France decides to hold on to Northern Algeria whatever the cost?

Nov 2014
412
ph
What would happen of France decided to hold on to Algeria north of the Sahara whatever the cost, in the early 60s French military spending was only 6% of GDP, so they had enough economic resources to carry on the war in Algeria indefintely, and the non Peid Noir Algerians simply did not have the resources to defeat the French in the field, and France if it really wants to, can afford to stay indefinitely in Algeria, given that the population in France in 1960 was at 46 million, and the French had conscription, and the Algerian population in 1960 was 11 million, of which of only 10 million was Muslim, so France had the overwhelming demographic advantage with which to continue to hold onto Algeria.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macon and Futurist
Nov 2014
412
ph
The difference in distance between France and Algeria and France and Vietnam is pretty large right? So supporting French forces in Algeria should be a lot easier not to mention the population ratio between France and Algeria in 1960 is a lot better than the population ratio between France and Vietnam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Nov 2014
412
ph
Not to mention French military spending in the early 60s was only 6 percent of GDP, Israel was spending a lot more than that all throughout the 90s and until recently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,798
SoCal
What would happen of France decided to hold on to Algeria north of the Sahara whatever the cost, in the early 60s French military spending was only 6% of GDP, so they had enough economic resources to carry on the war in Algeria indefintely, and the non Peid Noir Algerians simply did not have the resources to defeat the French in the field, and France if it really wants to, can afford to stay indefinitely in Algeria, given that the population in France in 1960 was at 46 million, and the French had conscription, and the Algerian population in 1960 was 11 million, of which of only 10 million was Muslim, so France had the overwhelming demographic advantage with which to continue to hold onto Algeria.
Initially, France had a sizable demographic advantage over Algeria. However, this was going to change over time. Right now, there are only 3 French people for every 2 Algerians. What then? Algerians are going to demand equal suffrage (so, no gerrymandering to reduce the impact of their votes) and given the changes in morality in the 20th century, I don't think that France would actually be able to (in a moral sense) refuse to agree to this if it actually wants to permanently hold onto Algeria. In turn, this is going to mean that French nationalists might ironically end up being extremely unhappy in the long(er)-run--especially if much more Algerian Muslims are going to move to European France in this scenario in comparison to real life. In real life, French nationalists probably already think that France has too many Muslims as it is.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,798
SoCal
Interestingly enough, Charles de Gaulle cited demographics as a reason for France to withdraw from Algeria in 1959--even though the Algerian demographic threat was not anywhere near as potent back then:

Why Was Enoch Powell Condemned as a Racist and Not Charles de Gaulle? | History News Network

"In English translation:

It is very good that there are yellow French, black French, brown French. They show that France is open to all races and has a universal vocation. But [it is good] on condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are still primarily a European people of the white race, Greek and Latin culture, and the Christian religion.
Don’t tell me stories! Muslims, have you gone to see them? Have you watched them with their turbans and jellabiyas? You can see that they are not French! Those who advocate integration have the brain of a hummingbird. Try to mix oil and vinegar. Shake the bottle. After a second, they will separate again.
Arabs are Arabs, the French are French. Do you think the French body politic can absorb ten million Muslims, who tomorrow will be twenty million, after tomorrow forty? If we integrated, if all the Arabs and Berbers of Algeria were considered French, would you prevent them to settle in France, where the standard of living is so much higher? My village would no longer be called Colombey-The-Two-Churches but Colombey-The-Two-Mosques."
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,798
SoCal
Yeah, cos that worked soooo well for them in Vietnam.
Unlike in France, militarily speaking, France actually did militarily win its war in Algeria. The problem was Algeria's demographics. The Algerian population was growing at a faster rate than the French population was growing and French people (such as Charles de Gaulle) didn't want to absorb an extremely massive number of Muslims into the French body politic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Isleifson

johnincornwall

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,676
Cornwall
What would happen of France decided to hold on to Algeria north of the Sahara whatever the cost, in the early 60s French military spending was only 6% of GDP, so they had enough economic resources to carry on the war in Algeria indefintely, and the non Peid Noir Algerians simply did not have the resources to defeat the French in the field, and France if it really wants to, can afford to stay indefinitely in Algeria, given that the population in France in 1960 was at 46 million, and the French had conscription, and the Algerian population in 1960 was 11 million, of which of only 10 million was Muslim, so France had the overwhelming demographic advantage with which to continue to hold onto Algeria.
They did try to hold onto it whatever the cost - until a change of policy by De Gaulle. But what lunatic wants to carry on a war indefinitely? Economically or socially speaking.

Pied-noirs were the european (French and Spanish mainly) descendents who were hurriedly forced out on independence. But like British India - not every Algerian wants the French out - some have jobs depending on them, many in fact. Plus that aside, comparing population numbers is ridiculous - it wasn't France v Algeria - most people don't get involved in uprisings and revolutions, they like a quiet life. It was rebels against the French. Nor was it easy to define 'in the field' - a nasty horrible guerilla terrorist war with terrible atrocities on both sides - not something you really want 'indefinitely'

DeGaulle - having been elected on a slogan of Algerie Francais - was pilloried for it at the time in certain circles - but it's hard to an alternative looking back. At least not one that involved continuation
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist