pepe, you are utterly missing the point. Churchill once said "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". he should also have said "the friend of my enemy is my enemy". Because it was that kind of thinking that led to mers el kebir, the campaign in Syria and the invasion of Mozambique. Churchill bent over backward to accommodate and pandy to french interests....they rejected every one of them. Union with the french empire was even offered, for the duration, which would have cost the British far more than it was worth, they rejected it. The French fleet was a dagger to britains throat, and had to be neutralised, why, because the french refused to do the right thing and join the allies, as they knew they should. Their behaviour in the levant was anything but neutral...they were allowing Axis planes and other forces the rights of passage to Iraq and Persia. a totally unnacceptable position. the british were absolutely correct and right to blow them out of the water there as well.
Wherever the french did not act loke jerks and sympathisize and co-operate with the germans they were treated as equals, more than equals really, they were given favoured treatment. Where they collaborated, or behaved as a potential threat to the british, they were dealt with. They had no one but themselves to blame for being shot at, when they displayed clear sympathies toward the germans.
As I said, you would never have found a British fleet acting in the way the french fleet did in 1940. They would never have opted to play games like the french did. no matter what was happening, the British fleet was going to continue to fight the germans to the bitter end. They would never have sat in a port, offering the potential to be captured, or to collaborate. This sort of behaviour by the french was shameful, they should hold their heads in shame over this. The British action was absolutely justified, and the right thing to do.
as for the other comment you made concerning british victory being the result of german mistakes. That is just so much bollocks and rubbish its laughable, and really makes my blood boil whan I here such trash talk. The introduction of a single new piece of equipmewnt was not about to change the outcome of the battle of Britain. German defeat in that battle was much more complex and comprehensive then a single equipment failure. and neither was it the solely the result of hitlers mistakes, or gorings mistakes, or any other isolated excuse you care to proffer as the 'reason" for British victory. sure, german mistakes and mismanagement and equipment failures were factors in Germanys defeat, but equally so were the victories Britain won against the uboats, against the german navy, in north Africa, and ultimately in Northern Europe, and in ahundreed other situations. Britain had her fair share of mistakes and dud equipment, and dumb decisions. This did not stop her ultimate victory. Allied victory was a complex and and hard fought for prize that is cheapened and misunderstood when comments like you are daring to make are made.