Talk:South African Border War

Argentina minor ally

Why is Argentina listed as a minor ally? There's no reference to anything it did to support SADF/UNITA in the war. 67.171.69.236 (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree - removed. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Add other countries qualifying as minor allies

If the USA is listed as a 'minor ally' because it provided weapons to UNITA, then Zaire should be included as a minor ally as well. In fact according to the UNITA entry, the following countries also provided support to UNITA: "UNITA received support from the governments of Bulgaria,[6] Egypt, France, Israel, Morocco, the People's Republic of China, North Korea (although North Korea later recognized the MPLA government), Saudi Arabia, South Africa, the United States, Zaire,[7] and Zambia.[8][9]" I suggest that either:

(a) those countries be added as minor allies (if supplying aid is sufficient to meet the 'minor ally' test, or (b) an explanation be clearly articulated as to why only the USA and Argentina qualify as 'minor allies'; or (c) the 'minor ally' section should just be removed. 67.171.69.236 (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Soviets as a belligerent?

I know that the Soviets provided military support to the Cubans and MPLA government in this war, but does this rise to the level of being an active participant? Did USSR personnel accompany communist forces into battle, for example, or fly air missions (covert or otherwise)? If not, I suggest that the USSR should be removed from the belligerent list. On the other hand, if supplying weapons is sufficient to rise to the level of belligerency in this case, then other countries (such as the United States and Mobutu's Zaire) should probably be added to the list. I raise this point because there is no reference to active USSR participation in the conflict in the text of the article itself. Jkp1187 (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. Certainly, the Soviet Union's direct role was limited in many ways. However, there is documented evidence of Soviet advisors being deployed in combat leadership roles alongside FAPLA troops and there are reports of Soviet pilots manning the aircraft of at least one fighter squadron in the conflict, which in itself may be sufficient to warrant their inclusion as a belligerent. Yet it is true that they did not commit significant numbers of forces to the conflict, relying instead mostly on the funding and arming of their proxies. Nevertheless, I think their role was probably significant enough that the list should remain as it is now. — Impi (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps a mention of this report should be made in the article itself? Jkp1187 (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

East Germany?

Never heard about the DDR being involved with this case.

(User:TheWatcherREME)) —Preceding comment was added at 18:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not mentioned anywhere in the text or in one if the subarticles. I'll remove it from the infobox. 80.218.211.204 (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Objectivity

THIS PAGE IS NOT OBJECTIVE

For example, the following extract:

While many (mostly white male) South Africans served in the South African Defence Force during the war, hundreds of thousands of digruntled white youths refused to participate in what they saw as an illegitimate and illegal war (while some had no knowledge of Soviet 'expansionist' policies on the sub-continent; the racial exclusive polices of PW Botha were drummed into them night, after night.) Groups such as the End Conscription Campaign and Committee on South African War Resistance actively campaigned against the conflict, were later banned while the then-banned ANC called for combatants on the South African side to desert.

This is utter bullshit.

"hundreds of thousands of digruntled white" Could the author give a reference for this statement. To my knowledge, the number of south african conscripts was between 300 and 500 thousand. Did more than a third of the people that were conscripted refuse??

The End Conscription Campaign and its resistance to apartheid and the call-up is an extremely well-documented part of South African history and has received considerable coverage in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report as well as a variety of publications. Would you like the telephone number of MEC Cameron Dugmore who will be able to help you get a sense of reality?

"the racial exclusive polices of PW Botha were drummed into them night, after night" Oh. In Apartheid South Africa there was freedom of the press, even though it was monitored. Did PW Botha phone every white youth to tell him his racial policies?. Did he force youths to watch television. What about the people who didn't have television?

The truth is a number of publications, including editions of the Mail and Guardian, were banned outright. Organisations such as the ECC and Congress of South African War Resisters]] were banned and driven underground. Not only were publications and organisations banned, but many activists were detained without trial, placed under house arrest, confined to barracks or simply disappeared.

Ethnopunk 13:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"Groups such as the End Conscription Campaign and Committee on South African War Resistance" You can create a lot of peace-groups by giving names to any 10 hippies that smoke pot. This is the FIRST time I heard of these groups. How many members did these groups have? What was the influence of these groups? Did they really have any influence?

Yes they had an enormous influence over the youth, in addition to underground parties and cultural events, the End Conscription Campaign was aided by Voelvry, the so-called Alternative Afrikaner movement and other movements within the country. During the last stages of Apartheid, hundreds of thousands of conscripts failed to report for duty and the SADF was faced with a virtual collapse of its intake.

Ethnopunk 13:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This extract has a problem with the apartheid governments propaganda, but it turns out that this is a worse piece of propaganda.

It would seem that you are the one to have fallen for the propoganda.

The ECC had a great influence. Thanks to the apartheid government's banning and general control of the media, not all South Africans may have been exposed to its efforts. However, hundreds of thousands of white people certainly did not refuse to participate because they saw the war as illegal. A small but significant number were brave enough to face the wrath of the apartheid government, and did so because of their principles - the 15 who refused in 1987 were probably instrumental in getting the ECC banned. Many more studied, and left the country in order to avoid conscription. As apartheid unravelled, and it became clear conscription would no longer be continuing, a much larger number simply didn't turn up. The 'hundreds of thousands' quote needs to be removed, and the general tone made more NPOV, no matter how correct the sentiments are. Also, the opposition topic should be expanded to include international opposition. Greenman 22:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

While I accept that it is practically impossible to document each and every instance of desertion, and that a lot of conscripts simply didn't turn up, how pray tell, are we going to arrive at a consensus figure that doesn't denigrate the enormous effort made by the ECC whilst banned. Surely even the ECC can see the problem of taking an ideological stance on this issue?

We don't need to. NPOV implies giving fair representation to all views, not trying to water down everything into a consensus view, or do new research. If there's an ECC source quoting hundreds of thousands, fine, let's quote that. If there's a SADF source quoting no impact at all, let's quote that too. The reader should be able to make up their mind as to the reliability of the various sources. Even if there's a consensus historical number that's much lower, whatever it is, I don't think that denigrates the impact of the ECC at all. Greenman 09:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Let's do that, include both views. I'm sure there's probably a scientific study that needs to be done, but for the mean while, I'm sticking with hundreds of thousands.Ethnopunk 13:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Hundreds of thousands" sounds extremely high though, and I've certainly never seen any credible claims anywhere close to that level. Indeed, considering that there were only a few hundred thousand men of military age available for conscription at the time, and that the SADF evidently had satisfactory call-up percentages, it would appear that the claim is impossible. This doesn't take anything away from the ECC, which was considered enough of a threat to be banned, but it would seem that a combination of societal disapproval and the risk of hefty penalties for non-compliance (plus the need to go into exile) prevented larger numbers from deserting or dodging the draft. — Impi 17:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You are right the number of ppl who refused to do conscription (and went to jail) was very low (I would estimate less than 100 maybe, though this is pure speculation). Only after 1990 did people refuse to answer call-ups on a large scale (I was one of them), but by then the SADF didn't care anyway. I don't think a figure should be quoted. The ECC was a very active and high profile organisation though. I had first heard of them in school and they were quite active on Wits campus when I was there (late 80's).--My name is joe 17:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps one has to distinguish btw three periods and categories. Those who objected prior to 1990. Those who objected after 1990 but before the morotorium in 1993/1994.Those who deserted or went AWOL before 1990, those who deserted or went AWOL after 1990 but before the morotorium 1993/1994; and those who are still technically AWOL despite the morotorium. Let's not forget that the ECC wasn't the only organisation banned or against the SADF. There was also the Committee on South African War Resistance. Also, the distinction between internal exile and exile abroad is meaningless. The fact remains that hundreds, if not thousands of draft-dodgers, war-resisters and objectors to war, caused the SADF to literally grind to a halt that the armed forces would never have lasted unless CODESA had brokered a peace settlement.Ethnopunk 13:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the Border War, a conflict which existed until early 1989. CODESA is completely irrelevant, as are desertions after early 1989, and they have no place in this article. The fact remains that there were never sufficient desertions during the Border War period to noticeably hamper the SADF's performance, let alone cause it to "grind to a halt". Unless you can prove the outlandish claim that "hundreds of thousands" of white South Africans refused the call-up and deserted it should be left out. — Impi 16:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just has a look at an Argus from September 1989, and there is an article that mentions 700 conscientious objectors during that month alone. I'll upload the ref, as soon as I get the printout from the national library. Ethnopunk 13:45, 30 June

2006 (UTC)

In your article, the South African Defense Force entered Angola in 1965, 1966 and 1967 and returned in 1975. Can you explain this gap???

British Comandos in Angola

I know for a fact that they were driven out by a small force of British Commandos, this happened in 1971. Why is it that nothing is mentioned about the British commandos exploits in confronting the South African Defense Force (SADF) in Angola and against the enormous odds that they prevailed against???? I met these Commandos, they were black and spoke the queen's english and said that they were Angolans. I have search for articles about them but have been unsuccessful. Does anyone now anything about them???

The forces deployed before 1975 were in a defensive capability in then-South-West Africa, aside from small advisory groups in Angola. That's because the Portuguese government still had its forces deployed in Angola at the time. Operation Savannah in 1975 was the first SADF incursion into Angola and occurred only because the Portuguese had withdrawn completely after a coup in Lisbon. So it's extremely unlikely that there was any SADF incursion into Angola in 1971, that British Commandos were involved or that there was a battle at all. I'm sorry, but I think you were fleeced. Darren (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I was repeatedly in Angola, for lenghthy stays, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and am on solid ground when entirely agreeing with Impi. -- Aflis (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy

A major incursion by South Africa into Angola occurred during Operation Savannah, when South African forces advanced 3,159 km in 33 days to within artillery range of the Angolan capital of Luanda.

It would be extremely difficult to drive 3000 kilometers in Angola without driving around in circles. Unless Moses was the commander, I don't think the advance was 3000 km. Angola's shoreline is 1600 kilometers long. Luanda is 2/3's away from the lowest point of the border between angola and namibia/south west africa. I think that the moron who wrote this article can't use Control-C and Control-V correctly.

About the 3159km in 33 days. The advance wasn't along a straight line. I will soon put up a map that shows the advance. ~franco~

THIS PART IS 100% FACT, MY BROTHER, A G5 GUNNER, WAS THERE!!! The only moron here is the pipsqueek, namely you!

What an edifying picture: unidentified contributors insulting each other!!! -- As to the disputed fact: during the decolonization conflict in Angola, May 1974 to November 1975, a SADF colummn drove on a non-linear route from the Namibian border to a place about 100km from Luanda: there are dozens of sources to establish that. At that stage, Cuban troops were already present in the Luanda region, and had helped to stop the military forces of the FNLA which had entered Angola from the north. Combined Angolan (MPLA) and Cuban forces then "turned around", stopped the South African column, and drove it back. In this, a pivotal role was played by a numer of young Portuguese military officers who joined the Angolan forces. -- Aflis (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Casualty figures

It would be great if there were some casualty figures shown, though this will be disputed so perhaps we can discuss here first. The only figures I found on the web were from here which gives SADF total killed as 715 and Angolan estimated killed (not sure if this includes UNITA and/or Cuban deaths) as 11000.

Though not sure if this figure is 1000 or 11000. It could mean 1000 Unita deaths?

Also the article linked to above does not seem completely objective but I would say that the figures for SADF losses is about right - no figures for injured.--My name is joe 17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

---

joe, Take a look at my website "Roll of Honour". Archived from the original on 2010-04-11. Retrieved 2007-02-17. for deaths. I got those SADF figures directly from the SANDF and captured them into a database. I am pretty sure that the figure for "Angolan" deaths is 11000 although I don't have a citation to hand.

BoonDock 15:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

---

@ Rui Gabriel: I have two problems with the figure you are labeling as "UNITA" and the other one that appears below that one. (a) What does this second figure refer to? Overall losses? If yes, by exactly whom? (b) Both figures are unsourced, which is particularly problematic as they are so exact, not rough estimates. Best Aflis (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure

..the Mirage F1 and Atlas Impala which had air superiority throughout.. I am not sure this is correct. I am sure the Mig23s flown by the cubans had air superiority over most of Angola. The SAAF jets had a range problem and could only fly short precise missions into Angola. The SAM network was also very intense. I know that the SADF even captured the first SAM-8s ever seen in the west. The SAAF even tested jamming on captured radar to help. --Jcw69 13:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

..South African Air Force air-to-air engagements were also protracted, as tactics tended to resemble those of Israel - destruction of aircraft on the airfield, in the manner of the prosecution of the Six Day War in 1967.. I don't think this is also true. I don't recall the SAAF attacking airfields lined up with enermy aircraft. This would have been an great photo opportunity. --Jcw69 13:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparable to Vietnam War?

This sentence seems wrong:

"During that period the SADF called up more than 25,000 white male conscripts each year (for a two year tour), totalling just over half a million men, comparable to the number of conscripts used by the United States in the Vietnam War."

There were half a million US troops in Vietnam at the same time, as opposed to half a million South African troops in the field over the course of a 23-year war - they are not comparable at all.

--72.85.11.184 06:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I second your sentiments, they two can not even remotely be compared. It's a common sensationalist media (or sometimes propaganda) statement to describe any war as "so and so's vietnam". In this case it would indeed be factually incorrect, I seem to recall that there were only about 5,000 to 10,000 South African in the operational area at any given time. -- Deon Steyn 07:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless it was "South Africa's Vietnam". Not only is this statement common knowledge, but the conflict occurred during the same period, involving similiar motivations around the Cold War etc. Then there's the fact that the apartheid regime lied about the invasion of Angola and the news story was broken by the international media before finally questions were asked in parliament.Ethnopunk 09:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, the Vietnam comparison always seemed to me to be quite perjorative, an attempt to conflate this war with the one that everybody seems to hate (and an appeal to common knowledge is a logical fallacy). It's like the Iraq War: You can't have a tough battle or a soldier die without somebody dredging out the old Vietnam canard. It seems to be a weird obsession on the part of most people to define every modern war in relation to either WWII or Vietnam, when in reality such wars would be better understood (and fought) if we treated them as the unique actions they are.

Yes, the Border War was one of the Cold War's proxy conflicts, but then so were at least a dozen others. If anything, the Border War was closer in both its strategic situation and objectives to Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon than it was to Vietnam. The SADF's objective from the outset was two-fold: The creation of a buffer zone in southern Angola to prevent the Cuban and Angolan armies from operating there and SWAPO from infiltrating easily, and counter-insurgency operations to prevent SWAPO from starting an armed revolution within South-West Africa. Arguably, it succeeded; by the time elections were allowed in SWA and SWAPO had been elected the USSR had fallen and the Cuban presence in Angola was no longer sustainable. Thus the feared threat, of Cuban divisions based in Namibia and therefore easily able to launch an assault into S.Africa, was never allowed to materialise. It was a long way from being S.Africa's Vietnam. — Impi 10:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall some anti South-African propaganda/sentiment of the time (remember it stretched until the late 80's) comparing it to Vietnam, but factually this paragraph should be corrected as it stands here. -- Deon Steyn 13:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that this whole article should be rewriten, especially the Analysis of the war section. It feels very one sided and not objective at all. In case I'm stepping on any toes, I appologise before I say these next words .... A SADF Intelligence 2 pip could never have writen a better article.--Jcw69 17:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There seemed to be consensus on this, so I dropped the comparison.

ManicParroT 00:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Analysis of the war

Commandant Dick Lord

I don't know who put the section in there originally (edited it at one stage), but I do believe that it was based on one of the references given, i.e. "Commandant Dick Lord, public lecture, University of Stellenbosch, 14th December 2001". That is probably not a very neutral source to begin with, and can probably not be cited as a source in good conscience unless it was published somewhere.

I must confess that I have always had an uncomfortable feeling about the section as a whole (is it even Wikipedia's job to analyse things?), so I am going to be bold and just erase the whole thing. If somebody objects, please discuss it here, but please put a more objective section in its place.

Happy New Year!

Elf-friend 10:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have reverted you. You can't cut out such a huge chunk without YOU first discussing why you don't like it in DETAIL here first. Do you have something better and more informative to offer? Why are you jumping to conclusions? Would you prefer a Communist version of the truth? IZAK 11:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow ... that comes across as a bit aggressive, especially those words in capital letters. Well, I did write the original article, which I would consider to be informative and hopefully quite neutral. I could list points that I have my doubts about ... starting with the ones that somebody slapped "citation needed" tags onto. But my main doubt is whether we should have an "analysis" section in this (or any other) article at all ... in my mind that veers away from verifiable facts and goes into the opinion territory. I welcome the debate and don't mind you reverting me, but be nice and assume good faith. Elf-friend 12:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

Article: Annals of wars we don’t know about: The South African border war of 1966-1989 (12 March 2015), THOMAS E. RICKS, Foreign Policy.
I have also come across this article/analysis piece on the US publication Foreign Policy about the war. It gives an interesting analysis of the South African government's position and actions but I am not so sure how or if it has a place on the main space article. --Discott (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Result?

Surely it is misleading to say that the result of the war was the decline of the apartheid government? I would say that this decline happened *despite* the war which was very sucessful in military terms. 80.47.108.121 23:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only misleading, but inaccurate. Some (including the U.S., most Western governments and the South African government of the time) would argue that the result was the halt to Soviet/Communist expansion in Southern Africa. --Deon Steyn 06:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, surely the causes of the decline of apartheid included the economic stagnation SA had entered, partly because of the restrictions of apartheid. While SA had experienced an economic miracle in the 1960s, by the 80s it was stagnating. Similarly while the "West" was prepared to tolerate or even encourage the SA government during the Cold War, it was clear that it would be superfluous to requirements in the post-Cold War world. These reasons and others I feel are what caused the decline of the apartheid government. It was certainly not any military reasons. After all, its opponents only ever managed fairly smallscale guerrilla operations in the stategically unimportant far north of SWA/Namibia and irregular actions like sabotage and bombings in SA itself.

The spanish view

Sorry for my horrible english.

I wrote es:Guerra de la Frontera and the spanish and hispanish people have the cuban's point of view; because Cuba is a near country for us (many people visit Cuba every year). But we don`t have the South African's point of view, I think so; then many of us don´t undestand a question:

How is possible than a democracy like South Africa could to keep a war during 20 years or more?

The Cuban Regiment say that all of their Angola veterans were volunters; but only when you visit Cuba you hear than the Castro Regiment punished people who didn't spet ahead (my english is very poor, sorry). The mostly of cuban people didn`t know where was Angola, like say Frank Delgado in Veterano [1]. But Cuba could to keep a war for 20 years because it isn't a democracy, But SA?

Thanks for your help

es:Usuario:Zósimo

P.D.

Frank Delgado say:

• y sin que mediaran muchas explicaciones
• confusos y con la ropa de camuflaje
• un día subimos a los aviones

I'm going to try to traslation:

• And with no manay esplanations
• to confuse and with the camuflage uniform
• we went in to planes

Several factors, the historic period was the Cold war and western aligned countries everywhere feared Communist (Soviet and Chinese) expansion. More specific to the region, former colonial powers were being replaced by Communist backed forces: Rhodesian Bush War (Zimbabwe), Mozambican War of Independence and Angolan War of Independence. South African was the next target of such violent revolution and not only did the white population fear this violence (white farmers in Namibia had already been killed in attacks), but they no longer had any connection to a European country so they had nowhere to go; unlike the small Portuguese populations in Mozambique or Angola they could not leave for another country so they had to defence South Africa. South Africa used military conscription so there was no choice for soldiers, but it was not difficult to motivate many soldiers, because to protect South Africa, they had to protect Namibia and to protect Namibia they had to prevent SWAPO from operation out of southern Angola. The South African government also controlled the media very well so there was no media or public opposition. --Deon Steyn 06:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

South Africa under apartheid wasn't really a democracy, because there was no real opposition: before the Reform Party was founded in 1975, there were no parties that opposed the National Party - the United Party was officially an opposition party, but supported the National Party in everything. In essence, South Africa was a one-party state, because the National Party governed by itself for the entire span of the apartheid. People (white people) were allowed to vote for the only parliament with real power, but before 1975 (and after that only in a fragmented way) there was nothing to choose between, only N.P. policy. 82.176.204.198 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

This article could use a few other than maps...

Fair use rationale for Image:Ao-unita.gif

Image:Ao-unita.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Language

The article includes the following sentence: South Africa willfully withdrew from Angola. Did they withdraw willfully or willingly?

Zambia

I see that Zambia is listed as a combatant in the conflict. I'm curious as to how they were involved beyond providing sanctuary to SWAPO and ANC militants. Pjones (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Cuba was involved before Portugal left Angola

Here's another inaccuracy:

Just when the Angolan war for independence was over, the Angolan Civil War started. After the leftist MPLA had gained control of most of the country South Africa intervened in support of the UNITA. This prompted Cuba to step in, help the MPLA to hold on to the capital and declare independence.

Sorry, but Cuban involvement with the MPLA pre-dates Angola's "Civil War." ----DanTD (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, help find a source :) Greenman (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

One place to start is the article on the MPLA itself(see above). Another are the OSPAAAL "Solidarity" posters(Angola, 1969, Angola 1973). The book Posters of protest and revolution, by Maurice Rickards also has some. Anytime Cuba has some propaganda poster claiming to have "solidarity" with the people of one nation, or one region, or whatever, it's tends to be a boasting of some communist war that they support. ----DanTD (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to find a slightly more reliable source than an assumption about a poster. The MPLA article is also a little light on specifics. Greenman (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the sources in this article might help. ----DanTD (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There's also this. ----DanTD (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

all you have to do is read the article Cuba in Angola. Sundar1 (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Support by East Germany and Yugoslavia

What are the sources???? -- Aflis (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS OPINION RATHER THAN FACTS!

THE SADNESS IS WIKIPEDIA ACROSS THE BOARD IS 99% OPINIONATED ARTICLES AND 1% TRUE PROVEN FACTS!!! and the danger is; people believe what they read on Wikipedia like it is the words of God himself. There seriously needs to be some sort of ombudsman overseeing such websites and holding the owners responsible. After all, what is the difference between material here and things such as Pirate bay etc................... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.81.152 (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Documentaries on the war

I found "The Last Domino" or footage from it: http://archive.org/details/TheLastDominofullMovie Should we include that in the article? --197.228.14.45 (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in South African Border War

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of South African Border War's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "lcweb2.loc.gov":

• From Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/pdf/CS_Cuba.pdf
• From Laotian Civil War: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+la0026)
• From Operation Savannah (Angola): Library of Congress Country Studies: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+ao0047)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Self-identification and the Angolan Civil War

Recently, a revision to this article was made wherein "anti-communist" was removed from the title for the combined SADF/SWATF forces and their military allies, on the pretext was SWAPO was not communist. While this has been subject to a number of interpretations, the fact remains that the titles for each belligerent are a matter of self-identification. For example, SWAPO preferred to define itself as an African nationalist force rather than a communist one, so we have noted it as such. South Africa defined itself first and foremost in this war as an anti-communist force, so we have likewise noted it as such. This is not the first time the topic has been broached on this particular article, but it's also perfectly in line with the neutral precedent of accepting one belligerent's latest political or strategic self-identification when describing them, as long as the same is also afforded to the other belligerent. Whether or not the SADF and SWATF were truly as anti-communist forces, they believed they were, just as SWAPO believed it was an African nationalist force.

It it proves too controversial, I'd remove both "anti-communist forces" and "African nationalist forces" from the infobox in order to avoid further editing disputes, but if one is taken down the other likewise has to go. So far this has not been necessary.

Something else added by the latest revision is the addition of the MPLA to the list of combatants, as opposed to merely combat support, as well as the potential addition of UNITA and the FNLA to the list of combatants for the same reason. There is a reason this page focuses explicitly on the SWAPO angle of the struggle and South West Africa's political situation in particular. The separate article Angolan Civil War is meant to cover in greater detail the fighting between the MPLA and UNITA and the FNLA, in which South Africa occasionally participated, but may be regarded as a separate military conflict. As also noted in the text, the Border War was intertwined with the Angolan Civil War to an increasing extent after 1975 and this has generated a great deal of confusion among contributors in the past but some distinction needs to be made to prevent this article from becoming redundant.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The two wars were intertwined to a large extent. For example the SADF smashed the MPLA at Cuito etc specifically to prevent SWAPO from gaining bases in the border area. The Angolan Civil War was not about South West Africa, or vice versa, but SWAPO and the MPLA were allies, both were backed by the USSR and its proxies, and they helped each other on the ground. The two conflicts were indeed separate issues, but they were too tightly intertwined on the battlefield to be treated in isolation from each other. Wdford (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Using the labels "communist" vs. "anti-communist" in this context like in several other ones may mean one of two things - either resorting simply or even mechanically to mental habits acquired during the Cold War, or then a deliberate use for political strategies. There was certainly a leftist current inside the MPLA, but the movement as such used the label out of sheer convenience, because it desperately needed the support of the "socialist block". And UNITA, whose leader was trained in China, declared itself anti-communist for exactly the same kind of reason - because it needed "Western" support. Thus, please, let us stop kidding ourselves... Aflis (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The issue of political formations "self-identifying" is a perilous road indeed. Governments that call their countries the "Peoples' Democratic Republic" are hardly ever democratically elected by free elections. The Border War was fought in the context of the Cold War. The MPLA and SWAPO appealed to the USSR for support, when they could easily have taken sides with the West. They received material and diplomatic support from the USSR and its communist proxies, particularly Cuba, for many years until the collapse of the USSR. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. It doesn't matter if the duck itself claims to be an ostrich. Wdford (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of how genuine (or convenient) anti-communist sentiment was for UNITA and the South African government of the day, the fact remains that they perceived their cause first and foremost as an anti-communist one, similar to how SWAPO perceived its own cause to be a primarily African nationalist one. Wikipedia cannot judge the degree to which any movement or regime (or individual) is dedicated to a particular ideology, merely note their professed adherence to said ideology. --Katangais (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ideological labels

As one of our colleagues decided to resort again to the label "anti-communist", let me try to sort one or two points out. Sorry, have to interrupt, be back within short. Aflis (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC) Ok, here I am again. a) It is of course interesting to mention how the actors in these events saw themselves, from the point of view of ideological positioning, how they saw the other actors, from the same point of view. However, when it comes to analize the scene from the outside, as we do here on WP, we have to carefully avoid being trapped by discourse (or by outdated mental schemes...). Looking at it from the Angolan side (which people not familiar with Angola simply don't understand...), I have to repeat what I stated above: the MPLA included at that stage, and even when it declared itself "marxist-leninist" after independence, a certain number of people leaning towards communism, but - to the regret of these people - as a movement kept aloof of orthodox communism. Its seeking the support of the Socialist Bloc was a question of survival - full stop! NB: If you have a look at the by now abundant literature on the MPLA, both academic research and testimony by present and former militants, you will find out that labeling as communist is today no longer used. b) The case of UNITA is even more simple. At its start, Savimbi went to China for support, and picked up oned ideological concern or the other - but back home he quickly discovered that the "West" was the only side from which he could expect effective support. Which is why he went to he USA posing as anti-communist champion. NB: The funny thing was that the doctrines preached by UNITA in areas it controlled in Angola was often more "leftist" that the MPLA...Aflis (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Aflis I am more than familiar with Angolan politicking of the day and the fact that UNITA, the MPLA, and the FNLA were all left-leaning to various degrees and adopted one ideology or another for pragmatic purposes. None of us here need a history lesson in that regard. However, the left column in the infobox is indicating how the primary belligerent listed there (South Africa) saw its war against the MPLA and SWAPO, as an anti-communist struggle.

The labels "Anti-communist" and "African nationalist" respectively denote how each of the two primary belligerents - South Africa and SWAPO - perceived themselves and their role in the conflict. Again, from the South African perspective the war was an anti-communist struggle, and from the SWAPO perspective the war was a nationalist struggle for Namibian independence. Both sides are identified according to their perspective. This is not being trapped by discourse, this is merely a balanced conveying of both perspectives, and since both are mentioned, the article cannot be seen as favouring one over the other. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, well. There is much one could say in response. I shall limit myself to this: on WP we can do one of two things: Either describe perceptions, or try an analysis of facts. Example: saying that South Africa perceived the war as an anti-communist struggle does not mean that in fact it was (in other words, that a sober and informed analysis by persons not involved would reach this conclusion. NB: The knowledge of the Angolan movements that is requested here is not one of "politicking of the day"!!! Aflis (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Katangais: Just saw your re-revert. The logic seems to be that as long as no consensus is reached you decide which of two contested versions prevails???Aflis (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

"Politicking of the day" was a reference to how the respective Angolan movements lobbied both East and West and made various superficial ideological commitments in diplomatic and political circles to curry favour.

The objective of the label in the left side of the infobox is not to present the war as an anti-communist struggle, but to make it clear that South Africa did. This statement is intentionally contradicted by the label on the right side of the infobox, which presents the war as an African nationalist struggle from SWAPO's perspective. Therefore, neither perspective actually prevails and neither statement can be mistaken for objective fact.

Secondly, it's a precedent on Wikipedia that if any added text is in dispute (in this case the statement "anti-nationalist"), it should not appear in the latest revision of the page until a consensus has been reached as to its inclusion. The article typically reverts to the earliest revision prior to the content dispute until such matters can be clarified.

I did not seriously consider the possibility that the concept of self-identification by labels would be so difficult to grasp. I initially based the concept on a similar infobox setup in the Korean War article, which has since been removed for similar reasons (repeated misinterpretation of said labels by the editorship). Due to the contention here, the most desirable course of action to avoid future edit warring may be to follow that lead and dispense with the labels altogether. --Katangais (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Belligerents and ideological labels

There certainly is a lot of odd stuff going on with this article.

• Firstly, Aflis is absolutely right about labelling these movements as 'communist'. They would have sided with anyone who was willing to help them — even Martians, if that were possible. To use that claim to justify labelling South Africa as "anti-communist" makes no sense at all, in fact it borders on the preposterous. South Africa's primary interest was twofold — a) to keep Namibia from becoming another territory from which the ANC and the PAC could operate and b) in general, to hold back the tide of the dreaded nationalist "black majority rule". Naturally SA milked what it could out of its ostensible duty as the "last bastion" against the "total onslaught" of communism, the "rooi gevaar", which so well served its purposes at home and abroad.
• Secondly, Katangais, this edit raises a few questions. At best you can break the conflict into chronological phases, but not rank them into main and support. If any of the belligerents should be moved into a second tier, it would be South West Africa, which was not a country, as it did not have its own government, taking its own decisions. All decisions were taken in Pretoria, the SWATF was a mere extension of the SADF.

Finally, I agree with Katangais that "the most desirable course of action" is to "dispense with the labels altogether". Not because of "the contention here" or "avoid future edit warring" (but, byy all means, if this settle the matter), but because as far as I can tell — and I opened numerous pages on wars/ conflicts and such — it is not a standard element of conflict infoboxes. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that it has since been resolved. Thanks, Katangais. Keep it up. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Howzit, Rui Gabriel Correia, your input is appreciated as always.

With regards to listing SWA as a belligerent, it's a common misconception that the territory existed as a mere extension of South Africa's administration until 1991. That said, it wasn't anywhere close to being independent either. It exercised a limited form of home rule after 1978 which gave it an odd sub-national status, i.e. a proto-state. This was contrary to the policy pursued by Pretoria up until that time, which was to incorporate it essentially as a fifth province of South Africa. In the memoirs of Ian Smith, Rhodesia's prime minister, he suggests the change in direction was directly inspired by the transitional government of Zimbabwe Rhodesia established by the Internal Settlement: create a predominantly black government and hold elections under a universal suffrage which explicitly excluded the guerrilla movement. In SWA's case, this came in the form of the Turnhalle Constitutional Conference and the subsequent general elections.

While it's true that the SWATF was never truly independent of the SADF, the resurrected police institutions of SWA established in 1981 certainly were. Koevoet, for example, was theoretically responsible to the interim Turnhalle government in Windhoek (not the SADF or SAP) after that date. Conveniently, this allowed them to get away with bending the rules much more than the latter. Ditto for the other specialist South West African police units which exercised a paramilitary mandate like the SWAPOL Special Task Force (Taakmag) and the SWAPOL reserve.

I feel in light of these details it's not inaccurate to describe the interim Turnhalle administration of SWA as a belligerent in its own right, especially since it exercised direct control over forces engaged in the conflict against PLAN. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Katangais. Purely from a technical-visual perspective: I read too fast, tripped over your double negative ("not in[accurate]"), thought it said the opposite, went to see if you had changed anything, then realiased I had misread. But, looking at it again, the first thing that struck was what one sees of the infobox — what there is without expanding the collapsed sections. I am not familiar with the parameters for the usage of the collapsibility function, but I wonder about how familiar readers are with it. To me, at first sight it looks like there are only four belligerents, especially because the remainder are listed under sub-categories. If there was a way add a "[Show]" button within the same field as the first four names, it would be more obvious that there are more entities. Is that technically possible? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I just eliminated the sub-section housing the list of supporting factions and countries, so it reverted to the same part of the infobox listing the respective belligerents. While I was at it, I also changed the belligerent link from South West Africa to Transitional Government of South West Africa to make things clearer for the readership, as per my comments above. --Katangais (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Good stuff! Thanks Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Katangais. Looks good. Conlinp (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that the government of South West Africa was about as independent as the governments of the Warsaw Pact countries were at the time, or as independent as the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan are today.

I think the communism-proxy issue went a lot further than simple "rooi-gevaar" politicking. The RSA government of the time was actively fighting against Soviet-backed elements, and it saw itself as a target of the USSR. I'm sure the MPLA and SWAPO would have taken aid from the Martians if offered, but in reality they took aid from the USSR - and from the Soviet proxies of Cuba and East Germany etc. It is therefore not surprising that the RSA government regarded the MPLA and SWAPO as Soviet proxies too.

Wdford (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Therefore, if the MPLA/ SWAPO/ ANC had taken aid from the US, the RSA government was fighting US-backed elements, would you label it "anti-capitalist"/ "anti-western"? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion: as these labels reflect either perceptions or Make believe strategies, the best choice is to cut them out in this article (as well as in the related ones). Aflis (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia - yes, that would probably have been appropriate. However that was not the case here - the Cold War was raging, the Vietnam War fell into the same time period, wars were being waged in Palestine between Israel (friends with South Africa and backed by the US) vs the neighbouring Muslim states (backed by the USSR), the Soviet-backed PLO was killing innocent people with bombs in Europe, and so when Soviet-backed entities started killing innocent people with bombs in South Africa and South West Africa, the South African government saw themselves as fighting a Communist-backed insurgency.

@Aflis - there was no "make believe" strategy here - SWAPO and the MPLA were clearly Communist-backed organizations. I have agreed to delete all labels, but I don't think it will be practical to actually exclude all labels, because the rationale of the parties in the conflict was based to a large extent on their perceptions of the other parties. Mandela was a member of the South African Communist Party, and the communists are still very influential in the South African government today.

Wdford (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wdford: Looking at the Angolan side (my knowledge of the other actors is insufficient), the sources by now available are a solid basis for the statement that strategies of Make believe were part of the opportunistic linking to outside actors. See e.g. the voluminous documentation published on the basis of Lúcio Lara's archives. Aflis (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Since Lara was a senior official of the MPLA, I will accept him as a source for whatever "make believe" that the MPLA may have been spinning. However I don't think its appropriate to use an MPLA source to describe the thinking or strategizing of the opposite team - how would he have known? Wdford (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of "Combat support" from the infobox

I reviewed a number of other similar warfare and conflict-related articles, and could find none which used a collapsible option for "combat support" - the factions/countries involved were either listed as belligerents or supporters. I was also reminded of the discussion above ^^ in which it was pointed out that by collapsing "combat supporters" the readership might be misled into believing there were only four warring entities.

I've removed the collapsible "combat support" sub-boxes for these reasons. The "material support" sub-box will remain, as it does have a precedent in other articles and the sheer number of nations listed there would crowd the infobox otherwise. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

CE

Auto-edded and rm dupe wikilinks. Some references have date instead of year and Operation Whatever isn't italicked. Got rid of a red warning on a citation. There were occasional phrases which could be construed as authorial interpolations and judged OR. It would help copy editors if there was a paragraph space above pictures to avoid big chunks of text. "Thumb|270px|" best left as "|thumb|" or "thumb|upright=.5|" (example, 1.5 will increase size to 150%) to change the size of the pic. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The dupe and excessive wikilinks were a problem, and I'm glad to see it's been rectified. I removed all the italics from operation titles and added spaces and "thumb|upright" to each image (with one exception that keeps getting distorted). One link to a disambiguation page (Citizen Force) was intentional. Instances of OR are unlikely, given how heavily cited the article is. Needless interpolations by individual authors cited is more plausible, but I'd need specific examples to work with. --Katangais (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Factual accuracy for number of Cuban Troops

I think the number for Cuban Troops is off - The source from Edward George (p. 253) puts the total number of combatants closer to 50,000. Not entirely clear if all of those troops were in Southern Angola, however, or throughout the entire conflict. ChunyangD (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Nearly all the Western and Cuban sources cited for the number of troops in southern Angola as of mid-1988 mention a figure of around 40,000, so that's the figure that should appear in the infobox. South African sources usually identify the number of Cubans as being in divisional strength without elaborating, but that's about accurate for 40,000 troops. --Katangais (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Dubious Clodfelter figures

In his book Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and and Other Figures, 1492-2015, Michael Clodfelter notes that "South Africa counted 715 military fatalities in its operations in Angola, 1975-89" (p. 566). He also claims that "the MPLA suffered 11,000 battle deaths in combat against South African forces" (again, on p. 566). These two quotes have been interpreted by a contributor to mean that total SADF and allied losses in the entire war were 715, and that 11,000 FAPLA deaths are directly attributable to South African military action. Both Clodfelter's figures and this interpretation are problematic for several reasons.

Firstly, the oft-cited death toll of 715 includes only casualties suffered in Angola. Clodfelter states in his entry for Namibia that "Total deaths in Namibia, including civilian casualties, from the independence struggle numbered about 25,000 since 1966, including about 800 South African security personnel." (p. 563) This means Clodfelter is claiming 715 South African dead in Angola and 800 dead in Namibia between the years of the border war (1966 through 1989), which means a total of ~1,500. Furthermore, the 715 figure is taken from the SADF's official casualty lists and omits other branches of the security forces, including the SWATF, SWAPOL, and the Ovambo Home Guard. This link expounds on this problem with the 715 figure, and suggests that a more accurate number would be over 2,000. A death toll of between 2,000 and 2,500 are cited by both the South African War Graves project and the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Finally, the 11,000 FAPLA death toll cited by Clodfelter appears to have confused with the ~11,000 death toll often cited by the SADF's official figures in terms of PLAN military casualties. This number has been used to describe PLAN deaths for decades now, and Clodfelter is the only source which names even a remotely similar figure for FAPLA casualties. The similarity of the figures means it's reasonable to suggest that this is an oversight on the historian's part and ought to be discounted for that reason. --Katangais (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect use of "military-industrial complex"

User:farawayman: The phrase Military-industrial complex describes a relationship between a military and a military industry through which they affect policy. It does not say anything about the strength or size of a military industry. The usage of "military-industrial complex" in this article is incorrect.

Luisa Koala (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Support in the infobox

There is nothing in the manual of style I could find to indicate that any kind of "support" section is discouraged in the infobox. In this case, it's particularly problematic because many of the actors listed in the "support" section actually had a huge number of auxiliary personnel in the field - for example, as noted in the article the Soviet Union had 1,000-2,000 pilots, instructors, and weapons specialists in Angola between 1975 and 1989. The GDR (East Germany) had similar numbers in Angola as well. They are not listed as belligerents because the Soviet Union and East Germany were not official parties to this conflict, and for the most part their personnel refrained from taking part in combat actions. It would be incorrect to describe them as active belligerents in the war, but also incorrect to omit them from the infobox altogether given the sheer scale of their involvement. Katangais (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#RfC_on_%22supported_by%22_being_used_with_the_belligerent_parameter 94.200.83.10 (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Per the discussion linked: "However, editors must note that this does not constitute a complete ban on such sections in infoboxes, with even some supporters of this proposal noting that in some circumstances the inclusion of such information in an infobox would be warranted." See the reasons cited above, but I'm going to request a third party weigh in here as well. --Katangais (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi all. If I may also comment, I think that the entire conflict would not have happened had FAPLA not been supported by the USSR and their proxies, especially Cuba. FAPLA would never have stood up to UNITA without Warsaw Pact support, and they would never have stood against South Africa without heavy Cuban support, and it was Soviet combat jets which ultimately forced the stalemate. It is ridiculous that non-players like Portugal and the ANC get mentioned here, but not the USSR and East Germany.

If it's become so contentious, perhaps we could limit the support section to those actors which actually had their own personnel and equipment in the theatre (ie the USSR) and omit references to the other actors that have may have simply provided materiel support? --Katangais (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Just now everyone who supplied a can of beans will be added. Maybe we can start by defining what the word "support" actually means? Wdford (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that we stick to the main stakeholders or actors involved on the ground such as the Cubans, Soviets and East Germans, etc. Conlinp (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The infobox is not a place for nuance. This whole discussion is an example of why the supported bit has been deprecated. Belligerents should be just that. 94.200.83.10 (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

We are talking about a glaring omission of basic facts that are not nuanced. There are over 130 mentions of the USSR's operations in Angola - both covert and overt - throughout the article. This comment looks like a subtle way of handwaving local discussion on individual articles, despite the fact it is clearly provided for in the linked RfC. --Katangais (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

the RFC you started on Project Milhist seems to be clearly coming down on the side of non-inclusion. What's hand wavy is ignoring that. 2001:8F8:1D36:32BC:0:0:DA98:A701 (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

None of the contributors there addressed my specific concerns with this article, only citing what was already decided in the Rfc. I couldn’t even get a straight answer about if the USSR would qualify as a belligerent in this case due to its involvement in combat operations. A big issue (as also illustrated here rather amply) seems to be nobody is willing to discuss if exceptions to the rule are warranted. Any such discussion is dismissed as unnecessary nuance, despite the fact that this clearly runs contrary to the spirit of the original RfC. --Katangais (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)