Whatever the intentions of the vichy regime, and the frenchmen that administered it, the peace treaty had the effect of delivering all of the resources of france to the germans, to be used by them as and when they pleased. If anyone had been betrayed, it was the allies as the terms of the armistice signed by the anglophobic Vichyites was extremely disturbing
Specifically article III of the armistice contained the following provisions
"In all areas of France, the German Reich is to exercise all the rights of an occupying power. The French government promises to facilitate by all possible means the regulations relative to the exercise of this right, and to carry out these regulations with the participation of the French administration. The French government will immediately order all the French authorities and administrative and military servicesto follow the regulations of the German military authorities and to collaborate with the latter in an obedient and co-operative manner".
This meant that under the terms of the treaty, the Germans could have at any time demanded the handover of the french fleet. This is unequivocal....you judge a nation by the terms of its existence, and the vichy regime was there for one purpose....to serve and meet the needs of the Nazis. It existed to subvert the democratic ideals of the third republic and to promote the ideas and aspirations of nazi Germany.
That the Allies exercised such restraint on Vichy as to give them the opportunity to surrender or rejoin the fight on the allied side was done out of respect of the french nation as a former allied nation, that had shed blood in the name of freedom. But the regime was unquestionably an enemy of the british after the formation of Vichy, moreover the persons at the head of the new rump state were unquestionably pro German and anti british in attitude, and from a british perspective, not to be trusted.
Laval makes a good case study to gauge the reliability of the new regime
"When Laval was included in Pétain's cabinet as minister of state, he began the work for which he would be remembered: the emulation of the totalitarian regime of Germany, the taking up of the cause of fascism, the destruction of democracy, and the dismantling of the Third Republic."
Laval understood collaboration more or less in the same sense as Pétain. For both, to collaborate meant to give up the maximum support for the nazi regime, short of active participation in the war. however with the progress of time Laval became more and more wedded to the idea of active participation on the side of the nazis. Laval, as vichy's foreign minister in 1940, , was in constant touch with the German authorities, to and constantly attempted to shift the ground in favour of more overt support for the german wear effort. This drew more attention to him for the british and in my opinion heavily influenced Churchills decision at Mers el Kebir. His style made him appear as "the agent of collaboration"; he was "the Germans' man".
The meetings between Pétain and Adolf Hitler, and between Laval and Hitler, are often used as showing the collaboration of the French leaders and the Nazis. Hitler wanted France to declare war on the British, and the French wanted improved relations with her conqueror. Neither happened. However virtually the only concession the French obtained was the so-called 'Berlin protocol' of 16 November, which provided release of certain categories of French prisoners of war. However, on his own intiative laval supported the raising of military volunteer forces and militias to support the germans and fight for them. This too was duly noted in whitehall
In November, Laval made a number of pro-German actions on his own, without consulting with his colleagues. The most notorious examples concerned turning over to the Germans the RTB Bor copper mines and the Belgian gold reserves. His post-war justification, apart from a denial that he acted unilaterally, was that the French were powerless to prevent the Germans from gaining something they were clearly so eager to obtain.
Laval was dismiossed 13 December 1940, but this did not end his influence or progerman activities.
Lavals subsequent return to office in 1942, and his positions held in the post December 1942 government show an ever increasing willigness to get into bed with the germans. He was responsible for signing the death warrants of many jews living in France, forced over 500000 slave workers to be deported to germany from France, issued instructions after D-Day to the french people not to co-operate with the allies.
And laval is really a moderate of the Vichy regime. It was a thoroughly anglophobic regieme, with many of its members hell bent on supporting the germans as far as was possible
In my mind the British actions are completely reasonable and justifiable. And it is the vichy government who did the betraying, not the other way round. Their behaviour saw them abandon the principals of democracy, of the the rule of lawa, in the end, they even abandoned their own people. Arguing that the british were somehow unreasonable in treating these people as enemies of Britiain beggars comon sense in my opinion.
Vichy, and that includes the french Navy, got what they deserved in my opinion