1940 WI: French Churchill and British Petain?
In 1940, after the defeat in Metropolitan France, a general with some military experience becomes leader of the French governement, kinda like Petain.
Unlike Petain, hovewer, he flee to Alger and vowes to continue the fight, even plan to move to tropical africa if necessary.
In London, someone else than Churchill takes power, a few weeks after the total occupation of France, the Anglo-Germanic peace treaty is signed. The British Empire doesn´t need to give anything to Germany nor Italy, except pay some minor reparations for some bombing against Germany in early 1940 and official apologies for declaring war back in September 1939.
By late 1940, the British Self Defence Force is strong enough to face any German naval invasion, even without the RAF and the Royal Navy to defend the southern coast of England from a theoretical German invasion. By spring 1941, the British governement focuses on economical rebuilding and reinforcing its presence in south-east asia, not as a sign of hostility against Japan but mererly as a deterrence. They make it clear to Tokyo that colonies of european countries not aligned with them is none of their business and make sure the chinese nationalists doesn´t get any weapons through India and Myanamar as a sign of good will.
Mussolini doesn´t have to worry about Egypt anymore but the French fleet in Tunisia kinda stand between Libya and mainland Italy.
Instead of the battle of Britain, we have a battle of Tunisia instead?
Does the governements-in-exile of Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Dutchland sides with Alger or with London? If the Dutch gov sides with Alger instead of London, Dutch indonesia is likely lost to the Japanese.
Luxemburg gov sides with France, since its country is directly annexed into the GDR, yes?
Suppose WW2 end roughly as it did IOTL, west controled by the Franco-Usa alliance and east controled by the SU, how would Britain far with the war being nearly 5 years shorter?