Fair enough, I was only looking at the dates and lining them up with the limited Russian history I am familiar with. I mean the alternative was still potentially complete Nazi occupation of Poland, if those lines weren’t drawn (Of course it’s a foregone conclusion that the Nazis were going to invade Poland) or to go to war with the Nazis and Poland as the battlefield in hopes of ending up with full Russian occupation, but I guess the distinction is important. I don’t claim to be an expert though, feel free to correct me or expand upon anything I’m missing.
Edit: also the Russians didn’t invade until 16 days after the Nazis did, when Poland was already effectively defeated. Again, feel free to fill in the blanks. Cause to me it seems to me that the pact served as reassurance that the Nazis would stop their invasion at the line drawn, so that Russia could allow the invasion to play out (on the off chance of a Polish victory); rather than invading simultaneously and practically guaranteeing Polish defeat; without risking all of Poland becoming Nazi territory.
Yeah I figured, I’ve seen a lot of accurate accounts of history get derided as being “tankie” or worse without any legitimate challenge to what was said. It’s such a powerful thought-terminating cliche around here that I almost never venture into the .world-sphere anymore.