Jump to content

Talk:Jonas Savimbi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page needs work

[edit]

This page still needs work. The most blatant POV has been removed, but the article still reads a little too pro Savimbi. The failure to take Cuito Cuanavale in 1988 showed that military victory in the conflict was near-impossible, and caused the apartheid government in South to re-evaluate its support too, playing a role in the end of apartheid two years later. UNITA's near-destruction in 1990 should also be mentioned. Greenman - 16/5/2004

"but the article still reads a little too pro Savimbi" Really true, half way through the article and i was obsolutely certain the article was written by someone who liked Savimbi. But, then again, turning down the electral result was not that positive.

Response: Savimbi's ultimate inability to win militarily seems adequately represented. Also, the support from South Africa, Ivory Coast, Zaire, etc. is interesting, but it was the U.S. support that elevated this conflict to international stature. The "government" of Angola also had support from some/many African nations; no need to reference all of them. Also, I suppose you can call Angola a "government," but it has held power by force, continues to reject elections, is generally autocratic/totalitarian, so the previous use of the word "regime" to describe it is not so off-base, but will let that stand.

Six years after the last comment on this, the article still has some characteristics of a "hagiography" and is, on the other hand, still influenced by Cold War reasoning. Also, it does not respect the "division of labour" that should exist between the different pages related to Angola (e.g. dealing with aspects that have their proper place in the article on UNITA. Aflis (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tito Chingunji

[edit]

The death of Tito Chingunji needs to be mentioned somewhere in this article.

It is. (Perhaps it was added since the above comment, which includes no date) - DavidWBrooks 21:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I added it right after it was mentioned. Everyking 01:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that a more explicity reference should be made to the fact there were tens of thousands of Cuban troops in Angola, "advisors" is a Soviet Bloc euphemism.

Where is Namibia?

[edit]

Strange not to see any reference to Namibia in the article on Savimbi. Namibia was involved in the Angolan war. Unita has launced attacks on Namibia and in one of them even tourists got killed while travelling in the Caprivi strip. In Namibia it is an open secret that Savimbi was actually killed by Namibian troops.

Additional comment: The article seems to have been re-edited to also remove any reference to South African support for UNITA and Savimbi. The SADF won many of the victories credited to UNITA - much as Cuban troops won many FAPLA victories. While the Cuban troops (NB: see comment below), there is now essentially NO reference to South African military support. Why is this? Although UNITA liked to pose as the "party of the Black African" they did not hesitate to accept arms, money and military support from the apartheid regime at its very worst.

While the additional comment is basically right, the observations concerning Namibia are off the mark. It is true that the Angolan ally of SWAPO was the MPLA, and that SWAPO had no sympathy for UNITA, not least because of the support UNITA had received from the apartheid regime. But neither was UNITA after 1975 ever in a position to "attack Namibia", nor did the MPLA regime, once in power, need military support from Namibia. NB: Why are the comment above not signed and dated?? Aflis (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban "Advisors"

[edit]

Shouldn't there be a more explicit reference should be made to the fact there were tens of thousands of Cuban troops in Angola? "Advisors" seems a euphemism.

I'd put it in myself, but I'm not sure on the exact number.

Additional comment: The exact number is not known and varied wildly over the course of the war, depending on Soviet funding. To be clear, these were not "advisors". Combat troops included artillery, mobile artillery, elite commando units and other ground troops. The Cubans also basically supplied Luanda with doctors and medical care following the departure of the Portuguese in 1975. As late as when I was there in the mid-1990s, the best private clinic in Luanda was the pink "Portuguese" clinic founded and largely staffed by Cubans.

Anti-communist maoist

[edit]

I am troubled by the description of Savimbi as an anti-communist who was a Maoist supported by China. Would it be better to look at the entire Angola civil war as something other than a proxy for the US and the Soviet Union? Bronx educator 01:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Perspicacite 13:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by all means. It was a proxy war alright, but it was not just that. Its internal dynamics had nothing whatsoever to do with the Cold War. Also, Maoist China's support for UNITA was just one among several manifestation of disagreements between Paking and Moscow: nothing new there. Aflis (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death

[edit]

The introduction says he was assassinated, yet the article describes his death in battle. This contradiction needs to be cleared up. 17:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Savimbi, together with a small group of followers, had been chased by the Angolan army (including special commandos) for many weeks, in Eastern Angola. The group was finally spotted, came under fire, and all of them died. Aflis (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sPAM e-MAIL

[edit]

Hi All, this article is being cited in a spam e-mail (you know, the ones where somebody has to transfer massive amount of money, and they ask you to act as middle-man/woman in exchange for a cut of the money, often amounting to millions). Nothing we can do to stop this, but i though that if i made a comment here, then it might dissuade people that are actually considering being shafted by the spammers. Hope no-one minds. Best, Darigan (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology

[edit]

I think that the article should focus more on his ideology (or lack thereof) and the fact that UNITA wasn't initially an anti-communist rebel group. Savimbi went from proclaiming a people's war against the US imperialists and Portuguese colonialists while praising Mao and socialism, to posturing as an ardent foe of socialism. The latter, however, was only when dealing with the West. At home he presented his battles as against the Mestiço elite and against the MPLA's supposed pseudo-concern for the peasantry. He was a pretty impressive opportunist.

There are two online reads (neither in English) on Savimbi's ideology (though the latter is focused more on his overall life):

Wrong info?

[edit]

3rd line: involvement of Peoples Republic of China. I thought it a bit weird that the Chinese communists would support something against communists and I am right: nothing about China (not even Republic of China) in link 1. I leave it to someone else to changes things, since I'm not into the subject. Scarabaeoid (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The world is not that straightforward - Savimbi was a socialist, and was for example also buying arms from Eastern Block countries.
Still, China is not mentioned in the link. I think additional sourcing is necessary. Scarabaeoid (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a source that specifically mentions Savimbi's early flirtation with Maoist China. There's a chronological issue not mentioned in the article - he didn't receive weapons from all of them all the time - it began with China. 16:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

China attacked the USSR as state-capitalist, social-imperialist, and revisionist. It didn't view it as a socialist state, and initially viewed Savimbi as an anti-imperialist fighter against Soviet imperialism. --Ismail (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israelis and South Africans/British helped to kill Savimbi?

[edit]

The following needs solid verification before it can be inserted: "- and, reportedly, South African mercenaries and Israeli special forces<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2299853,00.html | work=The Times | location=London | title=Dogs of War ban will rob British Army of vital frontline soldiers | first1=Fred | last1=Bridgland | first2=Michael | last2=Evans | date=August 5, 2006 | accessdate=May 7, 2010}}{{Dead link|date=July 2010}}</ref>" -- it was the Cubans and Russians who helped the MPLA hunt down and kill Savimbi, how do the South Africans/British and Israelis get to kill him? IZAK (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is about time to stop the legends about the Civil War in Angola, including those related to Savimbi. While the MPLA badly needed miitary help from Cuba and the USSR, 1974/75 and (less and less so) into the 1990s, the "hunt for Savimbi" was the affair of the Angolan military (in part special commandos). I recommend reading the books by UNITA authors like Jardo Muekalia, Alcides Sakalala, and Samuel Chiwale - and the well researched bibliography on Savimbi that will be available by the end of the year (all books in Portuguese, published in Portugal, of course...). Aflis (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aflis: The problem I saw with this claim was that it was based on one "source" that didn't go into the alleged "fact" really, just points out that mercenaries were used, but to put the blame of killing Savimbi at the feet of South Africans/British and Israelis (whose countries were supporting him) needs much stronger WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. IZAK (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IZAK: Yes, I understood that this was your intention, and my remarks were really directed at the users who insist on this kind of spurious "information". I hope this point is now buried for good. By the way: South Africa supported UNITA while the Apartheid Regime was in place; the ANC was always in the side of the MPLA. Aflis (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove the photo ?

[edit]

The photo of Jeremias Chitunda and a CIA agent was removed because the photo was "not directly related to Savimbi" ... WHAT ? In a section of the article about Savimbi's Washington allies and the CIA assistance to UNITA, along with the paragraph that tells of Savimbi sending Chitunda to negotiate the run-off election where he was subsequently killed, you say it is not directly related to Savimbi ? It is related to Savimbi AND the article itself. And to then have a photo of Jeremias Chitunda with a CIA agent in Washington DC ... how rare is that !!! Then remove the photo ??? !!! Unbelievable ! Magooba Watusi (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matters of fact

[edit]

Whatever the feelings one has about actors and events in Angola, it is a fact that the Cubans stepped in in 1974 to save the MPLA from being crushed by FNLA & UNITA & their allies. It is also a fact that Savimbi opted for civil war after independence in 1975. Another fact is that, against strong opposition within UNITA, he prevented a conflict settlement from being achieved in the 1980s. Finally, after the regime change in Angola in 1991, the departure of the Cuban military, and the 1992 elections, he restarted the civil war because he did not accept the results of the elections. NB: The attitudes taken from 1975 onwards reflect, at least in part, the external support he received in a "Cold War" setting. -- Aflis (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The MPLA held blatantly rigged elections in 1992, which were rejected by eight opposition parties. An official observer wrote that there was little UN supervision, that 500,000 UNITA voters were disenfranchised and that there were 100 clandestine polling stations. UNITA sent peace negotiators to the capital, where the MPLA murdered them, along with 20,000 UNITA members. Savimbi was still ready to continue the elections. The MPLA then massacred tens of thousands of UNITA and FNLA voters nationwide. He couldn't have accepted those results. The only accurate point you make is that if nobody resisted communist slavery, then there would be "peace." You're right; enough people were killed by 2002 that the rebels had to give up, so I guess foreign aid to them did prolong the conflict. But you would think that the "genocidal atrocities," mass killing, and famine imposed by the MPLA deserve blame for provoking the revolt. And, of course, if the dictatorship was indeed about to collapse; then it would be accurate to say that the Cubans prolonged the conflict.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't because "enough people were killed by 2002" that UNITA stopped its senseless war; it took Savimbi himself being killed to end it. As a US State Department official stated in 1993, "UNITA is exactly like the Khmer Rouge: elections and negotiations are just one more method of fighting a war; power is all." Michael Radu (a supporter of UNITA during the 80s) wrote, "No one who has met UNITA's people could seriously believe that they fight for democracy." (Radu, The New Insurgencies, 1990, p. 64.) And the 1992 election's fairness was endorsed by the US government, the European Community, the actual UN mission in Angola supervising the elections, etc. You also bizarrely accuse the MPLA of "provoking the revolt" by its supposed domestic policies, even though UNITA and allied Apartheid troops were on the offensive against the MPLA even before Angola went independent. Not even your "communist slavery" remark makes any sense given that the MPLA had jettisoned Marxism-Leninism by the 1992 elections. --Ismail (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

[edit]

The both photos make him look totally like some ridiculous cartoon character. Google Image search shows it was not really a case. It's pretty strange. --Niemti (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Dat nose" - trofronim reddit.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.157.188 (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jonas Savimbi. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jonas Savimbi. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jonas Savimbi. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

I see someone mentioned this six years ago. The first photo should be replaced by one that seems less of a caricature. YoPienso (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it isn't the most flattering image. The problem, as is usual, is finding an image that isn't copyrighted. --Ismail (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found an image on commons that was copyright free and i think it looks better let me know! Er surgi (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd say it's a clear improvement. I think ideally the lead photo should show him in military uniform, as that is how he was most often portrayed, but this copyright-free image is evidently the best there is at the moment. --Ismail (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonas_Savimbi&oldid=1194306754"