France gives all Algerians citizenship

[Jackson Lennock]

So I think the potential is very low. Not nil, I can see a revolution blundering into attachment to that idea while discarding its existing state, or a French state in exile being taken over by colonial subjects it was forced to enfranchise for manpower and them claiming they're finally doing it right rather than something different. But in general, too many of the people on the inside are hypocritical about it and too many of the people on the outside are burned out by the hypocrisy, and it's too contrary to the material dynamic of colonialism, in both its extractive and its settler form.

Such as the French government in WW2 fleeing to Algiers rather than going Vichy maybe?

 

[Hendryk]

You said on 30 April at https://forum.sealionpress.co.uk/in...ia-retaining-the-bulk-of-it.4957/post-1051463 that "It's possible that there's an ATL out there in which the French managed to thread the needle and give Algeria a devolved or associate status of some sort that proved acceptable to the Arab majority, but the odds were always against it."

Ah, that was in response to a question about partitioning Algeria. And the important part of my post was the previous paragraph:

Partitioning Algeria would have been unfeasible on practical grounds, as @Redolegna explained; but it wouldn't even have been seriously considered as an option because nobody wanted it. The Plan Hersant and its later variant the Plan Peyrefitte were political non-starters, only designed out of desperation at the intractability of the issue. Any genuine solution could only involve at the very least equal civil and political rights for the Arab majority on the entirety of the territory, and since the French settler minority was not prepared to accept that, the only outcome short of eternal war was complete independence.

 

[Hendryk]

Such as the French government in WW2 fleeing to Algiers rather than going Vichy maybe?

That's the hypothesis explored in the France Fights On TL. Initially as an ad hoc measure, the relocated French government conducts a large-scale recruitment drive among the Arab population by granting full citizenship to those who sign up for military service along with their dependents. The shortage of technicians and managers also requires setting up training programs for the locals, with the long-term result being the emergence of a small but politically engaged native middle class. That almost certainly won't keep Algeria French, but it will give it a larger pool of cadres to face the challenges of independence.

 

[LSCatilina]

Could you, please, elaborate on that?

I'm sorry to ramble there, but Pied-Noir as an identifier (either external or internal) is the lot of European rapatriés in France : it's not just minute details, but the difference between a post-colonial and a colonial conception with the latter being what's relevant to the discussion.

So while the perception of metropolitain French over rapatriés is interesting when it comes to a post-colonial understanding (which is a mix of the fallout of the Algerian War, political shift over colonialism and the desire to use rapartiés as a convenient scapegoat for turning the page in a supposedly "independent" France during Cold War), it's not that relevant when it comes to metropolitan perception over Europeans and their sub-categories (French "sons of Frenchmen", Spaniards, Italians) that both reflected comparable sub-divisions in France proper, as well as a certain disinterest over an "exoticised" European population in a settler-colony (comparable with a lot of caveats, to what British could have felt to Australians)

My position regarding Algeria has always been that France had no business colonizing it and that the best outcome would have been to leave early and peacefully.

That said, we're discussing alternate history where, a priori, events and process we'd discuss aren't immediately considered for their moral desirability even while we do ascribe them such; and I'd be more than a bit disturbed that arguing on alternative colonial managements could be seen as a moral or political "position".

 

[Ricardolindo]

@LSCatilina Thank you so much for your detailed replies in my thread. You have provided us a lot of information about French Algeria and the French Colonial Empire in general.

 

[Ricardolindo]

While not a pre-colonial population, the majority of the population of all French Islands in the Caribbean except for St Barthelemy is non-white. The same in French Guyana and French Polynesia which in the latter case is overwhelmingly a pre-colonial population. There is also Mayotte which is overwhelmingly black and Muslim and I mentioned in my edit while you were typing your reply though I admit it's an extreme outlier. Read this r/AskHistorians thread at for an explanation of why Mayotte voted to stay with France unlike the rest of the Comoros. The people of Mayotte felt neglected by the people of the rest of the Comoros and trusted the French more. Anyways, the non-white population of those colonies was enfranchised at around the same time those colonies became integral parts of France.

Interesting fact: In 1997, Anjouan and Mohéli seceded from the Comoros and asked France to annex them but France refused.

 

[Warthog]

Interesting fact: In 1997, Anjouan and Mohéli seceded from the Comoros and asked France to annex them but France refused.

If I recollect, this was after they (separately) declared UDI, and was partly an attempt to stop reintegration by Moroni. It didn't start as an approach to France but moved that way when it looked like their independence attempt was failing

 

[Ricardolindo]

If I recollect, this was after they (separately) declared UDI, and was partly an attempt to stop reintegration by Moroni. It didn't start as an approach to France but moved that way when it looked like their independence attempt was failing

I knew that. I said "Anjouan and Mohéli seceded from the Comoros". They briefly were unrecognized states and then asked France to annex them but France refused. Thanks for saying why did so.

 

[History Learner]

I've seen it argued the Second Empire stood a better chance of integrating Algerians into France than the Third Republic did, on the long run; what is the opinion of the various experts here? Certainly, Algeria is outside my purview.

 

[LSCatilina]

I've seen it argued the Second Empire stood a better chance of integrating Algerians into France than the Third Republic did, on the long run; what is the opinion of the various experts here? Certainly, Algeria is outside my purview.

Integrating Algerians into France was never going to happen, no more than Indians were into Britain, Natives into United States, Ethiopians into Italy, etc. Not only because of the racial colonial hierarchies or because this same racialization strived for their at least partial exclusion from French networks but also because Algerians (as other colonized peoples) strived for maintaining their own cultures and identity.

This is why the very low numbers of naturalised natives (maybe up to 10 000 people, that is a blip) was not just the result of enforced colonial hierarchies (French administration somewhat trying to naturalise Berbers while utterly pushing back Arabs) but also of a native refusal to leave or betray their own communities.

The closest thing you could look for IMO is to end up with a IATL Algerian identity and citizenship within the broad sphere of French imperialism : the focus on Nappie's idea of an "Arab Kingdom of Algeria" is precisely because, while still an imperial and colonial project, it was built on the idea of a "personal union" between the Empire and a colonial Algeria rather than integration, favouring a military (and thus directly imperially controlled) governance countering settler-colonial lobbying (up to the point thinking about limiting European migration in Algeria), etc.
The obvious problems were of course the opposition from colonial society against what was essentially an imperial voluntarist policy, that was eventually discarded as the Empire faced other crises in Europe.

 

[Roger II]

Integrating Algerians into France was never going to happen, no more than Indians were into Britain, Natives into United States, Ethiopians into Italy, etc. Not only because of the racial colonial hierarchies or because this same racialization strived for their at least partial exclusion from French networks but also because Algerians (as other colonized peoples) strived for maintaining their own cultures and identity.

This is why the very low numbers of naturalised natives (maybe up to 10 000 people, that is a blip) was not just the result of enforced colonial hierarchies (French administration somewhat trying to naturalise Berbers while utterly pushing back Arabs) but also of a native refusal to leave or betray their own communities.

Right, and there's a circular relationship-the more integration into the metropole means acceding to racial colonial hierarchies that demand total assimilation, the more "not integration" is something you need to do to maintain your distinctiveness. Which probably requires a massive shift in what French national culture and identity looks like. Besides going entirely against the raison d' etre of colonialism as a mechanism for extracting value for the metropole from the periphery.

 

[History Learner]

Integrating Algerians into France was never going to happen, no more than Indians were into Britain, Natives into United States, Ethiopians into Italy, etc. Not only because of the racial colonial hierarchies or because this same racialization strived for their at least partial exclusion from French networks but also because Algerians (as other colonized peoples) strived for maintaining their own cultures and identity.

This is why the very low numbers of naturalised natives (maybe up to 10 000 people, that is a blip) was not just the result of enforced colonial hierarchies (French administration somewhat trying to naturalise Berbers while utterly pushing back Arabs) but also of a native refusal to leave or betray their own communities.

The closest thing you could look for IMO is to end up with a IATL Algerian identity and citizenship within the broad sphere of French imperialism : the focus on Nappie's idea of an "Arab Kingdom of Algeria" is precisely because, while still an imperial and colonial project, it was built on the idea of a "personal union" between the Empire and a colonial Algeria rather than integration, favouring a military (and thus directly imperially controlled) governance countering settler-colonial lobbying (up to the point thinking about limiting European migration in Algeria), etc.
The obvious problems were of course the opposition from colonial society against what was essentially an imperial voluntarist policy, that was eventually discarded as the Empire faced other crises in Europe.

Well, I think it depends on what you're looking to achieve.

If your goal is to integrate Algerians, such that they are viewed as equals to ethnic French, then that is unlikely on a cultural/sociological level in the 19th and 20th Centuries. France was very much just as racist as its European and American compatriots, after all. However, if your goal is to integrate Algerians into the French system into such a way that Algeria remains part of France and, in the long run, can achieve a degree of integration on the first field, that's something else and more doable I think. I agree Britain and Italy could not absorb India and Ethiopia, but that's for demographics and distance if nothing else. The example of the United States and Native Americans is, however, a point against the thrust of your argument, and I think is rather applicable to Algeria for France.

Without question, Native Americans long struggled for acceptance and share a sordid historical story with the United States. Despite this, today the overwhelming majority of NAs speak English, are Christian and have (and continue to) serve honorably in numerous American wars. Despite the aforementioned past and continued issues into the present, there is no real separatist movement among NAs; can anyone seriously deny Native Americans are a less distinct culture compared to the original WASPs of America as compared to the French and the Algerians? As bad as race relations in the United States were in the 1930s, American leaders could see the realpolitik value of extending citizenship to Native Americans then. Another example in this vein I can think of is Hawaii, among others.

 

[Jackson Lennock]

Well, I think it depends on what you're looking to achieve.

If your goal is to integrate Algerians, such that they are viewed as equals to ethnic French, then that is unlikely on a cultural/sociological level in the 19th and 20th Centuries. France was very much just as racist as its European and American compatriots, after all. However, if your goal is to integrate Algerians into the French system into such a way that Algeria remains part of France and, in the long run, can achieve a degree of integration on the first field, that's something else and more doable I think. I agree Britain and Italy could not absorb India and Ethiopia, but that's for demographics and distance if nothing else. The example of the United States and Native Americans is, however, a point against the thrust of your argument, and I think is rather applicable to Algeria for France.

Without question, Native Americans long struggled for acceptance and share a sordid historical story with the United States. Despite this, today the overwhelming majority of NAs speak English, are Christian and have (and continue to) serve honorably in numerous American wars. Despite the aforementioned past and continued issues into the present, there is no real separatist movement among NAs; can anyone seriously deny Native Americans are a less distinct culture compared to the original WASPs of America as compared to the French and the Algerians? As bad as race relations in the United States were in the 1930s, American leaders could see the realpolitik value of extending citizenship to Native Americans then. Another example in this vein I can think of is Hawaii, among others.

A major difference is that Native Americans never could have become the majority in France. African-Americans are 14.2% of the US population. If France and Algeria were one country today, France would be between 40 and 45% Arab and Berber (I include non-Algerian Arabs and Berbers in this count). In 1960 this would be around 20%, and I suppose a richer Algeria would mean fewer children, but that would still plausibly see a France that's a third Arab and Berber, which I assume most French would be very uncomfortable with.

It would require a significant revolution in French consciousness. In the US, there was something sort of like that during the Civil War when White Americans saw the importance of black soldiers in protecting the union. You need something to make the bulk of White French view Algerians as part of the same civic fabric. Otherwise, they aren't going to accept the prospect of Algerians having a large say in what policies govern the lives of the French. Imagine the toxic reactionary vitriol of right-wingers who denounce a government as being "not french" because all of the "true french" voted for the losing candidate and the winning candidate's electoral majority was mostly comprised of arab-berber votes.


Vichy relocating to Algeria and French seeing Algerians as core to the defense of the Republic in WW2 would go a long way. A cinema movement post-WW2 that plays up Algerians and Algerian culture as suave, cool, romantic, and good for France, etc.

Also, France proper being more populous would assuage fears I suppose. The Hexagon having ten million more people would mean Algerians as a percentage getting citizenship would be less impactful politically.

 

[Jackson Lennock]

This is undoubtedly cheating, but I'm going to insert the idea anyway. If France partitioned Algeria into four portions (a) the Republic of Tlemcen, (b) the Republic of Arab Algeria, (c) the Protectorate of Algerian Sahara, and (d) the province of Oran-Algiers, it would half the number of people to be given French citizenship. (a) and (b) are independent states, (c) are "French nationals" who can vote only if they are located in the metropole, and (d) are full French citizens.

 

[Roger II]

This is undoubtedly cheating, but I'm going to insert the idea anyway. If France partitioned Algeria into four portions (a) the Republic of Tlemcen, (b) the Republic of Arab Algeria, (c) the Protectorate of Algerian Sahara, and (d) the province of Oran-Algiers, it would half the number of people to be given French citizenship. (a) and (b) are independent states, (c) are "French nationals" who can vote only if they are located in the metropole, and (d) are full French citizens.

View attachment 63134

Ok but now you're just playing silly buggers by redefining who's considered within metropolitan France until you wind up with a little sufficiently pied-noir-ed area to allow continued French dominance plus a bunch of independent (possibly vassal?) states

 

[Jackson Lennock]

Ok but now you're just playing silly buggers by redefining who's considered within metropolitan France until you wind up with a little sufficiently pied-noir-ed area to allow continued French dominance plus a bunch of independent (possibly vassal?) states

Yeah I can't argue with you on that.

Perhaps "Arab Algeria" and "Tlemcen" and "Sahara" are associated states or protectorates within some broader French framework akin to Puerto Ricabs to the United States. By the 90s or 00s, however, after a half-century of there being very many Arab Algerian French citizens such that it becomes a very normal thing to most French, a movement develops to give full status as French Metropolitan citizens to those people as well?

Honestly, I'm just throwing ideas out to see how to incrementally get to all Algerians being French citizens. It seems to me that it would inevitably be a gradual thing of including more people over time being included rather than one big inclusive expansion occurring.

 

[Ricardolindo]

A major difference is that Native Americans never could have become the majority in France. African-Americans are 14.2% of the US population. If France and Algeria were one country today, France would be between 40 and 45% Arab and Berber (I include non-Algerian Arabs and Berbers in this count). In 1960 this would be around 20%, and I suppose a richer Algeria would mean fewer children, but that would still plausibly see a France that's a third Arab and Berber, which I assume most French would be very uncomfortable with.

It would require a significant revolution in French consciousness. In the US, there was something sort of like that during the Civil War when White Americans saw the importance of black soldiers in protecting the union. You need something to make the bulk of White French view Algerians as part of the same civic fabric. Otherwise, they aren't going to accept the prospect of Algerians having a large say in what policies govern the lives of the French. Imagine the toxic reactionary vitriol of right-wingers who denounce a government as being "not french" because all of the "true french" voted for the losing candidate and the winning candidate's electoral majority was mostly comprised of arab-berber votes.


Vichy relocating to Algeria and French seeing Algerians as core to the defense of the Republic in WW2 would go a long way. A cinema movement post-WW2 that plays up Algerians and Algerian culture as suave, cool, romantic, and good for France, etc.

Also, France proper being more populous would assuage fears I suppose. The Hexagon having ten million more people would mean Algerians as a percentage getting citizenship would be less impactful politically.

According to https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-during-the-algerian-war.507557/post-21769440, in 1960, a France with Algeria would have been 16% Muslim.

 

[LSCatilina]

The main problem of such plans always were that the metropolitain government didn't want to undergo an Algerian baklanization that everyone and their cousin knew was not viable.

Rural exodus of Europeans to coastal towns since the 30's with the consequent much lower demographic presence on the countryside while the Muslim population boomed since the 40's (along with the growth of local shantytowns); the absolute unwillingness of Algerian political groups to ever agree on splitting up what was clearly identified as a national territory; the insanely costly price for Metropolitain France in investing money, resources, military, international capital (especially as the country tried to re-invent its image on the diplomatic scene) to barely hope to keep such a situation under perfusion all the while the budget were focused on modernising the metropolitain territory which couldn't be done in the same time...

That was but a pipe dream.

 

[Roger II]

yea it's the same problem as with British India getting parliamentary representation: yes it was proposed but it would require given the colonies a degree of power in the affairs of the metropole that was never acceptable and inconsistent with the basic structure and logic of imperialism.

 

[Jukato]

You are completely correct, but I wonder whether if French people had known that France would end up with a large Muslim minority anyways, they would have been more willing to give all Algerians French citizenship. The Pied Noirs would still be a big problem, though.

Had 1960s France been capable of seeing what 2020s France would look like, they would have likely still let Algeria go but been much, much more restrictive about which Muslims they would have subsequently let into France.