Template talk:Congo Crisis footer

Africa: DRC Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Please see the discussion started at

Is there a specific reason to mention Belgians as a separate 'kind' of commanders (i.e. as opposed to 'regular' mercenaries)? I would argue that both Belgians like Vandewalle and e.g. French like Faulques were military personnel hired to serve in foreign armies, being both mercenaries. The phrasing 'Belgian and mercenary...' could suggest that Belgians had some other kind of characteristics than the other mercenaries, no? CBJH (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptually, I agree - but I think we need to indicate that "commanders" includes both Belgian and Mercenary. Maybe "Commanders (Belgian and mercenary)" ?? Farawayman (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But is there something specifically Belgian about the Belgian mercenaries and commanders in Katanga/Congo/Kasai/...? Were they on the payroll of the Belgian state during their stay in Congo/Katanga/...? And conversely, were the French, South Africans,... then not on the payroll of their home country? Vandewalle, for instance, was at the service of Katanga and then directly to Congo, so not a part of the Belgian army (at least officially).CBJH (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mercenaries, military advisors, Belgian paratroopers, Cuban pilots and Belgian Logistic units were all effectively part of the ANC, thus indirectly funded by Belgium (and possible the United States). See §14 of UN Security Council minutes of meeting of 23 December 1964 (you can find it [here)]. This is a very interesting document, well worth looking at on this subject! So from this perspective, all commanders other than UN units should be grouped together as we have discussed above, but for ease of navigation - I still think we need to show them separately per origin. We could consider Level 1 header: Commanders, Level 2.1: Mercenaries; Level 2.2 Belgian; Level 2.3 Other <here we include the US, Cuban and other> leadership? Farawayman (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A fascinating read indeed! Separating per origin sounds fine by me.CBJH (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]