Talk:Angolan Civil War/Archive 2

Latest on the infobox
With regards to the belligerents, the current infobox is a horrific quagmire of unsourced, dubious, and invisible information that's been commented out. I went over all the sources and listed belligerents and revised that particular section, fixing a few problems such as: 1) separated FLEC from the rest of the belligerents because it was never allied with UNITA and the FNLA, or supported by their respective allies, 2) removed Brazil, Belarus, and the Russian Federation because these countries sold the MPLA regime arms but were never directly allied with it in the same way the Soviet Union and Cuba were, 3) added dates to the FNLA, the People's Republic of China, and South Africa to indicate when they ceased to be actors in the war, 4) added the ANC, Namibia, and the ex-Katangese gendarmes/FNLC to the infobox as active belligerents with plenty of ample sourcing, and 5) added North Korea as a supporting party with two additional primary sources.

I think this proposed revision of the infobox is more concise and more accurate than what's currently on the page. -- Katan gais (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The new infobox is going up. Anybody has any objections, feel free to discuss them here. -- Katan gais (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Add Namibia on the map
Namibia was under the administration of South Africa until the South African Border War, i think the map should reflect this because its independence was directly connected to the Angolan civil war. Maybe color it light blue and add a note in the image description. RocketsFallOnRocketFalls (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville) involvement in the the war mentioned in the body but not the infobox
The body mentions that the Republic of the Congo under Lissouba provided UNITA with bases in the ROC until the Angolan invasion, however the ROC is not mentioned in the infobox.ProculusOfAlbingaunum (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

History
The end of the cold war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.0.1.140 (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

FNLA
It is necessary to add more content in the description of the political party FNLA since they were the first parties in Angola together with the MPLA and UNITA. The FNLA also played a part in awakening the Angolan people to an autonomous life as a nation. Aginacio (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Chinese support of UNITA (or lack thereof)
It says that China ceased supporting UNITA in October 1975. The war started in November of that year. If UNITA was not supported by the PRC by a month before the war even started, should it even be included? Genabab (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"Honecker's Afrika Korps"
@1AmNobody24 The story of thousands of East German troops in Angola is a false and extremely exaggerated story circulated in western media in the 80's and the mind of boomers today. Even the article from Tagesspiegel used as source for the involvment of "3,500 DDR paratroopers" in the infobox only talks about how this was a fake story. DDR only supplied some advisors and pilots to Angola (as the aforementioned source even says!) There were no DDR combat troops and Honecker was not a leader/commander in the Angolan civil war. 138.215.255.219 (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Tagesspiegel source says the 30,000 are fake and the 3,500 are assumed (source was a english newspaper, don't know which one.) Honecker was the Chairman of the State Council, the leader of East Germany at the time. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * No, it does not. It first talks about the myth of "DDR Afrika Korps" and says that Die Welt/Spiegel invented "30,000 strong legion" while Süddeutsche Zeitung "suspected" a "3,500 strong legion" by referring to some claim from a British paper. Neither of these are true and the Tagesspiel article uses both as the examples of the myth of the "Honecker's Afrika Korps" in Angola. The second paragraph of the article talks about the reality of DDR support: non-combat support like transport pilots, "development workers", and arms dealing . 138.215.255.219 (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "Neither of these are true" Any Proof for this statement?
 * To tell you the thruth: If you give me just one source that says it's a myth i'll agree with you and we can drop this issue. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * 1AmNobody24 https://www.tagesspiegel.de/kultur/honeckers-afrika-korps-2282446.html (Machine translated)"Here come Europe's Cubans," headlined "Time" in 1980 about alleged military operations of the GDR in Africa. Two years later, Die Welt reported that "Honecker's Africa Corps" was already 30,000 strong. This colonial-historical allusion had been invented by the "Spiegel", but in 1980 it counted only 2720 military advisers of the GDR in Africa, while the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" suspected two years earlier 3500 GDR paratroopers in Angola and referred to an English newspaper. She thus earned herself a denial by GDR Foreign Minister Oskar Fischer: "Something that is untrue does not become more true even through repetition."" The article then goes on to talk about the kernel of truth behind these claims; the DDR's actual involmvent in Angola by way of disguised transport pilots, "development workers", and arms dealing. There exists no academic or historical sources, even after the end of the DDR, other than vague refernces to sensationalist headlines (often in the context of talking about them being untrue, such as the currently used source), which detail any (thens of) thousands strong legions of East German combat troops. Since the article also clearly states that the DDR advisors did not participate in combat missions, Honecker can also not be listed as a commander in the conflict.


 * So you have a english newspaper saying that there's 3,500 and and you have a German Foreign Minister saying that it's not true. Why trust the Minister more than the newspaper? 1AmNobody24 (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The paper than you dont even know? A paper that is even unmentioned in the article since their old allegations were not even real anyway? And the minister is not the one trusted, but rather the fact that 40 years from then, after the end of the East German state, we now know that the claims made in those non-academic, non-historical magazines at the time were exaggerated fakes (again, as the article from the tagesspiel talks about...) Can a proper historical book about the Angolan Civil War be found which talks about the thousands of DDR troops participating in the war today? No. Because this exists only in unfounded claims from the 1980's and in an article which references those fakes of the 1980's. The article is not a source for claiming that 3,500 paratroopers participated. That is only listed as an example of the fakes in Western media that the Minister denied before going on to say this denial was a bit hypocritical since there actually were some advisors and disguised pilots there. 138.215.255.219 (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is not a source for claiming that 3,500 paratroopers participated. But it says that there is a source.
 * Can a proper historical book about the Angolan Civil War be found which talks about the thousands of DDR troops participating in the war today? If you have one that can be used as a source, link it.
 * As I said before:If you give me just one source that says it's a myth i'll agree with you 1AmNobody24 (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * >If you give me just one source that says it's a myth i'll agree with you
 * Again, the source you used talk about how this was invented. Why are you ignoring this? It even gives you the real numbers of 2,720 personell in all of Africa at that time and says they were not involved in combat.
 * >Can a proper historical book about the Angolan Civil War be found which talks about the thousands of DDR troops participating in the war today? If you have one that can be used as a source, link it.
 * Thats trying to "prove a negative". The point was that no such book exists since thre were no such thing happening. No book will talk about the DDR legion just as no book will talk about the 50,000 strong Korean expeditionary force in the Angolan Civil War. Rather than trying proving a negative, where is the historical/academic proof detailing this legion? Of course there is none, because the fictious DDR legion did not exist in reality.
 * >But it says that there is a source.
 * The source you linked says that 2 years before 1980 (1978) some rag talked about how another rag claiming (made up) that 3,500 german paratroopers (combat troops) fought in Angola. 2 years later (1980) yet a third rag had inflated this to even 30,000. Luckily the esteemed tagesspiegel informs us that in 1980 the DDR had only 2,720 advisors/instructors/pilots in all of Africa and that the DDR did not undertake any combat operations. 138.215.255.219 (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, the source you used talk about how this was invented And you don't have a different one?
 * No book will talk about the DDR legion I don't want one that talks about the DDR, but one that doesn't. You talked about proper historical book about the Angolan Civil War, show me one.
 * some rag talked about how another rag This just shows that you don't consider them reliable, but that doesn't mean anything on Wikipedia. I hope that doesn't sound too harsh 1AmNobody24 (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * >And you don't have a different one?
 * Try "Geheime Solidarität : Militärbeziehungen und Militärhilfen der DDR in die Dritte Welt"
 * Its even used as source in the article already.
 * >I don't want one that talks about the DDR, but one that doesn't.
 * What does this even mean? The DDR's support for MPLA might well be mentioned in any book about the war, but that would be in relation to the ~2,700 personnel they sent to Angola and other African coutntries and not the any fictitous "thousands strong combat units", which only exists in the a few headlines from 40 years ago (as the Tagesspiegel article explains...) 138.215.255.219 (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've requested a third-opinion to get this sorted out. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well? 138.215.255.219 (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Still open here. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)