But a dozen of you are tripping over yourself to defend Stalin. For no reason. Seems you’re the misogynists here. You love Stalin despite him falling short of a woman’s (who you hate) accomplishments.
So you’re changing your own argument, now? It’s more impressive that Stalin worked his way up the ladder before killing all those people? That’s what you admire?
You’re very bad at this, and you’re convincing no one. We know what Stalin actually did & didn’t do, because we’ve actually investigated. We grew up under exactly the same propaganda as you, but all you’ve got is that unexamined propaganda, which we’ve examined and found wanting.
It’s very telling that _every single one of you _ have jumped in with a whataboutism as if that’s remotely a valid argument. It’s not even on topic. That’s the childish response. At no point had I mentioned communism at all, but that’s what your minds jump to. You can’t even admit that: tyrant bad. Being a tyrant communist doesn’t make the tyranny part not exist.
Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.
Hitler was only appointed as Chancellor because Hindenburg and his camarilla urgently needed a broad popular basis for their […] politics. In this respect, the popular support which the [Fascists] enjoyed made the appointment of Hitler as head of government possible. Even though a majority of Germans had voted against Hitler in the Reichstag elections of 6 November 1932, he was still the leader of the strongest political party.
Who here was glorifying Queen Victoria? Not me.
But a dozen of you are tripping over yourself to defend Stalin. For no reason. Seems you’re the misogynists here. You love Stalin despite him falling short of a woman’s (who you hate) accomplishments.
So you DON’T hate her for killing tens of millions of children? Wow. You seem VERY problematic.
Being born into royalty and, by pure happenstance, becoming empress of the largest empire in history at its zenith is no accomplishment.
So you’re changing your own argument, now? It’s more impressive that Stalin worked his way up the ladder before killing all those people? That’s what you admire?
You’re very bad at this, and you’re convincing no one. We know what Stalin actually did & didn’t do, because we’ve actually investigated. We grew up under exactly the same propaganda as you, but all you’ve got is that unexamined propaganda, which we’ve examined and found wanting.
It’s very telling that _every single one of you _ have jumped in with a whataboutism as if that’s remotely a valid argument. It’s not even on topic. That’s the childish response. At no point had I mentioned communism at all, but that’s what your minds jump to. You can’t even admit that: tyrant bad. Being a tyrant communist doesn’t make the tyranny part not exist.
So will you admit that Lincoln was evil?
He wasn’t a tyrant. He was elected, several times.
CIA COMMENTS ON THE CHANGE IN SOVIET LEADERSHIP
Oh. Honey…So was Hitler.
(Source.)
Why do you keep showing us your ass, you confidently incorrect boor?
Hitler famously lost the election. But was given the position of chancellor.
You might call him a “compromise candidate”. A product of “bipartisanship”, if you will.
Western shitlibs: the perfectly obnoxious combination of smugly confident and incorrect