Upvote:11
This is more a comment than an answer, but I need the space:
Significance of the "300.000 soldiers" data. Note that such a number does not mean that most of the population loved the colonization. People could have been enlisted by force, or just as a mean of living and escaping poverty. Even if they had enlisted voluntarely for their love of France, it would only mean that a part of the population was pro French, not that the whole (or even the majority) was.
Comparation with Indonesia: when the Netherlands were invaded, their colonies became completely isolated from the metropolis. What is more, they were invaded by a completely different foreign power that dismantled the colonial organization. In contrast, French colonies were mostly under the control of Vichy France or Free France during almost all the war. The only colony in a situation similar to Indonesia was Indochina (nowadays Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia), which immediately after the war started an independence war.
Comparation with India: Algeria and Tunisia were settler colonies1 where French immigration was encouraged; Algeria was even considered part of France "proper". That made leaving them a lot more complicated politically that, say, leaving Middle East or Indochina.
And, perhaps (personal opinion here), a different colonial policy. The UK already had a policy of allowing colonies to "let go" when it was politically convenient. Certainly the situation of India was far different from Australia or Canada, but at least there were some precedents which French politic did not have.
1 Legally, Tunisia was a protectorate which meant that it kept a local government, though it was the French administration which really held the power.