So you do think that the Soviets shouldn't have entered Poland (after the government had already collapsed to secure the parts of Ukraine Lithuania and Belarus the Poles had occupied in the interwar period) and instead let the Nazis have full reign of the entire country until the Nazis decided to move further east?

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Once you agree with the Nazis on how to split the country, it makes sense to grab the part you wanted. But diplomatic cables reveal that the Germans would not have kept this part of Poland as they intended to uphold the pact with the Soviets. That's why there were extensive discussions to release these parts as independent states, so they could be controlled by the USSR as they had agreed.

Whether you agree on that the Soviets should have signed the pact in the first place is another matter, as it was a carte blanche to invade Poland gifted to the Nazis.

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 hours ago

But diplomatic cables reveal that the Germans would not have kept this part of Poland as they intended to uphold the pact with the Soviets

So if they didn't sign the pact or had left this request out of it as you seemingly desire they would have taken it wholesale? So again we're back to the Molotov-Ribbentrop saving eastern Poland (actually Western Ukraine Belarus and Lithuania that was simply occupied by Poland) from the Nazi scourge (for a time).

Whether you agree on that the Soviets should have signed

They absolutely should as the last power to do so allowing the time for them to build up the production capacity necessary cause 80% of the Nazi deaths of the war.

It really seems like you would have preferred the Soviets leave Western Belarus Lithuania and Ukraine for dead and do nothing to delay the inevitable war with the Nazis to actually recover to fighting strength post revolution. Maybe that would have been the more pure option but it also would have been suicidal idiocy.