More Vichy-type collaborationist regimes in WWII

[Strategos' Risk]

There were a ton of them, but I'm thinking specifically Vichy like in the sense of being led by both anti-German/Axis popular figures (Petain) and formerly leftist politicians (Laval), showing the stark irony of fascist rule.

Wang Jingwei's Reorganized National Government in China is a key example of it, given how Wang was both anti-Japan (albeit in a defeatist way) and left-wing.

In contrast, regimes such as Quisling's Norway are different since Vidkun Quisling was already a fascist.

A good example is in the late John J. Reilly's C.S. Lewis obituary where Lloyd George of all people is the Petain-Laval put in charge of Mosley's Britain.

The Long View: C. S. Lewis: An Alternative Obituary — With Both Hands

C. S. Lewis is now famous for having written the Chronicles of Narnia and a number of popular works of Christian apologetics , but as a young man he was involved in some dubious circles . This is an alternative account of his life had he not decided to seek the light.

www.benespen.com

What if the Republicans had won the Spanish Civil War only to fall to the Axis? What ironic figure would've ended up being the puppet there, assuming Mussolini and Hitler doesn't just put the Falange in charge?

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Aha, pretty good Wiki page.

List of World War II puppet states - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now that I think about it, wasn't Sukarno a Japanese collaborator? That would be more in line with Subhas Bose being a Japanese collaborator though, indigenous anti-colonial nationalist movements working with one invader to overthrow the current invader.

On the other hand, a Viet Minh puppet government within the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere headed by Ho Chi Minh would be funny.

 

[ZSU-23]

Could have "Independent" states like the Croatian NDH in Poland, Ukraine and other places.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

The thing one must recall is that Vichy was not merely a German puppet state. It was never part of the Axis, and never provided any forces for any German military operation. (The Charlemagne Division were volunteers in German service.) No Axis forces operated from Vichy territory. OK, Japan occupied and used Indochina, and a few German and Italian planes staged through Syria to Iraq. But Pétain rejected all proposals for German forces to base in Vichy French territory.

And this remained true even after repeated attacks by Allied forces on French colonies: Mers-el-Kébir, Dakar, Syria, Madagascar.

No other defeated nation retained so much autonomy. Hitler agreed to that because the neutrality of the French Empire was valuable. No other country had such value.

Oh, and the Vichy intelligence service, which was the intelligence service of the Third Republic, inherited the the break into Enigma that had been made in collaboration with the British. And the Germans were never told. The Polish exile cryptanalysts continued to work for France, in the unoccupied zone, until November 1942.

 

[David T]

As John Lukacs notes in The Hitler of History:

"All over Europe (for example, in Holland, Denmark, France, Romania, and in a few remarkable instances even in Austria), local National Socialist leaders were abashed when they found that Hitler did not support them and paid them hardly any interest at all. He preferred to work with the established pro-German governments of such provinces and states. The most telling example of this occurred in Romania in January 1941. There the National Socialist and populist Iron Guard (whose anti-Semitic ideology and practices were perhaps the most fanatic and radical in all Europe) got into conflict with the nationalist and military government of General Antonescu, whom Hitler respected and liked. When in January 1941 fighting broke out between the Antonescu and Iron Guard forces, the Germans unequivocally supported the former at the expense of the latter, on occasion with German armor and tanks.

"Of course he had his reasons. While the war lasted, he needed order in the countries that were his allies or satellites--a kind of stability that must not be endangered by revolutionary experiments, and that assured undisrupted deliveries of necessary material supplies to the Reich. Thus he put up for a long time with allied chiefs of state—a Petain, an Antonescu, Regent Horthy of Hungary, King Boris of Bulgaria—some of whom he knew were not wholly loyal or unconditional adherents of a National Socialist Germany. Still, it is significant that he did not offer the slightest promise or give the slightest indication to the effect that sooner or later, perhaps after the war, his foreign National Socialist followers would get their rewards.* [FN] He would, of course, recognize and support some of them in 1944, when his former satellites or junior partners deserted him; but that was no longer important." https://books.google.com/books?id=oRwJs6qCMvIC&pg=PA162

 

[David T]

There were a ton of them, but I'm thinking specifically Vichy like in the sense of being led by both anti-German/Axis popular figures (Petain) and formerly leftist politicians (Laval)

France was far from the only country where former leftists supported collaborationist regimes. (BTW, Paul Faure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Faure_(politician) and Marcel Déat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Déat were Socialists long after Laval had broken with the party--and of course Doriot had been a Communist... ) There was Henri de Man in Belgium: "This war is in reality a revolution. The old social order, the old political regime are collapsing. Hitler is a kind of elementary or demoniac force, he accomplishes a kind of destruction that has in all probability become necessary..." https://books.google.com/books?id=4oHq-ROPJWoC&pg=PA289 "After the "capitulation" of the Belgian Army in 1940, he issued a manifesto to POB-BWP members, welcoming the German occupation as a field of neutralist action during the war: "For the working classes and for socialism, this collapse of a decrepit world, far from being a disaster, is a deliverance..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_de_Man

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Oh interesting. I had assumed that the Belgian collaborationists were mostly Rexists.

"All over Europe (for example, in Holland, Denmark, France, Romania, and in a few remarkable instances even in Austria), local National Socialist leaders were abashed when they found that Hitler did not support them and paid them hardly any interest at all. He preferred to work with the established pro-German governments of such provinces and states. The most telling example of this occurred in Romania in January 1941. There the National Socialist and populist Iron Guard (whose anti-Semitic ideology and practices were perhaps the most fanatic and radical in all Europe) got into conflict with the nationalist and military government of General Antonescu, whom Hitler respected and liked. When in January 1941 fighting broke out between the Antonescu and Iron Guard forces, the Germans unequivocally supported the former at the expense of the latter, on occasion with German armor and tanks.

"Of course he had his reasons. While the war lasted, he needed order in the countries that were his allies or satellites--a kind of stability that must not be endangered by revolutionary experiments, and that assured undisrupted deliveries of necessary material supplies to the Reich. Thus he put up for a long time with allied chiefs of state—a Petain, an Antonescu, Regent Horthy of Hungary, King Boris of Bulgaria—some of whom he knew were not wholly loyal or unconditional adherents of a National Socialist Germany. Still, it is significant that he did not offer the slightest promise or give the slightest indication to the effect that sooner or later, perhaps after the war, his foreign National Socialist followers would get their rewards.* [FN] He would, of course, recognize and support some of them in 1944, when his former satellites or junior partners deserted him; but that was no longer important." https://books.google.com/books?id=oRwJs6qCMvIC&pg=PA162

Hm, now I'm imagining the Nazis overthrowing the Spanish Republic, then instituting a general like Sanjurjo as caudillo instead of the Falange or other grassroots "vulgar" fascist movements.

 

[Byzantion]

There were a ton of them, but I'm thinking specifically Vichy like in the sense of being led by both anti-German/Axis popular figures (Petain) and formerly leftist politicians (Laval), showing the stark irony of fascist rule.

Wang Jingwei's Reorganized National Government in China is a key example of it, given how Wang was both anti-Japan (albeit in a defeatist way) and left-wing.

In contrast, regimes such as Quisling's Norway are different since Vidkun Quisling was already a fascist.

A good example is in the late John J. Reilly's C.S. Lewis obituary where Lloyd George of all people is the Petain-Laval put in charge of Mosley's Britain.

The Long View: C. S. Lewis: An Alternative Obituary — With Both Hands

C. S. Lewis is now famous for having written the Chronicles of Narnia and a number of popular works of Christian apologetics , but as a young man he was involved in some dubious circles . This is an alternative account of his life had he not decided to seek the light.

www.benespen.com

What if the Republicans had won the Spanish Civil War only to fall to the Axis? What ironic figure would've ended up being the puppet there, assuming Mussolini and Hitler doesn't just put the Falange in charge?

Maybe a British scenario after worser Dunkirk and a partly successful channel invasion with raids on London. Maybe instead of outright fascists like Unity Midford and Mosley some old establishment British general,born in the Mid-19th Century, takes over as Prime Minister and sets up a government in Devonshire. Free British Forces and collaboration government forces fight in the British Empire for controll with even the navy being split in half. A British exile government calls for resistance while the collaboration government stays neutral to the conflict so far.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

What you're describing is a pretty typical Axis puppet government using local fascists, sure. But I think the Vichy "twist" is using socialist ex-anti-fascist collaborators (Laval, Faure, Déat, Doriot) and/or former anti-Axis countries nationalists (Petain) as the collaborators. Ditto with leftist Wang in China, puppet Lloyd George in Britain, etc. The irony is the point. Though yes, I understand that Mosley was pseudo-socialist at times.

Also, why Devonshire?

 

[Anneessens]

Oh interesting. I had assumed that the Belgian collaborationists were mostly Rexists.

Belgium is somewhat alike to France, in the sense that there's not a clearly dominant collaborationist party like in the Netherlands or Norway. But unlike France, a lot of it has to do with it's linguistic divide. The three most important political collaborationist structures were:

1. The rexists, as mentioned above. During the 1930s, they clearly were the most important fascist party, gathering 11,50% of the vote. Although its main voting base was Walloon and the francophone population in Brussels, it was (initially) a statewide organisation, which gathered significant scores in Flanders as well, mainly among the (francophone, urban) upper and upper middle class (about 7% of the vote in the Flemish cantons, Brussels and its hinterland excepted). However, by the 1930s, Rex began to decline in importance - in part because of a deal it attempted to make with the VNV (see 2), which it's francophone base in Flanders had a hard time digesting. As a result, it increasingly became irrelevant in Flanders. During the occupation, the nazi's forced the remnants of the Flemish section of Rex to merge into the VNV.

2. The Flemish National Union (VNV). It emerged from the ashes of the Front Party, which in itself was a catch-all Flemish nationalist party with initially an important progressive streak. The (pan-Dutch) VNV quickly reached the near-monopoly on Flemish nationalism (despite attempts by other groups, including the communists), evolved more clearly in the fascist direction by the year and enjoyed German financial support by at least the late 1930s. The VNV swiftly made the switch to collaboration with the German authorities, and was recognised as the sole legal party in Flanders, at the cost of having to give up its pan-Dutch programme. However, by the end of the war, the German authorities (under influence of the SS) began to favour:

3. DeVlag (German-Flemish Working Group), which initially (1935) started as an academic circle studying the relationship between the Flemish and the Germans from a Völkisch perspective. Ideologically, it was nazi from the beginning, but, during the occupation, the focus shifted from cultural studies to political activities, pleading for the swift integration of Flanders within the Greater Germanic Reich. Not being tainted by accusations of Flemish or pan-Dutch Kleinstaterei, the group's leader was later rewarded with the title of the Flemish "Landesleidung" in exile.

But back to topic: De Man is the most obvious person to look for if you want a (formerly) leftist Belgian to play an active rol in a German collaborationist regime. One should also note that many believe the fact that he opted for collaboration was not just an opportunistic move. By the 1930s, he had clearly developed a distinct line of thought, which some believe prepared the way for his later choice: notably, he was against philosophical materialism and against the idea of a class based party, and had sympathetic views of nationalism as a phenomenon.
De Man played a a rather minor role during the occupation, although that might also be because he wasn't trusted by others in the collaborationist scene. He was close to Leopold III during the early days of the war (one of the few top politicians to remain loyal to him). So perhaps Leopold and De Man are the duo to look for if you want a Pétain-Laval analogue in Belgium.

 

[Byzantion]

What you're describing is a pretty typical Axis puppet government using local fascists, sure. But I think the Vichy "twist" is using socialist ex-anti-fascist collaborators (Laval, Faure, Déat, Doriot) and/or former anti-Axis countries nationalists (Petain) as the collaborators. Ditto with leftist Wang in China, puppet Lloyd George in Britain, etc. The irony is the point. Though yes, I understand that Mosley was pseudo-socialist at times.

Also, why Devonshire?

I thought Devonshire because Vichy seems also relatively obscure. Any other city than London would only make sense if London isn´t available for a puppet government like Paris wasn´t available for Petain/Laval. Yes, I thought of George Lloyd aswell. Could be any regular politican pressured by circumstances theoretically.

 

[Kome]

From OTL there's Mussolini himself, the former socialist and part time anti German.

 

[Mikey]

Vichy also didn't last particularly long, which I hadn't quite realized - about two years, before whatever jurisdiction it had came under German military authority in November 1942.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Vichy also didn't last particularly long, which I hadn't quite realized - about two years, before whatever jurisdiction it had came under German military authority in November 1942.

Yeah, but while it lasted it had a surprising amount of legitimacy, it was regarded as more than a mere puppet regime.

I thought Devonshire because Vichy seems also relatively obscure. Any other city than London would only make sense if London isn´t available for a puppet government like Paris wasn´t available for Petain/Laval. Yes, I thought of George Lloyd aswell. Could be any regular politican pressured by circumstances theoretically.

Needs to be a spa town then for full symmetry. Be funny if it was simply Bath.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Vichy also didn't last particularly long, which I hadn't quite realized - about two years, before whatever jurisdiction it had came under German military authority in November 1942.

Well, it continued afterwards on the same legal and ideological basis (although the ideology was quickly shifting from reactionary conservatism to outright fascism), but under German occupation. Government of occupied territoires normally don't crease to exist, but they obviously lose a lot of their autonomy and become de facto subordinate to the occupying power.

The same goes for Denmark, which was invaded and occupied by Germany in 1940, but still retained its own government with King, cabinet and parliament, and even held (relatively) free elections in 1943, which the Social-Democrats won, while the Nazi party arguably lost the election badly. The Danish Communists were banned in 1941 (on German demands, but by the Danish parliament), Denmark retained its own (tiny) military, fleet, police and courts. German interests in the country were not represented by a German governor, but by a diplomat, due to Germany processing to respect Danish sovereignty and neutrality. German occupation became stricter after August 1943, but the Danish administration continued to function de facto, even though cabinet and parliament stopped working from August 29. This allowed Denmark to save many of its citizens, especially those of Jewish origin, from deportation into German camps.

The situation of Denmark pre-August 1943 closely resembles that of Vichy, although all of Denmark was occupied by the Wehrmacht, so post-1942 Vichy might be a better comparison. Anyway, I think it meets OP's conditions. Denmark was even led by a left-wing PM, Thorvald Stauning, a Social-Democrat ruling until his death in May 1942, when he was succeeded by a Liberal.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I think your description of Denmark definitely works as a Vichy analogue, though it sounds like a situation where a much smaller defenseless country is under Nazi suzerainty under duress while managing to retain much of its prewar center-left nature, while Vichy had more enthusiastic collaborators eager to remake the country more fascist, for some reason.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

What if the Azad Hind manages to carve out a Japanese puppet Indian state... and Bose still meets an untimely end anyway? Leading Gandhi to be its figurehead...

 

[Byzantion]

Could have "Independent" states like the Croatian NDH in Poland, Ukraine and other places.

What if in a German occupied Great Britain Soctland gets a Croatian NDHesque treatment ? Maybe the German authorities promote any kind of Scotish Nationalism and dringend groups.

 

[New Cleo Genesis]

Maybe a British scenario after worser Dunkirk and a partly successful channel invasion with raids on London. Maybe instead of outright fascists like Unity Midford and Mosley some old establishment British general,born in the Mid-19th Century, takes over as Prime Minister and sets up a government in Devonshire. Free British Forces and collaboration government forces fight in the British Empire for controll with even the navy being split in half. A British exile government calls for resistance while the collaboration government stays neutral to the conflict so far.

It's a shame that both Edmund Allenby and David Beatty were dead by the time WWII broke out, as a guy of such caliber would be fairly fitting for the "British Pétain" slot.

 

[robeson]

As John Lukacs notes in The Hitler of History:

"All over Europe (for example, in Holland, Denmark, France, Romania, and in a few remarkable instances even in Austria), local National Socialist leaders were abashed when they found that Hitler did not support them and paid them hardly any interest at all. He preferred to work with the established pro-German governments of such provinces and states. The most telling example of this occurred in Romania in January 1941. There the National Socialist and populist Iron Guard (whose anti-Semitic ideology and practices were perhaps the most fanatic and radical in all Europe) got into conflict with the nationalist and military government of General Antonescu, whom Hitler respected and liked. When in January 1941 fighting broke out between the Antonescu and Iron Guard forces, the Germans unequivocally supported the former at the expense of the latter, on occasion with German armor and tanks.

"Of course he had his reasons. While the war lasted, he needed order in the countries that were his allies or satellites--a kind of stability that must not be endangered by revolutionary experiments, and that assured undisrupted deliveries of necessary material supplies to the Reich. Thus he put up for a long time with allied chiefs of state—a Petain, an Antonescu, Regent Horthy of Hungary, King Boris of Bulgaria—some of whom he knew were not wholly loyal or unconditional adherents of a National Socialist Germany. Still, it is significant that he did not offer the slightest promise or give the slightest indication to the effect that sooner or later, perhaps after the war, his foreign National Socialist followers would get their rewards.* [FN] He would, of course, recognize and support some of them in 1944, when his former satellites or junior partners deserted him; but that was no longer important." https://books.google.com/books?id=oRwJs6qCMvIC&pg=PA162

@David T , what would Hitler have done with these satellite states had he won the war?