A Brief Look At The Battle Of Algiers
The Algerian war can be seen as a significant decolonization war, a war that not only showed conflict between loyalist Algerians supporting a French Algeria and their Algerian nationalist counterparts. But it was also characterized by the National Liberation front’s guerrilla warfare, and the use of torture by both sides. In the Battle of Algiers, one can see how the FLN guerrilla insurrection and the French counter insurgency committed atrocities against each other, something of which would later lead to the Independence of Algeria. Nevertheless, when looking at the torture and atrocities done by both the French and the FLN one can recognize how both the French and FLN tried to exercise control over their fates in Algeria.
In the film the Battle of Algiers we come to understand how French paratroops are routinely using torture, intimidation, and murder as a key way of suppressing the National Liberation front’s power on the Casba. We also see Characters such as Colonel Mathieu …show more content…
whose personality “represents military efficiency at its most draconian” with his lecture’s to his paratroopers about how to decapitate the FLN as an object lesson in the calculus of anti-terrorist warfare. On the other hand, we come to learn the extent to which the FLN is willing to go, essentially showing us just some of their atrocities towards Europeans. This is seen best when the FLN women after the bombing on the Casba by the French, drop their veils and assume a Western look in order to infiltrate the European Quarter and plant explosives in two cafés and an Air France ticket office. In this part of the film we see innocent tired businessmen at a bar, passengers waiting to board buses, teenagers dancing, and, most pointedly, a baby licking an ice cream cone—all soon to be blown to bits. This is very important when looking at the atrocities of war on both sides because it leads us to ask the question: is this necessary in order for the Algerian people to gain their independence? Gillo Pontecorvo, one of the writer’s and the directors of the film, shows us this throughout the film, allowing us, although in a fictional setting, to look at the extent to which the FLN were willing to go to show not only France but the world that they wanted to be independent.
When looking at why the French committed countless acts of atrocities, especially that of torture, one has to look at France’s overall reasoning. We first see this when we understand that France itself refused to see the colonial conflict as a war, calling the Algerian War a simple "operation of public order" against FLN "terrorism." We go on to see that the French military did not consider themselves tied by the Geneva Convention, this meant that FLN members and also old men, women and children, were thus not granted prisoner of war or (POW) status. Although the French allowed the International Committee of the Red Cross or (ICRC) to look at prisoners, the prisoners were seen as "terrorists" and deprived of the rights to which they are legally entitled to as belligerents during a war, including cases of civil wars under Geneva Convention Protocol 2. Raphaelle Branche, a historian on France and a specialist in violent situation under colonial rule, states in her article “Crimes of War” that
“Crimes of war thus found an ideal breeding ground in the way in which the enemies of French troops were labeled: “outlaws,” “rebels,” or simply “suspects”. In contrast to armed enemies, the “suspects” were a vast group with no clear definition or boundaries. From a legal standpoint, Algerians should have been covered by the fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with the protection of civilians who have fallen into the hands of the enemy, regulates internment, and prohibits the taking of hostages and deportation. But since France refused to recognize the legitimacy of the application of this convention, international humanitarian law remained outside the border of Algeria.”
This statement is important to realize because it just solidifies the argument that the French really did not see the Algerian people as combatants. The French justifying their use of torture is very important from a global standpoint as well because the French were able to talk to the media and major powers such as the United Nations and tell them that they were not committing atrocities and using torture as a form of interrogation, essentially allowing France at the beginning of the war to use these methods with no backlash from other powers.
Although the use of torture quickly became well-known and was opposed by the left-wing opposition, the French state repeatedly denied its employment, censoring more than 250 books, newspapers and films which dealt with the subject and 586 in Algeria.
In the film the Battle of Algiers’s we see how torture was used to control the Casba. This is best seen at the beginning of the film in which we see an Algerian man after he has been tortured give the were a bouts of Ali La Pointe and the last of the FLN, after which the man is forced to follow French soldiers to their location were Ali La Pointe and the last of the FLN including a child were blown up. This is important to look at because it shows how much power that torture had on the Algerian people. It essentially allowed the French to have control over the Casba for a period of time by committing horrific things to the Algerian people in which to stop the FLN. In the film Col. Mathieu while talking to news media outlets of the time
states,
“The word torture doesn't appear in our orders. We've always spoken of interrogation as the only valid method in a police operation directed against unknown enemies. As for the FLN, they request that their members, in the event of capture, should maintain silence for twenty-four hours, and then they may talk. So, the organization has already had the time it needs to render any information useless. What type of interrogation should we choose, the one the courts use for a murder case, that drags on for months?”
This is vital part of the question on how and why the French used torture to get answers like in the film they essentially wanted to cut to the chase and finish off the FLN by any means necessary even if that meant using torture and again justifying this method to all.
The French military tortured systematically from the beginning to the end of the war, more hugely during the “Battle of Algiers” in 1957. They used all known methods of torture such as electricity, simulated drowning, beatings and sexual torture (rape). On the other hand, in the case of the National Liberation front there use of torture was more toward pro-French Algerians and uncommitted members of the Muslim population. Although they did not use torture extensively the FLN did on the other hand use extreme violence or terrorism to attack. In particular, the FLN were targeting European civilians at popular clubs, bars. Urban bombing campaigns served as the reasoning for the French use of exhaustive interrogation of suspects. In the film Battle of Algiers’s, a journalist asks Ben M'Hidi the captured leader of the FLN if he thought it to be cowardly to use women to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people? Ben M'Hidi goes on to state, “and doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets.” In this part of the film one can see the rage by which FLN is driven and how they want the French to pay for their atrocities by committing atrocities against them.
The use of torture and atrocities on the part of the French and the National Liberation front is essential to look at the overall outcome of the war. In my estimation the French lost the war because of the atrocities they were doing towards the Algerian people, this is because after the public including the French people realized that the French army was committing atrocities and using torture as a way to fight the Algerian uprising they refused to support the war. This led to a domino effect in which high ranking officers started to confess for what they did in Algeria. Once more people came out admitting that they participated in committing atrocities and with the growing uprising in Algeria the French government basically sealed their fates in Algeria and had to relinquish the land back to the Algerian people. At the same time without the FLN using extreme violence, the public might not have realized what the French were doing. Nonetheless while the French and the National Liberation front did use extreme violence to fight without it the French would not have lost and the Algerian people might not have got their country back.
In conclusion, the Algerian war for independence although occurring during the 1950s and 60s is very important to look at in modern times this is because allows us to contemplate and asked the question whose side is history on now? Obviously we want the Algerian people to have their independence, especially as formerly colonized people ourselves i.e. Americans, that is, but if the method used to achieve that goal is civilian bombings like we just saw in Brussels then I have a harder time going for the FLN. That said, we also still see torture used by government forces like the 'black site' in Chicago, and in the prison camp in Guantanamo. Which leads some people even to suggest that the use of torture creates a higher likelihood for that of civilian and suicide bombings. Nevertheless, I pose this question to you, which side would you be on that of the French fighting to maintain colonialism using torture to preserve order or that of the FLN who is fighting to dismantle colonialism and gain back their independence using torture.
In the film the Battle of Algiers we come to understand how French paratroops are routinely using torture, intimidation, and murder as a key way of suppressing the National Liberation front’s power on the Casba. We also see Characters such as Colonel Mathieu …show more content…
whose personality “represents military efficiency at its most draconian” with his lecture’s to his paratroopers about how to decapitate the FLN as an object lesson in the calculus of anti-terrorist warfare. On the other hand, we come to learn the extent to which the FLN is willing to go, essentially showing us just some of their atrocities towards Europeans. This is seen best when the FLN women after the bombing on the Casba by the French, drop their veils and assume a Western look in order to infiltrate the European Quarter and plant explosives in two cafés and an Air France ticket office. In this part of the film we see innocent tired businessmen at a bar, passengers waiting to board buses, teenagers dancing, and, most pointedly, a baby licking an ice cream cone—all soon to be blown to bits. This is very important when looking at the atrocities of war on both sides because it leads us to ask the question: is this necessary in order for the Algerian people to gain their independence? Gillo Pontecorvo, one of the writer’s and the directors of the film, shows us this throughout the film, allowing us, although in a fictional setting, to look at the extent to which the FLN were willing to go to show not only France but the world that they wanted to be independent.
When looking at why the French committed countless acts of atrocities, especially that of torture, one has to look at France’s overall reasoning. We first see this when we understand that France itself refused to see the colonial conflict as a war, calling the Algerian War a simple "operation of public order" against FLN "terrorism." We go on to see that the French military did not consider themselves tied by the Geneva Convention, this meant that FLN members and also old men, women and children, were thus not granted prisoner of war or (POW) status. Although the French allowed the International Committee of the Red Cross or (ICRC) to look at prisoners, the prisoners were seen as "terrorists" and deprived of the rights to which they are legally entitled to as belligerents during a war, including cases of civil wars under Geneva Convention Protocol 2. Raphaelle Branche, a historian on France and a specialist in violent situation under colonial rule, states in her article “Crimes of War” that
“Crimes of war thus found an ideal breeding ground in the way in which the enemies of French troops were labeled: “outlaws,” “rebels,” or simply “suspects”. In contrast to armed enemies, the “suspects” were a vast group with no clear definition or boundaries. From a legal standpoint, Algerians should have been covered by the fourth Geneva Convention, which deals with the protection of civilians who have fallen into the hands of the enemy, regulates internment, and prohibits the taking of hostages and deportation. But since France refused to recognize the legitimacy of the application of this convention, international humanitarian law remained outside the border of Algeria.”
This statement is important to realize because it just solidifies the argument that the French really did not see the Algerian people as combatants. The French justifying their use of torture is very important from a global standpoint as well because the French were able to talk to the media and major powers such as the United Nations and tell them that they were not committing atrocities and using torture as a form of interrogation, essentially allowing France at the beginning of the war to use these methods with no backlash from other powers.
Although the use of torture quickly became well-known and was opposed by the left-wing opposition, the French state repeatedly denied its employment, censoring more than 250 books, newspapers and films which dealt with the subject and 586 in Algeria.
In the film the Battle of Algiers’s we see how torture was used to control the Casba. This is best seen at the beginning of the film in which we see an Algerian man after he has been tortured give the were a bouts of Ali La Pointe and the last of the FLN, after which the man is forced to follow French soldiers to their location were Ali La Pointe and the last of the FLN including a child were blown up. This is important to look at because it shows how much power that torture had on the Algerian people. It essentially allowed the French to have control over the Casba for a period of time by committing horrific things to the Algerian people in which to stop the FLN. In the film Col. Mathieu while talking to news media outlets of the time
states,
“The word torture doesn't appear in our orders. We've always spoken of interrogation as the only valid method in a police operation directed against unknown enemies. As for the FLN, they request that their members, in the event of capture, should maintain silence for twenty-four hours, and then they may talk. So, the organization has already had the time it needs to render any information useless. What type of interrogation should we choose, the one the courts use for a murder case, that drags on for months?”
This is vital part of the question on how and why the French used torture to get answers like in the film they essentially wanted to cut to the chase and finish off the FLN by any means necessary even if that meant using torture and again justifying this method to all.
The French military tortured systematically from the beginning to the end of the war, more hugely during the “Battle of Algiers” in 1957. They used all known methods of torture such as electricity, simulated drowning, beatings and sexual torture (rape). On the other hand, in the case of the National Liberation front there use of torture was more toward pro-French Algerians and uncommitted members of the Muslim population. Although they did not use torture extensively the FLN did on the other hand use extreme violence or terrorism to attack. In particular, the FLN were targeting European civilians at popular clubs, bars. Urban bombing campaigns served as the reasoning for the French use of exhaustive interrogation of suspects. In the film Battle of Algiers’s, a journalist asks Ben M'Hidi the captured leader of the FLN if he thought it to be cowardly to use women to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people? Ben M'Hidi goes on to state, “and doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets.” In this part of the film one can see the rage by which FLN is driven and how they want the French to pay for their atrocities by committing atrocities against them.
The use of torture and atrocities on the part of the French and the National Liberation front is essential to look at the overall outcome of the war. In my estimation the French lost the war because of the atrocities they were doing towards the Algerian people, this is because after the public including the French people realized that the French army was committing atrocities and using torture as a way to fight the Algerian uprising they refused to support the war. This led to a domino effect in which high ranking officers started to confess for what they did in Algeria. Once more people came out admitting that they participated in committing atrocities and with the growing uprising in Algeria the French government basically sealed their fates in Algeria and had to relinquish the land back to the Algerian people. At the same time without the FLN using extreme violence, the public might not have realized what the French were doing. Nonetheless while the French and the National Liberation front did use extreme violence to fight without it the French would not have lost and the Algerian people might not have got their country back.
In conclusion, the Algerian war for independence although occurring during the 1950s and 60s is very important to look at in modern times this is because allows us to contemplate and asked the question whose side is history on now? Obviously we want the Algerian people to have their independence, especially as formerly colonized people ourselves i.e. Americans, that is, but if the method used to achieve that goal is civilian bombings like we just saw in Brussels then I have a harder time going for the FLN. That said, we also still see torture used by government forces like the 'black site' in Chicago, and in the prison camp in Guantanamo. Which leads some people even to suggest that the use of torture creates a higher likelihood for that of civilian and suicide bombings. Nevertheless, I pose this question to you, which side would you be on that of the French fighting to maintain colonialism using torture to preserve order or that of the FLN who is fighting to dismantle colonialism and gain back their independence using torture.