On balance, the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was a necessary evil for Allied victory

The resolution of this debate is 'On balance, the RIbbentrop-Molotov pact was a necessary evil for allied victory'.Again, was not necessary for three reasons:1) The Nazi-Soviet Pact would grant Hitler the time, space, war materials, and diplomatic leverage he would need to rearm. Most crucially, Soviet oil trade which made Hitler's war possible. 2) Stalin could have destroyed Hitler in 1939 or even in 1940 had he not been so strategically inept.3) US & UK would still have defeated Germany on their own without the USSR.Germany had extremely developed weapons, Not in 1940 they didn't. Taking the best studies of German army figures for the invasion of France for example; 45 percent of the wehrmacht was at least 40 years of age or older, and close to 50 percent of all infantry soldiers had only a few weeks of training (1). Meanwhile, far from being high-tech, only 10 percent of the German armed forces were motorised, and most logistics were in fact handled through horse-drawn carriages (1). In 1940, only half of the German military was deemed by the general staff to be "combat ready," and that the German military lacked critically in areas like heavy tank designs, long-range aircraft, naval cruisers, radar, and standard infantry weapons when compared to Russian and Allied counterparts (1).1)[http://en.wikipedia.org...] The soviet union, however, had a number of disadvantages. The first is its size. Soviet size was an advantage, not a disadvantage. According to Mackinder's Heartland theory of geopolitics for instance; "He who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; he who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; he who rules the World-Island controls the world." (1) Which is just a fancy way of political scientists expressing that countries of geographic size enjoy vastly superior resources and enough territorial space to place industry deep inside the country, which would be impregnable to attack. You could therefore just pump troops out all day -even when invaded- and win wars through industrial attrition, which is exactly what the Soviets did. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org...The Japanese frontThe Japanese did not have the manpower, oil, technology, or industry needed to launch an all out invasion of the Soviet Union. During its border conflicts with the USSR, the majority of Japanese forces were already tied down in guerrilla conflicts in South East Asia and China. Plus there was the Americans and British navies along with Japanese Pacific interests to consider, which is why Japan ultimately negotiated the Non-Aggression Pact with the Soviets in 1941, because they knew anything more than small occupational advances into Soviet territory was technically impossible. The Finnish frontA mistake on Stalin's part that resulted from the same Nazi-Soviet Pact that we are debating. Which is just another reason why they shouldn't have made the deal in the first place.If Hitler ever had a prime opportunity to invade the U.S.S.R. it was June 1939Then he would have gotten his virtual butt kicked seeing as how the Soviets were militarily stronger in 1939 and that France and UK had yet to be subdued. We can count on UK and French involvement because any Nazi invasion of the USSR must first go through Poland and Eastern European countries, many of whom still had defensive pacts with UK and France. The western “democracies” were not keen on a deal with Stalin.This is incorrect. Alarmed by German rearmament, Hitler's violations of the Munich agreement, and the Fascist pact between Germany and Italy, the UK and France had actually reached out to Stalin beginning in 1939 (1), but Stalin distrusted the UK and France based on the fact that he saw capitalist encirclement as more of a direct threat against his rule than Nazi Germany. This mistrust was due to the fact that UK, France, and USA had all deployed troops to Russia during the Bolshevik revolution, while Stalin believed that the UK and France were not serious about containing Hitler and were just content on using him alone to fight Germany (based on UK and French appeasement policies). 1)http://en.wikipedia.org... After the British handed Hitler Czechoslovakia on a plate, Stalin urgently needed an agreement with Hitler – whatever the cost. The Munich agreement guaranteed Czechoslovakia to Hitler in exchange that he wouldn't annex anymore countries. A violation should have signaled to Stalin that he should have allied himself with Britain and France, and/or that Hitler could not be trusted to keep his word.Hitler negotiated the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact because he could not risk exposure, not because he feared Stalin. As explained in Mein Kampf, Hitler was deftly afraid of Soviet intentions and believed that "Judeo-Bolshevism" was the main cause of the Russian revolution. This was not just a conspiracy theory on Hitler's part to propagate propaganda, this was considered fact, and the German people believed as a whole that unless they did something to prevent it, Jewish-communist takeover would happen to them too. It is true that the Nazis benefited from the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, however, the U.S.S.R.'s benefits were greater.I'll post the industrial figures for this later, but without first stockpiling Soviet oil imports, Hitler doesn't get very far at all. Again, the energy situation in Nazi Germany was so bad that they had to rely exquisitely on manufactured-synthetic oil for much of the war. German supplies were running out due to exhaustion of various conflictsAnother reason why Soviet imports and the Nazi-Soviet Pact was an enabler, and not a hindrance to Nazi war plans.The Germans contributed arms to USSR.Many of these are inaccurate or grossly exaggerated (or a contradition on Nazi>Soviet technological superiority by Pro). I'm not aware of any Bf-109s in Soviet possession in 1940 for instance. Meanwhile, much of the Nazi-Soviet arms contracting was a clever ruse on the Nazi's part. Take the money, keep building slow, and stall for time. Which was exactly the case of the Lützow navy cruiser (which I did mention in R1) http://en.wikipedia.org.... They were buffers against invasion.Soviet expansion was not a buffer because it involved tying down Soviet forces in wars (winter war) and occupational duties. Defeating the purpose of a buffer - which is to provide space and not spread yourself thin. That is true, however, the Soviets also had need for rations. The Nazis burned all plots of land behind them. Not as bad as the Nazi's did. Again due to three consecutive 5 year plans beginning in the 1920s that eventually resulted in collective farming and a solid industrial base. Meanwhile "scorch-earth" was actually a Soviet tactic, afforded to them because they had the geographic size and industry to do it. Stalin was not expecting the invasion at this time and who could blame him. Historians like myself can, being that it was a drastic strategic miscalculation on his part.If Stalin had invaded Germany in 1939, the U.S.S.R. would have been exposed in its eastern flank.Hardly. Again due to its sheer size and the fact that Japan was an island nation effectively tied down in China and in the Pacific. The UK was drained of all resistance. With the exception of the USA, the UK fared better than any other country in WWI. The UK still also had a formidable navy, airforce, and a fully motorized expeditionary force.That is an invalid argumentation point, however, I can assure you that you would fail.Based on what? Your opinion? When my wartime economy is churning out a huge new trans-atlantic cargo ship every four hours as well as out-producing all axis countries in the world combined, I'd say my chances of success are still pretty high.