Jump to content

Talk:Portuguese Colonial War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Malawi's role

[edit]

So, I've removed Malawi from the list of supporters of Portugal on the infobox. My research-- and forgive me, I'm not sure how to format links, so I'm going to copy/paste the URL's-- suggests that while Malawi tried to avoid antagonizing Portugal, it would be a stretch to call them "pro-Portuguese".

Link 1: (https://books.google.com/books?id=vLzp_zs1t6cC&pg=PA524&lpg=PA524&dq=malawi+frelimo&source=bl&ots=xcFR82Y5SD&sig=rlbpA7am-2767Fzl9EXV8icTGJE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBmoVChMIwvKe84yLxwIVklKSCh1vTA81#v=onepage&q=malawi%20frelimo&f=false) In this link from a History of Mozambique, we see that Malawi's leader Hastings Banda tried to stop FRELIMO from using Malawi as a staging ground to attack Portuguese targets in 1965. That doesn't mean he was pro-Portugal; it could just mean he didn't want to be dragged into the war.

Link 2: (https://books.google.com/books?id=FuXPkCVjzasC&pg=PA309&lpg=PA309&dq=malawi+frelimo&source=bl&ots=9xkF0f2dDf&sig=KKR7uKvnYGgHZXYtG9lYYe2x5wc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDoQ6AEwB2oVChMIwvKe84yLxwIVklKSCh1vTA81#v=onepage&q=malawi%20frelimo&f=false) This link, from a Historical Dictionary of Malawi is more specific about Malawi's role. It states that Banda allowed FRELIMO to maintain an office in Blantyre, but prohibited them from using Malawian territory to attack Portuguese targets, as discussed above. It further says that when Mozambique achieved independence, Malawi "applauded the change and supported Mozambican independence." Again, this hardly sounds like they're pro-Portuguese.

So, that is my justification for removing Malawi from the Portuguese camp on the infobox. If anyone objects, I would be happy to discuss it here or on my talk page (ideally here, as it's more "centrally located"). Again, my apologies for the unformatted links. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A little follow-up: User:121.147.238.203 attempted to re-add Malawi with a source. The source in question is a book called Prominent African Leaders Since Independence. It appears to be either a self-published book or a publish-on-demand book, judging by the cover design. The author, Bridgette Kasuka, has written or edited other books with titles like African Leaders, Leaders of Post-Colonial Africa, and Independence Leaders of Africa. Some of these books are published by CreateSpace or by something called the New Africa Press. If you look at the entry for Leopold Sedar Senghor in African Leaders (which you can do on Amazon), you will find that it is plagiarized word-for-word from Senghor's English Wikipedia article. I'm aware that books based on Wikipedia articles do get published, but they still shouldn't be used as sources for Wikipedia, which strives to avoid self-referentiality. So, taking all of this into consideration, I think it safe to say that Bridgette Kasuka's books are not reliable sources. I have therefore once again removed Malawi from the list of countries that supported Portugal in the war. Again, if someone can provide a reliable source to support Malawi being pro-Portugual, I will happily let it stand. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the Rhodesian Armoured Car Regiment

[edit]

Greetings. I've added a dubious tag to the claim that the Rhodesian Armoured Car Regiment was "formed" and "copied" from the Batalhão de Cavalaria 1927 (1927 Cavalry Battalion), because at the article for Rhodesian Armoured Car Regiment (which redirects to Rhodesian Armoured Corps), it states that the unit had existed since WWII and saw service in Italy. My question then is: which is it?

The sentence under dispute is worded like this: "Again the Rhodesians would copy this concept forming the Rhodesian Armoured Car Regiment." The way this sentence reads, it clearly states that the Rhodesian unit was formed from the concept of Batalhão de Cavalaria 1927. Perhaps it's just an issue of phrasing? Perhaps the Rhodesian Armoured Car Regiment already existed but took cues from the Portuguese unit? Or perhaps we have a misguided redirect, and the Rhodesian Armoured Car Regiment mentioned in this article is distinct from the Rhodesian Armoured Corps that it links to? Clarity on this issue from an expert on this topic would be much appreciated. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording for a moral neutral description. I am sure that the Rhodesian Armored Car Regiment, as was the case with other Rhodesian units, studied the Portuguese experience. Yosy (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]

Currently, it is more than four paragraphs. As complex as the subject, per MOS:LEAD, we should appeal the reader more without giving too many details. Well, most readers read just the lead and run off to another page after page reading just intros. Normally, no more than four paragraphs is encouraged. Id est if more than four paragraphs, then there should be no more than five. See Napoleon as example. --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armament and Tactics

[edit]

Could we cut some of the text giving the minutiae about every rifle ever used by anyone during the conflict? As far as I can see, very little of the section entitled "Armament and tactics" is actually important to understanding the history of the conflict...—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armament and tactics are fundamental to the fighting of any conflict, and small arms in particular in successfully fighting a guerrilla war, which is what took place during the PCW. As Mao said, Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun [not flowers]. -Dellant (talk). 2 September 2016

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Portuguese Colonial War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Last to leave"

[edit]

"Portugal had been the first modern European power to establish a colony in Africa when it captured Ceuta in 1415 and it was now the last to leave."
Well.. Ceuta is still Spanish territory. How then was Portugal the last to "leave" Africa? Prinsgezinde (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceuta (like Melilla) is not a colony. Portugal was the last European power to leave Africa. The end of empire is a massive shift in Portuguese history and that needs to be underscored in the intro. But I get your point...will change the phrasing Yosy (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supports

[edit]

@84.81.77.172: : Text mentions active support of South Africa of Rhodesia. France and Germanies "only" sold weapons, without providing them for free. Somalia isn't mentionned at all.Le Petit Chat (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the other nations? Not mentioned at all. And if they are mentioned, there are no sources added. And that also won't explain the unexplained removal of the other nations that allegedly assisted Mozambique. On a side note, I added a ref for the addition of Somalia now. 84.81.77.172 (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
South Africa and Rhodesia should definitely remain, as they provided active combat and logistical support to the colonial regime. France and West Germany sold these weapons to Portugal at a time when Portugal was generally panned on the international stage KyleSClauson (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"37mm rocket launchers"

[edit]

There was and is no such thing, this part of the article must be an error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.12.106 (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A question

[edit]

What does it means "40,000-80,000 guerrillas + 30,000 in Angola" under the strength column? Laney145 (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Verde and São Tomé and Príncipe?

[edit]

@Havsjö: The Portuguese Colonial War happened in Portugal's African colonies of Angola, Mozambique and Portuguese Guinea. Why didn't the Portuguese Colonial War also happened in Cape Verde and São Tomé and Príncipe? ColorfulSmoke (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and Spain?

[edit]

Israel and Spain definitely supported Portugal, you got it all wrong 212.237.119.156 (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are needed for the economic impact of war

[edit]

Not enough sources about the economic impact of war. The colonial war and the Salazar regime is still controversial in Portugal, and often open to misunderstandings. It is important to have appropriate sources about this, particularly when it is stated that Portugal was rapidly converging to the rest of Europe (but apparently gdp was increasing but still significantly lower than other European countries). It seems like propaganda... 2001:818:E24A:9200:84CA:7BF1:EF08:5A6 (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The result saying "End of the Portuguese Empire"

[edit]

I don't understand why in the result it states that the portuguese empire ended, when in 1951, which is before the war even started, Portugal abolished their "colonial empire" title and changed the statues of their african territories from "colonies" to overseas provinces. However, if we consider that the empire only ended when the portuguese stopped having overseas territories then wouldn't it have ended in 1999 with the handover of Macau? I believe the first statement should be taken out of the result as it is misinformation/false. Javext (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UNITA helping Portugal

[edit]

@KyleSClauson Hello!

Do you have any source to back up the claim that from 1972 UNITA joined the Portuguese side? It doesn't feel right that an organization called "National Union for the Total Independence of Angola" was supporting the Portuguese, who called the African rebels "terrorists" and were against Angola's independence. Javext (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I link my source later in the article, here it is:
Telepneva, Natalia (2022). Cold War Liberation: The Soviet Union and the Collapse of the Portuguese Empire in Africa, 1961-1975. The University of North Carolina Press. p. 145. ISBN 978-1-4696-6586-3. KyleSClauson (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Portuguese_Colonial_War&oldid=1252175775"