Foreseeable Future Essay

This paper is a discussion of a debate between Julian L. Simon, author of The Ultimate Resource, and David Pimentel et al., authors of the article â€Å"Impact of Population Growth on Food Supplies and Environment†. The debate centers on the question: â€Å"Will the World Be Able to Feed Itself in the Foreseeable Future?† I will summarize each side’s argument, identify the key point over which they most basically disagree, and explain what I would like to know more about in order to arrive at my own position on the issue. Simon argues that with our present technology, and with the technology that is still being developed, the world will easily be able to feed itself, regardless of the increasing size of its population. He explains how food production adheres to the law of supply and demand: an increase in population and income will produce a higher demand for food. For a short time some foods may become scarce. Rising food prices due to the scarcity will prompt agronomical researchers and farmers to invent better methods of producing food and therefore increase the food production. He emphasizes that this pattern can only continue if the agriculturally productive countries promote entrepreneurship and economic freedom. Simon points out that â€Å"the capacity of food-factory production has expanded to a degree almost beyond belief.† (Simon, p. 115). He describes how hydroponic farming, which involves indoor, factory-controlled conditions, is more land efficient and produces higher quality produce than traditional farming methods. He also argues that our food supplies are not limited by the amount of sunlight falling on green plants due to the availability of nuclear as well as non-nuclear power (such as solar cells, wind, and ocean currents) to make light. Simon also names other existing technology, such as bovine growth hormone and genetically engineered plants, which he predicts â€Å"will surely produce huge commercial gains in the next century.† (Simon, p. 117). In addition to an increase in the production of field crops, Simon also assures us that the world fish catch is rapidly increasing, and that aquaculture (fish farming) has the potential to expand exponentially. â€Å"Land is a small constraint, as catfish farming in Mississippi shows; present  methods produce about 3000 pounds of fish per acre, an economic return far higher than for field crops.† (Simon, p. 118). David Pimentel et al. disagree that the world will be able to feed itself in the foreseeable future. They point to a decreasing amount of fertile land, fresh water, energy, and biological resources needed to provide an adequate supply of food. Evidence supporting their claim includes the fact that nearly one-third of the world’s cropland is no longer being used due to erosion, and that â€Å"water shortages are reflected in the per capita decline in irrigation used for food production in all regions of the world during the past 20 years.† (Pimental et al., p. 122) Basing their projections on reports from the U.S. Dept. of Energy, Pimentel et al. predict that the U.S. will use up all of its own oil reserves within the next 15 or 20 years, causing an over-reliance on oil importing. In addition, Pimentel et al. point out that if the U.S. population doubles in the next 60 years, its cereal and other food imports to most of the other 182 nations would have to be kept at home to meet its own food supply needs. They warn that an increased demand for food due to physical and biological constraints without an increase in food production will cause a breakdown in international trade. â€Å"At that point, food importation for the rich can only be sustained by starvation of the powerless poor.† (Pimentel el al., p. 123). The key point over which Simon and Pimentel et al. disagree is whether or not current and new technology will be able to support the world population’s food needs. Simon contends, â€Å"Whether or not population grows exponentially, subsistence grows at an even faster exponential rate (largely but not entirely because of population growth.) And capacity to improve other aspects of the standard of living, beyond subsistence, grows at a still faster exponential rate, due largely to the growth of knowledge.† (Simon, p. 119). Pimentel, et al. believe that â€Å"improved technology will assist in more effective management and use of resources, but it cannot produce an unlimited flow of those vital natural resources that are the raw materials  for sustained agricultural production.† (Pimentel, p. 124). In other words, people cannot make topsoil or water. Pimentel et al. fail to mention such possible alternate solutions such as hydroponic farming or aquaculture. There are a number of things that I would want clarified before I could arrive at my own position on this issue. First, I would want to know how much â€Å"lag time† is occurring or will occur when the demand for food (or certain kinds of food, such as cereal), exceeds the supply. (â€Å"There is always some lag before supply responds to additional demand, which may mean that some will suffer.† – Simon, p. 120). Many people in the developing countries ARE currently going hungry. Will advances in technology, as well as changes in our social and economic systems, give us the ability to stop and prevent worldwide hunger? What would these social and economic changes look like? Another assertion by Simon that needs to be discussed further is the cost and dependability of using artificial light and nuclear power to farm hydroponically. It seems like a promising way to deal with the increased demand for food, but will the cost for this type of production be too high for developing countries? How will these countries be able to pay for food that is imported to them? Simon asserts that hydroponic produce â€Å"looks good and tastes good† (Simon, p. 116), but will time prove it to be as safe and healthy as food grown the traditional way? (e.g. NutraSweet, which has been proven to not be totally safe, vs. sugar.). Pimentel et al. point out the threat to our environment and biodiversity caused by overpopulation. Would a greater focus on conservation and an effort to reduce over-consumption and pollution on the part of developed countries make enough of a difference to still have adequate natural resources? (Is it possible to have it both ways: technologically advanced/safe food production and naturally produced food?) There also seems to be a discrepancy between Simon’s assertion that the annual fish catch is continuing to rise and Pimentel et al.’s statement that â€Å"Per capita fish catch has not increased even though the size and speed of  fishing vessels has improved.† (Pimentel, p. 125). Pimentel et al. also did not address the potential of aquaculture or hydroponic farming to supply food, or the capability of technology to produce artificial substitutes, even though they were able to gather a large amount of other data from such reputable sources as World Bank and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. In summary, I would like to obtain more factual information concerning actual and projected shortages of natural resources. I need more evidence that hydroponic and artificial food farming is more than adequate to meet the demand for food. Finally, I need to further understand the effects that population growth is having on our environment.

Ozzy Osbourne

Ozzy Osbourne is one of the most contradictive persons in the history of contemporary rock music. On the one hand, he is a famous singer being famous for his unique image, clothing and lifestyle and his music is surely beloved by thousands of fans, whereas, on the other hand he has had serious problems with drug and alcohol addictions. Nevertheless, his struggle for survival has to be praised and respected.  It is apparent that literature search revealed over 100 articles and books on the history of rock music and Osbourne’s career. Over half of these were prescriptive and written by practitioners, consultants and journalists.Adams, Deanna R.   Rock ‘n' Roll and the Cleveland Connection. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2002.This book is not intended to be a definitive history of rock music, documenting every fact or thoroughly analyzing every decade. Rather, it is about those people and events responsible for making this the â€Å"Rock ‘n' Roll Capital of the World.† The book presents rather extraordinary and interesting viewpoint concerning Ozzy Osbourne and his musical career.Appleyard, Bryan. â€Å"Blizzard of Oz†, The Sunday Times Magazine, November 27, 2005.The article suggests that Ozzy Osbourne is surely one of the most interesting and at the same time shocking singer due to his unique image, clothing and lifestyle. He is known to shock publicity with extraordinary appearance, hair cuts and colors mixture. Nevertheless, author states that practically every star has his own â€Å"blizzards†. Concerning Osbourne it is his drug and alcohol addictions, though he has managed to cope with disease having proven that he is able to struggle for life and popularity. He underwent treatments for alcohol and drug abuse.   And now he is famous for both musical and TV careers.Davidson, Sandra (ed.) & Winfield, Betty Houchin (ed.). Bleep! Censoring Rock and Rap Music. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999.The book is ab out societal attempts to control rock and rap music in a democracy. This book explains how governmental statutes, agency regulations, business controls and parents have tried to censor the music and when they have succeeded or why not. The book also focuses on the dilemma of a people who ideally believe in free expression as part of a democracy. It is apparent that attempts to censor Osbourne are also involved in the book.Dodd, P. The Book of Rock. London: Pavilion, 2001.The book is about the individual artists and groups associated with Rock music involving Ozzy Osbourne and his contradictive career and person. It is seen that the book is of great importance for current research, because it provides thorough examination and analysis of rock music history. The book is meant for a wide circle of readers who are fond of rock and Ozzy Osbourne.Exclusive: Ozzy Osbourne on Everything. Sunday Mirror, 2005, April 3: 16.The article presents interview with a famous singer about his private l ife and musical career. Ozzy believes his lavish family home in the English countryside is cursed. It is stated that in spite his millions and his transatlantic lifestyle, Ozzy is astonished at the cost of living in Britain – and feels that the working man is being priced out of the country.Goldberg, Jonah. Ozzy without Harriet: What the Osbournes Tells Us about Drugs. National Review, 54, 11 (2002, June 17): 23-24.The Osbournes, the reality-TV show about the 53-year-old former lead singer of the metal band Black Sabbath and his dysfunctional family, is an unprecedented hit. It receives the highest ratings in MTV's history. The article provides details of the show stating that is one of the most popular as it present daily life of a singer.Gosset, Pol & Leyser, Brady J.   Rock Stars/Pop Stars: A Comprehensive Bibliography, 1955-1994. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994.This bibliography is a listing of over 3,600 books about the individual artists and groups associated with Rock/Pop music involving Ozzy Osbourne. It is seen that the book is of great importance for current research, because it aims at providing the most accurate and comprehensive bibliography available on Rock/Pop stars.The article says that Wildman rocker was invited to the White House due to the success launch of reality show â€Å"The Osbournes†. According to statistic provided in the article show has more that three million viewers. Family values and problems are incorporated in research. The article touches Osbourne’s problems with drugs and alcohol stating that he has had also problems with crashing hotel rooms and cars.Ozzy Rules: in a Rock World Dominated by Bad Boys, Ozzy Osbourne Stood out. The Daily Mail, 2005, November 19: 16.Newspaper article provides information about Osbourne’s problems with drug and alcohol considering that now he has been cured. The author suggests that Osbourne is really amazed by his new image as a family man. Osbournes has becom e one of Britain's, and America's most famous families. They are laughed at because of their crazy antics, thoih held in affection because of their obvious love for each other.The Ozzy Osbourne of Wolverhampton. The Birmingham Post, 2006, July 19: 5.Actually the article argues about Osbourne’s popularity and states that many fans are willing to behave and look like their music ideal. For example, A parrot-killer who decapitated his beloved pet in a drunken rage has been jailed for five-and-a-half months after a magistrate branded him â€Å"the Ozzy Osbourne of Wolverhampton†.ReferencesAdams, Deanna R.   Rock ‘n' Roll and the Cleveland Connection. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2002.Appleyard, Bryan. â€Å"Blizzard of Oz†, The Sunday Times Magazine, November 27, 2005.Davidson, Sandra (ed.) & Winfield, Betty Houchin (ed.). Bleep! Censoring Rock and Rap Music. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999.Dodd, P. The Book of Rock. London: Pavilion, 2001.Excl usive: Ozzy Osbourne on Everything. Sunday Mirror, 2005, April 3: 16.Goldberg, Jonah. Ozzy without Harriet: What the Osbournes Tells Us about Drugs. National Review, 54, 11 (2002, June 17): 23-24.Gosset, Pol & Leyser, Brady J.   Rock Stars/Pop Stars: A Comprehensive Bibliography, 1955-1994. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994.Ozzy Osbourne â€Å"Invited to White House†, 2002, April 4. Avaiable at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/1911033.stmOzzy Rules: in a Rock World Dominated by Bad Boys, Ozzy Osbourne Stood out. The Daily Mail, 2005, November 19: 16.The Ozzy Osbourne of Wolverhampton. The Birmingham Post, 2006, July 19: 5.

Gay Marriage: The Controversial Issue Essay

Gay marriage has been an ongoing controversial issue. Many other countries have legalized gay marriage for decades and the United States is just beginning to pick up on the trend. While many people believe that gay marriage will stem many problems in both the short run and the long run, it is an issue of discrimination if we were to put a law banning gay marriage. Currently the United States are split up with some states supporting gay marriage and others that do not. There are 19 states that have legalized gay marriage and there are 31 states that have made gay marriage illegal. While those who oppose gay marriage have their reasons, those reasons are unjust and an infringement on the rights of the citizens of the United States. We are the land of the free with the right to the pursuit of happiness. There are many issues concerning the banning of gay marriage. We the people are protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution which states that the people’s religious views are protected. Haters of gay marriage claim that marriage is sanctioned by the church and that it is a sin in regards to their religion and their bible. But that is exactly the point. In the United States we are a diverse community. There are so many different religions in the United States that we have cease to acknowledge just one religion, in fact, we have never just acknowledged just one religion. Using the church and the bible to outcast gay marriage is an act of discrimination and a violation to those people’s individual rights. History has proven that acceptance of minority groups has led to a more unified nation where people from different ethnicity or culture can mingle together in one society. The issue of slavery has been handled and now African americans co-exist with our societ y just like any other person. The issue of interracial marriage has been handled and now there are happy families with different cultures living a normal life just like anyone else. What gives anyone the right to claim that gay marriage won’t yield the same result? There are also benefits that married couples have that gay married couples do not have when their marriage isn’t recognized. Marriage status affects many things such as tax filing status, joint ownerships in property, insurance benefits, and  critical medical decisions. Some people argue that people may take advantage of this situation by abusing the system to gain benefits for themselves. That may be true, however, how can you deny those who legitimately want the benefits because they are truthfully married without a second hidden agenda? If one member of the couple had a serious medical emergency and needed their spouse approval for a surgery what would happen if they were not allowed to make that decision? It’s unfair to deny gay married couples their right to the benefits we have because people don’t approve of them. These people want to live a normal life just as much as we do. In fact it is not their chose that they have to live this way. Studies have evidence that homosexuality is caused by biological reasons. During fetal development there are switches that trigger which impacts sexual development regarding their sexuality and other various sexual characteristics such as masculinity and femininity traits. Individuals in gay couples have either stronger masculine or feminine characteristics due to this. People with medical disorders are also born in this exact way so why do we discriminate against gay couples? They did not choose to be born this way. They just were. If we discriminate against gay couples then we might as well discriminate against everybody with medical disorders as well. If you think about it, our society provides an undesirable living condition for gay couples. People make fun of them; gay bashers beat people up, and many other cruel things. Why would people choose to live that lifestyle if they could help it? These people cannot deny their true nature and we are discriminating on them because of it. One of the most important reasons why gay marriage should be allowed is because marriage is about more than just a title of two people being bounded by law. Marriage is the ultimate expression of love between two people who want to live the rest of their lives with the person they love the most. Marriage is a sacred concept that is the ultimate form of love. We allow a man and a woman to express that symbolic nature of love, therefore, it is unfair to deny gay couples the right to express their love as well. A man and a woman are not the only two entities that can love each other. A man and a man or a woman and a woman can love each other just as much as a man and a woman can. What some gay couples will do is go to a state that has legalized gay marriage and get married there. Then if they go to any other state the state has to recognize their marriage because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause  protected by the Constitution. Therefore, there is a massive loop hole in the system, however, one that is protected by our federal constitution. Other loop holes in society are abused and fixed because it is against the law. But in this case, the loop hole is protected so why should we even deal with the hassle it causes? If people can get around the system through this method then we should just legalize gay marriage overall. If people are willing to go through all the trouble just to get their marriage recognize why do we have to cause so much hassle for them when technically the process is protected by the constitution? It feels like the people are trying to put so many restrictions on gay marriage in hopes that we will succumb to the pressure and give up. But if its regarding the peoples individual rights as American citizens we should stand up and fight in what is right. The north fought against slavery because they believe it was the right thing to do. Look how much that effort has yield in the present day. Racism has died down to a minimal and we are all able to coexist and accept one another in one society. Another issue that is controversial is the upbringing of children in gay couples. They argue that children should have a father figure and a mother figure for the best upbringing possible. However, what measures a person’s ability to raise a child? Two men or women could raise a child just as well as a woman and man can. We are placing assumptions that they would not be capable to raise a child well. Some people argue that children would not be able to develop in a normal way growing up. But if we take a look at factors that could contribute to the possible hardships of these children, society itself places hardships on these gay couples. These children of gay couples get picked on because society outcasts people with gay parents. Society enables people to view gay couples different. If society accepted gay couples then these children would be able to endure their childhood growing up without any extra hardships. It is unfair to make claims that children are affected by gay ma rriage when we cause problems ourselves. How can we really know if gay marriage affects children before we stop bashing on gay marriage? Another issue with gay marriage is the claims that divorce is higher within gay marriage couples. Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004. In 2008 it had lowest divorce rate in the country. And between 2003 to 2008 its divorce rate had declined by 21 percent. Divorce happens to everybody including between a man and a woman.  People are claiming that gay marriage have high divorce rates when it is not necessarily true. Anybody who targets a specific group will notice their statistical facts more than the general society when in reality its not different than everybody in general. Also the divorce rate should not even be an issue. Why do people divorce in the first place? It is because they are not happy with their partner whether it be they were unfaithful or they were not the ones for each other. Regardless, people divorce because they have not found their true happiness with their partner yet. And there is no difference between a man and a woman divorcing for those reasons versus two men or two women divorcing for those reasons. It is the people†™s right to divorce just like any other issue we frown upon or do not approve. American needs to stop discriminating against issues that are not pertinent to the well-being of society and focus more on issues like crime, poverty, and foreign policy issues. Gay marriage should be allowed in all states. A lot of issues would be solved if this was the case. America has fought over and over to protect the minorities against the majority. We are a nation of the majority, but protect the minority. That is why people from around the world want to come live in the United States. We are fighting against what we symbolize as a nation and it is hypocritical to our actions in the past when we fought against slavery or interracial marriages. If we take a look at other countries that have legalized gay marriage for decades there has not been any issues in those countries. People fear that gay marriage will upon the gates for other marriages such as incest marriage, marriage to animals, and so on. But our fellow countries who have done it for longer than us have not encountered such problems. It is not fair to act on assumptions which we do not even know will happen and infringe on the rights of American citizens to pursue their own happiness in gay marriage. Our constitution and bill of rights protect us and enable us to chase our dreams. Fighting against gay marriage is fighting against the law we have fought and protected for centuries. Gay marriage should be legalized on a federal level and the states should not have the right to control whether or not gay marriage is legal or banned. Just like how there was an amendment passed to stop the discrimination against blacks gay marriage should be treated the same way.  There is no difference between the two. Stop with the discriminating and lets come together as a whole society. Sources Wikipedia (2014): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause ProCon (2014): http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857 Zach Ford (2014): http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/12/11/1318311/study-finds-biological-causes-for-homosexuality/ Joe Messerli (2014): http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm ProCon (2014): http://gaymarriage.procon.org/ John Corvino; Maggie Gallagher(2012): Debating Same-Sex Marriage Praeger (2003): Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate Michael Mello(2004): Legalizing Gay Marriage

Tarrifs and Trade Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Tarrifs and Trade - Essay Example Thus, the overall effect of a tariff implemented by a small nation must reduce the national welfare (Nunn & Trefler, 2010). Thus, whenever a small country will implement the tariff, the national welfare is bound to fall, and the higher the tariff will be set, the more the loss will be experienced and consumers will lose as government recipients and producers spending gain. In a large country, consumers of the good suffer from the price increase, as the producers will experience a well-being increase from the tariff. Thus, the tariff net effect is composed of three major results that are a negative distortion in production, positive trade effect terms as well as a negative consumption distortion. Thus, there are both positive and negative elements as the effect can be either negative or positive. However, the overall result is that it can be positive implying that a tariff that is implemented by a large nation may increase the national welfare (Debaere & Mostashari, 2010). Unlike quotas, tariffs are important as they generate the government some revenue. The US according to statistics collects over 20 billion a year from revenue from tariff that could be lost with quotas (Motoshige Itoh & Yoshiyasu Ono, 1982). Another reason is that quotas may result in administrative corruption. Tariffs provide customs officials with authority and power providing access to favored organizations and denying the lesser-favored ones as opposed to import quotas. Moreover, import quotas have a high probability of causing smuggling especially when set at unreasonable values (Grant, Hertel, & Rutherford, 2009). A strong dollar is good while, on the other hand, weak is bad. As the generalization sounds simple, it is very different and confusing when it comes to the dollar. A strong dollar is very strong when compared to other foreign currency, and the vice-versa is

Nonverbal Communication Nuances Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 2

Nonverbal Communication Nuances - Assignment Example In addition to that, virtual communication employs the use of facial expressions that serve as a nonverbal communication to enhance the meaning of the virtual verbal communication.  Ã‚   No, I do not believe so because increased use of the technology-mediated modes of communication would enable us to predict, read, and understand the nonverbal cues and norms that we are not very good at reading presently because we have not been always used to the technology-mediated modes of communication. However, our young generation, particularly the ones that are born in the computer age and that have been communicating virtually from the very early years of their lives are very comfortable with this mode of communication and have a better ability to judge and understand the nonverbal cues and norms even in the virtual communication. So even if the technology-mediated modes of communication become more common, their ability to read the nonverbal cues would only grow.

Business Strategic Management Executive Summary Essay

Business Strategic Management Executive Summary - Essay Example The inclusion of A. C. Markkula brought in the required funds to the company as he was a retired professional with experience of working at Intel. Steve Jobs, the visionary of the three, dreamt about making a computer that is immensely user – friendly and therefore having considerable success with Apple – I, the company focused on Apple – II. But as IBM entered the market of manufacturing computers, the sales revenue and net profit of Apple Computers took a major hit and Steve Jobs was removed from the operational role. In order to replace Steve Jobs, the company banked upon John Sculley as the new CEO, who had a successful stint with Pepsi. Sculley initiated number of major decisions which included cooperative ventures with arch – rivals IBM. The Macintosh computers manufactured by Apple Computers continued to be the major revenue earner for the company. Sculley also decided to outsource some of its operations so that cost could be curtailed. But the efforts were not enough to ensure profitability of Apple Computers and the company faced 34% gross loss. Sculley was ‘promoted’ to be the Chairman by the board while Spindler replaced him as the CEO in the year 1991. Spindler cancelled many of the projects initiated by his predecessors and focused on capturing the international markets. Also, he attacked cost and curtailed research expenses too. Such a measure proved to be fatal for the company in due course of time and he had to resign with $ 69 million loss in 1996. Spindler was succeeded by a director of the board, George Amelio. Amelio cancelled the project of developing next generation Mac operating system. He tried to bring back the company on premium pricing model and acquired NeXT, a Steve Jobs company. Jobs joined Apple Computers again as an advisor and when in the year of 1997, the market share of Apple Computers reduced from 6% to 3%, Amelio was shown the door and Steve Jobs, the founder was made the interim CEO. Being at the helm,

Sourcebased Case Study NaziSoviet Pact Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Sourcebased Case Study NaziSoviet Pact - Essay Example The Source shows the successful mission of Stalin because it has been able to "spear" down Hitler finally to a good political maneuver. The wreath on Stalin's right hand suggest the death of the fascist forces with the subsequent death of Hitler and under the false pretence of the restorative pact (for Soviet Union) that shall keep communism thriving as the two instruments in Stalin's hand suggest. The source's accuracy is largely sarcastic and also quite beneficial in pointing out the reason behind the shocking pact between the two devils-the communist and the Fascist forces that threatened the West and the Capitalist countries. The source helps one to understand the apparently defunct and devious peace treaty that was signed which hid a deeper truth about a secret protocol that promised mutual shared power over countries like, Finland Estonia Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania and thus promised each other "territorial and political rearrangements". Source B begins with the line "Why did Britain and France help Hitler to achieve his aims" This line particularly helps one to answer the deep distrust within Soviet Union politicians and especially Stalin about the stance of the powerful Western countries like Britain and France. United-front here refers to anl alliances between the West and the Communist Soviet Union. While each member of this front stays independent, they work together while the Communists inside a united front would continue to promote a revolutionary platform. The disappointment voiced in the source has a history of Third Period policies that had led to the Nazi suppression of both the Social Democratic Party and the Communist Party of Germany in 1933 after the policy did not allow joint action thus dividing and weakening the German left, thereby allowing the Nazis to win power. The same intention has been voiced here. The Source accuses Britain and France of committing the same mistake of allowing Hitler to ta ke advantage of the disagreements between the powerful nations. But the source does not state the reasons for Britain's fear for such a united front against Hitler. Both Soviet Union and Germany was a threat to the European countries. At that time the Communist International was committed to destroying capitalist governments throughout the world. British Trade Unionists were talking about setting up Workers' Councils and overthrowing Parliament. Soviet Union money helped the strikers in the General strike and coal miners during the coal strikes. Thus Soviet Union was paradoxically a greater threat than Hitler, just as Britain thought that Hitler was a bigger threat to Soviet Union than to the other nations. Infact Soviet Union was still shadowed by the totalitarian rule of Lenin and Hitler was the best weapon who could destroy Soviet Union with similar destructive powers. Hence, the West wanted the two countries to destroy each other. Again, Hitler's Germany as a welcome barrier to the spread of