Razuu wrote: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.
Razuu wrote: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.
Razuu wrote: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.
Razuu wrote: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.
Razuu wrote: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.
Razuu wrote: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?
Razuu wrote: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.