The rationality of both sides in the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement

[buritobr]

It is very hard to understand the Molotov-Ribbentropp Agreement of 1939. The game between the Third Reich and the USSR was a zero-sum game. One empire wanted to destroy the other. So, what was good for the one was bad for the other. Hitler should have though "if Stalin wants this agreement, he has a plan". Stalin should have though "if Hitler wants this agreement, he has a plan". The Third Reich and the USSR had already been strong enemies between 1933 and 1939. Both helped opposite sides in the Spanish Civil War. Hitler's rise to power in 1933 cut the good relations between the Weimar Republic and the USSR.
Hitler was planning to invade the USSR later (he mentioned his intention in Mein Kampf). But since he knew he would need to fight a war in Western Europe first, avoiding a two-front war and having Soviet natural resources would be good for him. But if he was smarter, he could have though that since the USSR agreed to sign this pact, the soviets considered this pact good for them. Since the USSR signed this pact, it showed that its army was not prepared yet and that this country wanted extra time to prepare the army. Hitler could have though that if the USSR wanted extra time, its army was weak, and so, na early invasion could have been an option.
Stalin tried in 1938 to make an alliance with France and the UK against Germany. But many British conservatives didn't know yet if the biggest enemy was Germany or the USSR. So, this alliance was not feasible yet. France and the UK declared war against Germany only after the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement. So, maybe, Stalin though that making na agreement with Germany was the only way to put France and the UK against Germany.

John Nash was a child in 1939...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Any invasion of the Soviet Union would have required a shared border. (Had the Soviet Union bordered Czechoslovakia in 1938 they might have been willing to send troops.) Hitler would have preferred to get the Polish Corridor without a fight and then get Poland to join them in an anti-Communist crusade. But one way or another, dealing with Poland was a prerequisite for the Nazis to fight the Bolsheviks.

[Ismail]

Three books I'd recommend reading:
* The Soviet Union and the Struggle for Collective Security in Europe by Jonathan Haslam
* In Our Time: The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion by Clement Leibovitz
* The Soviet Union and the Origins of the Second World War by Geoffrey Roberts

For a Soviet viewpoint, there's an English-language book by the Soviet ambassador to the UK back then which a guy I know has scanned: Who Helped Hitler?

I am also getting a 1984 English-language Soviet book in the mail dealing with Soviet diplomacy in the 1939-1941 period. I will scan it when it arrives.

[Cory]

Of course they were both playing each other. The big surprise to the Soviets that ruined their plan was that Germany defeated France so quickly.

Also the Soviets did reach out to Britain and France in 1939, it's just that their deal was "You do all the fighting to help a country that hates you then we invade Germany after it's all said and done and take the spoils". Why should the Soviets accept that? "Do our work for us in exchange for nothing".

[Ismail]

I've now scanned that 1984 Soviet book I mentioned in my last post: https://archive.org/details/BeforeTheNaziInvasion