Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Siege of Jadotville

1235710

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    Also, it wasn't just an opinion on historical events. You stated outright that a breakout was possible and would have been achieved by soldiers of a different army. That's not historical commentary, that's a military perspective, and one you've refused to justify when asked about it in relation to the limiting factors of all military activity, ammunition and water.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    Your reaction to being challenged shows signs of either immaturity or an inferiority complex, neither of which lends itself to good decision making especially when it comes to life or death situations. To me, your reaction, has done far more harm to your argument than the fact that you haven't got military experience, which I'm sure a lot, if not most of the rest of the posters disagreeing with you on this thread haven't got either.

    For what it's worth I don't have any military experience (Except a short stint in reserves.. which really doesn't count! :D)

    I did study this for my leaving cert, and to be honest it always struck me as odd that there wasn't more complaints about the overall approach in the Congo - these soldiers were effectively abandoned behind enemy lines. While not the last, nor the worst of the strategic mistakes made as part of UN peacekeeping efforts it seems foolish that the company were sent to Jadotville.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Also, it wasn't just an opinion on historical events. You stated outright that a breakout was possible and would have been achieved by soldiers of a different army. That's not historical commentary, that's a military perspective, and one you've refused to justify when asked about it in relation to the limiting factors of all military activity, ammunition and water.

    Again, does one have to have been a soldier to give such a perspective? In fact some of the best military historians never heard a shot fired in anger in their lives. Its immature at best for Cnoc and others to take such a narrow view of things.

    I did justify it in a previous post. I gave an alternative option. Only yesterday I read in another book that the morale of the Gends had all but collapsed and that they were on the brink of totally deserting their white officers. It also confirmed, just like Power did, that Quinlan's ceasefire was handled badly and ultimately led to the surrender.

    As for this glory hunting thing, I never said anything about glory hunting. Somebody else said that. I'm talking about carrying out one's duties to the fullest degree. Are the Irish Soccer players out in Europe now glory hunting by doing their level best to succeed or are they just doing their job?

    Also I don't mind if most people disagree. That does not necessarily make them right. Its hardly surprising that DF people would disagree anyway is it? You're not going to get a bunch of Gardai on a Site criticising their colleagues, for example, are you?

    It would be interesting to get an independent military individual from another Country to study Jadotville, give his conclusions and see whether the consensus here is correct. It may well be............but it mightn't either


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Dead men cannot carry out any duties. Throwing lives away recklessly is the antithesis of carrying out duties to the fullest degree. If the Irish players charged into reckless tackles and many of them broke their legs and had to leave the tournament, would that amount to doing something to the fullest degree? Cop yourself on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,907 ✭✭✭✭Esel


    No mention of the Cruiser here. Interesting...

    The official stance was despicable, to say the least.

    Waiting to hear from the Belgian mercenaries. Still waiting.

    Not your ornery onager



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,460 ✭✭✭Barry Badrinath


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Again, does one have to have been a soldier to give such a perspective? In fact some of the best military historians never heard a shot fired in anger in their lives. Its immature at best for Cnoc and others to take such a narrow view of things

    Correct, you do not need to have military experience to give a perspective and nobody is suggesting that.

    It is very simplistic to broach a historical event and dictate what you think should have been done and what you think others would have done.

    I find it highly disrespectful and down right arrogant of you to hammer home your opinion of "they should have done better and fought to the death"....this is not Call of Duty on the XBOX.

    It is entirely possible that altering decisions earlier on in the battle may have had a different outcome.

    The difference in opinion between someone who is / was a soldier and that of an observer from an armchair is complicated.

    You may have the same viewpoint to a certain extent but it's different when a soldier knows and can appreciate the complete list of variables of making decisions on the ground and carrying them out, whatever they may be.

    That is why it is better to know the "qualifications" of who you are debating with. Especially when they are talking poppycock.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,135 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    It would be interesting to get an independent military individual from another Country to study Jadotville, give his conclusions and see whether the consensus here is correct. It may well be............but it mightn't either

    I'm a US Army officer, does that count?

    I don't have any particular opinion on the matter of the handling of the ceasefire, as I don't feel I know enough to comment, but I do raise an eyebrow at the statement that the British would have done better or could have broken out, and at first blush this seems to be entirely unsupported and counter-intuitive. If I'm missing something, please tell us, but I'm going to non-concur with that position at this time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,086 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    This topic was argued a few yrars ago in this thread.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056433445


    Note especially the letter from Brigadier Raja


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    McGruber wrote: »
    It is very simplistic to broach a historical event and dictate what you think should have been done and what you think others would have done.

    Are you for one moment serious when you say that? That's precisely what talking about historical events is all about or else they'd never be talked about!

    Extraordinary
    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Dead men cannot carry out any duties. Throwing lives away recklessly is the antithesis of carrying out duties to the fullest degree. If the Irish players charged into reckless tackles and many of them broke their legs and had to leave the tournament, would that amount to doing something to the fullest degree? Cop yourself on.

    Nobody said anything about throwing lives away recklessly. You cop yourself on Sir.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    Historical analysis is all well and good, but again, you're doing it without acknowledging the specific subject matter knowledge required for the military perspective here. I'm not for one second suggesting you need to have your own military experience in order to comment on issues of military history, but you can't do it without understanding some of the basic requirements of military operations, and you've failed to confront that.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Jesus. wrote: »


    Nobody said anything about throwing lives away recklessly. You cop yourself on Sir.

    Nonsense, you are stating that a suicidal action should have been undertaken.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,460 ✭✭✭Barry Badrinath


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Are you for one moment serious when you say that? That's precisely what talking about historical events is all about or else they'd never be talked about!

    Extraordinary

    Meh


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Jesus. wrote: »
    It would be interesting to get an independent military individual from another Country to study Jadotville, give his conclusions and see whether the consensus here is correct. It may well be............but it mightn't either

    http://listverse.com/2016/06/08/10-military-underdogs-who-triumphed-against-incredible-odds/


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Nonsense, you are stating that a suicidal action should have been undertaken.

    No I'm not
    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Such a feat was potentially available to Cmdt. Quinlan (okay not quite but a decent one in itself) but he didn't pursue it due to his mishandling of the situation and his dogmatic religious beliefs. Such a pity given his conduct up until that point.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    McGruber wrote: »
    Meh

    Good man McGruber


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Good man McGruber

    Nice and snarky there, but care to respond to my inquiries yourself about the military basis - and if you're a historian you should know that appropriate subject matter familiarity is essential for a proper historical analysis - for your supposition that a breakout was realistic and that a British unit with the same resources could have achieved that where the Irish didn't? Best not to make jabs at other people before you've responded to questions yourself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,907 ✭✭✭✭Esel


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Such a feat was potentially available to Cmdt. Quinlan (okay not quite but a decent one in itself) but he didn't pursue it due to his mishandling of the situation and his dogmatic religious beliefs. Such a pity given his conduct up until that point.
    Is there a reputable source for this statement?

    Not your ornery onager



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Jesus. wrote: »
    No I'm not


    Such a feat was potentially available to Cmdt. Quinlan (okay not quite but a decent one in itself) but he didn't pursue it due to his mishandling of the situation and his dogmatic religious beliefs. Such a pity given his conduct up until that point.

    What feat?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Nice and snarky there, but care to respond to my inquiries yourself about the military basis - and if you're a historian you should know that appropriate subject matter familiarity is essential for a proper historical analysis - for your supposition that a breakout was realistic and that a British unit with the same resources could have achieved that where the Irish didn't? Best not to make jabs at other people before you've responded to questions yourself.

    I'm not an historian but if you care to go back through the thread you'll see that those points have already been addressed.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Esel wrote: »
    Is there a reputable source for this statement?
    Have you even read anything about the Siege? Read about how the ceasefire was handled.
    4ensic15 wrote: »
    What feat?

    What?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,086 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Have you even read anything about the Siege? Read about how the ceasefire was handled.



    So there is no reputable source for the statement.
    Given that you came up with the same rubbish on another thread over 2 years ago, it might be expected that by now you would have found some support for your hypothese from among the military/academic community, if your propositions were in any way tenable.
    Once again, when losing the argument about the breakout you complain about the ceasefire. By the time of the ceasefire the Irish had been without sleep for 4 days, had been virtually without food and water for the same length of time. Trying to hold out for longer would have been dangerous given the state of exhaustion which they had reached.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    So there is no reputable source for the statement. .

    Have you read Declan Power? If you want to flick to the ceasefire you'll find a detailed account.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,086 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Have you read Declan Power? If you want to flick to the ceasefire you'll find a detailed account.

    I have read Declan power. You have not quoted anything Declan Power said.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    I have read Declan power..

    Read him again then. You obviously weren't paying attention first time round. The conclusions are very simple.
    Given that you came up with the same rubbish on another thread over 2 years ago.

    I remember you losing the plot before. You are emotionally involved in this subject so naturally you wouldn't be the best placed individual for unbiased commentary.
    Bull****. You are either extremely ill-informed or trolling. The only reason I am feeding your trolling is because some of the men who were there and have died since were my friends.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Jesus. wrote: »
    The conclusions are very simple.

    If they are that simple, why don't you share them with us?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    I already did!


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    Jesus. wrote: »
    I'm not an historian but if you care to go back through the thread you'll see that those points have already been addressed.

    No they haven't. I did re-read the thread to ensure I hadn't missed anything but never once did you explain any of the following.

    *How a breakout could be achieved without ammunition or water
    *Why it was realistic to expect resupply in the case of a continued defensive action when ammunition and water was expended and previous relief efforts had failed
    *How a breakout was to be supported in the event that it could successfully occur and the troops not be run down and massacred by the Katangans given the resources available to each in the region

    It's all very well to refer to historians without even citing material of theirs in support of your position but it just reads like a contrarian argument for its own sake and suggests that you actually don't know your subject matter. You've acknowledged that you aren't a historian (Have you even studied history at all?) and haven't any military experience, so realistically, the onus is on you to provide evidence in support of your position since you don't exactly present credentials of your own for it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,948 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Jesus. wrote: »
    I already did!

    Where? Give us a post number please.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    *How a breakout could be achieved without ammunition or water
    Incorrect. The ammo was not exhausted. There was some remaining, perhaps purposely spared in the event of having to break out or perhaps not, either way the ammo was not gone. As far as I'm aware the men were not at the bring of dying of thirst. As Mockler said, although their position was uncomfortable it was hardly desperate.
    *Why it was realistic to expect resupply in the case of a continued defensive action when ammunition and water was expended and previous relief efforts had failed

    Why was it unrealistic to expect the next attempt to succeed? After all a Helicopter had gotten through once and only owing to someone's cock up at E'ville was the water useless.
    *How a breakout was to be supported in the event that it could successfully occur and the troops not be run down and massacred by the Katangans given the resources available to each in the region

    A breakout wasn't the only option. They could have dug in for longer and either defeated the Katangans or awaited another relief effort. It has been said - and this is the crucial point in all of this - that the African's morale was on the verge of collapse. The white officers were shooting deserters already and they were on the brink of deserting wholesale and giving victory to A Company. In a battle of wills had Quinlan just held out for a while longer it is very conceivable they could have won the battle.
    You've acknowledged that you aren't a historian (Have you even studied history at all?)
    Studying history does not make you an historian. An historian is a professional who has qualifications in the subject. Yes I do study history but that does not make me an historian.
    gizmo555 wrote: »
    Where? Give us a post number please.
    Find it yourself. You don't expect me to go back with you through the thread just because you're not bothered to do so yourself, do you?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Incorrect. The ammo was not exhausted. There was some remaining, perhaps purposely spared in the event of having to break out or perhaps not, either way the ammo was not gone. As far as I'm aware the men were not at the bring of dying of thirst. As Mockler said, although their position was uncomfortable it was hardly desperate.

    Ammunition levels were at a point where sustained fighting was not possible. Given that a breakout would involve heavy firing to support any possible movement, this idea that "shur there were a few rounds left" falls flat on its face. Also, having no water in Ireland is bad. Having no water in equatorial Africa is catastrophic. This does not take a military genius to understand. In those circumstances, the immediate situation may not be "desperate", but you have to assess the likelihood that your immediate situation might not be remedied, and in this case, there was no reason apparent to believe that they might have these critical assets replenished, so any assessment of their capacity to continue fighting based on imaginary ammo and water they didn't have or have any reason to suspect they might have in future is infantile, from both a military and a historical point of view.
    Why was it unrealistic to expect the next attempt to succeed? After all a Helicopter had gotten through once and only owing to someone's cock up at E'ville was the water useless.

    Because only on the fourth day, having already been without potable water for a day, did one helicopter arrive with enough water (had it even been potable) for approximately twenty men, and then it sustained fire on the ground. On the same day, an explosion was heard from the direction of the bridge at Lufira that was taken by troops to be its destruction, further diminishing the likelihood that any support might be forthcoming. Therefore, they knew that a resupply of water and ammunition by air was unlikely as one helicopter hadn't even the capacity to supply water for 20% of the force, had it been clean, and they had reason to believe that the support they were hoping for had had their avenue of approach cut off.
    A breakout wasn't the only option. They could have dug in for longer and either defeated the Katangans or awaited another relief effort. It has been said - and this is the crucial point in all of this - that the African's morale was on the verge of collapse. The white officers were shooting deserters already and they were on the brink of deserting wholesale and giving victory to A Company. In a battle of wills had Quinlan just held out for a while longer it is very conceivable they could have won the battle.

    Digging in in equatorial sun and conducting a sustained defensive campaign without water or ammunition is an impossibility. In order to mount a defensive operation your position has to be tenable. When you have no water, are at critical levels of ammunition, are surrounded by open sewers from bombing and shelling and have no reason to expect resupply, your position is not tenable as very soon, men are going to be overrun due to not being able to shoot back, or will succumb to thirst, or disease will take hold. These are basic facts you're not dealing with. It's not a battle of wills; it's a battle of warfare, and they were reduced to the point where they didn't have the capacity to conduct the defensive operation required of them. These are absolute basic military facts and any historical analysis that ignores them is deeply flawed. It's all well and good to say they might have held out, but they weren't in a position to do so for some indefinite and unknowable length of time against an enemy of such numerical superiority and whose ability to resupply was clearly far superior to the besieged Irish troops.
    Studying history does not make you an historian. An historian is a professional who has qualifications in the subject. Yes I do study history but that does not make me an historian.

    I'm well aware that merely studying history doesn't make you a historian but these are errors you're making that a second or third year history student would be castigated for when I studied it. Your analysis lacks any depth or sophistication and relies entirely on supposition for which their is no basis.


Advertisement