History and memory of the Algerian War

The Life of Ideas : In 2004, on the occasion of the anniversary of the outbreak of the Algerian war of independence, you observed the emergence of “ memory pruritus “. What about today ?

Raphaëlle Branche: What is most striking since 2000 is the installation of the Algerian war in the public space: this renewed visibility goes back to recent revelations on torture. Until then, the commemorations had taken place according to the ordinary ten-year rhythm of anniversaries. For more than ten years now, questions about the war have constantly arisen and do not seem to dry up: not all the answers have therefore been provided.

This year, the anniversary of Algeria’s independence gave rise to numerous scientific events thanks to which the words of historians, the words of witnesses and that of the public were able to come together. One observation stands out for the entire decade: the same questions keep coming back: the role of the communists in the vote for special powers, torture, the violence of the FLN. Very often, the questions give way to personal stories and a liberation, sometimes inexhaustible, of speech takes place. Torture, the main subject of questions over the previous decade, is today one question among others, but it is still a disturbing question. We know that the practice of torture has spared no one. There was not a place in Algeria where the conscripts, and all the soldiers, could be certain that they would not be asked to torture. Many places were spared from this phenomenon, but torture was part of the French system of repression and, as long as you were a cog in this system, you could be confronted with it. It is this observation which, today, is still not accepted. Some still defend the thesis according to which torture was only practiced by career soldiers and intelligence teams. So there is a real blockage here. But these questions are at the heart of family memories: “ My father, my brother, could they have done it ? »

These questions have been relayed by very fruitful editorial production over the past ten years. As 2012 approached, the projects multiplied and obtained great visibility thanks to significant media coverage and the echo of the Arab Spring. Finally, last “ pruritus » to date, the irruption of the question of memory in the terminale S history programs, a subject which will become optional in this section at the start of the 2012 school year. The new programs offer the teacher the possibility of treating, as desired, the memories of the Second World War in France or memories of the Algerian War. This alternative leaves me perplexed, but bringing these two questions together shows us that these two memories are considered important for French society.

The life of ideas : This anniversary therefore brings back the plurality of memories of the war and encourages us to place the dates of the commemorations, more particularly 1954 and 1962, in their chronological and spatial complexity. What reflections do the commemorations provoke on the Algerian War and on the imperial experience as a whole ?

Raphaëlle Branche: The term “ Algerian war » covers numerous and complex struggles which make it a protean conflict. This was particularly evident in the development of very different political projects at the time of the war itself. The memories of the conflict are even more complex and the commemorations are the occasion for an observation: the defeated memories are multiple, but a victorious memory struggles to stand out. Besides, does it really exist? ? It is therefore interesting to go beyond the “ moment 1962 » highlighted by this anniversary and to reflect in terms of “ exit from war “. This concept invites us to make a comparison with Franco-German relations at the end of the Second World War. This comparison worked on French society, but also on historians like Charles-Robert Ageron, who explicitly referred to it.

Very often, this comparison leads to a peremptory and Manichean conclusion: on one side, success and, on the other, failure. But what is interesting in comparing these two moments is to highlight the differences. France is not in the same position here and there: a victim under the Occupation, it was with the victors in 1945, while in 1962 it was defeated and its image was greatly damaged. In 1963, the Franco-German friendship treaty was signed in the midst of resistance mythology. This mythology was never put in place for Algeria, because we were in the immediate diffraction: the sustainability ofOAS and the absence of state discourse on the past conflict, obscured by de Gaulle who turned towards Europe, complicated the chronology of the “ exit from war “.

The example of school textbooks is eloquent: the schools of the 1960s are silent about this disappeared colonial empire. France does not develop any state discourse on the imperial experience. Benjamin Stora deplores this silence in Gangrene and oblivion : it is necessary, for everyone to be able to position themselves, that there be a reference discourse. 1954 and 1962 are therefore dates to be examined upstream and downstream. They also have very important educational virtues.

The life of ideas : If the value of dates can be called into question, they nevertheless condition the work of historians, through the accessibility of archives. The closure of colonial archives has long been an obstacle to studies of the Algerian War. What about today ?

Raphaëlle Branche: 1962 is a very important date for the archives. In July 2008, the law on archives changed in France. She finally took into account the reports submitted to Lionel Jospin’s government years earlier, which recommended reducing communication times. This law changes a lot of things for the period of the war in Algeria, since it makes all documents accessible fifty years after their production. The year 2012 therefore coincides not only with the fiftieth anniversary of Algerian independence, but also with the opening of the 1962 archives. This causes numerous upheavals: the inventories are being redone at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and at Aix-en-Provence. Priority is often given to Algerian funds. This is a very important process which is being put in place and we are not yet fully aware of its consequences.

However, we can have a small idea of ​​this with the recent initiative of “ Memories of Algeria “, A “ digital museum » launched on March 19 by El Watan And OWNI. This site brings together, in addition to testimonies and personal archives, documents photographed in the archives, particularly in the French military archives. Putting photographed documents online obviously poses some problems, partially resolved by anonymization (which is, however, not systematic). There is a need to reflect on the concern for transparency, but also on the effects of these practices in terms of access to archive funds. Conservatives may have fears. If they are now forced to open their funds, there may still be ways of not communicating: putting them on restoration, for example. However, this project is interesting in more than one way, notably because we finally have the feeling that history is being written with sources and memories that come from both shores of the Mediterranean. This is essential.

The life of ideas : We are currently observing a multiplication of media for telling the Algerian war (books, television or radio broadcasts, films). Is the historian’s words still audible? ?

Raphaëlle Branche: The historian of the Algerian War today has the opportunity to express himself through various media. History books on this theme are currently benefiting from the interest of publishing houses and the relay of specialized journals. School textbooks are also, as we have seen, a vector of both reflection and transmission. School and extracurricular pedagogy is a very formative exercise for the historian and the constraints of brevity and clarity are very fruitful for the definition of the message as for creation. The news of commemorations also offers greater visibility and historians are called upon on radio and television for interventions which also obey constraints of conciseness and popularization that are sometimes difficult to internalize.

With a view to enriching and renewing historical discourse, I recently had the opportunity to write a documentary in which I offer a spatial and chronological analysis of the impact of the Palestro ambush in May 1956. Given the crucial role of the director, Rémi Lainé, and the editor, Josiane Zardoya, it is a work of three, which strives to shift the perspective. In a documentary, the raw material is the image, not the document. The director felt that the basis of the narrative was provided by my research, that the framework was there, pre-existing, and that it was above all necessary “ think pictures “. Compared to a history book, it was necessary to simplify the speech ; the voice off is timed to the images which scroll quickly. You have to force yourself to get to the point ; the subject is drier and the narration must be much more impactful. Archive images are barely present compared to the images filmed by Rémi Lainé in the Palestro region and especially compared to the testimonies that we wanted to place at the heart of the film.

We transmit by telling stories. This is why fiction has an extraordinary power, stronger than what we historians write, because it tells stories, because people identify, because it offers the possibility of a summary of reality that reality rarely offers. If the temptation of fiction is present, it does not call into question the role of the historian, but on the contrary broadens his horizon.