Shunning the Sword: World War I’s Conscientious Objectors

(Note: This article was originally written during the Spring 2023  for the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s “World War I Wisconsin” course, taught by Dr. Leslie Bellais.)

Charles Cory frowned. The twenty-two-year-old from Vassalboro, Maine, furrowed his brow at the paper he held in his hands: a letter from the courthouse, denying his application for military exemption. It was the summer of 1917, and the First World War was raging across Europe. That April, the United States officially declared war, and only a month later, the Selective Service Act of 1917 provided President Woodrow Wilson the means to levy the troops necessary– a standardized, nationwide draft that called men across the country to arms.

Selective Service Poster (1917) donated to the Maine Historical Society by Governor Carl Milliken in 1918. On June 1, 1917, Milliken issued a proclamation, “This call to registration will come to the young men of Maine not only as the summons of law but also an opportunity to perform with spontaneous enthusiasm a patriotic duty…Maine has always been staunch in her patriotism…On this most momentous day…I confidently summon…a triumphant demonstration that shall be worthy of our glorious tradition.”

Cory, a devout Christian who had attended seminary school, had been extremely concerned about the prospect of going to war. As a man of faith, he believed that it was wrong to take up arms against an enemy, regardless of whether it was the devil or the Kaiser. After the draft had passed legislation, Cory had looked for a way to avoid it and found his answer–an application to avoid military service. Looking up from his short letter of denial, Cory sighed. He knew he would have to write another request for exemption, and this time, he hoped, the right people would read it.

All across the nation, men like Charles Cory requested exemptions from military combat service for personal reasons such as religion; these men were known as conscientious objectors (COs). Unprecedented in the history of the United States Military, the U.S. government handled its new “CO problem” poorly during the First World War through a general lack of definition and standardization. The continued poor handling and mistreatment of conscientious objectors during WWI fell completely to the fault of the U.S. government and its, or rather lack of, agency concerning COs.

No Dictionary Definitions

As Cory’s shoulders slumped as he read his letter of denial, clerks in Washington D.C., continued to receive letters like Cory’s, asking for permissions of exemption. The nation had never before come across so many of these self-proclaimed “conscientious objectors,” and more importantly, didn’t even know how to define the term. As the draft came into existence, the problem of what being a CO even entailed stumped the minds of the U.S. government. The modern Selective Service System defines a conscientious objector as “one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles.”^[1] Anyone who claimed that their personal beliefs didn’t align with the intent of war could declare as a CO, by right of the Constitution’s First Amendment.

Up until this point in history, the United State military had never experienced conscientious objectors as a problem in any major capacity. The earliest framers of the Constitution passed over conscientious objection by simply requiring any religious objectors to furnish a substitute, either through payment or alternative service.^[2] Similarly, during the Civil War, when the United States passed an act for conscription, because of clauses outlined in the legislation, those who would have been considered conscientious objectors avoided the draft via substitution or commutation– then paying around $300 (equivalent to around $7,000 today).^[3] However, the WWI draft provided none of these ‘escape clauses.’ This created a multi-faceted problem for the United States government. Although the Constitution required the creation of CO status, the government was afraid of slackers abusing those rights to avoid active service. To mitigate this, they needed to define the terms and limits of conscientious objection; because of the conflict that was created between freedom of belief and religion granted by the First Amendment and the mandatory military service required by the draft, without an explicit definition of a CO, the draft could be unconstitutional, or even worse, slackers could slip through via technicalities.

For the U.S., their long list of mistakes concerning the conscientious objector began here. To cover as many avenues of ‘escape’ as possible, the United States defined the conscientious objector as vaguely as possible. Third Assistant to the Secretary of War Frederick Paul Keppel^[4] used legislation written during the Civil War which loosely defined COs as “members of religious denominations who… declare that they are conscientiously opposed to the bearing of arms, and who are prohibited from doing so by the rules and articles… of said denominations.”^[5]  The Committee for Public Information (CPI), in charge of much of the public press circulated throughout the continental United States during the war, left its public definition of COs just as unspecified.^[6] The CPI’s published Selective Service Act of 1917 defined COs as members of “any well-recognized religious sect … whose existing creed or principles forbid its members to participate in war in any form.”^[7] The vagueness of these definitions caused many problems and questions: What made a religious sect well-recognized? What creeds or principles would be considered? Further problems arose because these definitions only identified COs as participants of religion and did not exempt COs from military service, leaving them under the jurisdiction of the military. Because of the lack of definition, most draft boards found it difficult to classify conscientious objection and thus had extremely arbitrary regulations for CO registration.

Even though the public held an unclear idea of the conscientious objector, the government intentionally wanted to keep the conscientious objector undefined. By the summer of 1917, as more and more people began claiming CO status, the government began to crack down on the delineations between genuine COs, who truly disagreed with the fundamentals of war, and the slackers and freeloaders who wanted to bypass the war without serving. Any person hoping to declare as a conscientious objector would have to undergo a series of intensive background checks and interviews; these checks could go as far as calling someone’s pastor or priest to see if he went to church regularly, adhered to religious piety, practiced religious traditions, etc. These checks, intended to weed out slackers and false COs from those whose beliefs disallowed them from combat service, were purposefully made extremely difficult and time-consuming to pass. The arduous and meticulous nature of the process dissuaded many from considering conscientious objection as a feasible option. To pass his check, Charles Cory received many letters of support from the principal and clergy of his seminary school and religious organization, supporting his claim that he once attended seminary school with the purpose of training as a minister, held good standing in both his school and religious organizations, and was a deeply religious man.[8] With fewer people considering CO status as plausible, there would be fewer attempts to slip through the system in general.

The legal repercussions that ensued as a result of this process proved even worse than the exhausting difficulties of declaring as a CO. For many on their way to legally becoming a CO, serious punishments like detainments and court-martials occurred just as frequently as light inquiries like background checks and interviews. In special circumstances, such as under suspicion of espionage or because of certain political views (particularly socialism), in-processing COs could be taken to court, arrested, and even imprisoned based on their ‘crimes’ –arbitrary criteria from making a mistake on a form to being suspected of being a foreign agent. This registration process proved to be the first major obstacle for conscientious objectors across the nation and became one of the U.S.’s many mistakes concerning COs during World War I.

Injustice

As the summer waned and the autumn of 1917 approached, the American Expeditionary Forces (A.E.F.) began making its way across the Atlantic to support the Allied French and British Forces and the U.S. home front undertook its support mission. With the successful passing of President Wilson’s draft, the United States Army’s enlistment numbers quickly began to rise; by the end of the war, over 24 million men had been drafted. However, the higher enlistment numbers gave way to higher numbers of COs, as well; there were around 64,000 conscientious objectors to account for.^[9] Military service called upon roughly 20,800 of these men, and whether through coercion or persuasion, around 80% were assigned to combat duty and went to war. For the other 20%, the United States government was legally obligated to find alternative means of service. A spring 1918 publication from the Committee of Public Information outlined these alternative service options ranging from medical support to industrial and manufacturing jobs–all non-combatant positions. But like the term conscientious objection, non-combatancy also lacked a distinct definition.

****

Several weeks later, Charles Cory’s papers were sent back to him: this time, the draft board had amended their decision, and his petition for noncombatant service was approved. Charles breathed a sigh of relief. It seemed his letters of support, patience, and prayers had finally beaten the exhausting application process. However, though he wouldn’t be forced to bear arms or kill another man, he would still have to serve in one of these non-combatant roles. In September 1917, Cory found himself stationed at Camp Devens, Massachusetts. He would later write, “Upon my arrival, as the president had not declared what should constitute noncombatant service, I agreed to work…”^[10] As stated by Cory, even though the draft came around by the early summer of 1917, President Wilson didn’t define non-combatant roles in the war as service in the Medical, Quartermaster, or Engineering Corps until the Spring of 1918.^[11] For Cory, non-combatancy meant that he spent the rest of the war working in the Camp Devens kitchen.

In an attempt to move away from military control, a farm furlough plan also emerged during the later periods of the war as an opportunity for alternative service. Peace organizations and conscientious objectors condemned this plan as it still fell under the jurisdiction of the U.S. military, once again leaving COs under the harsh treatment of the U.S. government. Indeed, Charles Cory applied for one of these farm furloughs and was denied for this very reason. Disillusioned with his noncombatant service, Cory applied to be suspended from active duty to work on his family farm for the summer of 1918. Though his application passed approval all the way up through the state government, it was soundly denied by the U.S. Army.[12]

For the second time, a lack of definition caused issues. The U.S. government sent many COs to military camps, which often led to intense and arbitrary legal troubles. Since conscientious objectors mostly fell under the command of military offices during their service in WWI, they were also subject to court-martials in legal proceedings. Most COs faced unfair treatment in the court of law due to a poorly-defined and unstandardized system of punishment for different ‘crimes.’ The arbitrary nature of these legal decisions meant that conscientious objectors could often face legal punishment up to par with or even worse than those of draft dodgers or deserters. For example, Private John J. Zito, an American soldier of Company K in the 305th Infantry of the A.E.F., was charged with going absent-without-leave no less than three times. The result of his court martial? A reassignment of position and Private Zito being sent back to his post.^[13] Though Private Zito’s court-martial occurred quickly after the war and may have been a special instance, it does put the severity of legal punishment for conscientious objectors into perspective.

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where some World War I conscientious objectors were imprisoned, William Kantor Collected Papers, Swathmore College Peace Collection. Kantor was a CO from Philadelphia who, on November 2, 1917, the U.S. Army court-martialed, sentencing him to ten years in prison. He spent September 1918-June 1919 at Fort Leavenworth before being moved to Alcatraz in San Francisco. In 1919, President Wilson remitted eight years of his sentence and he was dishonorably discharged on November 8th. (https://wwionline.org/wwi-online/articles/conscientious-objection-during-world-war-i )

On the other hand, COs were subject to unfair and despotic legal punishments. The legislation left no option for strictly religious people or pacifists to refuse service of any sort, so any refusal would lead to imprisonment and prison labor, often at Alcatraz Island or Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.^[14] Of the 450 conscientious objectors found guilty during their military hearings, seventeen received death sentences, 142 received life sentences and 73 received 20-year prison terms. Only fifteen received a sentence of three years or less.^[15] Though later freed after the war, their treatment during the conflict was nonetheless extreme. At least 27 COs died during the war, most of them in prison.^[16] One of the most tragic instances of this came in the form of a CO transferred to Fort Leavenworth from Alcatraz. Upon his refusal to wear a military uniform, Leavenworth officials relegated him to solitary confinement where he contracted pneumonia. After being refused medical treatment due to his status, he subsequently died.^[17] Compared to Private Zito’s ‘punishment’ of reassignment for repeated desertion, a relatively serious crime, COs can be seen as the victims of cruel injustice. Whether in prison or a military camp, COs would suffer intense discrimination and unfair treatment–a direct result of the mistakes of the U.S. government in the handling of conscientious objectors.

No “Thank You” for Their Service

Though the United States draft board had seemed to favor Charles Cory over the 80% of CO applicants who were forced to war, favor for conscientious objectors, approved or otherwise, was rarely found elsewhere. The U.S. government’s negative and discouraging treatment of conscientious objectors left lasting impacts on the image of COs. In both the public eye and in military environments, conscientious objectors faced intense harassment during the war.

Throughout the U.S., the press and public organizations actively condemned conscientious objectors. During the years of the war, anti-CO propaganda populated the front pages of newspapers and magazines, calling COs cowards and often portraying them as prisoners or inmates. In Wisconsin, conscientious objectors, socialists, German sympathizers, pacifists, and other moderates who denounced the war effort became publicly humiliated, ostracized, and mistreated.

One particularly violent vigilante group, the Knights of Liberty, became known for abusing, tarring, and feathering any known war objectors. On September 18, 1918, the Ashland County’s Knights of Liberty tarred and feathered Olli Kinkkonen, a Finnish immigrant who lived in Duluth, Minnesota, shortly after Kinkkonen signed papers asserting he would never become an American citizen in order to avoid being drafted. Later that day, his neighbors found him hanging from a nearby pine tree. Though the Knights of Liberty never admitted to lynching Kinkkonen, in a letter from them published in a local newspaper, they did admit to his tarring and feathering and described it as “a warning to all slackers.”^[18] The Knights’ threatened anyone who was German, pro-German, or anti–including conscientious objectors, considered “slackers”–in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and California. Government officials rarely investigated these incidents, much to public approval.^[19] Olli Kinkkonen’s death was officially ruled a suicide, but his gravestone includes the phrase, “Victim of Warmongers.”^[20] Among a slurry of violent, mob-induced attacks, public opinion of conscientious objection continued to worsen.

War advocacy membership groups like the Wisconsin Loyalty Legion and the American Defense Society made it extremely difficult for conscientious objectors to escape the public ire. They openly attacked conscientious objectors (as well as the other moderate groups) and marked their homes and businesses so that the public would also know about them. Volunteer and state governments weren’t the only groups subject to opinionation against COs. Even though the United States government publicly condemned these actions, they nonetheless indirectly spurred on this behavior of public violence and humiliation. For example, the American Protective League–funded and organized by the U.S. government–originally meant to root out potential spies across the country became corrupted by hyper-patriot and ultra-national ideas and began targeting stings toward moderate groups, including conscientious objectors.^[21]

Treatment of COs in active military service mirrored the cruelty of the public. Fellow soldiers and active duty servicemen treated most COs assigned to military service with immense distaste and complete discrimination. COs would often have to convince their commanding officers that their objections to the war were sincere but that they remained loyal to the United States. This distinct disconnect within military ranks between assigned COs and enlisted company men immediately led to harsh interpersonal discrimination. This included physical abuse, constant verbal assault, and the deprivation of basic living necessities.

At Camp Funston, Kansas, a group of a dozen or so conscientious objectors wrote a report condemning the actions of the upper officers in charge and the abuse that they suffered at their hands.^[22] Upon arrival, Camp Funston’s leadership grouped the conscientious objectors and separated them from the rest of the enlisted troops. Every day, the enlisted soldiers and even officers would physically beat the COs, force them to complete demeaning tasks of manual labor–such as cleaning latrines or scrubbing the floors–make them sleep on the floor, and deprive them of meals or meal components. Once, when these COs were forced to take cold showers, one of the men, Ulysses DaRosa, refused to take off his clothes. The men’s commander forced the fully clothed DaRosa under the freezing water, and when DaRosa again refused to undress, the commander had other soldiers strip DaRosa of his clothes and beat him violently in the shower. Furthermore, even as noncombatants, COs were left under the strict guidelines of military policy and customs and often suffered harsh consequences for following them. Camp Funston officials deprived COs of dinner once, after they did not come to attention during morning roll call. The Camp Funston group concluded their report, “The situation can never be described with sufficient vividness and intensity to impart to the authorities a real impression of the mental and physical anguish suffered by us.”^[23]

Unfortunately for the COs, military bases like Camp Funston had an established hierarchy; like many other COs, the Camp Funston conscientious objectors feared retribution and perhaps legal punishments as a result of advocating for change in their current situations. So instead, the report written by the Camp Funston COs wasn’t a petition for change, but a report of facts and information–if framed as the former, the COs would certainly face harsher consequences. The Camp Funston COs also identified a distinct concern in their report, noting that they didn’t submit an investigation, because they suspected the integrity of the Camp Funston military investigators. Because of a lack of initiative from the U.S. government, conscientious objectors found no asylum in these situations and would often be punished if they refused to comply with the abuse or speak against their mistreatment.

Postcard depicting British conscientious objectors to German soldiers, c. 1918. (https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/richmond-castle/history-and-stories/attitudes-to-cos/)

The mistreatment of COs, unfortunately, was a global calamity during WWI. The United Kingdom treated conscientious objectors with just as much discrimination as in the U.S. The British CO problem was just as unprecedented as in the United States but led to a vastly different reaction. The British government, unlike the U.S. government, didn’t just discourage COs, but actively and publicly worked against them, even taking away certain voting rights from them.^[24] Socially, British COs faced just as much discrimination as those in the United States. Like the Camp Funston COs, many British COs received harassment and bullying from their direct officers while working in army camps. Walter Griffin, a British CO, spoke of his experience in an interview: “I was up against a sergeant major, a brute. He sort of tried to bully me in that way. He came right up to me and tried to shout as hard as he could to me, right within a yard or two. And I looked him straight in the eye and told him, I said, ‘I respectfully refuse to obey your orders,’ and he went barmy. Absolutely barmy. In front of a lot of recruits, the most stupid thing anybody could do and he just went barmy.”^[25]

In Germany, conscientious objection didn’t exist. This wasn’t because the whole country supported the war, but because the authoritarian German government viewed all COs as traitors and, as such, promptly executed them.^[26] Although the treatment of conscientious objectors varied in intensity across the world, COs received nearly no reprieve in belligerent countries and faced discrimination constantly throughout the First World War. Many European COs were forced to immigrate to neutral countries, like Switzerland and Norway, to escape their persecution.^[27] Europe’s treatment of COs makes the United States look tame, but the ignorance of certain liberties afforded to American citizens by the Constitution compared to the imperial monarchies of the United Kingdom and Germany only highlights the failures of the United States in its handling of conscientious objectors. Unfortunately, for conscientious objectors across the world, respite from oppression was as elusive as it was desired.

Conclusions

The United States made several fundamental mistakes when it came to the conscientious objector problem during the First World War. Its lack of definition of the CO led to an arbitrary and complicated registration process, biased and unfair legal proceedings, limited service options, and terrible treatment throughout the country. In the broader context of the war, most countries treated their COs just as harshly as the U.S. However, because of the distinct liberties provided by the United States Constitution compared to the monarchies of Europe, this made the failures in the U.S. even more apparent. Even though the First World War may have been an example of how not to handle COs for the U.S., it was also an important learning step. WWI was only the first time that the world had seen COs on a massive scale, and the United States’ motions in working with conscientious objection became fundamental in its wartime history.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

As the celebrations overtook the streets on Armistice Day, conscientious objectors were quickly forgotten. Charles Cory smiled, but he knew the war wasn’t over, just because the fighting was done. The next year, he joined the American Friends Service Commission, or the AFSC, to help support civilians in Europe and make reparations for war. As a member of the AFSC, Cory traveled to France in 1919 to aid with humanitarian relief and aid, distributing supplies and building homes. Upon returning to the United States in 1920, Cory would attend a year of classes at Boston College, marry his wife, Olive Taylor, and move to Wisconsin in 1971, where he would pass away just three years later at the age of seventy-nine. Cory just avoided the draft of the Second World War in 1940, which required all men between the ages of 21 and 45 to register (Cory turned 46 that year). Though Charles Cory’s war story ended in 1919, history had yet to conclude its chapter on conscientious objectors.

American Friends Service Commission, Paris, France, 1919, Charles W. Cory Papers, Wisconsin Veterans Museum, WVM Mss 543

Since WWI, conscientious objectors have continued to have an important and long-lasting impact on the legacy of the United States during wartime. With the return of a draft in both the Second World War and the Vietnam War, conscientious objectors hadn’t yet left the scene of the United States government by November 1918. WWII became a catalyst of change for how the United States handled COs, with a much better-defined system to process and provide service options for COs during the war. Vietnam provided a political stage for COs to express their perspectives, and as anti-war opinions became more prominent during the middle stages of the Cold War, COs became more relatable in the public eye. In the modern day, COs don’t exist in the United States military, as conscientious objectors are not allowed to commission or enlist. However, if there is another draft in the future, we may yet see COs return. Though tragic, conscientious objectors during the First World War left an important and lasting legacy that would shape the lives of Americans for many years to come and change the political and social scene of the U.S. in wartime forever.

In the First World War, COs were ultimately considered soldiers who provided alternative service on the home front rather than overseas on the battlefield. Though they faced immense discrimination, most COs were happy to support the country in some manner or another. As a global crisis, COs continued to leave a lasting impact on future wars to come as worldwide total war became more prominent. Did the United States do a good job managing conscientious objectors during WWI? No. The U.S. government made mistakes at almost every turn, but they were necessary stepping stones for the nation to learn how to manage and assist conscientious objectors in future wars. Perhaps if the United States government had viewed the CO problem as a larger one or made different decisions concerning COs, there would be a different history today. Instead, we can only remember the experiences of those COs who suffered during the war, respect their sacrifices, and see the legacy that they have had on our world today.

— ♦ —

Notes:

^[1] “Conscientious Objectors,” Selective Service System, https://www.sss.gov/conscientious-objectors/.

Accessed December 2, 2023.

^[2] Zubik v. Burwell, Brief amicus curiae of Military Historians, February 17, 2016, 3-4, 6-17, www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Zubik_Amicus_Brief_FINAL1.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2024.

^[3] “Enrollment Act,” Wikipedia, September 7, 2023; Zubik v. Burwell, 17-19.

^[4] Kellogg, Walter Guest, The Conscientious Objector (New York: Boni and Liveright, 1919), 100.

^[5] Kellogg, 15.

^[6] Committee of Public Information, “Conscientious Objectors, Federal Regulations,” May 30, 1918, Charles W. Cory (CWC) Papers, box 1, folder 7, Wisconsin Veterans Museum (WVM).

^[7] Nicholas A. Krehbiel, “World War I: The CO Problem,” https://civilianpublicservice.org/storybegins/krehbiel/world-war-1. Accessed December 3, 2023.

[8] Louis Jones, “Affidavit of Principal of Oak Grove Seminary,” Vassalboro, Maine, August 27, 1917 and handwritten certificate of membership in good standing, Rhode Island Monthly Meeting of Friends, Finis Mazherd (?), clerk, July 22, 1917, CWC Papers, box 1, folder 8, WVM.

^[9] Library of Congress, “Echoes of the Great War: Conscientious Objectors,” https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/world-war-i-american-experiences/about-this-exhibition/over-here/raising-an-army/conscientious-objectors/. Accessed December 3, 2023.

^[10] Charles Cory, “Petition for exemption,” June 10, 1918, CWC Papers, box 1, folder 10, WVM.

^[11] Krehbiel, “World War I: The Co Problem.” Accessed December 3, 2023.

[12] Krehbiel, “World War I: The Co Problem.” Accessed December 3, 2023; absence request and denial notice, CWC Papers, box 1, folder 3, and petition for suspension from active duty, CWC papers box 1, folder 10, WVM.

^[13] “Record of Trial by General Court-Martial of Private John J. Zito #1716135, Co. K, 305th Infantry, American E.F., France. 1919,” Court-martial proceedings, 1919, Alvin F. Koser Papers, WVM.

^[14]Anne M. Yoder, “Home before the Leaves Fall: The Great War 1914-1918, Conscientious Objection during World War I,” Falvey Library Exhibits, Villanova University. https://wwionline.org/wwi-online/articles/conscientious-objection-during-world-war-i. Accessed December 3, 2023.

^[15] POV, Public Broadcasting System, “Soldiers of Conscience, Background: Soldiers at War,” aired January 23, 2008, https://archive.pov.org/soldiersofconscience/background. Accessed December 3, 2023.

^[16] Yoder, “Conscientious Objection during World War I.” https://archive.pov.org/soldiersofconscience/background

^[17] Krehbiel, “World War I: The Co Problem.” Accessed December 3, 2023.

^[18] “Knights of Liberty Tar and Feather Slacker,” The Duluth Herald, September 19, 1918. 4.

^[19] “Knights of Liberty,” Wikipedia. Accessed June 10, 2024.

^[20] “Duluth Expects Arrests,” Eau Claire Leader-Telegram, October 8, 1918, 1; “Death Follows Mobs,” Bottineau Courant (North Dakota), November 21, 1918, 7.

^[21] Leslie A. Bellais, “Traitor State”: A Crisis of Loyalty in World War I Wisconsin,” (Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC, 2022), 238-267.

^[22] “Report of Treatment of Conscientious Objectors at the Camp Funston Guard House,” 1918, CWC Papers, box 1, folder 9, WVM.

^[23] “Report of Treatment of Conscientious Objectors,” CWC Papers, WVM.

^[24] Imperial War Museums, “Conscientious Objectors in Their Own Words,” https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/conscientious-objectors-in-their-own-words. Accessed December 3, 2023.

^[25] Imperial War Museums, “Voices of the First World War: Conscientious Objection,” https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/voices-of-the-first-world-war-conscientious-objection.  Accessed December 3, 2023.

^[26] James D. Shand, “Doves among the Eagles: German Pacifists and their Government during World War I,” Journal of Contemporary History 10, no. 1 (1975): 95–108.

^[27] Jean-Luc Rickenbacher, “Switzerland as a Safe Haven for Pacifists,” September 1, 2020, https://blog.nationalmuseum.ch/en/2018/11/switzerland-a-safe-haven-for-pacifists/. Accessed December 3, 2023.

External Web Site Notice: This page contains information directly presented from an external source. The terms and conditions of this page may not be the same as those of this website. Click here to read the full disclaimer notice for external web sites. Thank you.