History EnemyMine / REALLIFE

* The 2002 French presidential election saw moderates, conservatives, and leftists support the incumbent conservative president Jacques Chirac in the second round of voting. Why would they all team up to back Chirac even if he didn't share all their values and was faced with corruption scandals? Because his opponent was the far-right candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen, an extremist who denied the Holocaust, encouraged political violence and even assaulted a rival Socialist candidate when running for the European Parliament. While many weren't happy about the choices, as epitomized by the slogan "[[LesserOfTwoEvils vote for the crook, not the fascist]]" («''Votez pour l'escroc, pas pour le facho''» in French), Chirac nonetheless won re-election with ''82%'' of the vote.
* Spain's current ruling coalition is a downplayed example: most of the parties on the left, with the dividing factor being their stances on the European Union and Spanish unity. Some are pro-European Union and prefer a united Spain, like the PSOE: others are far-left, anti-EU, and pro-independence like Bildu. What united the entire Congress was a motion of no confidence lodged by far-right party Vox, which spurred everyone in Parliament to oppose it. Even the right-wing opposition leader of the People's Party, Pablo Casado, rejected it despite seeing the incumbent government as bad, out of a belief that Vox's actions were time-wasting political opportunism. In the end, the motion received the vote of no one apart from Vox itself. Not even Forum Austurias, often considered the most right-wing party in Parliament before Vox's existence, voted for it.

* Similar to Israel, the 2022 Hungarian election saw every opposition party joining together to oppose Viktor Orbán's Fidesz party. And that means literally ''all''-- every party with parliamentary representation that is not an Orbán ally from Greens and Socialists to the far-right Jobbik, which had since cleaned up its act.

** Both progressive anti-authoritarian leftists(especially anarchists) and reactionary authoritarian Patriotic Socialists display extreme animosity torwards the Party for Socialism and Liberation([=PSL=]) despite being complete ideological opposites. Anti-authoritarian leftists hate the [=PSL=] for supposedly trying to influence every single major progressive movement in the US via the ANWSER Coalition, whitewashing the Soviet Union, and defending every single regime opposed to the United States regardless of their socialist and progressive credentials and existing economic ties with the US undermining any anti-US opposition(with the [=PSL=]'s views on Russia, Iran, Syria and the [=PRC=] being singled out). Patriotic Socialists hate the [=PSL=] for seeming overreliance on staging demonstrations and reaching out to progressives and other leftists over more socially conservative Americans, supposedly "woke" socially progressive policies, unabashed anti-America attitudes, and their refusal to work with American libertarians and far-rightists that may have a positive view on Russia or subscribe to isolationalist politics[[note]]The justification here by [=PatSocs=] being that supposedly, the existing sympathy for Vladimir Putin in American far-rightist circles make the far-right more willing allies to work with in fermenting a pro-Russia movement, and that Marxist-Leninists should put "opposing the primary contradiction of imperialism" above opposing socially reactionary trends. Both claims are derided elsewhere as smokescreen for bigoted behavior on the part of [=PatSocs=].[[/note]] because of the far-right and bigoted views present in the latter groups.

** Both progressive anti-authoritarian leftists(especially anarchists) and reactionary authoritarian Patriotic Socialists display extreme animosity torwards the Party for Socialism and Liberation([=PSL=]) despite being complete ideological opposites. Anti-authoritarian leftists hate the [=PSL=] for supposedly trying to influence every single major progressive movement in the US, whitewashing the Soviet Union, and defending every single regime opposed to the United States regardless of their socialist and progressive credentials and existing economic ties with the US undermining any anti-US opposition(with the [=PSL=]'s views on Russia, Iran, Syria and the [=PRC=] being singled out). Patriotic Socialists hate the [=PSL=] for seeming overreliance on staging demonstrations and reaching out to progressives and other leftists over more socially conservative Americans, supposedly "woke" socially progressive policies, unabashed anti-America attitudes, and their refusal to work with American libertarians and far-rightists that may have a positive view on Russia or subscribe to isolationalist politics[[note]]The justification here by [=PatSocs=] being that supposedly, the existing sympathy for Vladimir Putin in American far-rightist circles make the far-right more willing allies to work with in fermenting a pro-Russia movement, and that Marxist-Leninists should put "opposing the primary contradiction of imperialism" above opposing socially reactionary trends. Both claims are derided elsewhere as smokescreen for bigoted behavior on the part of [=PatSocs=].[[/note]] because of the far-right and bigoted views present in the latter groups.

** Both progressive anti-authoritarian leftists(especially anarchists) and reactionary authoritarian Patriotic Socialists display extreme animosity torwards the Party for Socialism and Liberation([=PSL=]) despite being complete ideological opposites. Anti-authoritarian leftists hate the [=PSL=] for supposedly trying to influence every single major progressive movement in the US, whitewashing the Soviet Union, and defending every single regime opposed to the United States regardless of their socialist and progressive credentials and existing economic ties with the US undermining any anti-US opposition(with the [=PSL=]'s views on Iran, Syria and the [=PRC=] being singled out here). Patriotic Socialists hate the [=PSL=] for seeming overreliance on staging demonstrations and reaching out to progressives and other leftists over more socially conservative Americans, supposedly "woke" socially progressive policies, unabashed anti-America attitudes, and their refusal to work with American libertarians and far-rightists that may have a positive view on Russia or subscribe to isolationalist politics[[note]]The justification here by [=PatSocs=] being that supposedly, the existing sympathy for Vladimir Putin in American far-rightist circles make the far-right more willing allies to work with in fermenting a pro-Russia movement, and that Marxist-Leninists should put "opposing the primary contradiction of imperialism" above opposing socially reactionary trends. Both claims are derided elsewhere as smokescreen for bigoted behavior on the part of [=PatSocs=].[[/note]] because of the far-right and bigoted views present in the latter groups.

* Both the American far-left and American Conservatives support freerer gun ownership. American Conservatives support fully the "right to bear arms" as highlighted in the Second Amendment. Far-leftists on the other hand, while likely having no love for the US Constitution, believe in the right of workers to defend themselves with arms against any would-be oppressors in the case of a revolution or a major upheaval.

** Both progressive anti-authoritarian leftists(especially anarchists) and reactionary authoritarian Patriotic Socialists display extreme animosity torwards the Party for Socialism and Liberation([=PSL=]) despite being complete ideological opposites. Anti-authoritarian leftists hate the [=PSL=] for supposedly trying to influence every single major progressive movement in the US, whitewashing the Soviet Union, and defending every single regime opposed to the United States regardless of their socialist and progressive credentials and existing economic ties with the US undermining any anti-US opposition(with the [=PSL=]'s views on Iran, Syria and the [=PRC=] being singled out here). Patriotic Socialists hate the [=PSL=] for seeming overreliance on staging demonstrations and reaching out to progressives and other leftists over more socially conservative Americans, supposedly "woke" socially progressive policies, unabashed anti-America attitudes, and their refusal to work with American libertarians and far-rightists that may have a positive view on Russia or subscribe to isolationalist politics[[note]]The idea here spread by [=PatSocs=] being that supposedly, the existing sympathy for Vladimir Putin in American far-rightist circles make the far-right more willing allies to work with in fermenting a pro-Russia movement, and that Marxist-Leninists should put "opposing the primary contradiction of imperialism" above opposing socially reactionary trends.[[/note]] because of the far-right and bigoted views present in the latter groups.

** Both progressive anti-authoritarian leftists(especially anarchists) and reactionary authoritarian Patriotic Socialists display extreme animosity torwards the Party for Socialism and Liberation([=PSL=]) despite being complete ideological opposites. Anti-authoritarian leftists hate the [=PSL=] for supposedly trying to influence every single major protest movement in the US, whitewashing the Soviet Union, and defending every single regime opposed to the United States regardless of their socialist and progressive credentials and existing economic ties with the US undermining any anti-US opposition(with the [=PSL=]'s views on Iran, Syria and the [=PRC=] being singled out here). Patriotic Socialists hate the [=PSL=] for seeming overreliance on staging demonstrations and reaching out to progressives and other leftists over more socially conservative Americans, supposedly "woke" socially progressive policies, unabashed anti-America attitudes, and their refusal to work with American libertarians and far-rightists that may have a positive view on Russia or subscribe to isolationalist politics because of the far-right views present in the latter groups.

** Both progressive anti-authoritarian leftists(especially anarchists) and reactionary authoritarian Patriotic Socialists display extreme animosity torwards the Party for Socialism and Liberation([=PSL=]) despite being complete ideological opposites. Anti-authoritarian leftists hate the [=PSL=] for trying to influence every single major protest movement in the US, whitewashing the Soviet Union, and defending every single regime opposed to the United States regardless of their socialist and progressive credentials and existing economic ties with the US undermining any anti-US opposition(with the [=PSL=]'s views on Iran, Syria and the [=PRC=] being singled out here). Patriotic Socialists hate the [=PSL=] for overreliance on staging demonstrations and reaching out to progressives and other leftists over more socially conservative Americans, supposedly "woke" socially progressive policies, unabashed anti-America attitudes, and their refusal to work with American libertarians and far-rightists that may have a positive view on Russia or subscribe to isolationalist politics because of the far-right views present in the latter groups.

** Both progressive anti-authoritarian leftists(especially anarchists) and reactionary authoritarian Patriotic Socialists display extreme animosity torwards the Party for Socialism and Liberation([=PSL=]) despite being complete ideological opposites. Anti-authoritarian leftists hate the [=PSL=] for trying to influence every single major protest movement in the US and whitewashing and defending every single regime opposed to the United States regardless of their socialist and progressive credentials and existing economic ties with the US undermining any anti-US opposition. Patriotic Socialists hate the [=PSL=] for overreliance on staging demonstrations and reaching out to progressives and other leftists over more socially conservative Americans, supposedly "woke" socially progressive policies, unabashed anti-America attitudes, and their refusal to work with American libertarians and far-rightists that may have a positive view on Russia or subscribe to isolationalist politics because of the far-right views present in the latter groups.

** Both progressive anti-authoritarian leftists(especially anarchists) and reactionary authoritarian Patriotic Socialists display extreme animosity torwards the Party for Socialism and Liberation([=PSL=]) despite being complete ideological opposites. Anti-authoritarian leftists hate the [=PSL=] for trying to influence every single major protest movement in the US and whitewashing and defending every single regime opposed to the United States regardless of their socialist and progressive credentials and existing economic ties with the US undermining any anti-US opposition. Patriotic Socialists hate the [=PSL=] for [[SoapboxSadie overreliance on protest tactics]], socially progressive policies, and their refusal to work with American libertarians and far-rightists that may have a positive view on Russia or subscribe to isolationalist politics.

* In another example overlapping with politics, the toxic, antisemitic and borderline ultra-reactionary behavior of the Patriotic Socialist ([=PatSoc=]) wing of the Tankie/Marxist-Leninist left, particularly their leaders like Caleb Maupin, Infrared and Jackson Hinkle, unified multiple segments of the online and offline left with drastically different ideologies and historical rivalries such as Anarchists, comparatively moderate socialists (especially ones strongly opposed to bigotry and/or Marxist-Leninist ideology), other tankies (particularly Maoists, extremely anti-American tankies, and elements of the tankie left that support progressive ideas like trans rights or intersectionality), and social democrats. In the end, even [[EvenEvilHasStandards elements]] of the patriotic socialist left would turn against the leadership of the various [=PatSoc=] organizations due to their increasingly toxic and bigoted behavior, with Maupin himself being forced into hiding for a few months after the exposing of his history of sexual abuse by [=PatSocs=] disgusted at his actions.
* The very same crowd that tend to come together against the [=PatSocs=] tend to also display similar levels of unity against controversial leftist Youtuber Vaush, whom has drawn the ire of Marxist-Leninists, anarchists, social justice activists and black nationalists. Tankies obviously hate Vaush for his anti-Communism, tendency to associate Communism with Fascism and National Bolshevism, along with his support for both the Democratic Party and a more hawkish American foreign policy, while anarchists that might have usually agreed with Vaush about Marxism-Leninism hate him for self-identifying as an anarchist despite pushing politics that are seen to be moderate rather than revolutionary. Social justice advocates hate him for his willingness to debate the far-right, along with certain questionable viewpoints on children. Black nationalists hate him for opposing black nationalism. It has been commonly joked that "hating Vaush" is proof that "left unity" exists[[note]]Note that this tends to be only prevalent among the American left. Vaush tends to be much more [[GermansLoveDavidHasselhoff well-regarded]] by Eastern European non-Communist leftists due to the various atrocities of the Communist bloc significantly souring even left-leaning Eastern Europeans on Communism and other far left ideologies, which in turn makes Vaush's relatively moderate politics more popular[[/note]].

* The entire left-wing and far-left spectrum of the United States, regardless of political tendency or ideological disagreements between each other, tend to have a negative view of the Communist Party USA([=CPUSA=]). This is because the [=CPUSA=]'s tendency to support both the Democratic party as well as a peaceful implementation of socialism manages to alienate both hardline Marxist-Leninists and anarchists that believe any shift to the left to be impossible by working in the political structure set up in the [=US=] and see a violent revolution to be the only way forward. At the same time, leftists that tend to support the Democratic party on pragmatic grounds see the [=CPUSA=] as doing nothing to lay the groundwork for a shift to socialism at the grassroots level or displaying bad optics by parading around as Communists in the first place. The party's historical hardline support of the Soviet Union under perennial candidate Gus Hall along with its current support for the [=PRC=] also alienated anti-authoritarian leftists. Even when the [=CPUSA=] does something that is generally applauded by the rest of the American far-left (such as with their role in unionizing Amazon and their purge of Patriotic Socialists from their ranks), they tend to quickly draw animosity as soon as the next election season gets underway.

* When several American carmakers stopped offering AM radio in new vehicles starting in 2024, many independent broadcasters and politicians voiced their opposition to this, fearing that rural communities and drivers would miss important alerts as AM radio can easily pass through solid objects and travel longer than FM radio. Plus, conservative and liberal groups stated this would muzzle talk radio and prevent immigrants from accessing language-specific info, respectively. Citing the need for public safety, Congress has proposed a law requiring carmakers to maintain AM radio in new vehicles at no additional charge. The FCC has also voiced its support for the proposed law.

[[folder:Politcal Beliefs]]

** Though not explicitly on Russia's side, some pacifists along with hardline Western democratic socialists like Jeremy Corbyn, Mick Wallace, Claire Daly, Alex Tyrell, Yanis Varoufakis, Noam Chomsky, Music/RogerWaters, and the far-left wing of the Democratic Socialists of America have opposed Ukraine for defending themselves and prolonging the war, instead of just capitulating, as they view a Ukrainian victory to be unlikely and a folly which will just get people killed unnecessarily and possibly bring about the end of the world if the conflict escalates to NATO nations. They also perceive the Western world's foreign policy towards Ukraine to be extremely hypocritical. They also blame the West for creating the conflict by "provoking" Russia with NATO's expansion into Russia's neighbors. To complicate things, former Secretary of State UsefulNotes/HenryKissinger supports their views, as do various political theorists of the "Realism" theory of international relations such as John Mearsheimer.

* The February 19 Rage Against the War Machine anti-war[[note]]Very arguably less of an "anti-war" and more of a "pro-Russia" rally.[[/note]] rally brought together many pro-Russia groups regardless of ideology such as Pro-America Communists, Patriotic Socialists, Class Reductionist leftists and progressives, isolationalist republicans, pro-Trump republicans, far-right liberitarians, open National Bolsheviks, and white nationalists. Opposition to the rally, interestingly enough brought together both pro and anti-Russian organizations. On one end pro-Ukranian liberals, progressives, and anti-Trump Republicans opposed what they saw as a pro-Russia and far-right rally. On the other end, the rally was also opposed by openly anti-America Communist parties like the [=PSL=] that have expressed pro-Russia viewpoints as well as Communist parties with vocal pro-Russia and anti-America members like the [=CPUSA=], this being due to both groups expressing concerns about the dominant position of the far-right in the rally and their opposition to pro-America Patriotic Socialists for their socially reactionary attitudes.

* The February 19 Rage Against the War Machine anti-war[[note]]Very arguably less of an "anti-war" and more of a "pro-Russia" rally.[[/note]] rally brought together many pro-Russia groups regardless of ideology such as Pro-America Communists, Patriotic Socialists, Class Reductionist leftists and progressives, isolationalist republicans, pro-Trump republicans, far-right liberitarians, open National Bolsheviks, and white nationalists. Opposition to the rally, interestingly enough brought together both pro and anti-Russian organizations. On one hand pro-Ukranian liberals, progressives, and anti-Trump Republicans opposed what they saw as a pro-Russia and far-right rally...alongsides openly anti-America Communist parties like the [=PSL=] that have expressed pro-Russia viewpoints as well as Communist parties with vocal pro-Russia and anti-America members like the [=CPUSA=], this being due to both groups expressing concerns about the dominant position of the far-right in the rally and their opposition to pro-America Patriotic Socialists for their socially reactionary attitudes.

* The February 19 Rage Against the War Machine anti-war[[note]]Very arguably less of an "anti-war" and more of a "pro-Russia" rally.[[/note]] rally brought together many pro-Russia groups regardless of ideology such as Pro-America Communists, Patriotic Socialists, Class Reductionist leftists and progressives, isolationalist republicans, pro-Trump republicans, far-right liberitarians, open National Bolsheviks, and white nationalists. Opposition to the rally, interestingly enough brought together both pro and anti-Russian organizations. On one hand pro-Ukranian liberals, progressives, and anti-Trump Republicans opposed what they saw as a pro-Russia and far-right rally...alongsides openly anti-America Communist parties like the [=PSL=] that have expressed pro-Russia viewpoints as well as Communist parties with vocal pro-Russia and anti-America members like the [=CPUSA=], this being due to both groups expressing concerns about the dominant position of the far-right in the rally and their opposition to pro-America Patriotic Socialism for their socially reactionary attitudes.

* A year after the Taliban overthrew the Western-backed Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, they found themselves on the same side of the [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War Russo-Ukrainian War]] as their NATO adversaries following [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine]]. The restored Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan called for a peaceful resolution of the conflict despite previously seizing control of their own country by violent means, presumably in an attempt to legitimize their position in the global community.

[[folder:Politics]]

!!!Historical Politics

[[folder:Modern Politics]]
!!Modern Politics
* American conservatives and neocons are militantly pro-Israel; Islamic activists, as a rule, are equally militantly ''anti''-Israel. But both factions worked together to oppose Serbian leader UsefulNotes/SlobodanMilosevic and his Serb ultranationalist proxies, known for their near-genocidal stance against mainly-Muslim Bosniaks and Albanians during UsefulNotes/TheYugoslavWars.
** Over in the pro-Milošević camp, meanwhile, were the anti-war, anti-imperialist radical left... and the hardcore nationalist, Orthodox Christian radical ''right'', who saw Milošević as a bulwark against an Islamic invasion of eastern Europe. Creator/ChristopherHitchens, a self-described former Marxist, [[https://web.archive.org/web/20200325045006if_/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/christopher-hitchens-in-enemy-territory-550522.html stated]] that this was when the Left lost its way.
-->'''Hitchens:''' I first became interested in the neocons during the war in Bosnia-Herzgovinia. That war in the early 1990s changed a lot for me. I never thought I would see, in Europe, a full-dress reprise of internment camps, the mass murder of civilians, the reinstitution of torture and rape as acts of policy. And I didn't expect so many of my comrades to be indifferent -- or even take the side of the fascists. It was a time when many people on the left were saying 'Don't intervene, we'll only make things worse' or, 'Don't intervene, it might destabilise the region.' And I thought, destabilisation of fascist regimes is a good thing. Why should the left care about the stability of undemocratic regimes? Wasn't it a good thing to destabilise the regime of [[UsefulNotes/FranciscoFranco General Franco]]?
* 1990s Russia saw the pro-Western and pro-capitalist Russian government opposed by a coalition of communists and far-rightists known as the "red-brown alliance".

* The two major political parties in the US territory of Puerto Rico are the Popular Democratic Party, which advocates for remaining a territory, and the New Progressive Party, which advocates for statehood. Beyond that, they are broad tent parties who both contain left- and right-wing members -- in fact, while the current governor is a member of the PDP, and the current representative in Congress is a member of the NPP, they are both also members of the Democratic party.
* During his 2000 bid for the presidency, Al Gore chose Joe Lieberman as his running mate, despite Lieberman being a noted critic of the Clinton administration Gore was Vice President for.
* In 2006, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo tried to change the constitution to allow himself to contest for a third term in office the next year. This led to a feud with his Vice President (and heir-apparent) Atiku Abubakar. To stop the amendment, Atiku teamed up with opposition leader Muhamadu Buhari who was planning a presidential bid as well. They successfully kept Obasanjo out of the race, but their alliance fell apart soon after since neither would step aside for/endorse the other. Obasanjo's new hand-picked successor, Umaru Yar'Adua, won.
** Yar'Adua then proceeded to die in office, leaving the presidency to the UnexpectedSuccessor Goodluck Jonathan, who surprised everybody by actually doing a decent job and getting elected in his own right.
* In a more martial Nigerian example, imprisoned Niger Delta rebels like Isaac Boro were released by the government and admitted into the Federal Army to help defeat the Biafran secessionists. The Niger Deltans figured being minority ethnicities in a Nigeria with 3 mutually hostile major tribes was more palatable than being minority ethnicities in a Biafra with one very dominant tribe, the Ibo.

* In street demonstrations against Israel, the crowd will often include fundamentalist Muslims, anarchists, neo-Nazis, leftists, and anti-Zionist Hasidic Jews who believe the Messiah must come before Jews return to Israel. When it comes to pro-Israel protests, it's Evangelical Christians and conservative nationalists teaming up with Jewish Israelis against the predominately Muslim Palestinians. Note that these Christians, most of whom are foreigners from the West and support Israel as part of their religious views on the second coming, are different from Israeli-Arab Christians, who generally stand with their Muslim compatriots.
** [[http://de.stopthebomb.net StopTheBomb]], an organization which is no friends of the Iranian regime (to say the least) has many members who are or have been on government watchlists for supposed or real radical leftist activities, yet it was none other than Republican senator UsefulNotes/JohnMcCain who sang "bomb bomb Iran" in 2008. War and politics making strange bedfellows apparently goes triply so when Israel is in some way involved or implied to be involved.
** Many leftists and social liberals support Palestine despite the fact that Palestine is very much socially conservative, especially in comparison to Israel. This especially applies for LGBT activists who support Palestine despite the fact that they're much less accepting of LGBT rights than Israel. However, this is justified to an extent since there are many innocent Palestinian victims caught in the crossfire.
** It is interesting that on the old Israel Insider website - a ''very'' partisan propaganda site for Israeli expansionism - many comment pieces were written by [[UsefulNotes/TheTroubles Northern Irish Unionists/Loyalists]], including a regular commentator known for his association with extremist Loyalist factions. The particular loyalist grouping this commentator was associated with had strong links to far-right groupings such as Column 88 and the National Front, organizations hitherto not renowned for being pro-Jewish or sympathetic to Israel. The reasoning appeared to be both parties involved drawing parallels to a perceived terrorist threat (the IRA/Hamas) drawn from a subject population who knew no better than blind hatred and violence towards their neighbors who were treating them with nothing other than forbearance and kindly understanding, despite all provocations. What Israelis or Ulster loyalists might have done to alienate and disaffect their neighbors was never spoken of, but the strong implication was that the two terrorist groupings were working together as a threat to world civilization.
** Some white nationalists, despite their Antisemitism, have praised Israel's Jewish character as the kind of "ethnostate" they want to achieve elsewhere. No matter that this is severely MisaimedFandom as Israel is one of the "western" (for whatever that means) states with the highest share of Muslim citizens and Islamic law governs e.g. marriage between Muslims in Israel (There is no civil marriage and if you can't find a priest, rabbi or imam who will marry you, your only option is to go abroad to get married and have the ceremony recognized upon return -- UsefulNotes/{{Cyprus}} is a popular destination for that). To say nothing of the high immigration rate and the diverse backgrounds of the Jewish population (they all identify as Jews first and foremost, but that doesn't erase their Russian, German, Ethiopian, Middle Eastern, etc. heritage)
** Similarly, Rational Wiki has noted that white supremacists and black supremacists both take a share of their ideas from OG fascists like [[UsefulNotes/BenitoMussolini Mussolini]], Joseph Goebbels, and especially [[UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler Hitler himself]], meaning they both share a considerable hatred for Jews, often eclipsing one group's hatred for the other's race.
* Likewise in street protests against the Chinese government, the anti-PRC crowd would usually contain a mix of Chinese dissidents, centrist liberals, libertarian socialists critical of their authoritarianism and quasi-state capitalist economy, anti-communists who view them as the last real bastion of communism, conservative nationalists who dislike their economic influence, and unfortunately some who are just plain racist. On the pro-PRC side, there are usually Chinese nationalists, pro-China socialists, communists who view them as the last real bastion of communism, critics of US foreign policy, "zero-COVID" advocates (before China abolished these policies), and some ethno-nationalists who want to emulate their model of governance.
* Prominent religious conservatives and liberal disability rights groups have teamed up several times to fight the legalization of assisted suicide. They were also on the same side during the Terri Schiavo debacle, and have also joined forces over prenatal testing.

* The pro-life movement includes numerous groups arguing from different angles, many of whom wouldn't usually agree with the religious conservatives traditionally associated with the movement. Staunch atheists, self-styled liberals, American Democrats and feminists of various kinds have all been known to team up with them.
** Likewise the pro-choice or rather the "abortion should be an option in some well-defined though probably very limited circumstances, even though I personally would probably never consider an abortion" movement (though that would of course be too long for placards) which - according to some polls - accounts for over 80% of Americans is an incredibly broad coalition, that while they don't see eye to eye on much else (and often oppose specific ''types'' of abortion) are very much in agreement on the need to have at least some abortion clinics and in the fight against ever restrictive laws that would limit some states to one abortion clinic every two hundred miles ''at best''.
* Aside from their common opposition to gamete donor anonymity, the donor-conceived-rights movement is ideologically very diverse (partly because their members have their own opinions on other issues, depending on their personalities and life circumstances): on the one hand, some religious conservatives, which are traditionally opposed to any kind of assisted reproductive technology, see the end of donor anonymity as a way to mitigate the worst excesses of these techniques, while on the other hand, some liberal activists (including child rights activists of all stripes and even feminists and LGBT+ rights activists, especially in Europe, where donor anonymity is sometimes still the only option around in some countries) see the issue as being primarily a matter of social justice, and feel donor anonymity reinforces the stigma around non-traditional families and fosters a culture of shame and secrecy which, ironically, causes children from infertile heterosexual couples to suffer the most. Needless to say, the opposition is equally as diverse.[[note]]Radical lesbian activists from the far left, libertarians, industry advocates, and even conservatives, either out of pragmatism, because it doesn't go far enough, or even because they oppose any regulation of the industry for racist/far-right pro-natalist reasons.[[/note]]

* Despite their obvious theological differences, Catholics and Protestants often team up to oppose abortion and same-sex marriage.

* While it was obviously something that conservatives were angry about, even liberals and other people who dislike UsefulNotes/SarahPalin were disgusted by Martin Bashir's assertion that she deserved to be subjected to "Derby's dose" (a punishment enacted on African slaves where they were forced to consume feces) for comparing the federal debt to slavery. This was compounded with Bashir's fellow former MSNBC anchor Alec Baldwin alleging a DoubleStandard in the fact that Baldwin was quickly fired for an anti-gay slur he said in an outburst against reporters yet Bashir still had his job after his ''scripted'' offensive comments. Unsurprisingly, Bashir eventually resigned.
* To show support towards the Palestinian cause, UsefulNotes/SaudiArabia maintains no official relations with UsefulNotes/{{Israel}}. Despite this, both are staunch US allies and frequently find themselves to be unlikely allies against a shared threat, UsefulNotes/{{Iran}}, albeit because of different reasons (Saudi because of Iran's promotion of Shi'ite rebel groups in the region, Israel because of the Iranian nuclear program). There are even rumors that Saudi has allowed its airspace to be used by Israeli jets for reconnaissance missions in Iran, although both countries officially denied this. UsefulNotes/{{Bahrain}} and the UsefulNotes/UnitedArabEmirates used to be of the same lot as Saudi as well, until they decided to establish relations with Israel in 2020.
* Israel itself, despite being created in the aftermath of [[UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust one of the world's most atrocious acts of racial hatred]], supported Apartheid South Africa as well as Turkey which denies the Armenian Genocide to this day. Part of this can be attributed to geopolitical considerations: Apartheid South Africa made a convenient ally due to both countries' isolation from their weaker but more populous neighbors, while Turkey is one of the few non-Arab countries in the region, as well as one of the few Muslim-majority states which didn't maintain a degree of hostility towards them. With that said, Israel-Turkey relations deteriorated in the 2010s as Turkey became more openly anti-Israel under Erdoğan, and many Israeli politicians began calling for recognition of the Armenian Genocide in response.
* For the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014 2014 Scottish referendum on independence]], the "No" camp was dominated by a rare alliance between Labour and the governing parties (the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats). Among the smaller political movements opposed to independence, there was also UKIP, far-left parties and far-right nationalists. Take any combination of the five and you'd find they were bitter enemies. There was some division in the "Yes" camp to, but they managed to coalesce around a vaguely left-wing vision.
** Although in the case of the latter, this trope was still in full effect, as support for independence ranged from Business for Scotland to the Scottish Socialist Party, as well as the mutually hostile SNP and Green Party (the latter temporarily withdrawing at one point in protest at Yes Scotland becoming an "SNP vehicle"). Even some Labour rebels backed an independent Scotland while desperately hoping that the SNP would not be the ones to lead it...
* Ultra-nationalist political parties in Europe have had a long tradition of neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism. But since the early 2010s, a number of them have attempted to cozy up to their Israeli counterparts to fight what they perceive to be an Islamic threat to Europe. When social media gadfly (and son of the then Israeli Prime Minister) Yair Netanyahu posted a meme critical of Hungarian businessman and political power broker George Soros (who is a frequently invoked boogeyman and antisemitic dogwhistle on the far right) several European far right figures all but had an orgasm in public, because they could now point to [[SomeOfMyBestFriendsAreX their Jewish friend]] Yair when making anti-Semitic dog whistles about Soros.
* In a truly bizarre case of both this and GoKartingWithBowser, UsefulNotes/MarcusGarvey (leader of the Back-to-Africa movement) was friends with Earnest Sevier Cox, a vicious white supremacist and eugenicist, and his fellow segregationists. Why? Garvey felt that the only way for black people to be freed from discrimination was to simply start their own country; this was ''great'' for Cox, who believed that miscegenation led to the downfall of civilizations, and that America needed to be completely free of nonwhite influence in order to thrive. Together they collaborated on the repatriation movement, advertising each other's writings and speaking at each other's events. When Garvey was imprisoned, [[PleaseSpareHimMyLiege Cox went to the Secretary of Labor personally to ask him to pardon Garvey]], and even after Garvey was deported, they wrote each other letters and referred to each other fondly in writings. Cox even dedicated a book to him.
* During the 60s, the Nation of Islam cooperated with the white supremacist organizations like the UsefulNotes/KuKluxKlan in opposing the UsefulNotes/CivilRightsMovement. While both parties held racist views of the opposing organization's members, they hated racial integration more than they hated each other, believing that white and black Americans could never peacefully co-exist even if races mixed. In fact, it wasn't uncommon for white segregationists and Neo-Nazis to attend rallies with the Nation or quote its leaders. However, this alliance did lead to some members, most notably UsefulNotes/MalcolmX, quitting the Nation as they weren't pleased with the notion of working with the same racists who threatened their lives.
* In parliamentary systems with proportional representation coalitions are a common occurrence, and they involve compromise as a matter of course. However, a so-called "grand coalition" is usually this trope in spades. During UsefulNotes/TheBonnRepublic there was only one "grand coalition" where SPD and CDU/CSU the main center-left and center-right parties teamed up from 1966 to 1969. This coalition included figures such as Franz Josef Strauß (CSU), Herbert Wehner and Willy Brandt (both SPD) almost all of them had viciously attacked the political opponent before and would go on to do so afterwards. This being relatively shortly after the war, some attacks centered on the conduct during the war. Brandt was attacked for having been an exile, while some CDU/CSU members were accused for having been fellow travelers or ''worse''. Remarkably, this grand coalition got done what it had to do and dissolved after the next election. One of the things it passed with its crushing über-majority were new emergency powers laws, which were supported by the Western Allies and the government and opposed by a strange coalition including former concentration camp inmates as well as leftist students against the Vietnam war and high ranking spokespersons of both churches (Lutheran and Catholic).
** Unfortunately, Austria has a grand coalition as a default result of federal elections, which [[Administrivia/TropesAreTools arguably has caused a lack of enthusiasm for politics in the country]].

* The Minimum Income (or [[InsistentTerminology "Negative Tax Credit"]]) has become something of a strange unifying factor between Socialists and some Libertarians in recent years. The Socialists support the idea as being in line with their beliefs. The Libertarians, on the other hand, realize that they're unlikely to end government welfare completely, and feel that if it has to exist, then simply writing the poor a check would be preferable to (and cheaper than) attempting to regulate how every penny of welfare money is spent. In France, some parts of the ''Nouvelle Droite'' ("New Right") also support minimum income policies, with New-Right-aligned philosopher Alain de Benoist writing a whole book about it.
* When the first round of the 2017 French Presidential election resulted in National Front candidate Marine Le Pen and independent Emmanuel Macron advancing to the runoff, Socialist Benoît Hamon and Republican François Fillon were both quick to throw their support behind the more centrist Macron, seeing him as more reliable and stable than the right-wing Le Pen. Most of the other defeated candidates followed suit, and Macron ended up defeating Le Pen by more than double the votes.
* French philosopher and notorious anti-liberal Alain de Benoist is a member of the Mont Pellerin Society, a group founded by the Austrian economist/proto-libertarian Friedrich August von Hayek.
* A few philosophers, like the National Bolshevik/Eurasianist Alexander Dugin and the post-Left Slavoj Zijzek, have advocated for an alliance of the alt-right and the pro-Bernie Sanders Democrats. Zijzek even stated that the left should support Steve Bannon, in the hope of getting rid of Donald Trump and preventing Mike Pence from becoming president.

* The 2018 general elections in Costa Rica were atypical to say the least. The most voted candidate in the first round was conservative religious candidate Fabricio Alvarado (a devout Evangelical Christian singer and a strong opponent of same-sex marriage), while the second most voted became (not surprisingly) the liberal progressive candidate, Carlos Alvarado (who is pro-same sex marriage) from the country's center-left ruling party, PAC. Most of the mainstream parties from left to right alike joined forces against Fabricio, including the far-left Broad Front, the centrist PLN and the right-wing PUSC. The PLN and PAC's alliance is particularly notorious, considering how Costa Rica's pseudo two-party system had made them bitter rivals until this point.
** More surprisingly, according to polls Carlos Alvarado's support came mostly from two very different groups; non-religious and Roman Catholics. Costa Rican non-religious (including of course atheists and agnostics) are generally socially liberal and pro-secularism (Costa Rica is the only confessional state of the Americas) whilst Catholics are both socially conservative and pro-confessionalism. The catch here is that they are both strongly anti-Evangelical (the religion of Fabricio) although for different reasons of course. Once it was made public that Fabricio's mentor and close advisor said in a book that Costa Rica's patron saint the Virgin of the Angels was a demon Fabricio's defeat was pretty much assured.
** A tendency of these strange bedfellows continues with the discussion of the Fiscal Reform that both the far-left and the far-right opposes. The labor unions and the far-left Broad Front parties opposes it because they claim it benefits the rich, whilst the Christian right that supported Alvarado and his party also opposes it because they dislike the government. This causes an alliance between the PAC, PLN and PUSC which have the majority in Congress but lack votes, and a very strange case of watching ultra-conservative Evangelical Christians and left-wing activists and college students working together when they normally are at each others’ throats. Even Fabricio Alvarado and left-wing labor union leader Albino Vargas met together.
* The debate on free speech and political correctness (especially on the university campuses) has had some interesting groups of people defending one another. For a few examples:
** Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur of ''The Young Turks'' have defended conservative commentator Ben Shapiro's right to speak, despite their mutually drastic differing political opinions. Shapiro for his part has insisted that liberal professors and speakers should be allowed to voice controversial opinions, no matter how much he may disagree with them.
** Liberal pundit Bill Maher and right-wing journalist Milo Yiannopoulos have debated one another on a great number of issues, while they find that they agree on, at the very least, the issue of free speech and the ability to speak on them. Maher later had a similar, but more conciliatory, discussion with conservative Canadian scholar Jordan Peterson on similar issues.
** [[Series/JudgeJudy Judith Sheindlin]] has spoken at Oxford about how universities should remain open marketplaces for ideas, as long as those ideas are not laced in hatred (specifically citing David Duke of the American Nazi Party as someone she would ''not'' allow at a university she headed).
*** Generally speaking, most learned people (almost all of the above are scholars in some form) are in agreement on that a university, at the very least, must be a marketplace for ideas and debate on them without fear of danger.
** The far right and some segments of the far left--mainly Orthodox Trotskyists, Tankies that adhere to Old Left or socially conservative ideas, and elements of the American left disillusioned with Bernie and the "Squad" for their relatively moderate politics[[note]]A common allegation in these circles was that the emphasis by Bernie in 2020 on social issues over his supposedly more populist and class-based 2016 campaign, along with the more racial-justice and intersectionality oriented politics of the Squad played a role in sinking Bernie's 2020 run, with some going as far as to blame identity politics for Bernie's compromising attitude towards the democrats[[/note]]--both hate "identity politics." The far right obviously hates it because they dislike the idea of a more inclusive society, while class-oriented leftists hate that the focus on the issues of LGBTQ+, women, and people of color detracts from the traditional Marxist emphasis on class consciousness, and can potentially create a political situation where centrists and even right-wingers identifying as people of color, women or LGBTQ+ are prioritized by progressives over genuine leftists.
* This happened between two fierce political rivals in Malaysia in the days leading up to the 2018 elections. Dr. Mahathir and Anwar Ibrahim weren't exactly known to be the best of friends. However, when the Najib government became increasingly unpopular, Mahathir came out of retirement, created a new party, and formed a coalition with Anwar's party in a bid to take Najib down. In a similar vein, many Malaysians agreed among themselves to put aside their differences in beliefs to oust Najib. The Najib government was [[CurbStompBattle completely crushed]] on election day.
* Environmentalists and animal rights activists usually loathe genetic engineering and processed foods, but they support efforts to create lab-grown meat by food companies, believing that it will reduce animal suffering and reduce the strain put on the environment by animal husbandry.

* In 2016, there was an attempt from the (center-right) government of Hungary to amend the constitution with anti-immigration rules. The left and the far-right joined forces to fight it. The left was against it because they deemed it to be too harsh against immigration. The far-right was against it because they deemed it to not be harsh enough against immigration.

* Various non-white racial advocacy groups in several countries are associated with the political left. But actually, most of the communities they represent are socially conservative (particularly where LGBT issues are concerned). Before the Republicans began ramping up their anti-immigrant rhetoric, Catholic Hispanics would also serve as a [[KingmakerScenario king-maker]] in many electoral districts in the US. The same argument could easily apply to the Arab American Muslim population. A lot of them are pretty socially conservative themselves, but the Republican Party's anti-Muslim rhetoric, hardcore Zionism[[note]]Both parties are officially pro-Israel but there is a significant or at least loud minority of Democrats who are pro-Palestine, while such sympathies are at least less prevalent on the Republican side.[[/note]] and their sympathy towards Dominionists (a group which advocates making Christianity the official state religion of the United States) has left Muslims no choice but to support the Democrats. It is probably fair to say that conservative populations from ethnic minority groups don't really find any sort of liberalism to their taste and would rather have a benign conservatism that can serve ''their'' interests. However, oftentimes their only choices are a more liberal party, which wouldn't agree with their stances on, say queer issues; or a more conservative party, which they often feel only cares about rich white men.
** That's something that actually happens a lot in Europe and non-Islamic Asia (countries like India and Israel) as Website/TheOtherWiki points out with [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Muslim_vote their article]] on the so-called "Progressive Muslim vote". Muslims are generally socially conservative everywhere but they really can't vote for the right as in most countries whether caters to the religious majority (Christian, Hindu or Jewish) promising to rule accordingly to their religious views or is (at least to some degree) anti-Islamic for different reasons[[note]]Sometimes historical conflicts like India and Israel, sometimes because of the anti-Muslim immigrant rhetoric prevalent in Europe.[[/note]].
* The [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbers_Cave_Experiment "Robbers' Cave" experiment]]. Two groups of boys at a summer camp were first isolated from each other and encouraged to form a group mentality. After a few days they were introduced to the other group in a competitive environment in order to produce inter-group friction. This stage was ''ended early'' when the hostile rivalry reached potentially dangerous levels. The groups were then given mutual "superordinate goals" forcing them to work together, and the hostility evaporated as quickly as it had appeared.

* Liberal Pirate Party types (the Pirate Party doesn't officially have an American branch, but several States have their own Pirate Party branches) agreed with Donald Trump, ostensibly a pro-copyright type whose base includes corporate types especially in the oil, cable, and copyright policing sectors, when he decided to start his term by rejecting the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The former was concerned about draconian copyright overreach, while the latter was concerned with keeping as many jobs in America as possible.

* Very common during presidential elections in general. Candidates who drop out of a race will often endorse their former opponents in the same political party, especially if it means defeating the opposing party's presidential nominee.

* During the [[UsefulNotes/COVID19Pandemic COVID-19 pandemic]], Ontario premier Doug Ford (a conservative) and Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau (a liberal), who'd butted heads against each other in the past, set aside their differences to help Ontario flatten the curve.
* The anti-vaccination movement, along with the anti-lockdown movement during the COVID-19 pandemic saw an odd alliance across the political spectrum between some left-wing anarchists, Hollywood liberals, libertarians of many persuasions, and far right nationalists, all opposing what they viewed as heavy government interference.

* UsefulNotes/NorthKorea and UsefulNotes/SouthKorea are archenemies, have not exchanged ambassadors, and frequently do tit-for-tat attacks, but they will ''still'' unite in the face of UsefulNotes/{{Japan}} when it comes to Korean territorial integrity or recognition of crimes against humanity committed during the 35-year-long Japanese occupation of Korea. On the flip side, South Korea and Japan, both being liberal democracies and US allies, have also teamed up several times in the face of the authoritarian China and North Korea, particularly during the Cold War. East Asian politics are weird.
* The 2021 Israeli election saw the rise of an anti-Netanyahu bloc made up of left-wing parties like Labour and Meretz, centrists like Lapid, right-wingers like New Hope and Yisrael Beitenu and (possibly) far-right like Yamina. For Netanyahu's part, he tried to remain in power by positioning Muslims in high-ranking places for the first time for a Likud candidate, allying with the strongly anti-Muslim religious parties, and making efforts to proselytize among the Arab Israelis whilst having alliances with racist anti-Arab Kahanist parties. The government that ultimately resulted from the 2021 elections consisted of a bunch of parties (including the nominally anti-Zionist[[note]] As in "opposed to Israel (in its current form) ''existing''"[[/note]] Arab List) whose ideological overlap can be summed up with "We hate Netanyahu".[[note]]A US politics equivalent might be "Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, Lindsey Graham, and Malcolm X all team up to defeat Richard Nixon. If they ever can't agree on anything, Nixon gets back into office."[[/note]] In true Israeli fashion, the government has two co-equal heads representing the more center-leftist ("Alternate Prime Minister" Yair Lapid) and the more rightward bloc (Prime Minister Naftali Bennet) within the government and they are supposed to switch who is officially and formally ''First Among Equals'' at the halfway point of the term (if there aren't snap elections before that). Israeli politics has required such "rotating premiership" solutions more than once since the 1970s and while it is sometimes proposed as the "Israeli solution" out of political deadlocks in other parliamentary systems, Israel is the only country in which such a rotation has ever successfully occurred at the national level.
* Similar to Israel, the 2022 Hungarian election saw every opposition party joining together to oppose Viktor Orbán's Fidesz party. And that means literally ''all''-- every party with parliamentary representation that is not an Orbán ally from Greens and Socialists to the far-right Jobbik, which had since cleaned up its act.

* The 2002 French presidential election saw moderates, conservatives, and leftists support the incumbent conservative president Jacques Chirac in the second round of voting. Why would they all team up to back Chirac even if he didn't share all their values and was faced with corruption scandals? Because his opponent was the far-right candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen, an extremist who denied the Holocaust, encouraged political violence and even assaulted a rival Socialist candidate when running for the European Parliament. While many weren't happy about the choices, as epitomized by the slogan "[[LesserOfTwoEvils vote for the crook, not the fascist]]" («''Votez pour l'escroc, pas pour le facho''» in French), Chirac nonetheless won re-election with ''82%'' of the vote.
* All of the above aside, less dramatic examples of this trope happen all the time in democracies when opposition parties are willing to support the executive's actions. This often happens on "bread and butter" issues that don't get media attention and don't really push anyone's hot buttons. The entire legislature votes in favor of the bill or motion and moves on to other issues.
** In local politics, where politicians often know a large share of the voters personally and have to justify party-posturing at work (most local politicians are part-time politicians) or at a pint with their mates a ''lot'' of decisions, especially those where the local level of government only has a single workable course of action, are taken unanimously or nigh-unanimously. This can get a bit awkward when extremist parties are represented at the local level and the other parties try to enforce the national political consensus of never co-operating with those parties in even the most limited fashion while at the same time keeping the pragmatics of local politics alive.
** If you've ever witnessed a city council meeting, there is basically a "debate" at least once every session where politicians from opposite sides open their statements by basically saying "I agree entirely with what my colleague from the other side has said, but wish to add..." - even if those parties (and sometimes those same members) hate each other at the national or sub-national level and have nary a good word to say about one another.
* Spain's current ruling coalition is a downplayed example: most of the parties on the left, with the dividing factor being their stances on the European Union and Spanish unity. Some are pro-European Union and prefer a united Spain, like the PSOE: others are far-left, anti-EU, and pro-independence like Bildu. What united the entire Congress was a motion of no confidence lodged by far-right party Vox, which spurred everyone in Parliament to oppose it. Even the right-wing opposition leader of the People's Party, Pablo Casado, rejected it despite seeing the incumbent government as bad, out of a belief that Vox's actions were time-wasting political opportunism. In the end, the motion received the vote of no one apart from Vox itself. Not even Forum Austurias, often considered the most right-wing party in Parliament before Vox's existence, voted for it.
* Progressive International, a left-wing international organization that purports to unify socialists in a united front, brings together both democratic socialists and Marxist-Leninists. The democratic socialist side is represented by figures like Jeremy Corbyn, Yanis Varoufakis and Cornel West. The tankie side is represented by figures like Vijay Prashad, Pawel Wargan, and the entire Qiao Collective (along with many other figures of the Chinese new left with either neutral or positive opinions of the CCP). This international alliance has been criticized extensively by anti-authoritarian leftists and Eastern European leftists as leading to the adaptation of excessive anti-Americanism over genuine internationalism by democratic socialists due to Marxist-Leninist influence. This culminated in Polish and Ukrainian left parties affiliated with Progressive International to cut ties with it due to its refusal to fully condemn Russia on the onset of the Russian-Ukrainian war.
* The term red-green-brown alliance refers to cases of political alliances between leftists, Islamists and the far-right, many of whom hold similar views on issues like Israel and globalism. "Red-green-brown alliance" has also been applied to alliances between hardline industrial unionists and ecologically-minded agrarians with the hard right, especially after left-wing populist Lenora Fulani publicly expressed support for paleoconservative nationalist Pat Buchanan's opposition to the World Trade Organization.

[[folder:Sports]]
!!Sports
* Fans of sports teams coming down to the wire on that last playoff spot can find themselves rooting for their most hated rival to win because their rival just happens to play some third team that needs to lose in order for their team to be able to jump ahead of them in the standings. "(''Insert Hated Team Here'') Fan for a Day" signs are not uncommon in the stands in such games.
** A funny example in the 2014 FIFA World Cup: Germany defeated the host country, Brazil, in a spectacular 7-1 CurbStompBattle during the semifinals, one of the worst defeats Brazil has ever suffered and a traumatic experience for Brazilian fans. At one point, the Brazilian fans (at least those which didn't leave during the first half) were cheering the German team. The other semifinal match was the Netherlands vs. Argentina, with the latter winning and making it into the finals against Germany. Nearly ''all'' the Brazilians watching rooted for Germany, out of spite. Germany scored 1-0 during additional extra time, thus winning the tournament. Brazilian fans were satisfied, even after losing the 3rd place match to Netherlands, just because their arch-rival neighbors Argentina was defeated. For those not familiar with soccer, Brazil vs. Argentina is probably the greatest rivalry in the world of soccer[[note]]Outside the regular Scottish derby between the two major Glasgow clubs of Celtic and Rangers, for which all police leave is routinely cancelled and extra police are drafted into Glasgow from other police forces as far away as England[[/note]]-- to the point that there is a Cup that only these two national teams dispute! It also helped that this was only the second time Germany and Brazil meet in a World Cup, and the German team won fairly gracefully, toning down the goal celebrations at one point and comforting members of the host team after the game. Plus, losing badly is already a disgrace, but losing so badly against a team which then doesn't move forward to win the cup can be considered even worse.
* Heading into the last game of the 2014 [[UsefulNotes/RugbyUnion Six Nations Championship]], England were to be the champions if France, England's longstanding rivals, won against Ireland. English fans on social media commented on how odd it feels to be cheering on France.
* Such sporting rivalries have given rise to the popular "I support two teams-- X, and anyone playing against Y" T-shirt designs, with many regional variations.
* All-Star Games in various sports feature this, as players from opposing teams unite to take down players from the other league/conference/whatever.
* In German soccer the rivalry between Schalke 04 and 1. FC Nuremberg was quite intense during the 1930s and 1940s as both teams were among the best in Germany, frequently battling out the cup and the championship. [[note]]Which were both played in a playoff format at the time, so there were several ''finals'' involving the two teams[[/note]] However, the two fandoms now enjoy one of the strongest and most storied friendships, even going so far as supporters going to matches of the other team in their own gear and being welcomed. How this friendship came about is unknown, but one popular theory is that a bunch of fans of Schalke was getting into a fight with fans of Bayern and some Fans of Nuremberg saw this and as Bayern was clearly seen as the bigger evil (nobody who is not a fan of them really likes them), the Nuremberg fans intervened. If this story is true-- and it may well have been the other way round-- it also doubles as a {{Fire Forged Friends}}hip.
** Germany has recently also seen [[https://www.espn.com/soccer/german-bundesliga/story/4029702/why-rb-leipzig-is-the-most-hated-soccer-team-in-the-bundesliga just about everyone joining forces against RB Leipzig]], because by being a fast-rising team created by and even named after Red Bull, it was deemed a very AcceptableTarget.
* Australians, to put it mildly, don't like flies. But when the despised English UsefulNotes/{{Cricket}} captain Douglas Jardine started swatting at flies one day at the Sydney Cricket Ground, a barracker famously yelled "Keep your dirty hands off our flies, Jardine!"
* UsefulNotes/FormulaOne has teams almost always rivaling each other, unless when there is to negotiate better deals with FIA regarding technical regulations, TV-transmission rights and other commercial purposes; then they make a solid block and sometimes even threat to secede into an alternate championship, the last attempt in 2009.
** Even Ferrari, which many of its rivals consider a privileged team that often makes deals with authorities in exchange of ad hoc advantages (like getting a surplus budget because they are the only team participating in every F1 championship since 1950), to the point that some people call FIA "Ferrari International Assistance" (or worse [[{{Pun}} MaFIA]]), joined forces with historical rivals when a common interest was on the table.
** Anyway, cyclically some teams get a technical or political advantage, thus the others will agree on regulation changes that could ease the gap. So [=McLaren=] and Ferrari, after two years of harsh rivalry in 1990 and 1991, put pressure for the ban of electronic aids, that Williams mastered leading to dominating victories in 1992 and 1993. Then [=McLaren=] and Williams, particularly during the Michelin-era, joined forces against Ferrari which was dominating every championship from 2000 to 2004 and using its political pressure even before those years. Then Red Bull and Ferrari became fierce rivals, only to join up in criticism against Mercedes from 2014 onwards.
** The 2014-2021 era is a bit controversial. Mercedes became the dominant team thanks to a technical regulation that was made up by the federation with consultation from... Mercedes engineers and technicians. This led to some specifications for engines that Mercedes knew in advance, getting more time to prepare a competitive machine than its opposition. Yet every team agreed on accepting the new regulations and nobody sued against this behaviour. Besides, from 2010 to 2013 Mercedes struggled with cars that destroyed their tyres, only to solve all their balance and aerodynamics problem with an illegal secret 1000 km test in 2013 disguised as some development for tyre-manufacturer Pirelli (private tests were banned that time), which also increased competitiveness for the team and allowed to set up the winning chassis of 2014. Still, nobody protested or asked for penalties. From 2014 to 2020 occasionally mild protests arose between Mercedes and other teams, but nothing serious and everything continued in a predictable way. Nobody tried to change the technical regulations that froze a lot of research & development, thus making almost impossible to compensate the gap with Mercedes. Even Ferrari, despite losing so many championships and even suffering some humiliating races, never tried to subvert things. Many think that this is because the current state of affairs, including non-public agreements about prize sharing and commercial rights, grants enough economic returns to all teams to stop arguing and accept the not so clear dominance of Mercedes.
* In 2007, Fernando Alonso was the fresh two times world champion, newly hired by [=McLaren=] to return to victory. Ferrari was the challenging team with first drive Kimi Räikkönen, former rival of Fernando Alonso. But when Alonso's teammate, Creator/LewisHamilton (who was a rookie during his first championship), took the lead, Alonso feared that his team was giving unfair favoritism because of nationality (both Hamilton and [=McLaren=] being British) and that Ron Dennis ([=McLaren's=] team director) would shave his hands of the ongoing spy story against Ferrari and blame Alonso and some technicians. Thus he publicly spoke against [=McLaren=], obstructed Hamilton in one occasion (qualifying sessions of Hungaroring which led to a penalty) and smiled on the podium in the final race when he lost the world title to Räikkönen (as long as Hamilton lost too).
* Similarly, when Red Bull started to threat his protégé Sebastian Vettel as the first drive, Mark Webber was pissed off. After one of his victories he challenged his box by teamradioing "not bad for a no. 2 driver" and afterwards he was often seen in informal occasion having fun with Alonso, Vettel's main rival from 2010 to 2013.
* In the Armored Fighting Championship show with the History Channel, ''Knight Fight'', the second round of the tournament incorporates a team fight as opposed to the melee before and the personal duel after. The winning team of the second round ''is'' the opponents for the final duel. The third episode of the show featured two men who were TheRival to each other, who nevertheless formed an excellent team in the second round. Also notable about the episode was a failure to use this trope in the final melee round between the bottom three fighters - the two smaller opponents were struck by indecision about whether to unite against the largest, who proceeded to take advantage and defeat them both.

!!War
* This can mostly likely be applied to the vast majority of wars.
* This trope is one of the reasons DrillSergeantNasty exists. Even if the forty people in a platoon can't agree on anything else, they can always unite around the fact that the sergeant is an ass.
* In the NonFiction book ''Literature/TheYankeePlague'', countless Confederate deserters and their families help fleeing Union prisoners (and occasionally accompany them to Union lines). Not all of them are sympathetic to the Union's goals, but they all recognize that the sooner the Confederacy falls, the sooner they can come out of hiding.

[[folder:Classical Times]]
[[AC:Classical Times]]
* [[UsefulNotes/AncientGreece Athens and Sparta]] were enemies for a long time, but they still teamed up in the 5th Century BC to fight the Persians.
* The Greeks and the Carthaginians hated each other, particularly Syracuse who waged war against Carthage many times. When Pyrrhus, king of the Hellenized nation of Epirus, came to a conflict against Rome for the control of Southern Italy (with its rich greek colonies), Carthage signed a formal treaty of aid and assistance with the Romans against the common enemy. Then, when the Romans defeated Pyrrhus and started to look at Sicily, which was contested by Syracuse and Carthage, the former city joined the latter against Rome in the First Punic War. Only to switch sides after some time, because the Romans offered more assurances to their future sovereignty and also because they were winning.
* The Romans made exemplary this trope with their concept of "divide et impera", divide and rule: after establishing their empire, they adopted a policy of interfering with local powers beyond their borders by allying to a city-state, a king or a chieftain, helping him against his rivals, and establishing a faithful client state or tribe. Not too big, in order to keep it in check, by the means of giving enough assistance to other clients or allies that could counterpoint that regional power. When one grew too powerful and threatened Rome's influence, the Romans would then help the former's rivals until it weakened.
** Particularly effective also in Roman internal politics, when candidates to a college or an office would weave alliances even with their former rivals in order to secure their interests and goals - provided that these alliances wouldn't collide with them. [[UsefulNotes/JuliusCaesar Caesar]], for example, pardoned many of his former enemies and even put some of them in charge of important duties, so that they would become twice grateful: for being spared in times of political turmoil and executions, and for getting a small token of influence, prestige and wealth with an office. Having someone who owes you his life and career is very effective, especially when the alternative was being executed for treason.
** During the last years of the empire, many alliances changed swiftly with the barbaric invasion. Thus, the Visigoths, despite sacking Rome, became one of Aetius' allies when the deal was fighting Attila and his Huns. Then, Aetius routed the Hunnic army at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, but didn't chase it nor tried to destroy what remained of it. Many historians speculated that this was done on purpose in order to later get a treaty with Attila against other enemies of Aetius, or at least having him as an always looming threat to keep roman allies on their side. Other historians disagree though and think that simply Aetius didn't have enough manpower to give chase and prolong the war, and after Aetius' murder, Attila was ready with a new army aimed at Italy.
* For most of China's Three Kingdoms period, Shu and Wu teamed up to oppose a much stronger Wei/Jin... except during the campaigns of 219-222, where Wu attacked Shu and briefly submitted to Wei.
* This trope is largely the premise of the Syro-Ephraimite War, and occurs twice: First, the Kingdom of Aram-Damascus and the Kingdom of Israel set aside persistent border wars and make a temporary alliance to confront the Assyrian Empire, which poses a substantial threat to both of them. Second, the Kingdom of Judah makes a temporary alliance with the Assyrian Empire when it is threatened by the alliance of the former two kingdoms.

[[folder:Medieval Era]]
[[AC:Medieval Era]]
* Combined with ApeShallNeverKillApe, this trope is the basic idea behind UsefulNotes/TheCrusades.

[[folder:18th Century]]
[[AC:18th Century]]
* UsefulNotes/TheAmericanRevolution was a classic example of this. France and Spain, conservative Catholic near-absolute monarchies who were already themselves a case of TeethClenchedTeamwork, joined forces with classical liberal Protestant republican rebels just to cause trouble for the Protestant constitutional monarchy Great Britain, which was their mutual enemy. The American rebels were also funded by the Protestant and deeply anti-Spanish Dutch Republic.

[[folder:19th Century]]
[[AC:19th Century]]
* [[UsefulNotes/NapoleonBonaparte Napoleon's]] regime was an example of this in an ideology. Napoleon was a veteran of the French Republic military, his government used the republican flag, and he also claimed to embody the ideals the republic had represented, even selling the Louisiana Territory to the United States to spite Great Britain-- and yet, his government was unashamedly an absolute monarchy. And he did not even seem to be ashamed of appearing like a royal in every possible way (see, for example, the painting of his coronation).
* In the UsefulNotes/WarOfTheTripleAlliance, Brazil and Argentina, who had long been very antagonistic towards one another, went to war together against Paraguay. They were later joined by Uruguay, whom they had been competing for influence over.

[[folder:World War I]]
[[AC:World War I]]
* During UsefulNotes/WorldWarI, the conservative monarchist German government covertly helped the radical communist UsefulNotes/VladimirLenin return to Russia so that he could overthrow the moderate republican Russian Provisional Government and make peace with the Central Powers.
* The parliamentary democracy of France forged an alliance (the Entente Cordiale) with autocratic Czarist Russia, and later democratic Britain (historical rival for centuries and with whom some years before France was on the verge of war due to the incident of Fashoda), against semi-democratic Imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary. When the U.S. was thinking of entering the war, Russia's February Revolution removed the Czar from power and the Wilson administration welcomed the development as removing the last obstacle to a "democracy vs. dictatorship" narrative.
* The Central Powers was basically an alliance between the Catholic Austrian Hapsburgs and two of their three biggest historical enemies: the Muslim Ottoman Empire, who they had warred with for control of southern Europe for centuries; and the Protestant Prussian Hohenzhollerns, their primary rivals for dominance in the German-speaking world. They teamed up mostly due to a common opposition to a power bloc including Austria's traditional number one ArchEnemy France.
* Italy's position in the war was all about that. When the war started, it was part of the Triple Alliance thanks to [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Question the mess with the Pope]] and Italy's slowness in invading Tunisia putting the long-standing alliance with France at risk. These drove Italy closer to the other friendly power, Germany, which was just fine on its own... except being part of the Central Powers meant teaming up with Austria-Hungary, Italy's ArchEnemy. Of course, once relationships with France thawed, Italy found being allied with Austria-Hungary a bit stifling... which is why they first declared neutrality, and then entered the war on the side they were originally supposed to be ''against''.

[[folder:Interwar]]
[[AC:Interwar Period]]
* When Fascist Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935, the Ethiopians received a significant amount of material support from Nazi Germany, despite the Nazi regime being infamously white supremacist. This was because German-Italian relations were on the rocks at the time for a number of reasons, most famously because Germany wanted to bring Italy's ally Austria into its own sphere of influence, if not outright annex it.

!!!Modern Politics

[[folder:War]]

* This can mostly likely be applied to the vast majority of wars, including the alliances against UsefulNotes/NapoleonBonaparte during UsefulNotes/TheNapoleonicWars.

* Aiming to roll back press freedoms given his poor relationship with the media, when Florida governor Ron [=DeSantis=] sought to weaken libel laws and force bloggers to register with the state in his broader attempt to challenge the ''New York Times v. Sullivan'' Supreme Court decision[[note]]which made it harder for public figures to win libel cases[[/note]], both liberal and conservative media personalities worked to kill the proposed laws. They stated his plans blatantly violate the First Amendment right to free speech and create a chilling effect by allowing anyone to file a FrivolousLawsuit for ''any'' reason. Plus, it would allow other states to pass copycat laws.

* Aiming to roll back press freedoms given his poor relationship with the media, when Florida governor Ron [=DeSantis=] sought to weaken anti-SLAPP laws and require bloggers to register with the state in his broader attempt to challenge the ''New York Times v. Sullivan'' SCOTUS decision[[note]]which made it harder for public figures to win libel cases[[/note]], both liberal and conservative media personalities worked to kill the proposed legislation. They stated his proposals blatantly violated the First Amendment right to free speech and create a chilling effect by allowing anyone to file a FrivolousLawsuit for ''any'' reason. Plus, it would enable other states to pass copycat laws.

* This happens a lot on Internet debates about religion. Christian fundamentalists, atheists, and New Agers are all opposed to each other, yet in debates on religion, either the atheists will team up with the New Agers against the Christians, (as they think that fundamentalist Christianity is irrational) or the Christians will team up with the New Agers against the atheists (because they believe that atheists are against spirituality). For some reason, the Christians and atheists never team up against the New Age movement. This is generally because there just aren't enough things that New-Agers do and that atheists oppose which aren't also done by fundamentalist Christians, so there's a lack of common ground between atheists and fundamentalist Christians.
** The reason, arguably, is that Christians are, generally, fairly ambivalent towards the New Age movement because it seems fairly non-threatening and borrows from Christianity (angels, etc.), and, while atheists are generally against spirituality, they may feel they have common ground with the new-age movement as its practitioners are also a minority, something that can lead them to see the New Agers as allies, or, at least, as people less opposed to their ideology than mainstream Christianity, which a lot of them hate in a big way.

* In street demonstrations against Israel, the crowd will often include fundamentalist Muslims, anarchists, neo-Nazis, leftists, and anti-Zionist Hasidic Jews who believe the Messiah must come before Jews return to Israel. When it comes to pro-Israel protests, it's Evangelical Christians and conservative nationalists teaming up with Jewish Israelis against the predominately Muslim Palestinians. Note that these Christians, most of whom are foreigners from the West and support Israel as part of their religious views on the Rapture, are different from Israeli-Arab Christians, who generally stand with their Muslim compatriots.

* Israel itself, despite being created in the aftermath of [[UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust one of the world's most atrocious acts of racial hatred]], supported Apartheid South Africa as well as Turkey which denies the Armenian Genocide to this day. Part of this can be attributed to geopolitical considerations: Apartheid South Africa made a convenient ally due to both countries' isolation from their weaker but more populous neighbors, while Turkey is one of the few non-Arab Muslim countries in the region which didn't maintain a degree of hostility towards them. With that said, Israel-Turkey relations deteriorated in the 2010s as Turkey became more openly anti-Israel under Erdoğan, and many Israeli politicians began calling for recognition of the Armenian Genocide in response.

** The far right and some segments of the far left--mainly Orthodox Trotskyists, Tankies that adhere to Old Left or socially conservative ideas, and elements of the American left disillusioned with Bernie and the "Squad" for their relatively moderate politics[[note]]A common allegation in these circles was that the emphasis by Bernie in 2020 on social issues over his supposedly more populist and class-based 2016 campaign, along with the more racial-justice and intersectionality oriented politics of the Squad played a role in sinking Bernie's 2020 run, with some going as far as to blame identity politics for Bernie's compromising attitude towards the democrats[[/note]]--both hate "identity politics." The far right obviously hates it because they dislike the idea of a more inclusive society, while class-oriented leftists hate that the focus on the issues of LGBTQ+, women, and people of color detracts from the traditional Marxist emphasis on class consciousness, and can potentially create a political situation where centrists identifying as people of color, women or LGBTQ+ are prioritized by progressives over genuine leftists.

* Aiming to roll back press freedoms given his poor relationship with the media, when Florida governor Ron [=DeSantis=] sought to weaken anti-SLAPP laws and require bloggers to register with the state in his broader attempt to challenge ''The New York Times v. Sullivan'' SCOTUS decision[[note]]which made it harder for public figures to win libel cases[[/note]], both liberal and conservative media personalities worked to kill the proposed legislation. They stated his proposals blatantly violated the First Amendment right to free speech and create a chilling effect by allowing anyone to file a FrivolousLawsuit for ''any'' reason. Plus, it would enable other states to pass copycat laws.