Source D is very reliable as it is an extract from a historian’s writings, which implies the author researched the subject thoroughly. This means that he extract is also useful, as one would have expected the historian to have looked at lots of different accounts. The author, Alan Taylor, shows that a lot of people sought exemption from war (1.5 million) on the grounds that they had essential job, although some may just have been revolting against conscription. However as it says the Bill for conscription went through with a ‘hardly a murmur’ one can presume that the MPs were behind conscription. The extract also says that conscription produced conscientious objectors – this supports the fact that some people did reject conscription. Therefore this source also disagrees with Source B, saying that quite a substantial number of British civilians revolted against conscription. However, once again this source is not quite as sweeping as source B.
In sources C and D one can see that obviously some people didn’t like conscription, but neither give us any idea of how many.
Overall I feel that Source D is the most reliable account out of the three as it supports what I know of conscription and is a reliable source. I can therefore say that in Britain the popular attitudes towards conscription were to accept it, but as expected there were a considerable number of men that rejected it – conscientious objectors.
2. ‘Public opinion during the war was uniformly hostile to the conscientious objectors.’ Do these sources show this to be true?
During the war a lot of men refused to fight for their country for various reasons – some claiming exemption due to their important roles in industry (and refused to fight), others because their conscience wouldn’t allow them to. The later of these men were known as conscientious objectors. They didn’t fight during voluntary or compulsory enlistment, but just stayed at home – even though their country needed them and they didn’t have a valid reason (except for a moral one)to be excluded from the dangers of war. Because of this a lot of citizens became ‘uniformly hostile to the conscientious objectors’. The sources in question give different views on this opinion, some disagreeing whilst others agree.
Source A is probably a reliable source for it is a conscientious objector recollecting his opinions on the war, and therefore would have had no reason to lie. It is not very useful as it is only one man’s opinions and he doesn’t actually mention how people treated him (or his family and friends). However, one gathers that he thought he was made to feel uncomfortable around others. This doesn’t really imply that people were hostile against him though.
Source B is not particularly reliable as it is a cartoon. It is quite useful as the illustrators depiction would have to fit in with the newspaper’s political stance. However, it shows that conscription was looked upon as a good thing, and therefore those who rejected would probably not be appreciated.
Source C is a more reliable source as it is an extract from a letter which the author would have had no reason to lie in. It is not very useful as it only gives the views of one man. This learned man, Robert Saunders, shows a disgust towards conscientious objectors and describes them as having ‘no trace of patriotism, courage or self-respect’. Therefore this source agrees with the quote such that people were hostile towards conscientious objectors, however this source alone does not show whether the public shared this view.
Source D is very reliable as it is written by a historian, and it would also be very useful for he would have taken a lot of different views into account. However, it doesn’t show any evidence of how people reacted to conscientious objectors and is therefore of no use.
Source E is reliable as it is someone’s application for exemption. Once again it is of very little use, as it doesn’t mention how conscientious objectors were treated. However the writer (E.Short) stresses that he has ‘no wish to shirk his country’. This implies that he feels he stands a worst chance of being exempted if he was a conscientious objector. This source is generally not particularly useful.
Source F is also a reliable source as it is a letter. It is useful as it shows how figures of authority like the author felt about those who refused to fight for their country. The extract says that those who are exempt from war should ‘steel their hearts and adopt as their motto – National Security First.’ This source therefore seems slightly hostile towards conscientious objectors.
Source G is reliable as far as the author would have no reason to lie, although as it is a recollection there may be some slight falsities in his memory. The extract represents the views of soldiers towards conscientious objectors. It says that there were three ways that conscientious objectors were looked upon (by these soldiers) - some thought that they deserved to be shot; others wanted to know what they stood for; and the rest thought that they just wanted to get out of the trenches. Overall, this source implies that there wasn’t a general approach (from soldiers) towards COs, and it stresses that there wasn’t a ‘uniform attitude’.
Source H is a very reliable source for it was taken from ‘The Tribunal’ which was a book. It is also quite useful as is shows how conscientious objectors were judged in court – unfairly. The extract says how the objector’s argument was flawless, however he was still court-martialled and sentenced. This implies that at least sometimes COs were unjustly treated.
Source I is also very reliable for it is also an extract form ‘The Tribunal’. It is useful as it contains figures which show what happened to those that resisted military service. It says that of the 6312 men who resisted military service, 5790 were court-martialled, and 843 of these served two years in prison. These figures are very high and to me imply that authorities generally set out to imprison objectors, however some were let off. This source seems to agree with the question saying that people were ‘uniformly hostile’ towards conscientious objectors.
Source J is not very reliable as it is a cartoon, which means the illustrator would be trying to portray a comical image rather than a factual one. It is quite useful though as cartoons from ‘Punch’ magazine have a tendency to display the opinion of the general public on issues. It is not particularly useful, as although it shows how conscientious objectors acted, it doesn’t show other people acted towards them. However, it does show that the objectors were looked upon as hypocritical for they claim exemption for not being able to hurt a man, and then here are displayed fighting with one another. Therefore this source generally shows that objectors were looked upon as stupid and a waste of time, however this image does not show that people were hostile towards them.
Overall, I feel that these sources generally show that people were uniformly against conscientious objectors, however not many were hostile towards them. This only partly agrees with the extract in this question, and therefore only show it to be partly true.
