[Nightblade]

The problem in Algeria was a very complex one, but in the same time simple, as it is not different to the Iraq situation today.

In Algeria, the french colonists were living together with the algerians natives , most of the french colonists were simple workers , mostly poor.
Algerian natives got access to the same schools as french colonists and were not considered "second zone people".

So where was the problem if all was that good ?

The problem was at first in France not in Algeria. There were rich people living in France, making the algerian natives working for them in Algeria but with a lower pay that any french colonists.
Laws from France were not really giving algerian natives the same rights as french colonists.

Due to that difference, some algerian independantists movements were created, on theory it was simple justice, but unfortunately the theory does not live for long due to how people behave.

What launched this guerilla war is the fact the insurgents and affiliated were killing civilians, not only french colonists but even their "algerian brothers" (as the terror goal was to make them afraid enough so they join them gainst french).

At first the french army went there to protect civilian french colonists (again not really caring of algerian natives murdered by the "insurgents") but when the french army noticed the murders of whole villages inhabitants by the insurgents and affiliated, the french army went out of the "civil" way to deal with the them.

The fact some , as always in a war young, french soldiers notice their friends horribly mutilated by the way insurgents dealt with their enemy , did not helped to keep things civil.

And because of that, mistakes and blindless killing has been done and again innocents were killed.
For the algerian natives the choice was then difficult : insurgent were killing them to make them cooperate with insurgents ideas, and french army were killing them too just because they looked like insurgents.

Later, as despite the victory was for the french army on the conflict, De Gaulle decided to leave, because the war became a bit expensive and not popular with people in France due to the media coverage , mostly controlled by opponent to the war.

Feeling betrayed by De Gaulle, the OAS was created made from french colonists and some head people of the french army
The OAS was a secret "army" that was killing :
-convinced FLN members.
-supposed to be traitors to their ideal.

But again, people behave differently thatn their theorical ideal : they killed a bit more than that, and in the middle were caught again some innocent algerian natives civilians.
Making the OAS/french army even less popular for the algerian natives.

Finally , some of the generals affiliated to the OAS made a "coup d'etat" in Algeria , to go against De Gaulle decision.
De Gaulle dealt with them by executing them all.

When the french army left on De Gaulle decision, they took the french colonists with them (as they all recieved the famous "valise ou cerceuil" message , we can translate by "the bag or the coffin" ).

But , as an end to that situation (maybe a "political gift" as a part of the no killing on french colonist leaving) an inhuman act from De Gaulle that would produce a lot of killing : the french army disarmed the algerian natives army that were on their sides and prevented them to come in France.

Now imagine what happened when those unfortunate algerian natives soldiers, waiting without weapons in the ex-french bases were caught by the newly independant Algeria troops ?
Yes , that's right : a massacre.
One more on this war.

Can you see some similarities to what happened in Vietnam or Iraq today ?
History repeat itself again and again and it is not something good.

I can agree that the french army could'nt be considered as the "good" , because of innocent blood on them and what they did to the algerian natives that believied De Gaulle at first then were left behind.

But you can't in all honestly consider the insurgent as "good" , becuase of the huge amount of innocent blood they have on their hands too.

That said, SP:MBT is a wargame , and unless the specific scenario is obviously pointing out who is the "good" or not, recreating battle situation in the wargame is not pointing to good or bad.

Usually in a scenario, i try to play both sides because of the tactics , the strategy involved, not because of the "right side". I don't consider real life and a game mixing, game stay not real by definition.

In my opinion, leave the "good" and the "bad" for the reality and design the scenario for tactic and strategy.