Lwów pogrom (1918)

When a city changed flags overnight

It began with banners and proclamations, the small dramas that feel catastrophic only when people look back. On November 1, 1918, in the confusion that followed the collapse of the Habsburg monarchy, Ukrainian forces declared control of parts of eastern Galicia and proclaimed the West Ukrainian People’s Republic. Lwów — a city of Poles, Jews, and Ukrainians, its streets layered with languages and loyalties — woke to a new and uncertain order. Within weeks, ordinary life had been interrupted by brigades and volunteer detachments, by student militias who would be memorialized as the "Lwów Eaglets," and by the everyday terrors of urban warfare: curfews, barricades, and rumors that moved faster than any order could.

Against that backdrop, neighborhoods that had always shared markets and synagogues and workshops found themselves reassigned by rumor. Neutrality, the pragmatic posture of many Jewish families who hoped to survive by staying out of nationalist fights, suddenly felt impossible. The city had become a patchwork of control, patrols, and checkpoints — and in those seams, violence could easily find a place to begin.

The tinder: fear, rumor, and shifting commands

There is a particular violence to rumor in wartime: a whispered accusation passed along a tram line, a shouted claim at a checkpoint, a soldier’s notebook crossed with names. In Lwów the charge most often repeated was that Jews had sided with Ukrainian forces — that they had sheltered combatants, provided information, or otherwise abetted the enemy. Some Jews had indeed been politically active in Ukrainian circles; others had attempted to remain neutral or to placate whoever was in charge. But in a city where authority had broken apart, such distinctions collapsed.

The broader structural causes were clear and common to many post‑imperial conflicts: the rapid disintegration of old policing systems, the presence of demobilized soldiers and irregular bands, competition between national movements for administrative control, and the pervasive fear that any neighbor might be an enemy. Local commanders often issued inconsistent orders. Some units tried to discipline their men; others turned a blind eye or joined the looting. That ambivalence would prove lethal.

Three days that broke an uneasy truce: November 21–23, 1918

On November 21, as Polish forces pushed to reclaim parts of the city and street fighting intensified, armed groups — composed of soldiers, reservists, recently demobilized men, and civilian volunteers — entered areas heavily populated by Jews. What began as arrests and searches soon spilled into broader and less discriminating violence.

• Men were taken from their homes and interrogated in the street. Many were beaten; some were later jailed.

  Become a Calamity Insider

• Shops and workshops were ransacked. Crates and counters were smashed; wares were carried off.

• In several instances individuals were shot. Contemporary Polish inquiries later counted dozens dead; Jewish community records produced higher counts.

On November 22 the violence spread. Witnesses described gangs moving from street to street, sometimes in the wake of retreating Ukrainian units, sometimes independently. Beatings intensified; property was looted not only for supplies but for valuables. The striking thing in many contemporary reports is not only the physical brutality but the social humiliation: forced parades, public interrogations, the destruction of business ledgers that meant a family’s accounts would be lost along with their goods.

By November 23, reports of the disturbances, and diplomatic notes arriving from foreign representatives, pressed higher authorities into action. Troops and patrols were deployed more consistently. Martial‑style orders, curfews, and arrests of suspected perpetrators began to reduce the overt scale of the attacks. But the damage had been done: bodies counted in morgues, shops emptied, and a community shaken to its core.

Chaos in the streets, hesitation in the command posts

The pattern of the violence — the involvement of regular soldiers alongside irregulars, the intermittent intervention of officers, and the later, often perfunctory inquiries — spoke to the confused chain of command in Warsaw and in the field. Local military and civil officials faced a brutal fact: restoring public order in a city under contest required clear authority and resources they often did not possess. When they tried to impose discipline, they met friction from men who had fought for weeks and who saw new targets in old neighbors.

Investigations were opened. Patrols were sent into Jewish quarters. Some arrests were made; some trials followed. But accounts of proceedings show uneven enforcement. Prosecutors struggled with lost records, missing witnesses, and a public opinion that often excused violence in the name of national liberation or retribution. For many victims and their families, accountability felt partial and incomplete.

Counting the dead: disputed tallies and the politics of memory

One of the immediately contentious features of the Lwów pogrom was the effort to document casualties. In the fog of late 1918, different actors produced different numbers.

• Polish military and civil investigations recorded 52 Jewish victims killed during the disturbances. This figure appears repeatedly in official dispatches and inquiries conducted in the weeks that followed.

• Jewish communal registers and contemporary Jewish organizations compiled their own lists and reported higher totals, commonly in the range of about 70–80 deaths. These counts included names gathered from burial records, community testimony, and relief organizations assisting survivors.

• Some later secondary sources and polemical accounts have cited still larger numbers — upwards of 150 in certain publications — but such higher figures are debated by historians and often reflect varying methods of counting or conflation with later events.

Beyond fatalities, several hundred Jews were reported wounded or physically assaulted; countless more suffered theft, the loss of business records, and the erosion of livelihoods. Property damage was widespread in the neighborhoods targeted for looting, though precise monetary totals were never reliably calculated in the chaotic post‑imperial economy. The discrepancies in numbers are not merely academic: they reflect competing narratives about responsibility, culpability, and the very nature of the emerging Polish state.

Relief, outrage, and diplomatic pressure

News of the attacks did not remain local. Jewish organizations in Western Europe and the United States mobilized relief, collected testimonies, and pressed foreign diplomats to demand accountability. European governments issued diplomatic protests and asked Polish authorities to protect minorities, a matter that carried both moral and political stakes for the newly reconstituted Polish government, which sought international recognition and support.

Within Lwów, Jewish communal bodies attempted to help survivors, provide burial and medical care, and keep records that would form the basis of later claims and remembrances. The practical work of recovery — repairing shops, reestablishing credit, and retrieving personal effects — proceeded alongside the more fraught work of interpretation: how to speak of what had happened, to whom, and with what consequences.

A wound that shaped a city’s memory

The immediate political consequences were mixed. The pogrom intensified distrust between Jewish communities and Polish authorities in Lwów, feeding emigration decisions, prompting debates about communal defense, and entering the rhetoric of political actors in both Warsaw and abroad. For the nascent Polish state, accusations that its forces had failed to protect minorities complicated diplomatic efforts to present Poland as a modern, tolerant nation.

Historians today place the Lwów pogrom in the pattern of post‑World War I interethnic violence that swept parts of Eastern Europe. They emphasize structural causes: the collapse of imperial rule, nationalist competition for towns and borders, the presence of armed irregulars, and the social dynamics that allow rumor and scapegoating to justify violence. At the same time, scholars are careful to distinguish the 1918 events from the far larger, systematic genocides of the 1940s while not diminishing the immediate human tragedy experienced by Lwów’s Jewish population.

What records can still tell us — and where they fall short

Archivists and historians have made significant progress in reconstructing the sequence of events through military reports, police files, communal burial records, and diplomatic dispatches. The opening of archives in Central and Eastern Europe has clarified chain‑of‑command questions and provided new testimony.

Yet limitations remain. Many records were lost or never kept amid the chaos of 1918–1919; witness memories are uneven; and political agendas on all sides colored early accounts. As a result, the precise number of victims and the full extent of institutional responsibility resist tidy closure. The most reliable present‑day assessment is a sober one: the pogrom resulted in dozens of deaths, hundreds of injuries, widespread looting and humiliation, and a rupture in civic trust that lasted for decades.

A final reckoning in public memory

For the people of Lwów — Jews, Poles, Ukrainians — the events of November 1918 would be reinterpreted and remembered in different ways. For some Polish nationalists, the struggles of those weeks were part of a heroic defense of the city. For Jewish survivors, the weeks were a time of sudden, humiliating vulnerability and loss. For Ukrainian nationalists, the earlier seizure of the city was an assertion of statehood that provoked counterattacks.

The Lwów pogrom left scars that affected emigration choices, political alignments, and communal life through the interwar years. It also became a touchstone in international debates over minority rights and the responsibilities of new states to protect vulnerable populations. In historical terms, it stands as a stark example of how the breakdown of order can allow nationalist violence to target civilians — and of how rumor and fear can make scapegoats of entire communities.

When the shutters were closed and the carts were righted, Lwów’s streets kept the quiet of aftermath: shattered glass, missing shop signs, and the small, human rituals of burial and repair. That quiet is not closure. It is, instead, the place where historians and citizens still return to ask what was done, who was blamed, and what it cost to rebuild trust in a city whose contours of power had been so violently redrawn.