Obviously this is heated topic, but did it ends really bad for USSR under Stalin rule (until his death)? I mean it was bad for many citizens but other areas were actually ok-ish considering war destructions.

I’m not trying to make point about Stalin. Just trying to find if this is really a rule, but my historical knowledge is pretty limited. Intuitively I feel any overpowered political entity end up like shit. But interesting to see real data.

Of course it was bad. But the point was about starting wars.

Stalin did start many wars, disastrous invasion of Finland, invasion of Poland, Molotov-Ribentrop pact with Germany and so on.

You could imagine an alternate universe where Stalin gets dysentery and dies. The USSR tells Ribentrop to f'off. And then joins the allies declaring war on Germany when Hitler invades Poland.

Also I forgot to add Mussolini and his designs on Greece, Balkans, North and the Horn of Africa.

If you ask the Russians the Brezhnyev rule was the best (stability, stagnation), with Stalin trailing him (won WW2, rapid industrialization). If you ask westeners, Khrushchev (space race, reforms) and Gorbachev (glasnost).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_of_Leonid_Brezhnev

I think they just wanted to imply Xi was "like Hitler" and the rest is just filler ideology.

Is it me or is this one of those, only other people we don’t like do bad things.

You’d need to generalize the pop science to the British, French, Spanish and portugues empires then address the genocide of indigenous tribes by America, Canada and Australia

I'm talking about particular types of leaders.

Xi has been in power for 12 years now, and he hasn't started a single war yet. Meanwhile, how many wars has the US fought in the same timeframe?