Skip to main content

Collectivization and Dekulakization, 1930-33

Throughout 1930, Mennonite defiance and hope for another mass emigration was morphing into deep disappointment and growing apathy as they contemplated a permanent future under communist rule (note 1).

Together with rapid industrialization—including the Dnieper hydro dam—Stalin’s new focus on the collectivization of agricultural units in 1930 was both an economic strategy and the critical means for reconfiguring society and for the creation of the new “Soviet man,” with the liberation of women too from “exploitation and social isolation” (note 2).

This massive project of social engineering had profound effects on Mennonite faith, community and family life. Economic restructuring brought famine and profound poverty to the countryside. Women were increasingly removed from their children and subjected to impossible labour demands. Newly educated youth and children were the future of the socialist state, but their memoirs mostly speak of a lost childhood clouded by memories of poverty and of an atmosphere of fear.

Stalin’s first Five Year Plan in December 1929 called for the socialist enlargement of agricultural units and decreed the “complete” collectivization of all agricultural land including the confiscation of farm animals and implements. Counter-revolutionary opponents or kulaks favouring “capitalist” enlargements of private farms instead were to be eliminated. On the heels of the internationally embarrassing flight of Mennonite farmers to the suburbs of Moscow, Stalin spoke at a conference of Marxist students on the agrarian question, on December 27, 1929:

“Today, we have an adequate material base which enables us to strike at the kulaks, to break their resistance, to eliminate them as a class, and to substitute for their output the output of the collective farms and state farms. ... There is another question which seems no less ridiculous: whether the kulak should be permitted to join the collective farms. Of course not, for he is a sworn enemy of the collective-farm movement.” (Note 3)

Desperate to raise the level of enthusiasm for state-set production goals and to mobilize peasants, authorities responded with ideological education, including materials in German-language journals, newspapers and radio that emphasized the final liquidation of kulaks as a class in the countryside, the removal of all counter-revolutionary agitators, the complete collectivization of all farms, and a more focused battle to end religious belief in the village. Village councils were pressured to meet or exceed all procurement quotas especially by exposing and disciplining "kulak hoarders and shirkers."

Quotas for dekulakization in the German-speaking Ukrainian villages were higher than policies required; altogether Peter Letkemann estimates that at least 2,000 Mennonite families or 10,000 people were “dekulakized” in the years 1929 to 1932 (note 4).

In March 1930, Stalin celebrated progress made on the Collective Farm Movement with the broadly published article “Dizzy with Success.” Where there were violent excesses, he blamed it on overzealous local officials and suggested that some private land ownership going forward would be tolerated; collectivization would remain voluntary and only occur where it made sense (note 5). This was a temporary reprieve at best, and arrests continued.

In April and June 1930 the village of Neuendorf (Rayon Chortitza) offered some resistance to forced collectivization and a program dekulakization. The response against the village was severe and designed to make them into an example for surrounding Mennonite villages.

“Those affected were loaded with their families onto a wagon each and taken away to an unknown destination. But the population opposed this and did not let them go. The GPU came to arrest the heads of the families, but they were warned and went into hiding. Then, night after night, a number of people and trucks with GPU and police arrived and a great hunt began. The men were arrested and the other members of the families were later sent after them.” (Note 6)

Jakob Siemens, age 47, Franz Ens, age 43, Peter Wiebe, age 42 (and possibly others) of Neuendorf were arrested on April 18, and each charged with “agitating farmers to oppose / not to submit to Soviet rule” (note 7). Another larger sweep occurred on June 23, where at least five Mennonite men were charged with “agitating against the Soviet government.” Most were deported to serve five or eight years in a forced labour camp in “northern Russia;” one was sentenced to death (note 8). In total, twenty-four men were arrested in the village in 1930—and as per custom, family members followed, including 18 women and 11 children (total 53) (note 9).

In 1930, thirty individuals from the Chortitza village of Osterwick were also disenfranchised and exiled (note 10), and fifty-nine from Franzfeld. “We ethnic Germans had a hard time agreeing to collectivization,” the Franzfeld teacher K. Epp wrote in 1942. “But in the end … in order not to make closer acquaintance with the NKVD [secret police], we complied” (note 11).

A shift was occurring in the state’s anti-clerical propaganda from attacking religious beliefs and the clergy as obstacles to social and economic progress, to an explicitly politicized attack, painting faith leaders as “a direct threat to Bolshevik rule from enemies within and abroad” (note 12). In the Barnaul District (Altai), for example, thirty-six Mennonite ministers were disenfranchised in April 1930 (note 13). No longer were “preachers” smeared by state propaganda simply as exploiters of the peasantry, but now—“closely linked to developments in the general political arena”—they were shown “actively conspiring against Soviet power” (note 14). After the “mistakes” of rapid collectivization were admitted by the state in 1930, “kulak-preachers, priests and other anti-Soviet elements” were nonetheless blamed for “exploiting these mistakes” that were producing “dissatisfaction in the German villages, thereby reducing the intensity of their labour and their desire to improve and raise the level of agriculture” (note 15).

Accounts of dispossessed Mennonite families—especially as food shortages increased—left an indelible mark on the survivors of this era, and are recalled repeatedly in the memoir literature. 

Notably, Mennonites were not only the victims of dekulakization, but some were also its agents (that is another story). Moreover, the story of dispossession was shared by Mennonites and many Ukrainians together.

The remarkable photos (1932-33) by Mark Zaliznyak below are likely the best we will find of those terrible events. They are not from a Mennonite village, but from Udachne in Donetsk (Bakhmut District). The village had at least one Mennonite family, and the Mennonite Memrik Colony and estates were not far away.

            ---Arnold Neufeldt-Fast

---Notes---

Photos: "Donetsk village Udachne and Holodomor of 1932-33 in photos by Mark Zaliznyak," https://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=uk&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.radiosvoboda.org%2Fa%2Fholodomor-photo-zaliznyaka-1932-1933%2F28874991.html; also http://old.memorialholodomor.org.ua/eng/holodomor/archive/foto-arkhiv/golodomor-na-donnechini-foto-m-zheliznyaka/?fbclid=IwAR27xlF3nmJXptAP5M642s3LviqKTWy5sP__lrNSv0fjRY5RDUFvEedn2eM. NB: the fourth picture is from the Odessa region; https://flashbak.com/the-great-break-the-russian-peasant-becomes-the-collective-farmer-1920-1931-363372/?fbclid=IwAR0w3J5Hbeyw7OCu4tBLM4NySJq69fbFpgklddnhX5qb7qswTeUdq2M9QrM.

Note 1: The German government made arrangements with the Soviet Union to allow a few “splitter” families (some 20 families / 70 individuals) who were separated in Moscow in 1929 to leave in 1931; Benjamin H. Unruh played a key role; cf. Levi Mumaw to C.F. Klassen, August 10, 1931, from MCC-Akron, IX-03-01, box 3, file 70018.

Note 2: Daniel Peris, Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless (Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998), 81.

Note 3: Josef V. Stalin, “Problems of Agrarian Policy in the U.S.S.R.,” in Stalin, Problems of Leninism (Moscow: Foreign Languages, 1945), 317-319, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.14532/page/n315/mode/2up/.

Note 4: Estimate by Peter Letkemann, “Mennonites in the Soviet Inferno, 1929–1941,” Mennonite Historian 24, no. 4 (1998), 6, http://www.mennonitehistorian.ca/.

Note 5: Stalin, “Dizzy with Success: Concerning Questions of the Collective-Farm Movement [March 3, 1930],” Works 12, 197–205. For Siberian Germans, see report in Auslanddeutsche 13, no. 12 (1930), 429f., https://media.chortitza.org/pdf/pdf/vpetk324.pdf; and Detlef Brandes and Andrej I. Savin, Die Sibiriendeutschen im Sowjetstaat 1919–1938 (Essen: Klartext, 2001), ch. 8. For Ukraine, see Colin P. Neufeldt, “Collectivizing the Mutter Ansiedlungen: The role of Mennonites in Organizing Kolkhozy in the Khortytsia and Molochansk German National Districts in Ukraine in the Late 1920s and Early 1930s,” in Minority Report: Mennonite Identities in Imperial Russia and Soviet Ukraine Reconsidered, 1789–1945, edited by Leonard G. Friesen (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), 216.

Note 6: In “Neuendorf (Rayon Chortitza) Dorfbericht,” May 1942, Fragebogen XI.5 (Addendum), “Schilderung der Verhaftungen usw.,” in Village Reports Special Command Dr. Stump, Bundesarchiv R6/622, 96 (TSDEA; Bundesarchiv).

Note 7: Rehabilitated History: Zaporizhia Region (Zaporizhia: Dniprovskij Metalurg, 2004–2013) [РЕАБІЛІТОВАНІ ІСТОРІЄЮ: Запорізька область], Book V, 275 (Wiebe); 315 (Ens); 325 (Siemens), http://www.reabit.org.ua/books/zp/.

Note 8: Rehabilitated History: Zaporizhia, Book IV, 69 (Braun); 133 (Heinrichs); cf. also 496 (Peter Redekop); 459 (Abram Peters); 145 (Dietrich Hildebrandt).

Note 9: “Neuendorf (Rayon Chortitza) Dorfbericht,” May 1942, “Fragebogen,” XI.2, in Village Reports Special Command Dr. Stump, Bundesarchiv R6/622, 94; “Liste der verbannten Bürger,” 133 (TSDEA; Bundesarchiv).

Note 10: “Osterwick, (Rayon Chortitza) Dorfbericht,” July 1942, “Fragebogen,” XI.2, in Village Reports Special Command Dr. Stump, Bundesarchiv R6/621, 9, 194 (TSDEA; Bundesarchiv).

Note 11: “Franzfeld, (Rayon Chortitza) Dorfbericht,” April 1942, “Fragebogen,” XI.2 and XI.5,  Village Reports Special Command Dr. Stump, Bundesarchiv R6/621, 384; “Schulisches Leben: Bericht,” 386b (TSDEA; Bundesarchiv).

Note 12: Peris, Storming the Heavens, 75.

Note 13: Abram Abram Fast, In the networks of the OGPU-NKVD, German District Altai Territory in 1927–1938 (V setyakh OGPU-NKVD: Nemetskiy rayon Altyskogo kraya v 1927–1938 gg unrh) (Barnaul, 2002), 31–34, https://media.chortitza.org/pdf/Dok/FastR.pdf.

Note 14: Peris, Storming the Heavens, 75.

Note 15: Auslanddeutsche 12, no. 13 (1930), 429f.

--

To cite this page: Arnold Neufeldt-Fast, "Collectivization and Dekulakization, 1930-1933," History of the Russian Mennonites (blog), August 14, 2023, https://russianmennonites.blogspot.com/2023/08/collectivization-and-dekulakization.html. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Swiss and Palatinate Connections

Sometime after 1850 Andreas Plennert and his family immigrated to South Russia from the Culm Region of West Prussia. Though there was at least one Mennonite “Plehnert” who had already immigrated to Russia in 1793, it is not a very common Prussian-Russian Mennonite name. As such, however, it is easier to trace than many and offers a minority narrative and identity within the longer and broader Russian Mennonite story. The account below is adapted largely from information in Horst Penner, Die ost- und westpreußischen Mennoniten , vol. 1, though I have expanded upon his work to offer a slightly different narrative. In 1724 there was a group of Mennonites forced out of the Memel region in East Prussia for political and religious reasons and were given assistance to resettle back to West Prussia in areas populated by Mennonites. Among the 23 households that went to the Stuhm region there is one Plenert listed, namely Christian Plenert. We know that Mennonites entered the Memel region ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mennonite-Designed Mosque on the Molotschna

The “Peter J. Braun Archive" is a mammoth 78 reel microfilm collection of Russian Mennonite materials from 1803 to 1920 -- and largely still untapped by researchers ( note 1 ). In the files of Philipp Wiebe, son-in-law and heir to Johann Cornies, is a blueprint for a mosque ( pic ) as well as another file entitled “Akkerman Mosque Construction Accounts, 1850-1859” ( note 2 ). The Molotschna Mennonites were settlers on traditional Nogai lands; their Nogai neighbours were a nomadic, Muslim Tartar group. In 1825, Cornies wrote a significant anthropological report on the Nogai at the request of the Guardianship Committee, based largely on his engagements with these neighbours on Molotschna’s southern border ( note 3 ). Building upon these experiences and relationships, in 1835 Cornies founded the Nogai agricultural colony “Akkerman” outside the southern border of the Molotschna Colony. Akkerman was a projection of Cornies’ ideal Mennonite village outlined in exacting detail, with un...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
1 comment
Read more

Polish-Prussia? Royal Prussia? West Prussia? Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Notes for Clarification

The historical jurisdictions, names and political powers under which Mennonites lived since their arrival in lands that are today Poland are difficult to keep straight. However they are important for telling the story right. This post simply provides some notes for orientation with reference to the late sixteenth-century map below. Polish- or Royal Prussia comes into being with the defeat of Teutonic Knights by the Polish Crown in 1466. See the pink-shaded area of the map below. Ducal Prussia is a fiefdom of the Kingdom of Poland after 1525 (see stiped on map). In 1618, this duchy (voivodeship) is inherited by Hohenzollerns of Brandenburg, who separated it from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1657. After 1701, the Elector of Brandenburg is the “King of Prussia” when in that territory. With the First Partition of Poland in 1772, it becomes East Prussia . By 1569 Polish- or Royal Prussia was fully integrated into Kingdom of Poland and part of the larger Polish-Lithuanian...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Snapshots of Danzig Mennonites, late 1600s & early 1700s

A picture can be worth a thousand words. We do not have photographs, but we have a few colour paintings of life in and around Danzig in the late 1600s and early 1700s, as well as maps. We also have a limited number of "textual snapshots" of Mennonites at this time and place, which offer an instructive window into that foreign world. These snapshots of work, worship, health, education, community relationships, smaller repressions, and security can contribute to the creation of a larger collage of Mennonite life in Danzig and Polish Prussia.  Snapshot 1 : In 1681 there were approximately 180 Mennonite families who lived in the “gardens” or villages outside Danzig, with 113 of those families within the jurisdiction of the city. At this time Mennonites were barred from owning houses within the walls of the city. Of these 113 family heads, we know: 43 were retailers of spirits, 24 merchants, 9 lacemakers, 7 dyers, 3 silk dyers, 3 pressers, 2 brokers, 2 treasurers, 2 waitresses, et...
Post a Comment
Read more

Jews and Mennonites Together in Danzig's Suburbs

There has been very little reflection on the relationship of Jews and Mennonites in the suburb of Schottland (or Alt-Schottland or Stare Szkoty) where Mennonites first settled in the mid-1500s. Here Mennonites and Jews lived in the small community together for two centuries, quite literally on the margins outside the gates of the city of Danzig. Many historic maps that include Alt Schottland have become available in recent years ( note 1; pic ). H.G. Mannhardt’s book on the Danzig Mennonite church community plus some archival membership lists are our best sources for the Mennonite experience, while illustrations from the day bring many of those episodes of prosperity, repressions, war, plague, emigration, flooding etc. in an urban environment to life ( note 2 ). Peter J. Klassen’s writings on Mennonites in Poland and Prussia also present newer research on Mennonite life in and around Danzig in helpful ways ( note 3 ). There is one small sentence in Klassen’s larger volume that sugg...
Post a Comment
Read more

Plague and Pestilence in Danzig, 1709

Russian and Prussian Mennonites trace at least 200 years of their story through Danzig and Royal Prussia, where episodes of plague and pestilence were not unfamiliar ( note 1 ). Mennonites arrived primarily from the Low Countries and in large numbers in the middle of the 16th century—approximately 750 families or 3,000 refugees and settlers between 1527 and 1578 to Danzig and Royal Prussia ( note 2 ). At this time Danzig was undergoing tremendous demographic, cultural and economic transformation, almost tripling in population in less than 100 years. With 80% of Poland’s foreign trade handled through this port city ( note 3 ), Danzig saw the arrival of new people from across Europe, many looking to find work in the crammed and bustling city ( note 4 ). Maria Bogucka’s research on Danzig in this era brings the streets of the maritime city to life: “Sanitation facilities were inadequate … The level of personal hygiene was low. Most people lived close together: five or six to a room, sle...
1 comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more