Where the Conscientious Objectors brave or cowards?

Answer 1

In my opinion conscientious objectors were brave. A Conscientious Objector is a person so opposed to violence and killing that they will refuse to serve in the military. They truly believe that they cannot kill another human. They were also called Quakers, those who were anti-violence. The government created a special category for people who register as a "CO". They still are required to serve the government but not in the field. They may be posted stateside in a clerical position. COs can also opt to fulfil their obligation through the Peace Corps. The government love having the power to make people fight a war. But many young men and women have serious questions about whether it is right to take part in war. Many have their beliefs as part of their religion. Others have come to their beliefs on their own. They all have a right to have these beliefs in opposition to war and should be supported in them. They are conscientious objectors.

Some people believed they were cowars and it's a clever trick that lawyers use to defend cowards who run away from military service. It was originally granted to Quakers and other Christian sects who had peaceful teachings as a core of their beliefs to get out of going to World War 1 and World War 2.

But they were brave because they were rejected from there society, treated and seen as criminals. In the eyes of their country they failed to contribute and make a difference and were seen to be traitors given white feathers by women, this was to make them feel like cowards. They were ridiculed by the deluging Propaganda's and some were accepted but still their beliefs were not respected.

There have always been people who are committed to an idea, an ideal, a value, a religion, a cause. Among them, there have always been people convinced that, at whatever risk to themselves, their commitment must not involve the use of violence or war. They have hung on to that conviction despite being despised, condemned and punished for it. It takes a lot of courage to hold out against violence and killing when your family and friends are threatened and may themselves turn against you, when you face public hostility and hatred, when the leaders of your society are determined that war, not peace, is the right and heroic way forward, and when you are accused of being a coward and a traitor. The conscientious objectors who refused to fight in the First World War were courageous in this way.

Thought they had to suffer, some broke down, physically or mentally, as a result of their ill-treatment. In all, more than 6,312 conscientious objectors were arrested; 5,970 were court-martialled and sent to prison, where they endured privations both mental and physical (819 spent over two years in prison). At least 73 COs died because of the harsh treatment they received; a number suffered long-term physical or mental illness. 1,330 'absolutists' refused to do any kind of alternative war work, but never won exemption for this principled stand. Some agreed to join the Home Office Scheme, but later changed their minds and went back to prison. Prisons in those days were still run on inhumane systems inherited from the 19th century. The silence rule was particularly harsh: almost impossible to keep, yet invoking severe punishment when broken. One CO, a Labour journalist called Fenner Brockway started a rebellion against the silence rule made for COs. Some COs went on hunger strike in protest at their continued detention: 130 were forcibly fed through tubes (as suffragettes had been) - so forcibly that many were injured by the treatment and had to be temporarily released. Others went on work strikes and were brutally punished for it.

I personally believe that Cos where brave because they stood up to what they believed in, against killing people.