by Gary Littlejohn for the Saker Blog
Part 1 – Contains the first two letters
Part 2 – Contains the next two letters
Part 3 – Commentary – you are now here.
There have been reports recently in the French media that retired senior French military officers, and a lot of younger serving officers, had written an open letter to President Macron saying in effect that unless the French government took decisive action on the banlieues (suburbs, but here code for ‘immigrant’ areas) then the alternative could well be a civil war. To be clear, they were not threatening a coup, but urging the government to deal with what they saw as a serious, growing problem, a problem made still more acute by the despair and unrest manifested in the Yellow Vest series of demonstrations.
The letter was published on the 60th anniversary of the attempted military coup against President Charles de Gaulle over Algeria (21 April 2021). That date may not have much resonance these days, but I can say from personal experience that even on the 14th July 1961 (Bastille Day) tensions were very high in Paris, with machine gun nests on every corner around the Arc de Triomphe. It transpired decades later that there had also been a massacre of hundreds of Algerians at around this time, with the whole affair being completely covered up by the media. Here is the link to that open letter, which is referred to at times in commentaries as a ‘tribune’ or ‘platform’.
See the translation: https://thesaker.is/for-a-return-of-the-honor-of-our-rulers-20-generals-call-on-macron-to-defend-patriotism/
What does this imply for the cohesiveness of France, given the lengthy protests by the Yellow Vests (Gilets Jaunes) that were analysed so ably by Ramin Mazaheri on The Saker website? The growing Islamist unrest, which attracted greater attention after the Cathedral at Nantes was set on fire, is stretching the French police forces further at a time when a declared state of emergency has become the new normal in France, through legislative sleight of hand.
The mayor of a part of Paris, a woman of Algerian descent, has supported the sentiments expressed in this first letter, but the public government response was to discuss how those officers could be punished for their actions, and hypocritically to accuse the anonymous serving officers of cowardice for not signing their names, which would be a disciplinary offense.
More recently, we have seen a report of a future letter to be signed by 2,000 serving officers, making a similar argument, while apparently not threatening a coup.
See the second translation also in this link: https://thesaker.is/for-a-return-of-the-honor-of-our-rulers-20-generals-call-on-macron-to-defend-patriotism/
Yet in between these two political interventions there was a response from other military officers, who signed their letter:
See the translation: http://thesaker.is/france-translation-of-initial-response-by-other-officers-april-27-2021-part-2/
This response makes some interesting points after calling for a deeper analysis of the causes of the problems raised by the first letter, and specifically calls out the dominance of finance capital, including what might be called ‘the Davos crowd’ and the use of secret (or ‘open but private’) social networks. Yet although it describes the earlier call for government action as little more than a pious prayer, it fails to make specific recommendations either, and (to my mind disingenuously) describes that earlier call to action as advocating civil war, when it did nothing of the kind. The first letter simply forecast that as a probable outcome if the government did nothing to deal with the problem, and there is little more that the armed forces could do without openly and illegally threatening French ‘democratic’ institutions.
The tone of hypocritical condemnation by politicians coupled with attempts to play down the issue is clearly demonstrated in this article in the UK newspaper The Guardian:
This sort of condemnation enabled the political class to avoid addressing the critique of the other military group, especially the points about finance capital and the social networks that were effectively alleged to subvert democratic institutions. However, on 11th May the ‘second’ letter, which had been circulating among the French media, was republished with an invitation to the public to sign it:
See the translation: http://thesaker.is/for-a-return-of-the-honor-of-our-rulers-20-generals-call-on-macron-to-defend-patriotism/
This showed that public support for the military critics was growing. The ‘second’ letter specifically claimed that, having fought in Africa, serving soldiers could recognise the signs of incipient societal collapse – a point that was ignored in the politicians’ responses, which were more focussed on the upcoming elections in France.
However, while the armed forces may well know what societal collapse looks like, that does not mean that they necessarily have a good explanation for such collapses in Africa, even if they are right to draw attention to the dangers in France at a time when the politicians are downplaying the negative trends there, and so are upset at having their narrative disrupted by a clear expression of alarm.
So what are the reasons for the societal collapse in so many parts of Africa? At least in part, they can be ascribed to the neocolonial financial policies and military interventions (including clandestine support for real or fake terrorist forces) originating from the EU member states and the USA. These in turn contribute to fostering the flows of refugees and economic migrants into the EU. To illustrate this point, it helps to look at some of the history of such policies and military interventions.
The changing political and economic context of French military policy in Africa
To help explain such changes in France’s military posture in the last 15 years, I must begin with an account of a conversation in Accra, Ghana in March 2006. That conversation was with three very senior French naval officers, at a conference on maritime safety and security in the Gulf of Guinea, West Africa. This conference included representatives from 11 West African countries, from Senegal to Angola. I had gone to a quiet corner of the open-air bar with these officers because I wanted to learn more about their views on the conference theme. My interest in this was because my role at the conference was to chair the joint discussion group of Francophone and Lusophone countries, whereas an American was chairing the Anglophone group, and indeed the US Navy had convened and was running the whole conference, in conjunction with the Africa Center for Strategic Studies. The latter is part of the US Department of Defense and is based at Fort McNair, Washington, DC.
The French officers said that they found it difficult to understand why the British did not engage in “360 degrees security”, by which they meant that while France was in NATO, it was not a member of the integrated command system and so was able to pursue what was in many respects an independent defence and foreign policy that was not dominated by the USA. I was well aware that President Charles de Gaulle had taken France out of that NATO integrated command system, and that the senior military officer in NATO HQ in Brussels was always an American who was simultaneously the senior officer of US forces in Europe (EUCOM).
This military policy stance meant that France could more easily resist US pressure to engage in various military actions, and so could focus not only on the overseas French Departements which are still seen as integral parts of the French state but also on its former colonies in Africa, where the governments effectively depended on France. This dependence is induced partly by French control of their currencies, and partly by military support for (or interventions to change) African governments. There are two such currencies which are both usually called the CFA Franc: see
This tactic to remotely control former colonies had also been adopted in the past by the UK, both with the independence of the Republic of Ireland in the 1920s-30s, and in the early 1960s with Nigerian independence, for a much shorter period. In the case of France it has been running since the 1960s and is fully backed by the European Union [EU], since both CFA currencies are now tied to the Euro. This financial measure specifically devoted to France might also have been followed by Portugal if post-independence Mozambique had not secretly organised the logistics to print and mint a new paper and coin currency called the Metical to replace the Portuguese Escudo. Angola rapidly followed suit with the Kwacha.
To understand how and why the French military approach to Africa changed from “360 degree security” (implying a certain independence from US pressure) to a position of having French military action in Africa much more integrated with that of the USA, one needs to look at a fairly complex series of events, including prior changes related to the end of Apartheid in South Africa. To explain all this, it is necessary to start with a description of EU institutions and policies with respect to Africa. These events, together with political changes in France, constitute the context in which France re-entered the NATO integrated command structure and came to coordinate it actions in Africa with those of the USA and the UK.
The EU has long promoted policies that ‘favour’ the former colonies of its member states, especially in terms of a series of aid and trade policies for the African, Caribbean and Pacific [ACP] countries:
In the past, these countries had a series of 5 Lome Agreements, each lasting for about 5 years but more recently these agreements have been replaced by Economic Partnership Agreements [EPAs] which in my view are less favourable to ACP countries, and are framed by the Cotonou Agreement:
These Lome and Cotonou EPA agreements require prior acceptance of World Bank and IMF policies and ‘conditionalities’ as a condition for receiving EU aid, with the leverage being that the EU is the largest aid donor to Africa. In the past, such agreements did not also imply acceptance of competition from US companies, for example, with respect to tropical fruits. However, in 1988, as it became clear to the USA, the Soviet Union and the EU that the strategic military balance in southern Africa had turned against Apartheid South Africa, and that the African National Congress [ANC] had to be forced to negotiate with the ruling National Party to end Apartheid, the EU also realised that this implied independence for the UN Protectorate of South West Africa (soon to be called Namibia) and wished to ensure that this new country would also be ‘offered’ an ACP-type agreement.
In order to square this with the Secretary General of the ACP countries, secret negotiations were held in October 1988 granting some further concessions to the ACP in return for accepting a future EU-ACP type of trade deal with Namibia. This secret agreement continued to exclude US fruit companies from trading with the EU, and was incompatible with WTO rules. It took some years for the USA to notice this, and it only won a change in this situation after long WTO litigation in about 2002.
However, with the Soviet Union having fallen into line with US policy on southern Africa by 1988, thereby leaving the field open for the USA to play the major role in ensuring that Angola removed its Cuban troops as part of the general post-Apartheid re-structuring of the region, the USA both tried to install a secret military base in Botswana and massively increased its support for the rebel UNITA forces in Angola. The USA failed in its initial attempt to establish a secret base in Botswana (although it had succeeded in this by 2005) but despite the Congress cutting off aid to UNITA in 1991, the disbursement of the US aid already committed continued until at least July 1992, with the arrival of 183 Humvees in Angola at that time.
Despite this increasing US influence in Angola (with an active CIA presence and the arrival of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, which was 80 per cent funded by the US State Department) the EU supported the incumbent government of the MPLA. Yet it was terrified of doing so openly. The USA was doubtless aware of this, and presumably on later discovering that the EU was also undermining its policy on US companies trading with the EU, most probably started thinking that further military influence in Africa would enhance its role there at the expense of the dominance of the EU.
At around the same time, the USA wished to diversify its sources of oil and gas, given that its own supplies were diminishing, and so, before it had hit upon the idea of increasing domestic oil production by accessing shale oil, it looked to the newly-discovered oil field in the Gulf of Guinea, specifically that part of it controlled by the former Portuguese island colony of São Tomé and Principe. However, given the extent of piracy, illegal fishing and most importantly illegal oil bunkering (where a tanker ship with an armed crew would arrive at an offshore oil field and demand at gunpoint that the ship be filled up with crude oil and would then apparently disappear), the US realised that maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea would need to be increased. This was the basis for the conference that I was invited to participate in. In fact the Ghana conference in March 2006 was the second of three: the first had been in Abuja, the recently-built capital city of Nigeria, in March 2005, and the third was in Cotonou, the capital of Benin, in October 2006.
By the time of the meeting in Cotonou, the French officers were markedly less emphatic about the pursuit of an independent military policy with respect to Africa. The one who had been most willing to talk to me had been replaced. This was most probably owing to the increasing convergence of opinion with the USA about the ‘War on Terror’ against Islamist insurgencies not only in Afghanistan, but also in North Africa. Indeed within a year or so, I found out a lot more about this from talking to an English professor of social anthropology Jeremy Keenan, who specialised in the Tuareg peoples of North Africa. He had been following up on media reports about a new allegedly Islamist group led by a certain Mokhtar bel Mokhtar, who had been born in the Maghreb region of Algeria. This group had been kidnapping tourists in the Sahel region of North Africa, but the Algerian armed forces were apparently having trouble capturing them.
Keenan had been going to the various locations where the Algerian government claimed to have had battles with this ‘insurgent group’ which later took the name of Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and he had discovered that there was not a single empty cartridge case to be found in any of those locations. He had come to the conclusion that this was a false flag operation by the Algerian security service, probably operating in conjunction with French intelligence. This information was later published in 2009 as the book The Dark Sahara:
But Keenan had also told me that some vague verbal remarks of his about the Tuareg being engaged in smuggling across the Sahel had been taken up by the USA and other governments, but changed from smuggling cigarettes to imply that they were smuggling drugs and arms in support of Islamist terrorism. This official line of argument seemed to be motivated by a desire by the Algerian government to place a natural gas pipeline from the Gulf of Guinea across the Sahara to link up with the Algerian pipeline across the Mediterranean to Spain, thereby selling the gas into the EU network. To me the clear implication of this proposal was to reduce the dependence of the EU on Russian natural gas, and in fact I already knew about that proposal because it had already been pitched by the Algerians to the conference in Abuja, Nigeria in March 2005.
What I had not realised until Keenan told me about it was that the arms and drug smuggling claims had been used to target the Tuareg across the Sahel in various countries in the vain hope that pacifying them would mean that the proposed gas pipeline would not be sabotaged. In fact this ridiculous idea was totally counter-productive, because the Tuareg in ‘retaliation’ had been hit so hard that they had collectively decided that no such gas pipeline would ever be built, and indeed it never has been. See The Dying Sahara:
Keenan was by now publicly ridiculing the claims about Islamist terrorism across North Africa, but knew that the narrative would be pursued because he had discovered that by about 2007 France, the USA and the UK had established a joint intelligence centre covering North Africa in Paris. He handed me a copy of an article that he had published in the academic journal Critique of Anthropology where he had made this claim. By 2009, at about the time when Keenan’s first book The Dark Sahara was published, France had formally rejoined the NATO integrated command structure, thereby ending any possibility of a return to “360 degrees security”.
Meanwhile, in 2008 the US links with Gulf of Guinea coastal countries in Africa had presumably been augmented and fostered a growing influence that culminated in the formal establishment of the Africa Command (AFRICOM) in October 2008.
Clearly, unknown to me, work on this had started while the Gulf of Guinea conferences of 2005-6 were taking place. The ostensible reason for those conferences, namely safeguarding oil transits from the Gulf of Guinea to the USA while discouraging piracy and illegal fishing, had fallen by the wayside. (I had naively supported this by convincing myself that it would be good to encourage African countries to cooperate in combating illegal fishing, piracy and illegal bunkering.) The ‘War on Terror’ had been brought to Africa despite there having been no prior evidence for it.
The stage was thereby set, not only for ongoing ‘anti-terrorist’ military activity in Francophone Africa, but for dealing with the emergent threat posed by Libya’s leader Muamar Gaddafi’s proposal to establish a new oil-backed currency, to be called the Gold Dinar, which could be used to reduce the influence of the US dollar in global oil trading and to foster economic development in the Middle East and Africa. Just as with Saddam Hussein’s proposal to start using the Euro for selling oil, Gaddafi’s proposal soon led to his overthrow and death in 2011, in a classic US ‘leading from behind’ operation with France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and the UK’s David Cameron taking the joint operational lead.
In the 2nd paragraph, you write “that there had also been a massacre of hundreds of Algerians at around this time”.
Wait, No No NO ! This was a big fake news, clearly debunked by Bernard Lugan.
Such massacre happened in Alger (mai 1945) but never in Paris.
My brother was an eyewitness to the bodies floating down the Seine in July 1959. Unfortunately this deos not correspond to the published claims about the date, but he told me about it at the time, in 1959.
President Hollande acknowledged these massacres, as did a Mayor of Paris, so one must surely conclude that they did take place:
“French President Francois Hollande acknowledged on Wednesday Algerians were massacred during an independence rally in Paris in 1961, ending decades of official silence over one of the darkest chapters of post-war French history.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-algeria/frances-hollande-acknowledges-1961-massacre-of-algerians-idUSBRE89G1NB20121017
“More than 200” is the number mentioned in the article, but other sources have 200 killed on 17 October, and 325 killed by the police during the entire period – autumn of 1961.
Much earlier than Hollande’s 2017 official acknowledgement, the mayor of Paris had commemorated the horrible crimes:
“Le 17 octobre 2001, Bertrand Delanoë, maire de Paris, a inauguré une plaque commémorative au pont Saint-Michel « à la mémoire de nombreux Algériens tués lors de la sanglante répression de la manifestation pacifique du 17 octobre 1961.” https://web.archive.org/web/20041125041517/http://www.ldh-toulon.net/article.php3?id_article=124
But this concerned only those of 17/10/, not those perpetrated by the police around that date and later, as described by a group of whistleblower policemen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961
Roughly 11 500 arrested, horribly tortured, many of them to death – or drowned in Seine: 265 to 325 deaths in total, according to investigations by historian Jean-Luc Einaudi. And although the numbers are still debated, no one disputes that these horrid massacres took place.
Well, except Bernard Lugan…
Yrreiht..Wait, No No NO !
Ca ne va pas, non!!! (What this, mate!!!)
Absolute nonsense.. Maurice Papon was a complete and utter psychopathic scumbag.
What are you referencing from ´´Paris Match´´´ may I suggest ´´Canard Enchaine..“
from one of the most Zionist friendly sources in existence…´´Wankerpedia…(wikipedia..)´´
Paris massacre of 1961 occurred on 17 October 1961, during the Algerian War (1954–62). Under orders from the head of the Parisian police, Maurice Papon, the French National Police attacked a demonstration by 30,000 pro-National Liberation Front (FLN) Algerians. After 37 years of denial and censorship of the press, in 1998 the French government finally acknowledged 40 deaths, although there are estimates of 100 to 300 victims. Death was due to heavy-handed beating by the police, as well as mass drownings, as police officers threw demonstrators into the river Seine.
The massacre was intentional, as substantiated by historian Jean-Luc Einaudi, who won a trial against Papon in 1999 (Papon had been convicted in 1998 of crimes against humanity for his role under the Vichy collaborationist regime during World War II). Official documentation and eyewitness accounts within the Paris police department suggest that Papon directed the massacre himself. Police records show that he called for officers in one station to be “subversive” in quelling the demonstrations, and assured them protection from prosecution if they participated.
Forty years after the massacre, on 17 October 2001, Bertrand Delanoë, the Socialist Mayor of Paris, put up a plaque in remembrance of the massacre on the Pont Saint-Michel. How many demonstrators were killed is still unclear. In the absence of official estimates, the plaque commemorating the massacre reads, “In memory of the many Algerians killed during the bloody repression of the peaceful demonstration of 17 October 1961”. On 18 February 2007 (the day after Papon’s death) calls were made for a Paris Métro station under construction in Gennevilliers to be named “17 Octobre 1961” in commemoration of the massacre
Not to forget that Maurice Papon participated in the deportation of more than 1600 innocent Jews when he was secretary general of Bordeaux police during World War II. While during the same period, the brave sultan of Morocco Mohamed V courageously refused to let the Vichy government to touch any Jews in Morocco and protecting them as his children (he’s still celebrated by Moroccan Jews who migrated to Israel), the same with the brave the Bey of Tunisia Muhammad VII al-Munsif known as the Protector of the Jews, as for the colonized Muslims of North Africa they were competing between themselves on who will give refuge to most of their Jewish population, and lastly the French Jewish children being hidden in France’ mosques to protect the innocents from the French collaborators. Maurice escaped punishment, but instead was rewarded by general De Gaulle. Maurice was a despicable creature.
about 20 yrs. ago I met the father of a friend, an old jew who lived in Montreal. He was Moroccan originally. When I asked him if he missed Morocco, he said “it was the greatest place on earth. If it weren’t for that f****** israel, I’d be there now.” Maybe 5 years later I was talking w/a young coed from israel, whose father had emigrated from Tunisia. I told her the previous story (w/out the expletive), and she said “same w/my father”. The pisraelis had to instigate false flags to get the jews to budge from their homes in N. Africa.
I hope the Tuareg are not targeted by the western butchers. These are the mysterious nomads, the Blue Men, who have been there for over a thousand years. Qadaffi respected them, from what I understand.
Indeed it is upsetting what the Zionists have done to the North African Jewish community who has been fooled and even threatened to leave their ancestral land in order to populate Palestine. They uprooted them, some of them sadly sold their successful businesses at less than half price in Morocco before leaving. Yet our fathers and grand fathers never harassed them, to the contrary we welcomed the European Jews after the Reconquista in Spain, and after the multiple pogroms they experienced for centuries in Europe, they brought their skills and wealth and contributed to a healthy demography. The Almighty God Is Witness to that.
Their ordeal is well depicted in the Moroccan film by Hassan Benjelloun titled ‘Où vas-tu Moshé ? / Where are you going, Moshé? ‘
Here is the trailer:
Only very few of them came back to their land, including my old good dentist.
A massacre without corpses :
Comme chaque année à la date anniversaire de la manifestation du 17 octobre 1961 à Paris, communistes et socialistes, amis du FLN et militants « anticolonialistes » (sic), vont commémorer un « massacre » qui aurait été perpétré par la police française. Ils se réuniront ensuite sur le Pont Saint-Michel d’où, toujours selon eux, des dizaines, voire des centaines d’Algériens auraient été précipités dans la Seine.
Le seul problème, mais il est de taille, est que ce « massacre » n’a pas eu lieu… Quant aux noyades, à l’exception de celles pratiquées par le FLN sur les membres du MNA ou sur les Harkis, elles n’ont pas davantage existé…car nous sommes en réalité en présence d’un montage.
Démonstration  :
1) Le 18 octobre 1961 au matin, le bilan de la manifestation de la veille parvient à Maurice Legay, directeur général de la police parisienne. Il est de 3 morts. Nous voilà donc loin des dizaines, voire des centaines de morts et de noyés avancés par certains.
2) Or, deux de ces trois morts, à savoir Abdelkader Déroués et Lamara Achenoune n’ont aucun lien avec la « répression » du 17 octobre puisqu’ils ont été tués, non pas à coups de matraque, mais par balle, non pas dans le centre de Paris, mais à Puteaux, donc loin de la manifestation. De plus, le second a été préalablement étranglé….
3) Un mort, un seul, a tout de même été relevé dans le périmètre de la manifestation et il ne s’agit pas d’un Algérien, mais d’un Français « de souche » nommé Guy Chevallier, décédé vers 21h devant le cinéma REX de fractures du crâne. Etait-il un simple passant ou bien un porteur de valises manifestant avec le FLN ? Nous l’ignorons. Fut-il tué lors d’une charge de la police ou bien par les manifestants ou bien par une toute autre cause ? Nous ne le savons pas davantage.
La conclusion qui s’impose à tout esprit doté d’un minimum de réflexion est que la « répression » de la manifestation algérienne du 17 octobre semble n’avoir paradoxalement provoqué aucun mort algérien…
A ces faits, les tenants de la thèse du « massacre » répondent que le vrai bilan de la « répression » policière n’a pu être établi que plusieurs jours plus tard, une fois pris en compte les blessés qui décédèrent ultérieurement, et une fois les cadavres retirés de la Seine. Mais aussi, parce que, terrorisés, les manifestants cachèrent d’abord les corps de leurs camarades.
Trois grandes raisons font que cette argumentation n’est pas recevable :
– Les archives des hôpitaux parisiens ne mentionnent pas une surmortalité particulière de « Nord-Africains » (selon la terminologie de l’époque), durant la période concernée. Même si de nombreux manifestants blessés à coups de matraques y furent pris en charge.
– La police ayant totalement et hermétiquement bouclé le périmètre de la manifestation, l’on voit mal comment des porteurs de cadavres auraient pu passer à travers les barrages.
– Et, in fine, que seraient devenus les cadavres en question ? Ils n’apparaissent en effet pas dans les archives de l’IML, l’Institut médico-légal (la Morgue), où sont transportés les morts relevés sur la voie publique ou repêchés dans la Seine et dans la Marne.
Le « Graphique des entrées de corps « N.A » (Nord-africains) par jour. Octobre 1961 », à l’Institut médico-légal de Paris, pour la période allant du 17 octobre au 21 octobre, nous apprend ainsi que:
– Le 17 octobre, alors que se déroulait dans Paris un prétendu « massacre », l’Institut Médico-Légal n’a enregistré aucune entrée de corps de « NA ».
– Le 18 octobre, deux corps de « NA » furent admis à l’IML. Il s’agissait d’Achour Belkacem, qui avait été tué ce 18 octobre à Colombes, donc le lendemain de la manifestation, par un policier invoquant la légitime défense. Le second était Abdelkader Bennahar relevé lui aussi à Colombes et portant des blessures à la tête avec possibilité, dixit le rapport de police, d’écrasement par un véhicule.
– Les 19 et 20 octobre, l’IML n’a comptabilisé aucune entrée de corps de « NA ».
– Le 21 octobre, soit 5 jours après la manifestation, 1 corps fut déposé à l’IML, celui de Ramdane Mehani décédé vers 22h 30 durant son transfert du commissariat du 13° arrondissement au palais des Sports de la Porte de Versailles. Le registre de l’IML parle de mort naturelle, donc, là encore, sans aucun lien avec la manifestation du 17 octobre.
Conclusion : nous sommes donc en présence d’un « massacre » sans cadavres, ce qui s’explique parce qu’il n’y eut pas de « massacre » !!!
C’est donc un « massacre » imaginaire qui va être commémoré le 17 octobre prochain à l’occasion d’une grande cérémonie culpabilisatrice à laquelle des médias incultes ou partisans vont une fois de plus donner une grande publicité.
Un « massacre » imaginaire fruit d’un montage politique fait à l’époque par le FLN voulant peser psychologiquement sur les négociations en cours avec le gouvernement français. Montage qui fut ensuite orchestré par le parti communiste et plus que complaisamment relayé par les médias…hier comme aujourd’hui.
Pour les historiens du futur ce prétendu « massacre » restera donc comme la fabrication d’un des grands mythes du XX° siècle. A l’image de la manipulation de Katyn, des cadavres de Timisoara en Roumanie, des « couveuses » du Koweit et des « armes de destruction massive » en Irak. Leur principal sujet d’étonnement sera cependant l’insolite caution donnée à un tel mensonge par les plus hautes autorités de l’Etat français sous la présidence de François Hollande…
As every year on the anniversary date of the demonstration of October 17, 1961 in Paris, Communists and Socialists, friends of the FLN and “anticolonialist” (sic), will commemorate a “massacre” that would have been perpetrated by the French police. They will then meet on the Saint-Michel bridge from where, according to them, dozens, or even hundreds of Algerians would have been rushed into the Seine.
The only problem, but it is size, is that this “massacre” did not take place … As for the drownings, with the exception of those practiced by the FLN on the members of the NHA or on the Harkis, they. have no more existed … because we are actually in the presence of an assembly.
1) On 18 October 1961 in the morning, the assessment of the event of the day before manages to Maurice Legay, general director of the Parisian police. He is 3 dead. Here we are far from the tens or even hundreds of deaths and drowned advanced by some.
2) Gold, two of these three dead, namely Abdelkader Dégored and Lamara Achenoune have no connection with the “repression” of 17 October since they were killed, not with a blowjob, but by bullet, not In the center of Paris, but in Puteaux, so far from the manifestation. In addition, the second was previously strangled ….
3) A death, only one, was still noted in the perimeter of the manifestation and it is not an Algerian, but of a French “of strain” named Guy Chevallier, who died around 21h in front of the Rex cinema of skull fractures. Was there a simple passing or a carrier of suitcases protesting with the FLN? We do not know it. Was he killed during a police charge or by the protesters or by a different cause? We do not know it more.
The conclusion that is necessary for any spirit with a minimum of reflection is that the “repression” of the Algerian event of October 17 seems to have paradoxically provoked any Algerian death …
To these facts, the proponents of the thesis of the “massacre” responded that the true record of the “repression” police could only be established several days later, once taken into account the wounded who died later, and once The corpses removed from the Seine. But also, because, terrorized, the protesters first hid the bodies of their comrades.
Three main reasons mean that this argument is not admissible:
– The archives of Paris hospitals do not mention a particular overmortality of “North Africans” (according to the terminology of the time), during the period concerned. Even if many wounded protesters with batons were supported.
– The police completely and hermetically sealed the perimeter of the manifestation, we can not see how carriers of corpses could have passed through the dams.
– And, in fine, what would have become the corpses in question? They do not appear in the IML archives, the medico-legal institute (the morgue), where the dead are transported on the public or returned in the Seine and in the Marne.
The “Body Entrance Chart” (North Africans) per day. October 1961 “, at the Medical Institute of Paris, for the period from October 17 to October 21, teaches us as well as:
– On the 17th of October, while paris an alleged “massacre” was held in Paris, the medico-legal institute did not record any entry of “na” corps.
– On October 18, two “na” bodies were admitted to the IML. It was Achour Belkacem, which had been killed on October 18 in Colombes, so the day after the demonstration, by a policeman invoking self-defense. The second was Abdelkader Bennahar also raised in Colombes and carrying head injuries with possibility, dixks the police report, crushing by a vehicle.
– On 19 and 20 October, IML did not record any “NA” body entry.
– On the 21st of October, 5 days after the demonstration, 1 body was deposited at the IML, that of Ramdane Mehani died around 22:30 during his transfer from the Commissioner on the 13th arrondissement to the Palais des Sports of the Porte de Versailles. The register of IML speaks of natural death, so again, without any connection with the manifestation of October 17.
Conclusion: So we are in the presence of a “massacre” without corpses, which is explained because there was no “massacre” !!!
It is therefore a “massacre” imaginary that will be commemorated on October 17 on the occasion of a great guilty ceremony to which uncultivated media or partisans are once again giving great advertising.
A “massacre” imaginary fruit of a political editing made at the time by the FLN wanting psychologically weigh on the current negotiations with the French government. Assembly that was then orchestrated by the Communist Party and more than complementably relayed by the media … yesterday and today.
For the historians of the future this so-called “massacre” will therefore remain as the manufacture of one of the great myths of the twentieth century. Like the manipulation of Katyn, the corpses of Timisoara in Romania, “incubators” of Kuwait and “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq. Their main subject of astonishment will, however, be the unusual deposit given to such a lie by the highest authorities of the French State under the chairmanship of François Hollande …
So far as I can tell from my admittedly cursory scan of the material available online, Bernard Lugan seems to be alone in holding that view.
In fairness, you should also acknowledge that, and cite other historians who hold that the massacres did happen:
Jean-Luc Einaudi (La Bataille de Paris, Paris: Seuil, 1991) – at least 265.
– A French government commission in 1998 (confirmed only 48 dead)
– Jean-Paul Brunet, “Police Contre FLN: Le drame d’octobre 1961”, 1999.
– Phillipe Bernard, “Le 17 octobre 1961, la réalité d’un massacre face à un mensonge d’Etat” (2001).
– Olivier LeCour Grandmaison, “Le 17 octobre 1961 – Un crime d’État à Paris”, 2001.
– Patrick Boucheron, “Quand l’histoire fait dates” (Arte), October 2020.
Your esteemed Monsieur Bernard Lugan….
unfortunate linguistic coincidence that ´LUGEN´ in German means LIES (mensonges..)
I too was brain washed for 14 years in Ian Smith´s ´white rebel´ Rhodesia and apartheid South Africa.. I left in 1976 when Tel-Aviv delivered 4 nuke warheads to Pretoria, on top of full co-operation on biological weapons to be used on Africans (include Yanks and Brits on that too…!!)
Your infamous Mr.Lugan is the ´spitting image´ (looks exactly the same) of my hero as a kid sitting round the swimming pool in Rhodesia…of a wealthy, upper class Scandinavian mercenary who just loved shooting ´blacks-Africans-munts-kafirs´ for pure enjoyment in the Congo 1961, Rhodesia, Sudan.etc.,
Therefore, Lugan and apparently yourself, represent the typical French with an oversized ´pied noir´ complex (colonial) from your Algerian debacle and defeat, following on your ignoble retreat from Indochina after Dien Bien Phu 1954..
A quick glance at Lugan´s past academic and literary achievements (!!!!) below, would indicate that Lugan is NOT to be taken seriously and is well paid for his disinformation.
(If the moderator would be so kind as to include the photo of Mr. Lugan with a stuffed lion beside him!!!)
**Lugan served as a Professor at the military school of Saint-Cyr until 2015, when his class was suspended at the request of the French Defence Ministry. He is now teaching at the Institut des Hautes Études de Défense Nationale (IHEDN).
**Lugan is a self-declared monarchist. When testifying at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Lugan admitted that he is a right-wing anarchist, adding: “of musketeer leaning”. He is in favour of the re-establishment of dueling for libel and public insult, and founded in 1990 with Vladimir Volkoff an association to promote this agenda.
** In September 1993, he founded the review L’Afrique Réelle, which has been described as a supporter of “Boers-Afrikaners” in South Africa. Lugan has also been involved with far-right news outlets like Minute, National-Hebdo [fr] or Présent, which regard him as a specialist of African history.
**In 2012–2013, Lugan was among the sponsors of TV Libertés, a far-right web TV
In 1988, he received the M. et Mme Louis Marin prize from the Académie Française for his book The French People Who Made South Africa.
This explains the background to the officers call for restoration of honour in French government. As a Francophile I am sad to have witnessed the continual decline in the honour and prestige of France since the political class ousted de Gaulle by a fake Leftist revolution.
Let me remind you that the 1968 so-called uprisal was the first “color” revolution performed by the Jewish Trotskyites against De Gaulle, the father of modern France.
this is like a cliff-hanger,
so why did “France formally rejoin the NATO integrated command structure, thereby ended any possibility of a return to “360 degrees security”.”
the author didn’t explain why….
@anon (the one who asked why France formally rejoined the NATZO command structure”).
Same reason France rejoined NATZO after de Gaulle was ousted. “Le Defi Americain” — a creeping feeling of inferiority relative to Uncle $cam.
The answer is given by the Open Letter” signed by Rear-Admirals Claude Gaucherand, Hubert de Gevigney and others (See Mr. Littlejohn’s earlier post – http://thesaker.is/france-translation-of-initial-response-by-other-officers-april-27-2021-part-2/):
Unbridled liberalism managed by a political class bought and paid for by Big Finance, with its tame media and its proxies – Bilderberg, Davos, CRIF (Jewish lobby) and assorted brotherhoods. Hence, the officers conclude, “our servile alignment on Anglo-saxon political and military doctrine as demonstrated by our NATO membership and the resulting loss of sovereignty.”
In other words, France is a bankers’ colony, and does as it’s told… Same with the rest of Natostan.
Kick ass! A semester’s worth of work in one page. Kudos
my heart breaks for Africa. I can’t even read this easily when it deals with poor Africa
Can someone please tell me what American geopolitical interests are in Africa? What is it that they are are trying to achieve there? Why bring the war on terror to Africa,whats the goal?(I’m not asking sarcastically or anything like that,I genuinely want to know).
Trump said that their interests are to keep Russia and China from getting a foothold on the continent or something to that effect. But its seems theres more to it from reading this article. I’m particularly interested in American interests,not UK or France..
Minerals, control, denial of mineral access to others, e.g. Cobalt and Tantalum for China and others’ insufficiently aligned with USA. Irony is Kagame changed his geopolitical alignment, now takes investment from China etc.
The land and other natural resources. Keep the Chinese out, dig in and grab it all.
With regards to French and others’ policies in Africa, any comment on Robin Philpot’s Ca ne s’est pas passe comme ca a kigali?
Meyer, that French Canadian author seems to be saying something similar to what I read a couple of years ago: the Hutu genocide against the Tutsi was another Clinton inversion of reality, like the Clinton/BLiar inversion of reality in Kosovo. The goal was, as usual, to control mineral wealth of Congo and environs. I forget details but an Anglo Zio Capitalist “Ruanda Liberation Army” was waiting in the wings somewhere (Uganda?). It must be in the archives, try Saker or OffG.