PTSD and the Effects of War on Soldiers

Soldiers Don’t Go Mad

Introduction

Soldiers Don’t Go Mad by Charles Glass is a lot of things, but ultimately it is an in-depth examination of the psychological cost of war. The book itself is set against the backdrop of World War I (1914-18), and focuses on the experiences of soldiers who faced unimaginable horrors. The war resulted in the deaths of nearly 10 million soldiers and countless civilians and it ending up reshaping the world, leaving an enormous mark on those who lived through it. At the heart of Glass’s book is the establishment of Craiglockhart War Hospital, which acted as a pioneer in terms of recognizing and seeking to treat the then only barely understood problem of shell shock. This was actually a term used back then to describe a problem now known as post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. The fact that doctors at the War Hospital could recognize this for what it was shows that people were aware of the mental toll caused by the devastating experiences of war. The very title of the book by Glass is ironic, of course. They irony of the title conveys the social expectation, which was likely somewhat prevalent during that time, that soldiers should be strong, tough, resilient, and gritty. Regardless of the traumas they endured, soldiers should be above all that. Not everyone believed such, though—for the Women’s Movement in the early 20th century in the US certainly understood the toll of war on soldiers, which is why the Movement was initially anti-war (Kennedy, 1999). Nonetheless, this social expectation of toughness in soldiers is compared to the raw realities of mental anguish in Glass’s book. The outcome is a strong statement about what it meant to address mental health. This paper analyzes the work, and examines how it fits into the larger historical context of United States history.

Central Elements

Central to Glass's narrative are the lives and works of two poets, who experienced the war directly—Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon. Glass makes constant reference to their poetry and pain, and uses their stories and verses to convey an accurate but disturbing sense of what it is like to be a soldier in a conflict like WWI. In fact, the title actually comes from one of Sassoon’s own poems, “Repression of War Experience.” In that poem, Sassoon warns that “soldiers don’t go mad / unless they lose control of ugly thoughts…” (Glass, 2023). It is this battle to control one’s thoughts that characterizes the mental health issue of shell shock or PTSD. Those soldiers who saw the blood and death and horror and personally experienced were the ones likely to have to deal with this mental struggle. And governments were often no help, as they did not understand the shock the soldiers went through—and some ended up being executed for cowardice, as Glass (2023) explains. But as Solomon (2023) points out in his review of the book, the frontline soldiers are the ones who suffer most: “Government leaders remain masters of deception, while enormous numbers of human beings suffer the consequences.” Interestingly enough, despite their anti-war sentiments evident in their poetry, both Owen and Sassoon did chose to return to the front lines during WWI. This decision actually reveals the level of pride and commitment soldiers took when it came to doing their duty—but also the effect of peer pressure, and personal conviction that many soldiers dealt with. It is more than likely the case that the two poets felt obligated to fight due to social pressures that existed in Britain at the time. In the US, it was a little different because the US was still somewhat Isolationist and anti-war and still felt the shock itself of the Spanish-American War.

Overall, the book is constructed around the theme in the book of the psychological impact of war. Glass discusses the term "shell shock," in connection with the establishment of the Craiglockhart War Hospital in Scotland, which was an institution that was set up to treat traumatized officers. In spite of receiving treatments, many of these officers continued to suffer from trauma throughout their lives. The narrative also goes into the pressures of nationalism and the sense of brotherhood among soldiers. These factors often are what compelled soldiers to participate in a war they might personally have opted to avoid. The knowledge of what soldiers go through and the fact that governments still choose to put them through it reveals a cold hard fact about the world. A tragic highlight is the fact that 300 "shell-shocked men" were executed by the British government for perceived cowardice or desertion (Glass, 2023).

For this reason, Glass's work is not just a historical account; it has modern relevance. The reader is able to draw parallels between World War I and contemporary conflicts, emphasizing that the human cost of war remains tragically consistent across eras. The structure of the book allows him to do this.

Impact on United States History

Soldiers Don't Go Mad mainly focuses on the British experience during World War I, but its themes certainly have implications for the history of the United States and other nations, as Solomon (2023) points out. But with reference to WWI, the U.S. entered World War I in 1917, and the conflict played a big role in shaping the nation's foreign policy and global standing. For it was after that war that Wilson advanced his League of Nations idea on the world stage. The War was seen as a way to get the US more involved in leading the rest of the world. To get to that point, Wilson needed support from different groups at home—like the Women’s Movement. But up until then, the Women’s Movement had been anti-war (Kennedy, 1999). In fact, the Women’s Movement and the Isolationists did not want Wilson getting the US involved in the beginning—and Wilson ran for re-election on the promise that he would keep America out of the conflict. But, of course, he had different ideas behind the scenes. The point is that the Women’s Movement and the Isolationists understood what people go through when they fight in wars: they understood the human and psychological toll that wars take. They understood implicitly the kind of situation that Glass describes on page after page of his book. That is why they were anti-war. Unfortunately, the Women’s Movement also wanted rights for women—like the right to vote. Wilson made a deal with the leaders of the Movement: in exchange for their support of the War, he would arrange things so that they would get the right to vote (Kennedy, 1999). And so it came to pass that the Women’s Movement betrayed its own ideals in exchange for a vote at the ballot box. Was all the suffering that soldiers endured during the War worth it? That question is not asked in Glass’s book, but it is one that should haunt Americans, especially after reading about the actual experiences recounted by Glass (2023).

WWI was a major turning point for the US and the rest of the world. The decline of European dominance and the rise of the U.S. as a global superpower were the big outcomes. The war's aftermath saw the U.S. playing a central role in international affairs, with the formation of the League of Nations and the creation of the Treaty of Versailles. It was that Treaty which set up the stage for a future conflict between Germany and the West once more in WWII. Having entered the war later and having faced fewer casualties and less infrastructural damage, the US was able to emerge from WWI somewhat economically stronger and more politically influential than other nations like Britain. It was certainly stronger than most other nations in Europe, where the fighting had taken place. This newfound position was evident in the nation's central role in post-war diplomacy. That is why it is important to realize the US’s role in shaping the Treaty of Versailles and the discussions around the formation of the League of Nations: the US was at the heart of these decisions, and had some responsibility in what would come from.

But in addition to all that, the cultural impact of the war was immense. The "Lost Generation" of American writers—people like Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald, would go on to write about the war's futility and the societal changes it brought about. Hemingway’s Farewell to Arms was one such book. Their works, much like Owen's and Sassoon's poetry, show a generation of men wondering what it was all about, why so much fighting and suffering had to take place. There is a distinct note of despair in Hemingway’s books, for instance. In Glass’s book, however, there is some deeper understanding of what the experiences of soldiers was like in a real personal way.