Dude, all you needed to be defined a “kulak” was to own your own homestead, they worked on their farms themselves. Serfdom had been over for more than a hundred years at that point.
During the first five-year plan, Joseph Stalin’s all-out campaign to take land ownership and organisation away from the peasantry meant that, according to historian Robert Conquest, “peasants with a couple of cows or five or six acres [~2 ha] more than their neighbors” were labeled kulaks.
You make it sound so wholesome using your sanitized history from natopedia, meanwhile here’s the reality, your grand grandparents were exploiting scumbags
Getting skinned alive by the men who ran these scumbag exploiter families. I love how even when presented with actual research proving how full of shit you are, you keep digging. I guess runs in the family.
Showing a paragraph with a nasty description does not really prove anything, I could find you endless paragraphs that say nasty things about communists.
Do you fathom, how little land 5ha actually is for farming? Especially considering, that even the Western Soviet Union is generally not densely populated.
I really doubt that Moscow deported women and children out of either collective punishment or misidentification. It’s more reasonable that it was simply Soviet policy to keep families together as much as possible.
Of course, if Moscow did separate the relatives, then antisocialists would go from griping about ‘collective punishment’ to griping about ‘separating loved ones’ instead. In any case, antisocialists rarely attempt to understand their opponents’ motives, especially in detail. All that you need to know is that the Soviets committed atrocities against innocents and that’s it. They did it just ’cause.
Dude, all you needed to be defined a “kulak” was to own your own homestead, they worked on their farms themselves. Serfdom had been over for more than a hundred years at that point.
Kulaks were literal exploiters. Maybe learn some history, you’ll find out what the term means a fist.
Maybe you should do some reading too.
There were no serfs in the 20th century: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_serfdom_in_Livonia
And the people considered kulaks by Stalin were often the same peasants, who got pieces of land taken from the actual noblety in the interwar land reform: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Land_Reform_of_1920
Tell us, why were they called kulaks little buddy?
So owning marginally more than your neighbours. Wow, what a horrible crime.
You make it sound so wholesome using your sanitized history from natopedia, meanwhile here’s the reality, your grand grandparents were exploiting scumbags
https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/149521
Ah yes, getting skinned alive so hard by women and children.
Getting skinned alive by the men who ran these scumbag exploiter families. I love how even when presented with actual research proving how full of shit you are, you keep digging. I guess runs in the family.
Showing a paragraph with a nasty description does not really prove anything, I could find you endless paragraphs that say nasty things about communists.
Here’s some other research:
Available here, page 126
Do you fathom, how little land 5ha actually is for farming? Especially considering, that even the Western Soviet Union is generally not densely populated.
I really doubt that Moscow deported women and children out of either collective punishment or misidentification. It’s more reasonable that it was simply Soviet policy to keep families together as much as possible.
Of course, if Moscow did separate the relatives, then antisocialists would go from griping about ‘collective punishment’ to griping about ‘separating loved ones’ instead. In any case, antisocialists rarely attempt to understand their opponents’ motives, especially in detail. All that you need to know is that the Soviets committed atrocities against innocents and that’s it. They did it just ’cause.