"=""color:#4682b4"">Coldplay Expért]] Let's talk 
This talk page is for discussing the article, not World War II history in general.   

 Summary of Consequences 

I believe that in an article one must state the consequences of historical events, and in a summary article, one must summarize the consequences. My edit, stating that ""as a result of the Franco-British action on Czechoslovakia, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed"" is a factual statement. This is not ""Stalin's arguments"" this is not a ""Soviet Apologist stance"" this is a direct and undeniable consequence of said event. In the Spanish Civil War the Red Army fought side by side with the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Prior to the Franco-British assisted Nazi Sudetenland Grab, relations between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were icy. When the Nazis were declaring war on Czechoslovakia, the USSR was hard at work putting together an anti-Nazi coalition. Only after seeing the British and French backed down in the face of naked anti-Slavic aggression, did the Soviets begin to look for other allies. There is no mass conspiracy here, as the search began right after the event. This is not a motive, it's a statement of facts. If there are no more objections, I will reinsert the statement into the article, as it is merely cause and effect.   
Respectfully disagree. The statement ""as a result of the Franco-British action on Czechoslovakia, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed"" pretends to describe a casual linkage, although in actuality, the linkage was not so obvious, and the scholars' opinion on that vary dramatically. One school thinks that the only and sincere Soviet Union's desire was to establish a collective security system and an anti-Hitler's coalition. Another school believes that the only Stalin's aim was the alliance with Hitler. The third version (the most reasonable, in my opinion) is that the USSR was almost equally suspicious and hostile towards most European powers (that was, at least partially, justified), and considered all possibilities to avoid a direct war against Germany with other major powers playing a role of neutral observers (and, to expand its territory). The statement you tried to introduce into the article is a POV of the leftist part of the first group scholars. We cannot present it here as a sole interpretation of the events. We have either to tell a full story (that is impossible because of space limitations) or to abstain from any interpretations.Interestingly, your statement may be even simply incorrect, because, according to my sources, Hitler's occupation of Czechoslovakia lead to rapprochement between the USSR, UK and France, and could lead to signing of Anti-Hitler triple alliance. In only a month after occupation of Czechoslovakia these three powers started consultations that lead to full scale political and military talks. Had Chamberlain and Stalin have a little bit less prejudice against each other, and had Ribbentrop been little bit less active, WWII could be prevented.Re: ""This is not a motive, it's a statement of facts."" No. All these facts had already been in the article before your edits. Your wording looks like a description of motives, not statement of facts.If you still disagree, try to propose another wording that takes into account all what I wrote. In addition, a consensus exists among those who edit this article that all significant changes are being discussed on the talk page before they are introduced into the article. Try to follow this unwritten rule. That saves a lot of time and efforts.  
As there are multiple different interpretations of most key events of World War II and Wikipedia's guidelines require that all non-fringe views be given equal weight, it isn't feasible for this high-level article to discuss casual links between events.   
What Nick said, also the USSR wanting to be neutral argument falls apart, because historical evidence clearly shows that had France honored its alliance with Czechoslovakia, USSR would have intervened as well. USSR secured a passage from Romania in order to assist Czechoslovakia. USSR placed all of its divisions west of the Urals on High Alert. After the seizure of Czechoslovakia, the USSR held the UK partially responsible, and frankly did not trust them, or the French, as allies. If France failed to uphold their defensive treaty with Czechoslovakia, why would a defensive treaty with USSR