Was it possible to hold on to Algeria north of the Atlas in 1962?

Nov 2014
511
ph
Was it possible to hold on to the rich coastal areas north of the Sahara while evacuating the useless Sahara, like what the Moroccans are doing in Western Sahara? So basically Algeria will be partitioned into a French held Northern part, and the Sahara will just be abandoned?
 
Nov 2014
511
ph
If the argument was that De Gaulle wanted to keep France white and not be a Mahgreb or African country, that seems to be a moot point to any visitor of Paris and Marseille.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GreyDawn

johnincornwall

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
8,118
Cornwall
Yes I'm sure that would be incredibly popular with the Algerian rebels.

You do know Morocco annexed Western Sahara after Spain pulled out? And has sort of imprisoned the population behind barbed wire - I guess you could call that partition.
 
Jan 2013
1,151
Toronto, Canada
I think it was doable. Northern Algeria would have become the French version of Northern Ireland.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,384
Why abandon the Sahara ?... Most of the population -and thus the manpower for the "rebels- is in the "rich coastal areas"... If France had been able to hold on to these, it would not have had a problem holding the algerian sahara, which is not called a "desert" for nothing....
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
15,036
Europix
If the argument was that De Gaulle wanted to keep France white and not be a Mahgreb or African country, that seems to be a moot point to any visitor of Paris and Marseille.
Principialy speaking, why would be that a moot argument?

De Gaulle didn't governed today, but half of century ago. Today's Paris or Marseille aren't the ones they were 50 years ago either.
 
Nov 2014
511
ph
Principialy speaking, why would be that a moot argument?

De Gaulle didn't governed today, but half of century ago. Today's Paris or Marseille aren't the ones they were 50 years ago either.
Mass Mahbregi and African immigration actually started right under his nose.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
15,036
Europix
Mass Mahbregi and African immigration actually started right under his nose.
For continuing, I think we should clarify what is "mass immigration" and also "under his nose".

Anyway, it isn't about that, but about the principle, as I said: You cannot dismiss/ignore de Gaulle in this discussion, and certainly not based on an evolution of almost half of century of France, an evolution that wasn't under de Gaulle's gouvernance.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
24,534
SoCal
If the argument was that De Gaulle wanted to keep France white and not be a Mahgreb or African country, that seems to be a moot point to any visitor of Paris and Marseille.
France right now has around 6 or 7 million Muslims. While that's certainly a lot (and perhaps too much for many French people), it is still several times less than the 40+ million Muslims that France would have had right now had it maintained control of Algeria. I suspect that many French people would have preferred the former option over the latter option since at least the Muslim demographic threat is much less significant in the former option.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
24,534
SoCal
Why abandon the Sahara ?... Most of the population -and thus the manpower for the "rebels- is in the "rich coastal areas"... If France had been able to hold on to these, it would not have had a problem holding the algerian sahara, which is not called a "desert" for nothing....
The Algerian Sahara actually does contain some oil reserves, no?

I think it was doable. Northern Algeria would have become the French version of Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland wasn't really viewed as a demographic threat to Britain like northern Algeria might have been viewed by the French, though.