Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Grandslam

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[reply]

Operation Grandslam edit

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk)

Featured article candidates/Operation Grandslam/archive1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

~~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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Response:

Done. Also mildly revised with added sentence "The Katangese forces were decisively defeated and Katanga was forcibly reintegrated into the Congo."
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."
Added "to ensure ONUC personnel's freedom of movement and reassert their authority in Katanga."
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.
Done. Listed under "Opposing forces" section.
Changed troops to "peacekeepers". The Ethiopians were indeed there along with ONUC.
Done. Now reads "Radio intercepts revealed to the UN..."
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.
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?

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

Added section titled "Fate of ONUC". Might add more information, should it be forthcoming or necessary.
Othen does not specify.
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)[reply]

Support from Harry edit

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)[reply]

Response

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?
Revised as "Reinforced by aircraft from Sweden".
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.
Done
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?
Now where he is first mentioned, it says "Lieutenant General Dewan Prem Chand of India".

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

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)[reply]

Response part 2:

Done.
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)[reply]

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

Suppport edit

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)[reply]

Response:

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."
Revised as "would support the UN or the Congolese government should either one end the Katangese secession".
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)[reply]

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

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

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.