Talk:South African Border War

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Argentina minor ally 

message: 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)
thread_title: Add other countries qualifying as minor allies

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Soviets as a belligerent?

message: Never heard about the DDR being involved with this case.
(User:TheWatcherREME))  —Preceding comment was added at 18:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: East Germany?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: British Comandos in Angola

message: 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)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: 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)
replies: text: @ 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)
thread_title:  Casualty figures 

message: ..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)
thread_title:  Not sure 

message: ===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)
thread_title:  Analysis of the war 

message: 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)
thread_title: Commandant Dick Lord

message: 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)
thread_title: Foreign Policy

message: 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 . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The spanish view 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ao-unita.gif

message: 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)
thread_title: Zambia

message: 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)
replies: text: Don't be sorry, help find a source :) Greenman (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps some of the sources in this article might help. ----DanTD (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also this. ----DanTD (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: all you have to do is read the article Cuba in Angola. Sundar1 (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuba was involved before Portugal left Angola 

message: What are the sources???? -- Aflis (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support by East Germany and Yugoslavia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WIKIPEDIA IS OPINION RATHER THAN FACTS! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Documentaries on the war 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:South African Border War]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Self-identification and the Angolan Civil War 

message: 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)
thread_title: Removal of "Combat support" from the infobox

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  CE 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy for number of Cuban Troops 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dubious Clodfelter figures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect use of "military-industrial complex"