Talk:Odessa pogroms

Removed the JE entry due to

• One century out of date secondary source
• non-NPV
• reproducing content of another encyclopedia

Added two new sources, numbers 2 and 3 in the notes. Xenovatis (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding new sources, I hope that wiki page is and is going to stay reliable. However, I am restoring J.E. quotation. It is an important historical encyclopedic source and we mention its date. Note that historical encyclopedic sources may or may not fit to someone's idea of POV. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"In 1981, right after the begining of the Greek revolution in the Peloponese "

1891 maybe? Could someone who knows, update it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.86.107 (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a good citation for the 1886 pogrom? I can only find http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/pogrom.htm but it is possible they take the info from Wikipedia. They do seem to cite Visualizing pogroms in Russian history by Robert Weinberg but the on-line edition is subscriber/pay only. Anyone?BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You'll find it here: which is currently cite #3. Сол-раз (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Testimony in the Mendel Beilis case, transcripts of which I am translating, suggest that private parties spent money on an investigation. Or was that only the Kishinev pogrom? 71.163.114.49 (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The lede currently contains the sentance: "According to Jarrod Tanny, most historians argue that the earlier incidents were a result of "frictions unleashed by modernization" rather than antisemitism.[2] The 1905 pogrom was markedly larger in scale and antisemitism played a central role". This seems not quite right to me for a couple of reasons:

Firstly, "Someone (not important enough to have their own article) says other people say" seems a bit too vague, particularly for the lede. If there are lots of scholoars saying that, and little mainstream disagreement, then presumably we can just state that as fact, with references to back it up. On the other hand, if scholarly oppinion is more divided, then we shouldn't just say "someone says opinion ish't divided" with no counterpoint.

Secondly, and possibly more importantly, the cited text doesn't quite say what the lede says. "Not a resurgence of medieval anti-Semitism and Judeophobia" is not the same as "not due to anti-semitism". Modern and medieval antisemitism are - as I understand it - somewhat different beasts, derived from different prejudices. The former tends to be "they're too poor/too rich and taking all our jobs" combined with "And they run the government!" conspiracy theories, whereas the latter tended to be "they killed Christ". "Largely the product of frictions unleashed by modernization" is entierly compatible with the modern forms. 62.172.108.24 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The Bolshevik Piatnitsky is not a reliable source or trustworthy source or credible source. His long section critiquing the Tsarist government (a Bolshevik saying anything to criticise the Russian Empire, imagine my shock) should be removed, --2001:8003:59DB:4100:C866:73A5:A4AA:6EC3 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

No comments? I'll remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:59DB:4100:4D2E:5C6F:2EF6:10D (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to have been added again in its own section. I agree that Piatnitsky is not a reliable source. I will remove the section since there seem to be consensus on it not being reliable. Vinidapoo (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have an opinion on whether Piatnitsky is a reliable source, but 1) there is hardly a consensus here as there is a 4 year old single anonymous user saying that Piatnitsky is not reliable, 2) being a Bolshevik is certainly not a de facto reason not to be reliable. For example, Let History Judge was a textbook used when I studied Stalinism and is written by Roy Medvedev who was expelled from the Russian communist party in 1969. It is not clear to me that Piatnitsky would be unreliable simply due to being a member of what was the majority political group in the USSR era. If that were the case it would render a whole host of historians unreliable. More importantly though this section isn't sourced to him. It is sourced to Edvard Radzinsky and to Alan Woods. I think they are reliable enough for information about a pogrom in 1905. Andre🚐 15:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Following the changes on Odesa page, the page should be renamed. 00:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetyev (talk • contribs)

There was no WP:RM. For now, the spelling needs to be consistent with the title. Mellk (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Vinidapoo, your edits seem to be around, in at least a few instances, downplaying or removing a reference to either official state involvement by Tsarist Russia in pogroms or antisemitism, or changing the reasons, causes, or effects of the pogroms to either involve economic considerations as opposed to antisemitism, or that perhaps, as you rendered it in one edit, the pogroms were somehow "between" Jews (and other Jews?) can you explain a bit more what your intentions are with these edits? I do not believe that at least the later pogroms in Odessa are considered to have been rehabilitated, despite this article confusingly covering multiple time periods as opposed to splitting them into separate articles. The "more famous" pogroms that drove a lot of emigration as far as I know, are by historians largely considered to be a resurgence of antisemitism and not simply a rational economic action. Andre🚐 20:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "rehabilitated" in regards to the pogroms, but I can try to explain my edits.

The article already had good sources that provided a detailed background on how the economic conditions of Odessa and the success of Jews in city's economy bred frustration from non-Jews (Greeks, Russians, etc.). This is particularly true with the 1905 Odessa pogrom and the economic downturn caused by the Russo-Japanese war. This was already part of the article before I edited it. I updated the lede to reflect this and expanded the article based on one of the sources. The source also discussed how Jewish businessmen engaged in preferential hiring and other forms of discrimination against non-Jews, so I added that too.

The edit where I changed the lede to say that the pogroms were "between" Jews and non-Jews was done to reflect the fact that the violence was mutual with significant numbers of non-Jews also dying in these clashes. It was not unilateral violence against Jews. The article even discusses Jewish militia groups that were involved in the violence. According to one of the sources of the article, there were a reported 500 deaths as a result of the 1905 violence with 100 of them being non-Jews. The article seemed to be disregarding the mutual violence that caused these deaths, so I made an edit. Vinidapoo (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

That source absolutely does not downplay antisemitism or say that the pogroms were "mutual." "These pogroms stemmed in part from deep-rooted anti-Jewish feelings and reflected a Judeophobia prevalent among many non-Jewish residents of the city...The heritage of anti-semitism made Odessa particularly ripe for a pogrom: the legal disabilities and mistreatment endured by the Jews of Russia engendered an attitude that accepted anti-semitism and tolerated anti-Jewish violence. The domination of the grain trade by Jewish merchants predisposed many dockworkers against Jews, whom they conveniently saw as the source of the troubles, particularly the lack of jobs, besetting the city and themselves. Consequently, when day laborers sought an outlet for their frustrations and problems, they focused on Jews. Without taking into account the hostile, anti-Jewish atmosphere in Odessa, we cannot understand why Russian day laborers at times of economic distress chose not to attack other Russian workers who competed with them for scarce jobs or Russian employers, but instead indiscriminately lashed out at all Jews, regardless of whether they were job competitors. ...Revolutionaries and self-defense units organized by students and Jews threw homemade bombs at the Russian demonstrators. These actions suggest that they, along with pro-government forces, were itchy for confrontation and ready to instigate trouble. The shootings triggered a chain reaction: convinced that Jews were responsible for the shootings, members of the patriotic demonstration began to shout "Beat the Yids" and "Death to the Yids" and went on a rampage, attacking Jews and destroying Jewish apartments, homes, and stores....Popular and official anti-semitism and depressed economic circumstances set the stage by providing the necessary psychological and material preconditions, while the hothouse political atmosphere of Odessa in 1905 helped trigger the pogrom While he mentions the statistic of 100 non-Jewish deaths out of 500 total, this is presented within the context of suppressing the primary violence of the pogrom against Jews, or as a result of clashes after the anti-Jewish violence had begun, often involving Jewish self-defense responding to the attacks. Even when discussing the actions of self-defense, it's explicitly stated as a response to existing or impending attacks:"Building upon the self-defense groups they had formed in the aftermath of the 1903 Kishinev pogrom, Odessa's Jews armed themselves and issued appeals, calling upon the non-Jewish residents of Odessa to show restraint and not engage in violence against Jews." The overwhelming focus of the atrocities described is on the Jewish victims: "Although the list of atrocities perpetrated against the Jews is too long to recount here, suffice it to say that pogromists brutally and indiscriminately beat, mutilated, and murdered defenseless Jewish men, women, and children. They hurled Jews out of windows, raped and cut open the stomachs of pregnant women, and slaughtered infants in front of their parents." This is not a description of "mutual violence." Your edits are a misrepresentation of the source's main arguments and emphasis. The source clearly presents the Odessa pogroms as events fundamentally driven by deep-seated antisemitism, exacerbated by economic and political tensions, with the primary victims being Jews, and any "mutual" violence occurring largely in the context of Jewish self-defense against overwhelming aggression or as a consequence of the broader unrest. Andre🚐 22:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not trying to downplay anti-Semitism with my edits. Instead, I am attempting to point out that the sources discuss economic factors for ethnic tensions and that violence between Jews and non-Jews occurred in these clashes.

The full quote about the start of the pogrom that you used is an example of this:

Suddenly, shots rang out and a young boy carrying an icon lay dead... evidence strongly suggests that revolutionaries or members of Jewish and student self-defense brigades were responsible. In any case, the crowd panicked and ran through the streets as more shots were fired from rooftops, balconies, and apartment windows, prompting some to plead for police protection. Revolutionaries and self-defense units organized by students and Jews threw homemade bombs at the Russian demonstrators. These actions suggest that they, along with pro-government forces, were itchy for confrontation and ready to instigate trouble. The shootings triggered a chain reaction: convinced that Jews were responsible for the shootings, members of the patriotic demonstration began to shout "Beat the Yids" and "Death to the Yids" and went on a rampage...

The full quote illustrates that Jews also perpetrated violence against innocent non-Jews. It also shows that anti-Jewish sentiment was not based purely on some blind, deep-seated anti-Semitism, but instead due to negative effects no their lives that they believed Jews were responsible for.

It feels like the article is pushing a one-dimensional narrative that the violence was only perpetrated by non-Jews due to an unexplainable, systemic anti-Jewish hatred. The sources for the article provide evidence that this is not the case. Jews engaged in violence against innocent non-Jews, and the economy was a factor in anti-Jewish sentiment.

In any case, my edits added factual information from already used sources, so I do not see why they are a problem. Vinidapoo (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The section you quoted says that they attacked innocent unrelated people to the people who threw homemade bombs at demonstrators. That is antisemitism as they blamed the Jews as a whole. Reading the context and the source in full makes it clear that this is not a one-dimensional narrative. The Weinberg article, while discussing revolutionaries or members of Jewish and student self-defense brigades and economic factors, does not equate the nature or scale of the violence perpetrated by Jewish self-defense groups or revolutionaries with the systemic, widespread, and often state-sanctioned violence of the pogromists against the Jewish community. The source consistently frames antisemitism (Judeophobia, anti-Jewish animosity, anti-Jewish atmosphere) as a fundamental, long-term precondition and a "potent force" that directed anger specifically at Jews. Your edits wrongfully reflect that antisemitism was not a primary and deeply ingrained cause of the pogroms and that the violence was "mutual" in a way that equates the aggression of the pogromists with the defensive or revolutionary actions of Jews, or implies shared culpability for the pogrom's specific nature. The overwhelming evidence in the source points to a pogrom against Jews. The source details widespread, brutal, indiscriminate attacks, murder, rape, and looting targeting the Jewish community. This is not presented as a symmetrical conflict. The "chain reaction" described on October 19th, where an initial trigger (shots, possibly from self-defense) led to the mob shouting "Beat the Yids" and "Death to the Yids" and then attacking all Jews and Jewish property indiscriminately, is a direct demonstration of antisemitism. The anger, even if triggered by specific actions, was channeled by pre-existing antisemitic hatred towards the entire Jewish community. Weinberg explicitly states that the "hostile, anti-Jewish atmosphere in Odessa" is necessary to understand why anger was directed at Jews, rather than other targets. Economic competition fueled antisemitism, it did not replace it as the underlying cause of targeted violence. Andre🚐 23:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not saying that there was no violence against innocent Jews or that there was no anti-Semitism. I am saying that the source states the pogrom due to violence against innocent non-Jews by Jews. Jewish self-defense groups shot an innocent child, firebombed innocent demonstrators, and indiscriminately shoot at the crowd before any violence began.

Similarly, there were real grievances that non-Jews had about the outsized influence of Jews in the city's economy. While this does not excuse the violence, there are reasons beyond blind hatred that caused the pogrom.

These are facts from a source in the article, so it should be included. Vinidapoo (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

While Weinberg states that the shooting on Oct 19th (possibly by Jewish self-defense) triggered a "chain reaction" that led to the pogromists' rampage, it does not attribute the cause of the pogrom itself solely or primarily to this initial act. Instead, it places this incident within a broader context of deep-seated "anti-semitism," "long-standing ethnic and religious antagonisms," "economic competition," and a "hothouse political atmosphere." The "chain reaction" was specifically directed against Jews because of that pre-existing antisemitic atmosphere. Weinberg supports the idea that economic grievances and perceived Jewish revolutionary activity contributed to fueling and channeling anti-Jewish sentiment. It explains why non-Jews might have targeted Jews. However, it simultaneously and strongly asserts that "deep-rooted anti-Jewish feelings" and "Judeophobia" were "prevalent among many non-Jewish residents" and that "The heritage of anti-semitism made Odessa particularly ripe for a pogrom." The "negative effects" were interpreted and magnified through an antisemitic lens. Blaming an entire ethnic group for perceived economic woes or for the actions of a few individuals from that group is itself a characteristic of antisemitism, even if there are underlying economic factors. The source explicitly details the horrific, indiscriminate nature of the violence against Jews. It also states that policemen participated in "looting and killing," "providing protection for pogromists by firing on the self-defense units," and "directing pogromists to Jewish-owned stores or Jews' apartments." This indicates a systemic targeting that goes far beyond a "mutual clash" between two equally aggressive sides.

The Weinberg source, despite detailing mutual violence in specific instances, overwhelmingly describes the events as "anti-Jewish pogroms" with Jews as the primary victims of widespread, indiscriminate violence. Calling them "clashes between Jews and non-Jews" in the lead suggests a more symmetrical conflict than the source or historical consensus supports. The original placed antisemitism as the primary motivation, with economic tensions and Jewish revolutionaries as contributing factors. Your edit reverses this, making "economic tensions and the role of Jewish revolutionaries" the "largely motivated by" factors, and downplaying antisemitism to "though antisemitism also contributed." This directly contradicts the Weinberg source's consistent emphasis on antisemitism as a "deep-rooted" and "fundamental precondition" that "made Odessa particularly ripe for a pogrom" and channeled other grievances. [00:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)]

• The latest edit which stands is and I haven't reverted it, despite reverting your other change that was placed after this discussion. As you know, I requested additional opinions or review at the NPOV noticeboard but presumably, nobody has had time to review it yet or finds the task somewhat daunting, but I maintain that 1) these two edits are distorting. you are centering selective aspects of this topic which creates undue weight on choices that you have picked to de-emphasize the antisemitic aspect of the events. There is no reason to call out the blockquote of Weinberg as you have done. It is true that there are many missing details in this article - negative, positive, those that deal with antisemitism, those that deal with economic or social aspects. If you were undertaking a good-faith expansion of the article from Weinberg, start at the top and go sentence by sentence and see if that is a new fact to add to the article and do it fairly, proportionately, and accurately. Or get a full text of Weinberg, read the entirety of Weinberg, read maybe a few other things that are pertinent - not the KehilaLinks page which is an essentially self-published Jewish genealogy resource - and try to summarize aspects of the topic without big WP:BLOCKQUOTE which you know from your other edits is not the way. [20:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)]

• More notes. There is a source discrepancy problem on the page that was linked above which reproduces an older version of text from Weinberg. Note that the quote does not match the more recent PDF from Oxford available from The Wikipedia Library. see this diff: which should be PARAPHRASED not block quoted. However you should be able to tell from that diff why the selective quoting and source discrepancy issues are very problematic. To clarify further, these are slightly different publications and editions, but the text overlaps and this is the more recent one. [21:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)]

• Flagging another distortion from Weinberg 1987. See here versus where Vinidapoo has completely reversed what the source says (Weinberg 1987 in this case). It does not say that Jews received a proportional increase in their representation, but that they were deprived and disenfranchised. Even the version of the page linked above reads This was due in part to the 1892 municipal reform which made it more difficult for Jews to occupy government posts and disenfranchised Russian Jewry, who no longer enjoyed the right to elect representatives to city councils. A special office for municipal affairs was assigned the responsibility of appointing six Jewish members to the sixty-man Odessa city council. Nowhere there does it say Jews increased their representation! Andre🚐 23:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  I am not really interested in going back and forth over edits to this article. You can rewrite the article however you want.

  Since you seem to be accusing me of making bad-faith edits, I will explain my rationale for each.

  For the edit that I made discussing Jewish representation in politics, I meant to imply that the proportion of Jews in political power had risen after the reforms. Before, it was about 2% (71 out of 3449). It increased to 10% (6 out of 60). In retrospect, the wording may have given a different impression and I apologize.

  For the edit where I added the block quote that we discussed above, I only realized that you made such a request after I made the edit. I was already in the process of making an edit, and only saw the mention after I completed it. The reason that I chose to quote that particular piece of text was because it was the center of the discussion. I am also not sure which of my other edits you are referring to. The only recent edit involving block quotes revolved around issues with the source (per WP:THESIS).

  I still do not agree with how the article is currently written. They sanitize the article of violence that Jewish self-defense groups inflicted against innocent non-Jews and the background context for why these pogromists held anti-Semitic views. The sources that you are using to make your edits mention both of these issues, yet you refuse to allow their inclusion in the article.

  The sources argue that this was a violent action against Jews due to anti-Semitism. But they provide explanations for this anti-Semitism that are more nuanced than the narrative that seems to be in the article. They do not argue that it was an inherent, unexplainable anti-Semitism, but that a large part of it was due to the context of the city of Odessa and the time period. They also point out that the immediate spark for the pogrom was violence against innocent non-Jews, likely at the hands of Jewish self-defense groups. They also discuss other violence against non-Jews with 100 non-Jews dying in the pogrom.

  If I were to make edits, I would ensure that the sources' explanations for the pogromists' anti-Semitic views and the deaths of non-Jews were mentioned in the lede. Vinidapoo (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  I meant to imply that the proportion of Jews in political power had risen after the reforms. But that is incorrect, and contrary to the source. The source clearly states they were deprived of their right to proportional representation and disenfranchised. Where in the source does it say what you are saying? You are reversing a negative into a positive.

  Regarding block quotes you have been engaged in removing them and citing WP:OQ, back in June, shortly after registering yet here you add them.

  I am currently expanding the article from the provided sources. I am not refusing to allow any inclusions, the lead must reflect due weight and appropriate proportion and fairly reflect the source, not distort it. For example you once again blame the Jewish self-defense groups when the article text clearly says that it was possibly revolutionaries or student and Jewish self-defense groups. I have been working on this part of the article to make sure it accurately reflects the source.

  You say that you are not interested in discussing or editing anymore, but please make sure that you accurately reflect sources in the future. Andre🚐 01:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I worry we're still over-stating the strength of Jewish control over the Odessa economy and under-contextualizing the statistics. We spend a few paragraphs on their strengthened economic situation and then bury the overall assessment "Jews certainly did not dominate the economy of Odessa, nor did they control Odessa politically" in a later paragraph. I think we should be clearer, as Weinberg is, that Russians had a "predisposition of Russians to blame Jews for their difficulties" and that there was a "disparity between popular perception and the reality of Jewish wealth and power". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that can be improved. I mostly haven't modified the preexisting article structure or the order of the paragraphs that already existed and their content, just squeezing stuff into the article as it existed before. But you're right, it takes us 3 paragraphs and change before we hit "The perception that the growing Jewish capitalist population was "exploiting" Russians was exaggerated in the popular belief. While some Jewish-owned firms were successful, the majority of Jews in Odessa were impoverished" which is really the topic sentence that should be moved up front before some of the other info. Feel free to take a swag at it if you want. Otherwise I'll come back around to it at some point. Andre🚐 16:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Having just barely dipped a toe in the sources, I'm not looking to make any major changes. I support the work you're doing, and I hope you'll file again at NPOV if any related disputes pop up again. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:46, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

You got it, thanks! Andre🚐 16:53, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

FWIW I decided partly to address this to reorganize the sections. Basically the causes aren't so much long-term and short-term as they are economic, social, and political, with lots of interplay and influence. The proximate causes were the political unrest and the revolutionary events of 1905, and economic connected to that. So I've collapsed all of that with the background section and changed around the order of the causes so explain the political causes first and then talk about the economic issues, and then I'll expand more of that with more from the sources later. That will give me a better way to weave between the nuances. I already think it is reading a bit better but let me know as you read it how the new organization sits. I already also removed the dated daily sections so now we basically have 3 sections: background and causes, the October pogrom, and the aftermath. The aftermath is already starting to bleed at the end of the "October pogrom" section which I may fix as I expand that section more. I have not yet read the material about the British Consul which is interesting but not sure where it sits exactly - a bit of aftermath, and a bit of the events. The pogrom section itself jumps to the aftermath since through the report we can learn more about what actually happened. Welcome any feedback to all of those thoughts. Andre🚐 04:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking through the article history just want to say thank you Andre for doing a great job and for fidelity to sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Bob, I appreciate the kind words and I would appreciate you checking some of it. And yeah with regard to Herlihy, I haven't really checked Herlihy much. I just found a copy of Herlihy and I'll quote from it so we can start working on that part.

The October riots resembled the previous pogroms, but several new factors also intervened to worsen the violence. The old economic grievances were still there, but significantly, the highest tensions involved not so much wealthy Jews and their gentile com petitors, as poor Jews and unemployed Christian workers. The war, the constriction of trade, and the cutbacks in industrial production had engendered high rates of unemployment within the city. Jewish merchants and industrialists were hated because they laid off workers in this year of depression. Ironically, they were also accused of filling the ranks of the radicals—the socialists, anarchists, and nihil ists. Allegedly, Jews were unpatriotic; they did not support the war against Japan; they were also the ringleaders of the strike movement, which only increased the workers’ misery. Suspicions of disloyalty, in sum, were added to the old economic rivalries and jealousies. The Ignat’ev laws, which made second-class citizens of the Jews, strengthened the popular sentiment that Jews were an unpatriotic and treasonous group. The failure of the local officials in Odessa to take quick action in repressing the disorders partially reflects this assumption that Jews were both disloyal and subversive radicals. It was no doubt also rooted in a conviction, shared by the local officials, that the imperial government would look with favor upon “ punishment” meted out to Jews through the pogrom. A Decade o f Disturbance, 1904-1914 305 The mobs that joined the fray had their own economic, political, or religious agenda. Extremists on the right held the Jews responsi ble for the erosion of the tsar’s autocratic powers. While the archreactionaries thought of Odessa’s Jews as the leaders of the socialist movements, the leftists remembered them as organizers and enthusiastic supporters of Zubatov’s police unions. The Jews had some influential friends at Odessa, notably among the liberal bour geoisie and the university community, but they formed only a small part of the population. The origins of the October pogrom go back to the disturbed sum mer of 1905. During the celebrated “ Potemkin days,” a state of martial law had been imposed upon Odessa.77 The city chief, D. S. Neidhart, with the support of the commandant of the local garrison, Baron von Kaul’bars, wielded absolute authority over the city. Frightened by the disorders, the imperial government lifted the state of martial law in August, over the protests of Neidhart. The govern ment next granted autonomy to the universities, removing them from the authority of the local administrations. At Odessa, the university at once became the center of political activism. Neidhart, stripped of his absolute power, appealed to the Ministry of the Inte rior, requesting that his powers be strengthened, but his petition was turned down. He was later to use this as an excuse for his failure to suppress the riots quickly. His toleration of the disorders was in part an act of retaliation for his own loss of power. The first outbreak of violence occurred on October [6 August 2025 (UTC)]

Here is another quote from Herlihy which I just rewrote. This part was rather distorted from the source. There is still more to fix here. On the afternoon of the fourteenth, high school students, both boys and girls, tried to march to the university to join in the rallies. Police with drawn sabers waylaid them on the march and dispersed them, wounding several children. On October 16, as rumors reached Odessa about the events in St. Petersburg, other students tried to erect barricades, but the police again dispersed them, killing several and losing one of their own number. The wounded students were taken to the Jewish Hospital, and preparations were made for a pub- lie funeral for those who had fallen. But Neidhart abducted the bodies and had them secretly buried. October 17, the day on which the Manifesto was promulgated, was ironically both “ the Day of the Constitution” and the start of the pogrom. Crowds in the city celebrated the newly granted freedoms. Witnesses are not agreed as to whether or not these crowds unfurled red banners and other symbols of socialist revolution. Neidhart responded to the demonstrations by posting placards. On them he claimed to have received a letter signed by thirty thousand citizens, asking that the radical agitation at the university be suppressed. The rector called the placards a provocation and asked the military for troops to protect the university buildings. None were provided. Neidhart responded negatively to a demand that a citizen militia be formed, but at the same time he ordered the police to remain off the streets—allegedly to protect them from shots fired from Jewish houses. Nor did he ask von Kaul’bars for help from the garrison of soldiers, as the law required him to do. He thus left Odessa’s Jews completely without police protection. In the early afternoon, crowds largely recruited from dock workers and city riff-raff gathered in the Dal’nitskaia region, the traditional capital of local hooliganism. The American consul telegraphed home the following description: Tuesday night October 31 [n. s.l the Russians attacked the Jews in every part of town and a massacre ensued. From Tuesday till Satur day was terrible and horrible. The Russians lost heavily also, but the number of killed and wounded is not known. The police without uni form were very prominent. Jews who bought exemption received pro tection. Kishenev, Kiev, Cherson, Akkermann, Rostoff and other places suffered terribly, Nicolaev also.78 The worst of the riots ran for the traditional three days, from October 19 to 21 (o. s.). The violence spread to the city center and to the suburbs, even into villages. The rioters showed masterful organization, as contingents in numbers corresponding to the size of the neighborhoods plundered. The looting occurred under the eyes and with the participation of policemen and soldiers in civilian garb. The Jewish self-defense forces did succeed in defending houses, and even entire streets and neighborhoods, but suffered heavy casualties and were eventually overwhelmed. The rioting worsened with each day, reaching a kind of climax on October 20. On October 21, the riots ended. Neidhart appeared on the streets and allegedly greeted the hooligans and told them: “ Enough brothers, now go home. Andre🚐 18:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

There are several things missing in the present article and shortly we are going to be long enough that a split should be merited. I am not sure if this topic would be better served by having the Odessa pogroms article be a disambiguation page pointing to e.g. 1905 Odessa pogrom and the like, or Odessa pogroms (1821-1881), Odessa pogrom (1905) or something else. There is also Moldavanka pogrom which is synonymous as that was the name of the Jewish neighborhood in Odessa (or overlapping partially or immediately outside of, like a suburb). Another option is to split off the post 1906 stuff which is really more like Pogroms in Odessa during the Russian Civil War and this one being Pogroms in Odessa under the tsar or Pogroms in Tsarist Odessa or something. Andre🚐 19:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Since we haven't gone over the limit yet, I'll wait on the split for now. Andre🚐 19:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)