The Arguments For And Against Globalization Economics Essay

The Arguments For And Against Globalization Economics Essay Globalization is a modern phenomenon, which can be analyzed from various points of view. Roughly, we might say that globalization is integration of regional economies, societies and cultures in a globe-spanning network of communication and trade. This term is part of a historical process of capitalism which is a new international order in the context of a single world. Globalization is sometimes used to refer specifically to economic globalization. This topic will be developed along the essay. However, as once was expressed by the ex-secretary of the United Nations Brutos Gali, there is no only one globalization, there are many globalizations such us technological, sociocultural, political, biological An example of that not only the economic globalization exists is the creation of the International Penal Court, since the human rights are starting feeling the effects of the globalization and it is necessary uniform and universalize the recognition of the fundamental rights of the citizenship. Globalization also refers to a process of interaction between societies and local cultures in a global culture to what we would call sociocultural globalization. Different definitions The word globalization is defined by different authors, official institutions and dictionaries according to their point of view. Therefore, there is not only one precise meaning of this term universally accepted by everybody. On the one hand, United Nations (UN)  [1]  has defined it as an event, unavoidable in our history. It makes one world through the exchange of goods, products, information, knowledge and culture. This is a result of the step forward in the field of communications, transport, technology and industry. According to the World Bank Group (WBG)  [2]  , the most utilized meaning for globalization is an intercontinental economic activity, which has increased sharply. In this activity they include Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), International Commerce and Capital Flow. However, the International Monetary Fund (IMF)  [3]  has combined both the United Nations and the World Bank Groups definition. It also talks about globalization in terms of FDI, Capital Flow, International Commerce and the surprising evolution of communication and technology. Furthermore, IMF specifies that sometimes globalization makes it necessary for the workforce and knowledge to have to move to another country. But, these kinds of institutions are not the only ones who want to give their own definition of globalization. A wide range of authors have given their opinion on the topic. For example, David Dollar  [4]  , in an interview published in the World Bank Group Web, said that the economic globalization, or as he would rather use, the economic integration takes place when a country reduces or eliminates the commercial barriers such as custom duty, and they accept investments and trade from the rest of the world. However, Leslie Sklair  [5]  thinks that it should be seen as a new phase of capitalism, one that transcends the unit of the nation-state. His college, Anthony Giddens  [6]  , does not think in the same way as him. In this case, he talks about globalization as a transformation in the global market, the evolution in the communication and trade between nation-states in physical commodities, information and currency. Evolution from two different points of view Theodore Levitt  [7]  was the creator of the word globalization. He used it for first time in his book called The Globalization of Markets to describe the transformation of the international economy which had been taking place since 1960. However, its evolution is not clear enough. Some people say that it started in 1980s and others are in favour of 1870s. But in either case, the bases of globalization are three specific ideas, according to the Washington Consensus: a severe fiscal system, privatization and the relaxation of the restrictions on economy  [8]  . The World Bank Group talks about four steps in Globalizations evolution. Whereas, Leandro Sà ¡nchez Zepeda, in his doctoral thesis, explains that there are five different stages. I do not have enough knowledge to decide which is more appropriate, so in the following paragraph I am going to give details about the development of both thoughts. According to the WGB  [9]  , these are the steps: From 1870 to 1914: this period was characterized by the step forward in transport and the elimination of commercial barriers. The amount of exports augmented almost 8% and 10% of the total population moved to another country. From 1914 to 1950: the situation was as before 1870, marked by protectionism. From 1950 to 1980: during those years, the process evolved to an economic integration between rich countries. Moreover, Europe, North America and Japan opened their markets. From 1980 until 2009: in this time, manufacturing increased to 80% worldwide. Some countries, such as Brazil, India and Vietnam, improved their international commerce and the globalization made developing countries improve. On the other hand, Leandro Sà ¡nchez Zepeda  [10]  has put forward a different opinion in his doctoral thesis: From 1870 to 1913: this period was marked by a peak in commerce due to an increase in capital and labour force. From 1913 to 1950: due to the Great Depression, the First and the Second World War international commerce decreased. From 1950 to 1973: thanks to the Bretton Woods system, global integration was strengthened. From 1973 to 1990: during these years the amount of public companies which became private increased, the financial system started to be more open to the world, communication and transport advanced and it became international. From 1991 until today: there are more free-trade areas, such as ALADI, NAFTA and ASEAN, and the economic integration has become stronger. In contrast to previous periods, the workforce moves less and capital and information are crossing borders. GLOBALIZATION Globalization itself is a continuous and dynamic process that challenges the laws of the countries in how they regulate the operation of enterprises and economic behaviour of individuals at the international level, who can give employment to workforce unemployed and also benefit from remaining irregularities and weaknesses in a particular country. It is a complex phenomenon; therefore it should not surprise us that it causes different reactions in different individuals or groups. Some consider that threatens the framework of the nation state, national identity and the modern concept of democracy. For some, it promises a new era of riches for all, for others, it is the seduction of a consumerism that will bankrupt morally and economically the majority. In favour of globalization Why economic globalization is a good system? Advances in communication and transportation technology, combined with free-market ideology, have given goods, services and capital unprecedented mobility. For example, Northern countries want to open world markets to their goods and take advantage of abundant, cheap labour in the South. To do this, these countries use international financial institutions, such as, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group, and regional trade agreements  [11]  to compel poor countries to integrate by reducing tariffs, privatizing state enterprises and relaxing environmental and labour standards. Globalization is a phenomenon that is important to the develop of the economy in every country, due to the general opening of markets for goods and capital suggests the end of trading blocs, regional treaties and economic independence of countries but also facilitates the ability to solve economic needs that local players have been unable to satisfy. It makes easy the commerce between different countries and decreases the difference between developed and underdeveloped countries. Some factors in favour of globalization are: Global economy and market, which can lead to a better utilization of resources. Greater ability to maneuver compared to fluctuations in national economies. New opportunities of develop markets. Using economies of scale, it can reduce cost. International cooperation. Growth and mergers between companies. Privatization of public companies. International financial deregulation. Development of means of communication and transport. The free movement of capital allows a more efficient allocation of global savings and provides to emerging economies the resources to develop and promote the consolidation of a sustained and balanced growth. Globalization opens up opportunities for developed economies to improve their efficiency and productivity and allows economies in developing to improve the living standards of its population. Against of globalization When globalization was defined, it tried to minimize the impact of negative points and reinforce positive points. Some factors against globalization are: Lack of control over markets and multinational enterprises. Increased economic social and territorial imbalances. Concentration of richness and increased social inequality. Non-fulfilment of minimum labour standards. Full employment, a priority until recently, was postponed. The work has to behave as a commodity, subject to the laws of supply and demand and the production needs, without laws that safeguards smooth minimum rights. Damage to the environment. Threat to biodiversity and cultural heritage. Dominance of financial-speculative economy over real economy. Increase exploitation of child labour Controversy The liberalization of international trade means more economic growth and welfare, such as the example of China, where foreign capital has invested heavily and the country has emerged remarkably by the effect of globalization. But if we go to Africa, we can see that its people are sinking ever deeper into poverty and degradation of economic, social and political life. There, no one invests and the one thing that Africa is used by Occident is for the arms business and to recover the debts they owe to developed countries. It is true that globalization encourages free trade among countries, but there are also negative consequences because some countries try to save their national markets. Companies are buying goods and services from foreign countries. Workers, who were sacked, are forced to work into the service sector, where wages and benefits are lower. This has contributed to the deterioration of the middle class, who have been relegated to lower positions. People in the lower class have to make more efforts to climbing out of poverty due to the absence of the middle class as a stepping stone. THE PROBLEMS OF GLOBALIZATION Globalization is the shortest and most viable way for the developing world to achieve political, social and intellectual modernity. Globalization is said to be the best and most effective means for the developing world to achieve comprehensive development, because it is the sole way to progress for this world economically. Changing the world to the better is through applying globalization. There are problems in the process of globalization: if other countries produce goods better than other, maybe a lot of citizens from this last country will be sacked; if one state collects less tax, companies could go there to get more profit. The process of globalization entails adjustments in national and international economies, to which countries must adapt. Income distribution: in many cases goods are produced in a nation through the importation of them is less restricted. The removal of import barriers may cause a substitution of goods produced within the country by others imported. This way, domestic manufacturers are affected. However, the elimination of trade barriers can make a product cheaper, which is an advantage for consumers because they can buy more with the same funds. On the other hand, globalization promotes the concentration and the emergence of large multinational companies. The possibility of selling its products worldwide and reduce production costs through exploitation of economies of scale, cause that small businesses reducing their sales potential. This can result in the reduction of global competition and that one or a few companies dominate the market. Evade national law: the possibility of settling in any country encourages companies to look for those where production costs are lower. As the laws of many countries may increase costs for businesses, they seek countries which have less legal regulation. In fact, there are territories in which companies dont pay taxes for the profit. They prefer to settle there, due to they can pay higher returns to their shareholders.

The Congressional Medal of Honour

The Medal of Honour is the highest military decoration awarded by the United States government. It is given to a member of the United States armed forces who distinguishes himself â€Å"conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States†. Because of the nature of its criteria, the medal is often awarded posthumously. Members of all branches of the U. S. military are eligible to receive the medal, and each service has a unique design with the exception of the Marine Corps and Coast Guard, which both use the Navy's medal. The Medal of Honour is often presented personally to the recipient or, in the case of posthumous awards, to next of kin, by the President of the United States. Due to its high status, the medal has special protection under U. S. law. The Medal of Honour is one of two military neck order awards issued by the United States Armed Forces, but is the sole neck order awarded to its members. The other is the Commander's Degree of the Legion of Merit and is only authorized for issue to foreign dignitaries comparable to a US military chief of staff. While American service members are eligible for the Legion of Merit, they are awarded the lowest degree, â€Å"Legionnaire†, which is a standard suspended medal. The medal is frequently, albeit incorrectly, called the Congressional Medal of Honour, stemming from its award by the Department of Defence in the name of Congress. The first formal system for rewarding acts of individual gallantry by American soldiers was established by George Washington on August 7, 1782, when he created the Badge of Military Merit, designed to recognize any singularly meritorious action. This decoration is America's first combat award and the second oldest American military decoration of any type, after the Fidelity Medallion. Although the Badge of Military Merit fell into disuse after the American Revolutionary War, the concept of a military award for individual gallantry by members of the U. S. armed forces had been established. In 1847, after the outbreak of the Mexican-American War, a Certificate of Merit was established for soldiers who distinguished themselves in action. The certificate was later granted medal status as the Certificate of Merit Medal. Early in the Civil War, a medal for individual valour was proposed by Iowa Senator James W. Grimes to Winfield Scott, the Commanding General of the United States Army. Scott did not approve the proposal, but the medal did come into use in the Navy. Public Resolution 82, containing a provision for a Navy Medal of Valour, was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln on December 21, 1861. The medal was â€Å"to be bestowed upon such petty officers, seamen, landsmen, and Marines as shall most distinguish themselves by their gallantry and other seamanlike qualities during the present war. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles directed the Philadelphia Mint to design the new decoration. Shortly afterward, a resolution of similar wording was introduced on behalf of the Army and was signed into law on July 12, 1862. This measure provided for awarding a Medal of Honour, as the Navy version also came to be called to such non-commissioned officers and privates as shall most distinguish themselves by their gallantry in action, and other soldier-like qualities, during the present insurrection. The Medal of Honour has evolved in appearance since its creation in 1862. The present Army medal consists of a gold star surrounded by a wreath, topped by an eagle on a bar inscribed with the word â€Å"Valour. † The medal is attached by a hook to a light blue moire. There is a version of the medal for each branch of the U. S. armed forces: the Army, Navy and Air Force. Since the U. S. Marine Corps is administratively a part of the Department of the Navy, Marines receive the Navy medal. Before 1965, when the U. S. Air Force design was adopted, members of the U. S. Army Air Corps, U. S. Army Air Forces, and Air Force received the Army version of the medal. The Coast Guard Medal of Honour, which was distinguished from the Navy medal in 1963, has never been awarded, partly because the U. S. Coast Guard is subsumed into the U. S. Navy in time of declared war. No design yet exists for it. Only one member of the Coast Guard has received a Medal of Honour, Signalman 1st Class Douglas Munro, who was awarded the Navy version for action during the Battle of Guadalcanal. In the rare cases, 19 so far, where a service member has been awarded more than one Medal of Honour, current regulations specify that an appropriate award device be cantered on the Medal of Honour ribbon and neck medal. To indicate multiple presentations of the Medal of Honour, the U. S. Army and Air Force bestow oak leaf clusters, while the Navy Medal of Honour is worn with gold award stars. A ribbon which is the same shade of light blue as the neckband, and includes five white stars, pointed upwards, in the shape of an â€Å"M† is worn for situations other than full dress uniform. When the ribbon is worn, it is placed alone above the centre of the other ribbons. For wear with civilian clothing, a rosette is issued instead of a miniature lapel pin (which usually shows the ribbon bar). The rosette is the same shade of blue as the neck ribbon and includes white stars. The ribbon and rosette are presented at the same time as the medal. On October 23, 2003 a Medal of Honour flag was to be presented to recipients of the decoration. The flag was based on a concept by retired Army Special Forces 1SG. Bill Kendall of Jefferson, Iowa, who designed a flag to honour Medal of Honour recipient Captain Darrell Lindsey. Kendall's design of a light blue field emblazoned with thirteen white five-pointed stars was nearly identical to that of Sarah LeClerc's of the Institute of Heraldry. LeClerc's design, ultimately accepted as the official flag, does not include the words â€Å"Medal of Honour† and is fringed in gold. The colour of the field and the 13 white stars, arranged in the form of a three bar chevron, consisting of two chevrons of 5 stars and one chevron of 3 stars, replicate the Medal of Honour ribbon. The flag has no set proportions. The first Medal of Honour recipient to receive the official flag was Paul R. Smith. The flag was cased and presented to his family along with his medal. A special ceremony presenting this flag to 60 Medal of Honour recipients was held onboard the USS Constitution Template:WP Ships USS instances on September 30, 2006. There are two distinct protocols for awarding the Medal of Honour. The first and most common is nomination by a service member in the chain of command, followed by approval at each level of command. The other method is nomination by a member of Congress and approval by a special act of Congress. In either case, the Medal of Honour is presented by the President on behalf of the Congress. Several months after President Abraham Lincoln signed Public Resolution 82 into law on December 21, 1861, a similar resolution for the Army was passed. Six Union soldiers who hijacked the General, a Confederate locomotive were the first recipients. Raid leader James J. Andrews, a civilian hanged as a Union spy, did not receive the medal. Many Medals of Honour awarded in the 19th century were associated with saving the flag, not just for patriotic reasons, but because the flag was a primary means of battlefield communication. During the time of the Civil War, no other military award was authorized, and to many this explains why some seemingly less notable actions were recognized by the Medal of Honour during that war. The criteria for the award tightened after World War I. In the post-World War II era, many eligible recipients might instead have been awarded a Silver Star, Navy Cross or similar award. During the Civil War, Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton promised a Medal of Honour to every man in the 27th Regiment, Maine Infantry who extended his enlistment beyond the agreed upon date. Many stayed four days extra, and then were discharged. Due to confusion, Stanton awarded a Medal of Honour to all 864 men in the regiment. In 1916, a board of five Army generals convened by law to review every Army Medal of Honour awarded. The commission, led by Nelson Miles, recommended that the Army rescind 911 medals. This included the 864 medals awarded to members of the 27th Maine, 29 who served as Abraham Lincoln's funeral guard, six civilians (including Dr Mary Edwards Walker, the only woman to have been awarded the medal), Buffalo Bill Cody, and 12 others whose awards were judged frivolous. Dr. Walker's medal was restored posthumously by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. Cody's award was restored in 1989. Early in the 20th century, the Navy awarded many Medals of Honour for peacetime bravery. For instance, seven sailors aboard the USS Iowa received the medal when a boiler exploded on January 25, 1904. Aboard the USS Chicago in 1901, John Henry Helms received the medal for saving Ishi Tomizi, the ship's cook, from drowning. Even after World War I, Richard Byrd and Floyd Bennett received the medal for exploration of the North Pole. Thomas J. Ryan received it for saving a woman from the burning Grand Hotel in Yokohama, Japan following the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake. Between 1919 and 1942, the Navy issued two separate versions of the Medal of Honour, one for non-combat bravery and the other for combat-related acts. Official accounts vary, but generally the non-combat Medal of Honour was known as the Tiffany Cross, after the company that manufactured the medal. The Tiffany Cross was first issued in 1919 but was rare and unpopular, partly because it was presented both for combat and non-combat events. As a result, in 1942, the United States Navy reverted to a single Medal of Honour, awarded only for heroism. Since the beginning of World War II, the medal has been awarded for extreme bravery beyond the call of duty while engaged in action against an enemy. Arising from these criteria, approximately 60% of the medals earned during and after World War II have been awarded posthumously. Capt. William McGonagle is an exception to the enemy action rule, earning his medal during the USS Liberty incident. A 1993 study commissioned by the Army described systematic racial and religious discrimination in the criteria for awarding medals during World War II. At the time, no Medals of Honour had been awarded to black soldiers who served in World War II. After an exhaustive review of files, the study recommended that several black Distinguished Service Cross recipients be upgraded to the Medal of Honour. On January 13, 1997, President Bill Clinton awarded the medal to seven African American World War II veterans. Of these, only Vernon Baker was still alive. A similar study of Asian Americans in 1998 resulted in President Bill Clinton awarding 21 new Medals of Honour in 2000, including 20 to Japanese American members of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, among them Senator Daniel Inouye. In 2005, President George W. Bush awarded the Medal of Honour to Jewish veteran and Holocaust survivor Tibor Rubin, whom many believed to have been overlooked because of his religion. This medal’s history stretches back into our bloody war history, it has seen its own trials and tribulations and like America is has grown and melded itself into the prestigious award that it is today. I believe the medal has been properly issued to service members and at the same time given away freely, but that does not take away from the honour and respect each recipient deserves. These recipients are text book example of perfect military stature and then some. All of them go above and beyond anyone’s expectations that even they themselves had. The most surprising thing is that all of them did these marvellous and mind blowing deeds of service at such a young military age, the same and even younger age of my own. It not only blows my mind at how they accomplish or even began to go through with what they did but they did it without an order or a self doubt, to me they got in the perfect mindset of selfless service and their one goal was to help other and complete the mission. My first pick of recipients is Private First Class Willy F. James, U. S. Army, Company G, 413th Infantry near Lippoldsberg, Germany, 7 April 1945. Private First Class Willy F. James, Jr. distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism at the risk of his own life on 7 April 1945 in the Weser River Valley, in the vicinity of Lippoldsberg, Germany. On 7 April 1945, Company G, 413th Infantry, fought its way across the Weser River in order to establish a crucial bridgehead. The company then launched a fierce attack against the town of Lippoldsberg, possession of which was vital to securing and expanding the important bridgehead. Private First Class James was first scout of the lead squad in the assault platoon. The mission of the unit was to seize and secure a group of houses on the edge of town, a foothold from which the unit could launch an attack on the rest of the town. Far out in the front, Private First Class James was the first to draw enemy fire. His platoon leader came forward to investigate, but poor visibility made it difficult for Private First Class James to point out enemy positions with any accuracy. Private First Class James volunteered to go forward to fully reconnoiter the enemy situation. Furious crossfire from enemy snipers and machine guns finally pinned down Private First Class James after he had made his way forward approximately 200 yards across open terrain. Lying in an exposed position for more than an hour, Private First Class James intrepidly observed the enemy’s positions, which were given away by the fire he was daringly drawing upon himself. Then, with utter indifference to his personal safety, in a storm of enemy small arms fire, Private First Class James made his way back more than 300 yards across open terrain under enemy observation to his platoon positions, and gave a full detailed report on the enemy disposition. The unit worked out a new plan of maneuver based on Private First Class James’s information. The gallant soldier volunteered to lead a squad in an assault on the key house in the group that formed the platoon objective. He made his way forward, leading his squad in an assault on the strongly-held enemy positions in the building and designating targets accurately and continuously as he moved along. While doing so, Private First Class James saw his platoon leader shot down by enemy snipers. Hastily designating and coolly orienting a leader in his place, Private First Class James instantly went to the aid of his platoon leader, exposing himself recklessly to the incessant enemy fire. As he was making his way across open ground, Private First Class James was killed by a burst from an enemy machine gun. Private First Class James’s extraordinarily heroic action in the face of withering enemy fire provided the disposition of enemy troops to his platoon. Inspired to the utmost by Private First Class James’s self sacrifice, the platoon sustained the momentum of the assault and successfully accomplished its mission with a minimum of casualties. Private First Class James contributed very definitely to the success of his battalion in the vitally important combat operation of establishing and expanding a bridgehead over the Weser River. His fearless, self-assigned actions far above and beyond the normal call of duty exemplify the finest traditions of the American combat soldier and reflect the highest credit upon Private First Class James and the Armed Forces of the United States. Private First Class James is a prime example of what a man should be. He ran through enemy fire, and then while in the midst of the fire still had the discipline and the bravery to observe fire positions and any other useful information that he could see from his position. On top of that he still was able to fall back to his platoon 300 meters behind him.

An Internship At Apg Asset Management After Graduating...

My decision to take a degree in Real Estate Finance and Investment was prompted during my internship at APG Asset Management after graduating college. I have always loved everything about the business and finance world and will fight hard to have a place in it. Unlike most kids, it took real life work experience for me to know where I wanted to go in life. I was lucky enough to have an internship at an Asset Management firm the summer out of my undergrad. It was fascinating to me, working with the Portfolio Analysts at APG and tracking the performance and progress of existing investments. I was intrigued and also intimidated with the way the Analysts understood and spoke about the investments that they oversaw. I was also the only female on the team so that took some getting used to as well. I knew that this would be a challenge for me but I wanted in, I wanted to understand this world. From then on, I have dedicated myself to learn, grow and flourish in the business world. I learne d how to analyze quarterly reports from multiple assets and gave my projections based on my own ideas and thoughts. This was only the beginning, but doing so improved my abilities to express my ideas clearly and concisely and I developed a better understanding on how the finance side of real estate operates. I am currently enrolled in a Continuing Education Certificate course for Real Estate Finance at The City College of Baruch which will be completed in August. I am taking this course so

A perfect example of a triumph turned into a tragedy - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 3 Words: 765 Downloads: 5 Date added: 2019/08/15 Category History Essay Level High school Tags: Treaty of Versailles Essay Did you like this example? June 28, 1919 marked the end of World War 1, a four-year war. The Treaty of Versailles was signed between the Allies and the Central Powers. Did it really mark the end of a war? It might have been the cause of the next one. Therefore, the Treaty of Versailles is almost a perfect example of a triumph turned into a tragedy. World War 1 (1914-1918) was a war between Russia, Belgium, Great Britain, France, and Serbia against Austria-Hungary and Germany. This war was a fire waiting to happen, all it needed was a spark to ignite it. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir of Austro-Hungary, did just that. It gave a reason for Austria-Hungary to blame Serbia as responsible. Germany supported Austria-Hungary and gave them word that if they were to declare war, then Germany would back them up. Eventually, July 28th war was declared, and that marked the day World War 1 had begun. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "A perfect example of a triumph turned into a tragedy" essay for you Create order Germany was fighting on two fronts, the western and the eastern front. They attacked France from the west and Russia from the east. The first battle of the war ended with a German victory and the capture Liege in Belgium. At first, the U.S. was neutral. Germany sunk several neutral ships because they declared the waters around the British Isles a warzone. They sunk some U.S. ships. One German U-boat sunk a ship carrying hundreds of American passengers that were traveling from New York to Liverpool. This made the U.S. angry and they decided to declare war on Germany. The U.S. was a big help to the Allies. They had enough supplies for themselves, France, and Britain. The U.S. made it possible for the Allies to win and they eventually decided to give peace a chance. January 8, 1918, Woodrow Wilson gave his â€Å"Fourteen Points† speech. The purpose of this speech was to name the principles of speech and to state his war aims. His Fourteen Points were: No secret agreements among countries is allowed. International seas are free to travel. Free trade among countries who accept peace. Less weapons and armies worldwide. Claims over land need to be fair and reasonable. Russia has the ability to chose its type of government by themselves and German troops need to flee off of Russian soil. German troops need to leave Belgium and they will become their own nation. France will gain back all of their lost land. A border of Italy will be defined. Austria-Hungary will still be an independent country. The Central Powers need to evacuate Serbia, Romania, and Montenegro. Turkish people will have their own country, now called Turkey. Poland is their own independent country. The last point is about how a League of Nations will protect the independence of any country. 14 points. On June 28, 1919 the Treaty of Versailles was signed. It was created by the Allies and it included 15 parts and 440 articles. Part 1 was about the Covenant of the League of Nations; an organization which would all go to war if one country was threatened and tried to prevent wars. Unfortunately, Germany was not allowed to join this organization until 1926. From this it is visible that the Allies were upset with Germany and blamed everything on them. Part 2 controlled the amount of land Germany controlled. Eupen-Malmedy was previously owned by Germany and was given to Belgium. Alsace-Lorraine also belonging to Germany, now belonged to France; some districts were given to Poland. Memel was given to Lithuania and the majority of Schleswig now belonged to Denmark. Part 3 stripped the military installations in specific areas and temporarily took the Saar away from Germany. Part 4 of the treaty took away all of Germany’s colonies. Part 5 lowered the German army numbers significantly. They also weren’t allowed to carry certain types of weapons. Part 6 negotiated the return of prisoners of war. Part 7 was about the trials of people accused of war crimes. Part 8 forced Germany to accept full responsibility of the war and made them pay war reparations. Part 9 was about other financial related obligations. Part 11 said that the Allied Forces can fly anywhere over German territory and that they have the same privileges as German aircraft. Part 12 was about German railroads, ports, and waterways. The 13th part regarded labor, the 15 was about miscellaneous provisions. The Allies put together all this to ensure that there would be no other war and to put Germany in their place. However, this had more of a detrimental effect than a positive one. The treaty did do its job of ending the war, but it created more problems. Germany saw this treaty as unfair.