I believe Moscow threatened a pre-emptive nuclear attack on South Africa in 1975, during
Operation Savannah.
The Official Story Goes Something Like This:
For years Angola had been embroiled in civil war, with many factions vying for power. In 1975, the dominant faction was backed by the
[Soviets / Cuba]. The faction favored by the USA had been largely sidelined at this point, and the CIA was forced to work with and through the South Africans. This third
[South Africa / America] faction controlled large swathes of the country side, but was not in a position to seize power alone.
In August 1975, South Africa began a clandestine incursion into Angola, providing direct assistance to the
[South Africa / America] faction. In the opening days, the SADF and their faction surged forward; there is evidence that the Cubans stationed in Angola didn't have a strong understanding of how dire the situation was until it had deteriorated nearly beyond the point of salvage. Eventually, the the SADF and the
[South Africa / America] faction start to move on the port city of Luanda, the Angolan capital. Their advance slowed as they began to enter the more heavily urbanized areas around Quifangondo (northern suburb of Luanda). The urban environment, combined with the enemies' shorter supply lines, and a greater number of hostile artillery pieces, made progress extremely slow and difficult. The Cubans had been shipping in more men and equipment since the moment they realized how bad the situation was, and more and more the SADF had to deal with Cuban special forces instead of the comparatively less well-equipped and less well-trained
[Soviets / Cuba] faction.
Here's where things get a little fuzzy. In quick succession, there was a lot of bad press internationally once South African involvement in Angola became known, the US Congress passed a law to ban all material assistance to the South African government (ostensibly including it's Angolan allies), and there was
a meeting between US and South African diplomats. After that meeting, South Africa ordered an expeditious and humiliating retreat back home. Most historians blame this decision on lack of American support or a desire in Pretoria to avoid a prolonged conventional war in Angola.
Is That Really The Whole Story?
There's a couple of issues with how most people explain the sudden reversal in RSA foreign policy, mostly having to do with timing.
The explanation that "bad press" motivated South African leadership to pull out is strange. At this point in history, the RSA was the prototypical pariah state. Everything they did and failed to do was heavily criticized abroad. Even if it wasn't, South Africa was under such heavy sanctions that it isn't clear what effect worse international relations could possibly have on their society.
The second explanation was that the loss of American resources motivated withdrawal, is a bit dubious. I think this specific explanation has survived because of the CIA's involvement. Both supporters and opponents of the CIA (for different reasons) like to mythologize their power and assert their primacy in international affairs. To be frank, it's not clear how much influence America had over the operation to begin with. They had already been forced to work through the SADF after the preferred American allies were largely sidelined in Angola. Perhaps more importantly, South Africa didn't immediately order withdrawal when Congress disallowed American support. The decision to retreat was made a short time later, after
a meeting with American diplomats.
The third explanation was that the RSA saw an impending quagmire when their advance had slowed, and pulled out to avoid a costly long term conflict with Angola. Again, this is difficult to rationalize. For one, their investment into the incursion up to that point had been less than three thousand troops to a neighboring country, with a large contingent of friendly native fighters. The increasing Cuban presence likely would've necessitated reinforcement, but the fact of the matter is that there was no universe where Cuba could move in more hardware more quickly than could the SADF. Second, The RSA had been in an unambiguous state of conflict with the
Frontline States before, during, and after
Operation Savannah. When the order to withdraw was given, Pretoria activated over 150,000 reservists. It seems as though the RSA government anticipated a widescale expansion of the conflict after withdrawal, not detente, as is sometimes suggested.
All the above explanations were contrived after the fact. At the time, the dominant conception of the withdrawal was one of confusion. Consider the below quote from the Rhodesian perspective. The Rhodesian view is especially useful, as they had access to a lot of high level contacts within the RSA government and a profound understanding of South African thinking, but did not feel any duty to "close ranks" and accept orders from the top as a matter of course:
[Harold Hawkins, Rhodesian diplomat to the RSA,] said the South Africans were still smarting and divided over the Angola incursion. The military operation was well planned and executed, with the result that their advance was easier and much more rapid than expected. In a matter of weeks they were within striking distanced of Luanda but, when their politicians received this news, there was panic. After consultations with America, the South African troops were ordered to pull back, to the total amazement and disbelief of all those involved. Attempts to get together the relevant cabinet ministers to consider the countermand and clear up the resultant confusion were in vain - ministers were at their holiday resorts for the Christmas break. There was bitter division between the Ministry of Defence, which wanted to get on with the job, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which had opposed the idea from the beginning. Eventually, Hawkins said, after the New Year, a message from the Prime Minister's office confirmed the withdrawal. It was a humiliating surrender, according to South African military intelligence.
- Ian Smith (Rhodesian PM) in his autobiography
This contains some interesting, if slanted, information about how the operation was viewed at the time. For right now, only two things are important:
- The decision was made extremely suddenly, from the very top level, and without any apparent explanation.
- The decision was made only after a meeting with American diplomats.
It's abundantly clear that certain portions of the South African rationale to withdraw is not publicly known. The Communist Angolans were a severe and demonstrated threat to South Africa, it really only makes sense to cut and run if they were responding to a far greater threat. One that burned brighter than a thousand suns.
What Was The Meeting About?
When the Americans met with the South Africans, it was to deliver grave news. The Soviets were planning to nuke South Africa if they refused to withdraw from Angola, and had approached the Americans seeking their acceptance of the attack.
This wouldn't be the first time that had happened. This time, the Americans accepted.
Why were the Soviets willing to escalate to nuclear conflict over a bush war on the other side of the world? Why was America willing to go along with it, if they had refused a similar request only a few years earlier?
As I'm writing this, there's a conflict in the Persian Gulf that is affecting petrochemical supplies across the world. Isn't it funny how the disruption of a single resource, which isn't incredibly valuable on it's own, can reverberate and cause havoc throughout entire societies? What if I told you that there's quite a few resources that work the same way?
The Defense Logistics Agency maintains a list of what they refer to as "Strategic Materials". The CIA used to maintain a similar but better list, but it was recently shut down. The CIA's list is still available through
archives.
If you glance at the above lists, you'll immediately notice something rather odd. A large amount of "Strategic" ores are sourced from Southern Africa and Central Asia. Some of these materials are basically non-existent outside of these regions, such as Chromium. However, all would be severely disrupted if for some reason, the strategic minerals of southern Africa were made unavailable to one or both of the superpowers at that time.
Which brings us back to Angola. Moscow had long dreamed of a belt across Africa, through which they could spread the glorious message of Communism. Had they lost access to Angola's ports, they'd be forced to supply their allies through (recently acquired) Mozambique's ports instead. That would be a serious problem, since all major railways to the Mozambican ports at that time ran through RSA-Aligned Rhodesia. All imports would be subject to RSA-Rhodesian inspection and approval, requiring either a cessation of military support to RSA enemies or, more realistically, continuing supply using suboptimal routes, such as air-transport (accepting a severe drop in throughput and a corresponding explosion in cost). That's assuming the SADF / Rhodesians wouldn't just launch an operation similar to
Savannah on the East African coast and "liberate" another key Soviet ally in the region.
Perhaps most alarming to planners, though, would be Pretoria's defacto control over all mineral exports from southern Africa. A potential embargo
BY the South Africans would've been disastrous to the whole world, in any case. However, since many strategic minerals exist in certain quantities in Soviet Kazahkstan, the crisis would arguably affect the USA far more acutely. Which, of course, explains why Washington and Moscow might see eye to eye on the Angolan incursion. Or at least, why Washington was willing to relent to Soviet threats.
After
Operation Savannah, the South African government began to make moves to build a global nuclear deterrent.
It's an open secret that the South African's were able to create a nuclear weapon only a few years later. Less well known is the South African's early space program, dismantled on US insistence in 1993, which created launch vehicles which may eventually have been able to carry nuclear weapons all over the world. That makes perfect sense, if Pretoria was trying to influence Russia and America, rather than their direct neighbors.
