Mental effects of world war II

To whom it may concern:

I am doing a report on the mental effect of World War II. I'm looking for answers to questions like 'Was there any poisonous gas used that made soldiers psychotic?' Or 'Were soldiers emotionally affected by some of the sights of the war.' Any information would be greatly appreciated. If you do have any, please send it to

High school student, Brandon Middleton

For Americans, there are many books including novels (e.g. Man in the Grey Flannel Suit, Thin Red Line etc.) The single best guide is literary scholar Paul Fussell (cf. especially his own memoirs.)

To answer your question briefly, NO. There was no chemical warfare of any kind during the second world war. Both the Allies and the Germans thought about using poison gas at one point or another, but neither side actually did.

Yes, there were many recorded instances of 'combat fatigue' and 'shell shock.' WWII was the first human conflict where psychologists were employed and, for the first time, soldiers were being interviewed with an interest in their mental health.

Yours truly,

Ron Bereznicki

Your might look for a recent book called 'On Killing'. The author was a US infantry colonel in Vietnam, but the book is a psychology text which should count for wwII veterans. Like SLA Marshall's book 'Men Against Fire', it is shown that people don't want to kill, and they get really messed up about it afterwards.

Nils K. Hammer

Yes, WWII did mark the dividing line between the George Patton School of Mental Health, and a recognition by our society that asking ordinary men to engage in the butchery of other men for an extended period of time can have some very bad emotional effects. While it was a beginning, the 'treatment' available was extremely minimal, amounting to little more than commiserations and an offer of VA lodging for those who flat couldn't function. The mental phenomenon is something that we still don't want to recognize, partly because a good many still have the idea that 'real men just do what they have to do and then get on with their lives.' I have to admit to harboring that piece of wishful thinking still, despite hard personal evidence to the contrary which resulted in the disintegration of my large and previously close-knit immediate family in the years after WWII.

If the full cinematic capabilites were applied to combat and made available to the world, we'd have less war. Either that or all become ravening beasts. In my opinion, humble or otherwise.

Best wishes, David Thomas

The film 'Let There Be Light,' produced by the U.S. Army Signal Corps, is a very graphic examination of what was then (WWII) called 'battle fatigue' and the psychiatric casualties it produced. The U.S. Army was very concerned with such issues. At one point during the war, psychiatric casualties exceeded the number of men being drafted into the Army. S.L.A. Marshall looked into the performance of men in combat and noted, among many other interesting facts, that men who did not fire their weapons in combat were most likely to become psychiatric casualties. Since somewhere between 80 and 85 percent of combat infantrymen did not fire their weapons, even when under direct personal attack by the enemy, the extent of this problem is obvious. After 60 days of continuous exposure to a combat environment, 98 percent of infantrymen became psychiatric casualties. The 2 percent who did not were clinical sociopaths before entering combat. See Marshall's book 'Men Against Fire,' still in print, I believe, after 50 years, and the basis for much U.S. Army combat doctrine. In fact, from a military standpoint, this book may be the single most important book to have come from WWII.

: >with an interest in their mental health.

This was done in WWI. PBS covered the topic in its recent series 'The Great War'.
http://www.worldwar1.com/sfpbs.htm

d.

The Japanese used poison gas against the Chinese (have posted details previously) as well as chemical defoliants.

About Gases being used in WW2, I was reading some books on Chemical Warfare a little while ago...during WW2 Hitler had a bunch of stored Tear Gas that he was planning on using on Britain during the war...for some reason Hitler decided on not using the gas...the only thing is Historians say if he had of used it, he probably would of ended up wiping out Britain.

Weren't their some serious questions raised about the accuracy of S.L.A. Marshall's data and thus his conclusions some years ago?

I also recall a multi-generational biography by his grandson (?) that was controversal...

If there were significant flaws in his combat infantry observations then it is powerfully ironic that so much of U.S. Army combat doctrine - high volume of small arms fire versus indirect fire and accurate small arms marksmanship - has defined our infantry tactics in the post WWII era.

40% of medical discharges in WWII were 'psychological' in nature, called such nice names as battle fatigue, combat fatigue, shell shock (although 'shell shock' is actually used more in WWI). By the time we got to Korea, the rate had gone down to about 12%. In Vietnam, the rate was down to 1.2%, amazingly low considering the difference between guerilla warfare and the more traditional battles of WWII.

On the other hand, the rate of severe psychological disturbance AFTER the war sky- rocketed for the VN conflict. For the warriors of Vietnam, the stress reaction was delayed.

The military kept trying, since WWI, to find ways to deal with the problem. (I guess 'stop killing' was not one of the options). During recruitment for WWII, the number of volunteers rejected as being psychologically unfit exceeded the total number of discharges during WWI. Yet, that certainly didn't help the pervasiveness of combat fatigue. So, by the time we got to Korea, officers were trained to watch for early signs of psych problems; warriors were given on-the-spot treatment. It helped. Then, by VN, we had DEROS

I can't tell you anything official, and it may even be tht so much time has passed between now and when you first raised the question, that it no longer matters to you. However, my dad was in the Canadian army. He was not a combat soldier, but he drove an ammunition truck. He did see combat a few times when things were dodgy, but for the most part, he drove thousands of pounds of explosives around.

All I can tell you is that my dad was (said to be) different after the war than he was before it. His sister said that my dad was a quiet, introspective man, but one who easily interacted with others and knew how to have a good time.

What I knew was a man who could go for days without speaking, played solitaire like an OCD behaviour and was able to spend long periods of time staring off into space.

He occassionally would wake the whole house because he had bad dreams. He told me the dreams were always about him being on a hill at dusk when hundreds of tanks crested the hill and started rolling towards him. He would try to get away but his legs were stuck in mud. He could never escape.

My dad was a good man. He was considerate but detached. He never attended any of his kid's graduations or other events. We were told it was because he couldn't smoke there -- who knows, maybe that was the reason. He didn't drink, but he was a gambler. He never gambled away the roof over our heads, but he never made us rich with it either.

He had few friends in the latter part of his life. He never got phone calls or visited with people. He was most content in his own little world.

He was capable of joy -- I saw that, but only rarely.

I can only think that he may have benefited from some kind of assistance with his experience overseas. My mom was from Holland and they met after the liberation. My mom went back to Holland a couple of times but Dad would not go back to Europe -- too many memories is all he said.

This is a far cry form the fellow my Aunt described.

Incidentally, there were many vets on our block. Many of them were alcoholics who beat their wives and alienated their kids. I was lucky to have the father I had. Even so, I can only think things would have been different with a bit of therapy, some antidepressants and a support group.

Brandon,
It's wonderful you are doing this kind of research. Here's something that might be helpful.

I have written about my family and their experiences with war "War and Cultural Dysfunction: Stories about Five Generations of my Southern Family" and have just started a blog to post those stories: http://waranddysfunction.wordpress.com/

I have two stories posted and will be posting many more about the War Between the States, the Korean War, WWI, WWII, and the Viet Nam War from a military dependents point of view.

Hope they will be helpful.

B3

Awesome, B3. Perhaps we can consolidate stories of people having been influenced by wars in a special forum section. Would you be agreeable to contribute to such forum section on this site?

Hey, Copper,
Your idea has much merit and I sinerely hope you go forward with a special forum section. I believe much has gone unsaid for fear of personal weakness and/or seeming anti-patriotism when neither are applicable. I'd be very happy to contribute on an informal/supportive level; however, my stories are written and I will be plugging them into my blog.
Thanks,
B3

You are right. And, perhaps, when seeing other people opening up about their own feelings dealing with the first/second/third generation aspects of the consequences of war others will be encouraged to deal with their own as well.
I am going to ask softwareman to create such a sub-forum and will place the link here when it is done.
Thank you for addressing this -in my eyes- very important issue about wars.