In 1939 which way did these countries lean (Axis vs Allies)?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Joachim:

This is an interesting definition. But in dictatorships where you have the "I am the country"-attitude of Louis XIV., expansionism is not only the expansion of the state but the expansion of the "empire" of the ruler(s). States and countries matter little for them. They expand their territory.

Gruß

Joachim

Soviet Union had influence in North Vietnam and Cuba - did this make those two just extensions of Soviet Union? No, because both countries also pursued their own goals independently of Moscow, even when it was damaging for Soviets. Soviet leaders may have wished to hold total control over their allies, and western analysists often misperceived it that way, but in reality Soviets failed in this and many other goals they had in foreign policy.

Thus expansionism as a policy of grabbing land is very different from expanding influence.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Soviet Union had influence in North Vietnam and Cuba - did this make those two just extensions of Soviet Union? No, because both countries also pursued their own goals independently of Moscow, even when it was damaging for Soviets. Soviet leaders may have wished to hold total control over their allies, and western analysists often misperceived it that way, but in reality Soviets failed in this and many other goals they had in foreign policy.

Thus expansionism as a policy of grabbing land is very different from expanding influence.

Yes, expansionism is different from expanding influence.

But the utmost goal of expanding influence is 100% influence. Once youacheive it and it is accepted by others, you can annex the country or convert it into a puppet - if you have the necessary force to keep that state as the loss of one "internationally accepted" puppet country will trigger more.

It alwasy depends on how tight the grip is.

Berlin June 17th, 1953. A serious risk arises and the Soviet tanks move in. Terror reigns. Backed by the tanks the "local" government does the dirty jobs.

Hungary, spring 1956. Tanks of its "allies" move in, stabilizing the government.

Berlin, 1989. No directives or intervention from Moscow. The government collapses. Before, several other governments had collapsed in very short order.

In the WarPac up to 1988, the grip was so tight no country could quit Soviet or communist rule.

Cuba or Vietnam had won their independence with minor or no Soviet aid. They joined the "Commie bloc" on their own governments will, but not the WarPac. There were never enough Soviet troops stationed there to really threaten the government. More an insurance for the local government vs coups etc. "Expanding" territory on Cuba and Vietnam would mean to really annoy the neutral states in the UN. Exerting power over the local governments in the WarPac would hardly be noticed but could be explained. The garrisons there were strong enough to hold themselves until reinforcements arrive. The risk to the local rulers - losing all their power, wealth and privileges is too high.

What would have happened if Vietnam was threatened by Russia? Immediate and drastic improvement of relations to China or even the US. Help from outside before any strong Soviet forces arrive. A loss of face, but not tipping the balance of power enough to use nukes.

Meddling in WarPac countries was defined and accepted as an immediate threat to the USSR. WW3 or use of nukes was linked to it. So the WarPac countries have no hope for foreign help.

Gruß

Joachim

[Sergei]

But the utmost goal of expanding influence is 100% influence.

Based on what? Is a country like Estonia seeking 100 % influence on all other nations of the world?

During cold war the communist leader of Bulgaria (I forget his name, but there weren't many) told to the Soviets that his country would be ready to join the Soviet Union. He was told to forget about it, as it would have been too embarrassing for Soviets. If they wanted to gain total control in the country, why to refuse? I have to remind you, at no times did Soviet Union have 100 % influence on any of the Warsaw Pact countries, just like even within USSR itself different regions were not always just faithfully fulfilling the policies set by the centre. I may agree with a lot of what you say, but I do think you exaggerate a fair bit.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I think the problem is that you have an exceedingly non-standard definition of 'expansion'. Traditionally it means expanding a country's borders to incorporate new lands with or without new peoples. Merely interferring in another country's internal politics does not in and of itself constitute expansion, though obviously it could be a precursor to expansion (e.g., Nazi agitation in the Sudetland and in Austria).

What about the Colonial powers in the 19th and early 20th century (up till ~1945) ?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Sergei:

No. That hardly proves your claim, however.

Subjucate the mind and the ass will follow. They controlled the minds of the people in the countries in their sphere of influence and conse

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I think the problem is that you have an exceedingly non-standard definition of 'expansion'. Traditionally it means expanding a country's borders to incorporate new lands with or without new peoples. Merely interferring in another country's internal politics does not in and of itself constitute expansion, though obviously it could be a precursor to expansion (e.g., Nazi agitation in the Sudetland and in Austria).

What about the Colonial powers in the 19th and early 20th century (up till ~1945) ?

Well? What about them? Is there a point you wish to make or are you merely reduced to your usual incoherent, illogical babblings? Tero, I've observed your style of argumentation with other posters over the months, and I can't say I am impressed with it. Your dogged tenacity is matched only by a champion capacity to misunderstand the point. As far as I am concerned, you can go write on a bathroom wall. Preferably far, far away.

Michael

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But the utmost goal of expanding influence is 100% influence.

Based on what? Is a country like Estonia seeking 100 % influence on all other nations of the world?

During cold war the communist leader of Bulgaria (I forget his name, but there weren't many) told to the Soviets that his country would be ready to join the Soviet Union. He was told to forget about it, as it would have been too embarrassing for Soviets. If they wanted to gain total control in the country, why to refuse? I have to remind you, at no times did Soviet Union have 100 % influence on any of the Warsaw Pact countries, just like even within USSR itself different regions were not always just faithfully fulfilling the policies set by the centre. I may agree with a lot of what you say, but I do think you exaggerate a fair bit. </font>