The women's War Work was another important factor in getting the vote. They enjoyed new freedoms, which made them more interested in representation. Source G, from a book about the years between 1870 and 1914 disagrees, "They looked for escape from the harsh conditions of paid employment". This source is useful because it suggests that, before the war, women were not interested in politics or working for others. It is also useful because it is written by a historian, and should therefore be reliable and accurate. As it is from a book published with the benefit of hindsight it is also a more useful source. The book itself is a history of Britain, making it more useful, however the fact that it doesn't cover the years immediately before women got the vote makes it considerably less useful, as does the fact that it was written years after the time it is describing, meaning that the author is unlikely to have been there. The book covers a wide section of history, making it less useful. Women's war work helped them to get the vote by giving them reasons to want change, and the confidence, money and independence to campaign for it.
Source H is useful for showing how the war changed people's opinions toward women. It shows a man and woman working together to protect Britain, and how women were starting to be seen as equals. It's less useful for seeing how individuals had started to view women, but it shows how society as a whole was changing. It is useful because many people would see it, as the front cover of a popular magazine, and therefore reflects general opinion, as well as being from a time shortly before women got the vote, but is less useful because it may be designed as a kind of propaganda for the government.
Not all opinions towards women working were positive, however. A textbook published in 1991 (Source I) says, "Attitudes to women workers remained, in many cases, negative. The ability of women to take on what had been men's work meant that increasing numbers of men were vulnerable to conscription." This source is useful because it tells us the 'other side' of the story. It tells us that women didn't have support from all men for the vote, and some men resented women's work in the factories, as it meant they were forced into battle. As this source was written in 1991, it was written with the benefit of hindsight, and time to research the facts, as it was written by a historian, it should be well researched. It is less useful, because the book covers a period of forty-nine years, women's suffrage being only one event in that period.
I think that overall, WW1 was a major factor in speeding up women getting the vote, and although they would have got the vote eventually, the war was very important as a catalyst for women getting the vote in 1918, because of the cumulative effect of women's work during the war, and the law change to allow homecoming soldiers to vote. Without it, it is very unlikely that women would have got the vote when they did.
The Prime Minister and many MPs were supporters of women getting the vote. Many MPs thought women would be getting the vote soon anyway, and if they were seen as being anti-women they could alienate potential voters. Much of the Government thought women would vote like their husbands, so the effect would be more votes for them. Many MPs were hostile to women's votes in 1912. For example a Conservative leader, Lord Curzon said "Women do not have the experience to be able to vote...[The] way women have been educated, their lack of strength and the duties they have" (Source F). This is useful for describing how MPs felt and suggests that something had to modernise the views of people of the time, bringing them into the 20th Century. It is less useful because it doesn't tell us how MP's attitudes might be changing anyway or whether everybody's attitudes were similar. As the speech was given by a MP, it is useful for telling us what they thought, however the fact that it was given in 1912 means that it is several years before women actually got the vote, and opinions may have changed, possibly due to the intervening war. The views of MPs may have got women the vote eventually, but if no other reasons, like their work during World War One, had existed, it is unlikely they would have got the vote in 1918.
Suffragists were a major part of getting women the vote in 1918, although not as important as WW1. They were "like a glacier" - slow and unstoppable. Their "tidal wave" of letters, petitions and pamphlets earned them respect from many men, many MPs stopped to listen to them, and took their words into consideration. The Suffragists or National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) were founded in 1890 by Millicent Fawcett. Although they were regarded as intelligent women, they were seen as somewhat 'wishy-washy' and feeble. The Suffragists also organised 'pilgrimages' to London - peaceful protests attempting to get women the vote. Their campaign helped get the idea of votes for women into many people's minds. The campaign would undoubtedly have got women the vote eventually, as more and more pressure was piled on the Government to give women the vote, but the way in which World War One came along, giving women the chance to prove themselves, certainly brought forward the time when they got the vote. The Suffragists played an important role in getting women the vote, making men respect women.
Another factor in women getting the vote in 1918 was the Suffragettes. Started in 1903, the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU), led by Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters, was a terrorist group aiming to get women the vote. Their tactics included: heckling at meetings, chaining themselves to important buildings, setting fire to post-boxes, pouring acid on golf courses, cutting telephone wires and slashing valuable artwork. In a speech, Christabel Pankhurst said "We cannot make any orderly protest because we do not have the means to do such a thing....So long as we do not have the vote we must be disorderly" (Source B). This is useful because it can tell us some of the reasons the Suffragettes acted as they did, as well as what they felt the vote would give them - a voice. It is less useful for telling us reactions to the Suffragettes or what else could have got them the vote. As it was said before women got the vote, it helps us to gather what opinions there were to women getting the vote before it happened. It is less useful as it was said by Christabel Pankhurst, a Suffragette, whilst speaking to MPs, trying to persuade them to give women the vote. The Suffragettes called a halt to all terrorism during WW1, part of the reason they got the vote may have been fears that their actions would restart when the war was over. I think that the Suffragettes would have been successful in getting British women the vote if the war had not happened, because their shock tactics gave them huge publicity showing how proactive women could be, though not necessarily in 1918. It could, however be argued that the actions of the WSPU had a negative impact on the campaign to give women the vote, making men think of them as terrorists, and not able to make an informed choice about a political party.
Source D would disagree with me on how much respect these women's suffrage groups earned, talking of a "Suffragist Attack on the House of Commons". This article is useful for showing how they may not have had respect from many men (or the reporter), but is less useful for giving information on how other women felt about these groups. This article is also very unreliable, as it is well known that the Suffragists were a peaceful organisation, and it is clear the journalist has his facts wrong, leading the reader to doubt the accuracy of the rest of the article.
In the early 20th Century, women were getting the vote all over the world. Australian women got the vote in 1893, German women also got the vote in 1918, and the women of the USSR got a vote in 1917. Women on the Isle of Man had the vote since 1881. The world was becoming more and more modern, and Britain didn't want to seem old-fashioned or 'stuck in the past' . This may have encouraged many Brits to support women's suffrage - especially since Germany gave women the vote - whilst we were at war with Germany, no-one wanted to be less modern than the enemy! Britain was under 'peer-pressure' from the rest of the world, and we wanted to be as modern as everyone else - it was inevitable that this would mean women got the vote eventually - though World War One probably sped this up and got women the vote in 1918.
Overall, I think that without the First World War, women may not have got the vote in April 1918, although I think that they may have got the vote very soon afterwards anyway. The Government would certainly have wanted people to think that women were gaining the right to vote because of their actions during the war. It would not have been a good idea for the Government to be seen to be giving in to terrorism at a time when the IRA were attempting to secure Home Rule for Ireland. In the end, World War One was a catalyst in getting women the vote, but they would have got it in the first half of the 20th Century anyway.