HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES - See also - Harvard University

212 м. MiSHKiNSKYor abstention from it, was often the demarcation between Judophobicelements and their opponents within the revolutionary movement. Theleaflet containing the union's appeal is in some measure contradictoryon this point. It clearly rejected the notion that all Jews are exploiters,and yet it repeatedly used a term which had that connotation.There was another bizarre inconsistency in the union's leaflet. Itreads: "One should not beat the zhid because . . . one should beat himbecause . . . ," which seems tantamount to "beat the Jews, but forother reasons." Such action would seem to be antithetical to thepurported message — that only exploiters, of whatever nationality,should be attacked.The leaflet was written hurriedly, just after the culmination of theexcesses — that is, the attack on the factory of Iosip Brodskii onApril 27, the second day of the pogrom. According to the officialreport, a mob stoned a military unit and when soldiers opened fire, onewoman was killed and three men wounded. After those events, Ivanivmay have wanted to begin the union's appeal to the rioters cautiously,70then to proceed by calling into question their actions andmotivations, and then to conclude by proposing alternative action.The operative part of the appeal encouraged the mob to continuewreaking vengeance, but urged that it be directed not at all Jews, butat all "kulak-robbers," whether Jews or non-Jews, and at the authoritieswho defend any such "Brodskii." Placing Brodskii in the categoryof "robbers" was quite in tune with the tenets of the union, and hadnothing to do with his being Jewish. The attack on his brewery wasconsistent with the command to beat "every kulak-robber." Afterwardsthe allegedly "innocent" rioters were counterassaulted by soldiers.The picture that emerged was of a social struggle by the"people" against their exploiters and of a resulting clash with theauthorities who defended the exploiters — all in all, phenomena ardentlyuseful to a revolutionary organization. The actual situation,however, was quite different.Most of the victims of the pogrom in Kiev 71as elsewhere wereJewish common people, residing in the city's Podil (Podol) quarter,but some were from wealthy families. The pogromists, who were alsomainly common people, attacked rich Jews first because of their70Hence the reference to one "of ours" (i.e., a Christian) in the leaflet.71Drahomanov (Sóbrame, 1:235) made special mention of Kiev in writing aboutthe Jewish working people who suffered during the pogroms.