There is an old saying, "All is fair in love and war." This saying is around because during times of war, countries are more concerned with being victorious than with being moral in their actions. If a country were to attempt to be moral, they may lose to a country that will stop at nothing to win. On the personal level of the soldiers, morals are even more difficult to possess. A soldier not only lacks the ability to make major decisions about the war, but he also is unable to make his own decisions about what to do.
This affected the number of men enlisting. People's attitudes to war depended on their experiences. Men who were fighting would have a different approach, because they experienced the poor conditions, horrific injuries and bitter weather. Many women would have had a more positive view on the war; because of the advantage they were in terms of employment. No one wanted any war like World War One to happen again.
Along with the drive to fight in honour of the sovereign and Britain there are numerous other factors that encouraged men to join the army such as propaganda, unemployment, conscription and peer pressure. Some incentives could have affected the men’s decisions more than others. Certain individuals were not supporters of the Royals and therefore refuted the very idea of encountering near death on the battlefield in honour of the King. There were also reasons that persuaded men to opt out of engaging in battle leading them to bear negative criticism that labelled them cowards. If anything this led men to scorn the notion ‘For King and Country’ feeling their personal reasoning for not taking part was irrelevant and unimportant.
Congressmen would be less inclined to vote to engage in war for fear of displeasing their constituents and there would be less war, less lives lost, and more exploration in to diplomatic negotiations. War should be reserved for the defense of a nation. With war movies, the movie industry has a very large influence on public perception and as of now this influence is not being used appropriately for the good of humankind.
After the revolution, they felt the people would not be able to remain a peaceful people once having experienced such a rebellion1. This strengthened the Federalist belief in keeping control over the people in order to prevent any “mobbish”2 behavior. Thus, the idea of having the populace ruled by an elite, as well as restricting their role in government was strengthened. However, they were threatened by the lack of deference spreading throughout the culture3. As any sort of gentile blood was being disregarded for the most part, this alarmed Federalists as this lack of deference made people “unpredictable and capable of 'mobbishness'”4.
The feelings of shame, isolation, fear, and other common feelings are the same no matter who the person is. With that said, there are still some differences that make the barriers of reporting evident for military families. A major barrier that may be the cause of underreporting is the lack of confidentiality of domestic violence reports (Samm, 2009). Another thing that can be the cause of underreporting is fear of damaging the abuser’s career. A lot of survivors refuse to report because they believe that their report will affect the abuser’s chance for promotion or pay increases.
While the enlistment only ask for men it is proven that families are put to the risk of putting their only son in the military service for that the chances of coming back in one piece seems to be very scarce in some countries. For some countries they are taught to hate another country for previous rivalry history that happens amongst one another. North Korea and United States can be an example of rivalry. Some laws restrict business to open up for international trade for that they think that their ideas are rare and are best to be hidden from other people in the world. But from all these laws, it is believe my most people that is to protect the citizens of the country so that there will be no dire problems that would happen if no laws were made at all.
It is likely the military and career civilian leadership felt they had to ignore the chain of command to have their views heard by the Congress. However, Congress knew the military did not agree with the civilian leadership of the military. Shinseki had earlier testified before Congress, in his view, the Army needed the Crusader. Both Rumsfeld and the military leadership are to be blamed for the talking points memo controversy.
The Generals themselves were inexperienced in this type of warfare as well, they had been used to battling armies in the colonies that didn't use guns so cavalry regiments were still needed and artillery was less useful, but now it was the other way round and cavalry regiment had to be used in support and artillery played a much more important factor, many of the Generals were reluctant to use cavalry less as well because many of them were ex-cavalry officers so this may have affected their thinking as well. I think that Haig and the other Generals adapted as quickly as they could have considering what type of warfare they had been used to and what type of warfare they expected so the title 'donkeys' is an unfair interpretation of the conduct of British Generals in World War One.
The majority of the soldiers are not able to express to the civilians what it was actually like to be at war. Upon arrival home the soldier may also feel like they are somewhat out of place, alienated, or have an overall feeling of things being strange. However some civilians who do understand can almost feel what it was like to battle on the Homefront. All of the countries who fought in the war thought they were goingto win. However those who actually fought in the war had the oppurtunity to know whether they were going to lose or not.