Sorry. That should have been "Few could have enlisted for the pay."

> The fact of war is abysmally despicable, IMHO, a grotesque failure of imagination and communication, born out of ignorance, greeds, short-sightedness and political bullying. I have no temper for those who cause wars or agree to start them; but these are the men who by rights should use diplomacvy and imagination and fail to do so. USually on both sides.

I agree.

> a) to alleviate the government of their economic obligations to their hired men, and b) to function as a PR tool and hiring campaign.

In the U.S., I don't know anything about the "Heroes" campaign. During WW2 Congress passed the "GI Bill," guaranteeing (for the first time in U.S. history) various immediate benefits for veterans, including payments for higher education. Does the UK not have something similar?

In 1925, Congress awarded all American WW1 veterans a "bonus" for their military service, but was something like a life insurance policy), not payable for twenty years.

President Coolidge vetoed the act, saying it demeaned veterans *and* military service. How? Because "paying for patriotism" made it less than patriotism! It would turn heroes into mercenaries!

Congress overrode the veto.