The Believe that Conscientious Objectors were Nothing but Cowards

1839 Words4 Pages

During the First World War, Britain introduced conscription for the first time to massively increase the input of power of their army had and forced men aged 16-19 to serve in the army. However, a group of roughly 16,800 men refused to serve. These groups of people were called Conscientious Objectors; sometimes called COs or Conchies; and many were very religious and believed that thou shall not kill as it is a sin in the Bible. This was a main point that most Conscientious Objectors did not take any part during the First World War as they believed it would result in pointless bloodshed. The Government’s and general public’s view on Conscientious Objectors was that Conscientious Objectors were unpatriotic cowards and the Government used propaganda to manipulate the general public’s view on Conscientious Objectors by showing that they would not aid the Britain and were weak. As a result they were treated harshly. The Government made being a Conscientious Objector very hard and difficult as they would enforce tribunals which consisted of ex- military officials who were biased as they were for the First World War. Therefore, these people gave huge prison sentences to Conscientious Objectors as a scare tactic to reduce the number of Conscientious Objectors. Historians use interpretations to show the message behind each source to see it’s reliable or useful. Also this is done to see if the source itself is a primary or secondary interpretation which shows if the source’s view and meaning is from the author of sources (primary interpretation) or giving a generalised views on people who were there at the time (secondary interpretation).

However, in this extract from a history book published in 1928, it explains the “white feather” ...

... middle of paper ...

...e into explaining if COs were courageous or not. This also affects the usefulness making it incredibly useful as it explains why COs were courageous not cowards as they “were individuals who were confident that they must not employ violence or war”; this also meant that were put in “jeopardy” as the general public knew that they were COs. This meant that they were rejected from society” therefore, meant that their beliefs were so strong that they were courageous in the own way. This primary interpretation is that COs were courageous due to the fact they were treated badly in society yet they still stood up for what they believed in. Overall, this affects the reliability as it makes it very reliable as it has the benefit of hindsight. Overall, this affects the usefulness as it makes it very useful as it shows the side of COs that they weren’t cowards but, heroes.

Open Document