Refusal to fight

[RogerWill]

I am interested to ascertaining details of the number of officers and men in the British services who at some point in their military career refused to fight  during WWI, particularly where this was in explicit protest over the war. Can any members point me to research  and statistics on this topic please?

Thanks.

Roger 

[DavidOwen]

Try here https://archive.org/details/statisticsofmili00grea/page/672/mode/2up?q=conscientious from Statistics of the military effort of the British Empire during the Great War 1914-1920

[RogerWill]

Thanks for this David, that's a really good start. Aside from the Court Martial system, has anybody seen any data on the use of psychiatric hospitals to counter such protests? Also, is  it  known how many men may have been  given  the death penalty for such protests?

 

Roger

[Terry_Reeves]

Try looking up  Craiglockhart War Hospital. There is also some general background in this article which has an extensive bibliography :

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/between_acceptance_and_refusal_-_soldiers_attitudes_towards_war

TR

Edited 8 October , 2022 by Terry_Reeves

[RogerWill]

Thanks Terry for this. I have been doing a lot of work on Craiglockhart (which has spurred the present query, really to try to better contextualise what happened there). I would assume similar examples exist at other psychiatric war hospitals. Your link to the article by André Loez is a great; a very interesting read.

 

Roger

[FROGSMILE]

On 08/10/2022 at 02:22, RogerWill said:

Thanks Terry for this. I have been doing a lot of work on Craiglockhart (which has spurred the present query, really to try to better contextualise what happened there). I would assume similar examples exist at other psychiatric war hospitals. Your link to the article by André Loez is a great; a very interesting read.

 

Roger

Just in case you haven’t seen it there is a broader essay on the subject, but covering all the belligerent nations, here: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/between_acceptance_and_refusal_-_soldiers_attitudes_towards_war

[kenf48]

In the United Kingdom:-

"Perhaps the true figure of those who opposed the First World War will never be known.  No figures are known for those who were reluctant to fight and successfully  evaded call-up or worked in reserved occupations such as mining, or for those who were refused exemption and entered the services when called-up, or for those who had become pacifists during the war but continued their service.  Anti war-women are also missing from the figures, so too are those above the age of conscription and the medically unfit. But of the 16,000 who faced tribunals, just over 9,000 accepted some form of alternative service, including the Home Office Scheme, and 3.000 served in the Non Combatant Corps of the Army.  Just over 6.000 had served varying prison sentences with 819  COs incarcerated for 20 months or more. One thousand three hundred absolutists refused to compromise in any way with the state.  Sixty nine COs were confirmed dead. Thirty-nine had gone mad."

Voices Against War Lyn Smith in association with the IWM

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Voices-Against-War-Century-Protest/dp/184596599X

Of course as you are probably aware the concept of conscientous objection as grounds for exemption for military service  was only introduced with conscription and the introduction of the Military Service Act in 1916.

https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/soldiers/a-soldiers-life-1914-1918/enlisting-into-the-army/the-1916-military-service-act/#:~:text=The 1916 Military Service Act - The Long%2C,in placing Britain onto a “total war” footing.

 

 

 

 

[RogerWill]

Thanks for these latest links. Reading through these, it seems to me that the actual use of psychiatric war hospitals (such as Craiglockhart) as a means of state control of anti-war dissent was probably limited to very small numbers, most probably to a few commissioned officers. Aside from Sassoon, can anyone point me to other British Army officers who were more of less committed to hospital due to their developing an opposition to the war?

Thanks

Roger

[FROGSMILE]

2 hours ago, RogerWill said:

Thanks for these latest links. Reading through these, it seems to me that the actual use of psychiatric war hospitals (such as Craiglockhart) as a means of state control of anti-war dissent was probably limited to very small numbers, most probably to a few commissioned officers. Aside from Sassoon, can anyone point me to other British Army officers who were more of less committed to hospital due to their developing an opposition to the war?

Thanks

Roger

Wilfred Owen was one given that he met Sassoon there.  Some officers seem to have been sent there (prescribed by a medical board) to rest without necessarily having overtly condemned the war.

Edited 9 October , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[RogerWill]

I agree Frogsmile that this was the case and also with your suggestion that condemnation of the war existed on a variegated spectrum. Its primary source material particularly that would be useful for my study and material specifically on those officers who did more or less overtly condemn the war. 

[FROGSMILE]

8 minutes ago, RogerWill said:

I agree Frogsmile that this was the case and also with your suggestion that condemnation of the war existed on a variegated spectrum. Its primary source material particularly that would be useful for my study and material specifically on those officers who did more or less overtly condemn the war. 

I do understand and the details that you seek will be tough to draw out unless you can dig up some unexpurgated archives concerning Craiglockart and Doctor Rivers.  The whole subject was clouded by conscientious objectors I think, who seem to have rather obscured other protestors who were already serving.  After the war I get the impression that the establishment preferred to sweep what they no doubt viewed as embarrassing and (from their perspective) unpatriotic incidents under the carpet, and then by studied neglect airbrush it out of history.  I wish you well with your hunting.

Edited 9 October , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[RogerWill]

I do have one other explicit case of an officer at Craiglockhart and Lennell Auxiliary Hospital, plus one at the same hospitals that is rather more implied. My hunch is that such cases could be found at other war hospitals too, which I'd like to find some evidence for. 

I'll keep digging...

[Mick M]

I appreciate this is not quite what you asked for but I watched a film recently about a group of NZ objectors who had been singled out for special treatment, I cannot find it of course but the below article is very comprehensive and failing all else you could use the numbers pro rata....1 of the men was eventually discharged insane, his post war career showed otherwise.

 

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/war/first-world-war/conscientious-objection

[kenf48]

On 07/10/2022 at 15:22, RogerWill said:

 is  it  known how many men may have been  given  the death penalty for such protests?

None.

Consider:-

In the 'voluntary period', i.e. from August 1914 to January 1916 if a man did not want to enlist he did not need to do so.

As previously stated the ability to claim exemption on 'conscientous'  grounds only became available when universal conscription was introduced.  That is not to say there were no pacifist groups prior to 1916, not least the non-conscription fellowship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-Conscription_Fellowship

There is of course the case of the 'Richmond Sixteen' as they are now labelled who were sent t0 France and then sentenced to death, a sentence that was commutted https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/richmond-castle/history-and-stories/richmond-sixteen/

Craiglockhart  has a place in popular imagination due to the war poets, but it was just one of dozens of 'country house' hospitals which accommodated officers suffering from psychiatric illness brought on by the war. 

What evidence do you have for this statement?:-

19 hours ago, RogerWill said:

the actual use of psychiatric war hospitals (such as Craiglockhart) as a means of state control of anti-war dissent

Sassoon, already an established poet, was recovering from wounds when he came under the influence of pacifist friends. His refusal to return to his unit and subsequent 'Declaration' is well documented as is Robert Graves intervention on his behalf. After a few months at Craiglockhart Sassoon declared, " My place is in the trenches" and was sent to Palestine, later returning to France, hardly a pacifist.

There is little or no evidence that any serving officer, other than Sassoon, made any 'protest' at the prosecution of the war while it continued, or was incarcerated for it.  They were all, including the 'temporary gentleman and those commissioned from the ranks, volunteers.

Graves in attempting to persuade others that Sassoon should appear before a medical board wrote, "I entirely agree with Siegfried about the 'political errors and uncertainties'...". 

No doubt as ever it was (and is) both officers and men grumbled at the decisions of their senior officers, the conduct of the war by politicians, or as Sassoon would have it the decisions of 'the Staff'. 

I don't think that can be called 'protest'.  Reading the war diary accounts of many actions this criticism was often expressed either directly or overtly.  Whilst it's suggested Sassoon's Medical Board was a sham, there is no certain evidence either way, and whilst convenient for the authorities no evidence of any direction given to the Board.  To do so would impugn their integrity and bring the whole carefully devised system into disrepute. That his history is so well documented and there is still no conclusion as to mental condition I'd suggest it would be impossible to declare any  officer was incarcerated in a mental hospital for 'protest', save for the conspiracy theorists.

The ratio of officers to enlisted men diagnosed with psychiatric illness was extraordinarily high.

Post-war the cynicism and poverty of the officers, many of whom were promoted from the ranks led to a very different story of disaffection and protest.

[RogerWill]

Thanks Mick for that link. It repeats much of the discussion elsewhere about the ways in which state granted exemptions to conscription (e.g. around COs) were at the same time opposed by elements of that same state. Some of those NZ examples are very harrowing.

 

Thanks also kenf48 for your detailed and thoughtful comments. I think the idea of 'grumbling' and its difference from 'protest' is important and probably hinges around a move to action. However, much will be a spectrum. Regarding the use of hospitals as a means of controlling anti-war dissent, I am investigating the idea and asking if there is much evidence for it. There seems, as I suggest, not a lot of this. Sassoon's case I do regard as one such case and his subsequently returning to active military service does not discount the reality of the action he took in his 'soldier's declaration'. I also agree that it's not quite clear cut, but that is the complex nature of human beings.

[ilkley remembers]

Mark Plowman, who wrote under the names of Max Plowman and Mark VII, was a lieutenant in a training battalion of the Durham Light Infantry at Stockton-on Tees, when he wrote to his commanding officer stating unequivocally that he would not return to the front because of his conscientious objection to war. Plowman had been wounded whilst serving with the 10^th West Yorks on The Somme when he was buried alive. Diagnosed with shell shock he was a patient of W H R Rivers and had spent time at the Bowhill auxiliary hospital at Selkirk. The army assumed that Plowman had not recovered and placed him onto the sick list, when he persisted with his demand to be discharged. Clearly, not of the same background as Sassoon and without his connections Plowman was subject to court martial in  May 1918. Found guilty he was discharged from the army but almost immediately called up under the Military Service Act. Again he claimed exemption on the grounds of conscience and ordered to undertake work of national importance. His refusal to comply with the instructions of the tribunals meant further threats which were only lifted because of the Armistice when the matter was quietly dropped. This was well recorded in newspapers at the time.

 

In 1919 Plowman wrote a somewhat esoteric tract about his beliefs under the name Max Plowman called ‘War and the Creative Impulse’ the text of which is available online. The preface was written by the war correspondent Henry Nevinson (father of the war artist Christopher Nevinson) in which Plowman’s thoughts and actions are given a clearer framework.

 

Plowman wrote another book about his was experiences under the name Mark VII; the highly regarded ‘A Subaltern on the Somme’ which is a vivid account of his experiences with the West Yorks in 1916.

 

Nevinson suggests that Plowman is following in the footsteps of another British officer, Arthur Graeme West, who had wanted to resign his commission with the Ox and Bucks LI in 1916 because of his objections to the war. He had in the end failed to take this action and was in fact killed in action the following year. A somewhat edited selection of his letters was published posthumously in 1919 with the title of ‘The Diary of a Dead Officer’ by the well known pacifist philosopher C E M Joad. Joad appears to have been highly selective about what was published and later allegedly burned West’s correspondence which lends some credence to the accusation that book is not an entirely accurate account of West’s views.

Edited 12 October , 2022 by ilkley remembers

[RogerWill]

Thanks very much Ilkley for this; its getting closer to the types of cases I'm seeking. I was not familiar with Mark Plowman before your post. I note his personal papers survive in the archives at UCL, with  others at the IWM, TNA, and elsewhere. I see in his 1919 book that Nevinson seems to suggest that Plowman only delivered his objection after his discharge from Craiglockhart. See https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89101084432&view=1up&seq=13

I shall follow up on this case and also the related case of Arthur Graeme West.

 

Roger

[FrancesH]

I was interested to come across this thread because I am wondering if I've come across a case where an ordinary soldier refused to fight and was subsequently treated as a conscientious objector. 

Cuthbert Arthur Gray was a music student before the war. His father was a Suffolk vicar. Cuthbert joined up in December 1915 and his (badly damaged) service record shows that he filled out the Short Service Attestation in full, agreeing to serve for the duration. The only unusual point is that he refused to be vaccinated. The service record then notes that he was 'posted' on 3 March 1917, although 'posted' here apparently meant just being at the Suffolks Reserve Depot (where he was anyway), rather than being assigned to a specific battalion. On 8 March he was found guilty of 'disobeying a lawful command from his superior officer', a form of words commonly found in the service records of conscientious objectors and generally referring to their refusal to don a uniform, pick up a rifle, etc. Cuthbert then arrived at Wormwood Scrubs to serve 3 months with hard labour, a much shorter term than most conscientious objectors arriving in the same month (typically six months to two years). On 5 May he agreed to go to the Home Office work camp at Wakefield Prison. He was discharged from the army on 15 May 1920, having presumably been at Wakefield throughout. The service record offers no other information. After the war Gray made a living for many years as a 'toffee apple man', making and selling them in the street and from his house. A newspaper item about him from 1969 based on an personal interview states that at first he'd been unable to obtain a licence to do this because he was 'not an ex serviceman' although a licence was eventually granted. 

I don't necessarily expect any comment on this, but it is an odd story! 

I am currently exploring the stories of all conscientious objectors admitted to Wormwood Scrubs in March 1917 (the first date for which prison registers survive), as a representative sample. Virtually all COs were sent first to the Scrubs after sentencing, almost certainly because this is where the Central Tribunal was located and each case could be re-examined by them.