Shellshock

[darkisland]

Can anyone confirm if the term "Brainwounded" was ever used.

The reason I ask is because in trying to decipher a note it is possible this is what it is if there was ever such a term.

Hope someone can help.

darkisland

[Dragon]

Can you post a scan, please?

Yes, other terms were preferred by both medics and the army, and not for the reason of medical accuracy, but 'brain wounded' isn't one I've come across.

I can expand, but I haven't got the time to do it right now.

What is the provenance of the note? Eg nationality or writer and soldier, purpose of note, etc.

Gwyn

[Half-pint]

Sorry, I can't speak to "brainwounded, but I wonder if "neurasthenia" was an alternate term for shellshock? See http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/neurasthenia.htm.

Regards,

Alison Causton

[paul guthrie]

Never seen this one, WW2 US term battle fatigue

[Half-pint]

Just found this bibliography of articles written largely between 1915-1926: http://www.ku.edu/carrie/archives/wwi-l/20...3/msg00085.html, posted originally to the "wwi-l" <WWI-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu> mailing list. In addition to "shell shock" and "neurasthenia", it appears that contemporary synonyms also included "war neurosis" and "soldier's heart". One of the articles is of German origin and is described as "(t)he definitive work, in 9 parts, from German WW1 experience, published in Leipzig."

Regards,

Alison Causton

[Dragon]

Basically, you're asking whether a word in your document might say 'brain wounded'. Your header also inquires about the use of words other than 'shell shock'.

It’s relevant to know who was using the word you want help in deciphering, and in what context.

‘Shell shock’ was a soldiers’ term which was widely adopted to lend some kind of dignity to mentally wounded men in an era where mental distress was even more stigmatising than it is now. The men, their families and their sympathisers co-opted it to designate psychological damage, knowing that it would attract sympathy and respectability, separating the men from the general run of mentally ill people. It was important to declare that Harry or Fred or William was not ill before he went to war; moreover, if war made him mad, then the country should support him with a pension; if war made him insane, then at least outsiders would know that it was a respectably-earned insanity.

In an age where mental disintegration in almost intolerable circumstances was widely viewed as weak and cowardly, particularly by the army and its tame medics, the notion that depression or more severe conditions had their origins in emotional and psychiatric causes was controversial. It was, eventually, reluctantly accepted; but military authorities still maintained that mental distress was a weakling’s loophole for escaping duty at the Front. If a man had succumbed, and gone under in appalling, inhuman conditions, he was seen as inherently inadequate. Having read fairly extensively about this, I find their lack of compassion is stupefying in the face of significant contemporary evidence.

The point about a proper label for psychiatric illness, rather than the loose popular one of ‘shell shock’, was that it opened up the range of possible diagnoses and postponed diagnostic closure. Thus, instead of simply labelling men as either curable or incurable, and sentencing the latter to permanent mad status in an institution, there was a raft of potential diagnoses and a consequent raft of therapies. Fewer men would be diagnosed as permanently incurable and more would recover to some extent (with benefits for the war effort). I say ‘to some extent’, because it is recognised now that recovery from severe trauma is never simple and usually it’s a case of managing what we would now often call a PTSD, rather than curing it.

Thus I venture that a psychiatrist or a doctor specialising in mentally wounded soldiers would be less likely to use the term ‘shell shock’ than the non-specialist or the family member, or the soldier himself, who may well have been self-diagnosing. Then, as now, labelling matters, especially to the labelled. My own opinion is that its use is a little like ‘breakdown’ is used now; people use the expression as a sort of shorthand to gain sympathy and understanding, as it sounds generally respectable and others vaguely know what it’s supposed to mean, whereas in psychiatric terms it’s virtually meaningless.

But as for the term in your document... where does one start? A few more clues, please!

Gwyn

[Dragon]

I have an ancient Shorter Oxford (the 1933 one that Onions edited) and I looked up brain-anything to see whether there are any brain disorders that aren’t in our modern dictionaries; and which might fit your indecipherable word. This is obviously not a medical search.

There’s:

brain-fever (inflammation of)

brain-sickness (madness),

brain-sickliness (diseased brain)

brain-fag (tiredness)

or you could even be infested by a ‘wriggling disputant’ brain-worm (as in Milton). Ouch.

I like the concept of a ‘brainlet’. I can think of a few people to whom that would apply.......

Gwyn

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

I am not a Doctor nor do I have any medical qualifications however I have probably looked at more Silver War Badge rolls than most here - and Steve can vouch for that!!

The three most common terms I have come across are:

1. Shell Shock

2. Neurasthenia

3. Concussion of the brain.

Despite popular myth, the term shell shock appears quite regularly on the rolls even in 1916.

I have come across several cases of men being discharged because of 'insanity' however, if the soldier was committed to an asylum, he was not eligible for a SWB. There are 2 interesting cases mentioned in rolls E1-300 with respect to this. In one case the soldier's mother applied for the SWB and it was rturned down 'by telephone call'.

Ian

[Dragon]

Despite popular myth, the term shell shock appears quite regularly on the rolls even in 1916.

What do you mean by 'popular myth', Ian?

Gwyn

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

There is a popular myth that the term shell-shock was not used or recognised during WW1. Inspection of the SWB rolls debunks this for want of a better expression, factoid. A soldier cannot be discharged for a cause that is not recognised. The term 'shell shock' can be found on silver war badge rolls as the cause of discharge, ref: WO 329/3038 for example.

I will post an example tomorrow to support this post.

[Guest LauraEJT]

Not adding much,but wasn't Wilfred Owens "official" diagnosis "neurasthenia"?I seem to remember him using the term himself,in a letter...

[Sue Light]

I don't think there was ever any 'popular myth' about the term 'shell shock' not being used. From late 1914 doctors working in, or with the army started to use the phrase frequently, and to describe several different causes for several different conditions. From the beginning of 1915 the term was formally adopted by the War Office, and used in medical reports and boards.

The history behind the term is well described in the first chapter of Wendy Holden's 'Shell Shock' and I'm sure elsewhere. But in the same way as 'men sweat' and 'ladies glow,' it seems that soldiers suffered from 'shell shock,' while only officers suffered from 'neurasthaenia.'

Sue

[robbie]

But in the same way as 'men sweat' and 'ladies glow,' it seems that soldiers suffered from 'shell shock,' while only officers suffered from 'neurasthaenia.'

Sue

Very well said, Sue.

But I thought ladies "perspire" and men "sweat.

RObbie

PS Personally I do a little of both.

[Dragon]

The War Office Commission of Enquiry into Shell Shock, 1922, was set up ‘to investigate the whole question of shell shock’.

It effectively re-marginalized mental health patients, partly as a reaction to allowing public opinion to influence the development of a more progressive attitude to mental health care for psychiatrically damaged men. It ignores Service Patients and avoids discussing the liability accepted by the Ministry of Pensions in thousands of cases of mentally ill servicemen.

It is clear that the government was concerned and alarmed that public opinion saw mentally damaged men as people who deserved special status and rights. Shell shock, that ‘imperfect diagnosis’ (Southborough), was used with relief by ‘relatives of a soldier who had broken down mentally, or who by reason of an inherently timorous disposition could not face the military life... It may be said that to the public mind any condition which arose during the war and gave rise to the irresponsibility of conduct by the individual concerned was to be ascribed to “shell shock” (Enquiry report).

In other words, if you were not an inadequate man, you didn’t crack up when you saw your friends blown apart.

Sue is quite right in pointing the difference in attitude towards neurasthenic officers and the merely constitutionally inferior ordinary men. An officer could access superior psychological treatments and be cared for with patience and comfortable facilities ; the ordinary man might easily find himself institutionalised, particularly if he lacked money or a good advocate.

I didn’t say that shell shock as a term was not used; I said that psychiatric professionals, especially progressive or enlightened ones, were more likely to use diagnostic labels for their mentally ill patients. Bearing in mind that these words do not equate to ‘shell shock’ as an expression, I have seen psychotic, neurotic, neurasthenia, dementia praecox (now schizophrenia), psychoneurosis and war psychosis used. There must be others. Psychosis was often used generically.

From 1915 onwards, there were psychologists and psychiatrists working with mentally damaged soldiers and contributing their experiences to a growing body of professional literature. Some argued that unclear or vague terminology perpetuated stigma. Later, others rejected one-sided diagnoses because mentally ill people may shift between conditions and between intensity of conditions, depending on their life experiences, their environments, their contacts, their general health.

I believe there is evidence that a one-size-fits-all diagnostic term was avoided by enlightened psychiatrists.

On a personal note, it concerns me that even now a two tier mental health care system pertains in the UK. There is still a long way to go.

Gwyn

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

seems that soldiers suffered from 'shell shock,' while only officers suffered from 'neurasthaenia.'

It was also Unit dependent - some Regts called it shell shock others neurasthaenia regardless of rank.

I have yet to see shell shock used on a TF SWB roll, but it is more common in the rolls of the New Army. I suspect the Guards had a different name for it entirely

[darkisland]

Thanks to everyone who replied. It was only a shot in the darrk as to what a word is on a Medal card as to the reason for demotion from Corp. back to Pte.

It is not very easy to decipher but I will have another go.

Thanks Again.

darkisland

[Dragon]

It was also Unit dependent - some Regts called it shell shock others neurasthaenia regardless of rank.

I suspect the Guards had a different name for it entirely

Ian, do you have any suggestions why this should be so? (I'm asking the question seriously.)

Gwyn

[Dragon]

It was only a shot in the darrk as to what a word is on a Medal card as to the reason for demotion from Corp. back to Pte.

It is not very easy to decipher but I will have another go.

I'm sure that we could be more helpful if we could see what the word or phrase looks like. Is it possible for you to post a scan?

Gwyn

[Arnie]

Most of the symptoms witnessed during the First World War have been seen in veterans of every war since. Amnesia, nightmares and flashbacks are familiar today as indications of trauma. But faced with these strange manifestations in previously normal people for the first time, the medical staff of the 1914-18 war were baffled and, in many cases, overwhelmed. Some early sufferers appeared so debilitated by their symptoms that they weren't diagnosed shell-shocked but insane and sent home to lunatic asylums, with no real prospect of recovery. By the time there was more understanding about what had caused them to break down in the first place, many were past saving.

The War Office, frustrated with lack of progress, decided in true military style that the best way to tackle the problem was to quantify and qualify it. It insisted that the doctors came up with precise classifications and duly identified four types of war neurosis:

1. Shell shock, caused by an explosive shock to the central nervous system.

2. Hysteria, causing partial or complete loss of control over sensory perceptual motor functions.

3. Neurasthenia, caused by prolonged intense physical or mental strain, the symptoms of which were chronic fatigue, headache, exhaustion and loss of appetite.

4. Disordered action of the heart,or 'soldier's heart', manifested palpitations, giddiness or fainting. -------- (Taken from 'Shell Shock' by Wendy Holman 1998)

Arnie

[Guest LauraEJT]

Thanks Arnie-a very precise view of the attitudes of the time...I didn't know the terms..

[JustinL]

I just wanted to throw in my ha'penny's worth (or Euro as I am Ireland) to this most informative thread.

My grandfather, a second lieutenant in the Middlesex Regiment, was at the front continuously from Oct 1915 to May 1916 initially in Laventie near Neuve Chapelle and then near Albert in the run up to the Somme.

While on a trench raid in May '16, he was 'blown into a dug out, carried on, but found he could no longer stand shell fire'. I am quoting from the papers relating to his appeal against the award made the WO for his injuries sustained in active service.

He was diagnosed as suffering from neurasthenia and shell shock, and hospitalized back in England. The papers indicate that he experienced re-current combat nightmares, headaches and intense anxiety and became generally very nervous. On a couple of occassions he reportedly collapsed in an epileptic-like fit. In December 1917 he was discharged as being 'unfit for any service'. Quite a damming description of a 28 year-old.

There was no such history of these symptoms before the war, but they persisted for decades afterwards. The bombing raids on London during WWII prompted a major relapse. Fortunately, his employer relocated outside of London and the symptoms reduced.

I cannot possibly begin to imagine what it would have been like in the trenches. It does not bear thinking about. May it never happen again.

Justin

[Mark A]

...and just an add on to this interesting subject. There was a piece in The Independent the other day about the funds the British Army has put towards counselling traumatised soldiers from the present Iraq War when they return home. The amount: zero. The article went on to list the disproportionate amount of ex-service men who are homeless, as well as mentally ill. The article was "The Army Doesn't Even Care For Its Own" if you want to try and dig it out on the web site.