Talk:Battle of Cuito Cuanavale/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

White supremacy and Cuito Cuanavale

Howzit all,

Per several separate discussions on Dodger67's and my own talk pages, I've decided to open one here concerning the relevancy of white supremacy to the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale.

Over the past few weeks, Marco.natalino has been adding multiple, unreferenced statements describing South Africa and the South African Defence Force as "white supremacist" here. I have countered that this is contentious language which is also irrelevant to a summary or description of the campaign itself. Marco has contended that references to the SADF's "white supremacist" ideology are necessary to help our readership understand the campaign.

I disagree, for the following reasons:

• 1) Yes, this is an article about a military action undertaken by South Africa while it was ruled by a white minority government. But not everything that happened during apartheid had something explicitly to do with apartheid. References to apartheid and white supremacy are therefore irrelevant here.

• 2) I could understand Marco's reasoning if it was a case like the campaigns waged by Nazi Germany, in which the Wehrmacht undertook conquests to spread the Nazi ideology and the borders of the Nazi state, but this is different: South Africa launched a limited intervention on behalf of a regional ally (UNITA). The South African military's goal was not spreading an ideology (like apartheid) by conquest.

• 3) Marco is under the mistaken impression that the South African forces were composed primarily of white combat personnel, when in fact most of the soldiers of any nationality who fought and died at Cuito Cuanavale were black Africans. South African units and formations such as 32 Battalion and the SWATF, which played key roles in the fighting, were predominantly black. Lacing the text with references to South Africa's "white supremacy" is misleading and paints Cuito Cuanavale as primarily a racial struggle when it fact it was not.

I hate it when politics become intertwined with military history articles, I really do. My take on the matter is let's focus on the tactical aspects of the various engagements, the casualties, the offensives, etc. Turning this into an ideological or political discussion is what I want to avoid, and I'm increasingly suspicious that this is an example of POV-pushing which seeks to vindicate one side by painting the other in a decidedly distasteful light.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

REPLY:

As an editor who has contributed to or written some of the articles on the South African Border War Operations, I would like to express an opinion on the ongoing issue of the last few days. Please note, I have not made major contributions to the article that has created this discussion though I do believe the article needs upgrading.

I have attempted, when contributing to Border war articles, to bring a neutral outlook to the battles and present the facts, which are sometimes hard to find. I have stayed away from some of the clearly outrageous articles, websites, disinformation and propaganda from the SWAPO, FAPLA, Cuban and South African sides.

I have stayed away from politically labelling SWAPO/PLAN and other organisations. That is for the SWAPO/PLAN article and other articles were editors can discuss its political ideology and motivation and a good reader can research that via the linking system.

FAPLA/MPLA's/Cuban and Soviet forces philosophy is again a discussion for a section within their own articles as it should be in South African Defence Force article. But all should be referenced from respected articles and publication and were there are disagreements, all sides of arguments can be presented.

I have treated all sides in this conflict as soldiers who did their duty, some reluctantly and others patriotically but with the aim that the service to their country was not forgotten. I have not labelled them as terrorists, white racists or supremacists. They did their duty and their effort, whether right or wrong, is a decision for the readers conscience. And this is what we have attempted to do when writing articles about South African history prior to 1994; present it as it was. There is no place for labelling. Will we need to describe the Vietnam War battles participants as the "imperialist Americans forces attacked the peasant peoples army of Vietnam?" Were will it end?

All wars have a strategic and tactical aspect. We have attempted to discuss the long term strategic aspect of the Southern African wars in two articles, the Angolan Civil War and the South African Border War and this is where the reasons for the wars origins and the political ideology behind the participants should be discussed. A good reader will always read further using the in-article links. The tactical aspect are the battles themselves and we have attempted, with sometimes limited sources to outline a daily account of all sides of the conflict. This is what those article are about. What happened, where, when and to who. Keep the philosophical arguments to the other articles.

As for the question concerning whether the South African Defence Force was racist, I will express an opinion. The SADF obeyed the philosophical ideology of the government of the day. Yes, they were used to enforce apartheid policies internally when the South African Police could not cope. Yes the SADF, through the Directorate of Military Intelligence, did use its power to destabilise Southern African nations on behalf of the government. Yes, the SADF backed UNITA to ensure that southern Angola would not be dominated by SWAPO and ensuring no early independence for Namibia. The SADF did have black members in specialised units but how integrated they were is open for discussion and another article.

Yes, a strong military will keep a political system in power and project its ideology, and this is happening in many parts of the world this very day. The SADF was mainly a white conscript army and therefore was made up of many political persuasions. Were some members of the SADF racists? Yes. And there were many who weren't. Most had no option but to serve while some just followed blindly believing their elders knew best. Some potential conscripts had the courage to join the other side, leave the country or go to jail for their convictions. Hindsight is wonderful. Save the philosophical arguments for the main articles about the origins and overviews of the wars, leave the tactical battles alone. Conlinp (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm taking these edits from Marco as an example (not sure if this is the full extent of the editing?). The reference to this being an action of the Apartheid-era SADF seems justified given that the so-called "border wars" were fought as part of the South African Government's attempts to sustain the existence of the entire apartheid system (the thinking being that it was necessary to have a layer of either friendly or greatly destabilised "buffer" states between South Africa and other African countries as part of efforts to suppress the pro-democracy/majority rule movement in South Africa). The SADF was a core element of that strategy, as well as being a core element of the Apartheid regime. As such, this helps readers to understand the context in which the battle was fought. The mention of "white supremacist" here seems unnecessary though: while it's factually correct, it doesn't seem to relate to anything at all in the text it was added to. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I edited it out after looking through several military history articles, in particular ones involving the SS, and they didn't mention the white supremacy. For WW2 all of that is contained in links to the government of the era and all the other context that is naturally linked in such articles. The government they were fighting for at the time speaks for itself in this regard. Since the article uses the flag of apartheid South Africa and explicitly states it in the opening, I think such commentary should be left out.ObscureFruits (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello to all who have been working on this page selflessly and congratulations on your work. I find that the article is of better quality now, compared to what it was a few days ago. Thank you all those who have interacted with me on this topic in such good faith and blunt honesty. Hope you all the best, and keep on the good work. Now I must, in respect for Katangais and all the others, reply.

We should all focus on writing accurately, using common language and proper concepts. I have no quarrel with specific words and sensitivities, and I don`t really care if the words "white supremacist" are written before the words "South Africa" or "SADF" here or anywhere else. What I care about is that when some kid comes here to learn about the subject, he or she will find a well written article with all the factual and contextual information needed for an understanding of the topic. For all I know, the "apharteid era" South Africa does accurately describe the context, and so does "white supremacist". It is a simple matter of basic logic and conceptual definition ("apartheid" is a member of the set "white supremacy"), which I believe we all understand without the need of further philosophical debates! Now, focusing on the reader, we all know that if we keep fighting over specific words the article will decrease in quality. I assume none of us wants that. Having that in mind, I agree with Nick-D on his last point, as in many others. 

On the other hand, to put it frankly, I urge you all to try and keep your personal opinions and feelings out of the way when writing an encyclopedic article. There should no space here for "I hate when people mix this and that". Also, accusations of "POV-pushing" thrown in thin air are, in fact, against basic premises of this website (AGF). I must also sincerely disagree, in very strong terms, with the idea that an article about a battle should only focus on military movements and casualties. This may be the case sometimes, but not always. The basics of writing about an historic event involve contextualizing it. Regarding war history, when a series of engagements achieve political significance, as this battle did, contextualizing the battle is important. And contextualizing a battle means, at least, giving context and meaning to those who are fighting. That is why I wrote to Katangais this:

"The community of users that have helped make wikipedia a good starting point for information on military history is not supposed to be insulated. Excessive references to ideology should be suppressed in the name of good prose, of course. But, on this case, as in other historical cases (the most obvious being nazi germany, but there are others), such references help the reader understand the subject at hand better. Also, in the case of this specific article the very interest of the military event is intertwined with its historical-political interest (that is the reason the Cold War is discussed). I believe that it was with a good intention that someone first mentioned the marxist quality of FAPLA. If I didn`t know Angola history, I would like that information to be in the article. The same goes for SADF. So I will revert the change. Regarding the SADF article, I found it well written. Now, if you or others have an issue with the concept of white supremacy, I suggest you discuss it in the homonymous article."

Then, after Kantagais kindly explained to me some of the minutiae of white supremacist law and practice relating to the mandate and recruitment restrictions of the SADF, he made the BOLD claim that apartheid had nothing to do with the Battle of Cuito Cuonavale, leading me to write this:

"The point that white supremacy had nothing to do with the battle is misguided. We may all have our opinions, but that`s not what wikipedia is about, as we know. I would love (sincerely) to see a quotation for that claim, it would totally change not only my view but the view of historians in general. So I highly recommend Katangais to spread the word to the world, if this is true. As it stands now, it seems to be a consensual view - again, help me if I`m wrong - not only of historians but also of all the main powers involved in the conflict that white supremacy was indeed an important aspect of the whole thing. The idea that "the actual battle" is about casualties, military movements and whatnot contradicts one simple premise of war history (and history in general): why? Why were people fighting a battle? 

These are, in sum, my two cents on this article. Thank you all, and good night.

The battle was part of the Angolan Civil War, which in turn was part of the Cold War - an exact parallel of the Vietnam War of that same time period. Both superpowers had proxies, whom they supported with money, materiel and "diplomacy". The prima facie war here was the Angolan Civil War between the Marxist MPLA and their opponents UNITA. At the second level it was a battle between the Communist dictatorship of Cuba and the pro-capitalist South Africa. At the highest level it was a contest between the USSR who backed their proxies Cuba and the MPLA, versus the USA who backed their proxies South Africa and UNITA. All parties also had their own private objectives - MPLA wanted to establish a dictatorship and avoid the inconvenience of democracy, while UNITA wanted to escape annihilation. Dictatorial Cuba wanted to maintain the appearance of fathering a global Marxist revolution in Africa, while apartheid South Africa wanted to keep the armies of black Marxist dictatorship away from its own borders. We cannot rehash the ideologies of the entire war in every article about every battle ever fought, and we do not follow that approach in any other article about any other battle. This was not a battle about apartheid, it was a very small piece of the Cold War, where one of the parties coincidentally happened to be the army of an apartheid government. The anti-apartheid ANC likes to claim it was a battle about apartheid, and that they played a part in it, but that is just ANC propaganda. None of the many participants in this war had clean hands, but that is the nature of war. Wdford (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This perspective is generally the one I took - simply because the apartheid government was the government of the day when South Africa intervened in the Angolan Civil War doesn't mean that the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale was a battle about white supremacy and apartheid.

Marco says he wants a source for the above statement (the "BOLD claim" he references), but the burden of proof rests on him since he's the one who first suggested otherwise: I'd like to know where exactly he got the impression the principles of apartheid and white supremacy were integral to the Cuito campaign. He stated here that it's due to South Africa "enforcing apartheid against black insurgency", which is a statement so nonsensical I'm beginning to wonder if what we have here is a language barrier (as well as a rather over-generalised grasp of the conflict's dimensions) instead of a serious content dispute. I did ask if he was confusing Cuito Cuanavale and the South African Border War with Internal resistance to apartheid, but Marco has yet to respond to my inquiry on that particular topic. --Katangais (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then:

Davies, Robert. "After Cuito Cuanavale: The new regional conjuncture and the sanctions question." in: Orkin, Mark, ed. Sanctions against apartheid. New Africa Books, 1989. Gleijeses, Piero. Visions of freedom: Havana, Washington, Pretoria, and the struggle for Southern Africa, 1976-1991. UNC Press Books, 2013. p.359 Marco.natalino (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that but the second source you cited (Gleijeses, pg. 359) just states what we already know: that the Cubans became determined to reinforce the FAPLA brigades south of Cuito with more men and weapons, that FAPLA persevered in spite of appalling setbacks, and that they realised the SADF's air superiority had to be broken. These are all tactical details. Nowhere is apartheid or white supremacy even mentioned.

You didn't give a page number for the first source you cited, but as far as I can tell Davies' chapter doesn't say that apartheid had a direct impact on the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale. He goes into some detail about "Total Strategy" and the destabilisation of neighbouring states, including Angola, and says the SADF suffered a major reversal at Cuito, forcing it to rethink its regional strategy, including the Namibian independence question and its support for RENAMO/MNR. --Katangais (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Katangais I am truly fed up with your lack of good faith. You`re lost, changing your position gradually without ever conceding that you`re wrong. First you said apartheid had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Then you weaseled your way through meaningless expressions like "integral part" and so on. Now you`re circling around the topic like a child. What do you mean by "direct impact"? Have you read it? Have you read the direct quotations from u.s. officials I have referenced just for you? Have you got anything to say about it, honestly? Forget the ghost you built in your head, nobody thinks that apartheid was such a big important part of it, and everyone agrees the cold war is an important part of it, bigger than apartheid. What these simple, non-paywalled sources point out, as everyone does, is that every single actor that has played a part in this battle saw apartheid as an aspect of the battle. It was particularly important for Cuba and the United States, as the sources make clear. Now, let`s try this like we`re in kindergarten: why was this "cold war" battle so lacking in u.s. support? We may wonder as much as we like, but the sources i`ve given, and there would be many more if paywall wasn`t a problem, all point out to apartheid. There, is that enough? Would you please give up? Marco.natalino (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Marco, nobody here is contesting that apartheid must be considered in light of the greater strategic implications of the border war, as so helpfully noted by Nick-D. But as Wdford, ObscureFruits, and Conlinp have stated (and they are free to correct me if I'm misrepresenting their points here), it isn't ideal to go about rehashing the particulars of every ideology in articles about specific battles which had nothing especially to do with said ideology (ie "capitalist Americans" in Tet Offensive, "zionist Israelis" in Battle of Karameh, and so on). I maintain, per Wdford's comments, that apartheid had nothing especially to do with the specific battle of Cuito Cuanavale, since it wasn't the motivation for the SADF's intervention (the dynamics of the then-ongoing Angolan Civil War were), nor did anti-apartheid movements play a significant role in the fighting (although of course SWAPO and the ANC's armed wings were present, their participation was minimal). That's what I meant by my language - "integral part of" and "direct impact on", and I'm sorry if that wasn't made clear to you.

Secondly I took the time to peruse your sources and they do not "all point out to apartheid" as you suggested, nor could I find a reference in either source for your opinion that "every single actor that has played a part in this battle saw apartheid as an aspect of the battle", which looks to be an example of WP:OR. Reading a specific passage in Google Books is not difficult, and with regards to a single chapter can be easily accomplished by opening the same page in multiple browsers or on another device.

Furthermore I think a general consensus has been reached that we exclude the out of context references, whether to South Africa or the SADF (you've added this adjective to both), as "white supremacist". You seem to have agreed with Nick-D that it doesn't particularly relate to anything in the lead, so that's something this discussion has accomplished. I certainly don't see it as an example of a circular argument.

Regarding the mentions of apartheid, I continue to disagree with its inclusion in the lead for the concerns already stated above, and those made by the other editors already referenced - which you've repeatedly failed to address. --Katangais (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's also keep in mind here please that the Robert Davies cited here is in fact Rob Davies (politician), a leading member of the South African Communist Party and a long-serving member of the ANC government. He was still hiding in exile in Mozambique when he wrote this contribution, he is hardly objective on the subject of apartheid or the SADF, and we can reasonably question whether he can be regarded as a reliable source on the topic. As a senior member of the ANC leadership structure, he could hardly deviate from the ANC party line and tell the truth about events at Cuito, assuming he even had accurate information to begin with. However even he writes that Cuito was merely a "setback" for the SADF, rather than a defeat as has been claimed by some of his communist colleagues (pg 198), and he openly admits that the SADF never attempted to capture the town in the first place (pg 224). Wdford (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Katangais, I understand what you are saying now, it is just that it is different from what you have written before. But let`s move on. Your idea of what Cuito Cuanavale is ("a battle" strictu sensu) excludes a lot of what the battle means, in terms of contemporary world history, to the people who has written about it, and, most importantly, to the people who will try to learn about it it right here. I`ll repeat: those who write about war history should not to be insulated from the rest of the wikipedia community. To profess your point of views on what the battle is does not follow the criteria we use here.

As I have said before, I`ve got no quarrel with the expression white supremacist being excluded or included, I have a quarrel with making the article worse because of personal sensitivities. When I first used it in the second paragraph there was a logic behind it: it just made good sense, since the ideology of one side was mentioned, to mention the ideology of the other! Then came arcane discussions on the nature of SADF and whatnot. Now the text is different, so be it.

Of course, one comes to wonder how come when the ideology professed by only one side of the battle is mentioned people think it is all good and well, congratulations to us all on our impartiality and objectivity. But when a simple, factual reference to South Africa ideological drive is mentioned then "oh, we shouldn`t be talking about this here", "oh, the article doesn`t look good that way" etc. And then a huge argument follows. All because of a simple factual reference! There must be a reason for that.

Wdford, I 100% agree Davies is biased, but that is not the point. I knew this objection could come, and I think it would be a fair objection if I was making some claim on other aspects of the battle. But the page number I`ve given points to a simple passage where the Apartheid was discussed by u.s. cold warriors as an important aspect of the battle, and that was just me trying to give one reference to the generally accepted idea (but not here, apparently) that the powers involved saw apartheid as an important aspect of the battle. Now, I suppose no one is arguing that Cuba and South Africa saw apartheid as an important aspect... right? That would be crazy. Marco.natalino (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Please give us a page number in Davies' text to consult as a reference. So far you've only mentioned the chapter itself, without giving us an actual page number. Use of the term "generally accepted idea" suggests original research, which is why I've been somewhat wary of your claims that apartheid constituted an important part of the battle. However, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Again, please just give us something to work with - a page number of a text that actually says that, from a reliable source per WP:RS.

RileyBugz specifically asked that you provide a source for your claims on Dodger67's talk page here but you failed to do so. Since then you have provided sources that were either non-specific (Davies) or contained absolutely no information pertaining to apartheid (Gleijeses).

You're also mistaken if you think the ideology of one belligerent in this conflict is being afforded disproportionate emphasis. In the interests of fairness, I will remind you that I did put forth the suggestion we omit all ideological references to Marxism-Leninism in addition to apartheid (this is what Conlinp was also recommending per his comments above), but you rejected that proposal out of hand. So don't pretend that this is solely because the editorship weighs down on one side more heavily than the other. --Katangais (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Marco.natalino, per the WP:Consensus policy, I'm apealing to you please drop the stick. The contestation between various political ideologies is relevant to the war as a whole, rehashing them in every article about every campaign, battle, skirmish, or other event, is simply undue. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Marco.natalinoDodger67 Following what Dodger said, it is undue to contain the mention of white supremacy in this article. If you can find a statement (supported with a non-biased secondary or tertiary source) from the organization saying that they were white supremacists during that time, then I would say it would be ok to mention it in the Angolan Civil War article, but not here. If you cannot find a statement from them, then don't include it. RileyBugz (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

People, I have already agreed from the beginning of this discussion here with the removal of the term white supremacist! I have also stated I don`t care that much about it, refrained from putting it again in the article and opined that the article became better while this discussion was going on here. I simply think that scrapping references to the ideological aspects of this particular battle doesn't help the article in any way. Let`s move on. Marco.natalino (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Since Marco.natalino has continued to remain evasive about his references, and four longtime past contributors of this article, (Conlinp, Dodge, Wdford, and myself) have opposed the rehashing of various ideologies here - while consensus has failed to support Marco's claim that ideologies are important to a discussion about the battle itself, I think it's fair to state that this discussion is closed.

Marco, if you can come up with more references suggesting a direct correlation between apartheid and this specific battle, you are invited to post them here per my comments above.

However, if you do not have proper references, as Dodger said, drop the stick. We've all heard the points you've had to make at this stage - including how supposedly insulated we are from the rest of the Wikipedia community - and nobody's impressed. Regardless of whether we're discussing white supremacy or apartheid, information about ideologies belongs in articles about the war in general as opposed to individual battles and campaigns.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I simply don't know what the discussion is about anymore. Maybe this will help you:

"Prior to the emergence of African anticolonial and national liberation movements, South Africa's ruling circles were content to view southern Africa solely in economic terms, "as an exploitable resource, a source of cheap labour and a ready market for the country's products" (TRC, 1999: 13). However, to counter the liberation movements and protect the apartheid regime "politicians and senior security strategists began to conceptualise the region, and particularly the minority-ruled and colonial territories of Southern Rhodesia, Angola, Mozambique and South West Africa, primarily as a military buffer zone" (TRC, 1999: 13).

Pretoria sought to reimpose its hegemony. The success of the liberation struggles in the countries surrounding South Africa inspired the internal antiapartheid forces and created external allies on the country's borders that could provide concrete material assistance such as forward bases for the ANC's military arm. As Angola, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe achieved independence inthe 1970s and 1980s, Afrikaner ruling circles soughtto neutralize any real or perceived treat to the apartheid status quo. Thus the military defeat at Cuito Cuanavale prevented Pretoria from cementing its control of the southern African region, which would have greatly strengthened the regime by weakening the antiapartheid popular forces. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa (TRC, 1999: 3-4) concluded:

"It would appear that conflicts in southern African states, particularly in Mozambique, Nanibia and Angola, were often inextricably linked to the struggle for control of the South African state. Hence there is a sense in which the large number of people who died in wars and conflicts in the neighbouring states since 1960 did so, to some extent, in the furtherance of the South African struggle. While it is impossible to specify how many of these deaths were directly connected to the struggle for South Africa, the Comniission believes that the number of people killed inside the borders of the country in the course of the liberation struggle was considerably lower than those who died outside. . . . [It is] clear that some of the most powerful protagonists in the conflict in South Africa recognized at an early stage that the contest was occurring to a large extent outside South Africa. In its first submission to the Commission, the SADF stated emphatically that "national security policy made explicit provision for pro-active actions beyond the borders of the RSA [Republic of South Africa]. This was consistentwith a view frequently expressed at State Security Council (SSC) meetings that the defence of South Africa should take place outside its border."

Consequently, the defeat at Cuito Cuanavale stymied South Africa's drive for hegemony, altering the regional balance of forces. It was the turning point in the struggle against apartheid. While the battlefields in Angola and the townships of South Africa were geographically separate and distinct arenas of struggle against apartheid, they were intimately entwined. The defeat of the S ADF in Angola reverberated throughout South Africa, acting as both a symbol and a catalyst for the popular forces while materially reducing the military capacity for repression of the South African government."

Saney, Isaac. "African Stalingrad: The Cuban Revolution, Internationalism, and the End of Apartheid." Latin American Perspectives 33.5 (2006): 81-117.

Marco.natalino (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Isaac Saney is a race-activist and a Cuban apologist - he is entitled to his opinion, but he is not necessarily objective, and his Cuban sources are not necessarily accurate. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission was made up of people with a specific background, and it had a specific mandate - namely, to uncover all the evils of apartheid. That was the reason for their existence. Again, the fact that they frame every possible ill as a consequence of apartheid does not mean that this was in fact always the case. The government who controlled the SADF at the time of Cuito Cuanavale had a different opinion - which version was not always accepted by the people on the TRC. PS: See also "South Africa's 'Border War': Contested Narratives and Conflicting Memories", by Gary Baines - at pg 112 he clarifies that MK was never involved at Cuito, and that the ANC dishonestly mythologizes Cuito to compensate for the fact that it's so-called military struggle never won a single military engagement against the SADF. You need to separate propaganda from fact. Wdford (talk) 08:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Wdford, you seem to know a whole lot about the TRC! That`s awesome, I invite you to contribute to that article. Particularly, if the background of the people who were a part of it is not already mentioned I strongly encourage you to put it in there.

Now, regarding this article, you`re welcome to express what is not accurate. If you find it important to mention that the Apartheid regime denied the TRC findings regarding the SADF, I don`t see why anyone would object to that information once you reference it. As far as i know, this is common knowledge. It is also common knowledge that SADF had a strategical motive to be in this battle, as Saney, referencing the RNC, puts it.

Now, nobody here should care about Saney personal opinions or ideologies. I certainly don`t care about it, nor subscribe to it. Regarding his sources, they are well referenced in his article. The evaluation of their accuracy by you as an individual is original research, and you`re welcome to write an article about it and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal like he did.

Regarding the "winning" of military engagements, afaik everyone agrees the outcome of this battle is contested. That must be in the article, and it is. The article also reports the engagements in detail, which is, of course, essential. If I might opine on your source title, it seems pretty darn good: "contested narratives and conflicting memories" is an excellent summary of the whole deal. I think that, in the end, we`re not in such a big disagreement.

Regarding ANC mythologizing, that is somewhat interesting and, afaik, also common knowledge. Why the pedestrian fact that a political party engages in mithology is relevant to this article I fail to understand, but you seem to know the reason and I encourage you to contribute. I would think more focus on FAPLA and UNITA would be better, though. Of course, many sources on that are in Portuguese, Spanish and (to a lesser extent) French. Marco.natalino (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The SADF strategic intention at Cuito was to protect UNITA from attack by its Marxist rivals - that is common knowledge. To have a Cuban-apologist insert a completely different strategic intent would be ridiculous. The ANC mythologizing does need to be clarified, or at least their propaganda needs to be removed. Saney's statements that SADF soldiers claimed they had been outfought goes completely against the known reality, so either these were psychiatric patients, or this is merely more ANC propaganda. The references are not specific enough - if you really want to include that blatant propaganda then please give a much more specific reference, and insert content that states very clearly who exactly said this. Also, such a wild and heavily-contested statement should not be in the lead section. Wdford (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Improvements to Article

https://citizen.co.za/opinion/opinion-columns/1867650/cuito-myth-a-bridge-too-far/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.190.115.83 (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

A lot of disputed material is being added here without consensus, and its leading to an edit war. The basic WikiRule in contested edits is that the intended changes are proposed one by one on the talk page, we discuss the proposals individually, and we agree on each edit one at a time. Then another change is proposed, and discussed, etc. It doesn't help to dump in a huge number of contentious changes all at once. Please propose one change to start us off? Wdford (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I think now that he has provided sources for his claims, everything Marco wrote can and should be included in the article. However, it needs to be phrased differently to avoid contentious wording, and probably doesn't belong in the lead but in the "background" and "aftermath" sections. His references also need to be cleaned up with citation templates. Something like this, perhaps?

Something else to keep in mind: Marco uses American spellings while most of the spellings in the article are Commonwealth English. Per MOS:ENGVAR and the fact that most articles about the Border War use Commonwealth spellings already, we should probably throw up a tag for that. @Wdford you think that's a solid suggestion? --Katangais (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that we should stick to Commonwealth English spelling.

I am concerned about all the citations to Saney, on the grounds of WP:RS. First off, Saney is not a military historian. He apparently writes extensively on Cuba, with access to official Cuban records, although Communist dictatorships are not famous for their accuracy and transparency about their military defeats. Second, Saney here is actually citing another middleman source, namely Bravo. Estela Bravo is not a historian at all, she is a film-maker. More specifically she is married to a Cuban, lives in Cuba, and makes a lot of documentaries about Cuba. Third, Bravo’s documentary interviewed a few South African ex-soldiers, who seemingly made statements to the effect that the SADF was out-fought. However the facts are clear that the SADF smashed the FAPLA advance against UNITA, inflicted heavy casualties on them while suffering only a couple of dozen casualties of their own, and pinned them at Cuito until Cuba moved their attention elsewhere, etc etc. It thus seems that Bravo may have cherry-picked a couple of disaffected, ill-informed and non-representative ex-soldiers – I wonder what the other 4,000 SADF soldiers would have said if given the chance? I wonder if these three men were even at the battle – considering that the "defeat" component of the seven-month long battle only lasted 2 days, and that the vast bulk of the 4,000 men involved at various stages during that seven months would not have been on the field on the day in question? In summary, we have Saney – a Cuban-leaning non-expert – citing Bravo – a Cuban-leaning non-historian – citing three soldiers of uncertain expertise or even involvement. I hardly think this meets WP:RS, far less that it can stack against all the evidence of careful research done by actual historians.

On the other hand, Helmoed-Römer Heitman and C. J. Nothling are respected military historians and authors.

I agree that the Vanneman statement that no decisive victory was won by either side, would be a good counter-point to the Mandela extolling of the Cuban contribution, although it is common cause that the MPLA advance against UNITA was comprehensively smashed and UNITA was protected as planned, before the "siege" started. I would also like to add here the Baines clarification that the ANC was never involved at Cuito but that they dishonestly mythologize events at Cuito for propaganda purposes.

We should also make it clear that the "siege" part of the process was conducted almost entirely by UNITA, with minimal involvement by the SADF, most of whom had already been moved to the coast to stop the new Cuban advance. The SADF involvement in the "siege" consisted largely of shelling the airfield, and they had orders not to attack the town. Communist propaganda tries to make it sound like Stalingrad, where a valiant defense held out for years against overwhelming SADF attacks.

Wdford (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)