Reggie Bautista schreef:
> >Jeroen wrote:
> >Yes, you understand me correctly. I do believe that the Soviet Union had
> >just as much right to defend it's sphere of influence (Eastern Europe) as
> >the West (US and Europe) had to defend *their* sphere of influence.
> >
>
> But the Soviet Union didn't have those troops massed there to defend their
> sphere of influence. The Soviets had stated that they planned to take over
> the world, then started massing troops for an invasion of the rest of Europe
> (at least as far as it appeared to Westerners). The West massed troops in
> response, to defend against what it saw as imminent invasion.
>
> If the Soviets had not stated their goal was to rule the entire planet, and
> if they had not massed troops, the West would not have massed troops in
> response.
>
> If someone says to you, "I'm going to punch you in the face next time I see
> you," you would probably either avoid the person (impossible in our
> political example), or prepare to defend yourself in a fight.
>
> What I'm saying, and not very succinctly, is that the West was preparing to
> defend it's sphere of influence, but the Soviet Union was prepared to
> *expand* it's sphere of influence. Their force was not defensive; it was
> offensive, by their own statement.
>
Devils advocate here:
If I were the USSR and knew that I would loose in the event that the forces on
the other side would invade my side. And assuming that I don't trust the
governing bodies on the other side. How would I prevent them from crossing into
my teritory? I'd mass my forces at the borders shouting as loud as I can that
I'd invade the other side if I'd get half a chance. Thereby I'd bind the forces
of the opposition in a place convenient to me and I'd be relatively safe that
neither side would risk a full scale battle with uncertain outcome because of
the involvement of a huge amount of forces massed in one particular spot.
Sonja
