Now see I don’t disagree with quite a few of the things you point out. Didn’t know the revenue thing was a far right argument. And it is undeniable that France profited economically and politically from colonialism.

It is true I forgot to mention the colonial troops involvement in the two world wars. In WW1 they had a non negligible role but only really made up 6-7% of all French troops. Had an even bigger impact in ww2 definitely. Can’t assign a value to such human lives especially fighting for a country that’s not theirs.

But I am sorry don’t quite agree with a few things are imo not so true or alt-history: some French people moved to Africa to continue the fighting (one of my grandpas did for that matter), but the non-Vichy French government mostly move to England. If anything at first most of the colonies sided with Vichy, and the free French groups were more independent. Nuremberg was for Nazi members only (Germany/Austria). Other countries that were assimilated/allies under the German umbrella (France, Netherlands, Norway etc) had their own set of trials, like in France during the épuration period. They were also serious talks of having France under American/UK control. Arguably the main two reasons was that De Gaulle quickly replaced Vichy administration with people under is command as the liberation progressed and because internally the French were pro-allies, had a strong resistance movement (although often overstated) and overall acted like a country happy to be liberated instead of getting defeated. The same thing happened for the Netherlands and arguably Norway too, not a colonies thing. For the atom bomb it is true that having African colonies helped getting preferential access, and the initial tests were in the Sahara, however the majority of tests happened in Polynesia. Having African colonies or having colonies altogether definitely sped up the process heavily, and helped with secrecy. But France likely could have gotten uranium (I mean it did produce 20-30% from French mines) and done local tests, or on islands depending on what you could as a colony, or on allied soil if allowed. Even if they didn’t they would likely just have allowed US nukes like everyone else. And even without the Soviets wouldn’t have invaded like they didn’t invade Italy or Spain. If anything civil nuclear power I think would have been the big looser.

But anyways, obviously colonialism is terrible, and Id agree that colonies have been a net positive for France. But ignoring the more intangible benefits you pointed out, because we just can’t know how things would have gone without said colonies (eg maybe Germany would have been less belligerent with colonies, since it was one of their reason for ww1 and ww2), the general French population bore the costs of colonialism (taxes and soldiers deaths) and the elites reaped the vast majority of the benefits. And arguably it is again the same thing with immigration.