To agree with msmith even more, guerilla warfare had little to do with the American victory. The Americans were routinely stomped by the British until they learned to fight like a well-drilled European military. No, the American victory had little to do with assymetrical warfare or “economic terrorism” and entirely about the fact that the Americans got some serious backing from a major foreign power.
I once read an essay in *UU World * magazine by a woman who was raised Jewish, but who stopped observing Hannukah when she realized it commemorated the founding of a theocracy.
Damn straight! we’d be driving “Lorrys,” living in “flats,” studying “maths,” and playing “sport.”
shudders
But the world would have been spared WWII and we wouldn’t know how miserable we are. Were. Would have been. Whatever.
Sure, you say that now; wait 'til the results come back, though, and you start getting letters from estranged Third Cousin Saddam to mail him cigarettes in prison.
Great-great-tante ShrivelLuna: “Oh, sweetheart… we were hoping we’d never have to tell you about this, but when your Pap-Pappy ZaydeLuna visited Tel Aviv back in 1921…”
The aqueduct?
Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that’s true. Yeah.
I don’t mean to hijack this thread, but the OP reminds me of a thread I’ve been thinking about starting lately, but just haven’t had the time to properly articulate into a well-formed OP, regarding the parallels of the Iraq insurgency to the French-Algerian war.
Knowing absolutely nothing about the historical context, I’ve recently watched the DVD of The Battle of Algiers along with the many documentaries as part of the DVD special features, and I’m struck by some of the parallels to today. Particularly striking about the film is, though it acheives so much of its power by taking a fair, even-handed, and quite human view of both sides, its sympathies clearly lie with the insurgency and its use of terrorism.
Without hijacking the thread terribly, is there any way to briefly sum up who deserves the moral high ground in that conflict? Is it France’s unjust occupation, or the FLN’s use of bombing innocent people in the name of liberation?
I think it’s safe to say that in most wars there is no moral high ground. There are a fair number of exceptions, obviously, but in general it tends to boil down to two minorities causing mayhem to the detriment of the majority civilian population, who just want to get on with their lives. This is especially true of insurgencies. If you look at Ireland, the Palestinian mandate, Malaya, Algeria, Rhodesia, Vietnam, etc. you tend to find that neither side shows much concern about anything other than winning. When they do, of course, insurgents magically become Glorious Freedom Fighters and all is forgiven. When they lose, they become terrorists and murders.
To directly answer your question, I’d give the Algerian right to self-determination the edge over the French right to protect their territory, however I’d feel comfortable calling both the FLN and the French Army a murdering pack of bastards based on their behaviour.
France willingly gave up most of its imperial holdings during the 50’s and early 60’s. They were holding onto Algeria because they had big plans. There was fear that the French population was quickly growing and land in France was running short. The master plan was to export surplus population to Algeria, and eventually turn the nation into a white-majority French-speaking Christian country. Basically, it was supposed to be a part of France. As you can probably imagine, this did not sit well with the native Algerians. The battle went on for years, the French eventually sent a majority of their armed forces to Algeria but they were still unable to contain the insurgency. As usually happens in these cases, the French could inflict ten times as many deaths on the insurgents as the insurgents inflicted on the French. Nevertheless, the Algerians had the willpower to keep fighting. Eventually Charles de Gaulle simply realized that the conflict was too costly to continue, and could never be won.
Cite? I was under the impression they got kicked out of IndoChina by Uncle Ho, sub-contracted the exploitation of West Africa to some locals (propped up with French troops), and hung on to a bunch of smaller places as overseas departements (Martinique, Polynesia, New Caledonia).
And the wine!
/Life of Brian
But before the French rescued you from having to say “lorry” and all the rest, the English rescued you from having to learn French and Spanish. 
Oh yeah? What about those of us who live in what was the Louisiana Purchase, hunh, what about us? :dubious:
Thanks for responding slaphead and ITR. Though I have many other questions and points to debate on that, I’ll save them for their own thread.
Helluva movie, ain’t it?
It sure is. In fact I’ve been fixated on it since I first saw it two weeks ago. I’ve watched all the special features on the DVD (I think there’s something like 6 or 7 documentaries included covering director Gillo Pontecorvo, the making of the film, the historical context, and a wonderful interview with Richard Clarke and Michael Sheehan), and I’m sad there’s no more. It’s the kind of film you just want to keep thinking and talking about.
And politely demanding that other people watch it too. 
I basically forced it on a guy about a month ago, and just last night I was talking it up at a party.
Perhaps a Cafe thread is in order. Hmmm.
198 BCE: Armies of the Seleucid King Antiochus III (Antiochus the Great) oust Ptolemy V from Judea and Samaria.
175 BCE: Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) ascends the Seleucid throne.
168 BCE: Under the reign of Antiochus IV, the Temple is looted, Jews are massacred, and Judaism is outlawed.
167 BCE: Antiochus orders an altar to Zeus erected in the Temple. Mattathias, and his five sons John, Simon, Eleazar, Jonathan, and Judah lead a rebellion against Antiochus. Judah becomes known as Judah Maccabe (Judah The Hammer).
166 BCE: Mattathias dies, and Judah takes his place as leader. The Hasmonean Jewish Kingdom begins; It lasts until 63 BCE
165 BCE: The Jewish revolt against the Seleucid monarchy is successful. The Temple is liberated and rededicated (Hanukkah).
142 BCE: Establishment of the Second Jewish Commonwealth. The Seleucids recognize Jewish autonomy. The Seleucid kings have a formal overlordship, which the Hasmoneans acknowledged. This inaugurates a period of great geographical expansion, population growth, and religious, cultural and social development.
The lesson must be: while administering a foreign land don’t loot local places of worship, don’t massacre locals and don’t outlaw local religion.
Also, harnessing the power of successful local grass roots popular movement, might prove beneficial to both the Administrators, the Administrated and the whole mankind.