Previous | Next

Spring 2022 · Vol. 51 No. 1 · pp. 124–126 

Book Review

Makhno and Memory: Anarchist and Mennonite Narratives of Ukraine’s Civil War, 1917–1921

Sean Patterson. Winnipeg, MB: University of Manitoba Press, 2020. 216 pages.

Reviewed by Conrad Stoesz

Freedom fighter or evil personified: these two views of the same man come from two different communities. Sean Patterson’s book sets out to examine why many Ukrainians see Nestor Makhno as a heroic freedom fighter while Mennonites with family history in Ukraine see this man as evil personified. While these views are rooted in historical events, Makhno and his actions live on as touchstones within Ukraine, the worldwide anarchist community, and the Mennonite community.

One hundred years after the Russian Revolution, interest in Makhno continues, as is evident in print publications and growing collections of online resources. Mennonite communities produce many family stories that tell of the horrendous events of the Russian Revolution and Makhno’s violent assaults on the Russian Mennonite colonies. Some of these stories have been compiled in Arthur Toews’s “The Eichenfeld Collection.” Older academic resources include Victor Peters’s 1969 work Nestor Makhno: The Life of an Anarchist and Harvey Dyck’s 2004 book, Nestor Makhno and the Eichenfeld Massacre: A Civil War Tragedy in a Ukrainian Mennonite Village.

Patterson’s study, based on his University of Manitoba master’s thesis, considers the Mennonite and Ukrainian sources as well as significant sources produced by Makhno’s movement itself. The book examines competing narratives and memories surrounding the Russian Revolution (1917-1922), the actions of Makhno’s anarchist agenda, and his impact on the Mennonite communities in Ukraine. While Makhno is a popular figure in the worldwide anarchist movement, anarchist authors seldom analyze how Makhno and his movement brutalized some populations; they often turn a blind eye towards the violence and multi-generational trauma it engendered. On the other hand, the Mennonite {125} community does not pay enough attention to the socio-economic factors that became the breeding grounds of Makhno’s violent movement.

Patterson describes how the charismatic Makhno became a leader within the anarchist movement after his release from prison. He eventually amassed an army with as many as 100,000 troops and controlled regions large enough to implement land and wealth distribution campaigns. His army also helped to defeat the White, pro-Tzarist army. Makhno understood the struggle to be a class struggle, not an ethnic one. Mennonites were not targeted because of their ethnicity but because of their wealth. Their wealth was largely based on land offered by Catherine the Great in the late 1700s to entice foreign settlers into South Russia (Ukraine). From the 1860s to the Russian Revolution, the emancipated Ukrainian peasantry provided cheap labor for Mennonite industrialists and estate owners.

“Social tensions were further amplified by Mennonite collaboration with the Austro-German occupation and White Army” (160). When the German army occupied portions of Ukraine in 1918, they were welcomed by the German-speaking Mennonites, which gave Ukrainians another reason to distrust Mennonites. Makhno stoked the fires of resentment when he declared to his fellow Ukrainians that “the wealthy are inhumane, vampirically feeding from the blood of the masses” (64). Some Mennonite communities created self-defense units to protect communities, but at times they overstepped their defensive programs. Their apparent alignment with German and government forces made them even greater targets of Makhno’s anarchist forces.

Makhno’s larger project was to redistribute land and wealth. In documents about the movement’s political aims, “Makhno is positioned as the movement’s voice of reason and higher morality while simultaneously acting as a harsh avenger of the oppressed people” (62). Patterson believes that Makhno’s ideology should be taken seriously. It guided the movement and provided a justification for its violence.

But Makhno’s actions did not match his claim to a higher morality. His closest friends accused him of drunkenness, excessive violence, and rape. Another insider complained of Makhno’s drinking bouts and erratic behavior (70-71). Patterson nevertheless claims that massacres like the one at Eichenfeld, where hundreds of people were killed, typically occurred “in a highly localized manner often outside the direct oversight of Makhno” (66).

Makhno’s plan to redistribute land and wealth was supposedly aimed at wealthy landowners, many of whom were Mennonites. But how was this enacted? Eyewitnesses tell harrowing tales of “non-wealthy” men and women robbed, forced to provide food and shelter to Makhno’s men {126} who held them and their families at knifepoint. They were forced to identify large property owners, their family members, and declare the scope of their own family’s wealth. Many less well-to-do Mennonites found their relatives hacked to death. Some reported seeing Makhno’s men revel in the death throes of their victims.

Patterson’s work is an important step in understanding the many dimensions of the tumultuous Russian Revolution and the brutal civil war that followed, but more work will need to be done before the far-reaching trauma caused by Makhno and his followers can be more fully comprehended.

Conrad Stoesz, Archivist
Mennonite Heritage Archives
Canadian Mennonite University, Winnipeg, MB

Previous | Next