Talk:Algerian War/Archive 2

Egyptian forces...
shouldnt their be a section for Egypt's contribution in the War, with Gamal Abdel Nasser sending forces and aid to the Algerian Liberation movements!!!

Arab League User (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The exodus of the pieds-noirs
I think there is subjective and unverified material in this portion of the Algerian War article that should be either clearly sourced or deleted. In fact I had deleted the passages in question myself, only to see them re-inserted repeatedly.

The question is obviously a very emotional one, with strongly held views on all sides.

The passages I bring into question here are those which declare that the French government had not anticipated a mass exodus of over one million citizens from Algeria to Metropolitan France in a matter of months. This lack of anticipation is offered as the reason many hundreds of thousands of people were left indigent and homeless for long periods after their arrival in France.

There is a long and very well documented history of animosity between the pieds-noirs community and General DeGaulle and governments headed by him. This animosity is made reference to in many other articles here on Wikipedia, with many of those articles offering multiple objective sources.

There was quite significant support among pieds-noirs for the Vichy government in the early years of World War 11.

The pieds-noirs community and those French officers supporting their cause offered strong support for the return of DeGaulle in 1958, with the clear understanding that his return to power would prevent the splitting of Metropolitan France, of which Algeria was then a part.

When DeGaulle shifted his position on this issue there was an enormous sense of betrayal felt by pieds-noirs and those who supported their position.

This sense of betrayal manifested itself in many ways cited right on the Wikipedia page I am referring to. Uprisings, attempted coups, several attempted assasination attempts on the life of DeGaulle, all culminating in an extraordinary campaign of terrorism directed at the institutions and personnel of the French state in Algeria.

It is very reasonable considering all of this that the French government would by 1962 have had a quite negative view of the pieds-noirs community and that the shocking treatment of them upon their arrival in France was deliberate and not because of a lack of anticipation that nearly all of them would flee.

The question is a difficult one, because it is one of what went on in peoples minds, rather than what happened. We all seem to agree there was no planning for the arrival of over one million people, but how do we know what government ministers were thinking and feeling when plans to receive pieds-noirs in France were being drawn up?

The only source cited in the pieds-noirs paragraph is INA.fr, which receives funding from the French government. Why should Wikipedia repeat what is essentially the French government position? If there is independent information, let's see it. otherwise I think the passage does not belong here. Parnellg (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jews, Israel... What the point exactly?
"It was a period of guerrilla strikes, maquis fighting, terrorism against civilians on both sides, and riots between the French army, the European-Algerians (Catholics & Jews)—or the "colons" as they were called by the FLN"

First, this conflict was absolutly not a religiopus one. It was not about catholic but about French people. What the fuck is the catholicism doing here? In an other hand, reading this article, you have the impression that the jews had great importance in the war. But it was NOT a confessional conflict but a national one. Not about catholics, not about jewish, but about former Algerian, and French colons.

There is no "pieds noirs" in Algeria anymore, but lot of jews stayed. They stayed because they were here before the French invasion. The jews who left were the french jews: they don't left because they were jews but because they were french.

Secondly, this last paragraph about Israel and the Palestine is, I am sorry, completely creazy. There is absolutely no link between theses two conflicts. The Algerian one was a colonial war in which people were fighting invadors from an other country, the Israeli-Palestinian one is about two country on the same land, with problems of recognition and territory. You are trying to associate them, because French action in Algeria was absolutly indéfendable. So, stop your propaganda, and clean up this article.

I was told yesterday that wikipedia had serious problems about the actual mid-oriental conflict; I begin to understand why.


 * Agreed. I've thus taken the liberty to remove the whole paragraph, putting it here (just in case someone really wants to take the pain to argue its legitimity on this article). Tazmaniacs 00:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC):
 * "==Influence on Palestinians and Israelis==

Palestinians, even more than other Arabs, followed the Algerian War of Independence with sympathy and regarded its victorious conclusion as a precedent applicable to their own liberation struggle. Following 1967, the efforts of Yasser Arafat's PLO to start a guerrilla campaign in the newly-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip were consciously inspired by the Algerian experience. Later, in periods of extreme hardship for the Palestinian population there was frequent mention of the extreme sacrifices which the Algerians had to make and which were ultimately vindicated by the achievement of independence.

The Algerian War entered the internal Israeli political and military discourse following the outbreak of the First Intifada in 1987. When Israeli forces started using harsh measures in an effort to break the Palestinian uprising, peace groups and left-wing parliamentarians pointed to the French Army's experience in Algeria as proving the futily of such methods. The film The Battle of Algiers, made back in 1966, was shown in Israel for the first time during the Intifada years, drawing considerable public attention and with critics often drawing explicit parallels with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.


 * (This is mistaken. My Israeli wife went to see the film in West Jerusalem in 1984 or 85, some years before the Intifada. At about the same time, I was present at the first cinema screening in Arab East Jerusalem. The atmosphere, as can be imagined, was electric; nobody needed to explicitly point out the parallels.) RolandR 11:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, Alistair Horne's book on the Algerian war was published in Hebrew translation, followed by the work of Raymond Aron. The IDF high command took the decision to distribute copies of Horne's book to all senior officers, a decision sharply criticized by right-wing parties as "defeatist".

Since the idea of evacuating Israeli settlers came on the Israeli public agenda following the Oslo Agreements, the evacuation of the Pieds-noirs is being frequently cited as a precedent.

For their part, the settlers and their political supporters deny the validity of the comparison, on the grounds that Algeria is separated from France by the Mediterranean while Israel and the West Bank are territorially contiguous, and also that Jews have a Biblical and Historical claim over the territory as the French in Algeria did not have. The main difference between the situations is that the French in Algeria still saw themselves as French and their motherland in France, while Jews are connected to Israel not through colonization but through their attachment to Israel itself. Israel will argue that it's exactly the opposite — the Arabs are the historical colonial power who seized the land of the indigenous people of the land of Israel. Israel argues that the Jews, continuously living in Palestine, are in no way strangers to the land.

During the public debate on the 2005 Gaza Disengagement, some well-known columnists criticized Ariel Sharon's decision to have each and every settler physically removed by army or police, and recommended instead the "de Gaulle Method" — i.e., withdrawing the army and leaving to the settlers the choice of remaining in the Gaza Strip or returning to Israel under their own power. The suggestion was, however, rejected out of hand by the Sharon Government.

At present, the history of the Algerian War continues to be frequently invoked in the ongoing political debate in Israel, with the prospect of further West Bank withdrawal and settlement evacuation high on the public agenda."

The parallel beetween algeria war and israelian-palestianian conflict does not respect the NPOV. Why? Because it would means that Israel is a stolen country. Everyone agree that Algeria WAS a stolen land (colonization is about solen land), while saying that Israel in itself is a stolen land is an ideological POV. Palestinian said they were doing the same than Algerian people because Algerian were anyway the "good ones" in the independance war. Then, it shouldn't be put as an evidence here. Sorry for my english, I'm actually French ;)

I am sorry but you dont have a point here. I dont understand how you can state that Algeria was a land stolen by the French. Given this, you have to follow with saying that United States is a land stolen by some colons to indian indigen people.

This is, in fact, the standard leftist position in the US-it is virtually uncontested in the educational system and the bulk of the media. What has to be remembered is that peoples have been migrating to lands occupied by others since long before there was recorded history. Conquest of one people by another is normal in the human species. A fairly recent example is the conquest of what is now South Africa by the Europeans and the Bantu. Both the Europeans and the Bantu displaced the indigenous Khoisan/Hottentot/Bushman peoples. Once the Europeans ruled South Africa, and now the Bantu rule it. Thus South Africa is also "stolen" land. Falange (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

discrepancy in "Beginning of Hostilities"
There is a discrepancy in the section "Beginning of Hostilies". It states that "While Messali Hadj had radicalized by forming the FLN, Ferhat Abbas maintained a more moderate, electoral strategy". Massali Hadj did not create the FLN but in fact was the leader of the oppositional party the Mouvement National Algérien (MNA) which rivaled the FLN and fought with them throughout the war. In the article about the FLN it says,
 * "It was created by the Revolutionary Committee of Unity and Action (CRUA), which emanated from clandestine opposition and emergent paramilitary networks continuing the nationalist tradition of the Algerian People's Party (PPA). The CRUA urged all the warring factions of the nationalist movement to unite and fight against France. By 1956 - two years into the war - nearly all the nationalist organizations in Algeria had joined the FLN, which had established itself as the main nationalist group through both co-opting and coercing smaller organizations. The most important group that remained outside the FLN was Messali Hadj's Mouvement national algérien (MNA). At this time the FLN reorganized into something like a provisional government. It consisted of a five-man executive and legislative body."

These two statements are oppositional and should be rectified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.153.206 (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

stupid sentence
i think this sentence is stupid "It left long-standing scars in French society, and still affects present-day France". what is it supposed to mean? didn't let it scars in algeria with x10 more dead than in france? each war let scars everywhere in the world since ever. this is stupid it should be removed. Paris By Night 18:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Stupid? But the war in Cameroun (several tens of thousands of deaths) didn't affect France so much, neither did the Indochina War for that matter. The fact that archives are still classified forty years after the facts, that you see so much debate on this talk page from right & left wing on one side, pro-French & pro-Algerian on the other sides, show that few are able to be neutral concerning this issue. The very violence of your remarks demonstrate this. Tazmaniacs 14:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Whilst Tazmaniacs has often shown a less than moderate tone in his discussions I think he has point in this case. It seems that the struggle for Algeria (perhaps because it was seen as part of France) really did have effects that other places havent. Whether those scars run deep in white French children and young adults today i would strongly doubt. But in the older whites and Algerian Arabs I think he may be right. But you are right Paris by Night the other, then recent, wars will have scarred the French almost certainly far more. Tazmaniacs often accuses other people of violent remarks and makes his rejoinders overly personal, dont take it so, its just the way he is. Why he chooses to be this way about Algerian history in the English wikipaedia but almost completely silent in teh French one pases some questions too. It could be that his views are viremently rejected there by people who really know their subject. Facius 15:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Though this sentence is often quoted, if not generated, by French politicians as an excuse for not opening the archives after such a long time. You can visit any pied-noirs' site to check that. Your impartiality proves contrary to your point too.

didn't let it scars in algeria with x10 more dead than in france? this is clearly not an honorable fact to boast of. Human misery should not be the subject of pride, on both sides. I saw some years earlier, on france 3, old french veterans who participated in the war shaking with trauma and tormented by deep psychological troubles, I sympathized with them notwithstanding my global view of the events.--Sayih (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me the sentence should be modified to point out that the conflict left deep scars in both France and Algeria and affects both countries to this day. I don't know if I would choose the word stupid, but I do think the sentence right now is biased in pointing out the pain being felt by one side, and not mentioning that of the other when it would be so easy to recognize both.  Parnellg (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

''each war let scars everywhere in the world since ever. this is stupid it should be removed.'' Essentially you are saying that because this is a universal truth, it is therefore "stupid"? It is true that this war has shaped the identity of Algeria, in the workings of their politics, their relationship with France and the rest of the Maghreb. I don't understand how something being true not only in this country but throughout conflicts all over the world makes it stupid? It is true and it shouldn't be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.153.206 (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This war let scars on both country because 1/ this war had never been declared so the laws of war hadn't been respected by all the sides. 2/ Unlike in indochina, it interested very much france: The soldiers were conscript (in indochina, the french political learders never engaged conscripts because nobody in france understood that war) and this war dramatically influence france political life. 3/ It let scars on the pieds-noirs and their descents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clems78 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

NAME IN ARABIC?
What was this war known as in Arabic? Or at least, what did the Algerians call it? Le Anh-Huy (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the arabic wikipedia's article about the war is named the "Algerian Revolution", I think the Algerian call it the war of independence, the revolutionary war, the revolution or some other varation on that theme. Carl Logan (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

setif
The Setif massacre is generally regarded as a key moment--Horne's numbers are used here as they are in the Setif article, but a lot more people believe the higher 20,000-45,000 toll. It's terribly hard to know, since these numbers are used for propaganda, but perhaps the article should not merely assert Horne's numbers to be factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.93.238 (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist?
I think the word "terrorist" and "terrorism" should not be used in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.166.33.242 (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Stora is not god
he is just a self-admitted Troskyist. I don't like how he is outspoken in this article. see for yourselves. Cliché Online (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Although the article states that both sides made extensive use of torture, only the torture of the FLN is described graphically. This seems somewhat biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.7.95 (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

moved to Algerian War, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC) I would like to move this article to Algerian War, because it is the most common name in English for the war. Only a minority uses Algerian War of Independence. Carl Logan 08:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The opening sentence calls it "Algeria War." Is it that or "Algerian War?" Please present further arguments for this move. Algeria War is common but it is also somewhat vague and, if unattested, may be recentism. —  AjaxSmack     01:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If you had bothered to check the edit history of the article you would have seen that the “Algeria War” was added yesterday by Paris By Night, a French user, that probably just inserted the direct translation of the French name for the war: “Guerre d'Algérie”.

A couple of books that uses the name “Algerian War” (they are many more):
 * Evans, Martin – The Memory of Resistance: French Opposition to the Algerian War
 * Gildea, Robert – France Since 1945
 * Porch, Douglas – The French Foreign Legion
 * Wall, Irwin M. – France, the United States, and the Algerian War
 * Windrow, Martin – French Foreign Legion Paratroops
 * Windrow, Martin – French Foreign Legion since 1945
 * Windrow, Martin – The Algerian War 1954-1962

Also a goggle search for “Algerian War” gets 207,000 hits, while a search for “Algerian War of Independence” only gets 49,100. Although a search of the “Algerian War” will of course also get hits on the sites using the “Algerian War of Independence”, so if we subtract the hits for the second from the first (207,000-49,100=157,900) the “Algerian War still has three times the hits of the “Algerian War of Independence”. Carl Logan 07:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Settle down, Beavis. I wasn't opposing the move, just asking for more info.  I found this myself although I have no idea if there is any widepread adherence to this position: "The war is often called 'Algerian War of Independence', a reflection of the idea that the Christian Europeans had no right to live in the country where they were born; this therefore is a racist term for the war. 'Algerian War 1954-1962' or 'Algerian Civil War 1954-1962' are neutral and adequate terms." —   AjaxSmack     22:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

^Propaganda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.80.155 (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Names
There is something wrong about the surnames of key player Guy Mollet is referred to simply as Guy an De Gaulle referred to as De. I do not feel expert enough about liks to change this buts someone should. 14 May 200980.169.162.100 (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * De Gaulle is his full last name. He should never be referred to as "De." As for Mollet, referring to him by his first name is far too casual for an encyclopedia. They, like everyone else, should be referred to first by their full name and then by their last names. 98.209.116.7 (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Slight what?
@ chapter 1 in the article it says "On the pretext of a slight to their consul"... of a slight what? offense? Does anyone has the book where this line is taken from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funraiser (talk • contribs) 00:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Setif events of June 1945 - massacre or genocide?
There has been discussion on the talk page of the Setif massacre article whether the title should be changed to Setif genocide. I think that the respective arguments have been set out clearly and without POV bias. As the Setif events are generally seen as a major factor in the events leading up to the Algerian War of 1954-62, contributors to and viewers of the latter article are likely to be well placed to consider whether "massacre" or "genocide" is the appropriate description to use. Grateful if views could be expressed on the Setif massacre discussion page. Buistr (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

First film clip is inaccurately described
It is not from 1954, it is the first minute of a 20 minute American newsreel from 1961. The whole newsreel can be found on youtube. Maybe you should change the description to "Depiction of Algeria in 1954 prior to the war of independence". Or something like that. Cbmccarthy (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

neutralization of torture
The use of torture by the FLN is not mentioned, there's only one occurence about the Harki, while the term refers to the French army. However torture was in use in both sides, this was war. It's like the use of torture is not acceptable from the French but is acceptable from the independists (same happened with the US in Vietnam and Irak). Godard's 1960 "Le Petit Soldat" (which was censored until the war ended) depicts the use of torture in both sides as well. The current non-neutral treatment of torture must be fixed. Shame On You 14:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You can not use torture even if it is war. Thats against human rights and rule of war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.207.151 (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet it's frequently used by any side in a war. What I find astonishing is that the Algerian insurgents used that many methods of the French resistance. --41.150.18.235 (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela
Nelson Mandela was in Algeria during that war. At least that's what I've read. Should this be included in the article.--196.207.47.60 (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not unless he contributed to the events of the war, otherwise it should just be mentioned in his own article. SGGH speak! 09:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure if he contributed, it seems he was there for "learning" and "training".--41.150.18.235 (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mandela's visit to Algeria was during 1962 but shortly after independence - there are several photographs showing him with Algerian officers at the headquarters of the new national army.(Buistr (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC))

Casualties and losses
there is a lot of bias here, first the user shame on you is fron france, the second, the algerians only was 1500000 dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyu 157 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)