What many fail to realize, in large part because postwar European governments were good at whitewashing their history, is that much of resistance/collaboration divide followed the prewar ideological split in Europe. Obviously, this is only true when are talking about Western Europe, in Eastern Europe is was more about desire to be independent from the Soviet Union.

People who ruled in Vichy or volunteered in French Waffen-SS were often involved in the failed March on Paris in 1936. Their opponents joined the resistance at a higher rate, even though it was also not necessarily the case. Charles Maurras, one of the key right-wing figures in 20th century France, did not work with the Nazis because he, like many Frenchmen, absolutely hated the Germans. However, many indeed believed in Hitler's new order for Europe where they would rule their respective puppet states with the support from Germany. Since most of Nazi atrocities took place far away from Western Europe, they did not really have to compromise a lot with their consciousness.

Now, soldiers from these territories faced different treatment. Many had to have references from reliable collaborators to sign up. They were, at least initially, mainly assigned to guard duties and anti-resistance actives, which more or less falls under the definition of the extended prewar ideological conflict. In the later stages of war, soldiers who went through this kind of services were often seen as more reliable and adjusted to the realities of modern warfare than fresh conscripts from Germany. Still, only few national SS/Wehrmacht regiments saw frontline actions until D-Day. Fun fact, there were, in fact, non-germans opposing the Allied landing in Normandy in 1944. One of the regiment was the Indian Legion, consisting of anti-British Indians led by Bharat Bose, a hero of anticolonial struggle in modern India.