>>>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.
>
>Again, I dn't buy that argument. You are using time as anargument. Other empires had stopped creating colonies before the british did, so how on earth could accuse russia to stop later than the british.

I'm not saying that Russia WOULD stop expanding, as obviously they didn't. I'm saying that Russia needed have no fear of Britain and France trying to annexe them - the idea is absurd.
>
>
>>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.
>
>I agree it was not in an inmediate danger of being invaded. absolutely true, but this also was the case right after napolean invaded russia, and right after WWII. Your logic does not make sense to me.

What's not to make sense? Russia was in no danger of being invaded - just proven a foolhardy venture by the Germans. Missiles could "invade" their territory - and buffer states would not stop them from flying overhead. But that wasn't till the future, post-war, anyway.

>
>>>>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.
>
>Stalin was paranoid about people undermining his position, ...

Exactly! so the fewer the better!

>...but that does not mean he did not care his country being overrun. His fear of europe was still there, even if it was for his own personal position/ego alone.

Overrun, yes. But he didn't care how many peasants or, say, mongolian troops he lost in the process of defence.

>
>>>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?
>
>Most of them were occupied by the germans at that time.

Yes but which had SIDED with the Germans. If he took over German allies' lands, as the spoils of war, that is understandable, just as Israel annexed part of the Sinai from Egypt, the Golan Heights from Syria.

>
>>>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.
>
>Again, you are talking about the inmediate threat. I think you're right there was none. However on the long term there was, as proven by the cold war.

But the Cold War was geared totally in a defensive mode in the West. The allies waited in W. Germany for the soviet tanks to come rolling in - not vice versa.

>
>>>>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 ...
>
>I did not write the above, Are you arguing your own point ??

Something's gone amiss here. I was talking about the reasons why Stalin held on to conquered territory, not the need for no fear of invasion.

Terry