Why did Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia remain loyal to France during and after World War II?

Question

During WW II Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia did not revolt against either Vichy France or Free France. Not only did they not take advantage of the initial French defeat and its occupation by Axis powers, soldiers from these lands even fought with the French Army to liberate France. 300,000 North African Arabs fought in the ranks of the Free French, according to Wikipedia. They also did not declare independence in the aftermath of World War II - they would become independent much later.

This is different from a lot of other major colonies of European countries which declared independence during and immediately after WW II. For example India and Pakistan in 1947, Philippines in 1946, Indonesia and Vietnam in 1945, Syria and Lebanon in 1943.

Answer 1

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.