Tonight the first episode of Grensoorlog (Border War), the documentary I worked on as researcher, writer, producer and director (on two episodes) screened on South African cable TV.
When conducting interviews, it became obvious that a simplified raison d’etre for this war exists among many South African soldiers that fought in it.
Communism.
Even some senior officers genuinely believe, even today, that it was fought, principly, to halt the march of Communism. This was not entirely an flight of fantasy, but it is undoubtedly laden with considerable wishful thinking.
Die Rooi gevaar (The Red peril)
Already in 1949 British PM Clement Atlee wrote to Nationalist prime minister D F Malan about a “growing and world-wide communist threat” and suggested that Malan meets Sir Percy Sillitoe, the director general of MI5 (British internal security).
The influential Ducth Reformed Church (DRC) and the National Party had, come the 20′s and 30′s, already mobilised and agitated – to some extent – against Communism. To them the number of poor Afrikaners in cities like Johannesburg and Cape Town that had joined the Communist party and workers unions were down right alarming.
Malan, a student of math, phisosophy and DRC theology, needed little encouragement from the British, and the Nationalist anti-communist rhetoric went ever upwards. But this anti-communist rhetoric was now coupled to and associated with a new menace.
Independence
After World War II, colonial powers like Britain and France were bankrupt, poor and suffered from severe battle fatigue. Internally the gravity of the carnage, the march of technology (often invented for war) and the massive contributions of European working class men and women to the war effort, lead to a leftward swing in politics.
So although Churchill might have won the war, the Conservative party was swept from power by Labour. In France the right wing had been utterly discredited through their collaboration with Germany. Change was in the air. But even if they had not changed, their largest ally had little interest in the status quo.
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1941 Atlantic Charter declared that the signatories would “respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live“. Though Churchill subsequently claimed this applied only to those countries under Nazi occupation, rather than the British Empire, the words were not so easily retracted: for example, the legislative assembly of Britain’s most important colony, India, passed a resolution stating that the Charter should apply to it too.
In the US, Roosevelt and the American public were firmly of the mind that they were not, as Life magazine put it in 1942, “fighting … to hold the British Empire together“. The US really saw itself as an anti-colonial force.
In the colonies, ‘natives’ had often been armed to partake in the war effort. Many colonial subjects, like Franz Fanon, a young man of mixed race decent from the small French Caribbean island of Martinique, fought side by side with allied forces in France.
To new nationalist movements, it was hypocritical and morally indefensible for colonial governments to expect their colonies to fight side by side with them in a struggle against the racist ideologies of Nazism and fascism, yet at the same time expect to return to the white supremacy of the status ante bellum, once hostilities had ceased.
Sensing the weakness of their colonial masters a new conscienceness of liberation swept the planet. In 1954 the Algerian revolution against French rule ignited. Educated black men like Fanon went to help.
In 1956 Britain and France was humiliated by the US during the Suez crises, when it mobilised the new UN and forced British and French forces to withdraw from Egypt. A new reality had dawned.
But it was not only the US that ingratiated themselves with the new Nationalists and freedom fighters. Both the USSR and China actively sought out rebel movements to support in order to curry favour and win influence during the nascent Cold War.
All these events captured the imagination of colonial intellectuals and revolutionaries. Freedom from colonialism was possible. Soon there was a clamouring for independence all round. Rebellions ensued, war talk was in fashion again.
The winds of change is an ill wind
From their vantage point in Southern Africa the Afrikaner Nationalist’s slowly realised the implications of the independence frenzy. One after the other, African countries were given independence. Their colonists departed with indecent haste.
Come the 1970′s, little remained of colonial Africa bar the Southern hold outs: Angola, Rhodesia, Mozambique, and of course South West Africa, which South Africa themselves held. South Africa might have thought these regimes would last. But no.
In 1974 a sudden left wing military coup deposed the long running and unpopular right wing dictatorship in Portugal. Portugal had since the 60′s been fighting simultaneous Wars in Guinea-Bissau, Angola and Mozambique, while their small colonial armies had already been pushed out of India, and their Indonesian possessions were threatening to explode. The Portuguese casualty rate and economic attrition was considerable. These we no longer popular wars.
The new Portuguese government made it plain that they were to withdraw from all their colonies within a year.
Suddenly both Angola and Mozambique were to be independent and potentially Marxist black states. Angola bordered South Africa’s South West African colony, while Mozambique bordered South Africa itself.
In both countries the most powerful army fighting for independence, Angola’s MPLA and Mozambique’s Frelimo, were backed by the USSR. White flight started en masse.
Is it no brainer then that the staunchly anti-communist Afrikaner Nationalists fired up on the rhetoric of the rooigevaar and swartgevaar (Black peril) would take up arms in response, invade Angola and precipitate a war that would include Cuba, Russia and the US?
No it is not.
Consider the following. It is true that the South African Defense Force would destabilise independnet Mozambique. But crucially it was never invaded.
Why then? Mozambique also had a hostile Marxist government like Angola, but with an added further edge. Mozambique bordered the Republic.
Stranger still is the case of white Rhodesia hung out and squeezed into submission. It would be forced to its knees by South African Prime Minister John Vorster.
This happened while this white settler state found itself under attack from Robert Mugabe’s Zanu and Joshua Nkomo’s Zapu, who were supported by communist China and the USSR respectively.
It’s clear that the communist tag was but tenuously true as a reason for war. At the same time communism was a very real red herring.
Fighting a global communist threat was a much easier sell to religious Afrikaners than the truth. The truth that this was a fight against colonialism and for freedom, just like the fight by Afrikaner’s in 1899.
Why then was Angola invaded in 1975?
%RELATEDPOSTS%
Related deployments:
Ek het die program gekyk en dit is sover baie interresant. Toevallig was daar ‘n uitmindende program oor dieselfde topic maar vannuit die Kubaanse oogpunt. Dit was rêrig goed gedoen – met humor en al.
Ek kan nou nog nie my mind opmaak of Suid-Afrika rêrig koloniale neigings gehad het of nie. Ek dink daar was ‘n sterk element van anti-kommunisme, maar ek dink ‘n groot deel daarvan was om ons mag af te show. Maak dit sin?
Haai Attie, Jou comment is my eerste op die nuwe Mhambi! Welkom.
Kan jy die naam van die Kubaanse doc onthou?
Afrikaners is in ‘n vreemde twee-ledige posisie. aan die een kant het hulle van die eerste anti-koloniaale oorloe geveg.
Die punt is juis dat apartheid, deur vryheid aan SA se ander inwoners te ontse, SA omskep het in ‘n koloniale tiepe moontheid.
Die Cuba dokkie se naam is Cuba: An African Odyssey. Kry hom hier: http://www.amazon.com/Cuba-African-Odyssey-Frank-Peter-Lehmann/dp/B0013B34XU/.
Ek dink ook van die Nasionaliste het koloniale ambisies gehad (en kyk waar sit ons nou), maar ek dink ook daar was beslis ‘n gevegslus onder die Afrikaners ook gewees.
Dit klink nou stupid, maar daai gevegslus was nie net ‘n slegte ding nie. Daar was ‘n naiwe romantiese element ook.
Man, Giliomee reken dat Vorster nooit lus was dat SA haar militere mag buite die landsgrense moes projekteer nie, en hy was alreeds in 78 bereid om Suid-Wes op te gee.
Maar PW, toe minister van Verdediging was uiters vegslustig, en daar is ‘n vermoede dat PW die aanval op Cassinga gevorseer het, om oorlog aan te hits en Suid-Wes deel van SA te hou.
Dankie vir die skakel.
Ja, ek kon onthou eendag toe ons vir PW ‘n sitrap gegee het oor die moontlikheid van terroristebassisse in die buiteland, maar bygevoeg het dat die inligting nog ie geverifieer was nie. Oom PW het net so vir die kaart gesit en kyk, ‘n paar minute, toe seg hy: “Floor hulle!” Toe staan hy op en loop uit.
mmm… Kameraad, jy’s verkeerd – Attie was nie die eerste. Ek’t op jou ‘Hello World’ post gecomment! Hoewel dié post nou begrawe is…
Anyway. Die hele koloniale perspektief is ‘n baie interessante een, wat ook goed in die dokie uitgekom het. Soos jy te kenne gee beteken dit nie dat daar geen meriete is in die anti-kommunistiese motivering is nie. Maar ‘ons’ (wit mense in die ou SA) het nog altyd in die paradigma gesit van ‘uit te kyk’ vanaf Suid-Afrika. Dan maak die argument van slegs kommunisme as motivering baie sin. Dis nou as jy (in apartheid tyd) Suid-Afrika beskou as ‘n legitieme demokrasie. Meeste wit mense besef vandag hoe belaglik dié idee is. Maar toe het die meerderheid wit mense vas geglo dat die apartheid bestel ‘n God geseënde stelsel was
… Vanuit dié perspektief van wit Suid-Afrikaners in die sestigs-sewentigs en vroeë tagtigs, (wan)ingeglig deur ‘n gesensorde media, christen-nasionale onderrig en aangevuur deur tradisionele Afrikaner kerke, was protes teen die apartheid regering kommunisties gemotiveer en byna gelyk aan ‘boos’.
Ek onthou nog goed hoe PW op SABC beweer het dat buitelandse joernaliste swart jeugdiges betaal om oproerig te wees… En daar was geen bevraagtekening van die tipe stelling van enige van die plaaslike media! Gekose buitelandse joernaliste is eenvoudig uit die land gesit.
In elk geval, vandag het ons toegang tot ander perspektiewe op die geskiedenis – nie net dit wat deur die Nasionale Party gesanitize is nie. Wanneer mens nou na die ‘ou’ Suid-Afrika (en die ou SWA) kyk van ‘buite af’ is dit ‘n ongelooflike nuwe perspektief. Dan maak dit vir my 100% sin dat die primêre motivering vir weerstand inderdaad ‘n anti-koloniale een was. Vanuit dié perspektief was kommunisme waarskynlik gesien as ‘n ‘kameraad’ hoofsaaklik weens die ideologie / kommunistiese moonthede se bruikbaarheid om die doelwitte van ‘n anti-koloniale stryd te bereik.
In kort, ek dink sover dit die wit Suid-Afrikaanse publiek se persepsie aangegaan het in daardie tyd, was die oorlog een teen kommunisme. Maar vanuit die oogpunt van die anti-apartheid stryders ‘n oorlog teen kolonialisme, in sy apartheidsgewaad.
In Grensoorlog se eerste episode het die ooreenkomste tussen SWAPO en die ANC my nogal opgeval. Maar my comment is nou al lank genoeg – ek laat dit daar…
Mike, jy’s reg. Jy was eerste.
En ons gee nie om vir lang comments nie, veral as hulle so goed deurdag is soos joune nie.
Dit is waar dat daar groot ooreenkomste tussen SWAPO en die ANC was, maar in vergelyking met die ANC het SWAPO kaders baie meer moed gehad.
Om die grens oor te steek te voet met net ‘n AK wetend dat dodelike eenhede soos Koevoet vir jou wag en gaan jag met spoorsnyers en Caspirs moes veel moed geverg het.
Die kanse dat hul sul oorleef was dikwels klein. Maar steeds het hulle gekom.
Hulle kon natuurlik met die mense aan altwee kante van die grens kommunikeer,wat baie belangrik was.
A very good programme, just a pity it is broken down into 30 minutes titbits with ads in between. Difficult to form a perspective of the reality of this “war”. Hopefully a clearer picture will be given to the uninformed that this was about fighting communism and not apartheid!!!
samboerou, dis waar. Die SWA / Angola grens het Ovambo’s aan beide kante daarvan gehad.
El, yes its a pity they were not one hour programs, but Kyknet initially did not see the significance of this series.
As for “that this was about fighting communism”, as I mentioned above, its not entirely untrue, but definitely not entirely true either. Fighting communism was also a handy excuse.
Is daar DVD van die hele reeks beskikbaar? Ek het ongelukkig baie van die episodes gemis
Louis, ja daar is ‘n DVD oppad. Waarskynlik voor krismis nogal.
Will the DVD include an English audio track or at least English subtitles? I think it’s insane that such an excellent, ambitious series was produced in a language that marginalizes much of the potential audience
Not sure, although this was recommended to MNET and I’ sure there’s a market for it. I’ll check and get back to you.
A lot of what got this project made was passion and not money. That’s the simple reason it was made in Afrikaans.
Aandag asb:
Ek bly die afgelope 8 jaar in Ierland maar lees die Beeld gereeld.Ek het gehoor van die documentry oor die grens oorloe en wil net vastel waar ek dit in die hande sal kan kry anngesien ek nie gereeld terug SA toe gaan nie. Sal dit baie graag wil sien.
Haai Neil. Wanneer die DVD beskikbaar is is ek seker mens sal dit oor Kalahari.net kan bestel, selfs in Ierland.
**Stan wrote: I think it’s insane that such an excellent, ambitious series was produced in a language that marginalizes much of the potential audience
**
In all fairness…
The 2001 census recorded the following home language speakers:
Language Speakers %
Zulu 10 677 000 23.8%
Xhosa 7 907 000 17.6%
Afrikaans 5 983 000 13.3%
Northern Sotho 4 209 000 9.4%
Tswana 3 677 000 8.2%
English 3 673 000 8.2%
…more of the South African populace speak Afrikaans than English.
Maar ek glo nie die regiseurs het dit gemaak om ‘n spesifieke mark aanvraag te bevredig nie, maar eerder as ‘n informatiewe of selfs verklarende stuk geskiedenis.
Om die oorlog te bestempel as een teen komunisme, het ons dan as te ware dit verloor. Die ANC is ‘n kommunistiese party en hulle is tans aan bewind. (Verwys na die soogenaamde Triple allience van die ANC.)
Die dokumenter was baie insig gewend. Sal hom graag ook wil kyk as geheel op die dvd reeks sonder advertensies tussenin.
“Die ANC is ‘n kommunistiese party”
Aikona – have you seen the amount of bling in the ANC?
http://www.sacp.org.za/
South African Communist Party:
The SACP is a partner in the Tripartite Alliance consisting of the African National Congress (ANC) and the Congress of South African Trade Union (COSATU).
J, soos die bybel se “jy sal deur jou dade geken word”. Actions speak louder than words.
The ANC says one thing but acts entirely differently. The ANC of the past 15 years was a party of the rich, promoting individualism and selfish materialism.
If only they were a bit more social then we would have not become economically more unequal than under apartheid.
Is the Grensoorlog available in English on DVD? I serve in the AUS defence, and wish to educate my soldiers and officers on ” Boere-oorlog soos dit hoort.” Make no mistake, the ANC and the SACP are singing off the same page…the ANC is the back-up vocalist.
Hi Charl. Yes, it will be available in an English DVD shortly.
@Ksajomab-William Burroughs’ ghost playing with his cut up maschine,well war is futile too !
Afrikola, your comment is so funny that I’m tempted not to delete Ksajomab’s.
Mhambi
When is the DVD for this coming out? Sounds like an excellent docu.
Ek wil net se dat ek onlangs die grensoorlog gevolg het en om te dink ons Afrikaaner volk het rugraat gehad daai tyd.
My pa was op Caprivi en die stories is regtig intersant.
Maar nou kan ek die beeld matiriaal by my pa se stories voeg…die prentjie in my kop was heeltemal anders.
Ek wil net se dat vir ons wat daar was,dit n riem onder die hart is dat hulle die DVD’s vrystel.Dit bring ook weer n knop in die keel en n traan of twee. Wat mense ook al se of doen, ons het dit vir ons land en sy mense gedoen !!!