Diskussion:Antilla (Schiff)

Good, accurate article, only one comment: there was no explosion of the boilers

1. The report of the officer in command of the marines that had to confiscate the vessel on May 10, 1940 does not mention any explosion, or damage caused by explosions, between their arrival at 03:00 AM and departure at 06:00 AM. (Source: (Dutch) National Institute for Military History)
2. The guard vessels HM Practico and HM Aruba were at the scene from 06:00 AM until 11.30 AM. Two crewmembers of HM Aruba boarded Es Antilla after the German crew were taken of the ship to see if the Antilla was salvageable. They did not report any explosion, or damage caused by explosions in the ship's journal. (source: Dutch National Archive)
3. The Governor of Curacao mentions in a coded message, dated August 26, 1940, to the Dutch government in exile in London, that Lloyds had done a survey and stated that, according to divers the superstructure of the vessel was damaged by fire but the hull was undamaged. The report concluded that the sinking of the vessel was caused by opening the valves. (source: Dutch National Archive)
4. The crack in the hull, which can easily be mistaken for damage caused by an explosion, was first noticed during a survey by the harbourmaster in 1953 and was caused by heavy swells. It is first mentioned in a message from the Governor of the Dutch Antilles to the Dutch government on April 23, 1953. (source: Dutch National Archive)

regards,

Willemsubmerged (11:01, 20. Jan. 2012 (CET), Datum/Uhrzeit nachträglich eingefügt, siehe Hilfe:Signatur)