Heamatology ( The effect of the environmental pollution in the Literature review

Heamatology ( The effect of the environmental pollution in the development of Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia - Literature review Example Steffen et al (2004) anticipated Belson et al’s finding about the weak link between exposure to hydrocarbons and acute lymphoblastic leukaemia among children. Their study investigated the impact of maternal occupational exposure to hydrocarbons when pregnant and leukaemia and found a weak link. According Steffen et al, residential traffic density has a significant association with child leukaemia. This manifested in the places where child leukaemia victims lived near a petrol station or a repair garage. The association suggested a causal association between exposure to benzene emitting sources and acute childhood lymphocytic leukaemia. Behren et al (2008) did not find a significant association between living in high traffic density areas and child acute lymphocytic leukaemia. They argued the resultant inconsistency between their findings on the topic and other studies’ findings could have been because of methodological differences. However, they brought in a plausible explanation to the inconsistency when they cited that different places and regions have varying traffic volumes and emission profiles. Traffic volumes and emission profiles of different places also vary with time and are therefore never stable. Behren et al also explained that the critical time for an environmental exposure to that is enough to cause the development of leukaemia in children is not known. Raaschou-Nielsen et al (2001) investigated the impact of exposure to traffic-related air pollution on the risk of developing childhood cancer. They concluded that traffic-related air pollution in residences does not cause leukaemia in children. This finding further supported the suppressed association between the two variables. However, these authors explained that their selection of cancer cases and control children from registries that were population-based could have been a source of bias in their study. They cited that there was a

Pepsico And Coca Cola Company Economics Essay

Pepsico And Coca Cola Company Economics Essay I chose these companies because I have an interest in the way that they are profitable in the global market. PepsiCo was founded in 1932 by the merger of the then known Frito-Lay Company. The founders of PepsiCo are Donald M. Kendall, President and CEO and Herman W. Lay, Chairman and CEO of Frito-Lay. However Pepsi-Cola was formulated in 1898 by a Caleb Bradham, a pharmacist. Coca-Cola was formulated in 1886 by Dr. John Pemberton. In downtown Atlanta Pemberton sold the syrup with carbonated water for five cents a glass. Both companies grew dramatically since their humble beginnings. Thesis Statement The purpose of this paper is to compare PepsiCo and Coca-Cola Companys financial standing between the two companies using ratios and financial analysis from five ratio categories. Liquidity The methodology used is the ratios for liquidity. Liquidity is the ability to quickly turn assets in to cash. Liquidity is also characterized by high levels of trading activity. Assets that can be easily obtained and sold are known as liquid assets. A business with a decent amount of liquidity can mean that the business can pay off its expenses. Current Ratio Calculation: Current Ratio = Current Assets/ Current Liabilities PepsiCo Current Ratio PepsiCo current ratio = 0.95 Coca-Cola Current Ratio Coca-Cola current ratio = 1.05 Conclusion: When comparing PepsiCo and Coca-Cola current ratio in 2011 both are successful at easily converting assets into cash. Coca-Cola has a greater ratio than PepsiCo by .10. It can be said that from this ratio that one can invest in either company and they will make a return if dividends are declared. Asset Turnover: Asset turnover shows how the amounts of sales that can are generated for every dollar worth of assets. The higher a firms asset turnover the more efficiently its assets have been turned in to cash. Investors went to invest in companies that can turnover assets easily. Asset Turnover Calculation: Asset Turnover = Total Revenue/ Total Assets PepsiCos Asset Turnover PepsiCo asset turnover = 0.9 Coca-Colas Asset Turnover Coca-Cola asset turnover = 0.7 Conclusion: In the comparison between PepsiCo and Coca-Cola; PepsiCo has a greater turnover than Coca-Cola. PepsiCo turnover is 0.2 higher than Coca-Cola. This means that PepsiCo is more successful in turning sales in dollars. Debt Ratios A debt ratio measures how well a firm can pay off its debt. The larger the debt ratio the more likely that a creditor was used to create a profit for the business. The greater the debt the greater the risk for the business to pay off its debt. Debt Ratio Calculation: Debt Ratio = Total Liabilities/ Total Assets PepsiCo Debt Ratio PepsiCo = 0.93 Coca-Cola Debt Ratio Coca-Cola = 0.41 Conclusion: The comparison with PepsiCo and Coca-Cola shows that Coca-Cola has a smaller debt ratio than PepsiCo. PepsiCo has a greater risk than Coca-Cola does by 0.52 or 52%. PepsiCo has a greater risk of not being able to pay back its debt. Profitability: There are different ways to measure the profitability of a business. Using Profit Margin is just one of the many measurements that can be used. Knowing how profitable a company is allows investors the chance that they will turn a profit from investing in that company. Investors may also want to look at the companys income statement to evaluate a companies profitability along with a companys profit margin. Profit Margin Profit Margin = Operating Profit/ Revenue PepsiCos Profit Margin: PepsiCo = 9.69% Coca-Colas Profit Margin: Coca-Cola = 18.42% Conclusion: In comparing Coca-Cola and PepsiCo One can see that Coca-Cola have more profitability than PepsiCo does by almost double. Investors would most likely invest in Coca-Cola based on these results. Marketability: Market ratios convey the market value of a firm. The valuation of a firms current share price compared to the firms pre-share earnings. High P/E proposes that investors are expecting a growth in earnings in the future. It shows how investors see the firm whether its a risk or reward. Price/Earnings Ratio Formula: P/E Ratio = Market Price per share/ Earnings per share PepsiCos P/E Ratios: Current P/E Ratio = 15.7 P/E Ratio 1 Month Ago = 16.4 P/E Ratio 26 Weeks Ago = 16.1 P/E Ratio 52 Weeks Ago = 16.3 Coca-Cola P/E Ratios: Current P/E Ratio =18.7 P/E Ratio 1 Month Ago = 18.4 P/E Ratio 26 Weeks Ago = 12.8 P/E Ratio 52 Weeks Ago = 12.7 Conclusion: It is clear that Coca-Cola has a higher price/earnings ratio that PepsiCo. Coca-Colas Ratio was a drastic change from a month ago to 26 weeks ago it jumped to 6.5. Investors would see a better turn out from this output of information from Coca-Cola. Conclusion: According to this information I would advise an investor to invest in Coca-Cola based on the information that was provided. I would however be reluctant to advice investors to invest in PepsiCo based on factors presented such as; lower profitability, lower Price/Earnings, and higher debt ratio than Coca-Cola.

Understanding Themewriting and Someones Pain :: Communication Language Essays

Understanding Themewriting and Someone's Pain Trying to break free from the hold that themewriting has on me is getting to be hard. I never knew that it had such a grip. What is especially difficult is that I need to break free from its grip for this class but yet it is pretty much demanded for the psychology research articles that I am writing. I find that it's difficult to juggle both trying to break free and trying to hold on because of another class. Where does a person incorporate both themewriting and non-themewriting or can a person even think of such a thing? But then to say that I cannot, or possibly have to, incorporate both gives me a rule that I have to follow and wouldn't that constitute themewriting once again? And aren't we supposed to be breaking free of the rules that we have to follow for writing? Themewriting has become so complex to me that I have yet to come up with a definition of what themewriting is. It seems to me that for a person to say "we need to break free of themewriting" or "we need to learn to not write like that" would give me rules to follow in my writing which would constitute themewriting. It's almost like the professor who, on the first day of class, wrote "the is no absolute truth" on the blackboard. The statement itself becomes an absolute truth. I understand how it feels to not be able to write down the feelings that I have. To not be able to express the feeling that I have in words. That may be a result of themewriting, I don't know. When I was in high school I used to write poems, not very good ones I must admit, but none the less, I was able to put my feelings down on paper. But after high school, I lost it or it got replaced by what has come to be called themewriting. All I know is that writing the poems that I once did is difficult to do and I seldom do it. Can I blame that on my high school teachers? When they told me how to write and what to write? Or must the blame fall on me? Or is there no one to blame? I've been reading much about voice. I've read that we shouldn't stereotype, or look for the gender of, the author. Understanding Themewriting and Someone's Pain :: Communication Language Essays Understanding Themewriting and Someone's Pain Trying to break free from the hold that themewriting has on me is getting to be hard. I never knew that it had such a grip. What is especially difficult is that I need to break free from its grip for this class but yet it is pretty much demanded for the psychology research articles that I am writing. I find that it's difficult to juggle both trying to break free and trying to hold on because of another class. Where does a person incorporate both themewriting and non-themewriting or can a person even think of such a thing? But then to say that I cannot, or possibly have to, incorporate both gives me a rule that I have to follow and wouldn't that constitute themewriting once again? And aren't we supposed to be breaking free of the rules that we have to follow for writing? Themewriting has become so complex to me that I have yet to come up with a definition of what themewriting is. It seems to me that for a person to say "we need to break free of themewriting" or "we need to learn to not write like that" would give me rules to follow in my writing which would constitute themewriting. It's almost like the professor who, on the first day of class, wrote "the is no absolute truth" on the blackboard. The statement itself becomes an absolute truth. I understand how it feels to not be able to write down the feelings that I have. To not be able to express the feeling that I have in words. That may be a result of themewriting, I don't know. When I was in high school I used to write poems, not very good ones I must admit, but none the less, I was able to put my feelings down on paper. But after high school, I lost it or it got replaced by what has come to be called themewriting. All I know is that writing the poems that I once did is difficult to do and I seldom do it. Can I blame that on my high school teachers? When they told me how to write and what to write? Or must the blame fall on me? Or is there no one to blame? I've been reading much about voice. I've read that we shouldn't stereotype, or look for the gender of, the author.

Shatterer of Worlds

Kildare Dobbs Before that morning in 1945 only a few conventional bombs, none of which did any great damage, had fallen on the city. Fleets of U. S. bombers had, however, devastated many cities round about, and Hiroshima had begun a program of evacuation which had reduced its population from 380,000 to some 245,000. Among the evacuees were Emiko and her family. â€Å"We were moved out to Otake, a town about an hour's train-ride out of the city,† Emiko told me. She had been a fifteen-year-old student in 1945. Fragile and vivacious, versed in the gentle traditions of the tea ceremony and flower arrangement, Emiko still had an air of the frail school-child when I talked with her. Every day, she and her sister Hideko used to commute into Hiroshima to school. Hideko was thirteen. Their father was an antique dealer and he owned a house in the city, although it was empty now. Tetsuro, Emiko's thirteen-year-old brother, was at the Manchurian front with the Imperial Army. Her mother was kept busy looking after the children, for her youngest daughter Eiko was sick with heart trouble, and rations were scarce. All of them were undernourished. The night of August 5, 1945, little Eiko was dangerously ill. She was not expected to live. Everybody took turns watching by her bed, soothing her by massaging her arms and legs. Emiko retired at 8:30 (most Japanese people go to bed early) and at midnight was roused to take her turn with the sick girl. At 2 A. M. she went back to sleep. While Emiko slept, the Enola Gay, a U. S. B-29 carrying the world's first operational atom bomb, was already in the air. She had taken off from the Pacific island of Iwo Jima at 1:45 A. M. , and now Captain William Parsons, U. S. N. ordnance expert, was busy in her bomb-hold with the final assembly of Little Boy. Little Boy looked much like an outsize T. N. T. block-buster but the crew knew there was something different about him. Only Parsons and the pilot, Colonel Paul Tibbets, knew exactly in what manner Little Boy was different. Course was set for Hiroshima. Emiko slept. On board the Enola Gay co-pilot Captain Robe rt Lewis was writing up his personal log. â€Å"After leaving Iwo,† he recorded, â€Å"we began to pick up some low stratus and before very long we were flying on top of an undercast. Outside of a thin, high cirrus and the low stuff, it's a very beautiful day. † Emiko and Hideko were up at six in the morning. They dressed in the uniform of their women's college-white blouse, quilted hat, and black skirt-breakfasted and packed their aluminum lunch-boxes with white rice and eggs. These they stuffed into their shoulder bags as they hurried for the seven-o'clock train to Hiroshima. Today there would be no classes. Along with many women's groups, high school students, and others, the sisters were going to work on demolition. You can read also  Similarities and Conflicts in † a Streetcar Named Desire† The city had begun a project of clearance to make fire-breaks in its downtown huddle of wood and paper buildings. It was a lovely morning. While the two young girls were at breakfast, Captain Lewis, over the Pacific, had made an entry in his log. â€Å"We are loaded. The bomb is now alive, and it's a funny feeling 1 From Reading the Time (1968). knowing it's right in back of you. Knock wood! † In the train Hideko suddenly said she was hungry. She wanted to eat her lunch. Emiko dissuaded her: she'd be much hungrier later on. The two sisters argued, but Hideko at last agreed to keep her lunch till later. They decided to meet at the main station that afternoon and catch the five-o'clock train home. By now they had arrived at the first of Hiroshima's three stations. This was where Hideko got off, for she was to work in a different area from her sister. â€Å"Sayonara! † she called. â€Å"Goodbye. † Emiko never saw her again. There had been an air-raid at 7 A. M. , but before Emiko arrived at Hiroshima's main station, two stops farther on, the sirens had sounded the all clear. Just after eight, Emiko stepped off the train, walked through the station, and waited in the morning sunshine for her streetcar. At about the same moment Lewis was writing in his log. â€Å"There'll be a short intermission while we bomb our target. † It was hot in the sun; Emiko saw a class-mate and greeted her. Together they moved hack into the shade of a high concrete wall to chat. Emiko looked tip at the sky and saw, far up in the cloudless blue, a single B-29. It was exactly 8:10 A. M. The other people waiting for the streetcar saw it too and began to discuss it anxiously. Emiko felt scared. She felt that at all costs she must go on talking to her friend. Just as she was thinking this, there was a tremendous greenish-white flash in the sky. It was far brighter than the sun. Emiko afterwards remembered vaguely that there was a roaring or a rushing sound as well, but she was not sure, for just at that moment she lost consciousness. â€Å"About 15 seconds after the flash,† noted Lewis, 30,000 feet high and several miles away, â€Å"there were two very distinct slaps on the ship from the blast and the shock wave. That was all the physical effect we felt. We turned the ship so that we could observe the results. † When Emiko came to, she was lying on her face about forty feet away from where she had been standing. She was not aware of any pain. Her first thought was: â€Å"I'm alive! † She lifted her head slowly and looked about her. It was growing dark. The air was seething with dust and black smoke. There was a smell of burning. Emiko felt something trickle into her eyes, tested it in her mouth. Gingerly she put a hand to her head, then looked at it. She saw with a shock that it was covered with blood. She did not give a thought to Hideko. It did not occur to her that her sister who was in another part of the city could possibly have been in danger. Like most of the survivors, Emiko assumed she had been close to a direct hit by a conventional bomb. She thought it had fallen on the post-office next to the station. With a hurt child's panic, Emiko, streaming with blood from gashes in her scalp, ran blindly in search of her mother and father. The people standing in front of the station had been burned to death instantly (a shadow had saved Emiko from the flash). The people inside the station had been crushed by falling masonry. Emiko heard their faint cries, saw hands scrabbling weakly from under the collapsed platform. All around her the maimed survivors were running and stumbling away from the roaring furnace that had been a city. She ran with them toward the mountains that ring the landward side of Hiroshima. From the Enola Gay, the strangers from North America looked down at their handiwork. â€Å"There, in front of our eyes,† wrote Lewis, â€Å"was without a doubt the greatest explosion man had ever witnessed. The city was nine-tenths covered with smoke of a boiling nature, which seemed to indicate buildings blowing up, and a large white cloud which in less than three minutes reached 30,000 feet, then went to at least 50,000 feet. Far below, on the edge of this cauldron of smoke, at a distance of some 2,500 yards from the blast's epicenter, Emiko ran with the rest of the living. Some who could not run limped or dragged themselves along. Others were carried. Many, hideously burned, were screaming with pain; when they tripped they lay where they had fallen. There was a man whose face had been ripped open from mouth to ear, another whose forehead was a gaping wound. A young soldier was running with a foot-long splinter of bamboo protruding from one eye. But these, like Emiko, were the lightly wounded. Some of the burned people had been literally roasted. Skin hung from their flesh like sodden tissue paper. They did not bleed but plasma dripped from their seared limbs. The Enola Gay, mission completed, was returning to base. Lewis sought words to express his feelings, the feelings of all the crew. â€Å"I might say,† he wrote, â€Å"I might say `My God! What have we done? ‘† Emiko ran. When she had reached the safety of the mountain she remembered that she still had her shoulder bag. There was a small first-aid kit in it and she applied ointment to her wounds and to a small cut in her left hand. She bandaged her head. Emiko looked back at the city. It was a lake of fire. All around her the burned fugitives cried out in pain. Some were scorched on one side only. Others, naked and flayed, were burned all over. They were too many to help and most of them were dying. Emiko followed the walking wounded along a back road, still delirious, expecting suddenly to meet her father and mother. The thousands dying by the roadside called feebly for help or water. Some of the more lightly injured were already walking in the other direction, back towards the flames. Others, with hardly any visible wounds, stopped, turned ashy pale, and died within minutes. No one knew then that they were victims of radiation. Emiko reached the suburb of Nakayama. Far off in the Enola Gay, Lewis, who had seen none of this, had been writing, â€Å"If I live a hundred years, I'll never get those few minutes out of my mind. Looking at Captain Parsons, why he is as confounded as the rest, and he is supposed to have known everything and expected this to happen At Nakayama, Emiko stood in line at a depot where rice-balls were being distributed. Though it distressed her that the badly maimed could hardly feed themselves, the child found she was hungry. It was about 6 P. M. now. A little farther on, at Gion, a farmer called her by name. She did not recognize him, but it seemed he came monthly to her home to collect manure. The farmer took Emiko by the hand, led her to his own house, where his wife bathed her and fed her a meal of white rice. Then the child continued on her way. She passed another town where there were hundreds of injured. The dead were being hauled away in trucks. Among the injured a woman of about fortyfive was waving frantically and muttering to herself. Emiko brought this woman a little water in a pumpkin leaf. She felt guilty about it; the schoolgirls had been warned not to give water to the seriously wounded. Emiko comforted herself with the thought that the woman would die soon anyway. At Koi, she found standing-room in a train. It was heading for Otake with a full load of wounded. Many were put off at Ono, where there was a hospital; and two hours later the train rolled into Otake station. It was around 10 P. M. A great crowd had gathered to look for their relations. It was a nightmare, Emiko remembered years afterwards; people were calling their dear kinfolk by name, searching frantically. It was necessary to call them by name, since most were so disfigured as to be unrecognizable. Doctors in the town council offices stitched Emiko's head-wounds. The place was crowded with casualties lying on the floor. Many died as Emiko watched. The town council authorities made a strange announcement. They said a new and mysterious kind of bomb had fallen in Hiroshima. People were advised to stay away from the ruins. Home at midnight, Emiko found her parents so happy to see her that they could not even cry. They could only give thanks that she was safe. Then they asked, â€Å"Where is your sister? † For ten long days, while Emiko walked daily one and a half miles to have her wounds dressed with fresh gauze, her father searched the rubble of Hiroshima for his lost child. He could not have hoped to find her alive. All, as far as the eye could see, was a desolation of charred ashes and wreckage, relieved only by a few jagged ruins and by the seven estuarial rivers that flowed through the waste delta. The banks of these rivers were covered with the dead and in the rising tidal waters floated thousands of corpses. On one broad street in the Hakushima district the crowds who had been thronging there were all naked and scorched cadavers. Of thousands of others there was no trace at all. A fire several times hotter than the surface of the sun had turned them instantly to vapor. On August 11 came the news that Nagasaki had suffered the same fate as Hiroshima; it was whispered that Japan had attacked the United States mainland with similar mysterious weapons. With the lavish circumstantiality of rumor, it was said that two out of a fleet of six-engined trans-Pacific bombers had failed to return. But on August 15, speaking for the first time over the radio to his people, the Emperor Hirohito announced his country's surrender. Emiko heard him. No more bombs! she thought. No more fear! The family did not learn till June the following year that this very day young Tetsuro had been killed in action in Manchuria. Emiko's wounds healed slowly. In mid-September they had closed with a thin layer of pinkish skin. There had been a shortage of antiseptics and Emiko was happy to be getting well. Her satisfaction was short-lived. Mysteriously she came down with diarrhea and high fever. The fever continued for a month. Then one day she started to bleed from the gums, her mouth and throat became acutely inflamed, and her hair started to fall out. Through her delirium the child heard the doctors whisper by her pillow that she could not live. By now the doctors must have known that ionizing radiation caused such destruction of the blood's white cells that victims were left with little or no resistance against infection. Yet Emiko recovered. The wound on her hand, however, was particularly troublesome and did not heal for a long time. As she got better, Emiko began to acquire some notion of the fearful scale of the disaster. Few of her friends and acquaintances were still alive. But no one knew precisely how many had died in Hiroshima. To this day the claims of various agencies conflict. According to General Douglas MacArthur's headquarters, there were 78,150 dead and 13,083 missing. 2 The United States Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission claims there were 79,000 dead. Both sets of figures are probably far too low. There's reason to believe that at the time of the surrender Japanese authorities lied about the number of survivors, exaggerating it to get extra medical supplies. The Japanese welfare ministry's figures of 260,000 dead and 163,263 missing may well be too high. But the very order of such discrepancies speaks volumes about the scale of the catastrophe. The dead were literally uncountable. This appalling toll of human life had been exacted from a city that had been prepared for air attack in a state of full wartime readiness. All civil defense services had been overwhelmed from the first moment and it was many hours before any sort of organized rescue and relief could be put into effect. It's true that single raids using so-called conventional weapons on other cities such as Tokyo and Dresden inflicted far greater casualties. And that it could not matter much to a victim whether he was burnt alive by a firestorm caused by phosphorus, or by napalm or by nuclear fission. Yet in the whole of human history so savage a massacre had never before been inflicted with a single blow. And modern thermonuclear weapons are upwards of 1,000 times more powerful and deadly than the Hiroshima bomb. The white scar I saw on Emiko's small, fine-boned hand was a tiny metaphor, a faint but eloquent reminder of the scar on humanity's conscience.

What Were the Main Problems and Issues Facing the Allies at the 1943 Teheran Conference (Eureka) and How Were They Dealt with?

What were the main problems and issues facing the Allies at the 1943 Teheran Conference (Eureka) and how were they dealt with? Intro The Teheran conference was the meeting of Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt between November 28th and December 1st 1943. It was the first World War 2 (WW2) meeting amongst ‘The Big Three’ (Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt) in which Stalin was present. The principal aim of the Teheran conference was to firmly establish a global allied strategy for the duration of the war, and basic plans for the post war era. Throughout the meeting the big three addressed many issues which were deemed to be preventing a global allied strategy. Chief discussion at the conference was centered on ‘Operation Overlord’ which incorporated the opening of a second front in Western Europe which the Big Three believed would be a decisive step to allied victory over Nazi Germany. At the same time the conference discussed how to deal with the escalating Mediterranean conflict, the territorial disputes on the Soviet/Polish frontier as well as discussing operations in Yugoslavia, relations with Turkey and Iran, and a separate protocol pledged to recognize Iran’s independence. The varying success the Big Three had in resolving these issues at the Teheran conference is arguable. Issues concerning the swift conclusion of the War were often agreed upon mutually as it benefited all three nations, however issues which conflicted the self-interest of the Big Three often forced them to compromise on a successful resolution, one that was often questionable, but necessary for the development of the Grand Alliance and to achieve the primary objective of creating a global allied strategy. The main problems faced at the Teheran conference were primarily concerned with the sole objective of defeating the Nazi and bringing the war to a rapid end. It is evident that conflict occurred in areas were hidden agendas and self-interest was bought by the Big Three. With hindsight the success of these resolves is questionable, it is clear that many issues which were deemed to be resolved at the Teheran conference in fact resurfaced in future conferences; such as Yalta and Potsdam. Operation Overlord 700 One of the chief focuses of the Teheran conference was the prospect of a second Western front in Europe. The matter was known as ‘Operation Overlord’, and would entail the allied invasion of German-occupied Western Europe. The issue at the conference was not whether the Allies would launch Operation Overlord, but rather when it would be launched, as it conflicted with Winston Churchill’s wishes to invade Italy through the Mediterranean. The reason for Operation Overlord’s conception varied among the leaders but had the primary objective of ending the war as soon as possible. For Stalin one of the most fundamental reasons for creating a second front was to ease pressure on the Soviet army which were being pressed [†¦] Page 356 The Big Three. Churchill’s priorities throughout the beginning of the Teheran conference remained with his operations in the Mediterranean. He believed that continuing operations in the Mediterranean would not jeopardise the success of Operation Overlord, Churchill’s demands at the Conference were clear, he demanded landing craft for two divisions in the Mediterranean which could be used to facilitate the operations in Italy or to aid in the invasion of the Rhode Islands if Turkey would enter the war. Churchill believed that from here Italy could be employed in support of Overlord. Roosevelt’s enthusiasm for the Mediterranean operations differed greatly from that of Churchill’s. For Roosevelt the dilemma was that in order to give enough landing craft to aid Churchill in the Mediterranean would mean delaying Overlord six to eight weeks, he insisted that increasing Anglo-American activities in Italy and the Mediterranean would cause a conflict in the build-up for a successful cross-Channel invasion (OVERLORD) in 1944. [†¦] Page 91 Major problems of WW2. At the Teheran conference it was concluded that, despite Churchill’s wishes, the cost of invading Italy via the Mediterranean would delay Overlord far more than both Stalin and Roosevelt thought was acceptable. Stalin gladly recognised the outcome of Overlords negotiation as it would guarantee his army the support they needed to fight off the German advance into the Soviet Union. Likewise Roosevelt embraced the outcome, his main priority was to find the quickest solution to the War’s end and he was advised by his Chiefs of staff; Operation Overlord was by far the quickest means of achieving this. Churchill had never been against Overlord; his argument was simply that Overlord should not take away the importance of operations in the Mediterranean, Churchill accepted the resolution which was reached at the Teheran Conference and pledged full British support to any future Allied operations. Soviet involvement in Japan 400 One of Roosevelt’s main objectives whilst attending the Teheran conference was to gain Stalin’s support for the War in Japan. Roosevelt felt that with the intervention of Stalin not only would it bolster his resources in the far east but it would also speed up the inevitable allied victory in Japan (Click) Stalin however would only consider invading Japan once Germany had been defeated as he did not want to risk spreading his army in addition. Stalin pledged to assist in the war against Japan after Germany was defeated and expressed his wish that, after the war, the 1941 USSR borders with Finland and Poland be restored; he also requested many War reparations such as key railroads in Manchuria to compensate his intervention in Japan. Click) it was agreed that Stalin would declare war on japan 3 months after the defeat of Germany. Post War Germany 400 Turning to the question of the division of post-war Germany the discussion centred on whether or not to split up Germany. (Click) Churchill was primarily more interested in seeing Prussia, the core of German militarism, separated from the rest of Germany. (Click ) On the other hand Roosevelt had a plan for the division of Germany in six parts. These six parts were: 1. All Prussia to be rendered as small and weak as possible. 2. Hanover and Northwest section. . Saxony and Leipzig area. 4. Darmstadt 5. South of the Rhine 6. Bavaria, Baden, and Wurttemberg Roosevelt’s proposal stated that these six areas should be self-governed and that there should be two regions under some form of International control. These were: 1. The area of the Kiel Canal and the City of Hamburg. 2. The Ruhr and the Saar, the latter to be used for the benefit of all Europe. (Click) Stalin agreed with both Churchill and Roosevelt as he felt that to contain military threat Germany may pose in the future the only solution would be to completely divide it. However, Stalin felt that Churchill’s idea to divide Germany into 2 large states would merely offer an opportunity for Germany to revive as a great State and therefore preferred Roosevelt’ plan to dissect Germany into 6 self-governed areas and 2 areas under allied control. Yugoslavian partisans 400 After an attack by German, Italian and Hungarian forces against Yugoslavia on the 6th April 1941, the kingdom of Yugoslavia collapsed. This resulted in King Peter and his government to flee the country. On 27 June 1941, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia appointed Tito Commander in Chief of all project national liberation military forces. Originally two groups emerged in the Yugoslavian resistance movement, the chetniks commanded by Draza Mihailovic and the partisans commanded by Tito. (Click) Initially both resistance movements operated in parallel, but by late 1941 began fighting each other in the attempt to gain control of the area following the end of the war. Stalin, who already supported Tito, wanted Roosevelt to recognize the partisans as the official resistance in Yugoslavia, rather than support Mihalovic. Click) Roosevelt up to this point had continued to aid the Chetniks as they fought against Germany but also against the partisans. (Click) Churchill advised Roosevelt that all support should go to Tito and that â€Å"complete chaos† would ensue if the Americans also backed Mihailovic. (Click) Stalin and Churchill were able to gain Rooseveltâ €™s support for Tito and the partisans in the form of supplies and equipment and also by commando operations. Soviet/Polish border disputes 400 A key reason for Stalin to attend the Teheran conference was his hope to gain Roosevelt and Churchill’s support for his territorial disputes with Poland. Stalin believed that the Polish Government in exile were closely connected with the Germans He stated that Russia, probably more than any other country was interested in having friendly relations with Poland, since the security of Soviet frontiers was involved. He said the Russians were in favour of the reconstitution and expansion of Poland at the expense of Germany and that they make distinction between the Polish Government in exile and Poland. (Click) Roosevelt said it was his hope that negotiations could be started for the re-establishment of relations between the Polish and Soviet Governments. He felt that the re-establishment of relations would facilitate any decisions made in regard to the questions at issue. He said he recognized the difficulties which lay in the way. (Click) Churchill said he would like to obtain the views of the Soviet Government in regard to the frontier question, and if some reasonable formula could be devised, he was prepared to take it up with the Polish Government in exile, and without telling them that the Soviet Government would accept such a solution, would offer it to them as probably the best they could obtain. If the Polish Government refused this, then Great Britain would be through with them and certainly would not oppose the Soviet Government under any condition at the peace table. (Click) To solve the issue Churchill suggested that Poland’s western borders would be extended east into Prussia to compensate for their eastern borders being reduced. Future of Iran 250 Future of Finland 250