I assume this is theoretical since the U.S was not involved in WWI in 1914?
Not having met my grandfather back then, I can’t tell whether it’s true, but my maternal grandmother claims that the man she married isn’t the man she got back from the Spanish Civil War (let’s see, he “got volunteered,” spent time in a tank in the biggest battle of that war, spent time as a guard in a prisoners camp, spent time as a prisoner of his own side in that same camp after having gone AWOL to see his daughter born, changed sides at least three times, only went home that one time). I understand that my relatives on the other side (who got to rotate more often, except for the doctor, and who were real volunteers) were a lot less affected.
I meant 1918, the Argonne offensive.
PTSD has had many names in the past:
Battle Fatique, Shell Shock, etc…
It’s been around for as long as there has been war.
The difference between then and now is that back then men didn’t talk about their feelings etc and took out their frustrations on their wives and there was no such thing as spousal abuse.
It’s always been there, and we always knew about it, Someone just changes the name every so often so they can have a subject for their Government Grant, Doctorate Paper or their Pulitzer hopeful Article.
I heard an author actually talking about this a few months back on a radio show. I don’t recall exactly the numbers, but actual time facing “combat conditions”, ie: getting shot at, or potentially shot at, has gone up each time we’ve deployed for extended missions. While GI’s in WW2 were hitched up longer, they were often rotated behind the lines for R&R. Behind the lines doesn’t really exist anymore, unless you’re lucky enough to get a chance to go to Kuwait for a stretch.
I’ll see if I can dig up the authors name.
Sometimes a break from battle was cut short. Easy company from the Band of Brothers book was on a break from action when they rushed into Belgium for the Battle of the Bulge. They were sent in so fast they didn’t have time to get much ammo or winter clothing. Same thing was true for other units.
Well, think about the differences between the names for it then and now. “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” sounds ridiculously negative compared to the other names, and I can see why that difference in the names would lead to misunderstanding between different generations of soldiers.
Let’s analyze it: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Traumatic is negative-sounding. Nobody wants to think of themselves as being traumatized. By the traditional macho way of thinking, a soldier can get fatigued. Hell, fatigue can happen to anyone. All it means is being tired. A soldier can be shocked - that term implies a sudden jolt of surprise, and even the best soldiers can’t be expected to be immune to that. But “traumatized” - now, that’s something that implies long-term psychological damage and even emotional weakness. “Damaged goods.”
Stress? “Real soldiers” don’t get stressed. They might get tired. They might get “fatigued.” But “stressed” just sounds more neurotic and more deeply psychological of an issue.
And then there’s “disorder.” Who the hell would want to think of himself as having a “disorder?” Hell, “disorder” is the polar opposite of everything that the military is supposed to be. A unit, platoon, division, etc of soldiers, marines, whatever is supposed to be the epitome of order, from the order of the unit to the order inside the head of each man. The barracks are supposed to be in order, the beds are supposed to be in order, the weapons are supposed to be in order, everything is supposed to be in order. And the men are expected to follow all orders. That word, “disorder,” is like a mark of shame.
It’s no wonder that the term “post-traumatic stress disorder” would sound like some kind of pussy-assed weakness to soldiers who served during the World War II era - even if it was a term for something that they themselves might have suffered from. The term PTSD might have been intended to treat the issue in a more clinical and scientific way than such callous expressions as “shell shock” would - but I think ultimately it backfired.
PTSD ------ with most of my family being in the military in one war or another, this was often the topic of different conversations and discussions. The conclusion of the WW II, Korea and Vietnam generations went basically like this: in WW II you had quite a bit of time from your removal from a combat zone and state of mind to a civilian area and state of mind. You had time to adjust on the ship coming home. By the time Vietnam came along, some people left a firefight to become a civilian a couple days later. Partly by design and partly by choice it was “here’s your hat, don’t let the door hit you”. If you look at the rates and “hows” (air corps, especially flight crews, seems to have had higher incidence in WW II than infantry for example) it almost makes sense that time to adjust was a factor.
Terms of service — WW II was “V+” – Victory plus a time. My dad enlisted while already in China and was “V+90”. His brother enlisted in the States for service in Europe and was “V+180”. There was a points system enacted by some of the services (or units maybe) at the end of the war to get long-term vets home sooner but they were applied badly to hear the guys from back then talk about it.
I think you are right! The biggest problem that I see now is the number of military that are coming back with problems in this area that are not getting the help they need, not getting recognized. Veterans Village of San Diego http://www.vvsd.net/ has a program called “Warrior Traditions” to help returning military who have been in combat. “Warrior Traditions” is not a “pussy-assed” group!
In both WW1 and WW2 although there was no “tour of duty” as such, you did not spend the duration the war at the front. All sides understood you could not expect troops to spend long periods in combat with incredible attrition rates from “Combat Fatigue” (not to mention more physical attrition methods). So units spent periods at the front followed by periods at the rear (the exact length being dependent on the army, and period, in question).
Of course those were conventional conflicts with a “front line” and “rear”, not counter insurgencies where rear-echelon troops are just as much targets as “front line” ones.