[Razuu]

What if the ideology of Hitler took a different turn and became closely aligned with Strasserism and it's anti-capitalist bent, while playing down the anti-Communism and anti-Slavic elements of Nazism.

Hitler still becomes chancellor of Germany in January 1933 but with a slightly different ideology.

What if this led Hitler to see the British Empire and the United States as evil corrupt plutocracies, the true enemies of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as a potential ally.

Leading from this what if the Soviet Union becomes a full fledged member of the Axis Powers in June 1941 and joins Germany and Italy in their war against Britain in the Middle East and North Africa through Iran attacking British forces in Iraq.

Six months later, December 1941, Japan attacks the United States at Pearl Harbour. Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union declare war on the United States.

What would happen next?

Would the British and Americans successfully carry out D-Day?

Would India be conquered by the Axis?

Would Britain be defeated and occupied by Germany?

Would the United States be able to carry on a war against Germany, the Soviet Union, Japan and Italy in these circumstances?

[Smilin' Dave]

What if the ideology of Hitler took a different turn and became closely aligned with Strasserism and it's anti-capitalist bent, while playing down the anti-Communism and anti-Slavic elements of Nazism.

Hitler still becomes chancellor of Germany in January 1933 but with a slightly different ideology.

Hmmm... If Hitler were to be essentially more leftist and even more anti-old guard than he was in reality, it's quite possible he never would have been allowed to become Chancellor. Hitler was ultimately given the job because he was seen as a right wing bulwark against the rising left, and it was thought if wedged in with some more traditional right-wing parties he might mellow out a bit. A more leftist Hitler might be unacceptable and you might be more likely to see a Presidential decree-based government for a while as I think Schleicher was pushing for. I suppose then again that might just prolong the crisis and you might still see Hitler come to power later on somehow.

What if this led Hitler to see the British Empire and the United States as evil corrupt plutocracies, the true enemies of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as a potential ally.

While ideological considerations are important, strategic considerations might actually still deter the two from becoming allies. Germany after all had political and economic interests in the east that ran deeper than Mein Kampf's dictates and didn't necessarily gel with Soviet perceptions of a sphere of influence. Similarly from the Soviet perspective, Stalin might not like the idea of a strong competitor (or even an equal) in the international arena.

I suppose it's quite possible in this scenario they would be less hostile towards each other, but it's also quite likely they would not have become full allies either.

Leading from this what if the Soviet Union becomes a full fledged member of the Axis Powers in June 1941 and joins Germany and Italy in their war against Britain in the Middle East and North Africa through Iran attacking British forces in Iraq.

This kind of skips an important stage, which is the initial openning of WWII. Let's assume that the Soviet Union and Germany are allies come 1939 (and would the war still start in 1939?) and they still decide to carve up Poland. For allies it would mean a common border which would easy trade, they both had a strategic interest in a new division of Poland etc. Lets assume this still triggers war with Britain and France (alternatively, they might have thought it wise not to start a war with two massive opponents). But the next question is does the war in France still take place?

The invasion of France was in part driven by a desire to avoid a) a two front war and b) a long war which Germany couldn't afford to hang around for. A broader alliance with the Soviet Union avoids point A and point B would likely be eased with Soviet resources. But...

Italy of course joins the war towards the end of the invasion of France. And part of that motivation was because it was supposed to be easy, France was already on the ropes so there would be easy pickings. If the Battle of France does not take place, is delayed or has a different character, then Italy may not join the war. Without Italian ports (and without Mussolini's adventurism starting fights in Africa he couldn't win), a war in North Africa might be out of the picture.

So you could have a Cold War-style stand off on the Rhine, with neither side moving for a conventional war for assorted reasons.

Six months later, December 1941, Japan attacks the United States at Pearl Harbour. Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union declare war on the United States.

Having the Soviet Union allied with Germany might actually be a deal breaker for the Japanese. The original basis for the alliance with Germany was aimed at the Soviet Union, in the form of the Anti-Comintern Pact. If Germany is perhaps closer to the Comintern (I don't think they would have joined... if they did it would be even worse) then Japan might be reluctant to ally with an existing ally of their at the time biggest opponent.

Would the British and Americans successfully carry out D-Day?

It would seem unlikely, as without an Eastern Front a lot more German soldiers would have been available to defend any potential assault point. And that's assuming no Soviet soldiers are sent to aid in the defence.

Would India be conquered by the Axis?

I think it would be unlikely. The logistics involved would be very difficult even with the Soviet Union on board given the distances and terrain involved. It would also be a questionable strategic target. Sure it would undermine Britain, but what does it win the Axis if they succeed other than a whole lot of new troubles?

Would the United States be able to carry on a war against Germany, the Soviet Union, Japan and Italy in these circumstances?

Again I would be leaning towards a Cold War scenario here. When great powers can't actually come to blows (be it due to cost, the complexities involved etc.) they then to have a tense stand off. Like the Cold War you could probably expect the US to try and break up any alliance to play former allies off against each other, much as was done with China in 'triangular diplomacy' and the Soviets were also essentially trying the same with their overtures to Western Europe.

[Preston Cole]

As Smilin' Dave said, Hitler was made Chancellor because of his active anti-communism. It's worth mentioning that Hitler himself did have Strasserist sympathies, as he confessed this to Goebbels after the Bamberg Conference. He was never willing to risk his relationship with the elites, so I assume that's why he did his best to hide and crush these sympathies.

The only way a Strasserist/Left-National Socialist group could have any influence in the German state would have been at the time of the crucial Night of the Long Knives, if the SA with its 3 million strong forces seceded and a bloody civil war engulfed. That would have been an interesting outcome for Germany and the world.

As for an alliance with the USSR, it would be unlikely even in the scenario of a Strasserist Germany. Stalin planned to postpone a war with Germany for about 2 years after 1939, and he'd long advocated an all-out invasion of Europe. All NS or Strasserist Germany could do is check his imperialist ambitions for a few years as he strengthened his army to take out a powerful Germany first. Moreover, this weird hypothetical alliance between Russia and Germany could hardly be called an "Axis" as we know it. As Smilin' Dave already stated, the Axis was based on the fundamental anti-communist and Fascist sentiment of the countries involved (minus Finland). I can imagine a range of countries wouldn't accept this sort of alliance: Romania, as its reclaiming of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina would be nullified without German assistance; Finland because of Soviet annexations; Japan because it saw in the USSR an important opponent. This alternative "Axis" would be ideologically divided, as opposed to the real life Axis which was united in their fundamental beliefs.

[Smilin' Dave]

Stalin planned to postpone a war with Germany for about 2 years after 1939, and he'd long advocated an all-out invasion of Europe.

About the closest I can think of in terms of support for this claim would be Stalin's speech supposedly given in August 1939. However the accuracy and even existence of this record is subject to a great deal of dispute, and even if it did exist one speech wouldn't really support a claim of 'long advocacy'.

[Preston Cole]

"Struggles, conflicts and wars among our enemies are...our great ally...and the greatest supporter of our government and our revolution" and "If a war does break out, we will not sit with folded arms – we will have to take the field, but we will be last to do so. And we shall do so in order to throw the decisive load on the scale."

It's been said that Stalin helped Hitler by banning a united Communist-Socialist front in Germany, so Hitler could then weaken Europe with his wars, by which point the USSR could march triumphantly into Europe.

He also gave a speech in 1941:

"War with Germany is inevitable. If comrade Molotov can manage to postpone the war for two or three months that will be our good fortune, but you yourselves must go off and take measures to raise the combat readiness of our forces."

[Smilin' Dave]

Stalin's speech of 1925 does not anywhere suggest conquest, having a decisive role in a future conflict need not necessarily mean occupation, invasion etc. The 1925 speech is mostly wheeled out by the "offensive plan" school, but they basically take it out of context and then try to re-contextualise it with material from 1939 and 1941, which was a considerable period of time later and during WWII or its build up.

The April 1941 speech should be seen in context of growing tension between the Axis and the Soviet Union. I probably don't need to point out that two months later the Germans did in fact invade the Soviet Union. Not to mention that in the quoted segment, all Stalin calls for is preparation. He doesn't specify for what.

It's been said that Stalin helped Hitler by banning a united Communist-Socialist front in Germany, so Hitler could then weaken Europe with his wars, by which point the USSR could march triumphantly into Europe.

Stalin sabotaged a lot of Socialist and Communist parties during his time and for quite different reasons than that. For example Stalin backed the KMT over the CCP in China essentially because he thought the KMT would be the stronger horse. The Soviets ultimately screwed over the Republicans in Spain because they adhered to a style of politics different to the Soviet one and besides, taking their gold was probably a good prize. Similarly the opposition to a united from between the SPD and KPD may have been because Stalin didn't want the SPD to be the dominant partner (they were to begin with the larger party) or like the Spanish example their more moderate platform might have been seen as unacceptable. It's not like Stalin was completely chummy with the KPD either, in the late 1920s for example the Soviets had sponsored a purge of the KPD in order to essentially Stalinise the party.

[Spouter]

The opening question is ridiculous in some ways. How could Hitler and the Nazi high-command have overcame their anti-Slavic prejudices, which would have been necessary in order to forge a real and lasting alliance with Stalin? In that case, we are not talking about Nazism anymore, but some other hypothetical ideology with "communist" sympathies, and if some ideology like that had gained a toehold among the German masses, who knows how the course of events would be altered?

On the other hand, this question mirrors one I have asked myself. Here is how I put it in my own ruminations:

If Hitler had abandoned his eastern ambitions, if he had concentrated solely on the conquest of those nations that lay west of him, and if France had been as easy to conquer as it turned out to be in reality (thanks to the treasonous collaboration of the Vichy regime), and most importantly, if he had remained at peace with Stalin, would he have been able to successfully defend against an invasion by Allied forces staged from Britain?

It was Russian troops that did all of the heavy lifting in the destruction of Hitler's empire. Look at how badly the invasion went on Omaha Beach. If German troops had not been diverted to the east, for the war with Russia, every landing would have been an Omaha Beach. The invading force got lucky, and it was still a meatgrinder!

[Far-Right Sage]

It's not even a debate. The Western Allies, even with their infiltration games and deception of Ultra, would have had no chance without an Eastern Front. That's not to mention the enormous occupation forces in other countries in '44 which could have been maintained by Red Army personnel if the alliance with Moscow was retained.