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...

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 ...

Mennonites in Danzig's Suburbs: Maps and Illustrations

Mennonites first settled in the Danzig suburb of Schottland (lit: "Scotland"; “Stare-Szkoty”; also “Alt-Schottland”) in the mid-1500s. “Danzig” is the oldest and most important Mennonite congregation in Prussia. Menno Simons visited Schottland and Dirk Phillips was its first elder and lived here for a time. Two centuries later the number of families from the suburbs of Danzig that immigrated to Russia was not large: Stolzenberg 5, Schidlitz 3, Alt-Schottland 2, Ohra 1, Langfuhr 1, Emaus 1, Nobel 1, and Krampetz 2 ( map 1 ). However most Russian Mennonites had at least some connection to the Danzig church—whether Frisian or Flemish—if not in the 1700s, then in 1600s. Map 2  is from 1615; a larger number of Mennonites had been in Schottland at this point for more than four decades. Its buildings are not rural but look very Dutch urban/suburban in style. These were weavers, merchants and craftsmen, and since the 17th century they lived side-by-side with a larger number of Jews a...

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 ...

Why Danzig and Poland?

In the late 16th century, Poland became a haven for a variety of non-conformists which included Jews, Anti-Trinitarians from Italy and Bohemia, Quakers and Calvinists from Great Britain, south German Schwenkfelders, Eastern Orthodox, Armenian, and Greek Catholic Christians, some Muslim Tatars, as well as other peaceful sectarians like the Dutch and Flemish Anabaptists. Unlike the Low Countries and most of western Europe, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a “state without stakes,” and as such fittingly described as “God’s playground” ( note 1 ). In the view of 17th-century Dutch dramatist Joost van den Vondel, it was “the ‘Promised Land,’ where the refugee could forget all his sorrow and enjoy the richness of the land” ( note 2 ). Over the next two centuries an important strand of Mennonite life and spirituality evolved into a mature tradition in this relatively hospitable context ( note 3 ). Anabaptists from the Low Countries began to arrive in Danzig and region as early as 15...

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...

The Beginnings: Some Basics

The sixteenth-century ancestors of Russian Mennonites were largely Anabaptists from the Low Countries. Because their new vision of church called for voluntary membership marked by adult baptism upon confession of faith, they became one of the most persecuted groups of the Protestant Reformation ( note 1 ). For a millennium re-baptism ( a na -baptism) had been considered a heresy punishable by death ( note 2 ), and again in 1529 the Imperial Diet of Speyer called for the “brutal” punishment for those who did not recognize infant baptism. Many of the earliest Anabaptist cells were found in Belgium and The Netherlands--part of the larger Habsburg Empire ruled after 1555 by “the Most Catholic of Kings,” Philip II of Spain. The North Sea port cities of the Low Countries had some limited freedoms and were places for both commercial and cultural exchange; ships arrived daily not only from other Hanseatic League like Danzig, but also from Florence, Venice and Genoa, the Americas and the Far Ea...

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...

What is the Church to Say? Letter 3 (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 Mennonite endorsement Trump the man No one denies the moral flaws of Donald Trump, least of all Trump himself. In these next months Mennonite pastors who supported Trump will have many opportunities to restate to their congregation and their children why someone like Trump won their support. It may be obvious, but the words can be difficult to find. To help, I offer examples from Mennonite history with statements from one our strongest leaders of the past century, Prof. Benjamin H. Unruh (see the nice Mennonite Encyclopedia article on him, GAMEO ). I have substituted only a few words, indicated by square brackets to help with the adaptation. The [MAGA] movement is like the early Anabaptist movement!  In the change of government in 1933, Unruh saw in the [MAGA] movement “things breaking forth which our forefathe...

The Cycle of Time and Maternal and Childhood Mortality

Rudnerweide (Molotschna) Elder Franz Görz’s wife Maria gave birth to fifteen children in Prussia over twenty-two years, including two sets of twins. Only six children survived infancy, and two of these six died on the journey to Russia ( note 1 ). Maria Görz’s personal history of grief and loss is connected to the cycle of pregnancy, birth, nursing, childcare and death that continued throughout a Mennonite woman’s entire childbearing years—with an average of nine live births, and the premature death of four to five children each ( note 2 ). Each family   arrived to New Russia with its own personal history of loss. Diaries point to the vulnerability and danger of death for women in childbirth, but also to a strong network of community care amongst the women ( note 3 ). Since their childhood, the Confession of Faith and catechism defined the place and roles they would occupy as women in a pre-modern, unchanging time before “the end of time.” It is a time for testing and improveme...