>>>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?
>>
>>They didn't, but by the 40s-50s, when Stalin started doing it, we'd both stopped. The age of empires was over.
>
>Using time as an argument, is not valid IMO. Basically you're saying they should not do it, because the rest of the world stopped doing it (for whatever reason). The dutch stopped doing it before the british, but that did not stop the british either.

Come off it! Britain had already stopped empire building, had no chance now of holding on to what she had, all over the world people were realising that they had been occupied by 2 empires and now wanted none of it, the world had seen what disasters follow the pursuit of empire (i.e. Hitler) and, besides, most Euro empires were of the 3rd World. No-one was going to try and build another empire in Europe, esp. vs Russia.

I don't care what you say, Russia was paranoid, true, but not in danger of invasion. Missiles? - possibly, but, as I say, buffer states don't stop them.

>
>>>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.
>>
>>I've said what I think of Stalin's regard for his people's lives.
>
>And I don't disagree on that, but that is an entire different discussion.

No, you said he feared losing more millions of lives. All he wanted was more land and more vassals.

>
>
>>>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?
>
>>I wouldn't have done that, and make myself a world pariah - but maybe that's just me.
>
>If you're victorious, you want to take the treasure... That is what the russians did.

From the lands that had attacked me, maybe, e.g. Germany. I don't know which of the satellites had been Axis. All?

>
>>>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:
>>
>>Exactly. So until the Cold War he needed have no fear of someone starting ANOTHER invasion.
>
>I don't see that. He should not have any fear because europe was in ruin, but learning from WWI they knew that things change rapidly. Having buffering states would give them military advantages and significantly reducing the risks of the mass desctruction that happened to the russians in WWII.

Like I said, who in his right mind would again attempt boots on the ground on the Russian Steppes, with its winters, vastness, scorched earth, supply-line horrors, a mighty in-gear war machine against him (with the advantage of home turf)? If Stalin hadn't been so paranoid, evil and stupid (siding WITH Germany 1st anyway), offing all his top brass before the fight, and had mass-produced the Stalin tank and war-planes, I doubt whether the Hun would have got anytwhere near Stalingrad, etc.

>
>But anywas there is something to say for russia colonising eastern european countries. But this was not exclusively for the USSR. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_state
>
>>Although Hitler (originally strategically brilliant but later a bungling idiot!) had ignored the lesson of history, I can't imagine any other country trying it on again. And who was to try it? The USA was/is the only power big enough, and had seen how strategically difficult it was to launch D-Day, never mind crossing the whole of Europe and then on into Russia. The idea of the UK trying it was ludicrous, France had had enough of war, and why would she - not being an aggressor. Germany was too beaten (twice) and a third attempt would have been absolutely suicidal. So whom did Russia fear as an invader? As you said, planes were too short range.

Of course not! If you invade and conquer your own empire you don't give it up easily. There's always the riches of the industry and minerals to be taken anyway. Why not station your missiles on their turf too, so they get the pre-emptive strikes ...

Terry







>
>AS I said things change in a matter of decades. As proven forces can be build up again within that time. The occupation of the eastern european countries were not done for the short term (as proven).
>
>>I said that to have a buffer state wouldn't have stopped later long-range missiles and bombers being able to reach Russia. So, although you cite having buffer states to combat invading armies, before they got to the Motherland, who would try it? Everyone had seen the resourcefulness and power of the Red Army.
>
>Yes, but the outcome might have been different when the germans did not have to fight on many different fronts. At that time there were no certainties. Stalin knew that western europe was now occupied by the allied forces. The allied forces themselves were large enough to be a threat to them (as proven in the cold war). And remember that though it is about imppossible to capture the whole russian empire, the main focus might be the relative closeby and gigantic oil and gas reserves.
>
>Again, it might be easy to do the aftermath, but at that time it was no more than a logical step that the USSR did what it did.
>
>Walter,