HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES - See also - Harvard University

THE WORKERS' UNION AND THE JEWS 205toward the Jews may also have been influenced by the outspokenlyanti-Jewish brochures of Podolyns'kyi, found at his home when it wassearched by the police in 1878. 48The second program of the union, drafted before the arrests at thebeginning of January 1881, does not mention Jews among the socialgroups inimical to the people that should be targets of agrarianterror. 49Also, there is no evidence that the union, which tried toorganize protests against the large landowners, was involved in anyactions against Jews at the time. Nevertheless, the leaflet of January 30aggravated an intensely anti-Jewish atmosphere. Over the next threemonths it would explode in a wave of pogroms that fanned out fromthe large cities and swept through whole districts of the countryside.A pogrom took place in Kiev on 26 and 27 April 1881, almost twoweeks after the first pogrom broke out in Ielysavethrad (Kirovohrad).The Kiev pogrom was the worst of that year, and from Kiev it spreadthroughout the gubernia. 50 The last act of the union was closely relatedtried to exculpate Ivaniv. Forty years later, recalling a conversation they had on theway to sentences at hard labor, she implied that not Ivaniv, but one "pan"(Piotrovskii), an agent-provocateur, wrote the leaflet. Her story is not veryconvincing. Hecker writes that at that time all the union's leaflets were written byIvaniv. Koval'skaia contended that there was no evidence that a "fraternity"existed at all. In fact, the name Zemlia і volia was used ad hoc, in another leafletaddressed to the peasants (fn. 44, above). All the leaflets bore the name of theunion's printing press. Ivaniv indicated that course of action already in his letter toPopov (fn. 41). Piotrovskii, who knew Ivaniv well, took part in the action Ivanivplanned, but was not a member of the union; see Balabanov, К istorii, pp. 101-103, and R. Kantor, "Razgrom Iuzhnorusskogo rabochego soiuza 1880-1881 gg.,"Krasnyi arkhiv 30 (1928): 211. It seems improbable that he had access to theclandestine press. Koval'skaia herself said (1924, p. 211) that Piotrovskii wassuspected of being a traitor. Even the incautious Ivaniv must have considered thatpossibility. Had Piotrovskii written and printed the leaflet, he would not have leftcopies by the printing press where they could easily be found by the leaders of theunion. Koval'skaia herself said (1924, p. 217) that some of the leaflet's agrarianproposals and postulates were in constant flux, and a man like Ivaniv would not betoo concerned with current details, but rather with action.48Maksakov and Nevskii, Iuzhnorusskie rabochie soiuzy, p. 335. Zhuchenko, inreferring to the leaflet of 31 January 1881 (Sotsialno-ekonomichna prohrama,p. 143), abstained from mentioning the Jews.49Maksakov and Nevskii, Iuzhnorusskie rabochie soiuzy, pp. 265-68: cf. theoutlined program of another revolutionary organization, ibid., p. 306.50S. Dubnov, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, vol. 2 (Philadelphia,1918), pp. 251-56. Much related documentary material on the pogrom in Kievappears in G. I. Krasnyi-Admoni, Materiały dlia istorii antievreiskikh pogromov νRossii, vol. 2 (Petrograd and Moscow, 1923), including the report of General