That’s very true; however, being an active alcoholic sure didn’t help.
I have a lot of very close friends who have post war PTSD. We talk about it quite a bit. One ting I have found that many of them have in common is a perception of either wrong doing or failure. It could be shame in not being brave enough, or shame in things they actually did or witnessed in war that went against their moral code but they felt they weren’t strong enough to speak up and stop it.
My older brother came back from Vietnam and claims when he got on the plane to leave for home his brain basically erased the war aspect but still remembers the fun. Somehow he was able to just block it out and move on.Off topic, but I’ve experienced reduction in my PTSD symptoms due to a mixture of propranolol therapy and EMDR
However, in wars of the past fewer soldiers who saw battle survived. So that begs the question of would PTSD rates be lower just because in modern times a soldier who sees combat that can cause PTSD will survive while 100+ years ago that soldier was more likely to die in combat from similar injuries? I’m not sure.
From what I’ve read, combat isn’t drastically more lethal since WWII, at least not in the sense of frequency or severity of wounds, as the weapons are substantially the same.
What IS different is that medical care has become drastically better. Some 20-30% of wounded soldiers died from WWI (really the Spanish-American War) through the first Gulf War, but only 10% in Iraq and Afghanistan.
My personal suspicion is that PTSD and CSR have been around as long as warfare; I’d be willing to bet that there were Roman legionaries, Hittite charioteers, English archers, Zulu warriors, Sioux braves, Vikings, Saxons, etc… who had PTSD and CSR.
The difference is that back then, it was probably just looked at as something other than a psychological disorder, and was probably seen as demonic possession, or just a fact of life for warriors and/or was something that caused them to drink to excess, be violent, etc… In the past century and a half, we’ve recognized it for something other than that, and see it as a consequence of exposure to those conditions.
:dubious:
Lethality of modern combat is streets ahead of what existed in WW2. The era of guided weapons has seen attrition rates skyrocket.
Yes, current conflicts have relatively low rates of deaths, but thats since they are almost uniformly between modern armies versus insurgents.
A war between two modern armies will be a death parade like no one has seen.
Even after the “Good War” (WW II) there was, I’m sure, plenty of PTSD. And returning vets dealt with it in a time-honored but rather primitive and not very effective way. That’s about the only explanation I can come up with for a remarkable characteristic common to postwar novels, at least those that deal with vets trying to return to the normal 9-to-5 workaday world: everybody drinks like a fish. Like a school of fish. And it passes without notice; levels of alcohol consumption that would call for emergency intervention these days are (apparently) seen as nothing the least bit out of the ordinary.
Check out what many think is the Great American Postwar Novel, “Revolutionary Road”, for instance. Written in 1961, set in 1955, average Connecticut suburbanites knock back pitchers of martinis every night, followed by tumblers of Bloody Marys in the morning–self-medication for the hangovers suffered by men (and the women who have to put up with them) self-medicating themselves for PTSD the night before. What other explanation is there for behavior so blatantly self-destructive and wide-spread being accepted as “normal”–unless society recognized (perhaps unconsciously) that self-medication was better than no medication at all?
No
Why?
Hard for them to come up when they are already up and at full attention before hand.
You already have some kind of major disorder to run down that path to begin with, how much more messed up could you possibly become?
like trying to detect a small wind disturbance in a hurricane
Of course they could.
Just begin violently beating your child (or wife etc) and make it so they never know when you might haul off and bash them in the head with something.
Just keep that up for a little bit.
NO i am absolutely not saying hey go do this, i am simply saying yes, you can induce it a person who has never seen combat, and here is one way how it does in fact happen.
Agreed. They just called it things like “battlefield fatigue” and “the 1000 yard stare”.
Same with lots of other “disorders”.
People didn’t just start having ADD in the 1990s.
Not exactly really true.
The modern accuracy allows for maximum effect with the minimum of collateral damage.
At least you hope for that outcome, it does not always work.
In WWII there was no precision, in a modern sense.
If you needed to take something out, a strategic location, a specific facility, etc, you leveled an area the size of denmark, or you engaged in a bloody frontal slug fest.
In both cases casualty rates were phenomenal compared to what the same operation would entail today.
Today, instead of B17’s dropping a million tons of TNT to destroy some key target, and in the process obliterating a huge number of combatants and non combatants alike, we can let loose 4 or 5 precision guided munitions and hit the targets exactly, leaving the rest intact.
I think no, but I have no proof as studies or anything. Fearing for your own life, survivor guilt, feeling of helplessness/victimization don’t seem to be part of the psyche of a fanatic.
You’re seeing more than is really there, I think. Everybody drank then, including plenty of people who had never seen combat. Prohibition and Repeal had conditioned their generation.
Yeah. Neither of my parents ever saw combat but they both drank like that in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s and even into the 21st Century they’d have at least one cocktail every single night. It used to be the norm.
I’m sure PTSD contributed in some cases, but people in general used to drink a LOT heavier than they do these days.
I was meaning infantry combat in particular, but the main change is precision-guided air weapons, IMO. And I half doubt that anyone’s going to be using too many precision-guided weapons on infantrymen or tanks, other than ATGMs, which have been around for more than a half-century, and whose employment and countermeasures is well understood.
Artillery is similar; we have some guided shells, but they’re scarce, and most artillery units just fire standard HE shells. Your machine guns, grenades, rifles, etc… aren’t any more lethal than 75 years ago. Tanks may be more lethal… but not relatively speaking to each other.
It’s hard to find consistent statistics, but I think the reason why women are more likely to have PTSD is that male victims of violent crime are more likely to be murdered, which unfortunately prevents PTSD.
This.
My WW2 pacific theater and Korean war combat vet father had flashbacks at 85 years old that woke him up screaming in the night. He was never treated for PTSD
MHO: Women are more likely to be diagnosed because they are more likely to seek treatment.
Disclaimer: I have never been enlisted, and know nothing of any actual things any of our brave soldiers go through, and I am forever thankful for their sacrifice to protect me and my daughters
I find this an interesting tie-in to something Patch asked earlier:
I would think your convictions may help drive how PTSD affects you (If at all). As HoneyBadger stated, most of his friends are dealing with the moral/internal implications of things (shame, failure, ethics, etc.). I would think some vets had no questions/doubts about what they did, and would think they might suffer PTSD less than those that do.
And not that I know anything of ISIS/ISIL/whatever, but for the most part they are very set in their views/cause, and therefore, killing an innocent person falls in line with the goal they are trying to accomplish (A whole different kind of mental state).
And, I would suspect, that if you were an ISIS soldier who was having any of the thoughts that HoneyBadger mentioned affected his friends, that your fellow soldiers who are able to lay their head down at night without even pondering for a second the innocent child they killed earlier today, are going to have ZERO issue slitting your throat for your lack of conviction… so there’s that motivator to just shut up and keep moving on…
Mandatory George Carlin take on shell shock
And I wonder if anyone has studied PTSD amongst those who fought on the Eastern Front? Americans have never experienced intense life-or-death combat like that in my opinion. I cant imagine that the survivors came back unscathed.