NAT. France is a dictatorship, but this also prevents from from going natpop or totalist, something that can happen on the CoF, they can turn into totalist.
Thing is this is actually one of the things that makes the less sense about National France: the absence of a Nat Pop option.
For one thing, Revanchism was pretty popular in France before World War I and was exacerbated during the War itself: many people wanted to recover Alsace-Lorraine from German hands and opinion of Germans was at an all-time low. This is why Clemenceau got extremly harsh during the Peace Talks at Versailles OTL when France won. But in the Kaisseireich World, France lost the war and even more to the German Empire... Anti-German sentiment would probably skyrocket and go through the stratosphere. In fact it's pretty much canon: the Commune of France's main reason to attack Germany is revanchism for the first Welktkrieg and recovering Alsace-Lorraine... If that's how Left-wing France is feeling, imagine how Right-wing France should feel! Nationalism shoud be one of the main motivator of NATIONAL France.
Then there is the fact that the Commune of France exists in the first place because of a Civil War. The Commune of France was the victorious left-wing side of the Civil War. National France should thus basically be the opposing side and have every right-wing option available. And that should include people highly opposed to Syndicalism.
The third thing is that National France has in its focus tree options to abolish the Republic and become either the Third Empire or undergo the Third Restoration. The Third Empire probably wouldn't necessarilly be a Nat. Pop path because historically Bonapartism was about conserving ideals of the French Revolution but under a more authoritarian form of government. Still, there probably would be hardliners in there who would inisist on rebuilding the nation around its Emperor, which could have Nat. Pop vibes... But where this makes also no sense is with the Third Restoration: Monarchism at this point in time was heavily linked with Reactionnary and Anti-Parliamentarian thought in France. And the main Monarchist group was Charles Maurras'
Action Française which I have always felt should be Nat. Pop and not Paternal Autocrat: Maurras' rhetoric is heavily reactionnary and anti-parliamentarian and some of ideas are close to Integralism which has been classified as Nat. Pop.
And finally there is the case of Pétain being in charge at the beginning in 1936. Everyone knows he led the Vichy Government OTL. Now, he probably is more at home being a Paternal Autocrat but given the crow that gathered around him at Vichy, you could argue he should also have contact with potential Nat. Pop leaders.
For all of the above, I definitely feel there should be a Nat. Pop option for National France.
Then again, National France itself probably needs a big rework... The lore has never been exactly clear on how exactly the government-in-exile in Algiers came to be. There was apparently a IVth Republic proclaimed in response to the rise of the Commune, but then the military took control of affairs to better handle the war to recover the mainland which led to Marshal Foch being more or less in charge. And when he died, Pétain inherited the position. I feel this should be explained more because for me, that doesn't say much about how exactly the situation evolved. Are there still Republican institutions in-name? Are there politicians and if so who? How militarized exactly is the Regime? And, most importantly, how exactly is National France handling the Natives? That is the crucial point because the French government-in-exile basically resides in the colonies save for Corsica. I could buy that Colonial Rule could be maintained for 20 years after the end of the war, but that would not be without issues.
The Dominion of India shouldn't even even have democracy (or exist) at all. They're the remnants of the British Raj, a colonial regime that treated the Indian people like dirt and actively exploited and killed them throughout its history. The Brits would never be willing to give any sort of equality or self-rule to the Indians when they never even saw them as actual people.
I'd argue that there is room for a Dominion of Inda government to exist. For one, the Raj was a colonial administration, so you'd likely have a high number of british staff in the region, some of which would likely align with the Royalists. Especially among those who command the military.
Then, it's not impossible you have a part of the indian population that would stick to the British government. There are probably parts of India's population that profited from working for the British and would not necessarilly be okay with the Brits leaving India. Indian Regiments being loyal to their British officers for example.
And finally, you could always make the argument that some Indians would not be okay with the governments of the Bharatiya Commune or the Princely Federation. Not all Indians would necessarilly adhere to Syndicalism, even if it advocated Independance. And not all the Princes of the Princely Federation would necessarilly be popular, not to mention the potential antagonism you could have between India's Princes.
It's possible there needs to be a rework to make the Dominion more believable and give it issues it has to deal with, but there is room for its existence in my opinion.
