![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zero0000 - thanks for a great article. Re: "The majority of persons on board were rescued by British and Arab boats that rushed to the scene, but approximately 267 others, including about 50 crew and British soldiers, lost their lives." - do the sources give a precise number for British only fatalities? -- mervyn 06:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
The disaster section lists 209 bodies being found, while the aftermath section lists 167. Is there any way to reconcile these numbers? Would the British casualties not being included in the lesser number account for the difference? Darkonc ( talk) 21:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
At the time of these incidents, Lord Moyne was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and had no role in the Middle East. None of the histories that cite British internal documents connect Moyne to the Patria in any way. More importantly, these sources name the British officials responsible for the decision-making here and Moyne was not one of them. Popular accounts which claim otherwise are based either on innocent mistakes or on misinformation created by sympathisers of his murder in 1944. -- Zero talk 00:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Moshe Shamir is a respected writer, however as Ian noted his book on Stern is listed as as "biographical novel" even though other of his books are called "biographies" or "non-fiction". [1] The description "biographical novel" is an indicator that it is based on fact but does not claim to be historically precise. It is a novel (i.e., fiction) based on a background of fact. Such books are not reliable as historical sources even if they are great works of literature. Besides your source not being adequate for Lehi's opinion, I can't see any reason why Lehi's opinion on this operation is significant. They were not in any way involved in it and were not a significant political force at the time. -- Zero talk 05:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The book "Ya'ir" by Moshe Shamir is a novel. That means it can't be used as a source of historical data. Amoruso claims it is not a novel at all, but since Amoruso appears to have the book we can wonder who is trying to kid who here. The reason I am reasonably confident that this book is a novel is that it says so right on the cover of the book! Take a look at the cover here. The two words in small red letters say "biographical novel". -- Zero talk 04:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we go by this, and because it's essentially a biography, no problem with it. comment by impartial for comment and it's non controversial and well known, could be replaced in the future but for now like said it's a keep - [3] Amoruso 00:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
A "biographical novel" is a novel, which is fiction, which is not a reliable source. It's really that simple. However, you mentioned that the novel has "relevant references". Perhaps if you could provide them instead? — Ashley Y 02:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
A Hebrew site - "Daat" [4], which tell the history from the Irgun point of view, and therefore, is not suspected to be a supporter of Mapai and Moshe Sharett, bring a citation from Dalya Ofer book Derech Bayam (A way in the sea) (page 55), which says that apparently, Sharett did not know about the operation. Tushyk 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
-- Zero talk 11:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)I must confirm the fact . . . that the Patria was sunk by the order of the undersigned and in any event by his authorization.. . . I have never spoken about this matter in public. But I did have the opportunity in more restricted circles to note that the sinking of the Patria occurred by authorization of the supreme national body operative at that time, i.e. the Political Department of the Jewish Agency, headed at the time by the undersigned.. . . Had I been asked on the public stage, whether orally or in writing, about the role I had played in this incident, I would not have concealed the truth.. . . I would not have boasted about an act so bloody. But I would not have considered it an action that necessitated apologizing for. Rather, it was the fulfillment of a duty and the assumption of responsibility. Although authorization was given only for the plan to cause damage to the ship alone and not for anything entailing possible victims, in such actions it is not always possible to foresee the outcome. And whoever authorizes the action bears responsibility for its results, both anticipated and unforeseen. During the period of my tenure as head of the Political Department of the Jewish Agency and thereafter as a member of the Israeli government, I participated in numerous decisions that cost human lives. This cannot be avoided in the political life of a people struggling for survival, where its sons are called upon to sacrifice their lives for its future. [Chazan, p67-68]
"…the leadership of the Jewish Agency didn't know about it a thing, neither the political comeetee of Mapai. Apparently, the decision was made at the senior rank of the Hagana, by Eliahu Golomb, Shaul Avigur and Israel Galili – with the support of Berl Katznelson, without those people getting to a real debate with the political rank. From the papers that we have it looks as even Moshe Shertok (Sharett) didn't know the details of the things. In the summer of 1977 Shaul avigur told that during the political effort that was made to prevent deportation, him and Golomb went to Jerusalem to councel with their friends in the Jewish Agency. They met Berl Katznelson and talked with him about their plan and he supported the plan to dammage the ship. Without listening to other views and without talking with Shertok at all, they saw Katznelson words as an approval to the action". Tushyk 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
On the basis of an interview with Avigur, Dalia Ofer is of the view that Eliyahu Golomb (head of the Haganah), Galili and Zisling, acting with Katznelson's backing, gave the green light for the operation. In her analysis, the decision-making process here shows how the Haganah was utilized instrumentally to advance activist positions both in Mapai and the Zionist movement at a time when they were minority views." But as we will see, this view is not borne out by what actually transpired in the Patria affair. [Chazan, p66]
Guy changed "illegal" to "underground" in "The Zionist illegal immigration organization Mossad Le'Aliya Bet". First, the source for this sentence (Ofer, see bib.) uses "illegal" and we aren't supposed to second-guess our sources. Second, the offered reason "It was not an illegal organization as the League of Nations Mandatates Commission never agreed to the 1939 British White Paper. Perhaps it was illegal in Britain but that is irrelevent in terms of law" is incorrect. Britain was empowered to regulate immigration into Palestine. There is no dispute about that at all, nor does anyone claim that prior approval from the Mandates Commission was required to establish regulations. Actually it was the other way around: the Mandates Commission did not overturn the regulations so they remained the law. The situation was similar to a law that appears to violate the constitution: it remains the law until a sufficiently high court strikes it down. Of course people have argued that the White Paper violated the Mandate charter and so was unconstitutional in that sense, but we are supposed to report what our sources say and not make our own arguments. Btw, the sentence is saying that the immigration was illegal not that the organization was illegal - that could be clarified if it isn't clear enough. -- Zero talk 09:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Was the sinking of this boat carried out by the Haganah? Also, I see disaster in the title and as one of the sections, is this correct wording. Was this an intentional act? The body of the article leads the reader to believe this but the lead sentence makes no mention of it? Anyways, I am sure I'll be educated shortly, cheers and thanks-- Tom 17:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)!
I have brought this up at RfC under Should integrity be a key attribute in an editor? PalestineRemembered 21:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten the article, while building on the previous version, to address some of the issues that have been raised here and to improve the sourcing and level of detail in the article. Hopefully it should now be a bit more rounded and comprehensive. I should mention one issue which I'm sure someone will bring up - I've removed the references to Moshe Shamir's biographical novel Yair. It's not usable as a source; it would be different if it was purely an autobiography, but as a partial work of fiction we simply can't reliably tell which elements are fiction and which aren't. -- ChrisO 20:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Patria.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 19:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Article reassessed and graded as start class. No sure this article strictly qualifies as Military History but leaving tag. -- dashiellx ( talk) 18:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Should this article be renamed to Patria bombing? "Disaster" makes it sound like the sinking was some sort of unfortunate semi-natural occurrence, like a ship hitting an iceberg, but of course the Patria's sinking resulted from a deliberate human action - an act of terrorism, essentially - rather than the natural causes or negligent actions that are the cause of most disasters. -- ChrisO ( talk) 18:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Am I missing something here? I thought the "deliberate action" of planting a bomb on the passenger liner was done to prevent the English from shipping the Jewish passengers off to internment in another part of the British Empire. Did the English ever say anything about sending the Jewish passengers to Germany?
And yes, the ship was bombed -- sunk by a deliberate human action, regardless of the explanations given after the fact. ( 71.22.47.232 ( talk) 10:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC))
The title of the article is a typical zionistic eufemism. The correct title is: "THE PATRIA TERROR ATTACK". The Hagganah group was a 100% terrorist group and bombing a civilian ship is off course a terror action. Naming the this terror action by eufemisms as " disaster" is zionistic hasbara( propaganda) ,the only reason of which is an clumsy attempt to hide the truth.
Still says the British considered them illegal immigrants, but the article use the word "refugees" a lot and expands on the whole Nazi history. This has a place in the lead. Amoruso ( talk) 19:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
To me, disabling a ship implies the carrying out of an act causing a breakdown in its motive or steering systems. I think that it is fairly obvious that a bomb placed next to the hull sheathing is intended to cause a breach leading to flooding of the ship. Eva Feld, in the article The Story of the S/S Patria, in which a detailed description of how the bomb was smuggled aboard is given, says that the intention was to sink the ship, but that a far bigger hole than intended was blown in its hull and the ship sank too quickly for those on-board to escape safely. I have seen claims that the intention was to break a propeller shaft, but the sinking theory makes more sense to me. To sink the ship, the construction and placement of the bomb would have been far less critical. Sinking the ship would have hindered deportation efforts more. And, it would have been more spectacular and therefore had more symbolic power. -- ZScarpia ( talk) 16:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is this event called a disaster instead of a bombing? 2607:FEA8:93A0:2970:63:1079:9E97:4BE6 ( talk) 14:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
"Before the government of Nazi Germany decided in 1941 to exterminate all Jews in Europe" Could you please show us the document for that decision? Because official historiography will tell you that they do not have evidence for that. They only imply this. 105.4.7.163 ( talk) 11:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate why this article is locked for editing, however, there are segments that really need re-drafting. The final sentence before the contents block reads "Who was responsible and the true reason why Patria sank remained controversial mysteries...", should have mysteries removed.
The first sentence of "background" carries an odd tone that doesn't seem to fit. In fact, nearly every paragraph in this section lacks any citation, and is full of things that don't necessarily seem relevant to the bombing of the ship, i.e., "...who saw the opportunity to make trouble for Britain...". Perhaps the implication is that sending them to Palestinian waters was to provoke Britain, but if so, this should surely be made clear AND be sourced, not simply be implied in unclear tone.
Generally, this article could do with being cleaned by someone with access, making it more readable, and easier for the average peruser to learn from. Likearaisin ( talk) 15:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zero0000 - thanks for a great article. Re: "The majority of persons on board were rescued by British and Arab boats that rushed to the scene, but approximately 267 others, including about 50 crew and British soldiers, lost their lives." - do the sources give a precise number for British only fatalities? -- mervyn 06:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
The disaster section lists 209 bodies being found, while the aftermath section lists 167. Is there any way to reconcile these numbers? Would the British casualties not being included in the lesser number account for the difference? Darkonc ( talk) 21:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
At the time of these incidents, Lord Moyne was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and had no role in the Middle East. None of the histories that cite British internal documents connect Moyne to the Patria in any way. More importantly, these sources name the British officials responsible for the decision-making here and Moyne was not one of them. Popular accounts which claim otherwise are based either on innocent mistakes or on misinformation created by sympathisers of his murder in 1944. -- Zero talk 00:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Moshe Shamir is a respected writer, however as Ian noted his book on Stern is listed as as "biographical novel" even though other of his books are called "biographies" or "non-fiction". [1] The description "biographical novel" is an indicator that it is based on fact but does not claim to be historically precise. It is a novel (i.e., fiction) based on a background of fact. Such books are not reliable as historical sources even if they are great works of literature. Besides your source not being adequate for Lehi's opinion, I can't see any reason why Lehi's opinion on this operation is significant. They were not in any way involved in it and were not a significant political force at the time. -- Zero talk 05:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The book "Ya'ir" by Moshe Shamir is a novel. That means it can't be used as a source of historical data. Amoruso claims it is not a novel at all, but since Amoruso appears to have the book we can wonder who is trying to kid who here. The reason I am reasonably confident that this book is a novel is that it says so right on the cover of the book! Take a look at the cover here. The two words in small red letters say "biographical novel". -- Zero talk 04:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we go by this, and because it's essentially a biography, no problem with it. comment by impartial for comment and it's non controversial and well known, could be replaced in the future but for now like said it's a keep - [3] Amoruso 00:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
A "biographical novel" is a novel, which is fiction, which is not a reliable source. It's really that simple. However, you mentioned that the novel has "relevant references". Perhaps if you could provide them instead? — Ashley Y 02:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
A Hebrew site - "Daat" [4], which tell the history from the Irgun point of view, and therefore, is not suspected to be a supporter of Mapai and Moshe Sharett, bring a citation from Dalya Ofer book Derech Bayam (A way in the sea) (page 55), which says that apparently, Sharett did not know about the operation. Tushyk 10:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
-- Zero talk 11:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)I must confirm the fact . . . that the Patria was sunk by the order of the undersigned and in any event by his authorization.. . . I have never spoken about this matter in public. But I did have the opportunity in more restricted circles to note that the sinking of the Patria occurred by authorization of the supreme national body operative at that time, i.e. the Political Department of the Jewish Agency, headed at the time by the undersigned.. . . Had I been asked on the public stage, whether orally or in writing, about the role I had played in this incident, I would not have concealed the truth.. . . I would not have boasted about an act so bloody. But I would not have considered it an action that necessitated apologizing for. Rather, it was the fulfillment of a duty and the assumption of responsibility. Although authorization was given only for the plan to cause damage to the ship alone and not for anything entailing possible victims, in such actions it is not always possible to foresee the outcome. And whoever authorizes the action bears responsibility for its results, both anticipated and unforeseen. During the period of my tenure as head of the Political Department of the Jewish Agency and thereafter as a member of the Israeli government, I participated in numerous decisions that cost human lives. This cannot be avoided in the political life of a people struggling for survival, where its sons are called upon to sacrifice their lives for its future. [Chazan, p67-68]
"…the leadership of the Jewish Agency didn't know about it a thing, neither the political comeetee of Mapai. Apparently, the decision was made at the senior rank of the Hagana, by Eliahu Golomb, Shaul Avigur and Israel Galili – with the support of Berl Katznelson, without those people getting to a real debate with the political rank. From the papers that we have it looks as even Moshe Shertok (Sharett) didn't know the details of the things. In the summer of 1977 Shaul avigur told that during the political effort that was made to prevent deportation, him and Golomb went to Jerusalem to councel with their friends in the Jewish Agency. They met Berl Katznelson and talked with him about their plan and he supported the plan to dammage the ship. Without listening to other views and without talking with Shertok at all, they saw Katznelson words as an approval to the action". Tushyk 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
On the basis of an interview with Avigur, Dalia Ofer is of the view that Eliyahu Golomb (head of the Haganah), Galili and Zisling, acting with Katznelson's backing, gave the green light for the operation. In her analysis, the decision-making process here shows how the Haganah was utilized instrumentally to advance activist positions both in Mapai and the Zionist movement at a time when they were minority views." But as we will see, this view is not borne out by what actually transpired in the Patria affair. [Chazan, p66]
Guy changed "illegal" to "underground" in "The Zionist illegal immigration organization Mossad Le'Aliya Bet". First, the source for this sentence (Ofer, see bib.) uses "illegal" and we aren't supposed to second-guess our sources. Second, the offered reason "It was not an illegal organization as the League of Nations Mandatates Commission never agreed to the 1939 British White Paper. Perhaps it was illegal in Britain but that is irrelevent in terms of law" is incorrect. Britain was empowered to regulate immigration into Palestine. There is no dispute about that at all, nor does anyone claim that prior approval from the Mandates Commission was required to establish regulations. Actually it was the other way around: the Mandates Commission did not overturn the regulations so they remained the law. The situation was similar to a law that appears to violate the constitution: it remains the law until a sufficiently high court strikes it down. Of course people have argued that the White Paper violated the Mandate charter and so was unconstitutional in that sense, but we are supposed to report what our sources say and not make our own arguments. Btw, the sentence is saying that the immigration was illegal not that the organization was illegal - that could be clarified if it isn't clear enough. -- Zero talk 09:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Was the sinking of this boat carried out by the Haganah? Also, I see disaster in the title and as one of the sections, is this correct wording. Was this an intentional act? The body of the article leads the reader to believe this but the lead sentence makes no mention of it? Anyways, I am sure I'll be educated shortly, cheers and thanks-- Tom 17:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)!
I have brought this up at RfC under Should integrity be a key attribute in an editor? PalestineRemembered 21:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten the article, while building on the previous version, to address some of the issues that have been raised here and to improve the sourcing and level of detail in the article. Hopefully it should now be a bit more rounded and comprehensive. I should mention one issue which I'm sure someone will bring up - I've removed the references to Moshe Shamir's biographical novel Yair. It's not usable as a source; it would be different if it was purely an autobiography, but as a partial work of fiction we simply can't reliably tell which elements are fiction and which aren't. -- ChrisO 20:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Image:Patria.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 19:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Article reassessed and graded as start class. No sure this article strictly qualifies as Military History but leaving tag. -- dashiellx ( talk) 18:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Should this article be renamed to Patria bombing? "Disaster" makes it sound like the sinking was some sort of unfortunate semi-natural occurrence, like a ship hitting an iceberg, but of course the Patria's sinking resulted from a deliberate human action - an act of terrorism, essentially - rather than the natural causes or negligent actions that are the cause of most disasters. -- ChrisO ( talk) 18:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Am I missing something here? I thought the "deliberate action" of planting a bomb on the passenger liner was done to prevent the English from shipping the Jewish passengers off to internment in another part of the British Empire. Did the English ever say anything about sending the Jewish passengers to Germany?
And yes, the ship was bombed -- sunk by a deliberate human action, regardless of the explanations given after the fact. ( 71.22.47.232 ( talk) 10:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC))
The title of the article is a typical zionistic eufemism. The correct title is: "THE PATRIA TERROR ATTACK". The Hagganah group was a 100% terrorist group and bombing a civilian ship is off course a terror action. Naming the this terror action by eufemisms as " disaster" is zionistic hasbara( propaganda) ,the only reason of which is an clumsy attempt to hide the truth.
Still says the British considered them illegal immigrants, but the article use the word "refugees" a lot and expands on the whole Nazi history. This has a place in the lead. Amoruso ( talk) 19:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
To me, disabling a ship implies the carrying out of an act causing a breakdown in its motive or steering systems. I think that it is fairly obvious that a bomb placed next to the hull sheathing is intended to cause a breach leading to flooding of the ship. Eva Feld, in the article The Story of the S/S Patria, in which a detailed description of how the bomb was smuggled aboard is given, says that the intention was to sink the ship, but that a far bigger hole than intended was blown in its hull and the ship sank too quickly for those on-board to escape safely. I have seen claims that the intention was to break a propeller shaft, but the sinking theory makes more sense to me. To sink the ship, the construction and placement of the bomb would have been far less critical. Sinking the ship would have hindered deportation efforts more. And, it would have been more spectacular and therefore had more symbolic power. -- ZScarpia ( talk) 16:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is this event called a disaster instead of a bombing? 2607:FEA8:93A0:2970:63:1079:9E97:4BE6 ( talk) 14:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
"Before the government of Nazi Germany decided in 1941 to exterminate all Jews in Europe" Could you please show us the document for that decision? Because official historiography will tell you that they do not have evidence for that. They only imply this. 105.4.7.163 ( talk) 11:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate why this article is locked for editing, however, there are segments that really need re-drafting. The final sentence before the contents block reads "Who was responsible and the true reason why Patria sank remained controversial mysteries...", should have mysteries removed.
The first sentence of "background" carries an odd tone that doesn't seem to fit. In fact, nearly every paragraph in this section lacks any citation, and is full of things that don't necessarily seem relevant to the bombing of the ship, i.e., "...who saw the opportunity to make trouble for Britain...". Perhaps the implication is that sending them to Palestinian waters was to provoke Britain, but if so, this should surely be made clear AND be sourced, not simply be implied in unclear tone.
Generally, this article could do with being cleaned by someone with access, making it more readable, and easier for the average peruser to learn from. Likearaisin ( talk) 15:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)