So when someone points out that Stalin's authoritzed 1940 biography published in Moscow has him crediting Darwin with giving him the confidence to be an atheist, or that history professor has written a book showing Darwin's influence on the zeitgeist of Nazi Germany, you feel justified in attacking?
These attacks are on the theory of evolution by stretching the truth and attempting to link either evolutionists or the theory to some of history's nastiest folks.
It is the equivalent of tying your beliefs into Jim Jones in order to discredit you and your beliefs.
Read the threads.
I wouldn't believe a word of it without corroboration. I don't have my source handy, but I'm pretty sure that the parts of it that tell about Unca Joe's heroic deeds in the Bolshevik Revolution and the Civil War, as well as the part where Lenin made him his successor, are known to be gross exaggerations or flat-out lies; hardly surprising, considering the source.
Whatever he read, it sure didn't "take"; Stalin elevated Lysenko and exiled and/or executed Vavilov and other normal biologists. The effect this had on Soviet agriculture should provide food for thought to those who would teach ID or creatinism as though they were science.
I wonder how much credit for his character and moral development should be given to the seminary where he claimed to have read Darwin. There is corroboration for the fact he studied for the priesthood.