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

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 ...

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...

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...

Vaccinations in Chortitza and Molotschna, beginning in 1804

Vaccination lists for Chortitza Mennonite children in 1809 and 1814 were published prior to the COVID-19 pandemic with little curiosity ( note 1 ). However during the 2020-22 pandemic and in a context in which some refused to vaccinate for religious belief, the historic data took on new significance. Ancestors of some of the more conservative Russian Mennonite groups—like the Reinländer or the Bergthalers or the adult children of land delegate Jacob Höppner—were in fact vaccinating their infants and toddlers against small pox over two hundred years ago ( note 2 ). Also before the current pandemic Ukrainian historian Dmytro Myeshkov brought to light other archival materials on Mennonites and vaccination. The material below is my summary and translation of the relevant pages of Myeshkov’s massive 2008 volume on Black Sea German and their Worlds, 1781 to 1871 (German only; note 3 ). Myeshkov confirms that Chortitza was already immunizing its children in 1804 when their District Offic...

Molotschna: The final months, Summer 1943

These photos are from German propaganda material filmed in Molotschna (called "Halbstadt") in 1943—just a few months before the evacuation from Ukraine and trek to German-annexed Poland (Warthegau). Not all of the film is of the Mennonite settlement, however, but much of it is. Below are some frames from the film. The edited shorter version is of higher quality and designed as propaganda to be consumed by Germans in the Reich and to secure their approval .  The scenes are marked by cleanliness, orderliness and discipline. There is economic activity, a model Kindergarten, and always happy ethnic German people in the newly occupied territories. A predominantly Mennonite Cavalry Regiment (Waffen-SS) guarding Ukrainian and Russian workers is also highlighted. This hard to see and disturbing. Anything that may have been good here for Mennonites meant enslavement, hunger and death for untold numbers of others. Two versions of the film are available: Shorter (edited for l...

Flemish Anabaptists and Witch Hunts

Political leaders have long used the term "witch hunt"--and there is an historical connection to Mennonites. Anabaptists and so-called “witches” were arrested and tried for related reasons in the Low Countries in the 1500s: namely, as a means to divert God’s wrath. The late-Medievals feared that heresy—in this case ana-baptism and the challenge to other sacraments—invited the wrath of God, and was an instrument for the devil’s own hellish apocalyptic assault. The assumption: the devil's tactics to destroy Christendom included the use of both heretics and sorcerers. Gary Waite writes convincingly that both were seen as “polluting” the community and thus both had to be "excised." "This fear of pollution, or scandalizing God or the saints, also explains why small numbers of peaceable Mennonites were so harshly treated during the second half of the sixteenth century. Plagues, fires, and economic and social crises were often blamed on the presence of even a smal...

1923 Mennonite immigrants "kept behind": Lechfeld (Bavaria) transit camp

An important part of the larger 1923 immigration story includes the chapter of the hundreds who were held back at Riga and Southampton and taken to the Lechfeld (Bavaria) transit camp for medical care. “Germany generously and magnanimously helped our organizations, on my intercession, to overcome the manifold difficulties connected with such a ( Volksbewegung ) movement of people in such critical times,” Benjamin H. Unruh wrote some years later ( note 1 ). Just as the first group of Russländer Mennonites set foot in Canada 100 years ago this month, the North American relief effort in the USSR was also winding down (August 1923). The famine relief work in 1921 and 1922 had found broad support in the North American Mennonite community. However excitement about a larger immigration of Russian Mennonites to North America was muted, and a new call to action could not forge the same level of cooperation across Mennonite groups. The plan required huge money guarantees. In USSR B.B. Janz h...

Catherine the Great’s 1763 Manifesto

“We must swarm our vast wastelands with people. I do not think that in order to achieve this it would be useful to compel our non-Christians to accept our faith--polygamy for example, is even more useful for the multiplication of the population. … "Russia does not have enough inhabitants, …but still possesses a large expanse of land, which is neither inhabited nor cultivated. … The fields that could nourish the whole nation, barely feeds one family..." – Catherine II (Note 1 ) “We perceive, among other things, that a considerable number of regions are still uncultivated which could easily and advantageously be made available for productive use of population and settlement. Most of the lands hold hidden in their depth an inexhaustible wealth of all kinds of precious ores and metals, and because they are well provided with forests, rivers and lakes, and located close to the sea for purpose of trade, they are also most convenient for the development and growth of many kinds ...

More Royal News! Mennonites give gifts of “Oxen, Butter, Ducks, Hens & Cheese” to new King (1772)

What do Mennonites offer a new king? The ritual ceremonies of homage to a new European king—as we see on TV these days--are ancient. Exactly 250 years yesterday, Frederick the Great became king over Mennonites in the Vistula River Delta where most of our ancestors lived. Here is how that played out. On May 31, 1772, Heinrich Donner was elected elder of the Orlofferfelde Mennonite Church, 25 km north of Marienburg Castle in Polish-Prussia; thankfully he kept a diary ( note 1 ). Only a few months later the weak Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth collapsed and was partitioned by powerful, land-hungry neighbours: Austria, Prussia and Catherine the Great’s empire. In the preceding decades Mennonites had lived with significant autonomy, felt secure under the Polish crown and could appeal to the king for protection . Now some 2,638 Mennonite families were under Prussian rule. Frederick II took possession of his new lands on September 13, and then invited four persons of nobility plus clergy from ...

School Reports, 1890s

Mennonite memoirs typically paint a golden picture of schools in the so-called “golden era” of Mennonite life in Russia. The official “Reports on Molotschna Schools: 1895/96 and 1897/98,” however, give us a more lackluster and realistic picture ( note 1 ). What do we learn from these reports? Many schools had minor infractions—the furniture did not correspond to requirements, there were insufficient book cabinets, or the desks and benches were too old and in need of repair. The Mennonite schoolhouses in Halbstadt and Rudnerweide—once recognized as leading and exceptional—together with schools in Friedensruh, Fürstenwerder, Franzthal, and Blumstein were deemed to be “in an unsatisfactory state.” In other cases a new roof and new steps were needed, or the rooms too were too small, too dark, too cramped, or with moist walls. More seriously in some villages—Waldheim, Schönsee, Fabrikerwiese, and even Gnadenfeld, well-known for its educational past—inspectors recorded that pupils “do not ...