a fairly significant sign they are an ally.

And the US funding and training the other groups was “a fairly significant sign that they were allies,” but you excluded them based on them not technically/formally being allies. If you wanna use that standard, then “fairly significant signs” are irrelevant, the question is whether they have signed a formal military alliance, as in, NATO. As Ukraine is not in NATO, they aren’t allied. You don’t have to read into the signs, it’s an objective fact.

“Security guarantees” aren’t alliances. Or if they are, then we’re using the term informally, and it’s therefore valid to talk about it in the context of funding and training people - especially since the OP didn’t even use the term “ally” but just “friend.”

Live by the technicality, die by the technicality. You don’t get to have it both ways.

The Soviet Union was never an expansionist project in the military sense (they wanted to spread the revolution abroad, such as by assisting the Republicans in Spain and giving weapons to the Vietnamese in their anti-imperialist struggle)

I don’t think this distinction mattered to the capitalists. Whether we’re talking about military expansion or about supporting a socialist revolution in Germany, the capitalists didn’t want it to happen and Hitler could serve as bulwark against both. Had he kept to his own borders, Britain and France would’ve been perfectly satisfied with that result. Instead, because he invaded Poland, a country he, again, would have had to go through to reach the USSR, they declared war. I really want to emphasize and repeat this point: If Britain and France wanted Hitler to invade the USSR, what physical route was he supposed to take?

The fact that all of these western leaders talk of the USSR using the Molotov-Ribbentrop as an “odious but necessary defensive measure”, proves to me that they understood that the USSR wasn’t something they needed to be militarily defended of by a weaponized Germany acting as a buffer, hence that can’t be understood as Germany’s role in the situation in my opinion.

But, as you mentioned, the Soviets had supported the Republicans in Spain - even if they were too vulnerable to launch a military invasion of Germany, there was a possibility of them supporting a revolution in Germany, and Germany of course was politically unstable. The capitalists already had their “win” of the German communists being defeated and the class conflict appearing to stabilize, that’s plenty of villainous motivation on its own.

It seems completely implausible to me that they wanted Hitler to invade but then when he started moving his borders closer to making that possible, they suddenly flipped out and did a 180 and declared war instead.

We signed treaties with a government that was overthrown, and “signing a treaty” does not make a nation an ally. You seem to be the one confused about what an ally is. There was no formal alliance, just informal support, the same kind given to the people who you claim don’t count because they were never allies.

Britain and France also had an alliance with Czechoslovakia, which they sacrificed. I’m very confused about where exactly Germany was supposed to invade from without a shared border, and the fact that Britain and France had an alliance with Poland in the first place contradicts the idea that they wanted Germany to invade the USSR.

Of course there was no love between them and the USSR and the capitalists were persuing material interests and all, but there was also a widespread hope/belief that WWI was “the war to end all wars.” “Peace in Europe” was a major political selling point.

I read all of your quotes and none of them seem to support your narrative over mine. My only point of disagreement with you is whether Britain and France wanted Germany to invade the Soviet Union, not about the Soviet assessment of the situation. It’s not even that big of a disagreement, I agree that they wanted to use Hitler but it’s clear they wanted to keep him on a leash and have him serve as a first line of defense, not offense. It shouldn’t be that hard to believe that the powers that be wanted to preserve the status quo and their position in it rather than throwing everything into chaos.

You make the point yourself that they didn’t want “The Nazis to get too big” but if they invaded the Soviets and emerged victorious, they’d be much bigger and pose a major threat to the other Allies (of course, there was also the possibility the USSR won, which would also pose a threat).

since they wanted the Nazis to invade the Soviet Union.

I’d dispute that based on the fact that they declared war on Germany immediately when Hitler invaded Poland, dispite the fact that he was closing the buffer to the USSR. The capitalists’ real hope was that Hitler would be more of a bulwark, a guard dog who would be content suppressing communists within Germany’s own borders and being militarized and prepared in case the USSR tried to expand. Hitler was granted a lot of leeway in that hope, and it’s possible he misread that as either weakness or wanting him to attack the Soviets. But and the end of the day, if he wanted to fight the USSR, and Britain and France wanted him to fight the USSR, then he would’ve wound up fighting the USSR with little conflict with the other Allies, possibly even with their support. There’s a grain of truth to what you’re saying but imo it’s exaggerated and doesn’t fit with the facts/timeline.

Ukraine was never an ally of the US either, by that metric.

Famously loyal and trustworthy liberals will never deliberately betray you lmao. Just hope they never find out if you have to break a law the fascists draw up to protect yourself or others 🚔🚔🚔

And hope that you’re not part of whichever group they’re throwing under the bus to appease the fascists either.