The problem with our new (2013) doctrine is that it is composed mostly of wishful thinking in the parts about leaving decisive action to the host gov. Tragically this is the only way forward in the 21st century political environment.
I think that's the key issue: the 2013 doctrine correctly says it all depends on the host nation...but there's too little frank talk about what happens if the host nation doesn't want or can't or has different ideas about what "victory" looks like.
Very intersting ! Thank you very much for sharing your analyses and all these references. Besides, i really like the way you approach things, rather neutral and open minded while keeping a critical view. Thanks again for sharing that, and i wish you the best.
Thanks for your explanations, but the France’s fail also has a lot to do with the military coup d’Etat by Assimi Goïta. Goïta is way more in line with the algerian doctrine about western Sahara, like Algeria is not for the touareg’s people freedom and the fact that he has taken Kidal to the touaregs in 2023, in opposition to the 2015 peace agreement is something to consider too. Historically speaking Mali was way more friendly with Morocco, Morocco handles the Nouajis (kind of assimilated to touaregs) way more peacefully. And now the result is: the Front Polisario issue in western Sahara.
Goïta's position reflects Malian impatience with France's view of how the war should be fought, and against whom. I don't agree with him, but I also see that France ignore the divergent opinions, and it should have tried to address them head on by engaging in better strategic communication and by engaging the Malian public to explain what France was doing and why. The Malians never understood.
@21:30 Algerian independence is not really linked to electoral considerations. Algerians already had full French citizenship since 1946 ("too little too late" law trying to avoid decolonization). Also, while "won" militarily, maintaining control over Algeria was unattainable Politically, be it Domestically (from both Algerian (independence/nationalist movement) and French (strong communist party + unpopular use of conscripts) point of views) and Internationally (pressure from the USA and the USSR, help from Egypt). Algeria was a bit special in France colonial empire as the only colony with a significant (~15% or 1M people) European settlers population, that's the main factor explaining the war.
While quite true, this is not the way it goes back then because there were different electoral collège from 1946 to the indepence, there was no equal representation per capita between the europeans, jews and a few muslims algerians on one side ande the majority of muslim population on the other.
Thank you for your work. Still it's the first time that I hear that de Gaulle favoured Algeria's independence because he didn't want Algerian members of parliament. Are you sure about this ?
@@jeanmarieboucherit7376 No, that's not what I meant. I believe he was concerned with France's future if so many Algériens were citizens. Would it remain France?
@@michaelshurkin613 but Algerians were already citizens of sorts ( Moslem) and there were already Députés Algériens. My point is, here in France we paint a noble farseeing genius picture of de Gaulle but you sort of rip into it😂. Thanks for your work.
In fact, de Gaulle's desire was much more pragmatic. As he told his Prime Minister Michel Debre, because of the demographic difference, he did not want France to become a country of b.......les. (sorry, untranslatable into English). This information is found in particular in the fourth volume on the Algerian war by Yves Courriere (the fires of despair if memory serves). It was rude, certainly, but reflected the way in which he was afraid that society would evolve. Was he really wrong?
At one point this is just cultural warfare. Send movies instead of soliders. I hate the idea of an army used to please and seduce the enemy, because a real war happens(well it should) when there are no possible compromises.
Very good video which resume well that the colonial strategy of France although effective within the colonial era do not work anymore. It must also be noted that French colonialism was only possible because all European powers respected one another border to some extent and often cooperated to preserve each others empire before WWI and WWII. If you're interested about the origin of the French doctrine I can't recommend enough the excellent book Pennequin le ''sorcier de la pacitifaction by Jean-françois Klein. It retrace the origin of early French pacification strategies the life of one French general who was both instrumental in shaping French counter-insurgencies and pushed aside since in his later year he advocated for a large independant Vietnamese army has a basis for a free Indochina. A really unique figure.
Today, we learned that an insurgent had been killer in new Caledonia. 11 lost their lives since the begining of the riots. It made 15 seconds in the news on TV..imagine the same in continental France ... We are still very much plagued with colonial mentality 😢
In these deaths there are also the deaths of gendarmes, don't forget to mention it. And in some cases specify that they simply responded to shots. Everyone talks about democracy but only if the result suits them, three referendums, three votes to remain French. If the independence activists don't want to vote, that's their problem. And now they are tearing each other apart. Don't forget to mention that.
@@excolo3290 the last referendum was boycotted by the kanak as the government had refused to postpone it after the COVID pandemics. And the point now for the french government is to make kalank a minority by allowing anyone to vote. According to the UN, new Caledonia is to be decolonized. Caldoche and government refused to listen, and now look at the result. All what they'll gain is being forced to leave.
@@danielalexandre4008 This is the vision of only one side of the story. The situation is much more complicated. We cannot simplify by saying that it is the French government which is acting badly and that the independence activists are the representatives of the profound goodness of human nature evoked by Rousseau. Residents of European origin whose families have been there for more than a hundred years also have the right to speak, as do Wallisians and Futunians. If, as you envisage, the caldoches leave the territory all that will have been done is to create a Zimbabwe in the Pacific. And yes, I am well aware that it is not politically correct to say that.
@@excolo3290 the fact that you mention Rousseau says a lot about how you see the kanak People. The fact that you don't reply to my mention of the UN also says a lot. The government is clearly on the path of colonialism when activists are put in jail in the metropole without even being brought to court. They are political prisoners. And all this will end in violence because this government has been destroying all the efforts of their predecessors.
@@michaelshurkin613 collapsing might be a bit strong but : - burkina faso's captain regime is stil holding but nobody's knows how - the splitting of mali is a real question today. - niger's econmy is diving. - slavery is back in sahel
Not really. They shifted alliances with the Russian who seem to have been more effective at the fighting the war the government in Bamako wants by reconquering cities in the North, but that doesn't mean they've either defeated the Nothern independence movement or rooted out islamic movements.
@@Bruno-ec8ft well, they only move to seize goldmines from locals, they failled to secure anything. Moving from a goldmine to another to fill up the pockets of wagner and the junta is not securing anything. When France was there, malian troops were going with french troops while in azawad controlled territory. France gone, malian suffers big losses (and azawad gets more intel now !)
Supporting the host nation and the local political establishment that probably contributed to the problems that led to an insurgency is a very high risk gamble. Many of these African countries have not only governance issues but also issues due to how several populations were aggregated under the same political entity. There are issues of political representation and competition between several identities that now share a country. And unfortunately very often political groups will play mostly to their base of support, and do this by withholding resources to others or by making their lives harder. The other aspect is ideological, an insurgency group that is religious or has a doctrine similar to a cult will go for the most disadvantaged regions and to the populations where the majority of young men live in poverty and have little to no prospects. To end such an insurgency requires a lot of time so that effective economic and social changes happen on the ground.
I agree. The conclusion is that COIN-type interventions have little hope to succeed unless one can verify that the host nation is doing what it takes, and that's rare. Short of that, people needed to be more realistic about what they might achieve.
@@michaelshurkin613 Yeah, the reality is just that politically it's just impossible for the US to do colonial style wars. They should steer away from any forever wars and probably just back whoever is closer to them with special forces and money. Both things the US can use effectively especially if combined with a coherent diplomatic strategy.
Would it be safe to assert that insurgency is the form of warfare that has been most practiced throughout human existence and that the "decisive battle" doctrine is a relatively recent invention? What I'm getting at is that "decisive battle" implies a hierarchical central control by an entity that has organized an armed force specifically to destroy another armed force where insurgency would appear to be a more local and decentralized affair.
I think that's a safe argument. And I like your point about decisive battle. It reflects a very specific view of warfare, one that may be less reflective of human experience of war than many people think.
The issue wasn't counter insurgency so much as the eternal inability for lots of African countries to establish sovereign states recognized by all ethnicities within. What France used to do to deal with this problem with puppet governements and give them carte blanche.In this case they didn't. Sad truth is lot of Africans were objectively better off under colonial rule (French Daomey is the most glaring example) but it's simply to politically incorect to recognize that.
well... imo (and I'm French) - colonization was a bad idea. Even IF it was with good intention, it was badly executed as left to humans to manage, their habit die hard and many will profit... and if not those managing, their entourage will... - if you were to colonize, then you had to do it in a way that the indigenous were treated the same as the people in the homeland. That mean huge investments and giving them a right to participate in YOUR politic... - failing to do good enough with colonization, decolonizing was also badly dealt with. Wrong moment (cold war, meaning you didn't just to leave them open for the "red"), too fast (you didn't leave them time to properly adapt) and in the wrong hands (you leave, those who take power are the small elite you cultivated and given the ethnic divisions, they will lead at the advantage of their "tribe" against others... - given how you want to keep some influence, you bribe the "president" for life and look away when he doing bad things... to be honest, if you didn't, it would be a "red supported" president for life from an opposing faction that would do the same, with prejudice to pay back for what they got before - then come the end of the cold war and your straw man, the "president for life" you previously supported, doesn't understand why you ask him to have fair election and to respect the pool results... - then, come the curse of Africa. A rich land will attract peoples who want to exploit the riches... if they can't because the local power is in the pocket of another power that get to exploit the riches you want, you fund a rebel group that will take hold of a region for you to exploit the riches or, more largely take the presidency after a bloody affair... and as the old colonizer is trying to play nice and not to interfere too much in how the local people want to live, they don't counter bad actors... in Mali, France failed in the end because we didn't want to be the police force of the president/putschist colonel to force a minority (be it the tuaregs or another ethnic tribe (there are big problems between farmers and breeders who are from different ethnies) to force them into compliance... as the French goal wasn't to do politic but to do counter insurgency against the Islamic djihadist, as was asked of them originally by the Malian government, that left the door open for other actor to offer their service for the "policing" of any dissent... had they left even 1 platoon at the presidency to protect him against a coup, this would be a whole other history... but as the French are not the praetorian guard of the African president anymore, if they can't protect themselves, "bad actors" can and will enter the door left open to size the opportunity... so now is the question: do we live by our principle and leave them to govern themselves at the risk of being taken advantage by more unscrupulous powers with a result of more oppression by a new president for life, or do we support (political and military) our "straw man", guiding him to do the less damage possible, but we lose the moral high ground and give credit to those who accuse us of neo colonialism.... there is in fact no correct answer we don't have the means to support the local president in a ethical way because that would mean huge investments... too big for France when the country you want to get up to speed is of the same size or 2 times larger... even in good faith and with the best intentions, we can't do it while keeping our ethic and values... so, now, we leave them on their own and we get criticized because we don't intervene when there are massacre or whatever may happen that look bad on television, or we intervene and look bad because well, neo colonialism btw, in both cases, it's the same goody 2 shoes who will cry the loudest...
On of the big problems of propaganda based on lies its that it never goes away, and the inventors of the lies stat thinking its really the truth. IDH data is clear, former colonies are way better now, its not even comparable, what on earth has given you that idea?
@@michaelshurkin613 Which ways? IDH and development data says the opposite, its not even a wash. They were not better off, maybe collaborationist and a small part of the population, which is normal when you have "poverty by design" policies, but for the populations its not even close, just look at the data.
jeez it's no wonder the Algerians hate and resisted the French.. to call them insurgents is insulting, you should be ashamed of yourself, they were people who were being massacred in incredibly cruel ways and tried to stop the psycopaths who were trying to kill them all would you call Jews who fought against the Nazis "insurgents"??? or resistance
Not a single mention to ELF, or American multinationals? How can you talk about colonialism, or devise a policy or doctrine without acknowledging the role of corporations. Its the whole point of colonialism, allowing access to cheap resources and keeping markets closed to dump products from the metropolis. Its all about the exploitation of resources and locals, and any doctrine needs to provide an answer to that, which they never did, except through blatant lies.
@@josearaujo8616 No. Believe it or not, economic interests were not a significant driver of French colonial conquests or wars. The story is more muddled in the post-independence "Françafrique" period. That's when Elf etc come into play.
@@michaelshurkin613 The economic doctrine for imperialism and expansionism was always access to resources and markets, they are even expressed in the Berlin Conference. The lack of access was even seen has a threat to national security and one of the main "reasons" for the Imperialist aspiration of the new comers. We cannot look at Colonialism without looking at the economic reasons and how it shaped the presence and motivations of the foreign powers in those territories. How can one talk about the Iran-USA relations without the role played by BP and Esso in the 53 and post 53 coup? Or Total and Elf role in the French colonies, among others like SCOA and CFAO? Imperialism and Colonialism were/are expressions of the economic paradigm, and its "success" and internal support are derived from the economic advantages it provided to private companies and interests, which for the most were the ones exploring the resources and markets.
He was definitely a butcher, but he had nothing to do with the Vendee. He probably was the inspiration for Thiers' liquidation of the Paris Commune, however.
I've read a lot about Malaysia and don't see it as reproducable given the particular circumstances of the Malaysian insurgency. The US did borrow some of it in Vietnam with the model village concept.
Sir, your content is of the highest quality. I wish you the best.
Dearly from France
Thank you very much!
The problem with our new (2013) doctrine is that it is composed mostly of wishful thinking in the parts about leaving decisive action to the host gov. Tragically this is the only way forward in the 21st century political environment.
I think that's the key issue: the 2013 doctrine correctly says it all depends on the host nation...but there's too little frank talk about what happens if the host nation doesn't want or can't or has different ideas about what "victory" looks like.
That was very eye opening. Thank you.
Very intersting ! Thank you very much for sharing your analyses and all these references. Besides, i really like the way you approach things, rather neutral and open minded while keeping a critical view. Thanks again for sharing that, and i wish you the best.
Thank you.
Another excellent video. Very clear "synthèse". And thanks for the bibliography, that is much appreciated.
My pleasure!
Thanks for your explanations, but the France’s fail also has a lot to do with the military coup d’Etat by Assimi Goïta. Goïta is way more in line with the algerian doctrine about western Sahara, like Algeria is not for the touareg’s people freedom and the fact that he has taken Kidal to the touaregs in 2023, in opposition to the 2015 peace agreement is something to consider too. Historically speaking Mali was way more friendly with Morocco, Morocco handles the Nouajis (kind of assimilated to touaregs) way more peacefully. And now the result is: the Front Polisario issue in western Sahara.
Goïta's position reflects Malian impatience with France's view of how the war should be fought, and against whom. I don't agree with him, but I also see that France ignore the divergent opinions, and it should have tried to address them head on by engaging in better strategic communication and by engaging the Malian public to explain what France was doing and why. The Malians never understood.
@21:30 Algerian independence is not really linked to electoral considerations. Algerians already had full French citizenship since 1946 ("too little too late" law trying to avoid decolonization). Also, while "won" militarily, maintaining control over Algeria was unattainable Politically, be it Domestically (from both Algerian (independence/nationalist movement) and French (strong communist party + unpopular use of conscripts) point of views) and Internationally (pressure from the USA and the USSR, help from Egypt). Algeria was a bit special in France colonial empire as the only colony with a significant (~15% or 1M people) European settlers population, that's the main factor explaining the war.
While quite true, this is not the way it goes back then because there were different electoral collège from 1946 to the indepence, there was no equal representation per capita between the europeans, jews and a few muslims algerians on one side ande the majority of muslim population on the other.
Thanks for this, its great to hear the Francophone perspective i had no idea the Americans borrowed so much. Its never a happy story though is it?
No, it's not.
Thanks, I'm curious. Why the French? Was it that nobody else was doing anything appropriate? Cultural affinity?
Thanks 😊
Thank you!
Thank you for your work. Still it's the first time that I hear that de Gaulle favoured Algeria's independence because he didn't want Algerian members of parliament. Are you sure about this ?
@@jeanmarieboucherit7376 No, that's not what I meant. I believe he was concerned with France's future if so many Algériens were citizens. Would it remain France?
@@michaelshurkin613 but Algerians were already citizens of sorts ( Moslem) and there were already Députés Algériens. My point is, here in France we paint a noble farseeing genius picture of de Gaulle but you sort of rip into it😂. Thanks for your work.
In fact, de Gaulle's desire was much more pragmatic. As he told his Prime Minister Michel Debre, because of the demographic difference, he did not want France to become a country of b.......les. (sorry, untranslatable into English). This information is found in particular in the fourth volume on the Algerian war by Yves Courriere (the fires of despair if memory serves). It was rude, certainly, but reflected the way in which he was afraid that society would evolve. Was he really wrong?
At one point this is just cultural warfare. Send movies instead of soliders. I hate the idea of an army used to please and seduce the enemy, because a real war happens(well it should) when there are no possible compromises.
Agreed.
Very good video which resume well that the colonial strategy of France although effective within the colonial era do not work anymore. It must also be noted that French colonialism was only possible because all European powers respected one another border to some extent and often cooperated to preserve each others empire before WWI and WWII.
If you're interested about the origin of the French doctrine I can't recommend enough the excellent book Pennequin le ''sorcier de la pacitifaction by Jean-françois Klein. It retrace the origin of early French pacification strategies the life of one French general who was both instrumental in shaping French counter-insurgencies and pushed aside since in his later year he advocated for a large independant Vietnamese army has a basis for a free Indochina. A really unique figure.
Thank you. I dont know that work but will look for it.
Today, we learned that an insurgent had been killer in new Caledonia. 11 lost their lives since the begining of the riots. It made 15 seconds in the news on TV..imagine the same in continental France ... We are still very much plagued with colonial mentality 😢
In these deaths there are also the deaths of gendarmes, don't forget to mention it. And in some cases specify that they simply responded to shots. Everyone talks about democracy but only if the result suits them, three referendums, three votes to remain French. If the independence activists don't want to vote, that's their problem. And now they are tearing each other apart. Don't forget to mention that.
@@excolo3290 the last referendum was boycotted by the kanak as the government had refused to postpone it after the COVID pandemics. And the point now for the french government is to make kalank a minority by allowing anyone to vote. According to the UN, new Caledonia is to be decolonized. Caldoche and government refused to listen, and now look at the result. All what they'll gain is being forced to leave.
@@danielalexandre4008 This is the vision of only one side of the story.
The situation is much more complicated. We cannot simplify by saying that it is the French government which is acting badly and that the independence activists are the representatives of the profound goodness of human nature evoked by Rousseau.
Residents of European origin whose families have been there for more than a hundred years also have the right to speak, as do Wallisians and Futunians.
If, as you envisage, the caldoches leave the territory all that will have been done is to create a Zimbabwe in the Pacific.
And yes, I am well aware that it is not politically correct to say that.
@@excolo3290 the fact that you mention Rousseau says a lot about how you see the kanak People. The fact that you don't reply to my mention of the UN also says a lot. The government is clearly on the path of colonialism when activists are put in jail in the metropole without even being brought to court. They are political prisoners. And all this will end in violence because this government has been destroying all the efforts of their predecessors.
Mali and the rest are collapsing since they "kicked" the french out.
They haven't collapsed, though they are hardly prospering.
@@michaelshurkin613 collapsing might be a bit strong but :
- burkina faso's captain regime is stil holding but nobody's knows how
- the splitting of mali is a real question today.
- niger's econmy is diving.
- slavery is back in sahel
Not really. They shifted alliances with the Russian who seem to have been more effective at the fighting the war the government in Bamako wants by reconquering cities in the North, but that doesn't mean they've either defeated the Nothern independence movement or rooted out islamic movements.
@@Bruno-ec8ft well, they only move to seize goldmines from locals, they failled to secure anything.
Moving from a goldmine to another to fill up the pockets of wagner and the junta is not securing anything.
When France was there, malian troops were going with french troops while in azawad controlled territory. France gone, malian suffers big losses (and azawad gets more intel now !)
Supporting the host nation and the local political establishment that probably contributed to the problems that led to an insurgency is a very high risk gamble. Many of these African countries have not only governance issues but also issues due to how several populations were aggregated under the same political entity. There are issues of political representation and competition between several identities that now share a country. And unfortunately very often political groups will play mostly to their base of support, and do this by withholding resources to others or by making their lives harder.
The other aspect is ideological, an insurgency group that is religious or has a doctrine similar to a cult will go for the most disadvantaged regions and to the populations where the majority of young men live in poverty and have little to no prospects. To end such an insurgency requires a lot of time so that effective economic and social changes happen on the ground.
I agree. The conclusion is that COIN-type interventions have little hope to succeed unless one can verify that the host nation is doing what it takes, and that's rare. Short of that, people needed to be more realistic about what they might achieve.
@@michaelshurkin613 yeah... In the end it boils down to some local kernel of leadership and institutional efficacy to stabilize the situation...
@@michaelshurkin613 Yeah, the reality is just that politically it's just impossible for the US to do colonial style wars. They should steer away from any forever wars and probably just back whoever is closer to them with special forces and money. Both things the US can use effectively especially if combined with a coherent diplomatic strategy.
Would it be safe to assert that insurgency is the form of warfare that has been most practiced throughout human existence and that the "decisive battle" doctrine is a relatively recent invention?
What I'm getting at is that "decisive battle" implies a hierarchical central control by an entity that has organized an armed force specifically to destroy another armed force where insurgency would appear to be a more local and decentralized affair.
Dividing forces seems generally like a bad strategy, unless you have a better mobility than your adversary.
I think that's a safe argument. And I like your point about decisive battle. It reflects a very specific view of warfare, one that may be less reflective of human experience of war than many people think.
The issue wasn't counter insurgency so much as the eternal inability for lots of African countries to establish sovereign states recognized by all ethnicities within. What France used to do to deal with this problem with puppet governements and give them carte blanche.In this case they didn't. Sad truth is lot of Africans were objectively better off under colonial rule (French Daomey is the most glaring example) but it's simply to politically incorect to recognize that.
well... imo (and I'm French)
- colonization was a bad idea. Even IF it was with good intention, it was badly executed as left to humans to manage, their habit die hard and many will profit... and if not those managing, their entourage will...
- if you were to colonize, then you had to do it in a way that the indigenous were treated the same as the people in the homeland. That mean huge investments and giving them a right to participate in YOUR politic...
- failing to do good enough with colonization, decolonizing was also badly dealt with. Wrong moment (cold war, meaning you didn't just to leave them open for the "red"), too fast (you didn't leave them time to properly adapt) and in the wrong hands (you leave, those who take power are the small elite you cultivated and given the ethnic divisions, they will lead at the advantage of their "tribe" against others...
- given how you want to keep some influence, you bribe the "president" for life and look away when he doing bad things... to be honest, if you didn't, it would be a "red supported" president for life from an opposing faction that would do the same, with prejudice to pay back for what they got before
- then come the end of the cold war and your straw man, the "president for life" you previously supported, doesn't understand why you ask him to have fair election and to respect the pool results...
- then, come the curse of Africa. A rich land will attract peoples who want to exploit the riches... if they can't because the local power is in the pocket of another power that get to exploit the riches you want, you fund a rebel group that will take hold of a region for you to exploit the riches or, more largely take the presidency after a bloody affair... and as the old colonizer is trying to play nice and not to interfere too much in how the local people want to live, they don't counter bad actors...
in Mali, France failed in the end because we didn't want to be the police force of the president/putschist colonel to force a minority (be it the tuaregs or another ethnic tribe (there are big problems between farmers and breeders who are from different ethnies) to force them into compliance...
as the French goal wasn't to do politic but to do counter insurgency against the Islamic djihadist, as was asked of them originally by the Malian government, that left the door open for other actor to offer their service for the "policing" of any dissent...
had they left even 1 platoon at the presidency to protect him against a coup, this would be a whole other history... but as the French are not the praetorian guard of the African president anymore, if they can't protect themselves, "bad actors" can and will enter the door left open to size the opportunity...
so now is the question: do we live by our principle and leave them to govern themselves at the risk of being taken advantage by more unscrupulous powers with a result of more oppression by a new president for life, or do we support (political and military) our "straw man", guiding him to do the less damage possible, but we lose the moral high ground and give credit to those who accuse us of neo colonialism....
there is in fact no correct answer
we don't have the means to support the local president in a ethical way because that would mean huge investments... too big for France when the country you want to get up to speed is of the same size or 2 times larger... even in good faith and with the best intentions, we can't do it while keeping our ethic and values...
so, now, we leave them on their own and we get criticized because we don't intervene when there are massacre or whatever may happen that look bad on television, or we intervene and look bad because well, neo colonialism
btw, in both cases, it's the same goody 2 shoes who will cry the loudest...
They were better off in a few ways, but mostly it was a bad experience. I think the biggest example was the use of forced labor, the corvée system.
On of the big problems of propaganda based on lies its that it never goes away, and the inventors of the lies stat thinking its really the truth.
IDH data is clear, former colonies are way better now, its not even comparable, what on earth has given you that idea?
@@michaelshurkin613 Which ways? IDH and development data says the opposite, its not even a wash. They were not better off, maybe collaborationist and a small part of the population, which is normal when you have "poverty by design" policies, but for the populations its not even close, just look at the data.
jeez it's no wonder the Algerians hate and resisted the French.. to call them insurgents is insulting, you should be ashamed of yourself, they were people who were being massacred in incredibly cruel ways and tried to stop the psycopaths who were trying to kill them all
would you call Jews who fought against the Nazis "insurgents"??? or resistance
Algerians' resentment toward France is perfectly understandable.
I thought this was about counter-insurgency. But why is he giving examples of how the French colonized Mali?? Is it the same thing??
Yes. Keep listening.
Not a single mention to ELF, or American multinationals? How can you talk about colonialism, or devise a policy or doctrine without acknowledging the role of corporations. Its the whole point of colonialism, allowing access to cheap resources and keeping markets closed to dump products from the metropolis.
Its all about the exploitation of resources and locals, and any doctrine needs to provide an answer to that, which they never did, except through blatant lies.
Not germaine to the subject of military doctrine.
@@michaelshurkin613 Isn't it the whole purpose of the military intervention in the colonies?
@@josearaujo8616 Yes, but doctrine is about _how_ you do it, not _why_ you do it.
@@josearaujo8616 No. Believe it or not, economic interests were not a significant driver of French colonial conquests or wars. The story is more muddled in the post-independence "Françafrique" period. That's when Elf etc come into play.
@@michaelshurkin613 The economic doctrine for imperialism and expansionism was always access to resources and markets, they are even expressed in the Berlin Conference.
The lack of access was even seen has a threat to national security and one of the main "reasons" for the Imperialist aspiration of the new comers.
We cannot look at Colonialism without looking at the economic reasons and how it shaped the presence and motivations of the foreign powers in those territories.
How can one talk about the Iran-USA relations without the role played by BP and Esso in the 53 and post 53 coup?
Or Total and Elf role in the French colonies, among others like SCOA and CFAO?
Imperialism and Colonialism were/are expressions of the economic paradigm, and its "success" and internal support are derived from the economic advantages it provided to private companies and interests, which for the most were the ones exploring the resources and markets.
Bugaud was a butcher. He crushed the Algerian as he did when he commanded in the vendee with terror, brutality and murder.
lol. Bugeaud must have been 10 years old at the time of the Vendée War...
He was definitely a butcher, but he had nothing to do with the Vendee. He probably was the inspiration for Thiers' liquidation of the Paris Commune, however.
@@michaelshurkin613 I think he confused Augereau with Bugaud.
should have used british counter insurgency as it worked in malaya.
Malaysia endured years of insurgency after the departure of the british though. Wasn't a full success
I've read a lot about Malaysia and don't see it as reproducable given the particular circumstances of the Malaysian insurgency. The US did borrow some of it in Vietnam with the model village concept.