“BETWEEN a ROCK and a HARD PLACE”: the MENNONITE SELBSTSCHUTZ in MOLOTSCHNA, UKRAINE, 1918-1920 by RYRIE JOHANNA DIRKSEN B

Home , Kleine Gemeinde, Mennonites, Molotschna, Peter Brock (historian), Russian Mennonite, Selbstschutz

“BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE”: THE MENNONITE SELBSTSCHUTZ IN MOLOTSCHNA, UKRAINE, 1918-1920

RYRIE JOHANNA DIRKSEN

B.A., Nipissing University, 2021

A MRP SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS IN HISTORY

THE SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

NIPISSING UNIVERSITY

February 2021

ABSTRACT

In 1918, as World War I (WWI) was coming to an end in Russia, Mennonites who had historically immigrated to southern Russia (modern day Ukraine) from Germany, debated if they should take-up arms. While Mennonites are theological pacifists, the Bolshevik Red Army and

Ukrainian anarchists threatened their physical existence. This MRP asks how Mennonites perceived the threat of violence in southern Russia in 1918 and what motivated Mennonite men to join self-defence units called Selbstschutz. The MRP uses six testimonies of Selbstschutz members to contextualize the period and help understand how and why Mennonite men decided to go against their beliefs and arm the men in their community. The MRP challenges the narrative of Mennonite victimhood and demonstrates that Russian Mennonites were ultimately pragmatists who chose to defend their community rather than maintain theology. The formation of Selbstschutz units are a good example of the uneasy relationship between religious convictions and group survival, and the impact war has on both.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge my supervisor, Dr. Hilary Earl, for her support and mentorship throughout the process of writing my Major Research Paper. I am extremely appreciative for all the time she has taken to meet with me and discuss my many revisions. She has always challenged me to grow in my academic career and as a result I am a better historian.

Thank you to my committee members, Dr. Kozuskanich and Dr. Srigley, for their guidance and feedback. I would also like to thank Dr. Connor for encouraging me to apply to this Master’s program and his support throughout this experience. I want to acknowledge the Mennonite

Archives of Ontario, who digitized testimonies to assist in completing my research. I could not have gone through this experience without the support and encouragement that I received from my parents, grandmother, Esther, Uncle Paul, and other family members. I also want to thank everyone who has taken an interest in my research because they want to learn more about

Russian Mennonite history as it relates to their family history.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...... 1

HISTORIOGRAPHY ...... 9

METHODOLOGY ...... 16

IDENTITY ...... 21

CLASS ...... 28

GENDER ...... 42

CONCLUSION ...... 49

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 52

INTRODUCTION

On the evening of April 5, 1918, in Molotschna, Ukraine, Red Army soldiers shot Peter

Dirksen thinking he was a spy. Dirksen was a Mennonite estate owner living in Ukraine at the behest of the Czar. On that fateful evening, Dirksen and his family were hiding in a neighbour’s cellar to escape the First World War’s cross fire between the German and Russian fronts. He and two family members returned home to find their land, inventory, and belongings plundered by

Red Army soldiers. The Russian soldiers asked Dirksen if he knew the location of advancing

Germans.1 When Dirksen said no, the soldiers beat him.2 Shortly after, the Russian soldiers returned and shot Dirksen.3 I know this story because my grandfather, Jake Dirksen, was hiding in the cellar during his father’s execution.

The family history of this tragic night was passed down to me from my grandfather’s family, but it was not completely accurate. I was told that Russian Mennonites were victims of persecution by Ukrainian anarchists led by Nestor Makhno, which was true. Makhno’s aim was to redistribute land to peasants and was, therefore, considered a major threat to my great- grandfather and other Mennonite landowners. No wonder family lore held that Makhno was “the

Devil; an abstract embodiment of pure fear and evil,” someone who hated Mennonites and therefore my family.4 While Makhno worked for a Mennonite landowner, he was treated poorly and thus had no allegiance to his Mennonite boss. I was taught that Makhno wanted to kill

Russian Mennonites, like my great-grandfather, who were understandably characterized as victims of an ethnic-based conflict. It was not until I began researching the subject that I started to understand the complexity of the situation in Ukraine during World War I and the

1 Anna Epp Ens, The House of Heinrich: The Story of Heinrich Epp (1811-1863) of Rosenort, Molotschna and His Descendants, (Winnipeg, Manitoba: Published by the Epp Book Committee, 1980), 50. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Sean Patterson, Makhno and Memory: Anarchist and Mennonite Narratives of Ukraine’s Civil War, 1917-1921 (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 2020), 97.

Mennonites’ role in it. My understanding through family lore was that Peter Dirksen and other

Mennonites were completely innocent and passive. There was never any mention of how historically pacifist Mennonites took up arms to protect their land. Instead, I was told that

Mennonites were wealthy landowners who lived on large estates and made their wealth through farming. My family story is inaccurate because when Mennonites were faced with the issue of defending themselves or abiding by their faith, they chose to take up arms for defence.

In order to understand why Mennonites were targeted and needed to take up arms, context is needed to recognize the role that Mennonites played in Russian society. My

Mennonite family, like all Russian Mennonites, emigrated from Prussia in the eighteenth century to south Russia and agreed to farmland in exchange for privileges. Specifically, Mennonites enjoyed military exemption in Prussia until King Frederick Wilhelm II made it harder for them to acquire land because of their refusal to serve in the military. In 1786, Catherine the Great granted Mennonites some local autonomy and military exemption as part of Privilegium, privileges granted by the Russian government to attract settlers, primarily farmers, to large territories in south Russia.5 Although the Czar lent Mennonites land in exchange for economic development, Mennonites considered themselves landowners because they understood

Privilegium to be a “fundamental guarantee of their rights and privileges.”6 Mennonites saw

Privilegium as a way to maintain autonomy over their religious community and separate themselves from secular society. As time progressed, some Mennonites continued to view

Privilegium as a way to maintain autonomy and separation from secular society, while others understood that Privilegium was dependent on Mennonite involvement in the Russian economy.

5 The Mennonites who immigrated to Russia from Prussia refer to themselves as ‘Russian Mennonites.’ From here forward I will refer to this group simply as Mennonites. 6 In some cases, I refer to Mennonites as landowners because that is how they identified themselves. John Staples, “Religion, Politics, the Mennonite Privilegium in Early Nineteenth Century Russia: Reconsidering the Warkentin Affair,” Journal of Mennonite Studies vol. 21 (2003): 73.

In other words, Mennonites were granted privileges in exchange for agricultural economic services that would benefit the Czar and Russia’s economy.7 Farming provided Mennonites with an economic livelihood that made them a privileged group in the largely peasant-based Russian society. As the population in Mennonite settlements grew, so did their economy. As part of

Privilegium, Mennonites modernized their agricultural practices to ensure their farming would contribute to the Russian economy. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, Mennonites began to produce agricultural machinery and by the early twentieth century Mennonites had steam- powered flour mills and factories, which produced many mowers and plows.8 Ukrainians,

Russians, and some working-class Mennonites were employed in Mennonite farms and factories.

Working-class Mennonites also worked as servants to landlords and their families. Mennonites created and promoted their own civic and educational programs.9 Russian Mennonites formed their own unique community and culture including their own language dialect and food dishes loosely based on surrounding ethnic communities. The majority of the Molotschna colony was populated with Mennonites. The Molotschna colony is located northeast of the Black Sea

(modern day Ukraine) and was the second Mennonite colony established in Ukraine. Molotschna quickly became the largest and wealthiest colony. Apart from Mennonites, a few Lutherans, and

Catholics, other minority ethnicities also lived in the colony. Although most of the population considered themselves Mennonite, their beliefs differed slightly depending on the religious denomination they identified with. Mennonites developed a flourishing settlement and maintained their privileges until they came under threat with changes in Russian governance. In

1870, settlement privileges that Mennonites enjoyed were limited by Alexander II. One of the privileges under threat was military exemption. To maintain their military exemption,

7 Ibid. 8 Frank H. Epp et al., An Introduction to Mennonite History, ed. Cornelius J. Dyck (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1972), 137. 9 Ibid.

Mennonites sent representatives to St. Petersburg to bargain with the Russian government. As a compromise, in 1874 a law was passed that allowed Mennonites to perform alternative service.

Alternative service was not supported by the entire Mennonite community. Although many

Mennonites agreed that as long as they were not bearing arms, they were still considered pacifists. However, other Mennonites thought alternative service infringed on their nonresistance because alternative service assisted the war effort. There was no agreement among the community and as a result, many Mennonites immigrated to Canada where they continued to practice military exemption.

Young Mennonites attended Russian institutions of higher learning, such as universities, and it was not surprising that Mennonites later volunteered to assist Russia in World War I by assisting the medical units, performing administrative duties, or even acting as chauffeurs for the

Russian army.10 Since many ethnic Russians viewed Mennonites as German colonists, and

Germany was Russia’s enemy during World War I, Mennonites were considered untrustworthy.

As a result, many Mennonites completed alternative service on the Turkish, rather than German front.11 The impact of the war was evident in everyday Mennonite life. There were labour shortages and Russian workers began destroying Mennonite property. In 1918, Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik Revolution against Czarist imperialism, sent out decrees abolishing private property. Mennonite settlers felt the impact of the new laws as peasants stole inventory, property, and in some cases used violence against Mennonite farmers.12 Thus, Mennonites needed to find ways to protect their land.

10 Jacob Fast, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, June 13-14, July 13, 1976. 11 Henry Hiebert, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, August 13, 27, 1976. 12 Gislason. Rückenau: The History of a Village in the Molotschna Mennonite Settlement of South Russia: from Its Founding in 1811 to the Present, 98.

Historically, Mennonites have been pacifists and under the Czar they were protected.

When the Czar was overthrown by the Bolsheviks during the Revolution in 1917, their position as privileged landlords became precarious. Mennonites and Germans were natural allies under these circumstances and in March 1918, Germans occupied Mennonite colonies and protected them from anarchists and Russian and Ukrainian peasants who wanted their land. This protection lasted until November 1918 when Germans withdrew from Ukraine. Without protection from the

Germans, Mennonites (mostly men) debated whether or not they should take up arms to protect their land and families. This was not such an easy decision as it might seem. Mennonites are a

Protestant Christian group, descended from the sixteenth century Dutch Anabaptist reform movement. One of the group’s most important theological tenets is pacifism, the belief and practice that disputes should be settled through peace rather than armed conflict. Non-violence is not the only way to be passive. Pacifists can be active in non-violent ways. In some sense, passivity and activity are false dichotomies. Under the circumstances of a violent civil war, an international war, and transformations to the economy, expecting Mennonites to roll over and allow their livelihoods to be taken seems unrealistic. It is also easy to see how theologically,

Mennonites altered their faith to justify bearing arms because there was no other way to survive given the circumstances. There is not one uniform way to practice pacifism, however, one form of pacifism is nonresistance. Nonresistance opposes physical (armed) resistance against authority despite unjust circumstances, even physical harm. Mennonites practiced nonresistance during the war, but at war’s end Russia was in the throes of a bloody civil war between the White Army and the Red Army. The White Army were an anti-communist party that supported the Czar and wanted to restore the Czarist regime. The Red Army, consisting of peasants and workers, were a communist party that supported Lenin and his communist ideology. Those groups who sought to destroy the empire identified Mennonites as enemies of the Revolution because of their

6 privileged status as supporters of the Czar, their ideological enemy. Ukrainian and Russian

Mennonites had a vast amount of land, which was historically granted to them, and private property was anathema to Marxist thinking, the core of Bolshevik ideology. Thus, both the

Bolshevik Red Army and Ukrainian anarchists under the leadership of Makhno threatened the very existence of Mennonite communities living in the empire. This situation forced Russian

Mennonite men, for the first time, to consider bearing arms for self-defence. Taking up arms meant going against cultural practices and the theological belief in pacifism. Ultimately,

Mennonites gave into practical needs and formed Selbstschutz units, or armed militia, that went against the pacifist doctrine and acted in self-defence of Mennonite communities and property.

There was a tense relationship between wealthy Mennonite landlords and the Ukrainian peasants who worked for them. Molotschna was a wealthy colony and Mennonites paid

Ukrainian peasants very little and, in some cases, abused them. The 1905 Revolution was the first time Ukrainian peasants were able to revolt against their employers and they began to steal land and inventory.13 With the abdication of the Czar in 1917, Mennonites no longer had guaranteed privileges or land. Lenin’s rule presented another opportunity for Ukrainian peasants to rise up against their Mennonite oppressors and attain the land that Ukrainians historically worked. Nestor Makhno led an insurgent army made up of Ukrainian peasants, which provided an opportunity to continue the goal of the 1905 Revolution.14 While Makhno was building his insurgency, German soldiers were stationed in Mennonite villages after the Treaty of Brest-

Litovsk was signed on March 3, 1918. Mennonites were thrilled with the arrival of the Germans, in part because Mennonites considered themselves German and in part because they thought the

Germans would protect them. When Germany withdrew from Ukraine in November 1918,

13 Jacob Fast, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, June 13-14, July 13, 1976. 14 Ukrainian peasants who fought under the leadership of Nestor Makhno are referred to as Makhnovists.

Mennonites experienced renewed violence by the Makhnovists who invaded villages, stole inventory, land, and committed violence against the vulnerable Mennonite community. Violence was not only a problem in the Molotschna colony. Other colonies also voted to form Selbstschtuz units. The Mennonite Jasykowo colony, located north of Molotschna, was known to have the most aggressive Selbstschutz units.15 Selbstschtuz units sometimes allied with the White Army.

Selbstschutz alliance with the White Army meant that Selbstschutz units were also fighting against the Red Army. Mennonites were in a position where pacifism was almost impossible to maintain if they wanted to survive. Maintaining historical pacifism meant being killed. Even if the decision was easy to make, some Mennonites were unsure of how taking up arms would affect their faith. Mennonites thus met as a large group to determine a stance on whether to take up arms and how faith would factor into that decision. Mennonites did not abandon their pacifism, but rather altered how they interpreted pacifism in light of their complex violent circumstance, which left no alternative to bearing arms if Mennonites wanted to survive.

To discuss taking up arms for defence, there was a meeting in Lichtenau, Molotschna, southern Ukraine, in the summer of 1918. The Lichtenau meeting discussed the theological dilemma the Mennonites encountered and the possible formation of organized Selbstschutz units.

Selbstschutz units were the antithesis of nonresistance. Mennonites faced the question of whether to uphold their pacifist beliefs and traditions or defend themselves using arms/weapons. The meeting had representatives of both positions. The goal of the meeting was for the Mennonite

Church to take an official stance on the Selbstschutz question. Ultimately, the Lichtenau meeting re-iterated that nonresistance was one of the highest Christian ideals. The meeting’s dichotomous position caused anxiety and uncertainty in Mennonite communities.16 Mennonite men

15 Patterson, Makhno and Memory: Anarchist and Mennonite Narratives of Ukraine’s Civil War, 1917-1921, 110. 16 Each Mennonite village also voted on whether their individual village would form a Selbstschutz unit. Pastva, Rudnerweide, Petershagen, and Fischau, were the villages in Molotschna that did not form Selbstschutz units.

8 individually made the choice whether or not to join Selbstschutz units. Those who did not agree with the lack of penalty for those who joined units, perished with their beliefs. Lichtenau was a theological turning point because it allowed Mennonites to go against their beliefs and bear arms if they chose, without fear of penalty. Russian Mennonites seldom talk about Selbstschutz units because the Mennonite Church “later condemned the Selbstschutz as both a tactical blunder and a violation of historic Biblical nonresistance.”17

This research agrees that Selbstschutz units went against biblical nonresistance but challenges previous explanations of why the Church and its members formed the units and how the violent units impacted their community. The main questions my research seeks to answer are how Mennonites perceived the threat of violence in southern Russia in 1918, what motivated men to join Selbstschutz units, and how the rejection of pacifism impacted the community. To answer these questions, I employ six testimonies that contextualize the period and help us to understand how the Mennonite community functioned during the Selbstschutz dilemma. Unlike early Mennonite historians who rely on faith as their primary analytical category, I use identity, class, and gender as categories of analysis. Economic and social tensions were the basis of the violent conflict in Russia and placed Mennonites in a position that frustrated many Ukrainian peasants who were unable to attain the same level of wealth. When peasants took action against

Mennonites and their land, Mennonites chose to take up arms to defend their economic wealth.

In addition to these class tensions, Mennonites identified themselves differently from their neighbours based on social features including citizenship, faith, and heritage, and they debated going against their faith and bearing arms when their communities, values, and privileges were threatened by anarchists. Taking up arms meant refining what it meant to be a Mennonite

Gislason. Rückenau: The History of a Village in the Molotschna Mennonite Settlement of South Russia: from Its Founding in 1811 to the Present,102. 17 Epp et al., An Introduction to Mennonite History, 141.

9 nonresistant, challenging the idea that Mennonites strictly abide by their pacifist beliefs. The decision to bear arms forced a reconsideration of established gender roles and divided the community between those who wanted to preserve their nonresistant faith and those who wanted men to physically defend the traditional middle-class Mennonite lifestyle. When Mennonite men met to discuss this dilemma, armed defence of Mennonite privilege outweighed maintaining a

“strong” faith. Mennonites were therefore not simply ‘victims,’ but many Mennonite men actively participated in the violent conflict beyond self-defence purposes. Far from being dogmatic theologians, as this MRP will demonstrate, Russian/Ukrainian Mennonites were ultimately pragmatists who defended their community to the extent that Selbstschutz actions became more catastrophic than the original purpose of self-defence, going against how the

Mennonite community functioned at its core while also challenging the narrative of Mennonite victimhood.

HISTORIOGRAPHY

Recent academic scholarship and newly opened archives are challenging the Mennonite narrative I was taught.18 In recent decades, Soviet and Ukrainian archives have opened and

Mennonite scholars, such as Aileen Friesen and Paul Toews, have used Soviet and Ukrainian archives to better understand the Mennonite experience in Russia during 1918. In the early twenty-first century, Toews conducted research in several Ukrainian archives, but spent most of his time in the Odessa archives. Soviet and government documents contained information regarding the “assessments, concerns, fears, recognition, restrictions, and persecution of the

18 The late scholar Paul Toews was one of the first Mennonite scholars to conduct research in Ukrainian archives in the early twenty-first century. Toews conducted research in Ukrainian archives such as Simferopel, Zaporizhzhia, Dnipropetrovsky, Kiev, and Lviv. Within these Ukrainian archives, Toews found information about how Russian Mennonite settlements were increasingly involved in Russian society and industrialization. Paul Toews, “Ukrainian Archives Continue to Yield Documents Key to Unlocking the Early Mennonite Story,” California Mennonite Historical Bulletin no. 38 (Spring 2003): 4-5. Aileen Friesen and Paul Toews, The Russian Mennonite Story: The Heritage Cruise Lectures (Winnipeg, MB: Centre for Transnational Mennonite Studies, 2018).

Mennonite world,” which caused Toews to re-evaluate the traditional Russian Mennonite story.

Mennonite history has transitioned from being focused on religion to scholars such as Abraham

Friesen analyzing the role of class and identity within Mennonite history. Scholars, such as

Marlene Epp, have analyzed masculinity and the role of women in different communities both in

Mennonite and external contexts. Despite identifying as nonresistant, Mennonites taking up arms provides insight into how minority resistance groups develop during times of conflict.

My grandparents respectively immigrated from Ukraine to Canada in the 1920s during the second wave of immigration.19 Most Russian Mennonites and former Selbstschutzlers immigrated to Canada during this time.20 These Russian Mennonite immigrants were the first to write about their history and persecution experience in German and English. Not all Mennonites believed the violence toward them in Russia was unnecessary persecution. Some Mennonites believed their suffering was justified, viewing violence as God’s punishment because the community was increasingly focused on land and wealth, disregarding their faith and the nonresistance principle. Russian Mennonite history and Canadian/American Mennonite history were parochial and written for other Mennonites. Those outside the Mennonite community were not interested. Mennonite history was originally written by prominent men in the community.

Not surprisingly, the first wave of Mennonite history was religious. Some Mennonite historians argued that “Mennonite writers should write within the Mennonite covenant community and be bound to its discipline.”21

In the 1960s, scholarship changed. Mennonites who studied their own history and were trained “in secular graduate schools have adopted the methodologies and models of scholarly

19 The first wave of Russian Mennonite immigration was during the late 1870s. 20 Selbstschutzler is a term used for those who fought in Selbstschutz units. In 1922, the Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization was formed to assist with the large number migrants to Canada. Gislason. Rückenau: The History of a Village in the Molotschna Mennonite Settlement of South Russia: from Its Founding in 1811 to the Present, 135. 21 T.D. Regehr, “Historians and the Canadian Mennonite Experience,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 73 no. 3 (1999): 444.

11 discourse and writing,” intended for the academic community, was the result.22 Many

Mennonites feared that if Mennonite history was written using secular methodologies, it would not be distinctive from the history of other minority groups. Community-written Mennonite history thus came into conflict with academia because secular history challenged the narrative of

Mennonites as victims. Scholarly Mennonite history challenged the way Mennonites were portrayed. Before and sometimes after the 1960s, Mennonites were portrayed as an innocent, faithful group, who were victims of persecution in Russia.

Selbstschutz scholarship debated what motivated Mennonites to abandon the nonresistance principle. Scholars originally argued the tension over Selbstschutz units was a religious dilemma based on protecting biblical nonresistance. In the 1980s, when scholarship was written for the academy, the debate shifted away from religion and scholars challenged narratives that portray Mennonites as “innocent victims” targeted because of their religious privileges, forcing Mennonites to bear arms.23 Historically, Mennonites used the political system to maintain their community, economy, and education while also upholding their religious beliefs.

Russian Mennonites underwent an identity crisis before and after World War I (WWI) when there was a push for a nationalized Russian state and Mennonites sought to defend their privileges.24 Although prior arguments state that Selbstschutz units were formed for self-defence, contradictory arguments demonstrate that the use of violence was intended to defend Mennonite privileges at all costs.25 Selbstschutz units were created in response to conflict that was part of the Russian Revolution. Mennonite suffering needs to be understood in the context of the

22 Ibid., 445. 23 James Urry,“ After the Rooster Crowed: Some Issues Concerning the Interpretation of Mennonite/Bolshevik Relations during the Early Soviet period,” Journal of Mennonite Studies vol. 13 (1995): 43. 24 Abraham Friesen, In Defense of Privilege: Russian Mennonites and the State Before and During WWI (Winnipeg, Manitoba: Kindred Productions, 2006), x. 25 Selbstschutzlers, such as Gerhard Lorenz, argued that the units were formed for self-defence. Other scholars such as Abraham Friesen and Lawrence Klippenstein argue that the units were formed to protect Mennonite privilege.

Russian Revolution and the loss of their socio-economic status. Scholarship solely on the

Russian Revolution seldom includes Mennonites and focuses on larger movements including

Nestor Makhno and his Ukrainian insurgent army. Mennonite history should also be analyzed in its political context. Mennonite identity needs to include their relationship to political issues and how Mennonites used politics to maintain their identity.26 Scholars, such as James Urry and

Abraham Friesen, in the past two decades have begun to research the role of Mennonite identity in relation to the state and political changes. Apart from identity, scholars such as Marlene Epp are addressing areas of Mennonite history that have been overlooked, such as gender.

Scholarship on gender in Mennonite history developed in the late twentieth century and initially asked questions regarding the role of Mennonite women in their community. Scholars are increasingly studying masculinity in Mennonite communities. Marlene Epp, for instance, in her article “Heroes or Yellow Bellies? Masculinity and the Conscientious Objector,” examines how gender shaped identity and how gender is constructed for those who do not follow the norms of military service. Epp raises questions including what Mennonites consider to be a ‘real man.’ In other words, is a Mennonite man one who stays faithful to his pacifist faith or takes up arms when necessary. Similarly, Erin Bell examines masculinity in the Quaker’s Peace

Testimony, a testimony which outlines the Quaker’s dedication to peace and non-violence, and argues religious and cultural groups consider themselves separate from mainstream society and offer different understandings of gender norms.27 The study of Selbstschutz units can be used to understand how the debate over taking up arms emphasized different masculinities in the community and placed gender in competition with faith. The introduction of Mennonites as

‘protectors’ of women and vulnerable people challenged previous gendered understandings of

26 James Urry, Mennonites, Politics, and Peoplehood: Europe-Russia-Canada 1525-1980 (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 2006), xii. 27 Erin Bell, “The Early Quakers, the Peace Testimony and Masculinity in England, 1660-1720,” Gender and History vol. 23, no. 2 (August 2011): 283-284.

13 men being pacifists. There is little scholarship examining women’s perspectives and role in

Mennonite nonresistance. My research examines the role of women in Mennonite nonresistance in comparison to women in other religious groups, such as Quakers. Although men were dominant in both Quaker and Mennonite communities, Quaker women had more agency than

Mennonite women. Contrary to Mennonite nonresistance, Hicksite Quakers associated nonresistance with advocacy for women’s rights.28 Hicksite Quakers split from Orthodox

Quakers in 1827 because Hicksites thought Orthodox Quakers were focused too much on materialism, making them unholy. Epp’s book, Mennonite Women in Canada: A History demonstrates the role that women played in the Mennonite community and the Church. This assists in understanding Mennonite women’s views toward Selbstschutz units in comparison to men. Gender is not the only aspect affected by different religious interpretations of the nonresistance principle.

The role of Selbstschutz units fits into historiography regarding religious pacifist groups and minority resistance movements. One of the foremost scholars in pacifism and religious war resistance was historian Peter Brock. Brock's research on war resistance examines the history of pacifism, its relationship to the state, and the dilemma between faith and circumstance. He primarily compares Christian denominations including Plymouth Brethren, Quakers, and

Mennonites. Brock argues that pacifist ideology is rooted in the Christian tradition, but is also practiced in eastern religions. In addition to Brock’s work on pacifism, there is extensive scholarship regarding the response and action of religious groups to wartime demands of military service. Robynne Healey argues the Great War was a catalyst for religious groups acting on their pacifist beliefs.29 Scholarship on resistance has highlighted the complexity of what it means to be

28Thomas D. Hamm, “Hicksite Quakers and the Antebellum Nonresistance Movement,” Church History vol. 63 no. 4 (December 1994): 562. 29 Robynne Healey, “Quakers and Mennonites and the Great War,” in Canadian Churches and the First World War, ed. by Gordon L. Heath (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 219.

14 a pacifist and scholars debate what is considered “resistance.” Although there is increasing scholarly work on resistance, scholars may not always have a uniform conception of resistance.30

One issue with a loose definition of resistance is scale. A broad definition specifies the degree of the resistance action or whether it was committed by an individual or a group.31 Scholars in

Jewish historiography also faced the issue of defining “resistance.” Historiography on Jewish resistance originally focused on armed uprisings. Scholars argued that Jewish resistance needed to be defined in a larger context. For instance, Dan Michman argues the Hebrew term amid represents all forms of resistance: armed conscious resistance, nonviolent conscious resistance, and nonviolent unconscious resistance.32 There is no all-encompassing term for Mennonites and my research on the debate over Selbstschutz units highlights the complexity of what Mennonites defined as their nonresistance principle. Tension regarding Selbstschutz units was a result of

Mennonites disagreeing over what it meant to practice biblical nonresistance. Prior to

Selbstschutz units, practicing Mennonite nonresistance meant refusing to bear arms but performing alternative service. In light of Selbstschutz units, many Mennonites thought biblical nonresistance allowed bearing arms for self-defence if necessary. There was a small group of

Mennonites who believed that any participation that benefitted violence or the war effort, including war taxes and serving in the medical core, went against biblical nonresistance.

Conflict over what is considered proper Mennonite nonresistance is still debated among Russian

Mennonite communities today, thus Mennonite scholars who write about resistance tend to work with a loose definition that encompasses different forms of resistance.

30 Jocelyn A. Hollander and Rachel L. Einwohner, “Conceptualizing Resistance,” Sociological Forum vol.19, no. 4 (2004): 534. 31 Ibid., 534. 32 Ben Braber, This Cannot Happen Here: Integration and Jewish Resistance in the Netherlands, 1940-1945 (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013), 4.

Early attention to resistance history came out of immigrant communities, rather than the academy.33 Michael Geyer, a German historian who studied resistance to the Third Reich, states that parts of resistance historiography are “societal groups and sub-cultures that defended their space through cunning and the tenacity of localisms.”34 Resistance often stems from groups and/or cultures that are determined to protect their physical space no matter what the cost.

Groups, such as Russian Mennonites, went to great lengths to defend their communities because of the cultural connection Mennonites felt with their physical community. Russian Mennonite culture was developed and adapted based on their geographic location. When Russian

Mennonites emigrated to Canada, they wanted to maintain their culture and history and wrote about their resistance experiences during the Revolution.

Access to Soviet and Ukrainian documents provide scholars with narratives that at times contrast Mennonite accounts. In his book, The Makhnos of Memory: Mennonite and Makhnovist

Narratives of the Civil War in Ukraine, 1917-1921, Sean Patterson analyzes the role of

Selbstschutz units and Nestor Makhno’s indirect relationship with the 1919 Eichenfeld massacre to argue that violent conflict was a result of class-based terror.35 Patterson gets to this conclusion by comparing Makhnovist and Mennonite narratives and literature. Patterson highlights how some Mennonite scholars alter historical accounts to portray Selbstschutz units as heroes fighting against the ‘evil’ Makhnovists.36 Studying Makhnovist narratives provides different perspectives of Mennonites aside from them being ‘victims’ and places them in the larger context of the

33 Barbara Falk, “Resistance and Dissent in Central and Eastern Europe: An Emerging Historiography,” East European Politics & Societies vol. 25, no. 2 (May 2011): 325. 34 Michael Geyer, “Resistance as an Ongoing Project: Visions of Order, Obligations to Strangers, Struggles for Civil Society,” The Journal of Modern History 64 (December, 1992): 222. 35The village of Eichenfeld is located in the Jasykowo colony, north of Molotschna. In June 1919, the Jasykowo Selbstschutz killed four Red soldiers (who were working alongside Makhnovist troops), which was a pretense for the Eichenfeld massacre. On November 8, 1919, Makhnovist troops killed the leader of the Eichenfeld Selbstschutz and then executed men in the village who were over the age of sixteen. Patterson, Makhno and Memory: Anarchist and Mennonite Narratives of Ukraine’s Civil War, 1917-1921, 110, 131. 36 Ibid., 97.

Ukrainian insurgent army and its goals. My MRP adds to Mennonite history by using class, identity, and gender to analyze the role of Selbstschutz units and how the units assist in challenging victimhood. Although gender has been used to analyze masculinity and conscientious objectors, my research adds to the field by studying how masculinity influenced why Mennonite chose to take up arms during violent conflict. My research also contributes to understanding how and why minority groups resist against violence and persecution.

My MRP will include Mennonite and non-Mennonite secondary scholarship, whereas my primary sources will be from solely Mennonite sources as my research focuses on the Mennonite narrative and their role in the conflict.

METHODOLOGY

When Mennonites emigrated from Ukraine, they did their best to preserve their culture in a foreign land such as Canada. Many Mennonites who immigrated to Canada recorded their experiences in journals, newsletters, and other publications, many of which were translated and distributed globally. Many Mennonites who emigrated wrote about their experiences in German and English. The opportunities for oral interviews, translated documents, and opened Soviet and

Ukrainian archives have allowed scholars to further analyze Ukrainian and Soviet resistance movements. Mennonite scholars have taken this opportunity to gather information regarding

Mennonite resistance and Ukrainian insurgent armies, assisting my research by placing

Mennonite narratives in the broader context of the Russian Revolution and providing information about class, gender, and identity within Selbstschutz units and Mennonite communities.

The main sources I use in my MRP are diaries and oral testimonies written at the time of their events or recorded after the fact. The testimonies of Selbstschutzlers were recorded between

1976 and 1978 and they help to elucidate the individual experiences that made up the decision- making, participation, and membership of Selbstschutz units. Testimonies also shed light on how

Mennonite communities functioned and operated in the context of war. Following their mass immigration to Canada after World War I, Mennonites did not speak about their experiences in

Russia, let alone their experience in Selbstschutz units. These units were considered a taboo topic because of the community’s opposition to violence.

Much of what is known about the inner workings of Selbstschutz units comes from interviews with its members, Selbstschutzlers. The interviews I use for this MRP are from the oral history project “Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s,” found at the Mennonite Archives of Ontario. In 1976, the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) provided a grant to the Institute of Anabaptist-Mennonite Studies at Conrad Grebel College for this oral history project to be conducted.37 The Peace and Social Concerns Committee (PSCC) launched the “promotion of biblical peace education” for the public because the committee thought “many constituency congregations have at best a weak understanding and commitment to the biblical basis for involvement in peace and social concerns.”38 Walter Klaassen, a historian who taught at Conrad Grebel College in the Religious Studies and History departments until his retirement in 1991, applied to the PSCC, MCC, and Mennonite Historical Society for funding to assist with an oral history project that would gather information about Russian Mennonite experiences during the Bolshevik Revolution.39 Klaassen planned for the project to begin in

Ontario, with hope that Mennonite organizations in Western Canada would continue the work.40

As part of the original Ontario project, Henry Pakteau and Stan Dueck conducted the interviews

37 The Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) is an organization that represents certain Mennonite denominations in North America. The MCC is a peace agency that provides relief services globally. https://uwaterloo.ca/mennonite- archives-ontario/sound-recordings-oral-history-projects/russian-mennonite-immigrants-oral-history-project 38 The Peace and Social Concerns Committee was a subcommittee of the MCC formed in 1965 until 1997-1998 when it was replaced with the Peacebuilders Programme. https://uwaterloo.ca/mennonite-archives- ontario/mennonite-organizations-and-institutions/mennonite-central-committee-ontario/peace-and-social-concerns 39 The funding application also included grants for an oral interview project of Mennonites and alternative service in World War II and an oral history workshop. 40 "Memo from Walter Klaassen to the Mennonite Historical Society of Canada, December 3, 1975, in March 1976 MCCC board minutes,” Mennonite Central Committee Archives.

18 between 1976 and 1978 under Klaassen’s direction.41 During his professional career, Klaassen published several articles and was involved in the publication of the book An Introduction to

Mennonite History. Klaassen believed that these interviews would be invaluable to historians and the history of Mennonites in Canada because of limited primary sources on personal experiences, especially from Russian Mennonites.42 The interviews were conducted in English, German, High and/or Low German. The interview tapes were collected at the end of the project and preserved in the Mennonite Archives of Ontario at Conrad Grebel College (CGC).43 The archives also contain biographical and interview summaries. These oral histories provide personal perspectives and memories of Selbstschutzlers and show how each member’s perspective differs in terms of culture, class, and identity. This project is based on six testimonies, which were recorded in

English, from Klaassen’s oral history project.44 The six testimonies come from men who participated in Selbstschutz units in the Molotschna colony, Abram Dick, Alex Classen, Jacob

Fast, Henry Goertz, Henry Hiebert, and Jacob Klassen, the focus of this study. The men in these testimonies were approximately the same age but represented different classes, religious affiliations, and experiences during and after the war.

Memories are often informed by interview dynamics. These interviews were conducted as life reviews, which are used with elderly interviewees, as the men in these testimonies were in

41 Walter Klaassen received his doctorate from Oxford University in 1960. Klaassen taught at Bethel College (North Newton, Kan.) from 1961-1964. Klaassen was also the chaplain at Conrad Grebel, where he also taught, from 1964- 1970. “Walter Klaassen,” Mennonite Archives of Ontario, University of Waterloo, January 2, 2018, https://uwaterloo.ca/mennonite-archives-ontario/personal-collections/walter-klaassen. “Walter Klaassen,” Conrad Grebel University College, November 2, 2016, https://uwaterloo.ca/grebel/people-profiles/walter-klaassen. Henry Paetkau attained his Master’s in History degree from the University of Waterloo and his PhD from Western University. Paetkau was a minister for the Mennonite Church of Canada and served as President of Conrad Grebel University College from 2003-2011.https://canadianmennonite.org/paetkau-serve-mc-canada-interim-executive- minister 42 "Memo from Walter Klaassen to the Mennonite Historical Society of Canada, December 3, 1975, in March 1976 MCCC board minutes,” Mennonite Central Committee Archives. 43 Conrad Grebel University is the Mennonite college associated with the University of Waterloo. 44 The oral history project consists of 82 interviews.

19 their late seventies when interviewed.45 In life reviews, the interviewees are asked by a younger interviewer to recall their life story and experiences.46 The interview began by the interviewee sharing who they were and some important moments from their experience in Russia. The interviewer then asked more formal questions regarding biographical information, experiences during the Russian Revolution, views toward the Russian government, and their life post- revolution. Some interviewees were asked more questions regarding life within the Mennonite community, emigration experiences, and their adjustment to Canadian society. Questions about

Selbstschutz units were integrated throughout the interview. While undoubtedly many have forgotten some specific details, their memory appears to be intact. Memories are reflections of personal experiences and personal experiences are influenced by social and political needs.

Memories can sometimes change as people try to make sense of their past.47 Changing memories are not lies as the past is not in fixed time but exists in relationship to the present. Changes in memory do “not mean that [interviewees] do not remember [events] clearly, but that there has been a change in political opinions or personal circumstances.”48 Interviewees had to express their memory and understanding of the past in such a way that an outsider would understand.49

The men tried to convey the contextualization of what conditions in Russia were like, how their community functioned, and their Mennonite faith. The interviewer came from a Mennonite background and was familiar with the Mennonite faith. In some cases, when the interviewee could not translate or explain a concept in English, he would ask the interviewer if he was familiar with the German language and then they would communicate in German briefly. It is

45 Katrina Srigley, Breadwinning Daughters: Young Working Women in a Depression-Era City, 1929-1939 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010), 10. 46 Joanna Bornat, “Oral History” in Qualitative Research Practice, ed. Clive Seale (London: Sage Publication, 2007), 36. 47 Alessandro Portelli, “What Makes Oral History Different,” in The Oral History Reader, 3rd ed., ed. Robert Perks and Alistair Thomson (London: Routledge, 2016), 55. 48 Ibid., 55. 49 Fred Allison, “Remembering a Vietnam War Firefight,” in The Oral History Reader, 3rd ed., ed. Robert Perks and Alistair Thomson (London: Routledge, 2016), 339.

20 important for the interviewee to explain his memory of an event in a way that both he and the interviewer can understand what took place. Interviews show how people make sense of the past, including "explanations, context, drama, value, significance, and justification.”50 Recollections later on in life can sometimes be more helpful to historians because the interviewees better understand the choices and actions they made. Thus, these Selbstschutzlers were able to better convey why they joined the units and committed violent acts in different circumstances.

When listening to testimony, it is important to consider how memories are constructed.

Selbstschutzler testimonies help to understand why those soldiers did what they did. Individual testimonies are used to understand who these men were, their motivations for joining

Selbstschutz units, individual attitudes, and their experiences serving in paramilitary groups.

These oral interviews reveal more than the detail of the men’s experiences in Selbstschutz units.

Interviewees also shared how they remember their individual experiences and what was meaningful to them about those experiences. In other words, they are sharing what was important to them, not necessarily historically reconstructing the event.51 Memory is influenced by individual and collective experiences. As Maurice Halbwach argues “all individual memory is socially framed. Collective memory is the sound of voices once heard by groups of people, afterwards echoing in an individual who was or is part of that group. It is a form of individual memory, socially constructed and maintained.”52 Collective memory changes alongside social structures and is influenced by time and location. At the end of the interviews, the men were asked to reflect on their experiences in Russia in comparison to their life in Canada.

Unsurprisingly, the men stressed the persecution they experienced in Russia in comparison to the

50 Ibid., 341. 51 Allesandro Portelli, “The Peculiarities of Oral History,” History Workshop vol. 12 no. 1, (1981): 99. 52 Maurice Halbwach, The Collective Memory, (New York: Harper & Row, 1980), 24, quoted in War and Remembrance in the Twentieth Century, edited by Jay Winter and Emmanuel Sivan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 24.

21 freedom and safety they experienced in Canada. In other words, because Mennonites experienced refuge and liberation in Canada, they remember their Russian experience to be the exact opposite of their free life. Although all individual memories are different, they are incorporated into collective memory. Collective memory is not historical or what historians say about the past.53 Rather, collective memory is produced and expressed by the group when they bring together shared personal, familial, and national experiences.54 Since collective memory is socially framed, it can change through generations. As Jay Winter and Emmanuel Sivan state,

“to recollect an event is to recall the viewpoint of the social group through whose eyes we see the event. Collective memory is thus the matrix of socially positioned individual memories.”55

Although the interviewees had different experiences and opinions of Selbstschutz units, their experiences fit in the narrative that Mennonites were victims of violent conflict and not agents of historical change. In each unique testimony, Selbstschutzlers reveal their different experiences and perspectives in Russian Mennonite communities, which work together to help us understand the complex position of Russian Mennonite communities choosing to bear arms.

IDENTITY

Mennonites who were born and resided in Russia identified as German, but this was not always the case with how Mennonites identified themselves. When WWI started, Russians considered Mennonites ‘enemy aliens’ and German culture was outlawed. It was not always clear if Mennonites self-identified as German or Russian. One example of conflicted identity is

Henry Goertz, a Selbstschutz member and one of the subjects of this MRP. Goertz was born in

1898 in Wernersdorf, Molotschna, and was from a working-class family. He served in a

53 Emmanuel Sivan and Jay Winter, “Setting the Framework,” in War and Remembrance in the Twentieth Century, ed. Emmanuel Sivan and Jay Winter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 8. 54 Ibid., 8. 55 Ibid., 24.

Selbstschutz unit and the White Army before fleeing to Terek. He immigrated to Canada in

1926.56 Goertz was working at a store when he was threatened by a Russian acquaintance who thought he was German.57 He was not. Goertz had always self- identified as Russian, after all he was born there. When he told his mother about the incident, she said Mennonites were of

German nationality but Russian citizens.58 Goertz was very familiar with German language and culture since Mennonites maintained a connection to their homeland and mother tongue. He identified as Russian because he, his father, and his grandfather were born in Molotschna and never moved. Before the war, Goertz got along well with Russians and spoke Russian as well as

German.59 Goertz’s Russian identity changed with the events of the Russian Revolution of 1917.

The Revolution divided its citizens and subjects. The Red Guard were paramilitary groups that supported and upheld Lenin’s power and communist ideology in Russia.60 The White Army was an anti-communist military group that fought against the Red Guard. Many Selbstschutzlers served under the White Army starting in 1919 because they shared a common enemy, the Red

Army. Goertz was an anti-communist Selbstschutzler who served in the White Army. He stated the White Army treated Selbstschutzlers well, despite their German-ness because Mennonites were loyal to the Czar. It was primarily Red Guardsmen and Soviet workers who viewed

Mennonites as a German threat. Mennonites were therefore considered a threat because of their

German heritage and because of their landlord status that conflicted with Soviet communist ideology, and of course, they were on opposite sides of the war. Communists and Soviet workers frequently told Mennonites that they were not Russian and Mennonites accepted what they were

56 Terek is in the Northern Caucasus region, located between the Sea of Azov and the Caspian Sea in south Russia. 57 Henry Goertz, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, July 19-20, 1976. 58 Henry Goertz, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, July 19-20, 1976. 59 Henry Goertz, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, July 19-20, 1976. 60 The Red Guards were later organized into the Red Army in 1918.

23 told about their identity. To separate themselves from their enemies, Mennonites embraced their

German identity. Goertz is one example of this. He identified as German when referring to his time in a Selbstschutz unit. Clearly, the war and Russian Revolution caused Goertz to identify as

German instead of Russian. Selbstschutlzers identified themselves as Germans who protected their people against external threats. However, it was more complicated than this. Mennonites did not simply identify as either German or Russian, it seemed to depend on how each

Mennonite interpreted their identity in light of their circumstances during conflict in Russia.

Not everyone felt as Russian as Goertz. Alex Classen, another Selbstschutz member, is one example. When asked about his feelings toward Russia, Classen stated, “We loved Russia just as our motherland, because our grandparents and our parents and we were born there already, [because of] Catherine the Great [our grandparents came to Russia, 152-158 years ago,] but we were kind of German descent, we looked up to Germany, but [none of us wanted] to live in Germany, that was our homeland.”61 Alex Classen was born in Cherson, Ukraine, December

23, 1898. He served in the Selbstschutz and the White and Red Armies. Classen did not see a future in Russia and immigrated to Canada in 1924. Classen died in 1977. Alex Classen’s perspective on his identity was similar to Goertz’s mother. Mennonites considered Russia to be a small part of their identity because generations of their ancestors were born and raised in Russia.

When the war started, Russians negatively viewed Mennonites because they were considered

Germans. To protect themselves from this treatment, some Mennonites embraced their heritage and identified themselves as Dutch. On March 3, 1918, when Molotschna became part of

Ukraine, Russian Mennonites were unsure how to identify themselves.

Although Russian Mennonites used culture, such as language, to distinguish themselves

61 Alex Classen, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, May 27, 1976.

24 from surrounding ethnic groups in Russia, they also used culture as a way to demonstrate their patriotism to Russia. In the Mennonite community, everyday conversations and Church services were conducted in German. “German” in Mennonite communities was more than just “one” language. Mennonites spoke different German dialects. The majority of Mennonites spoke

Plattdeutsch, a Low east German dialect, which included Dutch remnants brought to Russia by

Mennonites in the late eighteenth century.62 Descendants of Dutch settlers used Plattdeutsch to identify their ethnicity in Prussia.63 Plattdeutsch, which was Dutch in its origin (Dutch and

German are closely related), was spread to settlements as Mennonites spread out in Europe.

High German was less common, but was spoken in schools and Church. Low German was the language used at home and in informal settings. Mennonites were still required to learn Russian because they were Russian citizens. Many core subjects, especially in higher levels of education, were taught in Russian.64 During the war, only Russian was spoken in school. Regardless,

Mennonites continue to speak German today. Conducting sermons in their native German language helped communities retain their Mennonite identity that distinguished them from

Russians. Speaking Russian, rather than German, was enforced during the war because the two belligerents were on opposite sides of the conflict. Russians often looked down on Mennonites who spoke German. In light of this, some Mennonites, such as Henry Goertz, learned the

Russian language and Russian history in an effort to show their patriotism to Russia.65

Mennonites thought that if they identified more with Russian culture during the war, their loyalty to the Russian government would ensure their continued economic privileges.66

62 Jack Thiessen, “The Only Mennonite Heimat: Mennonite Low German,” Journal of Mennonite Studies, vol. 18 (2000): 159. 63 Ibid. 64 Alex Classen, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, May 27, 1976. 65 Henry Goertz, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, July 19-20, 1976. 66 Mennonites increasingly wanted to show their patriotism to Russia in light on German expropriation laws that were implemented during World War I.

In 1918, the Molotschna colony was considered Ukraine and some Mennonites were confused as to whether or not to identify as Ukrainian. Peter Dyck wrote “as to our citizenship, one concludes the following: we are Ukrainian, since we live or were born here.”67 When

Ukraine became independent in March 1918, there was not a united nation. Both eastern and western Ukraine had different conceptions of what a Ukrainian nation should look like.

Mennonites were another group in Ukraine who were trying to figure out where they fit in this new nation. Since Molotschna was no longer part of Russia, Mennonites such as Dyck, assumed

Mennonites would be considered Ukrainian. Mennonites did not always identity with the geographic location of Molotschna and primarily identified simply as Russian Mennonites.

Russian Mennonite identity was further characterized by religious and marital status.

Marriage practices were strongly influenced by the Church.68 Mennonite communities required

Mennonites to marry other Mennonites. Many Mennonites viewed the German soldiers as heroes since they were protecting their communities from external threats. Both young men and women were intrigued by young German soldiers. After the Germans withdrew from Ukraine, “an officer and a few soldiers stayed behind and some Mennonite girls married them and then moved away afterwards.”69 Mennonite communities did not approve of marriage between a Mennonite and a non-Mennonite. Mennonite identity was crucial to the community and although Germans were considered heroes in the village, the community still viewed them as outsiders. Mennonites did not approve of marriage outside their faith, let alone their community. Germans and their

Mennonite wives had no choice but to leave. Mennonite leaders did not want their community corrupted by more external influences.

67 Peter J. Dyck, Troubles and Triumphs 1914-1924, Translated by John P. Dyck (Springsetin, Manitoba: Regehr’s Printing, 1985), 54. 68 In today’s society, Mennonites suggest marrying other Christians and are no longer required to marry someone of the same denomination. 69 Jacob Klassen, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, August 11, 1976.

Russian Mennonite identity was not static and changed depending on circumstances.

Before the violent conflict started, Russian Mennonites worked to maintain their nonresistance, even if it meant finding loopholes for bearing arms, such as alternative service. At the onset of the First World War, York Friends (Quakers), formed a general conference quarterly meeting, similar to the Lichtenau meeting, to discuss the “present call to arms and its effects on peace principles.”70 The outcome was similar to the Lichtenau meeting and nonresistance and pacifism were encouraged with no penalty because there was no conclusive definition of what it meant to be nonresistant. Instead, there were multiple interpretations of the nonresistance principle. Using arms only when necessary let Mennonites maintain part of their pacifist ideology because they were only using violence when unavoidable.

Throughout the conflict, Mennonites increasingly used violence to protect their community, straying farther away from pacifist ideologies. The White Army, an anti-communist military group, later came to assist Mennonites in fighting their common enemy, the Red Army.

Selbstschutz units and the White Army frequently worked together to defend Mennonite communities. There were repercussions to Selbstschutz units. When Selbstschutzlers were violent, their enemies retaliated on a larger scale. Henry Hiebert, a Selbstschutzler, did not agree with the unnecessary violence of the units. Hiebert was born in 1896 in Neuhof, Molotschna, where his father managed an estate.71 In the case of what Hiebert recalls, protecting one’s family resulted in the destruction and murder of a whole community.72 There were a group of

Makhnovists who were held up in a house in Blumenort, Molotschna, but were not actively harming community members. White Army and Selbstschutz members concocted a plan to raid

70 David Rubinstein, York Friends and the Great War, Bothwick Paper No. 96. (York: Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, The University of York, 1999), 9. 71 Henry Hiebert, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, August 13, 27, 1976. 72 Henry Hiebert, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, August 13, 27, 1976.

27 this house, where a local house owner advised against their plan because they did not want the

White Army and Selbstschutz to spark violence in the community. The units did not listen and proceeded with their attack, which resulted in the Makhnovists retaliating against innocent individuals. This violent event, which is known as the Blumenort massacre, left 21 Mennonite men dead.73 B.B. Janz, an influential Mennonite leader, blamed his community stating, “all the murder of those days, all the conflagrations, all the rapes resulted from Mennonite armed resistance. Former members of the Selbstschutz as well as later members of the German battalion were directly responsible. We’re usually keep silent about this bitter fact.”74 Mennonites who were part of this attack knew and were warned by community members that their plan would only erupt and cause violence. Their plan to attack the Makhnovists was a choice instead of a defensive measure. Since this violence was not self-defence, there was no way to justify units as still adhering to nonresistance. As Selbstschutz units became more involved in other political groups, such as the White Army, it became more difficult to use violence only as necessary. The

Selbstschutz units became more distant from their original purpose, which was self-defence.

Some, like Hiebert, believed that Selbstschutz units destroyed the Russian Mennonite community. When Mennonites immigrated to Canada, they tried to stand by their nonresistance and attested they only used violence for self-defence. Mennonites did not acknowledge that fact that the units were responsible violence such as the Blumenort massacre. By not admitting their responsibility for these deaths, Mennonites were still able to salvage some of their nonresistance through arguments that units could be justified biblically. Mennonites altered their pacifist beliefs to account for the violent actions Mennonites took to survive. Despite being formed for the sole purpose of self-defence, Selbstschutz units took more lives than it saved, challenging

73 B.B Janz in “‘No Songs Were Sung at the Gravesite’ The Blumenort (Russia) Massacre (November 8-12, 1919),” ed. and trans. John B. Toews, Journal of Mennonite Studies vol. 13, no. 1 (January, 1995): 69. 74 Ibid., 69.

28 what Mennonites considered a nonresistant identity before 1917. The Mennonite Church needed to restore not only their community, but their pacifist identity when they established Russian

Mennonite communities in Canada.75

CLASS

Mennonites had some autonomy over religious, economic, and civic affairs when they first immigrated to Ukraine/Russia in the eighteenth century, and a social hierarchy emerged.

Every village in the colony had a mayor (Schulze) and an elected official who oversaw the colony (Oberschulze) and reported to Russian authorities. There was also a council consisting of one representative for every ten farmers.76 Apart from farmers, prominent men in Molotschna included teachers and ministers.77 In Molotschna, class mattered. Before the war, Goertz worked for a Mennonite landlord. Goertz states, “there was a class distinction. When you are asked then you talk, if not then you listen. Some fathers [landowners] were nice.”78 Landlords divided up their land and rented the parcels to young families as the population increased. The Czar did not agree with the parcelling of land. Those who owned land were wealthy and those who were landless workers were considered outsiders by wealthy Mennonites.79

In Mennonite communities, social class was based on the amount of land granted.

Although the land was granted to Mennonites by the Czar, Mennonites considered it to be their own land. Mennonite landlords were at the top of the social hierarchy and workers were second- class, and treated as such. Wealthy Mennonites made all the decisions in the community, with

75 John B. Toews,“ The Origins and Activities of the Mennonite Selbstschutz in Ukraine,” Mennonite Quarterly Review XLVI (January 1972): 39. 76 Gerhard Lohrenz and Victor G. Doerksen, Zagradovka: History of a Mennonite Settlement in Southern Russia (Winnipeg: CMBC Publications, 2000), 40. 77 Ibid., 40. 78 Henry Goertz, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, July 19-20, 1976. 79 Each original landowner received 176 acres of land, which later could not be divided. Epp et al., An Introduction to Mennonite History, 133.

29 little disregard for how the working-class was affected. Although not all wealthy Mennonites were harsh, many enforced the class distinction. Working-class Mennonites, like Goertz, understood how social status influenced who the working-class could talk to and when it was appropriate. Wealthy Mennonites maintained and enforced this social hierarchy. Wealth and land consciousness were some central features that distinguished Mennonite communities from surrounding Russian and Ukrainian villages. Since peasant villages were at the bottom of the social hierarchy, they were left to rule their own villages without supervision from the Russian gentry.80 Peasants were under local customary law and were largely denied the civil and property rights more wealthy citizens enjoyed under Czarist rule.81 The lack of peasant rights ensured that landlords, such as many Mennonites, maintained their power. Mennonite landlords felt superior and exhibited their wealth and social class by employing peasants from outside villages and borrowing ideas from their food and language to enhance Russian Mennonite culture.

When Mennonites first immigrated to Russia, they incorporated Ukrainian food into their traditional Mennonite dishes. Russian Mennonites altered Ukrainian food by slightly changing ingredients and the name of dishes. Russian Mennonite food is distinct from other Mennonite denominations because of Ukrainian influence. Mennonites used the ethnicities that surrounded them to enrich their own culture. In Molotschna, “cabbage was grown but it was not Kohl but

Komst and the Ukrainian soup was adopted, then slightly adjusted to the Mennonite taste minus the red beets retaining the name Borscht.”82 In the case of Borscht, Mennonites replaced the beets with tomatoes because that is what they grew in their fields.83 By modifying Ukrainian dishes, Mennonites were enhancing their culture based on their geographic location. Mennonites

80 Orlando Figes, A Peoples Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924, (London: Pimlico, 1997), 39. 81 Ibid., 40. 82 Jack Thiessen, “The Only Mennonite Heimat: Mennonite Low German,” Journal of Mennonite Studies, vol. 18 (2000): 159. 83 Ibid.

30 were farmers and immigrated to Russia to farm the land. Russian Mennonite food was made and adapted based on what was grown and what food was in season. These dishes became integral to

Russian Mennonite culture and their continuous farming brought Mennonites wealth and status within their community. For Russian Mennonites, their growing wealth and culture separated them from other rural ethnic communities, which were poorer than many villages in Molotschna.

As a result, Mennonites often felt superior to ethnicities in surrounding villages. Food was not the only way that Russian Mennonites distinguished themselves from other Mennonite sects.

In Prussia, Mennonite religious life was divided into denominations, emphasizing the different values and beliefs that existed in Mennonite communities. In Molotschna, many

Mennonites belonged to the Kleine Gemeinde Church.84 Kleine Gemeinde is a term used for a small congregation, because they were a small congregation when they were founded in 1814.

Kleine Gemeinde was founded because some Mennonites were unhappy with the decreasing spirituality of Mennonites in Molotschna.85 Kleine Gemeinde was legalistic, followed regular church discipline, and favoured excommunication over corporal punishment.86 In 1860, a group of eighteen Mennonites founded a new congregation, The Mennonite Brethren Church, because they felt Mennonites were weakening in their spiritual life and discipline through sinful actions.

Adult baptism derives from Anabaptist faith in the early sixteenth century in response to infant baptism by Protestants. The Mennonite Brethren Church emphasized adult baptism through immersion and re-baptism for those who were not immersed and/or converted from Kleine

Gemeinde.87 Abram Dick, a Selbstschutzler and another subject of this research, belonged to

84 In Canada, Kleine Gemeinde is also referred to today as the General Conference Church. 85 Epp et al., An Introduction to Mennonite History, 134. 86 Kleine Gemeinde is a term used for a small congregation, because they were a small congregation when they were founded in 1814. Kleine Gemeinde is also referred to today as the General Conference Church. Ibid. 87 Dick uses the term “General Conference” because he is comparing the religious experience in Russia to his religious experience in Canada. Many who belonged to the Kleine Gemeinde Church joined the General Conference Mennonite denomination in Canada.

Kleine Gemeinde. Abram Dick was born December 19, 1896, in Gnadenheim, Molotschna.

When asked about the difference between the Mennonite Brethren and General Conference he answered, “the only difference is in baptism…the teaching is the same.”88 While true in part, it is not this simple. Although Dick saw little difference between the denominations, other community members did not feel the same. While in Russia, General Conference elders told

Dick that the Mennonite Brethren Church “had to start…it was essential at that time but many didn’t agree.”89 Baptism was not the only factor that led to the creation of the Mennonite

Brethren Church. Mennonite Brethren believed the General Conference Church was declining in their moral and Christian values by drinking and performing other sinful actions. In other words,

Mennonite Brethren believed that economic success posed a threat to their faith. Mennonite

Brethren members wanted there to be a clear distinction between them and Kleine Gemeinde as the two groups differed on the importance of wealth. While Mennonite Brethren viewed the units as going against their faith, Selbstschutz supporters viewed nonresistance as a biblical tradition.

Armed self-defence was justified with scripture from the Old Testament (as it is referred to by

Christians).90 Stories such as Abraham rescuing Lot militarily, Samson and the Philistines, and

David killing Goliath were biblical justification. The tension between these two groups came to a head when Selbstschutz units were proposed and the community had to choose between spiritualism and materialism.

The traditional Mennonite lifestyle was in direct conflict with capitalistic tendencies.

Mennonites thought that capitalism promoted greed and pride, which separated Mennonites from their faith. Some Mennonites were “critical of Mennonite Gutsbesitzer, or estate owners, for their

88 Abram Dick, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, August 9, 1976. 89 Abram Dick, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, August 9, 1976. 90 I will refer to the Hebrew Bible using Christian theological terminology.

32 perceived greed and materialism.”91 An author in Friedensstimme, a Mennonite newspaper, accused “the landowners of arrogance, alcoholism, inter-marriage that “stunted their abilities,” flirting,” with servant girls, and the abuse of hired help.”92 The privileges Mennonites were granted to maintain their religious beliefs were the very thing that corrupted their faith. Rather than focus on their faith, Mennonite landlords became more concerned with their economic wealth and status. Pacifists perceived land liquidation and other revolutionary actions as punishment for their own sins, with hope that Mennonites would return back to their conservative Christian values. The controversial Selbstschutz units were a response to the violent class conflict in Russia. Class differences caused a divide in the Mennonite community before the violence began. Mennonite ‘sin’ was not only limited to a focus on materialism, but extended to social actions as well.93

The Mennonite Brethren denomination was represented at the Lichtenau Meeting in 1918 and advocated for the community to uphold their spiritual values and place less emphasis on protecting Mennonite wealth.94 Mennonite Brethren ministers were the primary voices opposing the formation of these units. Selbstschutz opposition was based on Jesus’ teachings in the New

Testament. The outcome of the meeting resulted in Mennonites having the option to join the units without spiritual penalty. In other words, the result of the meeting meant that God would not punish Mennonites if they joined Selbstschutz units and took up arms. Mennonite men altered how they interpreted pacifism and took up arms alongside fellow Germans. The

Mennonite Brethren Church agreed that nonresistance was the highest Christian principle, but did not approve of the men who chose to go against nonresistance. The outcome of the meeting

91 Patterson, Makhno and Memory: Anarchist and Mennonite Narratives of Ukraine’s Civil War, 1917-1921, 98. 92 Ibid., 99. 93 Natalie Wiebe, “Miriam Toews’ A Complicated Kindness: Restorying the Russian Mennonite Diaspora,” Journal of Mennonite Studies, vol. 28 (2010): 38. 94 The Lichtenau Meeting was an All-Conference meeting meaning that all Russian Mennonite denominations were present to discuss the Selbstschutz units and the nonresistance principle.

33 made it difficult to discern which was valued more, spirituality or materialism. Both sides used scripture to justify the importance of materialism and the economy to Mennonite livelihood.

Mennonites maintained their loyalty to the Russian government to ensure that their beneficial relationship would continue to exist despite changes in governance. When asked about his family’s feelings toward the Czar, Jacob Fast, a Selbstschutz member, born in 1901 in

Blumstein, Molotschna recalled “we got privileges from the Czar so why should we be against them?”95 Military exemption privilege was challenged before the Russian Revolution. Although

Mennonites maintained privileges from the Czar, they still faced obstacles to maintain those privileges. The Military Service Law of 1874 mandated conscription of males under 21.96 In response to the Czar’s universal military service law of 1874, Mennonite sent delegates to St.

Petersburg to ensure privileges and agreed to perform alternative service.97 Those who negotiated the accommodation for alternative service did so to maintain their privilege of not having to bear arms. Mennonites knew how to negotiate with the state so that they would be able to maintain their privileges while maintaining loyalty to the Czar. While some Mennonites found alternative service acceptable, others saw it as a violation of faith. Those who saw it as a violation of faith did not believe in having any connection with/to the war effort. Ultimately, many of these Mennonites immigrated to Canada to escape alternative service.

The nonresistance principle differed for everybody. For Quakers, a nonresistant meant to abide by their belief system, however, a nonresistant Hicksite Quaker had different views on government, force, and power that not many accepted. 98 This is quite similar to how the definition of nonresistance differed between Mennonite Brethren and Kleine Gemeinde.

95 Jacob Fast, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, June 13-14, July 13, 1976. 96 Epp et al., An Introduction to Mennonite History, 139. 97 Ibid. 98 Hamm, “Hicksite Quakers and the Antebellum Nonresistance Movement,” 560.

Although both Orthodox Quakers and Hicksites derived from the Quaker tradition, they had different beliefs of the state and principles such as nonresistance. Nonresistance was further characterized by denomination. Hamm writes, “for almost a century some Quakers had balked at paying war taxes and some nonresistants argued that to give support to any government by paying any tax was to compromise with evil. Abraham Brooke refused “for conscience sake” to do so.”99 There was no simple binary between bearing arms and being a nonresistant, it was more complex. Nonresistant groups had different views toward the degree of involvement in war.

Mennonites were no different. Most Mennonites understood alternative service as another privilege given to them by the Czar that helped to distinguish Mennonites from other minorities in Russia. These privileges placed Mennonites on the wrong side of conflict in Russia because

Russians and Ukrainians were not exempt from conscription and military service. The 1905

Revolution saw social and political upheaval in Russia by social groups such as peasants.

Since Mennonites were on the side of the Czar and enjoyed benefits and support, they faced hostility from peasants seeking social and political reform. By the mid-nineteenth century,

Mennonites had developed their economy through farming and landlords hired peasants to work the land for low costs. Gerhard Lorenz, a former Selbstschutz member, recalled, “If the labourers were Mennonites they slept in our home and ate at our table, but if they were Russian the girls slept in our home and the boys slept in a room with a bed in one corner of the barn. The Russian labourers ate apart.”100 Landlords were in a position of authority, and many considered peasants inferior.101 Mennonite workers shared the same faith, culture, and identity as landlords. Despite class differences, Mennonite workers were treated better than other workers. Russian and

99 Ibid., 561. 100 Gerhard Lohrenz in Patterson, Makhno and Memory: Anarchist and Mennonite Narratives of Ukraine’s Civil War, 1917-1921, 86. 101 There were a few Mennonites who did consider peasants equal because they also considered peasants as equal members in the Church. Epp et al., An Introduction to Mennonite History, 134.

Ukrainian peasants did not simply receive inferior treatment in terms of sleeping and eating arrangements. There were some cases where peasants faced physical harm from landlords.102

There was often no retaliation because workers knew that the farmers were favoured because of their wealth. Many peasants became frustrated with their conditions, and thus their employers.

Ukrainian peasants were thus against Mennonite landlords because they knew that Mennonites were technically landlords for Russian land that belonged to the Czar. Despite Mennonites viewing themselves as landowners, their land was still considered possessions of the Czar.

Mennonites were thus loyal to the Czar because they were afraid to lose their land. Tensions between working and privileged groups came to a head with land liquidation laws. Land liquidation laws in 1917 forced Mennonite landlords to give up their land to be redistributed equally among workers and peasants, while hostility between these two groups increased.

During the first Russian Revolution of 1905, tensions between peasants and landlords in the community grew. Jacob Fast stated that his “dad had more trouble at that time with the employees than he did in the second revolution.”103 Fast recalls one experience in particular where an employee became a leader during the revolution and broke into Fast’s house with a revolver demanding money.104 Mennonites thought they were superior because of their privileges. Russian and Ukrainian peasants had hostile feelings toward their employers because of class differences. In 1905, peasants’ hostile feelings turned into action. The revolution was a catalyst for peasants who began to take action to reform Russian society and politics. Peasants, such as those working for Fast’s father, banded together and threatened force against those who had money. The employees stole money and land from landlords as retribution for economic

102 Ibid., 86. 103 Jacob Fast, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, June 13-14, July 13, 1976. 104 Jacob Fast, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, June 13-14, July 13, 1976.

36 inequality in society. Mennonites needed a way to protect their land and recruited external help to assist with the increasing violent conflict.

Selbstschutz units were not the first time Mennonites felt the need to protect their land using weapons. During the 1905 Revolution, Mennonites enlisted the help of Cossacks to defend their property from peasant attacks.105 Mennonites sanctioned Cossack guards to harm peasants if necessary during the attacks.106 Land disputes between Mennonites and peasants were growing tense and the 1918 Revolution became a continuation of the 1905 Revolution. The 1905

Revolution gave peasants the opportunity to attain land. When Mennonites felt their land was threatened, they took matters into their own hands. Bruce Guenther argues that Anabaptist history and theology has never had consistency regarding the extent to which Mennonites can respond in times of warfare.107 Since Cossacks were physically defending the land, Mennonites were not literally using violence themselves, which allowed Mennonites to still abide by their nonresistance. Although Mennonites did not believe in violence, they had knowledge of

Cossacks using violence against those who infiltrated Mennonite land. Cossack defence of

Mennonite land still went against nonresistance because Mennonites consciously chose to defend their land and community with violence. When Mennonites challenged their own people who took up arms in 1917, they did so to maintain their reputation and nonresistant privileges from the state, not for theological reasons. The difference between 1905 and 1917 was that

Mennonites themselves were bearing arms and inflicting violence. By 1917, violent conflict between Mennonites and peasants was by no means new, but had escalated to the point where

105 The Cossacks were a group of Eastern Slavic people who lived North of the Black Sea. The Cossack cavalry was loyal to the Czar and exchanged their military service for fertile land. See Figes, A Peoples Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924, 58. 106 Patterson, Makhno and Memory: Anarchist and Mennonite Narratives of Ukraine’s Civil War, 1917-1921, 96. 107 Bruce L. Guenther, “The Complicated History of Anabaptist-Mennonite Nonresistance,” Direction, vol. 47 no. 2 (Fall 2018): 185-186.

37 the community once again believed they needed to take the serious measure of bearing arms for self-defence.

Although many Mennonites were targeted by Makhnovists, this was not always the case.

Makhnovists primarily targeted landlords whose inventory could be liquidated. Jacob Klassen was from a working-class family who were seldom targeted by Makhnovists. Jacob Klassen was born in 1910 in York in the Chortiza colony, and later moved to Molotschna.108 At the beginning of the war, his family had lost most of their money and moved regularly.109 Klassen recalled that

Makhnovists “did not bother us because we were not rich people but they plundered their wealthy neighbours and plundered and hurt them, ripped jewelry off of them, some knocked down with a gun… we lived one day at a time, it snowballed and it got worse and worse.”110 Not all Mennonites were targets. There were few Mennonite families that Makhno did not harm because of his relationship with them. Although fear was instilled in the community, not all

Mennonites had direct interaction with Makhnovists. The wealthy class were primarily targeted because this was a class-based conflict. Nonetheless, the class-based conflict did not mean that the whole community was not affected. Working-class Mennonites, such as Klassen and his family, still succumbed to the fear Makhnovists instilled in the villages. Similar to the Mennonite narrative I was told as a child, Makhnovists would plunder and harm Mennonites if they suspected that valuables were being hidden, regardless of social class. Ultimately, no one was safe. As the revolution carried on, the violence inflicted toward Mennonites increased. In 1918, the treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed and Mennonite colonies became part of Ukraine. German

108 The Chortiza colony, also referred to as the “Old Colony,” was the first settled Russian Mennonite colony. 109 Jacob Klassen, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, August 11, 1976. 110 Jacob Klassen, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, August 11, 1976.

38 military officers went into Mennonite colonies to protect them from the peasant violence they experienced.

Ironically, when World War I was in its closing moments, it was Germans, and not

Russians who protected Mennonites. Mennonites saw Russia as their motherland, but they identified as German and maintained German culture. These communities were often separated from everyday Russian society. As Baerg wrote in May 1918, “one thing will certainly result from the German takeover: Mennonite pacifism will become a thing of the past. Now everyone will have to take up arms.”111 With the arrival of German soldiers, Mennonites abandoned their traditional beliefs and took up the actions of their German liberators by willingly learning how to use weapons for defence purposes. Bolsheviks viewed Mennonites as ‘enemy aliens’ during the war because of their German culture, and Mennonites welcomed German occupation.

Mennonites saw armed Germans as liberators from the Red Army. Mennonites imitated the protective actions of their fellow German soldiers by taking up arms. Germans arrived in

Molotschna in March 1918 and immediately began armed duty. Mennonites feared further invasions by the Red Guard. German soldiers brought men, horses, and guns to protect

Mennonite villages from the Red Guard. Upon arrival, Germans instantly shot and killed

Marxists and Red Guardsmen in Mennonite villages. In May 1918, Peter Dyck wrote, “I am afraid that our Mennonites will now also go to extremes and injustices.”112 Initially, Dyck was afraid that Mennonites engaging in self-defence would be tainted by violence. Clearly, he remembers having reservations about taking up arms.

The purpose of Mennonite militia was self-defence. The Mennonite militia were unofficial Selbstschutz units formed at the onset of the Russian Revolution. Mennonite militia

111 Anna Baerg, Diary of Anna Baerg: 1916-1924, Translated by Gerald Peters (Winnipeg: CMBC Publ., 1985), 22. 112 Dyck, Troubles and Triumphs 1914-1924, 47.

39 actively worked alongside German soldiers to protect the settlement. Mennonites followed suit and started to suspect and question several people in Ladekopp, Molotschna. As protectors of the community, Mennonites engaged in the violent actions of German soldiers. This concerned community members who considered this ‘extreme’ and against Mennonite values. The end of the war in November 1918 brought uncertainty due to the retreat of Germans and increasing threats of violence by the Red Army and Makhnovists. This post-war situation changed Dyck’s perspective of Selbstschutz units. Dyck believed that Selbstschutz units should have been formed earlier. He thought that if Selbstschutz units were not formed in the upcoming future, the community would face consequences. Meanwhile, the unofficial Selbstschutz continued to provide armed protection to the community.113 Mennonites chose to engage in violence, sometimes regardless of whether it was for self-defence. The debate about violence was lost on the eastern front. Mennonites, like everyone else in World War I, took up arms and committed excesses against their enemies, Ukrainian anarchists, and at times the Red Army.

World War I behaviour led to a crisis in the Mennonite community that was taken up at a meeting of the Mennonite Conferences in Lichtenau from June 30 – July 2, 1918. This meeting addressed the debate of Mennonite nonresistance and the moral dilemma of Selbstschutz.

Unofficial Selbstschutz units were active in communities, but there was no formal organization because of its controversial nature. The foundation of the dilemma was idealism versus pragmatism. In other words, the issue was whether Mennonites should abide by their pacifist ideology or take a practical approach and bear arms. Selbstschutz supporters argued nonresistance was impractical and could not be ignored in political turmoil. Opponents made the

113 Although official Selbstschutz meetings began in June 1918, unofficial Selbstschutz were already actively protecting the community. Unofficial Selbstscshutz consisted of young men who began to take up arms and participate in military drills alongside German soldiers. The Germans trained Mennonites who were part of the unofficial Selbstschutz in the event of no German presence. Friesen, In Defense of Privilege: Russian Mennonites and the State Before and during WWI, 280-282.

40 argument that the nonresistance principle was a sacred tradition to uphold. Those present at the

Lichtenau Conference decided that it was the individual’s choice whether or not to practice the nonresistance principle. Those who did not believe in this moral principle fought in the

Selbstschutz. Individual villages voted on whether or not they would form Selbstschutz units.

Dyck attended the meeting of the Selbstschutz decision in Ladekopp, where he heard arguments and counterattacks. He thought each side was “intent only on the benefits he himself can derive from the situation…neither does anyone seem to take the Selbstschutz question seriously enough.”114 Dyck concludes that the Selbstschutz presented Mennonites as egotistical. The debate was not about the benefits of the common good, but how Selbstschutz units would benefit individuals and really, it was the community that was important. The decision-making process disregarded the original purpose of defending Mennonite community and values. The

Selbstschutz debate became one group asserting its belief systems over another. Those who spoke out against Selbstschutz units faced the threat of expulsion by the chairman and in some cases faced incarceration by Mennonite civil authorities.115 Instilling fear in nonresistance supporters suppressed arguments against Selbstschutz units. Decision-makers used power and force to control the outcome of the debate. In the end, there was overwhelming support for the mobilization of Selbstschutz units, with four villages maintaining the nonresistance principle.

The main voices present at the 1918 Lichtenau meeting came from prominent men in the community. These men were often ministers and farmers who enjoyed privilege in their community. There were clear class distinctions. Working-class Mennonites did not have much say in the Selbstschutz dilemma. Goertz recalled, once Selbstschutz units were established, some

114 Dyck, Troubles and Triumphs 1914-1924, 57. 115 Gislason. Rückenau: The History of a Village in the Molotschna Mennonite Settlement of South Russia: from Its Founding in 1811 to the Present,102-103.

41 landlords and their sons bribed Selbstschutz recruiters so they would not have to fight.116 The

Selbstschutz debate was not always about the well-being of the community. Few wealthy

Mennonites supported Selbstschutz units primarily to ensure protection of their land and belongings that were threatened by Makhnovists. There were Mennonites who supported the units because they wanted to protect their community. However, some wealthy Mennonites used their influence and power in their community to protect their privilege without having to physically fight.

Selbstschutz recruitment was not always voluntary, especially for those who could not bribe their way out of service. In some cases, those who refused to participate in the units were threatened with corporal punishment.117 Mennonites went to great lengths, including violence, to ensure that privileges would be protected. In contrast to privileged Mennonites who wanted to maintain their prominent wealth privileges, working-class Mennonites who joined Selbstschutz units were not only fighting to protect their community from harm's way, but also to protect privileges they did not enjoy. The Church’s decision on whether or not to bear arms was a decision of faith or circumstance. For Mennonites, circumstance seemed to outweigh faith and religious conviction.

Violent conflict in Russia tested Mennonite’s loyalty to their community. Mennonites were not the only inhabitants of Mennonite communities.118 Class distinction tested the degree to which Mennonite’s stood by their community. Henry Goertz faced this challenge. Makhnovists knew Goertz came from the working-class and asked him to join them acting as an “inside ear”

116 Henry Goertz, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, July 19-20, 1976. 117 Gislason, Ruckenau: The History of a Village in the Molotschna Mennonite Settlement of South Russia from its Founding in 1811 to the Present, 104. 118 Russians, Lutherans, and Catholics also lived in Molotschna. Jacob Fast, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, June 13-14, July 13, 1976.

42 in the community.119 Goertz declined because he “would be a traitor.”120 Goertz was later asked to join again and when he declined Makhnovists assaulted him. Makhnovists sometimes recruited working-class Mennonites to join their insurgent army because of shared experiences working for landlords. Makhnovists appealed to Mennonites that were at the bottom of the social hierarchy, and were thus upset with landlords. This was a practical decision on the part of the

Makhnovists and emphasized that the root of the violent conflict was class more than anything else. Mennonites who were asked to join ‘enemies’ of their community were faced with a choice between community and class. They could stand by their community, many of which shared the same faith and culture, or join the working-class and peasants in their struggle against the bourgeoisie. Although most Mennonites who were asked chose to stand by their people, there were few who chose to join the Makhnovists.121 Mennonites, like Goertz, chose to protect their community and the economic success Mennonites had achieved over the years when they joined

Selbstschutz units. The units chose to engage in the class-based struggle to fight to maintain privileges, which seemed to outweigh the importance of their own faith in the community.

GENDER

Russian Mennonites strictly enforced behavioural guidelines in Molotschna based on what they considered biblical gender norms. Women, for example, were expected to act respectably and modestly and the community was upset when they did not. Mennonite women sometimes went against their gender roles when interacting with German soldiers. After signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on March 13, 1918, German officers were stationed in Mennonite

119 Henry Goertz, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, July 19-20, 1976. 120 Henry Goertz, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, July 19-20, 1976. 121 Although scholarly works mention that some Mennonites joined Makhnovists, there is no monograph on this subject. Henry Goertz, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, July 19-20, 1976.

43 villages.122 While Mennonites left Prussia to escape military service and were loyal to the

Russian Czar, they were also Germans culturally and thus wanted to be respected by the German soldiers. When the Germans first arrived in Molotschna in March 1918, Mennonites were ecstatic and some so much that they defied their own cultural norms. Anna Baerg critically observed some women openly flirting with soldiers, as she noted in her diary, “what must the

Germans think of us? A number of important people have already criticized the conduct of our girls with the German officers. The noble and true womanly pride seems to have been lost in this generation of women, in spite of all their self-conceit.”123 Baerg was worried that if Germans and others saw Mennonite women flirting, they would assume all Mennonite women acted that way.

Women were letting their vanity come before the good of the community. Mennonite women were expected to dress modestly, be absent of make-up and jewelry, and in some cases wear a bonnet.124 Women who flirted with the soldiers were disciplined or in some cases, disowned.125

Mennonite women were expected to be “wholesome” and worked in the home and in Church.

Women were not present in the political sphere. German soldiers were not Mennonite and thus were not suitable partners for Mennonite women because of their different religious beliefs.

Flirting was disgraceful behaviour for Mennonites as it portrayed women as lacking morals.

Baerg was worried that these women would make outsiders view the Mennonite community differently. Baerg, a young woman herself, sees these women as having no pride in themselves and little respect for their community. Mennonite relationships were meant to be long-term and included a courting process that would result in a marriage where both the man and woman

122 The treaty of Brest-Litovsk was a peace treaty signed by the Bolshevik government and the Central Powers in March 1918. As a result, Russia had to give up colonies including Ukraine and Soviet occupation in Ukraine ceased. Figes, A Peoples Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924, 547-548. 123 Baerg, Diary of Anna Baerg: 1916-1924, 27. 124 John A. Hostetler, Mennonite Life (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1973), 15-16. 125 Gislason, Rückenau: The History of a Village in the Molotschna Mennonite Settlement of South Russia: from Its Founding in 1811 to the Present, 99-100.

44 would adhere to traditional gender roles. The arrival of German soldiers in Molotschna influenced both men and women to, in some cases, go against gender roles in their community.

The soldier’s presence led to girls openly flirting while soldier’s military influence challenged what being a ‘man’ meant for Mennonites.126

Alternative forms of femininity and masculinity were linked to social status and religious identity.127 Erin Bell’s study of seventeenth century Quaker Friends argues that Quakers went beyond a binary of hegemonic masculinity to secure their own internal identity and alternative form of patriarchy.128 Religious and cultural groups often consider themselves separate from mainstream society and offer different understandings of gender norms. In seventeenth century

England, Quakers represented a different form of masculinity because of their dedication to the peace testimony and pacifism. Quakers saw spirituality as equal regardless of gender, but the patriarchal system was still in place because power was attributed to men. Although women were given an active role in the Quaker movement, contrary to Mennonites, they were not considered equal to men in society. Similar to Mennonites, men always had final say in decisions. Not all community members agreed with this decision. While the men theologically justified taking up arms, women like Baerg never accepted it. Baerg writes “for me, this seems like a breach of faith.”129 For her and many others, Selbstschutz units infringed on pacifist beliefs that were at the centre of Mennonite faith. However, Baerg’s opinions were not accepted in the political and public sphere because she was a woman. Although the majority of Mennonite men involved in the decision-making process supported Selbstschutz units, opposition was present in the

126 Sexual violence toward women was heightened before and after Germans were stationed in Mennonite villages. The violence was committed by Red Army soldiers and Makhnovists. German soldiers were placed in these villages in the spring of 1918 to protect Mennonites from violence. 127 Bell, “The Early Quakers, the Peace Testimony and Masculinity in England, 1660-1720,” 283. 128 Ibid., 283. 129 Baerg, Diary of Anna Baerg: 1916-1924, 22.

45 community. Many women were opposed to Selbstschutz units as well, like Baerg, but could not state their opinions publicly because they knew they had no role in decision-making.130

Within the Mennonite faith, women were held to a higher “expectation regarding belief, conduct, and personality.”131 Women were watched more closely and had to find alternative ways to order their lives with spirituality. When women flirted and did not adhere to their faith, their actions demonstrated that they valued materialism. In light of the units, many women became protectors of the pacifism that was entrenched in their faith, despite anarchists posing a dangerous threat to women.132 Conservative women such as Baerg attributed their safety and protection to their God, rather than the units.133 By attributing their gratitude to God, women separated themselves from the moral dilemma of men who were left to decide whether or not to go against nonresistance. Many Mennonite men who made the decision in the Lichtenau meeting did not abide by their faith, however, Mennonite men were not the only ones blamed for the formation of Selbstschutz units.

Some Mennonites blamed Germans for the formation of Selbstschutz units. German soldiers introduced weapons into their community for protection purposes while stationed in

Mennonite villages to protect them from Ukrainian anarchists who were attacking. During

German occupation, officers willingly taught young Mennonite men how to use weapons. After

Germans left Ukraine in November 1918, a few German officers stayed behind to assist in forming Selbstschutz units. Klassen believes “these people are responsible for the young fellows who formed the Selbstschutz, German officers are responsible for this.”134 While Germans were

130 Marlene Epp, Mennonite Women in Canada: A History (Manitoba: University of Manitoba Press, 2008), 13. 131 Ibid., 12. 132 Marlene Epp,“ The Memory of Violence: Soviet and Eastern European Mennonite Refugees and Rape in the Second World War,” Journal of Women’s History vol. 9, no. 1 (Spring, 1997): 66-67. 133 Baerg, Diary of Anna Baerg: 1916-1924, 52. 134 Jacob Klassen, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, August 11, 1976.

46 still stationed in Mennonite villages, Germans trained Mennonite men in the summer of 1918 before they began farming for the day. Germans used military training, taught Mennonite men the pieces that made up guns and how to handle the guns. Soon most young Mennonites aspired to be protectors like the German soldiers, even boys would secretly watch the Germans train

Mennonites.135 Although Mennonites appreciated German occupation and welcomed Germans into their homes, they did not approve of young men and boys interacting with physical weapons.136 The masculinity that the Germans exhibited contrasted the traditional Mennonite man, sparking curiosity in the community. Mennonite elders were upset because they did not want characteristics of mainstream masculinity, such as men being inherently violent, influencing their community any more than it already had. All Mennonites perceived Makhno to be a threat to Mennonite existence. Some “wished to uphold traditional nonresistance and [while others] allowed themselves to be armed by the occupation.”137 Others, such as Klassen, blame the Germans for Selbstschutz units, because Germans made Selbstschutz units a feasible reality to protect the community.

While many Mennonite men did not intend to join Selbstschutz units, when they witnessed the rape of women by Makhnovists, they joined the units because they thought it was their job to protect women and children. One night while Makhnovists were pillaging a village,

Henry Goertz saw three men harassing and assaulting a woman. In that moment Goertz decided to join a Selbstschutz unit because he wanted to “kill the men, no questions about it.”138 For

Goertz and other Mennonites, the only way to protect women and children from Makhnovists was to bear arms. During violent circumstances, there is often a need for men to protect their

135 And When They Shall Ask, dir. John Morrow (Manitoba: The Mennonite Historical Society of Steinbach, Manitoba, 1983) VHS. 136 Ibid. 137 Patterson, Makhno and Memory: Anarchist and Mennonite Narratives of Ukraine’s Civil War, 1917-1921, 91. 138 Henry Goertz, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, July 19-20, 1976.

47 communities and that survival impulse overrides existing belief systems. Marlene Epp argues that rape reinforced the gender hierarchy that women were vulnerable and needed the protection of men.139 Jacob Fast recalled that when a peasant came in and attacked his father one night, his mother came to his defence using a large steel rod.140 In certain situations, Mennonite women were quite capable of defending themselves and defending others. However, in 1918, women and children lived in fear of being raped when Ukrainian anarchists were invading and harming

Mennonite communities. As Marlene Epp argues, the fear and reality of rape, however, reinforced a gender hierarchy in which women were vulnerable in the face of male violence and also dependent on male protection.141 If women were to protect themselves, they would infringe on the traditional male gender role as a “protector” of those who were vulnerable in the community, mainly women and children. When asked about why men took up arms, Gerhard

Lohrenz stated, “males, seeing themselves as the protector of females cannot stand by and let a group of roughnecks gang rape those that he loves. [They] just can’t do it, they will fight no matter what his convictions.”142 One of the defining factors of taking up arms was protecting women, especially from sexual violence. Self-defence legitimatized violence for Mennonites.

Don Neufeld writes “violent self-defence is generally legitimized, and male led violence is heroized when used in protection of family or country.”143 For Selbstschutzlers, being a masculine protector involved sacrifice, in this case a sacrifice of the nonresistance principle.

Since bearing arms was a new phenomenon for Mennonites, there were not many opportunities

139 Marlene Epp,“ The Memory of Violence: Soviet and Eastern European Mennonite Refugees and Rape in the Second World War,” 61. 140 Jacob Fast, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, June 13-14, July 13, 1976. 141 Marlene Epp,“ The Memory of Violence: Soviet and Eastern European Mennonite Refugees and Rape in the Second World War,” 61. 142 And When They Shall Ask. Directed by John Morrow. (Manitoba: The Mennonite Historical Society of Steinbach, Manitoba, 1983) VHS. 143 Don Neufeld and Steve Thomas, Peaceful at Heart: Anabaptist Reflections on Healthy Masculinity (Eugene, OR: Resource Publications, 2019), 3.

48 for men to portray protective qualities. Thus, what better way for men to exhibit their strong masculinity than to protect those considered vulnerable in the community. The conflict in Russia forced Mennonite men to choose one set of values over another. For most of the community, one set of masculine values prevailed. The formation of Selbstschutz units demonstrates that many

Mennonite men chose to maintain their masculinity over their faith.

Young Mennonite men were faced with the challenge of whether to remain a strong pacifist man or become a man who protects his community. Although Mennonites joined

Selbstschutz units to protect their community, some saw the units as a breach of faith and in terms of Mennonite men Baerg writes, “often there is more courage in patience and endurance than in retaliation.”144 Mennonite men had a different conception of masculinity, which included remaining strong in one’s faith. Before the violent conflict, there was no reason for men to abandon their traditional masculinity grounded on faith. Violent conflict presented a crossroads in faith and masculinity. With different conceptions of masculinity, Mennonites struggled with defining who was a ‘real man’ because gender was constructed differently in Mennonite communities than in mainstream society.145 To be passive was to be masculine in traditional

Mennonite culture, whereas those who fought in armed conflict were seen as weak. Instead of standing up for their nonresistance principle, Selbstschutzlers were surrendering their faith and values in order to adhere to the idea that men must protect their community at all costs.

Mennonite gender constructions were changing as young Mennonite men abandoned traditions of nonresistance to be soldiers. Mennonite masculinity contained characteristics that an outside eye would consider both masculine and feminine. Baerg writes, “our people, who have had so little to do with war, now seem to have made a name for themselves …Heinrich Koop,

144 Baerg, Diary of Anna Baerg: 1916-1924, 22. 145 Marlene Epp, “Heroes or Yellow-Bellies: Masculinity and the Conscientious Objector,” Journal of Mennonite Studies vol. 17, no.1 (1999): 110.

49 who also served in the Selbstschutz… [talks] about his exploits [in the units] with such enthusiasm and pride.”146 Traditional Mennonite men were in a grey area and the Selbstschutz dilemma emphasized these tensions regarding masculinity. After serving in the units, some

Mennonite men, such as Koops, embraced their experiences as something positive and changed the way they viewed their masculinity. Instead of perceiving pacifism as a courageous action to uphold, Mennonite soldiers were extremely proud of how they defended their community. Some

Mennonites were so proud they decided to join the White Army after Selbstschutz units collapsed in 1920. When men joined the White Army, they felt equal to other Russian soldiers in the White

Army, rather than being perceived as pacifists. For men that reverted back to traditional nonresistant actions, Mennonite men joining the White Army “should have never happened” because of the unnecessary lives that were lost at the hand of soldiers.147 Selbstschutz units presented the challenge to Mennonite men: whether they would uphold the masculinity of mainstream society or the masculinity linked to their Mennonite identity.

CONCLUSION

When I first learned of the existence of Selbstschutz units, I asked my father what he knew about them in relation to our family history. He did not know the units existed and had not heard of any sort of resistance that took place on the part of Mennonites. It is true that

Mennonites were the victims of murder, harassment, and theft, but their entanglement in the violent conflict was absent from my family narrative. Although there is no one in my family who can shed more light on the narrative I was taught, the Selbstschutzler testimonies I listened to speak to how Mennonites individually justified and responded to the units in response to the violent conflict.

146 Baerg, Diary of Anna Baerg: 1916-1924, 43. 147 Jacob Klassen, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, August 11, 1976.

The units represented complexity within Mennonite communities and their relationship with external groups. In response to the threat of violence, many Mennonites took up arms for a number of reasons. The purpose and actions of Selbstschutz units are more complicated than self- defence. Some took up arms to protect and uphold Mennonite economic privilege that had been in place since the eighteenth century, as mentioned by Goertz.148 Others wanted to serve in the units because they felt it was their duty as a man to protect women and children, which contrasted the idea that Mennonite men should uphold their nonresistant views. The violence of the 1918 period took a toll on what it meant to be a Russian Mennonite. By the end of the conflict, Mennonite identity was still not defined by geographic boundaries and social features.

The nonresistant tenet was the primary factor in a Mennonite identity, which was challenged by the units. Some Mennonites viewed Selbstschutz units and their members as men who went against pacifism because they used violence beyond necessity, which did not make them

Mennonite.149 Others still viewed Selbstschutzlers as Mennonites because their protection was a necessity for the maintenance of their community. The action and harm caused by Selbstschutz units called into question the interpretation of the nonresistance principle and how strong

Mennonites really held on to this tenet and its role in Mennonite identity. Ultimately,

Selbstschutz units were the response to a situation more complex than an innocent group needing self-defence from persecution. Neither the reasoning for the violence or the response was straightforward because no one thinks in black and white, not even Mennonites.

The units were so destructive to the community that when Mennonites arrived in Canada, they needed to take an opinion on the units to maintain a united community in a new land.150 The

148 Henry Goertz, interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s, Mennonite Archives of Ontario, July 19-20, 1976. 149 Dietrich Neufeld, A Russian Dance of Death: Revolution and Civil War in the Ukraine, Translated and edited by Al Reimer (Winnipeg: Hyperion Press, 1977), 80. 150 Mennonites immigrated in regions across Canada, particularly British Columbia, Manitoba, and southern Ontario.

51 official position of the Mennonite Church is that Selbstschutz units were a mistake and they are considered a dark spot in Mennonite history. The existence of the units made it difficult for

Russian Mennonites in Canada as many reverted to their pacifist ways during the Second World

War and many questioned why Mennonites would bear arms in Russia but not in Canada. The formation of Selbstschutz units illustrates how the logic of circumstance can outweigh the logic of faith.151 Many Canadians and non-Russian Mennonites did not understand the formation of

Selbstschutz units because of the violence that ensued. The normal Mennonite response was and still is “what you do in our position?”

Mennonites were in a complex position during the violent conflict and were not simply victims, as my family’s narrative suggested. Russian Mennonite identity depended on the circumstance. When Mennonites were being threatened, they altered what they perceived as nonresistance in order to bear arms, challenging historic notions of Mennonite nonresistant and pacifist identities. Mennonites made a practical decision to not let their land be taken over and redistributed. Rather, Mennonites used Selbstschutz units to protect their economic privileges, including land, that were granted to Mennonites by the Czar. Although Mennonite men sometimes struggled with their decision to take up arms because it was in opposition to an

“ideal” Mennonite man, the will to protect their community was stronger. Ultimately,

Mennonites did not remain passive victims and took an active stance against those who threatened and harmed their community. There were multiple ways that Mennonites understood pacifism. Ultimately, when Mennonites took a stance against those who threatened and harmed their community, they altered their faith to fit their circumstances and context because there was no other way to survive.

151Toews,“ The Origins and Activities of the Mennonite Selbstschutz in Ukraine,” 7.

As evidenced in my family’s narrative, the tension Selbstschutz units caused is still present as the issue of nonresistance continues to divide the Mennonite community. Although my research focuses on the role of Selbstschutz units in the Mennonite narrative, scholars are increasingly researching the comparison between Anarchist and Mennonite narratives.152 There is a complex relationship between religion and violence. In the 100 years since the end of World

War I, ethnic conflict fueled by religion has not abated. Modern-day Russia is still afflicted by competing religious and ethnic groups. There are conflicts in the world today that are rooted in religion, but are executed by violence. The formation of Selbstschutz units are a good example of the uneasy relationship between religious convictions and group survival, and the impact war has on both.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

And When They Shall Ask. Directed by John Morrow. Aired November 24, 1983. Manitoba: The Mennonite Historical Society of Steinbach, Manitoba, 1983. VHS. 88 minutes.

Anonymous. “A Selbstschutz Participant Recalls.” B.B. Janz Papers. John B. Toews files. Mennonite Historical Society of British Columbia.

Anonymous. “My Account: A Selbstschutz Experience by an Anonymous Author.” John B. Toews files. Mennonite Historical Society of British Columbia.

Anonymous. “The Selbstschutz: 1918-1919.” John B. Toews files. Mennonite Historical Society of Canada.

Baerg, Anna. Diary of Anna Baerg: 1916-1924. Translated by Gerald Peters. Winnipeg: CMBC Publ., 1985.

Classen, Alex. Interview by Henry Pakteau. Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s. Mennonite Archives of Ontario. May 27, 1976.

152 Patterson, Makhno and Memory: Anarchist and Mennonite Narratives of Ukraine’s Civil War, 1917-1921, 17.

Dick, Abram. Interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s. Mennonite Archives of Ontario. August 9, 1976.

Dyck, Peter J. Troubles and Triumphs 1914-1924. Translated by John P. Dyck. Springstein, Manitoba: Regehr’s Printing, 1985.

Epp, J.P. “The Mennonite Selbstschutz in the Ukraine: An Eyewitness Account.” Trans. John B. Toews. Mennonite Life 26, (July 1971): 137-147.

Fast, Jacob. Interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s. Mennonite Archives of Ontario. June 13-14, July 13, 1976.

Goertz, Henry. Interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s. Mennonite Archives of Ontario. July 19-20, 1976.

Hiebert, Henry. Interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s. Mennonite Archives of Ontario. August 13, 27, 1976.

Klassen, Jacob. Interview by Henry Pakteau, Oral History Interviews of Russian Mennonite Immigrants in the 1920s. Mennonite Archives of Ontario. August 11, 1976.

Neufeld, Dietrich. A Russian Dance of Death: Revolution and Civil War in the Ukraine. Translated and edited by Al Reimer. Winnipeg: Hyperion Press, 1977.

Secondary Sources

Bell, Erin. “The Early Quakers, the Peace Testimony and Masculinity in England, 1660-1720.” Gender and History vol. 23, no. 2 (August 2011): 283-300.

Bibbings, Lois. "Images of Manliness: Portrayal of Soldiers and Conscientious Objectors in the Great War." Social and Legal Studies vol. 12, no. 3 (September 2003): 335-58.

Bornat, Joanna. "Oral History." In Qualitative Research Practice, edited by Clive Seale, 34-38. London: Sage Publications, 2007.

Braber, Ben M. This Cannot Happen Here: Integration and Jewish Resistance in the Netherlands, 1940-1945. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013.

Chipman, Josephine. “The Mennonite Selbstschutz in the Ukraine: 1918-1919.” MA Thesis, University of Manitoba, 1988.

Dick, Bernhard J. “Something About the Selbstschutz of the Mennonites in South Russia (July, 1918-March 1919).” Journal of Mennonite Studies vol. 4 (January 1986): 135-42.

Ens, Anna Epp. The House of Heinrich: The Story of Heinrich Epp (1811-1863) of Rosenort, Molotschna and His Descendants. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Epp Book Committee, 1980.

Epp, Frank H., William Keeney, Walter Klaassen, John S. Oyer, Frank C. Peters, J.C. Wenger and John H. Yoder. An Introduction to Mennonite History: A popular history of the Anabaptists and the Mennonites. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1972.

Epp, Marlene. “Heroes or Yellow-Bellies: Masculinity and the Conscientious Objector.” Journal of Mennonite Studies vol. 17, no. 1 (1999): 107-117.

Epp, Marlene. Mennonite Women in Canada: A History. Manitoba: University of Manitoba Press, 2008.

Epp, Marlene. “The Memory of Violence: Soviet and Eastern European Mennonite Refugees and Rape in the Second World War.” Journal of Women’s History vol. 9, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 58-87.

Falk, Barbara. “Resistance and Dissent in Central and Eastern Europe : An Emerging Historiography.” East European Politics & Societies vol. 25, no. 2 (May 1, 2011): 318– 60.

Figes, Orlando. A Peoples Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924. London: Pimlico, 1997.

Friesen, Abraham. In Defense of Privilege: Russian Mennonites and the State Before and during WWI. Winnipeg: Kindred Productions, 2006.

Friesen, Aileen and Paul Toews. The Russian Mennonite Story: The Heritage Cruise Lectures. Winnipeg, MB: Centre for Transnational Mennonite Studies, 2018.

Geyer, Michael. "Resistance as Ongoing Project: Visions of Order, Obligations to Strangers, Struggles for Civil Society." The Journal of Modern History vol. 64 (1992).

Hamm, Thomas. “Hicksite Quakers and the Antebellum Nonresistance Movement.” Church History vol. 63, no. 4 (December 1994): 557-569.

Healey, Robynne. "Quakers and Mennonites and the Great War." In Canadian Churches and the First World War, edited by Gordon L. Heath, 218-41. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014.

Hollander, Jocelyn A., and Rachel L. Einwohner. "Conceptualizing Resistance." Sociological Forum vol. 9, no. 4 (2004): 533-54.

Lieven, D. C. B. Russia and the Origins of the First World War. New York: St. Martins Press, 1989.

Loewen, Helmut- Harry and James Urry. “Protecting Mammon: Some Dilemmas of Mennonite Non-resistance in the later Imperial Russia and the origins of the Selbstschutz.” Journal of Mennonite Studies vol. 9 (1991): 34-53.

Lohrenz, Gerhard, and Victor G. Doerksen. Zagradovka: History of a Mennonite Settlement in Southern Russia. Winnipeg: CMBC Publications, 2000.

Gislason, Leona Wiebe. Rückenau: The History of a Village in the Molotschna Mennonite Settlement of South Russia: from Its Founding in 1811 to the Present. Winnipeg, Man.: Windflower Communications, 2000.

Grayzel, Susan R. The First World War: a Brief History with Documents. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Guenther, Bruce L. “The Complicated History of Anabaptist-Mennonite Nonresistance.” Direction, vol.47, no. 2 (Fall 2018): 184-206.

Patterson, Sean. Makhno and Memory: Anarchist and Mennonite Narratives of Ukraine's Civil War, 1917-1921. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 2020.

Portelli, Alessandro. 1981. "The Peculiarities of Oral History." History Workshop Journal vol. 12, no. 1: 96-107.

Portelli, Alessandro. "What Makes Oral History Different." Oral History, Oral Culture, and Italian Americans, 2009, 21-30.

Regehr, T.D. “Historians and the Canadian Mennonite Experience,” Mennonite Quarterly Review vol. 73, no. 3 (1999): 443-469.

Rubinstein, David. York Friends and the Great War. Bothwick Paper No. 96. York: Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, The University of York, 1999.

Reimer, Al. “Russian Mennonite Nonresistance in World War and its Aftermath.” Journal of Mennonite Studies vol. 2 (1993): 135-148.

Sivan, Emmanuel, and J. M. Winter, eds. War and Remembrance in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Srigley, Katrina. Breadwinning Daughters: Young Working Women in a Depression-Era City, 1929-1939. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010.

Staples. “Religion, Politics, and the Mennonite Privilegium in Early Nineteenth Century Russia: Reconsidering the Warkentin Affair.” Journal of Mennonite Studies vol. 21 (2003): 71-88

Thielman, George. “The Mennonite Selbstschutz in the Ukraine During the Revolution.” The New Review: A Journal of East-European History vol. 10, no.1 (March 1970): 50-60.

Thompson, Paul Richard. The Voice of the Past: Oral History. Oxford University Press, 2000.

Toews, John A. A History of the Mennonite Brethren Church: Pilgrims and Pioneers. Fresno, Calif: Board of Christian Literature, 1982.

Toews, John B. (trans. And ed.) “ ‘No Songs Were Sung at the Gravesite:’ The Blumenort (Russia) Massacre (November 8-12, 1919).” Journal of Mennonite Studies vol. 13 (January 1995): 51-70.

Toews, John B. “The Origins and Activities of the Mennonite Selbstschutz in Ukraine.” Mennonite Quarterly Review XLVI (January 1972): 5-40.

Toews, Paul. “Ukrainian Archives Continue to Yield Documents Key to Unlocking the Early Mennonite Story.” California Mennonite Historical Society Bulletin no. 38 (Spring 2003): 4-5.

Urry, James. “After the Rooster Crowed: Some Issues Concerning the Interpretation of Mennonite/Bolshevik relations during the early Soviet period.” Journal of Mennonite Studies vol. 13 (1995): 26-50.

Urry James. “Mennonites, Nationalism, and the State in Imperial Russia.” in the Journal of Mennonite Studies vol. 12, no.4 (1994): 65-88.

Urry, James. Mennonites, Politics, and Peoplehood: Europe-Russia-Canada 1525-1980. Manitoba: University of Manitoba Press, 2006.

Wiebe, Natalie. “Miriam Toews’ A Complicated Kindness: Restorying the Russian Mennonite Diaspora.” Journal of Mennonite Studies vol. 28 (2010): 33-54.