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

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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 ...
1 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

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 ...
Post a 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

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

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Russia: A Refuge for all True Christians Living in the Last Days

If only it were so. It was not only a fringe group of Russian Mennonites who believed that they were living the Last Days. This view was widely shared--though rejected by the minority conservative Kleine Gemeinde. In 1820 upon the recommendation of Rudnerweide (Frisian) Elder Franz Görz, the progressive and influential Mennonite leader Johann Cornies asked the Mennonite Tobias Voth (b. 1791) of Graudenz, Prussia to come and lead his Agricultural Association’s private high school in Ohrloff, in the Russian Mennonite colony of Molotschna. Voth understood this as nothing less than a divine call upon his life ( note 1; pic 3 ). In Ohrloff Voth grew not only a secondary school, but also a community lending library, book clubs, as well as mission prayer meetings, and Bible study evenings. Voth was the son of a Mennonite minister and his wife was raised Lutheran ( note 2 ). For some years, Voth had been strongly influenced by the warm, Pietist devotional fiction writings of Johann Heinrich Ju...
Post a Comment
Read more