> most of your examples there are of one people or peoples being liberated from the empire of a different people, such as the aztecs with their slave tribes or the dutch with their taipei natives. again that comes down to identity identity is extremely local and tribal unless a governement worked to make people think theyre all the same in a national entity funny coincidence how the borders of ethnic groups exactly match the borders of medieval kingdoms who expanded at random depending on opportunity hey? (every nation in europe forced all their subject to speak the same language a language different from every other. portuguese and danish are invented languages from spanish and norwegians for instance. they do this because people are loyal and see as their tribes those who speak the same language as them.) russia had done that, but if you can reframe the narrative from "a war between germans and russians" to "a war between hitler and bolshevism" i dont see why you couldnt convince it not most, at least a large slice of the russian population to be on board with helping the invaders so long as you go on record including to the germans saying you wont fuck over the russians after the peace deal that would make germans support the war less but that could be compensated by painting the bolshecik enemies as an apocalyptical existential threat to  > the lifestyle of everyone in europe > were under no illusions about being liberated) and caesar did the same to the gauls (he had to put up with several massive rebellions before gaul could be considered a standard roman province). no its slightly different actually he managed to talk the gallic leaders into job ning the romans empire without a fight, and 2 years later many gallic leaders (elites, never purged) became worried it would mean a loss of power for them in the long term and unified in a coalition to kick him out or kill him thats vercingerorix
France