original passage: This might partly explain why in spite of his deep interest and involvement in political matters he remained silent on the Algerian issue. He knew about the atrocities committed by the French Army during the French conquest of Algeria as evidenced by his diary but he never denounced them publicly; however in "Les Misérables", Hugo wrote: "Algeria too harshly conquered, and, as in the case of India by the English, with more barbarism than civilization".
original sentence: He knew about the atrocities committed by the French Army during the French conquest of Algeria as evidenced by his diary but he never denounced them publicly; however in "Les Misérables", Hugo wrote: "Algeria too harshly conquered, and, as in the case of India by the English, with more barbarism than civilization".
sentence2: Imagine a French contemporary of Victor Hugo who vehemently loved "Les Miserables" and also vehemently supported his government's colonization efforts in Algeria.  If this reader did not want to believe that their favorite author opposed French imperialism, could they simply dismiss such an opinion as the views of a fictional character, that were not corroborated in any other publicly available source?
sentence1: This might partly explain why in spite of his deep interest and involvement in political matters he remained silent on the Algerian issue. He knew about the atrocities committed by the French Army during the French conquest of Algeria and mentioned them often in his diary, even if his denunciations were never made public; however in "Les Misérables", Hugo wrote: "Algeria too harshly conquered, and, as in the case of India by the English, with more barbarism than civilization".