About Mein Kampf in France:
I don't believe the text is banned in France.
In 1979, a justice decision made it mandatory to include at the beginning of the book some legal text and a summary of the story of the Third Reich. So obviously, not banned
Funny Story: by the thirties, Charles Maurras (very important figure in the french royalist circles at the time, and a leading philosopher in far right ideas) became convinced that Mein Kampf (then untranslated in french) was a terrible foretelling of german intentions (well...). A french editor moving in his circles, Fernand Sorlot, published a french version of Mein Kampf at the Nouvelles Éditions Latines (leaving some parts out it seems) with the express intent of telling the french of the nazi danger for France. Hitler was not pleased: he went to justice in a french tribunal to ban the NEL book in 1934 (published without his consent) and ultimately wins. Hitler even do some damage control in the french press (!). When asked in an interview (newspaper Paris-Midi, 1936) why he didn't rectify all the vile againt the "French mortal enemy of Germany, etc...", he goes on to say
"I'm a politician, not a writer. Rectifications? I bring it every day in my foreign policy by which I reach for Franco-German friendship. I will write my rectifications in the great book of History". Yeah well, you did indeed... (I'm actually learning this while searching sources for this message. Holy ****. That would be hilarious... if WWII ended up hilarious. Which it didn't.)
It seems a french translation was green lighted by Hitler in 1938, but it did cut back on some of the most heinous anti-French rhetoric.
Anyway, since the end of the war, the NEL book went back on publication, and the 1979 justice decision make it clear you can print Mein Kampf (with the mandatory text in front). But it's not really a popular item. Obviously, the most eager to print it and buy it tends to be neo-nazis.
---
Regarding trials about the Algeria war crimes, please note that Paul Aussaresses was condemned for "apologies of war crimes" in 2002, because he wrote in a then recent book that he thought that the torture was useful and needed in Algeria (I summarize). The Cassation Court (which is the ultimate level in the penal system and ended up with the case after many legal battles) said something along the lines of "The book describes what constitutes war crimes and glorify them without any standing back". (FIY, he was sentenced to a fine)
Aussaresses was a french officer and working for intelligence during the Battle of Algiers, pretty high up in the chain of command under Massu (the paratrooper general in charge). He used torture, also admitted in 2000 two murders of high ranking FLN prisoners (disguised as suicide).
He went on with his military career, and was one of the french consultants that "taught" the methods learned from the Battle of Algiers at Fort Bragg. He was later a "consultant" in counter insurgency for South American juntas. I'm not sure exactly when and how he got his promotions, but he ended up an army general before his retirement. So not exactly the smallest fish in the pond.
So does that mean that France is a super awesome country in terms of being critical to itself? Of course not. Many blindspots, all the more since we are a former power and a colonial one at that. Regarding the war in Algeria, there was a blanket immunity in 1962, so pretty much nobody from the army, police, intelligence went on trial (and never will).
As you probably understood, Aussaresses condemnation was a tad reaching, and did not concern his acts, but what he said about it almost 40 years later.
But as of today, what happened in Algeria is better known, can be discussed, and the moral condemnation of the use of torture is widely prevalent. Which is good, of course. But then, some would argue that other acts in the same vein are still unknown to the general public (the repression in Cameroon after WWII for instance).
I'm not sure if there were other trials of the kind about Algeria, the one I mention (final decision made in January 2002) is the most famous, I believe. There's no legislation specific to the war in Algeria, that I know of (well... except the immunity) but the ruling from the Court of Cassation made it clear that torture in Algeria is considered a war crime. And as such is covered by a sort of blanket legislation on the subject to fight denialism and glorification.
---
Was France trying to do a genocide in Algeria? No.
I can see why Turkey could be pissed off. I'm quite conflicted on memorial laws. The joy of seeing negationists in court vs freedom of expression, historical accuracy being under the thumb of states even with good intentions, all that... still, I know France has a reputation as an holier than thou country, and I'm not sure of the whole deal of making laws is the best way to deal with that, but Turkey should maybe do less sidestepping on the issue.
---
what exactly did Mitterrand do himself in service of the Vichy regime?
OK sorry for the aside:
Actually this part is pretty well known. I don't have the details right now, but his work as a bureaucrat is documented. He mostly had somewhat mundane assignments (he worked under an office in charge of issues related to french PoW. Mitterrand himself had been captured at the beginning of the war).
It is a bit more muddy to know when exactly he entered in the Resistance, although after much historical work, we know he was in definitely in late 1943 (only for the fact that the Gestapo was looking for the man hiding behind his codename). But there's quite a lot of things that points out he knew and helped Resistants before that. I refer you to the Wiki page which is pretty extensive to get a general idea, although one can doubt the late President when he said he was already on secret assignments by early 1942, and the Wiki page seems a bit fuzzy on the details.
The real difficult question regarding Mitterrand for this period, and one that will never be solved, is what was his opinions at the time. He was always an opportunist (even a straight up Machiavellian character for some), all his career proves it. He held many offices, with a very complex track of decisions (he was the minister of interior then justice at the beginning of the Algerian war... and he didn't disallow the repression, he even worked on it). So was he merely covering all angles during WWII? Was he still young enough to be an idealist? Did he have a real change of heart regarding Petain and Vichy (he was definitely more of a nationalist before the war, and he knew people at the far right)? Why did he receive the Francisque medal (Vichy decoration), was it a cover, as testified by a socialist resistant?
If it was not complicated enough, some late controversies made the whole thing even less simple. Mitterrand kept his friendship with René Bousquet (someone which was much more compromised in Vichy, as he was in charge of police operations) until the end. According to Alain Peyrefitte (which held many ministries under De Gaulle), De Gaulle lumped in 1965 (in private) both Bousquet and Mitterrand as "ghosts of the Vichy collaboration". Then again, De Gaulle himself was not exactly clean on that front: the "purge" of the Vichy administration after WWII was not thorough. The most famous example is probably Maurice Papon: he was Préfet de Police (more or less police chief) of Paris in 1961 and supervised the violent repression of a FLN manifestation (officially only 2 casualties, no scientific consensus on the real number, although 2 seems really an understatement. Pretty horrible methods used by the police this day anyway, to mirror what was happening in Algeria). He went on to be an important member of the Gaullist party (treasurer, for one) and minister later (under President Giscard D'Estaing).
Until he was outed in 81 the press (then justice) as a former Vichy collaborator that was in charge of the deportation of 1600 jews when he was at the Préfecture in Bordeaux. A fact that could not have escaped the Gaullist higher ups. So... yeah. Not saying Mitterrand friendship with Bousquet felt right, but as someone said "at least he never named him to an office".
Another late controversy about Mitterrand was that he sent flowers from the presidency to Petain's grave. An important fact is that it seems he was not the first president to do so, it has been done on a small number of occasions (mostly tied to WWI ceremonies). But Mitterrand did it far more often and on a regular basis until some protests were made about this. Of course, once again, the flowers were tied to WWI or the historic meeting with german Chancelor Kohl at Verdun, but that seemed over the top and dubious. Was Mitterrand, even as far as 1991, still having conflicted feelings about Petain and his role in WWII?
We could probably write a novel on the subject, I'll stop there. Although not exclusive to France, WWII and its aftermath was, to say the least, complicated. Sorry for the wall of text.
