Talk:South West Africa Territorial Force

Bias

The reference to "attempts to occupy her smaller neighbour" is inaccurate and politically biased. South African occupied GSWA in WW1, but was then granted a mandate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A mandate terminated in 1966 by the United Nations, recognised as the LoN's legal successor by nearly every country but RSA. From that period onwards, it was a de jure if not de facto occupation. The SWATF was formed during this period (1966-1990). --Katangais (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Be that as it may, but "attempt" is blatant bullshit, South Africa DID occupy/control/own (whatever you want to call it) the territory from 1915 to 1990 - it was not merely an "attempt" - which implies non-achievement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite. I will reiterate, however, that while RSA certainly occupied the territory de facto, she failed to maintain legal occupation over it de jure. I can't really find a problem with the language here. Pretoria attempted to retain SWA against the will of SWAPO, SWANU, the UN, and even some white Namibian political forces. The article doesn't deny that it was a successful attempt, at least until 1990 (whereupon the topic becomes a matter of some debate). --Katangais (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The term occupy is misleading. South Africa was granted legal authority over the territory, that continued as de facto authority after 1966. That is not the same as occupying the territory. "Attempts to occupy her smaller neighbor" implies an invasion - like Crimea - rather than continuing control.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Police and SA Army units incorrectly listed as part of SWATF

I have removed from the organisation section a few units that were never part of the SWATF, notably 61 Mech and 2SAI which were - and in the case of 2SAI, still is - part of the South African Army, as well as Koevoet which was a Police unit, not part of SWATF. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't 61 Mech attached to the SWATF and only withdrawn to the SADF when it became clear that Namibia was headed for independence? I can recall researching a source which suggested that the unit's vehicles and armour were considered part of the general SWATF pool. --Katangais (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Role of the SWATF

The role of the SWATF was the defence of the territory. It is not correct that its "stated goals" were centred "predominantly around protecting the political status quo and countering SWAPO's growing war effort". That implies an overt political agenda. The SWATF, like the SADF but unlike Swapo's military wing, PLAN, was not political.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The role of the SWATF was the defence of occupied territory. That sounds quite a bit political to me, as does the name itself: UN had adopted the name 'Namibia' long ago. That said, the Rhodesia.nl reference in my view is not independent, of questionable reliability and neutrality, and it does not support the statement it is appended to. That SWATF was there to counter PLAN's military activities seems quite a bit like common sense to me, though. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The article currently says that the "stated goals were centred predominantly around protecting the political status quo and countering SWAPO's growing war effort". That is not correct. The cited reference makes no such claim. Therefore the claim is at best unreferenced, and under Wikipedia rules should be deleted. Irrespective of whether the "defence of occupied territory" is a political role (it seems military to me), it is simply not correct that this was a "stated goal" of the SWATF, whatever its actual role may have been.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Error with numbers

South Africa never had "60,000 South African combat troops were engaged in South-West Africa by the late 1970s". Its total army was not that big.125.237.105.102 (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

True that I don't think that number is correct. False that the army didn't have those numbers, not if you took all the Reserve Force regiments and the Commandos into account. BoonDock (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If you combined the various irregulars, SWAPOL, Koevoet, the entire SWATF (including Commandos), and all of the SADF units in Namibia the figure was about 71,000 in 1989. --Katangais (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Combat Troops is the term that is a problem.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on South-West Africa Territorial Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111007193122/http://www.satruth.co.za/ranks_00005.htm to http://www.satruth.co.za/ranks_00005.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)