This work analyzes the retrospective assessments of East German farmers about their experiences during the transition of collective farms in the German Democratic Republic (GDR). This work focuses on how they performed the re-organization of their respective farms and on the role of external advisors in this process. Consequently this work is aimed at drawing lessons for transition of the North Korean collective farms after unification of Korea (in particular for the organization of advisory support) from these assessments. A basic task in transition of the collective farms in the GDR consisted in setting up basic institutional and legal conditions. However, the different positions and opinions among the individual beneficiaries concerning the choice of organizational forms (legal form) and the distribution of assets caused severe difficulties in the transformation process. The reconstitution of the private property rights in land was regarded as a necessary prerequisite for agricultural development in East Germany. Although this process was realized relatively smoothly due to available land registers, about 20% of the former owners had difficulties in recovering their property rights. On the other hand the regulation of the distribution of assets in collective farms was introduced relatively late. The conflicts were thereby deepened in the process of privatization of assets. The rapid introduction of the market economic system exerted considerable pressure on both collective farms and new private (family) farms. They had to learn to operate in this new system quickly. Lack of knowledge concerning the new market economic system was substantial. Therefore, advisory support was much needed at the beginning of the transformation. The collective farm managers needed even more knowledge than the new private farmers. Public meetings, discussion forums and their study tours in West Germany satisfied these needs. It was highly valued that the different variations were explained in an unbiased and unprejudiced way. A regional preference made up with respect to external advisors on which the agricultural producers finally listened to when deciding on the transformation process. The East German farm managers preferred East German advisors because the latter understood their historical backgrounds well and paid attention to social aspects. On the other hand, the farm managers were reluctant to listen to West German advisors and to lose thereby influence on their companies. While the managers of transformed cooperatives preferred lawyers and advisors from East Germany, the farm managers of business companies relied on West German advisors. After the transformation most agricultural producers suffered from difficulties like capital shortage, a reduction of employment, old debts, etc. Meeting these difficulties required external support and, above all, the financial support of the government. With the help of the German experiences about the transition of collective farms one can derive important lessons for the transformation of North Korean collective farms. Although the North Korean transformation as well as the reunification of Korea are not realized yet, the German experiences indicate the measures that should be prepared for the future transformation of the North Korean collective farms and particularly concerning the external advisory support. The reconstitution of the private property rights in land is necessary to overcome the negative effects of the collective agriculture. But beyond that, success of agricultural enterprise also depends on the active role of the farm management and the social policy for the farmers. With respect to the distribution of assets of the North Korean collective farms, conflicts will be inevitable. So the suitable guidelines should be developed in detail in order to decrease conflicts between the concerned persons. Since the process of transformation of collective farms calls for considerable advisory support, appropriate schemes of advisory activity should be developed. The German experiences point to the fact that these activities should not ignore the socialist character of the North Korean agriculture. No specific model for the transformation of collective farms should be given priority. All options must be offered within the scope of transformation. The agricultural advisory system of South Korea will not be suitable for North Korean large-scale farm structure. Therefore, a new system that is suitable for North Korean situation should be introduced. At the same time new consultation facilities must be set up in North Korea. The regional and cultural preference of advisors in Eastern Germany show, how a quick establishment of an advisory system in North Korea will matter. In North Korea farmers will suffer after the transformation from similar difficulties like in Germany. Hence, it is important to outline efficient support measures or a suitable aid program. The German experiences of collective farms transition highlight the fact that advice or support of the respective partner state should not serve the purpose to transfer the agricultural structures of the stronger partner of the reunification on a "one to one" basis. Instead, the available structures, priorities and the wishes of the North Korean farmers should be taken into consideration.