Talk:Siege of Jadotville

Military records

Did the Irish Defence Forces "bury" all record of the battle? That sounds highly unlikely, even if not taken literally.203.184.41.226 (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There area lot of failed links, please consider188.104.95.22 (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

POV in the article

I raised this in an edit summary a few weeks ago, but I think it's probably worth putting a comment here too, especially since I anticipate that this problem will only be exacerbated with a string of similar edits in the coming weeks as the new film comes out. To read the article as it currently stands spends great emphasis on the perceived heroism of the Irish troops in the face of an anonymous mass of Katangan troops and about how the "plucky" Irish troops were betrayed by commanders. This is historically dubious. Remember that the Congo Crisis was not a "war" but a period of political turmoil with sporadic outbreaks of violence - the military details of this (small-scale) engagement are much less important than its consequences.
The entire battle was a disaster for the United Nations in general, the already-controversial ONUC mission especially, and the Irish government in particular. Remember that Ireland had seen its membership of the United Nations - the measure of post-war respectability - vetoed in 1945 for its "war record" and had only been allowed permitted to join in 1955. The humiliation of international forces being forced into surrender - to a state not recognised by the UN itself - and the need to negotiate for their return threatened the whole basis of the UN presence in the Congo. Basically, there's an international context that this article desperately needs in order to make sense - and why would the Irish commanders have been embarrassed otherwise?
I believe the problem at the root here is that the sources used in this article are, on the whole, pretty poor. Modern newspaper journalism is not a critical historical source, especially if they are only chosen because they're available online. There are no shortage of legitimate academic texts which deal with the battle in detail: O'Donoghue's The Irish Army in the Congo, 1960-1964: the far battalions (2006) and Ireland, the United Nations and the Congo: A Military and Diplomatic History, 1960-1 (2014) are just a few examples of legitimate academic works - they are literally dozens of others. Without using decent, balanced, sources there is no way this article can provide a balanced account.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• I second that, but also are there any accounts from white mercenaries who we're present at the siege? It would be interesting to hear their POV. Shire Lord (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There might be something useful in this new book on the Katangan military: The Katangese Gendarmes and War in Central Africa: Fighting Their Way Home by Erik Kennes and Miles Larmer (2016). Note, by the way, that the authors describe Operation Morthor as a "political and military fiasco" on page 55... —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Will look into it. Shire Lord (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
• The UN conduct of the 1960s Congo intervention has rightly been the subject of harsh and merited criticism. However the affair at Jadotville seems to have been, to a large extent, somewhat isolated from the broader conflict and issues, if not actually a sideshow. An article about these broader issues certainly ought to carry the discussion you point to, with the appropriate responsibilities identified and allocated as far as historical research allows. I feel it is attempting to overpack the account of a local skirmish to open it out in the way you suggest. Just as with the participants at Rorke's Drift in 1879, broad political machinations become immediately far less important to the participants then staying alive. You are here blurring a shift in focus from politicians, lobbyists and commercial firms, many miles from the moment of danger, to solitary individuals, faced with the prospect of death, exercising their courage and wits. One suspects that UN politics and Ireland's international status were far from their minds in those few days.
  Since you wonder why senior Irish military would have been embarrassed (and attempted to bury the incident) you might consider other possibilities, among these that they were not particularly astute people, suffered from a narrowness of vision, and were not skilled either at political manouevering or turning setbacks to local PR advantage, as the British Government did in 1879. You would need a far better appreciation of the Irish leadership in the late 1950s and early 1960s to fully comprehend their response.
  I find revealing your use of quotation marks around the word "plucky" (a word already charged with a denigratory tone - as in "plucky Brits") and your use of the term "perceived heroism". This suggests that your broader (and quite reasonable) critique of political misbehaviour in the Congo has already coloured your response to the Jadotville episode and the human tragedy that occurred there. For those combatants who managed to extricate themselves alive (on either side) it remains far from a 'disaster'. I respectfully suggest that there is another place in these Wikipedia forums to spread out our bigger strategic maps.–kscally 14:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Belgium paid anti-UN troops?

The article states "Irish and Swedish UN troops based in Kamina and Indian army Gurkhas,[3] but they were beaten back by a supporting force of mercenaries who were brought in by the Belgians and General Moise Tshombe, Katanga's premier."

Is there any source for that claim? I have a hard time to believe EU founding member Belgium paid mercenaries to attack fellow European UN troops...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wefa (talk • contribs)

Hi. Certainly that statement could likely benefit from an inline cite. However, there is no historical uncertainty about Belgium's support for the State of Katanga. Whether militarily (many thousands of Belgian troops - not mercenaries - uniformed Belgian troops - were deployed by Belgium to support the pro-Belgian interests in Katanga). Or politically. Or financially. Or operationally (including provision of equipment and pilots). Some readers may have a hard time believing it - if taking this article alone out of context - but a review of the related context (including Belgian colonial empire, State of Katanga, and the broader Congo Crisis article) might help a reader with broader understand of the historical circumstance. Put simply: the hostile (newly independent) government in the Congo threatened Belgian access to minerals in Katanga - and they took steps to protect those interests/access. While, as others have pointed out, this article could be improved with more historical/academic sources (rather than perhaps the "soundbites" that surround the book/film), there is no historical or academic uncertainty about Belgium's overt support for the secessionist state - the UN forces expressly came in as a counter-intervention to some of the interventionist activities. Guliolopez (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

My source cite for more information on the Katanga Gendarmerie, unfortunately still a redirect, added some time ago was For more on the Gendarmerie, see Jules Gérard-Libois, 'Katanga Secession,' University of Wisconsin Press, 1966, 114-115, 155-174. (just yanked from State of Katanga). This Gendarmerie had heavy involvement of Belgian and other European nationals' fighting men. Remember this was in the very bare dawn of European integration.. even the EEC was some time in the future. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Modern historians seem to be moving away from Katanga-as-puppet state idea. Guliolopez's comments are probably a bit too far. Belgium certainly sent a fairly large number of military advisors (among other government personnel) I've not been able to find a source to corroborate the presence of actual Belgian military units in the region. Don't forget that there were still fairly large numbers of white settlers living in Katanga on their own account anyway. The mercenaries were a much more visible presence than the Belgians, but were certainly not a "Belgian" force - with whites from the Rhodesias, South Africa, France, Belgium and the US all represented. Even so, it's totally wrong to portray the battle of Jadotville as a kind of battle between two largely white armies. There's a (curious) tendency to see the Congo Crisis as an African war with no black participants, or, in the case of the Simba Rebellion, to be pretty condescending about the military abilities of any blacks that deigned to take part... —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Should add that this new work (p.47) compares the Katangese armed forces before the end of 1961 with the colonial Force Publique - ie. white (mostly Belgian) officers and military advisors, but a still a tiny proportion of the (black) Katangan troops they commanded. P.56, however, points out that the withdrawal of Belgian advisors at the end of 1961 led to the increasing reliance on mercenaries.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks as always for finding good sources, Brigade Piron! Cannot get any G-books access here, unfortunately. We've added all these sources to the further reading, correct? Buckshot06 (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing Bill Ready

I have felt obliged to remove Bill Ready from the infobox's commanders and leaders, since he seems to have been just a private at the time. The Indo (here) describes him as "Bill Ready of Mullingar, then a private aged 20", though it also calls him Sergeant Ready ("Sergeant Ready was the first casualty, shot in the left thigh about four hours later."), presumably because that is how he was later known (an article quoted at this forum says "The four are Sgt Bill Ready (60), Gunner Tom Cunningham (62) and gunner John Flynn (58) from Mullingar, and Sgt Bobby Allen (73), from Collinstown."). The Westmeath Examiner (here) agrees with the Indo that he was the first wounded("Death of Jadotville soldier Bill Ready ... he was shot at Jadotville, and held the unusual distinction of being the first Irish soldier injured in combat on foreign soil"). And the cast list for the movie has "Sam Keeley as Billy (Sniper) Ready". If somebody wants to add him into the Aftermath section, backed by WP:RS citations, as part of the discontent and/or campaign sentences (" ... such as Sergeant Bill Ready (a 20 year-old private at the time[cite], played by Sam Keeley in the movie) and ..."[cite]), please feel free to try, though some editor (though probably not me) may well then remove it as alleged unencyclopedic trivia, and/or as WP:UNDUE. Meanwhile I'm thinking of trying to add him in to the wounded sentence, because of the above mentioned unusual distinction.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I've now added his "Unusual Distinction" as a footnote.Tlhslobus (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

How long was it?

Article says "6 days" but in the article's box it says "13–17 September 1961", which is 5 days. Which is correct? 2A02:8084:6A22:4980:69EF:224D:B768:F3B4 (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

A good question. While many sources, like this one and others, refer to the siege/action occurring over six days, the dates span five. Specifically from Wednesday 13 September 1961 (07:40hrs; time of first attack) to Sunday 17 September 1961 (afternoon; time of surrender). The transcript of the surrender terms specifically mentions the attack on 13 Sep and is itself dated 17 Sep. It may be that some writers choose to include the "earlier" events of Morthor. Not sure. Either way, unless other editors have specific thoughts, I'm inclined to update the text (which vaguely refers to "days") to match the infobox and sources (which more concretely refer to "dates"). Guliolopez (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Having researched it a bit more, and while some sources use a relative and vague "elapsed time" ("X days"), all reliable sources use the absolute, specific and verifiable "actual time" ("date A to date B"). As such, I have updated the former to better reflect the latter. Guliolopez (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Casualties are not the same as deaths

I find these claims of 300 Katanga killed and zero Irish killed very dubious. The very first source [1] I checked (reference tag 'bravery') for the 300 killed number was wrong: the source claimed 300 casualties, which are not the same as deaths. A casualty is anything that removes a soldier from being able to participate in combat, e.g., killed or wounded in combat, sick, killed or injured in an accident, captured, deserted, lost, etc. Injuries usually out number deaths by at least a factor of 2 (i.e., less than a third of casualties are typically deaths), and often it can be even more lopsided.

My prediction is that basically all the sources for the 300-killed claim will turn out to be weak or incorrect under examination. I wouldn't trust this article. Jess_Riedel (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. In terms of:

• "Casualties are not the same as deaths". The article (and contributors to it) account for the difference between "casualties", "injuries" and "deaths". The latter two being a sub-set of "casualties". (This is clear in the infobox, lead and body.) If any of the sources (like a politician's press release) have conflated these terms, then that's perhaps another matter.
• "The very first source I checked [said 'casualties' but it was placed alongside a number reflecting 'deaths']". This is a fair point. I have replaced it with a source (that isn't a politician's press release), which does give 300 killed.
• "I find these claims of 300 Katanga killed and zero Irish killed very dubious". Please do consider reading as many of the authoritative sources as you can. Including the books by Power, Whelan and Harvey. Rather than, perhaps, basing this opinion/presumption on a single webpage or PR source.
• "basically all the sources for the 300-killed claim will turn out to be weak or incorrect under examination". While it is true to say that some of the sources vary (in terms of numbers of casualties/injuries/wounded), the article does attempt to account for these variances. Completely (preemptively and without reviewing them) discounting or dismissing some of those sources is probably slightly less-than-ideal.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

"Excessive [..] focus on Irish [perspective]"

Hi. While, not for the first time (including by me), it has been noted that some sections of the article are quite "Irish" (and particularly "Company A") focused, I would note that from the point of view of the:

• Lead - While it previously (somewhat inappropriately) ignored the involvement of Swedish and Indian troops, including those killed (as if their presence or deaths weren't relevant), I have since expanded it. To address the "exclusion of other ONUC forces" concern. If more is needed, happy to discuss what specific facts should be added (or sources should be reflected) to address any remaining concerns.
• Body - To my eye, we have quite a lot of "worldview" perspective. To the extent that we have two background sections (of nearly 800 words in a 2,800-word body) of "worldview" background (Congo, Katanga, UN, Belgium, etc) before the Irish Company A troops are even mentioned. As above, if there are specific facts or sources that should be added, then happy to help address.
• References - While I understand the concern about there being more focus on the "Irish saga" and less on "other ONUC forces and [the] Katangese perspective", the simple fact is that this is because there are significantly more sources covering the Irish Company A perspective. As noted in the (granted Irish) "Independent Review Group" (2021) report, there are limited sources on which to base the "Katangese perspective" as "relevant Congolese and Katangese archives do not exist [..and..] oral histories are very limited". Similarly, in terms of coverage of the activities of "other ONUC forces", there are limited "detailed accounts of the Battle of Jadotville in their relevant [French/Indian/Swedish] national and institutional archives" with only some sources in which it is "mentioned in passing". (See Chapter 3 (methodology), page 59, the "International Archives" section.)

If editors are aware of specific sources that should be reviewed/considered/included, or specific facts/perspectives that have been omitted, then I'm happy to help reflect them. But, in all honesty, if there are (and it seems to be the case) almost no sources to expand the "Katangese perspective", and very few sources to extend the text on "other ONUC forces", then the only way to achieve that "balance" might be to remove text relating to the Irish involvement. And frankly, while we can perhaps tone it down a bit, removing reliably cited text doesn't seem like an appropriate action. IMO.

(Based on the actions I've already taken and the points above, I've removed the tag. If, as noted, more specific actions/issues can be highlighted then I'm happy to address. But we/I can't create sources (to support a perspective) that perhaps don't exist...) Guliolopez (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)