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 Archives, https://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,
Comments
Post a Comment