Conscientious Objectors in the 20th Century

This section explains how conscientious objectors were treated in the 20^th Century.  A conscientious objector is someone who refuses to participate in war on moral or ethical grounds, particularly for reasons of conscience, religion, or politics. In the 20th century, the status of conscientious objectors (COs) was a highly contentious issue, and changes in law led to it being considered a criminal act in some conflicts. The treatment of COs varied between World War One and World War Two, reflecting shifts in public attitudes and government policies.

World War One

At the outset of World War One, the British government relied heavily on volunteer soldiers. A widespread recruitment drive led to over 1 million men signing up for military service. However, as the war dragged on and casualties mounted, the government introduced conscription in an attempt to meet the increasing demand for soldiers.

The 1916 Military Service Act

In 1916, the government passed the Military Service Act, which imposed conscription on all single men between the ages of 18 and 41. This was later extended to include married men as well. Those exempt from conscription included individuals who were medically unfit, clergymen, certain types of teachers, and a range of essential workers, including miners, farmers, and industrial workers.

Reasons for Conscientious Objection

Some men refused to fight in the war for a variety of reasons:

• Religious Beliefs: Many men, particularly Christians, refused to fight based on their religious convictions, citing the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” as a guiding principle.
• Class and Political Beliefs: Some men believed the war was essentially a conflict between European rulers and not a struggle that affected ordinary people. They argued that it was unjust to fight in a war that did not directly involve them.
• Alternative Service: A number of men were willing to support the war effort but refused to take part in combat. These alternativists volunteered for non-combatant roles, such as stretcher bearers, ambulance drivers, or food distributors.
• Pacifists: Those who categorically opposed the war, often for philosophical reasons, were known as absolutists. Most absolutists were pacifists who refused to support the war in any capacity.

Treatment of Conscientious Objectors

During World War One, the majority of the British public strongly supported the war, and thus many viewed conscientious objectors as unpatriotic or even cowardly. Public hostility was widespread, and COs were often subjected to social ostracism, verbal abuse, and physical attacks. The government's response to COs was harsh:

• Tribunal Hearings: Around 16,500 conscientious objectors were required to present their reasons for refusal to fight at local tribunals. These tribunals were made up of retired soldiers and other individuals with little sympathy for the objectors' stance.
• Imprisonment and Punishment: Many COs who refused to comply with tribunal decisions were sent to prison. Conditions in prison were often severe, with offenders subjected to solitary confinement, hard labour, and long sentences.
• Alternative Work: Some men who refused to fight were given alternative work in the UK that contributed to the war effort, though this was not always viewed favourably.
• Punishment for Refusal: Some COs were sent to the front lines in France, where they were ordered to fight. Those who refused to follow military orders could be sentenced by a military court.
• Death Sentence: A small number of COs were sentenced to death for refusing to serve, although the Prime Minister intervened, and their sentences were reduced to 10 years imprisonment instead.
• Post-War Restrictions: After the war, conscientious objectors faced continued discrimination. They were not allowed to vote until 1926, reflecting the lasting stigma associated with their refusal to fight.

World War Two

When World War Two broke out in 1939, conscription was reintroduced. However, the treatment of conscientious objectors during this conflict was somewhat different from the approach taken in the First World War.

Changes in Government Response

• Tribunal Reform: Tribunals continued to exist to assess claims of conscientious objection, but unlike in World War One, they did not include ex-soldiers on the panel. The decision-making process became more sympathetic and less hostile towards objectors.
• Alternative Work: During World War Two, the government placed greater emphasis on providing COs with alternative work that supported the war effort, such as working in munitions factories or in agriculture. This was a more accommodating approach compared to the strict military punishments imposed during the First World War.
• Imprisonment as a Last Resort: Imprisonment was still used for COs who refused alternative work or continued to resist, but it was regarded as a last resort.
• Legal Challenges: There were some court cases against conscientious objectors, particularly against members of pacifist organisations like the Peace Pledge Union. However, most of these cases were dismissed, reflecting a shift in legal attitudes toward greater tolerance.

Public Attitudes

Despite these changes in official policy, the general public's attitudes towards conscientious objectors were still largely negative, similar to World War One. COs faced public vilification through the media, were frequently accused of cowardice, and sometimes became the target of physical attacks. Many conscientious objectors found that they lost their jobs, particularly in industries where their refusal to participate in the war effort was viewed as a betrayal.

Conclusion

Conscientious objectors in the 20th century faced difficult choices as they refused to take part in the two world wars. While the treatment of COs evolved between World War One and World War Two, public opinion remained largely hostile to those who chose not to fight, and the government often responded with punitive measures. The status of conscientious objection, once considered a criminal act, has been reassessed over time, and today, the right to refuse military service for moral, religious, or political reasons is recognised in many countries. However, during the world wars, the pressure on COs to conform to the demands of war was immense, and their treatment was often harsh and unforgiving.