Talk:Siege of Jadotville

message: 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)
thread_title:  Military records 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV in the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Modern historians seem to be moving away from Katanga-as-puppet state idea. '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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Belgium paid anti-UN troops? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removing Bill Ready 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: How long was it?