Talk:Operation Grandslam

Assessment

Reassessed as C class since references 1,13 and 15 have no page numbers.--Catlemur (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that page numbers are not available for those eBooks. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

One of those books is 392 pages long, where is the reader supposed to find the information?--Catlemur (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Short of getting a paper copy and figuring it out themselves I'm not sure, but I'm just saying that there's else nothing that can be done to improve those citations, except for getting the chapter names, which I can try but no success guaranteed. And how does the article have "an unclear citation style"? -Indy beetle (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Update - I mistakenly believed Meisler did not have page numbers. Turns out he did, so I just updated that citation accordingly. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Update @Catlemur: So for Dorn all the info came from Chapter 2, which was entitled "Peacekeepers in Combat: Fighter Jets and Bombers in the Congo, 1961–1963". For Othen I used Chapter 26, which was entitles "Katanga '63". Do you know how I would incorporate that info into the Harvard-style citations? Or would it go under the "References" section? -Indy beetle (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The article has an inconsistent citation style not an unclear one. The problem is that this loophole can be exploited by a person who intends to insert false information into articles. I think this is an issue worth discussing so I mentioned it here. Black Sea Raid has the same problem, I marked the citations with no page numbers. Feel free to undo my edits, until we see a consensus on this.--Catlemur (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Indy beetle and Catlemur: G'day, I've used "|loc=Chapter Blah" in the past, and it seems acceptable for e-Books. I've made this adjustment in the article. Feel free to revert if it doesn't suit your needs. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation Grandslam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 19:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Briefly mention why Katanga succeeded and its mineral wealth.
• Why did Operation Rumpunch and Operation Morthor fail?
• Specify all the nations involved in ONUC in the main body of the article. Nigeria and Malaysia are not mentioned in the note. In case the note stays it should be referenced.
• Mention that Front de Libération nationale congolaise and other separatist militias continued their armed struggle and that the Katanga insurgency has yet to end in the lede, the infobox and the Fate of Katanga section.

Other comments may follow soon.--Catlemur (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Nominator's response:

• 1- Could you please clarify for me? When you say "success" do you mean an explanation as to why they had lasted for 2.5 years? And when you mineral wealth, do you mean UMHK's financial support of the secession? @Catlemur: I think I've addressed this.
• 2- To be clear, Operation Rumpunch was by no means "failed"; it was a roundup and mass deportation of foreign mercenaries in the Congo in 1961, and largely succeeded (without a shot being fired). Operation Morthor occurred later that year and while it was far greater in scope it wasn't necessarily designed to crush Katangese opposition, like Grandslam (it is worth noting that during Morthor a UN official did prematurely inform the press that the Katangese secession movement was "over" following ONUC's actions). Katanga fought ensuing battle to a stalemate, and the operation did, for all intents and purposes, fail. I chose not include a recap of these events because it didn't seem pertinent to the article. They took place over 2 years prior to Grandslam, and did not share its decisive aims. It was in fact Operation Unokat and the following ceasefire, the Kitona Declaration, that set the stage for Grandslam. Both Boulden and Mockatis (and some other sources) draw a direct line between the failed implementation of the Kitona Declaration and escalation of ONUC's attitude, culminating in Grandslam. Thoughts? @Catlemur: Ok, I think I've addressed this.
• 3- I think I've resolved this.
• 4- I think I've also sufficiently resolved this. While the Katanga insurgency continues, it is no longer being fought by the secessionist successors to the original gendarme rebels, who recently surrendered to pursue their aims in a more peaceful fashion. I have mentioned this resolution in the body article. What are your thoughts?

• 3 and 4 are resolved. I misspoke on the first point. What I meant was: Why did they decide to create an independent state? Was it because of Katanga's mineral wealth?

As far as the 2nd point goes, highlight that they were limited in scope and that Morthor resulted in a stalemate.--Catlemur (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Indy beetle: 2 has been dealt with.--Catlemur (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• I believe 1 has been sufficiently covered. The article is well written, the sources are verifiable, there are numerous photos, the content is stable and broad in its coverage. I have not noticed any POV pushing. Closing this.--Catlemur (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A-class review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Operation Grandslam

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk)

Operation Grandslam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it substantially covers Operation Grandslam, a decisive military action undertaken by troops of the United Nations Operation in the Congo that successfully quelled the Katangese secession during the Congo Crisis of the 1960s. It has already passed a GA review, and should hopefully be moved down along to the next step. I have read the A-class review guidelines and believe to the best of my knowledge that it meets most if not all the criteria. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Support from The Bounder

An interesting subject about which I know a tiny amount (my late father was served there as part of a secondment to the Ghanaian Army, and a close friend of the family was a mercenary on t'other side).

There is a little confusion in my mind over the language used. You seem to have US English with center, self-defense, preemptively etc, but you also have defence and a British date format. This should be consistent throughout.

• It may be worth adding a description to "Thant sent Ralph Bunche" along the lines of "Thant sent the diplomat or negotiator Ralph Bunche" to aid the reader
• Ditto for the Belgian Foreign Minister Paul-Henri Spaak
• It may be worth moving the sentence "Thant informed the UN Force Commander in the Congo that napalm was to be prohibited from use in combat.[3]" to before the end of the previous section (to follow Thant's instruction to "preemptively eliminate Katangese forces")
• I'm not sure what you mean by "Prem Chand saw to immediately carry forward.": it may be worth clarifying slightly
• "and reached east bank of the Lufira" -> the east bank?
• "That same day" should probably be "The same day"

That's it: nicely put together article. My review is on prose only, as I don't know enough about the subject to comment on completeness etc. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Response:

• Put his title as "Special Representative"
• Done
• Done, with some added context
• Reworded as "Prem Chand decided to immediately carry forward with the UN's plans."
• Done
• Done

-Indy beetle (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• All good, and I'm happy to now Support. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:UN_inspects_Katanga_Harvard_Airplane_Wreckage_at_Kolwezi,_Congo_1963.jpg: per the tag, we need evidence this was published in the US before 1987. Same with File:UN_Armoured_Convoy_in_the_Congo,_1963.jpg, File:UN_forces_at_the_Lufira_River.jpg, File:UN_inspects_Katanga_Vampire_Airplane_Wreckage_at_Kolwezi,_Congo_1963.jpg
• File:J-29_Tunnan_in_UN_service.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Response:

• I have sent an email to the United Nations authority for rights on images and materials for clarification. I await their response.
  • I have successfully corresponded with the UN photo library, but for some reason, after relatively quick responses, they've failed to return my last email. I still await a formal response, but I have doubt that those photos will be free for use. @Nikkimaria: I have removed them and found one replacement photo of Swedish peacekeepers during the operation that is PD. The other photos cannot be used.
• I believe I have added an appropriate US PD tag.
• I have also added one additional photo which should work fine.

-Indy beetle (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments This is an interesting and well developed article. I have the following comments:

• Give the date range when this military operation took place in the first sentence. Ideally this should also form part of an initial para rather than a single para sentence
• Note in the current second para what the nature of the UN's involvement was - eg, diplomatic efforts, as well as the deployment of a peacekeeping force
• "In December 1961 the UN initiated Operation Unokat" - what did this aim to achieve?
• Note the countries which provided forces for UNOC, and the scale of these commitments earlier - the presence of Indians is first noted when they're potentially withdrawing, and the Swedish fighter aircraft when they first go into combat. An outline order of battle would be particularly helpful.
• Similarly, information on the size and/or capabilities of the Katangese forces would be very useful.
• "On 24 December 1962 Katangese forces openly attacked Ethiopian troops" - where the Ethiopians there as part of the UN force?
• "Radio intercepts revealed..." - please note to whom this was revealed
• Please explain what the overall plan for Operation Grandslam was either in the 'Prelude' or 'First phase' section (were multiple phrases always intended?)
• "a Sikorsky helicopter" - can you say what type and who was operating it?
• When exactly did the UNOC forces withdraw, and were they replaced by another UN mission? (it seems common these days for military dominated UN missions to be replaced by police or aid dominated UN missions as the situation is stabilised)
• "Rhodesian operatives assisted in smuggling the gold reserves out of the country" - Southern or Northern Rhodesians? (Southern, I presume)
• "Many Katangese people hoped the UN would, in light of their role in ending the original secession, help resolve the situation" - did the UN ever intervene in this area again?

Please note that I'm going to be travelling over the next week, so it may take me a while to respond to your responses. Nick-D (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Support With one minor comment below, I'm now happy to support this article's promotion. Great work with it. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Response:

1. Done. Also mildly revised with added sentence "The Katangese forces were decisively defeated and Katanga was forcibly reintegrated into the Congo."
2. Added "In addition to a large body of troops (20,000 at its peak strength), a civilian mission was brought in to provide technical assistance to the Congolese government."
3. Added "to ensure ONUC personnel's freedom of movement and reassert their authority in Katanga."
4. I've done my best to address this. The information available is quite limited. I have yet to find a source that even specifies how many UN troops were in Katanga at the time. The best I have is what Dorn provides about air strength.
5. Done. Listed under "Opposing forces" section.
6. Changed troops to "peacekeepers". The Ethiopians were indeed there along with ONUC.
7. Done. Now reads "Radio intercepts revealed to the UN..."
8. Done. I'm not really sure what the intention on operational phases was, though it does seem to me that the first phase was more structured than the second phase. What I mean to say is, I think the first one had concrete goals for ONUC to achieve while the second was more of a follow up to ensure the defeat of Katanga's forces. So I would conclude that ONUC commanders probably assumed they would go through multiple phases, but left the latter stages of the operation open to developments.
9. Mockaitis does not specify what variant of Sikorsky helicopter it was or who was operating it. However, it is known that in 1961 UN forces were using the S-55 in Katanga, as shown here. They were still in ONUC's use in 1964, as evidenced here. There is also this UN photo dated 01 January 1963 (probably generalized) showing UN troops trying to cross the Lufira river with the assistance of a helicopter...could be an S-55. Still, this is mostly original research and I'm not prepared to explicitly state that in the article. Perhaps I should just wikilink it?

1. Perhaps just refer to a "helicopter" or similar Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Added section titled "Fate of ONUC". Might add more information, should it be forthcoming or necessary.
2. Othen does not specify.
3. Well, in short, yes. I think I've put an adequate explanation in the article. As note, the UN returned to the Congo to manage the Kivu Conflict and only as an aside started mediating the effects of the the Katanga insurgency.

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Support from Harry

• causing United Nations Secretary General U Thant to authorize a retaliatory offensive Wouldn't this require a new security council resolution?
• Reinforced by recently amassed air power From where?
• United Nations peacekeepers successfully completed can they really be called "peacekeepers" in this context since they're no longer holding the middle ground between two warring parties?
• Would it be better to link the Congo Crisis using {{main}} in the background section, rather than the easter egg link in the prose?
• Who were the main troop contributors to ONUC?
• Is it worth giving Dewan Prem Chand's nationality?

That's as far as the "opposing forces". I'll be back later with more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Response

1. Well, no. United Nations Security Council Resolution 157 passed on 21 February 1961 authorized ONUC to "prevent civil war". It was under that one that Operation Rumpunch and Operation Morthor were launched. Another resolution, United Nations Security Council Resolution 169, (the final one issued for ONUC) passed on 24 November 1961 at the request of Thant meant to clear up any ambiguities of their mandate. It reaffirmed ONUC's ability to detain and deport foreign military personnel and mercenaries with force, described Katanga's secessionist activities as illegal, and declared the UN's support for the central government of the Congo in its efforts to "maintain law and order and national integrity". It was under this resolution that Operation Unokat was conducted. The provision to "prevent civil war" was used by the UN to justify their intervention to help the central government eliminate the Stanleyville government. Perhaps this should be brought up in the background?
2. Revised as "Reinforced by aircraft from Sweden".
3. Well, this could get contentious. It appears most sources just refer to them as "troops". This matter of the role they were playing in the Congo becomes a ground for debate. Propaganda produced by the Katangese government deliberately and rhetorically questioned how "peacekeepers" could be more or less waging a war against them. From the UN's perspective, as evidenced by the security council resolutions brought up above, ONUC was suppressing an illegitimate organization that was causing civil war and jeopardizing the territorial integrity of the Congo. From Thant's view, Katanga was disrupting peace, law, and order and it was ONUC's job to stop them. It's really just semantics.
4. Done
5. India and Sweden, to name a few. It's rather cumbersome to pinpoint which ones were of great importance outside of a specific period of time (like this select operation) because the numbers fluctuated so often. Some countries that had contributed troops early on in ONUC had withdrawn them by the end of 1962. Unless you think it's worth pursuing this?
6. Now where he is first mentioned, it says "Lieutenant General Dewan Prem Chand of India".

-Indy beetle (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Resuming (noting that I'm happy with your responses above):

• Kennedy offered to supply the UN with American fighter jets to exert an "overwhelming show of strength from the air You need a reference right next to the quote per some policy shortcut.
• India had withdrawn its Canberra bombers Was this related to India's other military commitments or do we know if there was another reason?

Only a few minor quibbles in an excellent article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Response part 2:

1. Done.
2. Yes, you are indeed correct! Revised as "India had withdrawn its Canberra bombers in October to guard against China..."

-Indy beetle (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work. Happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Suppport

I'm starting to read this. It's a bit disconcerting since I remember some of this....:(

Though UN Official Conor Cruise O'Brien had announced as Morthor was underway that, "The secession of Katanga has ended," this statement was quickly realized to be premature This statement confuses me

...declared that the Belgian government would support the UN or the Congolese government should they end the Katangese secession through force ... who is they?

The same day a UN observation helicopter was fired upon and forced to land. An Indian member of the crew was mortally wounded while the rest were captured and beaten.... Katanganese fired upon it? Or someone else? Or don't we know?

UN troops strictly limited their responses to self-defence, but the attacks continued. but the attacks, or and the attacks

JFK offered to send the UN American fighter jets ... JFK offered American fighter jets to (support) the UN....

...This was shortly thereafter followed... this was followed shortly thereafter....

I made a few other suggestions, here, here and here. auntieruth (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Response:

1. Revised as "As Morthor was underway, Special Representative Conor Cruise O'Brien announced, "The secession of Katanga has ended." This statement was quickly realized to be premature; Katanga fought the offensive to a stalemate."
2. Revised as "would support the UN or the Congolese government should either one end the Katangese secession".
3. Revised as "The same day they fired upon a UN observation helicopter and forced it to land." The word "they" would be referring to the Katangese forces mentioned in the previous sentence.

• still awkward. How about...this>

4. Removed comma between "self-defence" and "but".

• this is still awkward. how about

Although UN troops strictly limited their responses to self-defence, the attacks continued.

Ok, fixed some of the grammar too.

5. Revised sentence: "In November United States President John F. Kennedy offered to supply the UN with American fighter jets to exert an "overwhelming show of strength from the air"." 6. Done
-Indy beetle (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• makes more sense now....auntieruth (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• nice job. Happy to support. auntieruth (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CE

Did a cheeky little ce and have a question, can the UN forces involved be called peacekeepers if they were used for military operations? Keith-264 (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Thanks for the copy edit. Check the A-class review under my response to HJ Mitchell to see discussion concerning the use of "peacekeepers". That gives all the historical context on the use. I used the word stylistically to give variety to the text and because it would automatically tie back to the UN (Ethiopian troops v Ethiopian peacekeepers, one you would assume is a part of ONUC, one is more ambiguous). -Indy beetle (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it's nice to know that you took the trouble to question a label. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

New source

[1] Pleasantly surprised to find this. It offers a link to this Wikipedia article! Must mean it's new, because I haven't seen it until a week or so ago. But the info is not WP:CIRC, because it's all veterans' testimony published by the Swedish government. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Belligerent listing

Just as any other UN-sanctioned conflict is listed, I feel the actual combatants involved in the battle should be represented, instead of listed under a broad spectrum with a footnote most viewers seem to ignore or just fail to see. To add the belligerents would clarify immediately to the viewer who was involved in the battle. I believe the, "clutter" on the page left over is self-perceived. If nothing else, a collapsible bullet list could be created for the combatants. What does everyone think, has there been a consensus on this topic yet? Haven't seen any in the talk page. Much obliged. MarkMcCain (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@MarkMcCain: There a problem of misinforming and ambiguity in removing the footnote and replacing it with a list of flags. The Norwegians had the anti-aircraft battery present protecting a UN base, but it is not clear if it directly partook in any fighting (sources do not say, though I doubt that it did, considering what the ONUC Air Wing did to the Katangese air force). Mayalsia and Nigeria had UN peacekeepers present and fighting in Katanga, but is unclear whether they were doing so as part of Grandslam or just concurrent to the operation. Listing all their flags might give the wrong impression. Also, by removing the note, you're removing the info about the US providing logistical support for the operation - listing their flag as if they were a combatant though, would be inaccurate. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay - well there's an easy fix there. We could add the combatants that were confirmed to have taken direct part in the operation (India, Ireland, Sweden, etc.) and keep the same note only including context similar to what you just said to me. That way those involved are actually shown and those with unclear participation are noted but not listed. Win-win. MarkMcCain (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@MarkMcCain: Alright. Let's list Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Ireland, Sweden, and Tunisia bulleted under the ONUC flag. I think we should retain the footnote in full though, as it explains all of the context. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I made some of the editing–what do you think? And what should the flags for the commanders be? That was mentioned briefly earlier on the initial revert, but I forgot what was said about it. MarkMcCain (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@MarkMcCain: That seems good. I'd generally opposed giving flags to the commanders. Flags are meant to display allegiance, not nationality. The Katangese commanders (Tshombe, Moke, and Puren) require none because the only belligerent listed in that column is Katanga, so there is no ambiuity about who they were serving for. Current consensus as I've encountered discourages the unnecessary use of flags and using them for the Katangese in this case would be considered superfluous. The ONUC commanders is a little more complicated, since Prem Chand and Noronha were attached to the peacekeeping force by the Indian government. Yet Prem Chand and Noronha, I think, could better be considered to be acting on behalf of ONUC (and directly they were, since it was Thant and not India that sanctioned Operation Grandslam). Thant was Burmese, but he was serving purely in his capacity as UN Secretary General and in no way acting on behalf of the Burmese government, with which he had complicated relations. As with the Katangese commanders, if Thant, Prem Chand, and Noronha were all acting on behalf of ONUC, the flags would also be unnecessary. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright then, that's fair enough from my perspective. A pleasure collaborating with you on this, take care. MarkMcCain (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

13.5mm Rockets

Under "Operation" and "First phase" the article states "Early on 29 December, the ONUC Air Division launched a surprise assault on the Kolwezi airfield. The J-29 fighter jets strafed with their 20mm cannons, as their 13.5mm rockets were inoperable in the overcast skies."

Swedish J-29 jets were never equiped with any 13.5mm rockets. This section should be removed or corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.183.141 (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)