In the aftermath of World War Two, European empires began to find their global authority challenged in new ways. This led to the creation of the state of India in 1947, after Indian nationals peacefully wrested control from the British. However, not all colonies were able to make the transition into nation-state without war. France held on with extreme conviction to their colonies, especially those in Africa. France’s war in Algeria was a long and hard fought battle for Algerian independence. This led to a dark period in history, where questionable tactics were put into effect by both sides in an attempt to outlast the other. While the Algerian people did eventually gain their independence, one is left wondering why a recently occupied country, such as France, would hold so tightly onto the control of another nation. The measures that each side was willing to take during the war went beyond what could be considered lawful warfare.
The film, The Battle of Algiers, depicted the conflict between the French occupying forces, and the FLN, or National Liberation Front. In the film, the FLN begins to wage a guerilla war against the French, utilizing terrorist tactics. The FLN targeted civilian centers, setting off bombs and committing mass shootings. The French responded by torturing suspects into giving up information. This question of the morality and ethics which surround warfare is a central theme to the movie. In the film, neither side is portrayed as wholly good, or wholly evil. And while most audiences will sympathize with the plight of the Algerians, the portrayal of their terrorism is horrific. This gray area is where the film mostly resides.
After watching the film I was left wondering to what lengths it is acceptable to go to fulfill a just cause. The French justified the torturing of Algerian militants with the rational of the greater good. In their minds, it was a necessary evil to prevent further terrorist attack on their civilians. But the Algerians however, can make the same argument on the other end. The Algerian belief stated that, although terrorism was not ideal, the militaristic situation that they were in left them with no other option of resistance. In a very unfortunate way, I was left seeing the truth in both of these claims. With conflict continuing to rage in the Middle East, these questions of morality in the face of terror are prevailingly relevant even today.
Film Poster for the Battle of Algiers. Depicts the French commander with a backdrop of rioting Algerians.
I think you made some really good points in your blog about the state of India and the impact it had on the rest of the world. I also think you did a really nice job of explaining and helping us understand the things that occurred between the French and the people of Algeria. Overall I think you did a really nice job.
I had the same thoughts when watching the movie. To me, fighting a just war with unjust measures deems the war unjust was well (which I think can be said of both sides at times during the Algerian War for Independence). Great post!
Its definitely important to question how far is too far. Where do we draw the line and can it ever be redrawn? I think most people will agree with most of what you have written here.
I found some of the scenes in the movie almost painful to watch. I found myself questioning the French tactics as well as the motives of the Algerians. I find it hard to fully understand the French motives for trying so hard to hold onto their African colonies at the end of the war. The only logical explanation I can think of was their moral was so low they needed something to make them feel powerful. Also the colonies helped the french identify as an imperial nation, and that was not an identity they were willing to give up with out a fight.
I like the question that you pose in the final paragraph. At what point does it become too far to support “the greater good”? For example, American forces could carpet bomb villages in the Middle East, killing thousands of both civilians and terrorists. However, I would not call this act justifiable to support the “greater good” even though this action would most likely save the United States from having to commit ground troops to the region.
I like how you analyze both sides of the Algerian conflict as both no wholly good or evil. History is not as black and white as some people like to think. There are a lot of gray areas because of our inherent, biased belief and what one person thinks is good another will think is bad. I can sympathize with both sides in the conflict. One side fighting to be free of oppressive overseers, and the other side having to prevent terrorist attack on their people. And, as we have seen throughout this class, there are a lot of cases just in the Post-War era very similar to this in terms of morality.