Angola without Watergate

[usertron2020]

Because it would have triggered a nuclear war and the annihilation of the USA. The deal at the time of the Cuba Missile Crisis was that the Soviet missiles would be withdrawn (along with the US ones in Turkey) but that the US would promise not to invade.

Note: The Jupiter rockets were diplomatic cover for the Soviets, it was the promise of the US not to invade that they considered sacred. The Jupiters were obsolete, took hours to fuel under conditions of easy observation, and Kennedy repeatedly ordered them removed prior to the crisis. Its on him that he allowed objections by the Turkish government and the Joint Chiefs to dissuade him from pushing the matter of removing them further.

The Soviets wanted the missiles there to improve for them what was a lamentable (at the time) nuclear deterrent as well as showing solidarity with the Castro Regime. The bit about the Jupiter missiles was just a bit of Politburo straw-grasping after the Missile Crisis blew up.

The agreement to remove the Jupiter rockets, and added as a surprise sweetener by JFK the Atlas, Agena, and Thor rocket bases in Sicily and the UK (IIRC), was mandated by him to be held in strictest secrecy and only six months after everything else was over and done with the Missile Crisis.

Ever since, the absence of Soviet/Russian offensive bases of any kind in Cuba has been taken as part and parcel with America's promise to respect the integrity of the Castro Regime, including no more covert operations against Cuba directly. I'm sure that there have been black ops against Cuba's OWN foreign adventurism tho.

I strongly doubt that Nixon would invade Cuba, no matter how much he hated Castro. If he was going to, he would have done so in 1970, during the Cienfuegos crisis. Detente was way too important to sacrifice for Cuba. I also doubt that Kissinger was actually going to go through with this. "Covert action" was different, but if we are relying off that, remember that Castro would win the gold medal if "dodging attempts on your life" was an Olympic event.

This is probably another contingency plan never taken seriously that is being blown up in the press... and its RT publishing it.

The key things here are

1) Does Castro still do the airlift? Castro hated Nixon, but he wasn't stupid. The USA isn't as weak here.

2) If so, what does a powerful Nixon do about it? Congress is not as powerful and probably not as Watergate babyish in nature, but they still won't like the idea. Would he try to circumvent them, like Ford did OTL? RogueBeaver mentioned a possible "Angola-Contra" scandal if Nixon fights this. I'm not certain about that, but there will be a struggle, and Congress would probably be even less pleased with Nixon if he succeeded with stuff like New Federalism.

VIETNAM

No fresh adventurism. Even Cambodia had to be secret, and that was one of the articles of impeachment launched against Nixon (voted down).

They were certainly an uncomfortable ally, but there were a lot of those in the Cold War for the US. Basically, when it came to the 3rd world, our only allies were banana republics, military dictatorships, Franco, Salazar, South Africa, and Israel. Nobody really liked having to work with those countries, it was just Cold War necessity.

Not all friendly to the USA Third World countries were dictatorships or Israel. But if a democracy like Costa Rica counts, the smallness of the economy, lack of a military (just a national guard), and relative lack of strategic position means no one will notice them.

South Africa was the red headed stepchild of foreign policy during the Cold War. Hyper-rich in natural resources, run by a theocratic influenced socially conservative clique of bastards, and the worst thing that could happen in that part of the world is that they fall apart. Basically our only ally in the region.

Hm... see any similarities today?

Nixon can't be too open, but he will support them against Cuba, yes. Furthermore, the SADF is a very capable force.

Actually, no. Not against a first class army. The SADF during the Cold War was primarily designed to fight invading armies of guerillas or Black-ruled dictatorships with pathetic armies of their own. Consider, much of their flanks were protected by the neutralized Botswana or friendly Super-Apartheid Rhodesia. 80% of South Africa itself is dry, arid, open country. Horrible circumstances for a guerrilla army to cross over into or fight in. But perfect for air and armored warfare.

The SADF's problem was they became victimized by, and came to believe in, their own press. Between that and their own naturally ingrained racism (or at least within the Afrikaner community), when their own army went up against the Cubans head on, they got the shock of their lives when they discovered that training and equipment designed for crushing rebellions and invading guerillas/Third World African armies were useless when fighting motor-rifle divisions organized along Soviet lines, well trained, well led, and motivated.

Imagine a heavily militarized State Police SWAT team against veteran US tank units.

 

[zeppelinair]

snip snip snippity snip

Since you mentioned soviet-trained troops vs. whatever, may I ask your opinion on DPRK vs. ROK troops(70s)? My opinion was that Soviet-trained troops had very rigid and centralised military order systems and it took quite some time if a modification was needed to the military plan. On the contrary, ROK forces have great experience fighting in Vietnam, US-based order systems(don't know what they are), and generally higher morale due to firm US support.

Could an analogy be drawn between the DPRK and ROK, like for the SADF and Cuban forces?

 

[usertron2020]

Since you mentioned soviet-trained troops vs. whatever, may I ask your opinion on DPRK vs. ROK troops(70s)? My opinion was that Soviet-trained troops had very rigid and centralised military order systems and it took quite some time if a modification was needed to the military plan. On the contrary, ROK forces have great experience fighting in Vietnam, US-based order systems(don't know what they are), and generally higher morale due to firm US support.

Could an analogy be drawn between the DPRK and ROK, like for the SADF and Cuban forces?

Hell no. The SADF had a sense of entitlement to victory against ANY brown/black skinned opponents. And comported themselves accordingly against the Cubans. That's why they got shredded. A better comparison would be the stupid overconfidence shown by the UN forces regarding the PLA before they got shredded themselves at the Yalu River.

A comparison between the ROK and DPRK in the 1970s is difficult. Lots of corruption and political tyranny in Seoul, but nothing like what was going on in Pyong-yang. Also, regular supplies were coming in to the North from both Moscow and Peking back then, so the Norks were in much better shape. As always with SK/NK scenarios, its all about who is seen to be the aggressor, by whom, and who gets strategic surprise.

Also, in the 70s the air situation wasn't nearly as favorable to the South as it is today. Short of the chimaera of Norkian legions of suicide saboteurs knocking out every airfield in the South, today any "blitzkrieg" launched by the North will have to be done under a sky where the enemy has complete air supremacy. Lotsa luck.

 

[Realpolitik]

Ever since, the absence of Soviet/Russian offensive bases of any kind in Cuba has been taken as part and parcel with America's promise to respect the integrity of the Castro Regime, including no more covert operations against Cuba directly. I'm sure that there have been black ops against Cuba's OWN foreign adventurism tho.

And like I said, Cienfeugos, when the promise was put to the test.

VIETNAM

No fresh adventurism. Even Cambodia had to be secret, and that was one of the articles of impeachment launched against Nixon (voted down).

So, Castro still does the airlift openly in front of the US, and it'll be covert action, like OTL? If Congressional bans didn't stop Gerald Ford in a post-Watergate environment, I doubt it's going to stop Nixon from going around their backs("those furtive mediocrities").

I'm NOT saying that Nixon lands the Marines, for Pete's sake. Even without Vietnam, Africa isn't that important for him. But, again, we are at least going to see OTL levels of messing about without Watergate, if Castro still does the airlift. The question is whether its going to be the "at least" or something more.

Actually, no. Not against a first class army. The SADF during the Cold War was primarily designed to fight invading armies of guerillas or Black-ruled dictatorships with pathetic armies of their own. Consider, much of their flanks were protected by the neutralized Botswana or friendly Super-Apartheid Rhodesia. 80% of South Africa itself is dry, arid, open country. Horrible circumstances for a guerrilla army to cross over into or fight in. But perfect for air and armored warfare.

The SADF's problem was they became victimized by, and came to believe in, their own press. Between that and their own naturally ingrained racism (or at least within the Afrikaner community), when their own army went up against the Cubans head on, they got the shock of their lives when they discovered that training and equipment designed for crushing rebellions and invading guerillas/Third World African armies were useless when fighting motor-rifle divisions organized along Soviet lines, well trained, well led, and motivated.

Imagine a heavily militarized State Police SWAT team against veteran US tank units.

My bad. I guess on the standards of the region. Against the Cubans...

So, SADF withdraws, but still supports Savimbi, goes cross border, etc. Cuba stays. I'm getting the sense that things go OTL, with maybe more aid.

 

[Redhand]

Actually, no. Not against a first class army. The SADF during the Cold War was primarily designed to fight invading armies of guerillas or Black-ruled dictatorships with pathetic armies of their own. Consider, much of their flanks were protected by the neutralized Botswana or friendly Super-Apartheid Rhodesia. 80% of South Africa itself is dry, arid, open country. Horrible circumstances for a guerrilla army to cross over into or fight in. But perfect for air and armored warfare.

The SADF's problem was they became victimized by, and came to believe in, their own press. Between that and their own naturally ingrained racism (or at least within the Afrikaner community), when their own army went up against the Cubans head on, they got the shock of their lives when they discovered that training and equipment designed for crushing rebellions and invading guerillas/Third World African armies were useless when fighting motor-rifle divisions organized along Soviet lines, well trained, well led, and motivated.

Imagine a heavily militarized State Police SWAT team against veteran US tank units.

The SADF actually outperformed the Cubans by quite a large margin and inflicted extremely disproportionate casualties on them. They did all of this with basically no air support as the international community refused to send SA military aircraft, so their obsolete airforce had no effect on the campaing, while the Cubans had plenty of it, and the SADF still outperformed the Cubans. They did all of this while being outnumbered and in hostile territory. So I would say that the SADF was a pretty legitimate force. If they had aerial parity with the Cubans, it would've been a real massacre.