Worse(?) Algerian War

Aka their liberation war.

I saw a documentary on the 'harkis', the peoples who decided to fight for their clans, homes, etc - and France. Boy, this was dark, as bad a Vietnam 2,0 got.

Now, can the thing be even more complex, perhaps darker and worse? Like...

Involvement of neighboors one side or the other, to gain contested areas? Early islamists/muslim foreign warriors coming in - or the rumored egyptian attack true?

If FLN and/or the other(s) turn more communists, international help from communist world? Communist troubles in metropolitan France?

A country siding with France, colonial and perhaps conservative or... Like Franco? CIA or such involvement if communists are found?

How to make the thing go even more the drain?

Disclaimer; this is not a glorification of French Colonial Era, even if apparently the thing was more complex than it seems - horror and atrocities from both sides and all...
 
I'd say the easiest way would be for De Gaulle to die before 1958. That way when the crisis comes a military coup succeeds and a junta takes power. IOTL they used airdropped WMD, including chemical and biological weapons, on a limited scale. Without even a weak civilian government to hold them in check you could probably see more widespread use. Also continuing the total war methods used in the later phases IOTL that led to France winning the war militarily but losing badly politically. Once oil is found, they'll fight even harder to keep Algeria.
 
Oh yes, totaly - it had a potential of war crimes.... nasty situation possible.


the french behavior WAS a warcrime... in oitl... in a worse way, they would be more evil, more brutal...
this means more tortures, killings, slaughterings....

the whole stuff - just multiply it...

this will cause economically problems for france and it would be politically isolated...
 
Most indeed. Albeit the documentary I saw was quite well made and didn't hide this, albeit it made it clear the thing was even more complex - the FLN did... much.. things.. to get power and the 'hearts'... Like eliminating the other independance movement(s). ('Kabyle smiles'... ugh.) And the harkis were like you and me, peoples who also fought for what they felt rights at times. Not all corrupt fatcats or such...

I want this to allow also the possibility for this other side too to be worse.

(Not unlike Vietcongs and cie in Vietnam...)
 
Most indeed. Albeit the documentary I saw was quite well made and didn't hide this, albeit it made it clear the thing was even more complex - the FLN did... much.. things.. to get power and the 'hearts'... Like eliminating the other independance movement(s). ('Kabyle smiles'... ugh.) And the harkis were like you and me, peoples who also fought for what they felt rights at times. Not all corrupt fatcats or such...

I want this to allow also the possibility for this other side too to be worse.

(Not unlike Vietcongs and cie in Vietnam...)


Hi,

i had no interest in making the liberation fighters nice guys... but in the scale of war crimes they had only limited guilt, compared to the french brutally... if the french will be more brutal, the others will be too, but the losses and crimes comitted will be vastly single sided...

later - after the victory, the algerian french will suffer - i think even a genozid (as before by france) could happen - so algeria and france will be hatefull enemies...
 
If the FLN did 'win' in a way - they were deeply strained at the end, wounded, and all... more like France lost than they win.. but managed all those years to strike like hell all around the nation, everywhere... slaughtering apparently whole 'collabo' vilages...

And they share more than just limited guilt... Sure, the war France lead was 'not right'. But again, they did nasty things like tortures and executions - the 'kabyle smiles', like 'glascow smiles' but lower... - and killed the other opposition parties and rebels...

The thing was not black and white. The FLN were not really knights in armours, as far I can see...The violence was coming from both sides - and litterly at times, the SAME side. Or guys who passed on side to the other.
 
the french behavior WAS a warcrime... in oitl... in a worse way, they would be more evil, more brutal...
this means more tortures, killings, slaughterings....

the whole stuff - just multiply it...

this will cause economically problems for france and it would be politically isolated...

There is abundant proof to say that the FLN warcrimes were as extensive and much more brutal than what the French Army did. The French Army used torture that's true, but said torture did not involve chopping the penises of the ennemy to put it in their mouths, it did not involve roasting civilians alive and such. In all cases, FLN on FLN and French on French torture also happenned and the scale of the latter is actually well documented.

A military takeover would make things worse, but the army could paradoxically be willing to take decisions which the civilian government did not dare to take. None of the civilian governments in power in France contemplated the prospect of fully integrating Algeria into France, but a military government might railrod the whole thing through. Would this make things worse? Definitely since harkis and such will be more numerous and the FLN will become a lot more extreme as well.

The best way to end up with a mess in Algeria would be to partition the country. The first part would be a French/Harki enclave located along the coast between Algiers and Oran. The second part would be an Algerian state comprising of most of the mountainous areas of the countryy. The third part would be a Saharian territory, possibly linked to the French part by a corridor. The population transfers would be a huge mess by themselves . Then you would en dup with low level warfare/insurgency along the borders for years and possibly decades. The nearest example would be Israel and Palestine but worse, with no desire for peace on both sides.

Sooner or later the French enclave would be cast off by France, but they would find themselves ready made allies in the form of South Africa, Francoist Spain, Portugal, Rhodesia and so on. Said "French Algerian" state could actually be viable if a strong Harki/loyalist element is present, which is far from unlikely, considering that hundred of thousands of Algerians openly helped the French armed forces and joined polical movements such as the FAF whose aim was to maintain Algerian as an integral part of France.
 
If the FLN did 'win' in a way - they were deeply strained at the end, wounded, and all... more like France lost than they win.. but managed all those years to strike like hell all around the nation, everywhere... slaughtering apparently whole 'collabo' vilages...

And they share more than just limited guilt... Sure, the war France lead was 'not right'. But again, they did nasty things like tortures and executions - the 'kabyle smiles', like 'glascow smiles' but lower... - and killed the other opposition parties and rebels...

The thing was not black and white. The FLN were not really knights in armours, as far I can see...The violence was coming from both sides - and litterly at times, the SAME side. Or guys who passed on side to the other.


Hi - again - i never said that the FNL was in any way good... they were rebells (liberation fighters, cause they won it :D)

but france was a big cultivated country... and they treated the algerians as bad as the nazis the partisans.
with the knowledge of nazi terror, the french did the same

so no sorry for the butchering french... they had occupied a foreign country, supressed its people and treated their enemy really brutal.

and - even today - a lot french do not feel sorry for being such criminal scum but are proud of their crimes.
 
There is abundant proof to say that the FLN warcrimes were as extensive and much more brutal than what the French Army did. The French Army used torture that's true, but said torture did not involve chopping the penises of the ennemy to put it in their mouths, it did not involve roasting civilians alive and such. In all cases, FLN on FLN and French on French torture also happenned and the scale of the latter is actually well documented.

A military takeover would make things worse, but the army could paradoxically be willing to take decisions which the civilian government did not dare to take. None of the civilian governments in power in France contemplated the prospect of fully integrating Algeria into France, but a military government might railrod the whole thing through. Would this make things worse? Definitely since harkis and such will be more numerous and the FLN will become a lot more extreme as well.

The best way to end up with a mess in Algeria would be to partition the country. The first part would be a French/Harki enclave located along the coast between Algiers and Oran. The second part would be an Algerian state comprising of most of the mountainous areas of the countryy. The third part would be a Saharian territory, possibly linked to the French part by a corridor. The population transfers would be a huge mess by themselves . Then you would en dup with low level warfare/insurgency along the borders for years and possibly decades. The nearest example would be Israel and Palestine but worse, with no desire for peace on both sides.

Sooner or later the French enclave would be cast off by France, but they would find themselves ready made allies in the form of South Africa, Francoist Spain, Portugal, Rhodesia and so on. Said "French Algerian" state could actually be viable if a strong Harki/loyalist element is present, which is far from unlikely, considering that hundred of thousands of Algerians openly helped the French armed forces and joined polical movements such as the FAF whose aim was to maintain Algerian as an integral part of France.


Well, so you justify Oradur sur Gleine? because the french treated the algerians the same way the ss treated the french.

me thinks that this is war crimes at the lowest level - also, people who try to justify the french crimes are equal to people in germany trying to justify the holocaust.

About making it more evil... just let the french army do what they want to do... they allready used wmds... let them use it more often... let em kill more people, more torturings... the rest comes with this.

or - the algerians strike back, destroy the louvre, capture one of the french passenger ships, kill all french tourists and leave... this will cause another "hurt pride"-movement by french nationalists, the killing will grow, the counter will be more evil, etc...

so, just let the french army "solve" the problems...
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I've always wondered what effects a successful Suez War would have on the conflict in Algeria.

If the Tripartite Powers successfully manage to oust Nasser, France may be more emboldened to hold on to Algeria--Mollet certainly was and it sank his government.

No Nasser could potentially mean two things: the FNL might either moderate since the Light of Arab Nationalism's been snuffed out, or they may radicalize further and seek support from...well, I'd like to say the Soviets, but for some reason I don't know if they'd be able to fill the void.
 
Well, so you justify Oradur sur Gleine? because the french treated the algerians the same way the ss treated the french.

me thinks that this is war crimes at the lowest level - also, people who try to justify the french crimes are equal to people in germany trying to justify the holocaust.

About making it more evil... just let the french army do what they want to do... they allready used wmds... let them use it more often... let em kill more people, more torturings... the rest comes with this.

or - the algerians strike back, destroy the louvre, capture one of the french passenger ships, kill all french tourists and leave... this will cause another "hurt pride"-movement by french nationalists, the killing will grow, the counter will be more evil, etc...

so, just let the french army "solve" the problems...

InformationFan as I have said clearly on my post I acknowledge that torture took place but I think that to say so brashly as you do that the French army behaved like the SS is both wrong and historically inaccurate. Atrocities were comitted by both sides as myself and other posters have said. This certainly does not excuse them, but to tar one belligerent but not the others in the way you do it seems very wrong and very dangerous to me.

On a separate and different note. That's the second topic were I debate with you and in all cases, you did not judge it necessary to use correct grammar, spelling and to even include sentences starting with a capital letter and ending with a point. Backing up your assertions in this topic about WMDs, in the other about the effects of nuclear weapons, with sources seems to evade you either. Call me haughty, insulting or whatever you want for saying this. But I don't think that you are doing yourself any favor by writing and behaving like a 6 years old child would!
 
InformationFan as I have said clearly on my post I acknowledge that torture took place but I think that to say so brashly as you do that the French army behaved like the SS is both wrong and historically inaccurate. Atrocities were comitted by both sides as myself and other posters have said. This certainly does not excuse them, but to tar one belligerent but not the others in the way you do it seems very wrong and very dangerous to me.

On a separate and different note. That's the second topic were I debate with you and in all cases, you did not judge it necessary to use correct grammar, spelling and to even include sentences starting with a capital letter and ending with a point. Backing up your assertions in this topic about WMDs, in the other about the effects of nuclear weapons, with sources seems to evade you either. Call me haughty, insulting or whatever you want for saying this. But I don't think that you are doing yourself any favor by writing and behaving like a 6 years old child would!


WMD: weapon of mass destruction... nuclear, biological or chemical weapons... or ABC-weapons...

a wmd can be a nuke, but also chemical or biological weapons.

about the rest - if someone try to make nazi crimes lesser he call him with a certain word.
same is true if a french crime denyer start to make the BIG french crimes in algeria small.

also - the french partisans commited also a lot crimes - do this make the nazi crimes better? no.

and so -no way the french will be forgiven their brutal methods and killings. one side fight for their liberty against supressing brutal colonial power. sorry to interrupt a french nationalist... algeria will allways be the darkest thing in french history.

maybe you inform yourself how evil the french acted.

thank you
 
I would be very grateful if again you could back up your assertions with demonstrable facts, and verifiable sources especially with regards to your claim that WMD (I know what they are thank you very much for the definition) were used during the Algerian War.
 
My point was indeed that this was not in any sense a 'good war'; to say the least. But both sides crossed moral horizon a lot, and both sides had peoples not too bad eitheir.

The Harkis, by example. Some crazy bloody monsters (like that infamous reformed FLNers section...), some random joes who stood up for a cause they saw right.
 
Top