5 ms·

Sure you are right. 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 Alge

Sure you are right. 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.

monadINtop 2y ago
It was a brutal occupation and while I obviously don't hold some kind of personal resentment to the decedents (whether institutionally or literally) of this colonial state, I think its hard for the well meaning public in these countries to understand the effect of this kind of soft whitewashing (even if unintentional) of the historical record has to those of us who have these conflicts burned in our living memory, and are in all ways still living within the direct repercussions of these conflicts. 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.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  To be fair it’s not like the FLN were that much less brutal than the French both during and after the war. 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..)
  - monadINtop 2y ago
    > it’s not like the FLN were that much less brutal than the French both during and after the war 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.
    - wqaatwt 2y ago
      I’m not defending or denying what France did but in quite a few ways it was a civil war. It’s not like FLN was universally popular, before the French started committing mass atrocities it had quite limited support. > 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.
      - monadINtop 2y ago
        Yeah, liberated. Algeria is no longer an explicit French colony, just an effective one (they now skip the middle man and exploit it directly through trade agreements). It turns out its quite difficult to magically create a prosperous liberal democracy post-revolution when isolated from both international trade and the political sphere of the hegemon, and when the militarized state structure that was necessitated by the war effort can quite easily be co-opted by certain elements in the state savvy enough to purge any opposition that would prevent them from re-establishing trade relations with the same international business interests and neo-colonial enterprises as before, that would happily provide support and funding in exchange for unequal trade agreements and repressive domestic policies that benefit the oligarchs and their foreign partners at the expense of popular support and the goals of the revolution. >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.
- hackandthink 2y ago
  It's no excuse. But many people just don't know about it. 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.

monadINtop 2y ago

It was a brutal occupation and while I obviously don't hold some kind of personal resentment to the decedents (whether institutionally or literally) of this colonial state, I think its hard for the well meaning public in these countries to understand the effect of this kind of soft whitewashing (even if unintentional) of the historical record has to those of us who have these conflicts burned in our living memory, and are in all ways still living within the direct repercussions of these conflicts. 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.

wqaatwt 2y ago
To be fair it’s not like the FLN were that much less brutal than the French both during and after the war. 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..)
- monadINtop 2y ago
  > it’s not like the FLN were that much less brutal than the French both during and after the war 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.
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    I’m not defending or denying what France did but in quite a few ways it was a civil war. It’s not like FLN was universally popular, before the French started committing mass atrocities it had quite limited support. > 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.
    - monadINtop 2y ago
      Yeah, liberated. Algeria is no longer an explicit French colony, just an effective one (they now skip the middle man and exploit it directly through trade agreements). It turns out its quite difficult to magically create a prosperous liberal democracy post-revolution when isolated from both international trade and the political sphere of the hegemon, and when the militarized state structure that was necessitated by the war effort can quite easily be co-opted by certain elements in the state savvy enough to purge any opposition that would prevent them from re-establishing trade relations with the same international business interests and neo-colonial enterprises as before, that would happily provide support and funding in exchange for unequal trade agreements and repressive domestic policies that benefit the oligarchs and their foreign partners at the expense of popular support and the goals of the revolution. >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.
hackandthink 2y ago
It's no excuse. But many people just don't know about it. 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.