View Full Version : Phrance
Roguish Lawyer
06-17-2005, 13:39
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061700636_pf.html
Poll Shows Slump in Trust Between French, Americans
Reuters
Friday, June 17, 2005; 12:42 PM
PARIS - Trust between the French and Americans has slumped to its lowest level in 17 years, more than two years after a bitter feud over the Iraq war, an opinion poll showed on Friday.
The TNS-Sofres survey of 1,000 people in each country showed only 31 percent of French people have any "sympathy" for Americans, down from 39 percent in 2002.
Only 35 percent of Americans like the French, a drop from 50 percent in 2002, according to the poll, published in the Le Monde newspaper.
French President Jacques Chirac infuriated Washington and helped create anti-French feeling by his opposition to the Iraq war and his advocacy of a world in which the European Union would counterbalance U.S. power.
Americans retaliated by renaming French fries "freedom fries" and some even stopped buying French wine.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited France in February to help repair ties. She was greeted warmly and her visit was deemed successful.
The survey showed an overwhelming 70 percent of French people believe the United States is not a loyal ally. Fifty-six percent of Americans said France was not a reliable partner.
French people with left-wing views are most likely to be hostile to Americans, the survey found. Left-wing French voters drove France's rejection last month of the EU constitution. Many who voted 'No' said they feared the charter would impose U.S.-style free-market economics on Europe.
In the United States, Democrats and the black community have a better image of France while 39 percent of Republicans said they do not like France.
French people openly supported French-speaking Democrat John Kerry in last November's presidential election, infuriating President Bush's Republican supporters.
Why are the streets in France lined with trees?
So that invading armies have shade to walk in.
What year did the French Resistance have it's most members?
1947. No shit.
I was only in France one time and I didn't care for it.
Doc
The survey showed an overwhelming 70 percent of French people believe the United States is not a loyal ally.
Could be, dunno that I'd volunteer to free France.
it would be interesting to see where the poll was taken in France...how Brittany differed from Paris, from Provence, from Bordeaux...and likewise the US...N'awlins or Cheyenne, New York or San Antonio...if the polls were taken in Paris and New York, i'd say the results might be different than polls taken in Bordeaux and Houston...IMNSHO...
Airbornelawyer
06-17-2005, 21:02
it would be interesting to see where the poll was taken in France...how Brittany differed from Paris, from Provence, from Bordeaux...and likewise the US...N'awlins or Cheyenne, New York or San Antonio...if the polls were taken in Paris and New York, i'd say the results might be different than polls taken in Bordeaux and Houston...IMNSHO...The places in France where I have spent the most time - the Normandy region and Verdun - are decidedly more pro-American than places like Paris. Of course, to judge by the vote on the European constitution, they are also more pro-French than the jaded multicultural elites of Paris.
French people openly supported French-speaking Democrat John Kerry in last November's presidential election, infuriating President Bush's Republican supporters.Reuters' dumbest statement in that article. Yeah, French-US tensions are abourt Kerry :rolleyes:
The survey showed an overwhelming 70 percent of French people believe the United States is not a loyal ally. From conversations with a variety of Frenchmen, mostly soldiers, on various parts of the political spectrum, I'd say this is less than surprising. When criticizing French ingratitude, Americans routinely bring up Normandy and US sacrifices in the liberation of France (rightly, I might add, and as noted above, those closest to those events still have the strongest feelings). American intervention in World War One is also recalled.
But Americans tend to ignore or downplay a few things as well, which based on my experience Frenchmen (and other Europeans) tend to remember:
The US entered in World War One in April 1917. The war had been going on for almost three years by this time, and millions of English, French, Belgians, Greeks, Serbs and other Allied soldiers and civilians had already been killed by the time the US decided the conflict might be worth American sacrifice.
In September 1939, the US preferred isolation, and left France and Britain to stand alone against Hitler. When the Nazis invaded northern and western Europe, the US stood by. When the Nazis conquered southeastern Europe, sent their armies to Africa and invaded the Soviet Union, the US stood by. The US didn't join the war until it was attacked.
The United Stated not only did not help the Allies when the Germans invaded France, the US recognized the Nazis' puppet regime in Vichy rather than the Free French fighting alongside the British.
While rightly pointing to our sacrifices in the liberation of France in 1944, Americans routinely downplay French sacrifices. It is one thing to joke about the lack of French resistance; it is another thing to actually believe it. Just because quite a few French falsely claimed resistance activities after the war was over, does not change the fact that hundreds of thousands of French citizens did fight. The First French Army under de Lattre de Tassigny, which participated in the invasion of Southern France and the campaigns that followed, had eight divisions and fought closely alongside the Americans (in the battle where Audie Murphy won his Medal of Honor, 3rd ID was initially under a French corps and was itself reinforced with a Combat Command from a French armored division and a battalion of French paratroopers).
From the French perspective, although the US provided a lot of material support, the US was not a reliable ally in the conflict in French Indochina. We remained too willing to entertain romantic notions about how the Communist Viet Minh were really just nationalists resisting colonialism (there are people today who still seem to believe that Ho really only wanted to be the George Washington of Vietnam).
While US troops were not fighting in French Indochina, French troops were fighting in Korea. Apparently, until a post-production rewrite, Clint Eastwood and his film crew thought the US Marines fought at Heartbreak Ridge. The Marines didn't, but guess who did? The French. They also fought in the Battles of the Twin Tunnels and Chipyong Ni, as part of the 23rd Infantry Regiment, 2nd ID, winning two Presidential Unit Citations.
The "betrayal" by the US of Israel, France and Britain in the 1956 Suez Crisis is cited as the worst example of the US not standing by its allies. I'm sure we had our reasons...
In October 1983, terrorists attacked the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans, mostly Marines. How many Americans are even aware that another truck bomb exploded within minutes at the French compound, killing 58 French paratroopers? There was a period of retaliation after the terrrorist attacks, and much rhetoric about not giving in to terrorism. But a few months later, Reagan ordered US troops out of Lebanon without first consulting our French, British and Italian allies.
We routinely point to the experience in the Balkans in the early 1990s as an example of European impotence in the face of evil in their own backyard. I think we are right on this point, but I would also note that many Europeans and Canadians point to the sacrifices that they did make as part of UNPROFOR, again while the US stood on the sidelines and criticized.
How many Americans, do you suppose, are aware that French special operations forces continue to serve in the C/JSOTF in Afghanistan?
Please note that I am only setting forth a perspective on these matters often heard in Europe (again not just France). There are obviously counterarguments to, or differing perspectives on, all of these (as there are to many of the things we hold against various Europeans). The truth may be out there, but far too many people are far too comfortable relying on their misperceptions and prejudices.
We routinely point to the experience in the Balkans in the early 1990s as an example of European impotence in the face of evil in their own backyard. I think we are right on this point, but I would also note that many Europeans and Canadians point to the sacrifices that they did make as part of UNPROFOR, again while the US stood on the sidelines and criticized.
Good points all, AL, but I don't completely agree with the statement the US stood on the sidelines in regards to UNPROFOR. Having spent quality time living on Camp Able Sentry wearing a light blue ball cap, I'd say the US played a role.
I got my Resistance Numbers/Time Frame from a man I knew at the Agency.
Apparently COL Bank was impressed enough to give Ho a Go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Bank
We'll never know.
I still don't care for folks that don't care for me.
Doc
WWI
Why would the U.S. be rushing to send a large Army it didn't have to fight a European family war between Monarchs, that was the thinking then. The U.S. also had a neutrality policy not unlike Switzerland has and Britain had until 1902. Still American pilots were flying French planes.
WWI began as a Austria-Hungary vs Serbia war and was orchestrated into a larger war by Bismarks hope for a great German empire. Most of Europe was drawn in by mutual protection treaties. Italy only joined in against Germany after being promised territories in Austria and Turkey, despite having a prior treaty with Germany. When the U.S. saw the war going badly it used the German submarine threat to the shipping lanes as a reason to break it's neutrality, even though the U.S. was shipping supplies to Britain. The Brits also came up with a message intercept of Germany offering Mexico U.S. territory.
WWII
I'm sure I remember the British and French not running into the fight. The Brits called for non-intervention in Spain, even though Germany sent aid and troops to Franco. The British and French had a policy of apeasement and non-intervention and stood by as Austria and Germany again formed a union. Chamberlain even signed the Munich agreement that gave control of the Sudetenland to Germany. Germany siezed Czechoslovakia and Poland before Chamberlain would declare war.
France refused to spend the money for it's own defense believing the incomplete Maginot line was enough. After all they defeated Germany once.
The U.S. enacted the draft in September of 1940. American pilots were with a wink and nod flying and fighting in Europe and Asia. Supplies were moving across the big muddy from the U.S. to Europe. Admiral Himmel was sending warships of the Pacific fleet to the Atlantic just before the attack on Pearl.
French Indochina
After WWII there was an opinion that France should allow the Vietnamese to govern themselves. China and the Vietminh had been fighting the Japanese in Indochina. France was unwilling to give up authority and the U.S. reluctant to help win back Indochina for the French. France bought off the Chinese for control of the north and re-established control of the South by force. Then the mess with Bao Dai, Ho and the communist.
The OSS gave Ho medical care in 1945 and operated for a time freeing allied prisoners and searching, ironically, for MIAs while working with the Viet minh. OSS Ltc. Peter Dewey reported the same assesment as Col. Banks and was ordered out of Vietnam by British MG Douglas D. Gracey.
Ltc. Dewey would be the first American killed in Vietnam. The French and Vietminh blamed each other for the ambush that killed him.
Korea
The U.N. and the U.S. did some fighting in Korea and the U.S. Army was also on Heartbreak ridge.
Deaths Korea
U.S: 36,568
U.K: 1,078
Turkey: 720
Canada: 309
France: 288
Australia: 281
Greece: 169
Columbia: 140
Ethiopia: 120
Netherlands: 110
Thailand: 110
Belgium: 97
Phillipines: 92
The Middle East in 1956
Betrayel of what. Britain, France and Israel formed the "tripartite collusion" after Nasser nationalized the Suez, they attacked Egypt. The U.N and Russia also had a hand in the intervention but the French don't mind rubbing elbows with them.
Lebanon
Lets not forget the other two bombings before and after the Marine barracks, the bombing on 18 April 1983 of the US embassy in west Beirut (63 dead including 17 U.S.), and of the US embassy annex in east Beirut on 20 September 1984 (8 killed). The Marines left Beiruit in February 1984 the French left in March 1984. I'm wondering, again, what nation of the U.N. contingent had the most warships carriers and troops in the area.
Afghanistan
Yep.
Afghanistan, 1,800 French troops make France the second largest partner of the United States in Afghanistan after Germany. French contributions include troops deployed through the International Security and Assistance Force (900, 11% of ISAF), training of the Afghan national army, Operation Enduring Freedom on the ground (special forces), at sea (2 frigates, 1 tanker, and 1 Maritime Patrol Aircraft), and in the air (2 transport aircraft, 3 reconnaissance jet fighters and 1 tanker) French Embassy report as of April 2005
I know Airborne Lawyer was playng devils advocate, but hey I had some time. :munchin
Airbornelawyer
06-20-2005, 11:24
Lets not forget the other two bombings before and after the Marine barracks, the bombing on 18 April 1983 of the US embassy in west Beirut (63 dead including 17 U.S.), and of the US embassy annex in east Beirut on 20 September 1984 (8 killed). The Marines left Beiruit in February 1984 the French left in March 1984.This is not a pissing contest to see who took more casualties or had more ships. The point is twofold: (1) far too many Americans seem blissfully unaware that they weren't the only ones fighting in Lebanon and commemorations of the bombings tend to not even mention the attack on the French (the Marines' own commemorations do, however); and (2) after all these Marines, soldiers, sailors, and French and Italian paras died, their sacrifice was for nought due to the US decision to withdraw, which forced the other multinational forces to follow.
One can debate whether the intervention in Lebanon was a good idea in the first place. But our withdrawal emboldened the terrorists to believe in our weakness, just as much as our withdrawal a decade later from Somalia after another loss of soldiers' lives.
By the way, as you note, the October 23 bombings weren't the only US losses of life in Lebanon. But they weren't the only French either.
The first US Marine died on 30 September 1982. Italy lost one Marine, Marò Filippo Montesi, KIA March 22, 1983. As you note, 17 Americans died in the April embassy bombing. On July 6, six French paras from the 17ème RGP were KIA. On August 29, 2 US Marines were killed. Three French Foreign Legionnaires were killed on August 30. Two US Marines were killed on September 5. Two more combat engineers of the 17ème RGP were killed on September 7. Two Marines were killed by snipers, on October 14 and October 16.
These casualties slowly built up until the October 23 bombings. Subsequent to these attacks, the multinational force conducted combat operations in Beirut, losing 11 more US Marines and 17 more French soldiers and sailors (and killing an unknown number of Lebanese terrorists and militiamen, Syrian soldiers and Iranian Revolutionary Guards).
I've lost count of a few, but I believe total KIAs were 275 Americans, 87 French and one Italian.
I'm wondering, again, what nation of the U.N. contingent had the most warships carriers and troops in the area.It was not a UN contingent. The Multinational Force in Lebanon was a "coalition of the willing," made up primarily of the US, France and Italy, with a smaller force from the UK.
Until August 1983, when militia attacks began to step up, France had the main naval presence in the area. The carrier Foch arrived with the initial deployments in 1982 and conducted its first airstrikes in September of that year. Other than the vessels supporting the Marines, the US did not have a major naval presence until August 1983, when the USS Eisenhower's carrier battle group was deployed to the eastern Med. The first naval gunfire support came in September 1983 from the frigate USS Bowen. At least two destroyers, the USS John Rodgers and the USS Arthur Radford, also conducted fire support missions that month, along with the cruiser USS Virginia. The USS New Jersey arrived on station on September 24, but did not conduct fire missions until November.
The Eisenhower CBG was accompanied by the Clemenceau CBG, which replaced the Foch, making the force at the time of the October bombings one US carrier, one French carrier, one US battleship, and support vessels from the US, France, Italy and the UK. After the bombings, the US deployed an additional carrier, the USS Kennedy, and the USS Independence replaced the Eisenhower.
But as with Korea, what difference does this make? The Left today, including Kerry in the presidential campaign, tries to argue that our coalition in Iraq is not a "real" coalition because it is overwhelmingly (around 90%) American. But the history of multinational operations since World War Two shows that it is pretty much always the US which bears the biggest burden. This was true in Korea, in Vietnam (another conflict where allied participation is often forgotten, though usually by the Left), in Desert Storm, in IFOR/SFOR, in Kosovo and in Afghanistan. Hell, it was true to a lesser extent during World War Two.*
One of the prices the US pays for being the only country capable and willing to exercise global leadership is that we end up bearing most of the burden.
Lebanon, ironically, is one of the few post-war operations where there was more equitable burden-sharing. Both France and the US maintained similar-sized ground formations, initially battalion and later brigade-sized, and both provided significant naval forces, despite the fact that the US is 4-5 times bigger than France.
________
* Just looking at the Western and Italian fronts: as of January 31, 1945, in the ETO and Italy, the US had deployed 13 armored and 46 infantry and airborne divisions, plus who-knows-how-many other assets (from Ranger battalions to corps artillery, etc.). About 3 more armored and 5 more infantry were arriving and had not yet seen combat.
Other Allies:
UK - not sure, but around 4-5 armored, 9-10 infantry and 1 airborne division
France - 3 armored, 9 infantry divisions (2 understrength)
Canada - 4 infantry and 2 armored divisions; 2 armored brigades.
Poland - 1 armored and 2 infantry divisions; 1 armored brigade; 1 airborne brigade.
India - 3 infantry divisions, 1 infantry brigade
New Zealand - 1 armored division
South Africa - 1 armored division
Brazil - 1 infantry division
Czechoslovakia - 1 armored brigade
The Netherlands - 1 infantry brigade
Belgium - 1 infantry brigade
Norway - 1 infantry battalion
I wasn't starting a pissing contest, and I'd said I knew you were playing devils advocate. Take it for what you want.
Achilles
06-20-2005, 11:42
French people openly supported French-speaking Democrat John Kerry in last November's presidential election, infuriating President Bush's Republican supporters.
Just as you try to start a good ol' French bashing thread, AL has to come in with his pie charts, statistics, and otherwise infallible arguments and be a party pooper.
Weazle23
06-20-2005, 12:28
I still say France Sucks! :D
And I won't mention their contribution to our own Revolutionary War. :rolleyes:
Bill Harsey
06-20-2005, 12:45
Since the range is open on France again...
I just wanted to thank Airborne Lawyer for bringing up more than a few points I wouldn't have previously considered.
I've never thought of France before in terms of regions having varying attitudes, just like here.
This is the part where I won't add, "Go Doc!"
Peregrino
06-20-2005, 13:43
I still say France Sucks! :D :rolleyes:
OK guys - we do have to give the Phrench credit for a few things:
Two generations of war brides (WWI and WWII),
Haute Cuisine (more things to do with mystery meat),
The viniculture that produces some of the finest wines in the world (thank you Napa and Sonoma),
Some of the most beautiful, exotic women in the world (Eurasians from the French Indochina colonial period),
Much to do with the growth and legitimization of Jazz (Paris between the Wars),
Haute Couture for most of the 20th Century,
Other exports worthy of our attention but too numerous to mention.
And - in all seriousness - lest we overlook or forget:
An elite military tradition, in certain units, worthy of respect (La Garde Imperiale at Waterloo, Camerone, Dien Bien Phu). Not all of them were Frenchmen - or even fighting for France when they did their duty. Sadly they were all to some extent betrayed by their leadership for motives typically French and worthy of the highest contempt. But as individuals and units, they earned honor for themselves and their posterity and their names and deeds are worthy of remembrance.
Now we can go back to bashing the b******s! :D
Just thought I would stir the pot again. Peregrino
OK guys - we do have to give the Phrench credit for a few things:
Two generations of war brides (WWI and WWII),i doubt that war brides did much to dillute the gene pools of Mississippi and Arkansas...
The viniculture that produces some of the finest wines in the world (thank you Napa and Sonoma),i do believe the Gallo Brothers, among others of California, were of Italian heritage and brought that tradition with them...
Haute Couture for most of the 20th Century,ain't never worn nuthin' but BDUs, Cammies and Wranglers...but thanks, anyway... :D
frostfire
06-20-2005, 19:27
AL at his best...
The arguments surrounding France reminds me of this one:
http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2825
I don't consider the FFL as French.
And - in all seriousness - lest we overlook or forget:
An elite military tradition, in certain units, worthy of respect (....Camerone, Dien Bien Phu). Not all of them were Frenchmen - or even fighting for France when they did their duty.
great minds think alike?
Airbornelawyer
06-20-2005, 21:18
I see that I covered some of the same ground in that thread too, though that one meandered all over the place even more than this one. I forgot about our betrayals of Poland and Hungary and whomever else.
I also seem a little cranky there. That is so unlike me. :rolleyes:
Of course, even while acknowledging our few black marks, the United States can proudly stack its record against any nation in history. No one has shown our willingness and capability to do what needs to be done, and to do it for genuinely good reasons on so many occasions, whatever geopolitical benefit might also accrue. Even when we were being European-style imperialistas in places like Haiti, Cuba, Mexico and the Philippines, we were out building roads, cleaning streets and giving people an opportunity to make a better life (and I don't think it's our fault when they squander that opportunity).
As for the Légion, I also addressed that elsewhere. The Légion is as French as a Guatemalan or Canadian kid in the US Marines is American. Ethnicity doesn't make the soldier. As a combat force, the Légion does it right, though, instilling the primary loyalty to your comrades, creating a band of brothers among people who can barely communicate with each other when they come through the gates. But the Légion has mediocre units too, and the best units in the French Army aren't in the Légion (the best today is probably the 1er RPIMa, descendant of the French contingent of the SAS). France's greatest soldier of the 20th century, Marcel Bigeard, was not a Légionnaire.
By the way, if you want a country to get really annoyed at for all of its anti-American ingrates, you really can't beat Belgium. Belgium is an artficial state, created to be a buffer between France and Prussia/Germany. In 1914, when the Germans invaded, Belgium faced a brutal occupation and the spectre of mass starvation. The Belgians were saved primarily through the efforts of an American, Herbert Hoover, whose Committee for Relief of Belgium singlehandedly organized the effort to feed 11 million people. When the US joined the war, Hoover returned to the US to serve as US Food Administrator, but after the war (when US troops turned the tide on the Germans and saved the Allies, including Belgium), he returned to Europe to run the American Relief Administration, helping stave off starvation throughout the continent (including, again, Belgium). In World War Two, of course, we and our allies liberated Belgium like we did the rest of Western Europe, with frankly little help from the Belgians themselves (there were about 3-4 times as many Belgians in the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS as in the Allied armies). When the Battle of the Bulge was launched, thousands of Americans shed their blood on Belgian soil. And US troops liberated the King of Belgium from his "captivity" in an Austrian mountain lodge. After the war, Belgium was a beneficiary of the Marshall Plan and the US commitment to NATO protected Belgium from the Soviets as much as it did the rest of Western Europe. In the 1960s, when Belgian civilians were threatened by violence in their former colony of the Congo, the Belgians turned to the US Air Force to transport the Belgian para-commandos in to save them.
And our reward? Hiding behind the wall of protection provided by NATO (headquartered in Belgium), Belgium became the model of the European ingrate. Belgians probably have the worst anti-American attitudes in Western Europe. After the Soviet collapse, Belgium gutted its military capabilities even more than the rest of Europe. Understandable because of their strategic position, they have become the biggest advocates of European integration (as a way to tie down France and Germany), but they also benefit from all the jobs in Brussels for EUrocrats. In 2002-03, they became the lapdogs to the axis of weasels. In fact, Belgium was the only formal United States ally to threaten to block US efforts in the build-up to invading Iraq, as their government threatened to not allow US forces to transit from German bases across Belgian soil. When France and Germany both approved US road and rail movements, Belgium was left in the cold. And militarily, Belgium has probably done proportionately less in the war on terror than any other NATO country except maybe Greece (which has its own anti-Americanism issues).
Anyone want to play devil's advocate for the Belgians?
(I should note that as in France, attitudes in Belgium differ from place to place. Americans are rather well-liked in Bastogne, though with the younger generations probably more for our tourist dollars.)
Roguish Lawyer
06-20-2005, 21:30
Anyone want to play devil's advocate for the Belgians?
Their monks make good beer.
Goggles Pizano
06-21-2005, 08:41
Not defending Belgians as a whole AL however when I visited Bastogne they seemed genuinely hospitable to Americans (of course we were military so that may have been the difference). They had hotels named after McAulliffe and Patton. Shermans at the entrance to the public square. One resturant had stained glass windows of the 10th Armored and 101st Airborne unit patches. I cannot speak for the rest of the country though as we were just passing through.
Airbornelawyer
06-21-2005, 11:46
Not defending Belgians as a whole AL however when I visited Bastogne they seemed genuinely hospitable to Americans (of course we were military so that may have been the difference). They had hotels named after McAulliffe and Patton. Shermans at the entrance to the public square. One resturant had stained glass windows of the 10th Armored and 101st Airborne unit patches. I cannot speak for the rest of the country though as we were just passing through.I did mention Bastogne, where I too haven't had any negative experiences. My first trip to Bastogne was in December 1994, during the 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge, and the place was festooned with American flags and Screaming Eagles patches.
Of course, names don't mean alot. In downtown Paris, there is an avenue du Général-Eisenhower, a place du Général Patton, an avenue Franklin-D-Roosevelt, an avenue Winston Churchill, an avenue du Président Wilson, a rue Benjamin Franklin and a boulevard Pershing. The stretch of road across the Seine from the Eiffel Tower is the avenue de New York, given that name in 1945 (previously, it was the avenue de Tokio :rolleyes: ).
EX-Gold Falcon
06-21-2005, 13:27
Perhaps I missed seeing it, but France also contributed a good number of forces during the 1st Gulf War.
2nd Bde 82nd was attached to the French 6th Light Armor when we pushed into Iraq.
Personally I was very impressed with the troops we worked with. Well trained, equipped and motivated. Oh, and NO ONE eats as well in the field as French soldiers! I think they took pity on us and our MREs, everytime we'd go over to cross train they'd stuff us with fresh food and just baked bread. Hell, even their MREs were the sh!t! Also the contingency of Legionnaries were some seriously hard bastards.
I've always tried to keep those soldiers in mind whenever I see anti-France comments.
Their gov't on the otherhand.........
T.
Roguish Lawyer
06-21-2005, 14:43
I have only been to France once, a long time ago. At that time, I found the people in Paris to be generally repulsive, but I liked the people down south.