PTSD in Pre-Modern/Perpetual Conflict Societies

[syk]

Of course it isn't the case that a psychiatrist has ever given a misdiagnosis.

That happens a LOT. And PTSD is diagnosed inflationary too. Rape victims seem to get a PTSD diagnosis quickly. And whatever makes the health insurance pay will work.
I was aiming at the "getting thrown around" a lot Raz mentioned above. Shell shock is an outdated term, the ancestor of PTSD if you will.  The existing categorizations of mental illnesses as the DSM for the US and the ICD for everyone else, should be sufficient to avoid simple mistakes like mixing up somatic and psychiatric cases.

[The Brain]

So modern definitions tell us what old descriptions like "shell shocked" etc in the historical sources really mean?

[syk]

So modern definitions tell us what old descriptions like "shell shocked" etc in the historical sources really mean?

They should help identifying older descriptions of symptoms and relate them to modern categories. 

[besuchov]

Did anyone read David Grossmans 'On Killing'? The theory there is that new training methods (realistic live fireing exercises, shooting at human like targets etc) after ww2 managed to bring the number of soldiers that never fired their weapon at the enemy from 75% (in ww2) down to below 10% (Vietnam). A cost for breaking down the psychological barriers could be increased combat related PTSD.

[Razgovory]

So modern definitions tell us what old descriptions like "shell shocked" etc in the historical sources really mean?

Sometimes.  Terms like "Shell Shocked" was sort of a cache all term.  Someone with brain damage and someone who was simply exhausted by the extreme stress might both be called "Shell shocked".  It's better now, but misdiagnosis is still rife in the field.

[Ideologue]

Did anyone read David Grossmans 'On Killing'? The theory there is that new training methods (realistic live fireing exercises, shooting at human like targets etc) after ww2 managed to bring the number of soldiers that never fired their weapon at the enemy from 75% (in ww2) down to below 10% (Vietnam). A cost for breaking down the psychological barriers could be increased combat related PTSD.

It seems bizarre to me that anyone confronted with Nazis or Imperial Japanese, let alone Italians, would not fire directly at their chests.

Is there significant overlap between the IJA who never aimed and the IJA who never raped Chinese women?  Same question, viz. RKKA.

Anyway, this is why air war is superior.  USAAF: "Killing?  No, I'm engaged in precision bombing against industrial targets.  With magnesium bombs."  RAF version: "Killing?  No, I'm engaged in a dehousing campaign.  With magnesium bombs."

[Siege]

Did anyone read David Grossmans 'On Killing'? The theory there is that new training methods (realistic live fireing exercises, shooting at human like targets etc) after ww2 managed to bring the number of soldiers that never fired their weapon at the enemy from 75% (in ww2) down to below 10% (Vietnam). A cost for breaking down the psychological barriers could be increased combat related PTSD.

I have a hard time believing "On Killing". Every soldier I have served with have always shot to kill, and many have gone out of their way to score.
I don't know who this 75% that didn't fire at enemy is.
It cannot be infantry. The infantryman understands that the quicker you kill the fucker shooting at you, the better your chance to survive.

[The Brain]

Did anyone read David Grossmans 'On Killing'? The theory there is that new training methods (realistic live fireing exercises, shooting at human like targets etc) after ww2 managed to bring the number of soldiers that never fired their weapon at the enemy from 75% (in ww2) down to below 10% (Vietnam). A cost for breaking down the psychological barriers could be increased combat related PTSD.

I have a hard time believing "On Killing". Every soldier I have served with have always shot to kill, and many have gone out of their way to score.
I don't know who this 75% that didn't fire at enemy is.
It cannot be infantry. The infantryman understands that the quicker you kill the fucker shooting at you, the better your chance to survive.

You're older than I thought.

[Siege]

Did anyone read David Grossmans 'On Killing'? The theory there is that new training methods (realistic live fireing exercises, shooting at human like targets etc) after ww2 managed to bring the number of soldiers that never fired their weapon at the enemy from 75% (in ww2) down to below 10% (Vietnam). A cost for breaking down the psychological barriers could be increased combat related PTSD.

I have a hard time believing "On Killing". Every soldier I have served with have always shot to kill, and many have gone out of their way to score.
I don't know who this 75% that didn't fire at enemy is.
It cannot be infantry. The infantryman understands that the quicker you kill the fucker shooting at you, the better your chance to survive.

You're older than I thought.

I don't think soldiers of today are that diferent from the soldiers that served in ww2.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't think soldiers of today are that diferent from the soldiers that served in ww2.

They're all volunteers and most of the infantry specifically signed up for it.

[Siege]

I don't think soldiers of today are that diferent from the soldiers that served in ww2.

They're all volunteers and most of the infantry specifically signed up for it.

Yeah, but weren't ww2 soldiers highly dedicated and ideologically comitted to the cause?
WW2 was an existancial war, wans't it?
I always assumed WW2 was seen by americans as the arab wars were seen by israelis. The kind of war you cannot lose, as oppoussed to wars of choice like Vietnam for America and Lebanon for Israel.

[PDH]

The figures for World War 2, if I remember rightly, first came out with S.L.A. Marshall's work.  He did post-combat interviews and found out that a significant number never fired, more never did more then fire blindly, and a very few actually fired with aim and intent.

[Razgovory]

Did anyone read David Grossmans 'On Killing'? The theory there is that new training methods (realistic live fireing exercises, shooting at human like targets etc) after ww2 managed to bring the number of soldiers that never fired their weapon at the enemy from 75% (in ww2) down to below 10% (Vietnam). A cost for breaking down the psychological barriers could be increased combat related PTSD.

I have a hard time believing "On Killing". Every soldier I have served with have always shot to kill, and many have gone out of their way to score.
I don't know who this 75% that didn't fire at enemy is.
It cannot be infantry. The infantryman understands that the quicker you kill the fucker shooting at you, the better your chance to survive.

I'm going to let you in on a secret, WWII and Iraq are extremely different in the way they were fought.  The infantryman of WWII was woefully under-trained (at least US ones), and had poor morale.  He also understood that it was the artillery that was likely to kill you, and there was not a goddamn thing you could do about it.

The reason why every soldier you have served with shoots to kill is because training was heavily modified after WWII.

[dps]

Also would be interesting to compare PTSD between WW2 vets and WW1-Vietnam vets.  If somehow the "good" nature of the war changed perceptions on it.

I think that contrary to popular belief, WWII veterans who returned home with psychological problems actually had it worse than Vietnams vets who did so.  Yeah, the WWII guys got hailed as heros when they first came home while the Vietnam vets got spat on and called baby-killers, but OTOH, we kind of expected Vietnam vets to be messed up mentally and did provided some (admitted often inadequate) counseling and the like for them.  The WWII vets were supposed to be heros though, and we didn't think of heros as having any psychological problems that they might have needed help with.

[Ideologue]

Also would be interesting to compare PTSD between WW2 vets and WW1-Vietnam vets.  If somehow the "good" nature of the war changed perceptions on it.

I think that contrary to popular belief, WWII veterans who returned home with psychological problems actually had it worse than Vietnams vets who did so.  Yeah, the WWII guys got hailed as heros when they first came home while the Vietnam vets got spat on and called baby-killers, but OTOH, we kind of expected Vietnam vets to be messed up mentally and did provided some (admitted often inadequate) counseling and the like for them.  The WWII vets were supposed to be heros though, and we didn't think of heros as having any psychological problems that they might have needed help with.

One of these days I should watch The Best Years of Our Lives.