Mennonite Displaced Persons, 1948-49

Post-war Mennonite refugees from the Soviet Union feared repatriation to the USSR—for some, more than death itself. Soviet officers had full access to refugee camps throughout all of Germany.

Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) was collecting its “lost sheep” as well. Peter J. Dyck, MCC director, offered this first assessment of the Mennonite tragedy under Stalin to his Canadian counterparts:

“They are truly like sheep in a wilderness and the women of 36 years look much more like 50 years. They told me that if I thought that I and my parents had witnessed terrible times in Russia during the revolution and the subsequent years of famine they could assure me that that was mild in comparison to what followed since 1927 when we left Russia. They told me one tragedy after another and it appears, if what they say is to be taken as representing the whole of the country and our people there and not only a section, that most of our Mennonites have perished.” (Note 1)

To quickly remove their refugees to safety in South America or Canada required United Nations refugee resettlement assistance. Soviet citizens were designated for repatriation, German citizens did not qualify for the aid.

MCC officials claimed that these Mennonites were a special case. They are of “Dutch origin” and should qualify as Dutch under the UN’s International Refugee Organization (IRO) mandate, and thus be eligible for both “care and maintenance” as well as resettlement support. MCC’s questionable arguments and techniques have been well documented by Canadian historian Ted D. Regehr (note 2).

MCC had strong political connections, especially with American IRO staff to make this argument, but many UN officials were very skeptical of the claims made by German-speaking Mennonites. All had been deemed “ethnic Germans” (Volksdeutsche) by the Nazis during the war and were naturalized as Germans citizens upon entering the German Reich, 1943-44. MCC argued that this was done only “under duress.”

In 1946 some 420 Mennonite refugees were able to enter Netherlands (note 3) and for the others MCC established refugee camps at Backnang near Stuttgart, and Gronau on the German-Dutch border. Most were refused UN "care and maintenance" as Soviet citizens (i.e., they were free to return home).

MCC was eventually able to obtain from the IRO a “special status for the Mennonite refugees from the Soviet Union, comparable to the special status granted stateless Jews.” The IRO in turn paid support and transportation costs throughout 1948 (note 4).

For the individual IRO applications, MCC did not collect or provide information on previous German military service or acceptance of German citizenship.

Problems developed when the "EWZ" naturalization files on Soviet Germans collected in Litzmannstadt were discovered in 1948-49—primary documents that are used widely today by genealogists (note 5). Many of the files clearly pointed not only to voluntary acceptance of German citizenship but also to German military service and other forms of collaboration with German occupying forces in Ukraine. These documents threatened to disqualify almost all Soviet Mennonites for IRO aid.

These applications by hundreds of Soviet Mennonites for IRO aid eligibility and possible immigration to Canada have been scanned and are online (note 6), searchable by name or birthplace, e.g., using the historic Mennonite village names (“Chortitza,” “Einlage,” “Halbstadt,” “Klippenfeld,” etc.). Each of these individuals also has an EWZ naturalization file. All too often the latter points to less than truthful answers in the former.

The applications for IRO approval show uniformity on some key questions—which strongly suggests that applicants were coached on how to answer by MCC.

I found a partial exception to this rule: Franz Wiebe of Hierschau, Molotschna (b. Feb 2, 1919). Wiebe was a former teacher and had been in the German army as a translator. At the end of the war he was a POW and had now married “a German girl”—Alice. He self-identified as a “Frisian-speaking” Mennonite, and said that he received German identification papers and was naturalized. He also said that as a Mennonite he would not swear an oath. He could have lied throughout the interview but did not. We know nothing further about this Franz Wiebe—he did not make it to Canada, though he had relatives in Alberta. He seems to have disappeared to history.

Sample 1: Nationality: “Mennonite, of Dutch ancestry” (there is another space for “religion”).

Sample 2: Language: “Low Dutch” or “Dutch Platt” (not Low German) and usually in first place.

Sample 3: Question: Did you receive any of the following identification papers when you entered Germany? (Almost all say they never received any, which the EWZ files show as an untruth).

Sample 4a: Notes on questionable applicant. Here the individual cannot compellingly prove her claim of Dutch origin.

Sample 4b: Applicant is rejected: “Case without documents” … According to the “EWZ he was never registered as an Ausländer – foreigner;” “very strongly suspect that he was in the German Army … with the TODT Organization … He is not the concern of the IRO”.

Sample 5: Applicant accepted; “… falls within the category of persons with whom the Preparatory Commission of International Refugee Organization [PCIRO] is concerned.”

---Arnold Neufeldt-Fast

---Notes---

Note 1: Peter J. Dyck, “Memorandum on Mennonite Refugees in Germany as on July 25, 1946,” cited in Frank H. Epp, Mennonite Exodus (Altona, MB: Friesen, 1962) 528.

Note 2: Ted D. Regehr, “Of Dutch or German Ancestry? Mennonite Refugees, MCC and the International Refugee Organization,” Journal of Mennonite Studies 13 (1995) 7–25, https://jms.uwinnipeg.ca/index.php/jms/article/view/441/441.

Note 3: Cf. previous post, https://russianmennonites.blogspot.com/2023/05/in-case-of-extreme-danger-menno-pass.html.

Note 4: Regehr, “Of Dutch or German Ancestry?,” 12, 14.

Note 5: “Index of Mennonites Appearing in the Einwandererzentrallestelle (EWZ) Files,” compiled by Richard D. Thiessen, http://www.mennonitegenealogy.com/russia/EWZ_Mennonite_Extractions_Alphabetized.pdf.

Note 6: “Arolsen Archives,” https://collections.arolsen-archives.org/en/search. See another critical examination of the Mennonites files in the Arolsen Archives: Ismee Tames and Astrid Willms, “Claimed Nationality Dutch,” https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=fe0b87de3cb9418b986aae0120988cca.

---

To cite this page: Arnold Neufeldt-Fast, “Mennonite Displaced Persons, 1948-49,” History of the Russian Mennonites (blog), May 11, 2023, https://russianmennonites.blogspot.com/2023/05/mennonite-displaced-persons-1948-49.html.

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