Disregarding the implausibility of a successful Operation Sealion...

>hitler didn't want to take over the country.
He annexed the northern industrial half of the country, and the Vichy goverment was a puppet government with pro-nazis put in power. He also annexed vichy France a couple of years later.

>territory switching hands in Eastern Europe
sorry I can't get all worked up over a bunch of made up noncountries constantly getting invented, destroyed, and traded like cheap prostitutes over and over again by real powers throughout European history, user.

Well there were forced labour camps on the Channel Islands..

>m-muh Hitler was a gd boy

It doesn't matter if the countries were artificial or not, it was still a landmass bigger than Europe itself that he planned on re-organising the native population.

Well, get ready for you dear krautland to become a non country in the next few years then user :^)

If the Germans want to commit suicide by spontaneously exploding rapefugees, then they deserve to die.
Although you're right in assuming that I hope they don't kill themselves.

>landmass bigger than Europe
what? I think Hitler just considered Eastern Europe to be what he wanted to colonize.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

>British are Germanic and English is a Germanic language
hon hon hon hon hon hon hon hon hon

The article you linked shows that the plans of Lebrensaum extended as far as the Ural mountains.

But, they are and it is. :^)

>as far as the Ural mountains
>bigger than Europe
dude... don't you know where Europe ends?

I reject Peter the Great and his gay-ass bullshit claims about Europe's geography.

It's indisputable fact Frognigger.

fyi, Eastern Europeans/Slavs will often use the word "Europe" to refer to only "Western Europe" or "Europe proper." Like a Ukranian might say "in Europe abc, but here in Urkaine, xyc." It's not really consistent with the natice English usage of the word, but a lot of them only refer to Western Europe as "Europe". IT has a lot to do with seeing themselves as a distinct cultural and economic region, almost as different from the West as the Arabic world or the Orient is. (Not saying that's right or wrong, but explaining user's word usage.)

British people as a whole are a mixture of Celtic and Germanic with some Franco-Norman and maybe Latin. Also modern English itself is heavily influenced by French and Latin. To say it's Germanic like German is absurd.

Did you even read my comment?
English people are considered Germanic by genetic standards, as in, they have more Germanic genetics than any other genetics (on the majority).

Oh. So you're telling me that I'm dealing with a Slav, and that's why he's so butthurt about his home being called a noncountry only fit to be raided and traded between other real countries like cheap dry goods.

Thanks for enlightening me on the inner workings of the Slavic mind, user.

Also, check that link too, English is considered a Germanic language by the majority of linguistics, meaning that it is, for technical purposes, a Germanic language.

>dude... don't you know where Europe ends?
In the asshole of your mother?

Vocab may be heavily Romantic, but it's still a Germanic language

>British are already Germanic

Then say English you fabricator of generalizations.

>>In the asshole of your mother?
>Slavs consider this to be humorous.
kek. this is like watching National Geographic. What will the Slav do next to try and communicate?

>Britians think they aren't English.
The only genetically Celtish people left are a FEW Gaels, Welsh; Irish and surprising amount of Cornish.
That's still a minority, the rest are of English admixture and therefore contain a large portion of Germanic blood (as I proved in my post, if you'd read it).

a tight leash would be kept on the behavior of the german soldier in occupied britain, they would conduct themselves much like they did in the channel islands

that said, they had prepared numerous materials in preparation for the conquest of britain, and one such paper was a detailed list of several thousand persons that would be found and killed or removed outright

How does this counter my argument? The point still stands that Lebrensraum was intended to cover an huge landmass.
You've got nice memes, but memes and insults are all you have.

I was never making an argument.
I was only ever saying that your lands are insignificant, and if they changed hands one more time between rulers, no one would care.

You kind of were. Unless you're not the guy who was trying to argue that hitler was a gud boy and didn't want to hurt anyone.

I just said he didn't want to take over Western Europe, aka France and Britain.
I did say he wanted Lebensraum in the East, which we both agree is the case.
I suppose that would have hurt the """people""" living there.

Love and admiration.

And definitely no Jews.

Which I responded by telling you that Hitler annexed half of France, and that vichy France was annexed a few years later was well. If he didn't want to take over eastern Europe, why did he annex all the defeated countries after the success of Fall Gelb.
And considering operation sea lion was intended to have invaded and conquered Great Britain if it had been a success, it doesn't exactly suggest Hitler had no plans for east Europe. He despised the western nations for the treaty of Versailles, and he only initially sought peace because he was worried he wouldn't be able to conquer Britain and France.

*if he didn't want to take over western europe

meh. you might be right.
I don't know too much about the specifics of Vichy France and how it was.

Well it's the closest you're going to get to Britain being occupied by Germany, what more do you want?

you got sources on Hitler annexing France?
Cuz I'm just scrollin Wikipedia, and not finding it.
genuinely interested.

>Hitler didn't want to take over France

Literally the climax of his life was when he signed the Armistice in Rhotondes or something.
But you're too delusional to see that, stupid faggot.

>repeatedly tried to make peace with the British
Oh yes, invading Poland, the NL, Belgium and France (all allied with Britain), certainly hinted towards "making peace", right?
Le evil anglo could have ended the war !!!
Kill yourself.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_military_administration_in_occupied_France_during_World_War_II
This is about Germany's occupation of France. Although only alsace-lorraine was made a de-jure part of Germany, how different is a permanent occupation from annexation?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Anton
Case Anton took place two years later, and it involved occupying the rest of France and removing any power the vichy government had.

Not him but France was divided in two. He hoped to not keep France at bay by not pissing them off too much. When the allies came in north africa, he annexed it

I know OP postulated that we're assuming Sealion was a success but I just can't get past that to even consider what a German occupation of Britain would have looked like. It's hard to consider things that have no reasonable chance of having ever happened in the first place.

But having said that, probably a lot like the occupation of the Netherlands, where you had some of the highest percentages of both resistance fighters and Nazi recruits (even having their own SS division). I see a lot of parallels in Britain, in that there was a not insignificant fascist sympathizer movement (Mosely et. al, Edward VIII's comments, etc.) a monarchy that could have remained as fgureheads like the Dutch monarchs, and at least a percieved shared "Germanic" identity (I'm not wading into the whole MUH GUNETIKS/MUH LINGUISTIKS debate, perception is what really matters) but also the population would have been similarly stirred up into resistance by particularly damaging urban bombing (both countries are relatively concentrated and vulnerable to bombing, see Rotterdam and the London Blitz) and because both are massively reliant on food imports through the sea, which the Nazis and their logistics/supply limits probably would have screwed up in Britain as much as they did in the Netherlands (the "hunger winter"). I think the Netherlands are probably a better comparison than Vichy France because I don't think Britain had nearly the generational animosity towards Germany that France did.

Since the Nazis lost the war it's hardly fair to call it "permanent occupation". Had they won, some kind of peace treaty with France was inevitable, Hitler knew he had no chance of assimilating such a large and hostile population (the hostility of the Slavs wasn't an issue since he planned to exterminate them).

The Pyrenees?

>HURR y dont briten mak pees?
>DURR is it bekoz i are shameless liar who humiltaed bretisch leader when i break tret of munch?
>BURR no it must be evil beady angloo warmongering
>GURR abloo bloo bloo pore hister all he wantd was pees but muh evil beady island jews

>Literally the climax of his life was when he signed the Armistice in Rhotondes or something.
dude. that was because Hitler saw it as undoing the wrongs her perceived done to Germany during the Treaty of Versailles, and recovery of Germany's honor, not because he hated France or Britain.

And yes he did try to make peace with both France and Britain repeatedly. Just because he attacked them (and incidentally Belgim and NL for getting in the way again) when they refused to make peace, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
ihr.org/other/what-the-world-rejected.html

You can ignore history if you want, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Hitler was not a saturday morning cartoon villain, you can just say, "Lol he did all the ebil stuff". He's the product of many historical factors with his own motivations and beliefs.
Not saying he was good or right or anything. Just that he was a real person.

Okay so he annexed Alsace-Lorraine which changed hands between the French and Germans so many times who can even keep track, and he occupied Northern France? This is your evidence that he wanted to take over and annex all of France and Britain too? Come one guys, think clearly.

Annexing Alsace-Lorraine means nothing when the two countries have both been claiming it since both countries existed. One power would always take it from the other if given the opportunity as happened in the Franco-Prussian war, WW1, and twice back and forth in WW2. It's just how they operated.

Occupying Northern France, and leaving Southern France free was merely a military measure required by the exigency of current war with Britain. Hitler didn't annex Normandy or Paris, he just occupied it for war purposes.

To say otherwise would be like saying the United States annexed Germany after ww2, and Germany is still a part of the U.S. today because the U.S. occupied Germany after the war. Or that the U.S. annexed Iraq after the Iraq war. Gimme a break.

>would be like saying the United States annexed Germany
The reason there's a difference is because the U.S no longer occupies Germany, there is a few military bases but that's only because of Germany's volountary participation in NATO. The United States officially ended military occupation of Germany in 1952 (2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cwr/107189.htm)
The only reason that Germany ended its occupation of France was because it was liberated by the allies in 1944. Had the war turned out different, there is no clear end for the German occupation.
Also he didn't just occupy the north, he occupied the south after 1942.
>occupying France after the French surrender until you are forcibly pushed out is not clear evidence that he wanted to take over and annex all of France.
Also the only reason Hitler didn't occupy Britain was because of the failure of operation Sea Lion.
My argument is that just because Hitler didn't officially make France part of Germany does not mean the military occupation of France was de facto any different from an annexation, he had no intention of giving sovereignty back to the French, any power was placed in the hands of Nazi puppets of Generals.

*or generals

>he had no intention of giving sovereignty back to the French
you're just speculating, and baselessly in contrast with the evidence.
If it was his intent to annex all of France, then why didn't he just do it, when he annexed Alsace-Lorraine?

Why did he leave the not strategically important parts of France unoccupied, if he was going to annex it all?

The whole American occupation analogy still fits, because there was certainly a time when the Germans didn't want to be occupied, and we just stayed there long enough for them to """voluntarily agree""". The same is true for Japan, which isn't part of NATO, and Iraq. None of which you can say the U.S. annexed.

If the the Soviets had decided to attack after WW2, and forcibly pushed the Americans and other Allies out of Germany before they """volunteered""" to have us occupy them, would you say the U.S. was planning on annexing Germany without evidence of such a plan? No. Because you have a common double standard when it comes to Hitler's Germany which basically amounts to, "if it's mean and scary, Hitler must've done it or been planning to do it." We never got to see what Hitler would have done with France when the war ended, because we kicked him out, and liberated France.

>he had no intention of giving sovereignty back to the French, any power was placed in the hands of Nazi puppets of Generals.
But he did leave southern Vichy France free, and in the hands of Marshal Petain, a French War Hero and patriot from WW1. If annexation was the goal why not just install German military governors over all of France, and disband their government?

You need proofs for such claims, not just, "muh Hitler wuz ebil tho" ideology.

>in contrast the evidence
The evidence I'm using is the fact that Hitler never voluntarily ended the occupation of France. The only thing that has no evidence is your argument that Hitler would've given France and Britain freedom.
Hitler didn't consider the French Germanic, but he also didn't want to exteerminate the reason, hence he kept them in a different administrative state, but he still made sure that Nazi Germany retained complete control over the government of occupied France, which has no difference from a France annexed into Germany.
>why did he leave parts of France unocupied
He didn't, he occupied the north, and then the south 1942
>but he did leave southern Vichy France free
Vichy France was still a puppet government, and answered to the Nazi government. He occupied Vichy France in 1942 officially, as I have said.
>why not just install military governers
They did, in the north and then the south after the Vichy area was occupied
>the analogy still fits
No it doesn't, in the Yalta-Potsdam conferences, the United States agreed to let Stalin take Berlin and Czechoslovakia, places which the U.S could've occupied if they wanted to, which is proof their goal was not to occupy/annex Germany completely.
>we just stayed there long enough for them to "voluntarily agree"
Agree to what, to become independent and unified? How does this suit your analogy? That the fact the U.S proved to allow Germany to govern itself completely? Do you think Hitler would've voluntarily agreed to let France govern itself after being defeated in WW2?
Also before you keep demanding me to provide more evidence (on top of the articles I've linked), how about you provide some of your own?

>how about you provide some of your own?
My proof is that he didn't annex all of France when he annexed Alsace-Lorraine.

The U.S. didn't give Germany or Japan any say in their own governance for a long time, effectively the same thing Hitler was doing to France (I would say that Vichy France had more autonomy than Germany or Japan for some time).

Source on this whole question of Germany taking over Southern France?
I'm currently reading about Case Anton on wikipedia, and it doesn't sound like what you're describing. Sounds like Vichy France still controlled its own affairs, and the German army simply took up military positions on the Southern coast in response to the Allied invasion of North Africa.

Doesn't look like the Germans were actively interfering more than they were before or changed the power dynamic, but merely had strategic redeployments of troops.
For example, if the U.S. had been in effective control of a part of Japan after WW2, and then redeployed some troops to another place they weren't before in response to Chinese or Russian or Korean threats, we wouldn't mark it as very significant.

>No it doesn't, in the Yalta-Potsdam conferences, the United States agreed to let Stalin take Berlin and Czechoslovakia, places which the U.S could've occupied if they wanted to, which is proof their goal was not to occupy/annex Germany completely.
Take Japan then, faggot, which we did not share with Russia, and we nonetheless occupied, completely controlled their government, and had a history of colonizing the area (phillipines).
If we had been pushed out of Japan by some other force, in this alternate history would you be claiming the same standard for the U.S. as you hold for Germany?

>Agree to what, to become independent and unified? How does this suit your analogy?
That's exactly my point. You have no proof that Hitler would not have eventually just let France go become independent and unified (sans Alsace-Lorraine of course).

>my proof is that he didn't annex all of France
He placed the whole country under military occupation, just doing so in different stages doesn't change this.
>you have no proof that Hitler would have eventually let France go
My proof here is 'case anton', in 1942, Hitler, years after the French surrender, chose to remove the powers of the Vichy government and extend military occupation to the south. If Hitler was going to give France freedom after winning the war, why would he choose to reduce French sovereignty long after they had surrendered?
>take Japan then faggot
The United States did occupy Japan, but just like west Germany, they chose to voluntarily end the occupation without being pushed out by any other military force, unlike the Germans.
In fact General MacArthur's primary reason for occupying France was to install a sovereign government (which was different from the Vichy government, as it was completely independent from the U.S).
>Doesn't look like the Germans were actively interfering more than they were before or changed the power dynamic, but merely had strategic redeployments of troops
Nice meme, here's an extract from the article: "Operation Anton, or Fall Anton, in German, was the codename for the military occupation of Vichy France carried out by Germany and Italy in November 1942. It marked the end of the Vichy regime as a nominally-independent state and the disbandment of its army (the severely-limited Armistice Army)."
I'll admit I don't have a time-machine, but it still looks way more likely that Hitler had plans to maintain control over west Europe.

*primary reason for occupying Japan
Fucks sake

>Take Japan then faggot
I don't think I properly read the whole statement here
If the United States was pushed out, I would still use West Germany to justify my opinion here.

>He placed the whole country under military occupation, just doing so in different stages doesn't change this.
But he didn't annex all of France, you massive mongoloid. He merely had an occupation no different than U.S. had of Germany or Japan after the war, and specifically chose not to annex all of France, at the same time he specifically chose to annex Alsace-Lorraine.

>why would he choose to reduce French sovereignty long after they had surrendered
Christ, first, as I stated, Case Anton didn't change the level of Vichy French autonomy, and second he sent troops to Southern France for the same reason he had troops in Northern France in the first place, because they were vulnerable points for the Allies to invade after they took North Africa. Not because he was trying annex all of France, a proposition for which you still have provided zero evidence, after a dozen posts.

>they chose to voluntarily end the occupation without being pushed out by any other military force, unlike the Germans
You're being intentionally obtuse, my whole argument is that the Germans were pushed out before they had a chance to give the French control of their own land, rather than annex them, the way we eventually gave the Germans and Japanese their sovereignty back, so long as they promised to be nice.

>It marked the end of the Vichy regime as a nominally-independent state and the disbandment of its army
okay. that's actually good evidence.
I'm reading more, and it looks like the French scuttled their own fleet at this time to avoid German seizure. I agree that Case Anton was more than just a redeployment of troops, but I still think it was most clearly motivated by a response to the Allies opening up Southern France to possible invasion, than a desire by Hitler to annex France.

>he merely had an occupation
But that's the thing, he could've installed a Vichy government that covered the whole of France. The Vichy government was pro-nazi, he could've simply taken over all the military installations, and operated something similar to the French occupation of the Rhinleand, simply disbanding the French army and seizing its industrial produce. A military occupation of half the country was far more extreme than the treaty of Versailles, he could've organised any treaty after he defeated France, the occupation was the harshest one. The main reason he didn't officially annex it is because it would've interfered with the idea of a Germany populated only by Germans.
>Case Anton didn't change the level of Vichy France autonomy. But it did you blistering barnacle, it disbanded their independent military and turned it from a pro-nazi government to a complete puppet.
>You're being intentionally obtuse, my whole argument etc etc
My argument hinges on this. The U.S government proved to be more focused in creating new democratic states and restoring peace, as West Germany and Japan. The United States was by far the greatest allied power, and could've chosen to turn the occupied countries into puppet states, but they didn't.
Germany, when it occupied countries, did it to expand the power of Nazi Germany, and regularly chose to solidify power in countries in France rather than maintain or increase sovereignty. Based on this, although it is impossible to prove anything without a time machine, I just find it far more likely that Hitler would've maintained his occupation of other countries after WW2.

>Case anton
I don't know why the whole part was greentext.

>The U.S government proved to be more focused in creating new democratic states and restoring peace, as West Germany and Japan.
So long as they were friendly to the U.S.
You don't think the U.S. suppressed anti-U.S. sentiments in those countries? Japan and Germany were totally puppet states without even a shred of sovereignty for years. Hell Japan still is prohibited from having an army to this fucking day by the constitution we forced upon them. That was the most damning evidence you had that Hitler controlled Vichy France after Case Anton. All the Japanese are allowed to have today is a glorified police force. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces

>he could've simply taken over all the military installations, and operated something similar to the French occupation of the Rhinleand
No. He couldn't have, while he was still under threat from British and American invasion.
I agree Hitler's occupation and puppetry over Vichy was strict, but that's at least partly because Hitler was still at war, and the war necessitated that he take a hard line.

>he could've organised any treaty after he defeated France, the occupation was the harshest one
No. Full Annexation would've been the harshest one, and Hitler chose not to do this.

>The main reason he didn't officially annex it is because it would've interfered with the idea of a Germany populated only by Germans.
Purely your own speculation about his motives, but you're probably right, and it completely refutes your entire argument up to this point, that Hitler ever intended to annex France, because as you've pointed out, it would've have meant a non-German Germany, which was antithetical to Hitler's whole life purpose.

Thanks for winning the argument for me, user.

>even if the whole of France is occupied and ruled by German puppets it's not technically annexation because he hasn't annexed it officially
>Thanks for winning the argument
Thanks for missing my point and copping-out

No he didn't.
He only annexed alsace-lorraine, which had been german before ww1. The rest was simply occupied for the duration of the war.

>missing my point again
He didn't officially annex it, but he occupied it and installed puppets loyal to Germany
Explain how the political system would be different from an official annexation. France would be controlled by the German armed forces, and would be administered by puppets loyal only to nazi Germany.

Literally nowhere in that armistice did he take over France.
But you're too delusional to see that, stupid faggot.

>Even if the whole of Iraq is occupied and ruled by American puppets it's not technically annexation because US hasn't annexed it officially
kek. thanks for playing, pussy. If you'd like to cry more, please do so.

Basically like the one of the Netherlands or Norway - In both cases there were national socialist parties which existed before the war put into power (Mussert and the NSB in the netherlands, Quisling and the Nasjonal Samling in Norway - For Britain it would've been obviously Mosley and his BUF which were imprisoned by Churchill after the war broke out).

The SS also had completely separate dutch and norwegian/scandinavian sub-branches which operated independently of the mainland german SS. The reason for this was because both dutch and scandinavians were seen as germanic brotherly people. The same would have held true for the british since angles and saxons were both a germanic people aswell

>the U.S voluntarily ends the military occupation of Iraq some years later, just like they did in West Germany and Japan
Nice one

most likely correct answer, but it begs the question.

Why didn't Hitler consider the French to be a germanic people?
Weren't the Franks a germanic tribe that offshoot out of Germany, same as the Angles and the Saxons left Germany and settled England?

Was it just a lingual distinction or is there a racial geneological distinction that I'm not understanding?

Or was it just that the Germans and French had battered eachother too harshly over ww1 and Franco-Prussian wars, which left Hitler and other Germans personally bitter towards the French?

>He didn't officially annex it, but he occupied it and installed puppets loyal to Germany

If he hadn't done that, France could have just turned around and attacked him again or let british troops move through their country without resistance. The treaty was far more lenient than the allied occupation of Germany and no one calls that an annexation.

>continuing to ignore the fact that U.S. waited years after the cessation of war to do so, and still arguably controls Iraq as a friendly client-state, same as Japan, and the entire crux of the argument is that Hitler never had a period of peace to take this exact same step, and we've gone over this repeatedly, but you still just won't accept it because you hold cognitive dissonance which makes you always think of Hitler is the worst light and hold double standards against him, cuz "muh saturday morning cartoon villain".
Nice one, loser.

But the allies created an independent, sovereign government in Germany, and the allied forces used the treaty of Versailles to restrict Germany's armed forces. It was only France's lack of will to interfere in Germany that allowed Hitler to expand the armed forces.

All Hitler had to do was disband the armed forces, and take over the military installations. He didn't have to give the secret police power over France, or install puppet governments.

You also forgot to realise that my >germany hasn't annexed France was pure sarcasm, but you didn't, and you're here telling me what my argument is, as well as completely ignoring all my posts that argue that Hitler had no intention of releasing countries even if he had peace.
>hurr hitler dindu nuffin

I meant WW2 Allies.

>The U.S. didn't install puppet governments friendly to the U.S.
>The U.S. didn't have secret police suppressing anti-U.S. sentiment in Germany, Japan, Iraq, Cuba, Philippines, etc.
kek. still not annexation, m88

>You also forgot to realise that my >germany hasn't annexed France was pure sarcasm

>I was only pretending to be retarded

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You said it yourself dude, Hitler didn't want a Non-German Germany, and so had no desire to annex France.

The allies ended their occupation less than 10 years after the end of WW2, and have since allowed Germany to become an independent country, with it's own armed forces and government. The defeat of the Nazis meant the Germans had no government, and the country was completely destitute, the allied used the occupation to repair Germany under the marshall plan, and to prevent soviet occupation until the nuclear arms race.

>the U.S had secret police supressing sentiment in Japan
Any proof this has continued after they voluntarily ended all this at the end of the occupation of Japan or any country involved in WW2?
Since you always ask for evidence, how about you provide something to back up this conspiracy
>I was only pretending to be retarded
This is the oldest and dumbest meme you've used, and represents your inability the handle fact that you're too retarded to understand social context at all.

tl;dr: Nice memes but you're an autist and I'm done responding to your bait

>The allies were being nice by installing a puppet government, because they so completely demolished their government and executing all of them they could get their hands on, the allies had nothing left to give autonomy to.
kek. Team Good Guy for sure.
I don't remember Hitler executing the leaders of France's government.

>Any proof this has continued after they voluntarily ended all this at the end of the occupation
kek. dude. I don't need to prove that, since Hitler didn't do that either. We've been over this, Hitler didn't get the chance to loosen control of Japan.

>This is the oldest and dumbest meme you've used, and represents your inability the handle fact that you're too retarded to understand social context at all.
You couldn't respond to the point you made, and you resorted to saying that you didn't mean it when you made it. Kek. As if that makes it disappear. You brought the meme upon yourself, dude. You still can't respond to it, that's why you're just trying to call me "too retarded to understand your super complex social context" rather than try to make any more arguments.

You're a brainlet, that can't grasp the complexity of history, and can only think of it in terms of good-guys vs. bad-guys the way your second grade teacher taught it.
Bye, brainlet.

Germany lost more than half of it's land (almost half, if you don't count annexations during the war), the rest was occupied for several years and had a puppet government installed after the occupation. Even now, the country is still littered with US military bases, which could easily blackmail Germany into almost anything the US wants.

In contrast, France only lost a tiny part of its land, only half of the remainder was occupied and the nominally independent puppet government gained control over the rest without any period of foreign rule.

More like good goy lol
>be Hitler
>fuck up Europe and your own country
>ragequit via self headshot
>decades later kikes can guilt trip entire Europe into ''there wuz nazi collaborants here and there and shieeet''

>my life is worth more because i live in a determinated geographical region, have a unique cultural background characteristic of that geographical region and are have biological characteristics common in the region

>>>Reddit

>For Britain it would've been obviously Mosley

This is probably the biggest misconception about a successful sealion, the idea that a BUF administration would be formed.

The truth is that Mosley was discounted as an option almost as soon as Sealion entered the planning stage. Hitler and Mosley had an awful personal relationship, the only funding the BUF managed to procure from Germany was through Unity Mitford, a member of Hitler's inner-circle and Mosley's sister-in-law. (Mosley never attended the Nuremburg rally, instead sending his wife Diana as part of the BUF delegation)

Mosley's private berating of Hitler and public denouncement once the war began (unlike Quisling, etc) made sure a BUF administration would never be formed. This of course is without even considering Mosley's own opposition to being propped up and taking power in a non-popular fashion.

In the end no concrete plans were ever made for post-Sealion Britain, a small 'Black Book' was compiled by the SS listing possible collaborators, but they were for the most part low ranking civil servants and a few members of the House of Lords, nobody really suitable to head a puppet administration.

Walther von Brauchitsch and Gerd von Rundstedt were both dropped as possible military administrators, with Walter Schellenberg in a possible Reichskommissar role (being the SS intelligence agent who compiled the Black Book).

>kek. Team Good Guy for sure.

Killing Nazis is one of the few things that is unequivocally good, no matter how ya do it

>Yay!!
>We did it, Reddit!!1!
>So glad to be on Team Good Guys.
>We're much better than Team Bad Guys.

DELET THIS

German-supported Tory Government, most likely 'guided' toward a move from more traditional aristocratic a focus. Ecomonically subservient to general gemran interests, culturally not really interfered with. Likely that Empire would be treated somewhat differently, definitely more a focus upon more bilogical/cultural aspects of the imperial civilising mission. That's for the immediate consequences. Long-term, no immigration from west-indes, India-Pakistan, no Thatcherite scale-back of the state all assuming Germa victory/cesation of hostilities with USA.

>Dumb question though, tbf. Didn't happen.