Greece had a govt-in-exile during world war 2. When the Nazis occupied Greece in 1941 a quisling administration was installed by the Germans.

I am a bit surprised that 55 views have resulted in as little as one response, which is not a suggestion of an answer.

Terry, I know something, of course, about the Cairo-London whereabouts of the Royal Hellenic Govt-in-Exile. This is neither in the center of my research nor my question, bit still - is there a good study of this Govt-in-Exile in some other language than Greek?

I can read many languages but I have very poor notion of your language (which is funny because mz original design with history was Byzantine studies)

A lot of countries had a government in exile during WWII. In other cases, like the French, there were some nationalists in exile who tried to convince the world, themselves as well as the people left behind that they were the real representatives of the occupied nation. In some cases these exile governments still ruled over substantial colonial territories and therefore could be very important for the allies. The Dutch ruled until the end of 1941 over Indonesia - an important oil producing country, and during the entire war over Surinam (bauxite) and Curacao (Oil). The question is of course to what extend these exile governments were considered the legitimate governments by the occupied people. That depends however, not just from who they were, but also on the period you are talking about. Were the few Belgian ministers in London the legitimate Belgian government, was the King and his ministers that were left behind the government or were the Germans who conquered the country the government? If they were not the legitimate government, or not considered as such by the people left behind, what were they? Just a group of representatives of the occupied nation used by the allies to give the allied case more weight and legitimation? At the end of the war, most of the time the exile governments were considered legitimate by the people in the occupied territories, but then in central and eastern Europe the new political constellation dominated by the USSR undermined their position, while in the West even the Free French - in 1940 just a bunch of adventures - were accepted as legitimate. A problem with your question is that it is not clear enough to answer. When you first formulate a clearer question, then some people will find the problem interesting enough to answer it.

Dear Hein, thank you for your comment.

I see my attempt at positing a question as simply as possible was somewhat unfortunate.

The reason why I was toying with the idea that, indeed, WWII government-in-exile may have been transnational entities of some sort was that they, operating outside their home countries, found themselves more "out" of the nation-state they claimed they represented than "in" it. If not colonial powers, they had no territory to govern directly. Their legitimacy was often contested, "home and abroad", with "pro" and "contra" side likely to find sound arguments for their respective stand. Unfortunately, due to my language limitations, I do not know much about the Dutch or Belgian story (but I have notion that especially the latter was a very complicated one), however, Norwegian, Czechoslovak (with focus on the Czech Lands) and definitely Polish exiles enjoyed solid legitimacy even at the earlier stages of the war. The governments-in-exile worked hard to exercise powers on their home territory: they instructed their home front followers if and how to act, were passing legal measures on the face of current situation to be enacted after liberation. They were representing their countries´ interests in relationships with powers in the same "camp" of belligerents. At the same time, governments-in-exile have limited capabilities and need to rely on their hosts. This, again, seems to me to be a feature more "out" than "in" the nation-state framework. Concluding, I find governments-in-exile to be institutions "within" but not simply "in" the nation-state.

Is this "transnational?"

The legitimacy issue you write about is crucial, it existentially affects the extent to which a government-in-exile is able to exercise powers it claims to possess. I was thinking about the mode rather than conditions of operation as a defining lens. I accept if you say this is still blurry, yet I hope I have made my question clearer.

Picking up the occasion, do you know some literature on the Dutch and the Belgian governments in WWII exile? I have read recent books by Hellema and Mallinson which cast some light and have the monograph on the Dutch FM-in-ecile by Albert Kersten (?) on my shelf - though my reading skills in Dutch are rather poor... As to the Belgian case, I have no clue to the literature. I can read many European languages.

Sincerely,

Dear Pavol,

On the Belgium government in exile, you will find a lot of info in Jean-François Crombois, Camille Gutt, 1940-1945. Les finances et la guerre (Brussels 1999). Gutt was the Belgian minister of finance who went into exile when the King capitulated. Around him and prime-minister Pierlot the exile government – with among others Paul-Henri Spaak – was formatted. King Leopold III remained in Belgium as he thought he could not leave his soldiers in the lurch, but in fact lived a rather luxuries life and – and for that he was blamed – visited Hitler during the war. After the war, the government in exile was considered the legitimate Belgian government, but that was not that clear during the first years of the war. After the war it gave a lot of problems with the King, who in the end had to abdicate in favour of his son Boudain. The tiny Belgian exile-government nevertheless ruled over the Congo, used its resources for the allied case, and did the same with the Belgian gold stock that was sent to London. You can find most of it in: Jean Stengers, Léopold III et le gouvernement. Les deux politiques belges de 1940 (Brussels 2002). Stengers was a very well-known Belgian historian of an older generation. Further you can find a lot in José Gotovitch and Martin Conway (ed.), Europe in Exile: European Exile Communities in Britain, 1940-1945 (New York 2001). This also contains a chapter on the Dutch government in exile by David Barnouw. I myself am a specialist of the economic history of occupied Europe, and for that reason do not know very much about this topic, but I know these historians (Gotovitch and Conway) as serious researchers. Conway and Peter Romijn (a good friend of mine) also edited a book called Legitimacy in Politics and Culture 1936-1946 (Oxford 2008) in the same series that I together with my Russian colleague Sergei Kudryashov published Occupied Economies, a book on the economy of occupied Europe. In the Netherlands the situation was quiet different: The government and the queen (including the entire Royal family) went into exile and it was clear that she – the queen more than the government – was the representative of the Dutch. They ruled over the colonies and used their substantial resources for the allied case. Albert Kersten has written a lot on it and his publications are of the highest standard, but his main publications on the topic are in Dutch. Further there are of course the Post-War documents of the Dutch Parliamentary enquiry on the acts of the Dutch government in exile, but these also are in Dutch. I am sorry.

Bests,

Hein

Dear Maria,

in mysterious ways I came back to this question today and I would like to ask you for some reading recommendations on Spanish government-in-exile. I have failed to find out much about its whereabouts during the Second World War and after. Feel free to recommend literature in Spanish if you do not know contributions in other major languages. Thanks!