I briefly (very briefly) skimmed over the "France 1940- Alternatives" article on Changing the Times. The last paragraph intrigued me greatly. (Bolded text mine)
Even if France doesn't pull off a better defense, unlike in the article and the other ones on Changing the Times, could there have been a way for the nationalistic/conservative factions in France (and other non-Axis nations) from being seen as fascists and Nazi collaborators?
Another point I had is that De Gaulle always seemed as the type of moderate enough to both unify France and urge for a middle path during the Algerian unrest. What if he had been more friendly to conservative/right-wing groups, and rallied them for resistance against the Nazis "to protect traditional France"?
Then again, maybe he was leftist; I don't know the details.
...A German advance that leaves the West in the field produces a very different world. Hitler is seen as a flash in the pan. Stalin is never seen as one of the triumphant forces of democracy. He may take Eastern Europe but he will be seen as a thug who helped Hitler. Because of the Fall of France and then Barbarossa the old conservative parties of Europe were forever tagged as collaborators while the Reds who actively worked to undermine France became social patriots because they switched lines 41-45. This has changed the politics of Europe to this day...
Even if France doesn't pull off a better defense, unlike in the article and the other ones on Changing the Times, could there have been a way for the nationalistic/conservative factions in France (and other non-Axis nations) from being seen as fascists and Nazi collaborators?
Another point I had is that De Gaulle always seemed as the type of moderate enough to both unify France and urge for a middle path during the Algerian unrest. What if he had been more friendly to conservative/right-wing groups, and rallied them for resistance against the Nazis "to protect traditional France"?
Then again, maybe he was leftist; I don't know the details.