Do you agree with the view that conscientious objectors were treated fairly by the authorities during the First World War

Authors Avatar by skuds2000 (student)

Use Sources 7, 8 and 9 and your own knowledge - Do you agree with the view that conscientious objectors were treated fairly by the authorities during the First World War?

Whether or not conscientious objectors were treated fairly by the authorities during the First World War has been widely debated. Although the tribunals established to deal with conscientious objectors undoubtedly had good intentions, it is arguable that the outcomes reached were not always just, and reflective of the applicants true circumstances. With outcomes ranging from total exemption to imprisonment, there was a large spectrum of possible situations that objectors could find themselves facing. Furthermore, due to the varying reasons for individuals to seek exemption, tribunals often found difficulty in verifying or rejecting applicants. Thus whether or not conscientious objectors were treated fairly is largely open to interpretation, considering the difficult circumstances and ambiguity surround each applicants appeal.

Source 7 implies that conscientious objectors were indeed treated fairly, with the odds of gaining at least a temporary exemption quoted at a “high” 50%. In fact Source 7 suggests that some of the appeals were ludicrously audacious, and left the tribunal with no choice but to reject such application. The verification of the systems fairness is amplified when it is stated that the decisions made were “just”, and decided upon by “sympathetic”, “careful” colleagues. However whether or not this perspective on the system is accurate is open to interpretation. Although it is apparent that the government’s intentions were good, and the tribunals appointed were intended to be humane and fair, this was not always the case. Due to the fact that it was left to local councils to choose the individuals who actively sat on the panels, it became frequent that they selected themselves. This led to strongly patriotic individuals sat in the tribunal, who often prejudiced against anyone whom they thought was not serving their country adequately. Often they were people of not very great depth of vision or understanding, genuinely confused about their task and its complicated guidelines. Although it is stated that “50%” of all applicants received at least temporary exemption, this was not the case. Unconditional temporary exemptions were very rarely granted, and in many cases applications were turned down altogether, which meant that the men were liable for call-up as ordinary soldiers. Thus, although it is stated that the image of the tribunals as “tyrannical” is a myth, this Source may not be entirely accurate in revealing the true circumstances faced by conscientious objectors.

Join now!

Source 8, unlike Source 7, suggests that the tribunals did not always treat conscientious objectors fairly, and in fact in most cases were largely biased towards their appeals. It is stated that although a few “scrupulous” tribunals did adhere and cooperate fairly with the objectors, the majority found “great difficulty” in empathising with the COs. The fact that tribunals were comprised of “distinguished local citizens” is emphasised, once more amplifying the overwhelming prejudice that was placed on those appealing by the deeply patriotic locals. Additionally it is suggested that individuals demanded “absolute exemption” from the war. In reality however, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay