Erin Simonds
Period 4 English
Sunday, March 28, 1999
Playing the game "Diplomacy" kindled ideas and opinions on politics that I had never really explored before. Keeping up with current events gave me the sense of power that I had before playing the game, but I have a whole new outlook on the reasoning behind international power struggles. Originally, playing this game was supposed to give me a sense of why power and alliances work, and what a nation must do to protect its interests. Along with learning those concepts, I gained insight into the working of the minds of someone in power. The recurring thought as I played the game was a quote I learned in Modern European History class … "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I found in playing the game that nations became commodities to those in power. Whether this feeling came from the fact that the game trivializes the volume of a country, or whether it is really how an emperor would view the theater, I am not sure. What I am sure of is the disturbingly nonchalant view that the power-hungry tended to take in the game. For me, in the first 3 days of playing, I was thrilled at my success, and determined that I would conquer. For instance, on the first day, I did not really think twice about taking one of Jessica’s supply centers while she was absent. All is fair in love and war, they say … I took all the slack I was given J .
I soon discovered that being bold is not a far cry from being cocky. Enthralled by the glory of conquer, I took risks I shouldn’t have taken. In thinking that I was being bold, I chose, for instance, to invade some of France. I soon found that doing so was actually better termed as walking into a minefield. I was soon surrounded, and booted out. Clearly, headway was not to be made by foolish actions and brute force.
The most stunning lesson of the game had nothing to do with my actions. On the contrary, I found that idleness kills. While I was midway through marching the St. Patrick’s day parade, my empire was being slowly obliterated in my absence. Chris, using forces that I had helped him gain, was crushing my armies in his efforts to get to the top. Defending myself was impossible, as my absence was beyond my control. While such circumstances would probably not happen in a real theater of war, I discovered quite harshly that standing still makes you a prime target.
The culmination of my Diplomacy experience was the conclusion that greed drives EVERYTHING. This conclusion is the basis behind my views on how governments, leaders, and dictators work in the real world. My actions in the game had no bearing on the populations of the nations, because there is no threat to me from peasant uprisings, etc. Due to this, I can see how a dictator, isolated from the field of battle, could send a thousand troops into a firestorm without a qualm. I can see how someone could order the burning of a village while he sips his iced tea. Once you have power, it becomes casual to use it – even to extents considered inhumane by most.
The main justification behind playing Diplomacy was to have the students realize the driving force behind a ruler’s quest for land. This concept is one that most people do not consider … I certainly hadn’t. After the game, however, I can see why any ruler would pursue gaining land. There are two forces at work in the entire logic: greed and fear. For a ruler with enough power, greed drives him to pursue land and money. For that same ruler, fear of defeat fuels him to gain more land in order to protect what he has gained. Undoubtedly, in his conquest, the ruler has made enemies. To protect his achievements, he seeks to build a stronger defensive force, so as to ensure that there is no threat. Together, these two driving forces create a leapfrog effect. Greed makes one want prosperity; with the threat of losing that prosperity, fear drives one to gain even more in an effort to protect it.
The ideal form of government for the people would undoubtedly be a democracy, as it inhibits excessive power in one given person. For a ruler to have the greatest power, a dictatorship is by far the most convenient. To be able to take everything away from a population, then ration it back in exchange for their faith and service, ensures not only that there will not be an uprising, but that the ruler has a constant supply of resources. For such a government to succeed, however, the population must love the ruler. Harsh treatment would only foster resistance, but if the population believes that they are being treated well and that the ruler is working in their best interest, then that population will support the ruler unconditionally. Such is the case in Cuba. Most of Cuba loves Castro – thanks to his invigorating speeches and propaganda. Yet, in reality, Castro has restricted the freedom and success of his people enormously – but led them to believe otherwise. Because of this ideal situation, Castro is a very powerful man with a perfect lifestyle. If it weren’t for the other world powers, Castro could probably have conquered many other nations. Fortunately, the stance of the US is against conquering of any sort, and nations like Saudi Arabia are kept at bay.