# The Siege of Jadotville - Netflix



## Blackadder1916 (10 Sep 2016)

With recent discussion of Canadian troops returning to UN operations somewhere in Africa, this may interest some on these means.

Trailer for an upcoming Netflix film "The Siege of Jadotville"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_JHsiQTTmg

I had never heard of this particular small action, however ONUC was not an easy mission for any contingent, including Canada's.  This is the Wikipedia version of Jadotville. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jadotville


----------



## Shrek1985 (15 Sep 2016)

Ah, the Congo; the first time the UN showed it's true colours and crushed a legitimate independence movement in favour of an utter mess of a dictatorship, which they could control and benefit from.

Looks like a good movie, but I'll assume they make the mercs unnecessarily evil. Reading about the conflict from their side, you get a very interesting perspective on the UN and just how the locals felt about the situation.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Oct 2016)

It's out there in the ether now, just in the process of downloading it.


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Oct 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It's out there in the ether now, just in the process of downloading it.



I looked it up on Netflix it's just a trailer right now


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Oct 2016)

Not for pirates, yarrr.


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Oct 2016)

It was available for viewing last night.  Great movie.


----------



## my72jeep (10 Oct 2016)

Nice to see the FN used, but I did get the hint that it was anti UN which is ok by me.


----------



## FSTO (10 Oct 2016)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Nice to see the FN used, but I did get the hint that it was anti UN which is ok by me.


Definitely anti UN and a shot at all the political generals and ambitious bureaucrats out there who will screw the coal face people (of all types not just military) to further their own career goals.

Could a Canadian filmmaker pull off a movie about Medak Pocket or the Unification Wars? I would love to find out but not holding my breath.


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Oct 2016)

Not without turning it into a love story ala Passchendaele, I'd wager.


----------



## my72jeep (10 Oct 2016)

Looking at it from a supply point of view, ammo requests must have been a pain. 7.62, .303, 9mm.
But I will ask one question of the more learned why did he need the Bren to take that one shot?


----------



## FSTO (11 Oct 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not without turning it into a love story ala Passchendaele, I'd wager.



Don't let Paul Gross anywhere near it?


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Oct 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Don't let Paul Gross anywhere near it?



To do so, would be a Gross error.   ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Oct 2016)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Looking at it from a supply point of view, ammo requests must have been a pain. 7.62, .303, 9mm.
> But I will ask one question of the more learned why did he need the Bren to take that one shot?


  

I once worked for someone who said they cut their teeth on the Bren.  He said it was amazingly accurate, unlike it's replacement the C2.  I suppose the bipod would have been one reason why he used it for the shot.


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 Oct 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Definitely anti UN and a shot at all the political generals and ambitious bureaucrats out there who will screw the coal face people (of all types not just military) to further their own career goals.
> 
> Could a Canadian filmmaker pull off a movie about Medak Pocket or the Unification Wars? I would love to find out but not holding my breath.



A Canadian political drama!  I would love to see something about this.  Alas it would probably be a CBC mini series and come out as pro Liberal / anti military propaganda


----------



## Lightguns (11 Oct 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> A Canadian political drama!  I would love to see something about this.  Alas it would probably be a CBC mini series and come out as pro Liberal / anti military propaganda



I can see it now, Jean Chretien holding aloof a streaming maple leaf as he mounts the parapet, shiny cutlass in the other hand, helmet on rearwards, "follow me, Canadians, to ta proof!";  Above.... the clouds form the shape of PET and his one big finger thrust upward, with 2PPCLI mustered behind in 2 ranks, bayonets fixed, singing "Long Way to Tipperary" as Griffons shriek in overhead!  Totally factually done because Paul Gross would have a love scene in the company bunker toward the end of the movie.


----------



## dimsum (15 Oct 2016)

Got around to watching it today.  The political portion made me think of Shake Hands with the Devil.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Oct 2016)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Looking at it from a supply point of view, ammo requests must have been a pain. 7.62, .303, 9mm.
> But I will ask one question of the more learned why did he need the Bren to take that one shot?



Because the Bren was super accurate, heavy and has a bipod. Actually, too accurate for a machine gun. :2c:


----------



## medicineman (16 Oct 2016)

Only real problem I had with the movie was how overly simplistic it made things...and well, some of the artistic license of course, since I'm reading one of the books written about the battle there.  I don't think that the UN has changed much in how it handles things since then - as an institution, it doesn't learn well from its own past IMO.

MM


----------



## FSTO (16 Oct 2016)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Only real problem I had with the movie was how overly simplistic it made things...and well, some of the artistic license of course, since I'm reading one of the books written about the battle there.  I don't think that the UN has changed much in how it handles things since then - as an institution, it doesn't learn well from its own past IMO.
> MM



The UN never learns and why Canadians have this over the moon love affair with that FUBAR'd institution is beyond me.


----------



## Eland2 (16 Oct 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> The UN never learns and why Canadians have this over the moon love affair with that FUBAR'd institution is beyond me.



It's because Canadians are in love with the idea that if we all just join hands and sing "Kumbaya", all will be well. To most Canadians, the military is seen as a somewhat 'icky' kind of thing, best not seen and not heard, but they want to have some way of getting Canada a place on the world stage, and peacekeeping seems to be the way to do it. Canadians seem to be most comfortable with the idea of soldiers as helpful Boy Scouts, and not as men armed with rifles, bayonets and other weapon systems who are trained to kill other people when the situation demands it. 

I think the near-totally pacifist stance has a lot to do with the tremendous losses of people Canada sustained in the First and Second World wars - that is, so many people lost family members in those wars and they would like it very much if that kind of thing was never repeated. That's an admirable desire and goal, but it ignores the fact that the world has been exposed to conflict and wars since day one, and there doesn't seem to be much evidence that that natural state is going to change for the better anytime soon. By not having at least minimally competent military forces, you actually increase the risk of people dying or being injured.

I also think another part of it comes from having elected so many French-Canadian prime ministers who, because they came from Quebec, tended to have a mindset that favoured a pacifist outlook. 

Just my two cents - or maybe $0.01, adjusted for inflation.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Oct 2016)

They were OK until Trudeau the Senior.  Have been shit, since then.


----------



## dimsum (16 Oct 2016)

Eland2 said:
			
		

> It's because Canadians are in love with the idea that if we all just join hands and sing "Kumbaya", all will be well. To most Canadians, the military is seen as a somewhat 'icky' kind of thing, best not seen and not heard, but they want to have some way of getting Canada a place on the world stage, and peacekeeping seems to be the way to do it. Canadians seem to be most comfortable with the idea of soldiers as helpful Boy Scouts, and not as men armed with rifles, bayonets and other weapon systems who are trained to kill other people when the situation demands it.
> 
> I think the near-totally pacifist stance has a lot to do with the tremendous losses of people Canada sustained in the First and Second World wars - that is, so many people lost family members in those wars and they would like it very much if that kind of thing was never repeated. That's an admirable desire and goal, but it ignores the fact that the world has been exposed to conflict and wars since day one, and there doesn't seem to be much evidence that that natural state is going to change for the better anytime soon. By not having at least minimally competent military forces, you actually increase the risk of people dying or being injured.
> 
> ...



A slight rebuttal:

I'll agree that a certain segment of Canadians see us as Boy Scouts - I've known people who, paraphrasing (but not by much), have said "why don't you guys just keep the parades and looking good, but not bother fighting?"  

However, I won't agree that it's because of losses.  Australia, for example, had probably close to the same dead per capita but seem to have less of a reluctance to see their military as what it is.  Then again, they weren't raised with the concept that "Peacekeeping is Canadian", so they're probably less inclined to believe in it as much.


----------



## bLUE fOX (16 Oct 2016)

I don't think it helps that in all of the major conflicts of the last century, we were relatively isolated from the actual violence. Nobody between Ontario and Alberta really saw any of the really awful stuff like what was happening in Britain, France and else where. The distance between Canada and most threats today makes it harder for the average Canadian to justify the need for well equipped and trained military.


----------



## blacktriangle (16 Oct 2016)

Watched it this weekend. It sure didn't motivate me to deploy under the UN banner.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Oct 2016)

And not a peep from Altair, who is eager for a deployment...


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Oct 2016)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Watched it this weekend. It sure didn't motivate me to deploy under the UN banner.



Then don't watch this either 

Shake Hands with the Devil http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472562/

But you should watch this, just for the drill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_at_Batasi


----------



## AbdullahD (27 Nov 2016)

Just watched the show this weekend, mainly because of the excitement here and my wife and I were not let down.

For civvies like us, it 'seemed' fairly 'lifelike' and all in all very engaging... but definitely not very pro-UN... them lads who actually went to Jadotville, must have went through hell, I hope this movie is what they wanted.. but they are heroes in my eyes... the politicians not so much.

Abdullah


----------



## medicineman (28 Nov 2016)

AbdullahD said:
			
		

> Just watched the show this weekend, mainly because of the excitement here and my wife and I were not let down.
> 
> For civvies like us, it 'seemed' fairly 'lifelike' and all in all very engaging... but definitely not very pro-UN... them lads who actually went to Jadotville, must have went through hell, I hope this movie is what they wanted.. but they are heroes in my eyes... the politicians not so much.
> 
> Abdullah



There are a couple of good books about the battle out there you should read, as there are many things not shown in the movie due to artistic and time constraints - as a for instance after they soldiers were released from a month's captivity, they were back out on the line and involved with some more of the battles between UN and Katangan forces for another month or two before going home.  The surrender wasn't quite so dramatic as the movie portrayed.  

MM


----------



## AbdullahD (29 Nov 2016)

medicineman said:
			
		

> There are a couple of good books about the battle out there you should read, as there are many things not shown in the movie due to artistic and time constraints - as a for instance after they soldiers were released from a month's captivity, they were back out on the line and involved with some more of the battles between UN and Katangan forces for another month or two before going home.  The surrender wasn't quite so dramatic as the movie portrayed.
> 
> MM



I always find books are more informative, with movies being more entertaining. But, I can not afford to add more books to the 'to read' list, I have to finish the ones I already have. I kind of assumed the Movie used artistic license, it is kind of a given, but thanks for letting me know there is more to the story.

Abdullah


----------

