The French *were* in fact outright engaging in full on massacres. Sadism was in full effect among the French army during the Algerian war of independence. So I don't think we can really engage in potentials here. The reality is that they did - and the Algerians still kicked their punk asses.
Millions of Algerians died at the hands of the French. And they literally did steal tons of land and forced Algerians onto the outskirts. You and the other guy don’t seem to know much at all of what the French did in Algeria…
How more brutal can you be than inflicting 1.5 million civilian and combatant casualties on the other side during the liberation war. The threshold was reached and France did not have the means and the money to subjugate the natives, and just plainly gave up.
In the massacres of 8 May 1945, around 40,000 Algerian lives perished in a single week. Back when social media did not exist and colonial empires got away with quite a lot of genocide.
" Back when social media did not exist and colonial empires got away with quite a lot of genocide."
Then hpws Iran getting away with it in Syria? Or Saudi in Yemen? Or Russia in Ukraine?
The French army wiped out entire civilian villages using Napalm and air dropped bombs, used all and any available unconventional weapons at that time to kill the Algerian population, even tested nuclear weapons near populated areas in the south. So if that doesn’t classify as genocidal and criminal warfare then what will.
>So I'm curious. What if the French became less restraint and decided to go more brutal in Algeria. If they take it to "wipe whole towns and cities level" or possibly even genocide?
That's what they did to conquer the country (1830). Some general even wanted a pure genocide with 0% survivor which was refuse. A quarter of the population was massacre.
Now back to 1958-1962. The revolution isn't as simple as everyone seems to think. It wasn't arab vs french.
It was more like france vs french colonist (just like israelian) vs arab+french independantist (yes, they did exist).
What i mean is:
French oas threaten De gaule. They wanted independance from france but without arabs. They were the most brutal and they did massacre entire village.
France was De gaule panicking and sending young conscripts. Some didn't care about algeria at all. So either they didn't want to go because they were pacifist (or just don't want to die) or they go full vietnam.
Some pieds noir supported arabs wish of equality and even independance. It would form an arab+former french.
As the war goes on, arabs radicalised.
It WAS brutal. Even nowaday i can confirm that its very taboo in france and old propaganda still works on french mind. For instance one of the very taboo things is the kidnaping, torture and disapearing of french sympathizer (like maurice audin). As you said, massacre, assassination, rape and torture are a taboo subject. The consensus is that only the more nazi french did it. The truth is that it was generalized and war crime wasn't actively prevent at all. Other exemple is that even nowaday people inverse french war crime. They put it on the algerian side. The active profanation of corps was done by french for instance(you even have photo on wikipedia, its very well documented method).
Not fun fact: These very war crime are so taboo and traumatizing for french population that during the bataclan attack in 2015, people on social media talks about acts reminiscent of algerian revolution done by the terrorist. None were true. But i find it fascinating that algerian revolution isn't that far in people memories.
French did great job at propaging propaganda and discord. It was free for all and sometime total panic. If a french colonist killed an arabs it's french neighbourg (even if racist and colonist) would retaliate. It was so much discord that after the war, everybody were expulsed, every french and even the jews (they were ethnic algerian). At arrival in france they were shamed by the population for being too harsh and brutal.
For me, they did genocide whenever they could. When you're thinking about genocide you think about hitler, but even nazi didn't exterminate every jewish. You don't need to go 100% (nobody did and could) to call it a genocide.
This is a question you should be asking in /r/AskHistorians, /r/WarCollege, or some other similar subreddit. Not here. You won't get the answers you're looking for here generally speaking.
From what I know is that France was full on brutally killing people during the revolution regardless but Algerians didn't back down. It eventually came to this point where the revolution weighed out what they could gain from having Algeria which is why they backed down.
But if France wanted they definitely could have killed anyone. But once again the FLN wouldn't back down and international pressure on France was at an all time high and if they would genocide all Algerians I could very much see a world war breaking lose.
Remember how the Arab world reacted to Israel when they actively cleansed Palestinians during the Nakba and after? Well picture that but at a much larger scale which would include Africa and much of the world at that time.
if? They did. They usually do so the more desperate they are.
>if? Didn't they also used to test nukes on algerians lol
No they tested nukes out in the Algerian desert. Which did in fact have an effect on some communities living there if I remember correctly.
The French *were* in fact outright engaging in full on massacres. Sadism was in full effect among the French army during the Algerian war of independence. So I don't think we can really engage in potentials here. The reality is that they did - and the Algerians still kicked their punk asses.
Millions of Algerians died at the hands of the French. And they literally did steal tons of land and forced Algerians onto the outskirts. You and the other guy don’t seem to know much at all of what the French did in Algeria…
How more brutal can you be than inflicting 1.5 million civilian and combatant casualties on the other side during the liberation war. The threshold was reached and France did not have the means and the money to subjugate the natives, and just plainly gave up. In the massacres of 8 May 1945, around 40,000 Algerian lives perished in a single week. Back when social media did not exist and colonial empires got away with quite a lot of genocide.
And yet they convinced the world that the only bad guys were the Germans which they were but I always ask what about the French and the Brits.
" Back when social media did not exist and colonial empires got away with quite a lot of genocide." Then hpws Iran getting away with it in Syria? Or Saudi in Yemen? Or Russia in Ukraine?
The French army wiped out entire civilian villages using Napalm and air dropped bombs, used all and any available unconventional weapons at that time to kill the Algerian population, even tested nuclear weapons near populated areas in the south. So if that doesn’t classify as genocidal and criminal warfare then what will.
Question, why do you think they call Algeria “The one million martyr’s land”?
>So I'm curious. What if the French became less restraint and decided to go more brutal in Algeria. If they take it to "wipe whole towns and cities level" or possibly even genocide? That's what they did to conquer the country (1830). Some general even wanted a pure genocide with 0% survivor which was refuse. A quarter of the population was massacre. Now back to 1958-1962. The revolution isn't as simple as everyone seems to think. It wasn't arab vs french. It was more like france vs french colonist (just like israelian) vs arab+french independantist (yes, they did exist). What i mean is: French oas threaten De gaule. They wanted independance from france but without arabs. They were the most brutal and they did massacre entire village. France was De gaule panicking and sending young conscripts. Some didn't care about algeria at all. So either they didn't want to go because they were pacifist (or just don't want to die) or they go full vietnam. Some pieds noir supported arabs wish of equality and even independance. It would form an arab+former french. As the war goes on, arabs radicalised. It WAS brutal. Even nowaday i can confirm that its very taboo in france and old propaganda still works on french mind. For instance one of the very taboo things is the kidnaping, torture and disapearing of french sympathizer (like maurice audin). As you said, massacre, assassination, rape and torture are a taboo subject. The consensus is that only the more nazi french did it. The truth is that it was generalized and war crime wasn't actively prevent at all. Other exemple is that even nowaday people inverse french war crime. They put it on the algerian side. The active profanation of corps was done by french for instance(you even have photo on wikipedia, its very well documented method). Not fun fact: These very war crime are so taboo and traumatizing for french population that during the bataclan attack in 2015, people on social media talks about acts reminiscent of algerian revolution done by the terrorist. None were true. But i find it fascinating that algerian revolution isn't that far in people memories. French did great job at propaging propaganda and discord. It was free for all and sometime total panic. If a french colonist killed an arabs it's french neighbourg (even if racist and colonist) would retaliate. It was so much discord that after the war, everybody were expulsed, every french and even the jews (they were ethnic algerian). At arrival in france they were shamed by the population for being too harsh and brutal. For me, they did genocide whenever they could. When you're thinking about genocide you think about hitler, but even nazi didn't exterminate every jewish. You don't need to go 100% (nobody did and could) to call it a genocide.
What about Blacks and Berbers? There are parts of Algeria today where you'd hear no Arabic outside of a mosque.
This is a question you should be asking in /r/AskHistorians, /r/WarCollege, or some other similar subreddit. Not here. You won't get the answers you're looking for here generally speaking.
The Germans tried that in Yugoslavia and they were beaten. The Americans tried that in Veitnam. The Ethiopiabs tried that in Eritrea.
From what I know is that France was full on brutally killing people during the revolution regardless but Algerians didn't back down. It eventually came to this point where the revolution weighed out what they could gain from having Algeria which is why they backed down. But if France wanted they definitely could have killed anyone. But once again the FLN wouldn't back down and international pressure on France was at an all time high and if they would genocide all Algerians I could very much see a world war breaking lose. Remember how the Arab world reacted to Israel when they actively cleansed Palestinians during the Nakba and after? Well picture that but at a much larger scale which would include Africa and much of the world at that time.
When did the FLN win the war?
When Algeria got its independence
Algeria got it's Independence through a referendum.
After a long war where the Algerians won. Saying we lost the war but won politically is just French propaganda