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

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...

Why study and write about Russian Mennonite history?

David G. Rempel’s credentials as an historian of the Russian Mennonite story are impeccable—he was a mentor to James Urry in the 1980s, for example, which says it all. In 1974 Rempel wrote an article on Mennonite historical work for an issue of the Mennonite Quarterly Review commemorating the arrival of Russian Mennonites to North America 100 years earlier ( note 1). In one section of the essay Rempel reflected on Mennonites’ general “lack of interest in their history,” and why they were so “exceedingly slow” in reflecting on their historic development in Russia with so little scholarly rigour. Rempel noted that he was not alone in this observation; some prominent Mennonites of his generation who had noted the same pointed an “extreme spirit of individualism” among Mennonites in Russia; the absence of Mennonite “authoritative voices,” both in and outside the church; the “relative indifference” of Mennonites to the past; “intellectual laziness” among many who do not wish to be distu...

The Tinkelstein Family of Chortitza-Rosenthal (Ukraine)

Chortitza was the first Mennonite settlement in "New Russia" (later Ukraine), est. 1789. The last Mennonites left in 1943 ( note 1 ). During the Stalin years in Ukraine (after 1928), marriage with Jewish neighbours—especially among better educated Mennonites in cities—had become somewhat more common. When the Germans arrived mid-August 1941, however, it meant certain death for the Jewish partner and usually for the children of those marriages. A family friend, Peter Harder, died in 2022 at age 96. Peter was born in Osterwick to a teacher and grew up in Chortitza. As a 16-year-old in 1942, Peter was compelled by occupying German forces to participate in the war effort. Ukrainians and Russians (prisoners of war?) were used by the Germans to rebuild the massive dam at Einlage near Zaporizhzhia, and Peter was engaged as a translator. In the next year he changed focus and started teachers college, which included significant Nazi indoctrination. In 2017 I interviewed Peter Ha...

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 Literacy in Polish-Prussia

At a Mennonite wedding in Deutsch Kazun in 1833 (pic), neither groom nor bride nor the witnesses could sign the wedding register. A Görtz, a Janzen, a Schröder—born a Görtzen – illiterate. “This act was read to the married couple and witnesses, but not signed because they were unable to write.” Similarly, with the certification of a Mennonite death in Culm (Chelmo), West Prussia, 1813-14: “This document was read and it was signed by us because the witnesses were illiterate.” Spouse and children were unable to read or write. Names like Gerz, Plenert, Kliewer, Kasper, Buller and others. 14 families of the 25 Mennonite deaths registered --or 56%--could not sign the paperwork ( note 1 ; pic ). This appears to be an anomaly. We know some pioneers to Russia were well educated. The letters of the land-scout to Russia, Johann Bartsch to his wife back home (1786-87) are eloquent, beautifully written and indicate a high level of literacy ( note 2 ). Even Klaas Reimer (b. 1770), the founder t...

Invitation to the Russian Consulate, Danzig, January 19, 1788

B elow is one of the most important original Mennonite artifacts I have seen. It concerns January 19. The two land scouts Jacob Höppner and Johann Bartsch had returned to Danzig from Russia on November 10, 1787 with the Russian Immigration Agent, Georg von Trappe. Soon thereafter, Trappe had copies of the royal decree and agreement (Gnadenbrief) printed for distribution in the Flemish and Frisian Mennonite congregations in Danzig and other locations, dated December 29, 1787 ( see pic ; note 1 ). After the flyer was handed out to congregants in Danzig after worship on January 13, 1788, city councilors made the most bitter accusations against church elders for allowing Trappe and the Russian Consulate to do this; something similar had happened before ( note 2 ). In the flyer Trappe boasted that land scouts Höppner and Bartsch met not only with Gregory Potemkin, Catherine the Great’s vice-regent and administrator of New Russia, but also with “the Most Gracious Russian Monarch” herse...

Russo-Japanese War and the Mennonite Response, 1904-05

In February 1904, Russia declared war on Japan and Mennonite congregations sent the Tsar messages of loyalty, love and prayers. The large Lichtenau-Petershagen-Schönsee congregation in the Mennonite Molotschna Colony in today’s Ukraine led by 80-year-old Elder (Bishop) Jakob Töws expressed its “deep loyalty and love for the throne and the Fatherland” ( note 1 ). Similarly, the Mennonite Chortitza congregation declared that Mennonites bow “humbly before the Imperial Majesty with most faithful love and devotion,” and “together with all faithful subjects send their most passionate prayers and supplications to the Most High, that He may extend his mighty hand over the beloved Tsar and the Russian people, and that peace may soon be returned” ( note 2 ). The Einlage Mennonite Brethren congregation offered a similar statement, “inspired by feelings of boundless dedication to the Sovereign Fatherland,” with “passionate prayers” for the Tsar and Fatherland, based on 1 Timothy 2:1–4 ( note 3 ...

Shaky Beginings as a Faith Community

With basic physical needs addressed, in 1805 Chortitza pioneers were ready to recover their religious roots and to pass on a faith identity. They requested a copy of Menno Simons’ writings from the Danzig mother-church especially for the young adults, “who know only what they hear,” and because “occasionally we are asked about the founder whose name our religion bears” ( note 1 ). The Anabaptist identity of this generation—despite the strong Mennonite publications in Prussia in the late eighteenth century—was uninformed and very thin. Settlers first arrived in Russia 1788-89 without ministers or elders. Settlers had to be content with sharing Bible reflections in Low German dialect or a “service that consisted of singing one song and a sermon that was read from a book of sermons” written by the recently deceased East Prussian Mennonite elder Isaac Kroeker ( note 2 ). In the first months of settlement, Chortitza Mennonites wrote church leaders in Prussia:  “We cordially plead ...

1871: "Mennonite Tough Luck"

In 1868, a delegation of Prussian Mennonite elders met with Prussian Crown Prince Frederick in Berlin. The topic was universal conscription--now also for Mennonites. They were informed that “what has happened here is coming soon to Russia as well” ( note 1 ). In Berlin the secret was already out. Three years later this political cartoon appeared in a satirical Berlin newspaper. It captures the predicament of Russian Mennonites (some enticed in recent decades from Prussia), with the announcement of a new policy of compulsory, universal military service. “‘Out of the frying pan and into the fire—or: Mennonite tough luck.’ The Mennonites, who immigrated to Russia in order to avoid becoming soldiers in Prussia, are now subject to newly introduced compulsory military service.” ( Note 2 ) The man caught in between looks more like a Prussian than Russian Mennonite—but that’s beside the point. With the “Great Reforms” of the 1860s (including emancipation of serfs) the fundamentals were c...

Becoming German: Ludendorff Festivals in Molotschna, 1918

During the friendly German military occupation of Ukraine at the end of WWI, patriotic “Ludendorff Festivals” were encouraged by German forces to raise funds to support injured German soldiers. A first such festival in the Molotschna was held on June 25, 1918 in Ohrloff, and was attended by “a great many German officers, soldiers and colonists with music, [patriotic] speeches and social interaction” From the perspective of the German army press, the event was “extremely enjoyable;” it was accompanied with music by a 30-piece regiment orchestra, and beer, sausage, sandwiches, ice-cream, raspberries and cherries were sold. It closed with a “small dance,” raising 7,387 rubles or 9,850 German marks in donations ( note 1 ). Later that summer, a Ludendorff Festival in Halbstadt began with Sunday worship, followed by an early concert, games and performances by the Selbstschutz , as well as “entertainment and merriment of every kind,” with short plays and dancing into the morning ( note ...