"After Washington rebuffed his proposal to overhaul the Western alliance and once he ended the war in Algeria, de Gaulle launched a forceful attack on what he called the "American protectorate." The West's nuclear strategy, the structure of NATO, and West German dependence on Washington were only some of the issues that fell subject to Gaullist revisionism"
https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft4w10...
But he saved France from the coup generals and was responsible for the withdrawal of the French from Algeria.
In the summer I saw the Algeria memorial on the Seine, in France they still have a problem with the colonial crimes in Algeria.
Maybe it is easier for some when they can view it from a distance, I see many who grasp the severity of say, the Japanese state's indifference to their imperial war crimes which still causes immense tension with their neighbors, or the denial of the Armenian Genocide by Turks and so on. It's a shame that such indignation rarely is maintained for systems that one may be far more complicit, and consequently far more able to rectify.
Of course in hindsight (even if we ignore all the mass murder and atrocities, which we can’t..) that was was entirely pointless from the French perspective. What were they even hoping to achieve? Unless they were willing to grant full suffrage and civil rights to the entire Muslim population independence seemed inevitable. Best case was holding onto the majority French/pro-French areas in the north..)
Sure, I'm under no rose-tinted delusions about their methods - nor the methods of any other guerilla movement in a similar position - but the vital distinction is that one side is aimed at enforcing a racist and cruel colonialist regime and the other is a popular nationalist movement aimed at achieving sovereignty from that colonialist regime. There is no equivalence here. The FLN wouldn't have needed to liberate Algeria at gunpoint if it wasn't under occupation in the first place (and if a peaceful or diplomatic resolution was not refused).
>What were they even hoping to achieve?
Yeah, I think there comes a similar point with many reactionary movements where they kind of began a mindless march into self-destruction, where whatever self-interested outcome they originally fought for is no longer even feasible yet they continue fighting for no other reason than institutional momentum and spite.
> to liberate
It’s not like they turned it into a democracy or even tried to. It was bit like Castro liberating Cuba just a probably with more atrocities targeting civilians or former Algerian soldiers serving in the French army.
>It’s not like they turned it into a democracy or even tried to
How familiar are you with the cold war, and especially the third world movement? Do you know what happened to the democracies?
>more atrocities targeting civilians or former Algerian soldiers serving in the French army
Did you expect them to grant amnesty to a domestic reactionary fifth column, who in the case of both cuba and essentially every other third world country during that century, immediately began programs of terrorism and destabilization with foreign support? I'm not talking about the civilians who should've been securely repatriated, but a lot of those informants and French soldiers where not peaceful bystanders. The french state would not have been able to carry out their programs of torture and terrorism against the civilian population without their help.
I'm not exactly condoning or celebrating reprisals or violence but once again, all of these things become inevitable when a country is colonized and repressed, so I'm not sure why you place the moral condemnation on people that will inevitably resist an occupation rather than the instigator.
In any case, what's your ideal scenario? That a brutal struggle for national sovereignty somehow manages to secure their freedom with limited violence or guerilla tactics against an infinitely more funded and lubricated colonial machine, and immediately institute a parliamentary democracy that will avoid being subject to a purge or military coup (as was the case in Algeria) or outright foreign intervention (in the case of Allende, Sukarno, Park Chung Hee, Goulart, and literally too many others to list).... somehow? Or instead should they have just rolled over and assist the French in violently pacifying the population, or in the case of Cuba help maintain Bautista's dictatorship solely to prevent civil instability at all costs, since national sovereignty clearly cannot be attained in a manner you deem proper.
What are you trying to say?
> so I'm not sure why you place the moral condemnation
I'm not sure why do some people insist on treating the world as black and white and are so obsessed with some sort of ideological purity of one type or another.
The FLN was a terrorist organization, they targeted both French and Algerian civilians (and had zero qualms about consciously sacrificing the lives of thousands of lives and used that as tool to achieve their political aims). The fact that the French were as brutal or much more brutal is tangential.
That every time a third world nation during the Cold War moved towards democratic rule (along with the land and resource re-distribution that will inevitably follow from politicians engaging with the interests of the franchised population) there was immediately counter-opposition in the form of reactionary para-paramilitaries, or military coups internal to the state. This subversion was often funded by foreign intelligence agencies and business interests (essentially always, though the degree may vary e.g. Brazil had a much more embedded reactionary sector thanks to the legacy of slavery and the social castes that arose, compared to say Indonesia where the CIA had to do a lot more work in directly authorizing bombing campaigns and funding anti-communist programs for young military officials in Sukarno's government) [see Vincent Bevins book on Indonesia].
>The fact that the French were as brutal or much more brutal is tangential
No its not tangential at all unless you are missing the point I've made. Do you not understand that militant terrorist tactics come out of a reaction to brutal oppression? It's not a difficult concept to grasp: any situation where peaceful opposition is stifled, democratic political action is repressed, and activists targeted for arrest and extra-legal violence, you force people to either form or support groups wielding militant guerilla tactics which include terrorism and brutality, since such groups cannot be quelled so easily.
And this is a fact well known to colonialist powers both historical and contemporary as is reflected in their tactics, since a militant opposition is much easier to frame as violent barbarians than their peaceful predecessors and is used retroactively to justify their oppression.
>I'm not sure why do some people insist on treating the world as black and white and are so obsessed with some sort of ideological purity of one type or another
Where are these people you're talking about? Can you show how anything I said relies on some explicitly moralistic or ideological argument? Do you understand that I'm not thoughtlessly cheer-leading violence but simply pointing out that it is an inevitable consequence of colonial repression?
To the contrary I think the moralistic position would be to argue that historical actors should be condemned retroactively for engaging in any kind of violence while refusing to consider the immediate (and asymmetric) cause of such violent resistance as a contingent factor. Not sure how your abstraction of history into a series of totally unrelated events, wherein the actors should be morally judged individually constitutes a less subjective analysis.
Who would you have supported in the place of FLN? What should they have done to earn your approval? Would would be the outcome of such an action in that context? Of what use is any of this speculation?
I read Annie Ernaux's book, Algeria was far away and there is propaganda and misinformation and ruthless suppression of people who care.
Germany right now supports the war crimes in Gaza - there is propaganda and suppression of people who care.
Churchill is similar and possibly more familiar to the English-speaking public: presented as a lion against Hitler, but don’t dig too much towards what he did with Irish republicans or around India’s independence.
I don’t think FDR was that much different if you read what he privately wrote about Jewish immigrants to the US in the 1940s or the internment camps of Japanese-Americans.
All three are the modern keystones of human-rights-defending countries, but the second best-known thing about them is how much effort they put into planning openly racist policies, up to genocides. You can read Hannah Arendt and re-read after accounts on what happened during the Battle of Algiers, the Bengal Famine, or Manzanar, and it hits differently the second time.
That's why it's hard to judge past personalities with our modern standards. Go read what Jules Ferry or Victor Hugo said about colonies, they both were very engaged and vocal about human/civil rights yet they said the most insanely racist things, I don't think any known public figure alive today said anything remotely as racist as them.
This couldn't be more naive, you understand that these are not some default cultural norm of the time, shared by all, and we today are simply more empathetic and enlightened than them with each passing decade? These attitudes are a direct reflection of the political sphere and centers of power in which those originating these ideas are embedded within.
People knew racism and colonialism was wrong during WW2. They knew it long before then.
You can take any time and place in history, and if you look you will find someone opposed to colonialism, exploitation, and prejudice, for as long as those concepts have existed. Just maybe not in the military leadership, or political class, since their positions in society constrain the range of beliefs they would've held in order to enter such positions in the first place.