[ArtieBob]

This is in no way a defense of Stalinist USSR and its many acts of oppression, both for people of other nations or it's own. IMHO, there is very little evidence that Stalin had actually planned to attack the nazi territories in July 1941 and thus the Germann attack was preemptive defense. If one studies nazi doctrine, it seems quite apparent that the "living space" that was required for it's empire plans were to the East and the only question was when the nazis would continue their agression again in that direction. I believe there is an massive amount of documentation supporting this position. This would thus have truly made any move by Stalin West a defensive preemptive attack. So, what came first, the chicken or the egg, i.e., nazi or USSR aggrssive intentions. As noted above, I believe the documentation is overwhelming the nazi aggression came first. My knowledge of USSR abnd Russian history indicates that the long term interestwas to aquire territory and influence to the South. Finally, I believe the best predictor of future behavior of a person (i.e.,dictator) or regime is past behavior. Certainly there are few examples of aggressive territory takeover that can match that of nazi Germany (I suppose the invasions of Denmark, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, etc. were defending against future attacks on the German empire by those aggressive military giants?), and although Stalin's USSR was oppressive, I believe it's territorial aggression was driven more by opportunism that a "master plan".
Having to choose whether to have had the European land mass dominated by either nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR IMHO was no choice at all. Both regimes have now been consigned the junkpile of history where they and their ilk belong. There were then, and are now, better paradigms for Europe and the world, none being perfect, for they all include rather imperfect human beings.

The main problem with straying from airplanes in this forum is that almost without fail, we end up with bad history.

Best regards,

Artie Bob