Comments on Several Personal Tragedies
that were part of
the General Tragedy Called Struma
By Shimon Rubinstein
            This research paper is a version of the article published in Hebrew by the same author entitled “The Curse that Came True - On Some of the Small Tragedies within the Great Tragedy Called Struma”, Jerusalem 1997, Illustrations by Gretty Rubinstein. (The translation into English is based on the full version on the paper published in Romanian Studia et Acta Historia Iudeorum Romaniae, University of Jassy, vol. 4 Bucharest 1999).
            The author wishes to express his satisfaction in connection with a piece of news reported in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz of April 4, 2000, that pursuant to the testimony and  information provided by the only Struma survivor David Stoljar (Stoleru), who is still  alive in the United States, a delegation has been set up with a view to locating the site of the shipwreck and bringing the remains of the hull to surface.  This piece of news has reached me in the course of preparing the English translation of this article. (See Annex, Stoljar’s interview, Haaretz, April 4th, 2000).
 
            Apparently one could be inclined to conclude that following Nicholas Bethell’s article entitled “The Tragedy of the Struma Ship” and the publication of his book  on the same topic that brings to light a number of meaningful Israeli and British archival documents that had been shielded in the past, particularly David Stoljar’s  testimony,   the historic research on the Struma tragedy has come to a close. Although the scope and the results of N. Bethel’s historical research have been considered exhaustive, it unremittingly raises a question that has not been answered yet; namely, who launched the torpedo that brought about the sinking of the Struma ship in the Black Sea on February 22, 1942 and on whose orders was this action carried out?
            An attempt to provide a logical reply to this question has been made by the Soviet navy officer G.I.Vaneev, who was an expert in Soviet Military Navy history.  In his Ph.D. dissertation that was published in a volume dealing with Soviet military navy history, Vaneev quotes the report of the Soviet S.C.23 submarine captain, who gave the orders to torpedo an isolated ship that had been identified and brought about its sinking.  However, I am of the opinion that the mystery surrounding the sinking of the Struma has not been unraveled yet although the piece of information provided by the aforementioned Soviet Navy officer is very helpful. On the other hand one should read this piece of information carefully, taking into account that Vaneev’s work was published in 1978 during the Cold War years and he might have had the intent of providing an amount of misleading information. In my view the historic truth about the circumstances of the Struma’s sinking remains an open topic.
This arises I believe from the gap between the rationale brought forth by the Soviet military navy officer and the words contained in Stoljar’s testimony. Stoljar recounts the statements of the second mate while they were swimming adrift at the end of their tether on a floating board (probably a remnant of a ship’s door), that being their only chance to survive the disaster. Prior to losing consciousness the Bulgarian seaman told Stoljar that he was standing on the ship’s deck and suddenly noticed a water trail that came from a torpedo from the Turkish coast towards the Struma.  Bethell’s research relies mostly on Stoljar’s testimony, which recounts that as soon as he noticed the water trail, the Bulgarian officer rushed in to report the fact to the captain. The blast occurred as he was taking hold of a door handle and he was suddenly thrown away into the sea with the door handle in his hand. These were the circumstances under which he met Stoljar. The latter was the only survivor among the Struma’s passengers. If Bethell’s version of Stoljars’s statements is accurate, it goes without saying that his words are more trustworthy than the content of the Soviet report quoted by Vaneev without diminishing the importance of the research made by the Soviet navy officer. My point of view on this topic relies on the rather daring, probably speculative outlook that one cannot entirely reject the idea of a secret Soviet-British agreement by which Turkey was requested to tow the ship and bring it on the high sea on February 23, 1942, without mentioning the real purpose of this scheme. The purpose was to give the submarine enough leeway to move between the ship and the coast in order to launch the deadly torpedo while making it almost impossible to find out from where the torpedo had been fired. Although this version may appear speculative, one should not overlook the fact that Stalin was a completely unscrupulous politician and in exchange for a privilege granted to Russia, he acquiesced into hushing up the topic. He was likely to agree to free both Turkey, a neutral country, and Britain,  his ally, from any moral responsibility and  allow Britain to get rid of the “unwelcome” ship. I hold the view that this hypothesis deserves to be  considered and explored as seriously as all previous versions relating to the Struma ship tragedy.
Furthermore, there is, I believe, another side of the Struma disaster that has been scarcely explored so far, namely the personal suffering and the human consequences of this tragedy.  The biographical research of the victims as well as that of the pain-stricken relatives who stayed on the ground and remained alive but have always been haunted by the shadow of this great loss, should be considered through the perspective of modern psycho-history and the science of victimology.  I would like to make my modest contribution to this issue and explore two major facts relating to the Struma tragedy. Firstly I will make some comments on the Jewish people of my native town of Barlad who perished during the Struma  disaster. The information I have about them comes from my own parents, Natan and Erna Rubinstein, as well as from different other relatives and acquaintances of their generation who are also native of  the town of Barlad. Secondly I would like to refer to the story of Medeea who was my mother’s cousin’s cousin. Given personal reasons that I’ll detail later in the course of this research paper, she was allowed to get off the ship in the harbor of Istanbul, before the ship was torpedoed and thus she remained alive. Medeea passed away in France in 1996.
            I cherish the hope that this study will boost the interest of historians as well as that of the victims’ relatives and friends to search for, collect and write down further information from family records, reminiscences and other documents. This will certainly widen the picture of the Struma ship tragedy that should come down to the next generations.
It is beyond doubt that every name among the 796 passengers that perished during the Struma tragedy harbors a different personal story that is noteworthy and should be reconstructed in as much as possible.
            I strongly believe that accounting for the human side of the Struma  passengers themselves as well as their personal and  family background is conducive to a deeper understanding of the social framework of the Jewish population of Romania during the inter-war time-span  and the beginning of the Holocaust.
 
 I.  THE JEWS FROM THE TOWN OF BARLAD
AND THEIR RELATIVES WHO PERISHED
DURING THE STRUMA SHIP  TRAGEDY.

1.  The Marcus Family
Mendel Marcus was the head of the family, he was a very religious Jew, and a wealthy person owning real estate property not only in Barlad but also in Palestine.  Before leaving to Bucharest where all the passengers of the Struma were due to meet before embarking, he was accompanied by his wife and his two sons who were chemists by profession. Then a family drama started. The elder son went aboard the ship with his wife, her parents, the Varcovici who were native of the town of Jassy  and two daughters. However the younger son, Aurel was expected to leave by himself since his fiancee’s (Anuta, Nuta Maiersohn) parents were opposed to her departure arguing that the journey was rather unsafe. As soon as the train pulled out from Barlad to Bucharest the parents were so touched by their daughter’s sadness that they decided to get a permit from the local authorities, although it was no easy thing, that enabled her to travel from Barlad to Bucharest. In fact she reached Bucharest in the last minute, one day before the Struma ship passengers left for Constanta. The couple was married quickly by a rabbi just before departure. I have this information thanks to the testimony of Mrs. Bianca Grinberg who lives in Israel and is native of the town of Barlad. As far as Mendel Marcus’ elder son was concerned, my research has been hampered by a number of registration errors and the lack of additional data. I looked his name up in the passengers’ names record and even this record abounds with registration errors or ambiguities. It is likely that all family members were registered  under the additional  family name of “Lupu” , that is Marcus Herscu-Lupu, age 42, his wife Aneta Marcus-Lupu  41, their two daughters, Marga Marcus-Lupu 13 and Ivette Marcus-Lupu 7.
Prior to their departure from Barlad to Bucharest, the Marcuses came up to my parents’ place to say farewell, in fact my parents were renting a house owned by Mendel Marcus himself. People used to nickname him “Mos Mendel” (= “Old Mendel)  and he was so religious that as soon as he was told that the passengers were not allowed to carry aboard the ship more than 20 kilos of luggage per person, he decided to give up his piece of luggage and took instead a Torah scroll that he had previously donated to the synagogue where he used to attend the prayers.  My  parents’  memories about the Marcuses are  connected with a very touching moment. While my parents were talking with the grown-ups, Mendel Marcus’ elder son’s daughters were dancing around happily, celebrating that they would shortly reach the shores of Eretz Israel.
 

2. Marcus (Figaro)
These Marcuses were a different family from the one  previously presented, they were also native of Barlad and were among the passengers aboard the Struma. The  husband was Lucian Marcus age 30, his wife Kena’s age was  probably between 28-30, and their son Julian was between 7 or 8 .It is not clear whether Lucian’s father, who was a hairdresser, whose age might have been between 45 and 50 was aboard the Struma ship. People used to nickname him Figaro, that was the name of his exclusive hairdresser’s shop that was located in Strada Regala (Royal Street), where  only the rich people of the town could afford to go. Lucian who was also a hairdresser by trade had learnt in Paris between the two world wars. I have this information about the Marcus family thanks to the testimony of Saul Cahane and Nathan Rubinstein who live in Israel and are native of the town of Barlad.

3.The Leibovici Family
The husband was a chemist by profession and he was a manufacture dealer’s son living at Barlad. His pharmacy was located in Strada Palada. His wife was the daughter of a wealthy Jewish merchant from the town of Vaslui. They didn’t have children. The husband’s brother called Jonas had left for Bassarabia that was annexed by the Soviet Union following the August 1939 Ribbentrop- Molotov agreement. Jonas Leibovici who held Communist views acted like all the young Jewish people from Barlad who were affiliated with the Communist Party and in 1944 when Romania became free from the fascist regime he returned to Barlad and started to learn for a law degree.
Eventually Jonas and his two sisters (it is known that one of them was called Sheli) emigrated to Israel.
 

4. Shmil (Shmuel) Gutenmacher,  nicknamed Micki
My father got acquainted with Micki through Shabtai Nadiv (Gutenmacher) who was Micki’s brother and a good friend of my father’s.
He remembers Micki as a true idealist among the Jewish youth who were  aboard the Struma , one of the most outstanding personalities of the  Barlad-based Zionist youth organization  and also in Romania. Everybody  had  warm memories of him.
The Israeli journalist, writer and philosopher Shabtay Nadiv who is Micki’s brother, told me that their family was native of Bassarabia. His father Zeev (Wolf) was an expert of wool-cotton companies management. He held management positions at Kishinau and Jassy and eventually settled at Barlad where he was the manager of the “Progresul” company.
Micki was a member of the Bethar Zionist revisionist movement and actually his entire family was affiliated with this trend. He was the assistant of the head of the Barlad-based Beitar organization. My parents remember that he was attending the Codreanu High-school at Barlad where he was an excellent, intelligent and hard-working student cherishing the hope of going to Erez Israel and working to build up the Jewish Homeland.
Micki’s family could not afford to pay for the  expenses of   the journey aboard the Struma, but Micki who was 21, was assisted financially by a Jewish engineer.
 

5.The Schechters
Among the victims of the Struma shipwreck I would like
to mention also  Baruch (Burah) Schechter , his wife’s name was Bluma and their son’s was Eugen Iancu. Baruch was Mina Schechter’s brother and my aunt’s Coca Waissman’s mother (her maiden name was Herskovici  and her husband , the physician Dan Waissman is my mother’s Erna’s natural cousin).
Baruch was 44 and his wife was 42, both were head accountants by  profession and they were employed by  petroleum companies; the husband was working with the Romanian Distributia Company, his wife was employed by the Romanian-American Astra Romana petroleum company.

 6.  Ozias (Iehoshua) Blank
His father kept a pub located close to the Barlad barracks. At the end of the thirties, Ozias ended the Commercial High School of Barlad and started to work as a bookkeeper. Ozias was the head of the Barlad-based Zionist-revisionist youth organization and he  held this position until  the eve of his departure. According to the data given in the victims’ record,  Ozias Blanck’s age was 28.

 7.  Mrs. Zuessman ( or Zisman)
According to the data given in the victims’ record,  there were two ladies aboard the Struma whose family names were alike. One was called Sophia Sara, she was 58; but the second lady’ s first name was not given in the record. That’s why I cannot fully determine to whom the biographic data was related although I have a reason to think that they refer to Sophia Sara Zisman. In fact she was the widow of the wealthiest man of Barlad who owned the largest iron-dealer’s shop in the town. Since she was a widow she was willing to join her son Joseph, who was nicknamed Bebe Zisman and who had left for Palestine in 1940 aboard the “Sacariya” ship. He was a student at the Haifa Technical Institute (The Haifa Technion). After his mother’s death in the aftermath of the Struma tragedy, he was adopted by professor Moshely who was teaching at the same institute and eventually took his family name. In  1944 he joined the Jewish Brigade  and as soon as Romania became free from the fascist regime he revisited the town of Barlad accompanied by Bernard Suliteanu who had also joined the Jewish Brigade. The latter became a professor at the Medical School of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
 

 8.  The two young men who were not accepted aboard the ship:
       according to a testimony by Shaul Cahane.
This is the story of two young men, namely Iuji Epstein  and Saul Cahane who were born at the beginning of the twenties and who were willing to reach Palestine aboard the Struma ship. They left Barlad and reached Bucharest and put themselves in touch with Lipa Haimovici who was the organizer of the journey and also the leader of the youth Zionist-revisionist movement. Haimovici, who had informed them about the departure, let them know that the ship was undergoing serious repairs. The aforementioned young men decided to wait in Bucharest but several days later Haimovici told them: “I suggest you come back to Barlad and I will inform you in due course as soon as the repairs are over.” They followed Haimovici’s advice but they never heard from him again... That was their destiny, to remain alive...
 

 II.  The Story of Jacob Stoljar (David Stoljar’s father)

Before setting out to present  Medeea’s tragic story that is undoubtedly  the most meaningful topic of this research paper, I would like to point out the encounter between my own parents and David Stoljar’s father that occurred by an unexpected turn of fate at the end of the 50’s or the beginning of the 60’s.While  my parents were spending holidays in the spa town of Tiberias (Hamey Tveria), they came in touch by  chance with a lady whose name was Rachel (Rachela) Hershkovici, and who was nicknamed “Parumbita” (= the dove), the name of her shop located opposite my parents’ glassware shop on Stromba Street in Barlad opposite my childhood home. Rachela was proud to introduce to my parents her husband who was a pleasant-looking gentleman in his early sixties who was running a kiosk on the Mediterranean beach at Haifa. They spent several days together and as they were chatting, David Stoljar’s father started to conjure up the story of his family, and he also referred to the episode in which his son was the only survivor of the Struma tragedy. My parents are not historians and they didn’t think of writing down the details given by David Stoljar’s father. However they have good memories and are able to remember faithfully the main points of their conversations although their recollections may contain a number of inaccuracies due to the passing of time. Stoljar told my parents that he was a wealthy merchant in Bassarabia and that he succeeded to move to Romania (to the Old Kingdom “Regat”) before the Russians came in and Bassarabia was annexed by Russia (his wife, David’s mother, died when she was young). Given the unsafe circumstances that were developing in Romania he thought of the solution of sending his son to France. Due to the considerable wealth that he had managed to transfer from Bassarabia into Romania he was able to                                                                                            send his son to Paris where David  continued his studies and he was living  in a boarding school. After a while he asked him to come back to Romania and thought that his departure aboard the Struma will bring him eventually to a safe place. David Stoljar’s father was a simple person and it goes without saying that he could not really recount the events from a historic perspective. That is why it behooves us to explore the historic and political  background of the 1939-1942 time-span and by doing so one could properly understand Stoljar’s concerns  with  regards to the his son’s  future.
In my opinion Stoljar made up his mind to move from Bassarsabia to Romania (Regat, Old Kingdom) as a result of the German                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     invasion of Poland on September the 1st ,1939. The Soviet Union decided  to enforce promptly the clauses of the Molotov-Ribbentrop secret agreement of August 23rd 1939 and annexed the territories that had been in fact granted to Russia including the regions of Bassarabia and north Bucovina. Undoubtedly Stoljar could not be aware of the political circumstances that brought about a sudden change in Romania’s position. Romania that was in fact an ally of Poland within the terms of the Little Entente treaty was too weak to condemn the invasion, it hastened to declare itself neutral on September 4th 1939 and had no alternative but to give in and accept the annexation of Bassarabia, north Bucovina and the Herta regions by Russia. On July the 2nd 1940 Romania made the declaration that it was giving up the British guarantees and two days later a pro-German government came to power. Shortly afterwards on July 16th 1940 a German military delegation was invited to Bucharest by the new government.   In my opinion Stoljar the father could not have knowledge of these political developments and his actions were merely set off by an instinct for self-preservation and by the concern of saving his son’s life. As he made up his mind to send his son to Paris while Romania declared itself a neutral country, he could not have guessed that France, a Great Power and an ally of Britain according to the “Great Entente” treaty that had assured Romania of its political guarantees, was itself under imminent threat. However as soon as he realized this, he hastened to bring his son back to Romania in the summer of 1940 while the war in France was at its height and the collapse of France became a fact.
(It appears that following the capitulation of France, David Stoljar was able to return to Romania, as did other Romanian citizens, due to a request of the Romanian government addressed to the German.) . As soon as his son returned from France, Stoljar came to the conclusion that the only chance left for David to remain alive was to emigrate to Palestine aboard the Struma and he hastened to pay the high amount requested for the sea-journey.  I would like to point out my parents’ remark that David’s stay in France had had a fateful meaning in his life, he started to take swimming classes... And so David Stoljar sailed on the Struma and his fate was to survive and be the sole survivor of the awful tragedy and  the only Struma survivor who is  still alive, after the death of Medeea, who witnessed the horrors of  Struma’s last days before the shipwreck. After the Second World War Stoljar became a businessman in Japan and today he is 78 and lives in the United States.
 

III|. The Tragedy of a Survivor: The Story of Medeea Salmovici (Marcovici)

In 1964 my mother, Erna Rubinstein (Gruenberg) traveled to Romania in order to meet her brother the journalist Dan Barladeanu who was living in Bucharest. It was an opportunity for her to meet also all her relatives who were still living there including her cousin whose first name was also Erna. She told my mother about the sad story of Medeea who was a cousin of hers and produced a lengthy letter that Medeea had sent to her from the Istanbul hospital where she was had been under medical care, a short time before the shipwreck of the Struma.
    This letter that my mother read carefully in 1964 – and that contained a realistic description of the bitter fate of the passengers on the ship, some of whom lost their minds from suffering and despair and raced about the deck in distress - was eventually destroyed. Even though the letter was personal rather than political, my mother’s cousin, fearing the Securitate, decided eventually to dispose of this valuable document before emigrating. My mother considered taking the letter to the Embassy of Israel in Bucharest, but she and her cousin were deterred, and justifiably so, by fear of the Securitate. Several years later my mother’s cousin was allowed to emigrate to the USA, but she didn’t take the risk of carrying the letter with her.
As soon as my mother’s journey to Romania was over she returned to Israel and recounted to me the bewildering content of the ten-page letter. These were the circumstances in which I became familiar with Medeea’s tragic story and I was eager to bring her story out for publication. However Medeea was still alive in Paris and by publishing her story I had no intent to stir up her tragic past.
 

Who was Medeea?

Medeea Marcovici was born in 1919 in Bucharest. She was the daughter of Jean Marcovici, who was a cloth dealer from the town of Targu-Ocna, and her mother was Cecilia Fischer, the daughter of a fish wholesaler from Galati. Her parents met in Bucharest and Medeea was their only child. Medeea was 11 years old when her mother passed away and her fathered remarried to a woman whose name was Fani. These events were to be a  turning point in Medeea’s life. The new couple didn’t have children probably because of the father’s age. The stepmother started to behave rudely towards Medeea, as she was envied her beauty and her sharp intelligence. However Medeea managed to finish her studies in Bucharest  in 1937 and thanks to her knowledge of foreign  languages (she knew English, French and German) she got a position with an architects’ office and shortly she became head secretary of the office.
During 1940 Medeea became acquainted with a young Jewish man, whose name was Nezu Salmovici, they found out that they had a lot in common and decided to get married. As soon as they made this decision a chain of predicaments started to happen. Nezu’s mother could not come to terms with the idea that her son, whose father was a wealthy textile trader in Bucharest, would marry a poor young lady, who was also an orphan. Although Nezu’s father and sister (who had become a close friend of Medeea’s) agreed to the marriage, the mother was bluntly opposed to it and she didn’t come to the wedding. In spite of all odds, Nezu’s father decided to buy a flat in Bucharest in the Calea Mosilor, where the couple’s dream of setting up a family became true. However their life couldn’t go on unhampered. Nezu’s mother never agreed to the marriage even after Medeea became pregnant. That was why Nezu’s father who was informed about the departure of the Struma decided to provide them with the necessary tickets hoping that it would be better for them to start a new life in Palestine. This piece of good news was followed by more trouble...
One day before the train departure from Bucharest to Constanta, given the stress and strain she was at grips with, Medeea’ lost her baby. Before departing she bid farewell to her cousins, Nini, Erna and Dida and presented them with some valuable items, namely her crystal glasses and her Rosenthal china dishes. Before leaving off and probably at the request of Nezu’s father and sister, they made up their mind to pay a visit to the mother’s premises and seek reconciliation. A maid opened the door and as soon the mother was informed who the guests were she told the maid that she was unwilling to meet them. She also ordered the maid to give them “her good regards” and the curse she uttered, which words were minutely given by Medeea in the aforementioned letter to Erna, were to hang like a shadow over their sea-voyage: “May you suffer from cold, thirst for water and starve for bread!”
It was clear from the very beginning that gien Medeea’s poor health she was not fit to travel even under normal circumstances, let alone the dire conditions the passengers aboard the Struma had to cope with. As the ship was approaching the Turkish coast she was suddenly taken ill by embolism. That was the reason why Medeea was the only passenger aboard the Struma (as far as I know) who was not carrying legal immigration documents and who was allowed however by the Turkish authorities to disembark and be transferred to a hospital.  The passengers aboard  the Struma who were holding legal immigration papers, namely Israel Frank-Dinari  and his wife Tina, his brother Brett Schneider and the Segals were duly allowed by the Turks to disembark in the Istanbul harbor.  Medeea insisted that she needed to be accompanied by her husband since she was so sick, but the Turkish authorities turned a deaf ear to her request.  Her husband remained aboard the ship and perished as did the rest of the passengers in the Black Sea.  As far as Medeea was concerned, she was taken to the Istanbul Jewish hospital and was looked after by the local Jewish community. In the atmosphere of general bewilderment caused by the sinking of the Struma, Medeea was granted an immigration visa through the Jewish Agency and was able to enter Palestine.  She lived in Tel-Aviv at the “Beit Hahalutzot” hostel and was helped to get a position as a diamond cutter. Several years later she was remarried to a wealthy businessman from abroad, left Israel and she passed away in 1996. It seems that her mother-in-law, namely Nezu’s mother, passed away shortly after her son’s death. Maybe her death was sped up by the qualms of consciousness in connection with her son’s death, maybe by the content of the letter her daughter-in-law had sent from the Istanbul hospital... Medeea wrote down the following sentence: “Tell her that every word uttered in her curse has been realized.”
The most frightening and awe-inspiring excerpt in Medeea’s letter concerns the tragic human plight that prevailed among the Struma passengers as the ship was close to the Turkish coast. Due to overcrowding and the harrowing shortage of food and water not to mention the frosty wintry weather and the unbearable sanitary conditions, the people on board were driven to such degree of despair that a number of passengers had lost their mind...
 

IV. The Views of a Senior British Official
during The British Mandate in Palestine
 
As a conclusion to the topic of this research paper I would like to bring forth the views of a senior British official on the tragedy of the Struma shipwreck.
Edward Keith-Roach was the Jerusalem District Governor before and throughout the Second World War and he referred to the Struma tragedy in his Memoirs, published in 1994.
His comments on the Struma tragedy and the rage of the Jewish population of Palestine are given in a brief cold language, pervaded by little human understanding and sympathy. The description is even-handed and lacks any trace of emotion as if Keith-Roach were an outsider or a foreign news-reporter, not a senior official of the British administration. Given the high position he held and his numerous connections he could have taken a firm stand in the matter. For instance he had the option to stand down or threaten that he would do so, if the women, children and the elderly who were aboard the ship were not allowed to reach the land. Had Keith-Roach presented his resignation to the High Governor of Palestine without delay, while the Struma was on the Turkish coast and the continuation of its journey to Palestine was denied - his protest would have had a strong impact both on international relations and on public opinion in Britain and the United States. Neither Keith-Roach nor any other British senior official or British cabinet minister ever protested. Therefore one can come to the conclusion that no British high official either in Palestine or in the British government could ever claim that he didn’t really have a share of moral guilt in connection with the Struma tragedy. The fact that the tragedy occurred in time of war is an easy excuse and it cannot lessen the guilt of a British high-ranking official who after all was not an army officer. The horrific consequences of the Struma tragedy could have been avoided if the government of Great Britain had complied with the commitments it had agreed to in 1922, when it was granted the mandate over Palestine, that included the free immigration of the Jewish population to Palestine and the creation of a Jewish national homeland. In fact the British government had unilaterally cancelled this decision and limited Jewish immigration from Europe to Palestine in 1939 by enacting the “White Paper”. This policy was carried on throughout the Second World War although it was clear that by making it impossible for the Jews of Europe to reach Palestine, they could not escape the claws of the Nazi terror.

However in the aftermath of the Struma tragedy Keith-Roach experienced a feeling of discomfort and he attempted to explain that he could not be held guilty himself and he put the full guilt on the shoulders of the High
Commissioner of Palestine, Sir Harold MacMichael. Keith-Roach quoted the contents of a leaflet that was widely circulated in Palestine in the aftermath of the Struma tragedy stating that “MacMichael was responsible for the assassination of 800 Jewish refugees who had been drowned into the Black Sea.” It is amply clear that Keith-Roach decided to quote this leaflet in an attempt to prove in an evasive way that only MacMichael was guilty of this crime whereas the senior officials of the British Mandate in Palestine and the British cabinet ministers could not be held responsible at all.

Annex:
David Stoljar’s Testimony
 (included in the article by Avi Shmul, “Looking for Remnants of the Sunken Struma”,
Haaretz, April 4th 2000)

The only survivor states: “Slowly, slowly, people were getting frozen and drowned.”

The only survivor of the Struma disaster, David Stoljar, 78, lives nowadays in Portland, Oregon. Yesterday he was interviewed by “Haaretz” and he detailed the circumstances in which he managed to survive: “The lower level was metallic and it sank immediately carrying hundreds of passengers. Hundreds of bodies were drifting on the sea, but Stoljar noticed a wooded beam that was a remnant of the deck. He clutched it and floated on it. A crew officer managed also to cling to the beam. We talked, sang and shouted until the small hours and we feared that if we would fall asleep our bodies would freeze. The officer could not handle the cold, and in the morning I found that he had died and I remained the only survivor.”
The most frightening scene, he continued, was the fact that after the blast hundreds of passengers remained alive, clinging to every remnant of the ship that was drifting, hovering between life and death. Terrible shrieks were heard; we noticed the coast in the distance, but no help was in sight. The hours went by slowly, people were getting frozen and drowned one by one. Some Turkish fishermen noticed him by chance; they hauled him up and he was transferred under escort to a hospital. In spite of his weak health the Turkish authorities imprisoned him for two months. As soon as he was released from the Turkish prison, he got on the train to Syria and from there he proceeded to Haifa where he reported at the police station. Stoljar admits that he had not felt an incentive to commemorate the tragedy, but on the other hand he cannot understand how the disaster was cast into collective oblivion over such a long time. “A long span of time was necessary until people realized that the Struma is in fact a meaningful part of history,” he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*I would like to give my thanks and acknowledgments to the historian Zeev- Lucian Herscovici  who
kindly read the manuscript, translated it into Romanian and added a number of meaningful
bibliographic references.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        (1)N Bethell: The Palestine Triangle: The Struggle between the British, the Jews and the Arabs
1935-48, London 1979 (pp. 113-120 “The Struma Disaster” and “Hatragedia Shel Strumah” (The
Tragedy of the Struma),Yediot Haharonot, Tel-Aviv, 20.5.1980, published in Hebrew)

        (2) Dalia Ofer, “Illegal Immigration to Palestine,” Jerusalem 1988, p. 237-240. Excerpts from
David Stoljar’s statement, brought forth in a literary style, have been published in Romanian by the
writer Arthur Leibovici (under the pen-name Maria Arsene, his wife’s name) in the documentary
novel “The Struma”, Bucharest 1972 pp. 367-372. The text of the statement is probably a
translation from Leib Kupferstein’s book “Meghilath Strumah, Tel Aviv, 1942. See also Mihai
Stoian, “The Last Journey”, Bucharest 1995 pp.166-171.

         3)  G.I.Vaneev Cernomortzy V Velicestvennoi Voine, Moscva, 1978.

         4)  See the editor’s notes in the article: A. Harel , “Struma the Ship that was doomed to
death,Yahadut Romania betekumath Israel( The Romanian Jews and the rebirth of Israel). Edited by
Paltiel Segal ,vol.1 Tel Aviv 1992, p. 236; see also the article by Tehile Ofer, “The Russians sank
the Struma ship and so did the  Turks and the British,” Maariv, Tel Aviv, 20.02.1992.

         5)  The fact holds true with the exception of the volume edited by Josephine Feinstein and
David Safran: Struma, the ship of life and death, Jerusalem 1965. Josephine Feinstein is a journalist
born in Bucharest whose two sons Mircea and Harry Juster Feinstein perished in the Struma
tragedy. Her comments deal with the personality of her sons, the reason of their departure, their
hopes, and mentions the contents of the letters they had sent from Istanbul and her bitter feelings as a
mother who had lost her sons. Rabbi Dr. David Safran makes comments on his friend Itzhak
Tercatin from Jassy who was a law student and the leader of the Betar Zionist youth movement. He
was one of the organizers of the journey and perished himself during the disaster. Another exception
occurs in some excerpts in Simon Saveanu’s volume entitled: “Save the Honour of Civilization” -
Salvati Onoarea Civilizatiei - Struma, Tel Aviv 1996, pp.116-171.

         6)  This field of study was founded by the Israeli lawyer of Romanian origin Benjamin
Mendelsohn. His research studies started to take shape within the framework of a correspondence
he was carried on with Sigmund Freud in 1934 on a law court trial that was held in Bucharest.
Benjamin Mendelsohn brought out  the impact of  psychological circumstances in his analysis of the
victims. He later dealt also with research in connection with the Holocaust victims. See: K.Weiss,
“Victimology in Jerusalem”, International Faces of Victimology : Papers and Essays given at the 6th
International Symposium on Victimology.

         7)  According to the Record of the Struma victims that came out in a full text in the publication
“Yahaduth Romania bethekumath Israel” vol. 1 p. 264-268 that was already mentioned on note 4 ,
Mendel Marcus’ age was given as 69. I would like to point out that my parents do not remember
with accuracy the names of the other members of the Marcus family except for the younger son,
Aurel whose name was also given in the victims’ record and his age was mentioned as 28. The
Struma victims’ record was published also in the booklet entitled Struma ,Tel-Aviv 1983 ( it was
published also in Romanian and both  versions  are alphabetically arranged) . Another version of the
victims’ record that differed from the previous one was published in Romanian by I Feinstein and D.
Safran : Struma p. 143-151 . I preferred to rely on the record  provided in the publication “Yahadut
Romania” that will be referred to in the next notes.

         8)  Their names are not given in the aforementioned  record, note 7. It is likely that these
names were erroneously registered  or given under a different form.
8A)I hesitated to give this personal rather subjective reference .I was born January 21st 1941, it was
the night of the terrible Bucharest pogrom. Although I was one year old  my first childhood
remembrance is associated with the picture of “Mos  Mendel”. I remember that as I was lying in bed
a gentleman with a long beard  was leaning over and kindly kissed my forehead. This happened in all
likelihood  during the farewell visit that Mos Mendel and his family were paying at my parents’
place.  Although my parents claim that I cannot really remember and what I do
remember comes from what they once told me I am certain that this piece of memory associated
with “ Mos Mendel” is a real fact.

        9)  In the victims’ record (see note 4 ) his family name was spelt incorrectly  and given as
“Gutermacher”. However the spelling of his two first names was correctly spelt : Smil Zanvil   and
Zanvel in the Romanian version ( Zanvil was his grandfather’s name). The right spelling namely
“Gutenmacher” is also given in the records preserved the Tel Aviv Haganah Archives , See Record
Files 33/2038 and 39/2155.

        10)  The aforementioned victims’ record (note 7) p.264. See also The Tel Aviv Haganah
Archives, Record File 39/2120.

        11)  The aforementioned victims’ record (note 7) p.265.

        12)  A military unit (brigade)  operating within the framework of the British army  under the
white and blue Jewish flag, whose soldiers and officers were Jews who were living in Palestine under
the British mandate.

        13)  My parents , Natan and Erna Rubinstein  do not remember the first name of Stoleru the
father. It results from his son’s statement that the name was Iacov. See Dalia Ofer “Derech Beyam
aliah beth betekufath hashoah ( A Journey by Sea: The illegal immigration to Palestine during the
Holocaust, Jerusaelm 1988, p.240.

        14)  K.Hitchins : Romania : 1866-1947, Bucharest 1966,p.472-477.

        15)  D. Hancu, Un Licar in Bezna (A glitter in the darkness), Bucharest,1997, p.7-21.

        16)  See the interview given by Israel Frank (Dinari) that was quoted  in Simon Saveanu’s
publication “Save the Honour of Civilization” (Note 5) p. 94-96. According to Saveanu’ s statement
there were five  passengers altogether aboard the Struma who were holding legal immigration visas
for Palestine namely, The Franks (Dinari), Israel  Frank’s brother. As far as the Segals were
concerned one cannot help noticing an unusual happening. The husband  had been the manager of
the American  “Steaua Romana” Petroleum company and strangely enough it was the ambassador of
Japan who had brought his diplomatic influence to bear by asking the Turkish authorities to allow
them to land although  Japan and the United States were at war following the Japanese Pearl
Harbour (December 17th ,1944) attack. A sad incident occurred however in spite of this diplomatic
intervention: the Turkish authorities didn’t allow Segal’s mother to leave the ship and she perished
following  the disaster. In the victims’ record her name was probably Segal  Liba , and she was 58
years old ( Yahadut Romanya betequmath Ysrael , vol.1 p.264-268; See also Note 4.

             17)  N. Bethell gives her name among the survivors : The Palestine Triangle ...p.117 and
Albert Finkelstein provides a similar information Etre ou ne pas Naitre ,Chronique des Crimes contre
l’humanite en Roumanie , Paris ,1997, p274. According to the information provided by Finkelstein
who quotes the Memoir written by the Chief Rabbi of Turkey and signed by Henri Soriano who was
the chairman of the Istanbul Jewish Community, there were nine people altogether aboard the
Struma who were holding immigration visas for Palestine.

            18)  A blunt refusal in a similar matter was also given to Brett Schneider’s fiancee. See S.
Saveanu “Save the Honour of Civilization... p. 94.

            19)  In the Victims’ Record his name is given as Salmovitz Simon and he was 24 years old.
It is likely that the name “ Nezu” was just an abridged nickname.( See note 4).

            20)  See Note 17, The registration date of Medeea’s hospitalization, A. Finkelstein,” Etre ou
ne pas  Naitre” p. 247.

            21)  Edward Keith-Roach  : Pasha of Jerusalem : Memoirs of A District Commissioner
under the British Mandate, London, 1994, p.214.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTES ON THE AUTHOR

            Shimon Rubinstein is an Israeli historian born in Barlad, Romania, in 1941 who emigrated to Israel in 1950. He holds a degree from the Hebrew University, Jerusalem in the field of general world history and political science (1965). Since 1968 he has been working at Yad Ben Zvi, Jerusalem. He is the author of books and articles, mainly in connection with the history of Eretz Israel in the 19th and 20th centuries. He has specialized particularly in research on the history of Palestine during the transition period from Turkish to British Rule. His books have been published mainly in Hebrew and include the following titles:
            And Nevertheless Moshe Malal and Yosef Amozeg Were the First Martyrs of the Yishuv in the Twentieth Century, 1984;
            German Atrocity or British Propaganda, The Seventieth Anniversary of a Scandal: German Corpse Utilization Establishments in the First World War, Jerusalem 1987;
            At A Close Perspective, Reflexions on the Centenary of David Ben-Gurion, A few suggestions to the historian of 2086, Jerusalem, 1986;
            The Negev, The Great Zionist Blunder, 1919-1929, 4 vols. 1988;
            German-Turkish Endeavours in the Fields of Engineering, Water Exploration and Agriculture in the Sinai and the Negev during WWI and the Part played therein by the (Jewish) Yishuv,  1989;
            Crisis and Change, Petah Tikva in transition from Turkish to British Rule vol. 1-5, Jerusalem 1990-1992;
            At the Height of Expectations, the Land Policy of the Zionist Commission in 1918, Jerusalem 1992;
            From Barlad to the Maabarah of Rosh Pina: the first years of an immigrant family in Galilee 1950-1956, Tel Aviv 1993, Jerusalem 1995;
            Despite Birth Pangs and Uncertainty - On the history of the Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East, 1947-1952 (1995);
            An Exemplary Rabbi, How the Chief Rabbi of Damascus, Rabbi Dr. Shelomo Tagger, saved his community during the Druze Revolt of 1925 (1995);
            A look at the Jewish Community in Gaza 1870-1929 (1995);
            Coinage, Measures and Weights in Eretz Israel from the Beginning of the 19th Century to the Period of Transition from Ottoman to British Rule. This book is regarded as an important contribution to the research of the economic history of Palestine during the 19th and 20th centuries. The Gate to the South, 1998;
            A Personal Exchange of Letters with a Hebrew Patriot in the Diaspora 1985-1995, 2 vols., 1999.