Naval History Forums

José M. Rico wrote:As far as I know nothing has been removed from the wreck so far.
They left a couple of commemorative plaques in 2001-2002.

Jose,

That is what I understood has happened and I think it is a respectful thing to do. In the US, if you visit battlefields like Gettysburg there are monuments and markers where units fought. Leaving plaques on the wreck is no different!

Sorry! I was being stupid before. I agree with research expeditions, but I know that other wreck sites around the world havn't been treated respectfully
There was a big uproar a few years ago when artifacts were removed from the wreck of the passenger liner Titanic. I usually frown when I hear about new "research expeditions". The term has been used too often in other diving companies... As someone mentioned above, It had better be for research!

celticmarine10 wrote:Sorry! I was being stupid before. I agree with research expeditions, but I know that other wreck sites around the world havn't been treated respectfully
There was a big uproar a few years ago when artifacts were removed from the wreck of the passenger liner Titanic. I usually frown when I hear about new "research expeditions". The term has been used too often in other diving companies... As someone mentioned above, It had better be for research!

If you want to be really angry about that sort of thing, look into what happened to the wreck of Tirpitz.

What about Yamato? See link:

http://www.battleshipyamato.info/wreck.html

Leaving any objects such as wreaths and ''commenaritive plaques'' is a disturbance of the wreck site. Leave alone means exactly that.

celticmarine10 wrote:Sorry! I was being stupid before. ...

I wouldn't catagorize that way.. :)
While it hasn't happened yet to Bismarck from what we know you were still expressing a valid concern. Better that more people be concerned even perhaps "overly" concerned than complacent.

All warships lost in battle are classed as war graves ie royal navy ships where a look dont touch or enter policy exists.Recently watched a tv doc about japenese ships lost in truk lagoon and was quite surprised to see divers entering the wrecks and actually handling the skulls of dead japanese sailors this surely should not be allowed.Ref Bismark she has not been entered nor disturbed in anyway as far as i know.What is the german governments position on naval wrecks.

I'm pretty sure there are exceptions to that rule. It may have to do with whether or not they are in territorial waters and if the government or it's successor is still around. I think there are some more but am not all that certain. Most of the laws that would cover this are on the web so a bit of research could probably find a definitive answer.

A warship is a sailors home and as such to be cherished .Naval warfare is different from land or air operations.The german crews that sank the Hood felt a great deal of respect for her lost crew The british seamen who witnessed the final battle with bismark felt the same.There is a bond felt by all sailors the so called comradeship of the sea.Somwhere some how surley all naval ships lost in wartime should be treated as war graves there must be some way of getting international agreement waiving the national /international waters problem.And by doing so help to protect these wrecks and and have all the honours of war respect ect,awarded to them.

One problem here with the ''comradeship of the sea'' is that American servisemen did not as a generalisation respect their Japanese foe in the same way as European enemies, not least because of the treatment of prisoners of war by the Japs. This may be an influence in the looting of Japanese wrecks.
Another factopr is that as the Japanese have tried to airbrush the period of militarism out of their history books so their government is unlikely to pursue the issue of the looting of wrecks because it brings the militarism back on their agenda both domestically and with the countries in whose waters these wrecks lie.

Hello all,

All things above aside just for a moment, another dive to the Bismarck is IMO quite interesting (does anyone else agree?).

What would be the scope of activities for the new dive in 2012? Will the team try to explore known but undiscovered debris fields, re-examine the impact crater, look for the missing stern etc. as well as re-visit the Bismarck itself for the new expedition explorers of course. I guess it will be well thought out, whatever the plan.

Any thoughts on this ?

Thanks and all the best.

30knots,

I would agree with all your suggestions and would expand on what Cameron did by using a ROV to further respectfully explore interior spaces of the wreck.

Respectfully looking inside the wreck , I would be in favour of that , removing anything - absolutely not.

I agree absolutely.

RF wrote:Leaving any objects such as wreaths and ''commenaritive plaques'' is a disturbance of the wreck site. Leave alone means exactly that.

So, are we safe to assume you were against the placement of a plaque by Mr. Ted Briggs (may he rest in peace) aboard HMS Hood, his old ship, a few years ago? Do you consider his act to be a violation of the gravesite of his erstwhile shipmates?