The first thing to talk about when people bring up the soviet-nazi pact is the context of the pact. It was signed a month before the European start of ww2, the invasion on Poland in September of 1939. Before the summer during which they signed the pact, both the USSR and Germany had been trying to sign their own pacts with the western democracies, principally France and the UK. Germany was very successful at this, and this is very vaguely hinted at when historians talk about appeasement. But it is always both explained as a necessity because of the unpreperadeness for war of France and the UK and sometimes blamed on a single man, Chamberlain. Here is a list of the treaties signed by Germany with other countries before molotov-ribbentrop:
1933: Four powers pact, with France, Italy and the UK
1934: Hitler-Pilsudski pact (non-aggression with Poland)
1935: Anglo-German Naval Agreement. This treaty is of note because British diplomats have gone on record saying that the purpose of this treaty was for it to serve as a starting point for an eventual alliance with germany
1936: Anti-comintern pact, only joined by Japan, then Italy in 1937 and later just Axis countries during ww2. So much for horseshoe theory?
1938, september: Anglo-German non-aggression pact
1938, december: Franco-German non-aggression pact
1939, march: German-Romanian Economic Treaty
1939, march: German-Lithuanian non-aggression pact
1939, may: German-Danish non-aggression pact
1939, june: German-Estonian non-aggression pact
1939, july: German-Latvian non-aggression pact
1939, august: German-Soviet non-aggression pact
Everybody in Europe was getting in bed with the Nazis (not even mentioning the many territorial concessions given to Germany), and it seems the UK was especially eager. What was the ussr doing during this time? Trying to build their own alliances, with anyone but the fascists. There were many attempts at an anti-fascist alliance in Europe, and all of them were rejected. It was only at the very brink of war, barely a month before, that they signed their treaty with the germans. After everyone else in Europe, and after the greatest part of a decade trying not to have to do it.
Every single one of these liberals can tell you about Lebensraum, but it seems none of them actually think about what it meant at the time. Disregarding the constant rethoric coming from within Germany in the 30s, Mein Kampf had been published for almost 20 years, a book in which Hitler outlines his plans to either kill or enslave the slavs, some of which lived in the Balkans, and another good portion lived in the USSR. This was never said of the British or French, they never had a fascist rambling in their front door about how they would kill a hundred million of your people if they could.
And about the part of molotov-ribbentrop about "dividing Europe". It was the best option for the people in the states that were affected and nobody really talks about it. I'll admit it isn't good foreign policy to divide a country with another one. But in the case of Poland, would you rather have the germans conquer all of Poland and put even more jews plus belarussians and ukranians to the fascist genocide? would you rather have a much weaker USSR, a closer frontline to Moscow and an earlier war that could have caused a fascist victory in the USSR and therefore a much stronger defense against the invasions in France and Italy? Even ignoring that the Polish generals caught between Germany and the USSR greeted the soviets like liberators and didn't fight them. In the case of the Baltics, according to Anna Louise Strong's The Soviets Expected It, a recollection of first and second hand accounts, it was a known fact that Germany had been about to launch a coup/invasion into the Baltics right when the Soviets moved in. Would the critics of this pact rather have, again, a weaker USSR, a stronger Germany and even more minorities for them to genocide and use for slave labor?.
The 2~3 year respite for the invasion of the USSR meant the soviets were stronger and were able to push them back even before an allied boot step foot in France or Italy. It was the best the soviets could do to ensure a military victory after years of relentless rejection from the western democracies. To call this an alliance would necessarily imply France, the UK, Poland and the Baltics had an alliance with Germany
It really is incredible how massive the double standard is in liberal historiography for the USSR. The Swiss can deal with the Nazi gold looted from their conquests and genocidal policies, but still be called neutral. Sweden can trade up to 1943 for the much needed iron ore and be called neutral. Finland can put swastikas in their planes, have military missions with Germany, be openly fascistic, massacre communists and be called a "third party" or even neutral. The British can openly seek an alliance with Germany while their aristocracy mingles with and finances the Nazi party and be considered an opponent to Germany. But God forbid the soviets sign a single treaty a month before the war after being isolated diplomatically, that's totally an alliance and we can spam our 🧲 emojis