We've recently finished a simulation game in class based on Imperialism and its values. We were only given a certain amount of resources, which can also be bought over the course of the game, and the ending goal, which is to reach security for the state. At the beginning of the simulation, people were trying to figure who had what resource and how much of it and what alliances that each group wanted to make. This portion is a reference to real life, a couple years or decades before wars break out. Each country, represented by groups in the simulation, wants to figure out what the other countries have, whether they'll be a potential threat in the future, and whether if that particular country would be willing to forge an alliance with them or a peace treaty (regarding trade, not waging war, or other kinds of terms so that they don't go to war against each other). This aspect of the alliances and/or treaty was represented by pieces of paper with terms on it, signed by both groups (countries) and given to the teacher. Of course, in the real world, the countries' representative or leader would be the ones to negotiate the terms and announced to the world or kept private. And depending on people's choices, the game (the war) could last short or long depending on when people started to wage war on other groups.
Near the end of the simulation, 3 groups teamed up against group 1 with the thought of taking out the weaker countries or just whichever countries that seemed to prove as a threat to them, which turned out to be group 1, with the highest amount of artillery and soldiers. When they commenced with this decision, the groups didn't exactly think it through enough because even though they thought their number of soldiers could overwhelm group 1, they didn't (assumed here) think that the ships and artillery would play a bigger role compared to soldiers in terms of power. The results ended up with the four groups, who were involved, in anarchy, leaving group 2 and 3 in unstable condition. This situation most likely wouldn't have happened in real life, since the majority (maybe all) of the countries would want to be advantageous when going into a war, they would have to consider all aspects, such as soldier number, artillery, ships, air forces, etc, and dominating by a large amount over the opponent (or so they presume that they do) in order for them to win.
In conclusion, the class came up with a couple theories on how each country would operate when time of war is near: some countries may want to eliminate either the weakest countries at the early stages (so they won't grow to become a threat later on or form alliances with other countries that could contribute to other countries' advantages, or choosing to remain neutral to everyone and have a peace treaty for not attacking each other and everyone could just live in harmony.
I found this event to be particularly interesting in that it proved to be astoundingly similar to many historical events. For example, the intricate system of alliances in our class resembled Europe in the early 20th century. In addition, the single event needed to set off the world war was similar to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to theoretically evaluate what would have happened had all countries been in a "league of nations" sort of agreement. By this I mean that If everybody was allied with the groups, or most of them, could we all have achieved security? This relates back to Woodrow Wilson's policies and his goal of security. He wanted to stop or prevent war, which is understandable, but many Americans feared that they would be dragged into another and bigger war (WW2). So if everybody but one group had formed alliances to help each other, would war have been prevented or simply be deadlier?
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting thing I saw with our class' simulation was nationalism. Nationalism is a term meaning a patriotic feelings or efforts. When we picked our teams we all chose to be with the friends we had in the class, not surprising, and as time went on each team would build a sort of bond within themselves that they would never betray their team or "country". This can be related to the real world because countries are very similar. They align with their friends and have a watchful eye on their enemies.
ReplyDeleteI found the class simulation to be very interesting, and I agree with many of your points stated in your article. I found that most groups developed a sense of paranoia during the simulation. As certain groups grew more and more powerful, other groups began to fear for the safety of themselves because they could have easily been attacked. This can relate to how countries function today, because as certain countries gain power, they become potential threats and other countries begin to fear their sense of security.
ReplyDelete