Farms: Russian Revolution - Collectivisation

Productivity | Information | History | View | Quality

1. 0:40 what a coincidence, a communist Jew.
2. Not a single word about how the kulaks were hoarding grain and other sources of food.
3. I appreciate all the comments given and I do not fully agree with what this video shows. It is merely a summary of what has happened and those who are into history know that secondary sources are always subjected to reliability and criticism and always affected by the author and circumstances surrounding them. (e.g. Battle of Alisea - Gaul numbers probably exaggerated)
4. I don't mean to quibble but the figure offered of 3 million kulaks shot during Stalin's anti kulak action may be a bit exaggerated.
   Timothy Snyder, author and Yale history professor, puts the number at 400,000. http://youtu.be/6JXhNPJBAn4?t=4m43s
5. what's the original source of the information? where did you get this documentation from?
6. Stalin did the right thing, these avid traitors belive that their  traitor friend Buckarin will win the political fight, they  had prefer destroied and killed her animals and property instead to permit to socialism state to redistribuite it, Stalin only deported them, it was too good!
7. I think it's rather biased to suggest that "the peasants" in general opposed collectivisation, for many of the poorer peasants (majority) collectivisation would have been viewed as an improvement.
8. Rich landowners. You have to keep in mind Russia at the time was emerging largely from feudalism, NOT capitalism. And personally, I would urge you to consider how the borgeoise class treated the former aristocracy in their revolutions, like the french revolution. Enter Marie Antoinette, Rovespierre, Guillotine...you get the picture.
9. It was a bad time to be a kulak. What's a kulak?
10. learnt more in this three minute video than i did for a week in history class
11. Thank you for making and sharing this video, it was very informative. I’m studying for my teacher’s exam in History/Geography and this video was of great help! 
12. Loot @ the url and find the secret word: /watch?v=FcumJNNX0qc TEEHEE
13. @Xanaseb The collectivization was saved of the Soviet Union. Due to collectivization, increased productivity of agricultural enterprises. In 1917 the urban population accounted for 17% and 83% rural. Hunger was every 5 years. In 1991 the urban population, 73% and 27% rural. Hunger was not. After collectivization, industrialization could begin. Industrialization helped defeat Nazi Europe during WWII.
14. @JakeFuyou actually the Tsar abdicated in 1917, yes there was famine whilst the Tsar was in power but the famine reffered to in the clip is the famine that occured in 1930, Stalin announced collectivisation in 1927 and the farmers did burn their crops and kill their cattle in protests, it's the whole 'if i can't have it no one can' thing. trust me i'm studying Russian History.
15. @JakeFuyou They resisted it because they knew how their individuality and freedom from the state would be stripped from them and how they would be confined in virtual prisons. Collectivisation prevented progress! It never improved life, or modernised agriculture! That is precisely why Russia's countryside is still has "backwardness" as you say. Just read Robert Conquest, Richard Pipes and Moshe Lewin, they'll show you the truth!
16. @JakeFuyou I'm sorry, but you are severely flawed in your argument. Please justify how you think collectivisation actually benefitted anyone (apart from the ruling elite)! Collectivisation never was efficient or prodcuctive, all it did was control the peasants who were forced to feed workers and Army who they never had contact with! 
17. The New Economic Policy was in 1921, Kulaks were already firmly established by then. Also, the period prior to the NEP was "War Communism" and certainly wasn't sympathetic to private ownership.
18. the `camps` are called gulags
19. Collectivisation= catastrophe !
20. I would say that Stalin didn't collectivize, which should be a duty performed by the workers of the land. Rather, he nationalized, because he placed them under direct state control.