This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Cassinga article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From a broadcast letter I received from an American woman visiting Odibo in northern Namibia. I am relaying this to temper the South African point of view in the article about the Battle of Cassinga in Angola in 1978 on May 4th and give a feeling for what it was like to be under attack. I was in Odibo myself until April 5, 2006. Namibia now marks Cassinga Day to remember its dead in the raid. Sandra Eadie
To this day no source have produced proof of Cassinga being anything else than a military base, there for only one reason, to launch attacks in SWA. There are loads of documented facts and photographs from the old SADF's side, and only counter claims. Note claims. Even photograps of so-called mass graves after the battle, only show people in military atire. From the SWAPO side it was, is and will always remain one huge lie, for propaganda purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.19.250.119 ( talk) 16:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
May 4, 2006 Newsletter #4
St. Mary’s Mission,Odibo, Namibia
Good morning dear friends and family, It is a glorious day here in northern Namibia. The rains have stopped; the ponds are filled with water; and the grain crops are ripening. I am in my favorite place, perched up on my kitchen counter, sitting in the sun streaming in through the window. Weather not withstanding, there is a sad overtone here, as the people remember the tragedy of Cassinga. 28 years ago today, many of them were living in camps in exile across the border in Angola, during the struggle for independence. With no warning, there was a raid by the South African troops. Helicopters swooped in from the sky and shot and killed 100’s of Namibians, including many women and children. My friend told me how terrible it was. For one thing, her younger sister was hit in the side with a bullet. Miraculously, it passed straight through and out the other side, missing all her vital organs. There are many people still here today who can tell tales of that horrific event.
..........
As you should know, a bus full of school children was abducted from St Mary's Mission by SWAPO and taken to Cassinga a few weeks before the Battle. These children were needed to dupe the UN mission who visited Cassinga a few days before the battle, that Cassinga housed refugees. This was necessary so as to get food and medicines free from the UN to help SWAPO and Plan care for their wounded and exhausted soldiers returning from SWA after operations. WE found the bus and many of the kids at Cassinga and it broke our hearts that we could not take then back home as we did not have enough space in the choppers.
Guymullins (
talk) 18:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
[1]
No armed helicopters took part in The Battle for Cassinga, all the space in the helicopters was needed to extract the troops. Only Super Frelons and Pumas were used and Pumas only ever carried twin .50 Brownings not 20mm Cannons, which were carried by Alloette gun ships.<Eagle Strike> Guymullins ( talk) 21:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
References
This should be dedicated to those who survived in Cassinga. Your contribution might be of graete value to this site as there is only one side Story, perhaps I would like to have an go ahead or any authorization to add my story. I am a cassinga survivor at the age of 15 years in 1978, please for me to continue add most need valuable contribution I need a feed back, one can contact me at: mwanyekange@webmail.co.na —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.88.21.195 ( talk • contribs) I am alarmed at
I think we should move this article to "Cassinga massacre", as only the SADF calls it a "battle", while tons of media call it a "massacre". At the very least a neutral name should be used, such as "Cassinga event". Thoughts?-- Thomas.macmillan ( talk) 15:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Militarily it was a raid, being a surprise attack of very limited duration on a military target, followed by a complete withdrawal. But a raid is a type of battle, being a military action that includes other types - deliberate attacks, sieges and the like. So it is a battle. (I don't come from SA by the way, I'm a military analyst from the UK, though I admit that this war is not one of my specialisations.) The term massacre is, in this context, politically correct nonesense, promoted by people who wish to portray the event as an attack on a camp of unarmed civilians. Of course some innocent and unarmed civilians were killed; but thousands of innocent Frenchmen died in Normandy when the Allies launched D-Day in 1944, and we don't call that a massacre. Regrettably, these things happen in war.
Cassinga was obviously an armed camp or base - the clues lie in the presence of heavy machine-guns, AA guns, bunkers and trenches. The fact that it looks like a one-sided massacre from the casualty statistics is because the SA army was very effective (in terms of casualties inflicted per attacker), and the defenders were very ineffective (in terms of casualties inflicted per defender). Note also that many of the casualties were caused by aircraft bombing the guerrillas' morning parade - this is not a daily activity that one would associate with a refugee camp.
Just imagine what the discussion would have been if the defence of Cassinga had been successful, and the SA forces had been humiliated: not a massacre, but a heroic defence by the people against the forces of evil! It only needs be called a massacre to attempt to turn a military defeat into an event that can be used to gain sympathy for people who were caught up in a proxy war between the Soviet bloc, and a country that historically had strong links with the West.
Just because 'tons of media' call it a massacre doesn't mean that they are correct in doing so. It just means that they have failed to question the very effective spin put on the outcome of the raid by the Soviet-backed media at the time, and the anti-apartheid camp in the western world. I must admit that 'event' is a much more neutral term; my objection to this is that it is not normally applied to military operations. Note also that the term 'battle' doesn't necessarily mean that one supports the motives of the initiators - I for one don't support the motives of the staff who initiated the Battle of the Atlantic by sinking Allied merchant shipping in WW2.
A way in which this article could be made fairer, more neutral, is - if the statistics exist - by estimating how many of the dead and injured people in the camp were armed, and how many were not. -- Wally Tharg ( talk) 11:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph I added mentioning Cuba's care of children that were wounded and orphaned in this battle is completely relevant, and should remain. It is a relevant for 2 reasons - (1) it discredited South Africa's claims that Cassinga was only a military compound and that civilians were not involved (2) it demonstated one of the many humanitarian acts that Cuba undertook at a time when the US was painting Cuba as a brutal regime.
The information is supported by 2 sources, and another editor supports me in including it in the article. Please do not remove or alter it without discussing here first. Logicman1966 ( talk) 12:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
http://www.namweb.net/content/remembering-cassinga-massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.171.234 ( talk) 13:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
It is interesting that the number of casualties still showed the round number of "600 SWAPO" while all the studies with any degrees of impartiality agrees with the fact that a large number of civilian were killed.
The "Cassinga Raid" for example details, quite well this aspect and, I believe, it is quite important to try to be objective while we write about these sensitive matters. Chief of SADF was informed that (see "Cassinga Raid", page 161): "There were many women and children at Alpha and a reasonable number were killed."
While it is clear that a number of women were in uniforms, it is quite clear that a significant number were not combatant. Also, a large number of civilians were killed during the initial raid phase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.124.29 ( talk) 10:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was No consensus to move the article to Cassinga massacre. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this article should be moved to the title Cassinga massacre. If we discount how it is called in official Cuban, Namibian and South African media due to possible partisanship, international scholarship generally considers the event to be a massacre. According to Google Books, Namibia By Bryan O'Linn, The Devils are Among Us by Denis Herbstein, John A. Evenson, Rethinking Resistance By J. Abbink, Mirjam de Bruijn, Klaas van Walraven all describe it as a massacre, not a battle.-- TM 14:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
All the Cassinga choppers had large letters taped to their sides to identify them to the troops so that each troop could catch the chopper allocated to him. These choppers on the photo shown have no such ID marks.It also looks like the troops emplaning are wearing floppy hats. We wore steel helmets only at Cassinga Guymullins ( talk) 13:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC) [1]
I would be glad to supply a genuine pic when this one is withdrawn, although I am unsure as to how it is done. Guymullins ( talk) 17:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC) [2] I see the chopper pic has been binned. How do I post its replacement? Guymullins ( talk) 20:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The link was written by Cobus Venter who purports to have been a Paratrooper at Cassinga. He was not. Guymullins ( talk) 13:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC [1]
References
Why is the post-independence Namibian nationmal flag being used instead of SWAPO's own flag? The Namibian flag did not even exist at the time. The Swapo flag is here: [1] I don't know how to create a small icon sized flag from it. Roger ( talk) 20:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is not neutral, written from the POV of a participating South-African. Please review the entire contents from a neutral POV. -- 212.204.48.221 ( talk) 16:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I have received a notification from 'Theos Little Bot' regarding aspects of this file and, while unable to understand what was sought by this message, I found and read through the 'Talk Page' relevant to this entry.
It is understandable that Wiki editors would seek/prefer verification and attribution from published documents. My modest contributions relate to the photo-reconnaissance, strike planning and execution of the strike by Canberra aircraft. I also witnessed/attended briefings and debriefings and have included some relevant comment recalled from those.
I was an air reconnaissance specialist operational on the SAAF Canberra squadron at the time of the events. I also had comparatively extensive prior relevant experience as an aircrew officer in the RAF, wholly familiar with NATO techniques and performance standards - and WARPACT deployed equipment and formations. Not less than three 3 photo-reconnaissance sorties were conducted over the Cassinga nexus in the weeks prior to 'Op Reindeer' following the cessation of the seasonal continuous rains, showing swift progressive construction of defensive earthworks: the characteristic zigzag 'North Korean Pattern' of interlinked trenches grew considerably, the enlarged 'gunpits' where machine guns and/or mortar weapons would best be sited, concreted 'drive-in' berms for AFVs commanding the approach roads north and south. Perhaps the most significant new development was the construction of a star-pattern SAM-3 missile site, with its concrete pads for launchers, the radar and command trucks, and the all-weather access lanes to each. This was unmistakable, and it signaled the intent to make that base effectively invulnerable to air attack. This flagged-up the intended commencement of a well-understood escalation phase in the lexicon of insurgency warfare, the 'Creation of Secure Bases'. Had that missile battery been installed and become operational, no airborne strike by SAAF elements would have been possible. It was imperative to the SA strategy of containment that no chain of 'invulnerable bases' be established in Southern Angola.
'In war, truth is the first casualty' - Aeschylus
I note the comments of 'Mcgill Alexander', who was - as I understand it - a researcher and not a participant. The SADF certainly had prior awareness from contemporary photo-reconnaissance and the trained aircrew's 'eyeball reports' of the existence and temporary siting of 2, potentially 3, multi-barrelled anti-aircraft weapons identified positively as ZPU-4. The wheeled tow-carriage on 2 of them was especially clear, the third being partially obscured by tree foliage. These equipments had not been present two months earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeueSoutie ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
moved new post from an old discussion above -- Pgallert ( talk) 20:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Who cares what tonnes of the media call it? The media's version and reality are always at conflicting ends anyway. This should be an encyclopedia, meaning facts only. The only substantiated facts available prove without any doubt that Cassinga was a military installation. If civillians were present the mind boggles at how inept the UN is to prosecute SWAPO for obvious war crimes. What boggles the mind even more is the fact that SWAPO could not untill now provide any evidence of Cassinga being a refugee camp whilst the SA government provided heaps of the opposite, yet when you read this article the first paragraph states unambigouosly that the SADF attacked a refugee camp! WTF? Just because someone can find some piece of lying propaganda printed in some unknown tabloid somewhere and use it as a source it suddenly becomes fact, ignoring all the hard facts provided to the international media via the SA government. Wikipedia is not interested in establisging facts, it is a proper propaganda instrument! Boetfaas ( talk) 06:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Cassinga. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.namibian.com.na/2007/April/columns/078C7F3837.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Cassinga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Cassinga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Cassinga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Is not encyclopedic language. Keep the agitprop terminology to the propaganda pamphlets, please. -- 105.0.3.108 ( talk) 20:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
as it is widely known, and there is evidence which proves (both survivor's accounts and photos) that there were refugee civilians, including women and children, killed that day during the massacre. Calling it a battle is disrespectful and disingenuous. May 4 is a national memorial day in Angola which widely recognizes it as a massacre as well. Out of all places on the internet, this wikipedia article is oddly one of the only ones to refer to it as a "battle" All the more reason the article's title should be changed.
{{subst:requested move|Cassinga Massacre|reason=Place
Prior to my edits this article read like European settler apartheid army propaganda. Two days ago, as of the time im writing this, the people of Angola held an annual memorial day for those killed in Cassinga; May 4. It is widely recognized, not just in Angola, that what occured in Cassinga, 1978 was no "battle", it was a direct massacre of civilians as the photos, which this article even mentioned but treated as unsubstantial prior to my edits, even mentioned. There is also this video interview with two known Cassinga survivors, Hilya Pennah Nakatana Haufiku and Hileni Amakali-Mudhika, recounting their trauma that day. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.26.221 ( talk) 19:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
You shouldn't make such edits that are clearly not neutral. The sources you added aren't reliable. You may think it was just a massacre but that's your opinion and reliable sources dispute this. This page covers the different perspectives well including the perspective that it was a massacre. GreenCows ( talk) 18:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
References
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0259-01902010000100011 LoomCreek ( talk) 02:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The article regularly refers to the notion of this being a "massacre" as simply "propaganda" by SWAPO, and spends a great deal of ink dithering on cynical interpretations of an unfortunate "political" fallout for the SADF that is repeatedly and fully chalked up to false media campaigning. Meanwhile, it seems over 200 children died... The cynical tone with which this is repeatedly explained away as deceitful publicity shows a naked and brazen POV in favor of the killers here. 2800:E2:B380:146D:335A:E119:BBBE:9FBB ( talk) 00:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Cassinga article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From a broadcast letter I received from an American woman visiting Odibo in northern Namibia. I am relaying this to temper the South African point of view in the article about the Battle of Cassinga in Angola in 1978 on May 4th and give a feeling for what it was like to be under attack. I was in Odibo myself until April 5, 2006. Namibia now marks Cassinga Day to remember its dead in the raid. Sandra Eadie
To this day no source have produced proof of Cassinga being anything else than a military base, there for only one reason, to launch attacks in SWA. There are loads of documented facts and photographs from the old SADF's side, and only counter claims. Note claims. Even photograps of so-called mass graves after the battle, only show people in military atire. From the SWAPO side it was, is and will always remain one huge lie, for propaganda purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.19.250.119 ( talk) 16:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
May 4, 2006 Newsletter #4
St. Mary’s Mission,Odibo, Namibia
Good morning dear friends and family, It is a glorious day here in northern Namibia. The rains have stopped; the ponds are filled with water; and the grain crops are ripening. I am in my favorite place, perched up on my kitchen counter, sitting in the sun streaming in through the window. Weather not withstanding, there is a sad overtone here, as the people remember the tragedy of Cassinga. 28 years ago today, many of them were living in camps in exile across the border in Angola, during the struggle for independence. With no warning, there was a raid by the South African troops. Helicopters swooped in from the sky and shot and killed 100’s of Namibians, including many women and children. My friend told me how terrible it was. For one thing, her younger sister was hit in the side with a bullet. Miraculously, it passed straight through and out the other side, missing all her vital organs. There are many people still here today who can tell tales of that horrific event.
..........
As you should know, a bus full of school children was abducted from St Mary's Mission by SWAPO and taken to Cassinga a few weeks before the Battle. These children were needed to dupe the UN mission who visited Cassinga a few days before the battle, that Cassinga housed refugees. This was necessary so as to get food and medicines free from the UN to help SWAPO and Plan care for their wounded and exhausted soldiers returning from SWA after operations. WE found the bus and many of the kids at Cassinga and it broke our hearts that we could not take then back home as we did not have enough space in the choppers.
Guymullins (
talk) 18:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
[1]
No armed helicopters took part in The Battle for Cassinga, all the space in the helicopters was needed to extract the troops. Only Super Frelons and Pumas were used and Pumas only ever carried twin .50 Brownings not 20mm Cannons, which were carried by Alloette gun ships.<Eagle Strike> Guymullins ( talk) 21:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
References
This should be dedicated to those who survived in Cassinga. Your contribution might be of graete value to this site as there is only one side Story, perhaps I would like to have an go ahead or any authorization to add my story. I am a cassinga survivor at the age of 15 years in 1978, please for me to continue add most need valuable contribution I need a feed back, one can contact me at: mwanyekange@webmail.co.na —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.88.21.195 ( talk • contribs) I am alarmed at
I think we should move this article to "Cassinga massacre", as only the SADF calls it a "battle", while tons of media call it a "massacre". At the very least a neutral name should be used, such as "Cassinga event". Thoughts?-- Thomas.macmillan ( talk) 15:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Militarily it was a raid, being a surprise attack of very limited duration on a military target, followed by a complete withdrawal. But a raid is a type of battle, being a military action that includes other types - deliberate attacks, sieges and the like. So it is a battle. (I don't come from SA by the way, I'm a military analyst from the UK, though I admit that this war is not one of my specialisations.) The term massacre is, in this context, politically correct nonesense, promoted by people who wish to portray the event as an attack on a camp of unarmed civilians. Of course some innocent and unarmed civilians were killed; but thousands of innocent Frenchmen died in Normandy when the Allies launched D-Day in 1944, and we don't call that a massacre. Regrettably, these things happen in war.
Cassinga was obviously an armed camp or base - the clues lie in the presence of heavy machine-guns, AA guns, bunkers and trenches. The fact that it looks like a one-sided massacre from the casualty statistics is because the SA army was very effective (in terms of casualties inflicted per attacker), and the defenders were very ineffective (in terms of casualties inflicted per defender). Note also that many of the casualties were caused by aircraft bombing the guerrillas' morning parade - this is not a daily activity that one would associate with a refugee camp.
Just imagine what the discussion would have been if the defence of Cassinga had been successful, and the SA forces had been humiliated: not a massacre, but a heroic defence by the people against the forces of evil! It only needs be called a massacre to attempt to turn a military defeat into an event that can be used to gain sympathy for people who were caught up in a proxy war between the Soviet bloc, and a country that historically had strong links with the West.
Just because 'tons of media' call it a massacre doesn't mean that they are correct in doing so. It just means that they have failed to question the very effective spin put on the outcome of the raid by the Soviet-backed media at the time, and the anti-apartheid camp in the western world. I must admit that 'event' is a much more neutral term; my objection to this is that it is not normally applied to military operations. Note also that the term 'battle' doesn't necessarily mean that one supports the motives of the initiators - I for one don't support the motives of the staff who initiated the Battle of the Atlantic by sinking Allied merchant shipping in WW2.
A way in which this article could be made fairer, more neutral, is - if the statistics exist - by estimating how many of the dead and injured people in the camp were armed, and how many were not. -- Wally Tharg ( talk) 11:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph I added mentioning Cuba's care of children that were wounded and orphaned in this battle is completely relevant, and should remain. It is a relevant for 2 reasons - (1) it discredited South Africa's claims that Cassinga was only a military compound and that civilians were not involved (2) it demonstated one of the many humanitarian acts that Cuba undertook at a time when the US was painting Cuba as a brutal regime.
The information is supported by 2 sources, and another editor supports me in including it in the article. Please do not remove or alter it without discussing here first. Logicman1966 ( talk) 12:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
http://www.namweb.net/content/remembering-cassinga-massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.171.234 ( talk) 13:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
It is interesting that the number of casualties still showed the round number of "600 SWAPO" while all the studies with any degrees of impartiality agrees with the fact that a large number of civilian were killed.
The "Cassinga Raid" for example details, quite well this aspect and, I believe, it is quite important to try to be objective while we write about these sensitive matters. Chief of SADF was informed that (see "Cassinga Raid", page 161): "There were many women and children at Alpha and a reasonable number were killed."
While it is clear that a number of women were in uniforms, it is quite clear that a significant number were not combatant. Also, a large number of civilians were killed during the initial raid phase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.124.29 ( talk) 10:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was No consensus to move the article to Cassinga massacre. Parsecboy ( talk) 13:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this article should be moved to the title Cassinga massacre. If we discount how it is called in official Cuban, Namibian and South African media due to possible partisanship, international scholarship generally considers the event to be a massacre. According to Google Books, Namibia By Bryan O'Linn, The Devils are Among Us by Denis Herbstein, John A. Evenson, Rethinking Resistance By J. Abbink, Mirjam de Bruijn, Klaas van Walraven all describe it as a massacre, not a battle.-- TM 14:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
All the Cassinga choppers had large letters taped to their sides to identify them to the troops so that each troop could catch the chopper allocated to him. These choppers on the photo shown have no such ID marks.It also looks like the troops emplaning are wearing floppy hats. We wore steel helmets only at Cassinga Guymullins ( talk) 13:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC) [1]
I would be glad to supply a genuine pic when this one is withdrawn, although I am unsure as to how it is done. Guymullins ( talk) 17:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC) [2] I see the chopper pic has been binned. How do I post its replacement? Guymullins ( talk) 20:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The link was written by Cobus Venter who purports to have been a Paratrooper at Cassinga. He was not. Guymullins ( talk) 13:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC [1]
References
Why is the post-independence Namibian nationmal flag being used instead of SWAPO's own flag? The Namibian flag did not even exist at the time. The Swapo flag is here: [1] I don't know how to create a small icon sized flag from it. Roger ( talk) 20:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is not neutral, written from the POV of a participating South-African. Please review the entire contents from a neutral POV. -- 212.204.48.221 ( talk) 16:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I have received a notification from 'Theos Little Bot' regarding aspects of this file and, while unable to understand what was sought by this message, I found and read through the 'Talk Page' relevant to this entry.
It is understandable that Wiki editors would seek/prefer verification and attribution from published documents. My modest contributions relate to the photo-reconnaissance, strike planning and execution of the strike by Canberra aircraft. I also witnessed/attended briefings and debriefings and have included some relevant comment recalled from those.
I was an air reconnaissance specialist operational on the SAAF Canberra squadron at the time of the events. I also had comparatively extensive prior relevant experience as an aircrew officer in the RAF, wholly familiar with NATO techniques and performance standards - and WARPACT deployed equipment and formations. Not less than three 3 photo-reconnaissance sorties were conducted over the Cassinga nexus in the weeks prior to 'Op Reindeer' following the cessation of the seasonal continuous rains, showing swift progressive construction of defensive earthworks: the characteristic zigzag 'North Korean Pattern' of interlinked trenches grew considerably, the enlarged 'gunpits' where machine guns and/or mortar weapons would best be sited, concreted 'drive-in' berms for AFVs commanding the approach roads north and south. Perhaps the most significant new development was the construction of a star-pattern SAM-3 missile site, with its concrete pads for launchers, the radar and command trucks, and the all-weather access lanes to each. This was unmistakable, and it signaled the intent to make that base effectively invulnerable to air attack. This flagged-up the intended commencement of a well-understood escalation phase in the lexicon of insurgency warfare, the 'Creation of Secure Bases'. Had that missile battery been installed and become operational, no airborne strike by SAAF elements would have been possible. It was imperative to the SA strategy of containment that no chain of 'invulnerable bases' be established in Southern Angola.
'In war, truth is the first casualty' - Aeschylus
I note the comments of 'Mcgill Alexander', who was - as I understand it - a researcher and not a participant. The SADF certainly had prior awareness from contemporary photo-reconnaissance and the trained aircrew's 'eyeball reports' of the existence and temporary siting of 2, potentially 3, multi-barrelled anti-aircraft weapons identified positively as ZPU-4. The wheeled tow-carriage on 2 of them was especially clear, the third being partially obscured by tree foliage. These equipments had not been present two months earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeueSoutie ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
moved new post from an old discussion above -- Pgallert ( talk) 20:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Who cares what tonnes of the media call it? The media's version and reality are always at conflicting ends anyway. This should be an encyclopedia, meaning facts only. The only substantiated facts available prove without any doubt that Cassinga was a military installation. If civillians were present the mind boggles at how inept the UN is to prosecute SWAPO for obvious war crimes. What boggles the mind even more is the fact that SWAPO could not untill now provide any evidence of Cassinga being a refugee camp whilst the SA government provided heaps of the opposite, yet when you read this article the first paragraph states unambigouosly that the SADF attacked a refugee camp! WTF? Just because someone can find some piece of lying propaganda printed in some unknown tabloid somewhere and use it as a source it suddenly becomes fact, ignoring all the hard facts provided to the international media via the SA government. Wikipedia is not interested in establisging facts, it is a proper propaganda instrument! Boetfaas ( talk) 06:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Cassinga. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.namibian.com.na/2007/April/columns/078C7F3837.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Cassinga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Cassinga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Cassinga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Is not encyclopedic language. Keep the agitprop terminology to the propaganda pamphlets, please. -- 105.0.3.108 ( talk) 20:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
as it is widely known, and there is evidence which proves (both survivor's accounts and photos) that there were refugee civilians, including women and children, killed that day during the massacre. Calling it a battle is disrespectful and disingenuous. May 4 is a national memorial day in Angola which widely recognizes it as a massacre as well. Out of all places on the internet, this wikipedia article is oddly one of the only ones to refer to it as a "battle" All the more reason the article's title should be changed.
{{subst:requested move|Cassinga Massacre|reason=Place
Prior to my edits this article read like European settler apartheid army propaganda. Two days ago, as of the time im writing this, the people of Angola held an annual memorial day for those killed in Cassinga; May 4. It is widely recognized, not just in Angola, that what occured in Cassinga, 1978 was no "battle", it was a direct massacre of civilians as the photos, which this article even mentioned but treated as unsubstantial prior to my edits, even mentioned. There is also this video interview with two known Cassinga survivors, Hilya Pennah Nakatana Haufiku and Hileni Amakali-Mudhika, recounting their trauma that day. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.26.221 ( talk) 19:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
You shouldn't make such edits that are clearly not neutral. The sources you added aren't reliable. You may think it was just a massacre but that's your opinion and reliable sources dispute this. This page covers the different perspectives well including the perspective that it was a massacre. GreenCows ( talk) 18:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
References
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0259-01902010000100011 LoomCreek ( talk) 02:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The article regularly refers to the notion of this being a "massacre" as simply "propaganda" by SWAPO, and spends a great deal of ink dithering on cynical interpretations of an unfortunate "political" fallout for the SADF that is repeatedly and fully chalked up to false media campaigning. Meanwhile, it seems over 200 children died... The cynical tone with which this is repeatedly explained away as deceitful publicity shows a naked and brazen POV in favor of the killers here. 2800:E2:B380:146D:335A:E119:BBBE:9FBB ( talk) 00:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)