Don't forget that Russia was invaded by the same army they colluded with to split up and enslave the nation of Poland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
Also don't forget that the poor little nation of Poland didn't let the Red Army pass through to defend Czechoslovakia (quite reasonable considering that it took a chunk of the USSR territory not a long before that [4]) and it wasn't shy of getting a piece of Czechoslovakia too [2]. Quoting Churchill: "Poland which with hyena appetite had only six months before joined in the pillage and destruction of the Czechoslovak State" [3].
In this situation expanding the border westward can be viewed as a preventive war on part of the USSR. If you an American this might remind you of the contemporary Bush Doctrine.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslov...
[3] http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/10/the-polish-gu...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War_in_19...
The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact has been officially acknowledged by Russia since 1989. It is hardly honest to argue the innocence of USSR by blaming the victims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact
"the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland into Nazi and Soviet "spheres of influence", anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries. Thereafter, Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939. After the Soviet-Japanese ceasefire agreement took effect on 16 September, Stalin ordered his own invasion of Poland on 17 September.[3] Part of southeastern (Karelia) and Salla region in Finland were annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Hertza region."
That was about tactical considerations inside Downing Street at a specific point in time for a subset of the invaded countries!? (The access to this was from spying, not from signed documents with Soviet.)
And if the breaking of the pact was so expected, why was Soviet so utterly unprepared with so much of the air force etc standing inside bombing range? And so on.
As for your claim of irrelevance:
I argued against your excuses for invading and occupying countries. As a Western European, it makes me nervous to see these criminal attitudes in modern day Russia. If you want to make all countries within 1000 km of Russia to join NATO, you do a good job. (Except China, which really ought to occupy your interest more...)
This Downing Street's assesment of occupying Baltic countries validates my argument that it made sense from the strategic point of view. The same logic is perfectly applicable to the Poland occupation. Criminal or not, you do what you've got to do to survive.
As a Western European you are probably okey with the idea of 10 or 20 more million of barbaric Russians dying as the result of not extending our borders to the West, but somehow I can't sympathize with that ;) Moreover, neither should you, for the war could've been lost completely. Unless your grandparents fought on the Nazi's side, that is.
So you seriously argue that it is a moral defense to invade countries and do anything, if it makes strategic sense. And you yourself decide how threatened you are... with a review generations later. Shudder.
You're really making a very, very good argument for joining NATO before we find out how non-democratic Russia will end up being. :-(
Considering art/math/etc, I would never call Russians of today "barbaric" so no straw man attacks please. (I implied that you spread typical propaganda to create external enemies for a thieving junta. That is scary from a big neighbor.)
And lots of people were murdered, raped, tortured and in general got their lives destroyed/enslaved by Soviet outside Soviet far after the WW, so don't play the loss card from 70+ years ago after one dictator turned on another. Especially when the Soviet dictator got more citizens killed than the war (hunger, shootings, etc). I really hope the poor Russian population don't get another 1984. :-(
Do you shudder when you think about democratic USA invading Iraq in order to prevent Saddam from passing WMD to terrorists sometime in the future?
I'm afraid right now it is you who is creating an external enemy (out of modern Russia). Can't argue about 'thieving' part, though ;)
How big is your 'lots' compared to a single Nazi concentration camp? Anyway, giving up the buffer countries on the western border after a devasting war had just ended would've been stupid from the strategic point of view.
But you didn't touch my other points either, so I guess that wasn't so bad.
>> How big is your 'lots' compared to a single Nazi concentration camp?
So you say "Soviet was ok, because its enslavement, murders, theft etc in East Europe was less bad then the nazi ockupation before."
You really keep high standards.... :-)
Etc.
You argue crazier for every comment, I will write you off as a troll.
Is it your argument that a country should obey international law, be occupied by Nazi's, get its population decimated in order to look good 70 years later? If not then what is it? How do you think things would have turned out if Nazi's offence had been just a bit faster? Would have the USSR lost Moscow and Leningrad? Would have Germany got access to the Caucasus oil?
Ok, let's compare your 'lots' to a number of people killed in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. The upper bound for it was 600000 in 2006[1]. By now it is much more, because violence there haven't stopped so far.
In case you are wondering, my position is that 1917's revolution was a tragedy and Russia would've been better off if it didn't happen, Stalin is a criminal etc. But the logic of moving border westward have nothing to do with it because I don't see any alternative scenarios not leading to bigger casualties on part of Russia.
BTW, you insistence on rightness of ignoring reality of German militarization only 20 years after the WW1 looks, well, strange too.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casu...
Finland was Soviet's, according to Ribentroff-Molotov. Soviet tried to invade. Far before Soviet was surprised by the attack from their Nazi allies, so you can't use that as motivation. Without Soviet's attack, Finland wouldn't have been in the war (read up on Wikipedia if you don't believe me).
It is just not defensible, even with your tolerance for preepmtive invasions.
I hope you troll when you argue it is correct to invade and enslave peaceful democracies, because a junta feels threatened... If you are paid to increase NATO supporters, you do a good job.
(I only read the first sentence, where you for the third time in a row ignored what I wrote re Finland and other areas not covered in your reference.)
As for the rest of my comment, I assume you just don't want to start thinking about these questions lest they cause cognitive dissonance and endanger your precious fixed point of view.
Sorry, you're just a dishonest apologet for one of the worst dictatorships in history or a troll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aunus_expedition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimosodat
Moreover, Finland right-wing government was supported by Germany in 1918 and prospect of Finland allying itself with German once again seems quite probable.
I can only repeat myself: In case you are wondering, my position is that 1917's revolution was a tragedy and Russia would've been better off if it didn't happen, Stalin is a criminal etc., but the logic of moving border westward have nothing to do with this because I don't see any alternative scenarios not leading to bigger casualties on part of Russia.
Territories, annexed from Poland, had majority of population Eastern Slavs (Ukrainian and Belarussian), not Poles, were part of Russia for hundreds of years (except Galicia) and were annexed by Poland from Russia (Galicia from Austria) 20 years before.