Starting in 1859, three sugar factories were established in the region of Khashchevatoye by the Baron Horace Yosipovitch de Gunzburg. The sugar was produced from the beets that were generously grown in the surrounding fields (in Mogilnoye, Sobolevky and Salkovitz). A lot of people from Khashchevatoye worked in them. Some of the names in the picture: Khalfin, Wasserman, Sheftel, Raskin, Weissman, Shuster, Roytman, Kuperschmidt, Kriman, Karponos, Bronfman and Itzkhak Dinin, an engineer, my great grandmother's youngest brother. The picture represents the directory in one of these factories around 1915.
For general interest, here's an article published in the Scientific American in 1869 in which they express "their belief that at some future day the United States would manufacture the whole amount of the sugar needed for home consumption, and we further stated that this sugar would, in all probability, be made from the beet." Spoiler: with all the due respect to the Scientific American, they are wrong with all these assumptions. Together with my good friend Claude AI, this is what I learned.
The expression "The Holocaust before the Holocaust" is used to describe the pogroms that took place in Ukraine between 1919 and 1921, during the aftermath of World War I and the Russian Civil War. These pogroms were marked by widespread violence, mass killings, and atrocities against Jewish communities, resulting in tens of thousands of Jewish deaths.
This is the first page of a report in Yiddish, sent to a charity organization in the United States after the pogroms between 1919-1921. Some call this period: the Holocaust before the Holocaust. (Read about it the article in the page: Family Stories)
There are different reports, in Russian, in Hebrew and in Yiddish. The last two were intended to ask for financial help from the Joint and other organizations. Khashchevatoye was one of the shtetels that suffered the most. We have 262 names of victims killed during this period.
The pogroms in Ukraine from 1919 to 1921 were a series of violent attacks against Jews during the chaotic period following World War I and the Russian Revolution. These atrocities occurred amid the Ukrainian War of Independence and Russian Civil War, with various military and paramilitary groups targeting Jewish communities. Estimates suggest that between 50,000 and 250,000 Jews were killed during this period. While not directly ordering pogroms, Symon Petliura, leader of the Ukrainian People's Republic, failed to effectively prevent violence by his troops. Ataman Nikolai Grigoriev, initially aligned with the Bolsheviks before switching sides, was responsible for some of the worst massacres, particularly in Yelisavetgrad. The White Army, led by Anton Denikin, also perpetrated pogroms as they advanced through Ukraine. Even the Red Army, despite official Soviet policy condemning anti-Semitism, saw some units engage in violence against Jews, though to a lesser extent than other factions. Anarchist leader Nestor Makhno's forces were generally less involved in pogroms, with Makhno himself opposing anti-Semitic violence. However, some groups loosely associated with his movement did participate in attacks. The pogroms devastated Jewish life in Ukraine, destroying hundreds of communities and spurring mass emigration. These events significantly impacted Jewish collective memory and influenced subsequent debates about Jewish security and self-determination in Eastern Europe. From a personal point of view, based on my research, I can add that most of the victims killed during these pogroms were mostly between the rich people in the village, the prominent and of course, the elderly. Most of those who were killed can be also found in the lists of the voters to the Duma in 1912 and in the list of the candle tax payers.
The names of the victims from Khashchevatoye can be found in the database page.
More information on Khashchevatoye during this dark period can be read here, in a report to the American Joint Distribution Committee written in 1923 and here, in a report written, in situ, by the Committee for Help to the Pogroms' Victims. This report was translated from Yiddish to Hebrew by Yehuda Horovitz but because some lines or words were missing, I asked my friend Claude AI to make the report more friendly. Here it is.
This is a picture of the Komsomol in Khashchevatoye taken in 1926 during the 7th . regional conference.
The Komsomol, or All-Union Leninist Young Communist League, was the youth organization of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. It was established in 1918 and played a significant role in Soviet society, particularly in the education and indoctrination of young people into communist ideology. Regional conferences were important events for the Komsomol, where local representatives would gather to discuss policies, share experiences, and align their activities with the broader goals of the Communist Party. In 1926, the Soviet Union was in the period of the New Economic Policy (NEP), which allowed for some private enterprise while the state maintained control of major industries.
They were an important part of Jewish history in the region during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The establishment of Jewish Agricultural Colonies in Ukraine (then part of the Russian Empire) began in the 1840s and continued into the early 20th century. These colonies were part of a broader effort to encourage Jewish participation in agriculture and to address issues of poverty and overcrowding in traditional Jewish areas of settlement. They were established to provide Jews with agricultural land and to encourage them to become farmers, partly in response to restrictions on other economic activities. Many were located in southern Ukraine, particularly in what is now Kherson and Dnipropetrovsk regions. Initially, these colonies received support from the Russian government, which saw them as a way to integrate Jews into the broader economy. Colonists faced numerous difficulties, including lack of agricultural experience, harsh climate conditions, and sometimes hostility from neighboring non-Jewish communities. Over time, many colonies developed into successful agricultural communities, producing crops and engaging in animal husbandry.
These colonies played a significant role in the development of Jewish culture in the region, including the use of Yiddish and the maintenance of Jewish traditions in a rural setting. After the Russian Revolution, many of these colonies were reorganized into collective farms (kolkhozes) under Soviet rule. The colonies faced significant challenges during the tumultuous periods of World War I, the Russian Civil War, and later, the Holocaust, which led to the destruction of many of these communities.
The map is of Balta colonies.
The lower picture is a list of families from Khashchevatoye sent to the colony Slava in 1926.
When the Khashchevatoye OZET branch opened its doors in March 1927, it was part of a larger Soviet initiative to transform Jewish economic life through agricultural resettlement. However, the story of this local branch is not merely about statistics and policies - it's about community transformation, family decisions, and daily efforts to build a new life.
The branch began modestly in March 1927 with just 14 members. Under the leadership of VAISMAN, YUDKELIS, and ZINSTEYN, the branch immediately faced its first challenge: how to grow membership and establish itself in the community.
On March 28, 1927, the bureau members held their first documented meeting. Recognizing their limited membership, they developed a comprehensive action plan. They scheduled a meeting with all local organizations for April 1, planned a general community meeting for April 2, and partnered with the local theater club director to organize a fundraising performance. During this initial meeting, the bureau also made its first bold move, requesting allowances for 50 families from the Khashchevatoye region to resettle.
By late May, the branch had achieved remarkable growth, reaching 131 members. The membership reflected the community's economic profile with 70 salesmen, 22 craftsmen, 15 grain growers, 12 employees, one woman member, one party member, and one Komsomol member. The branch received its first official materials with 70 membership cards and stamps worth 100 rubles, marking its formal establishment within the OZET system.
June and July saw the branch organizing its first major resettlement initiative to the Evpatoria region. Ten families were carefully selected, with detailed family lists prepared on June 2, 1927. Among them:
The ZINSTEYN family cluster:
- Shmul ZINSTEYN, 57, a tenant farmer leading a household of eleven.
- His son Azril, 31, with his young family.
The KOLKER brothers:
- Berko, 53, with his wife and five children.
- Yakov, 56, with an extended family of nine.
The VAYSMAN family:
Samuil, 28, his wife and their two sons.
His younger brothers: Yosif, Benya, Motya and David.
The SKLYARUK family:
Lipa, 50, his wife and their four children.
The YUKHTMAN family:
Aron, 55, and his extended family.
The DAVIDZON family:
Nukhim, 61, and his extended family.
The ZALZ family:
Moishe, 45, his wife and three sons.
Each family had to deposit 150 rubles, demonstrating their commitment to the resettlement project.
Other families were sent to Pervomaysk:
The MINTZ family:
Gersh, 46, his mother, his wife and their 7 children.
The KLEIMAN family:
Shama, 55, his wife and their five children.
Ben, Shama’s son, 24, his wife and two daughters.
The BONDAR family:
Yosef, 43, his wife and their four children.
The SCHWARTZMAN family:
Moshko, 45, his wife and their five children.
The FAINBERG family:
Srul, 24, his wife, their son and his two younger brothers.
The KRAVETZ family:
Gersh, 28, and his extended family.
The KRAIDERMAN family:
Usher, 55, and his extended family.
The TEPLITZKY family:
Srul, 37, his wife, their four children and his younger brothers.
The MALAMUD family:
Gersh, 52, his wife and their six children.
And more.
On August 20, the branch organized a significant meeting that brought together various community organizations. Present were YUDKELIS representing the OZET board, VILKOMIR from the Party organization, TASHLITZKY from the trade union, representatives from local banks and cooperatives, and the village council representative, SAPOZHNIK. The meeting focused on lottery organization, with a commission of seven members elected to manage ticket distribution.
By December 1927, the branch faced its first serious challenges. Abram TOKMAN, one of the settlers in Evpatoria, reported difficulties during the winter months due to lack of work. The branch responded by requesting his transfer to a different category to provide more support.
The branch's quarterly report for 1927 showed both achievements and ongoing challenges. Membership stood at 135, with three members having relocated. Throughout the quarter, they conducted three bureau meetings, four commission meetings, and three general meetings. Ten families were in the process of resettlement, with five already moved and five preparing for the journey.
January 1928 brought a new wave of resettlement applications. The board meeting on January 8 reviewed applications from several families:
- ZALZMAN Motya Gershevich (former grain grower, family of 5)
- GITELMAN Khaim (kolkhoz member, family of 7)
- PALTIEVITCH Noakh (kolkhoz member)
- BERMAN Itzek
- CHIORNY Samuel
- OSTROWSKY Duvid
- KRIVONOS Isai
By May 1928, the branch had begun supporting resettlement to Birobidzhan. A group called "NIT-GIDAIGET" was formed, with each settler receiving 15 rubles for relocation. The group included:
- GIKHER Naum
- STIVELMAKHER Haim
- SHUSTER Leyzer
- KUGEL Leyzer
- SHLYAKHOV David
- SAMOVOL Isrul
By mid-1928, the branch could report significant achievements. They had successfully resettled 22 families to Crimea, maintained correspondence with all relocated families, sold all 175 allocated lottery tickets, and expanded responsibility to surrounding villages. However, challenges remained, particularly in supporting about 80 families in surrounding villages who needed resettlement assistance.
The branch developed ambitious plans for improvement. They worked toward establishing a regional OZET unit with broader responsibilities, improving social composition through targeted recruitment, creating an activist group including teachers and cultural figures, enhancing fee collection methods, promoting grape cultivation in Savran, and increasing "Tribuna" circulation and correspondence.
Throughout this period, two Jewish agricultural groups continued operating in Khashchevatoye. "Khleborob" with 9 members worked 39.50 desyatins of land, while "Serp" with 5 members cultivated 24.50 desyatins. Both received support from the poverty fund and agricultural experts.
The Khashchevatoye branch's story was part of a larger historical movement. OZET (Society for the Settlement of Jewish Workers on the Land) operated from 1925 to 1938 alongside KOMZET (Committee for the Settlement of Jewish Workers on the Land). While KOMZET handled land distribution for new kolkhozes through the Soviet government, OZET managed settler support and transition, providing assistance with housebuilding, irrigation, training, cattle and agricultural tools, education, and medical services.
Nationally, OZET achieved significant results, creating 160 Jewish village councils in Ukraine, 29 in Crimea, and 27 in Belarus, while establishing five Jewish national districts. The organization allocated approximately 5,000 square kilometers for Jewish settlement. However, of their goal to resettle 500,000 Jews over ten years, only 126,000 attempted settlements between 1925 and 1937, with just 53,000 remaining in their new locations.
From 1928, OZET's focus shifted to establishing the Jewish Autonomous Region in Birobidzhan, reflected in Khashchevatoye's later resettlement efforts. However, by 1932, only 7,000 of the initial 20,000 Birobidzhan settlers remained.
The program's eventual fate reflected larger historical trends. OZET was disbanded by special decree in May 1938 during the Great Purge, its leadership largely repressed, and all Jewish national districts and village councils dissolved. Tragically, many of the Jewish agricultural settlers who remained in rural areas became victims of the Holocaust during World War II.
This history of OZET and the Khashchevatoye branch represents a unique moment in Jewish history - an attempt to transform an entire population's economic and social structure through organized resettlement. The detailed records of the Khashchevatoye branch provide invaluable insight into how this national policy was implemented at the local level, leaving a complex legacy of both achievement and hardship.
Over a century has passed since the tumultuous elections of 1913-1915 in Khashchevatoye, and I share this story purely as a fascinating glimpse into our shtetl's history. The names that appear in these documents belong to a different era, and I want to emphasize that these events have no connection to families bearing these surnames today. My intention is simply to document what life was like in our ancestral village during this period.
However, if any descendants have family stories or memories passed down about these elections, I would be delighted to hear them! Such personal recollections could add valuable context and depth to this historical account. Please feel free to reach out if you have anything to share.
Overview: A Two-Year Battle for Local Power
What began as a simple municipal election in the small township of Khashchevatoye in January 1913 turned into a two-year legal and political battle that would require multiple re-elections, police investigations, and provincial interventions. This remarkable case offers a detailed window into the challenges of early democratic processes in pre-Revolutionary Russia.
Location: Khashchevatoye Township, Gaysin County, Podolia Province (now Ukraine).
Timeline: January 1913 - March 1915.
Key Positions: Town Elder (Starosta), Town Board Members, Tax Collector Elder.
Act I: The Original Fraud (January 9, 1913)
The Election Setup
The election used a ball-voting system where:
91 total voters participated
Voters received balls to drop into boxes for each candidate
Regular voters got 9 balls; candidates got 8 balls (couldn't vote for themselves in one category)
Should have been 813 total balls in circulation
The Impossible Results
When votes were counted, the numbers defied mathematics:
Yos Myaskovsky (incumbent Jewish board member): 105 balls total (68 valid, 37 invalid) - 14 more than there were voters
Anton Lopushansky (town elder): 93 balls - 2 more than there were voters
Shmul Lipovetsky (challenger): 90 balls (52 valid, 38 invalid)
Yos Pekar: Only 86 balls - fewer than the number of voters
Total balls found: 821 (8 more than should exist)
Competing Accusations
Myaskovsky's supporters claimed: Lipovetsky's party introduced extra invalid balls to delegitimize the election, but since Myaskovsky received fewer invalid balls (37 vs 38), he should still win.
Lipovetsky's supporters sccused Myaskovsky of: Using his position as tax collector to withhold public funds for months, using these retained funds to bribe voters, benefiting from "invisible spirits" who cast extra votes, working with election officials who gave him extra balls.
The Police Investigation
The District Police Officer concluded that Lipovetsky's minority faction (about 23 people) orchestrated an elaborate fraud:
They secretly dropped extra balls into Myaskovsky's box while pretending to vote for others
They obtained extra sets of 8 balls through deception
They hid extra balls under their pinky fingers during voting
The exact number of extra balls (8) proved it was systematic fraud, not random error
The Police Recommendation
Despite the fraud, the elections should be considered valid since the manipulation was designed to invalidate them.
Act II: Provincial Intervention (1913)
Sacred Oath Problem
In addition to the ballot irregularities, provincial authorities discovered a crucial procedural violation: Jewish voters had been administered the oath by Klaus Kremenchugsky, a member of the prayer board, rather than by a rabbi as required by law.
The Provincial Decision
The Podolia Provincial Assembly for Zemstvo and Municipal Affairs ruled the January 1913 elections completely invalid due to:
1. The improper administration of oaths to Jewish voters
2. The mathematical impossibility of the ballot counts
3. Substantial violations of electoral law
Resolution:
Complete annulment of the 1913 elections, requiring new elections to be held.
Act III: The February 1914 Re-Election
New Elections, New Problems
On February 5, 1914, new elections were held, but fresh controversies immediately emerged:
Issue #1: Ineligible Voter Participation
Isidor Yankovsky participated and was even elected as a candidate for elder
However, he was only recorded as a member of the community "for accounting purposes"
Under Articles 564-566 of the law, such people cannot vote or hold office
Issue #2: Confusing Ballot Rounds Due to insufficient voting balls, three separate rounds were conducted:
Round 1: Yos Myaskovsky elected as board member by majority
Round 2: Khuna-Moshko Smolyar, Hertz Protector, and Yos Shaposhnik were balloted
Confusion: Was Smolyar running as a candidate or as a full member? Since Myaskovsky was already elected, Smolyar should only have been eligible as a candidate
The Character Assassination Campaign
Opponents of Khuna-Moshko Smolyar filed a petition claiming he was unfit for office, alleging: he had assaulted the spiritual rabbi with a knife, stolen sacks were found in his attic and he had filed complaints against local magistrates.
The Defense Testimony
Rabbi Levi Kutsenogiy testified: "I have always had good relations with Khuna-Moshko Smolyar... As for the claim that Smolyar attacked my father and beat him - such an incident never took place."
Srul Zelinsky testified: "I have known him for over 30 years... To me, he is known as a good person. As for the theft of sacks allegedly discovered in Smolyar's attic, I do not remember such an event."
Smolyar himself explained: "I am the authorized representative of the local Jewish community and indeed contacted the Minister of Justice by telegraph with a request to suspend the collection of rent by the landowner... This complaint was not of a compromising nature toward me."
Act IV: The Competing Claims (February-March 1914)
Team Myaskovsky's Position
They argued that Myaskovsky received the majority in the first round (53 vs 58 balls) and that the election should be invalidated due to Yankovsky's illegal participation. If anyone should be confirmed, it should be Myaskovsky from the first round.
Team Smolyar's Counterargument
They claimed that: Smolyar legitimately won with 58 balls vs Myaskovsky's 53, that Myaskovsky was "a homeless and poor man, burdened with a large family" and that Myaskovsky was manipulating relatives (the Feinbergs and Dormans) to file complaints. They also claimed that Smolyar owned houses worth 3,000 rubles and represented greater reliability.
The February 5, 1914, election was conducted properly in the presence of district officers.
Act V: The Administrative Crisis (1914-1915)
The Tax Collection Breakdown
With elections in constant dispute, Ben Moshkovich Kravetz was appointed as temporary Tax Collector Elder in December 1914. His report to provincial authorities revealed the consequences of the ongoing political chaos:
He managed to collect only 8 rubles and 50 kopecks in three months
Residents refused to pay, saying "We will not pay, and no one can do anything to us"
Even community deputies owed back taxes
Some residents had accumulated debts over several years
Police couldn't help because they lacked authority to seize property
Kravets' desperate plea: "Under such circumstances, collection is impossible... I most humbly request that an order be issued to the police permitting the seizure and collection from the movable property of non-payers."
Yet Another Election (January 1915)
By January 1915, another election was held, but this too faced immediate challenges:
The January 11, 1915, Election was held at 8:00 PM in the evening (unusual timing).
Only 50 voters participated (below the legal minimum)
Itzko Leizerov Samovol (over 60 years old) was elected Tax Collector Elder
Samovol had previously been removed from this same position in February 1914
Immediate Objections:
Residents petitioned that the election was invalid due to:
The advanced age of the elected official
The evening timing of the election
Insufficient number of participants
The Broader Historical Context What This Saga Reveals
About Early Democratic Processes:
Vulnerability of ball-voting systems to manipulation
Importance of proper procedural compliance (oath administration)
Challenges of maintaining electoral integrity in small communities
About Jewish Community Politics:
Internal divisions within the Jewish community
Competing factions with different economic interests
The role of religious authority in secular elections
Economic factors (tax collection, property ownership) influencing political power
About Imperial Russian Administration:
Multiple layers of oversight (local, district, provincial)
Formal complaint processes with revenue stamp requirements
The tension between local autonomy and central authority
Bureaucratic procedures that could take years to resolve
The Key Players' Motivations
Yos Myaskovsky: The incumbent trying to maintain power, possibly using his tax collection position for political advantage.
Shmul Lipovetsky: The challenger with a criminal past, leading a minority faction.
Khuna-Moshko Smolyar: The property owner representing stability and economic reliability.
The Dorman and Feinberg Families: Persistent political actors appearing in multiple petitions across the two-year period.
Ben Kravetz: The pragmatic administrator trying to make the system work while politicians fought.
Conclusion: A Microcosm of Democratic Challenges
The Khashchevatoye election saga demonstrates that many challenges facing democratic systems today - voter fraud allegations, procedural disputes, character assassination campaigns, and administrative paralysis - are not new phenomena. This small township's struggles reveal the universal difficulties of establishing legitimate, trusted electoral processes.
The story also illustrates how personal economic interests, family networks, and community divisions can transform simple administrative elections into complex political battles that paralyze local governance for years. Whether any of these elections were ever definitively resolved remains unclear from the available documents, suggesting that some democratic conflicts resist easy resolution regardless of the era or system of government.