TWE was armed resistance significant in opposing Apartheid in 1961-68?
Intro:
- Armed resistance increased greatly 1961-68 (MK, Poqo, etc.)
- Although significant to an extent (threatened whites), not hugely significant (armed resistance not
widespread in period, opposition groups banned, suppression increased strengthening apartheid)
- Main success in opposing apartheid = international action better attributed to Rivonia Trial (not
armed resistance)
- Therefore, not significant to great extent
P1: Significant
- Nature of armed resistance
o ANC explicitly decide on armed struggle June 1961
o ANC and MK (‘spear of the nation’)
1961, 5 sent to China for guerilla training
Tactic directly help oppose gov
16th December 1961, Dingaan’s Day, sabotage
Disruptive for apartheid regime – targeted strategic units
o PAC and Poqo (1961)
1962 Paarl March, 2 whites killed
1963 Mbashe Bridge killings (in Transkei)
White fear, made people believe apartheid unfeasible
- Why significant?
o Gov increased suppression (indicates saw armed resistance as threat to system)
Of men executed after 1960s political trials, 62 in Poqo
o Threatened whites directly – unique to 1960s
(despite earlier cases of occasional violence East London 1952, Durban 1959,
Mpondoland 1960)
o Armed resistance stepped up later in period – eventually made gov realise apartheid system
= unfeasible, root cause = 1960s initial armed struggle
P2: Not significant
- However…
o Despite dramatic moments, neither ANC nor PAC had capacity for large-scale armed struggle
no base, little training, little support, repressive state
o gov suppression had increased earlier – better attributed to Sharpeville, not 1961-68
30th March 1960, gov declared State of Emergency, thousands arrested, Unlawful
Organisations Act 8th April
o killings publicised as African savagery – white fear arguably made people more likely to
support apartheid, painted movt in negative light, protestors died too (e.g. 5 in Paarl march)
o can argue eventual end to apartheid better attributed to international action (disinvestment)
even if believe due to armed struggle – had impact later on but not 1961-68 period
- Apartheid system not significantly hindered by 1961-68 action
o Apartheid system remained in place for almost 3 decades after period
o Gov suppression/enforcement of apartheid increased (1967 Terrorism Act)
Can argue this implies gov = threatened, fact they were ‘strong’ enough to
implement these measures shows apartheid system not hindered greatly by 1961-
68 action
- Opposition diminished by 1963-64 Rivonia Trial (activity decreased greatly)
o Can argue operated in exile, but nevertheless less significant due to gov ban
Intro:
- Armed resistance increased greatly 1961-68 (MK, Poqo, etc.)
- Although significant to an extent (threatened whites), not hugely significant (armed resistance not
widespread in period, opposition groups banned, suppression increased strengthening apartheid)
- Main success in opposing apartheid = international action better attributed to Rivonia Trial (not
armed resistance)
- Therefore, not significant to great extent
P1: Significant
- Nature of armed resistance
o ANC explicitly decide on armed struggle June 1961
o ANC and MK (‘spear of the nation’)
1961, 5 sent to China for guerilla training
Tactic directly help oppose gov
16th December 1961, Dingaan’s Day, sabotage
Disruptive for apartheid regime – targeted strategic units
o PAC and Poqo (1961)
1962 Paarl March, 2 whites killed
1963 Mbashe Bridge killings (in Transkei)
White fear, made people believe apartheid unfeasible
- Why significant?
o Gov increased suppression (indicates saw armed resistance as threat to system)
Of men executed after 1960s political trials, 62 in Poqo
o Threatened whites directly – unique to 1960s
(despite earlier cases of occasional violence East London 1952, Durban 1959,
Mpondoland 1960)
o Armed resistance stepped up later in period – eventually made gov realise apartheid system
= unfeasible, root cause = 1960s initial armed struggle
P2: Not significant
- However…
o Despite dramatic moments, neither ANC nor PAC had capacity for large-scale armed struggle
no base, little training, little support, repressive state
o gov suppression had increased earlier – better attributed to Sharpeville, not 1961-68
30th March 1960, gov declared State of Emergency, thousands arrested, Unlawful
Organisations Act 8th April
o killings publicised as African savagery – white fear arguably made people more likely to
support apartheid, painted movt in negative light, protestors died too (e.g. 5 in Paarl march)
o can argue eventual end to apartheid better attributed to international action (disinvestment)
even if believe due to armed struggle – had impact later on but not 1961-68 period
- Apartheid system not significantly hindered by 1961-68 action
o Apartheid system remained in place for almost 3 decades after period
o Gov suppression/enforcement of apartheid increased (1967 Terrorism Act)
Can argue this implies gov = threatened, fact they were ‘strong’ enough to
implement these measures shows apartheid system not hindered greatly by 1961-
68 action
- Opposition diminished by 1963-64 Rivonia Trial (activity decreased greatly)
o Can argue operated in exile, but nevertheless less significant due to gov ban
