Regardless I don't think they're lamenting Germany's defeat.

They're a power mod on their instance too

keep telling yourself anarchists hate stalin because of his virtues and not because of his other characteristics.

To be clear, those weren't the folks I was referring to in my comment. But:

if I may ask you a question - if marxism and anarchism are fundamentally enemies, as stalin himself argued, why would any anarchist support the modern day ML penchant for rehabilitating stalin's reputation?

Absolutely welcome to ask, and I'll give it a shot nonetheless.

I would ask the anarchist (and the modern day ML too) if they agree with this part of Stalin's theory.

I don't, and would venture to say a modern day ML may also disagree with Stalin in this but even also have a penchant for his rehabilitation, for other reasons.

More tangentally I think anarchism and marxism are not fundamentally enemies, (so, in disagreement with Stalin here), and would suggest they primarily diverge on the role a state plays in mediating conflicts of private and public interests.

But if I were to try and find common ground with the bit from Stalin you're citing, just for argument's sake, it would be that this divergence is a fundamental relationship between the two, but I'd still maintain the differences are not incompatible or irreconcileable.

But again, for the record, I was being more snarky about people who pivot from talking about how Hitler could've won to how Stalin could've lost.

For most folks in the west, stalin is considered to be a brutal authoritarian dictator who made a deal with the nazis to carve up europe into spheres of influence.

Do they not know of how the western leaders enabled the Nazis to carve up Czechoslovakia and opposed USSR's call for a united front against Nazis?

The Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact, USSR happened after the Munich agreement where Britain, France and Italy came together to allow the Nazis and Poland to annex Czechoslovakia.

And if you think there were no agreements before:
1934 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_declaration_of_non-aggression
1935 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_Naval_Agreement
1938 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
1939 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

And the next para from the text you quoted goes into the reasons, right? Searched with the text you shared and got this:

The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles, in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of the struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the individual." The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses."

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1906/12/x01.htm

How do you see his critique? Do you think that anarchism cares less about wider social emancipation?
I don't have much experience with literature on Anarchism(or Marxism, but relatively better there), so would be cool to know your opinions on it