Skip to main content

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 persecution. During my second morning in Frankfurt we also came to regard our R.M. [Russian Mennonite] problem from the persecution angle. I explained that because of their strong religious inclination … etc. etc. the Mennonites in Russia were undoubtedly victims of persecution. It was agreed that under these circumstances all our people ought to be considered as persecutees and as such automatically given the D.P. status … We are now waiting for a decision from Frankfurt.” (Note 2).

With little comprehension of the enormity of Jewish losses, in this meeting Dyck explained in detail the unique situation and plight of the Russian Mennonites who, on the one hand, do not wish to register as “Russian” and be repatriated, and on the other, know that if they register as “German” they are barred from the entitlements of Displaced Persons. “They are considered Volksdeutsche [ethnic Germans] because of the [naturalization] papers which they carry since their arrival in Poland (Warthegau) in 1943,” Peter Dyck reported to the MCC executive (note 3).

Dyck was optimistic that the US military would understand that Russian Mennonites “had to accept” naturalization papers. “That they did not value them nor even understood sufficiently the real meaning of such documents is proven by the fact that about half of them have either destroyed or lost theirs (note 4). Dyck’s “concentrated effort” with the US military was “to clarify the entire picture showing that our people had no say in the matter when they were brought to Germany and given the passes” (note 5).

In particular, Dyck had embraced and represented the argument that “Mennonite” oddly qualifies as a “nationality,” in similar ways to which Judaism too is distinct.

“Naïve? I hope not, and I very much hope that no one will say that these poor Mennonite refugees and those of the MCC who have to do with them are being expedient and diplomatic, that we are looking for an easy way out. When the Board of US Officers interviewed our people here in Berlin they invariably asked the question concerning nationality … by far the greater number of them simply and boldly replied “I am Mennonite”. A certain captain and other officers tried to tell them that there was no Mennonite nationality and no Mennonite state … so please would the refugee answer “properly.” It was of little use, however, because our people continued to give the same “stupid” answer. … There was no getting away from the fact that although officially and legally such a concept is not being recognized and probably cannot be defended it nevertheless is firmly held by these people who, having lived for over 150 years in a country as “guests” have come to regard themselves as a separate and distinct ‘Volk.’ … The only classic parallels of ths which I know of is that of the Jew.” (Note 6)

Dyck had not understood the enormity of the Holocaust. His elevation of “Mennonite” to an ethnic-based, even national, designation and parallel to the uniqueness of the Jewish people was certainly expedient and theologically bizarre and dangerous.

The Jewish argument was indeed used by Mennonite refugees seeking “Displaced Persons” status. “We often compared ourselves with the Jews,” Julius Kliewer told his interviewer. “The religious persecutions of the last four hundred years are the same for us as for the Jews. We have no homeland, we have no country that we may call our own.” Kliewer told the interviewer that a person must be “born a Mennonite … we are not only a religion. We consider ourself a people,” who still speak “Dutch, the Frisian Platt” (note 7).

Was MCC’s “Jewish argument” inspired by the responses of the refugees as Dyck claimed, or did MCC coach the refugees with a series of standardized answers for this strategy?

Ironically after years of racial propaganda including by their own people in Germany (Prof. Benjamin H. Unruh, Dr. Walter Quiring, and Heinrich Schröder, etc.) that exclaimed them to be biologically pure carriers of “German blood,” the Mennonite refugees were now guided by North American co-religionists to adopt different descriptors: “[W]e were refugees from Russia. Our ancestors had come from Holland, and we would like to stay here until our relatives could help us over into Canada” (note 8).

MCC had strong political connections especially with American IRO staff, but many UN officials were very skeptical of the claims. For those unable to enter The Netherlands, MCC established refugee camps at Backnang near Stuttgart and Gronau.

Online scans of Mennonite applications to the IRO for assistance and protection show that applicants consistently identified their nationality as “Dutch-Frisian-Mennonite” or “Mennonites of Dutch ancestry,” with “Mennonite” noted for religion as well. Two years earlier, however, all had affirmed they were “100% German” on their naturalization forms (EWZ)—then coached and assisted by Unruh, whom Reichsführer-SS Himmler once called the “Moses of the Mennonites.” Now their “primary language” was never or rarely indicated as German or Low German, but “Low Dutch,” “Frisian,” or “Platt Dutch” (note 9).

Asked if they had received identification papers as naturalized Germans or as refugees by the EWZ, all applicants falsely answered “nein” (no).

Male applicants were examined more carefully, and sometimes with the assistance of the Polish Consulate.

A “Becker” from Rudnerweide was denied assistance based on his reputation in annexed Poland: “He possessed a farm at Krusza Duchowna [Lindenthal] … He was of German nationality and his behaviour against the Polish population was very rude and brutal.” Becker was denied legal and political protection or assistance through the IRO Care and Maintenance Program.

In the case of a “Rempel,” from Einlage, “very strongly suspect that he was in the German Army … with the TODT Organization. He is not the concern of the IRO. Ineligible.”

For a Regehr from Gnadenheim: “Petitioner is a Mennonite … In appeal he merely states he is of Dutch ethnic origin and therefore should not be excluded under Part II 4(a) as of German ethnic origin. Check with Berlin indicates that petitioner came to Germany under EWZ, acquired German citizenship in May 1943, and served with the Wehrmacht from 17 October 1941 … there is a photograph available of petitioner in Wehrmacht uniform. –Not within the mandate of the organization.” (Note 10)

For the individual IRO applications, MCC did not collect or provide information on previous German military service or acceptance of German citizenship. In contrast, many of the EWZ files clearly pointed not only to voluntary acceptance of German citizenship, but also to German military service—sons or husbands in the Waffen-SS, the SD, or Wehrmacht—and other forms of collaboration. These documents threatened to disqualify almost all Soviet Mennonites for IRO aid.

A younger woman from Alexanderkrone had noted in her EWZ file that she was a student in the SS-run teachers college in Lutbrandau, Warthegau led by Karl Götz, while in her IRO application she claimed she was farming in Lutbrandau without identification papers.

One applicant “Katherine” from Neu Chortitza claimed that “she is not of German origin but of Dutch origin, yet unfortunately she can’t prove it. All of the identification papers were taken by partisans … She [is applying] with the assistance of the Mennonite Central Committee in Holland-Amsterdam.” Two years earlier, however, Unruh and Prussian Mennonites helped to establish the legal German origin of almost all of the Mennonites coming from Ukraine.

Each of the later applications above noted assistance from MCC, and each applicant falsely stated that they were neither naturalized as Germans nor had they ever received any identification papers from the EWZ or the VoMi (Ethnic German Liaison Office).

Available applications from those born in the eastern Molotschna are consistent: Pastwa, Hierschau, Alexanderkrone, Steinfeld, Sparrau, Franztal, Margenau, Gnadenheim, Nikolaidorf, Alexanderwohl, Fürstenwerder, Tiegerwiede, Rudnerweide.

Chortitza files are similar. For one applicant born in Nieder Chortitza the IRO official writes: the “Petitioner is obviously lying.” He had registered as an “ethnic German” and “took a farm” from a priest who had been “expelled from his home. … He knew that he was taking over the farm. [He] is not the concern of the IRO. Is of ethnic German origin” (note 11).

Applications show uniformity on many key questions—which strongly suggests that applicants were coached by MCC staff.

IRO researchers and officials however had access to the EWZ files and flagged the truthfulness of applications appropriately. MCC’s questionable arguments and techniques have also been documented by Canadian historian Ted Regehr (note 12).

Peter Letkemann calls MCC’s claims to a remote and obscure Dutch ancestry a Notlüge, a “lie of necessity,” required by the emergency situation (note 13). The same might apply to the other lies above as well.

            ---Arnold Neufeldt-Fast

---Notes---

Note 1: Cf. Gerhard Rempel, “Cornelius Franz Klassen: Rescuer of the Mennonite Remnant, 1894–1954,” in Shepherds, Servants and Prophets: Leadership Among the Russian Mennonites (ca. 1880–1960), edited by Harry Loewen (Kitchener, ON: Pandora, 2003), 199.

Note 2: Peter J. Dyck, “Memorandum on Mennonite Refugees in Germany as on July 25, 1946,” 2f., MCC Archives, Akron, MCC CPS and other Corr 1945-47 File 30 Dyck Peter J. 1946 (memorandum).

Note 3: Dyck, “Memorandum on Mennonite Refugees in Germany as on July 25, 1946,” 2.

Note 4: Dyck, “Memorandum on Mennonite Refugees in Germany as on July 25, 1946,” 2.

Note 5: Dyck, “Memorandum on Mennonite Refugees in Germany as on July 25, 1946,” 2.

Note 6: Dyck, “Memorandum on Mennonite Refugees in Germany as on July 25, 1946,” 3f. 

Note 7: “David P. Boder Interviews Julius Klüver, September 19, 1946,” transcript, Voices of the Holocaust Project, http://voices.iit.edu/interviewee?doc=braunA. Cf. “A.E.F. D.P. Registration Record, Munich, February 1946 for Julius Kliewer (b. 1902).”

Note 8: Susanna Toews, Trek to Freedom: The Escape of Two Sisters from South Russia during World War II, translated by Helen Megli (Winkler, MB: Heritage Valley, 1976), 40.

Note 9: For hundreds of Mennonite IRO applications, search by name or village in online https://collections.arolsen-archives.org.

Note 10: IRO Care and Maintenance Program, CM/1, Review Board, “Jakob Regehr,” case 12563, November 30, 1949, Arolsen Archiveshttps://collections.arolsen-archives.org.

Note 11: Cf. document no. 79151613 for Heinrich Götz Nieder Chortitza, in “IRO Care and Maintenance Program” (CM files/1), Arolsen Archives, https://collections.arolsen-archives.org/en/search/?s=nieder%20chortitza.

Note 12: 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.u'winnipeg.ca/index.php/jms/article/view/441/441.

Note 13: Peter Letkemann, “Nachwort,” in Fügungen und Führungen: Benjamin Heinrich Unruh, 1881–1959, by Heinrich B. Unruh (Detmold: Verein zur Erforschung und Pflege des Russlanddeutschen Mennonitentums, 2009), 427.

---

To cite this page: Arnold Neufeldt-Fast, “Mennonite Displaced Persons' and MCC's 'Jewish Argument,'” History of the Russian Mennonites (blog), May 12, 2023, 

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 ...

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 ...

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...

Landless Crisis: Molotschna, 1840s to 1860s

The landless crisis in the mid-1800s in the Molotschna Colony is the context for most other matters of importance to its Mennonites, 1840s to 1860s. When discussing landlessness, historian David G. Rempel has claimed that the “seemingly endemic wranglings and splits” of the Mennonite church in South Russia were only seldom or superficially related to doctrine, and “almost invariably and intimately bound up with some of the most serious social and economic issues” that afflicted one or more of the congregations in the settlement ( note 1 ). It is important from the start to recognize that these Mennonites were not citizens,  but foreign colonists with obligations and privileges that governed their sojourn in New Russia. For Mennonites the privileges, e.g. of land and freedom from military conscription, were connected to the obligation of model farming. Mennonites were given one, and then later two districts of land for this purpose. Within their districts or colonies , villages w...

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 ...

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...

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...