Biotechnology Essay Example for Free

Biotechnology Essay Biotechnology is a subfield of biological science linked to research areas such as recombinant DNA technology and genetic engineering. As a result biotechnology is applied in a wide range of industries (Chen Marchioni, 2008). According to the Biotechnology Industry Organization, one fourth of the Biotechnology industry’s financing comes from venture capital and it is not just in terms of money but also managerial guidance to the biotechnology firms. This is attributable to the fact that biotechnology is a knowledge intensive industry and a large amount of capital is needed for research and development (Chen Marchioni, 2008). Venture capital financing is favored by the majority of business startups including the biotechnology companies. Venture capital is an equity investment until the company matures. Venture capitalists are involved in the development of a biotechnology firm by becoming board members. The venture capitalists also advice the biotechnology firms on potential strategic partnerships (Munroe Gary Hutton, 2002). This gives the venture capital backed firms an added advantage over the non-venture capital backed firms. Literature Review Although venture capital accounts for a small fraction of the entire funding in the United States, it plays a major role in the financing of biotechnology companies. The biotechnology companies that are funded through capital venture outperform their counterparts in job creation and revenue growth. In the first quarter of 2009, the biotechnology sector received the biggest amount of funding in comparison to the other Life Science companies. This was however, a 16% decrease from the fourth quarter of 2008, constituting a downward tread in the funding of Biotechnology, Medical Devices and Pharmaceuticals (VentureDeal, 2009). Due to the prevailing economic crisis, the funding in biotechnology has reversed from an upward tread as the amount of funding has decreased as well as the numbers of companies funded. Sangart Company which researches and commercializes technologies related to oxygen transport agents received $50 million in the sixth round, the largest venture funding during the first quarter. BioVex Company on the other hand received $40 million from a large syndicate of venture capital firms in the sixth round of funding (VentureDeal, 2009). There are success stories in biotechnology venture capital. One example is the case of Thomas Tedder. Tedder collaborated with a venture capitalist, Intersouth and the company provided seed money that helped Tedder’s company called Cellective Therapeutics to develop a business plan and to finalize the licensing agreement. This helped Tedder to focus on the technology development. In due course, Cellective Therapeutics proved a success and the company was sold off at the one year anniversary to MedImmune (Gwynne, 2009). From the venture capitalists point of view, there are issues that are unique to a biotechnology perspective. The venture capitalists look for unique technologies which are critical to the biotechnology field as they are also looking for a market. This means that the venture capitalists are keen on areas such as disease areas which have a large market. The attractive types of research are those that have a widespread target such as cancer, diabetes and infection areas (Rosenman, 2001). Some of the major venture capital firms in the United States are Alta Partners, BA Venture partners, Forward Ventures, Genentech, Latterell venture partners, MedImmune Ventures, Soffinnova ventures and Intersouth (Gwynne, 2009). The geographic clustering of venture capital financed biotechnology firms is similar to the geographic pattern of the biotechnology industry. The biotechnology businesses are clustered together in a region for several benefits. Through the clustering, the companies achieve scale economy; have knowledge and technology spill over in addition to labor pooling and a decrease in transaction costs. The clustering of firms in similar locations makes it easy for workers to change jobs without the need for traveling long distances for interviews and they may not need to relocate homes after a transfer. Labor mobility hence facilitates the exchange of technology, information and knowledge among the biotech firms. Through geographic proximity, the transaction costs are decreased in addition to personal contact being maintained (Antonelli, 2000). This allows in-depth and fast feedback among the economic agents involved and helps build trust, and incentives in economic relationships thus reducing transaction costs. This enhances socialization within the professional network and stimulates co-operation, competition and innovation (Storper Venables, 2004). These are important factors for life science knowledge. The clustering of biotechnology industries relies on venture capital availability, life science knowledge, large pharmaceutical firms and urban diversity. Before the first biotechnology firm, Genetech, was established in 1977, practitioners of genetic engineering were located around universities and research institutes. These universities and institutions also provide quality labor force. Consequently, the areas that are in close proximity to the science research institutions have better access to trained graduate and post graduate students. In the biotechnology industry, much of the venture capital is concentrated in California and Massachusetts, including San Francisco, San Diego and Boston (Gompers Lerner, 2006). Methodology This research employs several methods to investigate the importance of venture funding to the biotechnology firms. Examination on the literature review on the subject of venture funding in biotechnology firms supports the conclusions on the industry. However when conducting research, a researcher is always faced with the task of identifying the methodology to use. This is due to the fact that the researcher has to consider the research question (Morgan Smircich 1980, pp. 491-500). A researcher can lay more adopt either a positivist or post-positivist approach depending on whether the research focuses more on social sciences or natural sciences. The literature review in a research plays an important role in the research as the researcher needs to consider the different perspectives and possibilities before making any conclusions (Armitage Keeble-Ramsay 2009, pp. 1-36). The review of various information sources helps the researcher in understanding the implications of the research process. According to Knalf Breitmayer (1991), the authenticity as well as reliability of the literature review is key in any research. The researcher first has to consider the research options in addition considering the data collection methods. This said, the accessibility and availability of numerous sources of information has necessitated the need for a systematic methodology that can be used in decision making. In this research on venture capital in the biotechnology industry, the emphasis is on the existing firms, the firm’s location and funding. This is mainly achieved through analysis of documented sources and case study reviews. The case studies have inherent strengths that allow tailoring of data collection processes to the research question. Nowadays it has become common for researchers to combine both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods so as to increase the validity of the data collected (Denzin Lincoln 1994). Data Analysis Data analysis helps the researcher interpret the findings of the research hence it is crucial in any research. According to the research, the majority of biotechnology firms depend on venture capital funding to a greater extent. This study investigated the funding of biotechnology firms in relation to venture funding. All proposed hypotheses are supported using analysis, indicating that biotechnology firms favor venture funding. It also shows that the biotechnology firms are clustered in the same areas where there are life science research base, large pharmaceutical firms, many capital venture providers and a large pool of scientists. There is no surprise that biotechnology firms use venture capital as opposed to other forms of lending. The finding that the biotechnology firms are also located in urban areas with talent and a favorable environment for new ideas and breakthroughs is also in line. On the other hand, venture capital is not only important in terms of financial support but also in providing insights, managerial skills and entrepreneurial spirit to the newly established biotechnology firms. Results Biotechnology funding however still has many huddles one of them being lower IPO valuations which has quashed early venture capital funding. The majority of the venture investment has avoided the innovative early stage research and opted for the specialty established companies (Robbins, 2005). Conclusion This study examines venture capital funding in the biotechnology industry. The research examined the sequence of events that take place during the funding and subsequent setting up of the biotechnology firms. The research objectives require the involvement of both the biotechnology firms and the venture capital firms in order to fully understand the relationship as well as the key factors in their relations. The researcher designed and put to use several research instruments to facilitate in the research. The main aim of the research was to bring to the fore the issues involved in the funding process.

Explain the formation and the break down of the First Triumvirate :: Ancient Rome Roman History

Explain the formation and the break down of the First Triumvirate The formation of the First Triumvirate took place because of the political motives and the personal motives of the three ruthlessly ambitious power brokers in Rome. These men required the co-operation of the other two in order to further their political careers. During the time of the First Triumvirate many extraordinary powers where obtained and in some cases these where unprecedented. There are some key factors that have to be considered towards the break down of the Triumvirate. The most powerful and influential people, the Optimates became increasingly dis empowered, and a sense of desperation to regain power is felt with the use of Pompey in an a final attempt to restore power to the Senate. "By uncompromising refusal to meet the demands of Pompey, Caesar and Crassus the senate naturally drove them into each others arms. The three men agreed to form a political amicitia ....." Pompey upon return from his successful campaign in the East, disbanded his army probably to diffuse tension in Rome and prove to the Optimates in Rome he had no intention of over throwing the Government. This suggests Pompey's political naivety and the fact that Pompey thought he had done enough in order to get recognition and acceptance from the Optimates to gain land for his veterans and to have his innumerable arrangements in the East ratified. Cato also refused Pompey's offer of marriage to one of his nieces. According to Bradley "Cato was a staunch conservative, and distrusted Pompey's motives" Crassus had a problem with his supporters. He supported a request from a company of tax gatherers (Equites), that after realizing Asia had been economically raped, and virtually un-taxable due to the Mithradatic campaign, could not possibly make money from taxes, so the request he supported is that the Senate should adjust the bad bargain to on a third rebate which they had made in contracting for the taxes of Asia. This request according to Scullard was rejected under Cato's leadership which had led to the stagnation of Crassus' political career. Thus Crassus needed some support of Pompey and Caesar to kick start his career and eventually lead to the formation of the First Triumvirate. Caesar, who had been Propraetor in Spain during, 61BC, hoped to return to Rome in 60BC and stand for the consulship for the following year.

Human Trafficing: Are We Doing Enough? Essay

Human trafficking has been around for the same amount of time as inequality among people; so basically, all of human history. People are bought and sold, and treated and traded like objects. This has always been part of our society, however dominate. Slavery, prostitution, illegal aliens – all of these things have roots in human trafficking. Since ancient Egypt, when thousands of Hebrews were forced build the pyramids, to present day Italy where hundreds of women are forced to submit their bodies every day. We are thankfully becoming less and less tolerant of this cruel practice in the modern world. Yet, because our tendency to look the other way, to pretend to not know the truth, hundreds upon thousands of people are still being trafficked every year, some right under our nose here in America. We’ve created anti-trafficking laws, passports, citizenship papers, as well as heightened border patrols and increased airport security. There are those who would have you believ e that this is enough – it isn’t. Many people see the fact that human trafficking is slightly declining as a sure sign of success. But like so many other things in the world, our nation’s economy, the availability of jobs, and the price of gas; human trafficking like all these things has fluctuation. Traffickers will find ways around our barriers, loopholes in the system, what have you – unless we stop this for good. Moreover, it is incorrect to say for sure that this problem is declining. How does one even come to that conclusion? Fewer traffickers are being caught so it’s obviously getting better – I’m not buying it. With human trafficking being what it is, underground, unspoken, unnoticed – we can never be sure of all of the statistics. And another frightening thought to explain this suggested decline: Perhaps have traffickers have just developed new smuggling methods and new ways of bypassing security. That would mean that more people are being trafficked then we currentl y estimate and that the problem may actually be increasing instead of decreasing. As stated earlier, prostitution, both legal and illegal forms, has very close ties to human trafficking. This can be seen mainly in several countries of Europe. While prostitution may not be legal across the whole continent, the countries in which it is have shown a distinctly higher rate of trafficked women. As author and activist Christine Stark states on Justice Talking, a National Public Radio station, â€Å"†¦What we have found is that legalization has caused an increase in the trafficking into the area where the legalization exists. The state then becomes the pimp.† Obviously, places where prostitution in legalized is going to have a higher demand for prostitutes, thus increasing the illegal trafficking of women there. Though it may sound like a radical idea in some parts of the world, the apparent solution here would be to ban prostitution everywhere, which would be much more of a possibility if people understood its effects. The U.S. Department of State in 2007 June issue of the â€Å"Trafficking in Humans Report† stated, â€Å"†¦prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanizing and fuels trafficking in persons.† With any luck, people will start to accept this as a fact that it is rather than the opinion some see it to be. Another product of human trafficking is illegal immigration, or people living in countries unlawfully. Illegal immigration has a number of negative effects on a nation’s economy as well as its society. These illegal immigrants or aliens as they have come to be known, have quite a few disputes surrounding them. First is the argument of whether or not it is correct to use the term â€Å"illegal alien.† Though still an ongoing dispute, the side for it seems to have a lot more accreditation. Assessed January 18, 2007 on illegalaliens.us, â€Å"Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is like calling a burglar an uninvited house guest.† There’s also the threat of terrorism and terrorist attacks that comes with having undocumented people in a nation. And let’s not forget the public work force’s valid scare, the fact that illegal immigrants steal jobs from those people who reside in that country legally. All these things point back to human trafficking and the damage it causes wherever it goes. The U.S. itself has 11 million undocumented people living in its borders. That’s 11 million people we don’t have any records of, no information about, no accounts of any kind for. We need to put a stop to illegal immigration here and now, or it’s only going to get worse. What have we learned thus far? Prostitution is morally wrong and fuels the trafficking of women everywhere. Illegal immigration is a huge detriment to a nation’s economy and society. Human trafficking is like a slow moving hurricane, bringing terrible destruction wherever it goes. If something is not about this problem soon, we cannot hope to improve as a nation. If something is not done about this problem now, we cannot hope to improve as people.

The Maginot Line Frances Defensive Failure in World War II

Built between 1930 and 1940, Frances Maginot Line was a massive system of defenses that became famous for failing to stop a German invasion. While an understanding of the Lines creation is vital to any study of World War I, World War II, and the period in between, this knowledge is also helpful when interpreting a number of modern references. The Aftermath of World War I The First World War ended on the 11th of November 1918, concluding a four-year period in which Eastern France had been almost continuously occupied by enemy forces. The conflict had killed over one million French citizens, while a further 4–5 million had been wounded; great scars ran across both the landscape and the European psyche. In the aftermath of this war, France began to ask a vital question: how should it now defend itself? This dilemma grew in importance after the Treaty of Versailles, the famous document of 1919 that was supposed to prevent further conflict by crippling and punishing the defeated countries, but whose nature and severity is now recognized as having partly caused the Second World War. Many French politicians and generals were unhappy with the terms of the treaty, believing that Germany had escaped too lightly. Some individuals, such as Field Marshall Foch, argued that Versailles was simply another armistice and that war would ultimately resume. The Question of National Defense Accordingly, the question of defense became an official matter in 1919, when the French Prime Minister   Clemenceau, discussed it with Marshal Pà ©tain, the head of the armed forces. Various studies and commissions explored many options, and three main schools of thought emerged. Two of these based their arguments on evidence gathered from the First World War, advocating a line of fortifications along Frances eastern border. A third looked toward the future. This final group, who included a certain Charles de Gaulle, believed that war would become fast and mobile, organized around tanks and other vehicles with air support. These ideas were frowned upon within France, where the consensus of opinion regarded them as being inherently aggressive and requiring outright attacks: the two defensive schools were preferred. The Lesson of Verdun The great fortifications at Verdun were judged to have been the most successful in the Great War, surviving artillery fire and suffering little internal damage. The fact that Verduns largest fortress, Douaumont, had fallen easily to a German attack in 1916 only broadened the argument: the fort had been built for a garrison of 500 troops, but the Germans found it manned by less than a fifth of that number. Large, well-built and—as attested to by Douaumont—well-maintained defenses would work. Indeed, the First World War had been a conflict of attrition in which many hundreds of miles of trenches, mainly dug from mud, reinforced by wood, and surrounded by barbed wire, had held each army at bay for several years. It was simple logic to take these ramshackle earthworks, mentally replace them with massive Douaumont-esque forts, and conclude that a planned defensive line would be wholly effective. The Two Schools of Defense The first school, whose main exponent was Marshall Joffre, wanted large quantities of troops based in a line of small, heavily defended areas from which counter-attacks could be launched against anyone advancing through the gaps. The second school, led by Pà ©tain, advocated a long, deep, and constant network of fortifications which would militarize a large area of the eastern border and hark back to the Hindenburg line. Unlike most high-ranking commanders in the Great War, Pà ©tain was considered as both a success and a hero; he was also synonymous with defensive tactics, lending great weight to the arguments for a fortified line. In 1922, the recently promoted Minister for War began to develop a compromise, based largely on the Pà ©tain model; this new voice was Andrà © Maginot. Andr Maginot Takes the Lead Fortification was a matter of grave urgency for a man called Andrà © Maginot: he believed the French government to be weak, and the safety provided by the Treaty of Versailles to be a delusion. Although Paul Painlevà © replaced him at the Ministry for War in 1924, Maginot was never completely separated from the project, often working with the new minister. Progress was made in 1926 when Maginot and Painlevà © obtained government funding for a new body, the Committee of Frontier Defense (Commission de Dà ©fense des Frontieres or CDF), to build three small experimental sections of a new defense plan, based largely on the Pà ©tain espoused Line model. After returning to the war ministry in 1929, Maginot built upon the CDFs success, securing government funding for a full-scale defensive line. There was plenty of opposition, including the Socialist and Communist parties, but Maginot worked hard to convince them all. Although he may not have visited every government ministry and office in person—as the legend states—he certainly used some compelling arguments. He cited the falling numbers of French manpower, which would reach a low-point in the 1930s, and the need to avoid any other mass bloodshed, which might delay—or even stop—the population recovery. Equally, while the Treaty of Versailles had allowed French troops to occupy the German Rhineland, they were obliged to leave by 1930; this buffer zone would need some sort of replacement. He countered the pacifists by defining the fortifications as a non-aggressive method of defense (as opposed to fast tanks or counter attacks) and pushed the classic politi cal justifications of creating jobs and stimulating industry. How the Maginot Line Was Supposed to Work The planned line had two purposes. It would halt an invasion long enough for the French to fully mobilize their own army, and then act as a solid base from which to repel the attack. Any battles would thus occur on the fringes of French territory, preventing internal damage and occupation. The Line would run along both the Franco-German and Franco-Italian borders, as both countries were considered a threat; however, the fortifications would cease at the Ardennes Forest and not continue any further north. There was one key reason for this: when the Line was being planned in the late 20s, France and Belgium were allies, and it was inconceivable that either one should build such a massive system on their shared boundary. This did not mean that the area was to go undefended, for the French developed a military plan based on the Line. With large-scale fortifications defending the southeastern border, the bulk of the French army could gather at the northeastern end, ready to enter—a nd fight in—Belgium. The joint was the Ardennes Forest, a hilly and wooded area which was considered impenetrable. Funding and Organization In the early days of 1930, the French Government granted nearly 3 billion francs to the project, a decision which was ratified by 274 votes to 26; work on the Line began immediately. Several bodies were involved in the project: locations and functions were determined by CORF, the Committee for the Organization of the Fortified Regions (Commission dOrganization des Rà ©gions Fortifà ©es, CORF), while the actual building was handled by the STG, or Technical Engineering Section (Section Technique du Gà ©nie). Development continued in three distinct phases until 1940, but Maginot did not live to see it. He died on January 7th, 1932; the project would later adopt his name. Problems During Construction The main period of construction took place between 1930–36, implementing much of the original plan. There were problems, as a sharp economic downturn required a switch from private builders to government-led initiatives, and some elements of the ambitious design had to be delayed. Conversely, Germanys remilitarization of the Rhineland provided a further, and largely threatening, stimulus.In 1936, Belgium declared itself a neutral country alongside Luxembourg and the Netherlands, effectively severing its previous allegiance with France. In theory, the Maginot Line should have been extended to cover this new border, but in practice, only a few basic defenses were added. Commentators have attacked this decision, but the original French plan—which involved fighting in Belgium—remained unaffected; of course, that plan is subject to an equal amount of criticism. The Fortress Troops With the physical infrastructure established by 1936, the main task of the next three years was to train soldiers and engineers to operate the fortifications. These Fortress Troops were not simply existing military units assigned to guard duty, rather, they were an almost unparalleled mixture of skills which included engineers and technicians alongside ground troops and artillerymen. Finally, the French declaration of war in 1939 triggered a third phase, one of refinement and reinforcement. Debate Over Costs One element of the Maginot Line that has always divided historians is the cost. Some argue that the original design was too large, or that the construction used too much money, causing the project to be downsized. They often cite the dearth of fortifications along the Belgian border as a sign that the funding had run out. Others claim that the construction actually used less money than was allotted and that the few billion francs were far less, perhaps even 90% less than the cost of De Gaulles mechanized force. In 1934, Pà ©tain obtained another billion francs to help the project, an act which is often interpreted as an outward sign of overspending. However, this could also be interpreted as a desire to improve and extend the Line. Only a detailed study of government records and accounts can solve this debate. Significance of the Line Narratives on the Maginot Line often, and quite rightly, point out that it could easily have been called the Pà ©tain or Painlevà © Line. The former provided the initial impetus—and his reputation gave it a necessary weight—while the latter contributed a great deal to the planning and design. But it was Andrà © Maginot who provided the necessary political drive, pushing the plan through a reluctant parliament: a formidable task in any era. However, the significance and cause of the Maginot Line go beyond individuals, for it was a physical manifestation of French fears. The aftermath of World War I had left France desperate to guarantee the safety of its borders from a strongly perceived German threat, while at the same time avoiding, perhaps even ignoring, the possibility of another conflict. Fortifications allowed fewer men to hold larger areas for longer, with a lower loss of life, and the French people jumped at the chance. The Maginot Line Forts The Maginot Line was not a single continuous structure like the Great Wall of China or Hadrians Wall. Instead, it was composed of over five hundred separate buildings, each arranged according to a detailed but inconsistent plan. The key units were the large forts or Ouvrages which were located within 9 miles of each other; these vast bases held over 1000 troops and housed artillery. Other smaller forms of ouvrage were positioned between their larger brethren, holding either 500 or 200 men, with a proportional drop in firepower. The forts were solid buildings capable of withstanding heavy fire. The surface areas were protected by steel-reinforced concrete, which was up to 3.5 meters thick, a depth capable of withstanding multiple direct hits. The steel cupolas, elevating domes through which gunners could fire, were 30–35 centimeters deep. In total, the  Ouvrages  numbered 58 on the eastern section and 50 on the Italian one, with most able to fire upon the two nearest positions of equal size, and everything in between. Smaller Structures The network of forts formed a backbone for many more defenses. There were hundreds of casements: small, multi-story blocks located less than a mile apart, each providing a secure base. From these, a handful of troops could attack invading forces and protect their neighboring casements. Ditches, anti-tank works, and minefields screened every position, while observation posts and forward defenses allowed the main line an early warning. Variation There was variation: some areas had far heavier concentrations of troops and buildings, while others were without fortresses and artillery. The strongest regions were those around Metz, Lauter, and Alsace, while the Rhine was one of the weakest. The Alpine Line, that part which guarded the French-Italian border, was also slightly different, as it incorporated a large number of existing forts and defenses. These were concentrated around mountain passes and other potential weak points, enhancing the Alps own ancient, and natural, defensive line. In short, the Maginot line was a dense, multi-layered system, providing what has often been described as a continuous line of fire along a long front; however, the quantity of this firepower and the size of the defenses varied. Use of Technology Crucially, the Line was more than simple geography and concrete: it had been designed with the latest in technological and engineering know-how. The larger forts were over six stories deep, vast underground complexes that included hospitals, trains, and long air-conditioned galleries. Soldiers could live and sleep underground, while internal machine gun posts and traps repelled any intruders. The Maginot Line was certainly an advanced defensive position—it is believed that some areas could withstand an atomic bomb—and the forts became a marvel of their age, as kings, presidents, and other dignitaries visited these futuristic subterranean dwellings. Historical Inspiration The Line was not without precedent. In the aftermath of the 1870 Franco-Prussian War, in which the French had been beaten, a system of forts was constructed around Verdun. The largest was Douaumont, a sunken fortress showing hardly more than its concrete roof and its gun turrets above ground. Below lies a labyrinth of corridors, barrack rooms, munitions stores, and latrines: a dripping echoing tomb...(Ousby, Occupation: The Ordeal of France, Pimlico, 1997, p. 2). Aside from the last clause, this could be a description of the Maginot Ouvrages; indeed, Douaumont was Frances largest and best-designed  fort of the period. Equally, the Belgian engineer Henri Brialmont created several large fortified networks before the Great War, most of which involved a system of forts located set distances apart; he also used elevating steel cupolas.The Maginot plan used the best of these ideas, rejecting the weak points. Brailmont had intended to aid communication and defense by connecting some of hi s forts with trenches, but their eventual absence allowed German troops to simply advance past the fortifications; the Maginot line used reinforced underground tunnels and interlocking fields of fire. Equally, and most importantly for the veterans of Verdun, the Line would be fully and constantly staffed, so there could be no repeat of the undermanned Douaumonts swift loss. Other Nations Also Built Defenses France was not alone in its post-war (or, as it would later be considered, inter-war) building. Italy, Finland, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Belgium, and the USSR all built or improved defensive lines, although these varied hugely in their nature and design. When placed in the context of Western Europes defensive development, the Maginot Line was a logical continuation, a planned distillation of everything people believed they had learned so far. Maginot, Pà ©tain, and others thought they were learning from the recent past, and using state of the art engineering to create an ideal shield from attack. It is, therefore, perhaps unfortunate that warfare developed in a different direction. 1940: Germany Invades France There are many small debates, partly among military enthusiasts and wargamers, as to how an attacking force should go about conquering the Maginot Line: how would it stand up to various types of assault? Historians usually avoid this question—perhaps just making an oblique comment about the Line never being fully realized—because of events in 1940, when  Hitler  subjected France to a swift and humiliating conquest. World War II had begun with a  German invasion of Poland. The Nazi plan  to invade France, the Sichelschnitt (cut of the sickle), involved three armies, one facing Belgium, one facing the Maginot Line, and another part-way between the two, opposite the Ardennes. Army Group C, under the command of General von Leeb, appeared to have the unenviable task of advancing through the Line, but they were simply a diversion, whose mere presence would tie down French troops and prevent their use as reinforcements.  On May 10th 1940 , the Germans northern army, Group A, attacked the Netherlands, moving through and into Belgium. Parts of the French and British Army moved up and across to meet them; at this point, the war resembled many French military plans, in which troops used the Maginot Line as a hinge to advance and resist the attack in Belgium. The German Army Skirts the Maginot Line The key difference was Army Group B, which advanced across Luxembourg, Belgium, and then straight through the Ardennes. Well over a million German troops and 1,500 tanks crossed the supposedly impenetrable forest with ease, using roads and tracks. They met little opposition, for the French units in this area had almost no air-support and few ways of stopping the German bombers. By May 15th, Group B was clear of all defenses, and the French army began to wilt. The advance of Groups A and B continued unabated until May 24, when they halted just outside Dunkirk. By June 9th, German forces had swung down behind the Maginot Line, cutting it off from the rest of France. Many of the fortress troops surrendered after the armistice, but others held on; they had little success and were captured. Limited Action The Line did take part in some battles, as there were various minor German attacks from the front and the rear. Equally, the Alpine section proved wholly successful, halting the belated Italian invasion until the armistice. Conversely, the  allies  themselves had to cross the defenses in late 1944, as German troops used the Maginot fortifications as focal points for resistance and counter attack. This resulted in heavy fighting around Metz and, at the very end of the year, Alsace. The Line After 1945 The defenses did not simply disappear after the Second World War; indeed the Line was returned to active service. Some forts were modernized, while others were adapted to resist nuclear attack. However, the Line had fallen out of favor by 1969, and the next decade saw many  ouvrages  and casements sold to private buyers. The rest fell into decay. Modern uses are many and varied, apparently including mushroom farms and discos, as well as many excellent museums. There is also a thriving community of explorers, people who like to visit these mammoth decaying structures with just their handheld lights and a sense of adventure (as well as a good deal of risk). Post War Blame: Was the Maginot Line at Fault? When France looked for explanations in the aftermath of World War II, the Maginot Line must have seemed an obvious target: its sole purpose had been to stop another invasion. Unsurprisingly, the Line received severe criticism, ultimately becoming an object of international derision. There had been vocal opposition  before  the war—including that of De Gaulle, who stressed that the French would be able to do nothing but hide behind their forts and watch Europe tear itself apart—but this was scant compared to the condemnation that followed. Modern commentators tend to focus on the question of failure, and although opinions vary enormously, the conclusions are generally negative. Ian Ousby sums up one extreme perfectly: Time treats few things more cruelly than the futuristic fantasies of past generations, particularly when they are actually realised in concrete and steel. Hindsight makes it abundantly clear that the Maginot Line was a foolish misdirection of energy when it was conceived, a dangerous distraction of time and money when it was built, and a pitiful irrelevance when the German invasion did come in 1940. Most glaringly, it concentrated on the Rhineland and left Frances 400-kilometer border with Belgium unfortified. (Ousby,  Occupation: The Ordeal of France, Pimlico, 1997, p. 14) Debate Still Exists Over Blame Opposing arguments usually reinterpret this last point, claiming that the Line itself was wholly successful: it was either another part of the plan (for instance, fighting in Belgium), or its execution that failed. For many, this is too fine a distinction and a tacit omission that the real fortifications differed too much from the original ideals, making them a failure in practice. Indeed, the Maginot Line was and continues to be portrayed in many different ways. Was it intended to be an utterly impenetrable barrier, or did people just begin to think that? Was the Lines purpose to direct an attacking army around through Belgium, or was the length just a terrible mistake? And if it was meant to guide an army, did somebody forget? Equally, was the security of the Line itself flawed and never fully completed? There is little chance of any agreement, but what is certain is that the Line never faced a direct attack, and it was too short to be anything other than a diversion. Conclusion Discussions of the Maginot Line have to cover more than just the defenses because the project had other ramifications. It was costly and time-consuming, requiring billions of francs and a mass of raw materials; however, this expenditure was reinvested into the French economy, perhaps contributing as much as it removed. Equally, military spending and planning were focused  on  the Line, encouraging a defensive attitude that slowed the development of new weapons and tactics. Had the rest of Europe followed suit, the Maginot Line may have been vindicated, but countries like Germany followed very different paths, investing in tanks and planes. Commentators claim that this Maginot mentality spread across the French nation as a whole, encouraging defensive, non-progressive thinking in government and elsewhere. Diplomacy also suffered—how can you ally with other nations if all you are planning to do is resist your own invasion? Ultimately, the Maginot Line probably did more to ha rm France than it ever did to aid it.