Dalia Ofer.pdf - WNLibrary

360 NOTES
Foreign Office officials who opposed bringing the issue before the Cabinet because
of Lord Moyne's hostile and firm position and his considerable influence among his
Cabinet colleagues.
58. Ibid., Passport Control Office (PCO), Istanbul, to the Foreign Office.
59. Turkish government policy has until now been alluded to only indirectly, in the
context of discussions on British or Zionist policy. It nonetheless seems worthwhile to
examine briefly the steps taken by the Ankara government to formulate policy guidelines.
The analysis here is based largely on the British and Zionist records. Turkish
sources, though perhaps crucial to this discussion, are unfortunately inaccessible.
60. Barlas, 1975, appendix, documents 232 and 234; regulations broadcast by radio
and in the press explaining the implementation of the Council of Ministers' decision
on 1/30/41 to permit refugees to travel through the country.
61. CZA A203, private papers of Shimon Brod, on his contacts with the Turkish
authorities and their attitude to his activities.
62. FO 371/29161 W2503/11/48, the Foreign Office to the secretary of the embassy
in Turkey, 3/26/41.
63. CO 733 430, the Foreign Office to Rendel in Sofia, and notes by Foreign Office
officials in response to the Bulgarian charges against Turkey. Cf. ibid., the correspondence
between Istanbul and the high commissioner in Palestine about the survivors
of the Salvador.
64. Ibid. The three boats did not get provisions in Istanbul and required assistance
at Greek ports; cf. FO 371/29161 W2661711/48, Bennett to Knatchbull-Hugessen, 37
6/41.
65. CZA S25/2616. I have not been able to locate this letter, but large extracts
are quoted in a second letter by the captain, dated 1/10/42. The first had been written
on 12/24/41, nine days after the ship arrived in Istanbul. British records also allude
to two letters.
66. FO 371/312662 W3593, Knatchbull-Hugessen to the Foreign Office on 3/2/41.
He describes the Turkish approach and their attitude.
67. CZA S25/2616, the extension of the war.
68. Ibid. Reports to that effect based on Turkish sources are cited in the report
of the journalist Agronsky concerning his visit to Turkey during the period following
the sinking of the Struma, 3/24/42; cf. FO 371/32661/9915 W3027, Knatchbull-Hugessen
to the Foreign Office on 1726742.
69. Ibid.
70. FO 371/32661 W9923. A letter from the Foreign Office to the Washington
embassy on 3/4/42 hints that the Germans were behind the deportation and the Turks'
refusal to allow children to disembark, out of anti-British motives. The British documents
themselves are divided on this point, however. There is no substantiation in
German records, though at this stage there is clearly no possibility of resolving the
question, particularly without examining Turkish records.
71. A more detailed analysis of Turkey's position, as Knatchbull-Hugessen saw
it, is contained in his letter to the Foreign Office, FO 371/32661 W9923, W3593, on
3/8/42. He was asked to offer a further explanation of the affair for public consumption,
and he demonstrates a remarkable understanding of the Turkish position.
Chapter 9
1. Information on the small boats may be found in scattered reports on Rumanian
emigration: CZA S25/2492, 2493; HA 14/60; and British records FO 371 CO 733, the