conscientious objectors

conscientious objectors (COs). Contrary to expectations during the anti-war reaction of the late 1920s, COs were too few to affect the war effort of any of the combatants during the Second World War; but their numbers, treatment, and behaviour revealed much about the countries which produced them.

COs differ from the generality of ‘draft-dodgers’ in that their refusal to be conscripted is both avowed and principled. The first COs were members of Protestant sects such as the Mennonites which were so small, intransigent, and idiosyncratic that by the late 19th century even Russia and Germany did not bother to force them to bear arms, though they were required instead to contribute either a tax or non-combatant service. As late as the First World War, when most liberal states first made provision for conscientious objection, their procedures still favoured members of ‘historic peace churches’, and offered only conditional exemption. Admittedly, in the UK the law not only recognized all religious objectors—and, even more remarkably, ethical and political ones too—as eligible for CO status, but also provided for unconditional exemption; yet in practice local tribunals often refused to implement these uniquely generous provisions. As a result every liberal state found itself in confrontation with two new types of CO which appeared as significant minorities for the first time during the First World War: those from outside the historic peace sects, and ‘absolutists’ who refused alternative service. Their sufferings helped to publicize their claim that all sincere objectors had a general right to be exempted, unconditionally where appropriate.

By the Second World War the toleration of COs had begun to be recognized as a touchstone of mature liberalism. The Axis powers prided themselves on refusing to recognize conscientious objection, as did the Soviet Union, which boasted that its previous limited provision had produced no takers; and neither the new states of east-central Europe nor the Catholic countries of western Europe such as France and Belgium catered for COs. There is insufficient evidence to guess the numbers imprisoned or executed for nevertheless attempting to sustain a conscientious objection in such states.

However, in the Protestant-liberal cultures of North America, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia, COs were treated better than in the First World War. For example, the USA widened its recognition from historic peace sects to all objections arising from ‘religious training and belief’, and also introduced a scheme for Civilian Public Service. Its COs numbered approximately 100,000 (0.0029% of those required to register for military service, compared with an estimated 0.0023% in the First World War). Even so, the USA stopped short of either recognizing political objectors or exempting unconditionally; Civilian Public Service was mostly carried out in prison-like camps; and in addition 6% of COs were gaoled. The UK was again most generous, its tribunals now applying the law more fairly than in the First World War: unconditional exemptions were granted to 6.1% of COs (compared with less than 0.003%); alternative service was permitted in ordinary civilian jobs; and less than 10% of COs suffered spells in prison (compared with about 33%). Its total of COs was nearly 60,000 or 1.2% of those called up, an average concealing a steep decline from a peak of 2.2% in the phoney war (compared with 0.125% of those either volunteering or conscripted in First World War). Although their numbers increased, the UK's Second World War COs had even less influence than their predecessors: generous treatment embarrassed most into co-operative behaviour, though a few complained about repressive tolerance.

Martin Ceadel

Bibliography

Barker, R. , Conscience, Government and War (London, 1982).
Prasad, D., and and Smythe, T. , Conscription (London, 1968).
Sibley, M. Q., and and Jacob, P. E. , Conscription of Conscience (Ithaca, NY, 1952).