How did the military's of the 20th Century handle rationalisation?

>>2285293
>military's
militaries


> people from the South of England don't get along with people from the North
That's due to the fact that England is a meme country invented by Vikings and Normans.

Northhumbria was the launching point for every raid on the south by the Vikings, the Vikings had their kingdom there.

The Normans ethnically cleansed the region to prevent the Vikings from using it as a source of rebellion. See The Great Harrowing of the North

It has always been at war with the south.

>>2285293

Not too difficult to drum up "us vs them" sentiment when fighting wars against other nation states. Regional differences aside, they'd still have considerably more in common with their own countrymen than with the enemy.

In the US you'd go train on regional bases from which units would be formed. Mostly National Guard bases that had been state militias up until ~1915. Naturally, this meant there was a regional commonality in these units. There are many accounts of small towns losing wildly disproportionate numbers of its young men as a result.

By Vietnam it was a lot less likely. You'd still probably train with them but the replacement doctrine of the time meant soldiers were assigned piecemeal to units that needed men.

>>2285293
the guy next to you is responsible for watching your back so you have no choice but to befriend him

t. /k/

>>2285293
generally speaking the british army recruited units on a regional basis so mixing different regions in a unit wasnt a issue, and units wanted to outperform their fellow units out of a sense of pride, the southern infantry unit might not lie the northern one much but they sure as hell arent willing to be seen slacking.

in less regionally recruited units training encourages loyalty to the unit, then to the service and then to the cause normally in that order, the same does apply in regionally recruited units.

>>2285426
>I've never been to England: The Post

>>2285293
Ok, my area is WW1 so I can only speculate on other militaries than the British/Empire.
Recruiting was done by districts. A country was divided up into several military districts which was then subdivided into recruiting areas. The UK had a pretty strong regimental tradition at this point so there were scores of named regiments closely tied to geographical regions with long histories that people felt some attachment to.
It was fairly easy to expand these regiments by adding more and more battalions to them, hence why you'd have say the Royal Leicestershire Regiment going from 5 battalions in 1914 to 19 by 1918, or the Buffs (Royal East Kent Regiment) going from 2 to 9 battalions.

It kept men together with others from their rough area with similar customs. Battalions were the main unit that men felt attached to and were reinforced from their own areas, keeping them relatively homogeneous.
When they came together into larger formations there was enough in common with nationality, shared military experience and a shared common goal that allowed them to get along better than they would in civilian life.

>>2285293

You'd have to be pretty damn retarded to be picking a fight with your squadmate over his accent, while a bunch of germans are trying to kill the whole lot of you.

>>2286597

you havin a giggle m8. HOL UP JERRY WE'VE A SCORE TO SETTLE WE DO YA