Talk:Battle of Cassinga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

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

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. ..........

Yes, but what aspects of the article do you specifically object to? What you wrote above does not help the article itself. Elf-friend 08:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, the fact that Namibia celebrates Cassinga day should be included in the article (probably the article should be balanced with the Namibian/Angolan view anyway). And if any great percentage of civilians were killed, that should also be mentioned, citing recognised sources.

But I still cannot see what the above (somewhat emotional) entry adds to the article, or the discussion ... examples ... "With no warning, there was a raid by the South African troops" - well, yes, surprise is an essential part of military operations, that is nothing unusual there, the military of all countries do it ... "Helicopters swooped in from the sky and shot and killed" ... South Africa had no specialised attack helicopters at that time, and it is debatable how effective they would have been in that situation anyway - this was an infantry action.

Regards, Elf-friend 14:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points. The emotional response by the anonymous contributor above is interesting, but it doesn't seem to contribute much of use to the article. It also has some interesting inconsistencies, such as claiming that the attack was begun by attack helicopters, yet the attack was begun by an extended bombing run as the article shows. Furthermore, the armed helicopters that did take part were fitted with 20mm cannons, which would most certainly not have passed through somebody without fatal consequences. Still, it's possible that those inconsistencies are due more to confusion than anything else.

This contentious debate is not helped by the fact that there almost certainly were women and children in the base at the time. It is a sad feature of most guerilla armies that all sectors of the population, including women and children, are often pressed into service as soldiers. Witness any demobilisation of a guerilla/rebel army in Africa, and the number of women and children coming forth to hand in their weapons is astonishing. Indeed, it's worth remembering that when United Nations peacekeeping forces opened fire on a rebel base in the DRC late last year, women and children were amongst the dead. There was a brief outcry, until it was pointed out that the women and children had been armed.

The issue with Cassinga, it seems, is that there's no agreement on what exactly the camp's status was. The SADF, and every single paratrooper in action that day, are and were adamant that it was a military base in its entirety, and during the raid took many photos and documents proving at the very least the base's military nature. The ICRC states on the other hand that the base was a combination of a military and refugee base, which in my mind would appear to be a violation of the Geneva Conventions at the very least, in placing military targets in amongst a civilian population. SWAPO, finally, claims that the camp was nothing but a refugee camp, but this statement is contradicted not only by the ICRC, but by the evidence collected by the SADF during the raid.

I've read widely about the battle, including SWAPO's claims, and the only conclusion I have been able to reach is that it is the SADF's version of events that seems to correspond most closely to reality, and to make the most sense. SWAPO accounts are filled with inaccuracies and impossibilities, making nearly all of them sound like statements cooked up by propaganda officers after the fact who weren't even present at the battle. Still, if the above contributor can provide some recognised and credible sources proving my assertion incorrect, I would be willing to see it. — Impi 13:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SURVIVOR

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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.88.21.195 (talk • contribs).