Perhaps but semantics are important. It's also worth noteing that the Russian Empire was one of the allies in WWI. The situation had changed since the invasion of Poland though hadn't it? If the Soviets aren't in the war against Germany it is going to be a much costlier war as far as the West is concerned. The primary duty of a country's government is to the interest of its citizens. Was the annexation really "illegal"? Certainly not in the sense of breaking national laws. What got the declaration of war from the British and the French was not the illegality or legality of the action but the fact that both powers had specifically guaranteed Poland against German aggression. The Soviets were not mentioned one way or another in said guarantee. Note that the Soviets also claimed that they were protecting the Poles much as the Poles a short time befere claimed about the Checks. Reading comprehension problems? Your conclusion was questionable due to being based on fallacies and arrived at via questionable "logic". One has to look at why he was making a statement as well as what he says to get the real import behind it. His writings make it clear that he ultimately planned on war with at least France. Again with the questionable logic. When two countries agree to attack and divide another it is clearly an alliance and much more than a non-aggression pact. Not at all sure where the "Soviet troops on German land" (capitalization corrections mine) comes from or what it has to do with the topic at hand. But what's in them and are they real? Offering peace at the status quo isn't much of a peace offer in late 39 is it? Now if he was offering to remove German troops from Poland ... Having a bit of coherency issues I see. During the revolution there may have been some Soviet on Soviet fighting but even then I don't think it reached the level of a declaration of war.