For reference of the opinions of the times, Trotsky said this:

THE late Leonid Krassin, old revolutionist, eminent engineer, brilliant Soviet diplomat and, above all, intelligent human being, was the first, if I am not mistaken, to call Stalin an “Asiatic”. In saying that, he had in mind no problematical racial attributes, but rather that blending of grit, shrewdness, craftiness and cruelty which has been considered characteristic of the statesmen of Asia. Bukharin subsequently simplified the appellation, calling Stalin “Genghis Khan,” manifestly in order to draw attention to his cruelty, which has developed into brutality. Stalin himself, in conversation with a Japanese journalist, once called himself an “Asiatic,” not in the old but rather in the new sense of the word: with that personal allusion he wished to hint at the existence of common interests between the U.S.S.R. and Japan as against the imperialistic West. Contemplating the term “Asiatic” from a scientific point of view, we must admit that in this instance it is but partially correct. Geographically, the Caucasus, especially Transcaucasia, is undoubtedly a continuation of Asia. The Georgians, however, in contradistinction from the Mongolian Azerbaijanians, belong to the so-called Mediterranean, European race. Thus Stalin was not exact when he called himself an Asiatic. But geography, ethnography and anthropology are not all that matters; history looms larger.

So was Karl Marx when he was younger

De'il, do you contrare all the time!?

Stalin should have marched all the way to California

It's not meant to? It's meant to frame Europeans as an even more cartoonish level of bloodthirsty imperialists.

Woops, my bad. I'm too used to people calling Stalin a genocidal maniac

I must not be online enough

What is it? I was of the impression, given the context, that it was placing some doubtlessly stupid lie that Stalin somehow killed more indigenous Europeans (or whatever) than Hitler, and was thus trying to minimize Hitler's atrocities by contrast.