I still like it as a retort to lib criticism of Stalin that almost always involves something that didn’t really happen anyway

I don’t know anything about it,

do you reckon that waving criticisms off as 'almost always involving something that didn't really happen anyway' while not knowing anything about whats being criticised is a winning strategy, or that exclusively learning about the wholesome, sanitary parts of a persons actions, statements, ideals and beliefs is a healthy way to approach historical figures

heres some reading if youre interested, from a source youll probably actually appreciate