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.
I agree with your statement that if we focused more on supporting others rather than ourselves the activity would have turned out better. The issue was that we only thought of ways to benefit ourselves such as trying to get things out of forming alliances with other countries. An example of this was that the more powerful country would receive money from the allied country. This in turn would weaken the allied country resulting in more conflicts.
ReplyDeleteI think your post very accurately describes what happened. It shows that while we can judge history, we are just as likely to allow it to happen again. The first World War was sparked by the Archduke Ferdinand's death. This minor assassination would not have blown up into such a large thing except that all of the countries had alliances that dragged them into war. This same scenario happened during our simulation, one country decided to attack and dragged all of their alliances into it. Perhaps, in keeping with history, country 4 might have made alliances that would have resulted in the whole class in the war.
ReplyDeleteI would like to add that it seems that the killing of the Archduke can be analogous to Matt's claim that country 4 rudely sent him away. This spurred them to war, but really the thing that got our country into war was alliances and a desire for resources, similar to the way that all of the alliances in the World War resulted in an escalated conflict.
DeleteI do agree with your points that alliances between countries could be broken and lead to destructive international conflict, however I don't think that there was necessarily "nothing stopping a powerful country from breaking off an alliance with a far weaker country." Even though it might have been easy for a powerful nation to do this, I don't think it would be a simple and clear choice to make, if they were to consider some of the effects of choosing to do this. By breaking off such alliances, they would make other nations more untrustworthy of them, which in turn could inevitably result in these smaller countries ganging up to take them out, as they would be seen as a threat to their own national security. Also, choosing to break off these alliances could hurt their economies, since if they were being supplied by other nations, they wouldn't want to cut themselves off from a reliable source of revenue (as shown by how James wanted to keep Country 1 allied with Country 3 because we were paying them 5 economic units per turn to do so). In the end, conflict could be resorted to in an attempt to decimate other nations and promote one country's dominance, however I think that your descriptions of how the strong countries would inevitably try and take out the weak countries is somewhat oversimplified, as there are other aspects to consider when making the decision to go to war.
ReplyDelete