Skip to main content

"Russian Empire Building" and the Mennonite Experience in Russia/Ukraine

Recently a friend asked: “Based on their long historical sojourn in Russia / Ukraine, what light can Mennonites shed on Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine today?” (February 2022).

The story of so-called Russian Mennonites began in the 1780s, was defined by Greater Russia’s imperial expansion, and was almost extinguished under Stalin and his fear of rising Ukraine nationalism and minority ethnic resistance in the 1930s.

Below are a few historical learnings based on that lived experience in Ukraine, formerly known as “New Russia” or “South Russia.” A short history of Russian “empire building” from the Mennonite experience might best begin with a brief reference to German Prussia in the 18th century, where Mennonites were at home. By the 1780s, further land acquisitions or economic expansion in West Prussia (today northern Poland) and Gdansk (Danzig) had become increasingly impossible for Mennonites—largely because they refused military service for religious reasons.

Prussia was a largely tolerant state, but Jews and Mennonites were problems—for different reasons. Prussian historians Reiswitz and Wadzek wrote: “Though the doctrine [of non-resistance] of the Mennonites is not exactly anti-biblical, it is most certainly anti-Prussian. We Prussians, because we are born soldiers, must rule these teachings to be incompatible with our state system; … we are not intolerant, but just” (note 1).

In contrast to the German nationalism of Prussia and other western European states like France, Russia’s Empress Catherine the Great was pursuing a different vision of empire. Her policy of expansion included the vast open short-grass steppes of present-day Ukraine, and stretched southwards towards the Black Sea and the Crimean Peninsula. Before the Russian defeat of the Ottoman Turks in 1774, this large, rich, and sparsely populated territory was home to mixed groups of fiercely independent Zaporizhzhian Cossacks, Turkic Tatar tribes (Muslim), a variety of Orthodox agrarian peasants with differing Eastern Slav dialects, Doukhobors and Molokans (“milk-drinkers”). Catherine and her predecessor had had many of these peoples removed and sought to settle these newly depopulated and under-governed frontier lands with a permanent population.


Again, in contrast to western nationalism, Catherine’s modernizing vision made no national claims on behalf of Russians; rather the Romanov Dynasty ruled with imperial, “millenarian” claims of Greater Russia as the bearer of a higher, universal law—a type of redeemer nation to benefit the empire’s smaller nationalities. This is important to understand for today’s events.

Obviously the Russian Empire of the Tsars was not a democracy in which all were citizens with identical rights and responsibilities. German-speaking, non-resistant Mennonites were welcomed into this bigger vision to live in “colonies” (as did other smaller ethnic groups) with their own specific language, church, schools--all governed by their specific charter (Privilegium). On-going Mennonite presence in Russia as “foreign colonists” was wholly contingent on fulfilling their charter-defined role as “model farmers”.

In a period of western European national awakening, Russia’s expansions were defined—in contrast to neighbours—by the logic of empire: not the self-interest of one national group (e.g., “Russians”) and its founding myths, culture, and laws, but self-sacrifice of the leading national group on behalf of smaller nationalities (note 2). The Tsarist family—the Romanov Dynasty—justified expansion, e.g., of “New Russia,” now Ukraine, not with national claims. Rather “they ruled on behalf of God—or their own dynasty—but never on behalf of the Russian people,” as David Rowley has argued. It is an imperial Christendom tradition, with a notion of a special people called to serve a historical destiny that has universal significance (note 3).

The generous Mennonite Privilegium and its terms are best understood under Greater Russia’s sense of imperial, messianic mission to serve and rule nobly over many peoples. Like other ethnic groups within Greater Russia in this era, Mennonites also began to confess Russia and its emperor as the great protector of Christendom Europe from anti-Christian forces—later typically identified with France and its democratic revolutions. This was consistent with Alexander I’s self-understanding as well (he reigned from 1801 to 1826), for example.

German-speaking “Russian” Mennonites developed their own sense of call as one smaller, patriotic, contributing nation (Völklein) within that vision of the larger Russian Empire. And they flourished. The most influential and thoughtful Mennonite leader, Johann Cornies (d. 1848), articulated this best in a letter to a Swiss missionary Daniel Schlatter about “New Russia” (today Ukraine) peopled with Molokans, Cossacks, Nogais, Doukhobors, Zaporozhians, Germans, Jews and many more:

“It is very interesting to find so many peoples living closely together. They associate calmly and quietly with one another. As they go about their business, we observe varied customs, languages, costumes, and ways of life. I do not believe that this sort of thing can be found anywhere else in the world. Our wise Imperial government has managed to bring all of us together and provide leadership that makes all of us happy. For this we give God the glory.” (Note 4)

The strong patriotic Mennonite support for the Tsar in the Crimean War in the 1850s—which appears confusing or counter-intuitive 150 years later—gives evidence for how fully they had accepted the larger framework of Russia’s sense of empire and role as divinely chosen nation, i.e., as “a special people called to serve a historical destiny of universal significance” (note 5).

If Mennonites thrived as one ethnic group among many in Russia’s greater empire, in the last decades of the nineteenth century the monarchy began to identify more explicitly with the Russian people, i.e., more with Moscow than Europe-leaning St. Petersburg. National belonging was gradually perceived as part of one’s essence, and increasingly being e.g., German-Lutheran or German-Mennonite in Russia was seen to be “invested with political significance” and “abiding political loyalties and … allegiances” (note 6). The place for Mennonites within this new national construct, including their Privilegium—so central to Mennonite identity and sense of call—would be sorely tested.

There are some similarities between the earlier imperial Christendom vision of the Tsars and the later “secular millennialism” of the communism of the Soviet Union.

The hammer and sickle symbolism adopted by the Soviet Union in 1922 represented the smashing of previous foundations, and the glorious future harvest of a better world to be gathered in, cleansed of all gods and made wholly human. With the Communist Revolution Ukraine was granted its own cultural and political identity and quasi-independence as a Soviet Republic and under the Moscow-centred leadership of the USSR. By the 1930s, however, what Communist Party General Secretary Joseph Stalin feared most was “losing Ukraine” (note 7).

In response to the threat of Ukrainian nationalism and resistance, Stalin specifically targeted Ukraine with a “lengthy schooling" designed to ruthlessly break that movement. Southern Ukraine—where most Mennonites lived—was arguably the worst affected region of the Holodomor, i.e., the man-made famine of 1932–33 which killed millions of Ukrainians (note 8). This too is important for understanding events of today.

Moreover, in the 1930s, Moscow was increasingly convinced of the “existence of an organized counter-revolutionary insurgent underground in Ukraine associated with foreign powers and foreign intelligence services,” specifically the “imperialist” interventionism of Poles and Germans in support of Ukrainian national independence (note 9).

As Rowley has argued, both “millennial” Russian empires—Tsarist and Soviet—were “destroyed by the same forces that have brought all modern empires to an end—the desire of their component peoples for national self-determination (note 10). Ukrainian sovereignty is that example, and German-speaking Mennonites in Russia/Ukraine were part of that story together with Ukrainians.


Is Russia’s old imperialism rising again? I think so, and it is pushing against strong Ukrainian nationalism. Rowley argued in the late 1990s that Russian imperialism and tradition of empire building “still provides an important element in Russian identity” (note 11). But not as a Russian nation. Nations look back to some mythic beginnings; nations preach self-interest. Empires, so it goes, look forward and preach self-sacrifice. Empires “posit a special people whose mission is to sacrifice itself to hasten the day when all humanity will be blessed by the benefits of its law and civilization” (note 12). That may be background to Putin's actions.

I think it is too simple to say Putin is irrational. His rationalism is just very different than the rationality of western nationalism. Ironically there is a parallel to the American “manifest destiny” articulated in the US Senate in 1900 by Albert Beveridge: a “divine sense of mission,” to ensure that the world does not “relapse into barbarism,” and thus understanding the USA as divinely predestined as God’s “chosen nation.”

Again I lean on Rowley here: “The legitimizing appeal of Russia’s ruling ideology arose from its association with Christianity without explicitly appealing to any particular denomination or national form, and its intent was to justify the expansive policies of an imperial state. Russia, like the United States, has, since the seventeenth century, conquered and absorbed territories for which it had no historic, nationalist claim” (note 13). Rightfully that appears strange and unacceptable today.

The long sojourn of German-speaking Mennonites in Ukraine—earlier called New Russia or South Russia—has given this group of Mennonites, for better or for worse, a little insight into about the logic of Russian empire building, of imperialism vs. nationalism, including the former’s selective benefits. All of this was learnt at a terrifying human cost, for Mennonites in Ukraine in the 1930s as well.

In my estimation—which is obviously limited but rooted in this set of experiences—events of today are at least in some ways a continuation of that story.

            ---Arnold Neufeldt-Fast

---Notes---

Note 1: Georg von Reiswitz and Friedrich Wadzeck, Beiträge zur Kenntniß der Mennoniten-Gemeinden in Europa und Amerika, Part I (Berlin, 1821), 159, https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009717700.

Note 2: David G. Rowley, “‘Redeemer Empire’: Russian Millenarianism,” American Historical Review 104, no. 5 (1999), 1582–1602; 1591.

Note 3: Rowley, “Redeemer Empire,” 1598; 1599.

Note 4: No. 350, Johann Cornies to Daniel Schlatter, 11 March 1833,” Transformation on the Southern Ukrainian Steppe: Letters and Papers of Johann Cornies, vol. 1: 1812–1835, edited by Harvey L. Dyck, Ingrid I. Epp, and John R. Staples (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015), 318.

Note 5: Rowley, “Redeemer Empire,” 1599.

Note 6: Paul Werth, The Tsar’s foreign faiths. Toleration and the fate of religious freedom in imperial Russia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 151.

Note 7: Josef Stalin, “Telegram of 28 December 1932,” in Bohdan Klid and Alexander J. Motyl, eds., The Holodomor Reader: A Sourcebook on the Famine of 1932-1933 in Ukraine (Edmonton, AB: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 2012), 5:27, https://holodomor.ca/the-holodomor-reader-a-sourcebook-on-the-famine-of-1932-1933-in-ukraine/.

Note 8: Cf. Stalin, “Resolution on Grain Procurement in Ukraine, 19 December 1932;” “Memorandum on Progress in preparing Spring Sowing,” in Klid and Motyl, eds., Holodomor Reader, 5:25, 37.

Note 9: “On the Need to Liquidate the Insurgent Underground, February 13, 1932,” in Klid and Motyl, eds., Holodomor Reader, 5:32f.

Note 10: Rowley, “Redeemer Empire,” 1600.

Note 11: Rowley, “Redeemer Empire,” 1600.

Note 12: Rowley, “Redeemer Empire,” 1591.

Note 13: Rowley, “Redeemer Empire,” 1597.

Print Friendly and PDF

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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, ...

Flooding as a weapon of war, 1657

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then these maps speak volumes. In February 1657, the Swedish King Carolus Gustavus ordered an intentional breach of the embankments along the Vistula River to completely flood the villages of the Danzig Werder. See the vivid punctures and water flow in 1657 map below; compare with the 1730 maps with rebuilt villages and farms ( note 1 ). In Polish memory this war is appropriately remembered as "The Deluge". Villages in the Danzig Werder (delta) from which Mennonites immigrated to Russia include: Quadendorf, Reichenberg, Krampitz, Neunhuben, Hochzeit, Scharfenberg, Wotzlaff, Landau, Schönau, Nassenhuben, Mönchengrebin, and Nobel ( note 2 ). In the war the suburbs outside the gates of Danzig suffered most; Mennonites lived here in large numbers, e.g., in Alt Schottland and Stoltzenberg. First, these villages were completely razed by the City of Danzig to keep the invading Swedes from using the villages to their advantage in battle. ...

“The way is finally open”—Russian Mennonite Immigration, 1922-23

In a highly secretive meeting in Ohrloff, Molotschna on February 7, 1922, leaders took a decision to work to remove the entire Mennonite population of some 100,000 people out of the USSR—if at all possible ( note 1 ). B.B. Janz (Ohrloff) and Bishop David Toews (Rosthern, SK) are remembered as the immigration leaders who made it possible to bring some 20,000 Mennonites from the Soviet Union to Canada in the 1920s ( note 2 ). But behind those final numbers were multiple problems. In August 1922, an appeal was made by leaders to churches in Canada and the USA: “The way is finally open, for at least 3,000 persons who have received permission to leave Russia … Two ships of the Canadian Pacific Railway are ready to sail from England to Odessa as soon as the cholera quarantine is lifted. These Russian [Mennonite] refugees are practically without clothing … .” ( Note 3 ) Notably at this point B. B. Janz was also writing Toews, saying that he was utterly exhausted and was preparing to ...

Formidable Fräulein Marga Bräul (1919–2011)

Fräulein Bräul left an indelible mark on two generations of high school students in the Mennonite Colony of Fernheim, Paraguay. Former students and acquaintances recall that Marga Bräul demanded the highest effort and achievements of her students, colleagues and of herself—the kind of teacher you either love or hate but will never forget! In March 1947, Marga was offered a position at the Fernheim Secondary School ( Zentralschule ). A recent refugee to Paraguay from war-torn Europe, she taught mathematics, physics, and chemistry. In 1952, she was the only female faculty member ( note 1 ). Marga wedded a strong commitment to academics with a passion for quality arts and crafts. She provided extensive extra-curricular instruction to students in handiwork and was especially renowned for her artwork—which included painting and woodworking— end of year art exhibits with students, theatre sets, and festival decorations. Marga’s pedagogical philosophy was holistic; she told Mennonite ed...

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 ...

1929 Flight of Mennonites to Moscow and Reception in Germany

At the core of the attached video are some thirty photos of Mennonite refugees arriving from Moscow in 1929 which are new archival finds. While some 13,000 had gathered in outskirts of Moscow, with many more attempting the same journey, the Soviet Union only released 3,885 Mennonite "German farmers," together with 1,260 Lutherans, 468 Catholics, 51 Baptists, and 7 Adventists. Some of new photographs are from the first group of 323 refugees who left Moscow on October 29, arriving in Kiel on November 3, 1929. A second group of photos are from the so-called “Swinemünde group,” which left Moscow only a day later. This group however could not be accommodated in the first transport and departed from a different station on October 31. They were however held up in Leningrad for one month as intense diplomatic negotiations between the Soviet Union, Germany and also Canada took place. This second group arrived at the Prussian sea port of Swinemünde on December 2. In the next ten ...

Mennonite “Displaced Persons” and MCC’s “Jewish Argument”

At the conclusion of the war Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) was fully aware that “their” 13,000-plus Russian Mennonite refugees in Germany did not qualify as displaced persons and for support from the International Refugee Organization. They were refused IRO “care and maintenance” as Soviet citizens, i.e., they were free to return home. MCC sought to convince the IRO that the Mennonite refugees were not “Soviet Germans” and--if they had became German citizens in Warthegau (also a disqualifier), it was done under duress ( note 1 ). Astonishingly MCC’s Europe Director Peter J. Dyck—later seen as the Moses of the Mennonites—proposed to top military personnel at US military headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany (USFET) in July 1946, that Mennonites be granted the same status as Jews as a persecuted people. “By a recent decree all Jews, regardless of their nationality, are automatically given the status of 'D.P.' [displaced person] on the grounds that they are victims of persecu...

The Flight to Moscow 1929

In 1926, my grandfather’s sister Justina Fast (b. 1896) and her husband Peter Görzen moved from Krassikow, Neu Samara (Soviet Union) to village no. 5 Dejewka, Orenburg. “We thought we would live our lives here with our children secure in the hands of God. But the times were becoming turbulent,” Justina recalled. In May 1929 they travelled back to Krassikow for Pentecost to visit with her mother, brothers and their families. But when they returned to their home, she writes, “… a large quota of grain was demanded of us. But we had nothing, and the harvest was not yet in. Then we heard that many were planning to move to Canada, including my three siblings with my mother, and my husband's three sisters too. My husband decided to go to Moscow first to see if it was possible and what was required for emigration. We made the decision to leave when the harvest was complete. At that time so many people were leaving [for Moscow], and early in September we sold everything we had. Only the b...

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...

Immigration to Canada, 1923: Background

In April 1921 Mennonites in the Caucasus and Don Region officially petitioned Moscow for permissions to emigrate—which Lenin had “flatly refused.” Their rationale was more than economic. “The disruption of economic conditions leads to impoverishment, which again goes hand in hand with the degradation of morals and has an alarming impact on our youth, who are also constantly exposed to the pressure of brutal and ruthless agitation on the part of those in power. … This decay of our spiritual and economic goods will only become greater and more ruinous.” ( Note 1 ) Later that year and some months before the large-scale feeding operations could begin in the Soviet Union, American Mennonite Relief (AMR) commissioner A.J. Miller petitioned the Soviet Embassy in London for exit permissions for 20,000 Mennonites ( note 1b) . He was unsuccessful. Nonetheless in a highly secretive meeting in Ohrloff, Molotschna on February 7, 1922, key Mennonite leaders took a decision to work toward the re...