The Jewish avenger who killed an Ukrainian nationalist leader (THREAD)

The year is 1919 in the Ukrainian People's Republic ruled by president Symon Petliura.
For 3 years the Jews suffered from pogroms by the government and gangs as in 1919 they reached their peak.
In various localities throughout the republic, murders and rapes of Jews were carried out. The estimated number of Jews murdered ranges from 50,000 to about 200,000.
Following thousands of riots and pogroms, about 300,000 Jewish children became orphans. Hundreds of Jewish women experienced abuses and traumatic cruelty such as amputation of eyes, ears, and limbs.
The Jewish population in Ukraine has decreased significantly and hundreds of thousands have become refugees as they fled from Ukraine.
According to the Jews, Symon’s government did nothing to protect the Jews and actually caused some of the pogroms.
In 1926, the former president was assassinated in Paris by a Jewish man “Sholem Schwarzbard”. Sholem heard about the rumor that the cruel leader is in Paris and hurried to search for him.
Sholem found him in a restaurant, and asked if it’s really him. Symon didn’t like the question, looked at the guy in bewilderment and hit him.
Shortly afterwards, Sholem pulled out a gun and shot Symon, while shouting the names of cities in which Jews were massacred with the encouragement of his rule.
During his arrest, he told the police that he killed a great assassinat. In his trial he was acquitted in light of the fact that 15 of his family relatives were murdered along with the tens of thousands of Jews who were killed during the period of Symon׳s reign.

More from History

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x