Sorry 'bout that
I freely admit that your claims under this point were far better shown than your understated blurbs from the previous thread. That being said, you still have extreme paranoia about the entire thing. Now, that fact aside, it is still the case that typically any socialist/ communist regime is actually a vieled totalitarian dictatorship, which is intriguing in the fact that those are the most unstable political organisations in history. Remember, what it takes the willpower of one man to create, it also usually takes the death of that one man to destroy. Look at Tito for the quickest example, or just look at the fact that most socialist states continue a downward spiral throughout the changing of dictators. Throughout time, the Soviet leaders became far less 'efficient', for lack of a better term, than its early leaders. This only fueled the financial difficulties they had and eventually led to one of the largest economic collapses in modern history. I can only see N. Korea doing the same thing, as it is only in the second generation of socialist leadership. So that being said, move on to takeover.
I still blieve it to be an impossibility that the USSR could have taken over Western Europe. Most of the countries that it had immediately were given over to the umbrella of soviet control due to either reconstruction after the war or the model of economic prosperity it was able to show over a two generation period. Granted, Stalin was a madman who was responsible for the deaths of many people, and I never said he was a good person, but he did modernize one of the most backwards nations in European history. Beyond the US involvement you mentioned as being in the former axis nations, the French, British, Spanish, Portugese, etc. would probably have at least tried to defend themselves and the soviets were somewhat poor at legitimate military expansion. Keep in mind that the whole Estoniia/ Latvia area had a history of Russian control going back to the time of Ivan the Terrible. He was responsible for initially winnig them from the Polish, along with the expansion to Siberia. This would mean that outside political control on that side would have been an accepted notion already, as it had already occurred several times throughout history. I stick to my guns on the whole SE Asia thing as well. Initially, you give the USSR too much credit to think that they would be able to fight a two-front war of expansion simultaneously. That has been the downfall of some of the greatest military leaders in history. I realize that China and the USSR were allies, but that would preclude your argument. Since that is the case, then I guess they did own all of SE Asia basically. Vietnam, Korea, & China would be significant enough to call it a basic takeover, but even with that, the USSR still went belly-up. Why? It's a self-defeating system of economics at the end of it.
Lastly, I am sorry I called you a fool. You apparently do know something about the issues and history involved, but your initial thread was so simplistic that it was insulting. My downfall was getting on Litkicks drunk again. I shall try to show greater restraint any time after this, but I still disagree with your statements. My apologies, but I feel differently than you do, apparrently.