Swapo 1980 

And went on to liberate Namibia from the fascist occupiers. Objective 100 percent met. Same as South Africa. MK went on to win the spoils

@@brianmuvuti2102 NONE Of your above-mentioned claims were achieved militarily....They were achieved politically. Had FW de Klerk not been a traitor and a coward things would have been different. You know that SWAPO, FAPLA and your Cuban sisters couldnt fight their way out of a wet paperbag. We never had more than 2000 men in the operational area. Were you to face the full might of the SADF you would never have been a match. We made our point in Ops Savanah . We advanced 3000 km in 30 days into Angola fighting along the way.

@@Thebudokid87 For one to be a coward, they will have tasted defeat in battle first and foremost. Youve answered your point as to who was defeated and was a coward in battle. MPLA, SWAPO, ANC are all in charge till this day. Mission Accomplished, through the battle field.

@@brianmuvuti2102 Put down whatever you are smoking little boy...I was there in 87 an 88 during operation Hooper and Packer as an national service infantryman from 4 SAI. And believe me I was there in the thick of it...Militarily we were not defeated. If defeat meant losing 40 men then we had lost. If victory meant losing 4700 men then you won...So please cry me a river. I was there and wont be sold or told bullshit

@@Thebudokid87 a loss is a loss you dolt did america defeat the Soviet union militarily but it was a loss nevertheless their empire and way of life was finished same with apartheid south africa. Arguing semantics of a loss ok loser

I give great respect to these heroes of Namibia. Their struggles against imperial colonial racist regime supported by the Apartheid racists from South Africa.

Ndjembela

There was no " at your leisure" anywhere. These were set time frames dictated by the negotiated table. SWAPO entered Namibia by April 1989 with a military entrance of PLAN with all their military hardware. ANC and MK did the same as early as 1990. So it was far from at any ones leisure. The assassination of Chris sealed the fate as to when power was to be handed over, and it was handed over to this very day.

@@brianmuvuti2102 The "at our leisure" refers to the referendum. Yes there was an urgency to get things done but the pressure has been removed by the withdrawal of the Cubans and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The mere fact that a referendum was held indicates that we were dictating the process - it's wasn't a capitulation, not at all.

@@tjakamonawatataerasmus-see3782 Referendum was a mere after thought. Namibia had gained independence well before that. Mk/ ANC / SACP were in South Africa well before that. Negotiations were going on for years. All long before the collapse of the Soviet Union . Giving up power was well in progress before 1992. It was a mere matter of time, which ur ilk had control of. Besides ANC SACP never disowned socialism, and now even more so they have embraced socialism. NP knew that socialism was going to show itself sooner or later. And it has.

@@tjakamonawatataerasmus-see3782 Anc and co were in south Africa early 1990, USSR collapsed DEC 1991.

​@@brianmuvuti2102 I basically agree with the outlines of what you're saying. My point is that Apartheid wasn't defeated, as claimed by the communists propoganda. Apartheid didn't collapse like, for instance, the Soviet Union and Apartheid didn't capitulate like, for instance, Rhodesia. It was an orderly and controlled process. That's all I'm saying. But I can't agree with your statement that the referendum was "a mere afterthought". White South Africans had the option to reject peace, and then history would've moved differently. The option then would probably have been a white homeland in the south of South Africa (a small country surrounded by enemies, much like Israel) - the power was in our hands. So I repeat my point - Apartheid was never defeated as claimed by communist propoganda. Apartheid was dismantled by the people who practised it. There's a difference.