Talk:Battle of Cuito Cuanavale/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

There's no dispute. The SADF tactically defeated the Cubans and Angolans. The Cubans used propaganda to spew out a mythical victory. The numbers bear it out. I changed the outcome to make it more neutral.

Is hard to say, if the SDAF won, probably the UNITA would have won the civil war. We are maybe dealing with some kind of "Vietnam", by the numbers the americans didn't loose, from a historical perspective, they did loose.

Remember we're only talking about the specific battle of Cuito Cuanavale where the Cuban/MPLA tactical objectives were not achieved. In the bigger picture both Cuba and the South Africans pulled out due to increasing casualties and economic cost though SA had the additional burden of domestic unrest. That left the two Angolan factions to fight it out. I'd like to add specific comments about the battle itself, keeping as neutral as possible, but the problem is the only Engish sources from the pro-MPLAside are propagandistic and mostly devoid of tactical narrative while the SADF side is chock full of specifics on the tactical elements of the battle. Virgil61 01:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. Finding sources for me is very complicated, and sometimes, one contradicts another. Oh...and if the MPLA didn't achieved his tactical objectives, neither the SDAF/UNITA did. So I say we can call it a "draw" EDomingos 10:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The lack of specificity on the Cuban/Angolan side and the propaganda which contradicts both a sound tactical approach to the terrain and the SADF mission is very suspicious. Remember, the SADF's small force had been given three orders; to stop the MPLA/Cuban advance on UNITA strongholds, inflict heavy casualties and force the enemy to retreat west of the Cuito River. The mission was never to hold Cuito Cuanavale, a location on the west bank of the Cuito, (some maps incorrectly show it on the east bank) difficult to defend from western approaches, but which could be observed by the high ground the SADF held. As a soldier I think that's a perfectly sound approach that copies what I've seen units in the U.S. use.

In lieu of the orders received and the tactical approach used by the small SADF force in completing those orders, the charge by the MPLA/Cubans that the SADF force tried to take Cuito Cuanavale (west of the Cuito River) seems very odd. I think strong and very specific narratives by many SADF vets and military historians, high casualty and equipment rates among the MPLA/Cubans, coupled with very "fuzzy" sloganeering without specific narrative evidence--among other things--by Cuba hints very strongly that Cuito Cuanavale was a loss for the Angolan/Cuban forces. I'll certainly leave it as a "draw", although I don't think we do the truth much good. As an Army PSYOP (psychological operations) soldier I suppose I can take some consolation in the power of progaganda (even Cuban) to influence outcomes. Virgil61 04:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Well..as a soldier too -two soldiers in the same topic- you must know that history is written by the winners.

EDomingos 20:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, such crap. If it makes the Afrikaners feel better about themselves after suffering such a huge defeat, then so be it.

Here is a more realistic version of Cuito Carnival.

http://www.geocities.com/richy1724/history/angola.html

Bantuman 23:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please follow general wikipedia rules and guidelines (no profanity) (see Help:Contents/Policies and guidelines), specifically those relating to editing of talk talk pages specifically (Help:Talk page).

As for your comments, as for you point of view, feel free to take part in the discussion on this page, but it seems you have missed the point that there are conflicting opinions about the outcome (as stated in the article) supported by propoganda on both sides (such as the link you provided) --Deon Steyn 12:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Xwing Saturday October 14 2006

It´s sad to see people that are still wrapped up by the propaganda, and not the real information, and also I want to say that I am not agree with the information displayed on the page, it´s all wrong. Some things people are well proved allready, and do not need more talking, and one of them is that, The Cuito Cuanavale Battle. I´m sorry if you feel bad about the case that your part of the conflict loss, or maybe your own country. People the truth is one, there´s no more, I only tell you that you were not able to find it by yourself, maybe because you don´t want to accept the true, or maybe because you were no able to search correctly.

The Cuban troops take the victory totally, sorry there´s no more true than that.

I hope you get one day the eyes that allow the light to pass freely.

The existence that gazes upon man

You offer nothing but some bland comments without evidence or even sourcing. Even E. German and Russian advisors have commented on the Cuban difficulties during the battle and the SADF's control of their area of operations. The MPLA, Namibia and even South Africa were 'liberated', but don't be ignorant to the losses either or to the simple effectiveness of the 5,000 SADF force in the battle, even the Germany's NAZIs fielded a good army. I believe it's difficult for many to accept much of the truth here because of their own psychological wounds with the racism of the era; ie if the SADF won the tactical conflict (or was at least not defeated) as much of the evidence shows, then there's the suggestion it was because it was a 'white man's' army indicating some sort of superiority. "The first casualty of war is truth", take it to heart.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgil61 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, the battle of Cuito Cuanavale is one that has taken on the essence of myth in many parts of the world. Years of Cuban propaganda, presenting Cuito as a humiliating defeat for the SADF and the direct cause of Apartheid's end, have placed this version of the battle on a pedestal which cannot be challenged. For challenging the outcome, and suggesting that the SADF did not actually lose but might have come out better, both diminishes Cuba's claimed role in ending Apartheid and destroys the idea that the liberation armies brought an end to that awful system. Many, many people just can't accept this, as they have woven the mythical story so far into their understanding of the history that any change threatens to destabilise their entire worldview. And so it must be denied, regardless of the facts, because the Cuban version must be kept sacrosanct. A pity, really. — Imp i 09:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank goodness for military historians who can analyze without emotional baggage on their shoulders. It's time that the world accepts what really happened and look past the propaganda. Communism was on the verge of collapse when this battle happened. There was simply no more need for Pretoria to spend money and lives on a war 3000km away. Also, the collapse of Communism meant that apartheid SA could for the first time conceive of giving up power to a black replacement government.

XWing OK. if you want evidence and that´s what Iam going to give you. Tell me please:

Why the southafricans signed the treatment for the liberation of Angola and Namibia? if they were wining I don´t see any reason to do that. You want to say that they want to sign it, no mister! they were forced to did it, with no conditions, and even so they signed it, because otherwise cubans go all the way to Southafrica.

What do you know exactly about Cuito Cuanavale? How the conflict began? Let me tell you that the battle began when FAPLA Russian directed operations go into a regular ofensive against UNITA and southafrican troops and were almost totally rejected and had a lot of casualties, then cuban troops decided to intervene, stoping Southafrican and UNITA troops and wining the battle.

You say that cubans used the propaganda? Wow! maybe if cubans have the control of the media in the world or something you can say that, but when is the other side the one who´s control it(Unite States were in favor of Southafrica) I guess your afirmations are also invalids as mines. You still think that kill ratio in Corea´s war Sabres against Migs were about 10-1? Or that in Vietnam Phantoms surpassed migs? Or what about the Weapons of mass extermination in Iraq? Whos propaganda says that, the cubans propaganda? no, is the same that says that cubans lost in Cuito.

It´s a lie that Southafricans soldiers in the Cuban attack to Calueque wrote with blood in a wall "The Mig-23s broke up our hearts"? It´s a lie that no Southafrican plane dared to fly during the conflict near the cubans fearful of being intercepted by Mig-23MLs or the powerfull cuban air defense? It´s a lie that they were forced to sign the treatment? It´s a lie that UNITA was unable to kill a cuban small presence in Cangamba that were even fenced by them? It´s a lie that cuban special forces broke the fence totally? It´s a lie that cubans found no resistence all the way to Namibia strong enough to stop them? Why then it should be in a different way in Cuito?

Study by yourself, not by the others, and maybe you´ll get the true

No man, I guess that the propaganda found a victim not in anybody but you. I have the evidence of the ones who came back. I have the evidence of the same people that rejected a total invasion in only 3 days in Bay of Pigs(1961, Girón), Something that you should know your country won't never make, unless they get on something. I have the evidence of the people that forced a nuclear armed Southafrica to retreat. I have what you don´t have, the true.

If you want more evidence please, let me know. I´ll be pleased. --unsigned comments added by User:201.220.222.140

Please don't start comments lines with a space character. As for your comments, they are not easy to follow and they don't seem to be very neutral. It is clear that the South African involvement in Angola was to check Soviet/Cuban expansion in the region, specifically towards Namibia and then potentially South Africa. South Africa withdrew ALONG WITH Cuba in a mutual peace treaty in preparation of Namibian elections and independence. South Africa did not have a reason to govern Angola and as such no motivation to invade or control the country and in this "battle" they merely halted and pushed back a Cuban/Soviet advance (against UNITA strongholds). Cuba finally agreed to their withdrawal when the cost (monetary and human) became too great and it became clear that Soviet support for the campaign would not continue indefinitely (fall of the Soviet Union around this time in late 80's). --Deon Steyn 08:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to answer some of the charges contained herein.

Why the southafricans signed the treatment for the liberation of Angola and Namibia? if they were wining I don´t see any reason to do that. You want to say that they want to sign it, no mister! they were forced to did it, with no conditions, and even so they signed it, because otherwise cubans go all the way to Southafrica.

Actually, South Africa stated its intention to withdraw from Namibia in the early 1980s, under pressure from the United States. Not only did SA realise that it didn't have a tight legal case in favour of keeping Namibia, but the territory was costing more than it was worth. However, South Africa set the condition that it would only withdraw if Cuba and the USSR agreed to remove all Cuban troops and Soviet advisors from Angola at the same time. This was rejected by the USSR and Cuba, who believed they could defeat the SADF without the need for such an agreement. But after Cuito Cuanavale, and the drubbing that the Angolan and Cuban units got, both the USSR and Cuba agreed to the original South African condition and agreed to remove Cuban troops and Soviet advisors from Angola. So who got their way, eh?

What do you know exactly about Cuito Cuanavale? How the conflict began? Let me tell you that the battle began when FAPLA Russian directed operations go into a regular ofensive against UNITA and southafrican troops and were almost totally rejected and had a lot of casualties, then cuban troops decided to intervene, stoping Southafrican and UNITA troops and wining the battle.

You're half right. FAPLA, under Soviet command, commenced a massive offensive towards Mavinga and Jamba, hoping to take the two UNITA strongholds. Despite being heavily outnumbered and outgunned, a vastly smaller combined SADF and Unita force utterly destroyed 47 Brigade and mauled the others so badly that they were forced to retreat to Cuito Cuanavale. The SADF sent Col. Deon Ferreira, the operation's ground commander, orders to advance on Cuito and to assume positions on the eastern side of the Cuito river (but not to take the town!). The SADF's objective was never to defeat the combined Angolan/Cuban armies, it was just to prevent them from moving south and destroying Unita. Since that objective had been accomplished brilliantly, there was no need to advance any further than Cuito, since the town itself held little strategic value for the SADF.

It´s a lie that Southafricans soldiers in the Cuban attack to Calueque wrote with blood in a wall "The Mig-23s broke up our hearts"? It´s a lie that no Southafrican plane dared to fly during the conflict near the cubans fearful of being intercepted by Mig-23MLs or the powerfull cuban air defense? It´s a lie that they were forced to sign the treatment? It´s a lie that UNITA was unable to kill a cuban small presence in Cangamba that were even fenced by them? It´s a lie that cuban special forces broke the fence totally? It´s a lie that cubans found no resistence all the way to Namibia strong enough to stop them? Why then it should be in a different way in Cuito?

Yes, those are lies. The writing on the wall at Calueque was actually: "MiG-23, sak van die kart", which means "MiG-23, bag from the cart (or wagon)". You can show the picture to any Afrikaans speaker and they'll tell you the exact same thing. Not quite the same meaning, is it?

Plus, the South African Air Force flew numerous sorties throughout the military operations of 1987-1988. The SAAF's 7 C-130s alone flew over 412 sorties, while SAAF Mirage F1s were engaged virtually every day in ground attack missions during the fighting. In general, neither side engaged in much air-to-air activity, because the SAAF fighters would come in too fast and low for the high-flying MiG-23s to intercept, whilst the SAAF's missiles were outdated R.550-based weapons which were no match for the more modern and effective R-24 missiles carried by the MiGs.

I won't talk about the Unita claims (not my area of expertise), but the only reason the Cubans found no resistance going towards Tchipa is that there was no resistance for them to meet. Most of the SADF's forces had already been withdrawn to Namibia, and in any case it didn't have nearly enough soldiers in theatre at any one moment to defend all of southern Angola. The strategy instead was to hit them with mobile forces once it became clear where they were going and where they'd be. This was no different for the Cuban forces near Calueque, whose advance was stopped by a vastly smaller South African force under Major Mike Muller. With their ground attack decisively halted, the Cubans were forced to try save face by launching a largely-ineffectual bombing mission on Calueque, which killed 12 SADF soldiers but did very little damage to the dam's infrastructure. That, essentially, was the end of the war, with the Cubans agreeing to all of the conditions of the peace agreement without attempting another offensive.

In retrospect, the only conclusion an objective historian can come to is that the SADF's strategic goals were met. The Angolan offensive was stopped, Unita was saved and the Cubans agreed to withdraw entirely from Angola as a prerequisite for the SADF's withdrawal from Namibia. So even if we accept that the SADF tried to take the town of Cuito Cuanavale and was stopped, we are still forced to conclude that the SADF achieved victory, even if it wasn't as comprehensive as it could have been. Not a single one of the Angolan and Cuban strategic goals were met, yet you're telling us they won? It's just not possible. — Imp i 12:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don´t get it. The SADF fought a 20 years war and in the end gave all away (Namibia and Angola) just because the wanted peace? So many deads and so many money for a war that they didn´t wanted. Or did the Cuban help them to change their minds? :-)

Please do not expunge external links relevant to the article when adding your own and please try signing your comments.

I'm sorry you are having difficulty and 'don't get it'. The article isn't about the overall conflict in SW Africa, it is about the battle of Cuito Cuanavale. It's doubtful the Cubans helped change their minds as a result of this action since they were effectively beaten by the vastly outnumbered SADF in this battle. Virgil61 05:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

After examining the evidence I'd say that the South Africans probably won the battle, although they didn't win the war. (if winning the war meant keeping namibia). Still, keep the disputed result - it IS disputed, and a case can be made for a cuban victory. ManicParroT 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Book link dont bring any information

"if winning the war meant keeping namibia"... As you point out, ManicParroT, this is exactly where the confusion lies. The South African government of the time's only goal was to stop Soviet (and it's proxies) expansion and influence in the region which would eventually pose a threat to South Africa. In their minds this was a strategic threat worth fighting even at high cost. The same question also causes confusion with regard to this battle's outcome; the South African's goal was to stop an advance against a UNITA (South African friendly) controlled region and measured against this it was a success for South Africa and a dismal failure for Cuban/MPLA forces. Deon Steyn 06:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

81.208.36.84 seems to be engaging in what looks like vandalism on the article. Virgil61 05:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Improve

I find it dificult to believe that 5000 south africans could defeat 40000 cubans and allies,could you explain better in the article how could they do it,if they had air seperiority or a better position,or they were figthing on the defensive or if the cubans lack armour,explain better the battle,also it needs more references--Andres rojas22 16:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that the 40 000 Cubans and 3 000 - 5 000 South Africans didn't come into direct contact with each other, since the S.African forces did not attempt to take Cuito Cuanavale. — Imp i 18:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Then that probably means that the SADF faught less than 40000 cubans.i mean that thing u said should be explained in the article,cause if not it sounds like a fantasy--Andres rojas22 21:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is explained in the article, which chronicles the events sufficiently. The reason the number of 40 000 Cubans is given in that in articles about historical battles the convention is to list the total number of forces committed to a battle, not necessarily the total number of forces who came into contact with each other (since this is often difficult to establish). Similarly, at most stages of the battle there were quite a bit less than 3000 South Africans involved in any fighting, never mind the given figure of 5000 which was the absolute maximum. — Imp i 21:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, I should probably also point out that the article says 40 000 combined, not 40 000 Cubans. In the fighting, the SADF did indeed come into contact with a fair portion of the Angolan Army's forces, which made up a large part of that total. — Imp i 21:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Impi, the article lists four FAPLA brigades and the battle was spread out over a large distance and consisted of several phases where smaller groups would engage each other. Also remember that in many cases the FAPLA forces were not well trained. --Deon Steyn 07:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also important to note that relatively little of the action was infantry versus infantry. The vast majority of the casualties suffered by the Cuban/Angolan forces were inflicted by South African artillery - particularly the (then unmatched) G5 and G6 155mm guns with effective range in the order of 40km. In the book "War in Angola" by Helmoed Romer-Heitman, (Ashanti Publishing 1990, ISBN 0620143703) - in which the author had first hand access to the battle logs, diaries and interviews with many SADF participants - there is a passage mentioning that at times the SAAF's C130 fleet struggled to deliver 155mm ammunition at a rate equal to the consumption. Roger 11:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Perspective

A lot of academic articles have been written about this event and yet the writers of this article don't seem to have read them but seem to rely on popular press articles and political speeches. As a result I think that the article, despite trying to be "balanced" by presenting two sides of an argument, is clearly weak and biased.

You are incorrect here and may not have read the whole article. There are several books and magazine articles that aren't considered either political speeches or normal press coverage; they include SA and Russian military publications, memoirs and unit histories and so on. If you have more than by all means add them. Virgil61 20:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to move away from the "who won" argument which is a sink-trap (irresolvable) and move to a broader perspective of what happened. The reality is that both sides claimed "victory". But, what were the objectives of both sides at the time, were these achieved, how were their objectives redefined later? What were the effects of the war on both sides, and why was it important for both sides to claim victory. For example look at how South African air supremacy was lost with the installation of the (Cuban?) air defence system (this was widely reported by South African newspapers at the time, especially when South Africa lost mirage aircraft that were shot down - quite remarkable as it had not happened till then). At the same time there were setbacks on the Angolan side: heavy losses and the inability to inflict a decisive defeat on the enemy. This caused ructions beween the Cubans and Angolans. The Cubans eventually took over day to day military leadership of the battle getting daily sattelite photos from the Russians of enemy positions. However the course of the battle (and events in Angola at the time) lowered their confidence in the Angolan government. If you want to understand why the governments of Cuba and Angola are not close allies today you need to go back to that period. 89.240.162.83 09:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere on the actual article is one side or another given the 'victory', in fact it's very clearly written it is disputed. The discussion of victory seems to be limited to the talk page, which you've read and not the article which it seems you may not have. Virgil61 20:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Partisan Slant to Article

There's a definite slant to the Right in this article -- probably because military battles and such are a focus of that type of mentality, AFAIC. A more objective basis for such articles as the Cuito Cuanavale one remain to be undertaken.

At some point this article is going to have to be tagged NPOV, etc. Consider this comment as notice of that.

Pazouzou 22:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree and your assumption of individual contributors 'slant' is a generalization without any evidence. Facts are facts regardless of political viewpoint. Virgil61 05:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Virgil61, please cite specific examples that you feel is inaccurate or biased. I also don't understand what you mean, by a "slant to the Right", which "Right"? --Deon Steyn 08:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The article seems so be sourced by 4-5 SADF writers. I have read that the battle was actually a routing of the SADF forces and the end of SA involvement in Angola. If that is true it would make this article far too biased and largely inaccurate. -- maxrspct ping me 21:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read the entire Talk page, where this has been explained MANY times. In short, the outcome is listed as disputed and the claim that the SADF was routed was simple propaganda ("truth is the first casualty of war"). Also remember that not only did it end South Africa's involvement in Angola, but also Cuba's involvement. Furthermore this battle was started by an advance of MPLA on South Eastern UNITA stronghold, but it ended with them having to call for Cuban help and the combined forces driven back to Cuito where they started before their failed offensive. The article is currently fairly balanced, as some could argue exactly the opposite to you and say that it is too "soft" on the Cuban/MPLA failure. --Deon Steyn 13:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly no "SADF" writer, whatever that is. The facts are the facts. Reading a political diatribe about 'winning' isn't the same as understanding the mission of the forces involved, the order of battle of the belligerents, the casualties and the outcome of the mission vis-a-vis it's original intent. By these and various factors it's apparent that the SADF held the upper-hand in this particular situation. For reasons beyond the factual, that seems to be difficult for some. Virgil61 01:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Virgil, you didn't read his comment carefully. You are not a source. He says the editors used only a few SADF sources. He didn't say the article was written by a few SADF editors...He just means that the only sources used by the editors are SADF writers.24.226.60.29 (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read the talkpage. I still think the article is biased. You seem just to fill paragraphs with munitions scores and equipment types without any other source bar the SADF related ones. -- maxrspct ping me 15:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we are talking about the same article. I see hardly any mention of equipment types of even numbers. Most of the article is in fact dedicated to the Historical context and the phases of the battle or hostilities directly leading to the battle. --Deon Steyn 06:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the author(s) of this article started from the SA point of view and made an attempt to achieve NPOV by searching for citations to support the other side. But this did not, in this case, succeed in achieving the NPOV. As is pointed out in the guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight

``Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

In this case, undue weight has occurred in two ways: the citations which oppose the SADF point of view are not as detailed as the sources which support that point of view. (Yet equally detailed such are in existence.) Secondly, citations are given which are by no means independent: quoting an SADF general about Cuban losses is totally inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.60.29 (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. The facts--and an NOPV--lean towards favoring the SADF in the battle, which I think is difficult for some who have an emotional connection with this. Quoting an SADF commander who fought on the ground during this campaign is no more inappropriate than quoting a comment by Zhukov about German losses in the Battle of Kursk or Giap's comments over the French at Dien Bien Phu. It's certainly more appropriate than quoting Mandela--which is also included--who never fought in the battle. It's done all the time in military schools from socialist to communist to capitalist country's army training programs. Here it's taken directly from a military journal.Virgil61 (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

but not in an encyclopedia article, and especially not if opposing estimates are not juxtaposed. (I have seen (vague) references to unofficial SADF sources which give over 700 SADF losses in this battle.) (I wouldnt be for including those numbers either, without cross-checking against some independent, reliable, scholarly source.)24.226.60.29 (talk)

The Wiki guidelines for history sugeest to me that primary sources do not count as verifiable. They may not be relied on by editors. ``Quoting an SADF commander who fought on the ground

is relying on a primary source. In writing an encycolpedia, we are all asked to rely on independent, verifiable, secondary sources. The use of primary sources is for professional historians doing original research, not for Wiki-editors. If I may advance an interpretation as to *why* these are the Wiki-standards, it is probably because primary sources are always biassed! The professionals job is to cross-check as many of the varied primary sources against each other as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.60.29 (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you've terribly misunderstood the policy. Quoting commanders about the results of a battle isn't exactly an unknown in military history. Would you argue that quotes from Gen. Grants memoirs or Julius Caesar's Commentaries would not be acceptable? Or a quote about Angolan negotiations from a book written by one of the participants?

Please link where you understanding of Wikipedia's policy on this is. This quotation of a 'primary source' comes from a military publication and is acceptable; I think this may be an example of Wikipedia overlawyering as they say. Virgil61 (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you have overlooked this: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. What I mean, is, the publisher (the third party) must be a publishing house with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Military and governemental publications do not have that reputation. This quotation of a primary source can be trusted that that colonel really said what he said, but they do not have a reputation in the english speaking world for checking whether the propositions he asserted are correct. Small military-specialty publishing houses, like Arms and Armour, likewise: no reputation for fact-checking. How many fact-checkers do they hire? The New Yorker hires fact-checkers...and Univ. of North Carolina prress employs peer reviewers. That is what the Wikipedia policy is

referring to. Also, note the policy says "rely". If one needs to establish a fact, there must be some source you rely on. Once that is done, other sources can be included too, for illustration or embellishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.60.29 (talk) 05:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing a comment in a 'nutshell' for an all inclusive definition of what sourcing is. You also aren't aware that Wikipedia policy does not include every issue that might arise such as memoirs, which are often used as sourcing material. In those instances Wikipedia depends on editors to hash it out sensibly.

There is absolutely no prohibition from quoting from memoirs or military journals. Military publications don't have that type of reputation? Histories of the Civil War or World War II use US Army historical data. A professional journal of a military organization certainly qualifies as a source. And, didn't you yourself just make an inclusion of the claim that 40,000 Cubans went south based on Castro's auto-biography?

Using your logic, that the New Yorker uses fact checkers would preclude use of NY Times articles by journalists. I'm a UNC alumni and received my history degree from there. Their press is very small and I don't know of them using peer reviewers for their books, where did you guess that at? Virgil61 (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The account given in the Battle section seems confused: the date of the first encounter of ÇCuban? and

SADF troops near Benengue is not given, and anyway doesn't seem to be part of the retreat from Mavinga to Cuito Cuanavale. I suggest deleting the first paragraph. Also, Mavinga isn't on the map... The account given in the next several paragraphs seems inaccurate in mentioning Cuban troops in the offensive and the retreat. As many sources make clear, including the long quotation from the Reagan diplomat Croker, it was only government troops under Soviet leadership who launched the offensive from Cuito Cuanavale to Jamba and mavinga, and were forced into a devastating retreat, and faced a difficult situation penned up in Cuito Cuanavale. I suggest deleting the words Cuban in several places.

In Final Phases, the repetition of the SA claim that it was never their intention to take the city seems non neutral, and at any rate it is controversial and unsourced. I suggest deleting it to let the facts speak for themselves. As it happens, I have seen a SA blog of `veteran stories from the bush war' in which one vet says they were indeed told it was their mission to take the city...it seems unnecessary for this encyclopedia article to get involved in this controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.60.29 (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that logically you can't argue to not include a quote from an article in a professional military journal by an SADF commander because of you understanding of 'primary source' but use a blog entry by some unnamed individual to make a point about article content. There is a source which I'll dig up and put in. It is an "extremely" important point to make to individuals who've never served in the military and is at the heart of Cuban claims to 'victory'.

I use the blog entry not to support a factual claim, but to show that there is no consensus about the supposed fact. Since there is no consensus, we need either a reliable scholarly source...someone who, professionally, has weighed all the competing and contradictory primary sources and has had their conclusions peer-reviewed, or we need to leave this out of an encyclpedia article. I wouldnt want the blog entry included either! And I would ask that no more factoids from small specialty military presses be inserted into this article24.226.60.29 (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is really no way you'll make an open partisan like Gliejas' point of view as certainty because he has book out from UNC Press, which is what it seems like you're aiming for (correct me if I'm wrong). Again, you seem unable to understand differences between the certainly of mathematical scholarship and the much more subjective nature of a battle in a military history being interpreted by someone without a military background and only a background in diplomacy.

To think that each writer of history's book is vetted through some sort of university peer review system is simply naive. Such a stance would keep histories like "Fire in the Lake" on Vietnam or "A History of Warfare" by John Keegan from being sources simply because they are from private publishers who don't fact check. Virgil61 (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Control of an area of operations isn't limited to boots on the ground. With only 3,000 troops (SADF) and a impetus to avoid casualties good artillery assets will often do. And the SADF had good artillery. Not brain surgery tactically. In a smaller example one can "control" a bridge with a mortar or other crew served weapon and never have your unit step foot on it. Virgil61 (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your entries and place your paragraphs in response correctly. See WP:TP to learn how to format on talk page conversations. It makes communication much easier, thanks. Virgil61 (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Since a reference for the SADF claim that the taking of Cuito cuanavale was never intended was requested, I added the earliest reference I could find. I pruned the further claim that operational control was intended. I do not find that claim in the source. Also, the ddraft of this article gave a reference which to the casual reader would look like it was sourcing that claim, but was really only a link to the technological characteristics of the G-5 and G-6 artillery (a little misleading, due to careless drafting I suppose). Perhaps that reference could be integrated elsewhere in the article, here it seems misplaced. I still suggest pruning this kind of claim altogether, but here is the reference, for what it is worth.24.226.60.29 (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this topic...but isn't the Jamba on this map misplaced? The Jamba that is part of this military episode may not be the same Jamba as on some maps? the wiki article on operation modular (or hooper) says, as do many sources, that the initial FAPLA advance from Cuito Cuanavale was towards mavinga, the gateway to Jamba. Now, Mavinga is clearly in the opposite direction from the current airport jamba which is the one shown on this map. Mavinga is towards the southeast of Cuito Cuanavale.

another important point about nomenclature which may be responsible for some of the confusion on this discussion page: SA sources mean, by the battle of cuito cuanavale, the situation around that town. Cuban sources however, mean to include a battle with two fronts: the southeast front (the one around the town) and the soutwest front.

They admit that these two fronts were not at all in communication with each other...the southwest front was the advance towards the Namibian border near Calueque, a dam they threatened to demolish, flooding namibia...so whereas soviet and SA sources talk about a stalemate of the battle, cubans talk about their success on the southwest front not only relieving the pressure from the SADF on the southeast front, but making the SADF position on that front untenable. This is a strategic view, rather than a tactical view. Tactically, since the two fronts were totally unconnected, this article of course defines the battle itself narrowly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.60.29 (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Battle of Cuito Cuanavale means that particular battle as far as my understanding is concerned. This battle lies somewhere in the tactical/operational (operational being the middle ground) area rather than the strategic. Virgil61 (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we need more numbers

I think european (south african) accounts of this battle are trying to paint some kind of Isandilwana-style victory over masses of primatives, which just isn't trufthful.

That's a ridiculous assertion. There's no comparison between the two. The South Africans simply had a small mobile modern force, good artillery, arguably shorter supply lines, well trained by modern standards and generally better officered to fighting this more conventional battle. Whether you like it or not (and apparently you don't) neither the Angolans nor the Cubans were up to the South African standards, hence the small number of SADF (someone had to come out and finally say it). When air cover finally came for the Cubans and Angolans they were piloted by a number of Warsaw Pact pilots. There's a clue in that. Virgil61 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a clue in that. What? Niggers and spics cannot fly airplanes? So finally, the AWB types reveal their ilk. Boers, you lost... you lost everything. You have no country anymore, little by little vengeance will put you to rest, and the amaBantu will regain what's theirs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.48.107.79 (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Angry insults, ad hominem attacks and accusations have no place on Wikipedia. You might try to understand that insulting fellow editors is a violation of wiki policy WP:PA. I'm sorry you're so angry with historical disagreements that you can't conduct yourself with restraint. Virgil61 (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The 'clue' is that the Cubans weren't up to the same level as the SADF in training, as the 40k v 3k number suggests as well. The majority of the Cubans, 65% according to Wikipedia's Demographics of Cuba, are of European origin which should answer your accusations of racism. That feeling you're having is of the rug being pulled from under you. Virgil61 (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We see 40,000 combined MPLA/Cuban soldiers against 5,000 south africans. But what about the UNITA contingent. Are we to believe the UNITA soldiers didn't fight or take any casualties. WE NEED A COMBINED NUMBER OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN AND UNITA FORCES. We also need a number on the UNITA casualties. Scott Free 15:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the numbers in the UNITA column aren't filled in suggest they fought the battle and we need them (and it does this without the ALL CAPS). Virgil61 07:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we would all like to know what the REAL numbers were, but we must also remember two important things:

In Wikipedia we are required to cite sources (Wikipedia:Attribution).
It will be difficult to find the correct numbers, because as the old saying goes "truth is the first casualty of war".

As for the more general question regarding the apparent imbalance in the numbers. It is entirely plausible due to several factors

UNITA numbers – unknown, but they would have made a contribution.
Which phase – this "battle" is actually made up of several wildly different phases with different force compositions in each phase.
Force multipliers – The SADF forces leveraged several – to use the Americanism – "force multipliers"; that is a smaller number of men has the same effect as a larger number. They were heavily mechanised, one example is the artillery bombardment that requires fewer personnel (but more equipment). Terrain can further act as a force multiplier: in this case the river (at Cuito Cuanavale) restricted movement, terrain often restricted vehicles to roads and covered afforded the SA forces "stealth" (by moving vehicles at night etc.).

Also, let us all see what real information we can find out and keep in mind that many official accounts (from all sides) could contain a touch of propaganda. I'm sure we would all like to know more of this this interesting piece of history. --Deon Steyn 08:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is virtually impossible to conduct any kind of research into these events from a purely neutral standpoint. Cuban sources (which I have researched extensively) fall into two categories: "Ediciones Verde Olivo", which is the official publishing house of the Cuban military, and then a very broad category "Ediciones Revolucionarias" which is any other publishing house which prints materials of a political nature or materials which otherwise deal with Cuban revolution or related events. Needless to say these publications only advance the Cuban point of view, but they are full of empirical data and details supported by photographs. Two books which (if you can read Spanish, because there are no translations available) should provide a good picture of the Cuban side, for those who care to know it are: “Cuito Cuanavale: Viaje al Centro de los Heroes” by César Gómez Chacón (Havana, Editorial Letras Cubanas,1988) and “Trueno Justiciero: Mis Campanas en Cielo Angolano” by Humberto Trujillo Hernández (Havana, Ediciones Verde Olivo, 1998). This is not to say that South African sources don’t suffer from the same ailment. No South African account of this war admits to even a single lost engagement, take for example the Battle of Donguena (May 4, 1988), which resulted in their loss of five vehicles, and the capture of Sergeant Johann Papenfus by Cuban troops. This event is widely known in Cuba, but never mentioned in South African accounts. So the problem with South African sources is two pronged: firstly, they deny their own losses, and second in many instances they claim civilian casualties as enemies killed. This is the case of the battle of Tchipa, towards the end of the campaign, which was basically an artillery barrage of 200 shells that fell on the town and killed a significant number of civilians, which then the SADF claimed as Cuban/FAPLA killed. Let’s take a look at the events which each side calls the “final battle” of the war. Based on each account, these events caused the enemy to loose heart, and come to the negotiation table with their tails between their legs. Cuban side: bombing of Cunene River Dam on June 27, 1988; South African side: battle of Tchipa, around the same time. Politically speaking, the campaign ended in Cuban/FAPLA victory: MPLA in power in Angola, freedom for Namibia, Unita reduced to the extreme south of the country, and an unstable political situation in South Africa. Militarily speaking… does it really matter any more? It all bottles down to whom you decide to believe… but who lost more after negotiations were done and agreements signed? That was clearly South Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.7.192 (talk • contribs)

Only a very narrow view of this battle would draw the above conclusions. The battle around Cuito Cuanavale was only the final phase of a roughly six month long engagement started by a FAPLA advance from Cuito Cuanavale in Aug 1987. South Africa realised the obvious threat to the UNITA controlled buffer zone (the Cuando Cubango province bordering Namibia) and strategic balance of power. The FAPLA forces suffered so badly they required help from MPLA/Cuban forces, but even with this help these forces are driven back to Cuito Cuanavale. South Africa is content after restoring this Cuando Cubango buffer zone. How on earth can this be a defeat? Also refer to the Namibian question where South Africa was ready to start independence talks in the late 70s, but one of the conditions was the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola. And finally Cuba quits (not coincidentally along with the Fall of Communism and drying up of Soviet support) and peace talks can begin. If this was such a wonderful victory for Cuba/FAPLA/MPLA, why did Cuba withdraw and why did the Angolan Civil War between UNITA and MPLA drag on well passed 2000 and why didn't they complete their advance against Mavinga? --Deon Steyn 06:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason I cannot find any reliable estimates on-line as to how many Cuban troops were actually present at Cuito Cuanavale is because I am not an expert. A recent article in a SA newspaper says 1500.

Castro's autobiography says that 55000 cuban troops were rushed to Angola at the time of the battle, but also, 40000 of these bypassed menongue and Cuito totally, to advance on Calueque from I suppose either namibe or bengulea. That would leave a maximum of 15000 that could have arrived at Cuito. But this is an interpretation, no source actually says this. Maybe 1500 is a misprint for 15000? Quien sabe?24.226.60.29 (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For someone who admits to not being an expert on this you seem to be attempting to steer this article in a particular direction. It's ironic you use a memoir as an argumentative source. Virgil61 (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a book, published with the financial assistance of the U.S. Agency for Internat'l Dev, by an anti-Castro Cuban exile, and posted with permission to reproduce, on http://www.gadcuba.org/Guerras%20Secretas/. So, not that reliable a source perhaps, but it has lots of numbers. In speaking about this bypassing of Cuito Cuanavale and opening an entirely separate front it says, among many other things, En este frente sur Ochoa emplazaría una potente agrupación de 800 tanques y carros blindados, 200 aviones de combate reforzados con artillería y un equipo antiaéreo muy avanzado, 40 000 soldados cubanos de línea, entre ellos unidades de la División-50, la más aguerrida del ejército cubano, la cual había operado con él en su campaña de Etiopía. Estas fuerzas se completaban con 60,000 soldados angolanos y 10 000 combatientes de la SWAPO. This source is very pro-Ochoa, btw. it might not be safe to rely on this source, but it seems harmless to put it here on the discussion page.96.227.228.107 (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

more discussion of numbers follows in the section on Crocker and in the section on the deletion of quotes about troop strengths.24.226.60.29 (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Chester Crocker

---The sources are very varied on casualties. I have added another quote to that doomed quotation section from an independent and reliable source which gives middle-of-the road figures for troop sizes and FAPLA/Cuban casualties. Unofficial Cuban sources admit to over 230 Cuban casualties. Unofficial South African sources admit to 730 South African dead. I have also found a source for UNITA casualties. (3000. John Marcum, 1991.) I will add these three sources soon. Cuban official sources place only 1500 Cuban troops at the battle, but I wonder if perhaps the discrepancy between 1500 and Liques's figure of 4000 is because there were a lot of Cubans guarding the supply lines and air base at Menongue. I suggest we change the figures in the box in line with these. I even suggest we not bother with the official claims, which are so different from independent analyst's estimates. I think most people would agree that in general, independent analysts who are in touch with unofficial SA and Cuban sources are more reliable than official press releases24.226.60.29 (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I know of no SA sources 'claiming' 730 dead, which sounds very preposterous in light of a lack accurate Cuban artillery. Please point them out rather than make vague statement.Virgil61 (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

According to your own logic 'a scholar' such as Chester Crocker who was also a participant in the diplomatic actions claims 900 - 4000 collective casualties for the Cuban side. This falls in line with your own earlier criteria [before you knew Crocker was a scholar]. Has that criteria now changed? Virgil61 (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Crockers numbers (he says casualties, does this include wounded?) are roughly comparable to the numbers I see in Liquer of 4600 dead. That includes FAPLA. So it is also consistent with cuban exile sources who put the cuban dead at over 200. The singular of criteria is criterion. Crocker is not a scholar, getting a Ph.D. and getting a temporary position as professor doesn't make either him or Isaac Saney a scholar (fyi, it is customary to give notable figures a professorship when they lose office, on the theory that giving the students access to a real player is a valuable learning experience).

And the singular of pedant is pedant.

You're pretty much grasping at straws now. You didn't know Crocker's background or how the UNC university press runs (figure the odds you were talking to an alum!). So what you were wrong, deal with it, it happens to all of us.

He was professor of International Affairs at American and Georgetown before his diplomatic career and returned to Georgetown afterwards. Kissinger was a scholar as well before his Sec State appointment. My former boss was a law prof and scholar who became a deputy Secretary and no less of one afterwards. Virgil61 (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The scholarly reviews of Crocker's book were mixed, at best. But when his numbers agree with other secondary sources, of course that is all to the good.

How odd that the very first 'scholarly review' I read after you message spoke of Crocker as an academic and his "High Noon..." as an important addition to the literature. Equally telling is that a bio of the negative reviewers shows the 'scholars' were left-leaning. Nothing wrong with that, but it's also naive not to see that. The Foreign Affairs review you alluded to didn't call it 'spin'. The reviewer expressly opined that the reader's own background would influence their perception.

First you insist on 'scholars' to deliver, then when 'scholars' don't agree with your point of view you hold them in suspicion by pointing to reviews. Odd how you don't hold Gleijeses own collaboration with the Castro regime in suspicion. Virgil61 (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, contemporary NYTimes estimates of SADF troop strength (well over 5,000, possibly 7,000) agree with what I see in Liquer, that is also all to the good. I have to double check the SA figure of losses before posting it. But it is 10% of the estimated unofficial troop strenght, and the unofficial cuban losses are also about that, so maybe it is not preposterous, exactly. But maybe it includes wounded.24.226.60.29 (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary NY Times estimates can be a guide but aren't the be all and end all of military intelligence sourcing, in fact it can be notoriously poor on that as any reading of articles from WWII or Vietnam would show. Most better sourced figures point to the lower number of 3500, you don't get to 'cherry pick' your info although you're trying. Also, are you posting under two different IPs from Kingston, Ontario? It would be easier to communicate if you consolidated and logged in under one name. Virgil61 (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

--Careful reading of this article reveals another serious inconsistency. In the box for casualties and losses, the reference for combined Cuban/FAPLA losses is to Crocker, but the quotation of Crocker's only talks about FAPLA killed + wounded in the retreat from Mavinga, and so, does not even include the Cubans, or the siege of Cuito Cuanavale. Also, aren't the other figures for deaths? not including wounded? This needs to be cleaned up. The quote from Liquer is deaths only, not including wounded, and includes the entire battle. I suggest we stick to deaths since there really don't seem to be any reliable sources for deaths plus wounded, except perhaps Crocker, of course, but as I just pointed out, the quotation given doesn't cover the entire battle. That may explain why it seems low when compared to other sources.24.226.60.29 (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Double checking the other references, I see that the official cuban and SADF figures are also for deaths, not for casualties. I suggest the heading be changed from Casualties and Losses to Deaths. 24.226.60.29 (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User Timpis

Any reason this user is unable or unwilling to engage in consensus or discussion relying instead on arbitrary changes? He seems to have signed on the Wikipedia soley for the purposes of this article (no contribs anywhere else) with no inclination to discuss anything. Virgil61 15:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Let us find references for the correct leader. User Timpis claims "Álvaro López", while existing note is "Leopoldo Cintra". According to a translation of the official Cuban account, a "Colonel Alvaro Lopez Miera" was involved, but only as advisor, while the leader (Spanish: Agrupacion de Tropas del Sur (ATS) or leader of the southern forces) is given as "Division General Leopoldo 'Polo' Cintra Frias". Also a biography of Cintra Frias mentions: "From 1984 - 1987, and again in 1989, he was chief of the military mission in Angola", while a biography on Lopez Miera mentions nothing of the sort. I think these references, particularly the first one, shows that the commander was: Leopoldo 'Polo' Cintra Frias. I will correct with reference. As for adding "(Official)" to the SA figures, I don't see a problem with that, since it is the official figure and the Cuban figure is also qualified as such. --Deon Steyn 06:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree on the 'official', I lazily reverted the whole page. I found the new numbers rather dubious but I did notice he quit changing the outcome of the battle so I may have gotten a bit overzealous towards the end. Still, he refuses to engage in any sort of discussion. Virgil61 07:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they are simply a new to WP and hopefully with some patience and the new references the problem will be resolved amicably. --Deon Steyn 11:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What a reactionary nonsense

I have never read such a nonsense about the Battle at Cuito Cuanavale. The South African racist Apartheid regime was defeated, securing Angolan independence after 12 years of South African interventions and terrorism, and achieving independence for Namibia. To claim the opposite, the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale as a victory for the invaders, is really foolish. A proof that Wikipedia is a most unreliable source of information about anything in the world. Amused, --L.Willms 16:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Cde Nelson Mandela referred to it as a Cuban victory, that means that the current South Africa considers it a victory for the Cubans and Angolans and so does Namibia and Angola. We may not reach a consensus on Wikipedia, but the countries who fought the battle sure have. The battle was a siege, the South Africans did not capture Cuito Cuanavale, hence, it can be considered a tactical failure, just as Saddam failing to take over Iran is a failure. I don't see any reason why it is a South African victory, casualties mean nothing in war, only victory, if casualties make a battle, then I am sure we can go change Stalingrad to a German victory, if not, then I think we should agree that Cuito Cuanavale was a South African failure.--Common Sense and Logic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.91.215 (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cuito Cuanavale is not a "Cuban victory", but a victory for mankind. It was a turning point in the history of Africa, providing a blow to the racist Apartheid regime, the death knell which led to its demise a few years later. Just like the victory over the South African and US backed invasion in 1975, which ended the specter of white mercenaries being invincible, and secured an independent government for Angola, the victory of Cuito Cuanavale ended forever the myth of the invincibility of the Apartheid South African army. It ended forever the invasions of Apartheid South African armies in Angola, i.e. finally secured Angola's independence and gained Namibia's independence. Nelson Mandela is right proclaiming that his release from prison (where he as the prisoner set the conditions for his release, not his captors) was made possible by the victory over Apartheid in Angola. Cuito Cuanavale is not just the successful defense of that outpost against the Apartheid army, but a change in the relationship of forces in all of southern Angola, where -- as Fidel Castro put it -- the Apartheid South Africa air force had to stay on the ground and the Apartheid South African tanks started to fly in the air. The whole crap on Angola found here in the English language Wikipedia smells foul like Ku-Klux-Klan hate propaganda. I don't see a way to improve it by editing, one can only delete that junk and replace it by something sensible. Poor Wikipedia... --L.Willms 17:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from attacking editors by calling their work reminiscent of the KKK. This is military history not Cuban political propaganda which you've quoted from verbatim. Though neither you nor the unsigned above like it the facts drive this page and inclusions have been made showing how both viewpoints. Just because the battle wasn't a Cuban victory doesn't mean a defense of apartheid by the editors. Virgil61 03:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Could editors such as L.Willms, please familiarize themselves with Wikipedia guidelines such as Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practice which suggest reading the talk page and it's archives first. Had you done this, you would have seen this topic discussed ad nauseam. If you don't want to read that, then even a cursory glance at some of the quotes from international leaders and observers of the time would —at the very least— show that your descriptions are inaccurate. These types of criticism are often based solely on Nelson Mandela's statements, but with all due respect, he was in prison at the time and he was fighting against the government and his statements should be seen in that context. If you can cite reliable, unbiased sources with facts and figures, then please do. You should also familiarise yourself with the facts:

Angola was independent long before this "battle"
fighting in Angola continued long after this "battle"
South Africa had negotiated terms for Namibian independence long before this battle (UN Resolution 435 was agreed to in principle by South Africa in 1978 already).

--Deon Steyn 06:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is and reamains reactionary nonsense. The so-called military history has the facts wrong, because the "facts" come out of a colonialist phantasy, and the whole is put in the world imagined by colonialists, and yes, white supremacists like the US-american KKK. It all shows that Wikipedia, in this area at least, is dominated by the extreme right and apparently not reformable. --L.Willms 14:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC) PS: I have never heard outside of this fantastic tales that the Apartheid regime had claimed a victory in the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale. --L.Willms 14:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that history doesn't always play out perfectly to your satisfaction. Any normal reading of the topic shows that all viewpoints were included. You've chosen not discussion over content in the topic but to grandstand over perceived bias. Not sure what to tell you except your view that what fellow editors have have written is racist is without merit. You've answered facts with hyperbole and rhetoric when I'd suggest a better understanding of history on your part. I'm sorry it's difficult for you. Virgil61 03:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments by Piero Gleijeses

They aren't targeted towards the battle itself but belong to a broader article. I put this here in the hopes the poster will see this. Virgil61 (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ao-unita.gif

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

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

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

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

other article