Chapter Fifteen: Alliances

Exercises

World War 1 Game

DIRECTIONS:
The model below represents the events of late July 1914, known as the “July Crisis.” Germany has already declared its willingness to support its ally Austria-Hungary in any action against Serbia. Russia has declared its support for Serbia, which means fighting both Germany and Austria-Hungary. Germany could employ its Schlieffen Plan to avoid a two-front war against both Russia and its ally France by first attacking France (via Belgium) and crushing it rapidly, then racing its troops across Germany by train and (hopefully) arriving at the eastern border before the Russians could mobilize and arrive. Britain, however, has a long-standing agreement to defend Belgian neutrality against Germany or France and has a very close entente with France and Russia; thus Britain could intervene if Germany chooses this option. Neither Germany nor Austria-Hungary know the United Kingdom’s type, but Germany gets to observe Russia’s move before choosing its own action, and it presumes Russia has a better understanding of British intentions than it does.

Use the model to inform your response to the essay question below the model. Length of essay is not the primary determinant of points. I am more interested in a well-thought-out response that indicates knowledge of both methods and substance. Please note that some utility values are negative. THINK, and think broadly, before you respond!!

Use concepts and terminology from the course to analyze and interpret in as much detail as possible the interaction depicted here. Comment specifically on the effect of Russia’s move on Germany’s actions. What do the curvy lines tell us? Discuss the relationship between the resulting values of p.

You may describe any necessary modeling work you do in the process of generating your response, but be sure your essay focuses more on the politics than the technical skills.

Refer to www.firstworldwar.com/origins/julycrisis.htm for background on the July Crisis.


The WEU and NATO: A Tale of Two Treaties

Setting: April 1948, the Kremlin, Moscow
Your Part: Josef Stalin, Chairman of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union

Your intelligence agencies have recently reported the signing of the Brussels Treaty by France, the United Kingdom (UK), Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. This treaty of mutual defense says in its most critical section, Article V,

If any of the High Contracting Parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other High Contracting Parties will, in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, afford the Party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power.

You are now considering the implications of this agreement for your plans for post-World War II Europe.

Reports from your intelligence agencies also suggest that the Soviet Union has more raw capabilities than the five Brussels Treaty partners. Capability shares are approximately 54 percent for the Soviet Union, followed by Britain with a distant 26 percent, France with 12 percent, the Netherlands with 3 percent, Belgium with 4 percent, and a negligible contribution from Luxembourg.

You are considering attacking resource-rich West Germany, or at least eliminating that pesky pocket of West Berlin, one hundred miles into your territory. Germany is not a member of the Brussels agreement, but a small though significant number of U.S., French, and British troops still occupy the country.

If you were to attack Germany or any other Western European country, would you expect the Brussels alliance to be reliable? Why or why not?


Do you choose to attack? Why or why not?


June 1948

After the western powers took steps to unify their sectors of occupied Germany, you chose to blockade West Berlin. The United States joined the United Kingdom and France in a round-the-clock airlift to provide all the supplies that the 2 million West Berliners needed, and they maintained that airlift for over a year. Together, the nearly 278,000 flights moved some 2.3 million tons of food and supplies over fifteen months; the United States alone manned nearly two-thirds of the flights.

What effect does the U.S. intervention have on your perceptions of European resolve? Does it increase or decrease your willingness to invade or attack? Why?

What effect does your blockade have on U.S. and European perceptions of your intentions?

Your intelligence agencies report the signing of a new mutual defense agreement in Washington, D.C., creating something called the North Atlantic Treaty. On a U.S. initiative, negotiations for this treaty began within a month of your decision to blockade Berlin. You have not yet lifted the blockade, but the airlift and West Berlin’s still-thriving economy are beginning to create substantial disgruntlement in Soviet-dominated East Germany, where economic conditions are poor. Your advisors increasingly recommend that you stage an all-out attack against West Berlin to both eliminate that nuisance (or is it a threat?) and assuage the public.

The North Atlantic Treaty’s key article of mutual defense is Article 5, which reads,

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

The curious language about “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force,” was inserted at the behest of the U.S. delegation. The United States has never been involved in a mutual defense agreement before, let alone a permanent one in which the major threat is not even to its own territory. The language in the treaty allows it to commit to fighting on Europe’s behalf without legally committing itself to do so. Top U.S. politicians agree that without this weakened provision, the treaty could never be ratified: public opinion would revolt at a legal commitment to shed American blood yet again on European soil.

Joining the United States in this folly of an agreement are Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, and the five Brussels Treaty states. The Brussels agreement seems like little more than a scrap of paper; even its signatories have agreed to set it aside in favor of the new alliance.

In June 1948 the balance of capabilities in Europe was overwhelmingly in favor of the Soviet Union. Even considering possible U.S. participation in another European conflict, Soviet capabilities were 31 percent of the European total. U.S. capabilities were 44 percent, but they are thousands of miles away on the other side of the Atlantic.

A year later, the balance has shifted a little, but not perceptibly. Even considering all twelve of the North Atlantic Treaty members and the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union has 32 percent; the United States has 42 percent of the capabilities, Britain has 12 percent, and the remaining 14 percent is dispersed among the other ten countries.

Is the new alliance more or less credible than the Brussels alliance? Why or why not?
 

How does the language of the treaty and the rationale behind it affect your perception of the alliance’s potential reliability?
 

Would you give in to your advisors’ demands and attack West Berlin? Why or why not?