"Anti-Menno" Communist: David J. Penner (1904-1993)

The most outspoken early “Mennonite communist”—or better, “Anti-Menno” communist—was David Johann Penner, b. 1904.

Penner was the son of a Chortitza teacher and had grown up Mennonite Brethren in Millerovo, with five religious services per week (note 1)! In 1930 with Stalin firmly in power, Penner pseudonymously penned the booklet entitled Anti-Menno (note 2). While his attack was bitter, his criticisms offer a well-informed, plausible window on Mennonite life—albeit biased and with no intention for reform. He is a ethnic Mennonite writing to other Mennonites.

Penner offers multiple examples of how the Mennonite clergy in particular—but also deacons, choir conductors, Sunday School teachers, leaders of youth or women’s circles—aligned themselves with the exploitative interests of industry and wealth.
Extreme prosperity for Mennonite industrialists and large landowners was achieved with low wages and the poverty of their Russian /Ukrainian workers, according to Penner.
Though they taught non-resistance, Mennonite industrialists employed Cossacks to keep order and put down strikes with whips and sable.
Landless or land-poor Mennonites were also exploited; they paid taxes, but had no vote in village affairs and the distribution of land.
In his experience Mennonite leadership did not speak against exploitation or give voice to the poor, and failed miserably to erect any safeguards to limit the influence of the wealthy upon the life of the church.
Years of Sunday School and religious instruction in the schools and home, enhanced by Christian music and singing groups, gave youth eyes for overseas mission and charity work, but no tools to address social inequality in their own backyard or for political activism, he argued.
In the villages all Mennonite thought and action was saturated by religion, which ultimately stifled critical intellectual and cultural life. Religion class dominated the schools at the expense of other academic subjects.
Ministers and teachers were restrictive cultural gatekeepers; literature in the bookstores was largely German and religious.
Contact with the larger world was controlled and limited through boards of clergy who spoke to government for Mennonites as a whole, and through elected administrators, industrialists and traders. Lower and middle-class Mennonites were wholly dependent: by and large they spoke little Russian, and the women almost none.
The Mennonite commonwealth was achieved and reinforced by an attitude that looked down on Russians and Ukrainians as a lower type of people.
Mennonite leadership displayed uncritical patriotism towards the Tsarist regime in church, school and the press, which served to uphold the system of privileges.
For both the clergy and the capitalists, the Mennonite state-within-a-state was a “Mennonite heaven” even as the wealthy profited from grain speculation and the production of munitions for the Tsarist regime throughout World War I.
In 1918 Mennonites aligned themselves with the German occupying force and instigated ten revenge executions, according to Penner.
Support for the Mennonite Selbstschutz (self-defence units) preceded the Makhno anarchy and was particularly strong amongst the faculty (e.g., Benjamin Unruh) of the advanced, elite schools in Halbstadt and Ohrloff and its well-to-do students (see note 3).

Penner’s hostile critique of Mennonite life and culture delivered 13 years after the Russian Revolution was from a particular vantage point and commitment to reading history from a Marxist historical-materialist worldview. Penner expected the community to collapse because of its own internal contradictions, like capitalist systems on a macro level.

Penner’s attack is vitriolic, but important to understand from beginning to end. He offers more than a little correction to the dominant portrayal of a Mennonite “golden age” in Russia pre-1914, and helps in part to explain how it was that members of an historic peace church—the wealthy as well as the village-poor—could take up arms, and why some Mennonites chose to become communists.

Penner published another volume on Mennonites together with ethnic Mennonite Heinrich Friesen in 1930, and in 1931, translated as: Under the Yoke of Religion: German Colonists of the USSR and their Religious Organizations. Penner and Friesen justified the anarchist Makhno atrocities, claiming that they were provoked by the national agitation of religious leaders, above all the Mennonites. The authors warn of “left-wing sects” and charge the Mennonite ministerial as a whole of counter-revolutionary activity, for organizing desertion and sabotage in the Red Army and agricultural labour crews, and for leading a “peaceful” battle against Soviet powers through their cooperatives (note 4).

As a one-time insider, Penner affirmed that religious faith was more firmly anchored amongst the Mennonite masses than the Orthodox faith was amongst average Russians. He understood that because Mennonite life was a cohesive whole, Mennonite leadership in 1920s instinctively--if wrongly--sought to dominate the economic, cultural, religious and political life of their districts. As such, however, they created “innumerable obstacles” for the work of the party and for the labourer or poor to organize politically in the work of the soviet reconstruction (note 5). And consequently, as more recent Soviet archival documents show, Mennonites as Mennonites were singled out for harsher treatment by government agencies.

---Arnold Neufeldt-Fast

---Notes---

Note 1: Cf. Peter Letkemann, “David Johann Penner [A. Reinmarus]: A Mennonite Anti-Menno,” in Shepherds, Servants and Prophets: Leadership among the Russian Mennonites, 1880–1960, edited by Harry Loewen, 297–311 (Kitchener, ON: Pandora, 2003). See also Letkemann's German encyclopedia article: http://www.mennlex.de/doku.php?id=art:penner_david_johann.

Note 2: David J. Penner, Anti-Menno. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Mennoniten in Russland, by A. Reinmarus [pseud.] (Moscow: Zentral-Volker, 1930), https://chortitza.org/Buch/AMeno.pdf.

Note 3: Penner, Anti-Menno: Beiträge, 29, 39–41; 42, 45–48; 50–54, 56–57, 63, 65f., 69, 72, 73f., 91. He makes special note of Benjamin H. Unruh; see my published essay, “Benjamin Unruh, MCC [Mennonite Central Committee] and National Socialism,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 96, no. 2 (April 2022), 157–205, https://digitalcollections.tyndale.ca/handle/20.500.12730/1571.

Note 4: Cf. Sergej G. Nelipovič, “Die Deutschen Rußlands in der sowjetischen Historiographie in der 20er, 30er und 40er Jahre des 20. Jahrhunderts,” in Deutsche in Russland und in der Sowjetunion 1914–1941, edited by A. Eisfeld, V. Herdt, and B. Meissner, 12–19 (Berlin: LIT, 2007), 16.

Note 5: Penner, Anti-Menno, 84.

Comments

Turning Weapons into Waffle Irons!

Turning Weapons into Waffle Irons: Heart-Shaped Waffles and a smooth talking General In 1874 with Mennonite immigration to North America in full swing, the Tsar sent General Eduard von Totleben to the colonies to talk the remaining Mennonites out of leaving ( note 1 ). He came with the now legendary offer of alternative service. Totleben made presentations in Mennonite churches and had many conversations in Mennonite homes. Decades later the women still recalled how fond Totleben was of Mennonite heart-shaped waffles. He complemented the women saying, “How beautiful are the hearts of Mennonites!,” and he joked about how “much Mennonites love waffles ( Waffeln ), but not weapons ( Waffen )” ( note 2 )! His visit resulted in an extensive reversal of opinion and the offer was welcomed officially by the Molotschna and Chortitza Colony ministerials. And upon leaving, the general was gifted with a poem by Bernhard Harder ( note 3 ) and a waffle iron ( note 4 ). Harder was an inf...

Sesquicentennial: Proclamation of Universal Military Service Manifesto, January 1, 1874

One-hundred-and-fifty years ago Tsar Alexander II proclaimed a new universal military service requirement into law, which—despite the promises of his predecesors—included Russia’s Mennonites. This act fundamentally changed the course of the Russian Mennonite story, and resulted in the emigration of some 17,000 Mennonites. The Russian government’s intentions in this regard were first reported in newspapers in November 1870 ( note 1 ) and later confirmed by Senator Evgenii von Hahn, former President of the Guardianship Committee ( note 2 ). Some Russian Mennonite leaders were soon corresponding with American counterparts on the possibility of mass migration ( note 3 ). Despite painful internal differences in the Mennonite community, between 1871 and Fall 1873 they put up a united front with five joint delegations to St. Petersburg and Yalta to petition for a Mennonite exemption. While the delegations were well received and some options could be discussed with ministers of the Crown, ...

What is the Church to Say? Letter 4 (of 4) to American Mennonite Friends

Irony is used in this post to provoke and invite critical thought; the historical research on the Mennonite experience is accurate and carefully considered. ~ANF Preparing for your next AGM: Mennonite Congregations and Deportations Many U.S. Mennonite pastors voted for Donald Trump, whose signature promise was an immediate start to “the largest deportation operation in American history.” Confirmed this week, President Trump will declare a national emergency and deploy military assets to carry this out. The timing is ideal; in January many Mennonite congregations have their Annual General Meeting (AGM) with opportunity to review and update the bylaws of their constitution. Need help? We have related examples from our tradition, which I offer as a template, together with a few red flags. First, your congregational by-laws. It is unlikely you have undocumented immigrants in your congregation, but you should flag this. Model: Gustav Reimer, a deacon and notary public from the ...

Fraktur (or Gothic) font and Kurrent- (or Sütterlin) handwriting: Nazi ban, 1941

In the middle of the war on January 1, 1942, the Winnipeg-based Mennonitische Rundschau published a new issue without the familiar Fraktur script masthead ( note 1 ). One might speculate on the reasons, but a year earlier Hitler banned the use of the font in the Reich . The Rundschau did not exactly follow all orders from Berlin—the rest of the paper was in Fraktur (sometimes referred to as "Gothic"); when the war ended in 1945, the Rundschau reintroduced the Fraktur font for its masthead. It wasn’t until the 1960s that an issue might have a page or title here or there with the “normal” or Latin font, even though post-war Germany was no longer using Fraktur . By 1973 only the Rundschau masthead is left in Fraktur , and that is only removed in December 1992. Attached is a copy of Nazi Party Secretary Martin Bormann's official letter dated January 3, 1941, which prohibited the use of Fraktur fonts "by order of the Führer. " Why? It was a Jewish invention, apparent...

Village Reports Commando Dr. Stumpp, 1942: List and Links

Each of the "Commando Dr. Stumpp" village reports written during German occupation of Ukraine 1942 contains a mountain of demographic data, names, dates, occupations, numbers of untimely deaths (revolution, famines, abductions), narratives of life in the 1930s, of repression and liberation, maps, and much more. The reports are critical for telling the story of Mennonites in the Soviet Union before 1942, albeit written with the dynamics of Nazi German rule at play. Reports for some 56 (predominantly) Mennonite villages from the historic Mennonite settlement areas of Chortitza, Sagradovka, Baratow, Schlachtin, Milorodovka, and Borosenko have survived. Unfortunately no village reports from the Molotschna area (known under occupation as “Halbstadt”) have been found. Dr. Karl Stumpp, a prolific chronicler of “Germans abroad,” became well-known to German Mennonites (Prof. Benjamin Unruh/ Dr. Walter Quiring) before the war as the director of the Research Center for Russian Germans...

"A Small Town near Auschwitz” – Chortitza Mennonite Refugee/ Resettlement Camps

Simple proximity to a place of horrors does not equal knowledge or complicity. Many Gnadenfeld-area Mennonite refugees were, for example, temporarily housed 20 km. away from the Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp where 15-year-old Anne Frank died ultimately of typhus ( note 1 ). The day after liberation by British troops on April 15, 1945, camp survivors began to flow through neighbouring villages. “What a sight they were! They had been tortured and starved, and were swollen from lack of food. … We could hardly believe that the glorious country of Germany could commit such crimes against people,” Susanna Toews wrote ( note 2 ). My mother was only seven, but she remembers overhearing shocking descriptions given by their host family’s teenaged girls forced by the British to clean some of the camp buses. What about the much larger death camp at Auschwitz? There is a book entitled: A Small Town near Auschwitz: Ordinary Nazis and the Holocaust. It is about an administrator living near the ...

1921: Formation of the “Union of Citizens of Dutch Lineage in Ukraine”

Famine was imminent; unprecedented drought; taxes and requisitions exceeded what was harvested; some villages had no horses; extortion and arrests were widespread; many men were disenfranchised and barred from village affairs (see note 1 ). Lenin responded with the 1921 “New Economic Policy” (NEP), which allowed for a degree of market flexibility within the context of socialism to ward off complete economic collapse. A fixed-tax was imposed, grain quotas were eased, farmers were allowed a small amount of land and could sell excess produce at free-market prices after taxes had been paid. Much was in the air. In secret talks, Soviet Trade Commissar Leonid Krasin told the head of the Eastern Section in the German Foreign Office, Gustav Behrendt, that the USSR was “prepared—just like Catherine the Great of old—to call hundreds of thousands of German colonists into the land and transfer them to large, closed complexes for settlement,” especially in Turkestan and the North Caucasus, be...

1920s: Those who left and those who stayed behind

The picture below is my grandmother's family in 1928. Some could leave but most stayed behind. In 1928 a small group of some 511 Soviet Mennonites were unexpectedly approved for emigration ( note 1 ). None of the circa 21,000 Mennonites who emigrated from Russia in the 1920s “simply” left. And for everyone who left, at least three more hoped to leave but couldn’t. It is a complex story. Canada only wanted a certain type—young healthy farmers—and not all were transparent about their skills and intentions The Soviet Union wanted to rid itself of a specifically-defined “excess,” and Mennonite leadership knew how to leverage that Estate owners, and Selbstschutz /White Army militia were the first to be helped to leave, because they were deemed as most threatened community members; What role did money play? Thousands paid cash for their tickets; Who made the final decision on group lists, and for which regions? This was not transparent. Exit visa applications were also regularly reje...

Molotschna Elder Heinrich Dirks and tensions with Mennonite Brethren

Russian Mennonites were not always kind to each other—and nowhere is this seen better than in the tensions between “old” Mennonites and the “separatist” Mennonite Brethren, who had their beginnings in Gnadenfeld, Molotschna in 1860. Heinrich Dirks (1842-1915) was the first Russian Mennonite overseas missionary and later long-time Gnadenfeld, Molotschna ( note 1 ). Everything about Dirks’ life suggests that he would have joined the Brethren in 1860. He too was influenced by the "powerful and gripping” conversionist ministry of Eduard Wüst in his youth. Dirks was a young adult in the Gnadenfeld congregation in South Russia where the Mennonite Brethren /separatist movement began. Shortly thereafter, he was trained in the German pietist Barmen Mission School (1863-67), and famously travelled to Sumatra (Indonesia) where he started a mission outpost and school. The Mennonite Brethren too would later connect the global mission imperative with the impending return of Christ as did Dirk...

When Mennonite Agencies withdraw support from star player: Benjamin Unruh, 1938

In 1938 Mennonite Central Committee took the decision to significantly reduce their support of Benjamin Unruh’s work in Germany as of August 1, and Dutch Mennonites announced the same effective January 1, 1939. What to do? Ask the Nazi Party and government agencies to make up the difference ( note 1 )! On December 3, 1938, Unruh made the following pitch: “Germany generously and magnanimously helped our [Mennonite] organizations, on my intercession, to overcome the manifold difficulties connected with such a large movement of people [beginning 1923] in such critical times. ... The fact that finally all Mennonite synodal and national associations formally appointed me as their representative in the field of Russian-German welfare (Fürsorge), had its deeper reason especially in the success of my activity in Germany. … You see that I stand in the center of the global Mennonite [relief] work. However, I have always done this as a German man and not only as a representative of my denominat...

History of the Russian Mennonites

Search This Blog