Talk:Cuban intervention in Angola/Archive 2

changes as of 28 march

 * "cuban intervention in the esclating civil……": cuban intervention has its own paragraph.
 * "cuban intervention / cuban military mission": there are 2 contradicting statements: the cia only took note of a few technical advisors from cuba in angola in late august. the cia did not take note of cubans in may, and giving vanneman or the nsa as a source for this is wrong. also, it is unlikely that the cia would consider 200 men only a few. vanneman altogether seems to have been unaware of this contradiction. according to marcum in the “angolan revolution” the arrival of the cubans sent in july was cited by the us government as its first “indication” that cuban personnel were involved. neto also complained about the lack of cuban support on his visit to maputo in late july. it cannot be ignored that this doesn’t add up.
 * it’s at least debatable whether the mission already constituted an intervention. the whole background, as it is known today, makes it clear that neither the advisors nor the cuban mission were intended to interfere in the course of events, as compared to the zairians and south africans, and it was only in the last few days before independence that some of them participated in the defence. in fact, the new embassy in lusaka was especially established as a possible retreat in case of trouble. the first cubans explicitely to  take part in the action were sent on the eve of independence.


 * "escalation of the conflict": some repetitions removed and time line restored, additional info kept. it is explained that the cubans were reluctant to participate in the campaign and outright silly to make believe that they decided to participate because they were bored in their barracks.
 * "clandestine operation modular" and "the south africans, like the cubans": actually all south african operations in angola were initially clandestine on the national as well as on the international level. this was relatively easy because of the remoteness of southern angola. cuba could have never kept its operations secret, which it never intended anyway, because it operated across the atlantic.
 * "counter attack": the south africans were not attacked so it can hardly be called a “counter” attack. at the time of the request for help, the fapla-campaign was already stuck.
 * "international arms embargo": it looks like it's fine to blame the international community for south africa’s eventual defeat if it serves to deminish the role of angola and cuba. some more reasons could be added: the south african military machine was mainly used for repression withn the own country and thus thinly spread out.
 * "envoys were killed by the government": these statements need sources and in any case more explanation, e. g. why where envoys killed and what were they doing? what need was there for envoys as long as unita participated in the political process? obviously it had already opted out. but then the paragraph would become too detailed to have a place in this article [unless the mercenaries were cubans). the same applies to the amount of territory occupied by unita at certain times. this all belongs into angola civil war.
 * "unita in the negotiations": unita’s exclusion had nothing to do with it’s standing in the field. it was only to speed things up at the table.
 * interestingly, vanneman also regards the success of the cubans in the battlefield as a major impetus for the south africans to return to the bargaining table in 1988


 * "european union ready to help with angolan reconstruction": some nerve, deleting the source and then tagging the statement
 * "blockade": embargo is the usual term and also used in the source. it includes more than blockade.
 * "total of 2,289 cubans killed": 2106, then 2289, what’s next? exact numbers are greatly appreciated but sources are necessary. the original number was sourced.Sundar1 (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

changes on 28. june

 * Warsaw Pact backed Cuba: the warsaw pact did not support cuban engagement and, initially, neither did the soviet union
 * large-scale military invasion: the term "invasion" is not used in any reliable source and certainly not in the ones listed.
 * fellow Marxist-Lenninist liberation movement MPLA: the mpla was not a "fellow movement" of cuba and only years later the mpla officially subscribed to marxism-leninism.
 * backed by NATO-supported invasions by South Africa and Zaire.: this does not even merit a comment. where is the source?
 * Cuban forces continued to occupy Angola: the cubans did not "occupy" angola. where does it say so?
 * to ensure that the MPLA government remained in power against the UNITA: unita alone never was a threat to mpla or later the angolan government. it was only due to continuing south african support and aggression that cuban presence was necessary.
 * Erm, Unita's conquest of Angolan territory, financed by blood diamonds, was at it's greatest AFTER the South African's left Angola for the last time. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 08:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * insurrection: according to the respective wikipedia article, the term "insurgency" is correct.
 * Cuban President Fidel Castro ordered: in most cases it's the head of state giving such orders; this is nothing out of the ordinary.
 * civilians employed by the Cuban government were also deployed: aid workers are usually employed by government agencies, so this also is nothing out of the ordinary. aid workers are usually not "deployed" because that indicates some kind of force. in by far the most cases they were indeed volunteers. Sundar1 (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

ages of the cuban soldiers
how young were these volunteers for the cuban / angola war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.46.201 (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed
"The United States had a history of supporting the Salazar regime in Portugal, e. g. allowing NATO equipment to be used in Angola, as well as liberation movements fighting against Portuguese colonialism.[26]"

should this be --

"The United States had a history of supporting the Salazar regime in Portugal, e. g. allowing NATO equipment to be used in Angola, as well as against liberation movements fighting against Portuguese colonialism.[26]"

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfwoods (talk • contribs) 10:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * yes, that's correct: against ... colonialism.Sundar1 (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Some example's of this article's bias
In November 1975, on the eve of Angola's independence, Cuba launched a large-scale military intervention to defend the leftist liberation movement MPLA from...

Nice whitewashing of the MPLA's Marxist credentials. "Leftist" could mean anything from Bill Clinton to Vladimir Lenin.
 * taking your definition of “leftist”, then it very well applies to the mpla. i wonder if you are aware that the rest of the world has a different definition of “leftist”.

To that point the MPLA and UNITA "had given every sign of intending to honour the Alvor agreement"

This is directly contradicted by the statement that "Fighting in Luanda (referred to as the "Second war of liberation" by the MPLA) resumed hardly a day after the transitional government took office" Since this article doesn't describe the agreement or what they were doing, there is no way to verify this.
 * where is the contradiction? there was ½ month from the agreement until the transitional government took office.

Encouraged by Mobutu and the US the FNLA attacked the MPLA in the capital.

What exactly is meant by "encouraged"? Did they coordinate with them, give them the green light, or what? You would think this would be fleshed more out given it's importance.
 * you are more than welcome to do so.

''In a meeting by the National Security Council (NSC) on 27 June 1975 US President Ford stated that, in spite of planned elections, it is important to get "his man" in first, referring to then UNITA leader Jonas Savimbi being in control of Luanda before the elections. ''

This is just a flat-out lie. According to the source used for this, Ford was paraphrasing someone else with regards to the "his man" comment, not coming up with his own idea.
 * this is indeed a mistake and got changed.

A comment by Secretary Schlesinger at this meeting was made that the US "might wish to encourage the disintegration of Angola. Cabinda in the clutches of Mobutu would mean far greater security of the petroleum resources."

Why is this speculative comment by Schlesinger relevant?
 * why not? it sheds light on the options the us was considering.

Foreign interference

I would say "foreign involvement" would be a more neutral term.
 * if the term “interference” is used for all parties, it can hardly be considered “not neutral”. yet, the term “involvement” is also fine.

''support involved the recruitment of mercenaries and an expanded propaganda campaign against the MPLA. The American public was not informed. The US "was publicly committed to an embargo against the delivery of arms to Angolan factions while it was secretly launching a paramilitary programme".''

I would hope the public would not be informed if the operation was covert.
 * your point being?

According to "the former chief of the CIA's Angola Task Force, John Stockwell, and from various other sources, it is now known that the US, far from seeking peaceful solutions, was instrumental in touching off the final round of fighting in 1975" that led to the Cuban intervention.

What "peaceful solutions" were on the table after the fighting had broken out? Why would they seek a "peaceful solution" if it left the Marxist MPLA in control? I would say that Cuba and the USSR were instrumental in prolonging the war through it's intervention, but I would know that was not NPOV.
 * firstly, it says “far from ‘seeking’ solutions”, not that there were solutions “on the table”. why would they seek a "peaceful solution" is indeed a good question. secondly: this is what stockwell said and your personal opinion is of no interest.

In response to US and Chinese support for the FNLA, Soviet support for the MPLA was resumed in March 1975 in the form of arms deliveries by air via Brazzaville and by sea via Dar-es-Salaam.

How would the Soviets know that the U.S. was supporting the FNLA if it was covert?
 * ask them

Cuba and the MPLA before the Civil War

Gotta love how this is separate from the "foreign interference" part. Apparently Castro's actions can never be declared "interference" since he's so great.
 * this is in an own section because the whole article, after all, is about cuba in angola. i included it as a subsection of “foreign interference”.

'' In the following years South Africa engaged in numerous military and economic activities in the region, backing a contra war in Mozambique, undertaking various measures at economic destabilization against Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe, backing an unsuccessful mercenary intervention in the Seychelles in 1981 and supporting a coup in Lesotho in 1986. It was behind a coup attempt in Tanzania in 1983, provided continuous support for insurgency in Zimbabwe since independence, carried out raids against ANC offices in Maputo, Harare and Gaborone and conducted a counterinsurgency war in Namibia against SWAPO.''

Why is this relevant to the South Africa of 1975?
 * it sheds light on the long-term policies of the apartheid regime. the actions in angola were only the “logical continuation”.

"Pretoria believed that by invading Angola it could install its proxies and shore up apartheid for the foreseeable future" 

As established, UNITA and FNLA were not "proxies" of South Africa, at least no more so than the MPLA were proxies of Cuba.
 * not disputed

Also, please explain to me why a UNITA victory would help apartheid.
 * for what other reason should south africa have helped?

The United States encouraged the South Africans, had known of their covert plans in advance and co-operated militarily with its forces

Please explain what is meant by "cooperated militarily with its forces".
 * these are things you can find out yourself.

According to Stockwell, "there was close liaison between the CIA and the South Africans" [59] and "’high officials’ in Pretoria claimed that their intervention in Angola had been based on an ‘understanding’ with the United States".

Extremely speculative. Furthermore, why not note similar Cuban coordination with the Soviets?
 * why “extremely speculative” if the quote is from stockwell? cuban coordination with the soviets, as far as it happened or is known, is not disputed. unlike the u.s. hiding its connections with south africa, cuba had nothing to be ashamed about.

He underlined that the aggression on the part of the FNLA and of Mobutu to the MPLA 

Biased language.
 * statement is quoted

The FNLA was receiving arms and equipment from the U.S. via Zaire starting in the end of July 

This directly contradicts other statements saying that U.S. support began earlier.
 * it doesn’t say that there was no support earlier.

On 9 December Ford asked the Soviets to suspend the airlift, still assuming it was a Soviet-run operation

The airlift itself was certainly Soviet-run.
 * read more carefully: by then the airlift was still a purely cuban affair

By then "the evidence of the South African invasion was overwhelming and the stench of US-collusion with Pretoria hung in the air.

Extremely biased language.
 * this is a quote which, b.t.w., gives a good impression of how much public and international opinion concerning cooperation with south Africa was feared.

With the need to distance themselves from outcasts in the eyes of black Africa this also meant the US would drop support for the white regime in Rhodesia, a price it was willing to pay to "thwart communism".

Um, exactly what support was the U.S. giving Rhodesia before 1976?
 * again, for you to find out yourself.

"Savimbi's political career appeared to be over. But he was saved by the cold war and his usefulness to the US and South Africa".

A rather uncharitable statement given that U.S. aid was cut off for ten years and he continued the fight until 2002.
 * savimbi still got aid, otherwise he would have been unable to continue

The Cubans had no intention to get bogged down in a lengthy internal counter-insurgency and started to reduce their presence in Angola as planned after the retreat of the South Africans.

Then why did they stay there for ten more years?
 * it seems you never read the article

Humanitarian engagement

This section uncritically accepts Cuba's claims and fails to put them into perspective.
 * what’s there to criticise and in what perspective would you like the “claims” to be? it is well known that the cubans ran the angolan health system.

Apart from being a friend to African tyrants Savimbi became the toast of the Reagan White House and was feted by the rightwing establishment in many countries

Do I even need to comment here?
 * i think even savimbi was unhappy about this.

''In the early 1980s, the United States, in their endeavour to get the USSR and Cuba out of Angola, became directly involved in negotiations with Angola. Angola pointed out it could safely reduce the number of Cuban troops and Soviet advisors if it wasn’t for the continuing South African incursions and threat at its southern border. The most obvious solution was an independent Namibia which South Africa had to give up.''

Actually the most obvious solution would have been for both sides to cooperate against SWAPO but that would not be NPOV either. Such judgements should not be in the article.
 * where’s a judgement? And you dispute the right of swapo to fight against south africa and to get support for this.

The same year, South African military aggression increased against Angolan targets and SWAPO guerrillas.

Defending yourself = "aggression"? Nobody can possibly claim this is neutral.
 * you can exchange “aggression” with “actions”, it basically doesn’t change the nature of what went on. you are mixing things up here: the ones defending themselves were swapo, not the south africans.

It was only after the battle at Cuito Cuanavale that the Botha government showed a real interest in peace negotiations.

More bias. Apparently showing a "real interest" involves one side making disproportionate concessions.
 * who was asked to make “disproportionate” concessions?

''Castro could regard himself as father of Namibia's independence and as the one who put an end to colonialism in Africa. Indeed, Cuba demonstrated responsibility and maturity. This should have been acknowledged by the USA as an important gesture and merited a respective answer. ''

I wouldn't mind this Orwellian propaganda if it was balanced out, but apparently only one view is allowed. In addition, it is not clear exactly what this guy is talking about.
 * do proper research and find acceptable sources and you can do all the balancing you like.

69.133.126.117 (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sundar1 (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

more appropriately, why exactly is it not noted in this article that the Angolan MPLA regime was extremely corrupt. There was a reason why Cuba was running the Angolan health care system: all the domestic revenue was being stolen by their "Marxist" government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.140.128 (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

some other information in regards to the MPLA that should be made clear in this article: The MPLA constitution for Angola states:

"all sovereignty rests with the Angolan people, but the MPLA... is in charge of political, economic, and social leadership of the nation" (Article 2).

"The state directs and plans the national economy for the benefit of the people" (Article 8).

"As long as Angolan territory is is not totally liberated and the conditions for the installation of the People's Assembly do not exist, the highest state body shall be the Council of the Revolution composed of the members of the MPLA-PT Political Bureau, the members of the General Staff of the FAPLA, the, the provincial commissioners, and members of the government named for this purpose." (Article 16)

Other articles state that the president of the MPLA shall be the president of Angola and that the Council of the Revolution is the highest political body and is composed of "members of the MPLA-PT, Political Bureau, and members of the FAPLA general staff."

This sounds an awful lot to me like a one party dictatorship similar to Cuba's. Maybe that's why Fidel backed the MPLA. By contrast, UNITA's consitution states in the preamble: "UNITA tirelessly fights for the holding of free electionsin order to implement in Angola, a representative government, capable of planning, identifying, and defining the needs, exercise of authority, assign responsibilities, and demand sacrifices." Looks like Cuba backed the dictatorship.

In the book "A Political History of the Civil War in Angola," W. Martin James III described the fight of UNITA against the Cubans, Soviets, and the MPLA. By this account it was the Cubans that were acting as imperialists: Cuban and Soviet involvement on the side of the MPLA exploded after the US Congress voted to cut off funds for CIA covert actions in Angola. Four hundred military advisers and over $200 million worth of arms were given to the MPLA by the Soviets in 1975 with the cessation of American funding. Twelve thousand Cuban troops also arrived, funded, armed, and transported by the Soviet Union. This, combined with a loss of support from South Africa as well, meant that UNITA was defeated and on the run in 1976. However, UNITA had a large degree of popular support that allowed it to rebound from these early defeats. Its resurgence led to the return of American and South African support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.19.137 (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This whole article is so POV, it is shocking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.115.75.58 (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you doing to help fix it? Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 15:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

=
= SOVIET STYLE PROPAGANDA AND LIES =============

EXAMPLE 1 - SOVIET LIES ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE CONFLICT

1. "Pretoria believed that by invading Angola it could install its proxies and shore up apartheid for the foreseeable future" - that according to the author of this article was Pretoria's main goal. So South Africa that didn't have a colony called Angola, wanted now to take control of this ex - Portuguese colony and create an apartheid puppet right?

Well that is absolute nonsense ... these events took place, the Angolan Independence, after the USSR had funded the Marxist overthrow of all other the countries in Southern Africa:

From Tanzania, Angola, Namibia, Zaire, Zambia etc. It is on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe_War_of_Independence ( 4 July 1964 – 12 December 1979 ) - Zimbabwe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Colonial_War ( 1961–1974 ) - Mozambique etc.

So Angola was logically the last country in the region set to fall to communism.

So according to the author of this article, the entire world must now believe that Angola in 1975 was to be the exception to that rule? That Cuban troops was there in Angola 12,000km+ away from Cuba to intervene to see DEMOCRACY in Angola? What a joke! Cuba is a communist state. Cuba was there to make sure that Angola would become just another Southern African Marxist state - like Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Zaire, Mozambique, Zambia. etc. so the Cuban intervention was specifically there to help Marxist forces, it was there to make sure that a Marxist backed group take political control of Angola. So that would be the main reason for South Africa to intervene: obviously to preserve capitalism, to stop the spreading of communism to the entire African region. The whites ( seen as capitalists by the communists ) had been chased out of the entire Africa.

The Cubans weren't just anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist alone, they specifically wanted a Marxist controlled puppet to win control of Angola. They weren't interested in democracy. Cubans have never been interested in democracy. Only in communism. Cuba is one of the greatest examples of communism, one of the last communist countries in the world in 2013.

The MLPA decided to proclaim itself as the leaders of Angola. How's that for democracy and human rights? Self-proclaimed rulers of Angola, the other political groups mean nothing in the country. So that's another indication of the communistic character of the MPLA.

EXAMPLE 2 - SOVIET LIES ABOUT THE ORIGINS AND IDEOLOGIES OF THE MPLA

More evidence of Wikipedia: If you look at Wiki on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPLA it states "On December 10, 1956, in Estado Novo-ruled Portuguese Angola, the tiny underground Angolan Communist Party (PCA) merged with the Party of the United Struggle for Africans in Angola (PLUA) to form the People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola. ( MPLA )."

So the MPLA has clear communist roots.

In fact, once it has complete political power ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPLA says" ): "At its first congress, in 1977, the MPLA adopted Marxism-Leninism as the party ideology" "However, it maintained close ties with the Soviet Union and the Communist bloc, establishing socialist economic policies and a one-party state." - A one party socialist state. No elections.

So in this article someone tries to justify Cuba's incursion into Angola, by up to 100,000 troops, 12,000km+ by portraying Cuba as a fighter against apartheid, a fighter against colonialism, when in fact, Cuba was specifically there to make sure the entire Southern African region would fall and remain under Marxist rule. Cuba sends up to 100,000 troops there, for 15 years.... for what? For their own political ideology Marxism-Leninism... they weren't interested in anyone else getting political power in Angola.

EXAMPLE 3 - SOVIET LIES ABOUT THE INTENTION OF CUBA AND THE USSR IN ANGOLA

All the pro-communist groups used Southern African countries as bases to attack South Africa. So the incursions from South Africa into Angola, is by logical deduction in response to a Soviet backed invasion of the entire Southern Africa. At what point must the South African's respond? When their entire country had been overrun by communist guerilla fighters and they are chased into the sea, their capitalist assets nationalized and the last whites had left Africa? All the whites had been driven from Kenya, Angola, Zaire, Zimbabwe, Mozambique by Marxist groups. Mozambique alone lost 300,000+ European settlers within 24 hours. The communists had seized all the farms, all the mines, all the possessions of the capitalists. That was what had happened in the OTHER Portuguese colony during the same year, on April 25, 1974. So what had happened in Mozambique, where not a white settler remained with property, would likely be repeated in Angola and then Namibia and then South Africa.

Here's the evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambican_War_of_Independence

"About 300,000 white ethnic Portuguese citizens from Mozambique left the territory overnight as refugees (in Portugal they were known as retornados)." ( April 25, 1974 )

Also the communists nationalized all the private assets of capitalists in Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Kenya etc etc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Nyerere

( nationalized almost the entire economy )

etc. etc.

So this article and the events it describes remains hopelessly unbalanced, it doesn't describe the regional realities that was happening throughout the entire Southern African region, of which Angola was part - it was not only a battle against colonialism, that Cuba took part in, but it formed the most important force to spread communism - by force of arms - throughout Southern Africa. Britain and the rest of Europe had granted independence to all these African countries, the Marxists proceeded to chase the capitalists ( the whites ) out of Africa. So this is carefully edited to reflect upon Fidel Castro as a great anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist hero, but not a stalwart spreader of communism and racism ( chasing all the whites out of Africa is racism - as if white and black cannot live together in one continent ).

=
===========================================================================================

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.54.234.118 (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cuban intervention in Angola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070101153534/http://www.cnn.com:80/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/17/documents/angola/ to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/17/documents/angola/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Map
As it is, the map is not really helpful. It should point out that at that time Namibia was occupied by apartheid South Africa, thus making South Africa a direct neighbour of Angola, and giving it the posibility to intervene through the SADF in Angola. Is there anybody who has the technical ability to do something about this? Aflis (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Slanted, POV comment about Savimbi.
The statement that "South Africa also went to great lengths to brush up Savimbi's image abroad, especially in the US" is followed by apparently derogatory and demeaning references to "Apart from being a friend to some African dictators[who?] Savimbi became the toast of the Reagan White House and was feted by the rightwing establishment in many countries" - the opposite of brushing up Savimbi's image. POV misrepresentations and references like this should not be in Wikipedia.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cuban intervention in Angola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070901091552/http://www.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de:80/publish/Ipw/Akuf/kriege/281_angola.htm to http://www.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de/publish/Ipw/Akuf/kriege/281_angola.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cuban intervention in Angola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131115003033/http://frontline-org-za.win03.glodns.net/articles/reagan.htm to http://frontline-org-za.win03.glodns.net/articles/reagan.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de/publish/Ipw/Akuf/kriege/281_angola.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Dubious desertion claims by General Del Pino
The claim that 56,000 Cuban soldiers defected during the Cuban intervention in Angola is backed up by two sources in this article [27] and [28]. Source [27] is a New York Times article which mentions "In interviews with Radio Marti, the United States Government-sponsored radio station that broadcasts to Cuba, General del Pino said the Cuban Army has had 56,000 deserters in the last three years in Angola and more than 10,000 casualties there over the last 12 years." The article goes on to say "In the interview, General del Pino was not asked for any evidence to support his assertions." Source [28] is a text book by Irving Horowitz and Jaime Suchlicki. The specific claim of the 56,000 deserters comes from the chapter entitled "Much Ado About Something?: Regime Change in Cuba. The specific claim is listed as citation [17] in this chapter which leads to the article "From Fidelismo to Raulismo: Civilian Control of the Military in Cuba" in the journal Problems of Post-Communism. In Mora's article, the claim of 56,000 deserters is supported by citation [31], which leads to "General Del Pino Speaks: An Insight into Elite Corruption and Military Dissension in Castro's Cuba". In this book, on page 32, General Del Pino states without proof or citation "The youth of Cuba holds no love for the military. They have wearied; promises have now ceased to convince them. The youth of Cuba feels cheated, and resents continuing to be servile and to bend at the knee. Let me give you a concrete example: at a meeting held at the Ministry of the Armed Forces shortly before I came here, a special corps had to be created because 56,000 deserters have been caught in the last 3 years." This quote was given to Radio Marti and it was the same quote referenced in the 1987 New York Times article listed as wikipedia source [27]. In a roundabout way, source [28] is just source [27] with extra layers of obfuscation and source [27] readily admits that there is no evidence to support Del Pino's positions. I am marking this claim as until it is proven otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heightenedcontradiction (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Terrible POV
The SADF didn’t lose the battle of Cuito. This article is trying to make it seem that they retreated after forgiving back an invasion into SW Africa. Also promoting Cubas “success” in the battle when it was clearly a defensive action. POV! 173.2.123.188 (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Brazilian involvement
There´s no clear source about the participation of Brazil in the period of this cuban intervention, the only source cited mentions participation years after the cuban era, not 1991, 1999! and is not a reliable source, is just a communication from one of the parties with no credible information https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/unita/en0510991.htm Barrabas11 (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)