>The USSR signed the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939 because England signed the Nazi-UK pact of 1938 in Munich.
This is just historical revisionism. The Soviets didn't care about Czechoslovakia. Stalin decided to throw his lot in with Hitler for three reasons:
1) He wasn't happy with the way troop commitments were shaping up were the USSR to help the allies resist a German invasion of Poland. The UK and France were only pledging a handful of divisions and apparently expecting the Soviets to do most of the bleeding.
2) The government of Poland was divided among a coterie of "colonels" who weren't unified enough to provide a robust defense, but they were mostly unified in their reluctance to allow Soviet troops into Poland on the way to the German border, fearing (quite reasonably, as it turned out) the Soviets would never leave. So even assuming they didn't just gobble up Poland, Soviet troops would be out of position when the war started.
3) Greed. Pure, unadulterated greed. It was an easy way to snatch up half of Poland while France and the UK were busy dealing with Germany. If all went well the three countries would fight to an exhausted standstill, leaving the Soviets in a very strong strategic position.
>Finally for the Soviet Union's survival Molotov signed a non-aggression pact in 1939 while kicking industrial production into overdrive at home.
You might be able to make the case for this if the USSR hadn't invaded Poland, but that's not what happened.
>If the "Nazi-Soviet pact" is a "morally darkest moment", what was Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time"?
That's false equivalence. Chamberlain and Daladier certainly sold the Czechs down the river, but they weren't busy dividing up Europe with the Germans like Stalin eventually did.
Stalin's deal with Hitler had to be one of the biggest blunders in world history, which he compounded by ignoring obvious increases in German troop strength in the spring of 1941. The USSR was very, very lucky the Brits didn't sue for peace after the fall of France.
This is just historical revisionism. The Soviets didn't care about Czechoslovakia. Stalin decided to throw his lot in with Hitler for three reasons:
1) He wasn't happy with the way troop commitments were shaping up were the USSR to help the allies resist a German invasion of Poland. The UK and France were only pledging a handful of divisions and apparently expecting the Soviets to do most of the bleeding.
2) The government of Poland was divided among a coterie of "colonels" who weren't unified enough to provide a robust defense, but they were mostly unified in their reluctance to allow Soviet troops into Poland on the way to the German border, fearing (quite reasonably, as it turned out) the Soviets would never leave. So even assuming they didn't just gobble up Poland, Soviet troops would be out of position when the war started.
3) Greed. Pure, unadulterated greed. It was an easy way to snatch up half of Poland while France and the UK were busy dealing with Germany. If all went well the three countries would fight to an exhausted standstill, leaving the Soviets in a very strong strategic position.
>Finally for the Soviet Union's survival Molotov signed a non-aggression pact in 1939 while kicking industrial production into overdrive at home.
You might be able to make the case for this if the USSR hadn't invaded Poland, but that's not what happened.
>If the "Nazi-Soviet pact" is a "morally darkest moment", what was Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time"?
That's false equivalence. Chamberlain and Daladier certainly sold the Czechs down the river, but they weren't busy dividing up Europe with the Germans like Stalin eventually did.
Stalin's deal with Hitler had to be one of the biggest blunders in world history, which he compounded by ignoring obvious increases in German troop strength in the spring of 1941. The USSR was very, very lucky the Brits didn't sue for peace after the fall of France.