Would wars be quite so barbaric if leaders had to put members of their own family in the front line.?

MontyBob

Stalin's son served in the Red Army.
I think one of the Kuwaiti Royal family made a stand on the steps of the palace and was shot.
I think some of Mao's sons served in Korea.

The answer to your question is yes, they would be just as bad.

watcherofmankind

Government leaders and army generals rely on fools joining the army. There is a saying that wars will end when men refuse to fight. A better way for this to happen is for people to refuse to join the army or the military.

Casca

War is not barbaric it warfare styles that are barbaric. I think if war had to be fought and lead by countries leaders they might rethink their policies. Also if you had to fight face to face it takes a lot more to nerve to kill someone if you have to look they in the eye. We have made war and killing in the name of a lot more sanitary.

Archer Christifori

Given that a proportionally large percentage of our US military ARE sons and daughters of politicians, they are in the front lines and are still there. Where does this leave your question?
Now in europe thats another matter.

the thinker

UKs Prince Harry is going over to the middle east...

kevin h

they would not be a war

Dirk Wellington-Catt

yes, its human nature to destroy

zclifton2

Good but hard question. It would go both ways. Some military leaders would not order the beginning of attack if it meant that their flesh and blood would probably die, but, you have heard the common expression, "married to your career, military, job and so forth. Some of the Military Career would be even harsher if it was their son or daughter who would be in the first battle. I am sure it has happened more than once in history.

k0005kat@btinternet.com

Hon, if the politicians had to put their sons in the firing line, they would damn soon end all wars; other than a very few, they tend to be in jobs described as "essential for the war effort"- which means as far as possible from the nasty bullets; working class sons are just cannon fodder.

TxSup

Wars would become even more brutal if leaders' family members were physically involved. Once the sons were killed or injured, generals would be ordered to take all gloves off, disregard international law, treaties, conventions, and escalate the war to the max. Leaders would use their propaganda machines to maintain public support for the war. The draft, if there were none, would be reinstituted to provide more lower class cannon fodder.

Black Sabbath

Hitler begrudgingly let his favorite nephew go into battle on the Russian Front. Your argument is invalid.

gregory_dittman

No, it use to be that the leaders and sons would fight. It's still the case with clan/rebel/terrorist warfare.

monkeymanelvis

Harold Godwinsson's two younger brothers died early on in the Battle of Hastings... then again he died in that battle too and it was 940 years ago.

Tommy D

No, wars would not happen if the leaders needed to send their kids in.

Tim F

Wars are barbaric because they are wars.
You are not going to change the nature of the
animal because someone else's son is on the
front line. Simply put there is no way to make
war sanitized.

In a way, wars would be ever more brutal if a leader had his son in the field. Think about it, if you had your kid on the front line, you would surround him with your best troops and order your army to protect him at all costs, not leave anyone alive to harm him. There would be utter massacres in every battle. To one would be taken prisoner, to quarter would be given.

lorri

no if that had to happen there would never be war. its only the innocent who get hurt and killed in war

Surething

Your cat is too weird!

Feudalserfer

No. They would stop almost immediately. Then start up again as soon as they had rounded up some more cannon fodder. As Tony Blair might say: "Worth the blood price." Not of Leo or Euan, of course, but some poor b a s t a r d from a working class family.

kjdean68

I don't know. War is barbaric by its very nature. WWII was one of the bloodiest wars of history, and Franklin Roosevelt had sons in the armed forces. FDR's sons weren't kept someplace safe in the rear, either. One of them served with a Marine Raider unit.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: