| 55/2018 | | Zemědělské osídlování pohraničí: Horská pastvinářská družstva ve východních Krkonoších 1945 –1949 | | Agricultural Settlement of the Borderland: Mountain Pastoral Cooperatives in the Eastern Krkonoše Mts 1945 –1949 | | Tamara Nováková | | vysídlování, migrace, kulturní krajina, zaniklé obce, zalesnění, pastviny | | displacement, migration, cultural landscape, defunct villages, afforestation, pasture | | 5 | | 63 | | Historie horských pastvinářských družstev není zatím dostatečně zpracována a reflektována v celé
šíři problematiky ani na republikové úrovni, natož na úrovni každého pohraničního politického okresu či jinak
vymezeného regionu. Předkládaný text je zaměřen na genezi horských pastvinářských družstev na celorepublikové
úrovni včetně zásadního teoretického pozadí a zároveň na konkrétních příkladech šesti družstev ve východních
Krkonoších a Podkrkonoší, resp. politickém okrese Trutnov. Komparace teoretických záměrů ministerstva
zemědělství s konkrétní realizací v komplikované realitě různými způsoby znovuosídlovaných poválečných
lokalit na území okresu Trutnov přináší nový pohled za prvé na dosavadní hodnocení úspěšnosti horských pastvinářských
družstev, resp. na limity a možnosti jejich úspěšnosti, a za druhé představuje roli horských pastvinářských
družstev jako klíčového hráče v proměně kulturní krajiny některých jimi dotčených lokalit. Zároveň
studie popisuje exkluzivní možnost propagátorů pastvinářství zasáhnout do tradičního využívání půdy díky konfiskacím
německého majetku a z toho vyplývající centrální řízení vysokými úředníky ministerstva zemědělství,
které implikovalo problémy s místní samosprávou. Text ukazuje, že regionální studii je nutné vystavět na celorepublikové
situaci a naopak, že pro hlubší pochopení celospolečenských změn je nutné znát jejich aplikace
v konkrétních místech. | | The history of mountain pastoral cooperatives has not yet been sufficiently elaborated and reflected in the
whole range of issues, not even at the national level, let alone at the level of each border political district or otherwise
defined region. The presented text will focus on the genesis of mountain pasture cooperatives at the national level, including
the fundamental theoretical background, and will describe in particular the implementation of six cooperatives in
the Krkonoše Mts and Krkonoše Mts foothills, in particular the Trutnov political district. Comparison of the theoretical
plans of the Ministry of Agriculture with concrete implementation in the complicated reality of the various ways of
re-locating post-war sites in the Trutnov district brings a new perspective firstly on the evaluation of the success of the
mountain pastoral cooperatives or on the limits and possibilities of their success. Secondly, it presents pastoral cooperatives
as a key player in the transformation of the cultural landscape of some localities affected by them. At the same
time, the study describes the exclusive possibility for grassland promoters to intervene in traditional land use due to land
confiscations of German property and the resulting central management of high officials of the Ministry of Agriculture,
which implied problems with local authorities. The text shows that a regional study is necessary to build on a nationwide
situation, and vice versa, that it is necessary to know their application in specific places for a deeper understanding
of societal changes. | | Introduction Mountain pastoral cooperatives (MPC)
originated from the end of 1945, the concept being
a response to the displaced border situation. The aim
of the presented text is to introduce the historical role
of the MPC in the region of the eastern Krkonoše,
respectively the Trutnov political district as part of
a nationwide settlement policy. In the text, based on
available sources, the author will reflect on why and
under what circumstances, in what frameworks, the
MPC were formed. The text will describe what the
MPC (s) should address, in what real situation MPC
originated and what problems were experienced.
Subsequently, the author reflects on the theoretical
reasoning of the MPC's broad interference after
February 1948 and the transfer of their land fund to
the newly emerging Czechoslovak state farms. The
author will attempt to describe how the existence of
cooperatives has affected the current landscape status
of the affected localities. The text is based on detailed
primary archival research, the collected sources corroborated
and/or corrected with field research and
oral history.
Results – general part The framework of a settlement
agricultural policy began to emerge during World
War II in the exiled Czechoslovakian governments
in both London and Moscow. First, it was clearly not
intended to replace the German population to be displaced
by new settlers as a piece by piece arrangement.
Secondly, there was an obvious attempt to reorient
agricultural production; third, not only the communists
planned for a larger union in agriculture, and
fourthly, even after the end of the main agricultural
settlement, still one third of the land meant for settlement
was uninhabited – it was mainly mountain and
submountain land with extensive land use. Of course,
the security policy of the state, which envisaged the
national cleansing of the borderland, ie the borderland
inhabited only by the Slavic entity and the displaced
areas immediately adjacent to the state border,
was also accented. The MPC was conclusively organized
from the center and hence from the top, namely
by officials of IX. and VII. Department of Ministery
of Agriculture, who promoted pasture.
The detailed theoretical basis of the MPC was
clearly formulated in November 1945 by senior
officials of the Ministry of Agriculture. The
MPC was supposed to be organized as follows:
1) Inland: Cooperatives should be established
in Inland Districts and membership should consist
of small farmers from the relevant district.
The cooperative was to manage the pastures in
the border regions and to participate without the
co-operatives having to resttle the border areas.
2) In the border regions: The arable land in the foothills
with good infrastructure facilities should create
a valley estate, the border residence of the cooperative
with an office for the administrator. There,
cattle should be centrally housed, feed should be
grown, stocked, and most of the staff should live. If
possible, the pastures should be adjacent to the valley.
The original arable land with low yield should be
grassed. The whole area should be re-integrated, there
should be no foreign enclaves of property. Ideally, no
population was supposed to live in the pastures. This
should not only bring the transformation of agricultural
production but also the required depopulation
of the borderlands. The cooperative had to manage
confiscated farm animals that remained on the cooperative
land. After stabilization of the cooperative in
the border, also the cattle of the cooperateive should
be driven to grazing there. For management, the cooperatives
hired forces directly in the borderland. The
linking of the valley to the pastures, the consolidation
of land and the connection to the infrastructure often
remained at the level of mere desire.
In the Bohemia, MPC was established on the principle
of districts, while in Moravia on the principle
of regions. The total land budget for the MPC was
finally 150,000 hectares. In principle, 1 500 hectares
were planned for each MPC. Agricultural land
was still owned by the state and the MPC was to be
rented for 15 years. The cooperative buildings should
also be rented. The cooperatives were supposed to
buy farm animals and agricultural machinery on
credit, but housing and supplies for cash. The management
of the cooperative was located in the inland
district, with the cooperative land in the border area
being maintained by the permanent staff, which
was in contradiction with the theoretical provisions.
Areas for pasture were excluded from individual settlements.
That is, when the entire municipality was
designated as part of the land area for the MPC, a socalled
settlement closure was created in the village,
which meant at least its depopulation, respectively
non-inhabitation by permanent residents, while in
some cases, even recreational settlement was not possible,
and thus settlements disappeared. At the turn of
1945/1946, afforestation was planned. There was no
status of an agricultural specialist, which was defined
for industry and forestry, which at least theoretically
took into account the current state of the employees.
At the same time, the Czechoslovak State did not
declare the expulsion of the German population at
least at the beginning of the agricultural resettlement.
There was an attempt to provide timely information
on planned displacement, but this often
failed in practice, and in some cases it had fatal consequences
such as the disappearance of settlements.
In 1948, MPC were being cancelled. The law, which
created a legal framework for canceling not only
grassland cooperatives, arose several months after
February 25, 1948. The influence of the new political
situation can therefore be assumed. The MPC was
abolished on one of two dates (1 January or 1 April
1949), regardless of their specific economic outlook.
The land and property of the MPC were taken over
by the newly-established Czechoslovak state farms,
which were created on 1 January 1949 already according
to the rules after February 1948.
Results – special part (Specific implementation
of MPC in the eastern Krkonoše in the Trutnov district)
The Trutnov political district did not belong to
those districts that were settled quickly and according
to the criteria at that time completely, nor to those
where the situation was critical. Although the entire
political district of Trutnov was considered to be borderline
for post-war borderland settlements within
the border area definition, the area for population
exchange and hence with the change in ownership
and use of agricultural land was in principle concerned
only with the three courts in the districts that
found themselves in the German Empire after September
30, 1938, in the newly established administrative
unit of the Imperial County of Sudetenland, the
judicial districts of Trutnov, Maršov and Žacléř. The
article considers follwing MPCs: MPC for the Trutnov
political district with headquarters in Vlčice, MPC
for the Chrudim political district with headquarters in
Zlaté Olešnice, MPC for the district of Mladá Boleslav
with headquarters in Maršov IV, MPC for the Semily
political district with headquartes in Staré Buky, the
political district of Kolín with headquartes in Střítež,
MPC for the district of Mnichovo Hradiště with headquarters
in Mladé Buky.
Discussion The individual MPC was created on the
march, exposed to complicated, often logically contradictory
or inadequate instructions from central
authorities. In spite of initial efforts of at least partially
structuring MPCs into local networks, the MPCs were
eventually managed completely centrally. Throughout
its existence, it was practically out of the hands of local
governments. (Limits of the MPC's interpretation) The
existing interpretation did not go into detail and was
not considered as important as other major topics.
The transformation of the cultural landscape has
been significantly affected by the individual settlement
of individual municipalities, respectively their
absence. Where afforestation had been applied with
regard to security policy, and the village was not populated,
there has been a fundamental change since it
has not been based on the original landscape and cultural
characters of the village. In the case of those villages
where the MPC's allocation was finally revised
and the MPC was not finally assigned to the entire
cadastral area of the municipality, the changes in the
cultural landscape are smaller. This applies typically
for the Upper and Lower Albeřice (with the impact
of the Syndicate of Czech Writers), Dolní Lysečiny,
Bečkov and Rybníček. The municipalities assigned
as a whole to a MPC and designated for pasturelands
were often excluded from further individual settlement,
resulting in settlement closure, which in practice
meant that the village could not exist even when
the prospects appeared to support it, as a result of
the municipality sooner or later losing its self-government.
Purposefully depopulated pastures, not
just those that were immediately near the state border,
led to the demise of municipalities. The most significant
consequences are borne on the eastern outskirts
of the Krkonoše – Sklenářovice, Vernířovice,
Klinge (Bystřice), Rýchory and Suchý Důl, which
lie on the various sides of the slopes of Rýchorská
rozsocha. Sklenářovice, Klinge and Vernířovice were
in principle allocated to the MPC as a whole, in particular
Sklenářovice was destroyed as a result of the
MPC, the houses that the MPC did not want to use
were excluded from the settlement of any kind and
consequently, during the period of the state farms,
razed. Rýchory and Suchý Důl, the municipalities,
which were eventually outside the MPC's interest,
were afforested. |
 |
|
|
|