The Yiddish press in the United States expresses satisfaction with the verdict of the French jury. The “Jewish Daily Forward,” Socialist newspaper, sums up in the following manner:
“Not only the Jews but also the Ukrainians can be satisfied with the verdict. Many of the Ukrainians probably did not realize that the defenders of Petlura endeavored to take the guilt for the anti-Jewish pogroms from him and place it entirely on the good name of the Ukrainian people. It meant that the beast, the people, committed the pogroms, while Petlura could not have stooped them. In the court, however, it was proven that Petlura and his lieutenants did more to incite the people to pogroms than to stop them. In court it was proven that a great number of Ukrainians pleaded with Petlura to stop the pogroms, but he did not heed them. For the Ukrainians who love their people it is better to hear that the pogroms against the Jews in the Ukraine were called forth by the powers above, as was the case of the pogroms in Czaristic Russia, than by the people below. It is in this explanation as to where the main guilt for the anti-Jewish pogroms in the Ukraine rests one should see the great significance of the verdict of acquittal.”
“The Day” also discusses the implications with regard to the Ukrainian Jewish relations resulting from the trial “It was the Ukrainians who wanted the Schwartzbard-Petlura trial to be transformed into a trial of the Jews against their murderers and pogrom makers. No agent provocateur, no liar, no apostate–the entire personnel which is always called forth by the anti-Semites of every variety whenever they enter into a public tial with the Jews–was absent here. They had the same success this time as always. Their words had the effect that they themselves were condemned, despised and excluded from society, as has been the case since the beginning of the nineteenth century. The hysterical statements of the other Ukrainians had no better effect. Not justice but anti-Semitism spoke through their mouths.
“However, they have failed. The horrible pogroms and massacres in the Ukraine were judged before a world court. They, their inspirers and perpetrators, were put on the bench of the accused. France has learned, and through France the entire civilized world has recognized, what was committed in those bloody years in the Ukraine by the bands which received the material support of the same civilized world. The nations did not know this. Public opinion was not informed, but those in power knew and kept quiet. They also, indirectly, were now judged and condemned. This is the greatest revenge against our hangmen and murderers, whether they did it directly or indirectly.
“Petlura was declared responsible for the pogroms. No excuses and no masks were of any avail. The Jewish blood shed in the Ukraine will remain for many generations the Mark of Cain on the memory of the “Butcher of the Ukraine,” on the foreheads of all those who live but in his spirit and who walk in his footsteps.
“This was the verdict of French justice,” the paper declares.
The “Jewish Morning Journal” writes: “The greatest number of pogroms of the sort which occurred in the Ukraine in 1919 could not have occurred were they not sanctioned by the powers above. It is true that a people sometimes goes wild and commits bloody deeds. But it is for this reason that a government exists and it is for this very reason that a military force is kept. Just as a government suppresses, or at least attempts to suppress, revolutions directed against itself, it is its duty to suppress murders of one class or section against another section of the population.
“The Paris verdict is a condemnation of the massacres organized or sanctioned–it makes no difference–by the powers above. We say frankly that if the powers above would know that it is dangerous to organize or to sanction massacres, no man in power would so lightheartedly and easily permit the ‘lower classes’ to run wild. The Bolsheviks have proven that the ‘lower classes’ can be held in check by a strong government.”
The paper pays tribute to the ability of Henri Torres and polemizes with those who opposed the methods of the Schwartzbard defense. It concludes: “We join the exclamation of the public in and outside of the Paris court when the verdict was rendered: Vive la France.”
The Orthodox “Jewish Daily News” declares: “By the verdict of the Paris jury, France has shown that there is a sense of justice there for everybody alike. By this verdict France has at least taken off a part of the guilt which rested upon her because of her silence, for political reasons, during the time when the atrocities were being committed in the Ukraine.
“The verdict means that Schwartzbard is not a murderer. He is a Goel Ha’damm (avenger) of an unfortunate race and he should therefore not be punished for his act.
“Any other verdict would have been a serious attack on the sense of justice and of humanity. It would have been a desecration of the martyrs, it would have been a mockery of the memory of the saints who fell by the hand of the Petlura murderers. It would have been a declaration that one committed pogroms and remained a gentlemen, if one was only clever enough not to draw the knife himself. This is the importance of the verdict: not only was Schwartzbard acquitted, but Petlura was condemned in Paris. The verdict has proven that he who encourages pogroms is himself a murderer and as such he must be considered. This is the word of France. This is France’s verdict, no other verdict could have been accepted. The Schwartzbard trial will remain historic as an expression of the higher conscience of mankind.
“Another verdict would not only have been a heavy blow to the Jews, but a great insult to the Jewish people. It would also have been an indirect approval of the pogroms. All this was avoided by the verdict of acquittal in Paris.”
The paper highly praises the abilities of Henri Torres. Schwartzbard’s counsel.
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.
