How the economy has affected the automotive industry Essay

How the economy has affected the automotive industry - Essay Example Most of the automobile manufacturers are struggling hard in order to survive in the market. â€Å"In 1990, Mexico exported around 180,000 vehicles, whereas in the first 11 months of 2002 manufacturers in Mexico have sent 1.23 million units abroad. (DeMarines) The growth of automobile industry was huge before the current economic recession starts. Not only Mexico, the leading car manufacturers in Japan, America and Germany were also recorded huge growth in their sales before the unexpected crisis began to affect the whole world. In November, 2008, U.S. sales for the Toyota, Lexus and Scion brands combined fell 33.9 percent; year-to-date sales were down 13.4 percent in the United States, to about 2.1 million, according to Auto Data Corp. (Henry) Inside the 789 Chrysler showrooms to be cast aside, fear is starting to set in as dealers try to figure out what to do with expensive inventories that werent selling well (MSNBC.com) The proposed $ 700 billion bailout package especially to save the automobile industries in America from total destruction, is seems to be not enough as per the experts. GM and Chrysler announced last week to shed almost 2,000 retail outlets to bolster the survivors. Reducing competition from stores with the same brands is supposed to allow the remainder to boost prices and profit, and to reinvest in their businesses (Merx) â€Å"In their appeals to Congress, the U.S. automakers were short on accepting blame themselves, and long on blaming high gas prices, the credit crisis and a global recession for the sales downturn and their economic dire straits† (Henry) When we analyze all the above factors we can conclude that automotive industry is directly linked with the economy of a country. Fluctuations in economy will affect the automobile industries more than any other industries. Shift in policies and also the supply and demand of automobiles in

The Issues Of The Miscommunication Cultural Studies Essay

The Issues Of The Miscommunication Cultural Studies Essay Among the problems faced to modern culture, there is one that is gradually becoming a defining factor in cross-cultural relations. The speech is going about miscommunication that is more and more form the style of the cultural processes of modernity. Miscommunication as the opposite side of understanding is one of the measurements in the process of communication between different cultures. However, the global conflict of cultures, witnesses, accomplices and the judges of which we are was generated by the lack of understanding of an unprecedented scale and intensity. And this lack of understanding beneath our eyes becomes more important in comparison to all other dimensions of communication within different cultures. I would like to discuss the problem of miscommunication in this project and use my own experience as an illustration of a communication breakdown between myself and a person from another culture. The main goals of my project are to explain and discuss how cultural miscommunication influences on our life, and to prove a thesis that miscommunication between different cultures and nations could be overcame through the specific knowledge and respect to a person whom we are communicating with. First of all in the frames of this paper it is necessary to mention that real conflict takes place under special circumstances: in a state of globality. The state of globality is characterized by the activity of an already established and effective global society, where the contours of conventional cultures are broken. Actually, no culture, ethnic group, nation, country or group of countries can no longer pretend that it is separated from the rest of the world and its affairs are internal problems that do not relate to any of the foreigners. It turned out that there are no foreigners at all: theyre gone in the sense that the culture had lost its previous, well-defined boundaries, and therefore alien and own largely mixed up, changed its previous topology and geography. In the modern world ethical issues, and, in particular, issues of ethnic identity and ethnic prejudice achieved its culmination: the linguistic, cultural, status and other differences have become a stumbling block for the peaceful coexistence of many ethnic groups. Defining the term miscommunication we should say that according to Gudykunst (2003), As serious psychological barriers in the process of cross-cultural communication the so-called ethnic stereotypes acts as relatively stable representation of the moral, mental, physical and other qualities of the representatives of different ethnic communities. Every person is a member of a certain ethnic group, and he or she consciously or subconsciously divides all people into ones own (belonging to the same ethnic group) and outsiders (members of other ethnic groups). According to Gumperz ( 1982) we see that on the verbal level culturological sign of somebodys own or someone else is manifested in the semantics of the various nominative units: lexemes, phraseological units, syntactic structures, proverbs, small-format texts (for example, anecdotes and jokes). Thinking about my own communication breakdown with a person from another culture I should say that it was connected with one dialogue misunderstanding. The person whom I communicated with was sure that only old people could be good advice-givers and young people should only listen to them and have no right on own decision of the problem. In that moment I forgot about cultural differences between us (my opponent is a Muslim and they respect old people more than other nations) and tried to prove that every person should has a right on own opinion and it is not a right position always only to listen to somebodys words. Thus, it was the hot debate between us and as a result each of us was disappointed and even upset about result of our conversation. Only now I understood that both of us were wrong, because we used different cultural languages and we made several mistakes in our conversation. I would like to say that this example of miscommunication is rather simple, and it even has an or dinary character, but exactly such simple situations lead in future to hard consequences, when one cultural groups consider other groups bad educated and rude. Thus, I would like to look on this problem of cultural miscommunication through the prism of my new knowledge about this question and demonstrate a solution for this situation. In the beginning of this part of my project I would like to say that all people should work for constructive dialogue between each other. It is a well-known fact that the entire history of humanity is a dialogue. Dialogue permeates our whole lives. It considers a tool for the implementation of communication links, the condition of mutual understanding. Fitzgerald (1996) admitted that the interaction of cultures and their dialogue is the most favorable ground for the development of interethnic and international relations. Conversely, when the society feels inter-ethnic tension and even, ethnic conflict, the dialogue between cultures is difficult, the interaction of cultures may be limited in the field of inter-ethnic tensions of these nations, bearers of these cultures. I understood that processes of cultural interaction are more complicated than we naively once thought; it was a theory that cultural dialogue is nothing more than simple transfer of the achievements of a highly devel oped culture in the less developed, which in its turn logically leads to the conclusion of the interaction of cultures as a source of progress. Now is actively studied the question of boundaries of culture, its core and periphery. I like Ting-Toomey (1999) words who said that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ These words forced us to stop be rude and to respect other people. On my opinion every person should respect the point of view of another person and be patient during their communication. In my case cultural miscommunication was not only a result of different attitude to one problem, but also it was provoked by the lack of patience and respect to each other. We forgot one simple truth stated by Van Dijk (1997) who said that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Muslims are people who are marked by the culture from their birth and their specific traditions are sometimes strange for me, but it is not a reason to say that their culture is good or bad. I know that these people are different and their religion is different, but I even like them, because their historical, geographical and ethnic elements combine in an unique and original way. Thinking about my situation I have read one interesting advice about how to avoid miscommunication in future and according to Lawrence (1999) à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ It means that we should use the space of variations around us and think about other possibilities to interpret information in proper way. By keeping our mind free from stereotypes and open to additional possibilities of the information understanding we can prevent future miscommunication conflict from happening. Also it is necessary to add that when a person became an initiator of a miscommunication conflict the simplest thing is to say: I am sorry for the miscommunication which has lead to this situation, but the simplest way is not always the right way. On my opinion it is necessary firstly to take into account opponents cultural specificity and only then to discuss with the person some sharp questions or situations. I want also to listen to words said by Arcidiacono (2010) who thinks à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Taking into account my own problem in communication and information from different readings I want to say that the first thing that should be used for overcoming miscommunication is a dialogue. Of course, at the beginning of the conversation, as it was above mentioned, it is necessary to say sorry for miscommunication and then to speak with a person in respectful and polite manner. Forthcoming manner could save many debates and dialogue is a communication with the culture, the realization and reproduction of its achievements, it is the discovery and understanding of the values of other cultures, the possibility of removing political, religious or other tensions between nations and ethnic groups. It is necessary to remember that dialogue is a necessary condition for scientific search for truth and the creative process in art. Dialogue is a way for understanding of own I-image and possibility to commu nicate with others in proper constructive way. I even think that dialogue between cultures can act as a conciliating factor that prevents the emergence of wars and conflicts. It can reduce social tensions and to create an environment of trust and mutual respect. The notion of dialogue is especially true for modern culture and it will help contemporary society to avoid miscommunication. The very process of interaction is a dialogue, and forms of interaction present different kinds of dialogic relations. The idea of dialogue has developed in the deep past. Ancient texts of Indian culture are filled with the idea of unity of cultures and peoples, macro-and microcosm, musings that human health depends largely on the quality of this relationship with the environment, from the consciousness of the power of beauty, understanding how the universe reflected in our being. Basing on my researches I came to the conclusion that the influence of one culture to another is realized only if the necessary conditions exist for such influence. Dialogue between two cultures is possible only when a certain convergence of cultural codes and the existence or occurrence of a common mentality have a place. Dialogue of cultures is a penetration into the system of values of a culture, respect to them, overcoming stereotypes, the synthesis of original and other nationalities, leading to mutual enrichment and integration into the global cultural context. In the dialogue of cultures is important to see the universal values of cultural interaction. One of the main objective contradictions inherent in all cultures is the contradiction between the development of national cultures and their convergence. Therefore, the need for dialogue between cultures is a prerequisite for self-preservation of mankind. A form of spiritual unity is the result of the dialogue of contemporary culture. To sum up, I would like to say that in this research project I have discussed the problem of miscommunication and demonstrated its solution. There were also discussed cultural differences and their influences on our life. I strongly believe that dialogue between cultures was and remains central point in the development of mankind. Throughout the centuries and millennia occurred mutual enrichment of cultures that make up the unique mosaic of human civilization. I agree that the process of interaction and dialogue between cultures is complex and uneven, but only people who are ready go through all difficulties and hardships could be considered communication genii.

Online Communities - Chat Rooms and Discussion Boards Essay example --

Online Communities - Chat Rooms and Discussion Boards To those who have never experienced an online community they may seem pointless, a waste of time or simply childish. However, for those that have expanded beyond the traditional means of communication such as, talking on the telephone or conversing face-to-face, online communities offer a new and exciting means of communication. They offer a chance to meet others, gain advice, voice an opinion, defend an argument, or to simply relax and have a little fun. Acknowledging both points of view, I decided to explore the world of online communities for myself. For my online community I decided to enter a Yahoo, country music, chat room. Through Yahoo, there were many different chat rooms you could enter ranging from sports, to current events. However, I choose to enter the country music room because I have listened to country music all my life and I thought who I would best relate to those that would be in a country music room. Within the country music topic there were fourteen different rooms; I choose room four because it contained the most people: 44 active members. Therefore, I assumed that it would be the most active. Inside the chat room I was surprised at what I found. The first thing that I noticed was the names of the chatters. Each had some sort of country name such as, â€Å"rodeocowgirl† or â€Å"bullridingcowboy.† While looking through the conversations that were occurring I noticed that no one was discussing country music. In fact, the entire time I was in the chat room the topic rarely even appeared. I tried writing a post that said, â€Å"Does anyone know who sang the song ‘Thunder Rolls’?† About five minutes later, I received a response that said â€Å"Garth ... ...meone could become obsessed. Everyone seemed to know each other so well and it seemed as if chatting through this chat room was their way of socializing. Granted these individuals were not gaining an educational aspect from the chat room, however, they were gaining a sense of being part of something. They could express feeling, express viewpoints, vent anger or simply socialize with out being judged. No matter what was said within the chat room participants returned the next day eager to socialize. Chatting online is a huge part of these people’s lives; online communities are their source of interaction. Some people value face-to-face communication and some turn to more recent forms of technology. In my opinion your communication selection should fit your own personal needs. You should use whatever source you find most convenient, efficient, and comfortable.

A successful family life prepares one for lasting friendships Essay

The family is the basic unit in a society. It is vital in shaping the future of an individual because it is the support system that holds the individual on to. The family is the first teachers in the life of a child. This is where the child is honed with its character, values and beliefs in life. They are the inspiration to any endeavour of an individual (buzzle. com). On the other hand, friends too are as important as the family. They are the support which most hold dear onto. They can be included as part of the family because they are regarded as close to everyone. Creating or making friends with anyone is a fruit of the family values which was incurred over time. This was not an inborn character of anyone but was learned through the teachings of the family and the character that is shown by the parents to their children. Making friends is not also an easy task. You have the option to choose whom do you want to make friends with. Friends do things together. They are friends because they saw in each other the values they look for in a person. This is not an easy task though. But more than friends it will entail a lot. Friendship requires trust, loyalty, having common interest and believing that no matter what happens they will be there for each other for the rest of their lives. This is difficult, yes, but it is true also that this should be taken into account by anyone who is serious with keeping friends for life (Ellison, C. 1990, p 298). A lot has been written about the issue on family and friendships but never delve deeper into it. In one of the topics that should be taken is that a successful family life prepares one for lasting friendships. I will be listing the reasons why still the family is vital factor in changing someone’s values, character and beliefs, their interaction with other people Family, as what I have mentioned earlier, is the shaper of the future of a child. Parents in particular teach their child to be more interactive. From the time they are born into this world they are taught how to make friends with other kids. One of the activities that are done is activities that require get-together of the neighbourhood kids. Even before they are born they are friends already because their moms or their dads are friends. This is how they start the friendship of the kids (Ellison, C. 1990, 299-300). In a happy family life, friendship is started among the siblings. They show to the kids that they are treated the same. They are treated fairly whatever happens because the parents want to show to their kids that they are unique and possess unique characters. They are taught how to share with their other siblings. They always inculcate in the minds of the children that they need people; they need friends in the long run. It is often said that it is okay to be alone sometimes but it is not okay to be lonely that is why maybe friends are created (Ellison, C. 1990, 302). The family prepares an individual how to deal life’s challenges in the long run. In the family, they are taught with chores where their patience, trust and loyalty will be tested. This may not be known to the kids but their parents are shaping them to be a better person as they go out to the world where there are many challenges they will encounter (Ellison, C. 1990, p 305-306). The family builds the self-esteem of a child. Making them unique in any way is very important in boosting the self-esteem and confidence of a child. Weighing things whenever they make mistake is very important in building their self-esteem especially when they are asked to explain things why they did those things. Through this they will be given the chance to explain and discuss what they want their parents know. This will build also the confidence to any child to open up to their parents not thinking of getting scolded by the parents (Franco, N. Levitt, MJ. 1998 p. 315). For a friendship to lasts, trust and loyalty are important factors in making friendship work. These also are shaped in the family as well. The family builds trust to a child when they also trust their kids that they can do anything. It is the conviction of the parents to build this character because it is very important to any interaction outside the family (Franco, N. Levitt, MJ. 1998 p. 315). Friendship is also defined as the â€Å"habitual way of relating to a person. † Being friends and making friends is a mutual feeling between two people or among people. It is said that friends do not come as a surprise but they are chosen as friends (Franco, N. Levitt, MJ. 1998 p. 316). Although it is has been said that the family shapes the character of a person and how they interact with their peers but it is argued that it is the kids or the people who chooses whom they be friends at. According to C. S. Lewis building friendships is not about mutual interests but being interested with one another. This is difficult though but can be a learning experience to anyone who wants to build long lasting friendships (Franco, N. Levitt, MJ. 1998, p. 317). In a family children are taught with responsibility. In friendships it requires responsibility and expectation. This is common to any friendship but it is difficult to build. If the child or the teenager is taught within the family they will bring it as soon as they get out of their homes and especially their comfort zones (Franco, N. Levitt, MJ. 1998, p. 317). Friendship also requires a lot of expectations. It may not be as difficult as entering into a marriage but it is like entering into a relationship for the first time. People have been talking about friendship since time immemorial but a lot of writers such as Aristotle, Cicero, and Augustine tried to debunk the issue that to have a successful friendship should also entail a successful family life. According to these writers, character and virtue is as important as what is developed inside the homes where families teach to their kids. They argue that you don’t have to be a good man or good woman to be a good cook which means that the character is shaped because of what they are in the society. As much as the same with friendship you don’t have to be a good man to be a good friend (Franco, N. Levitt, MJ. 1998, p. 317). People like Aristotle, Cicero, and Augustine believed that character strength was essential to friendship – so much so that, as they saw it, one cannot truly be a friend without it. C. S. Lewis, on the other hand, thought virtue was irrelevant to friendship. As he saw it, friendship â€Å"makes good men better – and bad men worse. † (Franco, N. Levitt, MJ. 1998, p. 318) A lot of things can happen when someone commits to be a friend to someone. Making friends is a responsibility to one another such as longer interactions compared to just friends they just met in a club or a meeting. Naturally, closer friends leading to a closer friendship assume more responsibility for one another than do those who are merely casual friends. Besides assuming responsibility for one another, we also begin to have expectations of one another. If I tell my friend something in confidence, I have the expectation that he or she won’t reveal my secrets to others. That’s just one example of the expectations we have of friends. One can easily think of others (Franco, N. Levitt, MJ. 1998, p. 319-321). In addition to that, as to what have been said by C. S Lewis, making friends is not about carrying the character that should be in a person and sharing it but sharing the common interest they have and giving out what they can to other person. Activities where they share the same interest can build a deeper relationship thus creating a long lasting friendship. This is what they want to teach that friendships are gained not learned (Halfacre, F. P. D. 1997). This is true to some but still I want to emphasise that characters and virtues that are honed within the family is still the best in building friendships outside the world. Children cannot teach their children to choose their friends but they teach them how to interact with their playmates. They teach the kids how to enjoy life without hurting their playmates rather helping their playmates understand the value of life and later as they age they will pass it to their children and grandchildren. Parents do not let the kids choose their friends but they teach them to understand that having friends should be mutual. Mutual interests, activities and works can lead to better relationships which in a way building relationship within one’s self (Halfacre, F. P. D. 1997). Conclusion Friends can be anyone. They can be the neighbours around. They can be the co-workers, playmates, common friends and acquaintances but building a long lasting friendship is difficult. It requires time and understanding. Through time, building a long lasting friendship is also a process because it entails passion with the person. Passion means knowing the person fully and wholly and knowing the interests, likes, dislikes and among other things that can lead to better relationship. Friendships are better when it is shared with someone who has the same passion as what you wanted it to be. References Ellison, C. 1990. Family Ties, Friendships, and Subjective Well-Being among Black Americans Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 52, No. 2 pp. 298-310. Franco, N. Levitt, MJ. 1998. The Social Ecology of Middle Childhood: Family Support, Friendship Quality, and Self-Esteem. Family Relations, vol. 47 number 4, pp315-321 Buzzle. com. Intelligent life on the web. Available at http://www. buzzle. com/chapters/home-and-lifestyle_friendships-and-familial-relationships. asp Halfacre, F. P. D. 1997. Genuine Friendship. Available at http://www. genuinefriendship. com/

Why did war break out in Europe in 1939?

When Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933 he promised to reverse the Treaty of Versailles, like many Germans Hitler believed that the treaty of Versailles was unjust and blamed Germany’s problems on the peace settlement. He also hate it so much he called the German leaders who signed it ‘The November criminals ‘this shows his hatred towards the treaty, but this wasn’t the only reason why he dislike the treaty so much, the treaty was a constant remainder to Germans of their loss in First World War and the treaty was also a symbol of Germanys defeat and disgrace that came with it, it humiliated the Germany. Hitler thought it would be necessary to destroy the Treaty of Versailles in order to further his aims, also when Hitler came to power, reparations had been reduced and eventually cancelled in 1932 but most of the points were still in place. Hitler’s aims were to change the territorial settlement of Treaty of Versailles by regaining lands which had been taken from Germany at Versailles, including the Saar and Danzig and bring the seven million German-speaking people in Austria, and the four million in Czechoslovakia and Poland, into his empire this again involved destroying the peace settlement of 1919. He also wants to build up his army to prove Germany was still the Great power and to expand in east, probably against communist USSR- Hitler hated Communist. This aim was probably intended for future confirmed as the greatest power in Europe. The first stage of Germans struggle would be to strengthen its lands in Europe. He couldn’t do it alone; Hitler felt the main enemies will be France and USSR, so his aim was to get friendship with Italy and Britain against them. In the 1930s there were two incidents that really tested the League of Nations. The Manchurian Crisis was caused when Japan had been dissatisfied with the peace settlement at the end of the First World War, Many thought the answer would be the expansion of Japan into Manchuria; this would make room for growing population and markets for Japanese good. In September 1931 the Japanese claimed that there had been an explosion on railway line at Mukden, which they said was sabotage by the Chinese, there was no certainty that there had been an explosion but this gave an excuse for the Japanese army to invade. The Japanese army quickly defeated the Chinese at Mukden, they hadn’t got permission from the government but success was so popular in Japan that army was now in control of Japanese policy. China claimed Japan had committed an act of aggression, Japan claimed that it had gone into Manchuria to restore order in the end Japan had done wrong but it had already reorganised Manchuria and called it Manchukuo, and Japan walk out the League. The Abyssinian Crisis was caused when Italy launch an attack on Abyssinia , it was one of few places Africa which had not been taken by the European countries and it was easy to attack because it was next to Italian colonies of Eritrea and Somaliland . The Italians had tried to do this in 1896 but had been defeated at the battle of Adowa; Mussolini planned gain revenge for this defeat and wants to benefit the Italian economy. Italy, like Japan in 1931, was in permanent member of council of the League. The Manchurian Crisis had given Mussolini the impression that the league would not resist an act of aggression by a major power. In these sources you can see the League of Nations non-action in Abyssinian Crisis and Manchurian Crisis showed other nations like Germany that the League are powerless and irrelevant, giving Hitler the impression that he can do what he wants because the league didn’t do anything with the other Crisis’s. In 1936 Hitler began his policy of reclaiming lost German territory and Neville Chamberlain who become prime minister in 1937, he believed in taking an active role in solving Hitler’s grievances , he felt that Germans had good reasons to be upset at many of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles . What he wanted to do was to find what Hitler want and show him that reasonable claims could be met by negotiation instead of by force, so this way the problems of treaty could be solved, Germany could be satisfied and there would be no war, so he made an appeasement and Hitler could get what he wants, little did Chamberlain know of the risks of appeasement. After 1937 Frances supported appeasement because of the increased of security it had with the building of the Maginot line and Britain already agreed because they didn’t want a war and they felt sorry for Germany because of the treaty. Hitler got what he wants with the appeasement. In 1939 Hitler made an agreement with Stalin called the Nazi-Soviet pact, the pact was strange because Fascism and communism were sworn enemies and Hitler never hidden his opposition to communism as expressed in Mein the Kampf. The Nazi-Soviet pact went against the Anti-Comintern pact that Hitler signed with Italy and Japan in 1937, which was in opposed to communism. In the pact the USSR and Germany agreed not interfere against other power in event of war, secret clauses divide Poland between them, the USSR took the land it lost at the end of First World War and Germany receiving the west of Poland including Danzig and the Polish Corridor. This pact benefited both Hitler and Stalin because it meant that Hitler attack on Poland was inevitable and he was prevented two danger of wars on two fronts and in the end they both got bits of Poland. When Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, Britain and France keep their pledge and on 2 September they declared war on Germany , much to Hitler’s surprise, Britain warned him that it would join the war if Germany invade Poland . THERE WAS NO HOPE OF OTHER Munich. Hitler had gone too far. The collapse of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 proved to be last straw for the appeasers. Public opinion in Britain’s was in favour of opposing Hitler. On 1 septemberb1939 German troops invade Poland. On 3 September Britain declared war on Germany. So that’s how invasion of Poland led to war in Europe, Hitler went too far and Britain was not just going to watch!!!. Although it was Hitler’s actions which led to war, many other factors were important in making the war happen like the way the League of Nations handled the Manchurian Crisis and Abyssinian Crisis, it gave a green light to dictators and other country which were trying to bend the rules which the league had set. Hitler took advantage of Crisis’s to put his plans forward to reversed the treaty of Versailles and to get Germany out of there depression, make Germans proud again and make there empire powerful again. There were many other factors that led to war like great depression , it hit USA first and spread like shockwave a cross the world and it was a vicious circle because none of the country could afford to paid its loan or to traded, so no money was coming in and no one was getting paid and there was no money and the people suffered, they just want a way out and Hitler saw a way to get his people out of this by getting out of treaty and getting back his land and others that wasn’t his in first place and by doing this he caused what we know as the second world war. There are hundreds of reason that led towards the war and some are just the timing but most are the fault of Hitler and his malicious planning , he saw an opportunity and he took it , causing country to turn against country ,friends against friends, father against sons ., causing a war we still haven’t recover from emotionally may never do so Why Did War Break Out in Europe in 1939 When Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933; he had a lot of frustration against the Treaty which he thought was unfair. For example the enormous amount of reparation, it literally got Germany bankrupt. The restriction of army had also caused a lot of anger; Hitler and the Germans felt humiliated as the army used to be Germany’s pride and symbol before the First World War. Moreover, Germany was not allowed self-determination and joining of the League of Nations. These further made the Germans feel humiliated and dishonoured. The loss of colonies and territories had not only made Germany lost human resources, they were also important industrial areas which provide resources and markets. Therefore when Hitler came to power in 1933, he pledged that he would abolish the treaty to recover the Germany economy brings back German’s pride. Hitler also felt a strong necessity of increasing German territory, which came from the idea of ‘Lebensraum’, a German word for living space. His aimed was clearly to bring Germany back to where it was before the war, a proud and strong nation. In the 1930s there were two incidents that really tested the League of Nations; they were the invasion of Manchuria and the Abyssinia crisis. During the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the league had done a bad job by delaying to solve their own local problems- it took them a year to produce a report to condemn the Japanese in1933 (when Hitler came to power). However, Japan intended to invade more of China to ‘defend their selves’, thus the powerless League voted to approve it when only Japanese voted against as an insult. Witnessing the incident, Hitler could be almost certain that League was too useless and weak to stop his future actions. In 1936 he took a huge risk by sending German troops to remilitarise Rhineland; however he was confident due to the incident happened in Manchuria, as well as the Abyssinian crisis which was happening at the exact same time. The league was too weak by then as they were distracted by the Abyssinian crisis; they only condemned Hitler’s action but had no power to do anything else. Thus Hitler won; the remilitarisation of Rhineland as well as a huge gain in confidence. In 1936 Hitler began his policy of reclaiming lost German territory. He wanted an â€Å"Anschluss with Austria†, that is to bring the two nations together even though they were banned to ally under the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler started to manipulate the Nazis to stir up trouble, to call for democratic plebiscite and eventually he sent his own troops into Austria to â€Å"defend democracy†, when the real intention was probably to make sure people vote for Anschluss under the watchful eyes of the army. British Prime Minister, Chamberlin, had also supported the idea of uniting Austrian with the Germans. Britain and France had both followed the policy of Appeasement in the 1930s. Britain’s leaders may have felt they had no option but to appease Hitler, even when there were obvious risks to such a policy such as it would encourage Hitler to be aggressive, allowed Germany to grow too strong, etc. France was invaded by Germany a several times and thus feeling a need to make peace. However, the main reason could be that they felt too vulnerable to go on war that they were perhaps in denial of Hitler’s potential and danger with or without their own acknowledgement. In 1938, Hitler had successfully took over Sudetenland very much due to the leaders of Britain and France’s naivety of trusting Hitler as well as their reluctance to go on war to stop Hitler’s action. In 1939 Hitler made an agreement with Stalin not to attack one another. They signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact and announced the terms to the world. While privately they also agreed to divide Poland between them. Stalin was very worried as Hitler had openly stated his interest in conquering the Russian land. He signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact because he was not convinced that Britain and France would be strong and reliable enough as allies against Hitler. Another advantage was that he had planned to take over the Baltic states of eastern Poland, which had been part of Russia in the Tsar’s day. Although he did not believe Hitler would keep his word anymore, but he hoped the alliance with Germany could buy him time to build up his forces against the attack he knew would come. To Hitler’s advantage, he saw Russia as a good geographical ally in a sense hat he would have helpers up in the north if a war breaks out in the west. Hitler and the Soviet forces invaded Poland in 1939; one right after another. Poland was soon taken over by the two nations. However, it was not satisfying for Hitler, he demanded even more. He was certain that Britain and France would be weak as they always had been and would not risk going on war over Poland, and thus he planned an attack on his temporary al ly, the USSR. However, this time the Britain and France kept their pledge and stood up for France, declaring a war against Germany. Hitler was caught by surprise, the war broke out sooner than he had expected and it was against the wrong opponents. Hitler would have never predicted that the invasion of Poland would lead to war in Europe and eventually turned into a World War again. Despite the fact that it was Hitler’s actions which led to war, many other factors were important in making the war happen. As I have mentioned it was the League’s incapability in settling peace that had led to frustration of the Germans to tear up the treaty. It was Britain and France’s weakness that had gained Hitler’s confidence and encouraged him to gamble more the next time. It was the various countries’ fear and reluctance to go on war to stop Hitler that had allowed him to take a bigger step each time. After all, Hitler was just taking advantage in every situation before the war and was responding to people’s weakness and naivety by demanding for more. When Britain and France finally stood up to declare war on Germany, Hitler was already stronger than before and it in the end it turned out to be another World War.