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

Sean Patterson’s Makhno and Memory provides a unique and in-depth look at two groups of people who were involved in the Russian Civil War of 1917 to 1921. 

Nestor Makhno lead peasants of Russia in an anarchist revolution which gained traction during the war and because Mennonites colonists living in southern Ukraine were for the most part wealthy, owning land, and employing peasant workers, Makhno and the Makhnovists ultimately came into conflict with these Mennonites. The climax of their conflict in 1919 is referred to as the Eichenfeld Massacre in which over 800 Mennonites were killed (back cover).

The general, reflexive argument that Patterson makes in the book is that in any recount of historical events there will conflicting perspectives and accounts of events because of the different agendas and emotional experiences of everyone. 

In particular to the content of the historical account of the book, the argument is that Makhnovists perceived the conflict with the Mennonites as a class conflict, while the Mennonites experienced it as an attack on their ethnicity and religion but neither one of these claims are completely true or false.

To make his arguments, Patterson first gives an account of the historical events of the Russian Civil War and the Makhnovist-Mennonite conflict through the lens of the Makhnovists and gives background biographical information about Nestor Makhno. This is followed by accounts from voices and writings of several Mennonites who lived at the time and some Mennonite historians. An overview of accounts of the Eichenfeld Massacre was then given. Patterson draws on a wide variety of types of sources.

Evaluating the book, I believe Patterson does great work in Makhno and Memory providing as an objective and unbiased overview of the various perspectives as possible. Even though he’s from a Mennonite background himself, he doesn’t overly sympathize with the Mennonite perspective that Makhno and his revolutionists were the only ones in the wrong and were pure evil, nor the Makhnovist perspective that they were righteous in using violence against people of different economic classes who they believed to be oppressing them.

My criticism of the book is that I don’t think enough theology was brought into it. 

Although I know it was meant to be a history book rather than a theological analysis, I think Patterson could’ve commented more on whether the Mennonites’ treatment of their workers and interactions with the Makhnovists were consistent with historic Anabaptist theology and the teachings of Jesus or other Biblical teachings. 

The main reference to Mennonite theology was their beliefs against bearing arms and how the Selbstschutzler went against these beliefs but I think there was more that could be theologically analyzed. 

Even without citing the Bible or theology I think there are lessons that can be learned from the actions of both sides of this conflict. This could’ve been added in another section at the end of the book to not mess with the unbiased nature of the historical accounts.

There are four lessons that I took away from reading the book and I believe the Bible could’ve provided wisdom to prevent some of the mistakes made by both the Mennonites and the Makhnovists if they had studied it and done more self-reflection.

1. Firstly, I do not believe there was anything inherently wrong with the Mennonites being prosperous and wealthy but where they potentially went wrong was in how they treated their workers.
   
   It can be hard to treat people who work for you with care and respect when you are worried about maintaining your wealth and prosperity, hence Jesus’ saying in Matthew 19:23: “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matt. 19:23 NRSV).
   
   Although to their credit Patterson mentions that the Mennonites in general treated their workers better than other land owners, the ones who treated their workers, such as a young Makhno, poorly could’ve learned from Jesus’ “sheep and goats” parable in Matthew 25: “Anything you didn’t do for one of the least important of these, you didn’t do for me.” (Matt. 25:45 NRSV).
   
   

2. Any of the abuse and suffering Makhno and his followers received at the hands of the Mennonites or other landowners though did not make them righteous in their attacks.
   
   In Matthew 7, Jesus says “how can you say to your neighbour ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye?” (Matt. 7:5 NRSV) and in Matthew 5 “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44 NRSV).
   
   Makhno was not brought up Christian but did work on a Mennonite farm growing up. If he had been exposed to Jesus’ teachings and took them to heart maybe a whole bunch of people would have had their lives spared.
   
   

3. These verses are also central to the pacifist theology of Mennonites. Although the things the Makhnovists did to the Mennonites were absolutely horrible and I understand how one could easily justify defending themselves when this type of violence is inflicted upon them and their loved ones, the question must be asked: what do ones’ beliefs mean if they aren’t followed through with in the most dire of circumstances?
   
   The Mennonites who joined the Selbstschutz seemed to me to be representative of the “seeds” in Jesus’ “Parable of the Sower” in Matthew 13 who fell on rocky ground where there wasn’t much soil and where scorched by the sun and withered away because of the lack of depth of soil. There were Mennonite “seeds” who seemed to fall on good soil though like Adolf Reimer who stayed true to his beliefs stating that Mennonites ought to know that “God’s protection is more real than the Selbstschutz" (p. 100).
   
   

4. Finally, the apostle Paul says in Galatians 3:28 “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28 NRSV).
   
   Again because Makhno was not Christian he cannot be held to this belief but I think if both the Mennonites and Makhnovists set aside their emotions related to their differences in class, or religious belief, they might’ve seen each other as simply fellow human beings who had life stories, who experienced suffering in various ways and they could’ve worked out their differences through conversation rather than killing or beating each other.

​The stories of mistakes made and of suffering could help to teach all people to live better lives today and I think Sean Patterson could have highlighted this more in his book. Overall though I believe Makhno and Memory was a very well-researched and well-written book.