You know, if there is a war in your neighbourhood, there are 3 possibilities:
1) Support one side
2) Support the other side
3) Stay Neutral.
What you choose depends on what the rulers of that country thing, what their interests are like and what the country is capable of militarily.
Interestingly, Machiavelli is in favor of supporting the weaker side, provided that your own contribution is enough to decide who will win. The weaker side will place a much higher emphasis on your help, and can be controlled more easily after the joint victory. The stronger side however will place less emphasis on your help (and therefor reward you less), but supporting them will still take you out of the "victors crossairs". Staying Neutral is usually the worst choice according to Machiavelli, since it has no immidiate advantadge. Here I think Machiavelli was wrong, since he did not take a situation into account were a war brings destruction to both sides.
Interesting thoughts. How do you think those concepts played upon Stalin's mind as he sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement?
All that the summer the French and British were trying to get the Soviet Union to agree to an alliance. The Soviets were required the French to represent exactly how many divisions they were prepared to field upon the announcement of a state of war. The French and British, not trusting the Soviets were reluctant to provide such detail. The Soviets wary of being hung out to dry, eventually rebuffed the allies and signed on with the Germans for the next couple of years.
Please analyze through your Machiavellian lens, if you care to.
Well, the Soviets assumed, that, from their experiences with WW1, a war in Europe would be long and drawn out for both sides. Of the main combatants in WW1, only the US emerged stronger, and a lot of that can be attributed to entering the war late.
The Soviets would have the opportunity to "sell" their contribution for much more if hostilities were already underway. Dont you agree that there would be a nice opportunity to "creativly renegotiate" the Molotov Ribbentrop pact once the Wehrmacht was tied down in France?
Also, relation between the Soviets and the Weimar republic were very warm due to both nations beeing international phariahs. The Soviets were pragmatic in publicly shouting "world revolution now!" while happily dealing with other states, they assumed the Nazis to be the same.
Also, given British, French, Polish, UK and US interventions on behalf of the Whites in the Russian civil war, the Soviets trusted Churchill et.al about as far as they could throw a battlehsip of the royal navy.
The Russians were suprised by 2 things, first, the quick and utter defeat of France, and secondly that Hitler attacked them while still beeing at war with a yet unconquered and active enemy.
Hitler assumed that beating the USSR would remove Britains last possible ally on the mainland, and therefor force Britain to surrender. This assumption is so totally ridiculous that it is understandable the Soviets didnt think about that.
