November 24, 2017

Putin vs. Petliura

More

A statue of military and political leader Symon Petliura (1879-1926) was unveiled in Vinnytsia, Ukraine, on October 14, Defender of Ukraine Day. It is hardly aggressive: Petliura is neither standing nor astride a warhorse, but sitting with a map of Ukraine in his hands. The monument is sited in an area known as Yerusalymka, some 200 meters from a functioning Jewish synagogue.

The very next day, the Russian news agency RT published an article titled “Ukraine opens monument to nationalist icon Petliura responsible for anti-Jewish pogroms” (https://on.rt.com/8pv6). Claiming (falsely) that Petliura headed the Ukrainian People’s Republic (also known as the Ukrainian National Republic) in 1917-1921, it points out (correctly) that during this time, “between 35,000 and 50,000 Jews were killed in a string of pogroms.” The article notes that Petliura was assassinated in Paris in 1926 by Sholom Schwartzbard, whom a Paris court acquitted on the grounds that, since 15 of his relatives had been killed in the pogroms, his was a crime of passion. In classic RT style, the author links Petliura with the alleged crimes of Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych during World War II.

On the following day, the Jewish Telegraph Agency, citing RT, ran an article with the more cautious headline “Ukraine honors nationalist leader blamed for Jewish pogroms” (JTA, 16 October 2017). On October 20, a JTA news brief titled “Honoring of anti-Semites a ‘problem,’ says Israel’s ambassador to Ukraine” reported that several Jewish groups had condemned the unveiling of the statue, which it related to “a series of gestures honoring nationalists in Ukraine following the 2014 revolution, in which nationalists played a leading role.”

Shortly after, a Facebook posting by a “firebrand Ukrainian nationalist” from the Svoboda party, defending the monument and blaming the Jews for the Holodomor, was quoted by the “Ukrainian-Israeli” website “newsru” (sic). The story was picked up by the Times of Israel (Sue Surkes, “Ukrainian Nationalist to Jews: ‘Get used to our rules’ or be punished,” October 23, 2017).

This string of news items shows how Russian disinformation is concocted and disseminated. On the assumption that Petliura headed a Ukrainian National Republic (UNR) government that controlled Ukraine throughout 1917-1921, RT concludes that Petliura was responsible for the 35,000-50,000 Jewish pogrom deaths of that period. In fact, the assumption, and therefore the conclusion, is false. But the JTA repeats them uncritically.

Formed in 1917, the Central Rada of the UNR, which was not headed by Petliura, fell on April 29, 1918, to Pavlo Skoropadsky’s Hetmanate. The new regime imprisoned Petliura for four months and yielded to the Directory only in mid-December. The Directory abandoned Kyiv on February 4, 1919. Now headed by Petliura, it moved to Vinnytsia, exercising effective control over only a small portion of Ukrainian territory, which was invaded by the White and Red armies. From July to mid-November, the Directory was based in Kamianets-Podilsky. Petliura himself left for Poland on December 5, 1919, returning only briefly to take Kyiv with the Poles in May 1920 before again retreating and going into exile. Ms. Surkes correctly notes in her Times of Israel article that Petliura’s soldiers were responsible for 493 out of 1,236 recorded pogroms. Independent forces committed 25 percent of the pogroms, while the Whites and Reds were responsible for 17 percent and 9 percent, respectively (Henry Abramson, “A Prayer for the Government,” 1999, pp. 113, 115). Ms. Surkes acknowledges that the role of Petliura himself remains unclear.

Was the Directory responsible for Jewish pogroms? “The Directory denounced anti-Semitism, periodically punished perpetrators of anti-Semitic outbreaks, appropriated large sums of money to reimburse victims of pogroms, reactivated the national-personal autonomy law of the Rada for national minorities, and created a special ministry for Jewish affairs, headed by a Jew. But it was unable to enforce its policies.” (Martha Bohachevsky-Chomiak, “The Directory of the Ukrainian National Republic,” in Taras Hunczak, ed., “The Ukraine, 1917-1921: A Study in Revolution,” 1977, pp. 87-88). Abramson finds the Directory and its affiliates responsible for a total of 16,706 confirmed deaths (Abramson 116). This contrasts with RT’s implication that Petliura was guilty of all 35,000 to 50,000 Jewish pogrom murders of 1917-1921.

Abramson divides the question of responsibility into agency and accountability. We have no document showing that the Directory directly or indirectly ordered pogroms (Id. 132). While some members of the Directory may have incited them, in January 1919 Volodymyr Vynnychenko condemned pogroms, as did Borys Martos in April. “With some exceptions,” writes Abramson, “there is little evidence to suggest that the Directory leadership actively instigated the anti-Jewish violence…” But if there was no agency, was there accountability? Abramson continues, “…yet [the Directory] must bear responsibility for not taking sufficient measures to stop the carnage.” He adds that the quarrelling Jewish political parties also must share some blame. (Id. 133-34, 164).

Was Petliura responsible for the pogroms? The evidence does not establish that he was anti-Semitic (Id., 136-37). He signed anti-pogrom appeals in October 1917 (Id., 81), and on August 26 and August 27, 1919 (Id., 157-61). But Petliura did not prevent the pogroms of early 1919 in Berdychiv, Proskuriv, Zhytomyr and elsewhere. He did not control the affiliated warlords. Arnold Margolin later argued that Petliura had failed to act decisively enough to prevent and punish pogroms (Id., 138-39). Perhaps, in the face of mass desertions, he wished to avoid antagonizing his troops and supporters (Id., 138-40).

As often happens when we apply moral standards to historical situations – as I believe we should – the results are ambiguous. We can be sure, however, that Symon Petliura was no pogromist.

The reasons why Vladimir Putin’s media are targeting him on this anniversary of the Russian Revolutions, and will likely continue to do on the upcoming anniversaries of the civil and national-liberation wars, lie elsewhere. First, Petliura symbolizes Ukrainian resistance to Russian military aggression, which continues to this day. Second, he represents an independent, democratic, ethnically and socio-economically egalitarian state. For these reasons, he remains a threat to the Putin regime.

 

Andrew Sorokowski can be reached at [email protected].

Comments are closed.