When the Soviet Union (USSR, often simplistically called “the Russians”) signed the (in)famous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany in August 1939, Western narratives quickly labeled it as proof of ideological hypocrisy: the communists joined forces with the fascists! Case closed, right?
Wrong.
Let’s step back and take a sober look at the facts – not the propaganda (of any “side”).
1. A year of ignored warnings
From 1938 to mid-1939, the Soviet Union made repeated attempts to form a collective security pact with Britain and France to stop Nazi aggression. Moscow warned of Hitler’s expansionist goals and sought concrete commitments.
The response? Polite meetings. Empty words. Delays. And a flat-out refusal by Poland to allow Red Army passage in case of German attack.
All the while, the West was appeasing Hitler.
1.1. Who Really Made the First Deal?
- 1935:
The USSR signs a mutual assistance treaty with Czechoslovakia, valid only if France also intervenes. This becomes relevant in 1938, but is often overlooked. - Mid-1930s (especially 1936 – 1938):
The USSR repeatedly calls for collective security against fascism at the League of Nations and in diplomatic notes to France and Britain. These are ignored or brushed aside. - September 1938:
Britain and France cut a deal with Hitler in Munich. - March 1939:
Germany invades the rest of Czechoslovakia. No war. - April 1939:
The USSR proposes formal alliance talks with Britain and France. Stalled. - August 1939:
With no better options, USSR signs the non-aggression pact with Hitler. - September 1939:
Hitler invades Poland. - September 17, 1939:
The USSR enters eastern Poland – after Warsaw is under siege and the Polish command has fled to Romania.
1.2. Behind the scenes – Munich 1938
As early as spring 1938, during the Czechoslovak crisis, the Soviets indicated willingness to support their Czech ally militarily – provided France also fulfilled its obligations. They were ignored.
When the Munich crisis reached its peak in September 1938, the USSR again offered to intervene if France would act. Instead, the Soviets were excluded entirely from negotiations.
Britain and France handed Hitler the Sudetenland without a fight – and without even informing Moscow, despite its formal alliance with Czechoslovakia.
That was the first betrayal.
2. The West’s strategy: let Hitler march east
Why did the above-noted betrayal take place? Did they not see it coming? Here are my thoughts, based on the information I could find:
In much of the West, fascism wasn’t feared – it was admired. Authoritarian discipline, corporate order, nationalism without class struggle: these ideas resonated with many elites long before Hitler became a threat. His anti-communism was just a bonus.
A German-Soviet war wasn’t a nightmare. It was the desired outcome:
The Soviet Union was the ideological enemy – the spectre of revolution, workers’ rights, and wealth redistribution.
Nazi Germany? That was a military concern at worst, and an ideological ally at best – strong, orderly, anti-communist.
Many in the West hoped Hitler would “do the dirty work” and crush the Bolsheviks – then settle down and behave like a proper European power.
That cynical calculation left the Soviet Union isolated.
“Let Hitler march east” was not just a slogan – it was policy.
Many hoped Hitler would defeat the USSR, then stop.
2.1. The West’s quiet support for fascism
Before the war started, the West was quietly supporting Hitler’s rearmament, both through trade and economic agreements. The U.S. and European companies sold Germany raw materials, parts, and machinery that helped build up the Nazi war machine. This was happening even as Hitler’s intentions were clear – to start a war.
But here’s the thing: the West didn’t fear Hitler at first. They expected him to turn east and destroy communism – to attack the Soviet Union. Hitler was viewed as a useful tool to deal with the “real” threat: the Bolshevik revolution.
The West was perfectly willing to turn a blind eye to his early aggression, hoping he would eventually strike east, leaving them safely in his wake.
In fact, many in the West saw the rise of fascism as preferable to the spread of communism. It was only when Hitler turned his sights on the West that the tune changed.
Which leads us to the following:
2.2. The Spanish Civil war
In the Spanish Civil War (1936 – 1939), the Soviets were the only major power supporting the anti-fascists. The Republican side, led by communists, socialists, and anarchists, fought against Francisco Franco’s fascist rebellion, backed by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
The West? Britain and France remained neutral, while many of their elites actively sympathized with Franco’s fascists, either out of ideological support or strategic calculation.
Although many individual volunteers from all countries, including my Yugoslavia, joined the anti-fascist Spaniards – they were in fact oppressed by their respective states for the most part (definitely not encouraged or helped).
The Soviets, despite their own flaws and ambitions, were the only ones who consistently provided military support to the Republicans. The West’s lack of action helped set the stage for the broader rise of fascism across Europe.
3. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact: buying time
Let us now revisit the alleged “Soviet betrayal”.
By August 1939, with no Western alliance in sight, Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler (23 August 1939). It included a secret protocol dividing Eastern Europe into spheres of influence – not out of trust, but to delay the inevitable.
There were no illusions. No ideological alignment. Just raw, brutal pragmatism.
The Red Army was still recovering from the purges. The USSR’s western border was wide open. Buying time meant creating a buffer zone – by occupying eastern Poland and the Baltics before Germany got there.
Under the pact, the Soviets were forced to supply Nazi Germany with essential raw materials including oil, grain, and other critical resources. These materials were vital for Germany’s war machine, and without them, the Germans would have had no reason not to attack the USSR first – before the Soviets had time to fortify their defenses and rearm their military.
This situation arose after the West had refused to form any meaningful alliance with the USSR, leaving the Soviets isolated and vulnerable. With the West’s refusal to cooperate, Stalin had no other choice but to cooperate with Nazi Germany to buy time and delay the inevitable conflict on the Eastern Front.
West did not expect Hitler to attack fellow capitalists – at least not first.
Stalin probably did not expect Hitler to be 100% crazy and open two fronts at the same time.
The main difference is that Stalin was pushing for a joined resistance before all that, while the West was practically supportive of Hitler!
The West calls it a “betrayal.”
Stalin probably called it sreda (Wednesday).
3.1. A pact of necessity, not ideology
Let’s be clear: calling the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact an “alliance” is a joke. The Soviets spent years trying to form a collective resistance against Hitler. What did they get? Repeated betrayals. The West ignored their warnings, rejected alliances, and appeased Hitler.
Backed into a corner and abandoned, the USSR signed a pact with Hitler. Not because they trusted him, but because they had no other choice.
The West? They delayed direct confrontation with Hitler, but not out of fear of war. They saw fascism as a useful tool to crush communism. They hoped Hitler would destroy the Bolsheviks – and after that, he could settle down and be a useful European ally. They apparently didn’t expect fascism to spiral out of control and turn on them too.
But when the Soviets, left alone, made the pragmatic decision to buy time and delay the inevitable, they were immediately branded as “collaborating” with Hitler.
The brutal truth: The West didn’t help Hitler start the war, but they sure as hell didn’t stop him either. They ignored Soviet pleas, rejected offers for alliances, and allowed Hitler to expand unchallenged. The Soviets paid with 20 million lives and saw half their land burned to the ground to stop him – while the West took its sweet time, avoiding direct confrontation until it was already too late. By then, half of Europe was in ruins, and 10 million Jews were already slaughtered.
In war, as in life, choosing between terrible options doesn’t make you a villain. It makes you a survivor. And sometimes, survival means shaking hands with a madman – just long enough to build a bigger gun.
History’s inconvenient truth
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is often portrayed as a dark chapter in Soviet history. But, as we’ve seen, the true betrayal lies not in the pact itself but in the West’s repeated inaction, hypocrisy, and failure to stop Hitler’s rise.
The USSR, despite its flaws, was left isolated, abandoned, and forced into a pact of survival. And while the West later claimed victory in defeating fascism, it was the Soviets who bore the brunt of the fight, paying with millions of lives and vast destruction to save Europe from itself.
When we strip away the layers of ideological narrative, one thing becomes clear: Stalin’s decision was not about ideology, but about survival – and sometimes survival means making deals with the devil to fight a greater evil.
Having said all that, it’s important to make one thing clear: this article does not absolve Stalin or the Soviet Union of their numerous flaws, crimes, and authoritarian rule. The USSR’s actions – especially under Stalin – were deeply problematic. But it’s crucial to understand that fascism and communism are not the same thing. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a grim calculation for survival, not a shared ideological stance with fascism.
What’s even more dangerous today is how modern political resolutions – like those from the European Union – seek to equate fascism and communism as “just two evil totalitarian ideologies.” This is historical revisionism at its most blatant, and it’s a smoking gun that shows how history is being rewritten to fit the needs of the present. Nazism, with its racism, imperialism, and genocide, is not the same as communism, which was founded on workers’ rights, class struggle, and economic equality (despite the Soviet regime’s abuses). By erasing these distinctions, we downplay the unique horrors of fascism and distort history to legitimize modern political agendas. The EU’s attempt to create “remembrance for the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes” is a clear attempt to dilute the impact of the Holocaust and equate Nazi atrocities with communist actions — an outrageous revision of history.
This censorship of inconvenient truths is evident in the way Google suppresses dissenting viewpoints, and social networks hide “inappropriate” content. The narrative we’re fed, both in politics and media, is carefully constructed to conceal the true facts and protect the interests of those in power.
PS:
This article is not intended to underestimate the bravery and sacrifice of all the people who fought against fascism – both from European and US regular armies, and from numerous resistance movements (Yugoslav partisans being the most badass, of course! 🙂 ).
Last updated:
Originally published:
