How a massacre of Algerians in Paris was covered up

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-58927939

by zeristor • 5 years ago

44 11 5 years ago

bbc.co.uk

golyi• 5 years ago

Absolutely awful. I would also recommend watching Caché, the excellent Michael Haneke film which adresses this horrible episode. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cach%C3%A9_(film)

johnchristopher3• 5 years ago

No-one was tried as the massacre was subject to the general amnesty granted for crimes committed during the Algerian War.

It has always been surprising to me that `they` could easily say these were crimes committed during the Algerian War while it happened in Paris and was a very local event in a very specific time frame.

Now, I know Papon wasn't acting completely on his own. He was the police prefect and acting directly under Debré's government and he stayed until 67. The fact that this man held this position, 20 years after ww2 is disturbing.

What's also disturbing (and not acceptable to the concerned parties) is that today's president still holds Papon as the sole responsible. He recognizes that Papon is responsible and that's all.

France is progressing at a glacial pace on its Algerian history.

Jensson2• 5 years ago

I guess it wasn't seen as important? How is them dying in Paris different from them dying in Algeria in the war? Hundreds of thousands were killed in that war, a hundred dead in Paris wouldn't be very notable.

Anyway, of course it is wrong for them to kill these Algerians etc. Just noting that at the time these numbers weren't eye catching, to them it was just this war spilling over the Mediterranean into Paris for a brief moment.

Edit: And to add, I am sure there were hundreds or even thousands of massacres like this being done in Algeria at the time. Some by French and some by the insurgents. It is unacceptable everywhere, but as I said such atrocities were common and not very notable at the time.

johnchristopher3• 5 years ago

Hundreds of thousands were killed in that war, a hundred dead in Paris wouldn't be very notable.

300 people killed a few street away from your house impact you more than thousands across an ocean or the Mediterranean. You are conveniently comparing numbers in a void.

This war was fought in another country (or territory). Killing and hunting civilians and non combatants living in your country is a totally different matter.

The USA did put Japanese and Americans of Japanese origin but they did not casually threw them over the SF bridge the night after a demonstration. Nor did NYPD threw Germans living in NY over the Brooklyn Bridge.

That's how them dying in Paris is different from them dying in Algeria in the war.

Jensson2• 5 years ago

Did Japanese people living in USA bomb American civilians in USA during ww2? Not as far as I know, that wasn't a problem. There were a lot of terrorists among these people that were killing French people, the protest was organized by the terrorists in order to break the curfew created to stop those bombings. So effectively they tried to bring the war to Paris and this was the response since the people in Paris got tired of those killings. It isn't the right thing to do by modern standard, but when your people are getting killed people get desperate.

Also, how many lives is a curfew worth? Covid tells us that we don't need to save that many lives for a curfew to be worth it, and since terrorists were amongst these groups the curfew would save the lives that those terrorists would take. Protesting against the curfew basically says that this group doesn't value the lives of French people at all. And deliberately breaking the curfew created to separate civilians from terrorists is an extremely aggressive act.

Anyway, it is common for terrorists and guerrilla fighters to hide among civilians like this. The solution is for the civilians to not go out and protect the terrorists like that, there isn't much else you can do in this situation other that announce the curfew and then treat the people who break it as terrorists.

Bayart• 5 years ago

Over the last decade, moral grandstanding on colonial and racial matters has become a favourite of the British and American press when it comes to France.

I don't think they quite understand the complexity of French-Algerian relations, or care to.

What Macron is doing is already the most he can without stretching public forebearance.

drumhead• 5 years ago

Whats complex about 300 civilians being killed and then having their bodies thrown into a river in the middle of Paris. And then covered up for the next 50 years? Sounds like an excuse to me.

johnchristopher3• 5 years ago

I am watching that from Belgium. What would happen if Macron did more ?

Are we just (not) talking about financial compensations ? Is that why it's so hard to talk about it ?

Or does it have something to do with pieds noirs and what it meant(s) to be French ?

Algerian and french relationship is thorny but what's preventing - on the french side - things to get better ?

badcede• 5 years ago

Everyone grandstands about everyone else's atrocities.

1cvmask• 5 years ago

The massacre was also deliberately covered up or worse lied about by other "news" outlets including the NY Times, The Times, Time Magazine etc....

https://www.wrmea.org/1997-march/a-1961-massacre-of-algerian...

From the link above:

The full horror of this inglorious 1961 episode in French history was largely covered up at the time. Though harrowing personal accounts did eventually percolate to the surface in the French press, the newspapers—enfeebled by years of government censorship and control—for the most part stuck with official figures that only two and, later, five people had died in the demonstration. Government-owned French TV showed Algerians being shipped out of France after the demonstration, but showed none of the police violence.

Journalists had been warned away from coverage of the demonstration and were not allowed near the detention centers.

With few exceptions, the British and American press stuck to the official story, including suggestions that the Algerians had opened fire first. Even the newsman who saw the piles of Algerian corpses was not allowed to report the story; his bosses ordered that the bureau reports stick to the official figures.

Both French and foreign journalists in Paris seemed tacitly to agree that nothing should be done to further destabilize the French government or endanger de Gaulle, who was widely seen as the last, best hope for navigating France out of its troubles.

The story quickly died, drowned out by fresher alarums and excursions in Europe and elsewhere. And, of course, in the next year, Algeria would have its independence.

Jacques Vergàs, the controversial French lawyer who represented the FLN during the war in Algeria, told me in an interview last summer that the police violence and government and press cover-up in 1961 were not surprising. The political circumstances were right for it, and the news media usually do what they’re told.

Just look at how easy it was to round up and intern American citizens of Japanese descent after Pearl Harbor, he observed.

How a massacre of Algerians in Paris was covered up

Related Stories