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.
Due Friday am.
40 comments:
I thought that the Versailles Conference process was a great way to learn about the social, economic, and political issues of the world. I think it was worth doing because not only did you learn about your own country's wants/needs and public opinions, but you also had to learn about the other countries in the conference who you were negotiating with. I think I got a better understanding of most of the countries that were there and the challenging situation they were put in. I think I got a better understanding of the political issues that were brought up by the war. I get the political tensions that were there a little better because the same tensions were in our conference, but obviously not to the same degree. Also, we really saw how money is a driving force in politics. It seemed like everything had to do with money and who was going to pay who.
I found the negotiating the most engaging part of the conference and the fact that most people were pretty predictable. You could guess what other countries were going to do and why they were going to do it. For example, it was easy to predict the fact that the U.S., and France and Britain weren't going to get along. You could also guess that they were going to waste time in the Middle East territories committee since they all had an interest in the area and didn't get along. I thought that the negotiating was fun too. For me, I thought it was cool how I was able to make an alliance with a few other countries and get something out of it, while giving little to others. It was also interesting to see how much a vote was worth. It seemed like a vote was more valuable than land and money.
Some issues weren't resolved, but I think they would have been if we had had more time. For example, reparations didn't get fully finished and I don't think we ever finished the League of Nations document. I thought it was funny when the lesser countries teamed up against the Big Three to prevent them from getting what they wanted. I think that if we had more time to deliberate, the lesser countries and the Big Three would have reached a compromise.
As for what I would change, I would only change one aspect of it. I love the way it ran and the amount of time we had to work on it. I loved the forum and thought it was really helpful. I thought the deliberations during the conference went smoothly. The only thing during the conference that I would change, would be the strictness of Robert's Rules. I think that some people spoke out of term too frequently and made personal attacks that were out of place.
There was really only one thing that annoyed me which was the treatment of Japan during the conference. I think that they were treated really poorly. The only country that should have been ok with the proposals made by Britain were China because there was an actual reason for them to vote for the proposals. I think that it was unnecessary to shrink the size of their navy to that which was less than Germany's. I also thought that the arguments against Japan ended up being attacks against the people who were in that delegation.
I think that the conference was really fun and educational at the same time. I think my country, Poland, got more land and reparations than it did in the actual conference. I had great group members and we really worked as a team to try to get the best out come we could get.
The Treaty of Versailles definitely enhanced my understanding of the issues that faced the world in the aftermath of the Great War. My country was the United Arab Emirates, which I knew little about before this conference. After researching the country, I learned a lot about the Arab Nations and their history. They were most interested in gaining independence from imperial nations, especially from the former Ottoman Empire, the French, and the British, which had all had control over the UAE before the Great War. The conference also gave us an opportunity to learn about the interests of the other countries who were involved in it. The alliances that the countries made with each other were interesting, and surprisingly (for the UAE) successful. All of the countries that we made an alliance with were mostly loyal to us, which helped us get what we wanted.
The aspect that was the most engaging to me was the floor session to determine the outcome of the Middle East and its borders. Not everyone agreed on what they wanted, so it had to be continued at the end of the conference. It was interesting to see how the Middle East was going to be divided, and fortunately it worked in our favor because we got a lot of land, more than the current UAE has. I was afraid that this issue was not going to be resolved because of the time constraint, but luckily we got to it at the end.
Negotiating was not that difficult because the countries we encountered at this time were cooperative with us and were willing to give us what we wanted. We were willing to make alliances with the different countries (most the U.S) and give them our votes, in exchange for their support in our self-determination and land in the Middle East.
Reparations didn't get fully resolved, leaving a few people angry, like the country of France, but our country benefited from that. Our army was able to be whatever size we wanted it to be because there was a specific reference to the UAE in the reparations document. I was overall satisfied with the outcome of the conference because my country got everything it wanted, and more. This was good because few countries probably had a similar experience that we had during it. Some people got out of order during this, so next time I think it should have been more low key, because in reality, it is just a simulation.
The UAE was very successful in what it got out of the conference, and the other countries were very cooperative in working with us, which I was very thankful for.
I think the Versailles Conference was a very good way to learn about the political, social, and economical issues that occurred after World War I. By actively participating in the conference instead of just learning about it I was able to see first hand the challenges of being apart of the conference. This showed me just how difficult it was for the countries to come to agreements. Because each country was in a different condition after the war and therefore had different needs and wants there had to be compromises in the proposals which were hard to form. The focus of each country was on themselves do changing their ways in order to benefit others was challenging.
The aspect I found most engaging was the disagreements. I did not realize how determined people would be to get their way and how different people’s views were so when the committee session started I became worried that we’d never come to a final decision. Also I was surprised at the amount of backstabbing. I thought we would all come to an agreement and it would be done with but that was not the case. Even though we came to a decision in our committees, many things got changed once it was brought to the floor. Countries pushed to get as much money, land, armament supplies etc as they could, causing people to break agreements in order to help themselves.
Although most issues were finally resolved, the issue of disarmament never was. The objective was to decrease militaries in order to prevent another war but none of the countries wanted to do so. As head of disarmament, my plan was quickly dashed when all the other countries wanted to maintain their militaries. Since negotiations weren’t getting anywhere I made severe changes and we finally agreed. That was short lived however, because when the proposal was brought to the floor everyone wanted different changes. Nothing could be agreed upon so we moved on and then when we returned to the issue we still couldn’t agree.
If I could change one thing I would have made sure to be more prepared for changes. I was so surprised at all the disagreement I wasn’t sure how much I should compromise. But overall I thought the conference was a very useful and successful activity. As Britain we pretty much achieved all the goals we set and were happy in the end result.
The Versailles Conference process definitely enhanced my understanding of the political, social, and economic issues facing the world in the aftermath of the Great War. I found it particularly intriguing because of how engaging the whole event was, especially the mock-conference itself. Up until the actual day, I wasn't really into the character of being an American delegate. Although I understood what the United States wanted, I didn't REALLY want it myself. However, once I was actually in the situation, I became very interested in how everything was turning out and wanted to get as much for the USA as possible.
An aspect that I found particularly engaging was just how engaged everyone else was. I think that the whole experience was very successful because every person there seemed truly invested in the negotiations that were occurring - particularly the dissension between the United States, France, and Britain. I liked how people would do anything they could to get what they wanted, especially in cases where countries were promised things that they didn't receive. I enjoyed how pretty much anything (regarding secret treaties and negotiations) was far game, and anything could happen once things were said on the floor.
I do think that negotiating was difficult at times but easy at others. During the separate conferences, I represented the United States in reparations. Although France had ridiculous requests, we eventually found a middle ground that we could compromise on, and all of the other countries at the table were able to agree with it, too. However, I think that the negotiations on the floor were much more difficult. Since the individual conferences were not finalized, it was much easier to "settle." Once different bills hit the floor, though, things didn't always go as planned. One piece of evidence that negotiating was difficult was the fact that rules had to be suspended so many times so the Big Three could re-discuss and come to new agreements. I can only imagine how time-consuming and frustrating it would have been to get decisions made at the actual Versailles Conference. If students were getting heated over issues that didn't directly affect them and that happened many years prior, delegates must have been EXTREMELY stubborn and upset over how some things turned out. It definitely gave me a feel for how stressful the event was at the time.
Almost every single issue on the floor was resolved, although some were slightly unresolved. If I remember correctly, the major one that wasn't quite fixed was the disarmament document; the countries spent a great deal of time arguing over the sizes of armies and changes to be made, but the United States definitely hindered the rest of the conference from coming to a full conclusion.
Something that I didn't like was the treatment of Japan during the conference. I found it unnecessary and unfair for those delegates, especially since no one making proposals could back up reasons for doing so. They seemed to be victims throughout the whole conference and I didn't like that. I felt that maybe the debate rules could have been a little bit more enforced because by the end everything seemed to have gotten out of hand.
Other than that incident, there isn't really much I would change. However, I would use a forum where people have to sign in, because there were some rude comments that were completely anonymous. That just wasn't needed considering that the assignment was for school and people were making personal attacks and just being immature.
Overall, I really enjoyed the whole experience of being a part of the Versailles Conference. I found it extremely enlightening and fun at the same time.
After completing the mock Versailles Conference, I believe I established a significantly greater understanding of the political, social, and economic issues nations faced after the First World War. Primarily, I learned how these suggestions and concerns were brought up and settled amongst the nations involved. In doing so, I quickly learned how easy it was to deny a suggestion and how difficult it was to pass wanted proposals. Nonetheless, this process allowed me to further understand the true ambitions and goals at the time and how they differed from nation to nation. Because each group varied significantly on their personal opinions, my understanding of the challenges faced was definitely more sympathetic and appreciative. Furthermore, I realized that the nations were very concerned in territorial gains and the future limitation of arms. While alliances were made, it was evident that each nation was solely there for themselves and was willing to do whatever it took to get what they had wanted.
As the conference continued, I was thoroughly engaged in the many different debates. In other words, I loved hearing the reasoning behind each nation’s actions and their constant rebuttals when an opposing team tried to make a change. I felt this was so engaging because there was a new idea being addressed at all times which never allowed a dull moment to appear. However, this same concept also proved how difficult the negotiating could be. While many of the representatives were focused on their main objective, they forgot about the significant process required to get to that point. In other words, during the negotiating the time to vote was more important than the propositions because without the agreement of the majority, we were back at square one. As a result, both in our conference and during the actual Versailles, it was important for nations to look out for themselves but just as important to support the interest of the Big 3. Without their support, your ideas meant nothing.
Because the support of others didn’t always come naturally, a few issues were left unresolved. For example, because of the unnecessary treatment towards Japan regarding the issue of disarmament, a majority vote could not be arrived upon. However, I believe this was relied strongly on the limited time constraint. If more time had been allotted, I strongly believe a compromise could have been settled.
In the end, I feel this conference was a success. Not only did it give everyone a sense of how issues were settled, but it also gave everyone the chance to have a voice. Nonetheless, the one issue I would like to comment on the attitude several nations had towards Japan. Most prominently, Britain made the proposal to reduce Japan’s navy by a tremendous amount. While it was expected for China to agree, I believe it was out of hand for the remaining nations to vote in favor. However, the issue was set back in place and the conference ended on a good, successful note.
The Versailles Conference process enhanced my understanding of the political, social, and economic issues facing the world in the aftermath of World War I to a great extent. I thought that the conference was extremely successful since everyone seemed to be engaged in the discussions and voting processes.
I represented the Arab Emirates in the Middle East Territorial Committee. The Arabs were very much at a disadvantage at the conference because they did not have any voice in the negotiation process. The Arabs were weak and coveted an independent and united Arab state that would be freed from foreign involvement, but because of their weaknesses, their objective was never achieved. Being an Arab representative, I tried to get as much land for my country as possible during the negotiation. Knowing that they were the dominant powers at the conference, Great Britain and France were able to achieve their goals. Although the ancient land of Mesopotamia was carved up by foreign countries, the Arabs still managed to acquire a considerable amount of land. Britain and France were being very generous in granting the land that belonged originally to the Arabs to the Arabs. Britain had partially fulfilled its promise. I was very grateful and happy with the results since historically, the Arabs failed miserably in trying to achieving their objective.
I thought that the floor session was very engaging since everyone was able to get involved. The debate over issues was often heated. In some occasions, delegates were so into the discussion as if they were negotiating the actual Versailles Treaty.
Negotiation processes were difficult. For a small and weak (politically) country, the negotiation process was extremely difficult since it sometimes had to go against its principles and went with what the Big Three wanted. Unless that country had something that may be beneficial them, the powerful nations had no desire in negotiating with it. Then again, this was true for all nations that were present at the mock-conference.
There were some problems that were left unsolved because some nations did not agree to others' terms. Issues such as disarmament and reparation were left unsolved. Even so, the treaty as a whole was reasonable.
I thought that the organization of the conference was good, and the forum was a great idea. The only changes that I would suggest are the strict enforcement of Robert’s Rule and rules regarding the forum. On the forum, some people made personal attacks that should never have been said in the first place. Impersonation was another problem. Other than that, the conference is well-structured.
The Versailles Conference undoubtedly enhanced my understanding of the issues that the countries faced in the aftermath of the Great War. Before the conference, I knew little of what the countries desired out of the treaty, especially Poland, the country I was assigned to. By going through the actual process of negotiation with other countries and deciding for ourselves what would be best for our own assigned country, I gained a comprehensive understanding of the situations different countries were facing in all aspects; politically, socially, and economically.
The aspect that I found to be most engaging was the floor session, by far. This was the part of the experience that really gave me a perspective on how things were done and really how difficult it was to pass something. Prior to this experience I always felt that if something was not able to pass, that reflected upon the representatives negligence to the issue or maybe they did not work hard enough to make it work. But after this experience, I realized that even when great effort is put into passing something, some countries are just sometimes unwilling to compromise. This insight also led to another interesting aspect of the activity, the "secret" bargaining that was going on to essentially bribe another country to compromise or support your idea.
Negotiations were beneficial to Poland. Since we agreed to back some of the major powers on issues, we were able to obtain most of our goals. Thus, the negotiating aspect worked in our favor.
The issue left unresolved was the disarmament part of the treaty. This debate got very interesting, especially towards the end when all the smaller powers pitted against the Big Three. As a small country, I found the Big Three proposal of using the GDP of a country self-serving. Perhaps if there was more time, smaller countries would have been willing to compromise.
There was nothing really I would change. The structure of the conference was great, and the forums were very helpful. Overall, I thought this mock conference was as realistic as it could possibly be.
One issue that I believe was unfair was the treatment of Japan. It seems very clear to me that hindsight was used, which obviously goes against the whole process of the conference. Great Britain's attempt to pass ridiculous restrictions on Japan and treat them almost exactly like Germany was definitely absurd.
I found the mock Versailles Conference extremely useful in enhancing my knowledge of the time period. Through the process, I researched not only the general issues facing the world after WWI, but also smaller, seemingly less significant issues for the smaller countries, such as China which I represented. China isn’t even mentioned in Speilvogel in the WWI chapter, so everything I learned specifically about it was almost entirely a result of the conference. I think that role acting is a great way to really learn about something rather than simply reading about it. When you’re role acting something, such as this conference, you really have to understand, not just memorize, the issues at hand and how they pertain not just to you, but to everyone else as well.
For me, the most engaging aspect was territorial redistribution. Although I was a part of the reparations committee and not the territorial one, this was the aspect most vital and important to China, and so it was the aspect that I found the most interesting. Negotiating was sometimes difficult, especially as China didn’t have much to offer the larger countries and really just wanted to be left by itself, but without threat from Japan. We were able to work with the US quite a bit, as they strove to follow Wilson’s 14 Points which ultimately helped us. Negotiating got trickier as we got into the conference, with countries bailing on others, causing some tempers to rise. Many countries also forgot to take the schedule into account when negotiating compromises. If you had made an agreement with another country in exchange for something else and they helped you early on, it didn’t really matter much if you “neglected” to help them towards the end of the conference. I am sure that negotiating would have been much harder in the actual conference in which there would have been many more countries and the results would have more affect on the delegates than just their pride and their grade.
The main problem left unsolved was disarmament. We had to stop that discussion and come back to it at the end of the day when we eventually simply ran out of time. By this point the little countries were annoyed from having to put up with the Big 3’s veto powers and banded together to vote against the entire proposal which resulted in no disarmament portion of our treaty. I would assume that if we had had more time, we would have at least passed a proposal limiting Germany and Austria. This is what I would change if I could—adding a disarmament portion of the treaty limiting the countries we deemed were responsible for war guilt.
The mock versailles conference activity definitely helped me understand and appreciate what happened at the real event. Every team of representatives came into the meeting with clearly defined goals and wouldn’t settle for anything less. This made negotiating next to impossible at times. This was especially when one of the “big three” of France, Britain, and the U.S disagreed. These three nations had the power to veto any proposition. Therefore, in order to pass a proposal all three of these nations had to agree with it. There were several instances in which every nation in the conference voted to pass a proposal, but it was not passed because the U.S choose to veto it. It was good that only those three nations had the veto powers, if every nation possessed it nothing would ever have gotten passed because it would have to be unanimously accepted by every nation. Although we spent the majority of the day in session, there were topics left unaddressed and issues that remained unresolved. Had the session not been forced to end at 2:30, the debating would surely have gone well into the night. Disarmament was never completely settled. Every nation naturally wanted to maintain their military and also wanted the other nations to significantly disarm. Due to this nobody agreed on the final proposal and there was no agreement on disarming. There were certainly some topics that were generally agreed upon, however. Every nation naturally wanted significant disarming for Germany (there was no German representative). Also, everyone basically felt that Britain would need more troops due to its many colonial holdings; and France needed a lot of troops to defend its large borders.
I was satisfied at how successful my group, Italy, was. Italy was not as successful at the actual conference. The main Italian representative, Vittorio Orlando, became so enraged with the other nations that he actually left the conference. Needless to say, much of Italy’s goals were not realized. Something similar happened in our conference but instead of it happening to Italy it happened to Japan. They were treated poorly by every other nation and eventually one of their representatives asked for permission to leave the conference. It was wise that we didn’t stand up for Japan because we could be next. They were treated as if they weren’t even an ally of the present nations. Their Navy, which was critical for their continued presence in the Pacific, almost became less than that of Germany’s. Clearly the other representatives forgot that Italy was actually allied with Germany for a part of the war. For this reason my fellow representatives tried to make reasonable proposals that would not anger members of the big three. If we provoked them, our nation would be in big trouble.
The Versailles conference greatly enhanced how I understood the time after WWI. I learned how extremely invested each country was to make sure that their lands were strong enough to function after the war. I found the open forum aspect to be most engaging. I didn't think at first that listening to the smaller countries proposals really ment anything to me as a member of the USA. However I realized quickly how interconnected everything was. That when one vote was placed either way on an issue, it could offend a country and make them vote against us in the future. This was very noticable in the voting process on the the way armistice negotiating panned out. This section of the treaty was extremely difficult because everyone wanted something different. I could see how truly time consuming and aggrivating this process could have been on the real treaty conference, especially when each country was so adamant and invested in the outcome of
the treaty. The issue of the disarmament was left completely unresolved which almost defeated the purpose of the treaty in my eyes. Germany was now able to militarize without any restrictions or punishments. If any issue was to be renegotiated I'd hope it would be the arms reduction portion. Hopefully after further negotiating and some compromising the issue could be resolved.
The Versailles Conference was an amazing experience- both because of the educational aspect as well as the fact that it was a lot of fun. It certainly opened my eyes to the problems plaguing Europe after the first World War, as I had incredibly little knowledge about the conference before the actual conference itself, as most textbooks simply mention the conference in a sentence or two, and mostly just mention it as a way to show the students who read it about how the war ended and where. I was very happy to be representing the pays magnifique de la France and playing one of the largest nations in the conference (not in size, but power) as it helped me realize how difficult it was to get anything done, because the other great nations had to agree with us as well as the smaller nations.
Negotiating was certainly very difficult in the actual conference. I spent a lot of time and effort clearly stating my country's plans and what concessions I would make to every nation (large and small) in order to get the resolutions I needed passed in the conference. What also did not help was that although everyone was agreed before the conference on how everything would be done, in the actual conference, I did not get everything I wanted for my country because of betrayal on the part of some countries - but I was very glad to see most of the things my country wanted passed.
We never agreed on disarmament and I felt that the smaller nations helped our country very much by voting against it, as that made it so France could have as large an army as we wanted, which was great. However, if I could just amend that to ban Germany having an army, it would have been the best scenario.
I hope this conference continues to be a project for future classes, because I certainly enjoyed myself and learned a lot about World War I by doing this.
The mock Versailles Conference had a huge impact on the way in which I view the events and decisions following the end of World War I. In my committee (League of Nations) I saw how hard it was to be able to create specific list of points to be included in our charter that would please a majority vote in committee as well as the ability to pass a floor vote which needs the approval of the Big Three. We were constantly having different countries submit ideas that they felt their country needed to be a part of the charter and then having to change the syntax and exact wording of the suggestion in order to gain preliminary approval of everyone which due to the importance of our committee contained a delegate from every country represented at the conference. Unfortunately, the hard work that we had done to gain preliminary approval was often in vain because if a country representative didn’t perfectly represent the ideas the rest of their delegation felt the country supported the yes vote we anticipated could be lost.
Sadly, we were unable as a group to pass a resolution on every topic brought up on the floor. We left the conference without passing a single motion on disarmament, a topic that was a main focal point of the actual conference. We finished without putting a single restriction on one of the main causes of the war and (using hindsight) a cause of the Second World War. I definitely would’ve liked to have been able to have more time for the conference to enable us to take more time to look at what he were failing to accomplish and work to correct that. If I could change anything else, it would probably be to have more strict monitors leading discussion because people weren’t following the rules perfectly and yet no one was really muted or punished because of it.
With all the difficulty and secrecy that we were faced within the few short days we participated in the mock treaty I am amazed that anything was passed at all at the real conference, and it doesn’t surprise me at all now that the US refused to join the League after fighting to create it since creating its charter was incredibly tough to preserve each countries personal desires.
The mock Versailles Conference definitely enhanced my understanding of the many problems faced by the world after the Great War. Not only did the map of Europe have to be redrawn, but Africa and the territories in the Pacific also have to be divided bewtween the victors. However, while Great Britain and France wanted to expand their foreign holdings, the United States wanted a policy of self-determination to be adopted, and this caused the Big Three to disagree on some territorial issues. Some parts of negotiating, such as war guilt and reparations, were fairly straightforward, with some minor things done to the proposals here and there. When negotiating territories, on the other hand, the United States continuously used its veto power to block many of the proposals that Britain and France wanted. They also were splitting hairs in reparations, slowly decreasing Germany's percentage of payments.
What we failed to achieve was an agreement on disarmament. Japan was outraged that the proposal would leave them with a relatively small army, so a new proposal was made that would use a GDP percentage to decide how much a country could pay on its military. Failing to realize that it had one of the highest GDPs at the conference, they, and the other minor nations, voted it down. Britain got basically everything it wanted, and overall in was a fun time.
While I was unable to attend the actual Versailles Conference, the experiences in the days and weeks leading up to the conference were incredibly interesting. Dealing with what were very real economic, political, and social issues was a great experience. I was most enthused by the though that this was our opportunity to change history, at least in our own minds. All of what we would have done differently in real life in regards to approaching a post-war society we were able to experience in our own self-created world.
The must fun I had in this experience was in negotiating on behalf of my country and working with others to form allies, all for the greatest self-benefit. I also learned the most from these negotiations. I learned it is not so easy to make deals in the world of politics. It is hard to decipher who is truly on your side and who just wants to take advantage of you for their own gain.
Another engaging aspect of negotiating was trying to predict how other countries would respond and what they would request. This was crucial to going into the conference and coming out of it with something worthwhile.
As for things I would change in regards to the conference, I would probably make a more secure online forum to engage in conversation. As anyone can log on as anyone, it was simply impossible to know who you were negotiating with and what country was really saying what.
All in all, though I missed what appears to have been an excellent conference, the process towards approaching such an event has truly given me great inside into the world of politics and the art of getting what you want.
The Versailles Conference was definitely beneficial to my understanding of the issues facing both post-War Europe and the United States (for which I was part of the delegation). Because of the involved roles of each member of each delegation, it was easy to get passionate about defending your country's stance, even if it was difficult to agree with it. This led to some intense squabbles between countries over minor changes in wording in specific clauses during the Conference - especially enlightening was the final deciding vote over disarmament, in which the simple addition of a clause involving GDP as the determining factor for a country's military expenditure caused a bitter debate between the Big Three and the smaller countries, who, united, became a strong force. However, a few simple tweaks involving using the League of Nations minus the Executive Council to determine the amount of money allowed each country for expenditure reconciled many smaller countries to ally with the Big Three in getting the bill passed.
This particular instance, among others, showed both how difficult and how rewarding negotiations could be. Although the final vote on this amendment (and ultimately the entire Disarmament section) did not pass, many smaller countries' votes were acquired through the process of compromise. The Big Three found that it was impossible to get things passed if the smaller countries did not support them, and made relevant concessions. However, this unresolved issue had other underlying problems. For instance, Japan's having been given the short end of the stick in the Pacific Territories Committee ended up haunting the Big Three in that they were led the rest of the small countries in vetoing the Disarmament section, disallowing progress to be made. Even when certain clauses favored smaller countries (for instance, the GDP clause could potentially have aided China, which would have found Japan's disarmament helpful), Japan's outspoken voice swayed many smaller countries to veto the bill, simply out of the fear of the Big Three holding too much power.
Just this small instance revealed that during the actual Versailles conference, nations invested in the process must have had extremely heated discussions, to say the least. While many territorial disputes were resolved quickly and efficiently in our conference, part of this was due to the noncommittal way that parcels were traded; unlike in the actual conference, there were no actual cultural or traditional ties that any of our delegates held to the territories being disputed. During the actual conference, for instance, the traditionally Chinese province of Shandong was given to Japan, a trade that was considered extremely unfair by the Chinese and led to the May Fourth Revolutions within the nation and eventually led to the development of the Chinese Communist Party. Although this entire situation was avoided by our awarding of Shandong to the Chinese, there were nonetheless delegates exhausted by the end of the day from the tension of debating over controversial clauses.
Overall, the United States was fairly successful in upholding their goals of self-determination for countries across the world, and creating a League of Nations that could potentially hold together Europe, although there were several points that I believe could have been improved upon, namely 1) more self-determination for African states, which had largely been sold out to the French and British in exchange for their votes in the League of Nations and regarding Chinese control of Shandong, 2) more lenient reparations for Germany, which the United States desired, but was firmly opposed by France and Britain, and 3) more time to debate disarmament, during which time I think the nations could have come to a consensus and passed a resolution.
Thank you to all those countries who were cooperative and negotiated fairly with the United States; it was great getting to debate civilly and intelligently on such issues and I definitely learned a lot from the experience.
Overall, I thought that the Versailles Conference was a unique learning experience and an interesting method for putting ourselves inot hte action of the time period.
During the Conference the debating gave me a feel for how important and pertinent the political, economic, and social issues of the time period were. I especially enjoyed how much thought people put into proposing plausible amendments. The part of the conference that I got the most out of was the debate over the disarmament treaty. Ulitmately, the final propsed amendment incoorperated economic and social aspects to it when Great Britain proposed basing army funding to a country's GDP and Poland propsed that the people in each nation could vote on how much they believed a domestic force was needed for their ouwn saftey.
The most engaging part for me as an individual were the committee sessions. I was able to voice my own opinions more freely and frequently as well as discuss with other members more directly and thus the experience became more interactive for me. I also particularly enjoyed the back-and-forth volleying of ideas and amendments during the floor session. Even though I was not personally involved in every single debate (Poland didn't always have a particular interest in some parts of the treaty) listening to what everyone had to say and voicing my own thoughts really got my adrenaline going and my mind racing.
For the most part, negotiating was not a walk in the park. It is common sense that every country had to abide by the thoughts of the time period but many of these opinions were different even though the individuals voicing them may have agreed with the person they were arguing with. For example, the United States had to abide by the fact that Wilson was racist towards the Japanese even if the people in that delegation may have loved Japan. This was the personal aspect that made debate difficult. The other part was that it was often difficult to get all three major powers to agree on an amendment and when they did, there wasn't always necessarily two lesser powers to agree. But this difficulty is understandable because each nation has goals that can't always be compromised by the terms of the treaty. When thinking about how the actual conference may have played out, I believe that negotiation may have been even more difficult because the decisions made at Versailles would effect the future of the nations and were more personal to the delegate members.
The issue over the disarmement treaty went unresolved because a concensus could not be reached. What is upsetting is that if only one other lesser power had voted (ie Poland, but because my fellow delegate kept on pulling down my hand Poland's vote was note counted as yes) the measure would have passed. Other then that, all other loose-ends were tied up. It's true that many nations had to compromise themselves to some degree to get some measures massed, but the final result wass pretty good.
One issue that I believe should have been addressed that was not was the issue over Germany would pay it's debts if it didn't have the money to do so. Would the League give them a break and some time to recover from the war before demanding payments or would we just suc Germany dry?
The only thing I would have wanted to change is the time the conference ran for. I believe that many of the issues were rushed through sometimes and couldn't be fully debated on and furher amended to metter suit every nation. But unless the field trip goes until after school, I don't think more time is a possible change. I would also change the set up of the conference into a circular shape to allow for more interaction between nations and more floor space during the floor session so that during the break there wouldn't be tables in the way. But these are physical changes to the set up of the conference. Other than that, I think that the conference was very good and a decent mock representation of the actual conference at Versailles.
I enjoyed the Versailles Conference and felt it was a great way to have a better understanding of the event. As a small country I experienced the difficulty in getting exactly what we wanted and having the need to compromise with other nations. I feel one of my largest obstacles was deciding what nation would help our country in the future and what would become the greatest threat. I feel Serbia did a great job at receiving our goals as well as keeping peace with other nations. Serbia came into the conference wanting more land, and as a result we received territorial gains specifically territory that included access to the coast. This was a huge success for our nation. My responsibility was attending the discussion for the League of Nations. I expected the big three to have the most advantage, but I was surprised by everyone's willingness to compromise and make adjustments. The League of Nations decided on two assemblies, one being a general assembly that included all nations. The second one was a more inclusive group that had three permanent members (the big three) and two rotating powers. I suggested that the smaller powers who were rotated in should be divided into two groups. The more developed and stronger group and the newer weaker nations. This would make sure that there was a smaller country, like Serbia, in the assembly at all times.
I found a large factor in decisions had to do with money and power. Many nations wanted to expand their borders and based on their current power their demands were even met or denied. I also found that smaller nations were more willing to support the big three due to their economic power.
Since Britain, France, and the United States had similar interests the debates would often go in their favor. Issues that took greater time to resolve were usually due to disagreement between the big three due to their veto power. I found that smaller countries could propose ideas but the big three were the major powers that decided on the ideas discussed.
I believe the time restraint played a large role in our difficult debates. At one point the United States continuously vetoed a decision in order to add in amendments. This veto power caused lost time that led to some debates to not be resolved. With more time I feel that we'd have an easier time finishing up undecided disputes such as disarmament.
My only complaint about the process was the tendency for groups to use hindsight. I feel that some decisions made on Japan was influenced by following years in history. I felt this interrupted the historical value and caused us to not experience the conference to its true connection with history. I feel that groups should put more effort in keeping hindsight out of the disputes and strictly using the knowledge of the countries during the time period.
The one area I would have like to see some clarification on was the League of Nations. At one point a country suggested that if certain percentages were met a vote could be directly passed without being sent to the second assembly. I feel that the terms were not clearly stated and this caused confusion which led to the big three to go against the amendment. Serbia would have like to see the amendment be put through because it would allow some changes to be kept within the general assembly which would allow Serbia to have a greater chance in having a higher influence.
In conclusion I felt I got a lot out of the Versailles Conference process and I realized the problems that many countries faced in history. For the most part I feel our classes did a good job following their countries wants and perspectives.
During The Versailles Conference process, I found it was a great way to learn about the issues of the world at that time period. It opened my eyes to different way the Versailles Conference could have worked if things were changed. I also was able to learn more about my specific country (Italy) and what it originally wanted to gain out of the conference. In addition, not only was I able to learn more about my specific country, but many of the others as well. When placed into the War Guilt committee I was able to see other countries view on who they thought should be blamed for the war. I enjoyed the way countries were able to negotiate with each other to try and get what everyone wanted in the end, however it was sometimes difficult when countries such as Japan were specifically targeted, or when one of the Greater Powers such as the U.S would not agree with the vote that was proposed. Some issues such as disarmaments where countries were still arguing about the size of their army they wanted which left a few countries upset, and reperations which left countries such as France upset. Overally, I believe that the Conference ran smoothly.
The Versailles Conference simulation did enhance my understanding of some issues facing the world at the end of World War I. However, in the simulation my group was representing the United Arab Emirates. Our simulation strayed so far from the real results of the conference when it came to the Middle East and the simulation was overall a poor representation of the adversity faced by delegates from the Middle East at the time.
The parts of the conference directly involved with my group, mostly the Middle East Committee, were the most engaging. Some committees, like the Pacific or European Territories had no direct effect on our group and were thus less engaging.
Negotiating was difficult since I represented a mostly powerless entity. Most nations were unconcerned with our plight and we struggled to be heard since the Middle East Territories were a minor concern to the Great Powers compared to the League of Nations and other committees, while most of the minor powers had nothing but apathy for us (and vice versa). I'm sure this reflected the real life problems faced by Arabs in the conference, although not to the same degree.
The issue of disarmament was left unresolved. Other issues were resolved but not in a satisfactory way for many nations.
Disarmament and parts of the League of Nations were left unaddressed. All of disarmament was unaddressed because no piece of legislation passed. Parts of the League were unaddressed, especially military defense of League nations.
As the UAE came out of our Versailles much better than our real world counterpart, I wouldn't change much. I would have preferred that the League Charter be strengthened, particularly in the area of military defense.
The Versailles Conference not only deepened my understanding of how political compromises work, it was also a whole lot of fun. My favorite aspects were the territories committees not only because I was on two of them (Africa and the Pacific) but also because I really felt involved in determining the future of the various empires, for me, more specifically the British.
Negotiating was difficult if countries were unwilling to compromise, but if the various countries involved in negotiations were willing to put aside their policy differences for the sake of the world as a whole, negotiations were much easier. The African Territories Committee was able to wrap up their work in under ten minutes because we were all willing to give up a little of our agenda in order to achieve our ultimate goal. In the floor session, policy differences between the Big Three really showed, though we were able to work out most of our problems, either through intense debate or unmoderated caucuses.
The most pressing problem left unaddressed was the issue of disarmament, which we never actually finalized, meaning that if Japan ever made good on its threats to attack Britain’s Pacific bases, the British would have no troop restrictions to worry about and could spend all of their time blasting the Japanese out of the water. However, that also meant that belligerent powers like Germany also had no restrictions on their military, meaning that they could raise another army and attempt to take over the world in, say… approximately fifteen years. But why would they ever do that?
AnnMarie Augusto
Mr. Kirby
AP European History
29 April 2010
The Versailles Conference was an amazing experience for both European History classes to engage in. The conference indisputably enhanced my understanding of the social, economic, and political issues that so many nations faced following World War I. I did not have much knowledge regarding the positions and issues faced by the individual countries before beginning my research on treaty. As a whole, I thought the conference was very successful because everyone readily and eagerly participated and seemed like they were intrigued iby the debates, strongly representing their nation.
I felt as though the floor sessions were the most engaging during the course of the day, although the individual committee meetings beforehand were also imperative to the construction and organization of the conference. I learned the difficulty and value of compromising, and how hard it must have been for countries during the actual conference to surrender or share various things to get proposals finalized. I thought it was very interesting and effective how delegates from each country were negotiating and consolidating with their allies and enemies between floor sessions.
Representing Italy was an important task in this conference because we felt as though we were being degraded by the three major powers. Italy should have been of more importance in the decision-making process. Despite this, negotiations were beneficial for Italy, and we did gain mostly everything we set out for in terms of land. We were able to attain the majority of our aspirations, and henceforth, negotiating went smoothly during the conference.
The unresolved issue during the Versailles Conference was disarmament. The lesser-power countries fought against the Big Three to not pass the idea of GDP being self-serving for the individual country. I think if this debate were to continue on, there would be continued fighting, but several valid points on either side considering the abundant knowledge that was used throughout the conference.
The treatment of Japan was unfair during the conference, which I believe happened because other countries were using hindsight in their actions toward them. Having Japan’s table near ours in the conference was difficult because they were constantly trying to persuade us, Italy, to second their proposals, which was not plausible for Italy to do. I can see how countries could have been frustrated with other countries, and how cooperating may have been a major issue when resolving problems and negotiating through proposals.
If we were to do the conference over, I would suggest having a longer period of time to discuss the issues on the floor. For future years, there should be two days set aside for the conference. I believe if there was more time, all the issues would have been fully discussed and decided upon and would not be rushed.
The Versailles Conference was a great experience that introduced a new way of looking at the time period. Putting myself in the shoes of the delegates to the Versailles Conference gave me a great perspective on the events of the conference. It was great way to get a better understanding of the political, social and economic issues facing the world at the end of World War I.
I thought the most engaging part of the conference was working in committees, closely followed by the conference itself. I like the committees a little more, because for the most part they were more productive, and people were more likely to listen to each other there than in the actual conference. Perhaps if we had all brought that willingness to listen to the conference we would not have left anything undecided. On a related note, negotiating was easier in the committees than on the floor, but when people calmed down and listened to each other, negotiating became easier, and most of the time it went smoothly. However I do think negotiations would have been a little rockier if the actual well being of countries was at stake.
We never did conclude the Disarmament debate. I believe that that was one of the most important aspects of the treaty, and if I could change something, I would come to a conclusion on that subject. I do not have any other issues that I believe should have been raised at the Conference.
Participating in the Versailles Conference defiantly heightened my understanding of the real issues and problems that arose when creating the real treaty of Versailles. When we began the project I thought that I would only be focusing on my specific area of reparations. But as I became more interested in the conference things were much more complicated. I soon learned how important it was to know not just what was going on with all of the committees of your own countries but with the others too. In order to accomplish your own goals it was necessary to communicate with others and bargain for their support on one issue for your support on another. Thus, you had to be aware of everything that was going on in the conference and work together well in our own group. This really puts into perspective how difficult it must have been to actually make the real treaty. We were all concerned with our countries own ambitions because that was part of the assignment but the real people that made the Treaty of Versailles were gambling with the fate of their country making in necessary to make bargains and alliances. It must have been great pressure to try and establish essentially world peace while still keeping the interests of your own country in mind. It was difficult enough for us to try and compromise it makes you wonder how the real delegates did it.
The negotiations were very difficult. When we had met in our committees all of the countries had been in agreement with one another, but this conscientious did not continue to the floor session. The United States decided that they had a lot of problems with our reparations bill and continued to try to bring it down bit by bit. This process was not only annoying but frustrating because it was taking up valuable time. Also as this was last there was not much that we could bargain with because their main concern The League of Nations was first. The main people concerned with the section, Britain (which I was the delegate from) and France had made a lot of concessions. It just again puts into perspective how difficult it must have been for the real delegates. While we were only dealing with pretend money they actually had the possible financial security for their country in their hands. In the end though we reached a resolution that everyone was content with.
The main problem that was left unresolved was disarmament as no one could agree on a reasonable solution. The issues arose when people wanted to try to make outrageous demands either for an increase or decrease in troops. Also several of the countries weren’t even included on the specifications, which increased the confusion even further. This discussion went over the first allotted time section and then when we went back to it the problems only intensified. The set up of the military regulations were amended, this new system only caused more controversy. The smaller countries felt as though these regulations would hurt them. Also many of them were angry at the big three powers who supported this new system as they felt their wishes had been neglected during the day. In particular this was Japan who had been very poorly treated especially in this particular area. The new system would have actually helped them, but instead their anger kept them from making this deal. In the end it was the smaller countries that vetoed this resolution, really teaching a lesson to the big three powers about who could really control the conference, and that if enough small groups bind together they can have a big impact.
Besides this issue all of the others went relatively smoothly and had good outcomes. We prepared a lot trying to make negotiations, though it was actually interesting. The only difficulty was that trying to communicate with people in other classes was difficult and I though we could have used a better way in able to do this as the forum was not always efficient. In the end though this was a good experience and it was helpful to understanding the problems of the time period.
As a representative of a minor country, I did not get the in-depth experience that led to greater understanding of the issues discussed at Versailles. On most of the major issues, Serbia (my country) was left on the sidelines and barely took part in the debates. The one part of the conference that I found particularly engaging was the first part in which the conference was divided up into committees to discuss different issues. This was the only part in which Serbia’s voice was heard as more than a whisper. Negotiating was not very difficult here and in the actual conference there was very little negotiating to be had on my country’s part, although I got the feeling from watching other groups that it could be quite frustrating.
The only major issue left unresolved was that of disarmament.
There is one change that I would make to the next conference. I would emplace much harsher penalties on those who metagame (use hindsight or other information unavailable to actual Versailles representatives) and on those who act out of character for their countries. These two behaviors caused huge amounts of frustration, antagonism, and argument among the representatives and drastically slowed down the conference. I believe that if all representatives had abstained from these behaviors then there would have been no problem resolving the disarmament issue.
I feel that the process of reenacting the Versailles Conference was extremely helpful in educating me concerning the various political, social, and economic issues that were introduced following World War I. Prior to the conference, I knew little about the issues that were being evaluated and where each country stood, and for what specific reason. Learning about these events first hand I feel, can not compare with any reading or lecture. This allowed me to see the varying motives behind each country’s actions. I was also able to see how frustrating the process was to the participating countries seeing as many of their policies were not passed. Negotiating with other countries also proved to be extremely difficult because each group had different objectives. Despite this, when I was in my individual committee, reparations, I found that every member representing each country was more than willing to negotiate, and we were able to agree on a resolution very promptly and with little confrontation. I thought overall it was successful and the majority of the resolutions were passed. Reflecting upon the unsuccessful aspects of our mock conference, we as a group were not able to compromise when it came to discussing disarmament and were ultimately left with no resolution pertaining to that issue. Also, many people, whether they were conscious of their actions or not, were in fact using hindsight to help determine what decisions would best benefit their country in the future. This aggravated many other members in the conference, in particular those representing Japan. If we were given a second chance to reenact the Versailles Conference, I would definitely suggest holding it over a two or three day period, which would allow us more time to discuss and resolve the issues that were left unaddressed. This was both a unique an educational experience, and made me interested to learn more about the actual outcome of the Versailles Conference.
The Versailles Conference was a very effective activity. It without a doubt enhanced my understanding of the political, social, and economic issues facing the world in the aftermath of the Great War. Rather than reading from the textbook about the complex issues, this hands-on approach was not only a unique learning experience but also added a new level of understanding.
The country I represented was the United Arab Emirates. For a small and subtle country, negotiating issues was fairly easy because we got everything we planned and desired to comprise at the Versailles Conference. Personally, I thought negotiating would be relatively difficult seeing as that the United Arab Emirates is not as widely known as other countries such as the United States, France, Great Britain, etc. However, upon participating in the experience, I found out my prediction was wrong. I was surprised to learn other countries, despite their different objectives from ours, were more than willing to negotiate issues with our country.
I found the intensity and how realistic the Versailles Conference was the most engaging. On the other hand, I had not expected the amount of backstabbing to be so great. Some countries decided to break alliances and backstab their allies in order to achieve what they desired and help themselves. In addition, at times things became frustrating when one of the big three countries objected and some issues were left unpassed. For example, during the Middle East Territories floor session, the United Arab Emirates did not get what we wanted and had to come back and renegotiate at the end of the conference.
Although most issues in the end of the conference were resolved, I felt the reparation never was and left a few people angry. But the United Arab Emirates instead benefitted from that.
I don’t think there would be anything to change. The structure of the conference was great. Overall, I believe the Versailles Conference was successful and the forums were a good idea and very helpful as well.
In all honesty, I was questioning the purpose and importance of this experiment. I didn't deem it necessary to consume the whole school day. However in hindsight, I realize that we truly would not have fully absorbed the reality of the Versailles conference had it only been in one period, or in a shorter time span. As a representative of Japan, I was able to experience how Japan was short handed and felt excused from the conference.It was extremely difficult to be slighted in that fashion throughout the course of the entire conference. We ultimately felt that we had no allies or partners in this experiment, and had little power compared to the United States, France, and Great Britain. Any negotiation was impossible. Despite the desire to achieve world piece, not a single nation was willing to suffer the regulation and decrease in independence and strength, thus leading to no agreements on arms limitations and demilitarization. I feel that they undermined the power and strength of Japan, which was extremely frustrating. I now see why Japan began rapid militarization and colonization following this conference. They wanted to flex their military muscle and be recognized for the world power they truly were.
For the future, there is one major modification I would make to the conference. Most importantly would be more debate regulation and involvement on the monitors. I felt that most participants were using academic hindsight and singled out Japan due to history that had not happened, and ultimately impacted the accuracy and legitimacy of this exercise in a negative fashion.
This exercise truly exposed em to how pointless and ineffective the treaty really was. Japan militarized rapidly, Germany took over nearly all of the European Continent, and the League of Nations deteriorated within a few years. Which ultimately makes me wonder, how had the history of Europe, and the world, been different had the Versailles Treaty never been established?
The Versailles conference process did enhance my understanding of the political, social, and economic issues that were faced in the aftermath of the war. when reading about the conference in our history book, you dont get the full effect. but by playing it out and somewhat experiencing it and negotiating with other countries, you find out how other countries felt first hand. the versailles conference most definitely helped me comprehend the issues that were being addressed and the reasons for it. at first i was all confused and very unsure of what i was suposed to do and then all the research i put in and the observation i viewed at the debate just kind of clicked it all together and left me with a great reassurance of what the versailles conference was really about way back in the day.
i found that the most engaging part of the conference was how heated everyone got. some countries received insulting comments and wer put in hard situations. i never really thought of how heated up the debate must of been when it was really happening with the real delegates and such. but the way people wer arguing and yelling at each other and the way people were betrayed, it was all so crazy. one thing after another, all the intensity definitely kept one preoccupied.
negotiating was definitely difficult to the extreme. every nation wanted something completely different and believed in something totally opposite of the nation sitting next to them. compromising was needed and if one country didnt do exactly what some other nations wanted or if one nation didnt like the result, argument went all out and people got frustrated and yelled and got angry. to keep everyone happy was just impossible. there was no way every nation was going to turn out in a good mood. there was just too much to compromise to promise that and as a result a lot of countries didnt get ammendments passed and werent able to satisy their other wants and needs.
issues were definitely left unresolved but i believe this is definitely because we were short on time. we only had six hours whereas in real life they had days. for instance reparations did not get fully finished and i believe if we had another hour we would have been able to clear it all up.
i probably wouldnt change anything about it. i feel as if anyone were to change anything about the conference it wouldnt make much of a difference, it would still end up the same. its just the way its always going to be.
issues that i would raise is that was that i felt as if the larger nations, the US, France and Great Britain, treated the smaller nations pretty unfairly. that somewhat annoyed me because those three nations have all the power and yet werent able to shed a little light for the lesser powers.
The Versailles Conference was a great experience that did help enhance my understanding of the political, social, and economic issues facing the world in the aftermath of the Great War. I would not have researched about all these aspects of the world in the aftermath of the Great War if we did not do the conference. The textbook does not mention all the aspects clearly and even reading and doing research also did not portray the real situation as vividly as the conference did. The aspect that I found particularly engaging was disarmament and territories in the Pacific since I was chairing the territorial resolution in the Pacific. In both cases negotiating was extremely difficult as my country that I was representing was treated as if we meant nothing. We were given ultimatum by the Big Three that if we do not support this they would not support us elsewhere. So, it was extremely difficult and nations used hind sights. Even our allies at many points simply went against us in order to protect their interest in other committees. Each nation simply was fighting for whatever they could possibly get and have a strong army. In case of disarmament specifically no one could come with an exact figure since one nation or another always wanted more and felt they were absolutely justified to have felt cheated if they did not. Every nation had a reason on why they should have more and why someone else should have less military power. Therefore, the problem of disarmament remained unresolved. However, the pacific resolution passed without our vote since France and Great Britain wanted to please the Untied States who supported China. I believe being a small nation was the greatest disadvantage in the conference. I do not think there were any major questions or issues that were not addressed at all in the simulation. However I do believe that all nations should have also tried to satisfy others in order to maintain peace which was the goal of the conference and it was neglected quite often. I would change anything except to tell everyone clearly that no hind sights should be used and mention that one of the goals of the conference was to make sure everyone is happy at the same time instead of thinking that it’s not possible as it did not happen in the conference.
To be completely honest, I found it difficult to participate the Versailles Conference itself. Many students were incredibly aggressive in the debates, and it was difficult to get a chance to speak. However, I still believe that the Versailles Conference enhanced my learning of the conditions leading to post-WWII Europe. It was interesting to study and confer with the other nations in the days prior to the Conference. I certainly learned a great deal about my country's (the United States') aims for a post-war world. During the conference, it became easy to see the aims of each nation, and I learned much about each nation's goals for a post-war world. I found it fascinating how some issues could not be resolved in the time given. In the disarmament debates, each country wanted to bolster their own armies while limiting others. Some actions were done purely out of spite, such as limiting Japan's army to an unfair degree. The debating itself was fascinating; everyone seemed very passionate about their nation and its goals. I was concerned that, as students, many of us would be uninterested, but everyone seemed very concerned with the outcome. The Big Three in particular were very aggressive in trying to secure the post-war world in a way that would benefit them.
Ultimately, while I had a hard time participating in the actual Conference, I learned a lot about each country's goals and the debating that goes into such conferences.
Experiencing first-hand something similar to the actual Versailles Conference was both enlightening and troubling. It provided great insight into the difficulties that existed in the actual historical conference. We, a group of students, frequently ran into heated debates, stubborn power plays, and futile attempts at negotiation. I can now easily imagine how difficult it would have been for those who actually had something invested in the proceeding to agree to any compromise put forth in the conference.
Having been a member of the French delegation, I quickly became aware of how devastated that country was by the war and then subsequently by the failures of the Versailles conference. Furthermore, it is not difficult in the least to understand why "The War to End All War" wasn't, as Germany especially was able to rebuild much more easily than even in the historical conference. It is now also easier to comprehend the Japanese people's frustration and initiative in WWII, after seeing them be repeatedly short-changed.
All in all, the exercise was insightful and exciting, but also very disturbing with respect to the number of break-downs that happened.
Participating in the Versailles conference was a very interesting experience for me. I found that I started to think about the Conference in different ways than I had when I was reading Speilvogel. The conference required not just spewing facts, but critical thinking. Because of this, I believe that the Conference did enhance my understanding of the political, social, and economic issues of post-WWI. In order to be successful at the conference we had to not only have a full understanding of our country's position, but also those of the other country's. Because of this, I feel that I now better understand the issues presented at the Conference.
The most engaging activity at the Conference for me was also the most difficult. I thought that our discussions were very interesting. Everyone had very good points, even if they did not always agree with each other. I was very interested in the negotiating process-how countries made deals with one another, and the reaction of those countries when the deal fell through. Even if it was interesting, negotiating was certainly the hardest part of the Conference. Negotiating with other countries was a harder task than I imagined,especially since I was from Serbia, a small country with little voice. Although we got everything we hoped for at the Conference, we found that it was a very difficult task to become the Big Three's friend. Our only hope of being successful at the Conference was negotiating with other countries and offering them our vote in return for theirs. Negotiating as a whole was also very difficult. Each country had a strong opinion and it was sometimes impossible to please everyone. For example, there were some issues left unresolved such as reparations and disarmament. I imagine that it must have been much harder at the actual Conference, when the decisions really mattered and there were much more people. I feel that I have a new appreciation for the delegates at the actual Conference.
I think that everyone at the Conference did a good job of addressing all issues. Our discussions went into very great detail and I feel that everyone did a very good job of thoroughly discussing our topics.
If I were to change anything about the Conference, I would make it two days instead of one. I enjoyed participating in it very much and would have liked to be able to discuss certain areas such as disarmament for a longer period of time.
The Versailles conference defiantly enhanced my understanding of the political social and economic issues the world after the Great War. At the being of the experience I knew little about what took place at the treaty. The conference show me how difficult it was to get anything passed, with nations having there own agendas compromise was necessary but not always easy to get to.
Being on the French delegation had many positives and negatives. Yes we had veto power but if other nations didn’t agree with the policies we wanted to pass there was much frustration, and even some heated debates.
Almost all of the issues reached a resolution except disarmament. The goal of this was to decrease the size of the militaries to prevent another war from ever happening again. Many proposals were suggested but they were all rejected. Finally at the end we thought we had a resolution that pleased everyone but at the last minute it was vetoed thus more frustration.
Overall I enjoyed this activity and would suggest to do it again for future classes.
-Mr. Kirby please excuse this for being late as the power in my house was out last night.
The Versailles Conference was an eye-opening experience for me. I really enjoyed taking on the role of a French delegate. Because the conditions of the conference were the same as they were in the original, it was easy to see how a lot of the resolutions came to pass because we were essentially experiencing them ourselves. It was engaging to see the enthusiasm that most of the delegates adopted both in the planning and preliminary negotiations for the conference. I also enjoyed seeing how much these delegates got into the conference, particularly as things got heated towards the end of the day’s negotiations. Often, it was very difficult to negotiate when certain countries had to stick to specific rules and stipulations that their country had historically; for instance, the United States was stuck to the 14 points, which often hindered the proceedings as the United States tried to maintain it’s positions. The biggest problem turned out to be the issue of disarmament, which was incidentally my committee. We had initially laid out a very specific plan for the disarmament of the involved countries, but once the topic was presented to the floor, these plans were almost entirely abandoned. It felt like a few countries were too focused on their own agendas to come to a resolution, and that is why nothing ultimately passed. I realize that this is a lot like the real Versailles Conference, where stubbornness and refusal to compromise caused there to be a lot of flaws and weaknesses over all. Ultimately, I could see why the Versailles Conference and League of Nations were less successful than they should have been and were not sufficient to prevent World War II. Overall, if I could have changed something, it would have been that each committee topic should have had a mandatory resolution, and not leave anything unsolved (like disarmament). However, I realize that a viable option for this and other issues was to leave it to the League of Nations. I feel that this was a very rewarding experience, and I’m glad to have been a part of it.
(I am sorry this is late, my house did not have power last night.)
I believe that participation in the Verailles gave me a new and better understanding of what really went on at the Versailles conference and really just how economically depressed the participating countries with the excpetion of countries like America and Japan were at the end of the war. I had always thought that wars were generally good for the economy of a country because of the increase in government spending as well as extremely low unemployment numbers. It turns out though that I was wrong in this assumption because I did not factor in the devastation brought on by the war on the infrastructure of nations where the war the was fought such as france.
The political issues that remained at the end of the war were also very intrigueing. Issues such as the disarmament of countries or how much territory a country was entitled too after the war and how the world was going to police itself after the war in order to prevent a war like this from happening again. The research that needed to be done on how countries had interacted with one another, how they had fared in the war, and what the goals of the countries were at the end of the war to meet their own specific needs was a great experience because it opened up my eyes to the views of other countries than just my own in the conference and in real life.
The most engaging aspects I found of the conference was the strategic planning of making deals with the right countries at the right times in order to advance the needs and wants of your own nation. This required high leveled thinking and forsight in order to achieve the best results for your respective countries.
Negotiations were particulary difficult because during the negotiations I found out that all the deals I had made previous to the day and promises that had been made to my country before were not necessarily carried out. In particular were promises from the United States who became very hard to negotiate with after they had gotten the Leauge of Nations how they wanted. The veto power that could be excecuted was very powerful in that the large nations most particulary the United States could bend the will of the conference how they wanted because they could veto anything they didnt like. What was also difficult was trying to convince people who did not know what they were talking about because they did not do the proper research or who were unreasonable due to personal vendettas.
There were problems left unresolved like disarmament but that left my nation happy because to our large economy we could build a very large navy and army to protect our interests.
The things that I would change about the conference would be for each country or person rather would have to demonstrate before the conference a sound knowledge of their country's interests before they could participate and they could only recieve credit if they actually engaged in debates or discussions more than once instead of raise a single sentence or idea and recieve the same amount of credit as someone who had participated in almost all discussions and was clearly prepared and who was interested in the task at hand. Also a 2/3 majority of the countries should overide a veto of a major nation unless another major nation also vetoes the proposed legislation.
What I would differently if I could would be to veto the league of nations so I would have a bargaining chip with the United States.
Sorry that this is late but my computer shorted out when the power died and I just got it fixed.
The Versailles Conference pretty much enhanced the understanding of the economic, social, and political issues the world faced after the Great War. This is because we actually had to put ourselves in the shoes of the delegates in each seperate country. Each student helped their team out by gaining and learning different needs and wants from the different countries. Everyone had one goal in mind and that was what's best for their country. What I found engaging about this conference was that everyone in the room participated at least one time out loud, and also participated by discussing certain actions their country will take in a group huddled around their table. Negotiating was not completly hard for me but that's because I was France which was a main power. For smaller countries I feel that it was more difficult to negotiate and try and get exactly what you wanted. Fortunatley their were not that many problems resolved. As I can remember only the middle east was the unresolved problem. There were alot of questions left unaddressed like how come alliances weretorn and countries were back stabbed. But then you look at this and say hey this is politics. I would not change the set up or anything about the mock Versailles Conference. Issues that should be raised are how personal it should get. On the forumns many kids were getting mad and upset over stupid comments and took them the wrong way. This is for fun but yes serious, it dies not have to be on a personal level. There does not need to be any drama brought with the conference in the future.
Yes, the Versailles Conference did enhance my understanding of the political, social and economic issues facing the world after the Great War. I was able to step in the shoes of how the nations back then felt and what issues they had to deal with. Compromise between the many nations was hard mainly because some nations were hard to budge. They would not give way on the many issues. This was especially true for the major powers. They could veto any bill they wanted to which made it hard for the dispute to end. The lesser powers had it hard because they didn’t have the power the other nations did. They were often treated as unequal and to a lesser extent, unimportant. The worst was when nations would gang up against one of the lesser powers. For example this happened to Japan. The other countries kept wanting to lessen its navy and army. The most absurd part of this was that it was for no particular reason. However because Japan was a lesser power it had no shot against fighting the major powers. Negotiating was extremely difficult because of the vast amount of amendments nations kept trying. If an amendment didn’t work, there had to be another one that most of the nations liked. For some of the issues it was very hard reaching an agreement. This could have been due to stubborn nations or hard issues. The only issue that went through very easily was the territorial disputes in Africa. Things were figured out ahead of time through treaties before the conference. The issues were mainly all solved, but it took a lot of time and amendments to get there. For changes, I would have changed the fact that the bigger powers had so much more say in matters than the lesser powers. However I realize that this is how it went down in history and that if we were to repeat it, it still would have gone the same way.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t feel that the conference enhanced my understanding of the political, social, and economic issues facing Europe and the rest of the world after World War I. That said, however, it was quite interesting to see the tensions at the actual conference present at our simulation, including China v. Japan and Great Powers vs. Minor Powers. The conference itself was also quite fun.
I found the negotiation particularly engaging, and surprisingly not as difficult as I thought it was going to be. As a Minor Power (China), I expected to get little, if anything, of what I wanted. Furthermore, before the conference, France had explicitly told me that they planned to give as much Chinese land to the Japanese as possible and that resistance would do nothing. Obviously, I was a bit worried; on the day of the conference, however, things turned to my favor. The negotiations during committee proved to be the turning point. At first, Japan, France, and Britain formed a mini-coalition against me. However, squabbling amongst the three eventually resulted in Japan threatening France and Britain with war if they did not comply with Japan’s demands. Obviously, this was not a very good move by Japan, and quite unrealistic to be honest; either way, Britain and France immediately turned against Japan and decided to help me instead. This bias persisted throughout the rest of the conference and I was able to rely on Britain and France when I needed two votes from the Great Powers. The U.S. rarely vetoed any of China’s motions because we mostly put forth anti-imperialist amendments. While we had the Great Powers on our side for the most part, we were also able to play the Minor Power card and court the votes of the other Minor Countries, except for Japan, when we needed them as well. All in all, I did not find negotiation exceptionally difficult.
The one problem left unresolved, which I take complete responsibility for, is arms limitations. To be perfectly honest, raising the placard against the document for arms limitations we were voting on was probably not the best idea. At the time, my rationale was that a limitation based on GDP was worse for the smaller countries because our GDPs were significantly smaller than the Great Powers and worse for China because the original proposal did not place any limitations at all on the Chinese army and navy. However, as Audrey pointed out after the conference, voting against the amended proposal was not a good idea because no arms limitations at all (the result of our “Nay” vote) was much worse for China than sub-par GDP-based system.
Overall, I greatly enjoyed my time at the conference. Many of the people at the conference did extensive research and put a lot of work into it, and it showed.
I think that the Versailles Conference was a very valuable experience for many reasons. For one, it most definitely achieved its goal of enhancing the understanding of the participants about the political, social, and economic issues after the Great War. As a member of the Japanese delegation going into the conference I did expect to be somewhat frustrated with some of the decisions that would be made. But I was exceedingly surprised at just how much the nations that did not have veto power basically got screwed over. After the conference it was very clear as to why Japan would eventually ally with Germany for World War II; that's definitely what I would've done.
The most engaging part of the conference was definitely the back and forth during the negotiations. When delegations knew what they were talking about and making informed arguments it was a very interesting thing to watch, listen to, and participate in. Negotiating wasn't necessarily difficult, but it was very frustrating that the number of countries that did used hindsight. After the Great War Japan was allied with all the major powers, and even though that didn't help them that much in the actual conference, the United States, Britain, and France would still not have sided with China for every argument.
The only official problem left unsolved was disarmament. That would not have been a problem if any decision would've been made, but there wasn't even one in regards to Germany, so that was most definitely an issue. But unofficial problems were also left unsolved. The tensions of the conference and anger from the smaller nations towards those with veto power ought to have been addressed by the large nations because those are what lead to them allying with Germany. Had the wants of these countries, like Japan and Italy, been addressed, the war would have gone very differently.
I wouldn't really change anything about the conference in the future. It was an extremely valuable experience that I'm very glad I could participate in.
The Versailles Conference was a unique experience for me. Before the conference I wasn’t sure how I was going to feel about the conference but afterwards I had a greater understanding of the mentality that existed during that time. The conference enhanced my understanding of the political, social and economic issues facing the world during the aftermath of World War I. Overall I thought that the Versailles conference was a great success.
The negotiation sessions were very engaging. It seemed to me that that everyone really got into the conference and represented each of their countries spectacularly. All the members of each country knew exactly what they wanted and they made sure that their voice was heard. It was a common sight to see some of the delegates get into some heated debates and fight for their country.
The negotiation process was quite difficult. It was very difficult for other countries to agree with the ideas of the country that I represented. It seemed to me that everyone was just out there to make sure that their country comes out on top, and many were not willing to compromise on their ideas. Many of the powerful nations were also not willing to negotiate with many of the weaker nations, due to the fact that the powerful nations had no need to compromise with the weaker nations.
There were some problems that were left unsolved because some nations did not agree to others' terms. Issues such as disarmament and reparation were left unsolved. Even so, the treaty as a whole was reasonable.
Overall I felt that the conference was a huge success and it allowed everyone to have a better understanding of the mentality during the aftermath of World War I. If I were to organize this conference again, I would definitely change the venue. Cheshire High School Library is quite a dull place to spend one’s entire day, and I would rather have had the conference somewhere else. But other that the conference was very well structured and well planned.
Post a Comment