SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS IN WWII
STANDING BEFORE THE MOBILIZATION BOARD IN CANADA Presented at:
CIVILIAN INTERNMENT IN CANADA: HISTORIES AND LEGACIES
JUNE 17-19, 2015, WINNIPEG, MANITOBA
Barry W. Bussey MPACS University of Waterloo
Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 2
The Seventh-day Adventist Church .......................................................................................................... 3 The Adventist Position on Bearing Arms .................................................................................................. 4 Canadian Conscription Crisis.................................................................................................................... 5
Conscientious Objection ........................................................................................................................... 6 Mobilization Board ................................................................................................................................... 7
The Mennonite Experience ..................................................................................................................... 10 The Adventist Experience ....................................................................................................................... 12
Numbers .............................................................................................................................................. 12
Appearances before the Board ............................................................................................................ 14 Ontario ................................................................................................................................................ 15
Alberta ................................................................................................................................................. 15
Manitoba ............................................................................................................................................. 16
British Columbia ................................................................................................................................. 17 Saskatchewan ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 23 Appendix ................................................................................................................................................. 25
Subjects of This Study ........................................................................................................................ 25
2
Introduction “There is however a lot of humbug put forward by some of these men who lay claim to conscientious objections”,
declared Judge A.M. Manson.1 “This particular man says he is a Seventh Day Adventist (sic) and therefore a con-combatant
(sic).”2 He continued,
There is nothing in the tenets of the Seventh Day Adventists (sic.) so far as I know that prohibits a perfectly good member of that organization from bearing arms, and while their Sunday is not our Sunday, nevertheless they lay claim to be followers of Christ and certainly Christ made it clear in his teachings that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. In the emergency of war there is no reason why the Seventh Day Adventist (sic.) should not continue with his Army duties on Sunday as the Jews do who are in the Army.
3
Thus Manson declined to recognize Private Linden Watts, born and raised a Seventh-day Adventist, as a conscientious
objector in World War II (“WWII”). Watts’ experience before the National War Services Board (“NWSB”) was the exception
rather than the norm. However, while it was the exception, it was not altogether uncommon. The treatment that Watts
and other Adventist conscripts suffered was a reflection of the harsh realities of the passion of war. During WWII,
Canadian society had much to learn about the complexities of religious freedom and the extent to which people of faith
were willing to resist government demands to take up arms that violated their conscience.
This paper presents the results of a qualitative research project that interviewed twenty-seven Canadian Seventh-day
Adventist WWII conscripts who were conscientious objectors (“CO”). The project began shortly after 9/11 and continues as
time and material become available. The bulk of the interviews of this study occurred during the spring of 2008 when the
author was sponsored by the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada to travel throughout Canada and the United States
interviewing Canadian Adventist COs. It was felt, and time has confirmed the suspicion, that an attempt must be made to
record their experiences without delay before they pass on taking their stories to the grave. This realization became
1 Letter of Hon. Mr. Justice A.M. Manson to Lt. Col. F. J. Simpson, V.D., 15
th November 1943, from confidential file of
Linen R. Watts (K 40668), Library and Archives Canada.
2 Letter of Hon. Mr. Justice A.M. Manson to Lt. Col. F. J. Simpson, V.D., 15
th November 1943, from confidential file of
Linen R. Watts (K 40668), Library and Archives Canada.
3 Letter of Hon. Mr. Justice A.M. Manson to Lt. Col. F. J. Simpson, V.D., 15
th November 1943, from confidential file of
Linen R. Watts (K 40668), Library and Archives Canada.
3
exceedingly evident after the passing of Earl Coupland. On July 30, 2004, Coupland gave an interview about his WWII
experience which was audio recorded. It was the first time since the war that Coupland shared his experience. No family
member had ever heard of his war experiences before that recording. A few short years later Coupland passed away,
without ever recording a video . However, his death was the impetus to make contact with all the known survivors to
request an interview to be part of the project. An announcement was made in the Canadian Adventist Messenger, the
official magazine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada, requesting the COs or their family to contact the national
office. From that announcement we were able to obtain dozens of interviews and hundreds of photographs that
documented their experience.
Very little has been written about the involvement of Seventh-day Adventist young men and their stand for conscience
during WWII in Canada and there have not been any published research studies to date on the issue.4 This is the first time
that a research project has been undertaken on the matter. This paper forms only a part of a larger study. In particular,
this paper will present the research data as it relates to the experience of Canadian Adventist COs vis-à-vis the NWSB, also
known as the Mobilization Board. This paper will use the experience of the Mennonite COs before the NWSB as a
comparator group. This comparison to determine similarities and differences will assist not only to analyse the extent to
which the Adventist experience is unique from other CO claimants but it will highlight what other areas of research may be
conducted in the future that will give a more fulsome account of conscientious objection in Canada during WWII.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church
The Seventh-day Adventist Church (hereinafter “Adventist Church”) is a Protestant Christian church officially organized
in 1863. The name “Seventh-day Adventist” derives from two of its distinctive teachings. The first is the observance of the
weekly Sabbath, from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, based on the Fourth Commandment. The second part of the name
alludes to the teaching of the imminent return of Christ at the Second Advent.
Currently, the Adventist Church has some 18 million adult members worldwide. It is still a relatively unknown entity
and is often confused by the public with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses, although
4 There is one chapter in Barry W. Bussey, Ed., Should I Fight? Essays on Conscientious Objection and the Seventh-day
Adventist Church (Belleville: Guardian Books, 2011). Also, there is a short chapter in J. Ernest Monteith, The Lord is
my Shepherd (College Heights, AB: Canadian Union Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, 1983).
4
it is theologically, doctrinally, and organizationally completely different from them.5
During WWII the Adventist Church in
Canada had some 9,300 adult members.6
The Adventist Position on Bearing Arms
The Adventist Church had a robust tradition of encouraging its members not to bear arms arising from the crucible of
the American Civil War. In 1864 the General Conference Executive Committee addressed a statement to the Michigan
Governor informing him that Adventists took “…the Bible as their rule of faith and practice…” of which “…its teachings are
contrary to the spirit and practice of war; hence, they have ever been conscientiously opposed to bearing arms.”7
In 1940, the Adventist Church published a detailed statement on the relationship between itself and civil government.8
In this, the Church stated, “[T]he first and highest duty of the Christian is embraced in his relationship to God; that he
should also… be subject unto the ‘powers that be’ – that is, the civil government – and that he will perform his obligations
to the civil government, not because of fear, but ‘for conscience’ sake.’”9
While the Christian will be loyal to government,
“[t]he requirements of God come first. This has been attested through the centuries by the loyal martyrs who have gone to
the stake rather than compromise their conscientious convictions.”10
“Noncombatants conscientiously object to taking
human life ... They do not, however, condemn those who take part in war.”11
5 Malcolm Bull & Keith Lockhart, Seeking a Sanctuary: Seventh-day Adventism and the American Dream, 2
nd Edition
(Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2007) at page 1.
6 W.B. Ochs, “President’s Report, Second Quadrennial Session,” The Canadian Union Messenger, March 25, 1942, p. 1,
the exact number given was 9,275.
7 General Conference Executive Committee of Seventh-day Adventists, Battle Creek, Michigan, August 2, 1864, as
quoted by Francis McLellan Wilcox, Seventh-day Adventists in Time of War (Takoma Park, Wash., D.C.: Review and
Herald, 1936) at p. 58:
“If there is any portion of the Bible which we, as a people, can point to more than another as our creed, it is the law
of ten commandments, which we regard as the supreme law, and each precept of which we take in its most obvious and
literal import. The fourth of these commandments requires cessation from labor on the seventh day of the week, the
sixth prohibits the taking of life, neither of which, in our view, could be observed while doing military duty. Our
practice has uniformly been consistent with these principles. Hence, our people have not felt free to enlist into the
service.”
8 General Conference Committee of Seventh-day Adventists, “Seventh-day Adventists and Civil Government,”
September 25, 1940.
9 Ibid., p. 3. The statement was quoting from the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Romans 13:1-5.
10 Ibid., p. 4.
11 Ibid., p. 12. This flexibility in the Church’s position ultimately caused a schism with a sizable portion of its
membership in Europe. The Church was seen to have softened its position in this and earlier statements. In Germany
5
In essence, the noncombatant will do whatever he can to assist the government, even in time of war, except the
bearing of arms. Thus, being a cook for the army, being a field medic, caring for the sick and wounded, burying the dead,
transportating men, food, and clothing, though indirectly assisting the government at war, was nevertheless not against
conscience because it did not take life. “The noncombatant is not a coward; he simply and conscientiously and
courageously objects to taking human life, so far as his participation is concerned.”12
The statement emphasized the obligation of Sabbath-keeping. “[T]he exigencies of war do not change the obligation
of the Christian to keep God’s holy day.” It encouraged those called into service to “request that he be assigned to some
post of duty in which he may not only be exempt from bearing arms, but also in which he may labor conscientiously in the
lines of duty which are compatible with Sabbath observance.”13
Canadian Conscription Crisis
Canada’s then Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King (“King”) won a large majority of seats in the House of
Commons in March 1940. The Canadian public supported King’s handling of the early months of the war. However, there
was concern over conscription in Quebec. King maintained that should there be conscription; no conscript would be
forced to go overseas. He had hoped there would be no need, but Germany’s Blitzkrieg hammered the allies to the shores
of Dunkirk, France and the situation became grave. More men were needed. Ottawa, seen as the “quietest war capital in
Christendom,” suddenly became “a cauldron of excitement.”14
On June 21, 1940, the Canadian Parliament passed the National Resources Mobilization Act15
(“NRMA”) giving the
during WWI, the Adventist Church leadership disfellowshiped those who did not bear arms and refused to fight on the
Sabbath. Such a position was completely opposite of the world Church’s position. In the post WWI years, the German
branch of the Church reconciled with the world Church when there was a compromise allowing the individual member
to decide for themselves whether to bear arms, though the official position of the Church would be noncombatancy. For
many Europeans, especially those whose membership was removed because they refused to bear arms, it was an
unacceptable compromise; they felt betrayed and established the “Reformed Seventh-day Adventist Church.” Though
the Reformed SDA Church is relatively small today (approximately 80,000) compared to the Adventist Church (17
million) it nevertheless expresses the passion that the issue of bearing arms has had in Adventist Church history.
12 Ibid., p. 12.
13 Ibid., p. 19.
14 Kaplan, p. 46 quoting C.P. Stacey, Canada and the Age of Conflict II: 1921-1948 (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1981), p. 298-9.
15 The National Resources Mobilization Act, 1940, George VI, Chap. 13, Acts of the Parliament of Canada, 1939-1940
(Ottawa, 1940), 43.
6
government broad powers with respect to ... (fill in the blank).16
The result was the implementation of compulsory military
service generally, but only conscripts who volunteered would go overseas.
Conscientious Objection
During the NRMA debate in the House, King made reference to conscientious objectors and promised to respect the
rights of religious communities who were promised on their settlement in Canada that they would not have to bear arms
they would include the Mennonites and the Doukhobors.17
An order-in-council in 1873 exempted the Mennonites and in
1898 exempted the Doukhobors. The National War Services Regulations stated the protection was a “postponement of
their military training.”18
The Regulations were not acceptable to the Conference of Historic Peace Churches (“CHPC”) being the Mennonites,
the Friends (Quakers), Brethren in Christ (Tunkers), Old Order German Baptists, and Church of the Brethren.19
They
believed the requirement of conscientious objectors having to belong to a recognized historic peace church was too
restrictive; and even if the CO status was substantiated, it only “postponed” the military training until men were required
for the home front. The religious community wanted a broader definition and, at the very least, they wanted the
requirement of military training lifted altogether. The whole point of being a CO was not to bear arms and that meant no
military training, ever. A number of the Mennonite communities advocated the concept of alternative work service rather
than military training, much the same way as some of their Russian counterparts had done for years under the Tsars. The
civil service was not enthused with the proposal.
At one meeting between government officials and a religious delegation during the fall of 1940, General LaFleche tried
16
NRMA, 43 gave the government the power to:
do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, requiring
persons to place themselves, their services and their property at the disposal of His Majesty in the right of Canada,
as may be deemed necessary or expedient for securing the public safety, the defence of Canada, the maintenance of
public order, or the efficient prosecution of the war, or for maintaining supplies or services essential to the life of
the community.
17 Debates (H.C.), 1940, Vol. 1, p. 904, as quoted in J.A. Toews, Alternative Service in Canada During World War II
(Winnipeg: Canadian Conference of the Mennonite Brethren Church, 1959), at p. 43.
18 National War Services Regulations, 1940, (Recruits) as consolidated in 1941 and approved by Order-in-Council P.C.
1822 (March 18, 1941) as noted by Toews at p. 44.
19 W. Janzen, Limits on Liberty: The Experience of Mennonite, Hutterite, and Doukhobor Communities in Canada
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990), p. 201.
7
to strong arm the delegation in stating that they could be shot for not following military orders. Jacob H. Janzen, a man
who had faced such threats from the Russian army earlier in life, retorted, “I’ve looked down too many rifle barrels in my
time to be scared that way. This thing is in our blood for four hundred years and you can’t take it away from us like you’d
crack a piece of kindling over your knee… We believe in this.”20
In December 1940, the regulations were changed, broadening conscientious objection to those who were not
members of the Mennonite and Doukhobor communities.21
Adventists claimed their access to the exemption under this
provision before the Mobilization Boards.
Mobilization Board
Given the stress of mobilizing for war and the early successes of Hitler’s campaign in Europe, one can understand the
urgency with which the Board operated. Public opinion demanded action. There was a sense that these religious men
were getting off much too easy. The Board were to ensure that only those deserving exemption or postponement were
bona fide.
The federal government appointed “Mobilization Boards”22
to determine the veracity of a conscript’s assertion that he
was a conscientious objector. The country was divided into thirteen administrative divisions.23
Each division had a board
that was composed of a panel of three with a local superior court Judge acting as chair. The other two were often a lawyer
and a military representative.24
Very little is known how the board members were chosen. However, given the political
20
David Fransen, “Canadian Mennonites and Conscientious Objectors in World War II” MA Thesis, University of
Waterloo, 1977, at p. 102.
21 Section 18(1) of National War Services Regulations, 1940 (Recruits) as amended by the Order in Council December 24,
1940, PC 7215:
18(1) Any man who claims that he conscientiously objects to bearing arms or to undertaking combatant service
may apply for an order or direction postponing his military training indefinitely, which order or direction shall be
made if it is established that such man conscientiously objects to the bearing of arms or the undertaking of
combatant service, and if a regular clergyman or minister of a religious denomination or sect certifies that the said
man in good faith belongs to his religious denomination or sect and that in the opinion of the clergyman or minister
the applicant has conscientious scruples against the bearing of arms. A certificate so given shall be prima facie
evidence only of the facts stated therein and the Board receiving such evidence shall not be bound thereby.
22 Upon the passage of the NRMA, the Boards were known as “National War Services Board.” It was later transferred to
the Department of Labor Mobilization Board.
23 Janzen, p. 203, referencing National War Services Regulations, 1940 (Recruits), The Canada Gazette 74, no. 23, 27
August 1940. 24
Janzen, p. 223 – quoting a Mennonite leader David Toews.
8
nature of the positions it is reasonable to suspect that political affiliation, public service, military experience, legal training
and prominent reputation were factors in the choice. Unfortunately, very little official record remains of their proceedings
and activity. Conrad Stoesz, from the Centre for Mennonite Brethren Studies, suggests such records may have been
destroyed.25
If they were, it is not without precedent. There is evidence that after the First World War the presiding
judges destroyed the records of the Military Service Council, which served the same function as the Mobilization Boards in
WWII. For example, Lyman Duff, who was the Chief Justice of Canada during the Second World War, years earlier had
destroyed all the records of the Military Service Council (“MSC”) in his possession. He reasoned that “[t]he papers of the
local tribunals and appeal bodies in Quebec were full of hatred and bitterness and would have been a living menace to
national unity.”26
E.L.Newcombe, the chairman of the MSC, also followed Duff’s example. “Both men,” noted Duff’s
biographer David Williams, “both honourable men, believed they had acted in the national interest by denying future
researchers the opportunity of ascertaining the truth.”27
We are uncertain therefore, whether the local Mobilization Board chairs in WWII felt they were acting in the national
interest, as did their WWI counterparts, by not keeping records of their proceedings. However, there is one judge in
Alberta, during WWII, that was an exception: Justice Horace Harvey of Alberta kept detailed notes which have survived and
included the person’s name, location, registration number and a short description of the hear with the result.28
In my
personal research I did manage to find some records of court proceedings against those Adventists that were originally
denied CO status and forced to take military training but their subsequent refusal to take the rifle and their generally
obstinate position forced the military to send them back before the Mobilization Board for a further review. The
questioning in those proceedings was sharp and clearly the judge was not at all pleased with the claim of conscientious
objection (as will be noted below in the examples of Lyndon Watts and Alexander Aab).
The government claimed that the Board “spared no efforts to make the soundest possible decisions,” recognizing that
it was the application of judgement and opinion.29
The Board had broad powers of investigation, including access to the
questionnaire that each applicant had to answer, the investigative services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the
25
Conrad Stoesz, “Scattered Documents: Locating the CO Record in Canada,” Journal of Mennonite Studies, Volume 25,
2007, 145 at p. 147 see note 8. 26
David Ricardo Williams, Duff, A Life in the Law (Toronto: The Osgoode Society, 1984), p. 95. 27
Williams, p. 95. 28
Stoesz, at p. 147. 29
Toews, p. 45.
9
National Employment Service. It was also authorized to compel a claimant to answer any question arising from his
application. “The boards had great autonomy and could interpret the laws as they saw fit. They could act almost
independently. Their judgements could only be reviewed by the board itself.”30
Generally each case took only 10
minutes.31
However, the Board was plagued with serious logistical problems from the beginning including a high turn-over rate of
employees and inability to obtain accurate records from the National War Services as to who enlisted. A number of
families of men already serving overseas were getting call up notices, and even those who were killed in action had call up
notices arrive at their former home. Between 1940 and 1945 Mobilization Boards heard nearly 750,000 requests for
postponement of military service.32
The Boards acted as gatekeepers. They decided the fate of the young religious men that stood before them seeking
conscientious objector status.33
Early in the war, to be classified as a CO meant the young man was sent off to an
alternative service work camp. While the loss of personal freedom was regrettable – leaving family, career, and school -
their lot was much more agreeable than those who were denied CO status but maintained their religious scruples.
A religious man, denied the CO status by the Board, meant he faced an extremely trying time as he navigated life in
the regular army. Such faced ridicule, imprisonment, and hard labour for maintaining their refusal to bare a rifle. The
Board’s refusal to exempt such men was due, in no small part, to the capricious nature of its chair.
The Boards were generally chaired by a local superior court judge of some years. As the chair had experience in
determining the truthfulness of witnesses while sitting on the bench, much deference was given to him. That meant the
Boards took on the chair’s character, for good or ill. Two individual Board chairs stand out: Judge A.M. Manson of the
Vancouver Board and Judge J.F.L. Embury of the Regina Board.
30
Conrad Stoesz, at p. 145-146. 31
Stoesz, p. 147. 32 Michael D. Stevenson, Canada’s Greatest Wartime Muddle: National Selective Service and the Mobilization of
Human Resources during World War II, (Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2002), p. 22. 33
L.E. Westman, Chief Alternative Service Officer, in Ottawa gave the following grounds a Board might use for granting
Conscientious Objector status to an applicant (Letter, Westman to Divisional Registrar, July 14, 1943, as quoted by
Toews, p. 46):
a) Association with a particular sect, such as Mennonites, Doukhobors, Quakers, etc.
b) Evidence from the clergy or spiritual leader as to the individual’s conduct in the past. This may be
dangerous since it places great powers with the clergy, and may be related to financial consideration.
c) A hearing of this man before a panel chosen to question him; this in my opinion, is seldom conclusive,
since the Board chosen has no standards whereby they can measure the man’s mind.
10
The Mennonite Experience
Michael D. Stevenson’s research uncovered a serious flaw in the operation of the Mobilization Boards – they took “on
the personality of its Chair.”34
The prejudices and bias of the chair often determined the fate of the young men who
claimed an exemption from military service. Despite meeting the criteria in the regulations many were denied. William
Janzen noted that the Mennonite experience varied throughout the country:35
• Ontario – other than a few issues in the beginning over training with a rifle there were “virtually no difficulties.”
36 The Mennonite church leaders simply brought the names of their young men to the
registrar of the board and they received their “postponement.” • Alberta – the board chair, Judge Horace Harvey, took the position that if the COs took basic military
training with the gun they could then elect for a non-combatant service. However, Mennonite leadership felt this was inadequate. After some intense discussions with the Mennonite leadership and discussions with the Ottawa bureaucrats things began to change and the men were sent to the alternative service camps. However, issues flared up from time to time.
37
• Saskatchewan – Judge Embury sought to persuade the Mennonites to train with the rifle during basic training and then seek non-combatant roles subsequently. However, this was rejected by the Department of National Defence.
38 In December 1941 out of 126 applications for CO status 70 were
sent to military training, 52 sent to alternative service and four were unfit for service.39
Despite the intervention of Mennonite leadership, members of parliament and Judge Embury the DND refused.
• Manitoba – by January 1942 about 800 that applied for ‘indefinite postponement’ 260 were sent to alternative service camps, 20 sent to military training of which 11 were jailed after they refused the rifle, 520 had yet to receive instructions.
40 Judge Adamson was convinced that the Mennonite church
leaders were applying social pressure on their young men to refuse military training.41
Before holding hearings in Steinbach he said, “To you Bishops, preachers, elders and fathers, I say, do not attempt to influence these young men. Leave them free … it is their conscience and not yours.”
42
• British Columbia – on the whole the BC Board appears to have been receptive to allowing the Mennonites serve in the alternative service in the early war years but as time went on challenges were evident there too. Judge Manson made it so difficult that the army was frustrated having to deal with obstinate Mennonites who were not classified as COs by Manson but sent to military training and refused the rifle.
43
34 Michael D. Stevenson, p. 25. 35
He references the five provinces that have a substantial population of Mennonites – Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan,
Alberta, British Columbia. 36
Janzen, p. 211. 37
Ibid, p. 211-212. 38
Ibid, p. 213. 39
Ibid, p. 215. 40
Janzen, p. 217. 41
Janzen, p. 214. 42
Janzen, p. 214, also see Nathan R. Dirks, War Without, Struggle Within: Canadian Mennonite Enlistments During the
Second World War, (McMaster Divinity College, Masters’ Thesis, 2010), p. 27.
Length 312 pages 43
Janzen, p. 229.
11
Janzen’s research suggests that the worst treatment of Mennonites, from among those jurisdictions that had a sizable
population of Mennonites, came from the Manitoba and Saskatchewan Boards. David Toews, a Mennonite leader, wrote
to Ottawa complaining of the biased Boards. He gave the following as examples of the struggles the men faced:
A young Mennonite…came before the Board and one of the questions was: ‘Did you go to school’ Answer: ‘Yes.” Question: ‘Did you ever have a scrap in school?’ Answer: ‘Yes.’ – ‘Well, you are not a conscientious objector, your application is not accepted, get out!!!’ Another boy came before the Board. ‘Are you a Mennonite and a Conscientious Objector?’ Answer: ‘Yes.’ ‘Why is it that you are asking for postponement?’ Answer: ‘Besides being a Mennonite and a Conscientious Objector, I am a farmer and I am the only one working on the farm.’ Answer: ‘I do not care a hoot about your farm, we want you, your application is not accepted, get out!!!’
44
Toews' entreaties were largely ignored. As were other letters sent to Ottawa. The typical response was like that of
Humphrey Mitchell, Minister of Labour, to C.F. Klassen, Mennonite leader, “The Board’s decision in each case constitutes a
finding of fact based upon the evidence submitted to it. The Chairman of each Board is a Superior Court Judge and the
Boards, as constituted, are competent to arrive at fair decisions … Applicants should be prepared to abide by the Board’s
decision.”45
David Fransen’s research also notes that “The procedures in Ontario and Manitoba were polar opposites.”46
Ontario’s
Board approached the matter by leaving the Mennonite church officials to decide among themselves who were and were
not COs. In Manitoba, it was “we will decide,” who is a CO.47
Ontario’s approach was collaborative whereas Manitoba’s
approach was adversarial. The adversarial approach of Manitoba led to a number of Mennonites not convincing the Board
of their CO convictions and being forced into military training. When they refused they suffered jail time. Fransen noted
that despite the ill treatment of the few the fact was “[t]he overwhelming majority of those who applied for it, were
granted CO status.”48
Things got easier in September 1943 when the government finally allowed men to enlist in the medical corps without
having to bear arms.49
Further, complaints about the Board chairs from the Mennonites resulted in the December 1, 1943
order from Ottawa that gave a commanding officer of an army unit the discretion to discharge men who would not make
44
Janzen, p. 221. 45
Janzen, p. 224. 46
Fransen, p. 146. 47
Fransen, p. 146. 48
Fransen, p. 147. 49
Order-in-Council, PC 7251, 16 September 1943
12
good soldiers.50
This eliminated the need of the army to constantly go back to a board chair for reclassification of a
recalcitrant Mennonite who was denied CO status by the Board in the first instance.
This brief introduction to the Mennonite experience before the Mobilization Boards reveals the following: First,
though the government regulations gave authority to the Boards to grant exemptions, postponements or orders to serve
at alternative service locations, the fate of the young man seeking CO status was at whim of the Board. The bias of the
Board chair appeared to be the determining factor. Second, experiences varied from province to province and, thus, from
chair to chair. Ontario seemed to be the most lenient where the chair simply accepted the list of Mennonites given by the
church leaders as proof of eligibility for the CO status. The western provinces, and Manitoba and Saskatchewan in
particular, were the most problematic for the Mennonites while Alberta and British Columbia also had issues, but not to
the same degree. The attitude in western Canada required the claimant to prove their claim to CO status in the traditional
adversarial manner common in a courtroom setting. Third, there was evidence that the Boards used the internal division
within the Mennonite community between the youth and church leadership about the ethics of going to war to their
advantage. The young men were grilled by the Boards to determine any weakness they might have toward the traditional
pacifist position of the Mennonite community.51
The Adventist Experience
Numbers
It has proven to be a very difficult enterprise to determine how many CO claimants before the Boards were Seventh-
day Adventists. The total number of CO applications made to the Board is unknown. However, of the 664,535
postponements granted during the war, around 10,900 were because the men were conscientious objectors, of those
6,945 were Mennonites.52
To discover the number of Adventists who were COs will require a great deal of further
research. First, there are no Adventist Church records to assist. This is despite the request made by the national church
leadership of the provincial headquarters to send in their lists of Adventist COs and whether there was a need of church
assistance at the Boards or with military officials. It is reasonable to assume such a list was made at the time but
50
Janzen, p. 229. 51
Dirks, p. 26-27. 52
Dirks, p. 31, although Fransen, p. 159 puts the number at 7,500 – Dirks suggests that figure is incorrect.
13
unfortunately no list has survived.53
Second, J. A. Toews’ research suggests that there were only 58 Seventh-day Adventists
COs in WWII.54
That figure appears to be unreasonably low. A more realistic figure may well be a 100 or more. However,
many of those 100 are not necessarily part of the 10,900 figure. The 10,900 figure represents the best record we have of
those postponements made by the Board who were Cos. However, I argue that it does not accurately reflect all the COs
during WWII in Canada. For example, 19 COs whom I interviewed do not show up on the CO list compiled at the
Mennonite Heritage Centre website,55
That is explained in part because some of the men in my study were denied CO
status at the Board. Of the nine men in my study that do show up on the list two of the 8 (being John Yaceyko and John
Corban) are listed without a faith affiliation – both are Seventh-day Adventists. There may be more. Third, the 10,900
number of COs as used by Toews and Stoesz cannot be an accurate number of COs in WWII. The figure is undoubtedly
higher for the following reasons:
• It does not include the number of men who signed up under “restricted enlistment.” Many Adventist young people signed up in the military under “restricted enlistment” which meant they could serve in non-combatant roles including the medical corps after September of 1943. They are not therefore officially listed as COs but for all intents and purposes they were; they refused to bear a rifle.
• It is not an accurate reflection of the number of CO postponements from the Board. My research suggests that of the 27 individuals studied at least 9 went before the Board but are not listed in Stoesz’s list. That is not surprising giving the logistical problems the Board was known to have, as noted above by Michael D.
Stevenson’s research. • My research shows evidence of Adventist youth who decided that they were going to reject their childhood faith
and join the military as a form of protest but later recanted. One such person was Roy Curtis. Roy was attending the Adventist boarding school in Oshawa (currently Kingsway College, known at the time as Oshawa Missionary College). He was from St. John’s, Newfoundland. He decided the rules at the school were overbearing and he did not want to be associated with the church. Upon enlisting he was asked what religion he was. He said he didn’t have any religion. The recruiter said, “O come on you have to be something there are no atheists in this army! What is the religion of your father and mother?” “Seventh-day Adventist,” Roy replied. He reluctantly was classified as a Seventh-day Adventist. During basic training he became convicted that he should not bear the rifle. He stated his change of heart and was then assigned to the medical corps.
56 Roy would never show up
on a list as a CO – because he did not appear before the Board requesting COs status but had a change of heart later. It would be reasonable to suspect that there may have been more young men like Roy but they were not part of the 10,900 figure.
Therefore, 10,900 cannot be taken as the only COs during WWII in Canada. Nor, can we take Toews number of 58 as
an accurate figure for the number of Seventh-day Adventist CO’s. It is considerably higher for the reasons noted above and
53
Minutes of National Service Committee, held in Oshawa, Ontario, November 11, 1940. 54
J.A. Toews, p. 99. 55
The Mennonite Heritage Centre website: http://www.alternativeservice.ca/service/ListofCOs.htm lists 55 as Seventh-day
Adventists. I suggest that it is inaccurate for reasons that follow in the text. 56
Roy Curtis, interview May 15, 2003.
14
will require considerable research to determine a more realistic figure.
Appearances before the Board
There are a number of similarities between the experiences of the Adventists and the Mennonites before the Boards.
Like their Mennonite brothers the Adventists found it relatively easy to convince the Boards in Ontario that they were
deserving of CO status. The Western provinces proved not to be so easy. In all four western provinces there were
problems. However, by far the majority of the group were granted CO status at the first instance.
For the Adventist boys, this was the first time that they were involved in an adversarial system. Most were farmers,
often with very little education, and when called upon to account for their religious position on war, few had the
eloquence to articulate their religious conscience.57
It was an uneven match against an inquisitorial judge who was
predisposed to deny the relief sought. Thus, young men such as Linden Watts and Alexander Aab were denied CO status
not because they were not making legitimate claims necessarily, but because they had yet to prepare a coherent
presentation of their belief that would satisfy the adversarial tribunal.
It was trouble when the Mobilization boards refused to accept the Adventist application for conscientious objector
status. It meant the Adventist boys were pushed into an unwelcoming environment – there was systemic pressure to
acquiesce to overseas service, to bear the rifle, and to break the Sabbath. The culture shock for many of these young boys
growing up in a religious home on the farm was immense. Personal piety of beginning a typical day with Bible readings
and prayer, 58
respect for authority, and guarded language was challenged in the army. Suddenly they faced an
atmosphere of ridicule for their principled stands in a volley of cursing and taking the name of God in vain that was never
part of their culture.59
57
As Pastor White noted,
That young men from the farm, inexperienced in appearing before a court, fail in securing from the Civil Tribunal the
exemption provided is unfortunate, because when they are obliged to do service in a military camp there is perplexity on
their part, and they become a source of trouble to the military authorities for which all are exceedingly sorry.
Letter S.G. White, Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference to Brigadier W.W. Foster, December 4, 1941.
58John Corban noted, “Morning and evening worship, without fail we’d read the bible through in the evenings, morning we
had the Morning Watch books that would be printed, we’d have a reading of a prayer. It wasn’t necessarily long but if
we wanted to say anything or tell something we could do it. In the evening a little longer. We’d ah we were reading the
bible through. I think by the time I was 12 years old we’d gone through the bible about 12 times. Just year round, we’d
just read the bible and then pray. But that to me that was a faith-building, that’s where my faith was, was established.” Reel 14, 14:10:41.
59 Alex Aab, “When I refused the rifle he threw it at me and I was supposed to catch it because no rifle is supposed to land
15
Ontario
As the research showed above, the Ontario Board was the most lenient toward the COs during WWII. Church leaders
whose teachings prevented their members from serving with a rifle in the military were granted the right to present the
board with the names of those men who were members. Laurence Jerome went to the Ontario Board in Hamilton with his
minister to vouch that Jerome was member of the Adventist Church; it was enough to convince the judge. He explains:
I had my medical and then I was notified to, ah, appear before a judge in Hamilton to substantiate my CO status and I asked the minister in the Hamilton church and all he had to do was show the judge that I was a member of the Hamilton church and in good standing ... The Judge said, “Alright, you’ll get your further notice.
60
Of the six individuals in this study from Ontario it was only Jerome who appeared before the Board. Even that one
appearance was not at all difficult.
Alberta
The questions of the Board generally centred on what the conscript would do if someone, often a hypothetical
German, were to attack his mother, sister, or wife. Of course such questions were not new; the very same questions were
asked by the tribunals in WWI.61
August Steinke, reveals his confusion at the Board in Edmonton:
Well, there was the judge and there were several other officers that were in the tribunal in the room there. One would ask one question, other asked another and whether it was for the purpose of trying to get us rattled or confused, I don’t know, but you’d say no to one, “No, not so,” but, the other would take it as an answer to his question, you see, and so a person finally had to have to differentiate between the two to which one you were going to answer first, you know; but the judge finally said, “Well, you’ll be off to the alternative service camp.
62
Walter Schram describes his experience as appearing before “four or five fellows” with “one that I knew was in
charge,” who asked him what he would do if someone was killing his family. “Well, that was a hard question to answer,”
with… Well he threw it, I just stepped aside and the old rifle rolled down the pavement. And if you ever heard anybody
swear he could swear … from there I went right into the guard house.” Reel 19, 19:07:22. 60
Lawrence Jerome, Reel 1, 01:05:01, June 2008.
61 See Amy J. Shaw, Crisis of Conscience: Conscientious Objection in Canada during the First World War (Vancouver:
UBC Press, 2009), p. 39. “Tribunal judges typically asked COs how they would behave if their sister or mother were
being attacked.”
62 Interview August Steinke, Reel 09, 09:07:59, May 23, 2009.
16
Schram said, “because I’m sure everybody would do everything he could to stop that from happening. I can’t recall just
how I answered that, I really can’t. But they thought that I was qualified to go the CO camp so that’s what they did.” 63
Not all in Alberta were so blessed with the CO status. Albert Grabo was denied his claim to be a CO and was sent to
Camrose for military training. His refusal to take the rifle was met with fierce opposition. Finally, after 72 days spent in jail
the military decided to put him on a hospital ship where he spent the remainder of the war, not having to worry about
shooting the rifle.64
Herb Wekker was surprised that the Board did not ask him more questions than they did:
I thought you know you had to give a comment of your faith but it wasn’t that. They only asked me how long I was an Adventist, and I told them I was more than just an Adventist. I was raised as one, so they never asked any more questions. It was very easy doing the tribunal.
65
For John Corban the appearance before the Board was his “first opportunity to … learn how to speak for myself
because that was a committee that was rather intimidating - three people and they grilled me before they just simply said
you can be a conscientious objector.” Corban did not mind the Board’s investigation as they had to know if he was
legitimate. He informed them, “I’m not a conscientious objector, I want to be a conscientious co-operator and so let me do
that if I can. It’s going to be hard on me to kill even a, a bird or a squirrel” I said “that’s hard on me and I don’t believe in
war, I don’t believe that solves any, any problems at all. There are losers all through war and I don’t want any part of that.
So let me be in the medical corps for example…they sent me to a CO camp….66
Manitoba
Bill Soloniuk was the only subject of this study that appeared before the Manitoba Board. He was a theology major
when he appeared in front of the Board, “I told them since I was going to be a minister I would not take gun training
because I’m going to be preaching to the people that a Christian does not kill.”67
The ubiquitous question of what he
would do if someone attacked his mother was asked. He replied, “I don’t know what I’d do. The Lord would direct what
you’d do when that situation arose. No one knows what you are going to do in the future. The Lord can provide protection
63
Interview Walter Schram, Reel 05, 05:06:13 64
Interview Albert Grabo, Reel 02, 02:13:33 65
Interview, Herb Wekker, Reel 06, 06:19:57, May 22, 2008.
66 Interview John Corban, Reel 14, 14:03:59
67 Interview, Bill Soloniuk, Reel 18, 18:16:23, May 29, 2008.
17
and will take care of that situation when we face it.” One of the panel members mentioned to Bill that he wished Canada
had “the American system” where one could become a medic without taking a gun. He was granted CO status.
British Columbia
The individuals in this study who claimed CO status in BC had various experiences. Some found it easy to claim CO
status without going to the Board. For example, Harold Reimche and Charles Hawes did not have to appear before the
Board; they simply replied to their conscription notice that they were conscientious objectors. The next notice they
received was to show up at an alternative service camp.68
Others went before the Board and found it a pleasant experience. For example, Marvin Suiter described the board as
“very nice.” He accepted the questions as being legitimate to discover whether his claim to conscientious objection was
sincere. The question, being similarly asked across the West: “Well now, supposing … someone would come in and try to
hurt your sister … What would you do?” Suiter admitted that the question was “impossible to answer because who knows
what you would do if someone was trying to hurt your sister.”69
Others were not so well treated. Steven Tarangle was interrogated to such a degree that he remained troubled by the
experience 70 years later. He described it as follows:
For one hour he did most of the talking I did most of the praying at the same time. He called me a coward … that I was disloyal to the Canadian government because I wouldn’t bear arms; and, in essence he said, “My boy is out in the forces. He is fighting a war.” He says, “There is no way you’re going to get out of it. We’re not going to have this inequality,” and I said, “Well, the only way that I can go is conscientious objector,” and then he went through a variety of interrogations and he created hypothetic situations…. He said, Do you mean to tell me that if the Germans were raping your mother, your sister or … your wife … you mean to tell me that you would just sit there and do nothing?” Those were perhaps difficult questions to answer. Then I said, “Well, we do have faith that God will not lead us into this situation… I understand that God will give me the strength….” [H]e repeatedly kept asking me, “Who told you not to bear arms?” … So I said, “Well, the Bible … That’s the only thing that I have to go by.” … he threatened with jail…. My eyes were open, looking at him but I was praying. So … then he said, “So you’re from a farm.” “Yes, I am a farmer’s son.” So he said, “We have just the job for you,” and so he assigned me to a dairy farm…
70
It is interesting to note that even though there were some of the men in this study who had a bad experience before
the Board they all were granted CO status, save one – Lyndon Watts. It would appear the bravado of the Board chair was
more bark than bite. Even Tarangle’s experience, which was very intimidating for a young man, nevertheless had a positive
68
Interview, Harold Reimche, Reel 03, 03:03:36, May 21, 2008.
69 Marvin Suiter, Reel 03, 03:46:08.
70 Interview, Steven Tarangle, Reel 22, 22:05:03
18
ending; he got CO status. The BC Board was chaired by Hon. Mr. Justice A. M. Manson. Manson has been described as a
“feisty old judge” who made no particular effort to hide his bias.71
The most egregious example of this was his treatment
of Lyndon Watts.
Watts went to Vancouver, along with his mother and the president of the Adventist Church in British Columbia, to
appear before Manson. While he was explaining his position from Scripture as to why he was a CO he noticed that,
“a gentleman there got up and left the room, in a few moments he came back and he had a piece of paper in his hand and he wanted to read it and so he read it … from Ottawa, the headquarters. “What are you doing with conscientious objectors?” And the answer was “[f]rom here on they will be put into the medical corp and will not have to take the rifle.” Watts said, “It just knocked the props out from under me completely because I was telling them that we were prepared to save life but not to take it you see. …I had to go to Little Mountain in Vancouver to join the army. When I got up there I found out very quickly from the officer that I was talking to, they hadn’t received any such a message at all, and so consequently now I’m going into the military I’m not in the medical corp I’m in the military.”
72
Watts was to suffer at the hand of the military. Though sent to the military to be a member of the medical corps he was
required the carry the rifle. He refused. Inevitably, trouble ensued as Watts refused to take the rifle. He along with two
other Adventists and a Mennonite refused the rifle.73
He was given 14 days for disobeying an order by a superior officer.
Upon the completion of his sentence he was again ordered to take the rifle. He refused. He further exacerbated the
situation when he refused to do any work on Sabbath during incarceration. It was evident to the officers in the camp that
Watts should have been classified as a conscientious objector and sent to a work camp, not the army.
The military sent Judge Manson a telegram seeking guidance as to whether Watts could be reclassified as a
conscientious objector. Manson replied,
71
See Thomas R. Berger’s biographical account of appearing as a lawyer before Justice Manson in One Man’s Justice
(Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 2002) p. 39, 61. Berger writes of Manson,
If ever a judge was biased, it was Justice Manson. No one denies that there are unconscious tendencies that affect a
judge’s decisions on the bench, or conscious tendencies a judge usually is aware of and tries to curb. Benjamin Cardozo, a
famous American judge, observed that in each person is a stream of tendency that gives coherence and direction to thought
and action:
Judges cannot escape that current any more than other mortals. All their lives, forces which they do not recognize
and cannot name have been tugging at them – inherited instincts, traditional beliefs, acquired convictions; and the
result is an outlook on life, conception of social needs. . . which, when reasons are nicely balanced, must determine
where choice shall fall. In this mental background every problem finds its setting. We may try to see things as
objectively as we please. Nonetheless, we can never see them with any eyes except our own.
All judges would concede that as much could fairly be said of them. But Justice Manson’s intervention in the Second
Narrows Bridge case went far beyond what the great Cardozo referred to. The stream of tendency in Justice Manson’s
mind flooded its banks, and he was happily rowing with the current. 72
Interview Richard Lyndon Watts Reel 20, 20:21:49. 73
Interview, Linden Watts, Reel 20, 20:37:27, May 30, 2008: “So now there are four of us,” Watts recalled, “they put us
under guard and marched us off to the guardhouse... as we got to the door there’s a burly officer sitting there. “Who are
these guys? What’s going on here?” “Well they’re conscientious objectors.” “Well don’t bring them in here. Take them
out and shoot them.” And with that we marched in and they put us in the cell and locked the door.”
19
There seems to my Board no good reason why he should not bear arms during the period of his basic training. His conscientious objections as stated to us are to the taking of human life. He will not be called upon to take human life in the R.C.A.M.C.
Insofar as his objection to working on Saturday is concerned, my Board does not regard that as any proper ground for special consideration. Works of necessity and of mercy on the Sabbath Day are authorized by Scripture.
My Board is not disposed to reclassify this man in view of the fact that he is being trained for a corps, membership in which will not interfere with his conscientious objections.
74
In a subsequent court martial Watts was found guilty for disobeying a lawful command and sentenced 28 days
detention. W. Sykes, the Army Examiner noted,
Watts states that he has always been a 7
th Day Adventist and all the members of his family belong to this
denomination.
It is his hope to become a minister of the Gospel in this sect and he professes its tenets with all earnestness, declaring that he would rather face a firing squad than make any compromise with what he believes to be right. He specifically objects (a) to using firearms for the purpose of killing, or being trained to kill, other human beings, though he has used a rifle in hunting, and (b) to working on the Sabbath (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday). He is willing to work as a Nursing Orderly in any part of the world as long as he is not required to bear arms, and he is willing to tend the sicks on the Sabbath.
There is no likelihood that Watts will alter his convictions. He will prove obstreperous if attempts are made to train him in violation of his convictions. Apart from his beliefs, he is pleasant, cooperative, and intelligent, and might be usefully employed in a non-combatant capacity. In view of the fact that he might go Active under the terms of “Restricted Enlistment” allowed to conscientious objectors, this A.E. feels that the best solution of the dilemma would be to have him declared a conscientious objector by a Mobilization Board, so that he might be given the opportunity to enlist under the A/M Conditions.
75
Again another telegram from Ottawa was sent to British Columbia Pacific Command for further information: “whether
this soldier made any representations to the National Selective Service Mobilization Board when he was called up for
service, and if so may a statement concerning same be forwarded.”76
Judge Manson replied curtly at being asked about Watts’ situation a second time. “May we respectfully remind you
that the decisions of my Board are final.” The Board’s meetings are in camera and as such it is inconsistent with policy that
“the proceedings in any case be discussed outside our Board.” However he said he was “anxious to cooperate” He
continued:
74
Letter Hon. Mr. Jusitice A. M. Manson to Lt. Col.F.J. Simpson, V.D., 24 August 1943.
75 Personnel Selection Record, Regt No. K40668, Pte. Linden R. Watts.
76 Letter H.F.G. Letson (Major-General) to G.O.C. in C. Pacific Command, 27
th October, 1943.
20
There is however a lot of humbug put forward by some of these men who lay claim to conscientious objectionsThis particular man says he is a Seventh Day Adventist and therefore a con-combatant (sic). There is nothing in the tenets of the Seventh Day Adventists so far as I know that prohibits a perfectly good member of that organization from bearing arms, and while their Sunday is not our Sunday, nevertheless they lay claim to be followers of Christ and certainly Christ made it clear in his teachings that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. In the emergency of war there is no reason why the Seventh Day Adventist should not continue with his Army duties on Sunday as the Jews do who are in the Army.
This man is in the R.C.A.M.C., doubtless by reason of the fact that the Army wished to show him some sympathetic consideration on account of his scruples in the matter of bearing arms. I am quite sure that his Commanding Officer has already explained to him that while the R.C.A.M.C. is a non-combatant unit, it is, nevertheless, necessary to bear arms in basic training. The objection to doing so on the part of this young man is capricious and unreasonable.
There is nothing in this boy’s file to indicate that he would object to basic training with arms. I am quite sure that the Army has an effective way of dealing with this kind of nonsence (sic). After all we are at war and if we are to give way to all these boys with a mental quirk, real or imaginary, or pretended, it would be a funny kind of a war. If we do not take a strict view, and yet I hope a reasonable one, there would be a good many thousand more conscientious objectors.
77
Manson’s personal bias and temperament was evident in this exchange. His personal confidence in claiming to know
the teachings of the Adventist Church was curious. He was not persuaded by the terrible predicament the military had in
trying to deal with, what they perceived as, a mischaracterization of Watts as a soldier when in fact he was a CO. There
was no amount of suffering or belittling that would persuade Watts from his personal religious conviction. He was
adamant. Unfortunately, Watts’ own conviction was matched by that of Justice Manson. Manson also had his convictions
about the war and was not at all amiable to allowing young men like Watts get off from serving their country in the military
without a considerable effort.
Saskatchewan
The one case in Saskatchewan that formed part of this study was that of Alexander Aab. Aab was unable to go to the
National War Services Board in time during the summer of 1941 because he received the notice too late. His subsequent
application to meet the board was denied.78
Judge John Fletcher Leopold Embury was the Saskatchewan Board chair. He
was also in the same vein as Judge Manson – opinionated and self-assured as to his own view of things and just as
troublesome to the Ottawa bureaucrats.79
A decorated veteran of WWI who was wounded during the Battle of the
77
Letter Hon. Mr. Justice A.M. Manson to Lt. Col. F. J. Simpson, V.D., 15th
November 1943.
78 Letter J.P. McIsaac, Divisional Registrar, Court House, Edmonton to F.C. Wilson, Divisional Registrar, National War
Services, Regina, September 2, 1941. Library and Archives Canada Reel T-15545, File 55-A-99 Pte. Aab, Alexander.
79 Michael D. Stevenson, p. 25,
21
Somme80
– he ensured that those who appeared before him knew of this negative opinion of conscientious objectors.
Aab was sent to Regina and told his platoon sergeant that he was a conscientious objector. The sergeant threw the
rifle at him to catch, but he stepped back and let the rifle fall on the pavement. “And if you ever heard anybody swear he
could swear, he put me right from there into the guard house.”81
When Aab appeared before the Colonel, “He asked me if I’d had shot a rifle. I said yes. I said I hunted rabbits, mostly
out there on the prairie that’s the only thing available and that’s when he told me if I could fire a rifle to take his revolver
and shoot myself.”82
He was given 28 days detention.
During detention, Aab applied again for conscientious objector status. A rehearing of the Board was held on
September 18, 1941 before Judge Embury.
When asked what he would do if a German attacked his sister, Aab said, “God would give me grace to help me.” The
Judge pressed, “What would you do to protect your sister?” “ Well sir,” replied Aab, “I do not know what I would do. I
couldn’t protect her if I had to kill.” At that point Judge Embury proclaimed, “I do not believe you are a Christian if you
would not protect your sister and I will not admit that you are a Conscientious Objector.”83
Yet another flaw in the system was that a Mobilization board could take on the personality of its Chair.
The case studies in this monograph provide ample illustration of the sticky problems created by Mobilization
Boards across the country. Two men in particular tested the patience of NWS and NSS administrators in Ottawa:
Justice A.M. Manson of the Vancouver Mobilization Board and Major General and Justice J.F. L. Embury of the
Regina Mobilization Board. They vociferously and actively opposed many of the policies devised to mobilize
NRMA personnel in an equitable manner.
Embury, a brigadier-general who commanded an infantry brigade during World War I, illustrated his disdain for
established procedure by his handling of conscientious objectors in the Regina Administrative Division. The case
of Robert Makaroff is typical of the contempt Embury felt for pacifists. Makaroff, the son of Saskatoon lawyer and
Doukhobor P.G. Makaroff, applied to the Regina Mobilization Board for a deferment of military service as a
medical student. Embury, however, refused to consider his academic qualifications and classified him instead as a
conscientious objector. After spending time at an alternative service camp, Makaroff was sent to a rock quarry in
British Columbia, where he was required to work for a private contractor in oppressive conditions. When Embury
died in late 1943, he was replaced by Justice P.M. Anderson, who immediately set about undoing the harm his
predecessor had done. Anderson released Makaroff from his alternative service commitments on the grounds that
he had been “singled out for discrimination and persecution.” Four members of the Regina Mobilization Board
resigned in protest of Anderson’s handling of the Makaroff case. Under Anderson’s leadership, these men claimed,
the Regina operation had degenerated into “petty intrigue, tittle-tattling, and time wasting.” The Canadian Legion
likewise condemned Anderson for his alleged lenient handling of Makaroff; Embury had been “the honourary
president of the Legion, a great soldier, a good citizen and a kind and sympathetic man.” 80
Obituary for Judge J.F.L. Embury, 1948. Mennonite Heritage Centre vol.1159 file 1.
http://www.alternativeservice.ca/uncertainty/judge/judgeembury.htm 81
Interview, Alexander Aab, Reel 19, 19:07:22, May 29, 2008.
82 Interview, Alexander Aab, Reel 19, 19:09:18, May 29, 2008.
83 National War Services Board decision – L-601862 – Pte. Aab, Alexander. Library and Archives Canada Reel T-15545,
File 55-A-99 Pte. Aab, Alexander.
22
After his 28 day detention, he was marched to the equipment office for the issuing of the rifle. For a second time he
refused a direct order. The sergeant demanded whether he knew the seriousness of his refusal. He replied that he did. He
remained firm. During the subsequent court martial the sergeant noted that Aab “was calm and courteous, but refused to
take the rifle because of his religion.”84
He was arrested and placed in further detention until the court martial which was
more than six weeks later.
At the hearing, Aab’s local church minister, Pastor Henry Hendrickson gave character evidence saying Aab was a
faithful church member. Pastor Seabert White, president of the Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference of the Church, gave
evidence that he was amongst a delegation of church leaders to Ottawa asking that the Seventh-day Adventist Church be
exempt from the military service.
“We were given to understand,” said White, “that we would experience no difficulty and that a programme would be
arranged whereby we would be exempt under Section 18 of the National War Services Act.”85
The defence argued that the court should “take into consideration not only Army Law, but also the laws that bring the
soldiers into the Army,” particularly section 18 of the National War Services Act, as Aab was a member of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church. Despite the evidence, Aab was found guilty and sentenced 15 days.
Outside the hearing, the defence counsel informed Hendrickson and White that Aab and Koenigsfeld cases “were not
ordinary...They were unusual. It would seem that the judges were perplexed as to just what to do under the
circumstances.” “It was pointed out that these lads in the camp had been the source of much perplexity and bother.
Apparently days had been spent studying their cases.” They were instructed to seek re-dress with Ottawa.86
On November 11, 1941, A.E. Millner, and C.G. Maracle made the trip to Ottawa and met with the Acting Deputy
Minister of the Department of National Defence seeking a review of the case and an exemption be given for Aab and
Konigsfeld. The review proved to be unsuccessful in re-opening the matter. The Department opined that cases were
properly conducted and given that Aab was denied conscientious objector status by the Mobilization Board there was
84
Proceedings of a District Court-Martial held at Regina, Saskatchewan, November 7, 1941. Library and Archives
Canada Reel T-15545, File 55-A-99 Pte. Aab, Alexander.
85 Proceedings of a District Court-Martial held at Regina, Saskatchewan, November 7, 1941. Library and Archives
Canada Reel T-15545, File 55-A-99 Pte. Aab, Alexander.
86 Statement regarding trial of Alexander Aab and Reuben Konigsfeld held November 7, 1941 at Regina, Saskatchewan
Barracks, by S.C. White. Library and Archives Canada Reel T-15545, File 55-A-99 Pte. Aab, Alexander.
23
nothing the military could do.87
Pastor S.G. White wrote to the army in Regina on Aab’s behalf: “We do not believe they are cowards...They have a
desire to cooperate and still we recognize they are a misfit in regular army life, and a source of perplexity to army
officials.”88
After some considerable time and effort Aab found a place in the military where he did not have to carry a rifle – it
was in the kitchen cooking for the men. He spent his overseas service in the kitchen. That experience was to direct his
entire civilian career.
Conclusion This review of the experiences of the Seventh-day Adventist COs in WWII reveals that by and large those that claimed
CO status received it from the Board where they appeared. It was a relatively painless process in Ontario, but was much
more difficult in the Western provinces. The Board chairs in the West were much more aggressive in seeking to ensure
that those that claimed CO status were worthy of the designation. However, their method was not at all fool proof. The
examples of Alexander Aab in Saskatchewan, Albert Grabo in Alberta, and Lyndon Watts in British Columbia are prove that
young men who should have been granted CO status were unjustly denied status. These men adamantly refused to bear
the rifle. The decisions of the respective Boards created not only trouble for each of these men but also for the military.
The military were left with situations to which they were unfamiliar, dealing with religious conviction against the killing of
another. They did not have the expertise nor the patience to deal with such obstinate individuals. They were even more
mystified by the equally obstinate board chairs who refused to change their position on these men even in the face of
overwhelming evidence that they were conscientious objectors. It was not until much later in the war were local military
commanders permitted to decide for themselves who were capable of being good soldiers that the matter of these men
could be solved.
The Adventists experience before the Mobilization Board virtually mirrored that of the Mennonite experience. The
87
Letter Department of National Defence to A.E. Millner, “You will appreciate, I am sure, that once Aab and Konigsfeld
had joined the Training Centre, they were deemed to have come there under proper authority, and when they refused to
take a rifle as ordered, this becomes a military offence, and military law had to take its course.” Library and Archives
Canada Reel T-15545, File 55-A-99 Pte. Aab, Alexander.
88 Letter S.G. White, Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference to Brigadier W.W. Foster, December 4, 1941. He also wrote on
behalf of another Adventist soldier Rueben Konigsfeld.
24
difference was in the matter of degree. The Adventists were a much, much smaller group of COs. They were not as well-
known as the Mennonites, nor did they have as much political clout in representing themselves to the federal politicians.
They did not have as long of a history of gaining government recognition of the CO status. They also were not successful in
getting their more unique religious scruples recognized, that is to say, Sabbath accommodation for their COs serving in the
Medical Corps despite their numerous attempts to get such recognition. In many ways, the Adventists were a less known
entity to Canadian officials.
Just as the Mennonites had a small number of their men (relative to the overall CO claimants in their community) face
serious cases consequences for refusing the rifle – so too did the Adventists. It should be noted that for the most part, at
least amongst those interviewed for this study, and other cases that my research unearthed, the experience of Aab and
Watts was in the minority. The majority, though intimidated and challenged at their Mobilization Board hearing, they were
able to convince the Board of their being eligible for CO status.
It is striking that both the Mennonites and the Adventists wanted to prove to the country that they were not cowards.
They were willing to work – even sacrifice for the country – even if that meant less pay in the Alternative Service Camps or
serve on the frontlines in the medical corps. They simply had a religious conviction that the taking of human life, even in
war, was a violation of their faith. There does not appear to have been any differences of treatment by the “problematic”
board chairs in western Canada – i.e. Adamson in Manitoba, Embury in Saskatchewan, Harvey in Alberta, Manson in B.C.
between the two groups. In other words, both received the wrath of the chairs in equal portions it would seem. For
Manson “Humbug” was a term as applicable to Mennonites as it was to Adventists. He did not discriminate between the
two.
In the end, members of the different Christian communities that shared similar beliefs on not bearing arms had much
to learn from each other. Perhaps, the greatest lesson in this exercise, and indeed to be garnered from this paper is that it
often takes a common crisis for us to realize that we have much more in common than we have differences. Certainly,
when it came to appearing before the Mobilization Board during WWII both the Mennonites and the Adventists were in
very similar circumstances.
25
Appendix Subjects of This Study
Name Appearance Before MB Place Date Comments
Alexander Aab Yes Regina Sept18, 1941 Jail Eventually became a cook
Delmer Bechthold+ Yes Alberta? Powell River
John Corban +* Yes Edmonton 1943 Banff, Medical Corps
Earl Coupland+ Yes Edmonton 1942 Work camps, Powell River, Medical
Corps
Roy Curtis** No Oshawa ? Medical Corps
Thomas Davis No Oshawa 1943 Medical Corps
Robert Dinning Yes Ontario ? Chalk River, Ontario
Forestry
Albert Grabo Yes Calgary 1941 Military training/Jail/Hospital
Ship
Albert Hayward No Toronto after1941 Medical Corps
John Holstein Yes Winnipeg 1943 Medical Corps
Charles Hawes No Kelowna 1940 Healey Creek, Banff
Laurence Jerome+ Yes Hamilton ? Montreal River, BC Forestry,
Medical Corps
Warren Matheson* ? ? ? Powell River/Peterborough Medical
Corps instructor
Claude Osborn No Hamilton 1943 Chalk River, ON
J.B. Lionel Reim* ? Toronto ? Camp in Alberta, then Medical
Corps
Harold Reimche+ No BC Jan-Feb 1942 Radium Hot Springs, Kootenay
National Park
26
Don Ritchey No Kelowna November 1942 Went to basic training with
the rifle and requested medical corps and sent to Peterborough, ON
Earl Seaman No Toronto ? Farm, BC Forestry
Walter Schram+ Yes Edmonton Jan 1940 Kootenay
Bill Soloniuk Yes Winnipeg 1942 BC Forestry
August Steinke+ Yes Edmonton 1941 Jasper Park, Port Haney, Powell
River
Marvin Suiter Yes Vancouver 1941 Green Timbers, Surrey
Stephen Tarangle Yes Vancouver ? Farm, Lime Plant,
John Yaceyko+* No Alberta ? Powell River
Lyndon Watts Yes Vancouver 1943 Jail Assigned to Medical Corps but
told he must take the rifle
Herb Wecker+ Yes Swift Current ? Radium Hot Springs
Raymond West No Oshawa ? Halifax Hospital
*interview of children
**Roy was upset with life at the Adventist boarding school in Oshawa and left to join the army.
+ Those on the list of COs compiled by Conrad Stoesz at the Mennonite Heritage Centre and properly
listed as Seventh-day Adventists
+* Those on the list of COs compiled by Conrad Stoesz at the Mennonite Heritage Centre but were not
listed as Seventh-day Adventists
Recommended
