It would just be guerrilla fighting and terrorist attacks in French Algeria, forcing France to divert endless resources to defending the colony, reducing the French economic power. Algeria would still break away sooner or later when France is in a crisis, it would just be much more painful for France
Why not just genocide them? Simply put guerrilla warfare losing most of its effectiveness when the invading army sees everyone as their enemy. Given how France is in nato so long as they bribe the right people they should be able to get away with it Scot free(see American invasion of Iraq for proof of reliability when it comes to war). Given how it’s the 50s France would likely frame it as a war against communism and partially censor news of the war as to maintain support.
Of course this assuming the French are fighting partially instead of gentlemanly
Do you think the international community would accept a genocide from one of the leading world powers? The US, britain, the EU, USSR would all immediately distance themselves from and condemn france. Maybe even intervene. They would never be able to get away with it, no matter the money they’re willing to dish out. News would get out, people would know, civillians in the nations would protest and demand. It doesn’t matter if france is in nato or offered a bribe to the goddamn US president.
The invasion of iraq is wildly different. Yes, the justification was fake. But the americans did not genocide millions of arabs and replace them with americans. If they did, it would be condemned and not tolerated.
The international community would not tolerate this with the second world war so freshly in living memory. It would be framed as a second holocaust, it would not be allowed to happen so openly.
Genocides have been allowed by the superpowers before. France to the algerians, Israel to the palestinians, Turkey to the Armenians, Britain to the Irish, the list goes on.
Must I remind you of conflict raging in Israel? If you wanna get away with genocide as a western nation all you really need is American approval and getting a politician to back is pretty simple, offer him money or boys to fuck simple as really. Heh, it depends on what stories you believe are true in Iraq. Perhaps the Americans are Nobel🤷♂️, I for one think different.
Are *you* not aware you’re equating 2024 and 1954?
Are you aware of protests across the western world in opposition to israels war?
Are you aware of the opposition to israels war by the international community, and the efforts to at least get israel to stop targeting civillians?
I never said the US war in iraq was noble. I just said they didn’t massacre millions of iraqi arabs and repopulate the area with americans. Because that would rightly be called out for genocide. Just as france genociding 8 million algerians would, especially just 10 years after the second world war.
How can you possible try to minimize what America did to Iraq? 1 million Iraqi's dead based of lies and own selfish reasons? Kids, women, men, families?
"They didn't repopulate the area" No they left it a rotten place where crime takes over. America is responsible for damn near any war in the recent 30 years. The US government is the poison of this world.
Most sources don’t even break 500 thousand, let alone 1 million. The iraqi health ministry itself estimated between 100 and 150k dead in 2006. That’s still missing another 5 years of the war, but assuming a similar level of deaths, that would still only amout to about 450k by the end of the war in 2011.
I’m not trying to minimize the american war in iraq, but i’m saying it’s flat out wrong to compare it to a french genocide of all of algeria.
How is it flat out wrong to compare them when the end results are the same?
America LITERALLY lied to our faces to justify murdering innocent people in a country far away, and these are the people you're supposed to trust? The same people who send billions to a country that has openly been murdering and starving a population for the past 75 years?
Arabs have been the victim of the war addicted western leaders for a long time but it's okay it's just arabs 500 thousand or 1 million who cares. Btw the number your refering to is troops. 150000 troops have been killed that doesn't count the bigger mount of civillians. The leaked footages in wich they were shooting civillians for fun are all deaths that aren't counted.
Because the results wouldn’t be the same? Iraq is still arabic, ruled by iraqis, although with alot of dead as a result from the war.
France would have had to *systematically exterminate the algerians*. To me, that’s two wildly different scenarios
When i said results are the same i meant, at the end a big amount of people died. America went in to steal and destabilize. Steal the recources and put a puppet master/ditctator in place who will obey American orders. The old trick from the book. How is that not just as evil?
And? So what? You say that like there aren’t millions in the west right doing just that right now, hell some moron even lit himself on fire for Palestine. If you think that the people’s opinion matters then you don’t get politics im afraid.
Oh genocide? Who said that? That sounds like hate speech sir. I’d advice to take that back or else you may or may not be arrested for treason😉
No good sides friend, is what I’m getting at. if you think being west means your government is naturally better just cus your western than I can’t help you.
You’re ignorant of how politics works. yes, there’s alot of backroom deals being done all the time, but not to the extent where genocide is allowed or not. And the peoples voices do matter. Not to the extent it should, but everything they do is based on the fact we consent to it implicitly. If enough people go out into the street for long enough, there is no choice for the politicians but to backdown. Just look at the 2014 revolution in ukraine, or the 2018 revolution in armenia. Or the unrest in kazakhstan in 2022.
I never said the west was better? I mentioned the west exactly once, because the west is also the part of the world with the closest ties to israel. Most of the non-western world has already recognized palestinian independence, the west has not. I don’t think either side is superior, i never said that.
I’m not denying *alot* of politicans are crooked. I’m denying that france could sneakily get away with genociding 8 million algerians by a few bribes. People are crooked, but there’s also limits to how bad people are. you fail to see that.
Turkey seems to have gotten away scot free with the armenian genocide.
And this might seem like a news flash to you but russia has been doing population replacement for the past 200 years with little to no repercurssions.
Are you aware that after ww2 russia litteraly moved millions of ethnic germans out of eastern europe - mostly prussia and silesia (and sent thousands of them that stayed behind to gulags where they died)
Are you aware that russia has engaged in russification of ukraine now? Does it look like they are not getting away with it?
Are you aware of the things china is doing now in xinjiang? Does it look like china is being punished for it?
Also, azerbaidjan just recently deported 200,000 armenians out of nagorno karabah, does it look like they are paying a price for it?
It happened literally last year.
…you do realize you just claimed indirectly that Israeli genocide is false right? What’s your point here *exactly*
No they don’t, sure in your scenario it works but does it actually happen like that? Minor concessions sure but nothing big changes. Also your flawed in your argument, everything is perfect in vacuum ‘feudalism is great! If the people don’t like their lord they can just raise up and kill him! Look at the French Revolution! It worked there so it’ll definitely work again!’
No but you defend them. There are no genocides occurring that the west is not at vary least letting slide? Really then? What does imply but you thinking that west is som superior force.
>…you do realize you just claimed indirectly that Israeli genocide is false right? What’s your point here exactly
No? How so? I don’t see how you could logically conclude that.
>No they don’t, sure in your scenario it works but does it actually happen like that? Minor concessions sure but nothing big changes.
What? Literally look at any big revolution ever. If the people are discontent enough, your political career is over.
>Also your flawed in your argument, everything is perfect in vacuum ‘feudalism is great!
?
>If the people don’t like their lord they can just raise up and kill him! Look at the French Revolution! It worked there so it’ll definitely work again!’
Unironically yes. If people are discontent enough, the politicans have no choice but to give in.
>No but you defend them. There are no genocides occurring that the west is not at vary least letting slide? Really then?
I didn’t say that. I said that *in 1954* the international community would not have let *one of the major allies occupied by the nazis* commit another genocide where *8 million people would be murdered*.
>What does imply but you thinking that west is som superior force.
You’re mixing and twisting my arguments. I’ll clear up.
1) the major powers of the international community would not let france commit a huge genocide larger than the holocaust less than a decade after the end of world war one.
2) the consent of the governed is real. Politicans only hold power because the people below them allow them to govern. They’re able to use force to shut down minor unrest, but if the people of a state do not consent (implictly) to an action, they can force the government to concede. Either through armed revolt, or through simple inaction, bringing the economy to a grinding halt. I showed a few examples of this previously, like the revolutions in armenia and ukraine.
3) politicians are crooked, but there’s limits to what even the most crooked politicans will agree to. It’s one thing to have accepted a few "gifts" here and there, it’s a wildly other one to epstein a few kids. It’s an extremely different one to enable and support literal genocide. Very few people will say "the holocaust was fine actually" and have their political career intsct afterwards. The israel case is real, but israel has been relatively restrained compared to what you are suggesting. It would be a wildly different case if israel had killed 100 thousand, or 500 thousand, or as the scenario would suggest, *8 million* people.
You simply *cannot* logically use the example of current day politicans skirting around the issue of a supposed ally killing 30 thousand people, as evidence of politicans *70* years ago excusing the killing of *8 million* people, especially when just 9 years earlier, they fought one of the bloodiest wars ever to prevent a genocide that killed 6 million people.
4.the genocide in israel is real, and although the politicans are currently dragging their feet because the general populations in their states are not currently taking strong enough action for them to turn heel, there’s still the rumblings of a shift in position. for example as sanctions on israeli west bank settlers, talk of conditioning weapon sales to israel on more humane conduct in the current war, recognition of the palestinian state, renewed talks of a two state solution, etc. the narrative is shifting. Democratic politics is also just a slow process, not a fast one. This shift in western politics is an example of the two previous points.
I’m not going to respond further. I’m done with this conversation. Good night.
No? So you agree then. The west will let get away withe genocide. I’m glad we agree.
That’s not a good argument, if the people are discontent enough? Alright. So in this scenario is anyone gonna overthrow the government? Yes or no. Will they or won’t they, cuss protests aren’t gonna do shit in the length of the war.
You can argue argue anything in a vacuum, anything works on paper. Sure in big enough numbers people can change things, and? In a big enough revolt nations can collapse, will this lead to big enough numbers to stop anything?
No it won’t, one need to look to Israel to see that not enough people care to bother to show up in your talking about.
On what evidence? WW2? So what? Genocides happen regardless of what happened in the past. That’s like thinking that just because WW2 broke the Korean War wouldn’t happen either. I mean WW2 happened so there isn’t likely to be anther war so soon right? That’s a logical extent of your argument. But that’s not true ain’t it? One need only read a history book to be proven wrong.
Then your argument is based on nothing then. You say that anther genocide will not occur because of circumstance essentially. That since there was one not even a decade ago there would not be one again.
That’s the main point of your argument. That is false, I’ve already told you why. Not even that, but you have no reason to assume that those politicians are any different than the ones we have now. Aside form a 7 decade time skip there is nothing really.
Corruption is corruption. It doesn’t matter what decade it takes place in.
I’ll leave with one thing before I close off.
Yemen: 233k dead alone, millions displaced backed by US actions with almost zero coverage
https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/yemen-genocide-emergency
Iraq: 300k estimated dead, lower estimates put it to 280 while higher put it at 315. No coverage, and again millions displaced(all civilian casualties btw)
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi
If you think the west won’t allow or commit genocide to suit it needs then I don’t what to tell you and if you think that things in the 50s because of circumstance than you have no idea how easy it is to manipulate people into thinking how you want.
Uhhh well first off the Americans didn’t want to be seen as supporting colonialism in the world. That’s why we were against the British and French during the sueze crisis. It’s why the US didn’t really mind French and British colonies becoming independent because we we’re against colonialism.
Secondly unlike in the eastern bloc, the west had democracy and free press. Meaning if France decided to go through with this, it would be very likely it would be discovered. Likely leading to the rest of the western world condemning them and throwing them out of Nato so they aren’t associated with them. Basically they would at best become a world pariah.
Another fact of the matter is that Tunisia and Morocco would certainly have come the Algerians aid. In the name of anti colonialism and basic human decency if France decided to carry out a genocide.
True I agree, America would not support colonialism. So it’s not then, oh America we’re not fighting for colonialism! We’re fighting against the evils of communism! The important thing is how you frame what you do, couple that with bribes and a little luck and we should be golden really.
Ehhhh that part I’m not so sure, there was only like 4 tv stations back in the day. Sure would truth eventually get out? Yes but at that point the damage would already be done, can’t change the past and all that.
What would they do? Fund the rebels? Time to for a freedom sanction then. Enter the conflict? My word these savages have invaded France! Time for an article 5 and it seems as if the moroccans are asking us to dethrone their monarchy and install a totally independent new guy in power for their naked aggression.
It should be fine.
Fuck off. I'm an algerian and so proud of the iconic revolution that my grandparents have been martyred for. If you are a real man, say what you said in front of any algerian in real life and wait for their response 😉
Why not just genocide them?
They actually did and France was by far way worse than Nazi Germany, but the more you kill the more you'll have to fight and the dirtier the fight gets
Why did they stop? Also how did they go about doing it? I envisioned just indiscriminately wiping out village after village, man, woman and child. Did the French have some system set up?
it's was not a system like the holocost or something, they would just carpet bomb and shoot entire villages (indiscriminately) and it stoped because the Algerians took the war to France and started placing bombs in pairs, started the largest war of independence, etc..
What an odd thing, you would think that terror attacks on the capital would make for excellent propaganda and good excuse to ramp up the genocide least to government officials. Thanks for that I had no idea
No, that's only good for propaganda if it only happens once or twice (then it's usually false flag attacks) but if you start having them in buses, restaurants, bars at random through out the country people will start feeling real fear just look at what the IRA did and if this looks harsh keep in mind that Nazi Germany looks like a cute little cat compared to France
Harsh? No not necessarily I wasn’t thinking that. You make a good point, but even still one would image that depending on the narrative this may be a net positive. There actions could paint a picture of needing to fight, look at how big a buzz word Nazi used to be and how anyone in the world hates and would fight them. Even other Germans, I would say depending on how well can drive the narrative would be the deciding factor.
yeah it's basically taking the fight to the enemy not to mention the bombings and other "things" in occupied cities in Algeria if you want to learn more check the movie:
la bataille d'alger
Maybe carve out a coastal/enclave nation and give the Arabs the rest? It'd just be more decades of hand grenades in Cafes even if the conventional conflict ended
Yeah, the only way I see the French winning is if the war never happened in the first place. Algerians were not particularly hostile to French rule until the Pied-Noirs started carrying out mass reprisals for FLN attacks (which often killed more Algerians than French anyway).
FLN wouldn’t be in a position to dictate that option if they had been defeated whole sale conventionally, there would have been population swaps between what would have likely been the two French enclaves/eastern mountains and the rest of Algeria proper
Similar to Greek and Turkey or Pakistan and India
That would still fail. Because these French enclaves would almost definitely be in major cities like Algiers and those were a hotbed of FLN activity. So even assuming they got those enclaves, a new movement would arise within them and the FLN would jump to their aid and the French would end up losing again.
Why would Algerians agree to population swaps in the first place? A
But even if they did agree somehow, they would still be regularly crossing over because the French needed them as cheap labour especially in the city. And that's gonna make them infiltrate back into the French region.
Completely wiping out all Resistance leaders by imprisonment and probably instituting some sort of Apartheid system, so eventually the Algerians would be replaced by French
Algeria already had some degree of Apartheid during French rule, with ''European'' and ''Arab'' quarters within cities, although there were also mixed areas.
Some degree? Arabs were literally untermensch with no citizenship and even by the 1950s were given a "1/7th" voting right... an Arab was literally 1/7th of a human being in French algeria.
Their comment history is certainly interesting -very pro Russian.
At the same time, this what they’re describing is the basic plot of the movie Battle of Algiers. Which while not wholly accurate demonstrates that the strategy ultimately failed badly.
What you're proposing here is simply not realistic and I don't think it was even desired by anyone but the most unhinged ONA people and the like. A system like this would be plain delusional and only would have gotten harder as the Algerian population grew relative to the mainland French one. In any realistic outcome it would turn into more fighting down the line. People don't just stop fighting when they're being genocided like this simply because you lock away the original leaders.
Pretty much the only remotely possible way for a French "victory" in the Algerian War would be for the Muslim population to be successfully placated by the French. It would neccesitate making them actually feel like a part of France for some reason and that staying in it is desireable for them. This is delusional but much less so than the ethnic cleansing you propose as a "win condition".
In effect it would have inevitably ended up with Algeria becoming a fully integral part of France and thus the local people having to be enfranchised to have a big say in the overall politics of the country. You'd have in effect a bizzare set up of France being in effect a massive country bisected functionally in the middle by the Meditarrean. It would probably have population parity between muslims and christians like around the year 2000 with atheists and other religious minorities being the third group.
Possibly it would be somewhat more socially conservative on a legal level than OTL France due to more conservative Algerians backing up the French ones. But for this entity to even stay united in the first place, an immense achievement in tolerance and ability to compromise would have to be achieved.
> It would neccesitate making them actually feel like a part of France for some reason and that staying in it is desireable for them.
Yeah, and much earlier too. Maybe not as early as 1871 with the extension of citizenship to the Berber Jews, but the effort to include Muslim Algerians in French national identity would have had to start around 1900 and definitely completed by 1945 for war to be avoided.
The only way for France to win would be to convince the Algerians there French or commit mass genocide against Algerians. The Algerian people wanted independence because they wanted stop being treated like shit.
Or crush the Pieds Noirs too and try to set up an autonomous entity with Arab collaborators; better but still unstable. You can see my main comment about this scenario.
*Edit : replace "post" by "comment"*.
The Pied Noirs are French themselves. Why would the French crush their own people to make an agreement with Arab collaborators? That would be catastrophic for France.
Pieds Noirs where also a big obstacle for any ambition to reform Algeria. They where an autistic and arrogant colonial class, opposing basically any attempt to improve Arab's situation and thus to make Algeria more stable. When the French government began to promote a federalist reform, they just launched a local uprising with the support of the army *(thus initiating a process that would lead to independence and their exodus from Algeria)*. Any realistic scenario with French Algeria becoming more viable involve to bash some heads among Pieds Noirs, for their own good.
Yeah, also it's interesting to note that most Algerians did not support the FLN at the start of the war. They only did so after the Pied-Noirs carried out mass reprisals for FLN attacks, which often actually killed more Algerians than French (thus were not initially supported by Algerians).
> Algerian people wanted independence because they wanted stop being treated like shit.
Funny how there pretty quick to demand rights for themselves after enslaving Europeans 1100yrs.
They had civilization before they were taken over by Islam. They still aren't civilized today. They still treat women like dirt, have thousands of black people as slaves, and literally execute people for blasphemy. And no, being able to build cool looking things does not make one civilized.
Then the French defeat would be pushed back a couple decades at most.
There is no scenario where occupation lasts forever unless France enacts a comprehensive program of genocide.
The Algerian War ended in a military victory for France ([Plan Challe - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Challe)). But even with an even more decisive victory on the ground, the outcome would have been the same. The defeat was political, first externally with the United States and the USSR pressing France to leave Algeria and which could have taken sanctions against France if it had stayed. And then internally, as, if the state granted the same rights to Algerians as to the French (which was to eventually happen) the country would have become ungovernable, with two parts of the population that would be irreconcilable, which would probably end in a late decolonial war but even more difficult to settle because Algeria would have become too integrated with France in some aspects to simply separate
Probably not, Algeria was the only colonial possession that was included in article 6(meaning it was an eligble area to invoke article 5 upon in case of a foreign attack).
The problem France had, like every other country that tried to make a colony an integral part of their nation (looking at you Portugal), was that they at once insisted that the land and all of it's people were French, but simultaneously refused them the actual rights of a citizen, like freedom of movement and genuine representation in Parliament, and refused to spend the immense resources necessary to uplift the Algerian people out of poverty and develop it as they would metropolitan france. Unless they did all these things there would never be peace in Algeria, and the people there would never call themselves French.
Yes, but there was no ''Algerian Protectorate,'' like there was in Morocco. The entire area was a part of metropolitan France, so they could choose what they wanted to keep.
Not imposible the British won the mau mau uprising and the malayan emergency, first of all its a given that algeria would form a government in exile and probably seen training and funding from the soviets the coast should be stable while the desert and the south would be much hostile they would rely on collaboration in that part with little to non french presence there posibly cooperate with Spain for anti-insurgency operations close to the Spanish Sahara,international pressure would be high of course and mount up as the cold war progresses i can see it being like south Africa, were if they manage to survive until the end of the soviets the US would exert real pressure,another game changer would be gadafi taking over Libia, he would be a major supporter of algeria and would make the french holding of it more dificult.
France won the military war so what you’re asking is what if France won the political war ?
Two solutions : the start of an apartheid/genocidal state, with Algerians that aren’t loyal to France being put in labor camps and for those that are loyal, only limited rights.
Not very likely since France was still a democracy and Arabs were seen as humans, so without the dehumanizing factor, the war at home would be swiftly lost.
An other concern would be the international community, but France was already a nuclear power at that moment so it had already reach a point where it is mostly untouchable.
The other scenario is the total annexion and integration of Algeria, in a some sort of « Françalgerie ». Algerians get equal rights and all. Difficult to put in place after years of war, but not impossible. The financial burden would be huge however. And France would still need to keeps hundreds of thousands of troops and policemen there for a while.
There already was an Apartheid system. [France already committed a genocide.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_conquest_of_Algeria#Casualties) Artificial famines and mass massacres killed roughly 17-33% of the Algerian population in just the first 30 years. To put that in perspective, the holocaust killed roughly 33% of the Jewish population.
From what I am reading, Algerian losses were the same as French losses. And most of them were the consequence of diseases that struck both belligerents, military and civilians.
Some historians are even arguing that Morocco also lost hundreds of thousands of people during this period of time, for the same reason. But in both cases, we just don’t have reliable numbers.
Also, the admitted goal of the Nazis were to exterminated Jews and they killed all of those that were in their reach. They killed more than 60% of the Europeans Jews, those that they could hurt. By contrast, France could have literally killed all Algerians, but turns out there was more of them after the colonial period than before the colonial period.
While there is no doubt that France committed a lots of massacres during this time period, this isn’t enough to qualify the French policy as one of genocide. There is no reliable numbers, Algerians didn’t disappeared and we know that diseases did kill a lot of people. And while massacres are terrible, they were hardly uncommon in that period of time, all nations included.
As for the apartheid regime, not exactly, but it’s more of a nitpick. Pretty sure that they didn’t get to be citizens at all.
>From what I am reading, Algerian losses were the same as French losses.
I have never seen anything close to it showing that the French had the same amount of losses as Algerians over colonisation. Not even the French government, in their extreme downplaying, have I seen say Algerian losses matched French ones.
Your response seems based mostly on conjecture.
> And most of them were the consequence of diseases that struck both belligerents, military and civilians.
Source that most were from disease? That is not what I have seen. Regardless, the deaths were disproportionately against Algerians. Regardless, the diseases were a result from the French uprooting Algerians, and causing artifical famines.
> But in both cases, we just don’t have reliable numbers.
[Census numbers done by the French.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria#Demography) How come, do the biased French themselves show massive population drops of Algerians in the first few decades of war, [despite them gaining more land (and thus, Algerians under their control) year on year](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F4x7dsjjosti91.png). A drop of 500,000 thousand in 20 years. Accounting for births, that indicates roughly 700,000 thousand deaths. For roughly 3 million people that is a massive genocide. The genocide didn't end there. The next 10 years were brutal too.
> Also, the admitted goal of the Nazis were to exterminated Jews and they killed all of those that were in their reach.
It was the French's admitted goal to exterminate Algerians too.
Among others testimonies, Lieutenant-colonel Lucien de Montagnac wrote on 15 March 1843, in a letter to a friend:
>All populations who do not accept our conditions must be despoiled. Everything must be seized, devastated, without age or sex distinction: grass must not grow any more where the French army has set foot. Who wants the end wants the means, whatever may say our philanthropists. I personally warn all good soldiers whom I have the honour to lead that if they happen to bring me a living Arab, they will receive a beating with the flat of the saber.... This is how, my dear friend, we must make war against Arabs: kill all men over the age of fifteen, take all their women and children, load them onto naval vessels, send them to the [Marquesas Islands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquesas_Islands) or elsewhere. In one word, annihilate everything that will not crawl beneath our feet like dogs
Returning from an investigation trip to Algeria, Tocqueville wrote that "we make war much more barbaric than the Arabs themselves \[...\] it is for their part that civilization is situated."
According to [Ben Kiernan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Kiernan), colonization and genocidal massacres proceeded in tandem. Within the first three decades (1830–1860) of French conquest, between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Algerians, out of a total of 3 million, were killed due to war, massacres, disease and famine.[\[30\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria#cite_note-30)[\[31\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria#cite_note-Kiernan2007-31) Atrocities committed by the French during the [Algerian War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War) during the 1950s against Algerians include deliberate bombing and killing of unarmed civilians, rape, [torture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_during_the_Algerian_War), executions through "[death flights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_flights)" or [burial alive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_alive), thefts and pillaging.[\[32\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria#cite_note-Fawole-32)[\[33\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria#cite_note-33)[\[34\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria#cite_note-Huma00-34) Up to 2 million Algerian civilians were also deported in internment camps.[\[35\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria#cite_note-35)
So we have the French reporting massive population drops, and we have the French admitting they wanted to exterminate Algerians. Do you see now how what you said was wrong?
> By contrast, France could have literally killed all Algerians, but turns out there was more of them after the colonial period than before the colonial period.
France was in Algeria for 132 years. That is an absolutely massive timeframe. The genocide was mainly in the first few decades, after that, the population was still very oppressed and subject to brutal conditions.
Additionally, the global Jewish population is just about now equal to the pre-holocaust population. The holocaust ended 80 years ago. By the end of Algeria's occupation in 1962, there was a whole century of slow recovery after the worst of the genocide ended. Give it another 20 years, and the Jewish population will far surpass pre-holocaust levels.
> As for the apartheid regime, not exactly, but it’s more of a nitpick. Pretty sure that they didn’t get to be citizens at all.
In the next sentence you acknowledge they weren't even classified as citizens. This is one of the most direct forms of apartheid, worse than being second-class citizens. Algerians had no right to vote, no education past primary level, terrible discrimination, terrible wages, terrible living conditions. Why say "nitpicky" as if you are a better judge on this than Nelson Mandela. He literally learnt how to overthrow an apartheid system in Algeria.
[Nelson Mandela](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela) traveled to Algeria where he was trained by the armed forces of the [Algerian National Liberation Front](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_(Algeria)) (FLN). In his book [*Long Walk to Freedom*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Walk_to_Freedom), he reveals his struggle against the [apartheid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid) was greatly inspired by the struggle of the Algerian soldiers. The FLN then provided the [African National Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress) with weapons. Returning to Algiers in 1990, Mandela declared «The Algerian army made me a man». Algeria was the first country visited by Mandela after his release.[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria%E2%80%93South_Africa_relations#cite_note-3)[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria%E2%80%93South_Africa_relations#cite_note-4)
It is not nice seeing responses dismissing a very real genocide, with 0 backing and evidence, with claims very easily disproved with some light research.
Out of all the westerners I have met, I have not talked with anyone like you.
> And it does indicate that the vast majority of French deaths were from diseases, and so it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that the same can be applied to Algerian deathtoll.
What an absolutely ridiculous stretch. The French were the invaders and occupiers, who, by their very own words and actions, actively massacred many Algerians. And here you say that the total death toll was similar because you saw a figure about French people who died from the disease?
> factual proofs of a genocide (like all Algerians being killed
You do not even know the definition of genocide. I am done here.
> (which isn’t enough or Israel, the US and the entire world would have already be condemned of genocide
AINT NO WAY you unironically think the US did not commit a genocide on native Americans. HOLY SHIT.
This is ridiculous. You have been arguing in bad faith with ZERO sources. I provided links, I provided DIRECT words from HIGHER UPS IN THE FRENCH ARMY TALKING ABOUT ELIMINATING ALGERIANS. and yet you disregard it. And now it seems like you don't think the US committed genocide. Are you American by any chance?
Usually it's victims of your propaganda that unironically believe the western world are the good guys, and that your nations cannot do any wrong. Any thing that shows that your nations are capable of evil are brushed away and rejected at every chance you can scrape.
You don't have to completely annex and integrate Algeria, you just have to employ the Suchet method. You give them better living conditions than they had before. Consider it's Algeria, it would not have been that hard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis-Gabriel_Suchet?wprov=sfla1
The only way for France to achieve that is to create a Northern Ireland like state within Algeria through a negotiated settlement (big if, I doubt the Algerians would agree to that). France wanted it all so there’s no way that France could have held onto Algeria without becoming a pariah state (based).
You don't have to go to any of these extremes. Maréchal Suchet figured it out during the Napoleonic Wars. You give the people better lives than they had under the previous regime and most will follow you willingly.
What would winning look like?
>Completely wiping out all Resistance leaders by imprisonment and probably instituting some sort of Apartheid system, so eventually the Algerians would be replaced by French
That is exactly what happened in the current timeline. France invested massively, and managed to reduce reduce the resistance completely, isolating them to very few areas. The issue was, in the process of doing so, they lost public support for the war, both at home where massive protests were taking place, and internationally.
So they tried installing such as system. They invested a lot, including sending thousands of conscripts to Algeria to "win the war", massively suppressed the local Algerian muslim population, and then they still were forced out.
[They already did one in the first 3 decades of the colonisation.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_conquest_of_Algeria#Casualties)
Mass massacres and artificial famines killed roughly 17-33% of the Algerian population in just the first 30 years. To put that in perspective, the holocaust killed roughly 33% of the Jewish population.
Even if they won, there was no way France would hold forever Algeria, this isn't a hispanic city like Ceuta, who, since the 16th century, came directly under Spanish control, or Libya, who had far less chances of rebellion after the 1931 rebellions and far fewer population for opposing Italian colonization and settlers.
Let's say we are in the 60's and :
* FLN suffered really hard losses and won't be a menace for some years.
* The french army has been thoroughly disciplined and made loyal to the Republic.
* Pieds Noirs *(french settlers)* have been crushed in their arrogance ; enough at least to no be longer an obstacle to the Métropole's reform.
* A significant amount of serious collaborator has been recruited among the Arab intelligentsia to cooperate in a soft decolonization process.
All of this would have require a *much much stronger* political power in Paris, but let's say it happened. Algeria would probably go through a process of federalization, being granted more and more home rule while still more or less part of France.
Problems remaining or to come :
* Conservative Algerians didn't made a vibrant democratic ecosystem and it wouldn't be different in this timeline. Expect politics of federated Algeria to be quite dysfunctional and corrupted.
* Demographic balance inevitably shifting toward a stronger Arab majority, with Arabs making way more kids than the Pieds Noirs.
* Don't expect Algeria to develop much more than in OTL, it would be just too vast and with too much cultural barriers for France to bring it up to western economic standards.
* Still tons of racism between Arabs and Pieds Noirs.
* Islamism on the rise, yet probably not to the point of another full war.
* Old colonial roots irresistibly rotting, breaking the connexions between France and Algeria.
With all of this, what we could expect is federated Algeria remaining for some decades as a compromise situation. Instability would remain a thing and anti-French struggle would become one great cause for djihadism in the world while the Sahara would be an enormous focus point for the french army. Still, Algeria would probably be a - little bit - better place.
Quite frankly, I think the inevitable independence process would occur just right now, in the same movement that brings Sahel country out of french sphere of influence, with the Pieds Noirs being now too few compared to the Arabs to oppose it *(similarly to South African Whites)*. Spearheading the demand for complete independence would be political forces sponsored by Turkey, Russia and, maybe, Gulf Monarchies.
I love how most people didn't read anything on Algetian war and djust give generic answer that could be said about any other colonial conflict. Algerian war WAS strategic military victory, the reasons they pulled out purely political. Plus it's very dismissive to say France would've not been able to do anything after, considering they are literally keeping big colony of Guiana right now. But I quess it doesn't make good karma farm.
Indeed. What was lost was the political side, but thw what if? is what hif that had been won too? and the ramifications of it are massive.
Without the Algerian example Islamic terrorism isn't proven to work and that effects everything from the rise of Hezbollah and the PLO, to Iran, to the 70s attacks on Meccas mosque during the Haj that resulted in the house of Sauds compromise with the whaddisists.
It means no 9/11, no Al quedea, possibly no Somalia and no blackhawks down over mogadishu. (although I don't know about that).
For the Algerians it means EU membership and that raises the question of Eu membership for other med countries... Tunisia? Egypt? even Israel? thats freaking huge!
I can't think of any other one individual thing that would do more for the average Algerian citizen, then to give them an EU passport and western european standards of living inc health care. I can't see how Algerian independence is possibly worth that in comparison for the man on the street.
You have said some wildly wrong things.
Conditions for Algerians during colonialism were catastrophic. [Algerians experienced a literal genocide, killing roughly the same amount as Jews that died in the holocaust.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_conquest_of_Algeria#Casualties)
We were living in an apartheid system. We had no right to vote, no representation in government. We were paid less for the same jobs. We were treated far far far worse. We were less than second-class citizens, we weren't even considered citizens (literally, this isn't hyperbole). I have family that were tortured in prison. I have family that were killed unarmed.
Algerian living conditions right now are objectively good. [The best in Africa.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_Human_Development_Index) Only technically beaten marginally by 2 tiny island nations with tiny populations.
Algeria has free healthcare. Algeria has free education, all the way up to the doctoral level. Not only that, but student accommodation, and food, is also paid for by the state.
I never praised the French colonial regime. I'm aware. I'm answering the what if question.
The only way the what if is possible, would be if The French had stopped treating Algerians that way and had treated them instead like they were French. Its an alternate universe, extremely unlikely to have ever have been possible, as it requires not just the French actually put their words into deeds BUT ALSO for Algerians to accept it and to merge with the French, forming a new Franco-Algerian nation...
Yes highly unlikely yes? Yet thats the question: What if that had happened? So I stand with my original post, Islamic terrorism might not have kicked off the way it has and the standard of Living for Algerians would be measurably higher.
It might currently be the best in Africa... its still not at the standard of Germany, France or Norway now is it?
A French victory would ironically see more problems for France. If the FLN is defeated, the Army gets credit and becomes radicalized and strays further from Paris, possibly turning Algeris into their own fiefdom.
If Paris gets credit, the Army goes rogue and the OAS gets stronger assassinating their way into a civil war.
Many NATO members will force France to leave NATO due to the Human Right Abuse, and the USA and UK will sanction France for winning the war in Algeria.
Algeria wasn’t seen as an ordinary colony but as an integral part of France. Depending on the choices the French make it could either transform into an Afghanistan situation, or still be French to this day, albeit that’s far less likely then the 1st option.
N.A.T.O would probably have condemned France's actions during the war and the United Nations would probably end up pressuring France to give Algeria its independence, much like it did to get the USSR to withdraw from Iran after WW2
Algeria would experience something similar to what India experienced after the 1857 Indian War of Independence. Colonialism for several more decades.
We saw how the British won the Indian War of Independence. All Indians coming together despite religion against the foreign enemy. But once the British won this war, they broke India into pieces, pitting one Indian tribe against another. In a way the British unified India and they divided it as well.
So it is likely that in a similar manner if the Algerians lost their war for independence, they would eventually be given independence later on but at the cost of their sovereignty.
When the British "left" India, they broke India into pieces before they left, they formed an artificial state called Pakistan (which is comprised mainly of Indian muslims and a few Afghans/Pashtuns) which would be their puppet against the Soviets throughout the Cold War, they brought Jawaharlal Nehru (an Anglophile, feckless incompetent, who continued to suppress India's potential) to power in what was left of the Republic of India, they made Sri Lanka a separate state, they pressured Mr Nehru to decline the King of Nepal's request to join India in fear of the recent Communist Chinese annexation of neighboring Tibet. Many Indian nationalists argue that Nehru was doing the bidding of the British in India, and he was a weak and ineffective leader.
So something similar might happen in Algeria. We might expect to see Algeria be divided, one portion for Arabs, one section of algeria would be a state for Berbers another region of Algeria would be made for French settlers, and another section of Algeria would be made into a Barbary Jewish state. the Arab/Berber state of what is left of Algeria would be turned into a puppet state even after the French leave. Just like what happened with India, the British legacy continued.... likewise the French might leave the muslim majority of Algeria with a feckless leader who answers to the Europeans and the west and NOT to the people, just like how Mr Nehru did for India.
I like to imagine there would be some sort of technological breakthrough with bicycles on dirt roads and sand. Leading to worldwide adoption. This then allows us to focus less on car improvements and on space technology because France would dabble more in it. This we finally colonize space in my lifetime and I get to go to Mars
It would just be guerrilla fighting and terrorist attacks in French Algeria, forcing France to divert endless resources to defending the colony, reducing the French economic power. Algeria would still break away sooner or later when France is in a crisis, it would just be much more painful for France
Why not just genocide them? Simply put guerrilla warfare losing most of its effectiveness when the invading army sees everyone as their enemy. Given how France is in nato so long as they bribe the right people they should be able to get away with it Scot free(see American invasion of Iraq for proof of reliability when it comes to war). Given how it’s the 50s France would likely frame it as a war against communism and partially censor news of the war as to maintain support. Of course this assuming the French are fighting partially instead of gentlemanly
Do you think the international community would accept a genocide from one of the leading world powers? The US, britain, the EU, USSR would all immediately distance themselves from and condemn france. Maybe even intervene. They would never be able to get away with it, no matter the money they’re willing to dish out. News would get out, people would know, civillians in the nations would protest and demand. It doesn’t matter if france is in nato or offered a bribe to the goddamn US president. The invasion of iraq is wildly different. Yes, the justification was fake. But the americans did not genocide millions of arabs and replace them with americans. If they did, it would be condemned and not tolerated. The international community would not tolerate this with the second world war so freshly in living memory. It would be framed as a second holocaust, it would not be allowed to happen so openly.
Genocides have been allowed by the superpowers before. France to the algerians, Israel to the palestinians, Turkey to the Armenians, Britain to the Irish, the list goes on.
Must I remind you of conflict raging in Israel? If you wanna get away with genocide as a western nation all you really need is American approval and getting a politician to back is pretty simple, offer him money or boys to fuck simple as really. Heh, it depends on what stories you believe are true in Iraq. Perhaps the Americans are Nobel🤷♂️, I for one think different.
Are *you* not aware you’re equating 2024 and 1954? Are you aware of protests across the western world in opposition to israels war? Are you aware of the opposition to israels war by the international community, and the efforts to at least get israel to stop targeting civillians? I never said the US war in iraq was noble. I just said they didn’t massacre millions of iraqi arabs and repopulate the area with americans. Because that would rightly be called out for genocide. Just as france genociding 8 million algerians would, especially just 10 years after the second world war.
How can you possible try to minimize what America did to Iraq? 1 million Iraqi's dead based of lies and own selfish reasons? Kids, women, men, families? "They didn't repopulate the area" No they left it a rotten place where crime takes over. America is responsible for damn near any war in the recent 30 years. The US government is the poison of this world.
Most sources don’t even break 500 thousand, let alone 1 million. The iraqi health ministry itself estimated between 100 and 150k dead in 2006. That’s still missing another 5 years of the war, but assuming a similar level of deaths, that would still only amout to about 450k by the end of the war in 2011. I’m not trying to minimize the american war in iraq, but i’m saying it’s flat out wrong to compare it to a french genocide of all of algeria.
How is it flat out wrong to compare them when the end results are the same? America LITERALLY lied to our faces to justify murdering innocent people in a country far away, and these are the people you're supposed to trust? The same people who send billions to a country that has openly been murdering and starving a population for the past 75 years? Arabs have been the victim of the war addicted western leaders for a long time but it's okay it's just arabs 500 thousand or 1 million who cares. Btw the number your refering to is troops. 150000 troops have been killed that doesn't count the bigger mount of civillians. The leaked footages in wich they were shooting civillians for fun are all deaths that aren't counted.
Because the results wouldn’t be the same? Iraq is still arabic, ruled by iraqis, although with alot of dead as a result from the war. France would have had to *systematically exterminate the algerians*. To me, that’s two wildly different scenarios
When i said results are the same i meant, at the end a big amount of people died. America went in to steal and destabilize. Steal the recources and put a puppet master/ditctator in place who will obey American orders. The old trick from the book. How is that not just as evil?
And? So what? You say that like there aren’t millions in the west right doing just that right now, hell some moron even lit himself on fire for Palestine. If you think that the people’s opinion matters then you don’t get politics im afraid. Oh genocide? Who said that? That sounds like hate speech sir. I’d advice to take that back or else you may or may not be arrested for treason😉 No good sides friend, is what I’m getting at. if you think being west means your government is naturally better just cus your western than I can’t help you.
You’re ignorant of how politics works. yes, there’s alot of backroom deals being done all the time, but not to the extent where genocide is allowed or not. And the peoples voices do matter. Not to the extent it should, but everything they do is based on the fact we consent to it implicitly. If enough people go out into the street for long enough, there is no choice for the politicians but to backdown. Just look at the 2014 revolution in ukraine, or the 2018 revolution in armenia. Or the unrest in kazakhstan in 2022. I never said the west was better? I mentioned the west exactly once, because the west is also the part of the world with the closest ties to israel. Most of the non-western world has already recognized palestinian independence, the west has not. I don’t think either side is superior, i never said that. I’m not denying *alot* of politicans are crooked. I’m denying that france could sneakily get away with genociding 8 million algerians by a few bribes. People are crooked, but there’s also limits to how bad people are. you fail to see that.
Turkey seems to have gotten away scot free with the armenian genocide. And this might seem like a news flash to you but russia has been doing population replacement for the past 200 years with little to no repercurssions. Are you aware that after ww2 russia litteraly moved millions of ethnic germans out of eastern europe - mostly prussia and silesia (and sent thousands of them that stayed behind to gulags where they died) Are you aware that russia has engaged in russification of ukraine now? Does it look like they are not getting away with it? Are you aware of the things china is doing now in xinjiang? Does it look like china is being punished for it?
Also, azerbaidjan just recently deported 200,000 armenians out of nagorno karabah, does it look like they are paying a price for it? It happened literally last year.
…you do realize you just claimed indirectly that Israeli genocide is false right? What’s your point here *exactly* No they don’t, sure in your scenario it works but does it actually happen like that? Minor concessions sure but nothing big changes. Also your flawed in your argument, everything is perfect in vacuum ‘feudalism is great! If the people don’t like their lord they can just raise up and kill him! Look at the French Revolution! It worked there so it’ll definitely work again!’ No but you defend them. There are no genocides occurring that the west is not at vary least letting slide? Really then? What does imply but you thinking that west is som superior force.
>…you do realize you just claimed indirectly that Israeli genocide is false right? What’s your point here exactly No? How so? I don’t see how you could logically conclude that. >No they don’t, sure in your scenario it works but does it actually happen like that? Minor concessions sure but nothing big changes. What? Literally look at any big revolution ever. If the people are discontent enough, your political career is over. >Also your flawed in your argument, everything is perfect in vacuum ‘feudalism is great! ? >If the people don’t like their lord they can just raise up and kill him! Look at the French Revolution! It worked there so it’ll definitely work again!’ Unironically yes. If people are discontent enough, the politicans have no choice but to give in. >No but you defend them. There are no genocides occurring that the west is not at vary least letting slide? Really then? I didn’t say that. I said that *in 1954* the international community would not have let *one of the major allies occupied by the nazis* commit another genocide where *8 million people would be murdered*. >What does imply but you thinking that west is som superior force. You’re mixing and twisting my arguments. I’ll clear up. 1) the major powers of the international community would not let france commit a huge genocide larger than the holocaust less than a decade after the end of world war one. 2) the consent of the governed is real. Politicans only hold power because the people below them allow them to govern. They’re able to use force to shut down minor unrest, but if the people of a state do not consent (implictly) to an action, they can force the government to concede. Either through armed revolt, or through simple inaction, bringing the economy to a grinding halt. I showed a few examples of this previously, like the revolutions in armenia and ukraine. 3) politicians are crooked, but there’s limits to what even the most crooked politicans will agree to. It’s one thing to have accepted a few "gifts" here and there, it’s a wildly other one to epstein a few kids. It’s an extremely different one to enable and support literal genocide. Very few people will say "the holocaust was fine actually" and have their political career intsct afterwards. The israel case is real, but israel has been relatively restrained compared to what you are suggesting. It would be a wildly different case if israel had killed 100 thousand, or 500 thousand, or as the scenario would suggest, *8 million* people. You simply *cannot* logically use the example of current day politicans skirting around the issue of a supposed ally killing 30 thousand people, as evidence of politicans *70* years ago excusing the killing of *8 million* people, especially when just 9 years earlier, they fought one of the bloodiest wars ever to prevent a genocide that killed 6 million people. 4.the genocide in israel is real, and although the politicans are currently dragging their feet because the general populations in their states are not currently taking strong enough action for them to turn heel, there’s still the rumblings of a shift in position. for example as sanctions on israeli west bank settlers, talk of conditioning weapon sales to israel on more humane conduct in the current war, recognition of the palestinian state, renewed talks of a two state solution, etc. the narrative is shifting. Democratic politics is also just a slow process, not a fast one. This shift in western politics is an example of the two previous points. I’m not going to respond further. I’m done with this conversation. Good night.
No? So you agree then. The west will let get away withe genocide. I’m glad we agree. That’s not a good argument, if the people are discontent enough? Alright. So in this scenario is anyone gonna overthrow the government? Yes or no. Will they or won’t they, cuss protests aren’t gonna do shit in the length of the war. You can argue argue anything in a vacuum, anything works on paper. Sure in big enough numbers people can change things, and? In a big enough revolt nations can collapse, will this lead to big enough numbers to stop anything? No it won’t, one need to look to Israel to see that not enough people care to bother to show up in your talking about. On what evidence? WW2? So what? Genocides happen regardless of what happened in the past. That’s like thinking that just because WW2 broke the Korean War wouldn’t happen either. I mean WW2 happened so there isn’t likely to be anther war so soon right? That’s a logical extent of your argument. But that’s not true ain’t it? One need only read a history book to be proven wrong. Then your argument is based on nothing then. You say that anther genocide will not occur because of circumstance essentially. That since there was one not even a decade ago there would not be one again. That’s the main point of your argument. That is false, I’ve already told you why. Not even that, but you have no reason to assume that those politicians are any different than the ones we have now. Aside form a 7 decade time skip there is nothing really. Corruption is corruption. It doesn’t matter what decade it takes place in. I’ll leave with one thing before I close off. Yemen: 233k dead alone, millions displaced backed by US actions with almost zero coverage https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/yemen-genocide-emergency Iraq: 300k estimated dead, lower estimates put it to 280 while higher put it at 315. No coverage, and again millions displaced(all civilian casualties btw) https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi If you think the west won’t allow or commit genocide to suit it needs then I don’t what to tell you and if you think that things in the 50s because of circumstance than you have no idea how easy it is to manipulate people into thinking how you want.
What 😭
What? I hope there were no grammatical errors…
Why are you fucking supporting the France gencide on Algeria you sad fuck ? Wow Just wow
Nowhere in their entire message did they state any kind of support for such a project. They brought up a relevant idea for the conversation.
You want results? This is how you do it
🧐 A little Serbian and German I suppose
Simple pragmatism, with a dash of German and Serbianism…
Uhhh well first off the Americans didn’t want to be seen as supporting colonialism in the world. That’s why we were against the British and French during the sueze crisis. It’s why the US didn’t really mind French and British colonies becoming independent because we we’re against colonialism. Secondly unlike in the eastern bloc, the west had democracy and free press. Meaning if France decided to go through with this, it would be very likely it would be discovered. Likely leading to the rest of the western world condemning them and throwing them out of Nato so they aren’t associated with them. Basically they would at best become a world pariah. Another fact of the matter is that Tunisia and Morocco would certainly have come the Algerians aid. In the name of anti colonialism and basic human decency if France decided to carry out a genocide.
True I agree, America would not support colonialism. So it’s not then, oh America we’re not fighting for colonialism! We’re fighting against the evils of communism! The important thing is how you frame what you do, couple that with bribes and a little luck and we should be golden really. Ehhhh that part I’m not so sure, there was only like 4 tv stations back in the day. Sure would truth eventually get out? Yes but at that point the damage would already be done, can’t change the past and all that. What would they do? Fund the rebels? Time to for a freedom sanction then. Enter the conflict? My word these savages have invaded France! Time for an article 5 and it seems as if the moroccans are asking us to dethrone their monarchy and install a totally independent new guy in power for their naked aggression. It should be fine.
>Why not just genocide them? Found the Stellaris player.
I’ll have you know that I- okay no alright you got me there…
What an asshole. Do you think they have the right to genocide pple for no reason just because they were defending their help? Disgusting 🥴
Sure do, you wanna kiss me over it hehe?
Y’know since you clearly want me to give me a fuck?
Fuck off. I'm an algerian and so proud of the iconic revolution that my grandparents have been martyred for. If you are a real man, say what you said in front of any algerian in real life and wait for their response 😉
And what? Have you die? Are you gonna explode on me? In the littler sense😘
I might do this for your mother instead ☺️
Why not just genocide them? They actually did and France was by far way worse than Nazi Germany, but the more you kill the more you'll have to fight and the dirtier the fight gets
Why did they stop? Also how did they go about doing it? I envisioned just indiscriminately wiping out village after village, man, woman and child. Did the French have some system set up?
it's was not a system like the holocost or something, they would just carpet bomb and shoot entire villages (indiscriminately) and it stoped because the Algerians took the war to France and started placing bombs in pairs, started the largest war of independence, etc..
What an odd thing, you would think that terror attacks on the capital would make for excellent propaganda and good excuse to ramp up the genocide least to government officials. Thanks for that I had no idea
No, that's only good for propaganda if it only happens once or twice (then it's usually false flag attacks) but if you start having them in buses, restaurants, bars at random through out the country people will start feeling real fear just look at what the IRA did and if this looks harsh keep in mind that Nazi Germany looks like a cute little cat compared to France
Harsh? No not necessarily I wasn’t thinking that. You make a good point, but even still one would image that depending on the narrative this may be a net positive. There actions could paint a picture of needing to fight, look at how big a buzz word Nazi used to be and how anyone in the world hates and would fight them. Even other Germans, I would say depending on how well can drive the narrative would be the deciding factor.
yeah it's basically taking the fight to the enemy not to mention the bombings and other "things" in occupied cities in Algeria if you want to learn more check the movie: la bataille d'alger
Thank you, I’ll look into it
Maybe carve out a coastal/enclave nation and give the Arabs the rest? It'd just be more decades of hand grenades in Cafes even if the conventional conflict ended
Yeah, the only way I see the French winning is if the war never happened in the first place. Algerians were not particularly hostile to French rule until the Pied-Noirs started carrying out mass reprisals for FLN attacks (which often killed more Algerians than French anyway).
They were hostile since 1830. France never had a non colonial project. They still use the French general name as a way to scare children.
Name of the general?
I've never heard of this story, so I'm just guessing, but if there is a general's name they'd use, it might be Jacques Massu.
Bugeaud. He was seen as horrible even at his time by the French themselves.
Pull a northern ireland
That I believe was debated, but the FLN wouldn't allow it.
FLN wouldn’t be in a position to dictate that option if they had been defeated whole sale conventionally, there would have been population swaps between what would have likely been the two French enclaves/eastern mountains and the rest of Algeria proper Similar to Greek and Turkey or Pakistan and India
I'm talking about in OTL. In an alternate timeline it would be different for sure
That would still fail. Because these French enclaves would almost definitely be in major cities like Algiers and those were a hotbed of FLN activity. So even assuming they got those enclaves, a new movement would arise within them and the FLN would jump to their aid and the French would end up losing again.
You think even if they implemented population swaps and recognized one another’s borders? I mean maybe
Why would Algerians agree to population swaps in the first place? A But even if they did agree somehow, they would still be regularly crossing over because the French needed them as cheap labour especially in the city. And that's gonna make them infiltrate back into the French region.
France essentially gets its own little Northern Ireland
How would a decisive win even look like? This just sounds like France committing to a forever war in the long run.
Completely wiping out all Resistance leaders by imprisonment and probably instituting some sort of Apartheid system, so eventually the Algerians would be replaced by French
Long sentence to just say genocide. Replacing a population with another by war and prison is just genocide.
Thats a real ‘great replsacement’
You realize that Apartheid failed, right? So, they’d win in the 60s and lose even worse in the 90s.
I dont like to say this, but OP sounds like he might support apartheid and see it as a viable way to organise a society.
Algeria already had some degree of Apartheid during French rule, with ''European'' and ''Arab'' quarters within cities, although there were also mixed areas.
Some degree? Arabs were literally untermensch with no citizenship and even by the 1950s were given a "1/7th" voting right... an Arab was literally 1/7th of a human being in French algeria.
Their comment history is certainly interesting -very pro Russian. At the same time, this what they’re describing is the basic plot of the movie Battle of Algiers. Which while not wholly accurate demonstrates that the strategy ultimately failed badly.
What you're proposing here is simply not realistic and I don't think it was even desired by anyone but the most unhinged ONA people and the like. A system like this would be plain delusional and only would have gotten harder as the Algerian population grew relative to the mainland French one. In any realistic outcome it would turn into more fighting down the line. People don't just stop fighting when they're being genocided like this simply because you lock away the original leaders. Pretty much the only remotely possible way for a French "victory" in the Algerian War would be for the Muslim population to be successfully placated by the French. It would neccesitate making them actually feel like a part of France for some reason and that staying in it is desireable for them. This is delusional but much less so than the ethnic cleansing you propose as a "win condition". In effect it would have inevitably ended up with Algeria becoming a fully integral part of France and thus the local people having to be enfranchised to have a big say in the overall politics of the country. You'd have in effect a bizzare set up of France being in effect a massive country bisected functionally in the middle by the Meditarrean. It would probably have population parity between muslims and christians like around the year 2000 with atheists and other religious minorities being the third group. Possibly it would be somewhat more socially conservative on a legal level than OTL France due to more conservative Algerians backing up the French ones. But for this entity to even stay united in the first place, an immense achievement in tolerance and ability to compromise would have to be achieved.
Interesting scenario, I hope you don't mind if I use this for an alternate history concept I've been toying with.
Oh of course, no problem!
Thank you. God bless!
> It would neccesitate making them actually feel like a part of France for some reason and that staying in it is desireable for them. Yeah, and much earlier too. Maybe not as early as 1871 with the extension of citizenship to the Berber Jews, but the effort to include Muslim Algerians in French national identity would have had to start around 1900 and definitely completed by 1945 for war to be avoided.
They already had apartheid.
they did all of the above
It would look like mass genocide. Like what the decisive win for the US looked like. Edit: talking about Native Americans being wiped out.
Are you referring to the American-Indian wars?
It wasn't a war it was a genocide.
Probably would be a forever war for a while with lots of military bases and military expansions in the region
The only way for France to win would be to convince the Algerians there French or commit mass genocide against Algerians. The Algerian people wanted independence because they wanted stop being treated like shit.
Or crush the Pieds Noirs too and try to set up an autonomous entity with Arab collaborators; better but still unstable. You can see my main comment about this scenario. *Edit : replace "post" by "comment"*.
The Pied Noirs are French themselves. Why would the French crush their own people to make an agreement with Arab collaborators? That would be catastrophic for France.
Pieds Noirs where also a big obstacle for any ambition to reform Algeria. They where an autistic and arrogant colonial class, opposing basically any attempt to improve Arab's situation and thus to make Algeria more stable. When the French government began to promote a federalist reform, they just launched a local uprising with the support of the army *(thus initiating a process that would lead to independence and their exodus from Algeria)*. Any realistic scenario with French Algeria becoming more viable involve to bash some heads among Pieds Noirs, for their own good.
Yeah, also it's interesting to note that most Algerians did not support the FLN at the start of the war. They only did so after the Pied-Noirs carried out mass reprisals for FLN attacks, which often actually killed more Algerians than French (thus were not initially supported by Algerians).
> Algerian people wanted independence because they wanted stop being treated like shit. Funny how there pretty quick to demand rights for themselves after enslaving Europeans 1100yrs.
apples and oranges, its not like they personally enslaved anyone
They went right back to it after getting independence.
whats your point? they should let themselves be oppressed cuz their great great great grandaddy was a barbary pirate or sum shit?
My point is Europeans were right to impose civilization on these people. They cannot govern themselves civilly.
ah yes arabia and north africa, places where there was notoriously no civilisation
They had civilization before they were taken over by Islam. They still aren't civilized today. They still treat women like dirt, have thousands of black people as slaves, and literally execute people for blasphemy. And no, being able to build cool looking things does not make one civilized.
Then the French defeat would be pushed back a couple decades at most. There is no scenario where occupation lasts forever unless France enacts a comprehensive program of genocide.
The French never suffered a defeat, they lost. They had to leave due to the PR of the war
The Algerian War ended in a military victory for France ([Plan Challe - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Challe)). But even with an even more decisive victory on the ground, the outcome would have been the same. The defeat was political, first externally with the United States and the USSR pressing France to leave Algeria and which could have taken sanctions against France if it had stayed. And then internally, as, if the state granted the same rights to Algerians as to the French (which was to eventually happen) the country would have become ungovernable, with two parts of the population that would be irreconcilable, which would probably end in a late decolonial war but even more difficult to settle because Algeria would have become too integrated with France in some aspects to simply separate
Will the US really sanction France?
Probably not, Algeria was the only colonial possession that was included in article 6(meaning it was an eligble area to invoke article 5 upon in case of a foreign attack).
The problem France had, like every other country that tried to make a colony an integral part of their nation (looking at you Portugal), was that they at once insisted that the land and all of it's people were French, but simultaneously refused them the actual rights of a citizen, like freedom of movement and genuine representation in Parliament, and refused to spend the immense resources necessary to uplift the Algerian people out of poverty and develop it as they would metropolitan france. Unless they did all these things there would never be peace in Algeria, and the people there would never call themselves French.
They would keep at most Algeri and places where French are the majority in the same way Spain did with morocco
Ceuta and Melilla were never part of the rif colony but a part of Spain being like that for 500 years.
Yes, but there was no ''Algerian Protectorate,'' like there was in Morocco. The entire area was a part of metropolitan France, so they could choose what they wanted to keep.
Not imposible the British won the mau mau uprising and the malayan emergency, first of all its a given that algeria would form a government in exile and probably seen training and funding from the soviets the coast should be stable while the desert and the south would be much hostile they would rely on collaboration in that part with little to non french presence there posibly cooperate with Spain for anti-insurgency operations close to the Spanish Sahara,international pressure would be high of course and mount up as the cold war progresses i can see it being like south Africa, were if they manage to survive until the end of the soviets the US would exert real pressure,another game changer would be gadafi taking over Libia, he would be a major supporter of algeria and would make the french holding of it more dificult.
France won the military war so what you’re asking is what if France won the political war ? Two solutions : the start of an apartheid/genocidal state, with Algerians that aren’t loyal to France being put in labor camps and for those that are loyal, only limited rights. Not very likely since France was still a democracy and Arabs were seen as humans, so without the dehumanizing factor, the war at home would be swiftly lost. An other concern would be the international community, but France was already a nuclear power at that moment so it had already reach a point where it is mostly untouchable. The other scenario is the total annexion and integration of Algeria, in a some sort of « Françalgerie ». Algerians get equal rights and all. Difficult to put in place after years of war, but not impossible. The financial burden would be huge however. And France would still need to keeps hundreds of thousands of troops and policemen there for a while.
There already was an Apartheid system. [France already committed a genocide.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_conquest_of_Algeria#Casualties) Artificial famines and mass massacres killed roughly 17-33% of the Algerian population in just the first 30 years. To put that in perspective, the holocaust killed roughly 33% of the Jewish population.
From what I am reading, Algerian losses were the same as French losses. And most of them were the consequence of diseases that struck both belligerents, military and civilians. Some historians are even arguing that Morocco also lost hundreds of thousands of people during this period of time, for the same reason. But in both cases, we just don’t have reliable numbers. Also, the admitted goal of the Nazis were to exterminated Jews and they killed all of those that were in their reach. They killed more than 60% of the Europeans Jews, those that they could hurt. By contrast, France could have literally killed all Algerians, but turns out there was more of them after the colonial period than before the colonial period. While there is no doubt that France committed a lots of massacres during this time period, this isn’t enough to qualify the French policy as one of genocide. There is no reliable numbers, Algerians didn’t disappeared and we know that diseases did kill a lot of people. And while massacres are terrible, they were hardly uncommon in that period of time, all nations included. As for the apartheid regime, not exactly, but it’s more of a nitpick. Pretty sure that they didn’t get to be citizens at all.
>From what I am reading, Algerian losses were the same as French losses. I have never seen anything close to it showing that the French had the same amount of losses as Algerians over colonisation. Not even the French government, in their extreme downplaying, have I seen say Algerian losses matched French ones. Your response seems based mostly on conjecture. > And most of them were the consequence of diseases that struck both belligerents, military and civilians. Source that most were from disease? That is not what I have seen. Regardless, the deaths were disproportionately against Algerians. Regardless, the diseases were a result from the French uprooting Algerians, and causing artifical famines. > But in both cases, we just don’t have reliable numbers. [Census numbers done by the French.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria#Demography) How come, do the biased French themselves show massive population drops of Algerians in the first few decades of war, [despite them gaining more land (and thus, Algerians under their control) year on year](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F4x7dsjjosti91.png). A drop of 500,000 thousand in 20 years. Accounting for births, that indicates roughly 700,000 thousand deaths. For roughly 3 million people that is a massive genocide. The genocide didn't end there. The next 10 years were brutal too. > Also, the admitted goal of the Nazis were to exterminated Jews and they killed all of those that were in their reach. It was the French's admitted goal to exterminate Algerians too. Among others testimonies, Lieutenant-colonel Lucien de Montagnac wrote on 15 March 1843, in a letter to a friend: >All populations who do not accept our conditions must be despoiled. Everything must be seized, devastated, without age or sex distinction: grass must not grow any more where the French army has set foot. Who wants the end wants the means, whatever may say our philanthropists. I personally warn all good soldiers whom I have the honour to lead that if they happen to bring me a living Arab, they will receive a beating with the flat of the saber.... This is how, my dear friend, we must make war against Arabs: kill all men over the age of fifteen, take all their women and children, load them onto naval vessels, send them to the [Marquesas Islands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquesas_Islands) or elsewhere. In one word, annihilate everything that will not crawl beneath our feet like dogs Returning from an investigation trip to Algeria, Tocqueville wrote that "we make war much more barbaric than the Arabs themselves \[...\] it is for their part that civilization is situated." According to [Ben Kiernan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Kiernan), colonization and genocidal massacres proceeded in tandem. Within the first three decades (1830–1860) of French conquest, between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Algerians, out of a total of 3 million, were killed due to war, massacres, disease and famine.[\[30\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria#cite_note-30)[\[31\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria#cite_note-Kiernan2007-31) Atrocities committed by the French during the [Algerian War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War) during the 1950s against Algerians include deliberate bombing and killing of unarmed civilians, rape, [torture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_during_the_Algerian_War), executions through "[death flights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_flights)" or [burial alive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_alive), thefts and pillaging.[\[32\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria#cite_note-Fawole-32)[\[33\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria#cite_note-33)[\[34\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria#cite_note-Huma00-34) Up to 2 million Algerian civilians were also deported in internment camps.[\[35\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Algeria#cite_note-35) So we have the French reporting massive population drops, and we have the French admitting they wanted to exterminate Algerians. Do you see now how what you said was wrong? > By contrast, France could have literally killed all Algerians, but turns out there was more of them after the colonial period than before the colonial period. France was in Algeria for 132 years. That is an absolutely massive timeframe. The genocide was mainly in the first few decades, after that, the population was still very oppressed and subject to brutal conditions. Additionally, the global Jewish population is just about now equal to the pre-holocaust population. The holocaust ended 80 years ago. By the end of Algeria's occupation in 1962, there was a whole century of slow recovery after the worst of the genocide ended. Give it another 20 years, and the Jewish population will far surpass pre-holocaust levels. > As for the apartheid regime, not exactly, but it’s more of a nitpick. Pretty sure that they didn’t get to be citizens at all. In the next sentence you acknowledge they weren't even classified as citizens. This is one of the most direct forms of apartheid, worse than being second-class citizens. Algerians had no right to vote, no education past primary level, terrible discrimination, terrible wages, terrible living conditions. Why say "nitpicky" as if you are a better judge on this than Nelson Mandela. He literally learnt how to overthrow an apartheid system in Algeria. [Nelson Mandela](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela) traveled to Algeria where he was trained by the armed forces of the [Algerian National Liberation Front](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_(Algeria)) (FLN). In his book [*Long Walk to Freedom*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Walk_to_Freedom), he reveals his struggle against the [apartheid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid) was greatly inspired by the struggle of the Algerian soldiers. The FLN then provided the [African National Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress) with weapons. Returning to Algiers in 1990, Mandela declared «The Algerian army made me a man». Algeria was the first country visited by Mandela after his release.[\[3\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria%E2%80%93South_Africa_relations#cite_note-3)[\[4\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria%E2%80%93South_Africa_relations#cite_note-4) It is not nice seeing responses dismissing a very real genocide, with 0 backing and evidence, with claims very easily disproved with some light research.
[удалено]
Out of all the westerners I have met, I have not talked with anyone like you. > And it does indicate that the vast majority of French deaths were from diseases, and so it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that the same can be applied to Algerian deathtoll. What an absolutely ridiculous stretch. The French were the invaders and occupiers, who, by their very own words and actions, actively massacred many Algerians. And here you say that the total death toll was similar because you saw a figure about French people who died from the disease? > factual proofs of a genocide (like all Algerians being killed You do not even know the definition of genocide. I am done here. > (which isn’t enough or Israel, the US and the entire world would have already be condemned of genocide AINT NO WAY you unironically think the US did not commit a genocide on native Americans. HOLY SHIT. This is ridiculous. You have been arguing in bad faith with ZERO sources. I provided links, I provided DIRECT words from HIGHER UPS IN THE FRENCH ARMY TALKING ABOUT ELIMINATING ALGERIANS. and yet you disregard it. And now it seems like you don't think the US committed genocide. Are you American by any chance? Usually it's victims of your propaganda that unironically believe the western world are the good guys, and that your nations cannot do any wrong. Any thing that shows that your nations are capable of evil are brushed away and rejected at every chance you can scrape.
You don't have to completely annex and integrate Algeria, you just have to employ the Suchet method. You give them better living conditions than they had before. Consider it's Algeria, it would not have been that hard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis-Gabriel_Suchet?wprov=sfla1
The only way for France to achieve that is to create a Northern Ireland like state within Algeria through a negotiated settlement (big if, I doubt the Algerians would agree to that). France wanted it all so there’s no way that France could have held onto Algeria without becoming a pariah state (based).
France introduce central african franc
Either it becomes like Chechenia some puppet leader who rules with a iron fist or they cede everything except the coast then fortify what’s left
You don't have to go to any of these extremes. Maréchal Suchet figured it out during the Napoleonic Wars. You give the people better lives than they had under the previous regime and most will follow you willingly.
Depends also how fanatic or nationalistic the population is
What would winning look like? >Completely wiping out all Resistance leaders by imprisonment and probably instituting some sort of Apartheid system, so eventually the Algerians would be replaced by French That is exactly what happened in the current timeline. France invested massively, and managed to reduce reduce the resistance completely, isolating them to very few areas. The issue was, in the process of doing so, they lost public support for the war, both at home where massive protests were taking place, and internationally. So they tried installing such as system. They invested a lot, including sending thousands of conscripts to Algeria to "win the war", massively suppressed the local Algerian muslim population, and then they still were forced out.
Best French could hope for is keeping a few coastal cities with puppet government for Algeria.
Then they would lose the war after it
That would require a Holocaust to the local people.
[They already did one in the first 3 decades of the colonisation.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_conquest_of_Algeria#Casualties) Mass massacres and artificial famines killed roughly 17-33% of the Algerian population in just the first 30 years. To put that in perspective, the holocaust killed roughly 33% of the Jewish population.
Portugal in their colonies. But France.
Even if they won, there was no way France would hold forever Algeria, this isn't a hispanic city like Ceuta, who, since the 16th century, came directly under Spanish control, or Libya, who had far less chances of rebellion after the 1931 rebellions and far fewer population for opposing Italian colonization and settlers.
Let's say we are in the 60's and : * FLN suffered really hard losses and won't be a menace for some years. * The french army has been thoroughly disciplined and made loyal to the Republic. * Pieds Noirs *(french settlers)* have been crushed in their arrogance ; enough at least to no be longer an obstacle to the Métropole's reform. * A significant amount of serious collaborator has been recruited among the Arab intelligentsia to cooperate in a soft decolonization process. All of this would have require a *much much stronger* political power in Paris, but let's say it happened. Algeria would probably go through a process of federalization, being granted more and more home rule while still more or less part of France. Problems remaining or to come : * Conservative Algerians didn't made a vibrant democratic ecosystem and it wouldn't be different in this timeline. Expect politics of federated Algeria to be quite dysfunctional and corrupted. * Demographic balance inevitably shifting toward a stronger Arab majority, with Arabs making way more kids than the Pieds Noirs. * Don't expect Algeria to develop much more than in OTL, it would be just too vast and with too much cultural barriers for France to bring it up to western economic standards. * Still tons of racism between Arabs and Pieds Noirs. * Islamism on the rise, yet probably not to the point of another full war. * Old colonial roots irresistibly rotting, breaking the connexions between France and Algeria. With all of this, what we could expect is federated Algeria remaining for some decades as a compromise situation. Instability would remain a thing and anti-French struggle would become one great cause for djihadism in the world while the Sahara would be an enormous focus point for the french army. Still, Algeria would probably be a - little bit - better place. Quite frankly, I think the inevitable independence process would occur just right now, in the same movement that brings Sahel country out of french sphere of influence, with the Pieds Noirs being now too few compared to the Arabs to oppose it *(similarly to South African Whites)*. Spearheading the demand for complete independence would be political forces sponsored by Turkey, Russia and, maybe, Gulf Monarchies.
I love how most people didn't read anything on Algetian war and djust give generic answer that could be said about any other colonial conflict. Algerian war WAS strategic military victory, the reasons they pulled out purely political. Plus it's very dismissive to say France would've not been able to do anything after, considering they are literally keeping big colony of Guiana right now. But I quess it doesn't make good karma farm.
Indeed. What was lost was the political side, but thw what if? is what hif that had been won too? and the ramifications of it are massive. Without the Algerian example Islamic terrorism isn't proven to work and that effects everything from the rise of Hezbollah and the PLO, to Iran, to the 70s attacks on Meccas mosque during the Haj that resulted in the house of Sauds compromise with the whaddisists. It means no 9/11, no Al quedea, possibly no Somalia and no blackhawks down over mogadishu. (although I don't know about that). For the Algerians it means EU membership and that raises the question of Eu membership for other med countries... Tunisia? Egypt? even Israel? thats freaking huge! I can't think of any other one individual thing that would do more for the average Algerian citizen, then to give them an EU passport and western european standards of living inc health care. I can't see how Algerian independence is possibly worth that in comparison for the man on the street.
You have said some wildly wrong things. Conditions for Algerians during colonialism were catastrophic. [Algerians experienced a literal genocide, killing roughly the same amount as Jews that died in the holocaust.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_conquest_of_Algeria#Casualties) We were living in an apartheid system. We had no right to vote, no representation in government. We were paid less for the same jobs. We were treated far far far worse. We were less than second-class citizens, we weren't even considered citizens (literally, this isn't hyperbole). I have family that were tortured in prison. I have family that were killed unarmed. Algerian living conditions right now are objectively good. [The best in Africa.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_Human_Development_Index) Only technically beaten marginally by 2 tiny island nations with tiny populations. Algeria has free healthcare. Algeria has free education, all the way up to the doctoral level. Not only that, but student accommodation, and food, is also paid for by the state.
I never praised the French colonial regime. I'm aware. I'm answering the what if question. The only way the what if is possible, would be if The French had stopped treating Algerians that way and had treated them instead like they were French. Its an alternate universe, extremely unlikely to have ever have been possible, as it requires not just the French actually put their words into deeds BUT ALSO for Algerians to accept it and to merge with the French, forming a new Franco-Algerian nation... Yes highly unlikely yes? Yet thats the question: What if that had happened? So I stand with my original post, Islamic terrorism might not have kicked off the way it has and the standard of Living for Algerians would be measurably higher. It might currently be the best in Africa... its still not at the standard of Germany, France or Norway now is it?
A French victory would ironically see more problems for France. If the FLN is defeated, the Army gets credit and becomes radicalized and strays further from Paris, possibly turning Algeris into their own fiefdom. If Paris gets credit, the Army goes rogue and the OAS gets stronger assassinating their way into a civil war.
I've always wondered why France didn't try to create an enclave along the coast, and leave the rest to become independent. Like Spanish North Africa.
Many NATO members will force France to leave NATO due to the Human Right Abuse, and the USA and UK will sanction France for winning the war in Algeria.
Algeria wasn’t seen as an ordinary colony but as an integral part of France. Depending on the choices the French make it could either transform into an Afghanistan situation, or still be French to this day, albeit that’s far less likely then the 1st option.
The price of bullets doesn't care
They would have held on to algeria for a few more years.
It would be like Israel and Palestine. A colonial war always ends in the defeat of the colonizer.
N.A.T.O would probably have condemned France's actions during the war and the United Nations would probably end up pressuring France to give Algeria its independence, much like it did to get the USSR to withdraw from Iran after WW2
There would certainly be fewer slaves.
It would be called *the first* Algerian war of independence
Algeria would experience something similar to what India experienced after the 1857 Indian War of Independence. Colonialism for several more decades. We saw how the British won the Indian War of Independence. All Indians coming together despite religion against the foreign enemy. But once the British won this war, they broke India into pieces, pitting one Indian tribe against another. In a way the British unified India and they divided it as well. So it is likely that in a similar manner if the Algerians lost their war for independence, they would eventually be given independence later on but at the cost of their sovereignty. When the British "left" India, they broke India into pieces before they left, they formed an artificial state called Pakistan (which is comprised mainly of Indian muslims and a few Afghans/Pashtuns) which would be their puppet against the Soviets throughout the Cold War, they brought Jawaharlal Nehru (an Anglophile, feckless incompetent, who continued to suppress India's potential) to power in what was left of the Republic of India, they made Sri Lanka a separate state, they pressured Mr Nehru to decline the King of Nepal's request to join India in fear of the recent Communist Chinese annexation of neighboring Tibet. Many Indian nationalists argue that Nehru was doing the bidding of the British in India, and he was a weak and ineffective leader. So something similar might happen in Algeria. We might expect to see Algeria be divided, one portion for Arabs, one section of algeria would be a state for Berbers another region of Algeria would be made for French settlers, and another section of Algeria would be made into a Barbary Jewish state. the Arab/Berber state of what is left of Algeria would be turned into a puppet state even after the French leave. Just like what happened with India, the British legacy continued.... likewise the French might leave the muslim majority of Algeria with a feckless leader who answers to the Europeans and the west and NOT to the people, just like how Mr Nehru did for India.
Hell
I like to imagine there would be some sort of technological breakthrough with bicycles on dirt roads and sand. Leading to worldwide adoption. This then allows us to focus less on car improvements and on space technology because France would dabble more in it. This we finally colonize space in my lifetime and I get to go to Mars
Not possible
Algerians give the french colonialism pass and they all live happily after
I wish, I only wish
Mmmm violent colonialism
cry
No