The Congo Crisis - What's Going on in the Congo ?

youngdan wrote:

Maybe they would look at the uniform and the letters UN. You too go back and read the material you posted where the survivor says they were familiar with them.

After a quick image search i found a few photos of Irish troops in Congo.
I don't mean to be pedantic but I don't see any UN badges or armbands etc.
Unless they have UN badges on their caps?


16th January 1961: Irish troops at Dublin Airport, returning home from fighting in the Congo. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)

and


Irish ONUC troops (36 Bn) man a position over the Elizabeth road tunnel during the Congo Crisis, December 1961.
(Image: Irish Defence Forces)

I'm not sure where the Elizabeth road tunnel is but I'm assuming it's in Congo.

Do they look like mercenaries to you. The survivor has said that the Baluba and Irish were engaged in a cat and mouse game for some time with roadblocks being set up and removed. The others would have you think that the balubas were as thick as bricks and did not know who was in their own area. A long time ago, as I reported on another thread, I spoke to some army lads who trained me when I was in the Irish Defense forces and they left me in no doubt how they felt about the baluba.

Yeah, I couldn't find any pictures of mercenaries to see if they were comparable but I don't think there would be anything special to mark them out as mercenaries.
I'm sure they would wear camoflage gear and have utility belts, helmets and backpacks just like any other soldier.

Do you think the balubas are stupid.

I think if there's 100 of them as the article says, and they're all angry and waving weapons and shouting etc on their approach, then it seems like it's more of a lynch mob than an organised attack.
Maybe they were just looking for the nearest white soldiers to take out their anger on.

That is almost as lame as the other two.

I don't recall you exlaining why the Baluba attacked the UN troops, youngdan. If our reasons are so lame, then lets have yours.

And point out to me exactly where Lestat's account shows that the Baluba knew who their assailants were. All I can read are greetings and shootings. Bearing in mind that the mercenaries in the area probably dismantled roadblocks too.

youngdan wrote:

Lestat. Are you a child as well. How is anybody going to depose Mugabi when he is killing opponents and ignoring election results.

Maybe they don't want to depose him. Maybe Zimbabwe is like Burundi, it's doing fine. Maybe they could immigrate to Natal and depose Buthelezi instead.

AfricanDave wrote:

Irish ONUC troops (36 Bn) man a position over the Elizabeth road tunnel during the Congo Crisis, December 1961.
(Image: Irish Defence Forces)

I'm not sure where the Elizabeth road tunnel is but I'm assuming it's in Congo.

I think that should be the Elizabethville road tunnel. Two Irish soldiers dies capturing it in Dec 1961. Below is a picture of a Congo mercenary. He looks more or less the same as the lads in Elizabethville to me.

Squire wrote:

Dan I would like Squire Hall to be independent along with its overseas territories, but outside that I couldn't care less. What difference to me if ruled by a bunch of wasters in Dublin, London or Brussels? They all have notions above their station and like to meddle.

At some point I have to cooperate with my neighbours so they don't discharge sewerage into the ditch along the boundary, and if the old girl up the hill falls ill I would rather she didn't just decompose in her bedroom. Also need cooperation for services, to build roads etc. So question is what is the smallest effective size of government? Also when you get right down to it for me there is an attraction in living in a vastly larger state than some parochial hell hole run by the local druid.

The Congo like most African countries is a European construct, but because that construct or constructs existed you will have those in most regions in that continent who have moved and are in an ethnic minority. It could even be that the original inhabitants are the minority. How it will ever be resolved is beyond me. Of course outside powers fuel the division and interfere in the political system so as to secure contracts and access to resources. In the case of Congo at the time of independence there was also the matter of the cold war and Communist regimes were not exactly flavour of the month in the USA but were portrayed in USSR as beacons of hope throwing off the yoke of imperialist oppressors. Both versions of reality are decidedly dubious. For me the average person anywhere just wants to feed their family and get on with life. It is the Freedom fighters and political wasters who are the troublesome minority and who cause the problems and the press and media barons to discriminate the poison.

In many ways Africa is like Europe. It is a continent where linguistic and racial groups do not match the political borders. They actually need an African Union. The problem with your California analysis is that all of California may decide to secede but within California there will be large areas that do not wish to. So do they remain and independent California becomes a patchwork quilt? There is no rational answer to this conundrum for one group has their rights upheld and another theirs oppressed. Or the political map becomes seriously complex and unworkable.

I want liberated from the oppression of Dublin.

I enjoyed this post Squire. There are moves in hand for a United States of Africa - this has got to be a good thing and should help stop the meddling and thieving from states outside Africa. There is a tendency to form big economic blocks at the moment but this is in contradiction with the economic tendency to a global economy. Globalisation at the moment is mainly running in the interests of irresponsible mobile capital that smashes and grabs (Iraq), or develops and moves on (Ireland). People in big blocks feel less vulnerable. If it wasnt for the Sunni Shia divide perhaps we would have seen a United Arab States.

I'm in favour a right to self determination, even when it isn't convenient, and I think that populations can debate for themselves the viability issues that you have talked about. But there are some cases that look more like big powers establishing a foothold rather than independence by popular demand. It should be by free majority vote.

The account of what happened is in the narrative posted by Lestat for Nov 8 1960. The Irish assumed that the baluba were friendly from their interactions with them but they were mistaken. The balubas on their own turf knew exactly who they were dealing with and to think otherwise would assume them to be retarded. A mercenary force would not be acting like a peace keeping force anyway. You can even see on the picture Dave put up that the UN man on the gun has his light blue helmet on. The Balubas attacked because they wanted them dead.

youngdan wrote:

The Irish assumed that the baluba were friendly from their interactions with them ....

That's not in my post. What is in my post is reproduced below;

Quote :

We had noticed lately that the parties of Baluba we met were getting more sullen and hostile. We never had more trouble than an odd arrow shot our way and we had always managed to bring about a peaceful end to our meetings with them.

.....Lt.Gleeson told us to stop working and be on alert with our weapons.

The above says that the Irish expected the baluba to be anything but friendly.

youngdan wrote:

You can even see on the picture Dave put up that the UN man on the gun has his light blue helmet on.

At the start of the Congo mission Irish troops wore green helmets with UN painted on the front.

youngdan wrote:

The Balubas attacked because they wanted them dead.

You think?

Finally a quote from Declan Power's book Siege at Jadotville, Page 67;

Quote :

... The Baluba generally were on the receiving end of aggression.


A primitive tribal people, they had been regularly terrorised and abused by the mercenary-led forces in Katanga........ It is likely that the attack at Niemba was a knee-jerk reaction by a primitive people who had already been terrorised by forces led by whites. Both the Katangans and the Balubas were constantly blaming the UN for siding with one or the other faction.

There are similar problems in Chad and Darfur, with the UN troops, EUFOR French and EUFOR Irish troops trying to differentiate themselves with colours and symbols. When the dust is flying, it must be hard enough to know who is who.

cactus flower wrote:

I enjoyed this post Squire. There are moves in hand for a United States of Africa - this has got to be a good thing and to help stop the meddling and thieving from states outside Africa. There is a tendency to form big economic blocks at the moment but this is in contradiction with the economic tendency is to a global economy. Globalisation at the moment is mainly running in the interests of irresponsible mobile capital that smashes and grabs (Iraq), or develops and moves on (Ireland). People in big blocks feel less vulnerable. If it wasnt for the Sunni Shia divide perhaps we would have seen a United Arab States.

Thanks just an outpouring from a muddled mind. Globalisation and free marketers really puzzle me. Why get a cabbage from the local shop, which in turn gets it from 'Jones the spade' who then perhaps employs me. NO, too simple; better to fly it in from the north slope of Kilimanjaro and sell it in a Super Spud retail experience. Part of that experience usually involves driving, and if I have an accident then it is even better, because that does wonders to the amount of services needed. Great for the overall economy and keeps people employed, but is it efficient?

We are told that by exporting the said cabbage that the people of Tanzania are preventing famine because they can now buy potatoes from Egypt. What I fail to understand is why they don't just eat their own cabbages and why champ isn't the national dish of Egypt? When I was a child and asked I was told that our Euros are worth so much more and because of that we have these elves working all around the world just producing goods for our consumption and on that merry thought I would slumber off. Now I wonder when the elves will wise up.

The free market brigade extol the virtues of flying goods all over the place. This movement probably gained dominance about the same time cocaine use went up and their models of efficiency are perhaps the reason why generally both husband and wife now have to work.

Strangely enough these people also tend to be at the forefront when it comes to advocating controlling currency, interest rates, etc. In my simple world a free market is only possible if there is a world government, same currency, free movement of labour and common tax structures. For governments and all their meddling are themselves distortions. Free trade is a mantra and a global free market the Holy Grail, it will never happen except in Star Trek.

The levels of corruption on the African continent are staggering and it is hard to see how an effective United States of African could work with that as a back drop. The Arab world also has quite strong racial divisions within and between countries. What do Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and Saudi have in common? Many people in Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon and Turkey, whilst they may be Muslim, have less in common with Saudi than they have with Europe. It is all the fault of the Romans. Did someone not tell them that these countries were not in Europe?

cactus flower wrote:

I'm in favour a right to self determination, even when it isn't convenient, and I think that populations can debate for themselves the viability issues that you have talked about. But there are some cases that look more like big powers establishing a foothold rather than independence by popular demand. It should be by free majority vote.

I have no problem with self determination, but when a region decides on a course of independence, who decides, the people in the region or the whole country? Who decides the boundaries of the region? Unfortunately many of these movements are financed and encouraged by outside powers. The whole process is fraught with difficulty and often results in war. Fortunately in blocks like the EU such issues become less critical.

Lestat. Is there something wrong with you. The balubas knew who they were killing. Do you understand

You haven't explained why the Baluba wanted them dead youngdan. Stop slagging us off and put your own ideas forward.

There is only one reason anyone would want anybody dead. They hated them and wanted them gone. What sort of question is that when the answer is straightforward. Are you still saying that they were friends.

You seem to be saying the Baluba turned against the people who were defending them. Which needs a bit of explaining in my opinion. Why were there no other attacks on the UN by the Baluba if this was more than an isolated incident? And what did the Irish do to earn their hate?

They more than turned against them they butchered them. It is you that is saying the baluba and the Irish were on the same side not me.

Both the Baluba and the UN had a common enemy: the Katangese mercenaries. They both wanted Katanga to remain within the Congo. And apart from the nine 'butcherings' - do you have evidence of Baluba opposition to the UN?

The baluba were canibals so maybe they were just hungry. I am away for a few days but what is your opinion of this excerpt from a book that I have not read but may read a few chapters if it is online. http://www.peacekey.com/1-1-a/UN_Web/1_UN_Book/The_Fearful_Master_02.htm

youngdan wrote:

Lestat. Is there something wrong with you. The balubas knew who they were killing. Do you understand

youngdan wrote:

The baluba were canibals so maybe they were just hungry.

So your argument is that the Baluba went for tender sirloin of Irish peacekeeper rather than the tougher rump steak of Belgian mercenary.

They are good judges it would appear. With as much digging as I could I have concluded that the Baluba were divided in two. At the start of violence they were in a civil war with another tribe beginning with Loi but I can not remember the exact word. Lamumba for whatever reason took the side against the baluba and 200 of them were killed in an early engagement. Maybe a tribe hostile to the baluba were involved as part of the army. My understanding is that the officers who were European were fired and the army was a mob who were not getting paid. In this situation it would be every man/tribe for themselves.
Later there was a part of the baluba tribe who went against the Tribe of Tshombe and they wanted to hold the Congo as one country. The Irish were killed early on. Now why the Baluba would want to be part of the Congo and not be their own bosses is beyond me. Then again why the US State Department would want Congo to grab Katanga is also beyond me. We are spoon fed the idea that they were against the communists but if they were why did they not set up a western statein Katanga. We know that humanitarianism never enters the equation

youngdan wrote:

The baluba were canibals so maybe they were just hungry. I am away for a few days but what is your opinion of this excerpt from a book that I have not read but may read a few chapters if it is online. [url=http://www.peacekey.com/1-1-a/UN_Web/1_UN_Book/The_Fearful_Master_02.htm

http://www.peacekey.com/1-1-a/UN_Web/1_UN_Book/The_Fearful_Master_02.htm[/quote[/url]] They didn't eat any bodies. Do you have any other ideas?

That book and that film earlier were hysterical nonsense in my opinion. The author's profile on wikipedia's not the most promising: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin#Noah.27s_ark

I have a very sketchy knowledge of the tribal mechanics at play in the Congo crisis. I think it may be that the Baluba in South Kasai and the Baluba in Katanga were operating in very different circumstances. I read a report (I don't know how reliable it is but it's interesting reading: Tribal war in Luluabourg, Belgian Congo) that said that the Blauba in Kasai were refugees from Katanga who were subjugated by the native Lulua. The Baluba benefited under colonialism though, and before independence there was a vicious war between the Baluba and the Lulua, who were afraid of losing their dominance in the post-colonial state.

The opposite seems to have been the case in Katanga, with the once dominant Baluba being usurped by Tshombe's people. In both cases you have a once subjugated people benefiting from colonial rule and seeking to amintain that link. The Baluba were on different sides in the two cases. That's just my theory.

I am a big fan of Griffin and his book on the federal reserve is one I frequently recommend to anyone who wishs to follow the markets.
That aside I read through the material by the lady journalist that was linked. Both tribes were canibals and indeed savages. She has a high opinion of Lamumba.
But why do you disbelieve the account that I linked. It paints a picture of the Soviets aiding Lamumba to set up his communist system. It says Conor Cruise O Brien admitted this to be the case. It prints a letter by Lamumba which makes damning reading indeed. Unless this letter was made up then Lamumba was just another Mugabi.
I no more believe that the UN is ever in the business of helping the natives than I believe in the tooth fairy. This is similiar to my opinion of them http://stiffrightjab.com/2008/06/06/the-un-american-united-nations/
The Americans are looters as revealed by Confessions of an Economic Hitman.
I hope to read up more on this