In article , Keith Willshaw keithNoSp
writes

"Dave Eadsforth" wrote in message
...
In article , ArtKramr
writes


That was a distinct improvement on the WWI practice of the British army
of allowing kids in their mid-teens to lie about their age and enter the
war; and then shoot them when they (unsurprisingly) cracked. It is said
that the army simply could not afford to acknowledge the fact of shell-
shock - although the army of 1939-45 seemed to have managed things a bit
better and only used the firing squad when it seemed to be absolutely
necessary to stop things unravelling. The execution of Eddie Slovik in
January 1945 owed more to a view of practical necessities during the
Battle of the Bulge than to the 'shock' of finding a deserter; there
were an incredible number - Hitler executed 50,000 men for cowardice; a
price in manpower paid for not correctly choosing between the men who
should be holding muskets; and those who should be away from the front
line.

I guess we just cannot expect sympathy and an objective view of the
human condition to reign supreme during wartime. As ever; management is
at fault, but believes it cannot afford to admit it.


I'm not sure I entirely agree.

I guess you are referring to the bit about 'sympathy and objective
view'?

While the psychiatric help may have been available (and since your note
I have researched a bit more and found that shrinks were actually
assigned to the field), there was still a huge hurdle of official
disapproval (to say nothing of the potential disapproval of the men in
the unit - the man your father spoke of seems to have been luckier than
many - probably because of his long service) to overcome before a man
could expect help. The LMF tag loomed large in the existence of the RAF
pilot; even if the help was available behind it. I seem to remember in
'Fly for your Life' where Tuck bounced a pilot who had tried to make
excuses for returning early - the pilot was next seen as an aircraftman
sweeping the floors; still wearing his pilot's brevet. So the process
of providing help did not appear to be well exposed.

As you have mentioned the RAF and British Army at least attempted
to address the issue in a more realistic and enlightened way. I recall
my father speaking about a number of men who simply cracked under
the pressure of constant fear in the line. It wasnt just a matter of courage
as at least one of them had been awarded the military medal.

Yes, too much exposure to danger will ultimately grind you down. One
psychiatric source reckons that nervous breakdowns will end up 100
percent if a unit never gets any rest. Interesting discovery - he
British army tried to keep its units 12 days in the line followed by 4
out, to keep them effective.

One case he never forgot was when they were pinned down for
2 days by German mortars and machine guns just outside
Caen in 1944 when his mate who had been in the regiment since
1938 and served throughout France in 1940 , North Africa and
Italy had a breakdown. They had to physically restrain him or he'd
have bolted from the trench which would have been suicidal.

He rejoined the regiment in early 1945 after treatment and nobody
thought the worse of him, he was just another casualty of
the war. A more well known example is the late comedian
Spike Milligan who broke down in Italy in 1944 after
being shelled on a mountain side in Italy while acting
as a forward artillery observer.

I'm sure the US forces were equally enlightened by the way its just
that my only direct knowledge is related to the British armed forces.

Yes, again your note prompted me to research a bit more. The US did
have shrinks in the field as well. However, the day of the 'political
trial for cowardice' does not appear to have passed. While researching
last night, I found that a US soldier in the Gulf is at present under a
charge of 'cowardice in the face of the enemy' for having told his
superiors that he could not proceed with a combat assignment after
having seen the mangled body of an Iraqi soldier. Either it was the
shrink's day off or someone is trying to make a point.

A further finding; there appear to have been fewer cases of breakdown in
the US army in Korea, as against WWII, and very few in Vietnam, so one
monitoring process seemed to have improved. However, in Vietman, there
was a new phenomenon. The schedule for rotating men in and out of
theatre ended up with each man being given a set date to return home.
This meant that units were composed of men drifting in and out at all
times, which was disastrous for unit morale and cohesion, with men
comparing their departure dates and predictably, as the date drew near,
thinking more and more about survival. (Any layman might have predicted
this - the practice must have originated from some bureaucratic or
political angle) They were then whisked home and returned to normal
life still blinking at it all and wondering what had been achieved. And
no big thank you from a country that had been worn down by watching it
all on TV. This led to a huge number of Post Traumatic cases.

However, in WWII, men shipped out together and were shipped home
together - usually by ship. They had time to readjust and generally
rounded off their experience, often with a victory parade. So,
cohesion, comradeship, and a big thank-you at the end, meant that they
had a fraction of the PTs.

I do recall the furore that resulted after Patton slapped a man
suffering from combat fatigue.

In WW1 that man would have been shot.

Too true - the British army ended up shooting over 300 men for
cowardice. BTW, I have one correction to make to my last note. I read
once that Auckinleck had requested the return of the death sentence for
cowardice (after it had been abolished in 1929) and I thought his
request had been granted and the firing squad periodically used again.
Last night, I found out from elsewhere that his request had been turned
down.

Keith


Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth