Quoting an article about the 1954-1962 War of Algerian to illustrate my reference to the 1808-1814 War in Spain?
Followed by your paragraph about the 20th century Algerian war of independence. That post sounds like you'd want to draw a direct connection from Suchet to 20th century Algier. I simply projected that back in time.
No, read it again: I was referring to the conquest of Algeria in the 1830's ...
No, but although the torture & executions, well-documented facts, are the most famous aspect of this war for the outrage it caused in France (remember that this war took place 10-15 years after WW2, and that many people in France still bore the marks of their "questioning" by the Gestapo), there was also the "hearts and minds" aspect: with the influx of draftees for the war, the army used some of them with scholar background to set schools & free clinics in remote villages, started a vaccination campaign and development programs, ...
Because trying to stop the global menace that was Communism from yet again slaughtering citizens by the tens of thousands in a country trying to regain self-determination is the equivalent of an empire conquering a new land. What a horrible application of a brilliant man's words.
You might read up again who ruled whom in the Frankenreich, if you are then still for it then better take some German lessons so you can understand your rulers.^^And Germany belongs rightfully to the frankish kingdom.
No, that's the same paragraph. You're talking about the FLN and the battle for Algier in the next.No, read it again: I was referring to the conquest of Algeria in the 1830's ...
Well, "gaining information" is quite an euphemism for the atrocities committed by the French in Algeria.
Why? Whilst not exactly a "promise", there was a very strong implication that NATO would not expand eastward and threaten Russia's border. Since then they've done precisely that and even initiated coups in places like Ukraine to install western friendly governments. They've been threatening and even attacking Syria which has close ties with Russia, not to mention the western backed civil war they started. They've been threatening North Korea, a state that historically close with Russia and China. They've been threatening and picking away at their sphere of influence in Iraq and Iran, Libya. NATO is hardly blameless, and Russia has a point. They're also not being nearly as belligerant worldwide as the US is so I find it curious that you cite it as an example of getting belligerant about nothing.
You are confusing the goal and the means. The Algerian war was a story of atrocities even before it really started. Patrick Rotman wrote a book and realized a documentary ("l'Ennemi Intime") based on interviews with people who lived there and/or fought there during this era. I read the book : frightening from the first to the last page. With a serious competition in cruelty between the FLN and French soldiers (and I am not diminishing the french contribution which was more "industrial"...).
Call it an euphemism if you want, yet torture was one among many means to gather intelligence. And it wouldn't be a euphemism restricted to France in Algeria: same methods were used by the British in Kenya & Malaya, Americans in Vietnam or more recently Iraq & Afghanistan, Soviets in Afghanistan, ...
Yes, it was. And no, large scale torture is certainly not necessarily a part of any strategy. But my point is that you're playing it down by pretending it's only about "information gathering". The wikipedia articles indicate systematical terrorisation of the civilian population.
Yes, and I will gladly leave it to others to discuss whoever came up first with these terrible ideas. As for me, I think @Claremont Waltz commented on that quite aptly.
I'm not "playing anything down". I am well-aware of France's colonial war crimes, in Algeria or elsewhere, but I wouldn't ever use Wikipedia as a source for any claim.
Link all the figures you want. My original argument was dealing with the intent of the United States and the misuse of your quote. I never said they succeeded but they went in with a mission far different than the quote you so cleverly tried using.
Yes, I'll leave it at that. I won't argue against full denial. After all, this thread is hardly the right place for a comprehensive and critical assessment of sources about French colonialism.
I don't really think providing a reason for why the French did what they did in Algeria is "full denial". If it's too spooky or mean and you think it's morally wrong then that's one thing but it's never going to stop. It's human nature and it will always be around.
He's not giving reasons why the French did what they did, he's simply denying that they did some of the things I claimed they did.
I hope I'm not "he" in that sentence, or we really weren't understanding each other ...
Ah, well, what's a forum discussion without a thorough misunderstanding?I hope I'm not "he" in that sentence, or we really weren't understanding each other ...
While I have, of course, no information about your personal involvement, I take it that "we" in this context refers to the french military, government etc. in general. So, as far as I understand your post, you're saying that under French rule in Algiera no displacement of population took place (at least not with involvement and/or responsiblity of french military, government etc.), is that correct, or am I misinterpreting you?
I wasn't watching over the shoulder of each and every patrol or column there, so I can't make such a claim. Surely there have been such instances, but there wasn't such an official policy of terror in Algeria than in Cameroon.
