QUESTION 1: HOW DID THE DEPLOYMENT OF MISSILES TO CUBA CONTRIBUTE TO COLD WAR TENSIONS BETWEEN THE SOVIET UNION AND THE UNITED STATES IN THE 1960s? SOURCE 1A The following source outlines the reasons for the deployment of Soviet Missiles to Cuba in 1962.
In 1962, Fidel Castro’s new communist regime was three years old. Castro had been taken to align (associate) Cuba with the powerful Soviet Union, which saw an opportunity to nurture (raise) a communist state a stone’s throw from the American border. The Cold War was in full swing and US President John F. Kennedy had politically defined himself in opposition to the Castro regime. The usual American Soviet tension escalated (increased) in the months leading up to October 1962. First, hoping to intimidate the Soviets, the United States deployed nuclear, Jupiter missiles to Turkey. General Nikita Khrushchev already felt threatened by weapons pointed at the USSR from Western Europe. He thought that if American nuclear weapons were moving to Turkey, perhaps the Soviets should level the playing field. Then, the Cuban government discovered an American plot to overthrow Castro’s government. It was the second such attempt, coming less than a year after the ill-fated (failed) Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961. These two events – the discovery of American aggression in Cuba and the deployment of nuclear missiles to Turkey – led Castro and Khrushchev to strike a secret arrangement: The USSR would deploy missiles to Cuba to help deter (prevent) any future invasions by the United States and to counter American missiles in Turkey. Nobody predicted that this series of decisions made by the United States, the Soviet Union and Cuba would lead to the edge of nuclear war.
SOURCE 1B This source focuses on President Kennedy’s decision to impose a naval blockade of Soviet ships and President Khrushchev’s response to it.
The President (Kennedy) also went on national television that evening to inform the public of the developments in Cuba, his decision to initiate and enforce a “quarantine” and the potential global consequences if the crisis continued to escalate (increase). The tone of the president’s remarks was stern (harsh), and the message unmistakable and evocative (suggestive) of the Monroe Doctrine: ‘It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missiles launched from Cuba against any nation in the western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory (revengeful) response upon the Soviet Union.’ The joint chiefs of staff announced a military readiness status of DEFCON 3 (defence readiness condition) as US naval forces began implementation of the quarantine and plans accelerated for a military strike on Cuba. On 24 October Khrushchev responded to Kennedy’s message with a statement that the US “blockade” was an “act of aggression’’ and that Soviet ships bound for Cuba would be ordered to proceed. Nevertheless, during October 24 and 25, some ships turned back from the quarantine line; others were stopped by US naval forces, but they contained no offensive weapons and so were allowed to proceed. Meanwhile, US reconnaissance (survey) flights over Cuba indicated the Soviet missile sites were nearing operational readiness. With no apparent end to the crisis in sight, US forces were placed at DEFCON 2 – meaning war involving the strategic Air Command was imminent (coming shortly). On 26 October, Kennedy told his advisors it appeared that only a US attack on Cuba would remove the missiles, but he insisted on giving the diplomatic channel a little more time. The crisis had reached a virtual stalemate (deadlock).
SOURCE 1D The source below highlights how the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved by both President Khrushchev and President Kennedy in October 1962.
Behind the scenes, however, officials of both the US and the USSR were negotiating a non-military resolution to the crisis. Through various back channels, the two countries agreed to end the standoff with a trade-off. The Soviet Union would remove its missiles from Cuba, and the US would remove its missiles from Turkey. On October 28, Kennedy and Khrushchev announced that the Soviet missiles would leave Cuba. No mention was made of the American missiles in Turkey. The only public announcement of missiles being removed were those from the Soviet Union. The US ‘quarantine’ continued, turning into a verification (confirmation) mission that the Soviet Union was keeping its promise to remove the missiles. The ’quarantine’ ended on November 20. The dismantling of the American missiles in Turkey began as well, and the missiles were removed a few months later. No missiles were fired in the end from any country. Estimates at the time of the crisis, of casualties had the two nations traded nuclear missiles, were in the hundreds of millions. The fear factor was definitely high, especially in the US. The only leader to survive in power for more than two years was Castro. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, and Khrushchev was ousted as Soviet leader the following year. One of the lasting results of the Cuban Missile Crisis (called the October Crisis in Cuba and the Caribbean Crisis in the Soviet Union) was the creation of a hotline, a direct phone line from Moscow, the capital of the Soviet Union, to Washington D.C. and the signing of a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
QUESTION 2: WHY DID SOUTH AFRICA BECOME INVOLVED IN THE ANGOLAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE? SOURCE 2A This source focuses on the reasons for the involvement of foreign countries in Angola.
Angola came into being as an independent state under traumatic (disturbing) circumstances. The country quickly descended (resulted) into a civil war after three nationalist movements, the FNLA (National Front for the Liberation of Angola), the MPLA (Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola) and UNITA (National Union for the Total Liberation of Angola), failed to find common ground on how to share power and wealth. With the help of foreign allies, the FNLA and UNITA used military force in an attempt to dislodge (forced out) the MPLA from the capital city of Luanda. Zairian and South African troops invaded Angola to place the FNLA and UNITA, respectively, in power. The MPLA took similar action by obtaining Cuban assistance to hold Luanda successfully until independence was proclaimed. As the MPLA’s leader, Agostinho Neto, declared Angola’s independence, the sound of heavy artillery could be heard in the background as advancing FNLA / Zairian troops were stopped on the outskirts of the capital. The UNITA and South African advance was also stopped south of Luanda, largely owing to Cuban military intervention. Failure to dislodge the MPLA from Luanda before independence did not deter its foes (enemies) from attempting to overthrow its nascent (emerging) government. It marked the start of a protracted (continued) civil war in which UNITA was the main internal enemy, and South Africa, Zaire and the US were the main external adversaries (enemies).
[From C:/User/Downloads/saia sop 84 malaquias 2011531%20(1).pdf. Accessed on 20 January 2019.]
SOURCE 2B This extract by Christopher Saunders (Professor of Historical Studies in the University of Cape Town) focuses on the reasons and nature of South Africa’s involvement in Angola.
For the South African interventions in Angola from 1975 to 1988 we now have many detailed accounts of the battles fought by the South African Defence Force (SADF) in Angola, from Operation Savannah in late 1975 to Operation Reindeer in May 1978 and the many operations that followed from 1980, of which Operation Protea in 1981 and Askari in 1983–84 were the largest before those that took place around Cuito Cuanavale 1987–88. As independent Angola was born in November 1975, South African forces were not far from Luanda, their mission to help stop the MPLA taking power. Having failed in that mission, because of the arrival of a large Cuban military force in Angola, the South African forces withdrew by late March 1976. However, South Africa remained in a virtual, though undeclared, state of war with Angola for the next decade and more training forces to overthrow its government, giving massive assistance to UNITA and often invading the country. Angola repeatedly condemned South Africa’s highly aggressive intentions towards the country. South Africa in turn repeatedly accused Angola of providing bases from which SWAPO (South West African People’s Organisation), the only Namibian liberation movement fighting an armed struggle against South Africa, sent guerrillas into Namibia. From 1976, as well, Angola was home to the main military training bases of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the armed wing of the ANC. SA’s policies during apartheid were characterised by anti-communism and influenced mainly by the thought that if SA supported a Western ideal, SA would be able to regain some international credit from Western powers.
SOURCE 2D The source below is an extract written by Horace Campbell highlighting the military defeat of South Africa in Angola.
The Angolans launched an offensive against Savimbi’s base areas in south eastern Angola, and the battle at Lomba River was the preamble (introduction) to the big battle at Cuito Cuanavale, where the Angolans decided to set up a defensive line. The SADF started its siege (blockade) in November of 1987. When they faced stiff resistance from Angolans, the operational command of the SADF broke down. It was at this point that President Botha had to boost the morale of his troops in person. This visit prompted the fortification (protection) of the Angolan position by the Cubans, who had been out of direct fighting since 1981. The Cuban command calculated that if the FAPLA defensive line broke, the Cuban forces themselves would be threatened. The siege of Cuito Cuanavale now involved all the combatants (soldiers) of the Angolan theatre of the war. The Angolans, the Cubans, SWAPO, and the ANC on one side and the SADF the Americans and UNITA on the other. Supported by radar on the ground, Angolan and Cuban MiG 23s proved superior to the South African Air Force. With its air force grounded and its tanks stopped by mines and difficult terrain, the besieging (surrounding) force was reduced to shelling Cuito Cuanavale at long range for three months. In major ground battles in January, February and March, the South Africans failed to take it. The South Africans were racist even in military tactics, and placed black troops in front of the white troops to bear the brunt of the fighting. Most important, without air support, the South Africans were outgunned by the Angolans. By the end of March, the South African siege was over and the South Africans themselves were trapped and under siege. The war became more and more unpopular in South Africa when young whites began coming home in body bags.
[From sahistory.org.za/archive/military-defeat –south-african-angola-horace-campbell-monthly-review africa-angolal. Accessed on 02 May 2019.]
QUESTION 3: WHAT WAS THE IMPACT OF THE BLACK POWER MOVEMENT ON AFRICAN AMERICANS LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DURING THE 1960s? SOURCE 3A The source below outlines why Malcolm X encouraged African-Americans to support the Black Power Movement.
Malcolm X represented the kind of attitude and political perspective of many young black so-called militants and radicals from urban areas in the North. They had a different kind of attitude. It was hard for them to swallow this notion of non-violence … Malcolm says, ‘Somebody hits you. You send him to the cemetery.’ While King advocated non-violence, direct action and passive resistance to achieve equal civil rights, Malcolm X was the spokesman for the Nation of Islam (NOI). This Black Muslim movement rejected white America and its Christian values and preached the supremacy of blacks over whites. Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael promoted a segregationist (separation) approach, ’Black Power’ that sought to instil in blacks, a pride in their African heritage. For Malcolm X, ‘turning the other cheek’ was a weak strategy that was unacceptable and was the reason why he emphasised self-defence. Malcolm X came from a Black Nationalist tradition that did not believe you get your freedom, your self-respect, and your dignity by simply letting somebody beat you up without you trying to defend yourself. If blacks had responded, tried to defend themselves, that would have brought the police department down on those demonstrators and whites would have the chance to kill black people indiscriminately (senselessly). Malcolm X regularly criticised King, accusing him of bowing (kneeling) to whites and subjugating (suppressing) blacks to the very culture that had historically denigrated (criticised) and abused them.
[From http//www.aljazeera.com. Accessed on 21 January 2019.]
SOURCE 3B The following source is an extract from an article that was written in a Black Panther newspaper in September 1968. It was in memory of Black Panther leaders who were killed by the US police.
Our brothers were viciously (cruelly), shamelessly and unmercifully (unkindly) assaulted, beaten by an army of pigs (police) and murdered. It was not just to satisfy the lust and desire to spill the black man’s blood; this they do daily at their own will and without the necessity for orders. Although provoked many times by the pigs (police) the black residents of Watts have refused to have a repetition of the 1965 march as a form of resistance. It was known that this method of resistance had served its purpose and that it was outdated. New methods of resistance had to be adapted and applied. Today we are not merely resisting racism and exploitation we are also resisting brutality and murder. Ever since, the so-called emancipation (freedom) policy makers here have continued to use this brainwashing (method to justify their treatment of black people). This was done through the education system that taught white supremacy by always portraying black people as inferior. It is the intention of the policy makers to commit mass murder of black people. This is done without the opposition or protest of the white citizens. The radio, television, magazines and newspapers make us appear as lawless criminals. It led white people to believe that they are in some sort of danger. We must not sit back and allow the best of our people to be murdered or to wait until a member of our family is the victim.
WE MUST WASTE NO TIME: UNITE AND RESIST
[From http www.itsabouttmebpp.com/BPP-Newspapers-index.html. Accessed on 21 January 2019.]
SOURCE 3C The following source focuses on the Black Panther’s Ten Point Plan.
On Saturday, 16 October, the people of Richmond, California, received free shoes and first-aid kits, through the People’s Survival Programmes. They chose new shoes from the David Halliard Free Shoe Programme, took home bags of groceries from the Angela Davis Free Food Programme and first-aid kits from the George Jackson Free Health Clinic. For too long capitalists have made us totally bound (forced) to their every economic move, buying what they offered, which was not always what we wanted. Now we are establishing ways in which we can survive without them. People love what they can call their own. This programme was started for the people by the Black Panther Party. Programmes in the past have generally functioned to benefit big businessmen, the government or the organisation sponsoring them, rather than benefiting the people they were designed to serve. The People’s Survival Programmes have been implemented to serve the people, in fact; so that eventually the community will be able to serve itself, without depending upon the avaricious (greedy) businessmen to give us what we need. Many things will have to be done in the process of moving from total exploitation (mistreatment) to liberation. We will not achieve freedom just because we know oppression is wrong, but because we will have worked to that oppression. The survival programmes are ways in which we will begin to see our new society.
