"keen to exploit the potential of modern technology."
Decadence had already dissolved traditional religious and ethical
inhibitions. Into the vacuum enters the scientific enthusiasm.
Religion becomes mere value, and part of total mobilization.
Churchill, rather than trying to save Europe, pushed Germany
into the gassing of the Jews, a massacre which he already foresaw
before the actual war, while he was intriguing with Poland.
Like USA and Quwait, Cuba, Taiwan, England...
If you still have doubts, then put it all into the computer, and
it'll do the 'thinking'. Lugubrious.
Thanks Jud,
rene
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens
GEVANS613@xxxxxxx
Verzonden: vrijdag 5 november 2004 14:10
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Winston Churchill's Secret Poison Gas Memo
Winston Churchill's Secret Poison Gas Memo
[stamp] PRIME MINISTER'S PERSONAL MINUTE
[stamp, pen] Serial No. D. 217/4
[Seal of Prime Minister]
10 Downing Street, Whitehall [gothic script]
GENERAL ISMAY FOR C.O.S. COMMITTEE [underlined]
1. I want you to think very seriously over this question of poison gas. I
would not use it unless it could be shown either that (a) it was life or death
for us, or (b) that it would shorten the war by a year.
2. It is absurd to consider morality on this topic when everybody used it in
the last war without a word of complaint from the moralists or the Church.
On the other hand, in the last war bombing of open cities was regarded as
forbidden. Now everybody does it as a matter of course. It is simply a question
of fashion changing as she does between long and short skirts for women.
3. I want a cold-blooded calculation made as to how it would pay us to use
poison gas, by which I mean principally mustard. We will want to gain more
ground in Normandy so as not to be cooped up in a small area. We could probably
deliver 20 tons to their 1 and for the sake of the 1 they would bring their
bomber aircraft into the area against our superiority, thus paying a heavy
toll.
4. Why have the Germans not used it? Not certainly out of moral scruples or
affection for us. They have not used it because it does not pay them. The
greatest temptation ever offered to them was the beaches of Normandy. This they
could have drenched with gas greatly to the hindrance of the troops. That
they thought about it is certain and that they prepared against our use of gas
is also certain. But they only reason they have not used it against us is that
they fear the retaliation. What is to their detriment is to our advantage.
5. Although one sees how unpleasant it is to receive poison gas attacks,
from which nearly everyone recovers, it is useless to protest that an equal
amount of H. E. will not inflict greater casualties and sufferings on troops and
civilians. One really must not be bound within silly conventions of the mind
whether they be those that ruled in the last war or those in reverse which
rule in this.
6. If the bombardment of London became a serious nuisance and great rockets
with far-reaching and devastating effect fell on many centres of Government
and labour, I should be prepared to do [underline] anything [stop underline]
that would hit the enemy in a murderous place. I may certainly have to ask you
to support me in using poison gas. We could drench the cities of the Ruhr
and many other cities in Germany in such a way that most of the population
would be requiring constant medical attention. We could stop all work at the
flying bomb starting points. I do not see why we should have the disadvantages of
being the gentleman while they have all the advantages of being the cad.
There are times when this may be so but not now.
7. I quite agree that it may be several weeks or even months before I shall
ask you to drench Germany with poison gas, and if we do it, let us do it one
hundred per cent. In the meanwhile, I want the matter studied in cold blood
by sensible people and not by that particular set of psalm-singing uniformed
defeatists which one runs across now here now there. Pray address yourself to
this. It is a big thing and can only be discarded for a big reason. I shall
of course have to square Uncle Joe and the President; but you need not bring
this into your calculations at the present time. Just try to find out what it
is like on its merits.
[signed] Winston Churchill [initials]
6.7.44 [underlined]
Source: photographic copy of original 4 page memo, in Guenther W.
Gellermann, "Der Krieg, der nicht stattfand", Bernard & Graefe Verlag, 1986, pp.
249-251
____________________________________
Winston S. Churchill: departmental minute (Churchill papers: 16/16) 12 May
1919 War Office
I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have
definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the
retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to
lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle
at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.
I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.
The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a
minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can
be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and
yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.
from Companion Volume 4, Part 1 of the official biography, WINSTON S.
CHURCHILL, by Martin Gilbert (London: Heinemann, 1976)
____________________________________
Henry Gonzalez, US Congressman, referred to this in the House of
Representatives on March 24, 1992:
"But there again, where is the moral right? The first one to use gas against
Arabs was Winston Churchill, the British, in the early 1920's. They were
Iraq Arabs they used them against."
_http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920324g.htm_ (http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920324g.htm)
"Moral right" is of course the reason this piece of history has now been
dredged up again - by people who see contradictions in the pious arguments of
Messrs. Bush, Blair et al. And this seems only fair. In 1998 Clinton denounced
opponents to his planned attack on Iraq for "not remembering the past".
> I remain unconvinced that the UK used chemical weapons > in the middle
east in the 1920s.... > but I'm open to correction.
Not easy. And if you'd rather not...
Churchill thought of it as poison gas - and so, apparently did everyone
else. The idea of using it was his alone. And he is also is also to have given
the authorization to the RAF. He wanted gas to be used in addition to regular
bombing: "against recalcitrant Arabs as experiment". According to Simons, gas
was not dispensed in bombs.
The intention was to quell a growing rebellion in remote villages. He met
with objections but maintained that "we cannot in any circumstances acquiesce
in the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy
termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier".
It seems Churchill wanted to cause "disablement", "discomfort or illness,
but not death".
In any case, to Churchill this was not a moral issue. Here is part of a
memo, so you can see it through his eyes. He wrote this during WWII, when he
contemplated using poison gas, but never did:
____________________________________
Excerpts below by _www.informaitionwar.org_
(http://www.informaitionwar.org/)
BACKGROUND: In 1917, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the British
occupied Iraq and established a colonial government. The Arab and Kurdish
people of Iraq resisted the British occupation, and by 1920 this had developed
into a full scale national revolt, which cost the British dearly. As the
Iraqi resistance gained strength, the British resorted to increasingly repressive
measures, including the use of posion gas.] NB: Because of formatting
problems, quotation marks will appear as stars * All quotes in the excerpt are
properly footnoted in the original book, with full references to British
archives and papers. Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *IRAQ: FROM
SUMER TO SUDAN*. London: St. Martins Press, 1994:
Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was sensitive to the cost of
policing the Empire; and was in consequence keen to exploit the potential of
modern technology. This strategy had particular relevance to operations in Iraq.
On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then
Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air
warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would
entail *the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause
disablement of some kind but not death...for use in preliminary operations
against turbulent tribes.*
Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the
Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): *I do not
understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of
using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.* Henry Wilson shared Churchills
enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the British
cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery
and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue
that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would cause
*only discomfort or illness, but not death* to dissident tribespeople; but his
optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It was likely that the
suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and *kill children and sickly
persons, more especially as the people against whom we intend to use it have
no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes.*
Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the use
of gas, a *scientific expedient,* should not be prevented *by the prejudices
of those who do not think clearly*. In the event, gas was used against the
Iraqi rebels with excellent moral effect* though gas shells were not dropped
from aircraft because of practical difficulties [.....]
Today in 1993 there are still Iraqis and Kurds who remember being bombed and
machine-gunned by the RAF in the 1920s. A Kurd from the Korak mountains
commented, seventy years after the event: *They were bombing here in the Kaniya
Khoran...Sometimes they raided three times a day.* Wing Commander Lewis, then
of 30 Squadron (RAF), Iraq, recalls how quite often *one would get a signal
that a certain Kurdish village would have to be bombed...*, the RAF pilots
being ordered to bomb any Kurd who looked hostile. In the same vein,
Squadron-Leader Kendal of 30 Squadron recalls that if the tribespeople were doing
something they ought not be doing then you shot them.*
Similarly, Wing-Commander Gale, also of 30 Squadron: *If the Kurds hadn't
learned by our example to behave themselves in a civilised way then we had to
spank their bottoms. This was done by bombs and guns.
Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of wartime
Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that *The Arab and Kurd now know what
real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within forty-five minutes a
full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants
killed or injured.* It was an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the
tribespeople, because they had no means of defence or retalitation. Iraq and Kurdistan
were also useful laboratories for new weapons; devices specifically
developed by the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages. The ministry drew up a
list of possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of napalm and
air-to-ground missiles:
Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock]
man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these weapons were
first used in Kurdistan.
Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *Iraq: From Sumer to Saddam*.
London: St. Martins Press, 1994
To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at _Global
Research's News and Discussion Forum_
(http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php) , at _http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php_
(http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php)
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at _www.globalresearch.ca_
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/) grants permission to cross-post original Global
Research (Canada) articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on
community internet sites, as long as the text & title of the article are not
modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on
Globalization (CRG) at _www.globalresearch.ca_ (http://www.globalresearch.ca/)
. For cross-postings, kindly use the active URL hyperlink address of the
original CRG article. The author's copyright note must be displayed. (For
articles from other news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where
applicable.). For publication of Global Research (Canada) articles in print or
other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
[email protected]_ (mailto:editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) .
For media inquiries: [email protected]_
(mailto:editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
© Copyright belongs to the author, 2004. For fair use only/ pour usage
équitable seulement.
Regards,
Jud
Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
E-mail Discussion List:
nominalism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Decadence had already dissolved traditional religious and ethical
inhibitions. Into the vacuum enters the scientific enthusiasm.
Religion becomes mere value, and part of total mobilization.
Churchill, rather than trying to save Europe, pushed Germany
into the gassing of the Jews, a massacre which he already foresaw
before the actual war, while he was intriguing with Poland.
Like USA and Quwait, Cuba, Taiwan, England...
If you still have doubts, then put it all into the computer, and
it'll do the 'thinking'. Lugubrious.
Thanks Jud,
rene
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens
GEVANS613@xxxxxxx
Verzonden: vrijdag 5 november 2004 14:10
Aan: heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Winston Churchill's Secret Poison Gas Memo
Winston Churchill's Secret Poison Gas Memo
[stamp] PRIME MINISTER'S PERSONAL MINUTE
[stamp, pen] Serial No. D. 217/4
[Seal of Prime Minister]
10 Downing Street, Whitehall [gothic script]
GENERAL ISMAY FOR C.O.S. COMMITTEE [underlined]
1. I want you to think very seriously over this question of poison gas. I
would not use it unless it could be shown either that (a) it was life or death
for us, or (b) that it would shorten the war by a year.
2. It is absurd to consider morality on this topic when everybody used it in
the last war without a word of complaint from the moralists or the Church.
On the other hand, in the last war bombing of open cities was regarded as
forbidden. Now everybody does it as a matter of course. It is simply a question
of fashion changing as she does between long and short skirts for women.
3. I want a cold-blooded calculation made as to how it would pay us to use
poison gas, by which I mean principally mustard. We will want to gain more
ground in Normandy so as not to be cooped up in a small area. We could probably
deliver 20 tons to their 1 and for the sake of the 1 they would bring their
bomber aircraft into the area against our superiority, thus paying a heavy
toll.
4. Why have the Germans not used it? Not certainly out of moral scruples or
affection for us. They have not used it because it does not pay them. The
greatest temptation ever offered to them was the beaches of Normandy. This they
could have drenched with gas greatly to the hindrance of the troops. That
they thought about it is certain and that they prepared against our use of gas
is also certain. But they only reason they have not used it against us is that
they fear the retaliation. What is to their detriment is to our advantage.
5. Although one sees how unpleasant it is to receive poison gas attacks,
from which nearly everyone recovers, it is useless to protest that an equal
amount of H. E. will not inflict greater casualties and sufferings on troops and
civilians. One really must not be bound within silly conventions of the mind
whether they be those that ruled in the last war or those in reverse which
rule in this.
6. If the bombardment of London became a serious nuisance and great rockets
with far-reaching and devastating effect fell on many centres of Government
and labour, I should be prepared to do [underline] anything [stop underline]
that would hit the enemy in a murderous place. I may certainly have to ask you
to support me in using poison gas. We could drench the cities of the Ruhr
and many other cities in Germany in such a way that most of the population
would be requiring constant medical attention. We could stop all work at the
flying bomb starting points. I do not see why we should have the disadvantages of
being the gentleman while they have all the advantages of being the cad.
There are times when this may be so but not now.
7. I quite agree that it may be several weeks or even months before I shall
ask you to drench Germany with poison gas, and if we do it, let us do it one
hundred per cent. In the meanwhile, I want the matter studied in cold blood
by sensible people and not by that particular set of psalm-singing uniformed
defeatists which one runs across now here now there. Pray address yourself to
this. It is a big thing and can only be discarded for a big reason. I shall
of course have to square Uncle Joe and the President; but you need not bring
this into your calculations at the present time. Just try to find out what it
is like on its merits.
[signed] Winston Churchill [initials]
6.7.44 [underlined]
Source: photographic copy of original 4 page memo, in Guenther W.
Gellermann, "Der Krieg, der nicht stattfand", Bernard & Graefe Verlag, 1986, pp.
249-251
____________________________________
Winston S. Churchill: departmental minute (Churchill papers: 16/16) 12 May
1919 War Office
I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have
definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the
retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to
lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle
at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.
I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.
The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a
minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can
be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and
yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.
from Companion Volume 4, Part 1 of the official biography, WINSTON S.
CHURCHILL, by Martin Gilbert (London: Heinemann, 1976)
____________________________________
Henry Gonzalez, US Congressman, referred to this in the House of
Representatives on March 24, 1992:
"But there again, where is the moral right? The first one to use gas against
Arabs was Winston Churchill, the British, in the early 1920's. They were
Iraq Arabs they used them against."
_http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920324g.htm_ (http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992/h920324g.htm)
"Moral right" is of course the reason this piece of history has now been
dredged up again - by people who see contradictions in the pious arguments of
Messrs. Bush, Blair et al. And this seems only fair. In 1998 Clinton denounced
opponents to his planned attack on Iraq for "not remembering the past".
> I remain unconvinced that the UK used chemical weapons > in the middle
east in the 1920s.... > but I'm open to correction.
Not easy. And if you'd rather not...
Churchill thought of it as poison gas - and so, apparently did everyone
else. The idea of using it was his alone. And he is also is also to have given
the authorization to the RAF. He wanted gas to be used in addition to regular
bombing: "against recalcitrant Arabs as experiment". According to Simons, gas
was not dispensed in bombs.
The intention was to quell a growing rebellion in remote villages. He met
with objections but maintained that "we cannot in any circumstances acquiesce
in the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy
termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier".
It seems Churchill wanted to cause "disablement", "discomfort or illness,
but not death".
In any case, to Churchill this was not a moral issue. Here is part of a
memo, so you can see it through his eyes. He wrote this during WWII, when he
contemplated using poison gas, but never did:
____________________________________
Excerpts below by _www.informaitionwar.org_
(http://www.informaitionwar.org/)
BACKGROUND: In 1917, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the British
occupied Iraq and established a colonial government. The Arab and Kurdish
people of Iraq resisted the British occupation, and by 1920 this had developed
into a full scale national revolt, which cost the British dearly. As the
Iraqi resistance gained strength, the British resorted to increasingly repressive
measures, including the use of posion gas.] NB: Because of formatting
problems, quotation marks will appear as stars * All quotes in the excerpt are
properly footnoted in the original book, with full references to British
archives and papers. Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *IRAQ: FROM
SUMER TO SUDAN*. London: St. Martins Press, 1994:
Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was sensitive to the cost of
policing the Empire; and was in consequence keen to exploit the potential of
modern technology. This strategy had particular relevance to operations in Iraq.
On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then
Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air
warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would
entail *the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause
disablement of some kind but not death...for use in preliminary operations
against turbulent tribes.*
Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the
Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): *I do not
understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of
using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.* Henry Wilson shared Churchills
enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the British
cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery
and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue
that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would cause
*only discomfort or illness, but not death* to dissident tribespeople; but his
optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It was likely that the
suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and *kill children and sickly
persons, more especially as the people against whom we intend to use it have
no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes.*
Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the use
of gas, a *scientific expedient,* should not be prevented *by the prejudices
of those who do not think clearly*. In the event, gas was used against the
Iraqi rebels with excellent moral effect* though gas shells were not dropped
from aircraft because of practical difficulties [.....]
Today in 1993 there are still Iraqis and Kurds who remember being bombed and
machine-gunned by the RAF in the 1920s. A Kurd from the Korak mountains
commented, seventy years after the event: *They were bombing here in the Kaniya
Khoran...Sometimes they raided three times a day.* Wing Commander Lewis, then
of 30 Squadron (RAF), Iraq, recalls how quite often *one would get a signal
that a certain Kurdish village would have to be bombed...*, the RAF pilots
being ordered to bomb any Kurd who looked hostile. In the same vein,
Squadron-Leader Kendal of 30 Squadron recalls that if the tribespeople were doing
something they ought not be doing then you shot them.*
Similarly, Wing-Commander Gale, also of 30 Squadron: *If the Kurds hadn't
learned by our example to behave themselves in a civilised way then we had to
spank their bottoms. This was done by bombs and guns.
Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris (later Bomber Harris, head of wartime
Bomber Command) was happy to emphasise that *The Arab and Kurd now know what
real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within forty-five minutes a
full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants
killed or injured.* It was an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the
tribespeople, because they had no means of defence or retalitation. Iraq and Kurdistan
were also useful laboratories for new weapons; devices specifically
developed by the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages. The ministry drew up a
list of possible weapons, some of them the forerunners of napalm and
air-to-ground missiles:
Phosphorus bombs, war rockets, metal crowsfeet [to maim livestock]
man-killing shrapnel, liquid fire, delay-action bombs. Many of these weapons were
first used in Kurdistan.
Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *Iraq: From Sumer to Saddam*.
London: St. Martins Press, 1994
To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at _Global
Research's News and Discussion Forum_
(http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php) , at _http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php_
(http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php)
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at _www.globalresearch.ca_
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/) grants permission to cross-post original Global
Research (Canada) articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on
community internet sites, as long as the text & title of the article are not
modified. The source must be acknowledged as follows: Centre for Research on
Globalization (CRG) at _www.globalresearch.ca_ (http://www.globalresearch.ca/)
. For cross-postings, kindly use the active URL hyperlink address of the
original CRG article. The author's copyright note must be displayed. (For
articles from other news sources, check with the original copyright holder, where
applicable.). For publication of Global Research (Canada) articles in print or
other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
[email protected]_ (mailto:editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) .
For media inquiries: [email protected]_
(mailto:editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
© Copyright belongs to the author, 2004. For fair use only/ pour usage
équitable seulement.
Regards,
Jud
Personal Website:
_http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm_
(http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm)
E-mail Discussion List:
nominalism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---