Talk:Russian Mennonites

It would be helpful to expand the ethnically Dutch characterization to include a broader perspective of the people making up the Russian Mennonite group. Surnames like Ratzlaff, Sawatzky and even Harder indicate lineages that originated elsewhere in the Mennonite sojourn. An excellent place to start is Peters and Thiessen's Mennonitische Namen, a reference to which will be added to the article.

JonHarder 18:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• A paragraph about the terror caused by Nestor Makhno would be appropriate.

I believe that the comments about the relationship between Catherine the Great and the Mennonites may at best be misleading and at worst in error.

First, the word "invitation" must be understood in a political sense, not a personal one. The full extent of her 1763 "invitation" can be found in the words of her Manifesto at http://members.aol.com/jktsn/manifest.htm

Second, be sure, in reading the Manifesto, to note that it applies to all FOREIGNERS, not just Germans or Mennonites.

Third, it is my understanding that it was the Mennonites who pursued the opportunities in Russian territory and not the other way around - Catherine pursuing the Mennonites. In fact, it was her son who signed the 1789 agreement with the Mennonites, not herself (see the same link above, bottom of the page).

A review of material in the books, "From Catherine to Kruschev" by Adam Giesinger and "Human Capital" by Roger Bartlett would confirm my point of view.

Jerry Frank FranklySpeaking@shaw.ca

I just moved a bunch of information from the main Mennonite article, and added the subheaders. It's now time for cleanup.

I also notice that the article is really short on information about the Mennonites in Russia during the 20th century. I'll try to dig up as much as I can, because I think the story of their struggles during that time is particularly of interest. I know that their German heritage made them a target for persecution during WWI and WWII, they were heavily preyed upon by bandits during the revolutionary period, and that Stalin also targeted them for their religious beliefs once he came to power.Sxeptomaniac 17:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No one has taken the time to revise the article since my last comment so I will do it now.

Too much is made of Catherine's role in this migration. For example, the current edition of this article states, "As a result of their time on the Russian steppes under Catherine the Great, they were familiar with a strain of wheat . . ." It may be very true that they came to know about this type of wheat in Russia but why mention Catherine in that context? The Mennonites' first settlement occurred in 1789 and Catherine died in 1796. That means they only experienced 7 years under her rule. And I repeat my previous comment that the Mennonites' agreement was made with her son, not with Catherine.

Additional research indicates that the Mennonites did NOT in fact bring the winter wheat with them. See Kansas State Historical Society comment at http://www.kshs.org/teachers/trunks/pdfs/wheat_00b_background.pdf . I have therefore modified that entire section as well.

Jerry Frank, Webmaster, http://www.sggee.org 205.206.215.65 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article name could provoke misunderstanding. The Mennonites were not "Russian" by ethnical origin. And they lived on territory which belonged to the Russian Empire (present day it is Ukraine), but inhabited by Ukranians. I think the names "Mennonites in Russian Empire" or "Mennonites in Ukraine" suit better.Ans-mo 06:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Russian Mennonite" seems to be a generally accepted term, even though for the most part this group of Mennonites is not ethnically Russian. "Mennonites in Russia" is good, but doesn't cover the larger picture of subsequent migrations of this group to other parts of the world. Whether in Paraguay, Brazil or Canada, they are still part of the Russian Mennonite story. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. My experience is that it is the name they generally use for themselves. Sxeptomaniac 21:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct German name is Russlandmennoniten, so in English translation it could be Russia Mennonites or Mennonites from Russia. I prefer Mennonites of low-saxon origin, because of the common dialect.--Dietrich Tissen 21:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The German term Russland-Mennoniten is a clear term, it means "Russia-Mennonites", that is Mennonites with some connection to Russia. The term "Russian Mennonites" is a misnomer, in German it would be "russische Mennoniten", a term for sure most Russland-Mennoniten would clearly reject. To me the term "Russia-Mennonites" sounds odd, but that would be much more adequate. Is there an English term that would express the same as "Russland-Mennoniten" without sounding odd? Any suggestions? --Metron (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest to call them Russland-Mennonites. This is very close to the name they use for themselves on the one hand and this name does not implicate a Russian ethnic background, language etc. on the other hand . --Metron (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The adjective "Russian", in this instance, does not imply ethnicity but geography. I would oppose any change because that is the common English name for them, as Jon Harder stated. It's not a misnomer in any way but a failing of the English language. If you would like elaborate on the meaning in the article, feel free to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the liberal revert. The day before I reverted a read a long grammatical treatise on the use of articles in relation to geographical names and was certain that Ukraine was an exception to the rule. I just Googled and came up with this and agree that there should be no definite article before Ukraine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Royal Prussia was part of Poland. Please see the relevant article in Wikipedia. That's why the following paragraph says what happened after Poland was partitioned.--85.222.86.36 (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Poland is the modern country. Royal Prussia was never, ever part of this country. It was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Please see the relevant article. The article indicates "Royal Prussia enjoyed substantial autonomy", "in 1569, Royal Prussia's autonomy was abolished", and "Royal Prussia was gradually annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL Here's from the article about Royal Prussia:

As a result of the Union of Lublin in 1569, Royal Prussia's autonomy was abolished and the region was united with the Polish Crown. Prussian electors became senators and representatives to the Polish parliament, the Sejm.

After the incorporation to the Crown of the Polish Kingdom, local diets (Sejmik) were organised for:

   * Chełmno Voivodeship with seat in Radzyń,   * Malbork Voivodeship with seat in Sztum and   * for following powiats of Pomeranian Voivodship:         o Powiat Człuchów with seat in Człuchów or Chojnice,         o Powiat Mirachowo with seat in Mirachowo,         o Powiat Puck with seat in Puck,         o Powiat Świecie with seat in Świecie,         o Powiat Tczew and Powiat Gdańsk with seat in Starogard Gdański,         o Powiat Tuchola with seat in Tuchola.

The main task of the Sejmiks was the election of MPs for the Sejm of Poland. Royal Prussia was allocated 10 MPs (167 total).

Nice. You're missing two important points As

1. As we read in the Wikipedia article. Royal Prussia...was a Region of the Kingdom of Poland from 1466, then of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1772). You keep linking to Poland, with which Royal Prussia has no affiliation. It would be akin to linking linking Prussia to Germany. They're not the same place and it creates an historical inaccuracy.
2. Aside from Polish nationalism, it's irrelevant. The important point was that the language spoken in the region was a form of German, not a form of modern Polish or even Selisian.

I have changed the article to reflect the correct history, even though I feel it's not important. Your next edit will break WP:3RR. Please be careful. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You should have read the rest of my entry. I explained why it was Kingdom of Poland. Just scroll down. If they settled in France today would you link to France or to the EU?

Neither because in the 1500s, it was a kingdom and today it's a nation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Germany is irrelevant here. It didn't exist in the 18th century, Poland did.

No. Poland did not, and that's my point. A Kingdom of Poland did. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it some German nationalist manner to label people nationalists? The place is relevant. They settled in Poland because of the liberties Poland gave them. The Polish nobles had to agree for their settlement. They moved out as soon as the territory became Prussian and they lost their privileges.

Since I'm not a German, I can't really tell you. I wrote "Polish nationalism" because you were not using reason and inserting an historically inaccurate label into the article and having searched your IP address recognized that you were editing from Poland. They settled in Prussia because of the language and the freedom from military service. The Prussian nobles had to agree to their settlement. They moved out when they were forced to serve in the military, which happened well after after merging with Prussia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with your change. Have a nice day.--85.222.86.36 (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this long detour into precision obscures the point of the paragraph. My preference would be to simplify the whole debate out of the paragraph:

In the early-to-mid 1500s, Mennonites began to move from the Low Countries (especially Friesland) and Flanders to the Vistula delta region in German-speaking Royal Prussia, which was part of the Kingdom of Poland, seeking religious freedom and exemption from military service. They gradually replaced their Dutch and Frisian languages with the Plautdietsch dialect spoken in the area, blending into it elements of their native tongues. Plautdietsch is the distinct Mennonite language which developed over a period of 300 years in the Vistula delta region and south Russia.

✤ JonHarder ^talk 13:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So would I. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

During the First (1772) and Second (1793) Partitions of Poland, Royal Prussia was gradually annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia. Its territory largely made up the Province of West Prussia created in 1773.

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a union of two countries: Kingdom of Poland and Duchy of Lithuania. Commonly known as Poland (or the Crown) and Lithuania.

Here's an 18th century map of the Commonwealth. Royal Prussia is an intergral part of Poland:

Once again. That's exactly why it was called Royal Prussia, i.e. belonging to the Kingdom of Poland. The other Prussia was called Ducal, because its ruler was only a Duke. Once Prussia had annexed it the name was changed to West Prussia. So let's put it like this: "Royal Prussia" never ever belonged to Prussia. It was the name of Poland's province!

Poland isn't a modern country. It's a resurrected ancient one. Kingdom of Prussia didn't even exist before the 18th century.

And, well, just look at the article we're discussing here. It clearly says that the Mennonites left Royal Prussia because Poland was partitioned.--85.222.86.36 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Religion in the Soviet Union article, under Other Christian Groups, states that the mennonites may have faced persecution under the soviet regime. This article doesn't address that issue. Is there any information available on the subject? I'm trying to improve the Other Christian Groups section for that article, but it just seems hard to improve. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to see what I can find. From what I've read, most Russian Mennonites left very early in the Soviet period (my reading has generally followed them), but I recall reading that those who stayed relocated from their villages in what is now Ukraine to modern-day Kazakhstan. I do personally know one man whose family escaped through China during this period, and some of it had to do with some fairly heavy special taxes on those deemed "rich", which some were unable to pay. In addition, the forced central collection of food was inefficient, with much not stored properly, leaving it to rot and not be redistributed, creating shortages. [1] This wouldn't be sufficient as a source, though, so I'll see if some of my books cover this more.Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all the case. Some may have left but many, including my mother and her family, were left and "liberated" by Nazi troops. That is in quotation marks because many were labelled as collaborators because they could speak German and were under threat of death from the advancing Soviet troops. My understanding is that there were three groups: those who left during the first two waves of Russian revolution (have seen a documentary about this group), those who escaped as refugees with the retreating German army, those who remained. Some of the last group were relocated under Stalin and others were imprisoned for their faith. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not likely. Care to reference? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Textbook definition of WP:UNDUE. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Was the Vistula delta region where they first settled stateless? A 'terre sans seigneur'? This puzzles me. I s'ppose some crucial information has been suppressed as a sacrifice to Political Correctness 78.49.38.163 (talk) Wojciech Żełaniec —Preceding undated comment added 07:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is written from a Mennonite chauvinist / anti-communist POV. 22 of the 36 references are from C. Henry Smith, a Mennonite scholar whose publisher is a listed subsidary of the Mennonite Church USA. Many of the references are to dead links, including an AOL group. The only legitimate citation, calls into question generally the veracity of Mennonite scholarship in regards to Russian mennonite relations with other East European and Central Asian people: "In Mennonite historiography, Mennonites, led by Johann Cornies, have been portrayed as paternal benefactors to the 'backward Nogais;"

Examples:

" Nestor Makhno's anarchist army generally targeted Mennonites because they were thought of as "Kulaks" and an entity generally more advanced and wealthy than the surrounding Ukrainian peasants The Mennonites Germanic background also served to inflame negative sentiment during the period of revolution. It is also rumored that Makhno himself had served on a Mennonite estate in childhood and harbored negative feelings based on treatment he received while employed there. Hundreds of Mennonites were murdered, robbed, imprisoned and raped during this period, and villages including (and around) Chortitza, Zagradovka and Nikolaipol were damaged and destroyed." The exploitation of Ukranians by Mennonite estate holders is portrayed as something that only occured in the "thoughts" of Ukranians and not reality, those who rebeled against this were anti-German bigots, objection to said exploitation is "harboring negative feelings", (were Afro-Americans in the Confederate States of America and Jews in Nazi Germany "harboring negative feelings" or were they oppressed?) wording that suggessts that the challenging of exploitation by Mennonite estate holders or being an "anarchist" (which to the mennonazis is one and the same as being an atheist) is the equivilant of being complicit in the rape of Mennonites!

"With the onset of economic and agricultural reforms, large estates and the communal land of the Mennonite colonies were confiscated. The next step was to reduce the model farms by 60% and then another 50% percent—an insufficient size to support a family." Is C. Henry Smith an expert on Soviet economic and agricultural policy? No...

"The confiscated land was given to peasants from outside the Mennonite communities, often communist party members." What percentage of the Soviet peasantry at the time were "communist party members"? This is a historically dubious claim...

"further confiscating land and rights from the Mennonite majority by labeling landowners and leaders kulaks and sending them in exile." Why are Mennonite landowners and uspecificed "leaders" (presumably religious leaders) somehow essentially politically representative of the "majority" of Mennonites?

"Ministers were disenfranchized and lost all their rights as a citizen....Villages lost all control of their schools" Again, how is control of villages and education by ministers the same as control by the majority population of the village? More Mennonite clerical-fascist propaganda...

"with the introduction of Stalin's First Five-Year Plan there was no hope...""....in unrealized hopes of better living conditions...""... thousands of Mennonites saw no future..."

How would the Mennonite chauvinists feel about language on Wikipedia like "Black and Latino children who participated in Mennonite Fresh Air programs in the 50s and 60s saw no future, lived in unrealized hopes, , etc. etc. blah blah"Or "There was no hope for Mexican peasants in their land disputes with Russian Mennonites who settled in the 20s",

PS: Here is an article by a Mennonite historian detailing Mennonite collaboration with the Nazis and Nazi sentiment among Russian Mennonite migrants to Canada - http://www.mennonitehistorian.ca/19.3.MHSep93.pdf

A special happy Easter to the Wikipedia editor who reverted my edits as "unhelpful". 72.84.198.14 (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

My primary concern is that you marked a referenced statement as dubious. The threshold for inclusion is WP:V.

The other issue is that other items are confirmed via oral tradition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:V applies to reliable sources, and IP 72 has raised the issue of the possible unreliability of the cited source. As for oral tradition known personally to specific editors of a Mennonite background, it is compeltely irrelevant in view of WP:NOR. Certainly at least some of the claims, such as the primary source-based assertion that the Soviets (in 1918 no less!) would literally split families, take away the children and "assign the parents according to the needs of the State" sound like nothing but anti-Communist mythology.--90.154.239.65 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as though this is an article on the *English* Wikipedia, shouldn't the 100.000 notation be 100,000 (and so on)? JJhashisreasons (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Volin: The second fault of Makhno and of many of his intimates -- both commanders and others -- was their behaviour towards women. Especially when drunk, these men let themselves indulge in shameful and even odious activities, going as far as orgies in which certain women were forced to participate. It goes without saying that these acts of debauchery produced a demoralising effect on those who knew about them, and Makhno's good name suffered from this.

2. THE FATE OF MENNONIT ES IN UKRAINE AND THE CRIMEA DURING SOVIET COLLECTIVIZATION AND THE FAMINE (1930-1933) COLIN PETER NEUFELDT: malaria, cholera. and typhus, Makhno's troops infected the Mennonite women that they raped and the Mennonite families from whorn they demanded food and lodging.

3. An uptodate master thesis: The Makhnos of Memory: Mennonite and Makhnovist Narratives of the Civil War in Ukraine, 1917-1921 by Sean David Patterson. It discusses a lot about the anarchist rapes In hand with reports of murder and torture were the reports of rape. The rape of Mennonite women in particularly is stated as a motivating factor for joining the Selbstschutz. Indeed, Makhnovist raids became synonymous with rape. By 1920 some 100 women and girls were being treated for syphilis in Chortitza alone.66 Apologists for the Makhnovists may suggest that a whole host of armies equally guilty of horrendous atrocities were present at various times in the colonies, but for the women who suffered the attacks there is no doubt as to their rapists’ identity. Furthermore, the accounts given all correspond with the known periods of Makhnovist occupation.67

4. Rempel, David G.; Carlson, Cornelia Rempel (2003). A Mennonite Family in Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union

How, they wondered, could God have permitted the murder of so many innocent people, the rape of defenceless women, and the commission of so many other acts of unconscionable brutality?

5. Playground of Violence: Mennonites and Makhnovites in the Time of War and Revolution Mikhail Akulov The Kazakh-British Technical University, Almaty, Kazakhstan What ensued, however, was the reign of semi-indiscriminate terror. Extensive is the dolorous panoply of the Makhnovite murder scenes: Eichenfeld, where more than 80 colonists were shot, Orlovo with 44 victims, Hochfeld with 19, etc. (Venger, 2011, p. 10). 22 To those executed must be added the uncounted victims of rape theft, physical and moral abuse. Typhus brought into colonies by the infected Makhnovite armies further decimated the villagers, cementing the Mennonite impression of facing the Satan himself and giving rise to the narrative of martyrdom (Patterson, 2013, p. 25).

Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)