Reflective Journal Response. The rubric for evaluating your reflective writing is in the public folder. PLEASE NOTE: I cannot access the rubric from home either. Sorry.
Respond to the following prompts: (Due by Wednesday 3/19) Did the Versailles Conference process enhance your understanding of the political, social and economic issues facing the world in the aftermath of the Great War? What aspects did you find particularly engaging? Was negotiating difficult? (If so, what might this tell us of the circumstances facing nations who were truly invested in the process?) Were problems left unresolved? What questions or issues were left unaddressed? What would you change? What other issues would you like to raise in the post-conference class discussion?Keep in mind, I am looking for quality responses that satisfy the requirements of the rubric. Length is up to you.
53 comments:
I found the Versailles Conference to be a hands on way of learning about the way that governments and alliances worked and were used in the creation of the Treaty of Versailles. By making each student participate in their own group, they were truly held responsible for the well being of their country and they had to do their job. Not only was each country responsible for their people, but they also had to comply with alliances which often conflicted with other alliances and political goals. In order to even participate in the Conference the group members had to research what happened in the real treaty and what the views of the people in their country were at the time and come up with new tactics in attempts to please everyone. Although political issues were very intense after the Great War, social and economic issues also plagued everyone and demanded to be dealt with. Each country had their own specific needs, and there was no way for everyone to get what they wanted all of the time, so there was a lot of give and take on many issues. I believe that the Versailles Conference process was very instrumental in my person understanding of political, social, and economic issues facing the world in the aftermath of the Great War.
The one aspect that I found most engaging was the creation of alliances. I enjoyed this very much and I found that by making a strong alliance with one country, specifically one of the Great Powers often pulled other countries into an alliance with us. While China was very open about some of our alliances, other were kept secret and only involved voting for another country here or there in situations that couldn’t hurt us, but the effort that it took to maintain alliances and create new ones paid off during the conference. While at times negotiating was difficult, for the most part China had an easy time forging alliances and getting what we wanted. Most of the war was fought far from the Pacific, so many of the other countries didn’t care much about what happened there, but they were more than willing to help China get things passed when they would receive our vote on a particularly hard article that was trying to get passed. China also only had one real enemy or threat in the Pacific and that was Japan, and with our early negotiations and existing political situation between Japan and other countries it wasn’t very difficult to convince everyone to vote for China and against Japan. However, some of the other countries that were particularly invested, such as France and Great Britain, were very eager to make an alliance with China because of the help we could give them without hurting them in other areas. While China found it very easy to negotiate, other countries did not and the especially involved countries had many different things that they were trying to do all at once.
We were only given one school day to create the entire treaty and naturally some things were left out. One of the more important things that was neglected was certain aspects of the League of Nations. While the League was a good idea, there were some things in which the details were not clear or were not addressed. One example of this was the Leagues army, and while one does exist there are many issues that were left unresolved. It was also an issue that the League of Nations did not completely address the way that the countries that made up the upper portion of the League would be selected. Although some parts of the treaty were clearly overlooked, I believe that on a whole we did a very good job in covering the majority of topics given the time restraint.
As a representative of China I would have to say that the treaty turned out to be an advantage to us for the majority of the time, however of I could change things I would have to change the limitation that were put on the armies. China’s extremely large population and our newly acquired land should be able to be protected, but with only 500,000 troops and a population as large as we had at that time, it is ridiculous to assume that China will comply with this ruling. Another minor issue that China might consider changing is the reparations. While China was not damaged to the extent that other countries were, there was still damage, and while it is acceptable for China to file papers to get reparations paid, it would have been easier just to put in the treaty that we get something, but because there were only three people in China’s group, we were not able to have a delegate in that group and were therefore overlooked.
In a post-conference discussion I would like to bring up the topic of overall gain. I would like to learn about what country did the “best,” and by best I mean improved their situation the most or gained the most from the treaty. I believe that China did well, but would like to learn about how it did in comparison to the other countries who participated.
All in all, the Versailles Conference did enhance my comprehension of the tension and rivalries facing the different nations and groups in the aftermath of World War One.
Particularly engaging was the actual conference voting procedure, in which we voted on pieces of the resolution. That was where all the ‘backstabbing’ took place. After all, people seemed fair enough in the forums (if you negotiated well enough) and a working paper had to be drafted out of the committee sessions no matter what, but the ratification process was tricky. People seemed to be aware of their vote among eight others, and there was a certain gratification in thwarting other nations’ plans and advancing your own. In that way, nationalism was only intensified—probably, this feeling at the actual conference was also very tangible. The real Versailles treaty, at the end, also failed to lesson nationalistic tendencies that caused ethnic and territorial rivalries among groups.
Negotiating was difficult in that some delegates might be representing a nation with less assets and resources than another. Naturally, it would be harder to have your voice heard if you represented a smaller country, than if you represented one of the Big Three. Even if a delegate worked to achieve deals between other nations, there is no guarantee that during the voting process, your ‘deal’ will escape the other nation’s mind, and they will vote against what was promised. Truthfully, it was a little frustrating to watch members of some larger nations look down their noses at you simply because Mr. Kirby didn’t put you in a group representing a more advantageous nation whose interests coincided with others (ahem…).
Just like the real treaty of Versailles, this treaty might have looked upon the conference as a way to promote their own interests and beliefs, and not stop war (it seems stemming future war was only the second thing on the agenda). Some issues were addressed in depth, such as a League army, while others were passed over in haste, such as the vague idea behind a Judiciary body or just how existing arms would be disposed of (this was ironed out during the conference). Unimportant issues to world peace sometimes took the forestage, whereas issues countries weren’t interested in (Serbia didn’t quite care about African territories) were used as bargaining chips. The negotiations there felt quite real.
As for changes, it would be nice to have slightly more time for conference. I know that some groups don’t need it, but the League of Nations in particular, even though we did rush, was not able to finish a proper discussion of resolution. Also, all girls assigned to countries who value masculinity and healthy testosterone levels should be forced to wear beards and mustaches (ultra-hippy sunglasses are optional). One factor I felt particularly annoying was the seating positions. The Big Three, some of the largest, loudest groups, sat in the front, while minor powers sat behind. I’m not quite sure how just yet, but the seating should be adjusted for easier interation and easier access to the smart board and overall moderator. It would be nice if debate on certain issues could be extended. Some people who wanted the chance to talk had to be ignored (though this was necessary because of time, it’s a bit rushed and the experience ‘abridged’).
In a post-conference discussion, it would be best to figure out which country stuck to their historical rules the most, as well as which country managed to achieve the most gain with effective diplomacy. Also, it would be interesting if we all took a survey individually or in a group to vote on whether our country would declare war or act in another manner towards other countries because of the treaty. Serbia, for example, would be prompted to deeply resent the Western influences after the treaty. If we took a survey on which of us would go to war or commit another action, we could see if WWII would likely take place, according to our conference, or not.
Overall the mock conference enhanced my understanding of issues during the aftermath of the Great War. Discussing issues and forming alliance with other countries on the online forum was particularly engaging and quite advantageous. Today we were lucky enough to have the internet at our fingertips; it was obviously much harder back then to converse with countries the way we can now.
While discussing topics and expressing our interests was engaging, the negotiating part was difficult, especially for lesser powers, such as Japan. Obviously the Big Three had the greatest power, and they could basically do whatever they wanted, but they let it get to their heads. No one wanted to form alliances with Japan, because we were greedy, but we were truly no more greedy than countries like Great Britain. Quite frankly I don't see why people didn't want to form alliances with us, because for a small country in size we sure had a lot of power and a strong military. It would have been easier for countries to fight off other ones with help from Japan's military and strength. But anyway, negotiating with countries like the U.S. was difficult, because while they advocated for peace among all countries and supposedly wanted to please everyone, they really had no intentions of pleasing certain countries (i.e. Japan). Great Britain was also extremely frustrating, because they would accuse Japan of being greedy, which was awfully hypocritical, because they wanted everything to go in their favor.
There were some unresolved issues in the section of the treaty concerning the League of Nations. One of them was to have a standing army in Poland. While this section of the treaty passed, it did not entirely address the purpose of the army and how they would go about doing things. Also, when describing the members of the houses (i.e. Upper and Lower houses within the League), there was some ambiguity regarding the selection process of countries and how one can be admitted into the league.
Japan would like to change how the territories in the Pacific were divided up. Why Great Britain should have control of northern Korea is unbeknownst to me, because last time I checked, Japan had conquered Korea, and Great Britain has absolutely no right to attempt taking that land from us. Supposedly they're "protecting China from Japanese advances," but that's a ridiculous excuse if I ever heard one. They just wanted to seize land from us and acquire more for themselves.
In post-conference discussion I would like to talk about which country/countries got the best deal with the treaty. It would be interesting to compare how our countries were affected by the treaty, and then I would like to look at how the REALY countries during the REAL conference were affected by the REAL treaty and see the similarities/differences.
In the time proceeding the Versialles Conference for this school year, I knew minimal information on all the opinions and history that was presented at the actual Versailles Conference after the Great War. Being assigned to research the opinions and stance of the United States in this Conference, I felt I knew more about their ideas during this time period than I would have if I had been assigned another pariticipating country. Past history classes had presented information on this area and teachers had taught Wilson’s Fourteen Points. For this reason, I did not think I would learn anything new but I was wrong. Since I was already familiar with the topic, I was able to find more details that I had not been aware of previously. I was assigned European Territorial Redistribution. After reading Wilson’s Fourteen Points, the US opinion made sense and was nothing that new to me. This being said, once retruning to my fellow US delegates was when I learned more on the US opinions in this Conference. I was able to learn more on our viewpoints in Africa, arms limitations, and reparations. These were some of the areas that I found to be most interesting besides my own.
Not only did this experience provide me with more insight towards US political, social, and economic opinions of this time period but also of other powerful countries at that time. Talking with other delegations and participating on the forum allowed me to learn other countries viewpoints. The forum prepared you for how each country would present themselves once the Conference was taking place. As I stated before, past history classes only gave a brief overview of countries opinions but this Conference provided a way for us to all get involved in a fun way that would teach us more about specific opinions or policies that occurred for various countries before entering into the Conference. The experience was greatly beneficial in teaching me new things I did not know about political, social, and economic issues facing the world in the aftermath of the Great War.
Out of all the topics researched, presented, and debated at this Conference, the most engaging to me were the redistribution of territory in Africa and Europe. Africa and its current lines of division had always been a mystery to me. I had always known that Versallies was the major aggressor in the issues that are taking place in current times between nationalies and/or tribes living there but I had never known why these lines had been drawn. After listening to the delegates participating in this section, it was obvious why it had been done. Although it created issues that I am sure will take many more years to fix, it was easy to see based on what was occuring at the time of the Conference, why they created the lines they did. There would not have been an esay or smarter way to divide up the country. In the section of Europe, the most interesting part was the opinions of each country participating. No one was as defense as I would have thought or greedy in terms of receiving land. We were able to work together and for the most part agreed on each proposal.
Negotiating in my committee, European Territorial Redistriubtion, was easy. During the committee sessions, no one delegate presented problems. We were able to easily create a proposal for the floor session. It was after the committee sessions were over and we were each preparing for the floor session that we realized some areas we wished to revise. In particular, Britain and myself, the US, found issues in what we had agreed to give to Serbia. Approaching the floor session and the actual floor session negotiations were what were tougher. Waiting to create an amendment or tryign to have your voice heard was the frustrating part. It was not necessarily tough to pass what we wanted because being the US and a part of the Big Three gave us a step up. Not only could we veto amendments we didn’t like, but most of the time the other pariticipating countries agreed with what we said.
I felt that all problems planned on being addressed were dealt with. No one section presented issues that could not be solved. The only down fall was when we missed on our chance to vote in the section of a standing League of Nations Army. As the US delegation, we felt that this was still an issue. This being said, nothing was left untouched or not debated to a compromise. I am sure that I am not only speaking for myself but for my fellow delegation when I say we would like to reopen the vote in terms of the standing army.
In terms of what I would like to see changed about the conference, it would not be very much at all. I thoroughly enjoyed the all day aspect and being able to interact with the other two sections of AP European History. It gave us a chance to see how they worked with one another and new opinions to gain insight on. Although it was easy to pick up on, I would have liked to have been more prepared on how the floor session was conducted. The packet we were given was somewhat confusing. It would have helped to have a small briefing in class before the Conference. Other than this, I believe that if the Conference were to be held again, everything should be kept the same.
Post-conference class discussion could consist of reviewing what treaty we actually passed. I would have liked to hear more from the committee on the League of Nations. During the floor session I found it somewhat confusing. No issues or topics I felt would need to be further debated in class. Overall, the Mock Versailles Conference, I felt was a great success and should be conducted again in following years.
The mock Versailles Conference definitely did enhance my understanding of how the countries involved with the Great War negotiated with one another after the conclusion of the conflict. One of the most engaging aspects of the conference was the actual voting on issues, and seeing the outcome of each vote. It was interesting to see which countries voted with one another, and all the rivalries among nations. Through the conference we could see that the smaller countries really did have a hard time getting their points across, which was mostly because the Big Three were really just looking out for their own ideas and gains.
I realize that it was very difficult for the smaller nations to negotiate, but representing the United States made negotiating a lot easier. The U.S. held a lot of power at this conference so it was pretty easy to get what we wanted passed. Also, having veto power made it possible for us to stop ideas that we didn’t agree with from being passed. Although we may have been difficult to negotiate with, we were really trying to stick to our county’s ideals and the 14 Points. Overall it was much easier for the Big Three to negotiate than it was for the smaller nations. The nations that were more deeply involved in a bunch of different issues probably had more trouble negotiating because they were trying to ask for so many different things. It was easier to focus your efforts on a small amount of issues rather than several…as the saying goes you have to choose your battles.
Since the conference only lasted for one day there are obviously issues that were never resolved. Primarily the League of Nations sections had many unresolved issues. Although the League Army was passed, the details about it were very unclear, and there was no time to go into depth about it. The setup of the League also remained somewhat unclear, regarding what countries were in the Upper House, and how they got there. Other parts of the treaty were passed rather quickly with little discussion, but due to time constraints that was necessary.
Overall the U.S. is pretty much satisfied with the way the treaty turned out. There are only a couple of things that I would change with the conference. If it was possible I would make the conference longer, because the League of Nations was rushed and therefore was not able to address all of the issues that we should have covered. The U.S. would have also liked the League Army better if it was set up the way the U.N. army is today. It would be more plausible to use this type of army rather than a standing army. Other than that, I think the conference went very well.
In a post-conference discussion I would like to see which country gained the most out of the treaty. I think it would be interesting to see which country acted most like their actual country did at Versailles. I would also like to see a comparison between the results of our treaty and the real Treaty of Versailles, and look at how each country was really affected.
The Versailles conference did enhance my understanding of all of the issues after the Great War. I had not known of that many issues, big and little, that came up after the war. Many of these issues came up after the war that I had not known about. In having the Versailles conference I was able to understand and learn about these problems that now faced each country involved in the war.
The part of the conference that I found most interesting was the negotiating and the voting. I enjoyed the negotiating because it was interesting to see how each country tried to defend their positions. I also enjoyed the voting because it was good to see how each country felt about a topic by how they would vote.
I think negotiating was a little bit difficult. There were some countries that were very little and had a harder time getting their point across than big countries like England or the United States. The big three had it very easy in negotiating because they could just veto things until people agree with them to get what they want. The smaller countries didn’t have that power so they had to make deals and try to please the big countries to get what they wanted. Italy was kind of an in between country so at times we had difficulty negotiating, but we got most of our points and ideas across.
There were some problems that were left unresolved. It seemed like the League of Nations was unresolved. There was a problem with the standing army, with who wanted and did not want it. Mostly the opposition seemed to be from the United States, so I am sure that they would want to go back and negotiate a little more. I think that some of the issues dealing with the rest of the League of Nations were a little questionable and that there were some issues with territories that had to get dealt with quickly due to time limitations.
There is not much I would have changed with the conference or the treaty. I think that the conference could have been made a little longer because many issues were rushed, like territories and the League of Nations. If we had more time I am sure that more of the countries would have liked the outcome. In the treaty I would have changed how much land Italy got in Africa by giving Italy more land.
I think in post-conference class discussion we could talk about the treaty and what changes could have been made if there was more time. I also think that we should see which countries proposal was most like the Treaty of Versailles to see who got the most out of it. I would also like to see how our treaty compared to the actually treaty to see if we truly represented our countries.
The Versailles Conference did enhance my understanding of the political, social and economic issues facing the world in the aftermath of the Great War. While researching background information about the Versailles conference, I learned about each countries involvement in the war and how the war itself began. From this knowledge I understood what each country was faced with, and how each decision had to be thoroughly looked over in order for it to coincide with what that country needed. Being part of the War Guilt I was able to place blame on one country for the starting of the war. While researching I learned about each countries reason for entering the war.
During the conference I found that the negotiations between countries were very engaging; everyone brought up great points that would influence not only their country but others. While negotiating was engaging it was also difficult. Many countries could not agree on certain topics and alliances between countries were broken. There problems that were left unresolved were those that only one country was unhappy with.
Most everyones questions or issues were not left unaddressed. Everyone got to state their opinion or ask questions about things they didn’t understand. The conference should not be changed at all. I thought it was very organized and the outcome was good. Majority of the delegates agree on the final treaty and that is obviously important. Everyone had time to state their opinion and present ideas to be added or changed to the treaty.
In post-conferance class discusions I would like to hear what the actual treaty was and who benfitted the most. It would be interesting to compare our ideas with the ideas of the people who write up the actual treaty.
I think that any time you can act out a part of history, you find yourself learning more than you thought you would. Any time you immerse yourself in character it helps you understand what was going on during the time. It became very easy to feel the tensions between countries with opposing interests and the economic strife that some countries had experienced during the Great War. The conference also showed that every country had an agenda, no matter how noble their ideals. The United States, for example, wanted self determination of all colonies; however, they kept their holdings, including Guam and the Philippines.
The part that I found most engaging was, by far, the negotiations with other countries. I had a blast negotiating in committee, and especially online beforehand. That was a great tool, as it let me (Great Britain), the US and France come to an agreement before the conference as to what we wanted to happen in Africa. With the big 3 agreeing, it made it very easy to pass.
At times negotiations became stagnant, but I would not say that they were difficult. The hardest part was the pre-committee negotiations. That was only because it seemed like a new country would pop up every time an agreement was reached. First, we made an agreement with France. Then, when that happened, the US popped up and then the three of us had to come to an agreement. Then, Italy came in with their demands. At that point, I totally and completely ignored anything that they wanted, as the big 3 had already agreed, so I knew it would pass.
The only issue that was left unresolved was the League of Nations Army. Even though it passed, it is in trouble. The US voted for it without knowing, so the chances of them ratifying th treaty are slim to none. That would put us right back to where we were, debating the purpose and location of the army.
It may have been smart to address what is to happen to the populations in the territories that were changing hands, especially in Europe. For example, the people of the Alsace Lorraine and the Saarland were German citizens fighting against France. They are now living in French controlled territory. Is that a good idea? We should have put a clause in giving permission for people in certain areas to move within the borders of their former countries. With large groups of Germans living in France, it puts both countries in a bad position.
One change I would make is to put at least one delegate from each country in each committee. Then, instead of making smaller countries have fewer delegates, the larger countries could have more delegates. The only way I could think of doing this would be to change the structure of the territorial redistribution committee. Instead of splitting it up into 5 different committees, make it one. Then, within the committee you could have different groups make up the Africa, Europe etc., much like how it worked this year. However, to pass a resolution the entire committee would have to vote on it, that way each country has a say in each of the areas of redistribution. I also would change the power of the big 3. I think that for a resolution to pass that 2 of the 3 should have vote for it, not all 3.
I think that the only thing I would like to see added to the post conference discussion would be for one group to be declared, for a lack of a better word, "winner". I think that it would be a help if the groups were ranked, not by how much they gained from the conference or by how much they lost, but by how each group did reflecting the historical desires of the country they were acting as. That would be helpful because, I am sure, we will be tested on this material, and I think that some of the people in the classes may mix up what the countries wanted in our mock conference and what the actual countries wanted in real life.
I felt that our mock Versailles Conference was very informative because, like the mock King Henry trial, it made you have to look deeper into history and figure out exactly what happened and what your country might want out of the treaty.
Also having a specific country that you have to understand completely to know what needs to get done was the most educational. Not only did you have to look at the previous Treaty of Versailles conference, you had to look at the people’s reactions to the treaty and what the country was like before the war and then also what the country was like after the Treaty of Versailles was signed. Italy was just starting to really build it’s economy before the war however it was hard for them to really get back to where they were after all of their damages. So you had to take this all into account when trying to barter with the other countries.
I thought that the moderated caucuses were the most engaging part of the conference because it was a smaller group. It was easier to get your issues out and talk about, before having to speak in front of the 50 students. In the moderated caucuses, it was easier for smaller countries to try to get out their own issues, especially since the big three couldn’t veto the issue right off without hearing the arguments. Although in my group it was already decided that Italy would not be getting to the land, everyone was still willing to listen and even compromise with the suggestion that the United States would aid the South West Africa territory, instead of just abandoning the territory which was previously discussed.
One thing that I didn’t necessarily enjoy so much was that a country that wasn’t apart of the Big Three didn’t have as much power during the speaker’s list part of the conference. Although Italy and some of the other countries had some interesting things to suggest or add to the proposed Treaties, they could be automatically shut down by Great Britain, France and/or the United States.
In the post conference discussions I would like to see actual numbers of whether or not our treaty would have prevented the Second World War. Also I would like to see which countries benefited the most out of the conference. However overall I think that the conference was very informative and should be almost a requirement for future classes.
The process of the Versailles Conference greatly enhanced my understanding of all the political, social, and economic issues which followed the Great War. The conference fused together my understanding of event, not only immediately following the war, but also those farther into the future, so much as even the present day. There could not have been a better way to attempt to understand the roots of problems as intricate as the Middle East, on all levels such as religion, political boundaries, oil, and many others. Though such topics have been brushed over in previous years of history, in was done in the fashion of bare boned facts, with no motives, depth, or explanation attached. As a member of the US delegation, I found it particularly engaging to see how other nations reacted when issues were brought up on the larger floor. Being across the Atlantic Ocean, the US was personally detached. Though we lost men and money, we were not a direct site of war. For those nations who were direct sites of war or those who were looking to emerge, their reaction revealed to you their main goals and purpose.
Within the committees, it was initially difficult to negotiate because you were unsure of what other countries wanted and what you yourself might be willing to sacrifice. Once it was clear what people would give and take, you could move along faster and decide whom you would support. It showed how invested nations might feel their wins and losses harder. Also, for invested countries, it might be less about choosing whom to support and more about gather support, which is a harder task. All the issues we brought up within the Pacific committee came to a resolution, although some things the US would have preferred slightly different. We would have preferred Korea to be left solely to the British and that there be a little more freedom in trade. In the Treaty as a whole, the issue of the standing army may have reached a resolution, but it was not as the US delegation would have preferred. This realistically shows the give and take involved in politics; the final resolutions were in the best interest of all.
The process of the entire Versailles Conference greatly enhanced my understanding of what Europe was like after World War One. Not only did I learn a tremendous amount about the status of the country I represented in the conference, Italy, but I also became knowledgeable about the condition of other countries.
Most of all, the Versailles Conference process provided me with a unique perspective of the overall turmoil that was occurring throughout Europe after the war. Countries’ borders had to be drawn, nations had to be formed, and overseas possessions had to be divided amongst the victors. The condition of Europe at this time was quite disordered, which speaks volumes about the social, political, and economic status of the continent. Millions of lives had just been lost, and the Versailles Conference was partially responsible to bring Europe back to normalcy.
The aspect of the conference that I found to be most engaging was the negotiating in our respective committees and as an entire conference. I enjoyed the back and forth, give and take procedure that occurred between competitive countries. The amount of under the table, secret negotiating that occurred was somewhat surprising to me, but it is understandable that the delegates needed to do whatever possible to get what their country desired.
Because only victorious powers were represented in the conference, negotiating was not all that difficult. It was rare, in my committee or in the conference, for two countries to each want the same thing, such as the same territory. The bulk of the negotiations that occurred dealt with the extent to which each power was rewarded. This tells us a great deal about the circumstances faced in the actual conference. Delegates had their entire country to take care of and negotiate for. If their resolution was voted down or ignored, their country could suffer dire consequences.
Not many problems, issues, or questions were left unresolved. I know that the delegation from the United States was upset that they accidently abstained from voting on the League of Nation standing army proposal, which passed because of the mix up. I am sure that this is a large problem in their minds, but the proposal was supported by my country, so we had no problem with the mishap. The League Army is one resolution that could be brought up in post-class discussions. I would be interested to hear opinions on the idea now that we are out of character, and no longer represent our countries.
The only change that I would make to the conference process would be to give the actual conference more time. Perhaps it could take place over two days, or continue for an hour after school. It seemed to me that a few issues, such as the League of Nation Army, were rushed into voting. This was reasonable because of the time constrictions, but it could be avoided in the future. If the conference took place over more time, things such as borders of countries and territories could be better defined. This would provide more clarity in the treaty.
Overall, I found that my experience with the Versailles Conference was very beneficial to my overall understanding of the events of World War I. By dividing all of the classes into specific countries, each delegation member was forced to learn the main aims of their nation as well as the main aims of the others, negotiating a final outcome that they felt would be advantageous to the overall well being of the Western Hemisphere after the war. Whenever you can act out a piece of history it makes you more aware of the trials and tribulations that went into each characters decisions and it makes you appreciate the magnitude of the effect each decision has on a group of people. By acting out this conference each person was able to study the economic and political motives of each country thus enhancing our understanding of why things happened as they did during this time period.
The part of the conference that I found most intriguing was the negotiating with the other delegations and seeing the different types of conversations that were taking place. I felt the addition of an online forum greatly enhanced the experience, and allowed myself as well as other people to have an idea of what was going on, heading into the actual conference. It was very interesting to see what people were willing to do to achieve the goals of their own country. It was fascinating to read the posts that people left on the forum and the bartering that took place between different nations fighting for their desires. It was also interesting to see this bargaining play out in the actual conference. It was easy to recognize the tensions that probably took place between countries during the actual meeting.
One issue of the treaty that was left unresolved was the Standing Army in the League of Nations. It was agreed that there would be an army but the details were left unresolved, due to time constraints. Other than that I felt that most of the issues presented at the conference were resolved in the end. My particular committee went very smoothly as the big three powers were able to agree on a proposition before the conference, via the forum. This allowed the negotiations at the actual conference to go very effortlessly without much opposition. The two smaller powers that were present at the committee had very little say in the final outcome of African territorial redistribution. I also felt, that as a big power, my country (France) was very successful in achieving what we wanted in the actual conference. Seeing as we were one of the big three powers, it was very easy to veto anything that we did not like, ultimately resulting in a very positive final treaty.
Ultimately, I thought that the conference was a very interesting experience that gave me a greater appreciation for the difficulty of negotiation between multiple nations. One thing I would have changed was to change the schedule to allow for more time for certain issues that needed it. I also would have split the conference up over a couple of days to allow for each delegation to regroup and prepare for the next issues. Having more time would have allowed for better, more in depth discussions about each issue resulting in a treaty that was much more clear. Thus, every topic would receive the attention it needs and the opinions of all parties would be heard loud and clear.
After seeing the conflicts and aftermath of the Great War brought to life, I’d have to say I learned more than I ever could have in a text book or through a lecture. I know as a member of the United States, I researched for what Woodrow Wilson was thinking during the ordeal and what he wanted as a major power for the rest of Europe. As I researched, I found that Wilson and the United States were hungry for peace throughout the conflicted nations and this helped me a lot in my debates for what the United States wanted. If a country (such as France or Poland) wanted complete sovereignty over their land and territory, it was our job to vote on it because the U.S. supported independence. I also learned more about what the effects of Germany had on other countries first hand. France had been hit hard by the war. Because of this, they were extremely mad and wanted more reparations and land that was rightfully theirs. Though I thought this as well, I had to act as a member of the United States and say that we couldn’t burden Germany by making them pay too much money, but we can give you your land, sort out your borders, and give you reparations which are suitable for Germany’s economic standing.
I thought negotiating about the League of Nations was very engaging. Since it was something that all of the United States wanted and hoped for, it was interesting to hear the responses of the other countries and what they wanted of it. Some countries, such as the Arab Emirates, believed in having a standing army and fought for that aspect while others didn’t think it was such a good idea. Negotiating wasn’t that difficult for the U.S. because we had the advantage of basing all our opinions on Wilson’s Fourteen Points. Once we read that and did a little more research, we had a clear opinion of what the United States wanted.
Some problems were left unsolved. I don’t think everyone was so happy about the outcome of the League Army. I think one country was rule out of conduct as the voting was going on so it wasn’t a good representation of a vote because not every country could. Also, I think reparations could have a little more debate because the United States didn’t get exactly what they wanted. I think part of that was my fault because at first I negotiated for $150 million to give to Great Britain and they made it a friendly amendment immediately. If they would let us decrease the price by half, I was thinking that maybe they would let us get rid of the price altogether. I didn’t even think to do that until after the conference so my chance was gone, but if I had to go back, I would make an amendment to say that United States shouldn’t have to lend money to anyone. If we were to have a post Versailles Conference discussion, I would bring up the forum idea for next year. Maybe it shouldn't be so easy to post as other people, but it is an easy way to negociate with other countries before hand and get to know what others are thinking, so I don't want to get rid of it.
I believe that the Versailles Conference did help me fully comprehend that complex issues that faced almost every country after World War I. Taking on the identity of one of the affected countries, and trying to achieve its necessary needs immersed me in the conflict in a way I would not have been otherwise. It was only upon arguing some point with the other delegates or bending, frustrated, over a map, that I could begin to realize how hard it was to play god, to try and divide up the world and bring about peace. It was almost impossible. I didn't just learn about the political problems of the day, the way nationalism was quickly becoming both a weapon and a necessity--I lived it. I found, as I fought for the Arabs' right to their own land, their own country, a sense of startling patriotism, in the face of which nothing but our own needs mattered. I discovered myself brooding over matters of reparations, the cost of which was so important to a country just beginning--but how else to decide punishment? How else to divide the blame? And I would not have known what a severe impact imperialism had on every policy in Europe, had I not been forced to fight back the greedy hands of England and France as they reached for Arabian land. I did not just learn about the issues post-Great War; I lived them.
I believe perhaps my favorite part of the conference, or least the one I found most engaging, was the debate following an article or a proposed amendment. I found myself tested to the limits of my skills and logic, and enjoying myself to the upmost. How exciting it is to try and convince others of the righteousness of your way; how deliciously selfish to think of nothing by your own country, your own needs, and make bland comments about universal benefits, when in truth you are getting exactly what you wanted. And how cunning people can be when the talk, saying one thing and actually meaning another. This is the power that moves the world, that brings about change. It was thrilling to practice it, to feel as though we were actually altering the face of the earth, through our words and our actions. Yes, the negotiating could be somewhat difficult. But this was part of the challenge, part of the exhiliration. Besides, it was simple to recognize how hard it was for some of the deeply invested countries--they could not pass all of their proposals, and yet they feared that the slightest deviation would bring about their demise. This is a troubling conflict to face.
There were a few problems left unresolved; at times the conference was unable to come to a conclusive decision. And I do not believe we fully addressed the long term consquences of our actions. I would like to change the division of certain lands--as of now, problems of nationality and the yearnings for independence will arise and cause us greater trouble. I would also like to modify the reparations. It is ridiculous that the newly-freed countries, once a part of the former Ottoman Empire and Austro-Hungary should be expected to pay the cost of a war which they themselves were injured by. The Arabians, for example, fought on the side of the Allied Forces!! Are we to pay reparations to ourselves?
Though I praised the selfishness of the debate, I find it an interesting issue that we, as a class, should probably discuss. Would the treaty and its mandates proved more successful had nations come into the conference without any thought to their own interests or country? Or would the treaty have been weaker as a result? Would our treaty have led to a second world war?
It is these questions and others I find myself asking; perhaps as the true delegates might have, returning home from the conference, some elated, others disappointed, yet all filled with foreboding.
I think the Versailles Conference definitely impacted my understanding about the way of life after World War 1. I thought the thing that made it most interesting for me was that it was almost like a competition to be the best country, and get the most for your country. I think this gave everyone more of an insentive to learn because everyone wanted to be the winner. Personally I didn't find negociating difficult for France. For the most part every country felt as though we had the most losses and disadvantages throughout the war, so many other nations felt we should have gotten most of what we asked for. I think the one problem for France that was left unresolved was that we did not feel an army was necessary, but rather a peace keeping army. I would change that we would have more time with our committees because I felt that time went by really fast, and some committees could have used more time to discuss the issues at hand. Another thing I would change would be a better way to explain the war guilt. No one really liked the percentages, but it was the only way we could figure out how to discuss them. Maybe next year war guilt and reparations could work together and rather then having a war guilt persay they could all decide who had the most responsibility in the war and who should pay most of the reparations back that way. I think the conference was the best thing we have done in class because it was alot moer interesting then just reading about it in a book.
The Versailles Conference was a great way to connect specific information and topics into a bigger picture. This allowed me to better understand the political, social and economic issues in the aftermath of the Great War. While we only researched one country the ability to use the online forum allowed us to get a better idea of other people’s perspectives on issues. We definitely were able to get a perspective on what were the issues facing other delegates and how it connected to the political, social and economic issues facing our country, and how it all tied together.
The aspects of the conference that I found most interesting were the committee meetings, and how different “countries” came together to try and come up with a united solution. We all stated our positions and then were able to compromise with each other to create our final plan. These committee meetings, to me, were the most interesting part of the conference. We all started out with a blank sheet of paper, and when we were finished we had a finished proposal. I also that what was interesting as well was the debates following a proposal on the treaty. We were all fighting for what was best for our nation, like the actual Versailles treaty was like. It was interesting to see people trying to convince other nations to vote their way with only words and facts.
Negotiating was definitely difficult. Most people had an idea in their mind of what their nation should receive and what the treaty should be like. This made compromising all the more challenging. However it also made the conference more interesting since people had to fight and convince others to follow their views. I felt that once people were willing to compromise, mostly in the committee meetings, the negotiating got easier. Once we got different nations to agree on certain main points, a proposal was easily made. Also negotiating was made more difficult by the fact that France, Great Britain and America had more power than the other countries, and could influence the conference more. The difficulty of negotiating in a mock Versailles conference shows what it was like in the real conference. Each nation wanted a specific list of things, and compromise must have been a lot more difficult, since nations after fighting in the Great War must have been unwilling to bend to other countries demands. The decisions made in the actual Versailles Conference greatly impacted the decisions made following the war, and each country would have wanted what would have been most beneficial to their country.
There were a few problems left unresolved. The one problem that sticks out in my mind was the issue of the League Army. Even though the proposal passed, many details were left undetermined. There weren’t many issues that were left unaddressed. Parts of the treaty such as the beginning part of the League of Nation were discussed in depth but the more intricate parts of the League of Nations, like which country would be in what body of the League of Nations was left undetermined. However, I felt that most of the treaty was very clear and specific.
There isn’t a lot I would change about this conference, except that I would allow for more time in the committee meetings to create a more thorough proposal. I felt the time length for the actual conference was perfect, because if there wasn’t a limit the conference would evolve into debates over little and unnecessary details, which brings to mind the issue of if arms would be used for civilian use. The other issues I would raise in the post-conference discussion would be how close our mock treaty was to the actual treaty, and how closely each country followed the beliefs of their actual nations. I think it would also be interesting to see if more would issues would have been addressed with more time, such as the standing army.
The mock Versailles Conference did enhance my understanding of the economic and political issues facing the countries after World War I. I found during some points that it was difficult to change the opinions of other countries in order to help the country I was tied to. This made me think that the process of creating this treaty must have been stressful for the countries involved because the decisions made affected the future economies and influence of everyone involved. I found it was important to make alliances but many of the countries had differing viewpoints on significant issues. I found that the most engaging part of the conference was when we met in our small groups and when the entire conference was discussing the topic that I researched. When we were in small groups, it was easier to get ideas heard and to negotiate the important points of my country. When that topic was addressed within the whole country, I felt more connected to it and I didn't want any other countries to change what we had negotiated. Therefore, I felt more obliged to speak and argue the points that had been previously voted on.
Negotiating certain sections was difficult. I felt that there were certain points that were negotiated more than they should have been, such as the percents of war guilt allotted to each country. It was a very small portion of the treaty and people felt very invested in it and wanted to be sure that the percentages were changed. At some points it felt frustrating that some countries were going against ideas that would be in the best interest of my country. This reveals that the countries involved in the actual process must have been much more frustrated. It must be difficult to bring so many countries together with different viewpoints and necesities and create a treaty.
Problems were left unresolved, especially sections in the League of Nations as well as the sections brought up at the end of the day. At the end of the day, we were losing time and it was difficult to vote on points fast enough. Some countries also felt that they needed more money than they had been allotted and brought up additional ammendments that took up more time. Also, the fact the Britain obstained from voting made the task of completing the treaty more difficult as their decision not to vote eliminated the entire reparations section. The League of Nations was a section that was very confusing and took a lot of time. Countries also had different ideas about what this League would do, which created additional problems. I believe the sections regarding the League of Nations and Reparations were the most confusing. They took the most time to discuss and afterwards, they were the ones that I still did not really comprehend. If our class was to do this again, I think it would be helpful to have the conference spread out. It was a long day and people began to lose focus at certain points, which meant that some poor decisions were made.
The Versailles Conference was an extremely interesting experience for me, and I think that it was an extremely effective project to use when learning about the Great War. This project required each individual to reasearch not only his or her own country, and their wants and needs, but also every other involved country. This was so that they could come up with a proposal that seemed to satisfy every involved nation (but satisfy their own nation most of course). No matter what the case might have been, each individual really needed to have a deep understanding of the political, social, and economic issues facing the world. If they did not, they would have fallen flat on their face. Therefore, I feel that the conference definitely did enhance my understanding of the issues facing the world after the Great War.
This project was an interesting one. The work to prepare was extremely long, and extremely difficult to put together in a timely manner. At times, everything seemed rushed, but at other times, we seemed to have nothing to do. Putting all of this aside, once I got into the conference, I was hooked. The spirit of comradary was gone. It was a competition. Everybody took it so seriously. We assumed our roles as delegates, and entered the conference whole heartedly. The part that I found the most engaging was, well, the entire process was necessary for the project to be useful. If I needed to pick one though, I would have to say that the floor debate was probably the most engaging. This is because during the committee sessions, you could say whatever got the other group members to agree to something. In the floor sessions, you needed to pay attention, and you needed to fight to get what you wanted passed. So, the most engaging part would have to be the floor sessions.
Honestly, I did not find negotiating very difficult. In the committee sessions, it got to the point, where I realized that we were not going to get anywhere, so in the session, I made some promises to Serbia that I had absolutely no intention of keeping. You see, negotiation in the committee session was really a bunch of backstabbing. Say what you need to say to get what you want passed through, and then just change it in the floor session. Before the conference however, negotiation was a bit more difficult. If you had alliances with a country, you did not want to jeapordize that alliance, however, if you got a better offer, it was hard not to. Negotaition therefore, needed to be what would be ultimately best for your country. This is why it was not that difficult. You just needed to be adamant about what you wanted passed, and then fight for that to happen. Still, negotiation in some aspects were hard, because there were things that you wanted, but you had to remember that sometimes it wasn’t what you wanted that mattered. On the floor session, sometimes we needed to ammend an article multiple times before it satisfied every involved party. There were split second decisions and quick negotiations that made or broke the article. This shows us that in the actual Versailles Conference, negotiation was extremely hard. There were many more nations involved, and there was much more detail in the treaty.
Within the treaty, yes, problems were left unresolved. However, these problems, at the time seemed minor in comparison to the problems that were solved. However, I do feel that every issue that a country wanted to be addressed, was addressed.
For this entire project, there are only a few things that I would change. If at all possible, I think that it would have been beneficial to have at least one more day in class before the conference. However, have this day in between where the project was assigned and the actual conference, rather than at the end. This gives a check-up/base point for every group. I would also have liked maybe fifteen more minutes in committee before we met for the floor session. Some decisions seemed rushed, and not well thought out. The mobile computer lab would have been nice to, so we could each save our proposals to the public folder, and basically edit what we wanted in the final treaty as we went, rather than just re-typing everything. This would have saved a lot of time. I would have liked to have spent a class going over Roberts Rules as well. Lastly, I would have liked the floor session to be a little bit more organized. At points, it seemed as if it were more of a free-for-all rather than a conference. I liked the speakers list idea, however I see how it would not have worked. Yet, I think that every speaker should have stood up at the front and presented their idea. This may not have been a feasable option.
All in all, this was probably the best project that I ever worked on. Yes, it was hard, but it was definitely worth all of the time that was put into it. Looking back, yes, there are some things that I probably would have done differently, but for the situation, it was definitely an amazing experience. If I had the opportunity to, I would do the entire thing again in a heartbeat.
Mock Versailles
The Versailles conference of 1919 was a significant event in history that directly affected the course of history as well as influence international politics of that decade. Thoroughly understanding the treaty and the conference would take non biased examinations of each and individual country’s goals, motives, and reasons on which they will base their claims. This strenuous sort of research was prevented, thankfully, by the Mock Versailles conference.
The Mock Versailles, was in a way, more of a direct approach to learning about the historical significance that the Versailles conference was. After the First Great World War, where damages, casualties and the stakes were at a proportion never before even imagined, each nations had everything to gain and everything to lose. Learning the complex economic, political, and social aspects of all nations of the Mock Versailles, thus, would prove difficult, due to the enormous amount of information that covers each nations political stakes, economical situations: for example France lost around 70 % of its economic production, and social circumstances: the oppression and social tensions between the Poles and the Russians, the Czechs the Austrians and the Hungarians. Examining all of these aspects while trying to keep an unbiased understanding of each country’s aim would indeed almost is impossible. The Mock Versailles, consequently, split up the nations and allowed groups of students to handle one nation each. In the end, the debating, the arguments and the compromises were essentially students teaching each other about their own nations, and for a the other student to come up with a resolution to satisfy all nations, he/she was required to understand what those nations wanted, and understand their situations.
A specific area that especially intrigued me was the open floor session, where everyone had the chance to speak out. It was truly amazing to converse with all these students whom all had a thorough understanding of their nations and the nations’ political, economical and social stances. What was surprising was also the flexibility of the actual treaty. We were not following a concrete guideline, thus policies erected weren’t always what was historically accurate, which provided amusement for the most part. For example, when Poland received the sheltering of an International League of Nations Army, I was dumbstruck at what had happened.
Overall negotiating was not as difficult as I imagined, with few exceptions. There were few egos out there that would not listen to reason or what their nation wanted, instead of what they wanted. European Distribution, which I headed, went quite well without any problems, not due to lack of debate, but mostly due to the presence of constructive arguments and negotiations that ultimately helped us achieve our goals. Poland really had nothing to negotiate, we were essentially the beggars of this conference, we did indeed pledge our support to few nations for their support in the favor of our cause, but negotiation in that case was expedient and easy.
There were definitely issues left unsolved, mostly due to the lack of time. The League of Nations was a particular group that I believe left holes and missing parts in their treaty, as the description of the Upper House and Lower House was vague, and their functions were hard to differentiate. They could have provided more of an explanation for their setups, and perhaps went into depth on the power and functions of the League of Nations: of course taking into mind the time limit that was set. Also, Serbia’s issue was definitely unfinished, as one of their members predicted the future, and was called out of order. Their issue of land acquisition and etc were left unsolved and overridden by hasty nations that clearly wanted to shove it to their faces. The Arab Emirate’s debt issue was also inconclusive, as well as the whole reparation unit, which seemed to need more “work.” Overall, their description of who needs to pay debt was extremely vague and confounding, and often forced innocent people to pay debt: something from what I understand the committee did not intend.
Some issues that I definitely would like to discuss is why the actual Versailles Treaty ineffective. I have read ahead and based on background information, I understand that the treaty was essentially ineffective and eventually would spark what would be called as World War II. I have some knowledge and understanding of its faults, but I believe it would be beneficial to discuss its problems in class.
The Versailles Conference process enhanced my understanding of various issues that faced the world after the Great War. Prior to the Mock Versailles Conference I studied history by simply reading a textbook and retaining as much information as possible. This process gave me the opportunity to relive an exciting moment in history. Reading about alliances, disarmament, and many other issues can only teach one how each country responded to them. By creating our own treaty, we were able to understand more fully why each country acted as they had. We were able to react to certain situations, just as our ancestors had many years ago. One of the main reasons why I learned so much about the problems facing the countries after the Great War was because I truly wanted to create of a treaty far greater than the actual Treaty of Versailles. I was not required to perform a certain amount of research, but I thoroughly researched the topic so I could help my fellow Arab Emirates take control of the Arabian Peninsula.
The most engaging part of the whole process was the actual voting. Prior to the Conference, the Arab Emirates had made alliances with quite a few nations. It was interesting to see how meaningless these alliances actually were. Although I felt very confident going into the conference, I started feeling a little uneasy halfway through. All of the plans presented on the forums and in person meant absolutely nothing until they were voted upon. During the conference, I was curious to see which countries were voting together. Interestingly, I often found that countries that had alliances would vote on the opposite sides of an issue. It is very easy for one to promise something, but once the committee starts voting it is also easy to change position solely on personal interest and gains. The Arab Emirates did fairly well during the treaty, but it was quite unfortunate to see how countries who said they would help us with our territorial gains didn’t vote for us when we needed them.
During the Mock Versailles Treaty I found it remarkably difficult to negotiate with other nations especially when discussing territorial redistribution. Many people entered the conference with their positions already decided. Unfortunately, some nations’ positions were based on hindsight. These people were not open to negotiating, so it was very difficult for me to explain my position. Negotiating was also difficult because many countries were afraid to upset France, Great Britain and the United States of America. For example, when I was attempting to convince people to give Syria to the Arab Emirates, people were actually listening. At the time Syria was a protectorate under France, so I knew it was going to be difficult for us to receive that piece of land. When we were done negotiating I felt that we had a chance of taking that land from France. Apparently I was wrong. When it came down to voting, not a single country voted in our favor. I was disappointed, but more importantly I was curious as to why this happened. I knew that multiple countries loathed France and didn’t want them to expand their empire, but when I put myself in their position, I decided that they probably were hoping for the support of France, one of the “Big Three”. Being a lesser country, we could not offer much in return for their support. France, on the other hand, could help countries more with their vote. This seems unfair but it is reality. In all likelihood, this is how the lesser countries felt after the Great War. They almost certainly thought it was unfair how they were being neglected while Great Britain and France make all of the decisions. While negotiating the territorial redistribution of the Middle East and Europe was challenging, it was not as difficult to negotiate about matters pertaining to the League of Nations. Everyone entered the committee with an open mind so I found it much easier to negotiate and ultimately obtain what I wanted. Although it took a while, we did come to a solid consensus.
Although I was very satisfied with the Mock Versailles Conference, it can be slightly adjusted in order for the experience to be more engaging for all involved. First of all, I think that it would help each country if we had time to discuss the terms of the treaty with other classes prior to the conference. Although we had the forums, I found that most of our negotiations were done in person with our classmates. When I arrived at the conference I knew everything (or at least I thought I did) about the plans of China and Great Britain. However, I did not know as much about the plans of some other countries. This is partially because people, including myself, did not want everyone to know their plans. While the forum reveals one’s positions to everyone, a private conversation can keep one’s plans between a few nations. I feel that if we had met in the library with all three classes then we would have had an easier time creating the Treaty of Versailles.
Furthermore, I feel that the Versailles Conference would have been more enjoyable if we had more time to complete the treaty. Although I think that all problems were resolved, the committee sessions felt very rushed and it was difficult to write the Covenant of the League of Nations within the timeframe. We did not have enough time to discuss every country’s proposals. In fact, I believe that the League of Nations would have been created much differently if every country had time to explain their proposals rather than simply critiquing one country’s proposal into a consensus. The conference sessions were also pressed on time. A sufficient amount of time was not given for some sessions such as the League of Nations session. It seemed as though many countries were unsatisfied with the ultimate formation of the League of Nations, and if more time were given, a possible compromise could have been presented.
During the post-conference class discussion, it would have been interesting to see which country’s group proposal was the closest to the treaty that we created. By comparing one’s group proposal with the treaty, one can find out how successful she was. I can only speculate that the proposal closest to the treaty was one of the big three’s proposals, because of their strong influence among all nations. It would have also been intriguing to compare the treaty we created with the actual Treaty of Versailles so that we could see how well we played the part of our countries.
The Mock Versailles Conference was for me a good experience. The research prior to the conference was extremely helpful. The secondary country research especially helped where each group member had to learn about another country other than his or her own. This I think was helpful in the sense that I learned a significant amount about another country so that when I came up with my proposals I knew what to expect from the other country. Moreover, when it came time for the individual conferences I knew what the other country wanted so I modified my proposals to fit their needs. Furthermore, this conference taught me some important information on how politics sort of works. In addition, I learned that everyone in the end wants something even if it is insignificant. In my opinion, the most engaging part of this conference was the territorial resolutions where the debate at times pretty heated. Negotiating at times could have been difficult because sometimes people forgot to raise their "paddles" and ruled out of order. Moreover, the regular negotiating was hard enough because it was extremely frustrating for one to watch another not get the point and constantly ask the same questions or bring up the same argument, which was already put down.
There were several problems still left unsolved especially the League of Nations proposal, which was rushed, and some territorial proposals were rushed like the Middle East proposals. In addition the individual group conferences were also really rushed. For Example, for my group though we all agreed on general ideas we could not really focus on the minute details due to lack of time. Thus, if things could be change it would definitely be the fact that more time is needed for this conference. While issues I would like to raise in the post conference class are the issues of the League Army and territorial proposals. The reason is that I would be interested to hear what people really felt about those issues with worrying about being ruled out of order. Overall, this conference was not only educational but also fun. However, my only complaint is the lack of time.
The mock Versailles activity allowed me to further understand the complicated issues facing the allied nations in the post-war world. The process proved to be not only exhausting, but frustrating as well. The opposition of other nations to ideas that our nation thought were pleasing was mildly irritating. The legislation passed, however, seems to suit the needs of many of the countries present, except Japan.
The more engaging aspects of the conference were when we were given the opportunity to vote on each piece of legislation. Being part of the Big Three was especially enjoyable, seeing as how our votes counted for more. Also, being able to provide input for each section was favorable, even thouh that section might not have been part of our specific topic.
The problems faced during the conference were an uphill battle. Many countries remained adamant in their positions while it seemed there was nothing we could do to change their minds. For example, I failed to understand why, in war guilt, it states that Germany receives 55% of the blame, Austria-Hungary, 35%, and the Ottoman Empire, 10%. But in the reparations section of the final draft, it is written that Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire are to repay damages for the war 75%, 12.5%, and 12.5%, respectively. These numbers do not correspond with War Guilt, and only confused me further. I fail to comprehend why the other nations did not support our changing of the section so both those articles would match.
The more challenging part of this exercise was avoiding personal input. Although we as students may have thought of our own opinions towards the topics, we also had to keep in mind the needs and wants of the country we were representing. For example, although you may be strongly opposed to colonization, if you were part of an expansive country, you had to push for control over those territories.
Unresolved issues included, most prominently, organization of the League of Nations. it was difficult to determine the purposes of the Upper and Lower house, and also, how each nation would be accepted into each one. There was talk of a rotating schedule, but also of hand-picking the nations by vote, which would have contradicted the former. The business of both the Arabs and the Serbs had been left uncompleted. The Serbs had been called out of order and the Arabs never seemed to address the amount of money they still owed other nations.
If I were to make any changes to this treaty I would have to remove the 15 year time limit on how long nations are allowed to be protectorates over other countries. This greatly impedes on the goals of expansion, held by many nations at this time, and contradicts the needs of others. All in all, I enjoyed the experience of placing myself in a delegate's shoes and can only hope that future generations of students will feel the same way.
The Versailles Conference definitely enhanced my understanding of the issues in the aftermath of the Great War. Through such a hands-on approach to learning about the time, opposed to reading a history book, it made the information more interesting and real. Having to actually research about one specific country and then how it fit in with every other country at the conference with regards to the wants of everyone, I was able to truly learn what was happening in the aftermath, instead of memorizing facts.
The part that I found particularly engaging was the act of voting. Almost every person there seemed to be completely engrossed in what was going on. People were getting angry if they weren’t receiving what they wanted and others were backstabbing countries to assure that they themselves got what they wanted. Every time a vote was held it was so interesting to see which way the vote would go. Countries would change their minds and vote differently then what was expected of them and no one would know until that last second. It also kept me engaged because I was representing Poland which was a lesser power. Decisions really were dependent on what the greater powers would vote for, so I had to really pay attention to see which way the vote would go.
Negotiating was a truly difficult process. It was difficult being a lesser power. It seemed that no one really got what they truly wanted. Things might go slightly in their way, but everyone had to compromise to find something that a majority would be happy with. Beyond that, as a lesser power, it did not matter if the majority was in our favor if one of the three greater powers voted against us. I can not even imagine how the people in the actual conference must have felt. Those nations must have felt such an uneasy burden. The amount of tension that builds up, with their nations’ futures at sake must have been ridiculous.
Due to such a short amount of time, some things were naturally left unresolved. The largest issue that comes to mind was that of a League of Nation’s Army. While one was created, it was thrown together at the end of the conference. For one, the army was hosted by Poland, which was not looked into at all. The country simply volunteered its land and this was ratified. Whether or not this truly fits the needs of the army was not determined. It was also left unclear as to which countries would be in the Upper and Lower houses and how they would be accepted into them.
While some of the treaty could use some tweaking, the only major thing I would change about the conference was not in the treaty itself. I think that the conference needed more time to be truly effective. Many of the topics discussed were covered so quickly that the decisions were made based on a deadline and not on quality at all.
During the post-conference class discussion I would like to talk about the how each country made out. I’m curious to see how well each country did and also how historically accurate it was. I would like to compare the individual countries in our mock conference to the actual countries in the actual conference.
The Versailles Conference definitely enhanced my understanding of the aftermath of the Great War. Before the Conference I had what seemed like a good amount of knowledge about the war. However, all I really knew was who was involved and part of the reason why. By participating in the conference it forced every delegate to have a responsibility and represent a country. This was a great project to raise awareness because each student had to become an expert on their country and know enough about all of the other countries. This makes it so every student has to play a role and forces everybody to participate.
The most engaging part of the treaty was seeing the situation get heated. Secret alliances were being made everywhere and backstabbing was running rampant. It was great to see students getting just as involved in the treaty as real delegates would. The negotiating was extremely difficult, especially being the Serbian European territories delegate. In the conference, the big powers just decided to take away as much land as possible from us. Negotiations were okay in the beginning, but then it became clear that it was hopeless for us and no matter what I said, it wasn't going to make a difference. It was so hard having to deal with the big powers' voting strength because even if only one of them voted against something, it couldn't be passed. It really made it impossible for the lesser powers to be heard. This must have been so hard on the delegates in the actual conference. You have very little control over your own fate and it was really difficult to take. It must have been so painful for the actual delegates because they had 100 times more pressure on them. The results of their conference were affecting citizens' lives.
One of the biggest things left unresolved was the League of Nations. Especially, the League's standing army. The league was so hard to put together because there are just so many different aspects. It is impossible for all of the countries to reach a compromise when there are that many things going on. Some problems were left unresolved, but I think that is necessary. Someone is always going to have some problem with something, or want to make a change. There is a point where it can't go on forever so it just needs to be stopped even if things are left unresolved. The treaty tries to help all countries, but there is always going to be someone losing out. An unaddressed issue was reparations. It should have been clearly stated how much money each country should get. With everyone having to make claims it draws out the process for way too long, when we should just be trying to move on. Also, we have no way of knowing that the council of delegates deciding on reparations will be reliable. They may be deceitful just like some of the delegates in the conference.
If I could change anything it would be to even out the power between the lesser and greater powers. During the conference it was like the smaller powers were outcasts and we certainly were rarely ever listened to. It was ridiculous to try to compete with the greater powers. In the post conference discussions it would be interesting to find out what countries were actually successful, and which ones weren't. Now that people are out of character it would be nice to find out what they really thought about their countries, and their beliefs. We could find out what decisions were made based on their characters and which were made based on their personal feelings.
Overall the Versailles Conference enhanced my understanding of all the issues the nations were faced with after the Great War. Not only were you forced to research what your country’s goals were, but also how these goals would affect the other countries involved in the conference. You had to also consider how countries may react to some of your proposals, and at the way you procede to reach your country’s goals. It was very difficult to please everyone, especially when discussing territory redistrubution. Considering most countries, including mine, were less aggressive with regards to land than they would have been in reality, I think territory redistrubtion would have been much more difficult and time consuming in real life. While dividing up the territories, one also had to consider the vast variety of ethnic groups involved in each region, and what their reaction would be to the newly distrubuted land. Economically, it was hard to come up with reparations that satisfied everyone, while still not stifling Germany so much that they would never have a chance of bouncing back economically from the war. Considering all of the lives and money that were put into the Great War by all of the conference’s nations, I think the delegates in real life would have been even more passionate about getting the best for their country, for to them the Great War was very personal and impacted their life greatly, whereas we were just re-inacting it.
The parts I found most engaging were when Sybria and other lesser countries tried to gain as much land as they could. This caused the most debate and tension within the whole conference. The lesser countries thought they should be given the opportunity to become more powerful by gaining land, whereas the greater powers viewed this as absurd. My country was Great Britain, a greater power, and from my viewpoint, it made no sense to hear these countries want such great reparations and land when they hardly fought in the war or not sacraficed as much as the greater powers had. For me the lesser countries should have been satisfied and grateful for what they were getting out of this conference, instead of wanting more. Considering I dealt with part of the territory redistribution, I was most passionate and concerned about land, making this topic more interesting.
Negotiating was not difficult at all. We were able to converse with other delegations through the forum, and we had plenty of time inside and outside of class to discuss issues with other countries. This just goes to show how advancements in technology have improved communication, and how it makes creating alliances and agreements that much smoother and quicker.
The only problem I feel that was left unresolved was concerning the standing army within the United Nations. We all agreed that the United Nations would have a standing army, yet we never decided where this army would form its headquarters. Fine details involving a standing army were not brought up, and if these fine details were addressed, I feel that more nations would be opposed to this standing army, and we would have to begin again with constructing the United Nations.
I feel that some issues left unaddressed were regarding the transitioning of powers within new territories, or the future of some newly created protectorate nations. Numerous times, proposals had Great Britain, America, or France acting as protectorates over a nation for a certain amount of years. Under circumstances stated in the proposal, these greater powers would have to stop acting as a protectorate and leave the country. Other times, a proposal would just leave a piece of land under the United Nation’s supervision. We never fully discussed the details of this, and what would happen to these countries if the circumstances stated in the proposals did not occur.
The only thing I would have changed would have been for more opportunity for delegates to get involved with a variety of topics. For example, my main focus was on territorial distrubution in the Middle East. I was not fully aware of what our nations goals/plans were regarding the other parts of the treaty. This led to me only participating during the discussion of the Middle East territories, instead of particiaption throughout the whole conference. If there was some way you could incorporate everyone within all of the areas/topics of the treaty, I think students would get even more out of it.
Overall I feel that the conference ran smoothly, especially due to the fact that we were given tools such as the forum to discuss and plan before heading into the conference. The only other issue I think you may want to implement and reinforce is making sure people kept the interests of their nation in mind. I think many of us were too worried about making sure we came up with a proposal that everyone agreed on, but yet we compromised too much. At times we did not act how our nations would have truly acted if in that same situation. I think that this hands-on project was interesting, and very educational.
The mock Versailles conference definitely worked to enhance my understanding of the aftermath of the Great War. Generally, one studies History from what one hopes to be an ambivalent perspective, attempting to get a picture of the given period as a whole, and in a rather detached way. This assignment called on students to take the perspective of their assigned country, and try to further that country's goals through whatever means necessary. This required us to go beyond simply learning what happened, and made it necessary for us to research what our country hoped to gain from the treaty, and how they felt on the issues of the day.This helped to remind me that those who participated in these major events of history were not acting as though they were set on a prescribed course. It was often difficult to act "in character," and would often think the proposal of another nation's delegate would sound very logical or appealing, only to realize a few minutes later that it wouldn't serve Great Britain's interest. Participating in the forums prior to the actual conference was an interesting way to gauge the other nations' reactions to your proposals before you had to officially present them, and was a very useful tool.
Most issues were resolved, though the question of an Army for the League of Nations was never really settled. Though a League Army was created in the treaty, is was more of an uneasy compromise that would not have even occurred if the United States delegation hadn't forgotten to vote.
I think that the most important thing to change would be to allot more time for the individual committees (i.e., Disarmament, Reparations) to meet. Many conflicts and issues were resolved in these committees, though they felt rather rushed. Ideally, most of the major points could be settled in the committee meetings, while the conference deals with the finer points of the treaty. Additionally, a little more moderation might be helpful. I thought that the debating over exact percent of blame placed on each nation was somewhat ridiculous, and perhaps should have been stopped so that the conference could move on to more important matters. Additionally, it seemed that some individuals wanted to go into the very fine details of each matter, while others felt that getting main points dealt with was the most important thing. A little clarification on the expected depth of the treaty would be helpful. Finally, a little more moderation of the forums would have been nice to keep it clear of irrelevant posts.
The mock Versailles Conference really did help me in my understanding of the political, economic, and social issues facing the world at the time. It gave me an insight that I normally would not have received. The conference showed how economic factors influenced decisions made at the conference and as well as how bad they were after the war. This conference also highlighted the social issues through how the countries made alliances and how your country would react to certain proposals. We clearly had to study the political factors and issues to get a handle on our countries and those of the others.
I found the negotiating with the other countries the most engaging. It was exciting to argue with other countries and try to achieve my countries goals. You often had to make compromises to achieve what you wanted or have to gain the support of one of the larger three. It was interesting how things could change at any moment. One of the other engaging things was learning about the war from a particular view of a country. It really gave you an interesting perspective on the war.
The negotiating was often the most difficult part of the conference. It was harder for the smaller nations to achieve what they wanted with out the support of larger nations. Japan is probably the best example of this. Most people allied with China so it was harder for Japan to get what it wanted because china would object with the support of the big three. Another difficult thing was that the U.S. would often veto anything it didn’t approve. While this was difficult in getting them to agree to some things it was helpful in other areas. For example they kept vetoing proposals during the Middle East territories and frankly wasted time, but in Europe they saved Poland and took the Rhineland away from France. I think that the main reason it was so difficult overall was that no one was willing to compromise. Even assigning the blame in percentage took longer than it should have because everyone wanted to get what they wanted. That was the main reason that negotiating was so difficult.
I feel that one of the most important factors that we left unresolved was dealing with the league. While the league was an excellent idea, there were some things that we needed to go in to more detail with and weren’t really explained in the treaty. An example of this would be with the army. It was a great idea but how it would be formed, organized, and controlled was left out of the treaty. This should have been dealt with unfortunately. Another issue was again with the league. It dealt with the members of the house and how they would be chosen or accepted into the league. That would have been an important thing to put into the treaty as it’s a relatively important thing. Also the reparations should have been given more time. Poland would have liked to receive some compensation from Germany as France did, but we didn’t have enough time to do it. It was also a bit unfair as the big three could push their proposals through first and the smaller nations had to take longer time. That is the one thing I would have changed, I would have liked to have more time. We really didn’t have that much time during the small groups and even during the main conference we needed more time. Some issues didn’t get resolved because of this and it would have been nice to be able to take it at a slightly more relaxed pace. 2 days or 1 ½ days would have been fine. Other than this I wouldn’t have changed anything.
In a post-conference discussion I would like to bring up the topic of how the nations did overall in the end. I think it would be interesting to see which country did the “best” and how much they improved they’re country. I also think it might be interesting to predict how our country would have done in the future. For example what might have happened after adding the league army. Also it would be nice to see if countries stuck to their historical rules. Those to things would be the most interesting things to discuss afterwards.
It is quite easy to learn about the Versailles conference if you read about it from a text book. It is almost effortless to memorize who was allied with who, why they were allies, and what resolutions they passed. However, it is much harder and perhaps more worthwhile to actually relive the conference and make treaties with your allies. The Versailles Conference process absolutely helped me better understand the mindset of some countries that were going to attend this conference after the war ended. I comprehended the reasons that some countries were very anxious to pass certain bills while others were reluctant. After doing plenty of research on what my country (Great Britain) would have wanted to accomplish in each committee, the Great Britain group then began talking to representatives of other countries to make alliances. This was a crucial step because, through this, I figured out that all countries had different desires because they were all affected by the war socially and economically in different ways: for example, some lost nearly a million soldiers while others lost only a few thousand.
Talking online to the other delegates was what I found to be the most engaging part. It was interesting to hear the opinions of delegates from other countries and, when it was needed, to resolve disputes amongst them. Talking online proved to have another great benefit, which was that, after a while, the delegates from each country got to know who was representing the other country in their specific committee. Therefore, if they could not talk online, they could always find each other in the hallway or in a class and discuss issues more in depth.
Negotating for the most part was not very difficult, at least from the perspective of Great Britain. Since we had a lot of power in making the decisions, including the precious one to veto bills, we got many bills passed that we wanted to pass and our opinion was held very highly as a result of our great power. However, it was hard for the smaller countries to get anything passed. I felt as if it was the USA, France, and GB eating most of the pie, and countries like Japan and Poland got the crumbs at the end.
Not many issues were left unresolved. The one main issue dealing with the League of Nations having an army needed to be addressed more frequently, yet it was passed in the end.
If I were the teacher, the only thing, that I would change is that maybe for one or two days, I would go over some of the big resolutions that were passed in the actual Versailles Conference. I would do this simply to get the students focused on the fact that they have to look at the conference from their country's perspective, not their own.
In the post-conference class discussions, I would just talk about how the resolutions passed in the mock Versailles Conference compare to the actual resolutions passed in the real conference. I think it would be interesting to point out the differences we had with the real treaty.
For the hour that I was present during the Versailles Conference, I found the experience very helpful in the understanding of the international resolutions post-World War I. The process enhanced my understanding of the event, and it was interesting to see how the students were handling conflicts of each committee. By having a conference in which all members were required to take part, it made it necessary for every student to know everything about their assigned country, in addition to background information on the other countries involved. This method of learning is very affective, as it enhances the true understanding of the research and information.
I also found it informative and sometimes humorous, to see what other students had written through the online forum. This was a very effective way for students from various classes and countries to communicate and make decisions.
During my time at the Versailles Conference, I found it entertaining how students took a considerable amount of time deciding which nation should be given the most blame for the Great War. There was much debate over whether percentages were even relevant in determining war guilt. I just remember thinking that it was funny how much everyone was disagreeing about this subject.
For the committee that I was on, negotiating was not hard. In addition, Poland was a neutral country, and our main goal was to simply please the three main powers. I don’t really know how negotiating went for other members of my country, but I think as a whole, our group had few problems in negotiations with other nations.
In terms of issues left unresolved, it would appear as if there was some disagreement over the League of Nations Army. From what I have heard from my group members, it is my understanding that the League Army was created spur of the moment, in a disorderly fashion. It’s pretty random that Poland was given the responsibility of providing a place for the army. I think that the shortage of time was a big factor. It was quite impossible for every item to be thoroughly covered in the amount of time given. I’m sure if more time was available, everything could have been carried out in a more professional way.
There are various ways in which the Versailles Conference led to the enhancement of my comprehension of the political, social, and economic issues that the world had faced in the conclusion of the Great War. Through extensive research and investigation I learned the various ways in which the war impacted various nations throughout continental Europe. Through the acquiring of such knowledge, I as a student was able to realize how various decisions made within the Versailles Conference resulted in a severe impact upon many nations.
As a representative of the Polish delegation within the war guilt committee, I held the responsibility of placing blame upon the nation which caused the outbreak of the Great War. I surely believe I learned from choosing the task of placing war guilt upon a certain nation. I came to the conclusion of placing war guilt upon Germany, through thorough research and various readings I came to acquire the understanding as to what led to the involvement of various nations within the locally scaled conflict between the nation of Serbia and Austria Hungarian Empire.
Throughout the duration of the Versailles conference I came upon the realization that the negotiations between various nations were quite engaging. The delegations representing various nations during the conference brought up convincing points which would indeed cause an impact upon many nations.
I personally feel that almost every delegations issues and concerns were certainly addressed. Every delegation was given a chance to express both there opinions as well as concerns regarding various issues. I believe that the Versailles conference was extremely organized and was indeed a great experience to learn from. All the delegations were given a chance to present their suggestions to amend certain portions of the treaty. In the end I felt as thought all the delegations seemed to agree upon the final outcome of the treaty.
I believe that the students should be given a chance in class to express their complete analysis of the treaty of Versailles to get a better input from the students. Such an opportunity would certainly let students compare there feelings regarding the outcome of the final treaty.
The Versailles Conference was, by far, my favorite activity we've done so far. It forced me to look up a vast majority of information about the Great War and the impact of it on societies that I never expected to be interested in. Because of this conference, I now know how each of the nine countries we represented had reacted to the outcome of the war and how differing every country's individual needs were. For instance, even after reading about the war, I never would have understood the extent of the economic damages and crisis that was put on the French people had I not been part of this activity. It also helped me to learn about a country's perspective in what was as close to a first-hand experience as I could possibly get.
The most interesting and engaging part of the whole procedure was probably the actual voting for or against the articles within the Treaty. I did not expect the debates to become as heated as they were, nor did I expect to see, or be a part of, the extent of backstabbing that occurred. My favorite part of the voting was, by far, when Alex motioned for Serbia to “stop complaining” about reparations. It was definitely fun to be able to veto the League army with only my single vote, even though it got almost every other group to go against France. It was, however, one of the only things America supported us in. Another part of the whole thing that I enjoyed was the Versailles message board. It was not only a way for me to communicate and learn what other groups were doing, but I got many laughs from it as well. Severus Sparzo was quite hysterical, if I say so myself.
The negotiation itself wasn't exceptionally difficult, but I think that would be entirely thanks to my being in one of the three major powers groups, France. Because of the voting power of my group, we didn't really have to negotiate much to get what we wanted, and that was a very nice touch to the procedure. The only real negotiation issue that France faced was regarding the Rhineland. Justin and the America group were steadfast with their decision and because they were one of the big three, we couldn't do anything to sway their ideas. That was a pretty bad moment for us as a delegation. This tells us that any country who was completely invested in this negotiations would have a pretty hard time getting anything passed.
There weren't really any problems that were left unsolved. The League army and reparations were rushed a bit because of the war guilt decisions, but we ended up with some fairly good resolutions for each, so it wasn't a complete waste. I assume that Serbia, specifically Suzie, had some unresolved issues with the deliberations, though. More specifically in the reparations department. There weren't really any questions or issues that weren't addressed. That much was a great relief. The only thing I would attempt to change would be the time length. Personally, I think it should be an hour longer, mainly for a couple more minutes of break-time and more time for deliberations. In the post-conference discussions, I would like to bring up how Poland specifically felt about being pressured into voting with the big powers and how it felt to have to go with some ideas that they may not necessarily have wanted. I also want to know how many delegates actually proposed to their country that they ratify the Treaty and how effective they think it was overall.
Post Conference Thoughts
By William Si
After a long day in a conference, we came back thinking that it was over. The only problem was we still had more work to do. From researching our own country to the issues that were needed to be debated at the conference, the daylong meeting of minds did enhance my understanding of the political, social and economic issues facing not only our assigned country, but the world in the aftermath of what was called the Great War. Instead of just reading about what happened in a general basic knowledgeable way, taking on a country allowed me engage myself in the conflict between countries on what should be done and what is right.
Not only did it allow for the learning to come off a lecture style which may bore people but with the committee meetings and other debates, it engaged everyone to actively work and learn. Instead of learning about who they blamed back then, we were put in charge to pretty much fight it out among ourselves to bring reasonable proposals with persuasive backing. This made it negotiating difficult when you take up the country’s nationalism and needs to try to fit a particular passage within the proposal. For many of us, even though we could call it hard work, it engaged us in what we were interested to do where we took on and worked with the circumstances facing the nations during the process. For the main conference however, although it was not as personal and face to face as the committee meetings, we were tested on how well we listen and respond to what is happening on the floor.
Although overall, the conference was a success to us as a class and a country, there were problems left unresolved. Many times within the conference, a conclusion could not be reached. A change was proposed, challenged, and then shot down in the vote when one of the big three did not agree. Even looking into the long run, we did not access what we were doing and how that could affect the future. Most of us were concerned on what we can do now without thinking about further than a couple of decades.
Thus, if at all possible, I would like to change the division and granting of land and other resources that were divided out. Sometimes it was hard to voice up an opinion especially when pressed on time. Not only are some places divided into unfavorable regions of controlling power, but the lines were still not drawn with the population in mind. Nationalism will continue as people strive for independence under their new government. In addition, reparation for our country is another issue we would like to change. Instead of the proposed gain of minute resources to stimulate a new country, we were hit with decree to pay out reparations to other countries.
For now, what is passed is passed and is written in stone. However, it is still interesting to continue to talk about some of the issues of the conference time permitting. How would this treaty have been difference if we did not think of our countries main goals? How would it be difference if we were with a different country?
Now as the conference is over, what we feel can be said to be similar to what they felt back then. They would have been proud and happy for what they have done for their country yet disappointed and confused on what they could not complete. With this mock trial, we had engaged ourselves in a way not possible except for Model UN and learned in a way that we learn the best.
I found the Mock Versailles very hands on and very informational. The Versailles conference showed the complexity of a conference. When I was coming into the conference, I thought that Japan would get the land it did like in the real Versailles Conference, but in fact Japan was the one that got shorthanded. This allowed me to see that in the real world and in conference there are often secret alliances, backstabs, and treaties.
I found the voting part the most exciting part of the conference. The Big 3 had so much power in the voting. Basically if the big 3 all agree on the treaty than it passes but if they don’t agree the section gets denied and we have to start back at square one. To pass your sections that you have to persuade and allies yourself with the Big 3 and make sure they like the sections.
I found negotiating difficult within my Pacific territories. China was really being a pain and denying everything without reason and nothing to back up their statements. One of the major pains I had during this whole conference was about Korea. China and Great pulled this out of nowhere and decided they can split up Japan. Korea was won by Japan from the Shino-Russian War. They didn’t seem to understand this conference was on splitting German Colonies among the victors and not dividing the victories nations land. It was an outrageous statement and their only proof they had to back it up was we are the big 3 and we can do whatever we wanted.
I felt that the reparations section was not done very well and needed to be fixed. A lot of the sections said contradicted and was nullified. I felt that needed more clarification. Another section I felt was really unclear was the War Guilt section. I felt the percentages were completely unnecessary and it only made things more confusing. Guilt by percentages was really outrageous and weird.
In the Post Conference Discussion, I think we should discuss the fairness of the treaty. I think a discussion on what aspects of the treaty was unfair and bias. I think we should also discuss the real treaty and compare it to our treaty. Finally we should look at the effects the treaty might cause on the countries that got shorthanded and the consequences that will come.
The mock Versailles conference enhanced my understanding of the political, social, and economic issues facing the world in the after math of the Great War. By participating in this conference, I was able to understand the views of all the countries after the Great War. This mock conference was obviously one hundred percent hands on. The interaction with my peers was an interesting was of applying what we had been studying.
One aspect that I found particularly engaging was the committee meeting at the beginning of the conference. My committee was armed limitations, and there were only a few of us in the group. Therefore, we were all able to speak multiple times. Also, we all had the same views for the most part, so our proposal was very easy to write.
I found that the negotiating as a whole delegation was very difficult. It was very hard to get things passed, so we had to keep re-voting on certain subjects. Many people were very stubborn when it came to what their country wanted accomplished through the conference. In a way, this could be attributed to the fact that they nations did a good job of researching and finding out what their countries wanted out of the Conference of Versailles.
I don’t think any problems were left unsolved. We had to re-discuss a few topics, such as a League of Nations army, but everything ended up getting solved in the end.
Something I would like to point out is that my country was Japan, and I found it very difficult to find information pertaining to Japan and the Great War. Japan didn’t have a very important role in the Great War or in the Conference of Versailles. It was very difficult trying to find what Japan wanted to accomplish through the conference.
I think the entire conference did enhance my overall understanding, theres nothing like a hands on experience. I got to know what it was like to form alliances, negotiate,and got a sense of what it must have been like for the actual people during that time. Instead of reading about what all the problems were during the great war, we were able to research them by ourselves and since each one of us were assisgned a specific problem, that topic was thoroughly researched. With the final product i whink we all had an enhanced view of what things were like both before during and after the great war. We knew that it was difficult deciding how thngs were going to pan out, but with us actually deciding how things worked out, it made us truly know how difficult it was.
The parts that i found most interesting were the parts of the land redistribution, such as africa, pacific islands, and europe. Being that i was from the united states, we voted as much as we could in favor of countries gaining their independence. This lead to the creation of an independent nation in Africa as well as a few in Europe. I was part of the redistribution of land in Africa, everyone in this delegation basically came together and figured everything out before hand on the blog. We came out with a comprimise that made the majority of the countries happy. I believe the only country that was unhappy with the results was Italy. During the blog conversation, Italy was the only one who put up a fight reffering to the comprise. Italy just couldnt grasp the fact of leaving one nation independent. (italy wanted it for themselves) So there was a little difficulty in that aspect, but otherwise everything else went smoothly. Im sure if there were some arguing among our small delegation then there had to be a lot more in the real thing. Because we knew that this was just a mock conference, we knew that actual countries wouldnt be having their land divided up therefore there wasnt as much pressure on us. As for the actual people, it must have been a lot more difficult because whatever decision they made, it was real.
I dont think there were any areas that were unresolved, however there was one issue were there wasnt very good claification and the united states was confused. A vote took place and the USA thought we were voting on something else, so we gave the wrong vote. We wanted to go back to it, but time ran out. The only thing that i would change would be the league of nation army part. That was the area to which i was reffering earlier when i said there wasnt clarification on that part.
To be honest i think all areas were discussed and really wouldnt change much, I think our resolution was a good success. In the post discussion i would like to hear from the different countries and see what they liked and disliked about the final outcome. And maybe bring up the fact that One country in particular screwed up a lot of things for the US ( refferring to FRANCE). and i would like to know why france did that when that are supposed to be one of our allies!
I think the entire conference did enhance my overall understanding, theres nothing like a hands on experience. I got to know what it was like to form alliances, negotiate,and got a sense of what it must have been like for the actual people during that time. Instead of reading about what all the problems were during the great war, we were able to research them by ourselves and since each one of us were assisgned a specific problem, that topic was thoroughly researched. With the final product i whink we all had an enhanced view of what things were like both before during and after the great war. We knew that it was difficult deciding how thngs were going to pan out, but with us actually deciding how things worked out, it made us truly know how difficult it was.
The parts that i found most interesting were the parts of the land redistribution, such as africa, pacific islands, and europe. Being that i was from the united states, we voted as much as we could in favor of countries gaining their independence. This lead to the creation of an independent nation in Africa as well as a few in Europe. I was part of the redistribution of land in Africa, everyone in this delegation basically came together and figured everything out before hand on the blog. We came out with a comprimise that made the majority of the countries happy. I believe the only country that was unhappy with the results was Italy. During the blog conversation, Italy was the only one who put up a fight reffering to the comprise. Italy just couldnt grasp the fact of leaving one nation independent. (italy wanted it for themselves) So there was a little difficulty in that aspect, but otherwise everything else went smoothly. Im sure if there were some arguing among our small delegation then there had to be a lot more in the real thing. Because we knew that this was just a mock conference, we knew that actual countries wouldnt be having their land divided up therefore there wasnt as much pressure on us. As for the actual people, it must have been a lot more difficult because whatever decision they made, it was real.
I dont think there were any areas that were unresolved, however there was one issue were there wasnt very good claification and the united states was confused. A vote took place and the USA thought we were voting on something else, so we gave the wrong vote. We wanted to go back to it, but time ran out. The only thing that i would change would be the league of nation army part. That was the area to which i was reffering earlier when i said there wasnt clarification on that part.
To be honest i think all areas were discussed and really wouldnt change much, I think our resolution was a good success. In the post discussion i would like to hear from the different countries and see what they liked and disliked about the final outcome. And maybe bring up the fact that One country in particular screwed up a lot of things for the US ( refferring to FRANCE). and i would like to know why france did that when that are supposed to be one of our allies!
To be perfectly honest there was only one main area that was “enhanced” by this activity. It really became clear to me how difficult it could be to negotiate with other countries and get anything accomplished. Aside from the conflicting interests of the different countries there was also the issue of conflicting personalities. I can only imagine how difficult this might have been at the real conference when people were actually fighting for the countries interest. However, I did also walk away with a greater understanding of the economic issues that would have taken place during the conference. My understanding of the social and political issues stayed about the same. For one I had no idea that Germany was being required to pay that much money in reparations or that countries such as France had lost that much money. I saw the struggle with dealing with how to make Germany be able to back the different countries and restrict and punish its economy.
I found negotiating to be the most difficult in the small groups. I think that this was because each delegate did not have their fellow country representatives there to help negotiate or redirect them if they got off track. Also it was first thing in the morning and everyone was pretty bright and perky and by the end in the large committee we were all pretty tired of debating so things were discussed and determined much more quickly.
One thing that I found to be pretty interesting was the level of participation from the different countries. I know that a lot of that had to do with personalities and who was part of what country. However, I noticed that a lot of the smaller more irrelevant countries such as Serbia and Italy often dominated debate and at times about things that did not even concern them. I also found it very interesting how the United States vetoed about 90% of the options presented to it. I do think they did a very good job and representing their countries hesitant, Wilson’s 14 points based views.
The one area that I thought was neglected was the structure and operating powers of the League of Nations. As we only had on school day to cover everything, it’s obvious that not every topic will be thoroughly discussed. I do think though that there was a lot of debate on this topic that went unfinished and we all just sort of quickly settled for a decision at the end even if it was not what was really wanted. I know that my delegation, Poland, was divided on the idea of having the UN army inside of our borders and hearing more views from the other countries might of helped to sway us completely one way or another.
I found that the Versailles conference did enhance my understanding of the after math following WWI.
The part i found particularly engaging was forming alliances with other countries and seeing how they would hold up during the conference. I soon found that many of the so called "alliances" we had formed before the conference faltered quickly as the actual conference was taking place. I was undoubtedly annoyed when continuously vetoed by the Big Three. Also, i found it entertaining to watch some people in particular get very emotional of this fictional conference. yes there were parts of the conference that was frustrating, but the need for emotional duress to be applied was completely unnecessary. But, I guess that is somewhat of a good thing if countries felt that strongly, because it shows an accurate representation of how countries might have felt during the actual conference.
For my group disarmament, negotiations went rather smoothly. We all had a similar interest in completely dwindling Germany's army basically to the point where it could only defend itself. Unfortunately, negotiations became more difficult when the talk of specific limitations for each country began. Every country was looking out for its own self interest and did not want to lesser themselves to make an agreement. This probably meant that the nations who were truly invested in the conference were trying to make arrangements that only compensated for themselves, and acted upon self interest. I myself found it hard to come to terms with agreeing with ideas that clearly were not an advantage to my nation (Serbia) and clearly added more advantages to other nations.
One issue that was clearly left unaddressed was the whole upper and lower houses of the League of Nation. It appeared to be plainly stated and was not really clear with its purpose. Also, the question whether or not the League of Nations would have a standing army was also an issue that seemed to be left unresolved at the end. The voting on the subject was rushed, and i do not feel that the vote was reflective of what countries really wanted.
Something i would change is time restraints. It just felt as everything was too rushed together before groups were able to really sit down and analyze what they had proposed. Also, when voting, countries were cut off from commenting on certain topics due to the lack of time. Those topics were then quickly moved to a vote which i felt was also rushed. I feel that more time would be an excellent addition to this conference (even though it is difficult to keep the library shutdown for an extended period of time).
For post class discussion, i would like to take an in depth look at the League of Nation clauses in the real treaty of Versailles and compare the two. I feel that the League of Nations was the most difficult task to complete. It was hard to figure out how every single country is going to be represented and how countries are able to join this league. Also, there are other aspects I'd like to compare from our treaty to the actual one. Obviously the actual treaty of Versailles failed, hence the rise of Germany once again and then WWII. Comparing the disarmament we proposed, to the disarmament that was actually proposed would be interesting to see, because apparently the real treaty fell short in this category because it only took about a decade or so for another world war to spawn.
Out of all of the things that I have done this year in AP EUro, I feel that this was the most enriching experience. I thouroughly enjoyed this hands on experience teaching me about the trials and tribulations encountered after World War I. Reading the treaty can only give you so much of an idea of the problems at hand, but being responsible for a country and all of the issues, taught so much more. I most definetely found this activity engaging and worthwhile.
Negotiating was also very difficult. As we were not actually doing this conference, and the fact that we only had one day contributed to a few holes in the final treaty. The largest I felt came with the League of Nations. We debated for a while over the topics but were rushed to a decision and I think that the final treaty wouls have read differently if more time was allotted. Some of the most heated debates were found in the redistribution of national boundaries. I think that the heated debates dont even contend with the debates that must have occired in the actual treaty. Nations fighting for foreign territory and spheres of influence could have erupted in yelling and fights. I wouldn't be surprised.
I would like to bring up a few things in post discussion. My biggest question is which nation came out of this treaty the best. I am also intrigued by how this treaty would leave the world. Predictions of what would happen in future years due to our treaty would be fun to discuss.
Overall I thouroughly enjoyed this day of debate and resolution and I hope you continue it in future years.
The Versailles Conference allowed for us to get involved in the happenings of history, rather than just reading, memorizing and forgetting. It forced us to work to earn our own personal country’s goals, and argue and compromise in order to reach those goals. It allowed for us to understand what nations go though, on a much smaller scale, when they are attempting to reach agreements after a war. This exercise showed us how even though countries are allied in a war, this doesn’t mean that they don’t have very different or conflicting goals in terms of territory, reparations, etc. It also showed that if you are sneaky or underhanded in politics, or form alliances together, united against one or only a couple of other countries, you can force anything to pass by majority.
I found the small groups, and un-moderated caucus, or when there was a particularly argumentative issue up for debate. The small groups, i.e. territories, reparations, etc., were engaging because it was an open discussion and argument about the topic, as opposed to an ordered discussion without rebuttals. The un-moderated caucus allowed for the same type of discussions, for everyone to argue and debate for a better end result. The argumentative debates were interesting because everyone had something to say about each of these things. Each country had their own opinion, and it was interesting to see so many different sides of the debate.
Many of the sections of our final treaty were not completely resolved; they were resolved to the point that they made sense, but not so far that they were complete and all encompassing. This was due to both our wasting far too much time on pointless issues such as War Guilt, and overall just did not have enough time to spend enough time on all issues. It would perhaps be better to have two days to debate the issues and form a final treaty, which would allow for more time in individual committees as well as enough time to fully debate each issue on the floor. Although two days would be great for the purpose of getting the treaty finished to the fullest extent, it would also cause the project to drag on.
Overall, the Versailles Conference last Monday really did enhance my understanding of everything going on in Europe before, during, and especially, after the Great War. The general atmosphere of the entire room as well as the attire of my fellow delegates was enough to make me feel as if I was negotiating a real treaty. Prior to the conference, my knowledge of World War I was rather limited. As a result of all of the research and preparation leading up to the conference I gained a far more advanced understanding of individual country’s viewpoints on the whole affair. Even though I was a representative of Serbia, I was able to understand certain aspects of other countries such as Wilson’s 14 Points, followed by the American delegation. This is why I feel the conference definitely helped enhance my understanding of post-Great War Europe.
I was able to understand the political, social, and economic issues because they were all directly acknowledged in the treaty or in the negotiations. Politically, certain countries that historically had conflicts had conflicts at the conference. And, the same land was argued over as it was back then. Socially, the ethnicities of many of the various peoples of Europe were brought up when discussing territorial distribution. In fact, my country was given land in the northern part of Austria-Hungary on the condition that we respect the ethnicities of the region. Economically, reparations were a big topic of the conference, despite the actually proposal being replace by Pokémon propaganda. I learned about which countries needed specific amounts of money and why they did. Clearly, my understanding was enhanced.
I really enjoyed the entire conference and found most of it engaging. However, I enjoyed most the time I spent with my committee, War Guilt, which I was the chair of. It was quite interesting seeing all the other nations’ opinions on who deserves blame and why, but also satisfying in that we all shared the belief the Germany should be at the forefront of the blame with Austria-Hungary in second place. Nevertheless, there was slight drama when somebody suggested that the Ottoman Empire receive some of the blame and that required much discussion and elaboration. I also enjoyed the voting of amendments. It was fun seeing how countries side with each other, due to individual alliances or just to backstab another country. I had already experienced some of this at Model UN but it was still very fun seeing my classmates involved in the same thing.
In my individual committee, negotiating was very simple because we all had the same ideas on who to blame. In the voting on amendments and proposals with the whole group, negotiating was extremely difficult and tedious. People intentionally turned their back on past alliances and certain agreements were just thrown out the window. All the countries were only seeking what was best for them instead of the entire world, with the exception of giving Poland its independence. I can definitely assume that the real Treaty of Versailles was very similar to this because people were all acting in the mindset of their nations. I’m sure that at the actual conference the discussions were more heated but at our own conference there was a good deal of yelling and arguing. At times it was frustrating because Serbia is a small nation and we were just trying to get footholds so we could progress but the other nations kept shooting us down.
I think that the standing army and the League of Nations were left unresolved. Everyone had a really hard job on agreeing on almost every aspect of each one of these things. Personally, I was against both of them, but that’s because Serbia is too small to contribute to the Army and not respected enough to have a voice in the League. I think that everything important was addressed. However, the treaty left a lot to be expected and it provides no real prevention of any further conflict (WWII). I suggest that the Treaty is not ratified by any nation, and another conference is called for so that there is more time to discuss each and every part of it one more time. I think that more respect should be shown to the smaller nations and the land should be divided up more evenly. In post-conference discussion I would like the class to compare the treaty we mad e to the actual one. I know that in the real treaty the War Guilt Clause was solely based at Germany, but I’d like to see all the other parts of the treaty.
In summation, the Treaty of Versailles Conference was a lot of fun and provided for a good understanding of post-war problems/situations in Europe. I learned about all of the countries’ perspectives and how they view each individual topic. I feel that the treaty leaves a lot to be desired because it really just increases the power of the Big 3. However, I guess that’s what politics is all about. Making the stronger, stronger, and the weaker, weaker.
The Versailles Conference did enhance my understanding of the political, social and economic issues facing the world in the aftermath of the Great War. The conference was able to make me understand how hard it was to compromise and negotiate between the different countries. This conference drove home the point that you can not make every body happy.
For example when land redistribution was brought up it was impossible to make every one happy. Each country had certain goals that they wanted to accomplish. Although the goal of the conference was to make every one happy it was very difficult because each countries goal’s conflicted with at least one other country. When it came to land distribution every country wanted and felt that they deserved more land then they actually deserved. Since not every country got what they wanted it left them upset and frustrated. This is a problem because if the country is not happy with what they got it could spark feature conflicts that could start another war. A good example of this would be Japan. In the conference they receive very little of what they wanted. This upset Japan because they felt that they deserved more because they contributed so much to the war in the allies’ defense. This feeling of betrayal could make Japan go after what they think is rightfully there’s which would start more conflicts.
Some aspects of the convection that I liked were other people’s ideas. I went in to the conference with the idea that every one was going to come in with the same or similar ideas. As people presented I was astonished. This was because some of the ideas that were said were so unique and inconceivable in my mind. I liked that the best because other people were able to open up my mind to new ideas.
In my case negotiating was not difficult because the majority was on my side and for the most part every country agreed on the division of the pacific land. How ever I can see other groups had a very hard time negotiating. For example reparations were a big obstacle to over come. This is because some countries felt that they deserved more then what they deserved. Another issue was getting the big three to agree. If one of them didn’t then nothing would pass. This was a problem because alliances were made which affected the decisions of the big three. To help make the conference run more smoothly I think that if only 1 minor country and 1 power disagree and the rest are on the opposite side then the decision should go to the majority.
All these issues that across showed me what it would be like if this was real life. The nations who were actually involved had a very difficult time in making decisions. The decisions they made would affect a good majority of the world. A lot of weight was put on the shoulders of the real men and women who had to decide the words fait.
One issue that was left unresolved or I think should be brought back p in the post conference dissuasion is the reparations. No country could decide on a positive payment plan. I don’t like the idea of leaving financial reparation to a feature committee. I feel that leaving this decision to an unmade committee would be a bad idea. I want the reparations in writing to make sure Great Britain is paired back fairly. The committee uses its own research to give what they thing the countries reparations. I feel like Great Britain would be in jeopardy of getting cheated out of reparations if the committee was fixed.
If I was to change some thing about the seminar I would changed the format. I would want to have the conference differently Instead of every one talking and debating I would like to see each group debate and battle as the other groups watch. Each group would debate and come to a conclusion. I feel that every one having the ability to speak makes it impossible to agree on some thing and takes more valuable time that could be used to discuss more difficult events.
I felt that the Versailles conference was an excellent learning experience. It was a great way to show how governments work on a global scale. Before this experience i really didn’t know anything about how these conferences worked and I thought that is was a perfect activity to have to introduce us to the procedures. The conference also informed of all the aspects that going into maintaining peace after a time of war and turmoil. There are many things that must be done to make sure that war doesn't break out again. It just goes to that in my case my country wasn't involved in much fighting and we attempted to make important moves at the conference.
I thought that dividing each delegation into separate groups at the conference worked out really well because it got everyone involved and let each student experience some part of the process of the conference. Then coming back together to deliberate over the final draft with all the other delegations really made it seem like everyone had a share in how the treaty would come out.
The negotiations during the whole conference I thought worked out really well. Each group got to say whether or not they supported certain purposed aspects and then it was put to a vote. This worked out well because by putting it to a vote it was as fair as possible and realistic. I feel that maybe one of things that were left unresolved was the reparations. This might have been because every delegation wanted money and that wasn't and couldn't be the case. Other than that I thought that each part of the treaty was appropriately addressed.
Overall I thought that the whole thing was a good experience and I would definitely do it again if it was presented. It was nice getting together with all the students and being able to debate about something that would be looked at from the same angle. I like being able to disagree with people and being able to state a case and then come right back with a rebuttal. The only thing that i would change is that we would be able to have more time to do it. I thought that people had more to say and that not every issue was looked at for the same time. It felt like some parts of the treaty were looked at more than others even though the others could've been debated more than they were. But I liked the whole thing and really learned a lot from it.
Without a doubt, the mock Versailles Conference helped me to learn, understand, and become familiar with the causes and aftermath of World War I. Like our trial of Henry VIII, the mock Versailles Conference was a really good activity because it was a more active, hands-on way of learning: it forced us to thoroughly research the topic, for example, the causes of the war, our nation’s role in it, and its post-war goals, as well as other nations’ aims, and how Versailles contributed to World War II. Then, we were able to apply that knowledge, rather than just memorizing the information. Thus, I feel that, having done this activity, I now better understand and am more familiar with the issues surrounding World War I.
In addition, I think this activity was a great activity because it allowed us to experience what politicians, delegates, and leaders must go through. I realized showed me how hard it must be for them to negotiate. As delegates representing our countries, we tried to advance our own nations’ interests, but that was difficult because, obviously, others aimed to do the same thing and may not agree with you. We were forced to decide what were our countries’ most important goals, consider other countries’ demands, think critically and strategize, and then work together and compromise to reach a settlement that everybody was happy with. This was really tough when others were not willing to cooperate or were inflexible with their demands, and also, it must have been tough for small countries trying not to be ignored by more powerful nations. The negotiating was frustrating at times, but I found that it was very interesting and engaging. Also, I noticed that certain issues were not fully addressed because we couldn’t agree and because we had to move on, and so we left some topics to be settled later. For example, some of the reparations were left for a separate committee to decide at a later date; certain areas of land were placed under League of Nations control who could decide later on what to do with it. We were forced leave some issues unsettled because it was the only thing we could all agree on. Again, this just shows the challenges of having to negotiate with other nations.
As to how the mock Versailles Conference could be improved, I think there were a few things that could have been done differently to allow everybody to get the most out of it. First off, I think we should have gone over parliamentary procedure or practiced before going into the conference. I read the information about procedure, debating, etc. in the mock Versailles packet, but during the conference, I was still a bit confused at first about how things worked. It takes some time to become familiar with it and get used to it, and I think we should have done some practice or another smaller exercise before Versailles. Another thing I might change would be the set-up of the forum. It was extremely annoying when people would post under other people’s names and write irrelevant (and stupid) things, and it was frustrating having to wade through all that spam. Perhaps a forum that requires you to log into an account with a password would be better. Also, it was frustrating when certain people didn’t go on the forum at all, and so you didn’t know what they wanted and couldn’t make compromises, and it made it even more difficult to negotiate. Some way to encourage people to post more would have helped greatly. Lastly, I would have really liked to have had more time for the conference, especially for committees. It takes months and months to negotiate treaties and settlements, and the conference felt rushed since we had to cover so much in such a short amount of time. The League of Nations, especially, could not get everything it wanted to discuss done in only one hour during committee even though we tried to move quickly because there was so much to decide, e.g. structure for the League, powers, requirements for members. (Again, it might not have been so bad if people had gone on the forum so we could have gotten more done there.) Also, if we could have spread it out over perhaps two days, it might have been better because we wouldn’t be so exhausted from having to do so much in one day.
In a post-conference discussion, I think it would be interesting and beneficial as a follow-up to discuss generally how we did – our successes and weaknesses. For example, we could discuss which countries did the best, what were some general weaknesses, as well how well the treaty came out in general, that is, how did it compare to the actual Versailles Treaty, and did it help to promote peace and alleviate some of the problems that contributed to World War II in the real Treaty.
After years of reading, writing and taking tests on the Versailles Conference, it’s been a breath of fresh air to be able to really experience at least half of what the real conference felt like. This hands on approach to the conference has really helped my understanding of all aspects of this process. When I was reading about the problems of post-Great War Europe, it hard to understand truly how difficult it was for the leaders to find solutions. Allowing me to step into prominent historical leaders and take over their jobs for a few weeks has given me a better insight into how things were accomplished during that time. Overall, this did enhance my understanding of the political, social, and economic issues facing the world at that time. Issues such as political alliances really helped me realize that there a lot of back-door dealing in diplomacy. Socially, the controversy involving the Slavic nations and the mixed-bag of ethnicities that were going to be affected by our decisions displayed the severity of this ethnic fighting that still exists today. The reparations section showed the full extent of the economic crisis that distressed the world at that time. Germany and the other defeated nations seemed to have an incomprehensible debt to pay off yet somehow, I felt no pangs of guilt to support the amount.
The committee and the actual debating in the conference was the most engaging aspect of this exercise. Though I have gone through this kind of activity, Youth and Government, there was less rigid structure yet the flurry of activity was exciting. Because being a politician is something that I look forward to as a potential career, the debating was intense and quite enjoyable. It was interesting how alliances and logical thinking suddenly became a backdrop when debate became heated. It was also interesting how most delegates in their group felt extremely nationalistic about their nations, even though it isn’t really their true nation.
Negotiating was difficult at times for various reasons. During my committee meeting before hand, it seemed as all the countries in the group agreed to the plan and surprisingly I saw very little resistance at this time. However when the time came to discuss during the actual conventions, countries that were once quiet, decided to make claims that were never made before and show resistance to the plan that was once unanimously decided upon. This shows that when this conference actually happened, the nation involved must have been passionately fighting for their rights with every ounce of strength. Most people in the conference were either friends or at least harbor no ill-feelings toward others. During the real conference, actual rivals must have gotten into intense debates, neither one giving up any ground. This shows why it takes so long for treaties and conferences to end, the debating is intense and no one wants to lose.
Due to the length of the conference, there were quite a lot of problems left unresolved. The League of Nations army and the reparations were the biggest problems. Both were well intentioned however, due to the time constraints there were certain issues not discussed or ignored that would have strengthened each section. Some other clauses were vague and due to a technical difficulty, reparations were difficult to truly understand what the final agreement was. That added to the difficulty of agreeing on something that was already going to be a hot topic.
The only thing I would change is the length of the actual conference. I believe that one day is not enough to truly make a treaty that is full proof. A conference spread over 2 days would be the best and would greatly increase the experience of the event. Also, the committee meetings should have been extended at least 15 to 30 minutes longer as certain issues were never resolved. For post-conference class discussions, I think we should spend a class discussing our treaty, the strengths and the weaknesses and its predicted affect on the society at that time. Also, we should compare our treaty with the real treaty and predict which one would have done a better job. Overall, I believe that this conference was a great experience and one of the most enjoyable activities ever in school, getting dressed up for such an event is a great feeling and our finished product, though not perfect, indeed showed real effort and intellect on our parts.
The Versailles Conference was a very effective activity and it definitely enhanced my understanding of the complex issues facing the world after the Great War. Reading from the textbook about the aftermath of the war and the negotiations that took place is one thing, but this unique learning experience certainly adds another level of understanding. The politics and motivations of the countries involved were displayed, such as the Fourteen Point-guided Americans and the vengeful, persistent imperialism of France and Great Britain. Economic issues were brought into stark view as nations squabbled about how much reparation they deserved and who would pay for it—one was left to wonder about the bleak state of affairs and the long-term effects of these money plans. Social issues arose as countries were being formed along ethnic lines, and territories full of conflicting people were changing hands.
When you are put in the place of a country’s delegation, you feel a responsibility and enthusiasm to understand the country’s needs and goals, and push their agenda in the actual conference. The cornerstone of the French attitude was an acute bitterness and sense of revenge towards the Germans and an anxiousness to prevent future wars of such scale. I enjoyed approaching each issue with this attitude in mind and developing plans of attack of sorts, or positions that we would stand by. I also enjoyed the art of negotiation, particularly in the online forum and in the individual committees. The forum was not only entertaining, but it provided a way of informally conversing with the other delegations and receiving feedback on your positions. It is certainly an advantage to form alliances and know how other people will respond to your ideas ahead of time. I found the individual committee discussions to be quite engaging as well. In my committee experience, each country came in with their own ideas of what was to be accomplished, but despite our differences we were able to come to a compromise that was pleasing to the interests of all nations involved. That is what negotiation is all about, and it was a constructive and satisfying experience.
By the time of floor session, I observed that debate and resolution of issues was slightly more difficult and heated than perhaps was expected coming out of the committee experience. Perhaps, people found more heart sitting amongst their respective delegations. I made the move of trying to apportion the Germans with more war guilt than what was set forth. While many saw the proposed amendment as trivial, I was aware of a clause in reparations that had Germany pay the overwhelming majority. For the sake of consistency, I thought that the figures in War Guilt should be reflective of other decisions made later on in the treaty, such as Reparations. It turned out that my motion was futile, and Germany actually ended up less guilty. Overall though, differences were reasonably discussed and it was not an overwhelming challenge to pass what was needed. In real life, I would imagine that the slight differences in purpose and opinion from the delegations would cause a lot of stress and make negotiations more strenuous. With world peace and progress at stake, it would certainly be a more passionate, technical, and strung-out process.
All of the topics were covered and resolved, but some were not discussed in proper depth and detail. Details about the League of Nations standing army were left unclear. The agreements made about Reparations also seemed a little vague, and given the time, the clauses could have been developed to optimum satisfaction.
Therefore, I would recommend extending the length of the overall Conference but the limitations with that are evident. The enthusiasm and momentum seemed to be waning especially around and past lunchtime, and it might be expecting too much to make this a two-day affair. Hence, I propose that the committee negotiations and drafting of working papers be done prior to the day of the Conference. This way, we would go straight into the floor session with significantly more time available to ensure that each topic gets the attention it deserves.
In class now, I would like to make a comparison to the actual Treaty of Versailles. We should also examine the reasons behind countries’ decisions to ratify or reject the (actual) treaty. It will also be interesting to see the Treaty’s long-term effect on Europe and determining its success in stabilizing world affairs.
The Mock Versailles Conference that we participated in was a great learning experience for me, and it helped me immensely in understanding The Great War and its effects. First of all the Versailles Conference gave me a better understanding of the circumstances around The Great War. The war changed how Europe was shaped and with Versailles we were able to see and understand why and how Europe was shaped the way it was. The Great War is often overshadowed by WWII. I believe that the Versailles Conference enabled us to see how The Great War lead to the Second World War. The Conference helped us to see inside the conflict and look at what all the European nations were doing.
The most engaging part of the Versailles Conference was definitely the negotiations between teams. It was interesting forming and backstabbing alliances. It was fun to see how negotiations really went. You couldn’t just for something with no base of reason, everyone wanted more and you needed to give some things to gather support for what you really want accomplished. It was hard to find parallel interests in all aspects of the conference. However, you needed to garner just enough support by appealing to the Big 3 powers to gain what you wanted. It is very hard for every nation to find a common ground, so what ends up happening is by compromising everyone leaves mad because they didn’t get exactly what they wanted.
After the conference there are few things that fully get resolved. I think that it is a lot of the countries had difficult times actually gaining what was agreed for at the conference. Its one thing to agree during negotiations but another to agree in full once the conference is over. One major problem that was left mainly unresolved was the article on the League of Nations. In our treaty we were largely unable due to time constraints to come up with a rock solid League of Nations. We failed to give specific powers and rights to the League. Therefore I think that I would rather have had more time to discuss these things and more, so if I was to change one thing I would make it a Versailles Conference week. The thing that I want to discuss in class the most is the way we spoke. I want to know more how speaking really occurs during an international conference and what we could do to make the speaking better.
To say that this simulation did not enhance my understanding of the mechanisms and intricate working behind all the events that took place before and after world war one would be a lie. I found this exercise to be extremely informative and I learned aspects of the war and negotiations that I could never learn anywhere else.
By far the most engaging part of the entire conference was the debates and trying to reach agreements with my fellow classmates. At first I thought that it would be extremely easy to gain support for my proposals but I did not know how wrong I was…
There were many points where I felt so frustrated that I thought I was going to rip out pieces of my hair. I could not understand why other countries were going along with my plans. Particularly France.
They did not like the idea of a standing army at all and refused to negotiate. They were most agitated when we suggested that we put the army in the Rhineland.
While on the topic of the standing army this was the process that was the least resolved of all. Due to time constraints we were never able to fully discuss all possibilities but the resolution we hastily agreed on was sufficient.
The only thing that I would possibly change in the whole process was to dedicate more time so we can delve further into negotiations. I would also make sure only mature students were allowed to go. The whole program was halted because some immature idiot replaced a group’s slide. What a dolt.
During the Mock Versailles Trial, there were many dissensions as well as agreements on particular issues that gave me insight into not only the political, economic, and social issues facing the war; but I additionally gained knowledge on how difficult it may be for so many nations to come into a mutual agreement at the end of a conflict. Because every country is going into the Conference with their countries views and bias, there must be a balance to some extent between satiating your countries needs and goals, while simultaneously not fully dismissing the needs and goals of another country. Since one’s background, values, and beliefs are all filters through which one thinks, I also learned that in order to convince someone to acquiesce to your proposal you must first know the background (ethnic, economic, political), the values, and the beliefs of another country.
In negotiating in the League of Nations, the most obvious economic issue was the funding of a League of Nations Army. Of course, not all countries (especially developing or newly founded nations) could have contributed an efficient and adequate amount of troops. This issue in itself reflected that most countries before and after the First World War were at different levels economically. Countries such as the United States dissented against a League of Nations Army, because at the time the United States’ foreign policy was shifting more towards isolationism. Such opposition to a League of Nations Army delineates the political change in which the U.S. was undergoing at the present time period. Social issues included an ethnically diverse Balkan region and Eastern Europe comprised of ethnic Slavs, Croats, Magyars, and other ethnic groups. These different ethnic groups located in the same country would both contribute to Hitler’s justifications of the Second World War as western Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria all contained German-speaking people after the war; and the massacre in the 1990s of Bosnian Muslims and Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina led by the Serb Slobodan Milosevic would also have its origins in the social problems left to thrive during the aftermath of the First World War.
One of most engaging aspects of the Conference to me was actually not in the mock trial itself, but in the AP Forum which helped us prepare for the Conference. With the absence of an AP Forum, the negotiation process during the Conference would have been a thorn in the side to our delegation. Talking with other delegations online helped us to be exposed to the sentiment of other countries before the Conference and facilitated the process of making the treaty. In addition to this, alliances were also a very engaging part of the process as well. Although the nation of China certainly was one of the largest powers in size and population, we were not the most robust country economically and politically; thus we were to some extent deprived of a large voice in the Conference. But through the forming of alliances, which in most cases bound nation with nation, we were able to counteract the fact that we were a minor power.
I believe that the most difficult task within the treaty as a whole was in drafting a Covenant of the League of Nations. There is a difference between deciding on war guilt, reparations, territories, and deciding on how to set up a new organization in such a short period of time. Due to the brevity of our committee meetings, the League of Nations was probably one of the areas in the treaty containing the most flaws or absence of detail. For example, the League promises to sort out problems such as rampant disease, but how so? If disease were to break out directly after the war what would we do immediately to take action? Would we create a team of specialized medical researchers, who would study the disease before there is any undertaking to suppress it? Also as a Chinese delegate, I believe that China as a nation whose population surmounts that of most powers should gain just as many votes as any other power. I would therefore change the Upper Assembly, in that, all countries would receive equal representation or at least those countries that show some sense of political and economic competency and efficiency. The League of Nations is not only about the war, but more importantly about preventing a war from occuring in the future. I do not think that the Allied Powers should have a larger voice (two more votes) in the resolvement of future events than nations such as China just because they were directly part of the war. It also should have been specified whether nations in the Temporary Board could be part of the board in successive years or must they be different countries who rotate each year. I also wished that the League of Nations Committee would have been allotted more time to discuss the structure and powers of the League, because the League of Nations Covenant was definitely rushed. But overall despite minor flaws and discrepancies, I think that this treaty was very well done considering it was written by 16, 17, and 18 year old teenagers attempting to emulate experienced adult ambassadors from other countries.
Post a Comment