Mystery over Dutch WW2 shipwrecks vanished from Java Sea bed

[Han]

Article here:
Mystery over Dutch WW2 shipwrecks vanished from Java Sea bed - BBC News

Any ideas/theories?

I think the implication is that the wrecks were illegally salvaged, but I am not convinced.

 

[Randall]

Article here: Mystery over Dutch WW2 shipwrecks vanished from Java Sea bed - BBC News | Any ideas/theories? I think the implication is that the wrecks were illegally salvaged, but I am not convinced.

First thing is to get definitive evidence that the vessels have actually been removed as opposed to being buried or consumed by sinkholes or some natural phenomena. If they are missing, then scavengers are the likely culprits. This article suggests explosives are used to separate the ships into smaller pieces: Several WWII Shipwrecks Have Mysteriously Vanished From Under the Sea

 

[Standanista]

It's illegal salvage but with a potential twist. Anything sunk before the first nuclear tests in the mid-1940s is guaranteed to be made from low-background steel and other metals. Metal produced in furnaces using ambient air since then has all been forged contaminated with traces of atmospheric nuclear by-products. Low-background metals have applications in nuclear science and detection equipment, and fetch considerably higher prices than regular scrap.

The advantages of using wreck steel (etc) over any old regular scrap metal produced before the mid-1940s are:

• It's been sat underwater, better isolated from further contamination for the past 70-odd-plus years. Yes there's been Fukushima in recent times in terms of potential seawater radiation, but in comparison there have been a lot more nukes let off, plus the odd Chernobyl-type disaster, between the 1940s and now.
• Key component parts on warships (e.g. propellers, boilers) are made of steel or similar material of high quality manufacture.

Low-background metal can still be produced today but it's expensive. The plant's components themselves have to be low-background, as does the air supply, operating in a closed loop. It's easier to grab it from the seabed, particularly in the shallower waters where a lot of the early WW2 Far East naval battles were fought.

I don't realistically think that 100% of such illicit salvage is being driven by state actor or big business clients in the background looking for low-background product, but nor do I doubt that there is a significant element of this to it.

 

[Han]

A million curses on the people responsible.

Thank you both for the extra information.

Makes a lot more now.

 

[Randall]

A million curses on the people responsible. Thank you both for the extra information. Makes a lot more now.

Don't take this the wrong way, but looking at the issue dispassionately and logically: Why shouldn't sunken ships be cleaned up off the ocean floor, recycled, and in the process provide income for the living? We don't leave wrecked cars in the middle of the freeway with dead passengers as a memorial to their demise. Why not? Think about it. Like the rest of the war, it's mainly about the money.

The far more moral thing to do would have been to recover the lost mariners, ship their remains back to their families, and clean up their mess, but instead they left the lost lying in a cold steel wreck at the bottom of the ocean. So how did they spin that one around? It would have been very expensive for the war machine to do the right thing, so first of all, "out of sight = out of mind = so let's leave them their because it will save us the hassle of cleaning them up, and sinking ships is how we get rid of them anyway". Then to prevent anyone else from profiting, they declare it a "memorial site". It's brilliant! It's also hypocritical. But look how everybody gobbles it up instead of thinking about it.

They also make purposefully sunken ships off limits by declaring them "artificial reefs":

​

 

[Han]

Don't take this the wrong way, but looking at the issue dispassionately and logically: Why shouldn't sunken ships be cleaned up off the ocean floor, recycled, and in the process provide income for the living? We don't leave wrecked cars in the middle of the freeway with dead passengers as a memorial to their demise. Why not? Think about it. Like the rest of the war, it's mainly about the money.

The far more moral thing to do would have been to recover the lost mariners, ship their remains back to their families, and clean up their mess, but instead they left the lost lying in a cold steel wreck at the bottom of the ocean. So how did they spin that one around? It would have been very expensive for the war machine to do the right thing, so first of all, "out of sight = out of mind = so let's leave them their because it will save us the hassle of cleaning them up, and sinking ships is how we get rid of them anyway". Then to prevent anyone else from profiting, they declare it a "memorial site". It's brilliant! It's also hypocritical. But look how everybody gobbles it up instead of thinking about it.

They also make purposefully sunken ships off limits by declaring them "artificial reefs":

​

I agree in part, but I would say this:

and I will freely admit it is wishful and unpractical sentiment on my part:

Any deceased Sailor who's family wants their relatives body repatriated should be able to do so, so long as the deceased sailor in question had not directly specified that they wanted a sea Burial.
And the governments should pay for it as it was they who put them there.

However my understanding is that the attitude of many of the sailors was: that being buried at sea was fine, or even preferable to being buried on land.

Extreme levels of cooperation and comradery were essential to life on board a ship, that is to say that: if we go down, we all go down together, we are united in triumph and tragedy alike.

There is also a long tradition of "ship burials".*

I see these memorial wrecks as a combination of the two.

They are Graves and should be treated as such.

I will also say that too many people have no grave or memorial at all, they were left where they fell and forgotten.
In fact my great Grandfathers remains were only found years after he was killed in action, but it was actually a good thing they found him, because my Great grandmother could actually start to grieve. He had been listed as missing for many years, until a farmer in France discovered his "Identity Necklace" (dog tag).

He now has a Marked grave in a Cemetery near where he was killed, but there are many unmarked and mass graves there too, not to mention all of the undiscovered remains.

The reason I added this is because I wanted to acknowledge that I am biased on this issue because of family experience.

Also, as I believe we came from the sea, I might have less issue than others about "returning" there.

As always, I value your input, I could not be offended because you tell the truth as you see it.

Best wishes.


*Ship burial - Wikipedia

 

[Standanista]

With regard to recovering bodies from sunken ships, the sad reality is that there will not be anything left to recover after a time. I remember seeing a documentary about a diving team exploring the wreck of a U-boat that had gone down with all hands. All they found of the crew were dozens of pairs of leather shoes scattered throughout the hull, as leather is resistant to the marine microorganisms that had otherwise consumed everything else.

 

[Randall]

With regard to recovering bodies from sunken ships, the sad reality is that there will not be anything left to recover after a time. I remember seeing a documentary about a diving team exploring the wreck of a U-boat that had gone down with all hands. All they found of the crew were dozens of pairs of leather shoes scattered throughout the hull, as leather is resistant to the marine microorganisms that had otherwise consumed everything else.

Exactly. I mean no disrespect at all, but in principle, see no problem with having a memorial wall or garden or something along those lines, and making use of whatever materials can be recovered. If I were myself a mariner, or I had relatives on those vessels, knowing what you just said, after this amount of time, with nothing left of me anyway, I'd actually prefer a memorial that people could actually visit. Maybe that's what should be done now. I think that it would be a fine idea, if taken in the spirit in which it is intended, to create a new monument in their place to preserve their honor and hopefully help alleviate some of the emotional distress over the issue.