戦後東ドイツ農業における土地改革と新農民問題 : メクレンブルク・フォアポンメルン州1945年-1949年

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explain the new farmers' problems (Neubauernprobleme) in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 1945-1949, where the land reform had the strongest influence on the agriculture structure in Post-War East Germany. Above all it focuses on both refugees- and livestock- problems in the new farmer village (Neubauerngemeinde), into which the estate farms (Gutsdorf) had been transformed through the land reform. This paper doesn't handle the cases in old farmer villages where the problem seems very different. Firstly it shows that the soviet army occupied some estate farms directly and requisitioned the estate livestocks etc. so that new farmers could hardly manage their farms. Therefore native village people experienced land reform as the virtual destruction of their farms. Secondly we analyze how to hold and use horses, cows, and tractors concerned with the refugees farmer problems, and find out a difference between these stocks. While cows were held and used privately by new farmers, tractors were in control under county officials, which enabled them to mobilize tractors more widely and intervene in the working process in the village. Unlike other agricultural stocks, horses were, if not clearly, held privately and used for the public demands of village. One of the serious conflicts between natives and refugees came from how to make use of the teams in the village. Hence it was both refugee and horse problems that weakened the power to integrate people into the local community. Thirdly it examines the building program for new farm houses enforced in September 1947. This program was drawn up mainly so as to solve the problems of refugee new farmers, adjusting to the land reform ideology. In the phase of the enforcement, however, it was confronted by strong resistance from native people because firstly old estate buildings, scheduled to be dismantled for providing materials for building, were still used as barns and sheds by native new farmers, and secondly building new houses burdened their horses with a additional load. It rather deepened the social contradiction in the village. Finally it focuses on the behavior of new farmers and the local community policy. New farmers showed such 'selfish' conduct as giving up the farm, 'sabotage', and deforestation etc. to an extent the local community could not control effectively. Although SED (Socialist Unity Party) succeed formally in increasing and organizing party members in villages, it doesn't mean at all that they had any ability to administer and obtain the support of village people, as is symbolized many corruption cases by SED new mayors. As a whole it was common in new farmer villages that county officials intended to intervene in village policy, force them to mobilize the human and material resources, and sometimes take a strong measure for their achievement. However, we must consider it proved not only the essential character of the strong socialist system, but the response from above against the economic crisis and social chaos in villages which was caused by the soviet army occupation, the large-scale influx of refugees, and land reform.