# Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Roméo Dallaire



## gratefulcivi

Occasional lurker, first-time poster.  Thought it would be timely to point out that a film about LGen Dallaire's return to Rwanda is showing as part of the Toronto Int'l film festival.  Details below, or at 

http://www.e.bell.ca/filmfest/2004/filmsschedules/description.asp?pageID=searchforafilm&id=261


FILM TITLE:

Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Roméo Dallaire

Programme: Real to Reel
Director: Peter Raymont
Country: Canada
Year: 2004
Language: English
Time: 90 minutes
Film Types: Colour/Digital Betacam



SCREENING TIMES:
Sunday, September 12 	     	03:30 PM 	     	VARSITY 8
Tuesday, September 14 	     	03:00 PM 	     	VARSITY 8

Production Company: White Pine Pictures/Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Société Radio-Canada
Producer: Peter Raymont
Written By: Based in part on the book "Shake Hands With the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda" by Lt. Gen. Roméo Dallaire
Cinematography: John Westheuser
Editor: Michele Hozer
Sound: Ao Loo
Music: Mark Korven
Principal Cast: Lt. Gen. Roméo Dallaire

In 1994, approximately eight hundred thousand people were brutally slaughtered in Rwanda. Most belonged to the Tutsi tribe, though many of the victims were moderate Hutus who refused to participate in the genocide. The horrific nature of this event was exacerbated by the outside world's indifference. As embassies were swiftly evacuated and multinational companies pulled up stakes, the only international presence left (and the only possible sanctuary) was a small United Nations force - but it was hamstrung by that organization's inability or refusal to act.

Their leader was Canadian Lieutenant General Roméo Dallaire, who - despite suggestions that he depart as well - insisted on staying. After nearly a decade of silence, Dallaire recently addressed the events he witnessed in his book "Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda." In early 2004, he returned to Rwanda for the first time since the genocide. That visit is the subject of acclaimed filmmaker Peter Raymont's powerful documentary, Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Roméo Dallaire.

The film recounts the facts of the catastrophe in chilling detail. We hear about the woefully undermanned UN force and the conflicting agendas of the countries involved (many only to rescued their own citizens); the inexperience of the peacekeepers, who failed to recognize actual threats (brutal agitators were dismissed as mere "clowns"); and the appalling lack of fortitude and foresight shown by the UN (Dallaire could have stopped much of the slaughter if they had let him attack a weapons depot).

Raymont interviews a string of diplomats and witnesses, including UN Special Envoy Stephen Lewis and BBC reporter Mark Doyle; the latter offers one of the most telling indictments when he says that news networks were more concerned about the O.J. Simpson case than genocide in Africa. Ultimately, though, the focus is on Dallaire himself, still haunted by his inability to prevent the massacre. Many argue he is too hard on himself, but it is Dallaire's refusal to cede responsibility which, even now, makes him so intriguing. Shake Hands with the Devil is a study of one of the most horrifying incidents in recent memory, but it's also a portrait of heroism.

- Steve Gravestock

Peter Raymont worked at the National Film Board of Canada in Montreal before moving to Toronto. He has directed more than one hundred documentaries during his thirty-year career. His numerous international awards include a Genie for best short documentary for The World Is Watching (88). His other films include: Voices from the Shadows (92), Chasing the Dream (93), Hearts of Hate: The Battle for Young Minds (94), The Undefended Border (02), The World Stopped Watching (03) and Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Roméo Dallaire (04).

This film is rated 18A.


----------



## pbi

In 1997, when I was the Canadian student at the United States Marine Corps Command and Staff College, MGen Dallaire was one of the guest speakers. I had the great honour to be his Aide de Camp during his visit, so I got to meet him for the first time. I have since had a short telephone conversation with him on an unrelated matter. My impression of him is that he is a very good man who carries a huge burden. My classmates at Quantico shared that opinion: you could have heard a pin drop in that lecture hall with 300 people in it, and his lecture was the talk of the syndicate rooms for a couple of days afterward. I was told by one of the faculty that every year MGen Dallaire was selected as top or runner-up guest speaker of the year: and that was against a playing field that included some pretty heavy hitters such as the Chiefs of each of the US services, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, etc etc. I was very proud to be a Canadian soldier. Cheers.


----------



## R2Truman

I am constantly amazed at our ability to lionize a man who so clearly failed in his appointment, then top that off we promte not once, but twice.  Yes Rwanda was a tradegy, and possibly not preventable, but surely some action as opposed to Daillaire's response might have shook the jello tree... I beleive part of his PTSD issue, which I accept is very real and painful for him, is that he is trying to come to grips with the fact that he decided to do nothing....
R2


----------



## Infanteer

Hmm...two of your three posts have managed to rip into the two most active General Officers of the Canadian Army with two sentence attacks, all the while hiding behind a nice anonymous profile.   Is this the usual way for Ottawa snipers to contribute?


----------



## pbi

R2T:



> I am constantly amazed at our ability to lionize a man who so clearly failed in his appointment, then top that off we promte not once, but twice.  Yes Rwanda was a tradegy, and possibly not preventable, but surely some action as opposed to Daillaire's response might have shook the jello tree... I beleive part of his PTSD issue, which I accept is very real and painful for him, is that he is trying to come to grips with the fact that he decided to do nothing....



Perhaps the reason we are proud of him is that given the limited resources at his disposal, and the dysfunctional, bureaucratic system he was trying to work within, he did what he could do, short of launching his own personal bayonet charge. If you say he failed, I agree with you. So does he. But, in his failure he did something very important: he shoved the UN and the world's face in the sh*t that existed in Rwanda, which far too many governments would just like to forget. The Brahini Report, which marked the first time the UN took a really hard look at how it does "peace ops" (whatever those are...) and which built up more steam for a UN Standby Force, was IMHO a direct outcome of his efforts. His real value is as a messenger, exposing the whole sordid story to us and warning us (especially us complacent Canadians) that sometimes the only way to stop bad people is to use force, including killing them quickly before they can get rolling.

As for his promotions, I don't know enough about him to begrudge him his rank. The brief time I spent with him, however, gave me the feeling of a good human being and a natural leader: the best kind of person to wear that rank. I guess you must know him better than me. Which is quite possible, of course. Cheers.


----------



## Slim

R2Truman said:
			
		

> I am constantly amazed at our ability to lionize a man who so clearly failed in his appointment, then top that off we promte not once, but twice.   Yes Rwanda was a tradegy, and possibly not preventable, but surely some action as opposed to Daillaire's response might have shook the jello tree... I beleive part of his PTSD issue, which I accept is very real and painful for him, is that he is trying to come to grips with the fact that he decided to do nothing....
> R2



I guess you missed the whole siries of " How to win friends and influence people" lectures at NDHQ? It was the same day as the "Support good troops and officers" lecture...Don't worry though, those lectures are never well attended.  :

I'm sure you wouldn't have understood anyway.

Slim


----------



## Blindspot

R2Truman said:
			
		

> I am constantly amazed at our ability to lionize a man who so clearly failed in his appointment, then top that off we promte not once, but twice.   Yes Rwanda was a tradegy, and possibly not preventable, but surely some action as opposed to Daillaire's response might have shook the jello tree... I beleive part of his PTSD issue, which I accept is very real and painful for him, is that he is trying to come to grips with the fact that he decided to do nothing....
> R2



Are you from Belgium by any chance?


----------



## Duotone81

R2Truman said:
			
		

> I am constantly amazed at our ability to lionize a man who so* clearly failed in his appointment* , then top that off we promte not once, but twice.   Yes Rwanda was a tradegy, *and possibly not preventable*, but surely some action as opposed to Daillaire's response might have shook the jello tree... I beleive part of his PTSD issue, which I accept is very real and painful for him, is that he is trying to come to grips with the fact that he decided to do nothing....
> R2



He failed to prevent the unpreventable eh? A contradiction n'est pas? Well I'm sure with your witty comments and great logic you would've been able to do more with less and prevent the slaughter of 800000 people with only a handful of poorly trained and equiped Bangladeshi Peace Keepers. He decided to do nothing? I guess he missed the lecture on Carpe Diem at RMC. Or you have no clue what you're talking about perhaps?

Note: I apologise to the Mods and other members of this board if I'm out of line but I have the utmost respect for MGen. Dallaire and I get upset when I hear this sort of slander.


----------



## Lexi

gratefulcivi said:
			
		

> This film is rated 18A.


Rats.


----------



## Slim

We'll paint a moustache on you and sneak you in Lex

Slim


----------



## alan_li_13

Planning to go see it this Tuesday w/ a few of my cadet buddies. Too bad it starts at 3 pm, we'll have to leave school early. 
I'm gonna bring my copy of the book in hopes that he'll be there to sign it.


----------



## KevinB

I always considered Dallaire a failure - and wondered why they sent an Artillery officer to command an Infantry Mission (of course he is French and it was the Artillery's turn  : ).

 Honestly if Dallaire is to be beleived that he sent all these messages about being understrength etc.  You might wonder why he did not do a "Mac" and gone to the Press ???  Or was he just asleep at the switch...


----------



## Redeye

KevinB:

Reference your first statement, while anyone in the CF is entitled to cynicism, his original MOC isn't so important, by the time you make it to being a General in any form, you should have a very thorough understanding of the role of all trades, so I don't think his artillery background is an issue.  For whatever reason, he was the man picked to do the job.

I'm sure in hindsight, the media might have been an effective strategy to get the world to see what he saw - but of course, hindsight is always 20/20, it's when you're on the ground things are different...  Who even knows if it might have been as effective as "Mac"'s choices were?

All I know, for what it's worth, is that I'd never want to trade places with him.


----------



## Gunner

> I always considered Dallaire a failure - and wondered why they sent an Artillery officer to command an Infantry Mission (of course he is French and it was the Artillery's turn   ).  Honestly if Dallaire is to be beleived that he sent all these messages about being understrength etc.  You might wonder why he did not do a "Mac" and gone to the Press   Or was he just asleep at the switch...



Kevin, you posts are generally of better quality than this.  Criticize his actions if you want but explain it with reason vice "armchair general" rationale.  

You know if the Patricia's had a better grip on 2 Cdo the Airborne Regiment wouldn't have been disbanded.  Thanks for ruining it for the rest of the army.   :


----------



## KevinB

Gunner,  I got cuttoff from my full responce.  

 The mission clearly required more troops - when faced with the cold facts that the UN does not care about black africa Dalaire had two choices 1) to pull his troops back into a more protective posture, and let the genocide occur.  2) Go public with the damning evidence that the UN was not interested in stopping the slaughter.

The Third option leave the troops out and let them sit int he breaze was not a rationale option - for while I agree with Mission, Men, Equiptment, Self - as a cornerstone for operations, in an operation where he apparently clearly noted that there was no hope for success it is foolhardy to squander your troops for no possibility of sucess.

On top of that there are reports that he drove past the scene of the Belgian murders while the Para's had been disarmed but where still alive - now I would expect a LEADER to take some personal risk and come to the aid of his beleaguered forces if he was in the direct vicinity.

He chose option 3...


Now IMHO that makes him culpable for the failed mission.


----------



## Gunner

> The mission clearly required more troops - when faced with the cold facts that the UN does not care about black Africa Dalaire had two choices 1) to pull his troops back into a more protective posture, and let the genocide occur.  2) Go public with the damning evidence that the UN was not interested in stopping the slaughter.



I would submit to you that the UN, the world, and the media didn't care sweet tweet about Rwanda, the main focus was on Europe at the time.  How much support can you muster when no one cares about what you are doing.  I've served in Africa and from my perspective, no one really cares about Africa (that goes for the Africans themselves and the remainder of the world).  It is a beautiful continent with untapped potential in terms of its people and resources and all it seems capable of doing is one step forward and three back.



> The Third option leave the troops out and let them sit int he breaze was not a rationale option - for while I agree with Mission, Men, Equiptment, Self - as a cornerstone for operations, in an operation where he apparently clearly noted that there was no hope for success it is foolhardy to squander your troops for no possibility of sucess.



He tried to stop it, but he wasn't able to.  Had he done something else will be academic at this point.  As he himself has stated, he constantly wonders if he should have went down in a blaze of glory trying to stop state sponsored genocide in the country without any mandate and no support from the rest of the world.  Would the Belgians, arguably his best troops, actually have followed him down that path?  Certainly the remainder of his Third World force wouldn't have.



> On top of that there are reports that he drove past the scene of the Belgian murders while the Para's had been disarmed but where still alive - now I would expect a LEADER to take some personal risk and come to the aid of his beleaguered forces if he was in the direct vicinity.


  

Haunts him as well.  What would have accomplished the greater good.  Save the lives of a couple of Belgians or save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Tutsi?  Quite a moral conundrum.  Not sure what I would have done in the same situation because it is simply a "what if" scenario.



> Now IMHO that makes him culpable for the failed mission.



Kevin, I don't disagree that he responsible.  He accepted the mission, led the mission, and now is the public face responsible for its failure.  The deeper issues of UN bungling bureaucracy and security council inaction are not discussed and the nameless bureaucrats have moved on to bigger and better things.  LGen Dallaire lives with the UNs collective failure.


----------



## KevinB

I think we are over our 30min  

 Anyway 1 quick point before I log off.

I agree with your assesment.  I just get irked that we (the CF) have promoted him twice and he is now reaping rewards for his failures.

Speak to a few of the Belgian Para's here  ;D  The aren't to fond of him I'll tell you that.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Redeye, for what it is worth, I totally disagree with the premise that MOC doesn't matter.   

What you do as a youngster has a direct bearing on your makup as a man.   Infantry officers know how to lead, at least the ones that climb through the ranks.   By lead, I mean lead your men in dangerous/arduous times.   Armour (as in tanks) and artillery are not the same.   The ability to have some idea of what Infantry do, and the ability to lead Infantry to do the same, are two different animals.

Take a personal example.   I am armour, and have worked closely with the Infantry on many, many occasions.   I know what they do, and what I do.   And while I would never hesitate to command a tank troop, ask me to take command of an Infantry Platoon, and, well, while I might have the basic knowledge, I could never adequately lead them.

To me, combat arms should lead combat arms.   An artillery officer should never command a Brigade on operations, just as a LEME/EME/RCEME officer shouldn't.

Having said that, we will never know for sure what would have happened with different leadership.   Gen Dallaire is living with his personal "what ifs", and will be haunted for the rest of his life.


----------



## Gunner

Kevin,



> I just get irked that we (the CF) have promoted him twice and he is now reaping rewards for his failures.


  He has become the darling for proponents of intervention all over the world.  I only worked with him once (95) and he seemed a very personable man.  Not sure if he should have been promoted, decorated, etc simply because he was the fall guy for Rwanda, the UN and by extention, Canada.

Lance,



> Infantry officers know how to lead, at least the ones that climb through the ranks.  By lead, I mean lead your men in dangerous/arduous times. Armour (as in tanks) and artillery are not the same.  The ability to have some idea of what Infantry do, and the ability to lead Infantry to do the same, are two different animals.



I have to tell you, there are a whole bunch of armour and artillery officers that would disagree with your definition of leadership.  I guess I would argue that Peace Support Operations are not a traditional infantry job, so, following your logic, they shouldn't lead any missions.



> Take a personal example.  I am armour, and have worked closely with the Infantry on many, many occasions.  I know what they do, and what I do.  And while I would never hesitate to command a tank troop, ask me to take command of an Infantry Platoon, and, well, while I might have the basic knowledge, I could never adequately lead them.



I have to assume you did some type of combined arms training at the combat team level.  Square Combat Team consists of a Inf Coy and Armd Sqn (and other attachments) and command is based on the mission, etc.  Armour leads in the open, Infantry leads in close terrain.  Combined arms means working together to accomplish the mission, not working for the infantry.



> To me, combat arms should lead combat arms.  An artillery officer should never command a Brigade on operations, just as a LEME/EME/RCEME officer shouldn't.



Last time I checked, Armour, Artillery, Engineers and Infantry are all combat arms.  Dallaire wasn't a Brigade Comd in Rwanda, he was the military commander (can't seem to recall who the SRSG was).  He wasn't there to site infantry trenches, he was there to command the UN Mission.  If he wanted infantry trenches sited, he had an Infantry CO to do that for him.  Or don't you like the capabilities of the Belgian Paratroopers?



> Having said that, we will never know for sure what would have happened with different leadership.



That's right we won't.  If it had been somebody else the genocide could have been much worse.



> Gen Dallaire is living with his personal "what ifs", and will be haunted for the rest of his life.



Not only that, he gets to hear armchair generals tell the world what they would have done.


----------



## Infanteer

> Redeye, for what it is worth, I totally disagree with the premise that MOC doesn't matter.



Sorry, I'm with Gunner on this one.  Leading a Platoon or commanding a Tank Crew doesn't really have any bearing on commanding a formation.  By this time, the Officer's have had a lot of similar training.  The tactical employment of one's MOC specialty and the operational employment of the combined arms team are two different things.

We've both argued that cross training should begin much earlier, but MOC gradually loses relevence as an Officer reaches higher ranks (that is why they lose their capbadge).  Are you meaning to tell me that Patton shouldn't of had command because he wasn't an Infantry guy?


----------



## muskrat89

Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't the same logic apply to an Infantry Officer commanding a formation with Armoured or Artillery or Engineer Elements?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

OK, let's see if I can make myself clearer.  

Once an Infanteer, always an Infanteer.  Gen Dallaire was not commanding a combat team, he was commanding a whole bunch of Infanteers, of which only some had what we would consider good training and good leadership.  I submit that an Infanteer may have done a better job than an Artillery man.

Any senior armour or infantry officer can command combined arms operations.  That is not my argument.  My argument, I guess is really two arguments.  I don't think an artillery officer should have been placed on command of Infantry troops.  I don't think it was fair to him, or to those he led.  I also don't believe that an artillery officer has the requisite personal experience to lead a successful combat team, or larger formation.

Out of all of the Brigades we had in WWII, how many were commanded by an artillery officer?


----------



## Acorn

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Out of all of the Brigades we had in WWII, how many were commanded by an artillery officer?



Can't say off the top of my head, but in WWII bdes were more homogeneous. Better to look at div commanders. In any case, IIRC McNaughton was a gunner (commander of the Army and later MND), and I think Crerar was as well. Simmonds? Zipperhead? Not sure, but if he was an infanteer what was he doing commanding an Armoured div, and if he was a black-hat why was he commanding a corps that was mostly infantry? I'd like to point out that the German commander on the Italian peninsula was a Luftwaffe officer. Kesselring was considered quite adept, though he had the advantage of defence.

By the time one hits full Colonel I would expect one has a broad based education in the profession of arms in general, not just one's own arm of service. Dallaire was comd of 5ème bde, and gunner or not, should have had a fundamental understanding of all of the arms under him. I think he acutely feels his failure in Rwanda, and probably second guesses himself often. 

It's easy for those of us who's experience of command (in my case a rifle section with never a shot fired in anger) is limited to judge his choices from the comfort of our living rooms (or, in Kevin's case, the dubious comfort of his tent/jeep/iso trailer) well after the fact with 20/20 hindsight. The difference between a successful general and a failure is often fortune. That he didn't choose the MacKenzie route is only an indication of the differences between those two officers, and should not be taken as an indictment of Dallaire, or non-infantry commanders.

I've met LGen Dallaire a few times. He was once my bde comd, before Rwanda. I also met him at a time when he was probably near his lowest ebb. The haunted look he had was one of the most disturbing things I have seen (it was shortly after the tragic events of Rwanda, and I whispered to an acquaintance that he was the comd in Rwanda - Dallaire heard the word "Rwanda" and looked at me. A look I will never forget). Most recently I met him at a dedication function. I think his championing of humanitarian interventions is his attempt at atonement for what he himself sees as his failure in Rwanda, and it is what keeps him from being found under Ottawa park benches. In that regard I can grudge him nothing.

His example has done more for Canadian soldiers suffering from mental injuries than anything else - perhaps justifying his promotions. We should thank him for that, if nothing else.

Acorn


----------



## gratefulcivi

Did anybody actually see the film?  How was it?

I'd hoped to post a review, but I drove in from out of town and had my [expletive] car die before I got there.  Some valves and pistons unsuccessfully tried to occupy the same space at the same time.  :crybaby:   Really helpless feeling, being made immobile in a strange city.  CAA towed me home, thank God for that.

I'm not stalking LGen Dallaire (and I'm not his publicist either), but I saw this the other day too, and I thought it also might be of interest (Sharing the stage with Linda McQuaig and Naomi "No Logo" Klein?  What a bizarre combination!):  

http://www.uoftbookstore.com/online/merchant.ihtml?pid=695143&step=4 

Navigating a New World Conference Tickets
Random House of Canada and the University of Toronto Bookstore Reading Series proudly present NAVIGATING A NEW WORLD. Join us for this extraordinary day of ideas, debate and discussion that will focus on Canada and the urgent challenges facing the international community today. This exceptional event features speakers LGEN ROMEO DALLAIRE, LINDA MCQUAIG, LLOYD AXWORTHY, NAOMI KLEIN, THOMAS HOMER-DIXON AND IRSHAD MANJI, and moderators CAROL OFF AND BILL CAMERON.Tickets can be purchased at the University of Toronto Bookstore Special Orders Desk (2nd floor of the Bookstore), online at www.uoftbookstore.com, or by calling (416) 978-7989/(416) 978-7908. All tickets are non-refundable. A portion of the proceeds from ticket sales will be donated to PEN Canada. TICKETS ON SALE SEPT 7TH, 2004.

Product Code: 46130
Note: Saturday November 6th, 2004
Convocation Hall
1 King'd College Circle
9:30am to 6:00pm
Comment: Tickets are Non-Refundable


----------



## pbi

Lance said:



> Once an Infanteer, always an Infanteer.  Gen Dallaire was not commanding a combat team, he was commanding a whole bunch of Infanteers, of which only some had what we would consider good training and good leadership.  I submit that an Infanteer may have done a better job than an Artillery man.



Or maybe a worse job, or maybe no difference at all. His real role as the mission commander was not to be engaged at the tactical level, and after the rank of LCol, we generally train officers to be able to command operations of all arms, as most armies do. At that level the officer is leading other officers, and leading troops only indirectly. Gen Dallaire had a Belgian Col who was his "Inf SME"-Dallaire's immediate focus was on the military-political level of things, which is where the mission commander is expected to focus. It really was immaterial what his MOC was: it was an issue of human qualities not technical training. 

As for the supposed "lack" of ability of Artillery officers to understand or command other arms, I disagree completely, based on my own expreience and on current facts. First, when I was commanding a rifle coy, I learned over time that if I were to be taken out of action, the best guy to take over was not one of my young Pl Comds (forget the  Coy 2IC-he'll probably never get fwd in time) but instead my FOO, assuming that officer was otherwise competent (which they almost always were). The FOO has to understand the tactical working of  the other arms, and he must be intimately familiar with the tactical plan of hte commander he is supporting, as the lives of the assaulting inf, sappers and tankers depend to a great extent on how well he does his work. I found that with most FOOs, I needed to give only a minimum of explanation: they "got it" pretty quickly. As well, a FOO was normally a more experienced guy who had been through a few attacks, etc unlike the Pl Comds.

Second, I give you the current example of the past Commander of 1 CMBG, now Comd LFWA: BGen Stu Beare. You would, I think, have to go far to find a better Bde Comd in our Army. And he is a Gunner! I have seen some Inf and Armd Bde Comds who were abysmally bad: it really isn't about the capbadge, it's about the person wearing it. Cheers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Can't say off the top of my head, but in WWII bdes were more homogeneous. Better to look at div commanders. In any case, IIRC McNaughton was a gunner (commander of the Army and later MND), and I think Crerar was as well. Simmonds? Zipperhead? Not sure, but if he was an infanteer what was he doing commanding an Armoured div, and if he was a black-hat why was he commanding a corps that was mostly infantry? I'd like to point out that the German commander on the Italian peninsula was a Luftwaffe officer. Kesselring was considered quite adept, though he had the advantage of defence.




Simonds was a gunner also.  The black beret came from Monty, not the RCAC!  The senior commanders of the Canadian Army were very shy about promoting gunners to top command because there were so many of them - it started to look like freemasonry!  But Matthews was also a gunner and was a very good division commander, Copp says because of the fact he was a gunner.  Doctrine was firmly artillery based in any event - the brigades were indeed more homogenous, BUT don't forget they all included their "own" field regiment of 25 pounders.  The arty reps worked very closely with the infantry - they had to - and post war accounts don't show very well, in my opinion, how closely the infantry brigades were to "their" field regiments.  The official orbat had the three field regiments belonging to divisional headquarters and the CRA (Commander, Royal Artillery).  In practice, my understanding is that it was different.

Infantry officers didn't seem to be too successful as division commanders - Hoffmeister was outstanding, and he commanded an armoured division!  Vokes was competent but not at all brilliant.


----------



## Gunner

> Copp says because of the fact he was a gunner.



Smart man, Terry Copp is.  An excellent judge of character.


----------



## pbi

BTW-the list of soddingly useless senior types incls a few Gunners, too: so don't get too much of a head on. 


Cheers


----------



## Gunner

Must have been air defence artillery officers ...


----------



## Fruss

Hey guys, sorry to bring back an old topic to life  ;D

I was wondering if any of you knew if the movie that LGen Dallaire made was to go out on DVD???  I haven't had a chance to see it at the Vancouver film festival..  :-[

Any of you with some information??

Frank


----------



## Big Foot

I personally am a supporter of LGen Dallaire. I have had the opportunity to both hear him speak and discuss with him at length what he experienced in Rwanda. For those who call him a failure, I must concede that yes, he did fail in his mandate. But at the same time, it is ridiculous to blame the failure on the fact he was an artillery officer or a french officer. If I recall correctly, in his book, he recounts speaking numerous times to General Baril about the situation, trying to influence some semblence of international support at the UN, yet after his plea for help, he gets sent a bunch of unarmed, decrepit, obselete American APCs. How was the man supposed to suceed in this mission? The mission was a victim of international apathy, not the fault of one general. LGen Dallaire put his faith in the system, and the system failed him and the hundreds of thousands who lost their lives in the massacre. In the aftermath of the event, he was broken, as he tried to take his own life several times. Yet some question his character? I do not believe there is any way to question the character or ability of an accomplished general who put his faith in the international system yet failed because a few politicians decided that Bosnia was more important due to its proximity to Europe. I say it is the politicians, not General Dallaire who should be blamed for what happened 10 years ago. Before we criticize him for the actions he took, we must ask ourselves, based on our training, what would we have done? Would it have worked out any better? At the time the media didn't seem to care so what difference would it have made if he did go to the media, as it was suggested? It was a hopeless situation, a situation I hope this world and all military personnel never see again. It is a dark chapter in the UNs history and a failure of humanity. Please, give the General some respect. He did what he could, but failed because of an apathetic international community.


----------



## Dare

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1153389189813

One last dance with the devil
On location in Rwanda, as the cast and crew of Shake Hands with the Devil try to recreate an unimaginable horror
Jul. 22, 2006. 09:14 AM
ALLAN THOMPSON
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

KINIHIRA, Rwanda—Against a stunning backdrop of verdant hills checkered with terraced farm plots, banana groves and mud houses, Roy Dupuis sits alone, quietly transforming himself into Roméo Dallaire.

The steely-eyed Quebec actor cast as the retired Canadian general is practising his lines, murmuring unfamiliar military lingo that wasn't part of his English vocabulary before taking the role of Canada's most famous soldier for the film version of Dallaire's Rwanda genocide memoir, Shake Hands with the Devil.

Dupuis, whose most recent role was hockey legend Rocket Richard, is sipping a can of Nestea and puffing Gauloise cigarettes. Finally, he gets up to stroll across the set and chat with crew members, lamenting that he forgot to bring the charger for his camera and won't be able to snap his own photos of the scenery that so mesmerized Dallaire, whose tragic story inspired this film.

Squint your eyes just a bit and the handsome 43-year-old Dupuis looks eerily like Dallaire, sporting a carefully groomed moustache, summer tan uniform and authentic blue beret. Indeed, Dupuis is even wearing Dallaire's original army nametag and decorations from 1994.

Dallaire is collaborating on this project — right down to a line-by-line review of the script — and insisted on giving Dupuis the decorations to add authenticity.

He also gave Dupuis something of himself.

"I feel a real connection with this man. He opened up to me," Dupuis says during an interview on the set, the first time he has spoken with media since the gruelling shoot began in Rwanda a month ago. "I'm here because of him."

In a chapel at the St. Jean military base near Montreal, Dallaire and Dupuis talked for hours. "Mostly he talked and I listened. He was generous because he wants this story told."

"This is the first time I accepted doing a movie without reading the scenario first," Dupuis says. "It was mainly my meeting with this man that got to me on this. This story should not die, it should be remembered so that maybe we could stop something like another genocide from happening."

Like others, Dupuis acknowledges he barely noticed news of the Rwanda genocide in 1994. "I recall hearing about it, that's pretty much it. Then basically when he started talking about it, it was like, `Holy shit, what happened over there?'"

In this tiny central African country that witnessed the slaughter of up to 1 million people when Hutu extremists set out to exterminate the Tutsi minority and Hutu moderates, Dupuis and the rest of the production team are visiting sites that are the virtual stations of the cross of the Rwanda genocide.

Cast and crew alike have been struck by the breathtaking beauty of the country and the crushing poverty. Ragged bands of small children line the roadway to every shooting location, calling out "muzungu" (Kinyarwanda for "white man") and asking for empty water bottles to reuse.

Shooting in Rwanda has added authenticity — including the red dust that covers nearly everything — but it has proved complicated and expensive. The country has no film industry and none of the gear — cranes, booms or complicated lighting equipment — required by major movie productions.

On this day, the set is a magnificent vantage point near a tiny village called Kinihira, a spot that Dallaire regarded as his secret place. Amid the carnage of the genocide, this is where the Canadian general who commanded a doomed United Nations mission would retreat to "become human again."

And Dupuis says that is exactly the Roméo Dallaire that he intends to portray, a human being, not a hero.

"In a sense it is a heroic role because he went — in French we say `au-delà de lui-même' — farther than himself. But he did not succeed in what he would have wanted to do, so that's why he sees himself as not being a hero.

`I'm not trying to play a hero. I'm trying to play everything I feel about him, as a human being'

Roy Dupuis, actor

"I'm not trying to play a hero. I'm trying to play everything I feel about him, as a human being."

Shake Hands with the Devil is being produced by Laszlo Barna and Michael Donovan. The film will be distributed next year in Canada by Seville Pictures. Donovan, who won an Oscar for the Michael Moore documentary Bowling for Columbine, has spent the past four years on the Dallaire project.

The director, Ottawa-born Roger Spottiswoode, says the movie will be a compelling, factual account of Dallaire's Rwanda experience, all the more real for being shot on location. Early plans to shoot in South Africa were quickly abandoned after Spottiswoode visited Rwanda himself.

"It is the story of a disaster for a country and the personal disaster of a person who was put into a meat grinder and left with very little," Spottiswoode says during a lunch break on the set, pausing only to marvel at the spectacular scenery.

"It's the story of a great tragedy and a remarkable person ... It's a story that has actually not been told before, even though people may think it has. I hope we'll get past them thinking Hotel Rwanda is the only story."

This is the first feature-film depiction of Dallaire's story. The Hollywood production Hotel Rwanda featured Nick Nolte in a composite character — a hard-drinking Canadian colonel — that was loosely based on Dallaire, but was neither a flattering nor accurate portrayal.

Both Dupuis and Spottiswoode spent hours talking to Dallaire about the film.

"He was very, very clear that this was not to be the story of a hero. He doesn't see it that way at all. I said that I understood that but that I would do my best to make it a truthful portrayal of him," Spottiswoode says. "But I can't alter the facts to make less of him.

"He was unable to prevent this happening, he stayed here as a witness to these events and could not carry the burden later. He's a sort of Shakespearean character," Spottiswoode says.

The film will also include difficult scenes of Dallaire's suicide attempts.

"I told him I was going to do it and I don't think he liked it very much, but he didn't stop me. I don't know how much he will approve of what we are doing. I hope his friends tell him that we got it right, but it will be painful," Spottiswoode says.

"We have to sort of part company. I'm not making it for him. I'm making it for other people. It's going to be kind of brutal in a way and I hope it will be honest."

The script moves back and forth between Dallaire's time in Rwanda and the period of his mental collapse and retirement from the military years later, with the Dallaire character speaking to a therapist.

Dallaire was scheduled to travel to Rwanda early this month to visit the set, but cancelled at the last minute.

"He's tired, that's what they told us," Spottiswoode says. "To be honest, it was unimaginable to me that he could ever come. How could you come back and see this being reproduced?"

One scene takes Dallaire through a village where there were so many bodies on the road that he had to get out and remove them to drive through. In another he encounters the body of a woman who has been brutally raped.

"We're just trying to be accurate and honest and not do a sort of Hollywood movie," Spottiswoode says.

"We're not changing events; we're not doing heroic shots or heroic moments. We're not using movie techniques to create a leading character. We're portraying somebody who went through a very difficult time and doing it honestly."Please see Devil, H8

Additional articles by Allan Thompson


----------



## Blindspot

Is Roy Dupuis the only French-Canadian actor?


----------



## triniman

I saw the film this evening, opening night.

It was very good and not overly Hollywood slick.  It's actually deliberately not a Hollywood production.  I can also see how some people would find the story a bit hard to follow, due to the amount of detail.  I thought Roy Dupuis was excellent.

I haven't read the book, but hopefully others can give their opinion on how the film and the book compares.


----------



## brihard

I saw the movie tonight.

It's been some time since I read the book, but the movie seemed to follow rather well, and didn't pull any punches. I don't think the crowd in the Bytowne Theatre in Ottawa were expecting to see half decomposed corpses on the screen. Lots of very quiet people in that audience after the movie. Personally I think it's something everyone should see. Make folks realize we don't life in a storybook world with happy endings occuring of their own volition...


----------



## ZBM2

Mr. Dallaire failed big time in the mission and gained a succesful career and public life from it, playing the sympathy card.

Im with Infidel-6 - 100%


----------



## alfie

He left the Belgian Partroops to die, wonder if they were Canadian if he would have done the same?


----------



## Petard

I think the movie is very timely, just in time to shut the yaps of these people wanting us to quit Afghanistan and are clinging to the Canadian myth of the good old days of peace keeping.


----------



## MPSHIELD

I usually don't post many comments as I usually just read them however I would like to add a few comments on this topic:

I watched the movie a week ago. I also read the book in 2004. The book went into more detail but you can't cover everything in a movie. I believe the movie did a good job portraying the events that took place. As mentioned in other posts, it was nice to see that it was not "hollywoodized" and had a Canadian "flavor" to it. A lot of money, time and effort were put into this film to make it as realistic as possible including filming in the actual locations that the events happened. Although the movie is more graphic than I thought it would be I believe that it was an important aspect of the movie in order to tell the story.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some people say he failed; and I'm not saying he did or didn't. However I believe based on what i read in the book, news articles and some research i did on the internet (after i read the book) that he did the best he could given what he was directed to do, resources he had to do it with and the bureaucratic red tape he dealt with at the UN.

I would also like to add that I don't believe that he is "playing the sympathy card". I don't think seeing what he saw and going through what he did is worth any status he has received from it. With the negative side of things, there are some positive. With this “status” he has created the General Roméo Dallaire Foundation  which is a charitable foundations for less privileges children. After his experience he worked with DND, CF and veterans affairs in matters relating to post-traumatic stress disorder. When he came back, there were no organizations or social programs within DND as the understanding of PTSD was limited at the time. He helped organize the program our soldiers are using today when they come back from Afghanistan.

I'm posting this not to start a bun fight, only to pass my opinion on this thread and shine a different light on the subject.


----------



## CougarKing

Resurrecting this because of a notable update:



> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7789039.stm
> 
> *18 years after he played with 'the devil' with whom Romeo Dallaire shook hands, the 'villain' of 'Hotel Rwanda' is getting his just desserts.
> 
> Accused of organizing and equipping the interamwe militias responsible for killing 800 000 people in three months in 1994. Theoneste Bagosora was sentenced to life in prison by a UN Tribunal.* Bagostora was convicted on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes along with two other military commanders.


----------



## geo

Not quite "and they lived happily ever after..." but, a fitting end to such a tragic story.


----------

