The Shock of War
World War I troops were the first to be diagnosed with shell shock, an injury – by any name – still wreaking havoc
- By Caroline Alexander
- Smithsonian magazine, September 2010, Subscribe
In September 1914, at the very outset of the great war, a dreadful rumor arose. It was said that at the Battle of the Marne, east of Paris, soldiers on the front line had been discovered standing at their posts in all the dutiful military postures—but not alive. “Every normal attitude of life was imitated by these dead men,” according to the patriotic serial The Times History of the War, published in 1916. “The illusion was so complete that often the living would speak to the dead before they realized the true state of affairs.” “Asphyxia,” caused by the powerful new high-explosive shells, was the cause for the phenomenon—or so it was claimed. That such an outlandish story could gain credence was not surprising: notwithstanding the massive cannon fire of previous ages, and even automatic weaponry unveiled in the American Civil War, nothing like this thunderous new artillery firepower had been seen before. A battery of mobile 75mm field guns, the pride of the French Army, could, for example, sweep ten acres of terrain, 435 yards deep, in less than 50 seconds; 432,000 shells had been fired in a five-day period of the September engagement on the Marne. The rumor emanating from there reflected the instinctive dread aroused by such monstrous innovation. Surely—it only made sense—such a machine must cause dark, invisible forces to pass through the air and destroy men’s brains.
Shrapnel from mortars, grenades and, above all, artillery projectile bombs, or shells, would account for an estimated 60 percent of the 9.7 million military fatalities of World War I. And, eerily mirroring the mythic premonition of the Marne, it was soon observed that many soldiers arriving at the casualty clearing stations who had been exposed to exploding shells, although clearly damaged, bore no visible wounds. Rather, they appeared to be suffering from a remarkable state of shock caused by blast force. This new type of injury, a British medical report concluded, appeared to be “the result of the actual explosion itself, and not merely of the missiles set in motion by it.” In other words, it appeared that some dark, invisible force had in fact passed through the air and was inflicting novel and peculiar damage to men’s brains.
“Shell shock,” the term that would come to define the phenomenon, first appeared in the British medical journal The Lancet in February 1915, only six months after the commencement of the war. In a landmark article, Capt. Charles Myers of the Royal Army Medical Corps noted “the remarkably close similarity” of symptoms in three soldiers who had each been exposed to exploding shells: Case 1 had endured six or seven shells exploding around him; Case 2 had been buried under earth for 18 hours after a shell collapsed his trench; Case 3 had been blown off a pile of bricks 15 feet high. All three men exhibited symptoms of “reduced visual fields,” loss of smell and taste, and some loss of memory. “Comment on these cases seems superfluous,” Myers concluded, after documenting in detail the symptoms of each. “They appear to constitute a definite class among others arising from the effects of shell-shock.”
Early medical opinion took the common-sense view that the damage was “commotional,” or related to the severe concussive motion of the shaken brain in the soldier’s skull. Shell shock, then, was initially deemed to be a physical injury, and the shellshocked soldier was thus entitled to a distinguishing “wound stripe” for his uniform, and to possible discharge and a war pension. But by 1916, military and medical authorities were convinced that many soldiers exhibiting the characteristic symptoms—trembling “rather like a jelly shaking”; headache; tinnitus, or ringing in the ear; dizziness; poor concentration; confusion; loss of memory; and disorders of sleep—had been nowhere near exploding shells. Rather, their condition was one of “neurasthenia,” or weakness of the nerves—in laymen’s terms, a nervous breakdown precipitated by the dreadful stress of war.
Organic injury from blast force? Or neurasthenia, a psychiatric disorder inflicted by the terrors of modern warfare? Unhappily, the single term “shell shock” encompassed both conditions. Yet it was a nervous age, the early 20th century, for the still-recent assault of industrial technology upon age-old sensibilities had given rise to a variety of nervous afflictions. As the war dragged on, medical opinion increasingly came to reflect recent advances in psychiatry, and the majority of shell shock cases were perceived as emotional collapse in the face of the unprecedented and hardly imaginable horrors of trench warfare. There was a convenient practical outcome to this assessment; if the disorder was nervous and not physical, the shellshocked soldier did not warrant a wound stripe, and if unwounded, could be returned to the front.
The experience of being exposed to blast force, or being “blown-up,” in the phrase of the time, is evoked powerfully and often in the medical case notes, memoirs and letters of this era. “There was a sound like the roar of an express train, coming nearer at tremendous speed with a loud singing, wailing noise,” recalled a young American Red Cross volunteer in 1916, describing an incoming artillery round. “It kept coming and coming and I wondered when it would ever burst. Then when it seemed right on top of us, it did, with a shattering crash that made the earth tremble. It was terrible. The concussion felt like a blow in the face, the stomach and all over; it was like being struck unexpectedly by a huge wave in the ocean.” Exploding at a distant 200 yards, the shell had gouged a hole in the earth “as big as a small room.”
By 1917, medical officers were instructed to avoid the term “shell shock,” and to designate probable cases as “Not Yet Diagnosed (Nervous).” Processed to a psychiatric unit, the soldier was assessed by a specialist as either “shell shock (wound)” or “shell shock (sick),” the latter diagnosis being given if the soldier had not been close to an explosion. Transferred to a treatment center in Britain or France, the invalided soldier was placed under the care of neurology specialists and recuperated until discharged or returned to the front. Officers might enjoy a final period of convalescence before being disgorged back into the maw of the war or the working world, gaining strength at some smaller, often privately funded treatment center—some quiet, remote place such as Lennel House, in Coldstream, in the Scottish Borders country.
The Lennel Auxiliary Hospital, a private convalescent home for officers, was a country estate owned by Maj. Walter and Lady Clementine Waring that had been transformed, as had many private homes throughout Britain, into a treatment center. The estate included the country house, several farms, and woodlands; before the war, Lennel was celebrated for having the finest Italianate gardens in Britain. Lennel House is of interest today, however, not for its gardens, but because it preserved a small cache of medical case notes pertaining to shell shock from the First World War. By a savage twist of fate, an estimated 60 percent of British military records from World War I were destroyed in the Blitz of World War II. Similarly, 80 percent of U.S. Army service records from 1912 to 1960 were lost in a fire at the National Personnel Records Office in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1973. Thus, although shell shock was to be the signature injury of the opening war of the modern age, and although its vexed diagnostic status has ramifications for casualties of Iraq and Afghanistan today, relatively little personal medical data from the time of the Great War survives. The files of the Lennel Auxiliary Hospital, however, now housed in the National Archives of Scotland, had been safeguarded amid other household clutter in the decades after the two world wars in a metal box in the Lennel House basement.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Related topics: Brain Health Wars
Additional Sources
Report of the War Office Committee of Enquiry Into “Shell-Shock,” Imperial War Museum (London), 2004









Comments (12)
in my drama lesson i really enjoyed the the topic about shell shock and i tried to learn more about it.people with shell shock are they really mad?
Posted by Tracy Asafo Adjei on June 10,2012 | 12:11 PM
By this WWI criteria I was "blown up" twice on seperate actions as a young Marine during the Korean War....That, coupled with 24/7 anxiety from other combat trauma, resulted in 50+ YEARS OF UN-DIAGNOSED PTSD....The VA is now providing some help.
Posted by Lawrence Baker on November 20,2010 | 10:04 AM
I was most interested to read 'The Shock of War', as members of The Beatrix Potter Society visited Lennel House in Coldstream only this summer. It was the house in which the Potter family spent the summer of 1894, when Beatrix was 28 years old, and about which she writes at some length in 'The Journal of Beatrix Potter 1881-1897'. Lennel House is now a beautiful care home for the elderly.
Posted by Judy Taylor Hough on October 31,2010 | 08:12 AM
I am grateful for The Shock of War article. I am grateful to the military medical community's attempt to address the complexities in diagnosing and treating our wounded. I remain appalled that given the increased awareness by the military and others about the necessity of proper psychological and medical diagnosis, intervention, treatment and planning for the care of the wounded, there are installations that lack the basics needed for such care. In Quantico, VA, at TBS (The Basic School which trains officers) there is neither pyschological care, nor case management available. Suffering soldiers are asked to navigate medical options for themselves, which ends up meaning they're given a hand full of pills by different doctors. Commanding officers are told that there isn't space on the base for psychological care, and there isn't a budget for it. Quantico is only one example. Someone help.
Posted by L. Cook on September 19,2010 | 06:19 PM
The Shock of War article was well done and long overdue. However, the photo on Page 60 (left) of "British prisoners at the Battle of the Somme in 1916" was incorrectly cited. The photo, according to the highly regarded book
"World War 1 in Photographs" by Adrian Gibert & John Terraine, published by Orbis Book Publishing Company, London, 1986 and Military Press, NY, 1986, has this correct citation: "...British and German wounded withdraw from the front line during the Battle of the Somme, 19 July, 1916." The British soldiers shown were not prisoners in this photo, as the British soldiers on horseback heading toward the front clerly indicate. Interestingly, the one German soldier in the photo, now a prisoner of war, is assisting a wounded British soldier to the rear.
Posted by H Hilowitz on September 12,2010 | 08:11 PM
There is no doubt that societies have been changed by rapid and traumatic changes in the gene pool. The black plague of the 14th century, in its perverse way, greatly enhanced the immune system of the Europeans who survived it. In the centuries that followed that allowed them to conquer, via disease, peoples without their immune system advantage. I have seen some speculation of a similar effect in France during the inter-war period caused by the mass eradication of relatively healthy young males in the trenches of the Great War. However, that was at least as much a social as a biological phenomenon.
Posted by Seth Feldman on September 11,2010 | 04:07 PM
The article on The Shock of War was interesting and topical, considering the difficulties that many U.S. military personnel experience after returning to the U.S. from Iraq and Afghanistan, but I was surprised that the author failed to mention the famous pioneering work on PTSD which was carried out by Dr.W.H.R. Rivers during the First World War at Craiglockhart War Hospital in Edinburgh. As is well known, Siegfried Sasson was one of his patients.
Posted by Dr. Schuyler Jones CBE on September 7,2010 | 05:09 PM
It seems interest in the brain & its conditions regularly end up in a false dichotomy. Is it physical or mental? Mind or brain? As the brilliant Univ of Iowa psychiatrist reminds us through a poem, you can't have the dance without the dancer. We now know that emotion, trauma does in fact alter the structure, physiology of the brain. When the structure is changed the function is changed & the "behavior" is affected. Trauma-informed care is hugely important for effective treatment of people with whatever the source of their trauma is. [See: SAMHSA.gov for resources]
To the reader Malachai asking about overall, intergenerational effect - I think that is an interesting & realistic possibility. Recent research, longitudinal research, and effectiveness of trauma-informed services v. traditional psychiatry/psychology/social work suggest that trauma can be and is intergenerational. [See: CDC.gov which now has all the Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE Study) research & findings.
At this juncture, my strongly held opinion is that there is no useful distinction between mental-physical, medical-mental health. It is a vestige of systemic bias, turf and the need to figure out who is going to pay.
Posted by Virginia K. Wright on September 3,2010 | 05:11 PM
The tragic complexities of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury can only be divided by Organic and the other Traumatic . Unfortunately i am too well aware of this phenomenon and if it were not for Post Retrograde Amnesia i well do believe that the brutal details of what happened to so many in the Great War would have been layed out for the medical staff to define .
Post Retrograde Amnesia is when the brain suffering from violent shock cannot remember 48 hrs before and 48hrs after the accident ! This vital strike of unknowing has been the very reason why the medical experts define the two as different yet the real facts are that PTSD AND TBI are the same thing and always have been !
Studies from the Great War all the way to Iraq and countless horrifying work related accidents have given insurnce companies an excuse to mislabel and divide the very people who are one in the same when it comes to serious brain injury and it,s complexities which are really PTSD one in the same !
One day the insurance companies and their Doctors will have to conform to the truth ,Due to the overwhelming evidence of having to classify them as one in the same instead of dividing and altering for the sake of saving money and relying on the publics ignorance ...
On a different note let,s not forget the great numbers of German American Austrian Canadian Hungarian and Turkish Soldiers who suffered as greatly as the British from the Great War also !
Thankyou
Posted by N.F Hoffmann on August 26,2010 | 02:06 PM
It is interesting to see the role of the psychologist in two-fold: their duty to their country and their obligation as a doctor. The first expects them to endorse a war that creates absurd circumstances and destroyed minds in which then the psychologists have to remedy. The second allows them to question whether such absurd circumstances should be foisted on any human being: their individual conscience if you may. In such cases as Dr. Rivers where it seems those two roles come in conflict, there is an internal dialogue that develops and expands. I wonder if Dr. Rivers was the only psychologist in the book to show such conflict? Who are the others? Who was in opposition?
Posted by Helen Xu on August 25,2010 | 12:30 AM
To Malachi: When reading about the trauma's of War and Occupation, especially Wars of Choice as that adds to the trauma, Always keep in mind those invaded and occupied for it's happening in their countries and they have no real escape even becoming refugees from, to outside of the country or within, just adds to that trauma of War! it's taken us Vietnam Veterans, as well as many but still a very small number of non military, years of talking into the wind, while everyone ignored as that would take money to treat, about what was finally given more then just a name but a better understanding of the Trauma of War and what it does to us Humans Minds and we still leave out those who live 24/7 within. It's also not only as to War but anyone who's experienced extreme trauma in their lives that also develop PTS and live in their silence of as it was not understood nor diagnosed as such, but is now better understood and with War Trauma better treatments can finally come forward!
Posted by James S on August 24,2010 | 08:21 AM
I'm curious after reading this if anyone has considered if the trauma that the UK sustained after 2 massive wars had any evolutionary impact on the people of the island?
That is, can the trauma of modern warfare when subjected to a large enough population group from a single origin be a stimulus to actual genetic evolution in a people?
When I search on the topic headings I keep getting evolutions in warfare rather than a look at humanity with warfare as stimulus. With such massive numbers of shell-shocked coming home and the persistence of these wounds into years after the fact, was it significant enough to change the face of Britain into what we know today.
Ideas?
Posted by Malachi Doane on August 23,2010 | 08:43 AM