Why were the Irish veterans of Jadotville ostracised?

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,809
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jadotville


Until the early 21st century, the Irish state did not give much recognition to the battle of Jadotville. The term "Jadotville Jack" was sometimes applied as a term of derision about the Irish Defence Forces.
The government has belatedly recognised the soldiers for their bravery.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1202/924518-medal-jadotville/

The Catholic Church practically ran the Republic at the time of the Siege of Jadotville and stresses the obligation to respect the sanctity of human life. Therefore, one would assume that the Church hierarchy would be glad that all the Irish soldiers who fought at Jadotville survived.

So why were they ostracised?
 


ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,113
Because they surrendered.

Nowadays we understand the heroic efforts made by the soldiers and accept the woefully inefficient supply lines getting to them, but the Irish State was not in the right place mentally to cheer a surrender in the early 60s.

Also Conor Cruise O'Brien. The perpetual dick of Irish politics.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,103
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jadotville




The government has belatedly recognised the soldiers for their bravery.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1202/924518-medal-jadotville/

The Catholic Church practically ran the Republic at the time of the Siege of Jadotville and stresses the obligation to respect the sanctity of human life. Therefore, one would assume that the Church hierarchy would be glad that all the Irish soldiers who fought at Jadotville survived.

So why were they ostracised?
So the Catholic Church is to blame for the poor treatment of the Jadotville soldiers? That’s a new notion.......go on so, based on what?
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,809
Because they surrendered.

Nowadays we understand the heroic efforts made by the soldiers and accept the woefully inefficient supply lines getting to them, but the Irish State was not in the right place mentally to cheer a surrender in the early 60s.

Also Conor Cruise O'Brien. The perpetual dick of Irish politics.
But the Church places a huge emphasis on the sanctity of human life and it practically ran the country at the time. Surely, that meant that the Church thought it was better that the soldiers had surrendered and then came home alive rather than being brought back in bodybags.

Therefore, you haven't answered my question.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,103
But the Church places a huge emphasis on the sanctity of human life and it practically ran the country at the time. Surely, that meant that the Church thought it was better that the soldiers had surrendered and then came home alive rather than being brought back in bodybags.

Therefore, you haven't answered my question.
It’s a really dumb question. What did the Church have to do with how the veterans were treated?
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,809
So the Catholic Church is to blame for the poor treatment of the Jadotville soldiers? That’s a new notion.......go on so, based on what?
I was not blaming the Church.

At the time, most Catholic lay people in the Republic deferred to the Church. The Church places great emphasis on the sanctity of human life. So why were the government and the Irish Defence Forces' equivalent of high command not happy that the soldiers had been brought home alive? After all, most politicians and Defence Forces commanders deferred to the Church, didn't they?!
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,809
It’s a really dumb question. What did the Church have to do with how the veterans were treated?
Because government ministers and most of the public deferred to the Church. So if the Church told ordinary Catholics to be glad that the veterans had been brought home alive, most of them would have adhered to that, wouldn't they?!
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,103
I was not blaming the Church.

At the time, most Catholic lay people in the Republic deferred to the Church. The Church places great emphasis on the sanctity of human life. So why were the government and the Irish Defence Forces' equivalent of high command not happy that the soldiers had been brought home alive? After all, most politicians and Defence Forces commanders deferred to the Church, didn't they?!
Yes you are, seemingly based on a general presumption that everything bad in Ireland was the fault of the Church. What has the Church to do with Jadotville? Still time for dumbest thread of the year btw.
 

ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,113
But the Church places a huge emphasis on the sanctity of human life and it practically ran the country at the time. Surely, that meant that the Church thought it was better that the soldiers had surrendered and then came home alive rather than being brought back in bodybags.

Therefore, you haven't answered my question.
I'm guessing this is some kind of psudo-thought experiment because the Church, while practicing lip service, certainly didn't respect the sanctity of life. Tuam etc.

Also you were getting into the Lemass and Whitaker years which saw the State unshackle some of the more restrictive Religious chains around her neck.
 

Vega1447

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
5,685
I was not blaming the Church.

At the time, most Catholic lay people in the Republic deferred to the Church. The Church places great emphasis on the sanctity of human life. So why were the government and the Irish Defence Forces' equivalent of high command not happy that the soldiers had been brought home alive? After all, most politicians and Defence Forces commanders deferred to the Church, didn't they?!
I expect that the Belgians (and the Brits & French) put the arm on our Govt to downplay the heroism of our troops.
Because it might embarrass "business interests".

Disgraceful but there you go.

As for CCOB; a man who would have been quite happy for Irishmen to die for him, not so much the reverse.
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,809
Yes you are, seemingly based on a general presumption that everything bad in Ireland was the fault of the Church. What has the Church to do with Jadotville? Still time for dumbest thread of the year btw.
I was working on the assumption that most Irish Catholics did what the Church hierarchy told them to do. The Church emphasises the sanctity of human life. Therefore, I don't see why they would have ostracised the Jadotville veterans.

You know fine well I'm not blaming the Church. Stop being disingenuous.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
11,103
I was working on the assumption that most Irish Catholics did what the Church hierarchy told them to do. The Church emphasises the sanctity of human life. Therefore, I don't see why they would have ostracised the Jadotville veterans.

You know fine well I'm not blaming the Church. Stop being disingenuous.
An OP that has nothing in it other than a statement that the CC controlled everything in Ireland. Nothing about the military culture in the army or the the fact that this was Ireland first major overseas UN mission and that any surrender was seen by those at the time as a disgrace. It had nothing to do with the Church.
 

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,620
I was working on the assumption that most Irish Catholics did what the Church hierarchy told them to do. The Church emphasises the sanctity of human life. Therefore, I don't see why they would have ostracised the Jadotville veterans.

You know fine well I'm not blaming the Church. Stop being disingenuous.
You're being disingenuous yourself. The " surrender " didn't sit well with political parties who glorified violence.
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,809
I expect that the Belgians (and the Brits & French) put the arm on our Govt to downplay the heroism of our troops.
Because it might embarrass "business interests".

Disgraceful but there you go.

As for CCOB; a man who would have been quite happy for Irishmen to die for him, not so much the reverse.
I'm aware of the part that Belgium played in the crisis but I haven't seen any indication that the British and French governments supported the Katangan government. After all, Britain and France are two of the permanent members of the Security Council and so the UN mssion wouldn't have taken place at all if either of them had vetoed it. So why would they support entities that were attacking UN forces?
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,809
You're being disingenuous yourself. The " surrender " didn't sit well with political parties who glorified violence.
They glorified the Easter Rising and the War of Independence but there's no evidence that they glorified violence that was taking place in the early 1960s.
 

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,620
They glorified the Easter Rising and the War of Independence but there's no evidence that they glorified violence that was taking place in the early 1960s.
Tradition of violence.
 

Sweet Darling

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2017
Messages
4,741
Firstly. It was a diplomatic incident between Ireland and lowlife Belgium. and made Irelands rep' on the UN look bad.
Secondly, The Army nor the Department of Defence did not know how to handle a defeat, so hamfistedly blotted it out of Army History.
Now compare it to the British Army and there embarrassedly numerous defeats over the years. Dunkirk, Norway, Singapore, Rorke's Drift, Crete, Basra, Helmand etc, etc. They get Pinewood and Ardmore studios on to it to fake up a heroic angle. Start dishing out VCs like confetti to deflect the publics attention and stich exotic names on regimental colours to try and maintain moral.
 
Last edited:

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
14,234
I'm aware of the part that Belgium played in the crisis but I haven't seen any indication that the British and French governments supported the Katangan government. After all, Britain and France are two of the permanent members of the Security Council and so the UN mssion wouldn't have taken place at all if either of them had vetoed it. So why would they support entities that were attacking UN forces?
The Belgians, French, and British, wanting influence in the wealthy region, supported the Katanga movement in practice, if not in name.
Congo in Crisis: The Rise and Fall of Katangan Secession - Association for Diplomatic Studies and TrainingAssociation for Diplomatic Studies and Training
 

Nedz Newt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
3,403
There's a huge amount of space between being "ostracised" and being "lauded as heroes". Were they actually ostracised, and if so, from what were they excluded?
If they experienced adverse social or career consequences, that'd be an indicator.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top