Scoop has an Ethical Paywall
Work smarter with a Pro licence Learn More

Art & Entertainment | Book Reviews | Education | Entertainment Video | Health | Lifestyle | Sport | Sport Video | Search

 

Drama of WWI exemption hearings revealed


Friday, November 27, 2015
Drama of WWI exemption hearings revealed

New Zealand men conscripted to fight in World War I were less likely to seek exemptions than their British counterparts, according to new research by a Massey University historian.

Dr David Littlewood, a lecturer in the School of Humanities who graduated with a PhD today, says his comparative study of the records of hearings by men appealing to military boards and tribunals in New Zealand and Britain for exemption reveal much of the drama of civilian life during wartime.

While most historians have “overwhelmingly” focussed on appeals by conscientious objectors, he says most appeals were on the grounds of hardship, domestic responsibilities or work. In New Zealand, about one third of eligible men appealed for exemptions from fighting, while in Britain more than half did.

Dr Littlewood says he discovered a rich seam of social history in what appeared to be an administrative exercise, but believes it would be a mistake “to perceive the exemption systems merely as bureaucratic sorting machines.”

“They actually provided the setting for some of the most striking human dramas of the war, with individuals from all classes and backgrounds being brought together to decide how young men could best serve their country. There were scenes of joy and despair, of relief and disappointment, and of rancour and hilarity, mostly played out in full public view.

“Some men were sent to fight and die while others were allowed to remain at home, and it’s no surprise that everyone had an opinion on whether these decisions were right or wrong.”

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

Are you getting our free newsletter?

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.

Kiwi men who had not volunteered to fight at the outset of World War I in 1914 were keen to show a willingness to fight and fulfil their patriotic duty to avoid the stigma and shame attached to being perceived as “shirking” responsibility, he says. Those appealing against conscription commonly did so on the grounds they were needed back home to do heavy farm or labouring jobs that women were incapable of, or to support families while other males in the family were away fighting.

Dr Littlewood’s research includes quirky anecdotes from the records of New Zealand appeal hearings that were all public and published in newspapers now available digitally. One man argued he could not leave his farm in the hands of the women as they let the milking cows dry off in the wrong season, or were inclined to have picnics instead of working.

Businessmen and self-employed tradesmen who cited economic hardship stood little chance of exemption if they were not employed in essential occupations, he says. A hairdresser/tobacconist was one such occupation, while shearers and slaughter men were granted exemption because of the importance of keeping primary industry going during wartime.


In Britain, similar reasons were provided but there were greater inconsistencies in whether appeals were granted or not. The degree of leniency towards an appellant’s case depended on the geographical location, the make-up of the tribunal and how sympathetic its members were, Dr Littlewood says.

In one example, a window-cleaning firm lost its appeal to the Wakefield Tribunal, with the Chairman remarking: “we must go with our windows dirty if necessary; we have got to beat the Germans”.

His thesis compares the operations of the tribunals in the East Central Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire with boards across New Zealand. He investigated the relationship between the appeal boards and their respective governments and militaries, and assessed how far each claim was judged on its merits.

Discrepancies between the countries in terms of appeal outcomes were the result of New Zealand having a centralised system consisting of nine boards nationally, while Britain had over 2,000 locally organised boards whose membership and approach tended to reflect the differing needs and demands on their communities.

In New Zealand, military boards aimed for an “equality of sacrifice”, so that families who had already lost men in the war were not under pressure to send remaining sons, brothers and husbands. The military boards and tribunals were in operation between 1916 and 1918 when conscription was introduced.

Accounts of exemption hearings provide “an almost unparalleled view of British and New Zealand society at war”, Dr Littlewood says.

© Scoop Media

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
 
 
 
Culture Headlines | Health Headlines | Education Headlines

 
 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • CULTURE
  • HEALTH
  • EDUCATION
 
 
  • Wellington
  • Christchurch
  • Auckland
 
 
 

Join Our Free Newsletter

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.