USSR Joins Axis Powers

[JRP1994]

Hitler does not double-cross Stalin regarding the non-aggression pact, and the USSR formally joins the Axis powers in October 1939.

How does the outcome of the war change?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I don't know, man. Expansion to the East was a very core of the Nazi program.

[Blue3]

Hitler's and the Nazis' ideology was as anti-Slavic as it was anti-Semitic. He just chose to try and exterminate the Jews first. Hitler was planning on adding eastern Europe as more "living space" for the Germans/Austrians.

If the USSR joined the Axis powers, I guess that would allow the Nazis to eventually invade the UK. Maybe force peace with the US? Idk.

But after the allies were dealt with, Nazi Germany would have inevitably turned on the USSR.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

This would not happen.

[Vosem]

It really was a question of whether Stalin or Hitler backstabbed the other first; I recall I read somewhere that Stalin was planning an attack for the summer of 1942 and was unexpectedly preempted. Honestly, there's too much distrust and ambition there for it to last more than a few years (which is how long it did in reality; 1939-1941). If it does last (because of, most likely, some violent regime change in Germany), over the long run Germany will become an economic puppet of the Soviets. Difficult to tell how that leads; if the Sovs really, seriously decide to back Germany against an attack by the Western Allies I do think the war would continue way longer, but still, in the very long run (like, the 1950s) a conventional war between US+UK and Axis+Soviets would end with a US+UK victory. The really scary thing is that, considering how the US and Soviets ramped up their nuclear production in the early 1950s (and assuming on a war footing that could happen a bit earlier), there's a legitimate risk such a war could end with a limited nuclear exchange. (The war with Japan might actually end with a faster Allied victory though, if Anglo-American forces aren't active on the Continent and Lend-Lease obviously isn't happening at all). The 'US' would 'win' such an exchange in the sense of being the only 'Great Power' left standing and mostly intact, but the world as a whole would certainly lose. On the other hand, I doubt anti-Hitlerian (Soviet-backed is probably what you want for this scenario) coup in Germany against Hitler would consider continuing the Holocaust; it would be seen as a waste of resources, though official discrimination could -- probably would -- well continue. (There were rumors in 1953 that Stalin was planning to exile Soviet Jews to Birobidzhan -- that unfortunate scheme could actually take place, and on a much grander scale, in this timeline.) But this is all wanton, vague speculation.

[Likely Voter]

It is not out of the question. There were talks for the Soviets to join
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Axis_talks

Hitler's two biggest mistakes were invading the Soviet Union and declaring war in the USA (the Axis agreement didn't require that, Japan never declared war on the USSR for example). If he avoided both of those then it is likely that Germany could have won the war in Europe. If Japan could have been dissuaded from attacking the US then America might not have grown to become the dominant super-power it is today.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hitler's two biggest mistakes were invading the Soviet Union and declaring war in the USA

A couple of more weeks and Stalin would attack. It wasn't really matter of choice for both. It was who starts first.

Hitler's and the Nazis' ideology was as anti-Slavic as it was anti-Semitic. He just chose to try and exterminate the Jews first. Hitler was planning on adding eastern Europe as more "living space" for the Germans/Austrians.

Hitler wasn't patient. He was in hurry to secure a Lebensraum.

[Insula Dei]

Stalin was taken completely by surprise by Hitler's attack. The Russians definitely hadn't been preparing for an inevitable war with Germany. (Though you may argue that they should have known such a war was coming their way.) Nor were they very keen on it, as the German war machine had just the previous year basically conquered all of Western Europe and Scandinavia without meeting anything ressembling competent opposition.

There is actually quite a bit of controversy about Stalin's intentions (certainly in the long run) but the above is, I believe, more or less generally accepted in the West today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Stalin wasn't going to invade Germany before 1942 or 1943. The reason Hitler invaded when he did was to prevent economic collapse; the Nazi economic model was based entirely on territorial expansion by conquest.

[TNF]

This would not happen.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Stalin wasn't going to invade Germany before 1942 or 1943. The reason Hitler invaded when he did was to prevent economic collapse; the Nazi economic model was based entirely on territorial expansion by conquest.

Plus Stalin had already learned (or should have learned) that you definitely didn't want to fight a war in the winter.  The idea that Stalin planned to launch an invasion in July 1941 is somewhat ludicrous after what happened in the Winter War.  The Soviet Army had not yet had time to digest the lessons it had learned, and it had not had time to requip with the tanks and planes it wanted to have on hand.  At most, the Soviets might have tried to backstab Germany in 1941 if Hitler had attempted a cross-Channel invasion and gotten his Army and Air Force severely mauled.

Still, whether it was an invasion in 1941, '42, or even '43, if Stalin was thinking of invading, hen invading first was sound decision, even if the execution left a lot to be desired.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

The Axis wins, of course.

[© tweed]

There is actually quite a bit of controversy about Stalin's intentions (certainly in the long run)

I'm not sure Stalin was bred to be a very long-run thinking dude.

[Franknburger]

On the other hand, I doubt anti-Hitlerian (Soviet-backed is probably what you want for this scenario) coup in Germany against Hitler would consider continuing the Holocaust; it would be seen as a waste of resources, though official discrimination could -- probably would -- well continue.

The Holocaust was only commenced when the Soviet Union was invaded, and pursued systematically after war was declared on the USA. As ironic as it may sound, Germany relied on Jewish investment houses in the USA to finance its army. German Jews served as hostages, and the Jewish investment bankers in New York were led to believe that, by brokering loans to Germany, they could protect their German brethren. Key players in this "game" were the Warburg cousins, Felix Warburg as CEO of Kuhn, Loeb & Co, (later merged with Lehman Brothers) and Max Warburg, head of the original Warburg bank in Hamburg, and board member of the Reichsbank until 1938. Accordingly, until war was declared on the USA, German Jews, while heavily discriminated socially and professionally, were not physically endangered.
The invasion of the USSR provided a 'testing ground' for prosecution and extermination strategies that was largely hidden from the eyes of the German and international (American) public. Most German Jews were well integrated, had often fought in WW I, and, for their roles in business, law, medicine or education, possessed influential networks, which already made their discrimination, and even more so their (open) murder, politically risky for the Nazis. The Eastern European Jews, with their distinct culture and language, could much easier be presented as 'alien'.
As such, without invasion of the Soviet Union, the Holocaust would most likely not have taken place. There was close organisational and time-wise linkage between preparing for the invasion and for the killing of Eastern European Jews, which indicates that the Holocaust was among Hitler's motives for invading the USSR.     
 
I furthermore don't think that a Stalin-backed coup against Hitler would have had chances of success. German Communists, whose prosecution started directly in 1933, lacked the manpower and organisational strength (which is why Herbert Wehner, who in 1941 had been sent from exile in Moscow back to Germany to organise such a coup, decided it was better to get imprisoned in Sweden instead).
Resistance cells within the German army organised around old Prussian nobility, who were appalled by the Holocaust and German war practices on the eastern front, both of which they regarded as violation of military ethics and codes of conduct. Asides, they had realised after the Battle of Stalingrad that the war was lost, and, in the old Clausewitz school, wanted to finish it as fast as possible. In the absence of such motives, I doubt that they would even have listened to USSR agents trying to motivate them for a coup.

Hitler not invading the Soviet Union implies a different Hitler - more political realism, less anti-Semitic and anti-Slavonic fanaticism. Such a leader would, after the failed attempt to invade Britain, have realised the potential stalemate and tried to negotiate a peace deal with Great Britain. Such a deal depends, of course, on the offer. I could, e.g., imagine that in 1941, a return to the Pre WW I status quo would not have sounded too bad for Great Britain.