Versailles Conference

The total experience of the Treaty of Versailles Conference process definitely enhanced my understanding of the political, social, and economic issues facing the world in the aftermath of the Great War. Having the opportunity to perform hands-on related tasks of learning how to conduct and produce a treaty helped me develop a much clearer perspective of what the treaty was truly all about as well as increasing my understanding of the complex relationships between the countries that were affected. Being able to reenact this crucial era was very challenging and intense, however very helpful and beneficial as well. Every person in each group was held accountable for their own research and networking with their fellow country delegates, as well as making sure that any political hostilities or relationships were appropriately kept under control, well organized, and strictly maintained. I was able to gain a clearer picture of how government complies with completing and accomplishing its specific tasks such as forming alliances and creating specific strategies that need to be carried out successfully in order for one’s country to gain anything in return. In order for this treaty to have worked successfully each group member needed to research their own country as well as the other countries that were involved. This was done so that each delegate had an insight of what occurred so they would make certain that they could apply their background knowledge in a way that could be incorporated into a modified treaty that would work to many countries’ own advantages and benefits, without repeating the mistakes that had been carried out before. Despite the fact that each and every country had their own specific set of motives and objectives to accomplish, just like in the real treaty, not everyone was satisfied or was receiving exactly what they would personally preferred. Besides having to deal with the heavy-duty political issues and obstacles that were often thrown at each country, the social and economic problems were very difficult as well. This made it very crucial for good networking skills to be utilized so that countries had backup support as well as other options to use if they were placed into difficult situations.
An aspect that I found particularly engaging throughout this whole process was the forming of alliances with other countries such as two of the Big Powers, as well as keeping a stable and reserved reputation of your own country so that you were well received, trusted, and respected by your fellow delegates. I enjoyed privately talking to other delegates from other delegations and negotiating on different circumstances in return for rewards, such as trade and supporting specific votes in return for others. I also really enjoyed how you could unexpectedly “turn” on any of your allies if you had to in order to gain benefit from them, regardless of the consequences imposed on them. China being a minor contributor to this treaty as well as a non-enemy provided us much leeway with smaller countries’ allies, and we were able to receive greater support in order to regain independence from our sole enemy Japan. We depended on our strongest, faithful, and most dependable ally Great Britain. We both shared an equal understanding and a reciprocal alliance where we were able to help support one another’s votes to help gain greater control, safety, land for more trading ports and joint military support. Just as China depended on other countries to help gain control over Japan, more significant countries such as France and Great Britain greatly depended on us for support in voting to pass certain rulings that were crucial to aiding to their success. Negotiating with other countries was not very difficult because China was far less involved with the greater issues in the war as well as the treaty itself. The only country that we did not negotiate with was Japan. Our sole focus was to have other Pacific territories support us and at least gain the support of two of the ‘Big Powers’ countries, ultimately delivering successful results. As for the nations who were larger in geographic size and who were more involved with the escalating issues and problems that had resulted, it was a far more difficult for them to agree with each other and reach an appropriate compromise. Being truly engaged in this process lead to much harsher consequences faced if the more significant nations didn’t “play their cards out right” and react smartly to very contentious topics that could potentially have changed their country’s well being just by the difference of one vote.
There were problems left unresolved due to the fact that all of the nations were only given one school day to completely debate, share, piece together, and vote on all of the crucial topics that were brought up during the conference. So yes, there were some issues and topics that were left either unsettled or in distress for the sake of time management. There were certain portions of the treaty involving The League of Nations where topics were neglected or not fully thought through to the best ability, such as the section on the League of Nations Army. Some of the decisions resulted in unethical actions and unresolved issues that were not handled appropriately. Despite this, all of the Nations generally handled themselves as well as the treaty very conscientiously, and a fair amount was accomplished for a one-day conference.
If I could change one significant ruling in the treaty, it would be in the area of limitations relating to the size of armies per the significance of each power. Even though China did not play as large of a role in the conference as did the bigger powers, China deserves to have an army of at least one million men because China gained even more land in this treaty and has one of the largest populations represented in the treaty. If China only has 500,000 men supporting and fighting for its immense expanding country, how is it supposed to properly defend itself in an adequate manner? The current amount of men that are charged to protect China is completely unreasonable and does not ensure stability. Due to China’s small size of three delegates, no one was able to negotiate any war reparations in return for damage caused by the war. Minimally, China should have received some form of compensation for their suffering and inconvenience.
A topic that I would like to raise in the post-conference class discussion would be to compare the results of the treaty relative to individual countries’ expectations for their outcome. This would help demonstrate how successfully each nation benefited from this experience and what they could have done differently to manage their strategies in a more efficient and effective manner. This would give delegates of each nation insight and understanding of what was gained and lost by each country relative to the ‘big picture’ results of the treaty.