Talk:Struma disaster

Naming

I believe the article on the ship should be moved to Struma (ship) and Struma should be a disambiguation page. A Google search shows that the ship is indeed what's most referenced in English, but after all, it's named after the river. I'm not that confident, however, and I'd like to hear other opinions before actually undertaking anything. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 17:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote most of this page. I don't object to your proposal. --Zero^talk 00:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved as per WP:NCS to SS Struma. JonEastham (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Statement?

"This was the largest maritime loss of civilian life during World War II." I believe this statement is incorrect, as the sinking of german refugee ships in 1945 (Whillhelm Gustloff, ~9000 dead, Goya ~7000 dead) caused far more deaths. Objections? 84.149.116.189 11:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It may be true that the cited authors claim it to be "the largest maritime loss of civilian life during World War II" but it is not an accurate claim. See for example the entries on Wilhelm Gustloff (ship), Cap Arcona and Junyō Maru which had far higher fatalities. Better to tone down such strong claims. --mervyn 08:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement is from Frantz & Collins' book, and it struck me too. "Among the largest" seems an unsatisfactory compromise, though: the body count is an order of magnitude lower than Gustloff, but does not include any military personel, as was the case on the larger ships. Sparafucil (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We either have to report what the source says, or we can leave it out. Trying to add our own analysis to the source like "there were no military personnel aboard" is clearly original research and isn't allowed. We don't know for sure the author had that justification in mind. An alternative is that the ship was civilian-owned rather than military-owned. I propose we omit the sentence until we find a source that makes a clear statement that is apparently true. Incidentally, the exact text from the book (which I have) is "largest naval civilian disaster of the war" on p263 and "largest loss of civilian life at sea during World War II" on the back cover. The first one is problematic since we don't know the definition. The second one is definitely wrong; but the back covers of books are often written by publisher's minions so we shouldn't treat it as a part of the book anyway. Zero^talk 02:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, it's "because" that is OR, isnt it? The exclusivly civilian character of Struma is pretty noncontroversial. I take your point about presuming to know anyones intentions; the reader can try to draw their own conclusions if it's reworded thus:

It has been called "largest naval civilian disaster of the war" [does ref name allow for page numbers?] although greater numbers of civilians perished alongside military personel on larger ships like the Wilhelm Gustloff, Cap Arcona and Junyō Maru.

Thanks for looking up the quote, but are you mistaken on the page number or do we have different editions? The quote is somewhere much earlier in my first edition, which also puts the "largest loss of civilian life" blurb on the front flap of the dust jacket.Sparafucil (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it is on page 255. I have a paperback edition with no dust jacket. I have no objection to the text you suggest. Zero^talk 00:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This conversation seems to be in two separate sections. I have now amended the statement under discussion, and stated my reasoning under the later thread at Talk:Struma disaster#Largest Naval Civilian Disaster (below). Motacilla (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing text for discussion

Two portions of text with the same source:

According to Canadian TV journalist Simcha Jacobovici, "It was no coincidence that the Turks decided to send the ship out to the Black Sea. They knew well that the Soviets would sink it- we've found clear evidence of this in Russian naval records. Several weeks earlier, the Turks, who had been completely neutral until that point, decided to join forces with the Nazis. The Soviets warned them that if the Turks went ahead with siding with their enemy, every ship that left the Istanbul port would be fired upon. The day before the Struma sank, another Turkish ship had been hit."</nowiki>
A Soviet SC-213 submarine torpedoed the ship.<ref>Mispacha magazine, "Struma's lone survivor blasts two-faced Turkey", June 30, 2010,Page 46.</ref>

This text is not acceptable for several reasons.

• The second small section is wrong (SC-213 was the name of a particular submarine not a type of submarine) but the correct version is already in the article. So we don't need it.
• The first section is just a claim from an unreliable source. Simcha Jacobovici is a Canadian film maker ("TV journalist" is not a fair summary) who likes to make controversial films. His theories are hardly ever accepted by mainstream scholars. An obvious example is his film The Lost Tomb of Jesus claiming that the tomb of Jesus Christ was discovered, which was uniformly dismissed by archaeologists (and, more importantly, several scholars who appeared in the film charged that he misrepresented their opinions). Another is his Quest for the Lost Tribes which promoted several fringe theories that have almost no mainstream support. Either way, he has no credentials as a historian and little reputation as a journalist. Mishpacha ("family") is a minor religious magazine which is clearly jumping on the bandwagon to bash Turkey in the wake of the Gaza flotilla incident. Its reputation for historical articles is zero. In addition, the claim is dubious on its face. The statement "Several weeks earlier, the Turks, who had been completely neutral until that point, decided to join forces with the Nazis." is inflammatory and contradicts a very large body of research by serious historians. If it is has any useful meaning, it should be easy to support from academic historians. Otherwise it remains a wild claim by someone unreliable and we don't use material like that.

Zero^talk 02:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we follow reliable sources, per WP:V, and here we have a respectable magazine quoting a Canadian journalist who is also the host of the History Channel (according to his wiki page). If you have issues with this source or the information it provides, you need to add more sources which counter it, not remove the sourced material. Crum375 (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. Also, when text is disputed the procedure is to discuss it on the talk page not stubbornly push it into the article. The onus is on persons inserting material to provide reliable sources. You have not, and you can't just add what you like and demand that someone disprove it. Btw, there is no such thing as the "host of the History Channel", you are misreading the page. Also the title of the Mishpacha article indicates that it is exactly what I suspected: an attack on Turkey for topical reasons. Copying dubious claims from it into Wikipedia is not acceptable. Zero^talk 06:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a more scholarly source is needed to back such a serious allegation. Marokwitz (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add that WP:FRINGE is another Wikipedia policy that tells us to not include such material. It is a triviality to find an endless sequence of irreproachable academic sources confirming that Turkey maintained a precarious neutrality until 1945 when it declared war on Germany, just like it says at Single-party period of the Republic of Turkey and Military history of Turkey. It is simply a falsehood to claim that Turkey "joined forces with the Nazis". Zero^talk 08:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Marokwitz, I welcome any additional reliable sources about the Struma to the article, and agree that scholarly ones should be emphasized when available.

Zero, WP:FRINGE is a guideline, not a policy, and the applicable policies are WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The burden of proof requires that any challenged material be backed up by a reliable source, and an established magazine is reliable. If you can come up with more scholarly sources discussing the Struma, they would be very welcome, and would be weighted according to the prevalence of their views.

Regarding the specific points made by Simcha Jacobovici, although not an academic historian, he is the host of the History Channel/History Network, and a producer of an award-winning documentary film about the Struma,[1] so he is clearly notable. If there are other views about the Struma by other reliable sources, they can and should be included for NPOV balance. But removing notable views published in a reliable magazine is not an option, and not supported by any content policy. Crum375 (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

We should mention notable views diverging from the official account. I do think that the documentary by Jacobovici is notable, and should be reported on in this article in it's own section, However the places where his accounts significantly diverge from the views of other historians should be clearly separated from the widely accepted account, the best way to do this would be to put it in a different section dedicated to the documentary. Marokwitz (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Crum375, guidelines are what we are supposed to follow unless there is a very good reason not to. In any case, the applicable principle is a policy: WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The claim "joined forces with the Nazis" is not just exceptional, but in direct contradiction to accepted history [2][3], you can check any academic history of WWII. Can you show that any actual historian makes the opposite claim? It is like saying Germany never invaded Russia. As for Jacobovici, he is a maker of films that present theories that challenge accepted belief. That's his specialty. Here is a typical external assessment regarding another of his films: "None of the relics - or arguments - cited in the made-for-TV, state-of-the-art film, which is the result of six years of research, has been accepted by archeologists or any prominent archeological institution as proof for Jacobovici's theory." (Jerusalem Post, July 3, 2006). I can easily show several assessments like that on several of his films. The fact he presents a TV show says nothing at all about his historical expertise. You are also incorrect in asserting that "an established magazine is reliable", in fact it has to have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Can you demonstrate it? Actually it is almost unknown outside the Hareidi world. I also note that you reinserted the nonsense statement "A Soviet SC-213 submarine..."; please read what I wrote about it above; you can find it listed at Shchuka class submarine.
To Marokwitz: I am not opposed to mentioning the documentary, if we find some reliable source that reports on it. What I am opposed to is quoting a-historical claims allegedly made by its maker and appearing in a magazine article devoted to Turkey bashing. Do we even know those claims are made in the documentary? (I just realised Jacobovici's grandparents were on the ship, so even his status as an independent commentator needs qualifying.) Zero^talk 14:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) In reply to both Marokwitz and Zero, I agree that having the views of prominent scholars about the Struma is highly desirable, and they should get top billing. As far as the use of Jacobovici's film or views, they are clearly notable and they clearly relate to this topic. We are only using the magazine as a reliable source for what Marokwitz said, and the hypothesis that an established magazine put words into his mouth and/or distorted his view would be exceptional, and would require an exceptional source. So the question here is not reliability, but neutrality. If there are other reliable sources about the Struma, with preference to academic ones, which present a different view, let's include them, and weight them according to their relative prevalence, per WP:NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The documentary is notable, many reliable sources report on it, but the claims widely divergent from the widespread view (for example that Turkey joined forces with the Nazis) should be reported in the article with EXTREME care in order not to make it appear as the widely accepted viewpoint. Marokwitz (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Extreme care means that we must use in-text attribution, which we do. It also means not to analyze or interpret it in Wikipedia's voice, which we don't. And it means we should strive to balance it with any other reliable sources discussing the Struma, giving priority to scholarly sources where available. If anyone is aware of any reliable source about the Struma which is missing, please add it. Crum375 (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have objection to place this information in a separate section about Jacobovici's documentary instead of where it is currently? Marokwitz (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps when the article is more developed, with a lot more sources, it might make sense. And then, it is unclear to me whether we would want to focus only on the Struma documentary, or on Jacobovici's general views about the event. In any case, we'd need a third party secondary source to summarize, analyze or interpret the documentary for us. And ideally, we need more reliable sources to help put his views in perspective. Crum375 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason that there is no source that talks about the Struma also specifically states that the Turkey was not in the Axis is because that position is ludicrous. This isn't something even up for debate, every reliable source states that Turkey remained neutral until the end of the war at which time they joined the Allies. There are people still alive from that event. I attempted to make clear that quote was not factual and provided citations from a actual reliable source but you removed that stating it did not speak of the Struma. So I have removed the quote in its entirety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorPierce (talk • contribs) 00:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That Turkey was officially "neutral" during that period does not exclude support and collusion, and there are reliable sources for the fact that Turkey signed the "The German-Turkish Treaty of Friendship" on June 18, 1941.[4] For reference, this was three days before Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union, and about 8 months before the Struma sinking. There is also a source saying that in 1943 Germany received 90% of all Turkish exports, and that Turkey was Germany's primary (or sole) chrome supplier. According to that source, "In November 1943, German Ammunitions minister, Albert Speer, estimated that much of Germany's manufacture of armaments would come to a halt within 10 months if Turkey's chromite exports to Germany were ended."[5][6][7] I am still researching this, and so far have seen no sources contradicting these points. But again, the issue is not Turkey's collusion with or support of the Nazis, or their "Friendship Agreement" with them. The point is simple: unless a source discusses the article topic, using it here would violate WP:SYN and WP:NOR. And if there are reliable sources about the Struma, they are welcome, regardless of their point of view. Crum375 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course most detailed accounts of the Struma mention Turkey's neutrality, it is not actually in question. Also, all the detailed accounts of Turkey during the war discuss the chromium sales and the "friendship treaty", so there is nothing new there either. Neutral countries usually trade with both sides and express "friendly relations" with both sides. That's what neutrality means. The situation remains that one user here wants to quote a guy with a reputation for controversial claims making a wild assertion that violates known history. Trying to balance this by citing far more eminent people stating the known facts will just make the article look silly. The correct solution is to follow policy by removing the material that violates WP:V#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Zero^talk 02:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no "exceptional" claim here, it's more a question of style and semantics. The reliable sources all confirm that, although Turkey had declared itself "neutral", it had signed a "Friendship Agreement" with Nazi Germany, and was the Nazis' prime supplier of chrome, a vital war materiel. According to Speer in 1943, Germany's war machine would have ground to a halt within 10 months were it not for Turkey's continuing supply of the chromite ore. The "friendship" treaty was signed just three days before Germany attacked the Soviet Union, and sources make clear that the Soviets viewed the shipping of war materiel or other supplies by Turkey to Germany as a belligerent act, and tried to intercept and/or destroy such deliveries. This is very similar to Germany attacking supplies shipped by the U.S. to Britain, before it officially entered the war. So for Turkey to set adrift a helpless ship with disabled engines, with no food or water, in the Black Sea where Soviet subs were roaming, gunning for suspect war deliveries to Germany, was clearly a deliberate act with doubtless consequences. This is essentially what Jacobovici is saying, and it is well supported by many reliable sources. So it really boils down to semantics: if you supply an ally with vital war materiel, so vital that its war machine would grind to a halt in 10 months without it, and that ally is using its war machine to attack another country, are you "neutral"? Germany didn't think so when its U-boats attacked and sank pre Pearl Harbor U.S. supplies to Britain, and the Soviets didn't think so when they sank the Struma, which they apparently saw as one more shipment of war materiel going to its enemy. In fact, no country in its right mind would consider such action as "neutrality", paper declarations notwithstanding. Again, all this is well sourced, and there is nothing "exceptional" about any of it. Of course, if there are other reliable sources which discuss the Struma and shed new light, or add more details, they would be very welcome. Crum375 (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If Jacobovitz meant something different from the plain meaning of his words, then that is yet another reason for not quoting him. Zero^talk 08:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Pay attention dear Crum: There was no such thing as "A Soviet SC-213 submarine"! It was the number of one particular submarine. If Mishpacha says otherwise, that is another reason to doubt its reliability. There are already multiple sources in the article to confirm the correct version. Zero^talk 08:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the Jacobovitz version is fringe in quite a strong sense: it contradicts the standard accounts from all three of the British, Turkish and Zionist perspectives. The first two are somewhat obvious. The Zionist perspective, from both the 'labor party mainstream' and the Revisionist directions, is that Turkey's behavior during this incident was mostly in response to British pressure and represented the desire of the Turks to keep in good stead with the UK. And that is also a major theme in all academic accounts I have read as well as the Frantz&Collins book that was my main source when I wrote the first substantial version of this article. Zero^talk 08:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Zero, what you wrote or didn't write, and what you think or didn't think, are immaterial. Wikipedia's goal is to present what reliable sources have written about a topic, weighted by the prevalence of their views. An established magazine, quoting a TV journalist, who's produced an award-winning documentary about the Struma, meets our reliability requirements, to tell us what he thinks. And that's the key point: in a Wikipedia article we present what reliable sources have written about the article topic, not the musings or beliefs of anonymous Wikipedians. If you have other reliable sources about the Struma, they'd be very welcome. Crum375 (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As was stated before, neutral countries maintaining trade relations with each side of the war is what neutral countries tend to do. By your logic of Turkey being part of the axis because they maintained trade relations means that there was no country in Europe that was neutral. Ireland, Protugal, Spain, Ireland, Sweden, Turkey, Switzerland are all members of the axis by your logic since they all maintained trade relations with Germany at some point of the war. Further your logic of someone who is essentially merely a celebrity does not meet reliability requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmorPierce (talk • contribs) 13:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As I noted above, in wartime the question is not what you call yourself, but what you do. Before the U.S. entered the war, it supplied its British ally with vital war materiel, and the German U-boats considered all such shipments as fair game, and had no doubts as to American "neutrality". When Turkey signed a "Friendship Agreement" with the Nazis three days before the latter invaded the Soviet Union, and became the Germans' primary chrome supplier, which was critically needed for the Nazi war machine, the Soviets clearly did not consider Turkey "neutral". So as I said above, it boils down to semantics. If you are truly neutral, you don't ship vital war supplies to a combatant, with whom you've signed a "friendship agreement". If I sign such an agreement with your enemy, and keep his war machine humming to keep killing you, you'd have to be irrational to consider me "neutral". Crum375 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As you said yourself, your opinion is beside the point. The issue is whether you can justify your position that Jacobovici's statement is not an "exceptional claim that requires exceptional proof". It is clear that you cannot justify it. SJ claimed "Several weeks earlier, the Turks, who had been completely neutral until that point, decided to join forces with the Nazis." You suggested the Turkey-Germany treaty, but it was 8 months before when (according to SJ) Turkey was "completely neutral". (And there was already such a treaty with Britain, incidentally.) So that wasn't what SJ meant. Then you suggested the chromium sales, but in fact there was essentially no chromium sent from Turkey to Germany for the year before and the year after the Struma incident because Britain was buying it all. (Gul Inanc, The politics of 'active neutrality' on the eve of a new world order: The case of Turkish chrome sales during the Second World War. Middle Eastern Studies, 42: 6, 907–915; I have other sources too). (From 1943 to early 1944, Turkey sold chrome to Germany and then stopped again for the rest of the war under Allied pressure. Turkey was not Germany's major supplier in any year of the war, the Balkan countries were.) So that wasn't what SJ meant either. In fact no source at all suggests Turkey made a major policy change "several weeks earlier". It is indeed a most exceptional claim and policy requires us to not use it. Next consider SJ's claim "They knew well that the Soviets would sink it". Clicking on a less intemperate interview with SJ we find him saying "Turkey may not have been aware of who was shooting at boats in the Black Sea i.e. Germany or the Soviet Union." A contradiction! The only point of agreement between that interview and your quote is that Turkey knew the ship would be in very grave danger, which is certainly true. For sure we can't use just one of SJ's two versions, and won't it look silly to give both? Zero^talk 18:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It is you who is claiming that SJ's quote is "exceptional", while I am simply explaining that, semantics aside, the essence of it is well supported by virtually all sources, and is therefore anything but exceptional. Crum375 (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The quote is exceptional because it contradicts all academic sources. I am removing it due to the quote being factually incorrect, contextually misleading, awkwardly placed, and unnecessary.ArmorPierce (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source about the Struma which contradicts this source, by all means add it. As I see it, virtually all reliable sources support the quote, so it is anything but exceptional. Crum375 (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed quote for being unnecessary, incorrect, and presented in a misleading manner. Please stop adding it back in as concensus is against having the quote presented in that manner. ArmorPierce (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The quote reflects the gist of all other reliable sources which I have seen. If you have a source about the Struma which contradicts it, please provide it. Crum375 (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So far you did not show a single source that supports Jacobovici's claim. Show us a source saying that "several weeks before" Turkey changed its policy from neutrality to support of Germany. You can't because it never happened. On the contrary, I provided multiple sources where real experts stated that Turkey remained neutral. This has gone on long enough, you are editing against consensus and you should stop. Zero^talk 06:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look up near the beginning of this thread, you'll see that I provided plenty of sources. In fact, virtually all sources support SJ's quote. Specifically, in October 1941, just a few weeks before the Struma's arrival in Istanbul in December, Turkey signed a trade agreement with Nazi Germany, in which Turkey agreed to supply vital matériel for the Nazi war machine.[8] There are many sources quoting German munitions minister, Albert Speer, who estimated that Germany's manufacture of armaments would grind to a halt within months if Turkey's chromite exports to Germany were to stop. So you have Turkey agreeing, weeks before the Struma affair, to keep the Nazi war machine humming, and you have the Nazis attacking the Soviet Union just three days after the original German-Turkish "friendship agreement". The Soviets clearly saw Turkey as a Nazi supplier, just as the Nazis saw America supporting Britain before Pearl Harbor, which is why the Soviets sank the Turkish vessel Çankaya the day before they sank the Struma. When the Turks abandoned the disabled Struma in the Black Sea, right after the Çankaya was sunk there, weeks after they had signed an agreement to keep the Nazi war machine running and killing Soviets, the Turkish intentions were clear, and this is exactly what SJ is saying. Crum375 (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Soon I will put this on some noticeboard, maybe RS/N By the way the Cankaya was sunk 10-12 hours before the Struma was sunk, well after the Struma was left abandoned. Zero^talk 13:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What is your source for that exact timeline? Crum375 (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I had an academic web source, but meanwhile I found a source about as authoritative as it gets. Jurgen Rohwer, Allied Submarine Attacks of World War Two (1997) page 17. This book attempts to present an exhaustive list of all allied submarine attacks in WWII reported by either side whether successful or not. According to the submarine's log, the Cankaya was sunk at 22:59 on Feb 23 and Struma was sunk at 10:45 on Feb 24. The time for Struma seems a few hours later than Stolier's version, but anyway this makes clear that the Struma was already drifting alone in the Black Sea at the time the Cankaya was sunk. So that sentence of Jacobovici is misleading too. Zero^talk 08:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Crum 375, we have provided numerous academic sources that contradicts that quote. You coming to the conclusion that Turkey supported the Axis via a friendship pack is original research which is not allowed on wikipedia http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. You removed a section I added about academic sources stating that Turkey remained neutral until the end of the war. An Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. You removed it due to it not being directly about the Struma event http://www.sefarad.org/publication/lm/043/6.html . Furthermore, I've attached an article that talks about the Struma and mentions Turkey's neutrality by Shimon Rubinstein who is an actual professional historian unlike Simcha Jacobovici who is nothing but a TV personality. You removed it stating, "You can't draw conclusions," No conclusion was drawn, it was attributed directly to the article and "if you have a reliable source, quote it verbatim." Which is not a criteria for wikipedia shown by http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research "The best practice is to write articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication." Consensus is against having that statement in the article as is and normal procedure when a quote from a unreliable source is in question is to remove it. I am removing the offending section now, please don't change it back. ArmorPierce (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You say you have provided "numerous sources" to contradict the quote, but I have yet to see even one. That Turkey declared itself "neutral" is not at issue: the point is that three days before the Nazis attacked the Soviet Union, the Turks signed a "friendship agreement" with Germany; a few weeks before the Struma affair they signed a trade agreement with Germany, agreeing to be their main chromite supplier; and a day before the Struma was sunk, a Turkish vessel was sunk by the same Soviet sub. Alfred Speer is cited as saying that without the Turkish chromite, the Nazi war machine would grind to a halt. So clearly Turkey was supporting Nazi Germany, which was attacking the Soviets, with vital war supplies and keeping the Nazi war machine running. There are many reliable sources for all the above, some of which I have included in this thread. So everything SJ says in his quote matches the other reliable sources, there is nothing "exceptional" about it, and the source which quotes him is a reliable secondary source. If there are other reliable secondary sources which discuss the Struma and contradict SJ, please provide them, and quote the exact words where they contradict him. I have yet to see a single such source and/or contradiction. Crum375 (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I already gave several academic sources that state in plain English that Turkey remained neutral. Not that it said it was neutral but that it was neutral. You can choose to not read them if you like but you should stop claiming they don't exist. Turkey had treaties of friendship with both sides and sold strategic materials to both sides; I have given good academic sources for that too. Refusing to sell stuff to just one side would have been an obvious violation of neutrality. Also you are misquoting Speer. The sentence is from a memo he wrote to explain the dire consequences if Germany lost control of the Balkans. Since the Balkans were by far the largest supplier of chromium to Germany, losing them would force Germany to rely on the only other possible source, which was Turkey. Losing Turkish chromium as well would be very serious (which is where the oft-quoted sentence comes). This was a serious problem for Germany because Turkey was an unreliable source. The Dec 1941 agreement did not deliver anything at all until Turkey's contract to sell chromium to Britain expired in early 1943, and British/American pressure caused Turkey to stop again in early 1944. You can find a perfect source for this above, and if you like I can bring year by year figures from another good source. Zero^talk 08:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Zero, what matters here is not what you, Zero, think of Turkey's "neutrality" during WWII, but what the Soviets thought of it, according to reliable secondary sources. As example, this is what Frantz and Collins say about that:

The contribution Turkey's chromium supplies made to the German war effort cannot be overestimated. Albert Speer, who was the armaments minister for Hitler, wrote in his memoirs that in 1943 he told Hitler that "should supplies from Turkey be cut off, the stockpile of chromium is sufficient for only five to six months. The manufacture of planes, tanks, motor vehicles, tank shells, U-boats, almost the entire gamut of artillery, would have to cease from one to three months after this deadline, since by then the reserves and distribution channels would be used up."

• Douglas Frantz, Catherine Collins (2004). Death on the Black Sea: the untold story of the Struma and World War II's Holocaust at sea. HarperCollins. p. 159.

Virtually all sources are in agreement that the Soviets decided to destroy all shipments from Turkey to Germany, and the sinking of the Çankaya just the day before the Struma was sunk is clear proof for it. Your own views of how Turkey was still "neutral" are immaterial: we care about how the Soviets saw it, and what they did about it, according to reliable sources. SJ's quoted view, as presented in a reliable secondary source, is a reasonable summary of that, and if you have another reliably sourced view relating to the Struma you'd like to provide, feel free to do so. Crum375 (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My information about Speer came directly from the memoirs that F&C mention. But now you are arguing a strawman. Nobody here has denied that the Soviets started to destroy merchant ships in the Black Sea. You introduced an unreliable source claiming that Turkey "decided to join forces with the Nazis", now you need to support it or remove it. Jacobovici claims it in his own voice, not as a opinion of what the Soviets thought. If you bring a good source saying that the Russians did not consider the Turks neutral enough, I will support you (in fact, once your silly quote is gone I will myself bring one or two much better sources saying that, or more precisely saying that the Soviets could not accept a Turkish position that allowed Axis merchant shipping through the straits). Here are some very clear statements from peer-reviewed journals that make no sense at all if Jacobovici's claim is correct.

• "my own research indicates that [Turkish PM] Inonu always believed that Germany would lose the war and was personally committed to the Allied cause from the beginning. But as the war began, his concern was to remain outside the war and to minimize the economic impact of the conflict.... Thus, Inonu saw his own policy not as one of neutrality but as supporting the Allied effort to the extent possible given the realities of Turkey’s resources and the political situation in Europe. (J. M. VanderLippe, A cautious balance: the question of Turkey in World War II, The Historian, Volume 64 Issue 1, Pages 63 - 80, 2007)
• "As tensions in Europe heightened, Inonu determined to keep Turkey neutral in the event of war, unless the country's vital interests were clearly at stake. The Nazi-Soviet nonaggression pact of August 1939 prompted Turkey to sign a treaty of mutual assistance with Britain and France in October. Hedging its bets, the government concluded a nonaggression treaty with Nazi Germany on 18 June 1941, just four days before the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union. The early military successes of the Axis forces contributed to increased pro-German sentiment, even in some official circles. However, Inonu seems never to have wavered from his position that the Axis powers could not win the war. Despite German pressure, Turkey at no time permitted the passage of Axis troops, ships, or aircraft through or over Turkey and its waters, and the Montreux Convention was scrupulously enforced in the straits." (M. M. Hakki, Surviving the pressure of the superpowers: an analysis of Turkish neutrality during the second world war, Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, Winter 2005-2006, Vol. 8)
• "There can be no doubt that both the Axis (Nazi Germany) and the United Kingdom, with which Turkey was allied in the treaty of October 19, 1939, played on the Soviet theme. Turkey remained a nonbelligerent ally [of Britain], with neutral status, throughout the war." H. N. Howard, book review, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 412, 1974, pp 178-179)
• "in the midst of the war, in 1943, the United States had already begun to use Turkey as a base for certain kinds of military operation. ... Because of Turkey's neutrality, these operations were sometimes clandestine." (And this article discusses British and American aid to Turkey, including military, during this period which was so important to Turkey that a threat to withdraw it was enough to convince Turkey to stop selling chrome to Germany.) (R. Cossabloom and G. Leiser, Adana Station 1943-45: Prelude to the Post-War American Military Presence in Turkey, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 73-86)
• "Not to be outdone by the Germans, Great Britain and then America, through lend-lease, delivered aircraft to Turkey on several occasions between 1942 and 1945. These were as follows: British, 3 Blenheim Mark IV bombers (1942), 19 Blenheim Mark V bombers (1943), 21 Beaufort bombers (purchased in Cairo, 1943), and 15 Beaufighter Mark I bombers (1943); American, 24 P-40D Kittyhawk fighters (1942) and 72 Martin Baltimore 187 bombers (1944)" [The Allies delivered aircraft to a nation that had sided with Germany???] (G. Leiser, The Turkish Air Force, 1939-45: The Rise of a Minor Power, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Jul., 1990), pp. 383-395)
• "Ankara signed the Triple Treaty with Britain and France on 19 October 1939 for a period of 15 years.13 This treaty was to become the main anchor of Turkish foreign policy until early 1951. ... the main thrust of Turkish foreign policy was to remain out of the war by trying to follow a balanced policy between the Axis and the Allied Powers. ... Until the beginning of 1943, Britain did not press strongly to push Turkey into the war believing that neutrality was mutually beneficial because Turkey was blocking Germany and thereby preventing its access to the oil-rich Middle East. From 1943, however, Britain came to believe that Turkish neutrality was now damaging the allied cause as its neutral position posed an obstacle to Anglo-Soviet plans to shorten the war and finish off fast German power in the Balkans and Mediterranean. For this reason, Churchill decided to urge Turkey to take part in the conflict." (M. S. Bgln and S. Morewood, Turkey's reliance on Britain: British political and diplomatic support for Turkey against Soviet demands, 1943-47, Middle Eastern Studies, 40:2, 2004, 24-57)
• "[In 1942] Turkey had in fact shifted into a much stricter neutrality than she was to observe in 1943 for instance, when she allowed the British to supply their campaign in the Aegean islands from Turkish soil and gave haven to escaping troops, and actually helped evacuate them." (S. Deringil, The Preservation of Turkey's Neutrality during the Second World War: 1940, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Jan., 1982), pp. 30-52)
• (This last is not a journal article but a highly cited book from a university press.) "At the intercontinental crossroads, it was very natural that Turkey should pursue a cautious, careful and realistic policy during World War II, as, indeed, it did. But the evidence indicates that Turkey remained a faithful nonbelligerent ally of Great Britain under the alliance of October 1939" (Harry Nicholas Howard, Turkey, the straits, and U.S. policy, John Hopkins Press, 1974, p208)

Zero^talk 14:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The SJ quote is not "my silly quote", it is a quote cited by a reliable secondary source in reference to the Struma sinking, and SJ's words are essentially a summary of the known facts, supported by multiple reliable sources. For example, he uses the words "[Turkey] decided to join forces with the Nazis", and this is consistent with the sources I have provided above, when viewed from the Soviet perspective. As I noted above, it is the Soviet view which counts here, since they were the ones waging war on and sinking civilian Turkish vessels in the Black Sea during that time period. An important point: per WP:SYN and WP:NOR, we are not allowed to bring into the article sources which do not directly address the article topic, to make a point. As I read the sources you provided above, they don't seem to be about the Struma, so they would not be acceptable for this article. So again, if you have a reliable secondary source about Struma which contradicts SJ's views, by all means present it. Crum375 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is your silly quote, supported by exactly 0 other editors. Again you refuse to address the point: Jacobovici says Turkey "decided to join forces with the Nazis" in his own voice, as his own claim not as the Soviet position. You also have a serious logic problem: Struma was not a Turkish ship. Finally I am not impressed by your wikilawyering. If Turkish neutrality is introduced into the article it is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV to present it in such an unbalanced fashion. Zero^talk 09:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Zero, please try to focus on the message, not the messenger. Regarding your points, yes, SJ in his own voice says that Turkey "decided to join forces with the Nazis", which was primarily the Soviet perspective, because he obviously considers that perspective as the relevant one, since his point is to show that the Turks knew that any vessel they send into the Black Sea would be sunk. There had been several vessels sunk there by Soviet subs during that time period, both Turkish and others, and there was no question that Soviet subs were lurking in the Black Sea, ordered to sink anything in sight. There are many sources for this, and SJ is just summarizing them in his own style. Regarding the fact that Struma was not Turkish, that's not an issue. Again, during wartime you don't play games with words or formalities — you kill your perceived enemies. And for the Soviets, any traffic leaving the Bosphorus into the Black Sea was fair game. More specifically, although the Struma was theoretically flying the Panamanian flag, its crew was Bulgarian, an Axis ally, and the Soviets clearly considered it as "enemy vessel", like all other vessels entering the Black Sea from the Bosphorus, which the sub's report confirms. Regarding NPOV, as I have noted several times above, I fully agree that if there are other reliable secondary sources discussing the Struma who contradict SJ, they should be included. Crum375 (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that the ship was Romanian, and Romania was an actual enemy of the Soviet Union. (See Romania during World War II for details.) It is not necessary to invoke Turkey to explain why the Soviets would want to sink it. Zero^talk 07:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It was me who added the sentence "The submarine had been acting under secret orders to sink all neutral and enemy shipping entering the Black Sea to reduce the flow of strategic materials to Nazi Germany" in the first place, it is not in dispute at all. The real question is why Jacobovici's grossly overstated and misleading outburst is worth including in the article. No reader will understand it but instead will take the plain meaning of his words and get an entirely false impression. If he was a respected historian there might be some case for it, but he is just some filmmaker with a reputation for making claims that experts disagree with. Also, all of the sources I quoted above would be justified in the article and would not break any rules. The only reason I am not inserting them at the moment is that the correct action is to remove the misleading quotation that makes them necessary. Zero^talk 02:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Btw, for your information there were no submarine attacks on shipping in the Black Sea for 54 days before the Cankaya (according to Rohwer). There were a few in December, mostly unsuccessful, and a ship was sunk in the early hours of Jan 1. In comparison with the Mediterranean, the Black Sea was rather quiet. Zero^talk 02:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The way Wikipedia works, we summarize what reliable sources say about the article's topic. Wikipedia is not a forum for our own views. So your views, or my views, are not worth much here. We have a reliable secondary source which summarizes fairly accurately information which seems consistent with virtually all other reliable sources, so we include his quote. As far as the Soviet attacks on Turkish vessels in the Black Sea,(Rohwer, Jürgen (1997). Allied submarine attacks of World War Two: European theatre of operations, 1939-1945. Naval Institute Press. p. 106,107.) there were at least the following sinkings of Turkish vessels in the Black Sea by Soviet subs in the weeks before the Struma sinking (recall that the Turks signed their chromite supply agreement with the Nazis in October 1941):

• Kaynakdere sunk November 3, 1941, by SC-214
• Yenice sunk November 18, 1941, by SC-215
• Karaltepe sunk January 1, 1942, by SC-214
• Çankaya sunk February 23, 1942, by SC-213

This was followed by the Struma, which was sunk on February 24, 1942, by SC-213.
This is a clear pattern, and given that Turkey was Nazi Germany's vital supplier of chromite, which according to Alfred Speer was the lifeblood of the Nazi war machine, it was clear that any ship entering the Black Sea from the Bosphorus was a duck in a shooting gallery. This is what SJ is saying, which summarizes what the reliable sources are saying. Again, if you have other sources discussing the Struma you'd like to add, feel free to provide them. Crum375 (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(Excuse me for correcting your typo.) You have a strange concept of "weeks", but again I am not disputing that Soviet submarines were shooting at Turkish ships. The problem is that all of this is your reconstruction of SJ's thought patterns. It is only you suggesting that the chromium agreement is what he had in mind, since he doesn't mention it. He is only making a crude general statement about Turkish neutrality that is contrary to good sources as I demonstrated. (And, while it is really quite irrelevant to this quotation, I can't stop myself repeating that the chromium agreement was to provide chromium starting in 1943. So the Soviets were certainly not shooting ships in 1942 to stop Turkish chromium exports. When exports did start in 1943 they went by rail like they did before WWII.) Zero^talk 05:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your note above about the Struma being of Romanian origin, I didn't mention it because neither her flag nor her crew were Romanian, and it's unclear to me what criteria the Soviet subs used for identifying "enemy" vessels, but you are right that it would have been one more excuse for them, if they needed any. Regarding the date change, thank you, I had copied it originally into my notes from a different source, but I think the Rohwer source seems best. Regarding "my" interpretation of SJ's phrase "joined forces with the Nazis", I think it's the only logical way to interpret it. Turkey's declared "neutrality" during that period is analyzed by other reliable sources, but as I said several time, the issue here is not her formal declarations, but her "friendship" and trade agreements with Nazi Germany, and the way the Soviets perceived them. By sinking all those Turkish vessels in the Black Sea after October 1941 (when the trade agreement with the Nazis was signed), the Soviets sent a clear message to the Turks that any vessel entering the Black Sea from the Bosphorus was fair game, and that's what SJ is saying. Whether you or I would use the phrase "decided to join forces" to describe "signed a trade agreement to ship vital war supplies which were considered critical for the Nazi war effort" is immaterial, as is the exact amount of chromite actually shipped and its specific shipping dates and methods. The point is simple: formal declarations aside, Turkey signed an agreement in October 1941 to supply Nazi Germany with vital war materials, the Soviets clearly considered it a belligerent act, and were routinely sinking Turkish vessels entering the Black Sea. This is the essence of SJ's quote, which is a reasonable summary of that situation. Crum375 (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, you don't have any evidence at all of what SJ was referring to. You only have a personal theory. Btw, show us that the "Soviets sent a clear message to the Turks that any vessel entering the Black Sea from the Bosphorus was fair game". Franz&Collins say the Soviet operation was top secret, and in the earlier interview of SJ I quoted above he said that the Turks didn't know who was attacking ships. Zero^talk 09:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Largest Naval Civilian Disaster

Frantz and Collins have called it the "largest naval civilian disaster of the war"[2][cite this quote] although greater numbers of civilians perished alongside military personnel on larger ships like the Wilhelm Gustloff, Cap Arcona, RMS Lancastria and Junyō Maru.

This seems a strange thing to put on the lead. If it was widely seen as the greatest civilian disaster, I would understand us noting a notable epitaph. But is it widely seen as such?

Is what two authors call this notable?

Are those two author correct?

Currently we seem to be saying "two writers say this, but they may be wrong". Seems to be better to omit the whole thing as questionable, and not notable, or at least relegate to a footnote. The lead is for summarising the article, not giving a opinion of a couple of authors.--Scott Mac 00:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the wording was odd, and restored the version which had been there until today. It now simply says that "it has been called ....", with the book as reference. Crum375 (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been discused above. The statement obviously cannot stand without some explanation. Sparafucil (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this has to be removed. "It has been called" needs not only a reference but attribution in the text. Are the people calling it such notable? Is it often called this? Or is this just a passing remark? Unless the title "the worst..." is often used or notable, it doesn't belong in the lead - as it is simply the judgement of a couple of scholars, who may or may not be correct. "It has been called" also breeches WP:WEASEL - as it raises the question "by whom?" and here a citation is not enough, the text needs to say whose estimation this is. The point is that facts rest on citations, opinions and judgements need attribution. I strongly suggest this be removed or relegated to the body of the article or to a footnote.--Scott Mac 10:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, this is an excellent article.--Scott Mac 10:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the issue of whether C&F said what they presumably meant to a footnote; they speak in passing in the book, but the quote is quite prominent on the dust cover. In so far as it does seem to set some kind of record, I'm fine with keeping a non-misleading statement in the lead. Sparafucil (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a "disaster," it was an atrocity. Opportunidaddy (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Zero0000 that User:Sparafucil's suggested wording under Talk:Struma disaster#Incorrect Statement? (above) is reasonable. I have therefore re-worded the statement along those lines. Wikipedia has articles such as List of maritime disasters and List by death toll of ships sunk by submarines that determine how MV Struma's death toll ranks against other maritime mass killings such as MV Wilhelm Gustloff, SS Cap Arcona and Junyō Maru. Therefore in order to concentrate readers' attention on the gravity of up to 790 unarmed civilians being killed, rather than how their deaths rank against other maritime mass killings, I have moved the re-worded statement from the introduction to the "Aftermath" section near the end of the article. Is this alright? Motacilla (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Lord Wedgewood

It isn't clear why we mention a speech by Lord Wedgewood made months afterwards, as if it was a significant part of the story. It wasn't. We don't even mention the topic pof the speech which was that the Jews of Palestine should be armed (for which Wedgewood was accused of incitement to violence). It wasn't a speech about the Struma. More important politicians made statements that had actual historical significance, but we just have someone minor, presumably because he made a strong statement about hanging people. The full speech can be read here. Will anyone argue that we need it? Zero^talk 05:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It was a speech in the British parliament by a member of the House of Lords which mentioned the Struma six times as being emblematic of what was wrong with British policies, and strongly calling for accountability for those responsible. I presume it's not every day that a member of the House of Lords calls for the hanging of semi-senior British diplomats or colonial administrators. At a minimum, it was a colorful part of the political aftermath of the incident. AnonMoos (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Lots of wild statements are made in the House of Lords, because the rules give legal immunity to the members speaking there. Incidentally, here you can read Wedgewood suggesting that the passengers of the Struma blew it up themselves. Zero^talk 04:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

interview with the survivor in Der Spiegel

Could someone summarize this? http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-lone-survivor-of-torpedoed-jewish-refugee-ship-struma-a-901490.html BTW Wedgwood saved my father's life. Thansk Telaviv1 (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing new. All the background in the story is taken from Frantz and Collins (which it cites), and Stoliar gave many interviews before. Frantz and Collins has much more detail than is given by Spiegel and much of it came from their own much more extensive interaction with Stoliar. Zero^talk 08:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Struma disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.struma.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vaxxine.com/nda/shipwrecks/sw2001/gm.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Struma disaster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121208015434/http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/phistories/phi_refugees_journeys_uu.htm to http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/phistories/phi_refugees_journeys_uu.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)