You have not replied to any of my so-called poor military logic, yet you claim to have discredited them. In fact I have shown and proven some of your facts to be incorrect.
You try to sound like an expert when in fact you get all your knowledge from selected websites. You are still upset that some of the "facts" you mentioned were untrue. Some of it is laughable to say the least. To call the FNLA cannibals, really ? I have met some of them in Promfret and I have not been eaten. Most of them are alcoholics now, because the Apartheid regime discarded them after the war. They were actively used against SWAPO, yet I do not hate them for that. You on the other hand have bo personal knowledge of the war, nor have you been directly influenced by it, yet it doesn't deter you from stereotyping African people's. A lot of the points you make raises the question if you yourself do not have racist viewpoint on African people.
As for Zhdarkin. We have already established that he is a racist. I am saying for the second time know that it was I who called hiim that from the beginnig. That is why I used his comment in the first place. But the fact that he is a racist, in my opinion does not discredit his accounts entirely.
After all, he was there, and fighting for "our" side. Where do you get it from that I said that Zhdarkin was pro-Angolan ? I never said that.
I used him as a reference for two reasons. 1) He was a racist and he accused some of the Cuban officers of racism too 2) He was there.
There is nothing glorious about war and If you have read my posts correctly you will see that my main issue is that this should be celebrated as a political victory rather than a military one. Yet you claim that I am contradicting myself, when I fact I questioned the logic of a conventional style war rather than a more low intensity guerilla style, especially where Namibia is concerned. The almost disaster for FAPLA at the Lomba river should
support my viewpoint as well as the fact that the MPLA could only stop the civil war in 2002. I aknowledge the fact that my viewpoint is mostly
from a Namibian perspective, but I have never denied this fact and my posts should have been interpreted as such.
As for UNITA, I have defended my viewpoint on them not being called "bandits". There are enough evidence to support that 1) UNITA supported SWAPO in the beginning and 2) they have not actively operated against SWAPO.
As for accusing me for not knowing anything of European history and politics. I have never claimed to know anything therof and most of my comments were based on your "so-called" knowledge. Your knowledge is nothing more than what Google gives you.
Your use of terminology ad your stereotyping of people is very laughable, seeing that you live in a privileged society. You can sugar coat it as much as you would lie. The fact is that you are living in a capatalist first world country. You can not deny that you are a product of capatilism. You were born in a capatilist society and therefore reaped the benefits thereof. Just because of that, I think you have no right to be so judgemental and accusing.
Just admit that you are upset because I questioned "some" of your facts. If you read my posts carefully you will notice that I did not disagree with all of your facts. My opinion is, if we twist facts or events to suit our viewpoint of the world, it makes us no better than the Apartheid regime, the Nazi's etc.
I am not going to discuss this further with you as we are getting nowhere. You are obviously not going to change your opinion, nor am I, so let us agree to disagree.
It's FALSE that i've not replied you... i've replied at all your critique from a military point of view in the first replies, check the previous replies and you will find them. But maybe you've read too much fast..
Your only main "Point" was showing anti-Cuban comments claiming they are true only because your anti-cuban sentiment (you openly blaimed the '80 conflicts to them)
About FNLA cannibalism read the book Another Day of Ryszard Kapuscinski, a reporter during the 1976 conflict.
And i think that NOW (2011) is not 1989, maybe after more then 20years something is changed.. and if they are alcohlist now that means that something didn't go well in these time of so-called social democracy in southern africa.
That's good.. you've no more point to proof (again... i replied at ALL your military "concern" and now you are simply insulting) when i speak of "Angolan" or "MPLA" for exemple doesn't mean "black people" .. read the book of Kapuscinski and you will discover how there were many white democratic guys fighting in the MPLA
For Zhdarkin .... you are (again) telling lies... you first mentioned him as "source" about military facts, NOT about his racism. And as i said, he has all the interested to write his own point of view of the history.
When the FAPLA attacked Lomba, the Cuban were AGAINST the operation because belived it was reckless. That as the ongoing of the war until 2002 was only a more fact of the NEEDS of a better trained and armed army as the Cuban one in Angola. NOT to diminsh the role of the african fighters, but to increase the logistics and tactics capabilities.
And just to remind you... that's a topic about CUBAN and African forces in ANGOLA. Not in Namibia. That's topic is not supposed to concering the SWAPO except the late campaign.
UNITA are not banditds because they (may) have supported SWAPO? That made them heroes? They HAVE operated against SWAPO, you've said earlier that at Cuito Cuanavale there were Namibian fighters as claimed by official Namibian political figures. So actually UNITA fought against SWAPO and even if they didn't fought that's proving only your poor interest for the Angolan brothers..
" They (UNITA) has never fought us (SWAPO) but only Angolans, so they are not bandits" : THAT'S an open admission of sectarism, tribalism and indifference for the sufference of the Angolan people... never read of "Bloody Diamonds"?
No my friend, you maye have not "claimed" but you've actually wrote a lot of me about my supposed cultural and social situation in Europe in an offensive way. READ what you written before..
And look who speak.. you are saying of not living in a capitalistic country? Angola, Namibia and SA are capitalistic countries or socialists?
You are trying to "judge" without knowing because living in a true capitalistic country i'm not a "privileged" .. infact we live worse then many other countries.. a "developed" european country doesn't guarantees welfare despite what you can imagine .
Oooh now you say that i'm "upset" and that you are just questioning "some" facts XD. I'm not upset for me.. i'm upset for the spirits of the death Cuban internationalists. And THAT's an insult (or so it should be) for every communist.
Good morning. I love a good debate. Please provide sources as per site rules. 171
As a veteran of the said war and in particular the action around Techipe and Calaque as spelt on our old Portuegese maps at the time as well as having brothers,cousins and friends old and friends met during my National Conscription entered into after school at the age of 17.
I find it rather disturbing that someone who had no active part or clearly knows nothing factual regarding said battles and skirmishes.
So as not to engage in a war of words I can only say this,
I was at the aforementioned locations and we did encounter a very large Cuban force.This was set off by the bombardment of Techipe by SADF units.Our total numbers in the area were in the region of 1200 personnel .
The opposing forces are well documented.We had underestimated the enemy forces which were considered to be in the region of 3000 to 4000 this was discussed at Ops briefings leading up to our attack.
I can still remember my thoughts and emotions while kitting up (organising equipment and ammunition)
We were trained well and knew what we were doing our thoughts were with our families and loved ones as well as with each other.
I felt no malice towards any of the combantants we were about to encounter,no hatred or fear.We had a job to do and we were going to do it to the best of our ability.
This was evident in meetings with Cuban forces at SWAWEK border post after the ceasefire when we chatted and swopped uniforms etc.We shook hands ,chatted and had some laughs.
All South African documents regarding battles and losses are accessible for scrutiny.This is not so with regards to Cuba,Fapla and Soviet bloc forces.
I find it offensive that my former enemies losses are so disregarded almost to a point they did not exsist.
It is disrespectful to them and their families and allows people accountable for needless slaughter to be hailed as heros.
I would dearly love to get in touch with veterans from Cuba and Fapla whom served against us.I hold no animosity or malice and wish all well.
Please do not glorify the heart rending losses encountered in battle.
I AM REAL,WHO ARE YOU.
Have a wonderful New Year
L/Cpl M Doveton
Anti -Tank platoon
2nd South African Infantry Battalion Group
Welcome to SE Mirvda
Thank for your account of your experiences in this important historical event.
Unfortunately due to the policies of the South African government of that particular era some hostility (or lack of sympathy) with the individuals that made its' fighting forces is probably hard to avoid. Don't take it as a personal attack - it merely reflects the political views of many of members of this forum.
In relation to the inaccuracies in casualty figures you mentioned, are you able to be any more specific about what those inaccuracies are and if you are able to post links to specific sources for the alternate figures that would be most appreciated.
I'm a white capitalist South African that want to clarify a few misconceptions:
1. 1redItalian writes: "As i said, US didn't support SA; they did support UNITA"
NOT TRUE, THE US SUPPORTED SOUTH AFRICA, THE UK AND FRANCE AT THE UN:
Google With regard to South Africa, no less than 56 vetoes were cast (26 by the United Kingdom, 20 by the United States and 10 by France)
2. Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Tanzania, Zaire, Congo etc. were all granted independence by the UK, France, Belgium. The communists backed African armed guerillas to overthrow the colonial governments and independent countries and install ONE PARTY SOCIALIST STATES. They eliminated the CAPITALISTS and put in place a COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP OF THE VANGUARD PARTY.
So South Africa was fighting against the Soviet INVASION OF ANGOLA - Angola was the last remaining country not under Soviet influence.
3. The goal of the Soviets was to overthrow ALL the colonial governments. Their goal was to take complete control over land, sea and air of Angola, of Zambia, of Zaire, of Zimbabwe, of Mozambique and to that end, the USSR supplied billions of $ of aid - we know it is billions because there are over 30 million Soviet landmines in Angola, Mozambique etc. ( As much as in Afghanistan ).
4. Apartheid South Africa had elections, but only the whites could vote. There was no president for life, no dictator for life, South Africa had many leaders and elections:
Elections in 1910, 1915, 1920, 1921, 1924, 1929, 1933, 1938, 1943, 1948, 1953, 1958, 1961, 1966, 1970, 1974, 1977, 1981, 1984, 1987, 1989 ..... 1994
5. What were the objectives of Cuba during the war with Angola?
Lets say 1: Take capital, 2. Take harbours 3. Take all the provinces. 4. Air Superiority. 5. Naval Superiority. 6. Land Superiority.
Lets say for argument's sake those objectives were achieved over Angola, how long did it take? 15 years.
So the chances are very much that it was a stalemate, that the USSR realised that overpowering South Africa would not be easy. It already had expensive wars elsewhere. So both sides decided to send their troops back to their countries.
6. The South Africans could not keep up a counter-insurgency war in Angola, because the USSR as everyone knew had a veto. The South Africans didn't have a veto. So to expect a 100% commitment militarily in Angola and not a covert one, would be unrealistic. The USSR did have a veto and could keep its forces or allied forces ( Cubans ) in Angola for much longer without as much diplomatic censure.
7. SA had a population of 5 million - defeating a few thousand soldiers was not defeating South Africa. Angola was important and things could have became very difficult, but SA is a difficult country to take - Britain had to use 450,000 soldiers to take the Boers of 80,000 in the Anglo Boer War 1 & 2.
Commando / special forces - The word stems from the Afrikaans word kommando, which translates roughly to "mobile (originally by horse) infantry regiment" (in other words, a mounted infantry regiment).
8. The income of black South Africans was on the same level or higher than those of people of the USSR, so too was the income of West Germans vs. East Germans. West Germans had an income of $24,000 while East Germans under communism had an income of $2400.
9. Lastly while South Africa was not a democracy, it was not a tyranny as many communists would like you to believe. The black people lived apart from whites. Up till 1973, unemployment in South Africa was 3%, the Rand was stronger than the US dollar, R1 was worth $0.83, currently R9 = $1 and unemployment is 26% - 40%, depending upon economic definition.
Let me just correct something about income:
Soviet Union per capita was $2,684 ( 1990 )
The estimated 1984 per capita income was $9,800
( This made East German economy the richest in all of the Soviet Bloc until 1990 after the Communist collapse in the country. )
West Germany income 1990: +- $21,702
West Germany had grown into one of the strongest economies in the world.
2. About support:
Although there had been limited military support by the US, France, Canada et.c of South Africa, but the US didn't accept communism and veto'd aggressively at the UN.
3. Many countries adopted various versions of socialism, many did not treat capitalists well in Africa.
4. Strong military forces existed in Southern Africa and Afghanistan, they were not regular forces.
And let me just say this about my name - SA capitalist: My name may be SA capitalist, but I am no millionaire, I am a small business owner and I have no employees. I work for myself. I earn my own income as an entrepreneur.
I choose that name because I firmly believe in capitalism vs. any other economic system. I believe that we are all in trouble the day we are born, that we all must work hard and struggle hard to make a success, that life is not easy and that success comes very hard. I'd rather die fighting, trying to make a success in business, than to take no risks at all. Communists are known for their courage and bravery, well life now demands of all of us to be brave, to try and make a success on our own: self-reliance, we cannot wait for governments and leaders to change our lives, we must produce and sell, we must learn how to produce and how to sell - that takes true bravery, that is the more difficult road to travel in life, to start your own small business, often without much funding or help.
You should change your nickname to SA Petty Bourgeois.
Quote:These numbers don't really mean anything.
Black South Africans surely didn't live better than E. Germans or Bulgarians if you wish. They also had Apartheid.
Things weren't too bad under apartheid: from 1960 to 1973, South Africa had the 2nd fastest economic growth of all countries in the world. Real GDP.
Google "overall economic growth in the 1960s rivaled that of Japan--averaging 5.9 percent per year in real terms"
So the speed at which the South African economy expanded under apartheid was just as fast as that of Japan, that was experiencing an electronic revolution.
That was until the USSR decided to take an interest into South Africa from the 1970s.
Over 30 million Soviet IEDs and landmines were planted in Southern Africa, more than that in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
So the USSR investment into overthrowing Southern Africa was substantial.
The "SA Petty Bourgeois" can say with substantial evidence, along with Afghanistan war, brought down the USSR.
The USSR was spending $1bn in Angola per year by CIA estimates.
The biggest MPLA-Cuban attacks occurred during Gorbachev's years with Soviet advisers at the brigade level directing an MPLA offensive. The latest Soviet technology was used. So Angola and Afghanistan. Gorbachev was talking "Glasnost" and Perestroika, while the largest attacks in Angolan war was continuing. The Soviet files regarding Angola remains top secret.
Nearly 11,000 Soviet military men served in Angola (Africa) during the period of official military cooperation between the USSR and Angola from 1975 to 1991.
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politic ... gn_wars-0/
"As many as 1.5 million Soviet citizens took part in over 30 wars and armed conflicts outside the country."
In my view, Russian people and Communists, have never had respect for foreign cultures, especially for people like the white South Africans, Afrikaners, English, Portuguese who placed hard work, business and capitalism above all else.
Afghistan was not the final war of the USSR, Angola was. The USSR still believed victory was possible. Angola was the last war. The final battle of the USSR.
Прощайте товарищи. Это было одно удовольствие. Приезжайте к Южной Африке.
Last edited by SA capitalist on 09 Feb 2013, 21:51, edited 4 times in total.
Please read the forum rules.
Double posting is not cool. Specially so many.
Just write one long post. This is not twitter.
This is an english speaking forum. Please write in english and/or provide a translation.
Thanks for the invitation. I rather go now to South Africa than back then. I don't like to visit white supremacist countries.
You may think so, but that doesn't make it true.
So was the the Gulf War... By the way, South Africa's regime didn't last much longer after Angola...
Yeah... although most of the population didn't have full rights, all manifestations were repressed... but that doesn't matter, right?
"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
You know nothing about apartheid.
You live there, I live here. One massive crime against humanity.
You live 100km from me. I live 100km from you. One massive crime.
You see the South African communists didn't want to create separate countries because the ANC ( Nelson Mandela ) was in heavy debt to the USSR even by 1950:
This is what they arrested Nelson Mandela with - these Soviet weapons the ANC had stockpiled by 1961:
Evidence submitted, included 210,000 Soviet-made hand grenades, 48,000 anti-personnel mines, 1,500 time devices, 144 tons of ammonium nitrate, 21.6 tons of aluminum powder and a ton of black powder)
The whites wanted to create separate countries, the USSR was more interested in the gold, the chrome and platinum of Transvaal ( the land of the Boers ) than the land of Natal ( black areas ), because together it would have given the USSR a complete world monopoly in those 3 natural resources.
So the 2 state solution ( separate countries ) was always blocked in diplomatic discussion and proposals at the UN by the USSR. The 2 state solution is good enough for Israel today, but when the whites wanted to divide South Africa into separate countries, the USSR blocked it at the UN and used propaganda and thousands of terrorist attacks against both WHITE AND BLACK women and children, civilians
The USSR wanted South Africa, it couldn't care less about who was killed white or black, so it created propaganda about what was going on in South Africa, the world's second fastest growing economy from 1960 to 1973, unemployment was 3%, the Johannesburg Stock Exchange was the world's 9th largest stock exchange, 1 Rand was worth $0.88 - today it has fallen to R9 for $1, it was once the world's 15th largest economy.
The USSR overthrew governments throughout Africa and the rest of the world. It chased 250,000 Portuguese out of Mozambique.
"250,000 Portuguese residents were ordered to leave Mozambique within 24 hours with only 20 kilograms of luggage, known as the "24 20" order.
The whites were chased out of the entire Africa, by USSR funded terrorist organizations that chased all the whites out so that it could take their resources and their economies. The USSR wasn't worried about racism. The ANC soldiers were promised the homes, the businesses, the property, the farms of the white South Africans if they won the war. I bet if those ANC soldiers had won the war, they would have seen nothing of those things. The communists always promise democracy and equality and when they have political power, implement the opposite, no private property, only slave labor working in African mines for factories in the USSR. The USSR wanted to create over 30 puppet Marxist states in the last years of the USSR.
Portugal that had built 350 years on Angola and Mozambique. The USSR took it all for itself, chasing all the whites out. You can imagine the debt those terrorist organizations owed to the USSR, billions of $ of weapons were sent there, to terrorize Africa. Tens of millions of AK47s were given to young people, even to child soldiers, tens of millions of landmines were planted. The US was mass producing computers and the USSR was mass producing AK47s.
Some sources say the Soviet Union was spending approximately $1bn in Angola, $8bn in Afghanistan a year ( 1975 - 1990 ).
http://wais.stanford.edu/History/histor ... reagan.htm
Then there was Mozambique, Rhodesia, Zambia, Namibia's wars. That would mean those wars contributed at least 10%+ to the strain on the USSR's military finances in the 1980s.
Last edited by SA capitalist on 10 Feb 2013, 01:06, edited 7 times in total.
The USSR supported all kinds of anti colonial and national-liberation movements in Africa, even in countries with no resources. The Soviet aid to Ethiopia for example was significant.
The notion that the USSR helped the anti-Apartheid forces because of South African gold is simply ridiculous.
The USSR equipped various Arab armies ( most notably the Egyptian ) with huge amounts of weapons and equipment practically given away for free. Then there's Vietnam. None of that was done for direct financial profit.
Besides by the time Apartheid fell and anti-White revanchism started the USSR was practically no more.
So your claims make no sense.
Strategic resources the USSR would have won in South Africa:
========== Gold =============
Google South Africa produced over 32Moz of gold, 2/3's of the world's production of 47.5Moz. Former USSR was a distant second at 6.5Moz.
Google In the 1970s South African mines accounted for 80% of worldwide gold production
Altogether the USSR and South Africa gold production ( 92% of world production in gold )
============ Platinum =========
Google South Africa has more than 80 per cent of the world's platinum reserves
Google In 2010, South Africa was the top producer of platinum, with an almost 77% share, followed by Russia at 13%; world production in 2010 was 192,000 kg.
Altogether the USSR and South Africa platinum production ( 90%+ of world production in platinum ) - $70bn a year in 2012
============ Chrome ==========
South Africa’s share of world chrome reserves and production in 2011
37% of ferrochrome ore production
72% of chrome ore reserves
You can check the rest for diamonds, uranium, coal, manganese etc. etc. The Soviet Union would have had a world monopoly in all those natural resources.
The USSR was not contend to sit back and let those natural resources be in the hands of the West or whites or even blacks. It had to be Marxists.
Look, i already gave examples how the USSR assisted progressive movements in countries with less resources.
Your claims are dubious at best, and i've yet to see a credible source on the idea that the USSR helped the ANC and others because it wanted to take over South Africa's resources.
For your information, USSR did not have control over for example Romania's resources since Stalin's times. Because it was an independent country. On the contrary, the Soviets sold oil and gas at "friendship prices" to its E. European allies.
The USSR was directly or indirectly taking over or extending its influence over governments, democratic or not democratic across the entire world. It was funding ANY REBEL group in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, South America that wanted political power. It PROPOSED communism / socialism every time. All those countries from Tanzania to Algeria chased out all the whites, the capitalists, whatever you want to call them and they implemented socialism. By 1981, it was clear to these newly created Marxist states that pure socialism was not working, there wasn't enough incentive to invest, to increase production, so many countries started with their own economic reforms of Soviet socialism. The USSR was looking for new Satellite states to its Union of Republics. It wasn't interested in multi-party democracy. It did fund ANYONE that wanted guns and that was against the West, colonialists, imperialists etc. Some weapons ended up in armies that had children in them, throughout Africa. I'm sure the West, especially the US also has to carry a lot blame in its war against the USSR, but in the West, Western civilization was for increased production, work first, money first. Political dominance of every day life as that proposed by Lenin and Marx was not a priority, production was the priority. The Soviet Union had soldiers throughout its business and residential areas and strictly guarded its borders. The West was a more free, happy, society. There was problems, but capitalism was slowly but surely overcoming those problems of "exploitation" as Marx called it. People were making some money, some people were doing exceptionally well, others not so well.
Capitalism rewarded and emphasized the unique abilities of people. Communist socialism tried to keep everyone at the same level. The Soviet Union had great scientists, engineers, mathematicians, inventors - if those people had lived in the West, they would have produced far more, they may have received huge investment from companies in their ideas and abilities, they would have been encouraged to produce the best. That is a major difference between Cold War socialism and capitalism, the capitalist West rewarded unique talents and abilities better than the USSR did.
Last edited by SA capitalist on 09 Feb 2013, 23:22, edited 2 times in total.
No true, SA capitalist. USSR don't funding rebel groups in Brazil (the 5th largest country in World in economy, population and area, bigger than any country in Africa). Yes, USSR proposed communism to Brazil, in the same way that USA proposes capitalism.
In 1964, USA overthrew the government of Brazil and the military assumed the power, but, for USA despair, the military wanted to develop Brazil into a superpower. Really massive investments in infrastructure and clever international politics led Brazil from a "economical miracle", when the economy grew an average 8% yearly. Brazil in 1970's was somewhat like China today: massive investments in infrastructure, cheap labor and some economic freedom mixed with a totalitarian government. Also, Brazil tried an economic approaching to USSR.
The USA get angry (some USA analysis suggested that General Ernesto Geisel was a KGB agent), and changed the support for stability to democratization. In 1983, Argentinian regime fell. In 1988, Brazilian new Constitution was draft, and Brazil returned to democracy.
But what does that have to do with the topic?
Let me explain: USSR don't caused civil wars everywhere like South Africa (that supported White Zimbabwe and invaded Angola and Namibia). USSR could actually start a civil war in Brazil, or at least don't recognize the Brazilian Military Dictatorship. In 1964, Brazil had many guerrilla and rebel groups, a "illegitimate" government and many unreachable areas (in the dense Brazilian Rainforest), all requisites needed to start a large civil war, but USSR preferred peace and negociation.
PS: Today's Brazil president, Dilma Rousseff, is daughter of a Bulgarian communist, Petar Rusev, and was a leader of group VAR-Palmares, a communist guerrilla group that exposed the rampant corruption in Sao Paulo state.
Tropican, let me give you an example:
Google Mandela 210,000 soviet made hand grenades
How did Nelson Mandela pay for it? How did the ANC pay for all that in 1961? The ANC had 5,000 members in 1961. The USSR gave billions of dollars of weapons to political movements, such as the ANC and hundreds of others. These weapons were "loaned" to them. It was part of a global overthrow of ALL governments and the replacement of them by pro-communist governments.
I don't know precisely the situation in Brazil, but we saw in Africa what they did. They gave "favors" of billions of $ of weapons. And you know how life is ... once you are in debt to someone else ... you have to repay that debt. The Soviet people suffered to produce all those weapons for communist revolutions across the globe. I've read somewhere that in 1990, the level of consumer products produced in the USSR was the same level as those of 1983. In other words, the wars had taken such a strain on the Soviet economy, that consumer goods were in short supply ( we are talking about radios, televisions, food stuffs, computers, cars, video machines, etc. ) The USSR was spending 27% of its income on the military by 1989.
The Soviet economy was struggling - it was a closed economic system, focusing mostly on the needs of its Soviet citizens. It wasn't outward looking - looking to supply in the needs of the entire world. The communists wanted complete government control over all production. It needed new foreign countries as friends to trade with it, new supplies of raw materials. The rest of the world was trading openly with each other, eliminating inefficiencies and specializing on products which they could produce cheaper and better. There was competition to produce better products between companies and they were rewarded by investors if they did. The Soviet Union had very little tourism growth - while tourism and luxury spending boomed across the world.
Dude, you're missing all the points.
The USSR and Cuba weren't "helping terrorist to overthrow governments" but helping other peoples to get free from imperialism and colonialism.
By 1989 the USSR economy wasn't closed, liberalization begun in 1985. They sold products all over the world, specially to third world countries. The economy was struggling because it abandoned a state-planned economy for a market one, and later a free market one. That's how you go from superpower to a country in ruins - the effect of "free market".
Back then, South Africa was developing a nuclear bomb. I guess it was to continue its pacific policy to their neighbours, right?
"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
South Africa was a racist country that invaded many nations. For blacks, South Africa was one of the poorest countries in World. Blacks don't saw the "free market growth and prosperity" that whites enjoyed in South Africa until 1990. The ANC had the goal to make blacks enjoy the same prosperity that whites were already enjoying.
Alternative Display:Mobile view