Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:34:46.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dimensions of Social Conflict in the Great War: The View From the German Countryside

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Robert G. Moeller
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the early 1960s, social and economic historians of modern Germany have increasingly turned their attention to the study of the First World War and the postwar revolution. Yet of all the ink that has flowed extremely little has trickled down to the peasantry. Excellent monographs examine the wartime experience of several cities. Historians looking for the origins of proletarian radicalism in the revolution of 1918–19 have carefully scrutinized workers of all sorts, and those in pursuit of the birth or perhaps adolescent crisis of “Organized Capitalism” have studied industrialists and the changing role of the state. But no one has looked very closely at the country cousin. When historians have turned to the agricultural sector, they have with few exceptions focused on estate owners and their workers east of the Elbe.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 1981 , pp. 142 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This is a revised version of a paper originally presented at the meetings of the American Historical Association in San Francisco in December 1978. My thanks to James E. Cronin, Jan deVries, Gerald D. Feldman, Jens Flemming, Heidrun Homburg, Josef Mooser, Hans-Jürgen Puhle and Reinhard Rürup for their useful suggestions on earlier drafts. Research for this paper was made possible by funding from the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, the Social Science Research Council, and the Stiftung Volkswagen.

1. See in particular, Rürup, Reinhard, ed., Arbeiter- und Soldatenräte im rheinisch-westfälischen Industriegebiet: Studien zur Geschichte der Revolution 1918/1919 (Wuppertal, 1975)Google Scholar; Feldman, Gerald D., Army, Industry and Labor in Germany 1914–1918 (Princeton, New Jersey: 1966)Google Scholar; Lucas, Erhard, Zwei Formen von Radikalismus in der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung (Frankfurt a.M., 1976)Google Scholar; Winkler, Heinrich August, ed., Organisierter Kapitalismus: Voraussetzungen und Anfänge (Göttingen, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an excellent synthesis which also offers a comprehensive bibliography, see Kocka, Jürgen, Klassengesellschaft im Krieg 1914–1918 (Göttingen, 1973).Google Scholar

2. See particularly, Flemming, Jens, Landwirtschaftliche Interessen und Demokratie: Ländliche Gesellschaft, Agrarverbände und Staat 1890–1925 (Bonn, 1978)Google Scholar; Kohler, Eric D., “Revolutionary Pomerania, 1919–1920: A Study in Majority Socialist Agricultural Policy and Civil-Military Relations,” Central European History 9 (1976): 250–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Schumacher, Martin, Land und Politik: Eine Untersuchung über politische Parteien und agrarische Interessen 1914–1923 (Düsseldorf, 1978).Google Scholar

3. See Gerschenkron, Alexander, Bread and Democracy in Germany (Berkeley, 1943), pp. 25–26, 47, 57–58, 67, 75–76Google Scholar. That Gerschenkron's basic analysis still exerts considerable influence is clear in the more recent works of Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, Das Deutsche Kaiserreich 1871–1918 (Göttingen, 1973), pp. 47, 55–56Google Scholar; Moore, Barrington Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston, 1966), pp. 448–50Google Scholar; Kindleberger, Charles P., “Group Behavior and International Trade,” in Kindleberger, C. P., Economic Response: Comparative Studies in Trade, Finance and Growth (Cambridge, Mass., 1978), pp. 22–23, 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Urwin, Derek W., From Ploughshare to Ballotbox: The Politics of Agrarian Defense in Europe (Oslo, 1980), pp. 96–97Google Scholar. Insightful critiques of this position are offered by Hunt, James C., “Peasants, Grain Tariffs, and Meat Quotas: Imperial German Protectionism Reexamined,” Central European History 7 (1974): 311–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hendon, David Warren, “The Center Party and the Agrarian Interest in Germany, 1890–1914” (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1976), pp. 2ff. and 100ff.Google Scholar

4. This study excludes the two southernmost districts of the Rhine Province, Regierungsbezirk (RB) Coblenz and RB Trier. These areas were characterized by generally smaller holdings, attributable to the much wider spread practice of partible inheritance, and less market orientation, due to the absence of large urban centers. For a complete discussion of these regions and the social structure of the agricultural sector in them, see Moeller, Robert G., “Peasants, Politics and Pressure Groups in War and Inflation: A Study of the Rhineland and Westphalia, 1914–1924“(Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1980), pp. 40–103.Google Scholar

5. Of those holding between 0.5 and 2 hectares in Westphalia, only 16.8% were employed full-time in agriculture, and 40.0% were employed primarily in industry. The figures for the Rhineland are 29.2% and 35.1% respectively. See Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, 212, pt. 1 (Berlin, 1909), pp. 189–91; also, Linneweber, Gisbert, Die Landwirtschaft in den Kreisen Dortmund und Hörde unter dem Einflusse der Industrie (Diss. Tübingen, 1909), pp. 67–69Google Scholar; Golte, Wilhelm, Die Gestaltung der landwirtschaftlichen Betriebsorganisation unter verschiedenen Höhenlagen untersucht an 37 Betrieben des Regierungsbezirks Arnsberg (Berlin, 1909), p. 20Google Scholar; Leonhards, Rudolf, Die landwirtschaftlichen Betriebsformen des niederbergischen Landes (Diss. Bonn-Poppelsdorf, 1922), p. 63Google Scholar; Schlotter, Peter, Die ländliche Arbeiterfrage in der Provinz Westfalen (Leipzig, 1907), pp. 28–31.Google Scholar

6. For a full discussion of agricultural labor relations in these regions, see Moeller, “Peasants, Politics,” pp. 72–84.

7. This characterization is based on an analysis of the 1907 occupational census (Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, 212, pt. 1 and pt. 2 [Berlin, 1912]) and a host of studies of agricultural conditions in various districts of the Rhineland and Westphalia. These investigations include many excellent dissertations completed at the agricultural college in Bonn-Poppelsdorf as well as studies commissioned by the Deutsche Landwirtschaftsgesellschaft. See the detailed discussion with complete references in Moeller, “Peasants, Politics,” pp. 67–72. For comparative purposes, see the recent contributions of Dillwitz, Sigrid, “Die Struktur der Bauernschaft von 1871 bis 1914: Dargestellt auf der Grundlage der deutschen Reichsstatistik,” Jahrbuch für Geschichte 9 (1973): 91–92Google Scholar; Sølta, Jan, Die Bauern der Lausitz: Eine Untersuchung des Differenzierungsprozesses der Bauernschaft im Kapitalismus (Bautzen, 1976), pp. 76, 97–98Google Scholar; and Golde, Günter, Catholics and Protestants: Agricultural Modernization in Two German Villages (New York, 1975), p. 92.Google Scholar

8. Moeller, “Peasants, Politics,” esp. pp. 69–72.

9. On the dimensions of this prewar prosperity see Rothkegel, Walther, Handbuch der Schätzungslehre für Grundbesitzungen, 1 (Berlin, 1930), pp. 377–78Google Scholar; Hoffman, Werner, Das Wachstum der deutschen Wirtschaft seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1965), pp. 552–62Google Scholar; Flemming, Landwirtschaftliche Interessen, pp. 20–23.

10. Hagmann, H., 30 Wirtschaftsrechnungen von Kleinbauern und Landarbeitern: Im Auftrage der Landwirtscaftskammer für die Rheinprovinz (Bonn, 1911), p. 48Google Scholar; see also, Henkelmann, Werner, Zur Frage der optimalen Betriebsgrösse in der Rheinprovinz (Bonn, 1928), pp. 197–99Google Scholar; and Linneweber, Landwirtschaft in den Kreisen Dortmund und Hörde, p. 141.

11. Kocka, Klassengesellschaft, pp. 65–95, 96–100.

12. The best general discussions of the nature and impact of the war economy can be found in Aereboe, Friedrich, Der Einfluss des Krieges auf die landwirtschaftliche Produktion in Deutschland (Stuttgart, 1927)Google Scholar, and the companion study in the Carnegie Foundation series on the First World War, August Skalweit, Die deutsche Kriegsernährungswirtschaft (Stuttgart, 1927). Both make extensive use of the contributions to Beiträge zur Kriegswirtschaft (hereafter Beiträge), a series on the problems of the war economy published by the War Food Office (Kriegsernährungsamt) which includes articles on virtually every aspect of the food problem written by leading contemporary agricultural economists and bureaucrats charged with regulation of the food supply. For more recent discussions, see, Flemming, Landwirtschaftliche Interessen, pp. 80–105, and Schumacher, Land und Politik, pp. 33ff.

13. Landwirtschaftskammer der Provinz Westfalen (hereafter LWKW) to Hoher Bundesrat, Dec. 4, 1914, Oberpräsidium (hereafter OP) 3924 Staatsarchiv Münster (hereafter StAM). Similar demands came from many district administrators. See, e.g., Landrat (hereafter LR) Cleve, report of Nov. 26, 1914; LR Wesel, report of Dec. 4, 1914; LR Dinslaken, Dec. 4, 1914, Regierungsbezirk Düsseldorf (hereafter Reg. Dü) 15080, Hauptsstaatsarchiv Düsseldorf (hereafter HStAD); petition of Landwirtschaftskammer für die Provinz Rhineland (hereafter LWKR), Nov. 12, 1914, Rep. 87B Nr. 15907/Blatt 212ff., Zentrales Staatsarchiv Merseburg. The reports of government officials provide the single most important source for a consideration of the peasantry's reaction to the war economy at the local level. Of particular value are the monthly reports on the conditions of the food supply provided by the respective LWK and Regierungspräsidenten (hereafter RP) to the Oberpräsidenten (hereafter Op) and the Deputy Commanding Generals (hereafter AK). These reports were, in turn, based on reports from the LR on conditions in individual districts.

14. Nov. 30, 1914, Reg. Dü 15080, HStAD.

15. The so-called Schweinemord unleashed an extended debate over food policy. See, e.g., Beckmann, Friedrich, “Die Organisation der agraren Produktion im Kriege,” Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft n.s. 7 (1916): 700, 703Google Scholar, who called it the “Bartholomäusnacht der Borstentiere,” and Skalweit, August, “Das Schwein in der Kriegsernährungspolitik,” in Das Schwein in der Kriegsemährungswirtschaft, Beiträge, vol. 20/21 (Berlin, 1917), pp. 7, 15–17Google Scholar; and Klaas, Walter, “Der Entwicklungsgang der staatlichen Regelung des Kriegs-Schweinemarktes,”Google Scholar in ibid., pp. 29 ff.

16. Beckmann, Friedrich, “Organisation,” pp. 495ff.Google Scholar

17. See the discussion of the rational bases of this mixed-farming system in Moeller, Robert G., “Peasants and Tariffs in the Kaiserreich: How Backward Were the Bauern?” Agricultural History 55 (1981): 370–84.Google Scholar

18. Beckmann, Friedrich, Die weltwirtschaftlichen Beziehungen der Landwirtschaft des westfälischen Industriegebietes (Leipzig, 1929), pp. 11–12Google Scholar; Aereboe, Friedrich and Warmbold, H., Preisverhältnisse landwirtschaftlicher Erzeugnisse im Kriege, Beiträge, vol. 6 (Berlin, 1917).Google Scholar

19. Schmidt, Willy, Die landwirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse des Siegeskreises (Diss. Bonn-Poppelsdorf, 1923), p. 13Google Scholar. Local officials pointed to this problem consistently. E.g., prices were left uncontrolled for horses, and thus, those who could, turned to raising them. See, RP Münster, report of June 27, 1918, OP 3944, StAM. If producers thought prices for potatoes were too low, fewer were grown (RP Arnsberg, report of Feb. 24, 1917, OP 3944, StAM). Shortages of fodder led to calving later than usual so that young animals could be put to pasture directly (RP Münster, report of Feb. 25, 1917, OP 3934, StAM). Since a greater percentage of the barley harvest was left to the producer, acreage planted in barley expanded at the expense of other grains (RP Cologne, report of July 23, 1917, 403/12326/Blatt 677, Landeshauptarchiv Koblenz [hereafter LAK]). Since prices for beef cattle were set while those for milk cows to replace those slaughtered were left uncontrolled, dairying concerns turned increasingly to breeding (RP Cologne, report of Nov. 24, 1918, 403/12328/Blatt 205, LAK). Similar examples abound in the reports of provincial and district officials.

20. This is emphasized by LWKW, report of Oct. 22, 1917, OP 3940, StAM.

21. Skalweit, Kriegsernährungswirtschaft, p. 107, and “Schwein,” pp. 19–20; Beckmann, “Organisation,” pp. 777–79; LWKW, report of May 22, 1917, OP 3940, StAM.

22. Mattes, Wilhelm, Die bayerischen Bauernräte: Eine soziologische und historische Untersuchung über bäuerliche Politik (Stuttgart, 1921), p. 26Google Scholar; see also Wilken, Folkert, Volkswirtschaftliche Theorie der landwirtschaftlichen Preissteigerungen in Deutschland von 1895–1913 (Berlin, 1925), p. 64Google Scholar. The agricultural sector is the textbook example for price-setting in a highly competitive sector. See, e.g., Mansfield, Edwin, Microeconomics: Theory and Applications, 2nd ed. (New York, 1975), pp. 256–58.Google Scholar

23. Best known are the repeated demands for tariffs. For a discussion of this and other proposals, see, Hendon, “Center Party,” pp. 100–149; and Puhle, Hans-Jürgen, Agrarische Interessenpolitik und preussischer Konservatismus im wilhelmenischen Reich (1893–1914): Ein Beitrag zur Analyse des Nationalismus in Deutschland am Beispiel des Bundes der Landwirte und der Deutsch-Konservativen Partei, 2nd ed. (Bonn-Bad Godesberg, 1975), pp. 227–40.Google Scholar

24. Tyszka, Carl von, Der Konsument in der Kriegswirtschaft (Tübingen, 1916) p. 5Google Scholar; Aereboe, Einfluss, p. 37. Bitterness toward the government on the part of both consumers and producers is a common theme of official government reports particularly in the last two war years. See, e.g., report of RP Münster, May 27, 1917, OP 3936, StAM; RP Minden, Apr. 22, 1917, Reg. Münster 1313, StAM; report of LWKW, Apr. 23, 1918, OP 3943, StAM; report of Rheinisch-Westfälische Städtevereinigung, an informal organization of communal government representatives, July 1, 1918, OP 3944, StAM.

25. For a summary of these declines, see Flemming, Landwirtschaftliche Interessen pp. 80–83.

26. Ibid., pp. 84–86. The experience of the Rhineland and Westphalia certainly provided no exception to this general tendency. Declines in livestock weights are a constant theme of the reports of government officials. See, e.g., report of RP Münster, Sept. 30, 1917, and RP Arnsberg, Sept. 23, 1917, OP 3940, StAM. Moreover, declines in weights of slaughtered livestock meant that the number of animals delivered had to be increased in order to guarantee meat rations to consumers. See report of RP Düsseldorf, Apr. 30, 1918, 403/9050, LAK. According to official government statistics, total output of winter wheat in Westphalia had fallen to almost 50% of its 1913 level by 1918. Rye output had fallen to 63% of its prewar level. Wheat production in the Rhineland had fallen to 63% of its prewar level, and the total rye harvest was at about 55% of its 1913 level. See Preussische Statistik, 257 (Berlin, 1921), pp. 76*–79*. Admittedly, these figures are subject to question since underreporting of yields was a chronic problem during the war. Moreover, prewar figures were generally assumed to be somewhat too high. For a discussion of these problems, see Berthold, Rudolf, “Zur Entwicklung der deutschen Agrarproduktion und der Ernährungswirtschaft zwischen 1907 und 1925,” Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 1974, no. 4, pp. 92–95Google Scholar. But despite these problems, we can, along with Flemming and Berthold, accept that the general downward trend in output is undeniable.

27. At a meeting of all RP and OP in Berlin, Oct. 11, 1916, Reg. Arnsberg I 15 Nr. 203, StAM.

28. Oberbürgermeister Crefeld, report of Dec. 4, 1914, Reg. Dü 15080, HStAD; similar report from RP Düsseldorf, Dec. 30, 1915, 403/12314/Blatt 229, LAK; see also the discussion in Moeller, “Peasants, Politics,” pp. 235–37.

29. Prussian Minister of Agriculture to all RP, Oct. 30, 1915, OP 1821, 1, StAM. See also, Baumgarten, Otto, “Der sittliche Zustand des deutschen Volkes unter dem Einfluss des Krieges,” in Geistige und sittliche Wirkungen des Krieges in Deutschland (Stuttgart, 1927), p. 47.Google Scholar

30. Mülhaupt, Engelbert, Der Milchring: Ein Beitrag zur Kartell- und Milchpreisfrage (Karlsruhe, 1912), pp. 93–94Google Scholar; Elsas, Fritz, “Einige Grundfragen der Ernährungswirtschaft im Kriege,” Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 3d ser. 54 (1917): 423–24Google Scholar. This is also a central theme for Gerschenkron, Bread.

31. Kocka, Klassengesellschaft, pp. 71, 73, 83, 92–93; this became a constant theme of the monthly reports of the RP throughout 1917 and 1918. See, e.g., RP Cologne, Mar. 30, 1917, 403/12319/Blatt 413, LAK: RP Minden, Aug. 22, 1918, and RP Arnsberg, Aug. 27, 1918, OP 3944, StAM.

32. See, e.g., report of RP Arnsberg, July 23, 1917, OP 3938, StAM, and, on the general deterioration of domestic morale caused by the black market, Lindemann, Hugo, Die deutsche Stadtgemeinde im Kriege (Tübingen, 1917), pp. 83–84Google Scholar, and Baumgarten, “Der sittliche Zustand,” p. 26.

33. Aereboe, Einfluss, p. 102. For the Rhineland and Westphalia, there are no systematic records of prices on the black market. What evidence does exist suggests that they were normally three to five times greater than fixed prices. For example, peasants brought to court in Essen for black marketeering in the fall of 1916 had received 520m for a pig which should have cost 95m, 330m for one which otherwise cost 80m and 330m instead of 85m. See the report of Erster Staatsanwalt, Essen, Oct. 3, 1917, Reg. Münster 3775, StAM.

34. See, e.g., reports of LR Lüdinghausen, April 6, 1917, Reg. Münster 4836, StAM, and LR Waldbröl, Sept. 21, 1917, 403/12320/Blatt 229, LAK.

35. RP Minden, report of Feb. 20, 1918, OP 3942, StAM.

36. See the vivid description in Schulte, Eduard, Kriegschronik der Stadt Münster 1914/18 (Münster, 1930), pp. 299–300.Google Scholar

37. The archival record abounds with evidence of such violations. See, in particular, the report of the Preisprüfungsstelle für die Provinz Westfalen in Dortmund to the Kriegsernährungsamt, Nov. 26, 1917, OP 3941, StAM, as well as the detailed discussion and the references provided in Moeller, “Peasants, Politics,” pp. 181–86.

38. Report of Mar. 19, 1917, OP 3935, StAM; also, RP Aachen, report of Aug. 24, 1917, 403/12326/Blatt 802, LAK.

39. Report of Apr. 29, 1917, Reg. Münster 4833, StAM.

40. RP Aachen, report of Nov. 26, 1917, 403/12327/Blatt 279, LAK; RP Münster in speech to the Landwirtschaftlicher Hauptverein für den Regierungsbezirk Münster, Münsterischer Anzeiger (hereafter MA), Jan. 3, 1918; Similarly, OpW to Provinzialfleischstelle, Dec. 11, 1917, OP 3941, StAM.

41. Aereboe and Warmbold, “Preisverhältnisse,” pp. 26–27; Hesse, A., “Preisbildung und Preispolitik im Kriege,” in Preisverhältnisse landwirtschaftlicher Erzeugnisse im Kriege, Beiträge, vol. 6 (Berlin, 1917), p. 7.Google Scholar

42. Michaelis order of Mar. 23, 1917, OP 3935, StAM; also MA, Mar. 26 and 28, 1917. For a copy of the detailed form used for the control, see Kreis Dortmund, Landratsamt (hereafter LRA) Nr. 347, StAM.

43. LR Bergheim, report of May 30, 1916, 403/12315/Blatt 651, LAK.

44. Reports of these meetings from AK VII., Apr. 3, 1917, OP 3935, StAM. See also the reports in Rheinische Zeitung, Dec. 13, 1916, and Feb. 23, 1917.

45. LR Tecklenburg, report of Jan. 19, 1917, Reg. Münster 4837, StAM. Also, RP Münster, report of Jan. 30, 1917, Reg. Münster 4834, StAM.

46. LR Münster, report of Apr. 9, 1917, Reg. Münster 4836, StAM.

47. RP Cologne, report of Mar. 23, 1917, 403/12326 and RP Dü, report of Apr. 30, 1917, 403/9049/Blatt 964, LAK. MA of June 27, 1917, reported an increase of only 4% for Westphalia. See also, LR Siegen, report of Dec. 15, 1917, Kreis Siegen, LRA Nr. 1672, StAM.

48. MA, June 27, 1917; similar criticism in Kölnische Volks-Zeitung, June 25, 1917.

49. Orders from the Kriegsernärhrungsamt, Nov. 13, 1917 and the Preussischer Staatskommissar für Volksernährung, Nov. 20, 1917, OP 3940, StAM. Reports from all RP in Westphalia confirmed that by the end of December, grain deliveries had reached a record low. See OP 3941, StAM. The outcome in the Cologne area was no different. See 403/12327/Blatt 389, LAK.

50. RP Minden, report of Apr. 22, 1918, OP 3943, StAM; and RP Cologne, report of Apr. 27, 1918, 403/9046/Blatt 421, LAK.

51. OpW order to all RP, Apr. 25, 1918, OP 3943, StAM.

52. RP Aachen, report of Apr. 24, 1917, 403/12326/Blatt 354, LAK; RP Münster, report of June 27, 1918, OP 3944, StAM.

53. See, e.g., the report of the meeting of the Ausschuss für Milchversorgung des Rheinisch-westfälischen Industriegebietes, an advisory commission composed of producer interest group representatives and local government officials, July 19, 1916, OP 4024, StAM; law controlling sales of centrifuges from Mar. 24, 1917, and examples of petitions for permission to make purchases, Kreis Meschede, LRA Nr. 63, StAM. See, in general, von Ostertag, , “Versorgung mit Fleisch und Milch,” in Bumm, F., ed., Deutschlands Gesundheitsverhältnisse unter dem Einfluss des Krieges (Stuttgart, 1928), pt. 2, pp. 68–69, 73–74.Google Scholar

54. Aereboe and Warmbold “Preisverhältnisse,” p. 29. For instance, in an area like the lower Rhine, natural pasture lands were of such good quality that they could cover almost all fodder needs. See, Dix, Walter, Untersuchungen über die Betriebsorganisation der Landwirtschaft am Niederrhein (Berlin, 1911), pp. 52, 54Google Scholar; Oberhansberg, Wilhelm, Die landwirtschaftlichen Betriebsverhältnisse in dem Gebiet zwischen Ruhr- und Wuppertal (Industrie-Randzone) (Diss. Bonn-Poppelsdorf, 1923), pp. 61–62Google Scholar; Nacken, J., Fruchtfolgesysteme in der nördlichen Hälfte der niederrheinischen Tieflandsbucht (Diss. Bonn, 1926), p. 24Google Scholar. Budde, Paul, Die Landwirtschaft im Kreise Lüdinghausen (Diss. Giessen, 1925), pp. 66, 71Google Scholar; Sering, Max, ed., Die deutsche Landwirtschaft unter volks- und weltwirtschaftlichen Gesichtspunkten (Berlin, 1932), pp. 257, 260.Google Scholar

55. Oberbürgermeister Paderborn, report of Feb. 20, 1917, OP 3934, StAM.

56. Report of Kreisausschuss Herford, June 24, 1916, OP 3930, StAM.

57. LR Tecklenburg, report of Jan. 1, 1917, Reg. Münster 4837, StAM.

58. RP Minden, report of May 22, 1917, Reg. Münster 1313, StAM.

59. The LWKW estimated that in the first year of the war, 10% of the total agricultural population had been drafted. This represented 31.3% of all agricultural workers, or according to their calculations, 62.6% of all male workers, counting independent owners. See report of July 14, 1915, OP 1843, StAM. These reports were undoubtedly exaggerated, but other evidence collected by presumably less partisan local officials in the autumn of 1917 indicates that as many as 39% of all independent peasants and 56% of all agricultural laborers had left the agricultural sector either for military service or work in industry since the summer of 1914. See the scattered evidence from this survey of rural labor conditions in M1 IIIE, Nr. 492, Staatsarchiv Detmold; Kreis Recklinghausen, Nr. 232, StAM; and Kreis Steinfurt, LRA Nr. 367, StAM. For a good summary of labor conditions in the Rhineland, see RP Cologne, report of Jan. 30, 1917, 403/9046/Blatt 393, LAK.

60. Order of AK VII, Jan. 23, 1915, OP 1843, StAM; on the difficulties confronted by smallholders, RP Aachen, report of Apr. 26, 1917, 403/9048/Blatt 821, LAK.

61. Report of Dec. 4, 1914, Reg. Dü 15080, HStAD; similarly, RP Minden, report of Jan. 17, 1915, OP 1842, I, StAM; LR Wiedenbrück, report of Dec. 13, 1915, and LR Herford, Dec. 13, 1915, M1 IIIE, Nr. 489, Staatsarchiv Detmold.

62. Report of Dec. 4, 1914, Reg. Dü 15080, HStAD; similarly, RP Minden, report of Jan. 17, 1915, OP 1842, I, StAM, and LR Wiedenbrück, report of Dec. 13, 1915, M1 IIIE, Nr. 488, Staatsarchiv Detmold. E.g., the AK VII rejected all 699 petitions from the district of Herford in the spring of 1916, see M1 IIIE, Nr. 489, Staatsarchiv Detmold.

63. As the first postwar occupational census revealed, the number of female family members employed full-time in agriculture in 1925 had increased greatly since the prewar period. The figures below are for farms larger than 2 hectares:

(Compiled from Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, 212, pt. 2, pp. 188–195, and 410 [Berlin, 1929]: 84–89.) As the figures on part-time employment of female family members suggest, this increase cannot be explained only in terms of a shift from part- to full-time employment.

64. See, e.g., the petitions from the summer of 1916 for exemptions from livestock deliveries, OP 4080, StAM.

65. Report from Städtisches Lebensmittelamt Aachen, Mar. 4, 1917, Reg. Münster 1314; RP Minden, Jan. 24, 1917, and LR Lüdinghausen, Jan. 16, 1917, Reg. Münster 4837; RP Minden, Sept. 22, 1917, OP 3940, StAM.

66. RP Minden, report of Jan. 17, 1915, OP 3925, and RP Arnsberg, report of Oct. 24, 1917, OP 3940, StAM.

67. LR Herford, report of Jan. 17, 1915, OP 3926, StAM.

68. Letter dated Aug. 11, 1918, Kreis Wittgenstein, LRA Nr. 133, StAM.

69. This is a repeated theme in the reports of government officials at all levels. See, e.g., RP Münster, report of Oct. 31, 1916, OP 3932, StAM; RP Cologne, report of Sept. 23, 1916, 403/12317/Blatt 55, and Sept. 24, 1917, 403/12326/Blatt 819, LAK; also Wiedfeldt, Otto, Die Bewirtschaftung von Korn, Mehl und Brot im Deutschen Reiche, ihre Entstehung und ihrer Grundzüge, Beiträge, vol. 50/53 (Berlin, 1919), p. 63Google Scholar; and Elsas, “Einige Grundfragen,” p. 439.

70. LR Halle, quoted in report of RP Minden, July 22, 1917, OP 3938, StAM. See a similar complaint from RP Münster, report of May 27, 1917, OP 3936, StAM.

71. LR Siegen, report of Feb. 15, 1918, Kreis Siegen, LRA Nr. 1072, StAM.

72. Tyzska, Konsument, p. 19; Puhle, Hans-Jürgen, Politische Agrarbewegungen in kapitalistischen Industriegesellschaften: Deutschland, USA, Frankreich im 20. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 1975). pp. 79–81Google Scholar. This theme is also developed at length in Moeller, “Peasants, Politics,” pp. 165–217.

73. The authoritative source on this subject is Mattes, Die bayerischen Bauernräte, and his study remains unsurpassed. See also, Mitchell, Allan, Revolution in Bavaria 1918–1919: The Eisner Regime and the Soviet Republic (Princeton, 1965), esp. pp. 24–25, 119–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ay, Karl-Ludwig, Die Entstehung einer Revolution: Die Volksstimmung in Bayern während des ersten Weltkrieges (Berlin, 1968)Google Scholar; and Jonathan Osmond, “The Politics of Farming in South and West Germany during War and Inflation 1914–23,” unpublished paper presented to a seminar on “France and Germany in Europe 1914–45,” at St. Antony's College, Oxford, which summarizes the findings of Osmond's forthcoming dissertation on this important topic.

74. Muth, Heinrich, “Die Entstehung der Bauern- und Landarbeiterräte im November 1918 und die Politik des Bundes der Landwirte,” Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte 21 (1973): 1–38Google Scholar; also, see Moeller, “Peasants, Politics,” pp. 276–327.

75. On the prewar background of the Rhenish and Westphalian interest groups, the Peasant Associations, see in particular Hendon, “Center Party,” and also, Moeller, “Peasants, Politics,” pp. 104–163, and the extensive references provided there.

76. See the complaint of RP Münster, Mar. 31, 1918, and Kreisausschuss Münster, Mar. 11, 1918, over the public statements of Carl Herold, a leading Center Party spokesman for agrarian interests, in OP 3943, StAM. See also the report of Adam Stegerwald after touring the Ruhr area in the service of the Ministry of the Interior in the summer of 1917, 403/12326/Blatt 627, LAK.

77. For examples of this tendency, see the speeches at the general assembly of the Rhenish Peasant Association in 1917, reported in the interest group's press organ, Rheinischer Bauer, June 23, 1917, and the comments of August Crone-Münzebrock, a national leader of the Peasant Association's umbrella organization, reported in Westfälischer Bauer, Feb. 1, 1917.

78. This emphasis differentiates our conclusions from those reached by Muth, who minimizes the importance of grassroots pressure and stresses instead the manipulative role of the interest group leadership. See Muth, “Entstehung,” pp. 37–38. Muth's general position is argued even more emphatically by Münch, Friedrich, “Die agitatorische Tätigkeit des Bauernführers Heim: Zur Volksernährungsfrage aus der Sicht des Pressereferates des bayerischen Kriegsministeriums während des Ersten Weltkrieges,” in Bosl, Karl, ed., Bayern im Umbruch: Die Revolution von 1918, ihre Voraussetzungen, ihr Verlauf und ihre Folgen (Munich and Vienna, 1969), p. 343Google Scholar. In contrast, our argument stresses the extent to which agricultural leaders were able to legitimize their claims as spokesmen for the peasantry because the programs they espoused reflected the peasantry's real interests. The leadership personnel may have remained largely unchanged, but the radical tone of agricultural interest groups, particularly in their open criticism of government policy, reflected the discontent that came from below. Flemming makes a similar point in his study of the policy of the Bund der Landwirte, see Landwirtschaftliche Interessen, esp. pp. 161–251.

79. One example is the Freie Bauernschaft, a self-proclaimed peasant “union,” which argued that agricultural producers must organize like the workers in industrial unions. This organization was active in the Rhineland and competed with the established Rhenish Peasant Association. The differences separating the two organizations were, however, over strategy and tactics, not demands. See, Rheinischer Bauer, May 17, and June 14, 1919, and Kölnische Volks-Zeitung, May 20, June 6, June 28, Sept. 2, and Sept. 11, 1919; also the materials in Abteilung X, Stück 6, H3, HStAD.

80. The nature of the continued conflict between consumers and producers in the postwar years is a central concern of Moeller, “Peasants, Politics,” and is also treated in Moeller, “Winners as Losers in the German Inflation: Peasant Protest over the Controlled Economy, 1920–1923,” in Feldman, G., et al. , eds., Die deutsche Inflation: Eine Zwischenbilanz/The German Inflation Reconsidered: A Preliminary Balance (forthcoming, 1982).Google Scholar