Like Julian above, but for different reasons, I didn't see it.
However, and unless I've misunderstood the context of this thread because I didn't see it, surely the whole of the British and allied war effort was to "avoid" such a take-over by the Nazi SS. No wonder you found it disturbing Frank, I think at the time, that would have been an immense understatement.
Sympathisers with the SS did so either out of fear for their own lives or for other reasons of "gain" or avoiding loss. Other countries allied with the Nazis for similar reasons. Romania, for example, allied with the Nazis, because they had little alternative. OK, one could say that France had been in the same position and although occupied, they maintained their resistance. It's my opinion (and I think learned writers on the subject might agree) that near Western European countries felt an underlying security from Britain and the allies, even though it was a very close call that such allied resistance would be successful.
Further East, the mood was very different, Romania felt alone and compelled to submit. No excuses intended here, I think it was just the situation at that time. Submit or we'll destroy you. Notwithstanding the submission, the Romanian resistance still existed, despite being intensively bombed by the US in an attempt to stop fuel supplies reaching the Nazis.
Could go on forever on this, but maybe I'm off track with the intention of the thread....
