John Davis

Banned
During the Pacification of Algeria in the 1800s, France wiped out around 15% of Algeria’s native population via conflict, disease, and famine. Some historians even label the pacification as genocide due to the death toll. But what if France had somehow instead wiped 90-95% of the population and sent more French settlers to the region resulting in a majority pied-noir Algeria?
 
Jesus Herschel Christ dude that is fucking grim...

Well, Algeria would not only be French but would be run as an extension of Metropolitan France, the Algerian Sahara would be mostly glass from all the nuclear testing, and the Pieds Noire would probably be, on average, less wealthy than they were IOTL since there would be practically no Arab underclass to exploit for labor. Instead, we might see a French-non-French divide, with laws preventing the non-French immigrants like the Italians and Maltese from owning land kept on the books so they would have no choice but to work as labor for French landlords.
 
You don't actually need a genocide. If the French start promoting migration of people from the other parts of the empire and focus on promoting a distinct Berber identity, Algeria can have Pied-noir plurality without much more European migration. Divide and conquer.
 
90-95% is ASB given that the two populations were on opposite sides of the Mediterranean and thus had exposure to the diseases of the other.

You could however have a smaller Algeria with more European settlers, so that they can become the majority.
 
I’ve contributed some thought into similar threads before. The most humane and easiest solution is to declare Berbers are actually European and just integrate them, making the Arabs a small minority.


Although Algeria is mostly all Arab-speaking, they are ethnically Mediterranean and not related to middle easterners. Just separate Arab language and Islam from them and they actually could eventually be bona-fide Europeans.
 
To be genocide, doesn't;'t it have to be purposeful?

The OP claims it might have been genocide due to the death toll, but what defines the term is extermination intent, not how bad the results were.

The US government position on the Trail of Tears is that while it has the demographic equivalent of a mass killing, it wasn't a genocide since the goal was to move the Indians west, not kill them. They got killed off not by bullets or biological warfare, but because the government was like "and in seven days, we're moving all of you. No, we don't have any medicine, blankets, or fresh water for any of you. Yeah, we know plenty of you adopted White man's agriculture (They were called the Five Civilized Tribes) and don't actually know how to survive in the wilderness like your ancestors. We don't care. We're not trying to kill you, we just want your land"
 
I’ve contributed some thought into similar threads before. The most humane and easiest solution is to declare Berbers are actually European and just integrate them, making the Arabs a small minority.


Although Algeria is mostly all Arab-speaking, they are ethnically Mediterranean and not related to middle easterners. Just separate Arab language and Islam from them and they actually could eventually be bona-fide Europeans.

Considering the locals could apply for French citizenship if and only if they renounced Islam (at least in the later period... I read it in a book on the year 1913), and that the Berbers were pretty keen on sticking with the faith, that's kind of the problem. Also, you're trying to de-tribalize/centralize the more culturally tribal people rather than the settled ones whom you might actually be able to reach with things like public education, the arts, ect.
 
I’ve contributed some thought into similar threads before. The most humane and easiest solution is to declare Berbers are actually European and just integrate them, making the Arabs a small minority.


Although Algeria is mostly all Arab-speaking, they are ethnically Mediterranean and not related to middle easterners. Just separate Arab language and Islam from them and they actually could eventually be bona-fide Europeans.

The French spent quite a while in Africa trying to do just that and not many people took them up on their offer. Getting better results than OTL seems difficult.

To be genocide, doesn't;'t it have to be purposeful?

The OP claims it might have been genocide due to the death toll, but what defines the term is extermination intent, not how bad the results were.

The US government position on the Trail of Tears is that while it has the demographic equivalent of a mass killing, it wasn't a genocide since the goal was to move the Indians west, not kill them. They got killed off not by bullets or biological warfare, but because the government was like "and in seven days, we're moving all of you. No, we don't have any medicine, blankets, or fresh water for any of you. Yeah, we know plenty of you adopted White man's agriculture (They were called the Five Civilized Tribes) and don't actually know how to survive in the wilderness like your ancestors. We don't care. We're not trying to kill you, we just want your land"

Would you classify ethnic cleansing as genocide? OP's numbers are utterly insane, I don't see how you could do it outside of some 19th century version of the Holocaust, Algeria didn't have the infrastructure to do it and France didn't have the will to do it, and remember that France claims themselves as an enlightened nation who is bringing civilisation to the savages. The solution you'd go for to get anything like those numbers would have to be akin to Russia "ethnically cleansing" (i.e. genocide) the Muslim peoples of the Caucasus (Circassians, etc.) which reduced their numbers by millions with most of them going to the Ottoman Empire with quite a few of them dying. But where do you move these people to? The Sahara where the vast majority die of starvation and thirst? Morocco or Tunisia? But would Tunisia (legally an Ottoman protectorate) really accept millions of Algerian refugees? Or Morocco? And then why wouldn't France just do the same to Tunisia since now it has millions more people all of whom hate you meaning that Tunisia will now be much, much difficult to pacify. It's definitely more difficult than dumping a mass of refugees in Ottoman Anatolia.

But in general, France knows this model of colonialism would be counterproductive since there's no natives to exploit and no one to replace them aside from other European immigrants (like Italians which France probably wants to be wary of in their colonies) since France's birthrate in the 19th century was abysmal. Plus it looks really bad to other European powers since France can't claim they're bringing them civilisation.
 
I’ve contributed some thought into similar threads before. The most humane and easiest solution is to declare Berbers are actually European and just integrate them, making the Arabs a small minority.


Although Algeria is mostly all Arab-speaking, they are ethnically Mediterranean and not related to middle easterners. Just separate Arab language and Islam from them and they actually could eventually be bona-fide Europeans.

Hmmmmmmmmm, I have an idea on how this could work, sort of.

During the French Revolution atheism becomes a more popular concept than it did OTL (don’t ask me how). Somehow France turns to a neoclassical concept of nationalism focusing on their Roman heritage—maybe a successful Napoleonic Empire uses the Roman Empire as a model to claim European dominance?

Anyway, by the time France takes Algeria, the colonists consider Berbers to be the descendants of Carthage and Roman Africa. They promote Berbers to positions of authority and probably encourage a cultural revival.
 
During the 19th Century, the population of Algeria was tiny, perhaps a million or so. Delay the French demographic decline and you have several million extra French to move around. You could also divert Italian migration that went to Argentina or the USA.

Of course, later on the Arab population boomed, so you'd have to prevent that, but if the Pied Noir are already the majority that can be done by population control or war.
 
The US government position on the Trail of Tears is that while it has the demographic equivalent of a mass killing, it wasn't a genocide since the goal was to move the Indians west, not kill them.

Well, that explains the American position on the Armenian Genocide. Terminology aside, that's just equally awful (and I honestly can't see the French being much more terrible to the Algerians as they were in OTL).

Considering the locals could apply for French citizenship if and only if they renounced Islam (at least in the later period... I read it in a book on the year 1913), and that the Berbers were pretty keen on sticking with the faith, that's kind of the problem. Also, you're trying to de-tribalize/centralize the more culturally tribal people rather than the settled ones whom you might actually be able to reach with things like public education, the arts, ect.

Not necessarily renounce Islam, but accept French Civil Law over Sharia. There's a difference, most Muslim nations do use Civil Law system today. EDIT: it seems like only Turkey and the Post-Soviet Republics use an entirely secular Civil Code today..

IMHO first you need to give some kind self-rule to Berber areas and invest massively education, with a generation or two they'll be as secular as a Metropolitan French. However, considering French politics of the time, easier said than done.
 
Last edited:
In my TL I simply have much more ethnic French people migrating to Algeria along with a government that actively promotes and subsidizes the settlement of poor people from northern France to Algeria.

Seems to me as the author, the most gentle and least cruel way to make Algeria more French rather than to have a genocide take place on the Algerians/Berbers.

EDIT: Just remembered, I did have tens of thousands of them being forced into the desert by the Legionnaires during/after a failed uprising. I forgot since I wrote that part of the story several years ago. :frown:

Joho :)
 
Top