Wait, you’re telling me that a preindustrial society, the successor state to an empire that had 10 famines a century, had one last famine during some failed policy of land collectivisation and then ended hunger for 300 million people? How does that make the USSR look bad?
First of all, the process of dekulakization was only state-directed, but it was primarily peasant-enforced. There were some guidelines to the process, but it was poor peasants who organized themselves, who decided which kulaks to expropriate, and who oversaw the process. But the poor peasants were so extreme towards kulaks because of how they had been exploited by them, that the soviet government had to introduce maximum quotas of percentage of kulaks per region, in order to prevent poor peasants from going overboard.
Additionally, the elimination of Kulaks didn’t mean the elimination of each individual Kulak, it meant the elimination of the social class. A kulak getting a death sentence (or, more commonly, being killed by the poor peasants) was a rare thing, and forced relocation to Eastern territories was a much more common penalty. The vast majority of Kulaks survived dekulakization. But you couldn’t bother to read a book and your here spouting ahistorical nonsense.
Removed by mod
Wait, you’re telling me that a preindustrial society, the successor state to an empire that had 10 famines a century, had one last famine during some failed policy of land collectivisation and then ended hunger for 300 million people? How does that make the USSR look bad?
Removed by mod
Better luck next time.
Again with the ahistorical bullshit.
First of all, the process of dekulakization was only state-directed, but it was primarily peasant-enforced. There were some guidelines to the process, but it was poor peasants who organized themselves, who decided which kulaks to expropriate, and who oversaw the process. But the poor peasants were so extreme towards kulaks because of how they had been exploited by them, that the soviet government had to introduce maximum quotas of percentage of kulaks per region, in order to prevent poor peasants from going overboard.
Additionally, the elimination of Kulaks didn’t mean the elimination of each individual Kulak, it meant the elimination of the social class. A kulak getting a death sentence (or, more commonly, being killed by the poor peasants) was a rare thing, and forced relocation to Eastern territories was a much more common penalty. The vast majority of Kulaks survived dekulakization. But you couldn’t bother to read a book and your here spouting ahistorical nonsense.