THE STANDARD OF RESEARCH ON THE BATTLE OF CUITO CUANAVALE, 1987–1988

The purpose of this article is to examine the standard of research about the so-called Battle of Cuito Cuanavale. After examining what objectivity for the academic researcher should mean, two categories of researchers are looked at. The first is called the “non-researchers”. They are those who do no...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Leopold Scholtz
Format: Article
Language:Afrikaans
Published: Stellenbosch University 2011-08-01
Series:Scientia Militaria
Online Access:http://scientiamilitaria.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/105
id doaj-1c8de47504894a6785728c5b54d39cbd
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1c8de47504894a6785728c5b54d39cbd2020-11-24T23:39:16ZafrStellenbosch UniversityScientia Militaria2224-00202011-08-0139110.5787/39-1-105THE STANDARD OF RESEARCH ON THE BATTLE OF CUITO CUANAVALE, 1987–1988Leopold ScholtzThe purpose of this article is to examine the standard of research about the so-called Battle of Cuito Cuanavale. After examining what objectivity for the academic researcher should mean, two categories of researchers are looked at. The first is called the “non-researchers”. They are those who do no or virtually no real research into the events at Cuito Cuanavale, but uncritically copy what politicians and politically correct academics have to say about the subject. The focus also falls on one particular historian, Italian-American Professor Piero Gleijeses. On the basis of several articles (his book about Cuba‟s role in Africa until 1976 is judged to be good), the conclusion is that his evident admiration for Cuba and its dictator, President Fidel Castro, and his revulsion at apartheid South Africa brings about a one-sided and distorted picture of what went on at Cuito Cuanavale and the Border War in general. The last category is the “serious researchers”, whose work is based on good research. Although their work displays certain gaps in the sense that they had no access to Cuban or Angolan sources, they generally are much more reliable in their facts than the “non-researchers” and Professor Gleijeses.http://scientiamilitaria.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/105
collection DOAJ
language Afrikaans
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Leopold Scholtz
spellingShingle Leopold Scholtz
THE STANDARD OF RESEARCH ON THE BATTLE OF CUITO CUANAVALE, 1987–1988
Scientia Militaria
author_facet Leopold Scholtz
author_sort Leopold Scholtz
title THE STANDARD OF RESEARCH ON THE BATTLE OF CUITO CUANAVALE, 1987–1988
title_short THE STANDARD OF RESEARCH ON THE BATTLE OF CUITO CUANAVALE, 1987–1988
title_full THE STANDARD OF RESEARCH ON THE BATTLE OF CUITO CUANAVALE, 1987–1988
title_fullStr THE STANDARD OF RESEARCH ON THE BATTLE OF CUITO CUANAVALE, 1987–1988
title_full_unstemmed THE STANDARD OF RESEARCH ON THE BATTLE OF CUITO CUANAVALE, 1987–1988
title_sort standard of research on the battle of cuito cuanavale, 1987–1988
publisher Stellenbosch University
series Scientia Militaria
issn 2224-0020
publishDate 2011-08-01
description The purpose of this article is to examine the standard of research about the so-called Battle of Cuito Cuanavale. After examining what objectivity for the academic researcher should mean, two categories of researchers are looked at. The first is called the “non-researchers”. They are those who do no or virtually no real research into the events at Cuito Cuanavale, but uncritically copy what politicians and politically correct academics have to say about the subject. The focus also falls on one particular historian, Italian-American Professor Piero Gleijeses. On the basis of several articles (his book about Cuba‟s role in Africa until 1976 is judged to be good), the conclusion is that his evident admiration for Cuba and its dictator, President Fidel Castro, and his revulsion at apartheid South Africa brings about a one-sided and distorted picture of what went on at Cuito Cuanavale and the Border War in general. The last category is the “serious researchers”, whose work is based on good research. Although their work displays certain gaps in the sense that they had no access to Cuban or Angolan sources, they generally are much more reliable in their facts than the “non-researchers” and Professor Gleijeses.
url http://scientiamilitaria.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/105
work_keys_str_mv AT leopoldscholtz thestandardofresearchonthebattleofcuitocuanavale19871988
AT leopoldscholtz standardofresearchonthebattleofcuitocuanavale19871988
_version_ 1725514328330731520