Moskalenko writes: "In my view, if Black wants to enjoy the natural spirit of the French Defence he should continue 3...Nf6!? ... After 4...Nfd7 ... the genuinely French (temporarily blocked) positions arise."

"... the main dilemma for both sides in this complex opening is the choice between solid but passive positions on the one hand, and attacking ideas that force the player to take extreme risks on the other."

I think 3...Nf6 the most aggressive indeed. I don't consider myself a typical French player; I took it up relatively late. My results as Black are after 3.Nd2 (and I always play ...Nf6) much better (in fact I am unbeaten both OTB and in corr. chess) than after 3.Nc3. The latter gave me some horrible defeats. It must have to do something with that halfopen f-file ...

I agree with Moskalenko that 3...Nf6 is the most aggressive and French-like.  I was impressed by his book and also by his recent article in CBM and letter in NIC-94.  I just recently tried out his 11...O-O 12.Bf4 Nh5 recommendation and, naturally sacrificing the exchange on f3, obtained enough to draw but not more.  But I took the half point with impressive ease.

For me the French is a very tempting idea; I've dabbled in it off and on; my reluctance stems from the necessity of holding some highly theoretical, back-to-the-wall positions in a number of lines (and you have to do this no matter which way you play).  You have to hold them all, not just one or two.  So while I really like the challenging nature of the French, I worry about the difficulty of maintaining such a theoretical and critical set of variations.  Also I am not sure of Black's winning chances against 3.Nd2, though I believe him to be safe enough.

3...Be7 and 3...Nf6 are complex in different ways. Be7 is very positional and not as worked out, so it appeals to players who like to think for themselves. Nf6 is more aggressive in the sense of giving tactical play and attacking chances, but theory on it runs very deep. 

Within 3...Nf6 I think the  the 9...Qxf6 line is very tricky and a good blitz weapon, but probably not fully sound. The main line with 11...Qc7 is the sharpest and probably best; Check out the games of specialists like Berg, Ganguly, Gleizerov and Moskalenko for inspiration.

Moskalenko also published a slightly offbeat Tarrasch 3...Nf6 repertoire for Black in Chessbase Magazine 133, building on lines mentioned in his "The Flexible French". That book is also filled with interesting ideas, but often the analysis doesn't run deep enough.

GMs are very good at keeping control of tactical threats, and can often virtually play "for two results" in the 3...Nf6 main lines. So on that level 3...Be7 wins more games for Black. 3...Nc6 can also lead to very sharp positions and is less worked out than 3...Nf6, but to play it you must be willing to accept some structural weaknesses.

Black has many ways to play against the Advance. For aggression and complexity you could look at Uhlmmann's games with 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.a3 c4 followed by 7...f6; or the more standard 7...Na5 which Moskalenko favors. 6.Be2 Nh6 is not a big problem for Black.

I'm also interested in the line 5...Bd7 6.a3 f6!?. With 5...Bd7 Black also has an interesting way to decline the Milner-Barry Gambit with 6.Bd3 Rc8!? My problem there has been to find something I like against 6.Be2 and if 6...Nge7 simply 7.0-0. I've never been a fan of the 7...Ng6 lines advocated by Watson.