Maréchal nous voilà for Britain

It should be noted, that Petain was not "appointed" by the Germans. He was given extraordonary powers by the French parliament without any direct German involvement.
I doubt that he would have been the Germans favoured choice for a French leader.
He played into the Germans hands, by persecuting the French left and thereby dividing the country, but he allways disliked the occupiers (not because they were nazis, but because they were German and they were occupiers) and only collaborated out of pragmatism.
Petains unwillingness to cooperated on a number of issues later led the Germans to occupy Southern France and force Petain to transfer power to Laval and other subordinates.

The Germans nevertheless accepted him as French leader because they needed an "legitimate" French goverment to keep French colonies and armed forces from joining the British.

For the same reason they would probably have (initally) accepted any non-socialist French goverment willing to collaborate.
 

Cook

Banned
It should be noted, that Petain was not "appointed" by the Germans. He was given extraordonary powers by the French parliament without any direct German involvement.

The French Parliament then proceeded to vote itself out of existence, something totally unprompted by the German administration.
Petains unwillingness to cooperated on a number of issues later led the Germans to occupy Southern France and force Petain to transfer power to Laval and other subordinates.
The German occupation of Southern France and Tunisia were prompted by the Allied invasion of French North Africa, not by anything the Petain did. Petain’s response to the German occupation and effective dissolving of the Vichy regime was to broadcast a radio message to the French people that the military situation would necessitate the German army to take extraordinary measures and that the French people were to collaborate to the maximum extent possible.

You are indeed correct in that the Germans did not interfere with the Vichy regime to any great extent, but they didn’t have to; the regime was made up of men enthusiastically ingratiating themselves with the Reich and trying to advance themselves and Vichy France in the New Order in Europe. The situation in a defeated England would probably be similar, which is why I thought Lloyd George the most likely contender since he was putting his own name forward as early as August 1940.
 
Last edited:
The German occupation of Southern France and Tunisia were prompted by the Allied invasion of French North Africa, not by anything the Petain did.

Correct. I was wrong.

enthusiastically ingratiating themselves with the Reich

Correct for Laval, but not for Petain. His behavoir during meetings with German officals was hardly ingratiating but very cold. He even fired Laval temporarily for beeing to subservient.


The situation in a defeated England would probably be similar, which is why I thought Lloyd George the most likely contender since he was putting his own name forward as early as August 1940.

I think much would have depended on the circumstances of the German takeover.


  1. If the UK surrenders after losing London and Birmingham (assuming British generals blundered during Sealion), King and parliament stay in the country and Churchill is replaced by someone willing to surrender before the armistice, Germany might settle for an "soft" occupation.

    Just as with France they need an British collaborationist goverment with maximum legitimacy, to get the overseas Empire and the navy to follow Londons lead into surrender.

    While Britan is occupied, the King stays the head of state and the Westminster system continues to function (although communist and anti-german activity is banned), even the jews might be left alone for some time.
    Prime Minister could be anybody not too heavily associated with Churchills never surrender rethoric (Denmarks social-democratic prime minister continued to serve for two years under nazi occupation), allthough the Nazis will try to promote the ultra-right.
    In the long run Germany would either orchestrated a fascist takeover (like what the Soviets did in Eastern Europe) or pull out after getting their demands (colonies, reparations, maybe an alliance treaty) accepted.
  2. If Churchill convinces king and parliament to continue the fight from the colonies and the German army has to fight its way all up to Loch Ness against desperate home guard resistance, smashing most of the UKs goverment infrastructure in the process there would be neither the need nor the possibility to create a legitimate UK goverment. German military authority will run the show, with the collaboration goverment having only limited power (like Qusiling in Norway). It should consist of British fascists and oportunists, maybe with some misguided general or lord as a figurehead.
 
Just as with France they need an British collaborationist goverment with maximum legitimacy, to get the overseas Empire and the navy to follow Londons lead into surrender.


Even if they managed to have a government that appeared perfectly legitimate, I think they would still have problem in one part of the Commonwealth, namely Australia & New Zealand, who would have to contend with an expentionist Japan and so might not want to sue for peace.

Canada and South Africa on the other hand would probably toe the line since once the UK out of the conflict and with their own territories not directly threaten, they would have no reasons in continuing.

One interesting thing to consider is what would happen if the collaborationist UK government forced George VI to abdicate to have a more pliable monarch and the Dominions refused to accept his replacement.
 
Top