STRUCTURAL CHANGE AND DEMOCRATIZATION OF SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN’S AGRICULTURE, 1945-1973. George Gerolimatos A Dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History Chapel Hill 2014 Approved by: Christopher Browning Chad Bryant Konrad Jarausch Terence McIntosh Donald Raleigh © 2014 George Gerolimatos ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT George Gerolimatos: Structural Change and Democratization of Schleswig-Holstein’s Agriculture, 1945-1973 (Under the direction of Christopher Browning) This dissertation investigates the economic and political transformation of agriculture in Schleswig-Holstein after 1945. The Federal Republic’s economic boom smoothed the political transition from the National Socialism to British occupation to democracy in West Germany. Democracy was more palatable to farmers in Schleswig-Holstein than it had been during the economic uncertainty and upheaval of the Weimar Republic. At that time, farmers in Schleswig- Holstein resorted to political extremism, such as support for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi). Although farmers underwent economic hardship after 1945 to adjust to globalization, modernization and European integration, they realized that radical right-wing politics would not solve their problems. Instead, farmers realized that political parties like the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) represented their interests. Farmers in Schleswig-Holstein felt part of the political fabric of the Federal Republic. One of the key economic changes I investigate is the increased use of machines, such as threshers, tractors, and milking machines. My main finding was that agriculture went from a labor- to capital-intensive business. Despite the massive destruction and dislocation wrought by the Third Reich and World War II, agriculture in Schleswig-Holstein recovered remarkably quickly after 1945. Farmers believed their hard work made the “economic miracle” of the 1950s possible, and used this belief to justify requests for federal aid in subsequent years. Over time there were fewer farms, but these averaged larger in size, specialization and sophistication. iii Despite this fact the cornerstone of agrarian politics, the family farm, persisted in the public consciousness. The move toward European integration meant that West German farmers looked to the federal agriculture ministry and their government in Bonn as an ally, not antagonist, in negotiating the path toward a common agricultural policy. I investigate serious crises in West German agricultural politics, particularly in the mid-to late-1960s. Nevertheless, farmers’ protest in Schleswig-Holstein demonstrated that they had become part of the democratic political culture of the Federal Republic. The main farm lobby adapted remarkably smoothly to the rapid changes in agriculture. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank all those who helped me realize this project: my advisors Prof. Christopher Browning and Prof. Dr. Uwe Danker, as well as Dr. Sebastian Lehmann and the team at the IZRG, the archivists and librarians in Schleswig, Kiel, Koblenz, and St. Augustin, my committee members Professors Konrad Jarausch, Terence McIntosh, Chad Bryant and Donald Raleigh, and my parents for their support. A big round of thanks to those who read drafts of my work, foremost Sara Bush, Derek Holmgren, and Friederike Brühöfener. v TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables and Figures……………………………………………………………....viii List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………......ix Prologue…………………………………………………………………………………...1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….9 1. Schleswig-Holstein’s Agriculture, 1933-1948………………………………………….. 36 1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..36 1.2 Agriculture in Schleswig-Holstein, 1933-1939: the “Golden Years”?........................38 1.3 Agriculture in Schleswig-Holstein, 1939-1945: War and Defeat……………………47 1.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...60 2. Surmounting the Crisis in Agriculture 1945-1948……………………………………….61 2.1 Introduction: Schleswig-Holstein’s Agriculture in 1945…………………………….61 2.2 British-German Relations, “Self-Help” and The Currency Reform…………………66 2.3 New Self-Administration…………………………………………………………….86 2.4 Denazification and Land Reform…………………………………………………...106 2.5 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….121 3. Legislative Integration into the Social Market Economy, 1949-1955………………….124 3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………124 3.2 Market Regulation Laws (1950-1951)……………………………………………...125 3.3 The “Milk War” (1951)…………………………………………………………….136 3.4 The Agriculture Law (1955)………………………………………………………..152 vi 3.5 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….158 4. “Grow or get out.” Structural change in the dairy industry and European Integration 1960-1967…………………………………………………..160 4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………160 4.2 Schleswig-Holstein’s agriculture, 1955-1960………………………………………161 4.3 Points of Friction in European Integration, 1960-1964…………………………….170 4.4 Crisis in Farm Leadership and the Rise of the NPD, 1966-1967…………………...187 4.5 Structural Change in Dairy Farming………………………………………………..204 4.6 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….220 5. Acid Test for Integration: Agricultural Protest, 1968-1973………………………….224 5.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………224 5.2 Protest in Early 1968………………………………………………………………..225 5.3 The “Green Dollar” as “the root of all evil?”………………………………………241 5.4 The Mansholt Plan………………………………………………………………….244 5.5 Protest in the early 1970s…………………………………………………………...254 5.6 Changing of the Guard……………………………………………………………...260 5.7 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….263 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...268 Epilogue……………………………………………………………………………..….288 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………....291 vii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 1. Map of Schleswig-Holstein……………………………………………………………..………2 2. CDU election poster……………………………………………………….…………………128 3. CAP pricing mechanism……………………………………………………………..………177 4. Farmers’ Protest March 1968………………………………………………………..………231 5. Farmers’ Protest in Heide 1928……………………………………………………..…….…231 6. Farmers’ Protest in Heide 1968……………………………………………………….…..…232 7. Farmers’ Assembly…………………………………………………………………..………233 viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACDP Archiv für christlich-demokratische Politik AdG Working Group for Landowners APO Extra-Parliamentary Opposition BHE Bund der Heimatlosen und Entrechtete League of Expellees and those Deprived of Rights CAP Common Agricultural Policy CCG/BE Control Commission for Germany/British Element CDU Christian Democratic Union COPA Comité des Organisations Professionelles Agricoles de la CCE DBV German Farmers’ Association DKP German Communist Party DNVP German National Party DP German Party DVP German People’s Party EAGGF European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund EEC European Economic Community FAD Food and Agriculture Division FDP Free Democratic Party GATT General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs IZRG Institut für Zeit- und Regionalgeschichte Schleswig-Holsteins KPD Communist Party (Weimar Republic) NPD National Democratic Party NSDAP National Socialist Workers’ Party RNS Reichsnährstand Reich Food Estate SPD Social Democratic Party SSV South Schleswig Voting Union VELF Verwaltungsrat für Ernährung Landwirtschaft und Forsten Bizonal Food and Agriculture Office ZEL Zentralamt für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft Central Food Office ix Prologue: Three farms in Schleswig-Holstein in the late 1940s Perhaps the best place to begin the history of Schleswig-Holstein’s agriculture after 1945 is with the landscape itself. Numerous studies on Schleswig-Holstein’s agriculture begin their narrative with a discussion of the three main geographical regions running north to south in this 1 Land. See Figure 1. 1 Although it is tempting to equate a West German Land with a US state, I stick to the German designation throughout the text. 1 Figure 1. Rudolf Heberle, Landbevölkerung und Nationalsozialismus. Eine soziologische Untersuchung derpoltiischen Willensbildung in Schleswig-Holstein 1918 bis 1932. (Stuttgart, 1963), 172. Formed during the Ice Age, these marked divisions are reflected in the climate, soil, and other factors which have shaped the typical kinds of agriculture in each. The eastern strip of land along the Baltic (including the capital, Kiel) is hilly and was once heavily forested. In the areas bordering Mecklenburg in the east large farms and estates prevail, though not on quite the same scale as the East Prussian latifundia. The central moor (Geest) has sandier soil, making large- scale grain cultivation (like one sees in the east) unprofitable. Here smaller, mixed farms predominate. The social structure is different as well. Finally, the western marsh region along the 2 North Sea has extremely fertile soil and a rich tradition in livestock farming. A system of dykes not dissimilar to neighboring Holland has been constructed over the centuries to hold back floods. Snapshots of farming in each region in the 1940s, when contrasted with how they looked at the end of the 1960s, will demonstrate the magnitude of change due to structural transformations in agriculture. What then did a typical farm in each geographical sub-region look like in the late 1940s? How was it run, what principles governed it? Above all, what challenges did farmers face in re- aligning themselves politically, modernizing operations economically, and re-thinking social norms? Reinhard Jung’s 1991 Bauern oder Unternehmer2 offers us an example