So Frenchies really were huge cunts

So Frenchies really were huge cunts.
And people say American are stubborn.

Other urls found in this thread:

fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opération_Résurrection
fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleuite)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

They may be cunts but at least they won and the battle of Algiers is mimicked by all modern armies as a pitch-perfect execution of what counter-insurgency should be.

Better than Americans who still bitch to this day about 'Nam where they lost.

Also,
>dismissing that the battle of Algiers was started because algerian fucking shits were bombing the white locals and harki sympathizers
Rude.

I agree on French army actually being competent unlike some other organizations.
As far as bombings Im ok with them considering there were injustices on both sides and hell every major rebellion in the world started with those,if people wanted independence maybe France should have negotiates some other form of authority,as it is they just lost the country completely.

>they won

Ah yes, that is why today Algeria is still a part of France and not an independent country with no white people.

But they did win though? When operation bleue had ended, the FLN had been skewered from all sides, and the French intelligence had been able to decapitate what had been the strongest independentism faction. Also, the French wall on the border had succeeded in cloistering those groups from foreign Egyptian and Morrocan support, and every passing day, fighting spirit in the FLN was growing weaker.

The French were in a position of utter supremacy when they issued the referendum of what was to be done with Algeria, as it knew it could only rule over a people that consented to its presence, and it was decided only by referendum that Algeria was to become independent. Not by foreign pressure from the FLN or the French army being defeated.

>if people wanted independence maybe France should have negotiates some other form
Well, that's what the referendum that ended the war was intended for. After having dragged the FLN through the dirt, as France did not want it to become the leaders of newly-independent Algeria, France finally agreed to a referendum which propositioned three status for Algeria: as an integral part of France, as a sister-country Commonwealth-style, or an independent Algeria.

And independence was chosen.

All I was saying that bloodbath could have been avoided if it was recognized sooner but these things never work that way so whatever.

True, true, but like I said, a lot of what was urging France to pursue the war rather than quickly recognizing their independence was that they were scared it might land in the hands of the FLN, a group highly embittered with France which wouldn't have agreed to keep relations between the two countries.

Also, French generals were jumping into full "muh pride" territory, and there would've probably been a coup had France not tried to keep Algeria under its hand a bit longer.
Here:
>fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opération_Résurrection

How is that any different from Vietnam? By 1973 over a million Vietnamese combatants were dead and the north was bombed into the stone age by B52s. The north was begging for a ceasefire after the latest round of bombings and so the Paris negotiations began. The US achieved all of its strategic goals through the negotiations and the NVA withdrew completely from the south. The US was in a complete position of power at the negotiating table.

The south only fell after the north broke the truce. By that point there were no US troops in Vietnam and no aerial or supply assistance was provided. There was no US involvement.

And the FLN got 5 new recruits for every 1 guy the French tortured, it further isolated the whites from the muslims, and it made every FLN bombing and massacre justified in the eyes of
previously moderate or loyalist muslims. Counter-insurgency is worthless meme and it is successful only if it involves genocide, and if you can't do that you better go home.

>The south only fell after the north broke the truce.
Except that in the case of the Algerian war, there wasn't a "north" remaining alive and breathing. Only more moderate elements sympathetic with France's cause.

The FLN had been led to believe by the French secret services that there were traitors in its ranks, and it had inter-murdered their leadership in search of the traitors to the point of it becoming impotent.

There wasn't a "draw" so to speak, since the enemy had been wholly defeated instead, and not left with time for it to recover like it happened in the Vietnam war.
(fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleuite)

>And the FLN got 5 new recruits for every 1 guy the French tortured,
Like the French army was gifted with five new Harki recruits for every algerian the FLN tortured. You seem not to know that both sides stained themselves heavily in the algerian war, and the civilians were left in the middle bearing the brunt of the brutality from both sides.

In a way, the torture exacted by the French army probably guided a lot of Algerians to hoping for independence, and later voting for it, but you have to remember that these same people only voted for independence because they also knew the country had been more or less rid of the FLN, and that it wouldn't them either who ruled when the country became independent.

>Counter-insurgency is worthless meme
That's not the opinion of every high-ranking american genetal.

They needed to set up a puppet government while playing themselves off as liberators

Like how we do it. Colonialism went out of style a long time ago. The french were below the curve, they were up front about their intentions. The key is to make people believe a lie by using thread bare facades. In the US the government and their department of propaganda (msm) is god, everyone goes along with whatever they're told. Look at the average "redpilled" Sup Forumstard, he's content with waving flags and knowing nothing. They're totally delusional

This allows us to war and bomb almost at will, because we're the liberators

>and there would've probably been a coup had France not tried to keep Algeria under its hand a bit longer.

Very interesting read,I didn't know that things got so out of hand in France which actually explains everything it happened.

Well, our Fifth Republic was brought abou when what was thought to be the need for stronger leadership sprouted, and the politicians of the Fourth Republic actually summoned de Gaulle to be the new president when they were under "gun-point" by the army.

They staged a coup twice, once threatening to land their men in Paris and capture the city if a stronger leadership was not convened (~1958), and a second time when de Gaulle announced he'd be ending the war on peaceful terms despite the French rightfully considering it had won it on all terms (~1960). Both repressed but it lets you on about the political landscape of France then.

Alright things are clear now.Thanks for the insight and the history lesson,its not every day that one visits Sup Forums and learns something new and interesting.

Well I shortened it like you wouldn't believe, but I don't really ever set out on lengthily explaining things on Sup Forums. Hell I'd need something like ten posts to even start touching on the finer details.

All I really hope is that you get a small glimpse of how things were, and if you're interested, that you learn it for yourself. But yah, it's why the Algerian war is considered so important for France politically.

What is that poster image meant to convey?

>and if you're interested, that you learn it for yourself.
Most definitely will,thanks again.

It's better than that. They have access to all algerian natural ressources without wasting money to administrate this shithole.

>Like the French army was gifted with five new Harki recruits for every algerian the FLN tortured
Doesn't work like that, it is asymmetrical warfare it doesn't automatically produce the same result for either side. When atrocity is committed by both sides it serves the insurgent.
The majority of the population become cowed and paralyzed which makes moving among them easier for the secretive, already dedicated minority of insurgents. The tit-for-tat violence
continues into war of attrition which the Security side loses most of the time since it has much larger expenses.
The Security side's victory condition is effective security, the Insurgency only has to stop them from achieving that until the Security side loses, the Insurgency's victory condition is merely
to continue fighting.

Look, every single post-WWII anti-colonial insurgency ended in colossal failure (except Dien Bien Phu because the French were morons). The problem was that the public didn't have the appetite for war to maintain their empires, especially with the Americans and Soviets screaming "every empire except our one is evil!" at you all the while.