Terry,

>>And this was in danger as long as europe was able to re-arm itself again. Though we probalby will agree that stalin was a terrible dictator, his moves were understandable in the case.

>Understandable, but what more right did he have than Hitler to seize other sovereign countries, like Hungary? East Germany one can understand - spoils of war, punishing the agressor, and all that. "Oh, while I'm at it, protecting my borders, I might as well do a bit of empire building, as I have the army all ready modilised and all".

Good question, what rights the UK had to colonise so many countries in the nineteenth century?
What rights did the Netherlands have to kolonise many areas of the world?

This was not the time of needing the rights but just taking it. Again I do agree that stalin was a terrible dictator, but this was not likely to happen if the europeans did not invake russia three times in something more than 100 years, leaving many millions of death.

>>If you were the leader of russia, being betrayed just recently by hitler, having a history with a clear patern of millions of russian lives lost. What would you do ?? IOW, what were the alternatives ? This was the moment they were waiting for to get rid of old europe for once and for all.

>As I said, I don't think he gave a toss for the lives of millions of his citizens. He accounted for PLENTY of them himself. He even "rewarded" certain satellites' soldiers, who'd fought loyally at his side, by sending them to the gulags (can't remember which, but a mongoloid race).

That was not the question. I'm not talking about stalins personal quircks and motives. What would you do? What would any russian leader do in this case?

>The vastness of Russia, after 2 abortive campaigns, Napolean's and Hitler's, I think would have been deterrent enough vs any further attempt to invade. Missiles and bombers maybe, but having buffer states doesn't stop them from flying over.

huh?? That would not be until the cold war. In WWII the distance a plane of rocket could fly still was very limited. Buffer states serve two purposes:
- Being the buffer between your citizens and the enemy ensuring the enemy cannot get at your inmediate border.
- A strategic place on which you could build your military so the enemy would first have to deal with that before even getting on russian grounds, shifting the battlefield.

>OTOH it WAS a bit of "six of one and half a dozen of the other" between the two super-powers, both mutually afraid of the other. Sting had it right in his song "Do the Russians love their children too" (or whatever it was called). IOW, the fears the west had of Russia were just the same as vice versa, and the Russians had their own welfare to consider if they should be the aggressor.

Exactly my point.