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

It's nice to see someone with historical knowledge vastly superior to my own. I feel honoured to debate a person of your education level.The resolution of this debate is 'On balance, the RIbbentrop-Molotov pact was a necessary evil for allied victory'.RefutationWhen you bring into account such statistics, one thing must be noted. Quality rather than quantity. Germany had extremely developed weapons, due to Hitler's early militarization and transgression on the Versailles peace trety. The soviet union, however, had a number of disadvantages. The first is its size. The Soviet union was exposed on multiple sides and was at war on all sides. The Japanese front up to the battle of Khalkin Gol, the Finnish front etc. This was a prime reason Stalin never moved against Hitler. The second aspect that is related to the size of the U.S.S.R. is the wide spread of Soviet troops across all of northern Asia. If Hitler ever had a prime opportunity to invade the U.S.S.R. it was june 1939, during the peak of Soviet-Japanese conflict in Mongolia.War was coming. The western “democracies” were not keen on a deal with Stalin. Stalin, the pragmatist, therefore sought a deal with Hitler. This was the solution, or so he thought. After the British handed Hitler Czechoslovakia on a plate, Stalin urgently needed an agreement with Hitler – whatever the cost. Within a week, the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was signed. [1][2]Not true, Hitler negotiated the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact because he could not risk exposure, not because he feared Stalin. Stalin feared Hitler and Hitler had plenty of opportunities to invade the U.S.S.R. As mentioned above, Khalkin Gol, 1939. It is true that the Nazis benefitted from the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, however, the U.S.S.R.'s benefits were greater. [1]You are correct when you assert that German stocks were at an all time low after operation Barbarossa, however, it is to be noted that:a.) German supplies were running out due to exhaustion of various conflicts (Yugoslavia and the U.S.S.R. in particular)b.) The Germans contributed 'heavy naval guns, other naval gear and thirty of Germany's latest warplanes, including the Me-109 and Me-101 fighters and Ju-88 bomber. The Soviets would also receive oil and electric equipment, locomotives, turbines, generators, diesel engines, ships, machine tools and samples of German artillery, tanks, explosives, chemical-warfare equipment and other items.'[3]They were buffers against invasion.[4] This is undeniable. Stalin calculated that the greater the front Hitler would be faced with at invasion, the worse his casualties would be.That is true, however, the Soviets also had need for rations. The Nazis burned all plots of land behind them. Even in times of plenty, if there is war, there have to be rations.Stalin was not expecting the invasion at this time and who could blame him. Hitler invaded at the most unconventional moment, after Japanese-Soviet peace, in Russian winter.[5]Not true, Germany had an ideal opportunity to invade the U.S.S.R. and it did not use it. If Stalin had invaded Germany in 1939, the U.S.S.R. would have been exposed in its eastern flank.The UK was drained of all resistance. The whole 'We shall fight on the beaches' thing didn't come into play until much later.True, though that does not negate the fact that the Red army killed 80% of German troops.That is an invalid argumentation point, however, I can assure you that you would fail.The yanks would have been too late...[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]Shirer, William L. (1990) [1959]. The rise and fall of the third reich:the history of Nazi Germany. Simon & Schuster. [4]http://en.wikipedia.org...;[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...;