Charges Schwartzbard Slew Petlura with Premeditation and Malice; Denies Petlura’s Guilt for Anti-Jewish Massacres; Depicts Attaman as Ukrainian National Hero and Avenger as Dubious Character; Articles Invoked Include Possibility for Commutation of Sentence (Jewish Telegraphic Agency)
Articles 295, 296, 297, 298 and 302 of the French Criminal Code were invoked in the indictment filed against Sholom Schwartzbard, slayer of Semion Petlura in revenge for the anti-Jewish massacres in the Ukraine between 1918 and 1920 under the Petlura regime, whose trial begins to-morrow before Judge Flory. The articles provide for the death penalty with the possibility of the jury’s recommendation for commutation of sentence to imprisonment.
The official act of indictment as published here today denies that Petlura’s guilt and responsibility for the pogroms which occurred at the time he was head of the Ukrainian government and army had been established, charges that Schwartzbard committed the act with premeditation motivated by malice and asserts that Schwartzbard who was at one time convicted for burglary cannot be viewed in the “role of a judge of Petlura.”
The opening of the trial of the Ukrainian Jew, a French citizen, for the slaying of the one time head of the Ukrainian Republic, following the crumbling of imperialistic Russia, holds the attention of the French press and public and is followed with keen interest by the Jewish communities in Europe. The act of indictment, in attempting to clear the name of Semion Petlura, expresses doubt in the statement of Schwartzbard that he committed the act on his own initiative and that he had no accomplices.
The indictment recounts Schwartzbard’s shooting of Petlura on May 25, 1925 when the latter was leaving a Paris restaurant, and charges that Schwartzbard “wilfully murdered Petlura with malice aforethought.”
After the fall of the Romanoff dynasty, the indictment reads, the Ukrainians established a Rada (council) in which Ukrainians, Russians, Poles and Jews were represented. The Ukraine then became an independent state. After the fall of the Kerensky government, Ukrainia was recognized by the governments of France and England. The Ukrainian government, however, had enormous difficulties with the Red Army.
At that time Semion Petlura became a power. He played an important part in the history of the Republic and in the opinion of his countrymen, he was an apostle of liberty, a regenerator of his country and a savior of the Ukraine. He did not, however, succeed in his ambition, although he devoted himself with the greatest self-sacrifice and devotion. Finally after many battles during which lives were lost he was compelled to leave the country which passed under Soviet rule. He then settled in Paris where he led a simple, retired life.
When Schwartzbard heard that Petlura had died from the wounds he had inflicted, Schwartzbard was overjoyed. He shook the hand of his informant, the indictment states. When examined, Schwartzbard stated that from his childhood he had lived in the Ukraine, that he fought in the French army during the war and was wounded. He then returned to the Ukraine where he witnessed the pogroms which left an indelible horror on his mind. He had heard people speak of Petlura and became convinced that it was Petlura who was responsible for these pogroms. When Schwartzbard returned to Paris and heard that Petlura was living here, he obtained the paper, “Trident,” which Petlura was publishing and found that he was continuing his anti-Semitic activity. Schwartzbard decided to take revenge. Schwartzbard declared that he acted on his own initiative without extraneous help or accomplices. None knew of his plans, not even his wife.
Although these depositions must be admitted in the absence of anything else pointing to the contrary, the act continues, it is certain that the circumstances do not agree with the murderer’s statement. Professor Koval, a friend of Petlura, testifies that he saw Schwartzbard, accompanied by others, shadowing Petlura. Schwartzbard’s method of defense is very unstable, the act proceeds. He could not produce any proof of his statements. Really, Petlura was not an anti-Semite but a lover of the Jews, the act asserts.
Even Schwartzbard recognized the contradictions in his statement. After insisting on Petlura’s responsibility for the pogroms, he finally admitted that the only fact is that the pogroms occurred while Petlura was the head of the state and army and never proved that Petlura organized or even was indifferent to these murders which shocked the conscience of mankind. Schwartzbard, the act continues, brought no proof of his statements which are founded on vague presumptions.
No one denies the unfortunate, terrible pogroms during Petlura’s government, the act states, but they were due to the state of anarchy which prevailed in the country after the revolution. The real culprits were the Russian soldiers who were stationed in the Ukraine and not the Ukrainians. Both Jews and Christians suffered. The Red Army, as well as Denikin’s army, engaged in the pogroms. It is no doubt that Petlura’s regiments were also engaged in these criminal practices and even the chaotic state of the country cannot explain their conduct because, being representatives of law and order, they should have shown a good example, but it was very difficult for Petlura, living far away, with his orders frequently disobeyed, to control these activities which were really caused by the circumstances of the moment, the act declares.
Shulgin, former minister in the Petlura government, explained the hardships which were brought to a head in these pogroms by the conditions which have always existed between the peasants and the Jews. The peasants regarded with mistrust a population engaged only in trade or in assisting the estate owners. The peasants did not distinguish between Jew and estate owner whom they considered their oppressor. Also, the Bosheviks have always included Jews in high positions in the Ukrainian administration. The Cheka contributed to the unpopularity of the Jews. The enemies of Ukrainian independence have always encouraged the hostility between Ukrainians and Jews. Furthermore, the army, having had no regular supply of food, necessarily compelled the population to provide it with supplies. The dregs of the population participated in the robberies. The peasants were exasperated and naturally reprisals followed.
The historian Jabotinsky, the act continues, declares that the cause of the pogroms was the anti-Semitism of the events. It is therefore clear that theoretical responsibility cannot be placed upon Petlura in the face of his remarkable energy against the pogroms and the great humane principles he endeavored to instill in his soldiers and the wise measures he adopted under most difficult circumstances to prevent these pogroms.
The act then quotes the text of several orders against the pogroms which were issued by Petlura to the army. It asserts that Petlura shot those who were guilty in the pogroms and that he had helped the victims out of the state treasury, particularly the victims of the Proskurov pogrom. Many beneficial measures, the act further asserts, taken by Petlura show the wisdom and liberalism of his government. His government gave extensive rights to the national minorities and especially the Jews. It appointed a commission in 1919 to inquire into the causes of the pogroms. It had among its members a minister for Jewish affairs, it permitted the printing of Yiddish inscriptions on the Ukrainian banknotes. There were Jewish high officials even in the army. Jews declared their confidence in his government. The late Israel Zangwill expressed appreciation for Petlura’s granting the Jewish national rights. Jabotinsky refused to consider Petlura and his associates as pogromshchiks. Stavinsky, a Ukrainian leader, stated that Petlura instructed him to support the suggestion made at the Zionist Congress in Carlsbad to organize a special Jewish gendarmerie in the Ukraine. The editor of the Trident denies that he had published articles inciting pogroms.
It is therefore clear that Schwartzbard had no reason either because of Petlura’s past or because of a fear for Petlura’s future to commit the crime he did, the act declares. His crime appears strange under the circumstances and even stranger and more terrible because it was committed in 1925, years after Petlura had lost power, had lived modestly and quietly in obscurity.
Schwartzbard, the indictment states, should have felt enough affection for France which treated him well, made him her citizen, and not shed on her soil the blood of an aged man living in retirement, having passed all active life.
The indictment depicts Schwartzbard in dark colors, charging him with having been an anarchist and having been convicted of burglary, although it adds that the information obtained about Schwartzbard in France is not unfavorable.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
