MANKRAZ
419
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 1
Paper 1 has eight (8) questions divided into two sections.
Section A is International Relations which covers topics such as The Treaty of
Versailles, The League of Nations, The Collapse of International Relations, The
Cold War and The United Nations. Four questions will be set and your required
to answer two (2) questions.
Section B is Namibia and Southern African History. Two (2) questions will be
set on Namibian History and you are required to once only 1. Lastly, two (2)
questions are set on Southern African History (South Africa) and you answer 1
question. In a nutshell, you are required to answer four questions, two from
International Relations, one From Namibian history and one from the history of
South Africa since 1948.
Each question or topic has 3 sets of questions, A, B & C. They all require a
different approach to answer them.
A questions are worth 5 and 6 marks for Ordinary and Higher Level respectively.
These questions ask for description of events; therefore, the answer must be written
in chronological order (Step by step on how an event happened). You must describe
five different facts written in a paragraph form.
B questions carries 7 marks for Ordinary Level and 9 marks for Higher Level. These
questions ask candidates to explain reasons why and how they happened. They also
ask for explanation of the consequences of the events. I recommend that candidates
must first identify main reasons before attempting to explain them which will earn
them 4 marks (Three reasons for Ordinary and Four reasons for Higher Level).
Candidates must then explain each of the identified reasons (each in a paragraph of
its own). For the first explanation candidates will earn 5 marks. An answer will qualify
as an explanation if candidates demonstrate the ability to point out the purpose why
an event happened or the consequences of an event. Use of examples will boost the
explanations.
C questions value at 8 marks for Ordinary Level and 10 marks for Higher Level.
These are evaluation questions where candidates are required to write a balanced
answer by focusing on both sides (agree AND disagree with the statement). I
recommend that candidates must make a quick judgment on the side they must start
with. The side they start with must have one reason only and the other side must
have two reasons (if explained, when candidates writes like this, they will earn 8
marks). Like in the B questions, they must start to identify the reasons on both sides
before explaining them. Identifying one reason on both sides candidates scores 4
marks. Higher level candidates are required to provide a valid conclusion in your
opinion which side is the most important and explain.
NB: examples I used might have more than two reasons on both side but
candidates must write as per my recommendation.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 2
The Treaty of Versailles
A questions
Briefly describe the motives of the “Big Three” at the Treaty of Versailles in
1919. / Describe the main differences in the aims of the “Big Three” at the
Paris Peace Conference (1919). / Briefly describe the aims of the Big Three at
the Treat of Versailles.
Clemenceau wanted to create a buffer state between France and Germany. He also
wanted Germany to be broken down into smaller states. Wilson wanted to promote
peace worldwide. He also believed in self-determination (people to rule themselves).
Lloyd George wanted Germany to lose its navy and colonies. He also wanted To
maintain British control of the seas.
Briefly describe the aims of Clemenceau during the peace negotiations at
Versailles.
To punish Germany harshly. To weaken Germany. To take revenge on Germany.
Germany to pay reparations. To create a buffer state between France and Germany.
He also wanted Germany to be broken down into smaller states.
What were the aims of President Woodrow Wilson at the peace talks at
Versailles?
He wanted the treaty to be fair to everyone including defeated countries. To promote
peace worldwide. Nations to cooperate. To promote democracy. He believed in selfdetermination. He introduced his fourteen points.
What were the aims of Lloyd George at the peace talks at Versailles?
He wanted to punish Germany but not too harshly. Germany to lose its navy.
Germany to lose its colonies. To protect the British empire. Germany to pay
reparations. He was also keen on Britain and Germany to begin trading with each
other again.
Briefly describe the main terms of the Treaty of Versailles? / Describe the
different ways in which Germany was punished in the Treaty of Versailles. /
Describe how the German people were affected by the Treaty of Versailles.
Germany lost 10% of its land. Germany’s armed forces were reduced. Germany was
blamed for starting the First World War. Germany was forced to pay reparations.
Germany lost her overseas colonies. Germany was not allowed to join the League of
Nations.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 3
Describe the Terms of the Treaty of Versailles that applied to German armed
force. / Briefly describe the military restrictions imposed on Germany by the
Treaty of Versailles.
Germany’s army was cut to one hundred thousand (100 000) men. Germany soldiers
would serve in the army for a period of 12 years. Germany was not allowed to have
an air force. Germany’s navy was reduced to 36 battleships with no submarines.
Conscription was not allowed in Germany. All wartime guns and weapons were to be
melted down as scrap metal. The Rhineland was demilitarized.
Briefly describe the territorial terms of the Treaty of Versailles.
Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France. The Saar was given to France for 15 years.
Poland was made independent and given a corridor to the Baltic Sea. Danzig
became a free city. The Rhineland was demilitarized. Baltic States (Latvia, Estonia,
and Lithuania) got their independence. Austria and Hungary became two separate
countries. Germany and Austria were forbidden to unite. Czechoslovakia became an
independent country.
What land was taken from Germany in the Treaty of Versailles? / Describe how
the Treaty of Versailles changed the map of Germany.
Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France. The Saar was given to France for 15 years.
West Prussia and Posen were given to Poland. North Schleswig was given to
Denmark. Eupen-Malmedy ceded to Belgium. Germany was to cede the city of
Danzig and its hinterland for the League of Nations to establish the Free City of
Danzig. Memel was to be ceded to the Allied and Associated powers, for disposal
according to their wishes, later given to Lithuania.
What did the Treaty of Versailles state about Danzig and the Rhineland?
Danzig became a free city. Danzig would be under the control of the League of
Nations. Poland could use the port of Danzig for its external trade. The Rhineland
was demilitarized. No German troops or fortifications were allowed in the Rhineland.
The Allies were to keep an army of occupation on the west bank of the Rhine for 15
years.
Describe the economic impact of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany.
Germany lost its productive land such as the Saar. Many Germans became
unemployed when the army was reduced. Blaming Germany meant they must pay
war damages. Germany was forced to pay huge amount in reparations. When
Germany lost her overseas colonies, she lost access to raw material in colonial
territory. Failure to pay reparations led to hyperinflation.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 4
B questions
Explain the reasons why the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were so harsh on
Germany. / Why did the Allies punish Germany harshly in the Treaty of
Versailles?
Germany started the war
France wanted revenge for past attacks
To satisfy public opinion
Germany had punished Russia severely at Brest-Litovsk
Germany had invaded Belgium and France while these two countries were not
involved in the conflict between Austria and Serbia which trigged the outbreak of the
First World War. Much of the war took place in France causing massive damages to
infrastructures and killing thousands of people. Therefore, it was necessary for
Germany to pay reparations to enable countries that were affected by the war to
rebuild their countries.
Germany had attacked France twice, in 1870 and in 1914. Both times France
suffered therefore Clemenceau wanted to weaken Germany so that they will not
have the strength to attack France ever again. Reducing Germany’s armed forces
and the demilitarization of the Rhineland was to protect France from a possible
German attack as it has done in the past.
People lost their loved ones in the war which was started by Germany, so the French
and British people wanted Germany punished and allied leaders were away of that.
Lloyd George had become the British Prime Minister by promising the voters that he
was going to make Germany pay for the suffering during the war. That is why he was
demanding reparations from Germany so that the British government can
compensate war widows and orphans as well as rebuilding the country’s economy.
The treaty of Versailles was less harsh compared to the treaty of Brest-Litovsk in
1917 between Germany and Russia. That was evident to the allied nations that
Germany would have done the same thing to them if they were the one to draft the
terms of the treaty. Germany would have demanded territories and reparations from
allied nations to compensate its loses in the war.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 5
Explain why it was difficult to make a peace settlement which would please
Britain, France and the USA. / Why did Woodrow Wilson and Georges
Clemenceau not get everything they wanted at the peace negotiations at
Versailles? / Why did Clemenceau and Wilson have different aims in the peace
negotiations? / Why were the USA and Britain not very happy with the Treaty
of Versailles? / Explain your answer.
The Big Three had different aims
Clemenceau clashed with Wilson over many issues
Clemenceau and Lloyd George rarely agreed
Wilson and Lloyd George disagreed over self determination
The Big Three came from different countries and had different aims, motives and
objectives which would not all be met. It was a give and take exercise. The Treaty
was to be based on disagreement and compromise. The compromise which was
finally agreed upon did not satisfy them or their followers.
Clemenceau was angered with Wilson’s lenient approach towards Germany. France
lost 1.4 million soldiers during the war and many more were wounded. The USA did
not suffer to the same extent as Britain and France. Clemenceau and Wilson also
had bitter disagreement on the rich mineral areas of Germany such as the Saar and
Rhineland. Although Wilson agreed that Germany had to pay for the destruction
caused by the war, he did not want to put the sole responsibility of the war
reparations on Germany’s shoulders.
Clemenceau also had disagreements with Lloyd George over his more lenient
approach towards Germany. He felt that a strong Germany was a bigger threat to
France and the rest of Europe than to Britain. Clemenceau knew that Lloyd George
was eager to start trading with Germany in order o restore Britain’s economy. Yet
when it suited Britain, Lloyd George wanted Germany’s punishment to be more
severe. He wanted Germany’s colonies to be taken away and its navy destroyed.
Wilson and Lloyd George disagreed on many points. Lloyd George did not agree
with Wilson’s idea that the seas should be open to all countries. Additionally, the
whole idea of self-determination was a problem for Britain, seeing that it had a large
colonial empire across the world at that time. Self-determination was not fully
achieved as many people found themselves as minorities in countries that were
created at the Treaty of Versailles. For example, the newly created independent
state of Czechoslovakia had people of different nationalities such as Germans,
Polish, Hungarians, Czechs and Slovakians. Colonial countries were not consulted
and did not have a say regarding their future.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 6
Explain the reasons why President Wilson was dissatisfied with the Treaty of
Versailles.
Most of his fourteen points were ignored
Self-determination was not well achieved
The US senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles
Wilson was dissatisfied with the Treaty of Versailles because he had hoped for the
peace treaty to be based on his fourteen points and that it would not punish
Germany too harshly. Although Wilson agreed that Germany had to pay for the
destruction caused by the war, he did not want to put the sole responsibility of the
war reparations on Germany’s shoulders. He thought that if Germany were
punished harshly, she would want revenge, and this would make it harder to keep
international peace. But Germany was very harshly punished, and he was unhappy.
He was also disappointed with self-determination was not fully achieved as many
people found themselves as minorities in countries that were created at the Treaty of
Versailles. For example, the newly created independent state of Czechoslovakia had
people of different nationalities such as Germans, Polish, Hungarians, Czechs, and
Slovakians. Colonial countries were not consulted and did not have a say regarding
their future.
Wilson could not convince the US Senate to accept the terms of the Treaty and
Versailles and therefore the USA returned to their policy of isolation. This eventually
prevent the USA from joining the League of Nations, the brainchild of President
Woodrow Wilson and he was devastated.
Why did the Treaty of Versailles cause so much hatred in Germany? Explain your
answer. / Explain why the terms of the Treaty of Versailles caused so much bitterness
in Germany. / Explain how the Treaty of Versailles affected the lives of the German
people between 1919 and 1924. / Why did the Treaty of Versailles cause economic
problems for Germany in the 1920s? Explain your answer. / Explain why Germans
reacted negatively to the Treaty of Versailles. / Why did many Germans dislike the
Treaty of Versailles? / Explain how Germany was weakened by the terms of the Treaty
of Versailles.
The Treaty weakened the economy of Germany
The treaty caused unemployment
The treaty caused hyperinflation
The treaty caused political unrest
Germany lost most of its productive land for example the Saar and overseas
colonies which were rich in terms of raw materials which they could have mined,
process and export to other countries in exchange of other needed commodities.
Due to the loss of this land, the Germans were plunged into poverty and economic
problems.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 7
When Germany’s armed forces were reduced those who served in the army, air
force and navy lost their jobs and they were in hardship and poverty. Some Germans
also lost their jobs as industries that relied on supplies from the land lost by Germany
closed due to lack of raw materials. When Germany failed to pay reparations in 1922
and 1923 France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr industrial area and expelled
hundred thousand workers from the region when they went on strike against the
occupation.
German’s failure to pay reparations in 1922 and 1923 led to France and Belgium to
occupy the Ruhr industrial area to take reparations in the form of raw materials. The
Weimar government ordered its workers to go on a passive resistance (not to work /
strike) so that the French and Belgians would have nothing to take. The strike left
Germany with no goods to trade therefore the government decided to print money to
pay workers and some of their debts. With so much money in circulation, people
realized that it was worthless, prices went up and the German currency lost its value.
This caused hyperinflation in Germany.
The Treaty of Versailles caused various attempts to overthrow the Weimar Republic
for signing the Treaty. In 1920, the Freikorps led by Dr Kapp wanted to take over the
government, but the Weimar republic were saved by Berlin workers who went on
strike to defeat the rebellion. The strike left the city without water, electricity, and
public transport. In 1923, the Nazis under Adolf Hitler wanted to take over the state
of Bavaria in the Munich putsch (rebellion). In both rebellions there were loss of
German lives and this caused greater bitterness towards the Treaty of Versailles.
Explain the reasons why the German people were not happy with the territorial
terms of the Treaty of Versailles.
Germany lost its economic productivity.
The German people were displaced all over.
The Germans find it hard to produce food.
The Germans lost their power/status
Germany lost most of its productive land for example the Saar which were very rich
in terms of raw material which they could have mined, process and export to other
countries in exchange of other needed commodities, but due to the lost of these
land, the Germans were plunged into poverty and economical problems.
When Germany was losing land, Britain and France were gaining. Germany lost land
which was most productive as the result, the Germany economy went down and they
suffered massive unemployment and poverty. Self-determination did not apply to
Germans as many of them found themselves as minorities in territories and colonies
taken away from Germany and they were now ruled by people of those countries
such territories were given to.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 8
Explain why the German people criticized the reparations that Germany had to
pay to the Allied powers.
The reparation amount was too much.
Germany was also weakened by the war.
It caused hyperinflation.
Reparation payments were a lot of money, there was no way Germany would be
able to pay such huge amount of money. After all, its economy was affected by the
war as well and areas where they could make money to pay reparations such as the
Saar and overseas colonies were taken away by the Treaty of Versailles.
Germany felt that they were also coming from the most devastating World War I,
were they lost lots of money through the buying of military equipment and other
military sources. The war was quite expensive on their side, and like any other
country Germany needed to rebuild their country as well and therefore, they were
unable to pay the reparations.
German’s failure to pay reparations in 1922 and 1923 led to France and Belgium to
occupy the Ruhr industrial area to take reparations in the form of raw materials. The
Weimar government ordered its workers to go on a passive resistance (not to work /
strike) so that the French and Belgians would have nothing to take. The strike left
Germany with no goods to trade therefore the government decided to print money to
pay workers and some of their debts. With so much money in circulation, people
realized that it was worthless, prices went up and the German currency lost its value.
This caused hyperinflation in Germany.
Explain the impact on Germany of the occupation of the Ruhr in 1923.
It weakened the economy of Germany
It caused hyperinflation
It caused political unrest
German’s failure to pay reparations in 1922 and 1923 led to France and Belgium to
occupy the Ruhr industrial area to take reparations in the form of raw materials. The
German government ordered the workers to go on strike so that they were not
producing anything for the French to take. The French reacted harshly, killing over
100 workers, and expelling over 100 000 protesters from the region. More
importantly, the strike meant that Germany had no goods to trade and had no money
to buy other goods with.
With no goods to trade and no money to buy other goods, the government decided
to print money to pay workers and some of their debts. With so much money in
circulation, people realized that it was worthless, prices went up and the German
currency lost its value. This caused hyperinflation in Germany.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 9
By November 1923 Hitler believed that the moment had come for him to topple the
Weimar government. The government was preoccupied with the economic crisis.
The passive resistance in the Ruhr was called off. Hitler hijacked a local government
meeting and announced he was taking over the government of Bavaria. The Munich
Putsch was a disaster for Hitler. People did not rise up to support him. Hitler and
other leading Nazis were arrested and charged with treason. However, at the trial
Hitler gained enormous publicity for himself and his ideas, as his every word was
reported in the newspapers.
Explain how the Treaty of Versailles caused political instability in Germany.
There was an attempt for a communist revolution
It led to the Kapp Putsch
It led to the Munich Putsch
Communists created various attempt to take German government, for example, the
communists in Bavaria seized the opportunity to declare a soviet republic in Bavaria
and there was communist agitation in the Ruhr industrial area. In both cases, the
police, army, and the Freikorps joined forces to clash the communists. These
measures created lasting bitterness between the communists and the socialist party.
Despite defeats, the communists remained a powerful anti-government force in
Germany throughout the 1920s.
In 1920 Dr Wolfgang Kapp led 5 000 Freikorps in a rebellion known as the Kapp
Putsch. The army refused to fire on the Freikorps and it looked as if the Weimar
government was doomed. However, it was saved industrial workers of Berlin who
declared a general strike which brought the capital to a halt with no transport, power
and water. After a few days Kapp realised he could not succeed and left the country.
He was hunted down and died while awaiting trial. It seemed that Weimar had
support and power. Even so, the rest of the rebels went unpunished by the courts
and judges.
By November 1923 Hitler believed that the moment had come for him to topple the
Weimar government. The government was preoccupied with the economic crisis.
The passive resistance in the Ruhr was called off. Hitler hijacked a local government
meeting and announced he was taking over the government of Bavaria. The Munich
Putsch was a disaster for Hitler. People did not rise up to support him. Hitler and
other leading Nazis were arrested and charged with treason. However, at the trial
Hitler gained enormous publicity for himself and his ideas, as his every word was
reported in the newspapers.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 10
C questions
To what extent was the Treaty of Versailles fair towards Germany at that time? Explain your
answer. / “The Treaty of Versailles imposed harsh terms on Germany.” How far do you agree
with this statement? Explain your answer. / ‘At the time, the Treaty of Versailles was
justifiable.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. / “Germany was
justified in criticising the Treaty of Versailles.” How far do you agree with this statement?
Explain your answer.
It was fair; Germany had to be held responsible for the war because they turned a
conflict between two countries, Serbia, and Austria into a world war. Russia was not
yet actively involved in the conflict, but Germany declared war on her. Belgium and
France had nothing to do with the conflict between Serbia and Austria, but they were
attacked by Germany.
The First World War caused a lot of destructions especially to France since the war
was mostly fought on French soil. Millions lost their lives and infrastructures were
destroyed; therefore, Germany had to pay reparations to compensate countries that
were affected by the war so that they can rebuild their economies.
It was also fair to reduce Germany’s armed forces because whenever Germany was
strong it attacked other countries as it did to France in 1870 and again in 1914. The
reduction of Germany armed force would prevent Germany from attacking other
countries and prevent another war. It was also fair to return Alsace-Lorraine to
France since Germany seized the two provinces from France in 1870. It was also fair
for colonies to become mandates as they would eventually become independent.
Besides this it was unfair because the blame should have been shared by all
countries that took part in the First World War. Germany felt that they did not start
neither did they lose the war because they simply honoured an alliance they had with
Austria as Russia was threatening to attack Austria since Russia had an alliance with
Serbia, who was at conflict with Austria. Germany stopped fighting by signing an
armistice; therefore, they should have been invited at the peace conference to
overlook the agreement.
Reparation payments were a lot of money, there was no way Germany would be
able to pay such huge amount of money. After all, its economy was affected by the
war as well and areas where they could make money to pay reparations such as the
Saar and overseas colonies were taken away by the Treaty of Versailles. German’s
failure to pay reparations in 1922 and 1923 led to France and Belgium to occupy the
Ruhr industrial area to take reparations in the form of raw materials. The Weimar
government ordered its workers to go on a passive resistance (not to work / strike)
so that the French and Belgians would have nothing to take. The strike left Germany
with no goods to trade therefore the government decided to print money to pay
workers and some of their debts. With so much money in circulation, people realized
that it was worthless, prices went up and the German currency lost its value. This
caused hyperinflation in Germany.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 11
The German army was their pride. An army of 100 000 men was not enough for the
country of the size of Germany. With such an army, Germany could not defend
herself if attacked by any country including smaller weaker countries. Thousands of
Germans who served in the army lost their jobs when the army was reduced and that
caused higher unemployment and poverty in Germany.
When Germany was losing land, Britain and France were gaining. Germany lost land
which was most productive as the result, the Germany economy went down, and
they suffered massive unemployment and poverty. Self-determination did not apply
to Germans as many of them found themselves as minorities in territories and
colonies taken away from Germany and they were now ruled by people of those
countries such territories were given to.
“The most important reason the Germans hated or resented the Treaty of
Versailles was that it was a “diktat or dictated peace.” How far do you agree
with this statement? Explain your answer.
I agree because the blame should have been shared by all countries that took part in
the First World War. Germany felt that they did not start neither did they lose the war
because they simply honoured an alliance they had with Austria as Russia was
threatening to attack Austria since Russia had an alliance with Serbia, who was at
conflict with Austria. Germany stopped fighting by signing an armistice; therefore,
they should have been invited at the peace conference to overlook the agreement.
On the other hand, I disagree because Germans also hated the reduction of their
army because the German army was their pride. An army of 100 000 men was not
enough for the country of the size of Germany. With such an army, Germany could
not defend herself if attacked by any country including smaller weaker countries.
Thousands of Germans who served in the army lost their jobs when the army was
reduced and that caused higher unemployment and poverty in Germany.
They also hated reparation payments because Reparation payments were a lot of
money, there was no way Germany would be able to pay such huge amount of
money. After all, its economy was affected by the war as well and areas where they
could make money to pay reparations such as the Saar and overseas colonies were
taken away by the Treaty of Versailles. German’s failure to pay reparations in 1922
and 1923 led to France and Belgium to occupy the Ruhr industrial area to take
reparations in the form of raw materials. The Weimar government ordered its
workers to go on a passive resistance (not to work / strike) so that the French and
Belgians would have nothing to take. The strike left Germany with no goods to trade
therefore the government decided to print money to pay workers and some of their
debts. With so much money in circulation, people realized that it was worthless,
prices went up and the German currency lost its value. This caused hyperinflation in
Germany.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 12
“The military restrictions on Germany were the main reason why the Germans
thought the Treaty of Versailles was not fair.” How far do you agree with this
statement? Explain your answer.
I agree because the German army was their pride. An army of 100 000 men was not
enough for the country of the size of Germany. With such an army, Germany could
not defend herself if attacked by any country including smaller weaker countries.
Thousands of Germans who served in the army lost their jobs when the army was
reduced and that caused higher unemployment and poverty in Germany.
However, they also hated reparation payments because Reparation payments were
a lot of money, there was no way Germany would be able to pay such huge amount
of money. After all, its economy was affected by the war as well and areas where
they could make money to pay reparations such as the Saar and overseas colonies
were taken away by the Treaty of Versailles. German’s failure to pay reparations in
1922 and 1923 led to France and Belgium to occupy the Ruhr industrial area to take
reparations in the form of raw materials. The Weimar government ordered its
workers to go on a passive resistance (not to work / strike) so that the French and
Belgians would have nothing to take. The strike left Germany with no goods to trade
therefore the government decided to print money to pay workers and some of their
debts. With so much money in circulation, people realized that it was worthless,
prices went up and the German currency lost its value. This caused hyperinflation in
Germany.
They were also not happy with the loss of land because When Germany was losing
land, Britain and France were gaining. Germany lost land which was most productive
as the result, the Germany economy went down, and they suffered massive
unemployment and poverty. Self-determination did not apply to Germans as many of
them found themselves as minorities in territories and colonies taken away from
Germany and they were now ruled by people of those countries such territories were
given to.
To what extent were Britain, France and the United States satisfied with the
Terms of the Treaty of Versailles? Explain your answer. / “The Big Three
achieved everything that they wanted at the peace negotiations after World
War I.” How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. / ‘Both
George Clemenceau and Lloyd George were satisfied with the terms of the
Treaty of Versailles.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your
answer.
Clemenceau and Lloyd George were satisfied that they would earn reparations as
well as new territories. These would help them to rebuild their economies that were
destroyed by the First World War. The French were also happy with the fact that
Germany was weakened so much by taking away its armaments as it made them
feel protected against a traditional enemy. Britain gained the overseas colonies as
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 13
mandates and could thus secure its supremacy at sea and protect its huge empire.
Wilson was also satisfied that the League of Nations was included in the Treaty of
Versailles as they had hoped this organisation would maintain world peace.
However, the Big Three were not satisfied as it was a give and take exercise. The
compromise which was finally agreed upon did not satisfy them or their followers.
Clemenceau’s attempt to take revenge failed largely especially because Wilson
prevented it. Clemenceau wanted full control over the Rhine and the Saar, but
Wilson limited his claims. The French people felt that Clemenceau did not do enough
at the Treaty of Versailles to punish Germany; therefore, they voted him out as Prime
Minister in the next elections.
Most of Wilson’s fourteen points were ignored. Wilson felt disappointed that
Germany was punished harshly, and he feared that Germany would one day recover
and seek revenge. Self-determination was not fully achieved as many people found
themselves as minorities in countries that were created at the Treaty of Versailles.
For example, the newly created independent state of Czechoslovakia had people of
different nationalities such as Germans, Polish, Hungarians, Czechs, and
Slovakians. Colonial countries were not consulted and did not have a say regarding
their future.
Lloyd George soon realised that the Treaty of Versailles was a mistake as it
punished Germany harshly. Just as Wilson, he also felt Germany would seek
revenge in the future. He felt reparations were far too much and would create trouble
for the future. He knew that Germany was unable to pay because of its weak
financial situation. Shortly after the Treaty of Versailles was signed, Lloyd George
said that the treaty was harsh and if he was a German, he would not have signed it.
“Wilson was more satisfied than Clemenceau with the results of the peace
negotiations.” How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
I agree with the statement, Wilson was more satisfied because he got some of his 14
points adopted at the Treaty of Versailles such as the idea of setting up an
association of nations better known as the League of Nations. He believed that this
organisation would help maintain peace worldwide as member state would
cooperate and work together to solve disputes that threatens peace. He was also
satisfied new states were created which ended Austro-Hungarian, German and
Russian Empires giving people of those nations to govern themselves rather than a
foreign rule which always caused conflicts.
Besides this, it is Clemenceau who was more satisfied at the Treat of Versailles
because France would receive reparations from Germany. The First World War
caused a lot of destructions especially to France since the war was mostly fought on
French soil. Millions lost their lives and infrastructures were destroyed; therefore,
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 14
Germany had to pay reparations to compensate countries that were affected by the
war so that they can rebuild their economies.
Germany had attacked France twice in the past 50 years, in 1870 and again in 1914.
The reduction of Germany armed force would prevent Germany from attacking other
countries and prevent another war. Taking away Germany’s armament as well as the
demilitarisation of the Rhineland made Clemenceau and the entire French
community to feel protected against a traditional enemy.
“France was more keen than Britain to punish Germany after the First World
War.” How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
I disagree with the statement; it was Britain who was keener to punish Germany
because Britain started the war. Britain fought alongside France as allies in the First
World War. London was bombed several causing damages to infrastructure and
thousands lost their lives. Therefore, Germany was not allowed to have an air force.
Their submarines were melted, and the navy was reduced to 36 battleships since
they threatened the British empire.
None the less it was France who was keener to punish Germany because France
had been an economic disaster since most of the fighting had been on French soil
with massive destruction of farmland, factories, railways, roads and homes. It was for
this reason that France wanted Germany to pay heavy reparations, to rebuild its
economy and country.
Germany had attacked France twice, in 1870 and in 1914. Both times France
suffered therefore Clemenceau wanted to weaken Germany so that they will not
have the strength to attack France ever again. Reducing Germany’s armed forces
and the demilitarization of the Rhineland was to protect France from a possible
German attack as it has done in the past.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 15
The League of Nations
A questions
What were the aims of the League of Nations?
Discourage aggression from any nation / to prevent war. To solve disputes between
member states. To encourage nations to disarm. To encourage nations to cooperate especially in business and trade. To improve the living condition of people
worldwide. To protect the independence of countries and safeguard their borders. To
uphold the terms of the peace treaties
Describe ways in which the League of Nations hopped to prevent future wars
from taking place.
Through the Covenant of the League of Nations - These were principles Leagues
members agreed to follow. Through Collective Security - League members could
work together e.g. an attack on one-member state is an attack to all. By Arbitration
- The League could offer to solve disputes between countries peacefully. By Moral
Condemnation - They could decide which country was the aggressor and tell it to
stop what it was doing. By imposing economic sanctions - Members of the
League could refuse to trade with the aggressor. By use of military force - The
armed forces of member countries could be used against an aggressor.
What did the members of the League of Nations mean by the term Collective
Security?
League members could work together. An attack on one-member state is an attack
to all. Member states to abide to the decision of the League of Nations. All members
states to support sanctions imposed by the League of Nations. Member states to
provide the League of Nations with armed forces when required.
Describe the organization of the League of Nations. / Describe the structure of
the League of Nations.
The Assembly - Every member state sent a representative to the Assembly. The
Council - met more often, usually about five times a year and in case of emergency.
The Secretariat - was a sort of civil service of the League of Nations. The
International Labour Organisation (ILO) - brought together employers,
governments, and worker’s representatives once a year. The Permanent Court of
International Justice - It was made up of judges from the member countries.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 16
Briefly describe the work of the assembly of the League of Nations.
Every member state sent a representative to the Assembly. Each member state had
one vote. The Assembly only met once a year in September. Decisions made by the
Assembly had to be agreed by all members of the Assembly. The Assembly could
recommend action to the Council. Admitting new members to the League. Appointing
temporal members of the council
Describe the responsibilities of the Council of the League of Nations.
The Council met more often, usually about five times a year and in case of
emergency. The Council had permanent members (Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and
Germany). The Council also had temporal members elected by the Assembly for
three-year periods. Each of the permanent members of the Council had a VETO
rights. This meant that one permanent member could stop the Council acting even if
all other members agreed. The Council could condemn, impose economic sanctions,
and use military force against the aggressor.
Describe the work of the Secretariat of the League of Nations.
The Secretariat was a sort of civil service of the League of Nations. It kept records of
League meetings. Prepared reports for the different agencies of the League of
Nations. The Secretariat had specialist sections covering areas such as health,
disarmament, and economic matters. The Secretariat was headed by a Secretary
General. Made sure that decisions of the League of Nations are carried on.
Describe the work of the International Labour Organization (ILO).
The ILO brought together employers, governments, and worker’s representatives
once a year. Its aim was to improve working conditions throughout the world. It
collected statistics and information about working conditions. To persuade member
countries to adopt its suggestions. To stop child labour.
Describe the work of the Permanent Court of International Justice.
The Court was based at The Hague in the Netherlands. It was made up of judges
from the member countries. The Court was to settle disputes between countries
peacefully. If asked, the Court would give a decision on a border dispute between
two countries. It also gave legal advice to the Assembly or Council.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 17
Describe the work of the agencies of the League of Nations in working towards
a better world.
The Mandates Commission - made sure that Britain and France acted in the
interests of the people of the mandated territories, not in its own interests. The
Health Committee - attempted to deal with the problem of dangerous diseases and
to educate people about health and sanitation. The Refugees Committee - helped
to return refugees to their original homes after the end of the First World War. The
Slavery Commission - worked to abolish slavery around the world. The
Disarmament Commission - encouraged nations to get rid of their weapons and
reduce the number of soldiers.
Briefly describe the work of any two specialized agencies of the League of
Nations.
Health Committee - attempted to deal with the problem of dangerous diseases. To
send doctors and nurses to affected areas. To educate people about health and
sanitation. The Refugees Committee - helped to return refugees to their original
homes after the end of the First World War. Provided humanitarian aid to refugees.
Briefly describe the successes of the League of Nations in the 1920s.
The League solved the dispute over Aaland Island between Sweden and Finland.
The League solved dispute between Germany and Poland over Upper Silesia. The
League also solved the dispute over Memel between Germany and Lithuania. The
League stopped the was between Greece and Bulgaria. The League improved the
health conditions worldwide by sending doctors and nurses and distribution of
medicines to affected areas. The League helped refugees who were affected by the
First World War as well as with the resettlement of refugees back to their home
countries. In 1922, the League helped Austria with a loan of 20 million dollars to
recover its economic position.
Briefly describe the successes of the League of Nations in solving disputes
between member states during the 1920s.
Disputes over the Aaland Island between Sweden and Finland in 1921. Both
countries wanted control the Aaland Island because it lies between the two
countries. The League decided that Finland should administer the Island and the
interests of the Swedish inhabitants on the island would be protected by the League.
Both countries accepted.
Dispute over Upper Silesia between Germany and Poland in 1921. Upper Silesia
had rich natural resources and a mixed German and Polish population. The League
ruled that Upper Silesia should be divided between the two countries. The League
would treat Upper Silesia as an economic unit and supervise its interest for the next
fifteen years.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 18
Dispute over Memel between Germany and Lithuania in 1921. The terms of the
Treaty of Versailles put Memel under the administration of the League while it was
still to be decided whether Memel should become part of Lithuania. Many Germans
also lived there. Lithuania received Memel which became an international zone. War
between Greece and Bulgaria in 1925. Greek soldiers took control of Bulgaria
because a Greek soldier was killed while protecting the border between the two
countries. The League ordered the two countries to stop fighting and found Greece
guilty. Greece paid reparation to Bulgaria.
NB: Any two of the above will score you full marks
Describe the social successes of the League of Nations. / Briefly describe the
successes of the commissions (agencies) of the League of Nations. / Briefly
describe the humanitarian and social successes of the League of Nations.
The League improved the health conditions worldwide by sending doctors and
nurses and distribution of medicines to affected areas. They also educated people
about the dangers of addictive substances like drugs and alcohol. The League
helped refugees who were affected by the First World War as well as with the
resettlement of refugees back to their home countries. In 1922, the League helped
Austria with a loan of 20 million dollars to recover its economic position. A League
commission supervised Austria’s economic and financial affairs. In 1926, the
League’s commission was withdrawn when Austria’s financial position had improved.
The League provided humanitarian aid for Greece in 1923 when they were driven
out of Smyrna by the Turks. Cholera and typhoid broke out, so the League sent
doctors to bring the deadly diseases under control. Refuges were helped by
providing homes for them and ways to help them improve their living conditions. In
1925, the League formed a slavery commission to stop slave trading and slavery of
all kinds including the contract labour system. 400 000 prisoners of war were
repatriated back to their home countries. The League closed four Swizz drug
companies.
NB: Any five points of the above is all you need.
Describe the failures of the League of Nations in the 1920s.
the League failed to deal with the dispute between Lithuania and Poland over Vilna.
A Polish army seized control of Vilna in 1920, and Lithuania appealed to the League
for help. The league asked Poland to withdraw its troops, but Poland ignored them.
The League took no further action and the poles, who were the aggressors, kept
Vilna. The League failed to stop the war between Poland and Russia. The Poles
were not satisfied with the boundary with Russia. They wanted more land in the east
than they were allowed to have. During 1920, the Poles attacked the Russians and
forcefully occupied an area called White Russia. Many Russian soldiers were either
killed or captured. In 1921, the Russian government accepted and signed the Treaty
of Riga. This treaty gave more land to Poland. By refusing to obey the terms of the
Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations, Poland was then able to increase its
size
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 19
Describe the occupation of the Ruhr in 1923-1924.
German’s failure to pay reparations in 1922 and 1923 led to France and Belgium to
occupy the Ruhr industrial area to take reparations in the form of raw materials. The
German government ordered the workers to go on strike so that they were not
producing anything for the French to take. The French reacted harshly, killing over
100 workers, and expelling over 100 000 protesters from the region. More
importantly, the strike meant that Germany had no goods to trade and had no money
to buy other goods with. With no goods to trade and no money to buy other goods,
the government decided to print money to pay workers and some of their debts. With
so much money in circulation, people realized that it was worthless, prices went up
and the German currency lost its value. This caused hyperinflation in Germany.
Briefly describe the American attitude towards the League of Nations during
the 1920s.
USA Senate voted against to join the League of Nations. They thought by joining,
their armed forces would be used to fight battles of the League. They also thought
they would spend a lot a money to make the League work. Many Americans were
anti France and Britain and thought the League would be controlled by France and
Britain. The USA returned to the Monroe Doctrine, the policy of isolation.
Briefly describe the ways in which Mussolini contributed to the collapse of
international relations in the 1930s.
Mussolini invaded Ethiopia in 1935. In 1936, he sent Italian troops to fight for the
Nationalists in Spain. He saw an opportunity to test new weapons and military
tactics. He signed the Rome – Berlin Axis with Hitler which brought the two dictators
close together. He also signed a military alliance with Hitler which became known as
the Pact of Steel.
B questions
Explain how the League of Nations worked to improve the conditions of people
worldwide.
Improved health conditions worldwide
Repatriated war refugees
Gave economic assistance to countries in need
Worked to stop slave trade
Through its health committee, The League of Nations was able to improve health
conditions globally by sending doctors and nurses and distributing medicines to
affected areas, e.g. to Russia and Poland that were threatened by the outbreak of
typhus, malaria, cholera and small pox. The League also helped to educate people
about the danger of addictive drugs and other substances. It blacklisted four
German, Dutch, French and Swiz companies which were involved in the illegal drug
trade.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 20
The League provided help to thousands of people left homeless by WWI. Refuges
were helped by providing homes for them and ways to help them improve their living
conditions. The commission of refugees provided many refugees with passports so
that they could find homes in new countries. About 400 000 different refugees were
safely returned to their homelands.
In 1922, the League helped Austria with a loan of 20 million dollars to recover its
economic position. A League commission supervised Austria’s economic and
financial affairs. In 1926, the League’s commission was withdrawn when Austria’s
financial position had improved.
Explain why some major nations were not members of the League of Nations
when it was first set up.
The USA returned to the Monroe Doctrine
Germany was not allowed to join
Russia was not invited to join
The doctrine stated that the USA should not interfere in the affairs of Europe and
vice versa. It was a policy of splendid isolation. The USA felt involving themselves in
the disputes of Europe was expensive and uncalled for. Main Americans felt that
America was not part of Europe and should not get involved on geo-political
grounds. Wilson, the USA president was accused of not being mandated to even
propose the formation of the League of Nations.
Germany was not allowed to join the League at first because France was not willing
to cooperate with its traditional enemy and was afraid Germany would make use of
the opportunity to try and change some of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Many
Germans were against joining the League as it will be an indication that they have
accepted the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.
In 1917, there was a communist revolution in Russia, an economic and political
system not accepted by the West. Britain and France as leading members of the
League feared that if they allow Russia to join, she will influence other countries
mostly smaller nations to turn into communism.
Explain the reasons why the USA did not join the League of Nations.
The USA returned to its Monroe doctrine
The American Senate voted against joining the League
Americans were against joining and were anti French and British
The doctrine stated that the USA should not interfere in the affairs of Europe and
vice versa. It was a policy of splendid isolation. The USA felt involving themselves in
the disputes of Europe was expensive and uncalled for. Main Americans felt that
America was not part of Europe and should not get involved on geo-political
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 21
grounds. Wilson, the USA president was accused of not being mandated to even
propose the formation of the League of Nations.
They felt that American’s involvement in the League would drag the USA into war
and would result in loss of lives to American citizens. They also feared that the USA
would spend a lot of money to make the League work and they would be forced to
provide its armed forces to the League whenever there will be conflict/war between
member states.
Many Americans were also offended by Clemenceau’s insults towards Wilson at the
Versailles conference when he claimed that America did not understand European
politics. Germany immigrants were also not happy with how Germany was harshly
punished at the peace conference. They opposed the USA joining the League as
they felt that the League of Nations would be controlled by Britain and France.
Explain why the League of Nations’ successes were only minor. / Why did the
League of Nations have some successes in the 1920s? Explain your answer. /
Explain why the League of Nations was able to solve some problems in the
1920s. / Explain how the international conflicts of the 1920s differed from
those of the 1930s.
Smaller nations were involved in disputes
Countries were exhausted by WW1 and were not ready for another war
People were happy with the work of the agencies of the League.
Conflicts of the 1920s involved smaller nations who believed and depended on the
League. These countries had faith in the League that it will protect them against
stronger bigger countries. Therefore, they were willing to accept decisions that were
taken by the League.
After the First World War, many nations were economically destroyed and did not
have the money to start a new war again. They also still remembered the horrors
and destruction of WWI and there was a general idealism were people wanted to
make a new and better world. In Britain and France there was enthusiasm for the
League for example there were days and rallies celebrating the League of Nations.
The many social successes of the League were the cause for enthusiasm amongst
many people. Small countries also supported the League because they hoped the
League would protect them against aggression of bigger strong countries. The
League was also helped by international agreements that were signed in the 1920s
such as the Locarno Treaty of 1925 Germany agreed to work together with France.
This platform allowed Germany to join the League. The Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928
countries agreed not to use force but to solve disputes by using an arbitrator (third
part).
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 22
Explain why the League of Nations failed in the 1930s.
The absence of the superpowers
The league did not have any army
The League was weakened by the Great Depression
Britain and France looked at their own interest
The Treaty of Versailles
The absence of the superpowers was responsible, that the league was powerless to
oppose strong countries like Japan and Italy, when they invaded Manchuria and
Abyssinia respectively. It was expected of the USA / superpowers to be the leading
member of the League, but the. Without the USA / superpowers aggressor countries
had nothing to fear in the League. The League sanctions were ineffective as nonLeague members continued to trade with aggressor countries. They were the one
that had an army and resources that would stop aggressor countries.
The league did not have any army to enforce its decisions to allow other countries
like France and Britain to pursue their own ideals, or to prevent Italy and Japan to be
aggressive towards each other. The most loyal members of the League were small
European countries, mostly because they needed international peace to ensure their
survival, but in reality they were too weak and economically dependent, to provide
the league with the power that it needed to ensure peace. The aggressive countries
knew that the League would not be able to take military action so they refused to
adhere to the League’s requests. The League was seen as a watchdog without
teeth. The bigger countries like the USA and Russia were not part of the League to
enforce its decisions.
The League was weakened by the Great Depression at a time of economic crisis;
governments were focused on their own problems rather than what happened in far
away countries, like when Japan invaded Manchuria and Italy, invaded Abyssinia.
The League lacked teeth because France and Britain were more interested in their
domestic affairs, rather than the League’s affairs concerning collective security that
caused the League not to make powerful countries obey its rulings.
The Depression made countries in the world struggle economically. Countries like
Japan which depended on import and export were mostly affected. Because they did
not have a lot of minerals, occupying territories like Manchuria seemed to be the only
option to save their country’s economy. If it was not for the Depression, they could
have continued in the way that they did by buying minerals from China.
Britain and France could not always agree, because they didn’t trust each other and
often disagreed how the League should work. The two biggest members of the
League were too busy with their own internal affairs and they also stabbed the
League in the back by signing the Hoare Laval Pact with Italy in secret, while Italy
was the aggressor during their invasion of Abyssinia. The Covenant of the League
gave it the right to impose sanctions on any aggressor, but the main problem was
that the league could only ask its members to impose sanctions on an aggressor.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 23
They had no power to force them to do so. Britain and France as leading member
were not willing to provide their armed forces to fight aggressors.
The Treaty of Versailles, countries like Germany, Italy, Japan and others were
dissatisfied about the peace agreements made at the end of the First World War
because they felt that they were unfairly treated, they believed that the League
existed to support the arrangements made in the peace settlements, which they
wanted to change.
Explain how the structure of the League of Nations contributed to its failures.
Absence of superpowers
It was difficult for League members to agree to decisions.
Lack of authority to enforce decisions
The USA was never a member. Germany was not a member until 1926 and left in
1933. The USSR did not join until 1934, whilst Japan left in 1933 and Italy left in
1937. Without these major powers, the League lacked authority and sanctions were
not effective as the countries could not support the League’ sanctions and could
continue trading with aggressor countries.
Any decision that was to be taken by Assembly had to be agreed by all members of
the League of Nations. Often it was hard to get all members to agree to a decision or
decisions were delayed. Permanent members of the Council had veto rights which
meant that if any of them was not happy with a decision they had the power to
disapprove such a decision.
The League of Nations did not have the power to force countries to follow its
decision e.g. The Permanent Court of Justice had no way of making sure that
countries followed its rulings. The League could impose sanctions but had no power
to make sure that countries complied with these sanctions and they could not make
non-members to follow such sanctions. All this was attributed to lack of armed
forces.
Explain how the Great Depression made the work of the League of Nations
more difficult during the 1930s.
It led to an increase in aggressive nationalism.
The USA could not support sanctions of the League.
Britain and France looked at their own interest.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 24
The depression had hit Japan and Italy badly and their economies were in crisis. The
situation encourage the two countries to follow aggressive nationalism which
resulted in Japan and Italy invading Manchuria and Abyssinia respectively to solve
their economic problems. In Germany, unemployment and poverty led people to
elect the Nazis into power, who promised to solve economic and social problems by
reversing the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.
Almost every country traded with the USA and since they were not a member of the
League, they would not support the League’s sanction as their economy was in such
a mess. For example when Japan invaded Manchuria it was difficult for the League
of Nations to impose sanctions because they were aware that the USA were Japan’s
number one trading partner, they would not support them as the were not a member
of the League of Nations.
Britain was not willing to get involved in sorting out international disputes while its
own economy was suffering. France became worried of the changing situation in
Germany and began building series of frontier defences on its border with Germany.
Sanctions imposed against Italy when it invaded Abyssinia were not effective
because they did not include oil. Britain and France owned the Suez Canal that
supplied oil to Italy. Closing the canal would have devastating effect on their
economy, about 30 000 people losing their jobs.
Why was the Japanese invasion of Manchuria a difficult problem for the
League of Nations to deal with? Explain your answer. / Explain why the League
of Nations did little when Japan invaded Manchuria 1931. / Explain how the
development of militarism in Japan weakened the work of the League of
Nations.
The League took too long to condemn Japan.
League members could not agree on sanctions to impose against Japan.
The League did not have an army.
A League’s commission of enquiries was sent to investigate who was the aggressor
between Japan and China since the former claimed it was protecting its railway line
in Manchuria, which was sabotaged, and they blamed China. The Lord Lytton
commission report was published almost a year later and condemned Japan of her
actions. By that time Japan had already completed its invasion. The League of
Nations ordered Japan to Withdraw from Manchuria, but Japan ignored, withdraws
from the League of Nation, and continued its assault on China.
Britain and Japan were trading partners and their economy was also affected by the
depression. Britain was afraid that other countries like Germany will trade with Japan
at her expense. League members could not force the USA to support sanctions as
they were not a member of the League and they were Japan’s number one trading
partner.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 25
The use of military force could not work as the League lacked its own army. Britain
and France were not willing to risk war against Japan, who was a superpower by
then. British people claimed it was a far-off affair which could not affect Europe. The
League members concentrated on rebuilding their economies which was affected by
the First World War and the great depression rather than spending money on armed
forces.
Explain the reasons why the League of Nations did not act against Mussolini when
Italy invaded Abyssinia? / Why did the League of Nations fail to deal with the Italian
invasion of Abyssinia effectively? Explain your answer. / Explain why the League of
Nations failed to give effective help to Abyssinia during the Italian invasion.
The League was reluctant to act.
Sanctions were ineffective.
Britain and France looked at their own interest.
The League did not have an army.
This time around it was clear for the League of Nations, Italy was the aggressor.
Britain and France failed to take the situation seriously. They played for time since
they were desperate to keep good relations with Mussolini, who seemed to be their
strongest ally against Hitler. They condemned Mussolini’s action but failed to force
him out of Abyssinia.
Britain and France were unwilling to take strong measures because they were
frightened that if they imposed full sanctions it would lead to war with Italy and they
were not ready for war. Britain and France did not want to upset Mussolini as this
might drive him to ally with Hitler and Germany. So, the economic sanctions the
League imposed did not include oil, coal and iron which could have ended the
Abyssinian campaign very quickly. Despites sanctions that were imposed on Italy,
Non-League members, the USA and Germany continued to trade with Italy. Later,
League members voted to remove existing sanctions.
Behind the scenes, the foreign ministers of Britain and France, Hoare and Laval
drew up an agreement to allow Mussolini to annex large parts (about two-third) of
Abyssinia in an attempt for Mussolini to call off the invasion. Details of the HoareLaval Pact were leaked in the French press and served to undermine the credibility
of the League. Both Hoare and Laval were sacked but the damage was already
done. The League voted to remove existing sanctions against Italy. Mussolini
declared that Ethiopia was part of Italy. Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somaliland were now
united to form a new colony called Italian East Africa under the rule of Mussolini.
The use of military force could not work as the League lacked its own army. Britain
and France were not willing to risk war against Italy. British people claimed it was a
far-off affair which could not affect Europe. The League members concentrated on
rebuilding their economies which was affected by the First World War and the great
depression rather than spending money on armed forces.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 26
Explain why sanctions against Italy during the Abyssinia Crisis were
ineffective.
Sanctions did not include oil.
The League had no army
Members of the League of Nations were also hit by the Great Depression
Britain and France were unwilling to take strong measures because they were
frightened that if they imposed full sanctions it would lead to war with Italy and they
were not ready for war. Britain and France did not want to upset Mussolini as this
might drive him to ally with Hitler and Germany. So, the economic sanctions the
League imposed did not include oil, coal and iron which could have ended the
Abyssinian campaign very quickly. Despites sanctions that were imposed on Italy,
Non-League members, the USA and Germany continued to trade with Italy. Later,
League members voted to remove existing sanctions.
The league did not have any army to enforce its decisions to allow other countries
like France and Britain to pursue their own ideals, or to prevent Italy and Japan to be
aggressive towards each other. The most loyal members of the League were small
European countries, mostly because they needed international peace to ensure their
survival, but in reality they were too weak and economically dependent, to provide
the league with the power that it needed to ensure peace. The aggressive countries
knew that the League would not be able to take military action so they refused to
adhere to the League’s requests. The League was seen as a watchdog without
teeth.
Britain was not willing to get involved in sorting out international disputes while its
own economy was suffering. France became worried of the changing situation in
Germany and began building series of frontier defences on its border with Germany.
Sanctions imposed against Italy when it invaded Abyssinia were not effective
because they did not include oil. Britain and France owned the Suez Canal that
supplied oil to Italy. Closing the canal would have devastating effect on their
economy, about 30 000 people losing their jobs.
Explain why Japan, Italy and Germany became extremely aggressive in the
1930s.
They believed that they had been badly treated in the peace settlement.
they were so dissatisfied with the peace settlement
All three states followed totalitarian systems of government.
All three believed that they had been badly treated in the peace settlement at the
end of the WWI; Germany by the harsh terms imposed by the allies, Japan and Italy
had not been sufficiently rewarded for helping Britain and France to win the war, and
Japan had been also deeply offended by the insulting refusal of the other Allies to
accept it as their racial equal.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 27
Countries like Germany, Italy, Japan and others were dissatisfied about the peace
agreements made at the end of the First World War because they felt that they were
unfairly treated, they believed that the League existed to support the arrangements
made in the peace settlements, which they wanted to change
All three states followed totalitarian systems of government which claim complete
power over every aspects of the lives of its citizens and involved world domination
that is why all these countries started to invade other countries. Japan invaded
Manchuria and other provinces of China, Italy invaded Abyssinia while Germany
conquered Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland which eventually led to the outbreak
of the Second World War.
Explain why Britain and France followed the policy of appeasement in the
1930s? Explain your answer.
They felt the Treaty of Versailles was unfair
They were not ready for war
Their economic problems were a higher priority
At least Hitler was standing up to Communism
Many felt that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany. They assumed that
once these wrongs were put right then Germany would become a peaceful nation
again. E.g. Austrian and Germans were all German speaking people therefore the
treaty was wrong to separate them and they saw nothing wrong in Germany sending
its troops to its frontier when Germany remilitarised the Rhineland. There were about
3.5 million Germans in the Sudetenland and they had every right to be part of
Germany.
The British government believed that their armed forces were not ready for war
against Hitler. It was not all certain that the British Empire and Commonwealth states
like Canada and Australia would support a war against Germany. Britain and her
allies could not face up to Germany without the guarantee of American support as
American leaders were determined not to be dragged into another war. France could
not fight Germany without Britain as they had been defeated twice by Germany in
1870 and 1914. Both British and the French leaders vividly remembered the horrific
experiences of the First World War. They wanted to avoid another war at almost any
cost. Chamberlain needed to buy time in order to rearm Britain and prepare for war
which seemed inevitable by the day.
Britain and France were still suffering from the effects of the depression. They had
large debts and huge unemployment. Many felt that money should not be spent on
buying weapons rather on rebuilding their countries which were not only destroyed
by the First World War but the Great Depression of the 1930s as well.
Hitler was not the only concern of Britain and its allies. He was not even their main
worry. They were more concerned about the spread of communism and particularly
about the dangers to world peace posed by Stalin, the new leader in the USSR.
Many saw Hitler as the buffer to the threat of spreading communism.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 28
C questions
"The League of Nations was more a success than a failure." To what extent do
you agree? Explain your answer. / “The League of Nations was a failure from
the start.” How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. /
“The League of Nations was successful in settling disputes among the smaller
nations during the 1920’s.” How far do you agree with this statement? Explain
your answer. / “The League of Nations was ineffective in resolving conflicts
between nations during the 1920s.” How far do you agree with this statement?
Explain your answer.
It was a failure / I agree, the League failed to deal with the dispute between
Lithuania and Poland over Vilna. A Polish army seized control of Vilna in 1920, and
Lithuania appealed to the League for help. The league asked Poland to withdraw its
troops, but Poland ignored them. The League took no further action and the poles,
who were the aggressors, kept Vilna.
The League failed to stop the war between Poland and Russia. The Poles were not
satisfied with the boundary with Russia. They wanted more land in the east than they
were allowed to have. During 1920, the Poles attacked the Russians and forcefully
occupied an area called White Russia. Many Russian soldiers were either killed or
captured. In 1921, the Russian government accepted and signed the Treaty of Riga.
This treaty gave more land to Poland. By refusing to obey the terms of the Treaty of
Versailles and the League of Nations, Poland was then able to increase its size.
It was a success / I disagree, the League solved the dispute over Aaland Island
between Sweden and Finland. Both countries wanted control the Aaland Island
because it lies between the two countries. The League decided that Finland should
administer the Island and the interests of the Swedish inhabitants on the island
would be protected by the League. Both countries accepted.
The League stopped the war between Greece and Bulgaria. Greek soldiers took
control of Bulgaria because a Greek soldier was killed while protecting the border
between the two countries. The League ordered the two countries to stop fighting
and found Greece guilty. Greece paid reparation to Bulgaria.
‘The main reason why the League of Nations failed was because of its lack of
will to stand up to the major powers.’ How far do you agree with this
statement? Explain your answer.
Countries were often reluctant to act unless their own interests were at stake and
sometimes even acted against the League’s decisions. The Hoare-Laval Pact in
Abyssinia is one such example. The two biggest members of the League were too
busy with their own internal affairs and they also stabbed the League in the back by
signing the Hoare Laval Pact with Italy in secret, while Italy was the aggressor during
their invasion of Abyssinia. The Covenant of the League gave it the right to impose
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 29
sanctions on any aggressor, but the main problem was that the league could only
ask its members to impose sanctions on an aggressor. They had no power to force
them to do so. Britain and France as leading member were not willing to provide their
armed forces to fight aggressors.
Important nations were absent. The USA never joint the League. Germany did not
join until 1926 and left in 1933. Japan left in 1933 and Italy in 1937. The Soviet Union
did not join until 1934 and was expelled in 1939. Without these superpowers the
league was powerless to oppose strong countries like Japan and Italy when they
invaded Manchuria and Abyssinia respectively. It was expected of the superpowers
to be the leading member of the League, but the. Without the superpowers,
aggressor countries had nothing to fear in the League. The League sanctions were
ineffective as non-League members continued to trade with aggressor countries.
They were the one that had an army and resources that would stop aggressor
countries.
The League’s inability to secure disarmament in the 1930s was one of its major
failures. Dictatorships to rearm and to challenge the League were formed and
supported by the people. First to challenge the League were the Japanese in 1931
when they attacked Manchuria. The League failed to persuade one of its permanent
members to end its aggression. The condemnation by the League of Japan’s action
led to Japan’s resignation from the League.
“The United States of America was responsible for the failure of the League of
Nations”. To what extent do you agree with this statement? Explain your
answer.
I agree, USA was responsible, that the league was powerless to oppose strong
countries like Japan and Italy, when they invaded Manchuria and Abyssinia,
respectively. It was expected of the USA to be the leading member of the League,
but the. Without the USA aggressor countries had nothing to fear in the League. The
League sanctions were ineffective as non-League members continued to trade with
aggressor countries. They were the one that had an army and resources that would
stop aggressor countries.
On the other hand I disagree because The league did not have any army to enforce
its decisions to allow other countries like France and Britain to pursue their own
ideals, or to prevent Italy and Japan to be aggressive towards each other. The most
loyal members of the League were small European countries, mostly because they
needed international peace to ensure their survival, but in reality they were too weak
and economically dependent, to provide the league with the power that it needed to
ensure peace. The aggressive countries knew that the League would not be able to
take military action so they refused to adhere to the League’s requests. The League
was seen as a watchdog without teeth.
Britain and France could not always agree, because they didn’t trust each other and
often disagreed how the League should work. The two biggest members of the
League were too busy with their own internal affairs and they also stabbed the
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 30
League in the back by signing the Hoare Laval Pact with Italy in secret, while Italy
was the aggressor during their invasion of Abyssinia. The Covenant of the League
gave it the right to impose sanctions on any aggressor, but the main problem was
that the league could only ask its members to impose sanctions on an aggressor.
They had no power to force them to do so. Britain and France as leading member
were not willing to provide their armed forces to fight aggressors.
“The Great Depression was the most important reason why the League of
Nations failed.” How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your
answer.
I agree with the statement because at a time of economic crisis; governments were
focused on their own problems rather than what happened in far away countries, like
when Japan invaded Manchuria and Italy, invaded Abyssinia. The League lacked
teeth because France and Britain were more interested in their domestic affairs,
rather than the League’s affairs concerning collective security that caused the
League not to make powerful countries obey its rulings.
The Depression made countries in the world struggle economically. Countries like
Japan which depended on import and export were mostly affected. Because they did
not have a lot of minerals, occupying territories like Manchuria seemed to be the only
option to save their country’s economy. If it was not for the Depression they could
have continued in the way that they did by buying minerals from China
Besides this I disagree because USA was responsible, that the league was
powerless to oppose strong countries like Japan and Italy, when they invaded
Manchuria and Abyssinia, respectively. It was expected of the USA to be the leading
member of the League, but the. Without the USA aggressor countries had nothing to
fear in the League. The League sanctions were ineffective as non-League members
continued to trade with aggressor countries. They were the one that had an army
and resources that would stop aggressor countries.
The league did not have any army to enforce its decisions to allow other countries
like France and Britain to pursue their own ideals, or to prevent Italy and Japan to be
aggressive towards each other. The most loyal members of the League were small
European countries, mostly because they needed international peace to ensure their
survival, but in reality they were too weak and economically dependent, to provide
the league with the power that it needed to ensure peace. The aggressive countries
knew that the League would not be able to take military action so they refused to
adhere to the League’s requests. The League was seen as a watchdog without
teeth.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 31
To what extent were Britain and France responsible for the failure of the
League of Nations? Explain your answer.
I agree because Britain and France could not always agree, because they didn’t trust
each other and often disagreed how the League should work. The two biggest
members of the League were too busy with their own internal affairs and they also
stabbed the League in the back by signing the Hoare Laval Pact with Italy in secret,
while Italy was the aggressor during their invasion of Abyssinia. The Covenant of the
League gave it the right to impose sanctions on any aggressor, but the main problem
was that the league could only ask its members to impose sanctions on an
aggressor. They had no power to force them to do so. Britain and France as leading
member were not willing to provide their armed forces to fight aggressors.
On the other hand it was the Italian invasion of Abyssinia because the League failed
to act for fear of rejection by another of its permanent members. The weakness of
Britain and France in dealing with the Abyssinian crisis mirrored the weakness of the
League itself. The failure of the League over Abyssinia destroyed the idea of
Collective Security by demonstrating that League members would not act together
firmly to face aggression.
The Treaty of Versailles, countries like Germany, Italy, Japan and others were
dissatisfied about the peace agreements made at the end of the First World War
because they felt that they were unfairly treated, they believed that the League
existed to support the arrangements made in the peace settlements, which they
wanted to change.
“It was the Abyssinian Crisis that destroyed the League of Nations as an
effective peacekeeping body.” How far do you agree with this statement?
Explain your answer. / How far did the Abyssinian Crisis destroy the League of
Nations as an effective peacekeeping body? Explain your answer.
I agree because the failure of the League over Abyssinia left weak nations
defenseless against aggression by powerful neighbors. Abyssinia was occupied by
foreign powers and abandoned by the League, which resulted in other nations to
realize that they could no longer look to the league for security. The two leading
members Britain and France rather signed the Hoare-Laval Pact with Mussolini
behind the Leagues back to please him. The sanctions impose during the Abyssinian
crisis on Italy was not sufficient because it didn’t include oil which could have stop
the Italian conquest in a week.
Nevertheless, I disagree because USA was responsible, that the league was
powerless to oppose strong countries like Japan and Italy, when they invaded
Manchuria and Abyssinia, respectively. It was expected of the USA to be the leading
member of the League, but the. Without the USA aggressor countries had nothing to
fear in the League. The League sanctions were ineffective as non-League members
continued to trade with aggressor countries. They were the one that had an army
and resources that would stop aggressor countries.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 32
The league did not have any army to enforce its decisions to allow other countries
like France and Britain to pursue their own ideals, or to prevent Italy and Japan to be
aggressive towards each other. The most loyal members of the League were small
European countries, mostly because they needed international peace to ensure their
survival, but in reality they were too weak and economically dependent, to provide
the league with the power that it needed to ensure peace. The aggressive countries
knew that the League would not be able to take military action so they refused to
adhere to the League’s requests. The League was seen as a watchdog without
teeth.
“The failure of the League of Nations was due more to the absence of some of
the major powers than the lack of armed forces.” How far do you agree with
this statement? Explain your answer.
I disagree, it is the lack of armed forces that contributed to the failure of the League
of Nations because the League could not enforce its decisions to allow other
countries like France and Britain to pursue their own ideals, or to prevent Italy and
Japan to be aggressive towards each other. The most loyal members of the League
were small European countries, mostly because they needed international peace to
ensure their survival, but in reality they were too weak and economically dependent,
to provide the league with the power that it needed to ensure peace. The aggressive
countries knew that the League would not be able to take military action, so they
refused to adhere to the League’s requests. The League was seen as a watchdog
without teeth.
On the other hand, I agree with the statement because without the USA, the league
was powerless to oppose strong countries like Japan and Italy, when they invaded
Manchuria and Abyssinia, respectively. It was expected of the USA to be the leading
member of the League, but the. Without the USA aggressor countries had nothing to
fear in the League.
The USA was one of the most powerful and strong country in the world and its
absence affected the League in many different ways. For example, economic
sanctions were useless since the aggressor country could still trade with the USA
and due to the fact, the League did not have an army, these sanctions were their
strongest weapon. Also, when the League was created, everyone thought the USA
was going to be a member of it and when they did not join, other leading member felt
at a loss since they count with their presence. After that, the League lost a lot of
prestige, without United States it did not seem mighty.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 33
“The behaviour of Britain and France was more important than the Depression
in causing the failure of the League of Nations in the 1930s.” How far do you
agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
I agree because Britain and France could not always agree, because they didn’t trust
each other and often disagreed how the League should work. The two biggest
members of the League were too busy with their own internal affairs and they also
stabbed the League in the back by signing the Hoare Laval Pact with Italy in secret,
while Italy was the aggressor during their invasion of Abyssinia. The Covenant of the
League gave it the right to impose sanctions on any aggressor, but the main problem
was that the league could only ask its members to impose sanctions on an
aggressor. They had no power to force them to do so. Britain and France as leading
member were not willing to provide their armed forces to fight aggressors.
on the other hand I disagree because the League was weakened by the Great
Depression at a time of economic crisis; governments were focused on their own
problems rather than what happened in far away countries, like when Japan invaded
Manchuria and Italy, invaded Abyssinia. The League lacked teeth because France
and Britain were more interested in their domestic affairs, rather than the League’s
affairs concerning collective security that caused the League not to make powerful
countries obey its rulings.
The Depression made countries in the world struggle economically. Countries like
Japan which depended on import and export were mostly affected. Because they did
not have a lot of minerals, occupying territories like Manchuria seemed to be the only
option to save their country’s economy. If it was not for the Depression, they could
have continued in the way that they did by buying minerals from China.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 34
Namibia under German colonization
A questions
Briefly describe the role of the missionaries in Namibia during the 1880s.
To explore new areas for expanding their religious activities. To spread European
religion and culture. Converted Namibian people to Christianity. They introduced
education. Taught Namibians how to read and write. Constructed churches and
schools.
Describe the role of Adolf Luderitz in the German colonization of Namibia. /
Describe the German occupation of South West Africa by 1904. / Describe how
German rule was established in Namibia during the 1880s. / Describe how
Namibia was colonized by Germany. / Describe the German colonization of
Namibia up to 1900.
Adolf Lϋderitz sent his agent Heinrich Vogelsang to buy land for him. Vogelsang
bought land around Angra Pequena from the Nama chief of Bethanie, Joseph
Fredrich. Lϋderitz established a trading post at Angra Pequena and continued to buy
more land. Lϋderitz convinced the German chancellor, Bismarck to declare
protectorate over the area he had bought. Germany flag was hoisted at Angra
Pequena and other parts to show that this land belonged to Germany.
Describe the protection treaties between the Germans and the Namibians at
the end of the 19th century. / Describe the German “protection treaties.”
Chiefs promised not to make any treaties with other European nations. Not to let
citizens of any other nation use the land unless the German government allowed it.
To protect the life and properties of Germans on their territory. To allow these
Germans to carry on trade. To leave jurisdiction over all Europeans to the German
authorities. Germans promised to give protection to the chiefs and his community. To
recognize the chief’s jurisdiction over his own people. To respect the customs and
tradition of the Africans.
Describe the policy of “Divide and Rule” as applied by the Germans.
Leutwein wanted to divide the Namibian people so that it would be easier for
Germany to rule them. To make it difficult for different tribes to unite and fight against
them (Germans). It also aimed at fostering distrust and enmity between local rulers.
Aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the sovereign.
Reserves were created for locals and Germans occupied the Police Zone.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 35
Briefly describe how German colonial rule destroyed the self government of
the indigenous people.
Germans persuaded indigenous leaders to sign Protection Treaties and put
themselves under the so called German Protection. They removed chiefs who
refused to sign and replaced them with those who were prepared to cooperate.
Chiefs who resisted were simply executed. They disregarded the laws and customs
of the people by introducing their own repressive laws. Natives were put in reserves
while half of Namibia was proclaimed the Police Zone and put under direct control.
Through violent suppression of resistance, Germans were able to get rid of the most
powerful leaders such as Hendrik Witbooi, Jacob Marengo and Samuel Maharero by
killing them or forcing them into exile. The policy of Divide and Rule made unity
impossible and caused further division.
Describe the living conditions of the Namibians under the German colonial
rule.
Namibian farm workers were badly treated. Workers were beaten injured and even
killed. Colonial Police sided with the colonial farmers. Workers badly / lowly paid / not
enough money to buy basic necessities. Workers were subjected to minimum food
rations and as a result farm workers resorted to steal cattle and hunting wild animals.
Describe the relationship between the Namibian societies and the Germans. /
Describe the relationship between the Namibians and the German settlers,
hunters and traders in the period 1884 - 1915.
Hunters and traders were interested in making money, while missionaries wanted to
covert people to Christianity. A trade relation develop between the Namibian
Societies and the Germans, as the local people realized that they could buy useful
household goods such as buckets and tools also sell cattle, food and other
produced goods to the traders. Some people became wealthier. Various Namibian
Societies lost land, which led to wars in the country between the Germans and
various different groups. Protection treaties were signed, the treaty did have the
effect of stabilising the situation, but pockets of the rebellion persisted, and real
peace was never achieved.
Describe ways in which the local people resisted German colonial occupation.
Some chiefs like Kaptein Hendrick Witbooi refused to sign protection treaties with the
Germans. Some chiefs e.g. Maharero who had earrlier singed, decided to cancel
these treaties. Some chiefs e.g Kahimemua refused to make their land available to
the Germans. Chiefs such as Hendrick Witbooi wrote letters to other leaders telling
them not to sign treaties or give land to the Germans. Some refused to see the
Germans e.g. Kambonde rejected Leutwein’s request to visit him in the north.
Workers organised strikes, go-slow and escaped from work. The last resort was to
take up arms against the Germans.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 36
Briefly describe the impact of colonial rule on the Namibian people.
Namibian people were left without land for grazing their animals. They ended up
without rights and freedoms in their own country. They were divided into ethnic
groups. Many were beaten, wounded, arrested or killed. They were forced to
become cheap labourers. Families / marriages broke up because of the contract
labour system.
Namibians were provided with jobs. They were provided with education. They were
converted to Christianity. Namibia received infrastructural development. Germans
discovered some minerals. They traded with locals.
Briefly describe the Herero wars of 1904-1907.
By 1900 German colonial rule in Namibia was oppressive and cruel as colonial
authorities took away people's land and cattle and crushed any attempts at
opposition or resistance. In 1903, construction of the railway line to Otavi began.
This went straight through the heartland of the Herero's. The Hereros started
resisting as the situation had become unbearable. On the 12th of January, the
Hereros took up arms against the Germans and the war of National Resistance
began. Several battles took place and at Waterberg the Herero's were trapped. The
Herero nation fled through a gap in the German lines, eastward. The Germans then
pushed them into the vast waterless expanses of the Omaheke desert. Over the next
few weeks the fleeing Herero's died in unknown numbers from thirst. During the
Herero Genocide more than 40 000 Herero's were killed.
Describe the Herero genocide in 1904.
Von Trotha issued an extermination order to kill all Hereros, women or children, with
or without weapons. He did not allow anyone to surrender. Some Hereros including
Samuel Maharero fled through the Omaheke towards Botswana. Thousands died
during the journey through the desert as there was no water. It is estimated about 75
– 80% of the Hereros and Namas had die. Many were taken prison and sent to a
concentration camp on Shark Island in Luderitz bay.
Describe the Native Regulations of 1907 during the German colonial
administration.
In 1907, a number of so called Native Regulations came into effect in the areas
under white administration. All Africans were banned from owning land, cattle or
horses without permission from the German governor. All Africans over the age of
eight were forced to carry identity passes. These had to be shown if the police or any
white man asked to see them. All Africans over 14 years of age had to carry a book
or a contract according to the Master and Servants Ordinance.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 37
B questions
Explain the reasons why the Germans wanted to colonize Namibia. / Explain
the reasons why Namibia was occupied by Germany.
The Rhenish Missionaries wanted protection
To explore the territory for mineral wealth
To trade with the indigenous people
They wanted land
The Rhenish missionaries lived among Namibian communities, but their lives were
often under threat due to ongoing war and conflict between the Hereros and the
Namas. They called for colonial administration that would eventually end these wars
and they would continue with their religious activities. They first requested this
protection from the Cape Colony then to the German government.
Business people (merchants) in Germany started to pressurize the German
government to show more interest in colonies as other European countries such as
Britain and France were benefiting much while Germany was left behind. Colonialism
would enable them to have concessions to mineral wealthy of the territory.
With colonies they would gain opportunities like trading with locals and have access
to raw materials and valuable mineral such as diamond, gold etc. which could
improve Germany industries. It would also open up a new market for their products.
Germany was after land to resettle the poor Germans/war victims (Franco-Prussian
war) as well as land for agriculture, farming, to produce and be exported to German
markets. With the establishment of the German empire there was a demand that
Germany should have its own colonies and thereby became recognized as a colonial
power.
Explain why the traditional leaders in Namibia were unwilling to sell land to the
Germans in the 1880s?
It was a symbol of livelihood
They feared colonialism
The land indicated informal political powers
The land belongs to the king
It was their identity, heritage, and status
The traditional leaders were not eager to sell the land because it was their symbol of
livelihood, where they could cultivate and produce food to feed their families and by
selling it, they will be disposed and will not be able to produce food for the
sustainability of their people. it is also where they grazed their cattle. Selling their
land to the Germans will their animals with no areas to graze which could results in
many of them dying.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 38
The land indicated informal political powers; it was their identity, heritage and status.
Selling their land would mean losing their power as they would find themselves
under Germany administration. The Oorlam communities remembered the arrival of
the British in the Cape Colony leaving them with no land thus forcing them to migrate
north and beyond the Orange River into present day Namibia.
Why did the Germans find it difficult to take control of Namibia after 1890? / Why did
the Germans not set up a proper administration in Namibia until 1890? Explain your
answer.
German government's hands-off policy was not working.
Missionaries felt threatened by continued fighting between Namas and Hereros.
Colonial companies failed to carry out their duties successfully.
Indigenous groups refused to accept German rule.
At first the German government practised a hands-off policy with regard to Namibia.
They did not want to spend money on colonizing the territory itself. They left the
control of the colony in the hands of colonial companies, but by 1890 it was obvious
that companies lacked resources to recruit settlers and place them on farms. Hence,
government intervention was needed.
Missionaries felt constantly threatened by the continued fighting between the Namas
and the Hereros. Witbooi's constant raids on the Herero people hindered their
mission activities. They argued that, if tribal conflicts were to be stopped and
indigenous people were to be finally subdued, it would be easier for them to spread
Christianity.
Explain why the German administration created reserves for the indigenous people. / Explain
why the Police Zone was established in 1911.
To control the movement of various groups
To prevent groups from fighting one another
To separate blacks from whites (divide and rule)
Germans wanted to control the movement of indigenous people by confining them to
reserves. They could not leave these places without identity passes. The Germans
would have complete power over mining and other commercial activities that were
carried out in white areas only.
Reserves could be simply used as a German reservoir for cheap labour. White
settlers, traders and missionaries found it extremely hard to carry out their duties
because of the constant fighting between various native groups. Confining them in
reserves meant that peace could be established and the economy would grow.
Germans would exploit resources without any interference.
Germans believed that it would be easier to control Namibians if they were to leave
in reserves. Namibians would not unite and develop a sense of solidarity in opposing
Germany administration. At the same time it would allow the Germans to be in
control of the economic heartland of the territory i.e. areas that had good fertile land
for agricultural purposes, areas rich in mineral deposits.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 39
Explain why the German colonial rulers confiscated Namibian land and forced
Namibians into reserves.
They wanted land for settlement.
For power to rule and control the Namibian people.
They wanted labourers.
Germans did not want to live together with Namibians.
The Germans also needed land for agricultural production.
Land was also important to them to get natural resources.
Because of the population increase in Europe and Germany in particular, the
Germans were in need of land to settle. Therefore, in Namibia, the Germans
occupied the land in many ways and forced the Namibians into reserves for them to
settle there, mostly those involved in Germany Prussia war.
Germans believed that it would be easier to control Namibians if they were to leave
in reserves. Namibians would not unite and develop a sense of solidarity in opposing
Germany administration. At the same time it would allow the Germans to be in
control of the economic heartland of the territory i.e. areas that had good fertile land
for agricultural purposes, areas rich in mineral deposits.
Reserves could be simply used as a German reservoir for cheap labour. White
settlers, traders and missionaries found it extremely hard to carry out their duties
because of the constant fighting between various native groups. Confining them in
reserves meant that peace could be established and the economy would grow.
Germans would exploit resources without any interference.
Explain the methods used by the Germans to subjugate the Namibian
communities during the 1880’s.
Land Confiscation
Cattle Confiscation
Colonial Oppression
The Germans knew that if the Namibians had land and cattle, they will be able to
support themselves. The Germans, therefore, looked at different ways to get hold of
Namibian land. They introduced the “protection treaties” according to which they
were to be protected against each other in exchange for land. In actual fact the
Namibians did not need this protection, because they had sorted their differences
amongst themselves earlier, but now the protection treaties took away some of their
land. The fact that they lost more and more land through the protection treaties
debts, the police zone etc. forced the Namibian people to go and work for the
Germans, since they could not sustain themselves anymore.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 40
Cattle were a necessity of life for many Namibians, without their land and cattle,
they could hardly survive. If Namibians resisted the colonial authorities, their cattle
were taken by force. In 1903, Governor Leutwein admitted that the traders had been
acting wrongly. He tried to control them by passing a law saying that no more goods
should be sold on credit to Namibians. The law did not stop the activities of the
traders. They demanded even higher prices for the goods they had previously sold
on credit, and they put Namibians under pressure to pay immediately. The people
suffered even more than before.
The German colonial government did not stop settlers, traders, or German soldiers
from violating Namibian communities. In the early 1900s, murders, rapes, beatings,
and other crimes of violence were often committed without punishment by the
colonists. By 1904 the situation had become unbearable.
Explain how the German administration expropriated (took away) land in
Namibia.
Through the creation of reserves
Through the creation of the police zone
Through railway construction
Through the protection treaties
Large areas of land had been taken away from the Namibian communities in the
centre and south of the country. The German colonial authorities gave this land to
the increasing number of German settlers. A German Decree of 1898 ordered that
reserves should be set up for Namibians. One of the reserves was set up in the
areas of the Namas and another in the area of the Hereros. Namibians were being
treated like foreign in their own country.
The German Authorities set up the police zone to exercise greater control on the
indigenous people. In the police zone, land was fertile and mineral resources which
enabled Germans to be in control of the economy and where able to enrich
themselves. Those who stayed in reserves, where it was dry and barren with low
rainfall, were forced to move into the police zone to look for work.
The construction of the railways made things even worse. The Windhoek –
Swakopmund line passed through the southern part of the area of the Hereros. In
1903 the Windhoek – Otavi railway line construction began. This went through the
heartland of the Hereros. The railway company took a 20 kilometer wide strip of land
on both sides of the railway line and no Namibian was allowed to leave within that
land. People had to move without compensation. The Hereros refused to meet these
demands. They knew that if they gave in, it would open up their land to German
settlers.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 41
Why did the War of National Resistance start in 1904? Explain your answer. /
Why did the Herero and others rise up against the Germans? Explain your
answer. / Why did the War of National Resistance break out in 1904? / Why did
the Nama and Herero communities’ rebel against German rule? Explain your
answer.
Namibians lost their land
Their cattle were taken away by Germans
They were brutally oppressed
Large areas of land had been taken away from the Namibian communities in the
centre and south of the country. The German colonial authorities gave this land to
the increasing number of German settlers. A German Decree of 1898 ordered that
reserves should be set up for Namibians. One of the reserves was set up in the
areas of the Namas and another in the area of the Hereros. Namibians were being
treated like foreign in their own country.
The construction of the railways made things even worse. The Windhoek –
Swakopmund line passed through the southern part of the area of the Hereros. In
1903 the Windhoek – Otavi railway line construction began. This went through the
heartland of the Hereros. The railway company took a 20 kilometres wide strip of
land on both sides of the railway line and no Namibian was allowed to leave within
that land. People had to move without compensation. The Hereros refused to meet
these demands. They knew that if they gave in, it would open up their land to
German settlers.
Cattle were a necessity of life for many Namibians. Without their land and cattle, they
could hardly survive. If a Namibian resisted the colonial authorities, his cattle were
taken by force. German Governor Theodor Leutwein announced an artificial
southern boundary to the land of the Hereros. Any cattle crossing this boundary were
taken by the Germans. The Hereros naturally saw this as robbery and tension grew.
Traders also took cattle by robbing Namibians. They would force Namibians to get
their goods on credit and a few weeks later they would come back and demand
payments. If no payments were made, cattle were taken often they would pick out
the best cows more than the value of goods. One man’s cattle were taken to pay
other people’s debts.
In 1903 the German Governor, Theodor Leutwein admitted that the traders had been
acting wrongly. He tried to control them by passing a law. The law said that no more
goods should be sold on credit to Namibians. But the law did not stop the traders.
They demanded even higher price for the goods they had sold on credit before the
law was passed. They put the Namibians under pressure to pay immediately. So the
people became poorer than before.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 42
German colonial rule was oppressive and cruel. The colonial authorities crushed any
attempts at opposition or resistance. But they did not stop settlers, traders or
German soldiers violating Namibian communities. In the early 1900s, there were
murders, rapes, beatings, and other crimes of violence committed by the colonists.
By 1904, when the War of National Resistance began, the situation had become
unbearable.
Explain the reasons why more German troops were sent to Namibia by the late
1880s. / Explain the reasons why German troops needed more reinforcements
in South West Africa by 1905.
Germans felt unsafe due to the war between the Namas and Herero’s.
To weaken the resistance by local communities (Namas and Herero’s).
Hereros attacked the Germans
Enforce German laws.
In the late 1880s the Namas and Hereros were fighting for the grazing land, many
Germans felt unsafe and needed protection. As a result, the Germans administrator
during that time ordered more German troops for protection purposes. Most
indigenous people by that time start resisting Germany colonial rule. Their resistance
were steadfast in their opposition to German colonial rule, although their resistance
was at times passive and at times active.
The first “Hottentots uprising” of the Nama and their legendary leader Hendrik
Witbooi occurred. In Germany, the government was losing patience with the inability
of Von Francois to defeat Witbooi. So in 1894, more troops and a new commander
were sent to SWA.
There were many further local uprising against the German rule as the Germans
tried to control by seizing the local property by artificially imposing European legal
views of property ownership which led to the largest of the rebellions known as the
Herero wars of 1904. The remote farms were attacked and +- 150 German Settlers
were killed. The 766 German troops was no match for the Herero. The Herero went
on the offensive, sometimes surrounding Okahandja and Windhoek, destroying the
railway bridge to Osona.
Why did Germany conduct an extermination campaign against the Hereros?
Herero and Namas had attacked German settlers.
The land had mineral deposits.
To end the war.
Germans wanted their land’ (Herero land).
Hereros resisted German control.
The Herero had increasingly become frustrated with the expansion of German
settlers into their tribal lands. There were many raids on German settlers, resulting in
many deaths. It was decided that the Herero must be hunted down. In January 1904,
the Herero people led by Samuel Maharero and Nama led by Captain Hendrik
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 43
Witbooi rebelled against German colonial rule. German General Lothar von Trotha
gave an extermination order to end the war. Hereros were defeated in the battle of
Waterberg and drove them into the Omaheke desert where most of them died of
dehydration.
The German settlers wanted more land and the land which had the water supplies.
This was resisted by the Herero who considered water sources vital for their survival.
The Germans decided they would control all water supplies. German companies
wanted to exploit the numerous mineral deposits, especially copper. These were
deposited under Herero land, so they had to be removed.
Explain the consequences of the Herero wars of 1904-1907.
Most Herero's were killed
A number of German soldiers lost their lives.
More Namibian tribes started to resist against German control, like the Nama
under Hendrik Witbooi.
More cattle were confiscated by German authority
Destruction of infrastructure like railways.
As a result of the Herero-German war both Herero's and Germans lost their lives,
and more especially Herero's, as they were overpowered by Germans since they
had modern weapons. The Genocide declared by notorious German 'Lothar Von
Trotha' against Herero's resulted in a mass killing of over 40 000 Hereros. Some of
the Herero's died of hunger and thirst as they fled in the Omaheke Desert. Most
Herero's, young and old, armed or unarmed, men and women died as a result of the
war during 1904-07 resulting in the Herero population being completely wiped out.
Why did Namibians become poor under German rule? Explain your answer.
Outbreak of rinder pest.
Namibians lost their land
Their cattle were confiscated
Namibians had no antidotes to fight the rinderpest. German farmers were supplied
with antidotes and they did not lose many cattle, and that caused many Namibians to
come and work for the Germans, in order to survive and make a living.
The German Authorities set up the police zone to exercise greater control on the
indigenous people. Those who stayed in reserves, where it was dry and barren with
low rainfall, were forced to move into the police zone to look for work.
The construction of the Windhoek-Otavi railway made things worse. The railway
passed through the heart of Herero land and Namibians were forced to move without
compensation. No Namibian was allowed to live within 20 KM wide both sides of the
railway.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 44
Namibians lost their cattle to the Germans especially the traders. They would give
their goods to Namibians on credit and set a date for payments. When this day
came, if no payments were made, German traders would confiscate cattle often
more than the value of goods. They would choose the best cattle in the kraal.
C questions
To what extent was the desire for land the main reason for the German
conquest of Namibia? Explain your answer.
Germany, like other European countries, experienced a rapid growth of population
as a result of the Industrial- and Agricultural Revolution. Stories of large uninhabited
lands in Namibia led to German migrations to the territory. Germany's government
was pleased by this process. Colonization by settlement would give them a tighter
grip on Namibia.
The German government came under pressure to take political control over Namibia.
Business people such as Adolf Luderitz were eager that Germany should obtain
colonies, not only to trade with the colonial people, but also to increase its
international prestige.
To what extent did the Namibians benefit from the German colonial rule?
Explain your answer. / “German Colonial rule had a positive impact on the
Namibian people”. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your
answer.
They benefited because many Namibians became literate through Missionaries on a
basic level. The country prospered during the German Colonial Era, buildings, towns
arose. Namibians learned about trading and western customs, tradition and values
which they could have applied later in life. Railways were built to enhance the
transport of goods and trade with other countries.
On the other hand, they did not benefit because Namibians became poor because
the Germans confiscated their land. The loss of land caused a great financial
setback. Their cattle were confiscated which enriched the Germans. Many times they
had to pay more than what the goods were costing because the traders over
charged them when they took goods on credit.
A police zone was set up to control the people’s movement in their own country.
Reserves were set up to keep the people poor because these areas were normally
dry and barren and have poor living conditions. Namibians were used for cheap
labor. They were paid low wages and were subjected to beatings and injustices.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 45
“The Germans used Namibia’s natural resources to develop the country”. How
far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
Yes they developed Namibia because the copper mine at Tsumeb started operating
in 1906, and diamonds were found near Luderitz. Settlers and traders flooded to
these areas and resulted in the constructions of houses, business to support the
mines, the supply of foods and other goods. Road and railways were also built and
these contributed to the development of the country’s infrastructure.
The settler farms and the mines were a long way from the towns and the ports. In
order for the farms and mines to operate, they needed good transport system to
transport more and more goods over a long distances and greater quantities, that’s
how railways were built.
However, they did not because Germans realised that Namibia had the potential to
become an excellent source of riches. They also realised that the people of Namibia
were keen to buy goods made in Germany. They exported all the Namibian
resources in the raw form and imported the finished products and sold at a very high
price to make profit and expand their business markets.
“The Germans were the only people who benefited from the contract labour
system”. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
The Germans benefited, because through the contract labour system, they were able
to get hold of cheap labourers. And due to the fact that the labour was so cheap,
they could employ more people in order to develop their farms/country quickly and
started earning money from the selling of products while they did not have a lot of
expenses for the labour.
However, Namibians also benefited, because although salaries were low, they were
still able to earn something which they could support their families by buying food
and other necessary items that was needed. Because if it was not for the labour
system, they could not have money as they were depended on farming and during
the drought times, families could have been under pressure.
"The Namibian resistance against German colonization was successful." To
what extent do you agree? Explain your answer. / “The Namibian resistance to
German rule in the period 1890 to 1907 was a complete failure”. How far do
you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
It was successful because Kaptein Hendrick Witbooi, Chief Maharero and other
Namibian were not keen to subject themselves to the Germans. They resisted any
efforts to make land available, hunt and trade with the Germans. Hatred amongst
these groups developed against the Germans.
Germans were confined to the central and southern parts of Namibia as they could
never defeat the northern communities. They were too large in numbers and their
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 46
weapons were modern. German colonial rule came to an end after the First World
War. During that war Namibian communities supported the invading South African
troops in the hope of defeating the oppressive German rule and together Germany
surrendered and was defeated by the end of the First World War.
It was not successful because when Namibians were not cooperating with the
German colonialists, the Germans started to invade and dominate Namibians.
Witbooi was attacked, defeated and forced to sign a protection treaty with the
Germans. Mbanderus and other small communities were also defeated which left
central and southern parts of the country under German control.
During the War of National Resistance a full-scale war evolved. The south and
central regions were involved in war. Thousand Namas and Hereros were killed.
Lothar Von Trotha brought an end to this war by exterminating 80% Hereros and
75% Namas. With massive reinforcements from Germany von Trotha prepared a
major attack on Namibian forces. He intended to destroy the Namibian communities
and tricked them into entering the dry Omaheke sandveld. Without food and water
many Namibian families died.
“The confiscation of land was the main reason why the War of National
Resistance started”. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your
answer.
Loss of land because land was the source of wealth to the Namibian people, it was
used for grazing their animals, cultivation of food and also served as a source of
water. The Namibians ended up with land that was not enough for their animals and
food production which forced the Namibians to work for the Germans because of
poverty. Therefore, Namibians decided to take up arms against the Germans to gain
back lost land.
On the other hand loss of cattle by the Germans also contributed to the resistance
because cattle was an essential commodity to the Namibian people as it is used as a
source of food e.g. milk and meat and also served as a form of status among the
communities. They could also sell their cattle and buy other necessities of cattle; life
became difficult and hard and eventually forced them into the contract labour
system.
“Trade with the Germans brought about economic and social gains for the
indigenous people of Namibia”. How far do you agree with this statement?
Explain your answer.
Trade with Germans led to an increased demand for wage labourers. This opened
up opportunities for natives to make income from this new source. A money
economy was introduced and with this money could pay colonial taxes and also buy
more necessities for their households.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 47
Even though trade brought a few gains for the natives; it was to a large extent
detrimental to their survival. Trader's, e.g. forced and tricked people to buy goods on
credit, a system they did not understand. Failing to pay back, cost them a lot of
cattle. People lost their traditional skills of making household goods. Increasing
dependence on trade had a very bad effect on the living conditions of Herero
households, especially after the great rinderpest. Headmen were driven into debt in
order to take grazing land as payment for inoculation.
‘The German extermination campaign of 1904 to 1907 against the Hereros was
successful.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
Von Trotha’s troops defeated the Herero at the Battle of Waterberg on 11-12 August
1904. As the Herero retreated, the German troops followed them. They killed every
man, woman or child who fell into their hands. Most of the Herero who were killed
were unarmed. Other fled into the waterless Omaheke sandveld region. Many of
them died of thirst. German forces guarded or poisoned every water source and
were given orders to shoot any adult male Herero they saw
The Herero in the beginning of the revolt were successful against the Germans.
They surrounded Okahandja and cut links to Windhoek, as they knew the area well,
they could defend themselves properly against the Germans. Hendrik Witbooi rose
up in the South and caused massive damage to the Germans. Jacob Marengo also
rose up in revolt against the Germans with the Bondelswart Namas. He later fled into
South Africa. Witbooi united most of the Namas under his command and engaged
Germans with guerrilla war tactics.
How effective was the War of National Resistance against German colonial
rule? Explain your answer. / “The War of National Resistance had more of a
negative impact on the Germans than on the Namibians.” How far do you
agree with the statement? Explain your answer.
I agree because the Hereros fighters attacked German garrisons and settlements.
The fighters destroyed railway and telegraph lines. They won back control over much
of the central part of the country. For almost eight months they kept the upper hand
over the Germans even though their weapons were inferior.
Chief Nehale attacked the German fort at Namutoni. The battle lasted the whole day.
In spite of casualties, Nehale’s men nearly succeeded in capturing the fort. The
Germans began to run out of ammunition. Under cover of night they made a hasty
escape to Tsumeb. Nehale’s soldiers were not aware of the difficulties the Germans
were in. as darkness approached, they took the cattle, wagons and carts of the
Germans and left.
Jacob Marenga led the guerrilla war against the Germans. At the beginning his
group consisted of only eleven men. More and more fighters joined him and in the
end there were more than 600 combatants. Operating from the Great Karas
Mountains, Jacob Marenga united Namibians of different communities in his group.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 48
The Germans found it very difficult to defend themselves against the guerrilla tactics.
The German colonial troops suffered one defeat after another.
On the other hand I disagree because the Germans began to send more colonial
troops and war material to Namibia. Lothar von Trotha was made commander in
chief of the colonial troops in Namibia. Thousand Namas and Hereros were killed.
Lothar Von Trotha brought an end to this war by exterminating 80% Hereros and
75% Namas. With massive reinforcements from Germany von Trotha prepared a
major attack on Namibian forces. He intended to destroy the Namibian communities
and tricked them into entering the dry Omaheke sandveld. Without food and water
many Namibian families died.
Hendrik Witbooi was killed in action against the Germans late in 1905. Some Nama
groups lost hope after the death of their great leader, and surrendered. Jacob
Marenga and Simon Kopper were defeated by cooperation between German and
British troops. Marenga was chased by the Germans across the Orange River into
the Cape Colony. He was shot there by the British Cape Police.
Nama communities suffered severely at the hands of the Germans. They lost all their
land and cattle. Thousands of people were killed and thousands more taken
prisoner. Between 35% to 50% of the Nama population had been killed. Germans
established a concentration camp on Shark Island in Luderitz Bay. Here they kept
Nama prisoner of war. Because of unbearable conditions, more than 2 000
Namibians died there.
"The people of Namibia benefited from the First World War.” Do you agree with
this statement? Explain your answer.
Namibians benefited because under the South African government some
development did take place. Hospitals, clinics and schools were built, although
schools for blacks were inferior to those of the whites. Roads were also constructed.
Second Tier government gave some measure of self-government to indigenous
groups, even though important matters like foreign policy was decided by the South
Africans.
The other big advantage of World War I was that many Namibians fought voluntarily
in the war. Together with invading South African troops defeated Germans in
Namibia in 1915 and that marked the end of German colonial rule. In Europe they
came into contact with different nationalities. This resulted in the beginning of
different movements trying to gain independence for Namibia.
However, they did not benefit because Namibian situation did not change after World
I. German domination was replaced by South African domination. When the war
ended Namibia was placed as a mandate in the care of South Africa who was
supposed to lead Namibia to independence and rule Namibia in the interest of its
people. But all South Africa really did was to exploit the people in the same way the
Germans did. The South African government used the country as cheap land to sell
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 49
to Afrikaner farmers. Like in German times, white people from South Africa flocked
into Namibia. Namibians were still ruled by a foreign power and did not have any
independence.
The South Africans brought even more drastic changes. South Africa's oppressive
apartheid laws were now applied to Namibia and they confiscated more Namibian
land to provide farms for the South African settlers. As it was under the Germans,
the South Africans employed Namibians on their farms and mines. Namibians
received low wages and were treated cruelly by the South Africans. Under the
Odendaal Plan, many Namibians were put in reserves and lost even more land.
Chiefs and headmen in the reserves had no independent power. Under South
African rule, just like that of the Germans, resistance was also met with military
power.
“Was Namibia better off, when it was a mandate or a colony?” Explain your
answer. / Did the advantages of the German rule outweighed the advantages of
the South African rule? Explain your answer. / Was Namibia better off before
or after the First World War? Explain your answer.
As a colony because many Namibians became literate through Missionaries on a
basic level. The country prospered during the German Colonial Era, buildings, towns
arose. Namibians learned about trading and western customs, tradition and values
which they could have applied later in life. Railways were built to enhance the
transport of goods and trade with other countries.
As a mandate because under SA rule black Namibians were once again allowed to
own livestock, even though in the reserves. The reserves ensured that the
indigenous people did not lose all their land to white settlers. No white people were
allowed to settle in the area north of the so-called Red Line (outside the former
Police Zone) and thus there was very little loss of culture and traditions in the former
Owamboland, Kavango and Caprivi.
SA also had to report to the Mandates Commission every year about how they were
running the territory. The Mandates Commission became very angry about the way
in which SA applied its racial laws in Namibia and tried to force them to give the
indigenous people more rights and freedom.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 50
South Africa Since 1948
A questions
In what ways was South Africa changed after the elections of 1948?
The National Party introduced apartheid. The policy separated blacks from whites.
The best living areas were given to whites. Blacks only had 13% of the land.
Different laws were mad to ensure that white privileges were protected and to keep
blacks inferior. All spheres of life were separated: religion, recreation, sports, culture,
education, the economy, suburbs, etc.
Briefly describe the beliefs and policies of the National Party in 1948.
The National Party believed in white supremacy. They believed blacks were inferior.
The aim of the National Party was to introduce the apartheid system through a
number of laws/acts e.g. Group Areas Act of 1950 - Made provision for separate
residential areas for each race. Separate Amenities Act of 1953 - The division of
public services and spaces according to race. Bantu Education Act of 1953 - Pupils
at black schools no longer studied the same syllabus as their white peers., where
they wanted to use apartheid as a mean of controlling South Africa politically and
economically.
Briefly describe the main features of apartheid. / Describe the apartheid
system of South Africa in the 1950s. / Describe the main characteristics of
Apartheid in South Africa after 1950. / Describe the role played by apartheid in
South Africa.
Prohibition of Mixed Marriage Act of 1949 - Made marriages between people of
different races illegal. Immorality Act of 1950 - Made sexual relations between
different races illegal. Population Registration Act of 1950 - Classified every
individual according to race. Group Areas Act of 1950 - Made provision for
separate residential areas for each race. Separate Amenities Act of 1953 - The
division of public services and spaces according to race. Bantu Education Act of
1953 - Pupils at black schools no longer studied the same syllabus as their white
peers. Native Abolition of Passes Act / Pass Law - Every black outside the native
reserves had to carry a passbook wherever they went all the time.
Describe ways in which apartheid made life difficult for blacks in South Africa.
Through Group Area Act of 1950 were each town or city was divided into white,
coloured and or black areas. Under this law, lines were drawn on town and city maps
all over the country. If you lived in the wrong area, you had to move. It made it
difficult for blacks in South Africa to live everywhere they want and to move freely
through Pass Laws. Black South African men and women had to carry their pass
books with them everywhere and would be jailed without explanation if they did not
show it.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 51
Describe the Group Areas Act of 1950.
Made provision for separate residential areas for each race. People were forced to
relocate to other places. People lost their properties in the process. People had to
adapt to the new environment. Destroyed the spirit of nationalism as people could no
longer unite.
Describe the restrictions that the Pass Laws put on black South Africans. /
Briefly describe the Pass Laws.
Every black outside the native reserves had to carry a passbook wherever they went
all the time. Restricted the movement of blacks. Police could demand to see the
passbook at any time. Anyone without it could be jailed. Separated families as
women stayed in rural areas / reserves. It was more difficult for women to acquire
passes.
Describe the terms of the Separate Amenities Act of 1953.
The division of public services and spaces according to race. Black people could not
use the same shops, beaches, and buses as whites. Public places like banks and
post offices had separate entries. The standard of services was also not same for
blacks and whites. It was also known as Petty Apartheid.
Briefly describe the terms of the Bantu Education Act of 1953.
Pupils at black schools no longer studied the same syllabus as their white peers.
Less money was spent on black pupils. Resources for black were not enough.
Resources for blacks were of poor quality. Blacks had to share benches. Classrooms
were of poor standard.
Describe the Population Registration Act (1950) and the Separate Amenities
Act (1953).
Population Registration Act classified every individual according to race. Defined
which race every person belonged to e.g. white, black, colored. Made it easier for the
government to decide who had to stay where and to have total control of all the
people. Separate Amenities Act divided public services and spaces according to
race. Black people could not use the same shops, beaches, and buses as whites.
Public places like banks and post offices had separate entries.
Briefly describe how apartheid could lead to the break-up of families.
Apartheid could lead to the break-up of families when the pass laws were introduced
and women were not allowed to move to towns. The issue of contract labour also
contributed to families breaking up since black men were not allowed to bring their
wives with them. Through Group Area Act of 1950 were each town or city was
divided into white, coloured and or black areas. Marriages between people of
different races was illegal.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 52
What did separation of the races mean in practice after 1948?
No sexual relations between Whites and non-whites. White people, Black people and
Coloured people had to live in separate areas. Black people could not remain in
urban areas without a permit. There were separate schools for Black people and
White people. There were separate public amenities. There were separate toilets,
parks, beaches, cemeteries. Bantustans were created as the homelands of Black
people.
Describe the attempts to stop black resistance in South Africa during the
1960s.
The National Party intensified apartheid laws. Demonstrated were killed. Leaders of
political movements were arrested. Black political parties such as ANC, PAC and
SACP were banned. The South African government introduced a curfew and state of
emergency.
What was the Freedom Charter of 1955?
Principles of South African Congress Alliances. Attended by African National
Congress, South African Indian Congress, South African Congress of Democrats
and the Colored People’s Congress. Called for non-racial South Africa with political
rights for all. They demanded Land to be given to all landless people, Living wages
and shorter hours of work, and Free and compulsory education irrespective of color,
race or nationality. The meeting was attended by roughly 3 000 delegates. The
meeting was broken up by the police on the second day.
Describe the Homeland Policy of 1958?
With criticism of apartheid mounting in the UN, South Africa invented the new policy
called the Homeland / Bantustans policy. They abandoned using the word apartheid.
Blacks could develop into self-government. Hendrik Verwoerd worked a plan of
Bantustans. Verwoerd argued that Bantustans were the original homes of the black
people of South Africa. Shortly it was known as Separate development and Selfdetermination.
Describe how the Bantu Self-government Act was put into practice.
Promotion of the Bantu self government act refers to act of 1959 which created
Bantu national units based on the divisions of the reserves along tribal lines. This act
encouraged chiefs to be active politically and to look forward to greater
independence. Chiefs were also given the power to practice their cultural activities in
their reserves.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 53
Describe the events in Sharpeville in 21 March 1960.
PAC and ANC organized the demonstration against the Pass Law. People left their
pass books and marched to the police station. They demanded to be arrested. Some
started to burn their pass books publicly. The police opened fire killing 69 people and
180 were wounded. The government banned both the ANC and PAC. They arrested
and detained thousands of members.
Describe the aims and activities of ‘Umkhonto weSizwe’ (the
People).
Spear
of
the
To start a sabotage campaign. To prepare for guerrilla warfare. MK targeted
government installations such as power lines, railway lines, oil refinery and other
government buildings. The aim was to bring the government to its knees. To force
the government to negotiate with the ANC
Briefly describe the role played by Nelson Mandela in opposing apartheid up
to 1964.
Mandela moved around the country in disguise mobilizing people to join the struggle
against apartheid. He travelled abroad seeking help in the struggle against
apartheid. He was the first leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe. He encouraged more
people to join the struggle against apartheid. The Revonia trials saw the
imprisonment of Mandela and other leading figures. While in prison he refused to
renounce the use of violence against the white South Africa.
Briefly describe the role of the Pan African Congress (PAC) in the resistance
against the apartheid system in South Africa.
It was a nationalist movement that broke away from the ANC in 1959 under the
leadership of Robert Sobukwe. It organised campaigns against Pass Laws in 1959
together with the ANC. Called for mass disobedience, e.g. PAC decided to hold a
mass disobedience demonstration at Sharpeville in 1960. Demonstrators were
encouraged to refuse to carry passes. In 1962 the PAC formed a guerrilla group that
believed that white power could be destroyed only through mass black protests.
Describe the Black Consciousness Movement.
It was formed and led by Steve Biko. To raise African self-respect and confidence.
To unite black South Africans of all ethnic groups in the struggle against apartheid.
Knowing about black African heroes of the past. To take pride in black culture,
history and achievements. Inspired a spirit of fearlessness and resistance.
Instrumental in organizing strikes such as the Soweto uprising of 1976-7
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 54
Briefly describe the part played by Steve Biko in the struggle against apartheid.
He established the Black Consciousness Movement. He organized strikes and
demonstration against apartheid. He organized meetings in townships. He
encouraged blacks to take pride in black culture, history and achievements. He
inspired a spirit of fearlessness and resistance among blacks. He was instrumental
in organizing strikes such as the Soweto uprising of 1976-7. His death led to
international condemnation of the white government.
Describe the events which led to the Soweto Uprising.
The government ordered the use of Afrikaans as the medium of instruction in all
schools. Most of the black learners could not speak Afrikaans or understand it. Even
the teachers did not know Afrikaans. A large crowd of students gathered for a protest
march. They carried cardboard placards with slogans. They preferred and wanted
English instead of Afrikaans. They also protested against the whole Bantu Education
System. They were stopped by armed police. The police opened fire killing four
including Hector Petersen and 200 were wounded.
Describe the role of Winnie Mandela during the apartheid era.
Winnie Mandela was a wife of Nelson Mandela, the most prominent leader of the
ANC. Winnie played a symbolic role of motherhood in the “Black parents
Association”. She was able to establish a powerful moral and political leadership
role. The parental roles became politicized in the wake of police action against
children. Winnie also recruited students into the ANC and helped them to leave the
country. But her activities were cut short by arrest and detention. During the Soweto
uprising, she courageously picked up the bodies of wounded children in the streets
and loaded them into her tiny VW Beetle.
Briefly describe the role played by the trade unions in resisting apartheid in
South Africa.
The trade unions organised strikes. It was difficult for the companies and
government to defeat / control the strikes, because the strikes had massive support
and avoided electing leaders whom the companies and government could convince.
The trade unions steered clear political campaign which made the white minority
government worried and started to change towards apartheid. Encouraged black
workers to stand for their rights. Put pressure on the government to implement
improved labor laws.
Describe the economic sanctions placed on South Africa from the late 1980s.
Economic Sanctions” meant that a group of countries agreed not to import or export
some or any product from a specific country. This normally happened if a country
does something that is disliked by the others for example building nuclear weapons,
apply apartheid etc. The intensiveness of the economic sanctions can differ,
depending on the seriousness of the “crime”. International companies began to leave
SA such as British Barclays Bank sold its large SA bank network. Western business
pulled out of SA completely. It affected SA economy.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 55
Describe measures of the state of emergency declared by Botha in 1985
The police could arrest people without warrants. The police were free from all
criminal proceedings. Thousands of people were arrested. Newspapers, radio and
TV were banned from reporting demonstrations and strikes.
Describe P.W. Botha’s reforms.
P.W. Botha introduced a Tri-cameral parliament for Whites, Coloureds and Indians.
His was determined to give homelands their independence, and relaxing laws about
petty apartheid and trade unions. The state of emergency and offers to release
Mandela and others if they renounced violence. He legalised interracial marriage. He
also relaxed the Group Areas Act which barred non-whites from living in certain
areas. Botha also became the first South African government leader to authorise
contacts with Nelson Mandela, the imprisoned leader of the ANC.
Describe challenges faced by de Klerk when he became president
There were increasing raids from ANC and PAC. There was increasing white
opposition to apartheid. The townships were ungovernable. Many officials were
attacked and often murdered. Economic sanctions were biting. There was
disinvestment. De Klerk believed apartheid was unsustainable. There was no
international sport. Church groups were speaking out against apartheid.
What did F.W. de Klerk do to end apartheid?
He unbanned the ANC, PAC and SACP. He released political prisoners including
Nelson Mandela and the death sentence was abolished. He instructed the police not
to arrest political activists. He scrapped all petty apartheid to laws. By January 1993,
all apartheid legislations had been repealed. He negotiated with Mandela about the
transition of power to the majority blacks.
Describe the freeing of Nelson Mandela in 1990. / Describe the events that led
up to the release of Nelson Mandela from prison in 1990.
Nelson Mandela served 27 years in prison, split between Robben Island, Pollsmoor
Prison and Victor Verster Prison. Amid growing domestic and international pressure,
and with fears of a racial civil war, President F.W. de Klerk released him in 1990.
Mandela and de Klerk led efforts to negotiate an end to apartheid, which resulted in
the 1994 multiracial general election in which Mandela led the ANC to victory and
became president.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 56
B questions
Why whites were threatened by changes brought by the Second World War?
Black people now outnumbered white people in towns
Some of the segregation laws had been relaxed
Black people had participated in boycotts and strikes
The United Party said that complete segregation was not practical
During the Second World War the number of black males working in industries
increased. More black people moved to the towns where their jobs were and black
people began to outnumber whites in towns. White South Africans thought the
segregation policy and their whole way of life could be under threat.
The Fagan Commission of 1947 reported that the trend to urbanization is irreversible
and the Pass Laws should be eased. The Commission said it would be unlikely that
black people could be prevented from coming to the cities where there were more
jobs. They depended on this to survive as the reserves in the rural areas where they
were supposed to live held few options for a livelihood. In other words, total
segregation would be impossible.
South Africa was characterized by political and social resistance campaigns. These
were spearheaded by Blacks, Indians and Coloureds. Liberation movements such as
the African National Congress, Communist Party of South Africa and labor
organizations emerged in opposition to the white government.
Many white South Africans believed the United Party was incapable of dealing with
the post-war problems. Many white people felt that Smuts lacked a clear policy on
how to deal with black people and segregation.
Why did the National Party win the election in 1948? Explain your answer.
They promised apartheid
They promised to preserve white purity
They were helped by the clause in the Constitution of 1910
The supposed policy of apartheid proposed by the NP served the economic interests
of certain groups of white South Africans. Farmers from the northern portions of the
country relied on cheap labor to maximize profits while working class whites living in
urban areas feared the employment completion that would follow an urban influx of
black South Africans. Many commercial and financial Afrikaner interests based on
agriculture saw the value of apartheid in promoting growth in this sector.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 57
Malan made preservation of white supremacy through apartheid laws as the main
theme of the election campaign. The NP played up the fear of black danger and
ensures the white population of their security, as well as a position of superiority
through the apartheid policy. Through this he succeeded in convincing enough white
voters to win with a small majority.
Demarcation of electoral district boundaries favored the NP. Most of the 70 seats
won by the National Party during the 1948 election were in rural areas, whereas
most of the 65 seats won by the United Party were in the urban areas. According to
the Constitution that South Africa had at the time, the constituencies in the rural
areas were smaller than those in urban areas. This meant that there were more rural
constituencies than urban ones. It has been calculated that if rural and urban votes
had been of equal value, the UP would have won 80 seats and the NP/AP coalition
60 seats thus giving the UP a majority.
Explain the reasons why the National Party introduced the apartheid system in
the late 1940s and the 1950s. / Explain why the South African government
introduced apartheid laws. / Explain why white South Africans thought
apartheid was justified?
To make it easier to control blacks
To prevent blacks from uniting
To prevent competition from blacks
To enrich themselves
The National Party invented apartheid as a means to cement their control over the
economic and social system. Initially, the main aim of apartheid was to maintain
white domination while extending racial separation.
Whites feared blacks being the majority in South Africa would join forces in resisting
the minority white government and they would eventual takeover the government.
Apartheid would make blacks live in separate ethnic groups thus making it difficult for
them to work together in resisting the white government.
The white minority government had introduced apartheid laws so that they put blacks
into inferior position e.g. they introduced the Bantu Education Act to make sure that
blacks can receive poor education for them to remain cheap labourers and for the
whites to receive quality education to control blacks and also to avoid competition.
With the application of apartheid black South African would be pushed into reserves
where as whites would remain in urban areas occupying high paying jobs, in control
of the fertile land as well as controlling the land which was rich in mineral resources.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 58
Explain how the Nationalists introduced apartheid from 1948 to 1960.
Through the Group Areas Act
Through the Pass Law
Through the Bantu Education Act
The Group Areas Act stated that that members of different racial groups could live
only in specified urban areas. This meant that if a person previously lived in an area
that was set aside for another group the person was forced to move. Blacks were
moved from their homes and put into townships.
The Pass Laws forced African men and women to carry a passbook where-ever they
went and at all times. The book contained the owner’s name, photograph, address
and permission to be in a certain area. Police could at any time demanded to see the
pass and if it was not available the person would go straight to jail.
The Bantu Education Act meant that pupils at black schools no longer studied the
same syllabus as their white peers. Less money was spent on black pupils.
Resources for black were not enough. Resources for blacks were of poor quality.
Blacks had to share benches. Classrooms were of poor standard.
Why was the pass system hated?
It only applied to black South Africans
Blacks had to carry a pass book wherever they went
It separated families
It limited the movement of blacks
It seemed unfair because it only had to be carried by non-Whites. They had to carry
documentation which had to be produced on demand. Failure to do so resulted in
punishment. Citizens were classified according to race and this was supported by
the pass system.
Blacks had to carry a Passbook wherever they went. It was a book that had to be
shown on demand and without a Passbook, blacks were arrested. This led to raids in
the black townships to check passes and often resulted in law-abiding citizens
serving time in jail for ‘pass offences’. It helped the government to control where
black South Africans lived and worked. It contained personal information as well as
their finger prints.’
The Pass Law separated families as it was mostly men who could acquire pass
books, and this forced wives to remain in rural areas. It was very difficult for women
to get pass books. Furthermore, pass books restricted the movements of blacks from
homelands into town and cities as it was a requirement to have a pass books if
blacks were to live in white men’s area.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 59
Pass laws not only restricted the movement of blacks into these areas but also
prohibited their movement from one district to another without a signed pass. Blacks
were not allowed onto streets of towns in Cape Town and Natal after dark and they
had to carry a pass at all times.
Why did the Nationalist government want to restrict education for black
people?
They wanted to provide them with only the skills needed for work in the
homelands or in labouring.
Education for black children would be cheaper.
It was to maintain white supremacy.
They wanted to prevent them from receiving an education that would lead them to
want higher positions. Bantu education aimed at training children for the manual
labor and menial jobs that the government deemed suitable for those of their race
and it was explicitly intended to indoctrinate the idea that black people were to
accept being subservient to white South Africans.
Funding for schools was to come from taxes paid by the communities that they
served, so black schools received only a small fraction of the amount of money that
was available to their white counterparts. The government was spending about 15
times more on each white child compared with black students.
Black people provided a vast pool of cheap labour for the whites. By restricting their
education their aspirations and opportunities would be limited; they would be
prepared only for work in the homelands or work as labourers for the whites.
Explain how apartheid made white South Africans think about themselves and
about black South Africans.
Whites thought of themselves as a privileged group as opposed to blacks.
Whites thought they were better off than blacks
Whites were the people with authority unlike the blacks.
Whites were the educated people as opposed to the uneducated blacks.
Whites thought they were superior and blacks were inferior
The white people thought of themselves as people born with all the rights and
especially rights to land ownership. It was for this reason that the South African
government believed that the land and resources should be used to benefit the white
people. This prompted the South African government to remove the blacks from
areas needed for development by whites for whites. This in itself was prove enough
that blacks had no rights to land.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 60
The National Party invented apartheid as a means to cement their control over the
economic and social system. Initially, the main aim of apartheid was to maintain
white domination while extending racial separation.
The white minority government had introduced apartheid laws so that they put blacks
into inferior position e.g. they introduced the Bantu Education Act to make sure that
blacks can receive poor education for them to remain cheap labourers and for the
whites to receive quality education to control blacks and also to avoid competition.
With the application of apartheid black South African would be pushed into reserves
where as whites would remain in urban areas occupying high paying jobs, in control
of the fertile land as well as controlling the land which was rich in mineral resources.
Explain how the apartheid laws changed the lives of South Africans after 1948.
They could not go where they want.
They were not free. They were not equal.
Blacks could not move around freely.
There were certain areas where blacks were not allowed. If they need to go, there
the had to obtain special permission to go there. They also had to carry their passes
with them, wherever they went. Even if they were in their ‘own area’, police could still
require seeing their pass.
Blacks were also not regarded the same as whites. This meant that they could not
use the same facilities as white people. They could not use the same pool, school,
shop, bus etc with whites. This was often very inconvenient, because their facilities
did not have the same standards as those of the whites.
Why did black South Africans start to oppose apartheid laws after 1950? /
Explain why opposition to apartheid increased after 1948? / Why did Black
South Africans opposed apartheid laws?
Apartheid violated the rights of the black people.
Blacks wanted their freedom in their own country.
Apartheid was very harsh to them divided them in homelands
Blacks wanted land back.
The apartheid system divided the country along racial lines and there was
segregation all over the country. The white race was promoted and was seen as
superior to the other races of the country. Public facilities such as shops, toilets,
beaches, parks and restaurants were divided according to race. White people
utilized the best facilities and then were the Indians, Coloureds with black people
below the social chain.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 61
Black people could not study in white schools and universities which made them
have a smaller circle of career options. High school education was the highest
qualification that most black people had so they could not became doctors and
nurses or even lawyers. All they could become was teachers in black schools,
garden workers for white suburbs and domestic workers if they were women.
Apartheid restricted the movement of blacks. They could not just flow in and out of
the white suburbs as they pleased, they had to carry what resembled an ID
document that had all their details that was to be assessed by the white police to
grant them access into white, Indian and Coloureds suburbs. They also could not
flow in and out of the city as they pleased too because they had a certain time
allocated for them to go in the city in the morning and evacuate later in sunset. If you
were black and did not have a pass with all your details with you, you were refused
admission into the white suburbs.
School learners also opposed apartheid due to the apartheid law that stated that
black learners should be taught in Afrikaans. For many, Afrikaans was a language
not even spoken and foreign. English was already a foreign language to them and
most of them already struggled with it but when this law was passed, the learners
initiated a mass protest against the use of Afrikaans in their schoolwork. Black
students could no longer cope with failing at school because of Afrikaans so they
decided to march to Orlando Stadium in Soweto. They did this in protest of studying
in Afrikaans.
Explain why the South African government reacted violently to resistance
during 1950s and 1960s. / Explain why the South African government
suppressed resistance in the 1950s and 1960s.
The government wanted to maintain the status quo.
They wanted to remain in control of the black people.
They wanted to rule the country.
They wanted to control the black people. because they believe that Black people
were inferior to white people. If they also felt that if they do did not control the black
people, they might take over the government. They feared the black people and felt it
would be safer to have control over them.
The government wanted to maintain the status quo. The apartheid laws benefited
them, because they fought for the whites and the profit of the country’s wealth was
spend only for their benefit. They wanted to ensure that it stayed that way.
In the 1960s ANC formed the guerrilla wing, Umkhonto weSizwe, aimed to bring
change by carrying out sabotage attacks on white economic- and political targets
such as railways, electricity lines and government offices. The SA government
introduced a large number of acts which prevented black South Africans from uniting
against the white SA government, e.g. the Native Laws Amendments Act of 1952
was intended to bring in strict influx control. Special labour bureaus were set up to
control the movement of workers and jobs to blacks already in urban areas.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 62
Explain how demonstrations were repressed in South Africa after 1948.
The demonstrators were killed.
The political parties were banned.
The people were arrested and jailed.
The Apartheid government was concerned with the increase of demonstrations that
was taking place in the country and decided to take a strong action against them
including the killing of e.g. Sharpeville and Soweto Uprising.
The aim of these killing was to intimidate the demonstrator(s) not to oppose the
government and tried to maintain order in the country. ANC, PAC and other political
parties aimed independence were banned. Political activists e.g. Nelson Mandela,
Thabo Mbeki, Steve Biko were arrested, and some killed in the police custody.
Explain the reasons why the women in South Africa felt that the pass laws
were against freedom and justice.
The residential areas were segregated.
Women were forced to stay in rural areas.
It was difficult for women to acquire pass to move into urban areas.
The pass laws separated family members form one another as men usually worked
in urban centres while women were forced to stay in rural areas and not allowed to
join their husbands which was viewed as against their freedom and justice.
Women were predominantly employed in low-paying, unskilled jobs. Because of their
nature of their employment – largely in the domestic services and informal sectors
they were vulnerable to removal from the urban areas. Legal constraints made it far
more difficult for women than men to acquire pass to move into urban areas which
resulted in women to be confined to the rural areas.
Why was the Sharpeville Massacre of 1960 important in the struggle against
apartheid? Explain your answer. / Explain the impact the Sharpeville uprising
had on the apartheid government.
SA was expelled from Commonwealth countries.
ANC set up Umkhonto we Sizwe.
People of South Arica burnt passports/pass books.
UN imposes economic sanctions.
Investors withdrew their money.
Other countries held demonstration.
Some whites started to oppose apartheid.
The Sharpeville killings marked a major turning point in the history of resistance in
South Africa and caused worldwide anger. Demonstrations against the killings took
place in many countries and for the first time calls for international action against
apartheid began to be taken seriously. The South African economy suffered;
international sporting and cultural boycotts began to have an effect.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 63
Many anti-apartheid leaders became convinced that peaceful protest was no longer
enough. According to Mandela, however, strict instructions were given to its
members right from the start that on no account were they to injure or kill people.
ANC and PAC formed guerrilla wings to stage sabotage attacks on government
buildings.
The South African government responded by applying the apartheid laws more
ruthlessly. Thousands of people, men and women were tried under the Security
Laws and thrown into jail or isolated on Robben Island. The government tried to
speed up the independence of the various ethnic homelands, despite the resistance
of most blacks to this policy.
Explain the reasons why the ANC was banned.
ANC became involved in violent campaigns while it had close contact with communist
countries.
It organised strikes (defiance campaigns); it was against the white
ministry/government.
It encouraged activities against the GRN, e.g. strikes.
The white government believed the ANC wanted to overthrow the GRN.
It was gaining the support of the majority of the people and the outside world.
ANC became involved in violent campaigns, which included the destruction of oil
refineries, infrastructure such as railways, power lines and administrative buildings. It
cost the government a lot of money to repair the damage. The other thing was close
contact with communist countries such as USSR and China. These two countries
had been assisting ANC members in exile and South Africa's black neighbours to
overthrow the white government. Therefore, the SA government felt, that should the
ANC succeed, then a communist government in SA would follow. To avoid that to
happen, ANC was just banned.
ANC’s violence campaigns included, destruction of oil refinery, infrastructures such
as railway, power lines, administrative buildings these cost the South African
government a lot of money to repair the damage and put pressure on their control of
the colony.
Explain why Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) was set up in 1961.
To intensify strikes / demonstrations against apartheid
To cripple / sabotage the economy
To fight for independence
In the 1950s it became clear to some members of the ANC that passive resistance
and non-violence were not working. A factor that undoubtedly had an influence on
the thinking of the ANC which probably had a bearing on their shift towards political
violence in 1961, was the general failure of the ANC directed campaigns of the
1950s to bring about meaningful political changes based on the policy of nonviolence and moderation following the moderate success of the Defiance Campaign
of 1952.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 64
The Umkhonto we Sizwe was established with the intention that was expressed by
most South Africans who felt that strikes and demonstrations were not enough.
Therefore, they established the ANC’s guerrilla wing to organise sabotage attacks on
police stations, power lines and oil refineries with bombs and rockets. The aim was
to weaken the apartheid government economically and politically and force the
government into negotiations.
The most means that led to the taking up of arms was the Sharpeville Massacre of
21 March 1960. The states heavy-handed response to the peaceful demonstrations
and the subsequent banning of the ANC, PAC and SACP the following month, dealt
a serious blow to the ANC and its allies. Many members were convinced that the
time had come to rethink the approach towards the struggle for their freedom and
move from passive resistance to the armed struggle.
Explain why the Soweto uprising of 1976 took place.
They did not like Afrikaans
The government ordered that Afrikaans to be used as the medium of instruction in
South Africa’s black secondary school. This was a big problem because most of the
learners could not speak or understand Afrikaans. Even the teachers did not know
Afrikaans. Besides that, Afrikaans was seen as the language of the oppressor
therefore, they did not want to learn Afrikaans.
They wanted the same education as whites
Black South African students protested because they believed that they deserved to
be treated and taught equally to white South Africans. Students formed an Action
Committee later known as the Soweto Students’ Representative Council which
organised a mass rally for 16 June to make themselves heard. This was also an
opportunity to protest about the whole Bantu education system with its inferior
syllabus.
Explain how the Soweto uprising encouraged internal and external resistance
to apartheid.
Armed resistance increased
The UN imposed sanctions
Withdrawal of investors.
Both ANC and PAC intensified their armed resistance to apartheid. Young people
were now convinced that the liberation could not be achieved by non-violent means
alone. Thousands left the country and went into exile to receive military training. The
majority joined the ANC military wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe. Armed activities inside
S.A. increased from 1977 onwards. Student leaders had a much clearer
understanding of the political situation they found themselves in their country. They
began to consult with the older members of the ANC. Many learnt about the ideas of
the Freedom Charter, ANC history and political experience. They were more
determined to fight for the liberation of a multi-racial S.A.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 65
The international communities such as the UN decided to condemn apartheid and
imposed economic sanctions on South Africa which resulted in devastating
economic effects in the country in general and its trading partners. Fearful of losing
friends in Africa as de-colonization transformed the continent, powerful members of
the Security Council, including Great Britain, France, and the United States,
succeeded in watering down the proposals.
Movements in Europe and the United States succeeded in pressuring their
governments into imposing economic and cultural sanctions on Pretoria. After the
U.S. Congress passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986, many large
multinational companies withdrew from South Africa. By the late 1980s, the South
African economy was struggling with the effects of the internal and external boycotts
as well as the burden of its military commitment in occupying Namibia.
Explain the reasons why the international community tried to bring about
change in South Africa. / Explain why there was world-wide opposition to
apartheid in South Africa. / Explain why international pressure was exerted on
the South African government between 1968 – 1986.
The policy of apartheid.
The white minority rule.
The inhuman treatment.
The nonparticipation of blacks in the economy.
Soweto massacre
Sharpeville massacre
SA refused to leave Namibia
The internal community exerted pressure on South Africa after Verwoerd
implemented the second phase of apartheid by allowing blacks to develop separately
in homelands’ which could become independent nations. Apartheid was
unacceptable in many parts of the world because it was a violation of human rights.
Apartheid abolished freedom and rights of the black people, e.g. the right to vote.
Only whites were given this fundamental human right and not the blacks and this
goes against the fundamental human rights and freedom.
The black South African were the majority in the country, but nevertheless, they were
denied the involvement of political opportunities in the country. They never formed
part of the decision-making government, neither did they had political rights. And
they were also denied the principles of human equality.
Explain how the creation of the Bantustans affected the lives of some black
South Africans. / Explain why the Bantustan policy was not acceptable to the
majority of black South Africans.
According to the policy of Bantustans, black people were taken from their original
land and grouped together into Bantustans. This meant that they lost the land which
was familiar to them and they had to stay in places where the climatic conditions
were not conducive which resulted in the struggle for adaptation and survival.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 66
The Bantustans were a major administrative mechanism for the removal of blacks
from the South African political system under the many laws and policies created by
apartheid. The idea was to separate blacks from the whites and give blacks the
responsibility of running their own independent governments, thus denying them
protection and any remaining rights a black could have in South Africa. Bantustans
were established for the permanent removal of the black population in white South
Africa.
The local homeland economies were not developed. Bantustans relied almost
entirely on white South Africa's economy. Farming was not very viable largely
because of the poor agricultural land in the homelands. Blacks owned only 13% of
South Africa’s land. These farm lands were in a poor condition because of soil
erosion and overgrazing. As a result, millions of blacks had to leave the Bantustans
daily and work in the mines, for white farmers and other industries in the cities. The
homelands served as labor reservoirs, housing the unemployed and releasing them
when their labor was needed in white South Africa.
People were separated from their families especially those who were fairer coloured
people who looked more white than coloured, the Indians that looked more
coloureds than Indians and the blacks who looked more coloured than black. People
were moved to places of their own race and some even moved to families that they
were not even part of.
Why did the students of Soweto protest in 1976? Explain your answer.
They did not like Afrikaans
They wanted the same education as whites
To abolish Bantu Education System
The government ordered that Afrikaans to be used as the medium of instruction in
South Africa’s black secondary school. This was a big problem because most of the
learners could not speak or understand Afrikaans. Even the teachers did not know
Afrikaans. Besides that, Afrikaans was seen as the language of the oppressor
therefore, they did not want to learn Afrikaans.
According to the Education Act, the syllabus for white schools differs from those of
black schools. The standard of the black syllabus was lower. The reason for this was
that the authorities wanted to keep blacks semi-skilled to ensure whites received the
better jobs.
Black South African students protested because they believed that they deserved to
be treated and taught equally to white South Africans. Students formed an Action
Committee later known as the Soweto Students’ Representative Council which
organised a mass rally for 16 June to make themselves heard. This was also an
opportunity to protest about the whole Bantu education system with its inferior
syllabus.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 67
Explain why the United Nations imposed sanctions on South Africa.
Increasing of apartheid laws imposed in both South Africa and Namibia.
Demonstration internal/international
Arrest and killing of innocent people and unrest of black protestors.
United Nations sanctioned South Africa because of the continuously illegal
occupation of Namibia, and South Africa refused the implementation of resolutions
directed by the United Nations. The increasing violence and abuse of human rights
through repressive laws implemented by South African white colonial regime
stimulated international countries and organisations like UN to impose sanctions
against South African government.
Why were South Africans not satisfied with P.W. Botha’s reforms?
Some whites thought that Botha was going too far.
They lost security. Most blacks believed
that he was not going far enough.
They saw little changes in their lives.
Some whites were
horrified to hear the abandonment of apartheid.
Indian and Coloureds were still unhappy as they were separated.
Blacks were unhappy because they were still inferior.
Some whites were horrified at what they saw as the abandonment of apartheid.
White workers had lost the security offered to them by the policy of job reservation,
as small farms were losing black labourers to the cities. Blacks were not completely
satisfied; they felt that the slight increase in education spending in Botha's reforms
did not even cover the rising number of candidates wanting to go to school. Students
were fed up with huge classes, poorly qualified teachers, no books and no future in a
white system.
Why Afrikaners opposed de Klerk?
Afrikaners felt betrayed
De Klerk started to negotiate with blacks
They feared to lose power over blacks
Afrikaners felt betrayed by fellow Afrikaner F.W. de Klerk. Many said he turned his
back on them, their Afrikaner and their shared belief rooted in the Dutch Reformed
Church that God ordained whites would have their own nation in South Africa.
Others felt that de Klerk has not only betrayed his country but his father who was
one of the founders of apartheid in the late 1940s and early 1950s and served as a
minister in several governments.
De Klerk legalized black opposition parties and freed political prisoners including
Nelson Mandela. Furthermore, de Klerk opened negotiations with the once-banned
African National Congress for a new political and social order to replace the
apartheid system under South African whites has denied political rights to blacks.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 68
Afrikaners expressed sentiments of fear, anger and religious resentment evoked by
the prospect of South Africa becoming ruled by blacks. They claimed they had their
own culture and Christian religion and no witch doctors which the blacks do.
Why did F.W. de Klerk decide to start negotiating about a majority government
in 1989? Explain you answer.
Conditions in South Africa became very difficult.
He was pressurised by the International Community.
South African economy was weakened by sanctions
He did not have a choice. Demonstrations, riots and strikes led to the deaths of
hundreds of people, more and more whites turned against apartheids laws and the
government ended up with very little support. South Africa was in an economic crisis
because of the sanctions of the International Community. South Africa was expelled
from the commonwealth. This meant that South Africa lost its allies. Sports boycotts
isolated South Africa from the rest of the world. Sport teams were banned and this
caused unhappiness in South Africa about the government.
Sanctions were imposed on South Africa by the UN. Investment money started to
leave the country. This crippled the economy of South Africa and put the government
under pressure. This was one of the reasons why the government had to change
direction in the years that followed.
Explain why both Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk were awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize in 1993.
Mr. de Klerk and Mr. Mandela were determined to change South Africa
peacefully.
Mandela and de Klerk negotiated.
They were both against minority rule
Mr. de Klerk had admitted the terrible wrong of the apartheid system.
Mandela did not seek revenge
Mandela's willingness to forgive
Mr. de Klerk and Mandela worked very hard to establish a new, anti-apartheid
constitution based on the principle "one person, one vote." Both Mr. Mandela and
Mr. de Klerk work very had and were determined to negotiate a long-awaited and
hard-fought end to the apartheid state, for which both deserved the Noble peace
prize.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 69
C questions
How successful was the South African government in imposing apartheid?
Explain your answer.
Successful
The system was based on “divide and rule” and therefore affected blacks negatively,
while whites were advantaged. The SA government succeeded in its aim to sustain
white supremacy for over 40 years by securing the best farmland and control over
the economy for whites. Political rights were given to blacks in homelands only, but
the real political power was kept by the whites.
Not successful
The policy could not last forever, as the blacks resisted. They were unhappy
because they felt their human dignity was disregarded. They were also unhappy to
be brutalized in their own country, and because their land and cattle were
confiscated. Though their resisted was met with brutal repression by the army, police
and the justices system, it helped to bring world’s attention to what was happening in
SA. As a result SA Government was condemned and economic sanctions were
imposed. The disinvestment campaign in the 1980s as well as the isolation of South
Africa led to the failures of the policy.
‘The apartheid system brought only hardship to the people of South Africa.’
How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. / How far do
you agree that apartheid benefited South Africans? Explain your answer. / The
policy of Apartheid made the life of all South Africans worse. How far do you
agree with this statement? Explain your answer. / ‘Apartheid changed the lives
of South Africans positively’. How far do you agree with this statement?
Explain your answer.
Benefited
The white population had many benefits and privileges. They owned and lived on
87% of the land. They were the big farmers and owners of big industrial enterprises.
Apartheid gave white people a good standard of living. Most of the physical labour
was done by black, coloured or Indian people.
Did not benefit
Apartheid forced the majority of black people to live on Bantustans, which was 13%
of the total area of South Africa. Some males went into towns and cities to get work,
but they were forced to leave their wives and children on the Bantustan. Many whites
complained that they could not play international sport during the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s
because other countries refused to play them in cricket, rugby and soccer because
of apartheid.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 70
“The Group Areas Act was hated more than the Pass Laws.” How far do you
agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
They hated the Group Areas Act was just as hard for them. According to this act they
were not allowed to stay in the same area as whites. The result was the black people
were removed from the place where they have stayed all their lives and put into
‘reserves’. They were often not use to the climate and conditions and besides that
the places were too small and sometimes the land was barren.
On the other hand, I will say that they also hated Pass law, because they had to
have their passes always with them. If it got lost or they forgot it at home, it will
cause a lot of trouble, because according to the law, they will go straight to jail
without it. They will not even have the option of given a reason for being without it. It
also made them feel inferior that they must walk with around with a pass in their own
country. Pass laws not only restricted the movement of blacks into these areas but
also prohibited their movement from one district to another without a signed pass.
Blacks were always not allowed onto streets of towns in Cape Town and Natal after
dark and they had to carry a passbook.
The Pass Law separated families as it was mostly men who could acquire pass
books, and this forced wives to remain in rural areas. It was very difficult for women
to get pass books. Furthermore, pass books restricted the movements of blacks from
homelands into town and cities as it was a requirement to have a pass books if
blacks were to live in white men’s area.
“The Separate Amenities Act had a bigger impact on the lives of black South
Africans than the Bantu Education Act”. How far do you agree with this
statement? Explain your answer.
The Bantu education law had the biggest effect on black people, because black
South Africans were not allowed to follow the same syllabus as whites. Their
syllabus was of poor quality and the reasons for this was to prepare them for the
semi-skilled labour force. This meant that they were never going to be able to qualify
for “sophisticated” jobs” like doctors and lawyers. And this meant that they were
going to remain poor.
The separate amenities act was also important, because according to this, they
could not use the same facilities as whites. Facilities for blacks were often far and
sometimes, there were no facilities such as public toilets. Very often they needed to
go back to their residents for the use of facilities, and this was very inconvenient.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 71
‘The majority of South Africans were denied the rights to rule themselves
during the introduction of apartheid’. How far do you agree with this
statement? Explain your answer.
Black South Africans were able to exercise their political rights way before the
National Party came to power in South Africa. With the new party, Blacks were
denied the rights of political associations. It was very clear to the white South
Africans that blacks had no right to mingle with the politics of South Africa, as Blacks
political rights was viewed as a threat to the construction of the country, so the best
way, was to deny them the opportunity for political association and by so doing, deny
them the opportunity to vote.
As much as one may think that blacks were denied political rights, one should also
be able to acknowledge the point that indeed Blacks were accorded the opportunity
to rule themselves under the policy of separate development, which was introduced
in the Homelands. The chiefs or traditional leaders were the office bearers and
politically represent Black South Africans, so they could make their political voices be
heard through them.
“Apartheid was unpopular in South Africa”. How far do you agree with this
statement? Explain your answer.
Apartheid was unpopular because it caused bitterness in large parts of South Africa,
mostly among black people, like when the Group Area Act was introduced, blacks
were forced to move to reserves where land is very small and infertile for food
production. Reserves became overcrowded, people were poor and starved.
Apartheid forced the majority of black people to live on Bantustans, which was 13%
of the total area of South Africa. Some males went into towns and cities to get work,
but they were forced to leave their wives and children on the Bantustan. Many whites
complained that they could not play international sport during the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s
because other countries refused to play them in cricket, rugby and soccer because
of apartheid.
On the other hand, it was popular because the policy of enforced segregation led to
the creation of Bantustans/Homelands within the borders of South Africa. Black
people were citizens of the homeland and not of South Africa. In these homelands
black people were given political rights where they could legitimately vote and
exercise their rights of citizenship.
The white population had many benefits and privileges. They owned and lived on
87% of the land. They were the big farmers and owners of big industrial enterprises.
Apartheid gave white people a good standard of living. Most of the physical labour
was done by black, coloured or Indian people.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 72
“The South African government was to blame for the unrest in the country in
the period 1950 to 1976”. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain
your answer.
The Bantu Education Act of 1953 introduced Bantu Education where pupils at black
schools no longer studied the same syllabus as their peer whites, but followed
special new Bantu Education syllabuses. This was inequality and a violation of
human rights. For blacks there were no other options but fighting for their rights,
using violence. If it was not for the violation of human rights by the minority
government blacks would not use violence against the government. The Soweto
Uprising was to be blamed on the South African government who used force against
school children who opposed Afrikaans as a medium of instruction in schools.
On the other hand, blacks were also to be blamed for unrest situations as blacks
were sabotaging the government economy, damaged railways, electricity power
stations and the government was left with no other option but to maintain law and
order in the country. If blacks obeyed the government law, the white minority
government did not take stiff actions against blacks.
How successful was black protest against apartheid in South Africa? Explain
your answer. / 'South Africans successfully organised themselves against the
effects of white rule'. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your
answer.
Black protests were very successful because it focussed the world's attention on
South Africa. In the 1960s black protestors against apartheid were arrested and
stood trial during the Rivonia Treason Trial. Although they were not set free, the trial
with its publicity brought lots of international support and funding for black protestors.
In 1960 the ANC formed the guerrilla wing, Umkhonto weSizwe, aiming to bring
change by carrying out sabotage attacks on white economic- and political targets
such as railways, electricity lines and government offices.
it was not a success because thousands of people had to pay with their lives for the
struggle. The government respondent by arresting political leaders and banned ANC
and PAC. It also took many years before South Africa was willing to change
direction.
The South African government responded by applying the apartheid laws more
ruthlessly. Thousands of people, men and women were tried under the Security
Laws and thrown into jail or isolated on Robben Island. The government tried to
speed up the independence of the various ethnic homelands, despite the resistance
of most blacks to this policy.
“Sharpeville attracted more reaction internationally than locally.” To what
extent do you agree with this statement? Explain you answer.
I disagree because the incident encouraged more demonstrations to take place
throughout South Africa. It was also the reason why the ANC and PAC decided to
start guerrilla wings. They organised more protests and destroyed economic targets.
These strikes made the country ungovernable and did put pressure on the
government.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 73
On the other hand, I agree because demonstrations against Sharpeville were held in
many countries and calls for international actions went up. This led to economic
sanctions against South Africa to force them to change direction. Sharpeville caused
a lot of international reaction because the killings forced South Africa out of the
commonwealth, they were also refused to re-join after they declared themselves a
Republic in 1961.
The outside world became aware of what was going on in South Africa. Sanctions
were imposed on South Africa by the UN. Investment money started to leave the
country. This crippled the economy of South Africa and put the government under
pressure. This was one of the reasons why the government had to change direction
in the years that followed.
“The Sharpeville incident was a victory for the blacks of South Africa.” How far
do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
It was a failure because after the incident the government became even more violet
against demonstrations and protests. The government respondent by arresting
political leaders and banned ANC and PAC. The origin of Sharpeville incident was
that the black people did not want to carry passes anymore, but this did not change.
It was a success because incident encouraged more demonstrations to take place
throughout South Africa. It was also the reason why the ANC and PAC decided to
start guerrilla wings. They organised more protests and also destroyed economic
targets. These strikes made the country ungovernable and did put pressure on the
government.
The outside world became aware of what was going on in South Africa. Sanctions
were imposed on South Africa by the UN. Investment money started to leave the
country. This crippled the economy of South Africa and put the government under
pressure. This was one of the reasons why the government had to change direction
in the years that followed.
"Nelson Mandela played the most important role in ending Apartheid in South
Africa." To what extent do you agree? Explain your answer.
Mandela moved around the country in disguise mobilizing people to join the struggle
against apartheid. He travelled abroad seeking help in the struggle against
apartheid. He was the first leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe. He encouraged more
people to join the struggle against apartheid. The Revonia trials saw the
imprisonment of Mandela and other leading figures. While in prison he refused to
renounce the use of violence against the white South Africa. Once free, Mandela
proved to be a very skillful negotiator; his behavior and moderation impressed many
South Africans. In a spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation, he appointed F.W. de
Klerk as one of the two vice-presidents.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 74
FW de Klerk unbanned the ANC, PAC and SACP. He released political prisoners
including Nelson Mandela and the death sentence was abolished. He instructed the
police not to arrest political activists. He scrapped all petty apartheid to laws. By
January 1993, all apartheid legislations had been repealed. He negotiated with
Mandela about the transition of power to the majority blacks.
The UN disapproved the South Africa’s apartheid policy. They recognized nationalist
movements in South Africa. They also imposed economic sanctions. As a result,
investors withdrew their money from South Africa. South Africa was isolated from the
rest of the world. UN sanctions crippled the economy of South Africa
“The ANC was the most important factor in defeating apartheid.” Do you agree
with this statement? Explain your answer.
In 1952, the ANC led a Defiance Campaign against apartheid countrywide, defying
apartheid regulations. There were arrested in their thousands. Their actions gained
publicity in newspapers abroad and in the UN. Membership increased and the ANC
became the voice of the black resistance. The ANC organized demonstration
throughout South African which made the country ungovernable. They also formed
the military wing Umkhonto we Sizwe (better known as the MK) which started the
armed struggle and aimed at sabotaging government facilities. The action of the MK
crippled the economy of South Africa.
On the other hand it is the Soweto uprising because when the news of the killings
broke, demonstrations spread throughout South Africa and the country became
ungovernable. The UN condemned the action of the South African government. Antiapartheid movements organised demonstrations and protests in cities and towns
around the world. Sport and other boycotts were introduced against South Africa and
alienated the country from old friends like Britain and USA.
Steve Biko established the Black Consciousness Movement. He organized strikes
and demonstration against apartheid. He organized meetings in townships. He
encouraged blacks to take pride in black culture, history and achievements. He
inspired a spirit of fearlessness and resistance among blacks. He was instrumental
in organizing strikes such as the Soweto uprising of 1976-7. His death led to
international condemnation of the white government.
'The Sharpeville Massacre was the most important reason why apartheid was
eventually ended'. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
After the massacre ANC and PAC abandoned non-violence campaigns and formed
military wings to start an armed struggle against apartheid. The massacre
encouraged many people to join the struggle against apartheid. The international
community became aware of the South African situations. Some white South African
started to question whether apartheid was the right policy and they began opposing
it.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 75
FW de Klerk unbanned the ANC, PAC and SACP. He released political prisoners
including Nelson Mandela and the death sentence was abolished. He instructed the
police not to arrest political activists. He scrapped all petty apartheid to laws. By
January 1993, all apartheid legislations had been repealed. He negotiated with
Mandela about the transition of power to the majority blacks.
The UN disapproved the South Africa’s apartheid policy. They recognized nationalist
movements in South Africa. They also imposed economic sanctions. As a result,
investors withdrew their money from South Africa. South Africa was isolated from the
rest of the world. UN sanctions crippled the economy of South Africa
“Women played a major role in opposing apartheid”. How far do you agree
with this statement? Explain your answer.
I disagree, Mandela moved around the country in disguise mobilizing people to join
the struggle against apartheid. He travelled abroad seeking help in the struggle
against apartheid. He was the first leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe. He encouraged
more people to join the struggle against apartheid. The Revonia trials saw the
imprisonment of Mandela and other leading figures. While in prison he refused to
renounce the use of violence against the white South Africa. Once free, Mandela
proved to be a very skillful negotiator; his behavior and moderation impressed many
South Africans. In a spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation, he appointed F.W. de
Klerk as one of the two vice-presidents.
However, Female activists were strongly present in trade union movements which
also served as a vehicle for future organizations such as the ANC Women’s League
(ANCWL) and the Federation of South African Women (FSAW). Their objective was
to fight against racism and oppression of women as well as to make African women
understand that they had rights both as human beings and as women.
Female activists fought along men and participated to demonstrations and guerilla
movements. Women through different organizations also acted independently and
organized bus boycotts, campaigns against restrictive passes in Pretoria and
Sharpeville. About 20 000 women attended these kinds of demonstrations. Many
participants were arrested, forced into exile or imprisoned. At the same time women
fought about gender discrimination and called for rights specific to women such as
family, children, gender equality and access to education.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 76
‘The Soweto uprising was the most important factor in ending apartheid’. How far do you
agree with this statement? Explain your answer. / How far was the achievement of majority
rule in South Africa in 1994 due to the Soweto Uprising of 1976? Explain your answer.
I agree because when the news of the killings broke, demonstrations spread
throughout South Africa and the country became ungovernable. The UN condemned
the action of the South African government. Anti-apartheid movements organised
demonstrations and protests in cities and towns around the world. Sport and other
boycotts were introduced against South Africa and alienated the country from old
friends like Britain and USA.
Besides this it was the Sharpeville massacre because after the massacre ANC and
PAC abandoned non-violence campaigns and formed military wings to start an
armed struggle against apartheid. The massacre encouraged many people to join
the struggle against apartheid. The international community became aware of the
South African situations. Some white South African started to question whether
apartheid was the right policy and they began opposing it.
De Klerk unbanned the ANC, PAC and SACP. He released political prisoners
including Nelson Mandela and the death sentence was abolished. He instructed the
police not to arrest political activists. He scrapped all petty apartheid to laws. By
January 1993, all apartheid legislations had been repealed. He negotiated with
Mandela about the transition of power to the majority blacks.
“Desmond Tutu played the most important role in uniting anti-apartheid
groups”. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
Bishop Desmond Tutu called upon rich countries to stop trading with South Africa
and to withdraw their money they had invested in its industries. He believed that this
would help force the South African government to move towards a democratic, nonracial system of government.
Mandela moved around the country in disguise mobilizing people to join the struggle
against apartheid. He travelled abroad seeking help in the struggle against
apartheid. He was the first leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe. He encouraged more
people to join the struggle against apartheid. The Revonia trials saw the
imprisonment of Mandela and other leading figures. While in prison he refused to
renounce the use of violence against the white South Africa. Once free, Mandela
proved to be a very skillful negotiator; his behavior and moderation impressed many
South Africans. In a spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation, he appointed F.W. de
Klerk as one of the two vice-presidents.
De Klerk unbanned the ANC, PAC and SACP. He released political prisoners
including Nelson Mandela and the death sentence was abolished. He instructed the
police not to arrest political activists. He scrapped all petty apartheid to laws. By
January 1993, all apartheid legislations had been repealed. He negotiated with
Mandela about the transition of power to the majority blacks.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 77
“P W Botha’s reforms were more important than the role played by De Klerk in
ending apartheid on the South African government.” How far do you agree
with this statement? Explain your answer.
Botha was a reformer; he had recognised that change had to take place in order for
him to survive the growing attacks. He was ready to relax some of its restrictions in
order to give the country’s majority black population a better deal over jobs, wages
and living conditions. He allowed black workers to reform trade unions. He scraped
the apartheid laws forbidding interracial marriages and sexual relationships between
whites and blacks.
De Klerk ordered the release of eight leading ANC political prisoners besides Nelson
Mandela. He increased the pace of change. He had already announced reductions in
the powers of the security forces, the desegregations of beaches and other public
places. He scraped the Separate Amenities Act and legalised ANC, SACP and PAC
as well as UDF.
“F.W. de Klerk was the key player in ending minority rule in South Africa.” To
what extent do you agree with this statement? Explain your answer.
De Klerk unbanned the ANC, PAC and SACP. He released political prisoners
including Nelson Mandela and the death sentence was abolished. He instructed the
police not to arrest political activists. He scrapped all petty apartheid to laws. By
January 1993, all apartheid legislations had been repealed. He negotiated with
Mandela about the transition of power to the majority blacks.
Mandela moved around the country in disguise mobilizing people to join the struggle
against apartheid. He travelled abroad seeking help in the struggle against
apartheid. He was the first leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe. He encouraged more
people to join the struggle against apartheid. The Revonia trials saw the
imprisonment of Mandela and other leading figures. While in prison he refused to
renounce the use of violence against the white South Africa. Once free, Mandela
proved to be a very skillful negotiator; his behavior and moderation impressed many
South Africans. In a spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation, he appointed F.W. de
Klerk as one of the two vice-presidents.
Steve Biko established the Black Consciousness Movement. He organized strikes
and demonstration against apartheid. He organized meetings in townships. He
encouraged blacks to take pride in black culture, history and achievements. He
inspired a spirit of fearlessness and resistance among blacks. He was instrumental
in organizing strikes such as the Soweto uprising of 1976-7. His death led to
international condemnation of the white government.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 78
“The National Party played the most important role in bringing majority rule to
South Africa in 1990”. To what extent do you agree with this statement?
Explain your answer.
The NP played the biggest role because they were still the ruling government and
could keep on ruling the country with apartheid, but they preferred to release
Mandela and start negotiations with the ANC.
On the other hand, the ANC also played a major role because the demonstrations
made it impossible for the NP to further control /rule the country. The military wing of
the ANC put a lot of pressure on the police force and the NP ended up without
answers on how to solve the problems.
The UN disapproved the South Africa’s apartheid policy. They recognized nationalist
movements in South Africa. They also imposed economic sanctions. As a result,
investors withdrew their money from South Africa. South Africa was isolated from the
rest of the world. UN sanctions crippled the economy of South Africa
To what extent were economic sanctions effective in ending apartheid in South
Africa? Explain your answer.
The economic sanctions were effective, because it put a lot of pressure on the
economy of South Africa. South Africa did not have a market to export their products
to and they also find it difficult to import raw materials like oil, because without oil no
country could grow effectively. After economic sanctions intensified, South Africa had
no choice but to organize elections since the economy started to break down.
However, it was not effective, because not all countries participated in sanctions
from the start. Countries like USA continued to trade with South Africa in the
beginning, which meant that South Africa could get all what they needed through the
USA. The result was that it took a very long time before sanctions became effective
only after all countries started to participate during this period, lots of people lost their
lives.
“International sanctions and internal protest were equally important in causing
apartheid to collapse.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?
Explain your answer.
South Africa was forbidden to trade with the rest of the world e.g. many British
people refused to buy South African goods such as wine and fruit. Demonstrations
were held outside the offices of British companies which invested in South Africa or
which had factories or branches in South Africa. The students boycotted Barclays
Banks because it was heavily involved in South Africa. These sanctions were mainly
supported by the anti-apartheid movement.
After the Sharpeville massacre ANC and PAC abandoned non-violence campaigns
and formed military wings to start an armed struggle against apartheid. The
massacre encouraged many people to join the struggle against apartheid. The
international community became aware of the South African situations. Some white
South African started to question whether apartheid was the right policy and they
began opposing it.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 79
When the news of the killings of students in Soweto broke, demonstrations spread
throughout South Africa and the country became ungovernable. The UN condemned
the action of the South African government. Anti-apartheid movements organised
demonstrations and protests in cities and towns around the world. Sport and other
boycotts were introduced against South Africa and alienated the country from old
friends like Britain and USA
“The independence of Namibia in 1990 was the main contributing factor to the
collapse of apartheid in South Africa” How far do you agree with this
statement? Explain your answer.
Inspired by the success of SWAPO's armed struggled, ANC and PAC intensified
their armed resistance against South African rule. The South African mass also
started to put more pressure on the international community (UN) to put apartheid to
an end. The international community like Russia, Cuba, the UN and the former OAU
supported SWAPO in the liberation of Namibia.
Apartheid collapsed in SA because of the application of sanctions by international
communities, such as the Anti-apartheid Movement. British people refused to buy
South African goods, such as fruit and wine. Demonstrations were held outside the
offices of British companies which invested in South Africa or had factories or
branches there. This affected the economy of South Africa negatively.
The Umkhonto we Sizwe was established with the intention that was expressed by
most South Africans who felt that strikes and demonstrations were not enough.
Therefore, they established the ANC’s guerrilla wing to organise sabotage attacks on
police stations, power lines and oil refineries with bombs and rockets. The aim was
to weaken the apartheid government economically and politically and force the
government into negotiations.
“Apartheid ended due to internal pressure than external pressure.” How far do
you agree with this statement? Explain your answer. / "International pressure
mainly contributed to majority rule in South Africa in 1994." To what extent do
you agree? Explain your answer. / “Resistance within South Africa was the
most important reason for the ending of apartheid”. How far do you agree with
this statement? Explain your answer. / “Internal opposition was the main
reason for the collapse of apartheid.” How far do you agree with this
statement? Explain your answer.
The internal pressure played a very important role in ending apartheid because the
constant demonstrations that were carried out impacted heavily on the government
by making the country ungovernable which resulted in chaos and the lack of law and
order. The demonstrations also resulted in the killing of many by the police and
during funerals of the victims, new demonstrations erupted which took workers out of
their works and in the process weakened the country’s economy.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 80
The external pressure also played an important role in ending apartheid because
due to the apartheid laws and activities such as Sharpeville massacre and Soweto
uprising, the international communities such as the UN decided to condemn
apartheid and imposed economic sanctions on South Africa which resulted in
devastating economic effects in the country in general and its trading partners.
Fearful of losing friends in Africa as de-colonization transformed the continent,
powerful members of the Security Council, including Great Britain, France, and the
United States, succeeded in watering down the proposals.
By the late 1970s, grassroots movements in Europe and the United States
succeeded in pressuring their governments into imposing economic and cultural
sanctions on Pretoria. After the U.S. Congress passed the Comprehensive AntiApartheid Act in 1986, many large multinational companies withdrew from South
Africa. By the late 1980s, the South African economy was struggling with the effects
of the internal and external boycotts as well as the burden of its military commitment
in occupying Namibia.
How effective was international opposition to apartheid? Explain your answer.
The international opposition to apartheid was effective because the constant
pressure of sanctions on South Africa resulted in South Africa not to have a choice
but to give in to the pressure. The country’s economy was crippled as some
investors took their money out of the country and some countries stopped trading
with South Africa. Thus it was impossible to rule a country if one could not have
trade links with others and they resorted to start arranging for free and fair elections.
The international opposition to apartheid was very much ineffective, because
economic sanctions were imposed on South Africa with the intention to cripple their
economy by means of forbidding trade to take place with other countries. However,
this did not have a negative impact on South Africa because some Western
countries did not stop trading with South Africa. Therefore, the intended sanctions
did not play an effective role to cripple the economy and force the country to change
direction.
Stan – HD’s Consecrated Work 2020
Page 81