so that they don’t succeed.

Liberal Theories: Is a choice, that can be avoided and is a generally against imperialism. You don’t have to do it, you have a choice, way out. Also can be viewed as Negative; stating that you can solve all these problems without imperialism and still succeed.

Marxist Theories: States that If you have capitalism its gonna lead to chaos, and imperialism.  The government doesn't care about the people, and will take anything and everything possible until there is nothing left, then they will take directly from the people. This view is Negative believing that it will lead to fights.

Political Theories: Positive; saying imperialism is the way to produce a strong stable country.  Will allow for power to be equally distributed and balanced. They expand so that you have more political power having more power over society.

Social-Psychological Theories: This is stating that other countries will keep it a option so that they can do what other countries are doing. To say they did it.  A country will try to give reasons to do the same, depending on if it succeeds or not.  Key: “warrior class” connect people who are trying to compete for power, and achieving the same results. Directed by a group of people that will benefit from imperialism trying to perpetuate it.

Theories of Imperialism

Today in class, we began an intro to imperialism in the United States. Imperialism is the "extension of a nation's power through military and diplomatic means." We looked at five theories about imperialism: Conservative, Liberal, Marxist, Political, and Social-Psychological Theories. Based on what we know so far about the late 19th/ early 20th century United States, I predict that the general attitude of Imperialism for the United States government is the Conservative theory. This theory best matches with what the U.S. government believed in at the time. This theory is pro-imperialism, and it continues the idea of Social Darwinism in that it is necessary for the best and most developed countries to stay powerful. While there were some progressive presidents during this time, business and the idea of Social Darwinism still very much existed and thrived. There was also a high sense of American pride during this time, because of things like nativism and the American Dream. Americans felt that they were above others, and this will likely reflect in their attitude towards imperialism.