Were Britons more tolerant of conscientious objectors in the Second World War than in the First?
William Strickland, Essex AYes, to a degree. Official
systems for dealing with conscientious objectors were better developed. About a third of the 16,000 men who objected to conscription in the period 1916–18 were imprisoned, and they were often treated brutally, including a small number who were sent to the army in France, court-martialled and condemned to death before having their sentences commuted. In contrast, of the almost 60,000 men who objected to military service on conscientious grounds during the Second World War, only about 300 were imprisoned. This was largely because the system gave more room for men to undertake other work of national importance (including non-combatant service in the military) that did not conflict to the same degree with their conscience – only about 3,500 were completely exempted.
Conscientious objectors who did brave work disposing of bombs or treating the wounded were celebrated in the press, and the minority who were imprisoned experienced much less mistreatment than their predecessors. This did not, however, reflect complete public tolerance: armed military service remained a masculine ideal and those who refused it experienced discrimination and disdain – about a third of local authorities, for example, dismissed employees who claimed exemption on the grounds of conscience.