Pieter Schelte on sea trials near the DSME shipyard in South Korea, where the ship was constructed.
Swiss-based Allseas Group has reportedly agreed to change the name of its Pieter Schelte vessel amid recent public outcry over the vessel’s namesake being a convicted Nazi war criminal.
Allseas and the giant Pieter Schelte, now in Rotterdam for final assembly, came under fire this week from Jewish communities in Britain and the Netherlands, as well as the International Transport Workers’ Federation union, who have all strongly demanded that the name be changed.
The Pieter Schelte, a unique and massive catamaran-like vessel built to remove decommissioned oil platforms from the North Sea, is the brainchild of Allseas’ founder Edward Hereema who named the vessel in honor of his Dutch father, Pieter Schelte Hereema, a marine engineer who is considered a pioneer in the offshore oil and gas industry. During WWII however, Pieter Schelte Hereema served as an officer in the Nazi’s Waffen-SS and was eventually convicted of war crimes for his involvement, for which he served over 1.5 years in prison.
Allseas has always stuck by the name despite year’s of criticism, however, according to a report Friday from the Associated Press, the company and Edward Hereema have now agreed to the name change over “widespread reactions”.
Royal Dutch Shell has also come under fire over the name because the company is already planning to use the ship to decommission the Brent oilfield located in UK waters.
“It has never been the intention to offend anyone,” the company said in a statement released Friday and obtained the AP.
The statement did not indicate what the new name might be but said that it will be revealed “within a few days”.
now if only all these Confederate sympathizers will do likewise…what a wonderful world this would be?
[QUOTE=c.captain;153897]well it looks like Allseas is taking my advice
now if only all these Confederate sympathizers will do likewise…what a wonderful world this would be?[/QUOTE]
They’re gonna rename it M/V Russell Bandit Reynolds Jesse James Kenny “The Gambler” Rogers Number 3 “The Intimidator” Dale Earnhardt Kenny “The Gambler” Rogers, America’s Number 1 Cuyler
[QUOTE=Glaug-Eldare;153921]They’re gonna rename it M/V Russell Bandit Reynolds Jesse James Kenny “The Gambler” Rogers Number 3 “The Intimidator” Dale Earnhardt Kenny “The Gambler” Rogers, America’s Number 1 Cuyler[/QUOTE]
naw…needs to be the GENERAL NATHAN BEDFORD FORREST…afterall he has a spotless war record. NOT!
[QUOTE=c.captain;153529]. Pardon me all to HELL that the Civil War did not start out about slavery for the Union but for Lincoln it always was the reason behind the war and he proved to no have fear and temerity to take a principled stand on the matter of slavery when many others in the Union leadership did not want to make it the main reason the Union was fighting and losing hundreds of thousands of men each year.
.[/QUOTE]
I wish you would stop calling it “The Civil War”. There are two correct names either “The War For Southern Independence” or “The War Of Northern Aggression”.
[QUOTE=RespectMyAuthority;153951]I wish you would stop calling it “The Civil War”. There are two correct names either “The War For Southern Independence” or “The War Of Northern Aggression”.[/QUOTE]
actually, I prefer to call it by its rightful and historically accepted name…the American Civil War (which in case you forgot in all the hullabaloo, was won overwhelmingly by the “United States” Army)…and I am terribly sorry that your army ran out out men, food, bullets, cannons, and everything else an army needs to win but your side should have thought of that before you started the bloody war to begin with!
[QUOTE=RespectMyAuthority;153951]I wish you would stop calling it “The Civil War”. There are two correct names either “The War For Southern Independence” or “The War Of Northern Aggression”.[/QUOTE]
The proper name is “The War to Preserve the Union.”
I believe this thread now should be closed like the other but before it is, let me quote one of the Civil War’s most able generals and great leader, William Tecumseh Sherman who wrote these words on the eve of the awful, needless conflict:
You people of the South don’t know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don’t know what you’re talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it… Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.
[QUOTE=c.captain;153959]UTTERLY IDIOTIC FOOLHEARTY RUBES…ALL OF YOU![/QUOTE]
The Union was lucky the British Empire was not in a foul mood. If they had supported the Confederacy just to settle old scores, USA would just have been a footnote in history.
[QUOTE=Kraken;153964]The Union was lucky the British Empire was not in a foul mood. If they had supported the Confederacy just to settle old scores, USA would just have been a footnote in history. [/QUOTE]
and Great Britain was really about to send the Royal Navy across the Atlantic and force the US Navy to lift its blockade of the Confederacy…so the British Empire could get what exactly from the deal for all the cost? I suppose after the blockade was broken, the British Army would have landed to fight alongside the rebels just to settle those old wounds?
yeah, sure they were just waiting to go and get smack into another country’s civil war there hundreds of thousands were dying annually.
stick with your glorious Norwegian defense against Germany’s invasion…
[QUOTE=c.captain;153967]and Great Britain was really about to send the Royal Navy across the Atlantic and force the US Navy to lift its blockade of the Confederacy…so the British Empire could get what exactly from the deal for all the cost? [/QUOTE]
Cotton
[QUOTE=c.captain;153967]I suppose after the blockade was broken, the British Army would have landed to fight alongside the rebels just to settle those old wounds?
yeah, sure they were just waiting to go and get smack into another country’s civil war there hundreds of thousands were dying annually.[/QUOTE]
They would only have needed to break the blockade and loan the confederacy money. No need to land troops.
[QUOTE=c.captain;153967]stick with your glorious Norwegian defense against Germany’s invasion…[/QUOTE]
Norway lasted 2 months, that’s longer then the other western countries that Nazi Germany invaded.
It never ceases to amaze me that most Canadians and Europeans are much better informed about American history, than the vast majority of Americans.
American schools, where every student must get at least a B, no one’s feelings may be hurt, and no one may be held back, are a dismal failure. We are training the next generation of Americans that work is unnecessary and is ok to fail.
Of course America is also a country that does not require immigrants to learn English or assimilate. Unlike Europe, where everyone must learn English in school, and many people speak better English than many Americans.
nyet! any intervention would not have made any difference to Great Britain’s access to cotton…they proved to have gotten access to plenty of cotton in the end. From Wikipedia:
When war broke out, the Confederate people, acting spontaneously without government direction, held their cotton at home, watching prices soar and economic crisis hit Britain and New England. Britain did not intervene because it meant war with the United States, as well as loss of the American market, loss of American grain supplies, risk to Canada, and much of the British merchant marine, all in the slim promise of getting more cotton. Besides that, in the spring of 1861, warehouses in Europe were bulging with surplus cotton—which soared in price. So the cotton interests made their profits without a war. The Union imposed a blockade, closing all Confederate ports to normal traffic; consequently, the South was unable to move 95% of its cotton. Yet, some cotton was slipped out by blockade runner, or through Mexico. Cotton diplomacy, advocated by the Confederate diplomats James M. Mason and John Slidell, completely failed because the Confederacy could not deliver its cotton, and the British economy was robust enough to absorb a depression in textiles from 1862–64.
As Union armies moved into cotton regions of the South in 1862, the U.S. acquired all the cotton available, and sent it to Northern textile mills or sold it to Europe. Cotton production increased in India by a factor of 700% and also increased in Egypt.
really? just that easy for the Royal Navy to break the Union blockade for the Confederacy? Supporting a fleet large enough to challenge the USN all the way across the Atlantic Ocean would cost Great Britain a fortune to get what in exchange? They didn’t end up needing that cotton so just your bragging rights to “settle old scores”? Then again is was only the tiny owning class in Britain that sympathized with the slave holders while the vast working class in Britain was squarely behind the Union cause. Britain never ever would have risked war with the US against the overwhelming public opinion it’s own population. Thank God cooler heads prevailed in the UK but I don’t believe that the Royal Navy ever was seriously considered of being used to support the Confederacy.
Better get back to your studying the US Civil War there Kraken…you have much to learn still and many ridiculous notions to get out of your head! But I will give you a point for the Norwegians putting up a defense of their nation against all odds in the face of a massive German invasion in April 1940, especially the sinking of the German heavy cruiser BLUCHER at the approaches to Oslo with shore batteries and torpedoes…
While resistance in Norway had little military success, it had the significant political effect of allowing the Norwegian government, including the royal family, to escape. The Blücher, which carried the main forces to occupy the capital, was sunk in the Oslofjord on the first day of the invasion. An improvised defense at Midtskogen also prevented a German raid from capturing the king and government.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;153982]It never ceases to amaze me that most Canadians and Europeans are much better informed about American history, than the vast majority of Americans.[/QUOTE]
what I want to know is if in the history curriculum in the schools of the failed Confederate states the cause of the south is taught with an air of it being just and as a glorious fight against northern aggression instead of the MASSIVE MILITARY FAILURE CONSUMMATED FOR A CRIMINALLY UNJUST REASON!
I ask, how can we allow this? All Confederate flags should have been destroyed as all Nazi flags were!
btw, this is great! I love getting to fight two major wars simultaneously!..(the US military used to be able to but I truly doubt how much the Navee could contribute today other than to sacrifice a whole slug of sailors in stoopid aluminum beercans) I wonder if I can make it a trifecta and get three bloody conflicts going at once here?
