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
(Page 3 of 4)
The symptoms recorded in the case notes, familiar from literature of the time, are clear enough: “palpitations—Fear of fainting...feeling of suffocation, of constriction in throat”; “Now feels worn out & has pain in region of heart”; “Depression—Over-reaction—Insomnia—Headaches”; nervousness, lassitude, being upset by sudden noise”; “Patient fears gunfire, death and the dark...In periods of wakefulness he visualizes mutilations he has seen, and feels the terror of heavy fire”; “Depressed from incapacity to deal with easy subjects & suffered much from eye pain.” And there is the case of Second Lieutenant Bertwistle, with two years of service in the 27th Australian Infantry, although only 20 years of age, whose face wears a “puzzled expression” and who exhibits a “marked defect of recent and remote memory.” “His mental content appears to be puerile. He is docile,” according to the records that accompanied him from the Royal Victoria Military Hospital in Netley, on England’s south coast.
The official Report of the War Office Committee of Enquiry Into “Shell-Shock” made at war’s end gravely concluded that “shell-shock resolves itself into two categories: (1) Concussion or commotional shock; and (2) Emotional shock” and of these “It was given in evidence that the victims of concussion shock, following a shell burst, formed a relatively small proportion (5 to 10 per cent).” The evidence about damage from “concussion shock” was largely anecdotal, based heavily upon the observations of senior officers in the field, many of whom, veterans of earlier wars, were clearly skeptical of any newfangled attempt to explain what, to their mind, was simple loss of nerve: “New divisions often got ‘shell shock’ because they imagined it was the proper thing in European warfare,” Maj. Pritchard Taylor, a much-decorated officer, observed. On the other hand, a consultant in neuropsychiatry to the American Expeditionary Force reported a much higher percentage of concussion shock: 50 percent to 60 percent of shell shock cases at his base hospital stated they had “lost consciousness or memory after having been blown over by a shell.” Unfortunately, information about the circumstances of such injuries was highly haphazard. In theory, medical officers were instructed to state on a patient’s casualty form whether he had been close to an exploding shell, but in the messy, frantic practice of processing multiple casualties at hard-pressed field stations, this all-important detail was usually omitted.
Case notes from Lennel, however, record that a remarkable number of the “neurasthenic” officers were casualties of direct, savage blast force: “Perfectly well till knocked over at Varennes...after this he couldn’t sleep for weeks on end”; “He has been blown up several times—and has lately found his nerve was getting shaken.” In case after case, the officer is buried, thrown, stunned, concussed by exploding shells. Lieutenant Graves had gone straight from Gallipoli “into line & through Somme.” In fighting around Beaumont Hamel in France, a shell had landed “quite close & blew him up.” Dazed, he was helped to the company dugout, after which he “Managed to carry on for some days,” although an ominous “Weakness of R[ight] side was developing steadily.” Ironically, it was precisely the soldier’s ability “to carry on” that had aroused skepticism over the real nature of his malady.
The extent to which blast force was responsible for shell shock is of more than historic interest. According to a Rand Corporation study, 19 percent of U.S. troops sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, about 380,000, may have sustained brain injuries from explosive devices—a fact that has prompted comparisons with the British experience at the Somme in 1916. In 2009, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) made public the results of a two-year, $10 million study of the effects of blast force on the human brain—and in doing so, not only advanced the prospect of modern treatment but cast new light on the old shell shock conundrum.
The study revealed that limited traumatic brain injury (TBI) may manifest no overt evidence of trauma—the patient may not even be aware an injury has been sustained. Diagnosis of TBI is additionally vexed by the clinical features—difficulty concentrating, sleep disturbances, altered moods—that it shares with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a psychiatric syndrome caused by exposure to traumatic events. “Someone could have a brain injury and be looking like it was PTSD,” says Col. Geoffrey Ling, the director of the DARPA study.
Differentiation between the two conditions—PTSD and TBI, or the “emotional” versus “commotional” puzzle of World War I—will be enhanced by the study’s most important find: that at low levels the blast-exposed brain remains structurally intact, but is injured by inflammation. This exciting prospect of a clinical diagnosis was presaged by the observation in World War I that spinal fluid drawn from men who had been “blown up” revealed changes in protein cells. “They were actually pretty insightful,” Ling says of the early medics. “Your proteins, by and large, are immunoglobulins, which basically are inflammatory. So they were ahead of their time.”
“You can never tell how a man is going to do in action,” a senior officer had observed in the War Office Committee report of 1922, and it was this searing truth of self-discovery that the patients at Lennel feared. They were betrayed by the stammering and trembling they could not control, the distressing lack of focus, their unmanly depression and lassitude. No list of clinical symptoms, such as the written records preserve, can do justice to the affliction of the shellshocked patient. This is more effectively evoked in the dreadful medical training films of the war, which capture the discordant twitching, uncontrollable shaking and haunting vacant stares. “Certainly one met people who were—different,” Sir Ilay recalled gently, speaking of damaged veterans he had seen as a boy, “and it was explained of their being in the war. But we were all brought up to show good manners, not to upset.”
Possibly, it was social training, not medical, that enabled Lady Clementine to assist and solace the damaged men who made their way to Lennel. If she was unsettled by the sights and sounds that filled her home, she does not seem to have let on. That she and her instinctive treatment were beneficial is evident from what is perhaps the most remarkable feature of the Lennel archive—the letters the officers wrote to their hostess upon leaving.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
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