Talk:Battle of Cuito Cuanavale/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Cuban claims of SADF materiel losses (Edit war)

The claims that the SADF lost 7 G6 Artillery pieces is obvious nonsense. The SADF sent 3 development prototype G6s into battle directly from the factory. All 3 came back from Angola. They couldn't have lost 7 because the 3 that they had were the only ones in existence at the time. The SAAF also could not have lost 24 jets as they didn't even have that many in the "operational area" in total at the time. The same applies to the claimed tank losses. The official Cuban source dating from 1989 has absolutely zero credibility. Roger (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The date alone of the Cuban source would make it suspect, since few Cuban reports made available for public consumption during that time period had any credibility thanks to the usual propaganda efforts and the limitations of battlefield intelligence. After all, it was only a few years after the end of World War II that both the British and the Germans could finally get a true and accurate picture of the losses they had imposed on their respective enemy air forces.
But the most important flaw in the source's figures is that they have no battlefield wreckage to prove it. When the SADF claimed to have captured an SA-8, it actually had the vehicle in its possession to show to the world's media; but the Angolans and Cubans have never been able to show the wreckage of a single G5 or G6 or more than the 3 Olifant tanks known to have become disabled in the minefields around Tumpo. What's more, 14 SADF fighters lost would have represented the destruction of an entire squadron; yet after the war the SAAF emerged with nearly all its aircraft intact, minus only those they had admitted to losing (such as Arthur Piercy's F1). When compared to the aircraft the SAAF had purchased in the 1960s and 1970s, the construction numbers and serial numbers matched up. There just wasn't room for there to have been 14 fighter aircraft lost in a single engagement. It's just impossible, and it makes the source look stupid.
And the G5 and G6 numbers are just ridiculous. There were only 16 G5s and 3 G6s deployed in the entire theatre, with the latter being pre-production prototypes under evaluation at the School of Artillery before being rushed to the battle area.[1] Amusingly, even Ronnie Kasrils, until recently the Minister of Intelligence under the ANC government, a self-described scholar of the Border War and ardent exponent of the pro-Cuban version of events, stated that there were only 'sixteen G5 and G6 artillery guns' [2] at the battle. So the claim of 24 having been destroyed is nonsensical, since there weren't 24 available to destroy.
Taken together, these cast serious credibility on the source being used by Yurizuki to justify the inclusion of these figures in the infobox, to the extent where allowing the source to be used as though it were reliable and impartial would be utterly against Wikipedia's principles and standards. So I do not support these changes and will continue reverting them if they are re-added to the article. — Impi (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
While we're at it - The New York Accords and Namibian independence were a consequence of about 30 years of war and diplomacy. To link them specifically to just this battle alone is patently absurd. Roger (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The SADF losses of men and military material in Cuito Cuanavale and Calueque were enormous. Unofficial SA government sources talked of 715 dead. At least 17 Oliphants tanks were destroyed, mostly in Mig bombings; huge numbers of Unimogs, Casspirs and field artillery were destroyed as well -- or, in some cases, captured intact after they were abandoned by fleeing SADF units. The wrecks are exposed today in Angolan and Cuban museums or at the battle site itself. There is also proof of three SADF fighters shot down. However, I could find no confirmation of G6 being destroyed, so it appears that it was a mistake to include such units among the losses. Follow this link for detailed information:
http://www.urrib2000.narod.ru/EqMiG23a.html
I'm bothered by the numbers given in the infobox for Cuban/Faplan material losses, as they are completely unsourced and look like typical propaganda from the apartheid South African government. The numbers for human losses are suspect as well -- they only make sense if they include the Angolan casualties in Operation Modular, in which case such numbers are, not completely wrong, but very misleading. I recommend removing all mentions to Cuban/Faplan material losses, and checking again the numbers for human losses.
I'm also bothered by claims that the battle, and the Angolan war in general (the whole Cuba/Fapla vs. SADF/Unita clash), had an unclear conclusion -- "results disputed" as they say in the infobox. Apartheid South Africa sent troops to Angola to strengthen their rule over Namibia, defeat the SWATO, and help Unita win their war against MPLA -- so as to have a friendly government in Luanda. Cuba sent troops to Angola to support the MPLA government, defeat the Unita and its South African backers, and help the SWATO in Namibia. After Cuito Cuanavale, South Africa retired from Angola, lost Namibia, and abandoned Unita to their decadence and defeat. Cuba retired its military from Angola with the MPLA government strengthened, the SADF back in their country, and SWATO triumphant in a recognized independent Namibia. Cuba's victory was total. The entry for result of the battle should read: "Decisive Cuban/Faplan victory." Read these articles by SADF veterans for further confirmation of what happened during the battle and its aftermath:
http://www.geocities.com/sadfbook/7sai.htm
http://uk.geocities.com/sadf_history1/dfrench.html
http://www.geocities.com/sadfbook/911text.htm
Also, read this article for extremely interesting information, coming from another SADF veteran, about how desperate the SADF/SAAF situation in the Angolan/Namibian border was right after Cuito Cuanavale, and how close the SA government came to using nuclear bombs on the area -- as they simply lacked the manpower and air power to stop a Cuban attack:
http://www.geocities.com/sadf_scrapbook/sanuc.htm
Oh, and about the Accords: in 1974, South Africa officially declared that SWA (Namibia) would never be independent -- instead, all of its territory would be annexed to South Africa. They didn't budge one inch from this position, ignoring international pressure, until the battle of Cuito Canavale. Immediately after, the government of South Africa accepted a negotiation, and signed in New York the independence of Namibia. It's transparent that their brutal defeats at Cuito Canavale and Calueque (not to mention the imminent threat of a Cuban thrust into Namibian territory) were the determining factor that forced them to let go of their SWA colony. Angolan, Namibian and modern (not apartheid-related) South African sources all agree on the subject.Yurizuki (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC).
You have still not addressed my questions about your source, which has now been shown to be obviously flawed and unreliable. And instead of acknowledging that fact, or abandoning the source, you merely re-added the incorrect numbers with slight adjustments here and there to overcome some inconvenient facts. I'm sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. If a source has been proven to be unreliable, as yours has, you simply cannot continue to use it as a source for any factual claim. After all, even your adjusted and supposedly 'corrected' figures are still ridiculous:
* 17 tanks lost - There were only 22 tanks (two Squadrons) in the entire operational theatre, and 19 of those returned to South Africa. Despite all the claims, the only wreckage shown in post-battle photos is that of the three tanks at Tumpo. No other wreckage has been discovered or presented.
* 24 G5s lost - As I wrote above, there were never more than sixteen G5s inside either Angola or Namibia, a fact acknowledged by Ronnie Kasrils who was certainly no friend of the SADF. So what, did they destroy each gun twice over?
* 3 fighter aircraft shot down - An improvement from 14 fighters being shot down, but still not accurate. The only SAAF fighter losses during this period were that of F1AZ 245 (shot down by an SA-9) and F1AZ 223, which crashed on a night sortie unrelated to this battle. That makes one aircraft shot down, not three.
Considering all this, I honestly don't see how you have any grounds to continue adding these numbers to the article. They're obviously wrong.
But to address the rest of what you wrote, the links you posted are essentially irrelevant in this context. We're discussing the outcome of a single battle, not of the entire war (which was fought in a far wider context). And in the context of the SADF's operations surrounding the battle (Ops Modular, Hooper & Packer), it's perfectly reasonable to conclude (as many have) that the SADF actually emerged the victor. Lest we forget, the SADF sent forces into Angola in order to stop a massive FAPLA armoured offensive towards Unita's strongholds in the south. This was wildly successful, to the point which the relatively small SADF force in Angola (no more than 3000 men) was able to repulse the Angolan brigades all the way back to Cuito Cuanavale. So even if we accept that the SADF intended to capture Cuito and did not (a heavily disputed assertion), there's no doubt that the initial objectives of the South African intervention were achieved. The personal accounts by low-ranking SADF soldiers do not make any difference to this conclusion, since by definition those men were exposed to only a tiny portion of the entire battle and saw only a fraction of the larger strategic picture. And it's not true to claim, as you do, that the goal was to install Unita as a friendly government in Luanda, as that idea had been rejected as early as 1975 due to its impracticality. The real aim was far more limited, which was to preserve Unita's strength in southern Angola so that it could act as a buffer zone against SWAPO infiltrations and also prevent the Angolan and Cuban armies from building up significant forces in the south of the country.
It's also untrue to say that South Africa would not budge on the question of Namibia's independence until after this battle. By 1977 the South African government had already agreed in principle to Namibian independence as part of the negotiations around UNSC Resolution 435, which South Africa agreed to implement based on certain pre-conditions, one of which was the absence of Cuban troops in Angola. There was no intention to annex the territory, nor would it have made much sense to do so as the country was more of a economic burden than an asset. By 1985, a second round of elections had produced a Transitional Government composed mostly of ethnic black political parties (but excluding SWAPO), which South Africa hoped would be recognised by the international community as a legitimate government. It was not. Fact is, the South African strategic interest in Namibia was not a desire to annex it, but rather a desire to avoid having it become a Soviet client state possibly containing Cuban armoured forces, which would have been the likely scenario after a SWAPO victory. With the fall of the Soviet Union from 1988 onwards, that ceased to be the threat it once was.
Neither Cuito nor Calueque can be considered 'brutal defeats', nor was the Cuban armoured column in southern Angola that big a threat. A serious surprise, perhaps, and a potent demonstration that the Cubans were far better than their Angolan counterparts, but no more than that. The Cuban force was so badly mauled in the counter-attack by a smaller and lighter SADF force that its potency was greatly reduced. And Calueque was a strategically-ineffectual attack, causing little infrastructural damage and demonstrating nothing more than that Cuban/Angolan aircraft were capable of attacking targets inside of Angola. And please don't try to bring forth that 'MiG-23 broke our hearts' nonsense, as that has been soundly debunked elsewhere. As for the link you provided; despite Duvenage's speculation there's no evidence that preparations were being made to ready the country's nuclear weapons for use in 1988. None of the six that had been built were moved from their vaults near Pretoria, nor were any actually fitted to any SAAF aircraft or other delivery platforms. It's also unrealistic; common sense proscribes that the SA government would first attempt a bulking up of its conventional forces in Angola (of 500 000 trained soldiers, just over 3000 were deployed to Angola. That's less than 1% of the SADF's available soldiers) before choosing to go nuclear, which would have been a move so extreme it would almost certainly have resulted in the forced removal from power of the SA government.
Ultimately though, the fact of the matter is that the massive SADF losses in men and materiel alleged by the sources on which you rely do not have any real basis in fact whatsoever. To this day neither Cuba nor Angola have been able to produce any of the wreckage for the hundreds of vehicles and aircraft they claim to have destroyed over and above those which independent sources acknowledge to have been lost. But more importantly, there's a massive distinction between the SADF and Cuban accounts of the battle, which is that only one of the three countries involved has seen a true change of government. The Castro regime remains in place in Cuba, while Angola is still ruled by the MPLA, but South Africa is now governed by the ANC which has always been a close ally of both Cuba and Angola. The ANC is inherently opposed to the old SADF and continues to claim that the SADF lost at Cuito, but yet despite having full access to all the SADF records from the entire Border War it has not produced a single piece of hard evidence to support the claims of massive SADF losses. The SADF, like all professional militaries, was fastidious about accurate record-keeping and every detail you could ever want about SADF losses and equipment numbers remains locked up in the SADF archives, so the fact that the ANC has yet to bring out those records in order to justify its claims about Cuito Cuanavale can indicate only that the records match the SADF's claims. In contrast, the official Cuban records remain strictly classified, which means that Cuban supporters have to rely on Cuban propaganda and the tiny portions of Cuban military records that the Castro regime permits certain friendly journalists to see because they're not too embarrassing. We'll have to wait until a democratic Cuba before the truth contained in those records can be revealed.
But this has all been discussed before on this page, and I'm not really willing to continue arguing it ad infinitum without anything new being brought to the table. I will continue to revert you if you attempt to add the ridiculous SADF loss numbers to the infobox, as you do not have a credible and reliable source for the numbers and so there's no justification for their presence in the article. — Impi (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Roger, Impi there's not point in arguing facts with idiots. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.117.117 (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

so-called "lessons"

I deleted the obviously unsubstantiated, and tendentious, claim that the battle of Cuito Cuanavale gives, as an important lesson, the the SADF could not be defeated in battle. How does a stalemate, or a defensive victory, "prove" any such thing?

Anyway, i suggest deleting *all* these lessons. Is it really usual to have "lessons' in an encyclopeida article? Wike policy seems to me to suggest we let the reader draw such conclusions. Some of these so-called lessons are not really all that important, although true, like the 16,000 ft. issue. others are unsbustantiated. If the editor who wrote these would kindly provide a source which is relatively consensual that really says "the sadf could not be defeated in battle" that would be different.

It is illogical to infer from "the sadf was not defeated in this battle" that "the sadf could not be defeated in battle", and it is super-controversial to say the sadf was not defeated in this battle. LOok, they had infantry assaults against the Tumpo triangle that were all thrown back. That is a defeat, of a sort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.154.139 (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lessons deleted, since you both seem to say let's do so - and they look like original research. Babakathy (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Reads like SADF propaganda

Order of Battle section can be summarized as "SADF claims: our valiant forces annihilated the enemy time and again", with SADF losses mentioned so low as to be surreal. Furthermore, no engagements that SADF failed to win decisively (again, according to itself) are mentioned, yet its casualties clearly came from somewhere... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aadieu (talk • contribs) 01:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


So which pro-South African jackass wrote this

This article is pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.215.20 (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

overhaul

the article was very biased and not well organized. i reduced the whole discussion about the different claims (victory or not) to a minimum because i think the facts speak for themselves.Sundar1 (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


a better read

This page is about a battle. There is a lot of talk on this page, but not about te battle. A beter read is this: http://rhodesia.nl/cuito.htm

The Wikipedia page should be more like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.77.117 (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


unhindered aggression

(Moved here from User talk:Socrates2008#unhindered aggression)
hello socrates2008

if i hadn't known you or or your edits for a while i would think this guy simply has no idea. but this is not the case. you know very well that south africa's aggression went unhindered for years and one just has to read all the articles on its history to confirm that. perhaps you do know the odd occasion, where they were met with some resistance worth mentioning - i don't. when you first removed the word "unhindered" i thought it is not so important but then came to the conclusion, that the whole sentence would not make sense anymore. it is exactly for that reason that cuito (or what happened in those months) has legendary status. its this david-goliath-story. if south africa had been "hindered" before, cuito wouldn't be special, would it?

as to the term "aggression", i could list all the deeds listed in the report instead if it made you any happier. the term aggression simply covers them all.

the same applies to black africa's cheers when south africa finally retreated from angola and namibia. i've read about this many times and the press was full of it. unfortunately i don't remember, whether i was the one who added this statement and presently i can find no direct sources. i'm sure you also know about this. in wikipedia it is generally not necessary to source statements that are not doubted. how can anyone clear-minded doubt this? it would be like doubting the jews not rejoicing after the nazis had been defeated. anyhow, since i couldn't find a source i left it out. a recent other editor had the nerve to call that statement "racist".

It's rather insulting to associate holocaust survivors happiness with the any notion of success by notorious abusers of human rights like Cuba and the FAPLA. Perhaps when the beating, shootings, hunger and humiliation are by communists that it is 'better' then when done by racists? Virgil61 (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

all this leads me to the conclusion, that, whenever possible, the purpose of your edits is to dispute statements that put a bad picture on apartheid (and good ones on cuba, for that matter) but not to improve the articles. this is underlined by the fact that many articles dealing with south africa are poorly sourced and extremely one-sided and strangely you do not seem to mind.Sundar1 (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Firstly, South Africa's activites were not "unhindered". Billions of dollars of Soviet and Cuban weaponry, as well as tenacious opponents like SWAPO, FAPLA, Cuba and the Soviet Union, compounded by international sactions and the deaths of South African soldiers, ensured that this was not a cakewalk. So while the SADF might have been the dominant force for the greater part of the conflict, they were as you well know, certainly not "unhindered". The reference you provided also makes no mention of the SADF being unhindered in Angola. In summary, this terminology fails to meet both WP:NPOV and WP:V.
i fail to see where s.a. was ever hindered in a way worth mentioning. first of all, this statement is referring to all of southern africa, not just angola. none of the obstacles you list (you forgot many others like zanu, anc, frelimo etc.) ever stopped them and they also had free hand in southern angola until cc. so what on earth are you talking about? do you call a few dead s. a. soldiers compared to thousands of dead opponents or that some resistance was encountered an obstacle? also, this statement fully mirrors the numerous s. a. “battle” reports in which there hardly ever is mention of remarkable resistance, if at all.
  • I care a great deal about the balance in these articles, which is one of the ways that I contribute towards them. Yes, the South Africans did a bunch of bad things in the name of apartheid, but that does not give anyone carte blanche to stretch or embelish the truth with politicised POV language, especially when there are so many facts readily available.
“a bunch of bad things” is putting it very nicely! this statement exactly shows what kind of balance i oppose and you dislike politisised pov-language but don't seem to mind militarised pov-language. where has the truth been stretched or embellished and where is politicised pov-language in my edits? it’s exactly theses kinds of statements without pointing out the actual mistakes (usually not existing) which lead to the conclusion that you favour apartheid s. a. in your edits.
  • "Articles dealing with south africa are poorly sourced and extremely one-sided and strangely you do not seem to mind" - I encourge you to review my edits to articles such as the Cassinga Raid (back to 2007), as well as some of the South African-related articles that I've taken to GA (e.g. Siege of Kimberley). The definition of one-sided is not: anything that does not agree with Sundar1's political viewpoint. If you have strong political views, as you appear to have, you are more likely than not going to find that you disagree with a bunch of other people here at WP - you're going to have to work out how to deal with that.
it says “many articles”, not “articles” dealing with s. a. and they refer to apartheid s. a. which is obvious. so the kimberley article is no example for neutrality when cuba is involved.
the title “battle of cassinga” is already off the mark, because there was no battle. yes, you did positive edits there, yet, you seem totally oblivious to the “attack” section, which is absolutely one-sided. it’s exactly this kind of article i’m referring to.
you seem to know my “political pov” and what are “strong political views”? please enlighten me. the only people i will likely disagree with are ones trying to keep apartheid s. a. out of the light or not to give cuba its due just because it’s communist. so far, there haven’t been too many and i need not work out how to deal with them; indeed, there are so many sources.
  • "i've read about this many times and the press was full of it. unfortunately i don't remember, whether i was the one who added this statement and presently i can find no direct sources" - I believe that you are experienced enough an editor to know that this does not meet WP:V, so I don't know why you've bothered to mention this. (c.f. your point about poorly-referenced articles above, as well as the warning at the top of this page about this article being controversial and requiring full references)
what is the statement or argument in this?
  • Lastly, your note here is fringing on WP:NPA - I would urge you to stay focused on commenting on article content, not other editors, if you wish to avoid future adventures with administrators.
don’t worry, i will. unfortunately, this is an advice you and many others do not heed yourselves. what about your definition of one-sidedness, assuming “political” viewpoints or “strong political views”? this has little to do with focus on content.

Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sundar1 (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This Article has been drastically changed

Over the next few days I will be reverting the politically biased parts of the article that were injected over the summer to the less political more analytical previous approach. Virgil61 (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been busy with work so haven't been able to change the article as soon as I planned. Not off my radar. The aftermath section reads like love-letter to Cuba. Virgil61 (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"Stalemate"

The outcome on Wikia state this battle was a stalemate however there is a section that clearly states in the same paragraph that there is no offical outcome depending on the factors however it does state that based on straight military POV that this was a South Africa / UNITA victory so it should go to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.115.234 (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have read in the comment secction, that the Angolan/cubans won at the end. Could someone tell me what was the real outcome of the battle? hope this aricle dont look like the battle of Bir Backeim or the Battle of La drang in wich both sides claim victory.--190.118.9.11 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Both sides claim "victory" of sorts, but the TRC source describes a stalemate. Greenman (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Cuban/FAPLA/SWAPO achieved all their objectives, Apartheid South Africa did not. Period. The winners are very obvious. I know it hurts dear south africans but the truth is.... you lost! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.202.89.162 (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Weapons

Does anyone mind if I added a section on weapons used by the combatants? I've done it before with other areas of conflict. See Winter War[3], Vietnam War[4], 1948 Arab–Israeli War[5], Six Day War[6], Yom Kippur War[7]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Be bold. PS: Although you're not following your own pattern by adding this to a battle rather than a war article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
True but this battle lasted for quite a while and had far-reaching implications in the context of Cold War politics.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that the Rooikat participated in the battle though it was added to the weapons chart[8] Can anyone provide a source that establishes the Rooikat's use at Cuito?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As per DefenceWeb the Rooikat entered service only once the war was over. I have removed it from the table. Impi (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Content re-ordered and supplemented

I have re-written much of the article, to provide a more coherent flow of the battle, with its various objectives, actions and outcomes, so that it can be better understood in order. I filled in some gaps with additional referenced material, using researched secondary sources rather than newspapers etc. The aftermath section was unduly long, and doesn't really form part of this topic, so I have reduced it accordingly. If its excessively detailed we can trim it down further. Wdford (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts, and acknowledge this article is better written than many southern African battle articles, as it at least presents the military history of both sides. However, that both sides presented the battle as victory is relevant - and in fact the Angolan, Cuban and Namibian governments still do present it as such. We cannot treat one side's views as fact and the others as "claims". Babakathy (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
If we are to take this operation by operation:
  • drive UNITA from Mavinga and south-east: failure
  • secure the town of Cuito Cuanavale from capture: success
  • Moduler (SADF): protect UNITA by stopping FAPLA/Cuban advance: success
  • Hooper (SADF): clearing FAPLA/Cuban forces from the east side of the Cuito river: failure
  • Packer (SADF): clearing FAPLA/Cuban forces from the east side of the Cuito river: failure
To me this is rather indicative of an inconclusive result and to present it as a SADF victory is misleading. Babakathy (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The FAPLA/Cuban objective was to advance on Mavinga and destroy UNITA. The SADF objective was to stop that advance, and to protect UNITA. The advance was smashed, and was abandoned, as all objective sources agree. The SADF objective was thus achieved in full, and the FAPLA objective not. Although a few FAPLA individuals remained on the east of the river behind their minefields they were unable to advance beyond those minefields, so were out of the battle. The actual town was never attacked, so protecting it from capture is a make-believe victory. To use a football analogy, its like Cuba claiming to have won the third quarter of the match 1-0, and ignoring that the final result was 4-1 against them. A typical communist distortion of the facts, but this is to be expected. Wdford (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I have to disagree on all objective sources agree - we have two sources in the lead. The first is the SADF magazine, which is no more objective than a speech by Fidel Castro or Oliver Tambo. The second source actually says for both sides the myth of victory seemed a crucial precondition for realignment and as a source it doesn't even support the first part of the sentence it is attached to as a citation ( Although the SADF achieved its objectives). It explores the political and psychological effects of the battle as part of an overall analysis of the role of the armed struggle in South Africa - but it does not speak at all to the military aspects of CC. Babakathy (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't put the Paratus source in the lead, and I personally disagree with having citations in the lead at all, as they are supposed to be summaries of the article content. There are numerous sources quoted in the body of the article that address these issues in depth. I would propose that all citations in the lead be removed, and the readers be allowed to study the detail in the body of the article. If we need to cite everything in the lead, it can be done, but it will be messy and I think unproductive. What do you think? Wdford (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article itself other than the lead do we have conclusions. The objectives section reads well to me, but if that is correct, then perhaps if we are to have any "conclusion" in the lead it should talk to those.
Proposed edit to lead on citations: Sounds fine to me. Babakathy (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you suggesting we should add a new "Outcomes" section or a "Conclusions" section? If yes, then I agree. Wdford (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Not quite what I meant but actually a better idea ;)
Outcomes I think is a good title for new section, and then we can state what outcomes were factually - which is a lot more productive than arguing about definitions of victory... Babakathy (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Olifants

I am dubious about this addition. of course we need a reliable source. the SADF didn't abandon the Olifants, its policy was to blow them up (if lost in a minefield or something like that) in order that the communications equipment not fall into Cuban hands...this would have compromised their military communications security. (clive holt etc.) Now if a disabled tank is blown up, it is not "abandoned" . Also, losing a few tanks in a minefield is not "being bested" . Only one Olifant that I know of was abandoned and captured by the Cubans. (there is an amusing account of the difficulties they had getting it across the river since it was several tons heavier than their own tanks and exceeded the weight limits of their bridge and their rafts). The Cubans claim to have won a defensive victory because they repulsed these ground attacks: as one veteran says, if the blacks draw, then they win (chess). 65.95.245.19 (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm also dubious about this Olifant claim. Can we either have a source or delete it from the article? --67.241.42.162 (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect these are pictures of the abandoned Olifant (and Spanish text): [[9]] and more here [[10]] Farawayman (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
More recent picture of one of the tanks for those who don't believe we had to leave them behind - [[11]] - click through the pictures to the last one Conlinp (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point of view by Namibian author

This personal opinion makes for very interesting reading: here Farawayman (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This "opinion" is in tune with the reliable sources. Is this author perhaps a reliable source in his own right? Wdford (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Self-published. Not an RS. Feketekave (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Bush War: The Road to Cuito Cuanavale

  • I am a little surprised to see no mention of "Bush War: The Road to Cuito Cuanavale. Soviet soldiers' accounts of the Angolan War". Appendix A ("Gauging the Losses and the Outcome") contains a detailed (and, I would say after a first look, rather convincing) critique of some of the South African figures used here. Feketekave (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
As you seem to be the one who has the book, it's up to you to use it. Editors cannot use sources they do not have. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Or the pages visible here can be used [Bush War: The Road to Cuito Cuanavale] BoonDock (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, I see someone's opinion reflected in the pages that I linked to above. There is no substantial argument that would change, in my opinion, anything that has been debated on this page before about the numbers. The core issue there, as I see it, is that the SADF numbers are the only ones which are verifiable. All the others are pure speculation, including the Cuban and UNITA ones, as the contemporary documentation, the primary source if you will, is not accessible to researchers because either it was never recorded correctly or at all (UNITA), or it is still held as a "state secret" (Cuba), so all the books and articles are all the same, they are rehashing the same arguments based on the same problems with the numbers that we are struggling with here. BoonDock (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Most of the Cuban accounts are repeated in contemporary Soviet (later Russian) and other academic publications in countries formerly aligned with the communist bloc. Historians in these countries, much like historians in RSA, use whatever material is most readily available to them. While I agree that 99.9% of it is complete bloody utter rubbish, that doesn't mean they should be excluded altogether. See T-54/55. The article makes mention of both the SADF claim that only one Ratel was destroyed on February 14 during the Cuito campaign, and the absurd FAPLA/Cuban claim that they destroyed ten Olifants(!) and twelve Ratels the same day. --Katangais (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Bias!

Parts of this article are poisonously biased in favour of the SADF. This article is not objective. It is like a propaganda report for the SADF. Military History and Strategic Studies students will be poisoned by this. Was it written by a South Afeica soldier or general? Take it off!

70.51.81.135 (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC) early drafts of this article seem based on one source, written by a former South Rhodesian now in europe and running a wierd commercial bookshop website. That source has been much copied but its bias is clear, especially if you look at other items reviewed or for sale on the site. 

            The dates of the battle are given in a standard academic reference on the history of angola as December 1987 – March 1988[, as in the

box on top of the article. Other journalists are even more specific about a few weeks around Jan 1988. Yet this source, and the "order of battle" that was posted in this article recently, completely ignore all events after Dec. 1987..... this order of battle should never have been put in the article at all. 70.51.81.135 (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The only bias is in treating Cuban and MPLA propaganda as the equal of official South African records.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Protection

  • Is it possible to "semi-protect" this article to prevent the hit and run vitriol such as what I have just reverted? BoonDock (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

this is a rare moment of world history

South Africa decided to launch an attack and succeeded.

South Africa decided to let unita alone and succeeded.

South Africa decided to abandon the field and succeeded (inflicting heavy casualties on opponents).

South Africa decided to enter negotiations and succeeded.

South Africa decided to accept Angola and SW Africa independence and succeeded.

South Africa decided to end apartheid and give power to mandela and succeeded.


This is one of the rare moment in history where a whole country decided to auto terminate itself (and succeeded ;) ). It is quite impressive. Do you really have sources that implies this suicide ?

RigOLuche (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question? I agree with most of the declarative statements you made. It WAS a rare moment in history and was lauded as such world wide. So what is your point? BoonDock (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
What a lame escuse BoonDock, his point its that the Idea of a South African Victory its simply nonsense, there rolled back by the political backslash the Apartheid Regime Suffered.200.48.214.19 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Only the first three statements are related to the specific subject of this article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The other 3 are good to mention too.200.48.214.19 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
And yet the last three are often mentioned as being made possible by this, or at least, having a direct causative effect. That aside, I take exception to the implication that South Africa "committed suicide" in any way by peacefully moving to a sharing of power! The "aftermath" of this (series of) battle(s) has been argued to include a hastening of South Africa's movement to the peace table, or conversely that SA hastened the end of the operations in Angola specifically so that the situation at home could be concentrated on. However you look at it, it made political sense to "abandon the field" and "enter negotiations" voluntarily. I'm not sure what is meant by "let unita alone" though? SA supported UNITA through the whole process of peace negotiations and the JMC etc. It was only after the 1994 elections in South Africa that UNITA was truly orphaned. I see that RigOLuche has removed his request for proof of casualties. I wonder why? maybe he's actually read the article or the sources or waded through the "debate" on this page? BoonDock (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
my point is that the article pose like SA was successfull all the way through in this affair. Or we all know that this affair lead to the independence of Angola and Namibia, and mid term, to the downfall of the apartheid. As the article shows that SA repeatedly plan and succeed, we can ask ourself if she intended to abandon UNITA, allow Namibia to be independent and apartheid to finish. Do you have sources that implies this strategical suicid then apartheid self destruction ? RigOLuche (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
You want a source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_apartheid_referendum,_1992 There read that. It wasn't suicide, the Afrikaners are still very much with us.Nenndul (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Document for review by Page Editors

Please find at this link a Paper which carries information on this topic, together with verifiable primary sources: https://www.academia.edu/15584636/Paper_South_Africa_and_the_Angolan_War — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.226.24.15 (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, at the relevant link within the formal letter at this url, additional information is provided on the subject at hand: https://www.academia.edu/15615209/Post_Conflict_Reconciliation_Namibia_Letter_from_a_former_PLAN_Special_Forces_member_to_former_South_African_Special_Forces_Operators — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.226.24.15 (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Other than the above, relevant information (with access to source documentation also hyperlinked in the text of the document) can additionally be found in the relevant section of this document: https://www.academia.edu/15615378/Post_Conflict_Reconciliation_Former_USSR_Russian_Federation_Meeting_with_the_Russian_Angola_Veterans_Union — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.226.24.15 (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Cuito Cuanavale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Both sides claimed victory, but...

This article's content is skewed heavily in favour of SADF actions and outcomes of those actions are portrayed as overwhelmingly positive. No actions of the FAPLA/Cuban forces are detailed except those of retreat and defeat. Given the known outcomes from the battle we know that the results were not all positive for the SADF. Initial successes were rolled back and some reversals quite negative forcing the Aparthied goverment to the negotiating table check this out. The Angolans for their part must also have realised they could not achieve their objectives of eliminating UNITA so long as South Africa was in play hence they agreed to come to the negotiating table. In effect this battle ended in something a stalemate and the article fails to reflect that.

What is clearly agreed is the SADF was no longer a 'superior' force that could easily dominate its FAPLA enemies and hence the Aparthied government was more willing to negotiate[1] see here 45.212.167.8 (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Kalombo

All Cuban/MPLA demands where granted: independence of Angola and Namibia, withdraw of all troops. Come on! Can anybody believe this? Please, get the facts right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.140.181 (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

All South African demands were also met - the Cubans left Angola at the same time. But that is relevant to the war as a whole - not this particular campaign. The SA goal for this campaign was to prevent MPLA/FAPLA from encroaching into UNITA controlled territory and more specifically to stop FAPLA's advance on Jamba. Angola was already independent at the time of this campaign. Get your facts straight! The only goal SA had with respect to the town of Cuito Cuanavale itself was to disrupt the airbase - which they did very successfully using long range artillery, The Angolan/Cuban claim that SA wanted to occupy the town itself is the biggest lie of the whole war. If they really intended to do that they would have brought far more than ~3000 troops. Roger (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The objectives of the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale were none of the things you mention. It was undeniably a South African/UNITA victory. The allies achieved their strategic and tactical aims, Cuba/MPLA did not. To blandly state that both sides claimed victory is a nonsense. Mandela is not a reliable source.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


No Royalcourtier, it was NOT a SADF/UNITA victory. The SADF was ultimately defeated when they besieged the town of Cuito Cuanavale and failed to capture it. This is nothing but Boer revisionist propaganda. As far as Mandela as a source is concerned, when he assumed power in South Africa he had access to the military records of the South African military even before the collapse of Apartheid. The military failure is what brought South Africa to the negotiating table and there has been a disinformation campaign to cover up the actual SADF losses which were far greater than reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yog Sohoth (talk • contribs) 04:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
As it happens, you can argue this using emotive language as much as you like. You're wrong. There were many factors which brought South Africa to the negotiating table, military failure in this or any other battle/campaign had nothing to do with it. I'd like to see your sources for a "disinformation campaign" to cover up the losses. The number of SADF losses are public knowledge and well recorded! BoonDock (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
What a arrogant statement BoonDock, you forget to claim the Democratic and Inclusive South African Goverment made public knowledge of its losses. Are you South African By the Way??200.48.214.19 (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
As it is, the current records made available by the SANDF are far more transparent than those offered by Cuba and Angola - indeed, it is the latter two who have consistently - and I'm talking as late as 2013 here - refused to release their own records of the battle to historians. Hence, we have no alternative to rely on mostly South African sources, which are far more specific in any case. The problem with Cuban/FAPLA accounts is that they use so much political language (ie lacing factual accounts with constant references to ideology) that it's difficult to separate military fact from say, a lecture on the evils of apartheid. Furthermore, their accounts are hideously vague: for example, claiming to have destroyed twelve SADF "armoured cars" and 10 "tanks" on February 14. The SADF claimed to have destroyed at least 7 "tanks" that day for the loss of 2 vehicles slightly damaged. However, this is backed up not only by the accounts of many individual soldiers, but also by photographic evidence and other extensive documentation. Although it is the Cuban/FAPLA version which is most often repeated in former communist bloc states, it's just an echo - with no proof or individual accounts or other sources to back it up.
Anyroad, that's all I have to say regarding the comment on "Boer disinformation". If you want to get more sources out of Havana and Luanda, you're welcome to go ask them yourself...unfortunately without a Freedom of Information Act like RSA's they're not obligated to provide you with answers and have already refused many world-class scholars on the subject. A dreadful shame.
I don't usually like delving into the whole nitpicky "who won" crap when it comes to Cuito Cuanavale. Both sides (meaning FAPLA and UNITA) took heavy losses. Both sides also defined victory in different ways. FAPLA came out worse when it came to casualties and equipment destroyed. In this case I think it's best to refer those who want concrete answers to Eeben Barlow. Barlow fought on both sides of the Angolan Civil War and had the unique opportunity of commanding alongside FAPLA and the SADF throughout his career. His words of wisdom:
Eeben Barlow in 2013, speaking here
Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Well said and thought out, Katangais. But one thing is very clear that despite the dispute over who won the battle, it is clear that the SADF lost the military advantage in Angola and decided to cut their losses and retreat. So even if Cuito Cuanavale was a tactical victory for the SADF, it was clearly a strategic defeat for the SADF and the Reich of South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.246.44 (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, not so at all! This article is about a specific battle, not the broader Cold War. In the context of this specific battle, the facts are clear - MPLA+Cuba tried to destroy UNITA so that they could impose a communist dictatorship. SA backed UNITA and tried to protect UNITA from destruction, by confronting MPLA+Cuba at Cuito. SA halted the MPLA+Cuba advance against UNITA, and forced them to abandon the attempt. Job done, SA won. Ultimately UNITA lived on to contest elections post-war, so SA+USA clearly succeeded in that process as well. Two nil. However ultimately-ultimately the MPLA imposed a communist dictatorship anyway, so ultimately-ultimately the communists won that one. However in the very big picture the USSR bled itself to death in the attempt (in Angola and in Vietnam and in Afghanistan etc etc) so ultimately-ultimately-ultimately communism was defeated. Game over. Re Namibia - SA tried to protect Namibia from communist military invasion, and succeeded at that level. SWAPO eventually won elections, although with a non-dictatorial constitution, so they sort-of won but they also sort-of lost. Re apartheid, SA held on to apartheid until the Berlin Wall came down and the USSR gave up, then handed over peacefully to democracy with a non-dictatorial constitution. We see the value of that war every day - the ANC government tries to steal and is blocked by the constitution which they were forced to accept because they were unable to win liberation by military means. So the "whites" have been protected from communist dictatorship, so in part they won, but the "blacks" have a majority in a democratic parliament, so in part they won. It’s a classic compromise situation, and all sides can claim to have won merely by being selective about where the winning post is set - at the battle in Cuito, at the negotiating table at the UN, in the elections in Namibia, in the elections in SA, in the SA Constitutional Court arguing about the right to nationalize? However this article is specifically about the battle at Cuito, so we need to stick to that. And in the battle, SA+UNITA defeated MPLA+Cuba. The fact are clear on this. Wdford (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
You are correct that this article is about a specific battle, and the actual BATTLE of Cuito Cuanavale occurred on March 23rd, 1988. The SADF and their UNITA allies launched an assault on the town of Cuito Cuanavale in an attempt to gain control of the Air Base which was being used by Cuban interventionist combat aircraft. The main focus of the attack was shelling by SADF artillery and despite heavy losses sustained by FAPLA/MPLA soldiers defending the town, the assault was a failure because its objective was to force FAPLA to retreat or be killed off. Neither of which happened! Enough FAPLA troops survived the bombardment and remained fully in control of Cuito Cuanavale so in a nutshell, the SADF attack was repulsed. Having exhausted their supply of artillery shells and with Cuban forces advancing from the west poised to attack, the SADF forces retreated south and crossed back into Namibia. So MPLA succeeded in halting the SADF/UNITA advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yog Sohoth (talk • contribs) 03:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source for this communist propaganda? Wdford (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Chaps, let me just throw in a friendly reminder that this isn't the place for discussion on who the battle itself. See the {{forum}} tag I've added to the top of the page, in case the talkbox header was missed. As for the comment on an actual "Battle of Cuito Cuanavale" Yog alleges took place on March 23, neither of the opposing forces were in the town limits itself, so I don't see how it's any different from the assaults which also took place prior to (and immediately following) this particular action around the Tumpo Triangle. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Impossible with all this South African arrogant editors, even one of them proudly says its a WHITE South African in its User page. Whats next? A racial explanation of the alleged S.African Victory??200.48.214.19 (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what the problem is. The SADF reached all their military objectives. The loss was merely on the political terrain. --41.151.31.237 (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Cuito Cuanavale. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 15:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Baines, Gary. "Beyond the Border War: New Perspectives on Southern Africa's Late- Cold War Conflicts - See more at: http://www.historytoday.com/gary-baines/replaying-cuito-cuanavale#sthash.QwICeQxq.dpuf". UNISA Press. Retrieved 27 May 2016. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Cuito_Cuanavale/Archive_3&oldid=1148049480"