Mainstream publications (newspapers) created headlines that purposely shamed conscientious objectors although once information leaked into the media regarding the treatment that they have received, the New Zealand societies attitudes soon shifted and began to oppose the unequal domination of power over CO's. New Zealander's were the spectators while the war occurred, hearing new developments frequently for the soldiers who were participating in the war and what was being won, while CO stories were hidden from publicity at the time. The transportation of the 14 sparked public interest within New Zealand as a letter written by Ballantyne which was kept in secret was smuggled before the departure off the Waitemata ship. Following this, Allen faced an angry deputation of protest from the Labour Party, women's and anti-militarist groups. His response regarding the treatment of objectors was very broad and vague as he declared that the Pakeha objectors would more than likely be treated in the same way as the British objectors and the military commander's would follow the same steps to encourage them to actively involve themselves in the army. Groups also raised complaints on the lack of warning for the departure of objectors. Further protests arose, as many radical groups including the Christchurch Minister's association, took a stand against governments. A religious newspaper called the Methodist times warned that, 'the more information that is leaked of the deported objectors abroad, the deeper and wider will be the indignation that such things are possible in New Zealand.'
The initial momentum of the protests stalled, as no further information was heard from the 14 sent abroad. The continuous silence sparked criticism and irritated many anti-conscriptionist groups, for example, the Christchurch Women's International league' cried in protest, 'In the name of motherhood, what has been done with them?' this conveys that there were many agitated mothers that were unaware of their husbands situations and as a response to this were desperately hoping to keep in contact with them. There were different interpretations on the debate over the location of the objectors that departed unexpectedly. The Department of Defence was also very sneaky and covered up their knowledge of their location by stating that they don't have any information regarding their departure, this is ironic because the Department of Defence helped to organise the shipment of the CO's. The Department further covered their evidence by informing the concerned parents, that there was no good reason why their son wasn't writing to them, although the Defence Department knew exceedingly well that many of them were in either detention or prison and therefore forbidden to write.
Sniper's of information was shared to the public, significantly information sharing that the objectors were in France and awaiting their death. Which intensified the criticism of the transportation policy that many in the NZ community were weary about. The Waimate Advertiser, stated that 'i wonder if there is a feeling against militarism which is spreading throughout the New Zealand community', the public were believed to be conforming into anti-militarism attitudes after hearing all the tragic accounts of torture from the objectors themselves.
It wasn't before long that others discovered how heavy Crampton's form of discipline was in the Wanganui Detention Barracks and publications began to show their awareness by creating articles on the treatment of objectors, this is because it was closer to home. In May, a magazine company called Truth, gave Allen a letter from inmates at the Wanganui Detention Barracks giving a detailed response confirming the beatings and assault that has been committed, even details of Crampton stating, 'Ah, the sight of blood does my eyes good'. This was strictly forbidden to be published, as the Defence Department wanted to keep it a secret from public's interest.
It wasn't till around May 1918 that the Department started to seek fairly regular reports and telegrams on the situation of objectors.
By June 1918, Anti-conscriptionist groups and Christchurch ministers association began to formulate charges against Crampton; Allen was warned of this. As a response, Osburne Lilly claimed to have visited the camps ordering military to refrain from using force on prisoners, however these claims were said to be false and there were many more cases of undiscovered violence. The charges against Crampton were said to be un-called for and he was said to have 'done good service' and was guilty of only an 'error of judgment' according to Osburne Lilly. This adding further weight on the departments decision to continue sending objectors to Wanganui Detention Barracks. There was a lack of public protest regarding the Wanganui violence. The NZ society was divided by their opinions on objectors during WW1, and a large group of people believed that Crampton's method of torture was the best strategy of dealing with the objectors. Including councils, for example, the Egmont Country Council congratulated Allen and Osburne-Lilly for appointing Crampton and assured Crampton that, 'no Britisher would object to your methods.'
Crampton was still court-martialed due to the rise of critics in the NZ society, however due to the governments biased information, Crampton was found non-guilty to each of the 11 charges that he was charged with.
There was a lack of mass opposition in the public debate over conscientious objection within NZ, which was extremely significant as it allowed more military commanders to dominate.Overall the lack of public protest during the full war was believed to be because many citizens were in a state of shock over the news and were overwhelmed by it all. Many mainstream newspapers for example, pro-conscriptionist publications such as observer or freelance, displayed a belief that objectors were letting the country down and the partnership with the Britain Empire is damaged. CO were rejected from their society, treated and seen as criminals. New Zealander's felt there was minimal reason to question the treatment of those who refused to conform. There was not enough pressure by the public to overlook the treatment or nor did they lobby for more severe punishment therefore this meant the military kept to their own ways of controlling the men who object. Journalists at the time stated that it was difficult to analyse the feelings of the population as a whole.
The public began to go against the government around 1917-1918, nearing the end of war due to the lack of information being exposed to the public regarding the general welfare of objectors to their families and the wider community. They began to reject claims that they were living in a democracy where differences were supported.
However on 24th of October 1918, an article was published by the Otago Daily Times named 'The Baxter Case: The conscientious objector' compiled by Allen to discredit Baxter, Allen made it clear that Baxter's arrogance was the leading cause of all the misfortunes, he was strictly disciplined as a consequence of his opposing will of the community. Accounts published by CO's after 1918 indicate that there were many people with sympathy to the objector's plight.
After the Armistice was signed in the beginning of 1918, this was the pivotal point of societies reactions as people within New Zealand started to feel as though they could speak out, this was followed by numerous debates that broke out over the issue.
In February 1918, in an election held in Wellington, a labour candidate named Harry Holland made the transportation of CO's a major issue. In March, the Congregation Union also raised attention to bringing the objectors home to be returned to their families, many religious groups also agreed on this. The Defence Department reacted against the allegations of cruel treatment on objectors identifying that they were exaggerated by anti-conscriptionists. Defence Department and the prime minister continued to fight against allegations by discrediting the 14 CO's and defending the transportation policy. They justified that if the CO's were allowed to do as they wished, 'NZ could descend to the anarchy of Russia'. In February 1918, a leading clergyman made aware 'the consistent uneasiness of mind in the community' regarding the treatment of objectors. They called for 'genuine' objectors to be brought to justice and receive less terrorising treatment (Civilian service). This debate was backed by bishops and majority of anti-militarist organisations from across NZ. Tate agreed with many of the issues upraised by these allegations and believes the act was 'too narrow' and didn't consider the consequences that this act could have on the CO's and the rest of the NZ society. This further acknowledges the disparity between departmental and social/political attitudes to CO's.
Field Punishment had various different responses either positive or negative, however the over dominating negative responses to it by different countries led to it being abolished during the Great war. Many members of the New Zealand society, didn't agree with the treatment forced upon CO's, therefore on March 27th 1923, the Army Council decided to abolish Field Punishment No.1 after strenuous efforts were put in place for its abolishment, which marked the extinction of the last the physical punishments to which those who rejected enlistment for active service received. There was long lasting debate over the abolishment of field punishment NO.1, the Chief Engineer of the Division recommended abolition because it was impossible to ensure uniformity of punishment and to the senior NZ Brigade commander, Brigadier F.E. Johnston considered that punishment can be maintained without the need for field punishment therefore recommending its abolishment. Therefore due to the overpowering amount of publicity for the abolishment of field punishment NO.1, it was finally terminated. Although there were still others against it's abolishment for example, Brigadier Johnston, CRA whom commanded the artillery brigades, as she holds the opinion that 'when field punishment is carried out under unit arrangements no undue inconvenience is caused', and she also mentioned that 'neglect and abuse of regulations as to punishments in individual cases, which might occur in any form of punishment, doesn't justify the abolition of that punishment therefore it being necessary that there should be some form of punishment for unmanageable offenders.'
After the war, the New Zealand society couldn't quite comprehend how brutal the army could be, it was until all information and personal accounts were pieced together that the truth was told and many contradictory debates broke out, even the Defence force admitted that the treatment towards objectors went out of hand.
By the end of WW1, New Zealander's seemed to have a misleading and fragmented image of what the 14 objectors had experienced.
According to conscription resisted book, 'Occasional accounts of objectors treatment which reached New Zealand during 1917-1918 were of great political potency, launching ever larger waves of criticism and ever more anxious Departmental defence.Critics and Department were both well aware that substantial allegations of brutality would do much to discredit conscription.' After the objectors had returned home, journalists and the government were finally able to piece together the accounts of the objectors experiences, therefore Armageddon and Calvary was published in 1919. On September 1919, the allegations into the Wanganui inquiries were said to be true and that severe punishment had been used therefore many critics in the New Zealand society were finally relieved that the truth was confirmed. Many newspaper companies wanted those responsible of torturing the conscientious objectors punished, the Littleton times declared that 'the treatment of the objectors was the most disgraceful episode of the war period'. Other voices began to be heard in society including Baxter's wife, Millicent, she stated in her memoirs that was published in 1981 several years after the war that people cannot comprehend the full extent that the objectors including her husband suffered. Due to societies attitudes at the time Millicent kept Baxter a secret from her father as she knew the community were already to concerned about how much of a 'scoundrel my husband was'.
Parliament's strong over dominating voice against objectors during WW1 determined the nature of the objectors treatment, also societies conformity to agree with the government had a large influence. The objectors would never be able to live normal lifestyles again, for instance, objectors who were lucky enough to be employed at the Rotorua hospital were distinguished as an objector as they had to wear different arm bands, this adding to societies and parliaments intolerance of objectors at the time. Even when Baxter went to receive his daily checkup's at the hospital he was still considered inferior and had to deliberately wait for hours to be examined by a medical specialist, this portrayed that Baxter was to be felt as though he was always controlled by a superior body, representing the social hierarchy in society at the time.
In a later interview with Baxter, he stated that he would never give up his fight and he would tell his future son that he did his best to stop the war effort which he regarded as a very brave action in the face of the military. Therefore he would carry on to believe that his radical attitude as an objector worked in his favour despite all forms of brutalisation that he had received.
Reality of war is that since CO's were disobeying New Zealand stance in the war effort, they were neglecting and letting other people suffer. It was believed that despite the horrific accounts of objectors being imprisoned, nothing compares to the brave heroic soldiers that were sacrificing themselves to fight in WW1.
The initial momentum of the protests stalled, as no further information was heard from the 14 sent abroad. The continuous silence sparked criticism and irritated many anti-conscriptionist groups, for example, the Christchurch Women's International league' cried in protest, 'In the name of motherhood, what has been done with them?' this conveys that there were many agitated mothers that were unaware of their husbands situations and as a response to this were desperately hoping to keep in contact with them. There were different interpretations on the debate over the location of the objectors that departed unexpectedly. The Department of Defence was also very sneaky and covered up their knowledge of their location by stating that they don't have any information regarding their departure, this is ironic because the Department of Defence helped to organise the shipment of the CO's. The Department further covered their evidence by informing the concerned parents, that there was no good reason why their son wasn't writing to them, although the Defence Department knew exceedingly well that many of them were in either detention or prison and therefore forbidden to write.
Sniper's of information was shared to the public, significantly information sharing that the objectors were in France and awaiting their death. Which intensified the criticism of the transportation policy that many in the NZ community were weary about. The Waimate Advertiser, stated that 'i wonder if there is a feeling against militarism which is spreading throughout the New Zealand community', the public were believed to be conforming into anti-militarism attitudes after hearing all the tragic accounts of torture from the objectors themselves.
It wasn't before long that others discovered how heavy Crampton's form of discipline was in the Wanganui Detention Barracks and publications began to show their awareness by creating articles on the treatment of objectors, this is because it was closer to home. In May, a magazine company called Truth, gave Allen a letter from inmates at the Wanganui Detention Barracks giving a detailed response confirming the beatings and assault that has been committed, even details of Crampton stating, 'Ah, the sight of blood does my eyes good'. This was strictly forbidden to be published, as the Defence Department wanted to keep it a secret from public's interest.
It wasn't till around May 1918 that the Department started to seek fairly regular reports and telegrams on the situation of objectors.
By June 1918, Anti-conscriptionist groups and Christchurch ministers association began to formulate charges against Crampton; Allen was warned of this. As a response, Osburne Lilly claimed to have visited the camps ordering military to refrain from using force on prisoners, however these claims were said to be false and there were many more cases of undiscovered violence. The charges against Crampton were said to be un-called for and he was said to have 'done good service' and was guilty of only an 'error of judgment' according to Osburne Lilly. This adding further weight on the departments decision to continue sending objectors to Wanganui Detention Barracks. There was a lack of public protest regarding the Wanganui violence. The NZ society was divided by their opinions on objectors during WW1, and a large group of people believed that Crampton's method of torture was the best strategy of dealing with the objectors. Including councils, for example, the Egmont Country Council congratulated Allen and Osburne-Lilly for appointing Crampton and assured Crampton that, 'no Britisher would object to your methods.'
Crampton was still court-martialed due to the rise of critics in the NZ society, however due to the governments biased information, Crampton was found non-guilty to each of the 11 charges that he was charged with.
There was a lack of mass opposition in the public debate over conscientious objection within NZ, which was extremely significant as it allowed more military commanders to dominate.Overall the lack of public protest during the full war was believed to be because many citizens were in a state of shock over the news and were overwhelmed by it all. Many mainstream newspapers for example, pro-conscriptionist publications such as observer or freelance, displayed a belief that objectors were letting the country down and the partnership with the Britain Empire is damaged. CO were rejected from their society, treated and seen as criminals. New Zealander's felt there was minimal reason to question the treatment of those who refused to conform. There was not enough pressure by the public to overlook the treatment or nor did they lobby for more severe punishment therefore this meant the military kept to their own ways of controlling the men who object. Journalists at the time stated that it was difficult to analyse the feelings of the population as a whole.
The public began to go against the government around 1917-1918, nearing the end of war due to the lack of information being exposed to the public regarding the general welfare of objectors to their families and the wider community. They began to reject claims that they were living in a democracy where differences were supported.
However on 24th of October 1918, an article was published by the Otago Daily Times named 'The Baxter Case: The conscientious objector' compiled by Allen to discredit Baxter, Allen made it clear that Baxter's arrogance was the leading cause of all the misfortunes, he was strictly disciplined as a consequence of his opposing will of the community. Accounts published by CO's after 1918 indicate that there were many people with sympathy to the objector's plight.
After the Armistice was signed in the beginning of 1918, this was the pivotal point of societies reactions as people within New Zealand started to feel as though they could speak out, this was followed by numerous debates that broke out over the issue.
In February 1918, in an election held in Wellington, a labour candidate named Harry Holland made the transportation of CO's a major issue. In March, the Congregation Union also raised attention to bringing the objectors home to be returned to their families, many religious groups also agreed on this. The Defence Department reacted against the allegations of cruel treatment on objectors identifying that they were exaggerated by anti-conscriptionists. Defence Department and the prime minister continued to fight against allegations by discrediting the 14 CO's and defending the transportation policy. They justified that if the CO's were allowed to do as they wished, 'NZ could descend to the anarchy of Russia'. In February 1918, a leading clergyman made aware 'the consistent uneasiness of mind in the community' regarding the treatment of objectors. They called for 'genuine' objectors to be brought to justice and receive less terrorising treatment (Civilian service). This debate was backed by bishops and majority of anti-militarist organisations from across NZ. Tate agreed with many of the issues upraised by these allegations and believes the act was 'too narrow' and didn't consider the consequences that this act could have on the CO's and the rest of the NZ society. This further acknowledges the disparity between departmental and social/political attitudes to CO's.
Field Punishment had various different responses either positive or negative, however the over dominating negative responses to it by different countries led to it being abolished during the Great war. Many members of the New Zealand society, didn't agree with the treatment forced upon CO's, therefore on March 27th 1923, the Army Council decided to abolish Field Punishment No.1 after strenuous efforts were put in place for its abolishment, which marked the extinction of the last the physical punishments to which those who rejected enlistment for active service received. There was long lasting debate over the abolishment of field punishment NO.1, the Chief Engineer of the Division recommended abolition because it was impossible to ensure uniformity of punishment and to the senior NZ Brigade commander, Brigadier F.E. Johnston considered that punishment can be maintained without the need for field punishment therefore recommending its abolishment. Therefore due to the overpowering amount of publicity for the abolishment of field punishment NO.1, it was finally terminated. Although there were still others against it's abolishment for example, Brigadier Johnston, CRA whom commanded the artillery brigades, as she holds the opinion that 'when field punishment is carried out under unit arrangements no undue inconvenience is caused', and she also mentioned that 'neglect and abuse of regulations as to punishments in individual cases, which might occur in any form of punishment, doesn't justify the abolition of that punishment therefore it being necessary that there should be some form of punishment for unmanageable offenders.'
After the war, the New Zealand society couldn't quite comprehend how brutal the army could be, it was until all information and personal accounts were pieced together that the truth was told and many contradictory debates broke out, even the Defence force admitted that the treatment towards objectors went out of hand.
By the end of WW1, New Zealander's seemed to have a misleading and fragmented image of what the 14 objectors had experienced.
According to conscription resisted book, 'Occasional accounts of objectors treatment which reached New Zealand during 1917-1918 were of great political potency, launching ever larger waves of criticism and ever more anxious Departmental defence.Critics and Department were both well aware that substantial allegations of brutality would do much to discredit conscription.' After the objectors had returned home, journalists and the government were finally able to piece together the accounts of the objectors experiences, therefore Armageddon and Calvary was published in 1919. On September 1919, the allegations into the Wanganui inquiries were said to be true and that severe punishment had been used therefore many critics in the New Zealand society were finally relieved that the truth was confirmed. Many newspaper companies wanted those responsible of torturing the conscientious objectors punished, the Littleton times declared that 'the treatment of the objectors was the most disgraceful episode of the war period'. Other voices began to be heard in society including Baxter's wife, Millicent, she stated in her memoirs that was published in 1981 several years after the war that people cannot comprehend the full extent that the objectors including her husband suffered. Due to societies attitudes at the time Millicent kept Baxter a secret from her father as she knew the community were already to concerned about how much of a 'scoundrel my husband was'.
Parliament's strong over dominating voice against objectors during WW1 determined the nature of the objectors treatment, also societies conformity to agree with the government had a large influence. The objectors would never be able to live normal lifestyles again, for instance, objectors who were lucky enough to be employed at the Rotorua hospital were distinguished as an objector as they had to wear different arm bands, this adding to societies and parliaments intolerance of objectors at the time. Even when Baxter went to receive his daily checkup's at the hospital he was still considered inferior and had to deliberately wait for hours to be examined by a medical specialist, this portrayed that Baxter was to be felt as though he was always controlled by a superior body, representing the social hierarchy in society at the time.
In a later interview with Baxter, he stated that he would never give up his fight and he would tell his future son that he did his best to stop the war effort which he regarded as a very brave action in the face of the military. Therefore he would carry on to believe that his radical attitude as an objector worked in his favour despite all forms of brutalisation that he had received.
Reality of war is that since CO's were disobeying New Zealand stance in the war effort, they were neglecting and letting other people suffer. It was believed that despite the horrific accounts of objectors being imprisoned, nothing compares to the brave heroic soldiers that were sacrificing themselves to fight in WW1.