Why did leaders of the Congress movement in South Africa abandon their exclusive reliance on non-violent means in the struggle against apartheid, form an armed unit (Umkhonto we Sizwe), and launch a campaign of spectacular sabotage bombings of symbols of apartheid in 1961? None of the earlier violent struggles from which Congress leaders drew inspiration, and none of the contemporaneous insurgencies against white minority rule elsewhere in southern Africa, involved a similar distinct, preliminary and extended phase of non-lethal symbolic sabotage. Following the 1960 Sharpeville massacre, Congress leaders feared the social and political consequences of increased popular enthusiasm for using violence. Nelson Mandela, Joe Slovo, and the other founders of Umkhonto we Sizwe did not launch their sabotage campaign because they believed it would prompt a change of heart among white South Africans, nor because they believed urban sabotage bombings were a necessary prelude to the launch of rural guerrilla warfare. Rather, the sabotage campaign was a spectacular placeholder, a stopgap intended to advertise the Congress movement's abandonment of exclusive non-violence and thus to discourage opponents of apartheid, both inside and outside South Africa, from supporting rival groups or initiating �uncontrolled violent action themselves.

中文翻译：

---

南非国会运动转向破坏*

为什么南非国大运动的领导人在反对种族隔离的斗争中放弃了对非暴力手段的独家依赖，组建了一个武装部队（Umkhonto we Sizwe），并在 1961 年发动了一场壮观的对种族隔离象征的破坏性爆炸运动？国会领导人从中汲取灵感的早期暴力斗争，以及南部非洲其他地方反对白人少数统治的同时发生的叛乱，都没有涉及类似的独特、初步和扩展的非致命象征性破坏阶段。在 1960 年沙佩维尔大屠杀之后，国会领​​导人担心民众使用暴力的热情增加会带来社会和政治后果。纳尔逊·曼德拉、乔·斯洛沃、Umkhonto we Sizwe 的其他创始人并没有发起他们的破坏活动，因为他们相信这会促使南非白人改变主意，也不是因为他们认为城市破坏性爆炸是发动农村游击战的必要前奏。相反，破坏活动是一个壮观的占位符，一个权宜之计，旨在宣传国会运动放弃排他性非暴力，从而阻止南非内外的种族隔离反对者支持敌对团体或发起“不受控制的暴力行动” .