Graceful French Exit from Colonialism?
- Thread starter Malta
- Start date
It could'nt go the British route no, unlike the others it since the 19th century viewed (northern) Algeria as integral parts of France and had been coming to view all of its colonies and territories as such.
You could have them decide to establish a prgoram of gradual independence for Indochina, Madagascar and parts or all of West Africa, legally recognizing them as autonomous and gradually devolving more and more power while ensuring a smooth transition until they become fully independent, though Indochina would require it to be much faster than West Africa.
Algeria however the French are'nt gonna let go without a fight anymore than say Argentina would let go of Patagonia.
I wish I could remember who, but sometime back somebody on this site pointed out that the original French negotiator (Admiral somebody?) was replaced (?because he died in a crash?). The new guy was much more hardline and that caused the talks with Ho to go down the tubes. Keep the original guy in place, and a negotiated independence for Vietnam is probably possible early on.
Others have pointed out the the US was pretty anti-colonial in WWII, and that the OSS actively worked with Ho. US support for an independent Vietnam wouldn't so much involve a change in policy as a lack of change in policy. (It might well require Ho to include some non-communists in a 'Popular Front' government...)
Algeria is going to be the biggest mess of any attempts at decolonization, because it was considered as much a part of France as the Loire Valley, but the inherent racist attitudes they had towards the indigenous population is a powder keg waiting to go off.
France's government in the 1930s (I think it was Blum) tried to offer enfranchisement to Algerians, but was met with widespread opposition over fears of "Islamicizing" or Arabizing France's identity. Even then, it was mostly suggested to be offered to WWI veterans, educated Algerians, and of course those who had assimilated and converted to Christianity. Not to mention that the Pied Noirs would have a huge issue of seeing their political base in the Algerian Departments be eroded by enfranchisement.
France's government in the 1930s (I think it was Blum) tried to offer enfranchisement to Algerians, but was met with widespread opposition over fears of "Islamicizing" or Arabizing France's identity. Even then, it was mostly suggested to be offered to WWI veterans, educated Algerians, and of course those who had assimilated and converted to Christianity. Not to mention that the Pied Noirs would have a huge issue of seeing their political base in the Algerian Departments be eroded by enfranchisement.
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
Algeria will not go quietly into that good night. At least not with a post-1900 alteration. As others have said it is viewed as French. That view however, is incompatible with the idea of enfranchising the Algerians.
The Christian Algerians will have trouble because they are caught in a perfect maelstrom of people who don't want them. For a lot of Frenchmen they are still just Arabs, and for their fellow Algerians they are collaborators.
The Christian Algerians will have trouble because they are caught in a perfect maelstrom of people who don't want them. For a lot of Frenchmen they are still just Arabs, and for their fellow Algerians they are collaborators.
Of course, once Ho and Co. consolidate their power and dump their partners, "who lost Vietnam" will be added to the "who lost China" chorus....
Bruce
Just to throw out a numer, I think it would be politically and culturally impossible for the French to assimilate Muslims exceeding 25% the total population of France proper, at least not in a big "lump": by 1925 Algeria already has about 15% France's population. I don't think you can bring on European-type demographics in time with 20th century PODs.
Bruce
Bruce
One of the major issues as well was France's refusal to accommodate Muslims by allowing for Sharia to be used for social issues. I think that Blum's attempt at enfranchisement was shot down because it allowed for such accommodations to be made, which greatly angered the Pied Noirs. This prevented assimilation by more or less demanding that citizenship came at the price of apostasy.
BlondieBC
Banned
Sure you can. Avoid WW1. Almost any POD that does that will fix the issues. By 1940, you are looking at easily 2 million more French men. And then there is the flood of other Europeans from other countries that can be attracted to Algeria. So there are plenty of Europeans. By say 1950, we are looking at about 10 million people in Algeria IOTL with around 1 million Europeans and 1 million Arabs that are not Muslim. So 20% that can be attracted to remain loyal to France. You would need a program to attract Europeans, but by 1950, you could be looking at 1/3 pro France. Enough to control and hang on. Assume 3 million European, 1 million Arabs not Muslim, and 8 million Muslim. Since France gave rights such as voting to people who became Christians and learned French, the number of Muslims will decline over time. It is not a easy colony to keep, but it is doable.
You will see the same pattern over and over. WW1 demographic and financial changes undermining settler colonies and potential settler colonies.
Right, and there won't be any resistance at all.
That's the problem here, resistance will happen, and it doesn't need to be armed, either.
BlondieBC
Banned
That is not a bad description. Just because a more powerful nation keeps more land does not mean the more powerful nation actually benefits.
Right, and there won't be any resistance at all.
That's the problem here, resistance will happen, and it doesn't need to be armed, either.
I was responding to a post about could Algeria be kept. I never said it would be all smiles and happiness. It is just when you look at various empires, once a country is above 25% of an area, they often are able to keep the area for centuries. It is hard to hold on to an area with 5% of the population, but the 1/3 of the population I propose is quite doable, and it has been even done in North Africa. It took a centuries before the Muslims were a majority of Egypt. The Ottomans held on to the Balkans for centuries with Muslim population in this range or less. Muslim held on to parts of Spain for centuries with lesser % of population.
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
That kind of thinking doesn't really work in the modern era. In the immortal words of Wolfpaw, colonialism is living on borrowed time the second the machine gun is invented. If Algeria descends into violence (and it will, such a massive white settler community will only increase the deprivation heaped upon the Algerian populace), the settlers will begin to leave and control over the colony will at first fray and eventually dissolve in its entirety. Throw in the fact that the Soviets and Arab states will be more than happy to peddle scads of arms to the Algerian rebels and you have a recipe for a brutal, ugly conflict that drags France down even more than the historical Algerian War.
Algeria cannot simply survive as this isolated enclave of French rule amidst a hostile population (as well as hostile neighboring countries) the French cannot pay the blood toll of keeping Algeria any more than they could historically, the Algerians aren't simply going to call it quits, ultimately their desire for total independence along with their willingness to die in huge numbers to do so will wear down even the most adamant supporters of French rule in Algeria.
Algeria cannot simply survive as this isolated enclave of French rule amidst a hostile population (as well as hostile neighboring countries) the French cannot pay the blood toll of keeping Algeria any more than they could historically, the Algerians aren't simply going to call it quits, ultimately their desire for total independence along with their willingness to die in huge numbers to do so will wear down even the most adamant supporters of French rule in Algeria.
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
This assumes that there was ever a massive group of Algerians barring of course the French settler community who viewed French rule as a necessity to protect themselves in the way Irish Protestants did. And there wasn't.
Huh, is there any reasonable way for this to actually go through? Seems like an interesting point of divergence. What would the likely knock-on effects be if even a limited form like this was introduced?
Seperately it kind of reminds me of the mooted idea to form a 'French' majority Oran region by having all the Pied-Noirs, Algerian Jews, and Harkis move there as a kind of mini-Algeria that would become independent as mentioned in this thread. Supposing that the limited franchise idea was introduced and it makes the later Algerian Revolution even messier thanks to an enlarged French aligned faction, might the French government be more receptive to an independent or still part of France Oran if they'd played their cards a bit better?
Right wing opposition was so widespread that it was unfeasible to pull off without a significant PoD. Blum essentially wanted to give space for Sharia for Muslim citizens, instead of forcing them to follow secular law. Given the Anti-Clerical nature of the French Republic and its identity, this is a huge sticking point. As for the effects of enfranchisement passing, I doubt it would have stopped nationalist agitation. Sure, some may accept French Algeria, but plenty of the évolués would join the FLN, because Colons distrusted them so much. I doubt a rump state would be able to function for long as well, mainly because the Pied Noirs were so maximalist in their claims and refused to offer any kind of concessions.
You would have to go back to the 19th Century and the time of Napoleon III when he attempted to offer normalized civilian rule in Algeria for a more successful integration.
Last edited:
Split the difference? Grant the limited franchise but still make them follow the secular law. Perhaps dress it up as a kind of bond of military service/Français par le sang versé for those that served in France during the Great War or that join the police or military in Algeria to appeal to the right. I don't have the in-depth knowledge of France of the period to know how plausible that would be so just throwing out ideas since it seemed like an interesting point of departure. If it's just not feasible though then it's just not feasible.
Split the difference? Grant the limited franchise but still make them follow the secular law. Perhaps dress it up as a kind of bond of military service/Français par le sang versé for those that served in France during the Great War or that join the police or military in Algeria to appeal to the right. I don't have the in-depth knowledge of France of the period to know how plausible that would be so just throwing out ideas since it seemed like an interesting point of departure. If it's just not feasible though then it's just not feasible.
If a Muslim Algerian had accepted to follow French law instead of Sharia, then they were granted full rights of citizenship, including voting. However, this means essentially that the Muslims who do so are Apostates, which is why very few ever decided to do so other than those who converted.
Like I said previously, Anti-Clericalism has to be mitigated for the French state to work with Islamic jurisprudence, which means changes have to be made such as the 1905 law on the Separation of Church and State, or the Jules Ferry Laws which secularized education. Even then, this isn't a guarantee that French bigotry towards Islam doesn't manage to screw things up with the indigenous population.
Last edited:
Is Shari'a law such a deal-breaker? After all, _most_ Muslim countries OTL post-decolonization ended up with mainly secular legal systems, IIRC.
Bruce
Well it was for the Colons. It was a symbol of the complete lack of respect that the French had to Algerian culture and heritage. Essentially, if you weren't going to completely abandon your religion and culture for France's, you weren't even considered to possibly be equal in the eyes of the French.
The French refused to accommodate historic legal practices, even with secularized laws that came from the Sharia tradition. It was either the Napoleonic Code or nothing.