Matt Lynch
3-25-99
Per.4
English

Final Assessment:
Diplomacy

Diplomacy is one of the best games that I have ever played as someone who plays such war games as Stratego and Risk. However both of those games involve what is considered to be the universal component of most board games and for that matter most games that involve the mind, and that is chance. Therefore in playing Diplomacy one must be quick on their wits and most important power hungry. Luckily through previous encounters with Risk(which along with Monopoly is my favorite board game ever) I had some knowledge of such things and I intended to dominate my board. Although it is not as important in Risk making alliances is very important technique that will lead towards victory. So all of the elements of Diplomacy were not as alien to me as they were to those who I was playing against. An easy victory or at least that is what I thought. That was until drew France. Of all the countries to pick I had to pick France. Well the long and the short of it is that I placed a mere second in my conquests and lost first place to Russia.
But it was not the actual game that got my attention the most. It was the class discussion that we had the day after completing the game. I was almost shocked at the amount of people in class who opposed to the playing of the game and questioned its importance in class and on a broader scale society. Personally I fell that I am not a very violent person, but those who objected to this game on the sole reason that we should be taught in peace and not war should get their heads out of the clouds. I am not taking a pro-war stance, however i am saying that war is a perfectly acceptable and suitable last ditch solution to an international problem. The world is a hostile place and the to leave your nation defenseless even in times of peace would be to commit political suicide. In order to maintain the culture of a country a nation must protect itself from the inevitable fact that someday there will be tensions between it and another country and therefore must take the proper precautions to prepare itself.
Since ancient times it has been evident that mankind is naturally hostile towards itself. So some formed groups which eventually translated into the civilizations that inhabit the earth today. And throughout the annuls of history the it has proven this by the clashing of culture in wars and when cultures were not fighting against each other there was civil war among themselves. And as precedent has set this trend continues until this modern world where we of course that we are superior and above the actions of our ancestors. But the truth as illustrated in this relatively simple board game is that we are equally as militant as were the generations that came before our time. This was confirmed when we were pit against our classmates with the board and given only one incentive to win, and that was the sheer thrill of victory. And what happened on my board is what I am told toe a rarity in Diplomacy. Instead of taking the provinces that were up for grabs we all went for each other’s throats and began fighting amongst ourselves immediately. I personally destroyed a player who I had treaty with when he was absent for two days. And if this was only a game it is interesting to see what would happen in real war. To conclude its acceptable to do battle with those who are opposing you after all other options have been explored, to keep a strong defense to prevent attack, and if one is under unjust rule to rebel against that rule, but one should be careful when walking the very fine line between leader and war hero and tyrannical military dictator.