With reference to two independence movements, to what extent was violence an important method of achieving independence?

The question requires that candidates consider the merits or otherwise of the suggestion that violence was an important method of achieving independence. The two independence movements may or may not be drawn from the same region and they may or may not have been contemporaneous. Candidates may offer equal coverage of the two independence movements, or they may emphasize their assessment of one of them; however, both movements will be a feature of the response. A comparative approach may or may not be used. Candidates may refer to organized military force, for example Bolívar’s forces in South America, or to the use of guerrillas, for example the Viet Minh. However, non-violent methods may be referred to in an effort to challenge the question, for example refusal to pay taxes, or civil resistance in India.

The question required candidates to consider the merits or otherwise of the suggestion that violence was an important method of achieving independence. There were several responses seen to this question with candidates using the Indochinese/Vietnam Wars along with Algeria as popular examples. Most responses demonstrated some sound knowledge of wars that were important as a method to achieve independence and included some analysis of other factors such as charismatic leadership or the decision by the colonial power to grant independence.