The Australian Imperial force

Despite the fact that the Australian Imperial force in the First World War ought to have a reputation as successful fighting force, it displayed the worst disciplinary record away from the frontline when the compared with other authority forces and other British army. This paper will examine the relationship between the AIF indiscipline and the advantaged position they held of being the sole force impervious to the death penalty, with an exception of insubordination, disloyal activities, and absconding a rival. These activities influenced proportionally a high number of absentees and abandonments within the ranks of the AIF. The Australian government was reluctant to impose field punishment and impose penalties to hold their military forces accountable. There were instances of self-maiming or commitment of military crimes by those who wanted to avoid front line duties. This paper will explore various levels of indiscipline of AIF within the background of war on the Western Front and their disciplinary code of operation. That does not mean that other forces were fully disciplined. No, they were there, but AIF‘s indiscipline was stupendous and protected by their government.
The military code of conduct of Britain, France, and German recognized the field punishments, including death sentence for indiscipline soldiers. In that case, several soldiers, from the earlier mentioned countries, were being executed as a result of indiscipline. The strict British disciplinary code subjected their military force into high looses. In contrast to that, the Australian military experienced a problem with discipline at the front line, particularly in the late 1918 when the Battalion was against returning to the line. Therefore, the element of discipline was problematic even away from the frontline. Unlike other forces, the Australian forces’ code of conduct did not put a lot of emphasis on severe disciplinary actions against their soldiers.
Additionally, the Australian armies