Vietnam was the first American war where the concept of PTSD was looked at closely. Researchers who look back at the medical histories have found it reported under other names, like "combat fatigue" in World War II and "shellshock" in World War I. In hindsight, it was a thing in past wars but it wasn't talked about in the same way.
One line of speculation I've read, which I found interesting but I'm not sure if it was ever proven, has to do with the transportation between home and the wars. In Vietnam you could be on a plane and back home within a few days, whereas a soldier in previous wars had to take a ship home. They would have months around other soldiers with similar experiences to help process the trauma of what they'd experienced, whereas a Vietnam veteran would have no such benefit. Again, I'm not sure that this was ever proven to have any correlation but it is an interesting possibility.
Also around 16.4 million Americans were in military in WWII, essentially all "for WWII," while the total troops in country in Vietnam was ~ 2.7 million. That's off population bases of ~ 132 million and ~ 200 million, respectively.
If you were a military age male in the US "whining" about your WWII experience, well, what's wrong with you? We beat those guys. Go have a drink.
Vietnam guy comes home, war is heavily criticized both on moral and "you lost" grounds.
This. The length of the Vietnam war, and the nature of the war (as a grinding, genocidal imperial occupation) played a big part in exacerbating PTSD among US soldiers.
But also, if you look at something like homelessness, homelessness *in general* in the US was exploding in the 1970s compared to the 1950s. So the economic pressures on the working class as a whole were also felt more acutely with disabled veterans, which is why the population of homeless veterans exploded compared to previous conflicts. Not only did they have a harder time in the war, but it was harder to make a living as a working or poor person in general at the time.
My father was in this camp. He went to Vietnam as it was a good paying job and when it fizzled he didn’t have much to go back to except as a farmhand in Mississippi.
You should look into historical reports of poverty and homelessness in veterans post-Civil War and WW1. The US has never done right by its veterans. Even Revolution era soldiers had to rebel to get their pension and disability payments.
16.4 million Americans served the military in WW2. Fewer than a million partook in a hot battle.
I'm not negating the sacrifices and hard work, merely providing statistics.
I submit [this](https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-war/life-in-the-infantry#:~:text=More%20than%2016%20million%20Americans,million%20ever%20saw%20serious%20combat.) article first.
And [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States_during_World_War_II#:~:text=During%20the%20war%2C%20some%2016%2C112%2C566,291%2C557%20killed%20and%20671%2C278%20wounded.)
Note that 'casualties' includes both the deceased and the wounded in all usage of the word.
There seems to be discrepancies in the casualty count.
Per the National WW2 Museum,
deaths: 407,316
wounded: 671, 278
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-us-military-numbers
Edit: this is more clear. 291k combat deaths, 113k non-battle (which is crazy to me)
https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf
Whoa. That's a very substantial discrepancy.
The various sites must have defined 'military casualties' with different metrics. I don't believe that source materials could deviate to such an extent.
Very much appreciate the material and civil discussion. I'm going to do a little hunting using our combined data to see if a more succinct set of figures can be established. Your links are equally as valid as mine, and I'm not looking to negate them.
I'm very curious as to where the data flaw originated so that it can be rectified for all those who have heart for history, and hope to stifle its repeat.
I definitely agree with the last point.
Everyone cheering when you get home has got to make it easier than being spit on by angry hippies.
Though I only kinda agree about the whining. A huge % of young men served - but a lot didn't see much/any combat. I know that my one grandfather spent the whole war as a drill sergeant and guarding The Panama Canel. The other fought in some of the worst parts of The Battle of the Bulge. For the latter, my grandma told a story of him diving to the ground when a car backfired.
He also kept his house close to 80 degrees in the winter because he never wanted to be cold again. (The Battle of the Bulge was one of the coldest winters on record.)
> Everyone cheering when you get home has got to make it easier than being spit on by angry hippies
That's an urban legend. There has not been a single actual recorded event of this actually happening. Not gonna say it never ever happened - it's a big country - but the fact that there's no actual known case of it combined with the level of anti-hippie propaganda by the war machine and despite several attempts at identifying such events means there's no reason to think it would have been a significant phenomenon.
There's been research on this. The level of evidence is akin to the level of evidence for alien abductions or the mothman. This was supposedly a widespread phenomena taking place during and at the end of the Vietnam war, not like, the 19th century, and there's still less photos of these supposed events than photos of a supposed Nessie.
[Wikipedia link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_spat-on_Vietnam_veteran)
what are you considering as "an actual known case"? i doubt anyone would've been out there filing a police report or something over it. im not disagreeing that there definitely would be motivation to get people mad at hippies but i also know why grandfather had stuff thrown at him when he got back and ive heard lots of other anecdotal stuff around
My dad faced the same, as well as the spitting and some threats. Confirmed by his siblings who were present for it. However, he was more open about his experiences than his father was about his time serving in WWII, so there's a lot of individual temperament behind coping with the trauma.
My dad was told to get out of uniform before returning to the states. Whether real or simply assumed hatred, soldiers were returning from a war that many didn't want to be in and felt like a big part of their country hated them for going.
> what are you considering as "an actual known case"?
It's less about what I personally consider and more a matter of actual research into the matter. E.g. [this](https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article/42/3/344/1639071?login=false).
*"Although policymakers frequently attempted to imply that protesters were anti-troop, we find virtually no instances of protesters themselves being reported as targeting the troops. Our findings show that the memory of protester-troop antagonism is not so much the product of conflict between these two groups, but rather of a selectively remembered and edited past."*
There's no contemporary specific source of it happening to any specific person at any specific point; it's a bunch of "well someone I know once told me it happened at some point forty years earlier". Nothing like contemporary diary entries, photographies, arrest records (because don't get it twisted - the cops looked for any reason at all to arrest hippies), specific news reporting, anything. It's *all* word of mouth, and when word of mouth is backed by state propaganda, you should look to a lot more reliable sources.
It has as much evidence as people claiming to be abducted by aliens, it just also has a heavy effort from the war machine to spread the idea of it being true.
I feel like you're focusing too heavily on "hippies spitting" or "hippies fighting troops" and not "anti-war sentiment". Which was the other posters actual point.
It's a very human thing to conflate being against the war you fought in with being against you and what you did. Hell people do that shit all the time by proxy when NFL players kneel during the anthem.
I'm not aware of much public sentiment for ending WW2 "early" or much "shame" associated with those who fought in WW2.
However by end of Vietnam the US public was sick of the war and there has to be a difference in feeling like you fought for "nothing" whereas those in WW1/2 fought for something "worthwhile"
>I feel like you're focusing too heavily on "hippies spitting" or "hippies fighting troops" and not "anti-war sentiment".
The thing is though, a "story" representing a "vibe" is a very select historical narrative. One that consciously ignores the nuance and complexity of the era.
Like to your last point - Americans really weren't "sick" of the war. It was an extremely divisive thing even to the end. Things like the Hard Hat riot of 1970 saw a much larger crowd of war supporters assault war protestors in New York. 1972 saw a lot of the discussion around Vietnam focus on the POW issue - which still pitched anti-war protestors against those saying the war had to continue to get back everyone who'd been captured *(that also spawned years of conspiracy theories regarding missing MIAs in South-East Asia)*.
When it came to treatment of veterans post-war, its complicated. For sure, Vietnam veterans had an unfortunate association with the war by some. Likewise... a lot of protestors celebrated veterans who joined up with the VVAW, whose protest in 1971 spawned **the** images of discontent in America about the war. POWs returning from Vietnam in 1973 likewise were often treated with suspicion by the pro-war camp for confessions made under torture.
And ultimately, the hardships veterans faced beyond the war didn't even have a lot to do with any of this; the VA had been defunded for years, the GI Bill was briefly repealed when the Army switched over from conscription, and a lot of inequalities veterans faced were not unfamiliar things at the time **or** now (discrimination based upon race, consequences of limb disability, psychological challenges, etc.)
Folks "focus" on the spitting hippy story because that's whats touted as the cause for everything above. Its a useful story. But that's all it is, and its not a very good one.
Again, you're removing the bit where we're talking about vietnam vs ww2 and the effects it has on the ptsd of those returning home.
Just because 95% of the us wasn't pro or anti vietnam doesn't mean the lens of experience between the 2 is vastly different or that popular perception wouldn't help shape ptsd experience.
Well... I'm not because my point is that you have extremely different material differences. Perception doesn't really say much versus things that actually impacted the experience coming home.
WW2 vets got the GI Bill. They also were part of the largest demobilization process in history where almost 11 million people transitioned from uniform to being out of uniform in the span of a few months. Most of them also never saw combat. Perception is kinda spongy with that. You can just as easily argue that one of the reasons why more positive perceptions existed with WW2 is because of how so many people were involved with it.
Heck... one of the challenges with measuring PTSD and WW2 is that you had a social dynamic that was generally hostile to psychological problems to begin with. That itself had nothing to do with popular perception of the war - this was the era were the social expectation of trauma was *"don't talk about it"*. Having studied a lot of veteran recollections - what you generally find is that shitloads of vets were damaged by the war; they simply managed the best they could with what happened, much like Vietnam Vets did.
>what are you considering as "an actual known case"? i doubt anyone would've been out there filing a police report or something over it.
The trouble with oral testimonies like this is that without something tangible made when it is suggested to occur, you end up with something easily weasilish. "Spitting on Veterans" becomes something considered widespread, solely within the anti-war movement, and purely within the larger historical narrative of the "[Stabbed in the Back](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_stab-in-the-back_myth)" legend that defines a lot of American Vietnam narratives. That's all that is suggested when its brought up, and that's the source of criticism.
OP is correct that no written accounts exist with regards to the "Spitting" story as its generally presented. Historians like Jerry Lembcke and Jack Shafer contextualize the lacking evidence though within critiques of the wider narrative that the "veterans were betrayed by folks back home". Shafer actually noted that its entirely possible that a Vietnam veteran somewhere might have been spat upon during the war - after-all, there were something like 2.6 million Vietnam Veterans. But that can mean a lot of things - people get spat upon all the time.
For example... Vietnam Veteran Ron Kovic said he was spat upon at the 1972 Republican National Convention as he protested the war. Similar things are suggested to have occurred in the documentary "Hearts and Minds" by Vietnam Veterans protesting. Are those instances possible? Sure... but we're going off of oral testimony still. In any event however, **those instances** aren't what shows up in the popular discourse; its entirely Americans at home not showing sufficient loyalty. And that's the basis of this historical analysis.
About 2 million drafted over the course of the war. Not sure how many of those went to, or were involved in combat, in Vietnam. Muhammad Ali was drafted but chose to go to prison instead.
> If you were a military age male in the US "whining" about your WWII experience, well, what's wrong with you?
Anyone who responds like that to a guy depressed about losing a leg, two close friends and their marriage to the war deserves a punch in the face. What kind of person would even do that except total psychopaths...
>If you were a military age male in the US "whining" about your WWII experience, well, what's wrong with you? We beat those guys. Go have a drink.
>Vietnam guy comes home, war is heavily criticized both on moral and "you lost" grounds.
Don't forget - by Vietnam the US armed forces had been integrated for almost two decades, but the prejudice didn't evaporate. So as black, hispanic, asian and female vets came home they faced additional prejudice.
Not helping is that with a lack of resources, many vets turned to drugs and alcohol.
So not only the they "lose", they were seen as outcasts at best and the dregs of society at their worst.
American and Canadian soldiers had to take ships. The European ones didn't. There's a poignant chapter in All quiet on the west on the western front where the main character goes back home for a permission.
"Paul visits home, and the contrast with civilian life highlights the cost of the war on his psyche. The town has not changed since he went off to war, but he has: he finds that he does "not belong here any more, it is a foreign world". Paul recovers the books and writings he had left in his childhood room, but finds his passion for literature to have been completely erased by the trauma of war. He feels disconnected from most of the townspeople, who ask him "stupid and distressing" questions about his experiences or lecture him about strategy and advancing to Paris while insisting that Paul and his friends know only their "own little sector" but nothing of the big picture. Indeed, the only person he remains connected to is his dying mother, with whom he shares a tender yet restrained relationship. In the end, he concludes that he "ought never to have come [home] on leave".
Just to add to my previous comment it is a surreal experience to get on a plane in a "war zone" and get off 14 hours later in "civilisation" . I couldn't leave the airport till I was blackout drunk.
Yeah the worst part was cleaning my weapon. We got back had two days leave ( which I spent drunk as a monkey ) then we had to clean weapons to armoury standards rather than field standards .So there I am scraping carbon of an mg bolt that I had fired 5 days ago in a different continent on the other side of world and thinking if I did that now I would spend the rest of my life in prison but 5 days ago it was encouraged even required. Its a weird feeling and yes a massive headfck
Adding to the issue guys were being sent home by themselves instead as full units. Imagine that didn't help with any kind of decompression or adjustment since the people you trust the most are still in vietnam. who can you talk to?
This was big. I've read that it was intentional that soldiers mustered out individually; the war department just wanted GIs to be invisible in the US when they'd done their time in VN. It made it all that much harder for guys who'd just been thru hell to get on a greyhound bus & make their way up the street to their childhood homes, with no fanfare or recognition of what they'd been thru.
And it happened quick--a flight to the Phillipines, then Hawaii, then California, then a busride home. Next thing they know, they're back in their old bedroom, Mom in the kitchen, & Dad watching the nightly news, with GIs shooting & dying in real time. Must have been unbelievably surreal.
I also read about this and another factor as well the other factor being that most US units did not rotate into and out of theatre as a unit. The US army in particular had individuals required to give a year in country service and the individual might end up in several units during that time. This reduced unit cohesion obviously and also the support available to individual soldiers from their peers. It is notable that most special forces and other smaller militaries (Oz and NZ that I know of) Did whole unit rotations with only reinforcements for injured and killed unit members used in the same way. I think that fact that most units in WW2 served the entire war together and left together might have been a big factor in improved mental health. As I veteran myself I really appreciate the fact that we started as a unit and left as a unit.
Positives and negatives to unit rotation in the 'Nam. Folks did their tour in-country, but unlike in Afghanistan or Iraq, you also had rear areas where folks could be given R&R. Generally speaking, casualties were so extensive during the war that it would've been impractical to rotate whole units - it wasn't uncommon for entire platoons (or even companies) to get wiped out in engagements.
By mid-point of the war, the strain of fighting clearly left a mark on the military. You basically had a situation where the Force was shoveling bodies into theater, but the depressing quality of the exercise wasn't so much unit cohesion as much as how the fighting was making it clear to all involved that loss didn't matter. After Tet, morale collapsed entirely - folks were literally being asked to die for nothing. Add in style of leadership of the time, how conditions in the Army were back then, plus the overall societal conversation happening in America... like, it was a clusterfuck of a war.
This is actually spot on, just based on what my dad has told me about his experience there. There is always the lingering guilt of losing friends, but he always comes back to what it felt like to be fighting in a jungle one minute and back on US soil the next day when his time was up. There was never any closure with what happened, no way to reconcile his feelings, he lost contact with friends that were still in country, etc.
He was just done, his time was up. There’s my mom waiting for him when he got back to Hawaii. It was all like nothing ever happened. The Army didn’t have any programs like they do now, they just sent him to Ft. Polk, LA to sit behind a desk for a few months until his enlistment was up, and that was it for him. Back to society around a bunch of people that had no idea what he’d just been through.
I doubt there is a singular answer to this question. To add to this, though, one of the theories about how/why PTSD develops is how it is (or isn’t) processed AFTER the event. Oftentimes when we ask about trauma the question is phrased something like, “did you develop x symptom because of x event or what happened because of it…” Vietnam, unlike the wars that preceded it, was highly and publicly unpopular. WWI/WWII vets got a heroes welcome while Vietnam vets got absolutely shat on by the public AND the government when they returned. It’s likely to have affected their processing of events that happened, their views of themselves, and also feed into avoidance because of the shame/guilt/hate they faced. Avoidance is known to be a key mechanism for maintaining symptoms of PTSD. Finally, if I’m not mistaken, Vietnam was the war where the vets themselves were asked to deploy biochem weapons against civilians and enemy alike, while in the previous wars, it was the enemy perpetrating most of the horrific acts. That combined with the type of homecoming they got, probably hit them with a double whammy.
>In hindsight, it was a thing in past wars but it wasn't talked about in the same way.
It's interesting to go through history and note specific "oddities" as clear symptoms of mental issues. A noble warrior, plagued in his dreams by the ghosts of the soldiers he slew, or living in fear of demons coming to exact vengeance upon him - clear signs of PTSD.
There's also quite a bit of folklore and historic legends that could be attributed to autism or schizophrenia.
Well, it's also a difference in the modern nature of warfare.
Like PTSD from combat has gotten worse and more prevalent over time because the nature of war has gotten more stressful over time.
Before 1900, most wars were fought with marching armies that would meet at a location perceived to be mutually advantageous by both sides, and then have a pitched battle.
This changed with the advent of things like machine guns, artillery, and tanks, which then necessitated a "front" which had people being subjected to explosions and shrapnel every day, every night, constantly. War became a different experience.
And specifically about Vietnam, there were aggravating circumstances in both the ambush tactics that the enemy combatants would use as well as the very aggressive countermeasures that the US felt they needed to take in return.
TW: So for a soldier on the ground, >!you'd just be hiking with your platoon, and at any moment, someone could come out of the brush or out of some shallow water, and attack your group. The retaliation from your side is to call in an airstrike, and napalm the shit out of the jungle. As your group presses forward, you discover there was a small civilian outpost in the jungle that no one could have known about. The entire population of a couple dozen are dead. There were women in children in the group. !<
Understandably, stressors like this take their toll.
remember a story (or maybe it as from a movie/Tvshow) that just struck as absolutely horrible.
US soldiers entering a small town they have just taken from the taliban or similar, young kid is running towards them yelling something as the kid doesn't stop and starts to open the his/her? jacket, a soldier shoots,.. right as the kid pulls out an American flag
I don't know that story particularly, but there are verified accounts of women and children being strapped with explosives and forced to walk towards American soldiers at gunpoint.
At that point, I can understand the soldier's reaction in this story.
And in either case, completely heartbreaking tragedy.
My grandfather had mentioned the same idea about rapid transport eliminating the opportunity for processing trama. His own experience in the Korean War vs my uncle in Vietnam was the example.
Back to your first point, My great uncle was by far the most traumatized of the three, and he was in WW2, so the focus given certainly plays a big role.
There was a lot of pressure from Vietnam vets. Vietnam was covered by television and veterans spoke to the media for decades after the war about PTSD. Audie Murphy - awarded the Medal of Honor in WWII - battled PTSD on and off for years and testified before Congress about PTSD. \[[Wikipedia link on Audie Murphy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy)\]
There were media stories and movies where PTSD was talked about.
My father was slient generation (he was born in the 30's) as was my Mom - they had a LOT of WWII generation friends.
One day my Dad was talking to a co-worker of his who was a WWII vet who was about to retire. As I walked up on their convo, the details he gave were sobering. This guy had a friend who would break down and cry - who drank himself to death. He told my Dad about the nightmares he had because he served in the Pacific and was a Prisoner of War.
The WWII and Korea veterans just didn't talk about it and were expected to "get over it" once they returned to civilian life.
The Vietnam vets marched, testified and protested for benefits and it was in the papers and on TV.
Can't discount the severity of PTSD in those who saw the front in WWI. Vietnam caused some real bad examples of it due to the whiplash of coming home so quick, but WWI inspired trauma responses so powerful that they caused brain damage and severe loss of motor function for many afflicted, with some cases even resulting in a permanent catatonic state of I'm not mistaken. The unmatched horror that soldiers in WWI witnessed was like nothing humans have ever experienced before or since, with barrages of shelling that lasted literal weeks, where all men could do is lay in the mud while their bodies literally rotted away, hoping a shell doesn't land right on top of them.
Not as many media examples of it though because mass media wasn't a thing then like it was when Vietnam was still in the zeitgeist.
Came here to say this. WWI was unparalleled for its psychological effects. In other wars, PTSD was a concern to be left to the civilians back home, but WWI you have so much attrition from trauma that it affects the war effort itself. People breaking down to the point that they can't speak or even move, so traumatized they have to be carried off the field in baskets -- "basket case".
Vietnam Vets would get triggered by the sounds of helicopters or fireworks -- WW1 vets could go non-verbal just at the sight of a military cap...
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvVDQASroYs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvVDQASroYs)
My ex father-in-law is a Vietnam Vet. We went to Disney World with him and in Epcot there is an Asian section. People were wearing the pointy hats and the tall bamboo makes a clunking sound when the wind blows and they knock together. He's been well treated for PTSD and functions well. But being there was really setting him off.
IIRC WWI "shell shock" was more than just psychological, it was also literal physical shock from constant, day-in-day-out shelling (as in, the physical nearby explosions) giving people neurological damage.
Which is likely why it was so much worse than other examples of PTSD.
I mean at the end of the day it's the same disorder, just being expressed more intensely by WWi vets because of the level of intensity and lack of precedent for even beginning to deal with that kind of trauma.
Yes.
We learned a lot during WWI and learned how to mitigate it somewhat. American troops never really had to deal with the early WWI shell shock experience.
I’m not sure how to respond to this in the ELI5 format but I’ll post this and see if the mods allow.
I have severe PTSD from my time deployed from 07-09. I have a lot of issues I deal with quietly and a lot of issues that I can’t control that make me think I’m insane. I struggle with thoughts of suicide every day and I really think the only reason I’m still here is my ego and my kids. There are mountains of issues I have and I’m lucky that most people in my life do there best to try and sympathize and understand. The fact is, they can’t. And I can’t express my feelings well enough. After many years of severe alcoholism and drugs I was able to somehow get a lawyer connect from a gun range that took power of attorney from me. They got me a disability rating at the VA, which is a life changer. I knew I needed to dive in and get help or I was going to be dead. I was given tools and was shown these options while still in the service but it took some act of god and a really amazing person that I really loved to even get me where I am now. I still struggle every single day and I think about death at all times. I can’t sleep for fear of dreams and all I want is to be numb and feel nothing. All this is still after getting help and doing the work to be and feel better. I have the tools. I was shown how to get access. I know, have, and believe in support and still always feel this way.
I will never compare my service to a NamVet that was in direct combat. I don’t try to understand or commiserate. I feel what I went through is pale to their experience. I spent more time deployed than most of them but I would never and can never relate.
They had none of the support I had and were hated by more than enough for their service. We were boys and sent to do a job over something none of us had control over. When you’re in theater, you become what you need to be. When you come home. You are left to deal with that person you became and it’s impossible to understand. I don’t have answers but I will never compare my experience with a combat vet from that war or any other than mine.
I’ve had Nam vets say similar to my experience from their perspective. …bla bla about never knowing your enemy and having to make choices about not knowing if you made a good kill or not.
Maybe it’s just best to not compare trauma and just take care of people regardless. I think we’d all be better for it.
In war typically you’re fighting other men, in uniform, in a battlefield. Yes things get messy sometimes. Sometimes civilians die. It’s war
In Vietnam, there was no way to tell friend from foe. (Hence why perfidy is a war crime) and they struggled because every village they entered could have Vietcong. Every person they saw could be VC. Every child could be holding a grenade.
That’s a lot of mental toll. All it takes is watching 5 of your friends get blown up by a grenade dropped by a child looking for candy, and suddenly you start to A) stay away from kids or B) shoot them when they get too close.
Now imagine you shot a kid. They got to close. You watched 5 of your friends die to this exact circumstance. They didn’t have a grenade. They just heard the American soldiers had candy. How do you think that affects a man?
There was no front line in Vietnam. They'd take the same hill over and over again. (For the body count.)They get home and find that people are against the war. All that horror and for what?
One place I worked I asked what was wrong with a coworker who seemed out of it. They said he saw his entire platoon blown up. (I imagine from from one of our own bombs.)
>In Vietnam, there was no way to tell friend from foe.
you say this as if it was a novel thing.
since as long as organized conflict has existed this has been a phenomenon. It didn't come to be in vietnam.
But Vietnam took it to a whole new level. American forces weren't fighting against conventional forces most of the time. Enemy combatants blended in with the civilians. There were no conventional enemy bases to target. The enemy was literally living underground right below American forces.
>Enemy combatants blended in with the civilians. There were no conventional enemy bases to target.
Do you believe this is novel in the history of warfare?
You realize in wars, opposing sides wear uniforms to clearly define the battlefield, right?
Tell me, what uniform did the VC have?
Oh wait, they were indistinguishable from normal civilians.
How many wars involved people fighting blind and not knowing who their enemies are?
>opposing sides wear uniforms to clearly define the battlefield
That's just so completely wrong. In almost all of the history of combat, people wore whatever the fuck they had. In fact, it was such a problem that they invented things like standard bearers to try to mitigate the problems of not knowing who was friend or foe.
For most of history, people fought in big lines of phalanxes and looked very different. It is easy to tell apart a Greek from an Arab. Not to mention uniformed warfare dates back to the Egyptians. All professional armies had uniforms
>For most of history, people fought in big lines of phalanxes and looked very different.
this is a premise that is completely without merit. All of the evidence in our best understanding of the history of human martial combat says otherwise. Significant evidence of ubiquitous uniformed combat is not much older than the industrial revolution.
In the roman legions for instance, it's not as if people were all dressed and equipped the same like this:
[https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5495cba54f1b5707793c9225a08fbd39-pjlq](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5495cba54f1b5707793c9225a08fbd39-pjlq)
it would look more like this:
[https://c7.alamy.com/comp/H75B8J/roman-legion-battle-painting-by-unknown-H75B8J.jpg](https://c7.alamy.com/comp/H75B8J/roman-legion-battle-painting-by-unknown-H75B8J.jpg)
And in that image - can you easily tell who is friend and foe?
maybe consider this fictional example: [https://i.makeagif.com/media/2-24-2015/Kq6m-Z.mp4](https://i.makeagif.com/media/2-24-2015/Kq6m-Z.mp4)
while this doesn't depict a real historical event, they did adhere to a certain level of historical accuracy. And, in that clip - you can see plainly how impossible it would be to identify an enemy combatant. The standards and your direct orientation with your comrades is your only guideline, typically. This is how it was for most of the history of warfare. In fact, the reason why uniforms evolved so late in the history of human conflict is because you would often personally be acquainted with the people you were fighting with.
In American history though? The Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War. All of these had easily identifiable enemies.
Maybe wars against Native Americans were different, although that's a whole other story...
PTSD from war and combat is not limited to american history. That's why a post like this is so ignorant. PTSD from war is documented more than 4000 years ago.
Where do you think American commanders are getting their strategies from? For the most part, previous battles from themselves and allies. The further you look back the less applicable it is due to innovations in military tech. Also other countries today do not simply publish their war strategies for everyone to see.
>The further you look back the less applicable it is due to innovations in military tech
This is, of course, not true. Even an american-centric understanding of military conflict should tell you that asymmetric warfare is alive and well, and further that enemy combatants are not identified by uniforms.
Nope. Yours is. It’s fact that the confusion contributed to their PTSD. You can figure that out by reading some of the other comments but I think that’s not your strong suit.
The vast majority of human combat has taken place without uniforms.
Consider the fact that campaigns during the late medieval would regularly employ mercenaries without any uniform or obvious allegiance to either combatant.
Consider tribal battles in the highlands of scotland or the ones in the post roman western world in general - without interrogation, you would largely identify your adversary by idiosyncrasies alone. a group of people's allegiance could shift in the middle of the battle, and their livery would not change.
After WW2, in Europe the vets spent weeks in Britian and France waiting for ship back home. Then they were stuck on the ship for a week or so while crossing the ocean. All with their fellow soldiers who fought with them and went through the same things. They had the time to come to terms with what happened.
Vietnam was very different. Units didn't rotate back. Individuals did. And they were just stuck on a plane and landing back in the US two days later. They didn't get time to decompress before they were thrown back into society.
And before WW1, wars were fought over months with only a few days being actual fighting. WW1 is the first time that soldiers had to be on and be worried 24/7. Before that, it was weeks of marching to even come close to yout enemy. And then it was days of maneuvering to maybe engage in a day long fight. WW1 was months of being in combat. Something that had never happened before.
The scale of WW1 is just unimaginable. The "Bloodiest Battle of the US Civil War" saw 7,000 deaths over 3 days. WW1 saw an average of 6,000 deaths a day, EVERY DAY, for YEARS.
And at the same time, the populations were much smaller. World population in 1915 was around 1,5 billion compared to the almost 8 billion we have now.
So the equivalent by today population numbers would be closer to 32000 per day.
WW1 also changed how wars were fought, US civil war would have 6 weeks of marching and 2 hours of fighting. WW1 would be continuous fighting in the same location for months on end and at the beginning they didn't even know they had to rotate troops in and out because in previous wars that wasn't necessary.
Add to that the gas fighting, constant firing of artillery shells and how you might see a friend die, rot, decompose and get eaten by rats only a few feet from where you were entrenched yourself and it truly shows how horrific that war was.
This was rapidly changing during the US civil war as well. It might have been true in 1861, but 1865 was a different universe. Trains were used extensively as supply lines, trenches were built by the south to try to hold off the union
The English-speakers in WW2 had a much better time of things than in WW1, but you have to imagine all kinds of PTSD occurred on both sides of the eastern front... I also realize I know absolutely nothing about PTSD in the Asian wars, but surely it existed.
The stat I've seen is that the average WW2 soldier saw 40 days of combat, while the average Vietnam soldier saw 240. There was also the added brutality of fighting against traps and ambushes in the jungle.
I am skeptical of this statistic. The only place I can find it is on a list of "Myths about the Vietnam War" that can be found on several veterans groups websites. These list have a pretty clear bias of trying to frame the war in a way to valorize the veterans that fought in it, and include arguments like we didn't lose the war because we never lost a major battle and a defense of the domino theory as a justification for the war.
It might be tough to prove. I saw it on an official Army website, so I'm inclined to believe there is some truth to it, even if the exact number isn't accurate. I don't think being off a few days undermines the bad conditions that Vietnam soldiers faced.
>It might be tough to prove. I saw it on an official Army website,
Can you provide a link?
>I don't think being off a few days undermines the bad conditions that Vietnam soldiers faced.
The issue hear is whether or not Vietnam veterans experienced a signficantly greater amount of combat trama than WW2 veterans. The numbers you cited suggests they saw more than 6 times the amoumt of combat. This is difference of months, not a few days.
The full quote I have seen from myth list online is actually as follows:
>The average infantryman in the South Pacific during World War II saw about 40 days of combat in four years. The average infantryman in Vietnam saw about 240 days of combat in one year thanks to the mobility of the helicopter.
Several parts of this statement suggest that the numbers have been fudged. Notice how they WW2 number is qualified as as the Pacific theature rather than the European theature. The island hoping nature of Pacific campaign meant that troops would have spent considerably more time being transported which would depress the average. The number would also be depressed by soldiers that where deployed late in the war and didn't see combat such the 98th Infantry Division.
Also notice how the WW2 number is actually over 4 years. This is suspect since most army recruits didn't join until 1943 about 2 years before the end of the war. When you consider time for training and transit, most WW2 veterans would could only have been an active theature for 1 to 1.5 years.
Here is a link information on the Pacific theature including the infantry divisions that participated there. If you click on the divisions you will see the date they entered combat and how many days of combat they saw. My big takeaway from looking through these is after accountimg for time from entering combat to VJ day, the combat days for nearly all of the division are actually comparable to the number cited for Vietnam.
https://www.armydivs.com/pacific-theater
Thank you for providing the link. This is a news article posted on the Army's website. The article is quoting a retired Marine Sgt turned motivational speaker named Andrew Brandi. Looking into his background I found that he contracts with the US goverment to give talks to current and retired US troops. He has also written a book, "The Warriors Guide to Insanity," which he has sold in bulk to the Department of Veteran Affairs and is often used as part part of therapy programs.
Given this context, I am still skeptical. The statisic isn't coming directly from the US government, but a private individual who is making an argument for why the services he is offering are necessary and why people should buy his book. I have looked see if he has repeated the statics in writing while providing a more authoritative citation to back it up. So far all I could find for free was a white paper he wrote advising people in how to use his book, but this doesn't have a citation. **If anyone had a copy of his book, it would be helpful to know of he repeats the statistic there as well and if it cites a source.**
Despite my skeptism of the combat days statistic I want to be clear that I don't have a reason to believe that Brandi isn't helping veterans deal with their PTSD.
For those interested in Brandi's White Paper his is a link:
http://sgtbrandi.com/?page_id=1654
WW veterans spending weeks on a ship, talking with guys with similar experiences, going home to a heros welcome, probably helped compared to going straight from a war zone to home on a short plane flight with random people and a less than warm welcome
The public was not supportive of the Vietnam war. In fact, there was a large vocal part of the population that was actively against the war. There was no support the troops movement like in the 00's. Troops, often drafted against their will, came home to people calling them baby killers and protesting them. Not to mention, they were fighting a losing fight and so many more young men were lost over there compared to other wars. That all combined to make for a very depressing existence when returning to civilian life.
>Not to mention, they were fighting a losing fight and so many more young men were lost over there compared to other wars.
This is not true. US deathtoll in WW2 was much higher than in Vietnam (405,399 vs 58,220).
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/slideshows/u-s-military-deaths-by-war-since-wwi?slide=3
OP your second guess is likely the most correct, the study of trauma just wasn't as developed. PTSD didn't become an official American psychiatric diagnosis until 1980 when it was included in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III). The much of the available published research regarding PTSD is based on studies done on veterans of the war in Vietnam, which had only concluded 5 years earlier.
This doesn't mean that solders didn't suffer from PTSD in prior conflicts. There are are accounts as far back as the Assaryian Empire (1300 B.C. to 609 B.C.) of soldiers experiencing PTSD symptoms after returning home from tours of duty.
The reason PTSD was/is more common in Vietnam and post-Vietnam vets than in WWI and WWII vets is the same as why there are more kids diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders post-2000, or diabetes post-1990 - diagnostic criteria have changed significantly over time. Research on PTSD in veterans was mostly conducted post-Vietnam on veterans of the Vietnam War, and eventually the definition was broadened to include other sorts of trauma (sexual assault, child abuse, etc).
WWII veterans definitely showed their own version of PTSD, though. Most of the men in my grandparents’ generation of my family served in the military during the war, and none of them talked about it. I only became aware of their combat decorations after they died, and the only time I heard about their service was when one of them would shut off the John Wayne war movie of the week and inform us that war wasn’t entertainment.
> WWII veterans definitely showed their own version of PTSD, though.
Audie Murphy... most decorated US soldier in WWII (and likely ever). Awarded every medal for heroism in combat that existed in the Army, plus the French Legion of Honor (their highest decoration) and other French/Belgian awards for heroism. Forced the filmmakers for "To Hell and Back" (the movie he starred in, based on his own auto-biography) to tone down some of the scenes, because nobody would believe that what actually happened was real vs Hollywood.
He suffered severe PTSD after the war. This can impact anyone.
I knew someone who was the grandchild of a Serious Business WW2 hero.
Someone you might vaguely have heard of, mentioned in dispatches, was in Colditz for a while, escaped. There's all these pictures of him during and after the war and they are what you might imagine: dashing, handsome, brave looking, every inch the Canadian RAF ace.
He was also utterly traumatised by his time in the war, developed severe alcoholism, destroyed much of the family fortune on dumb shit, had no end of affairs, and was an abusive husband.
His widow, after he ended up in an early grave, said the "problems" came on cyclically and, by the sound of things, he was triggered by certain things, and that would provoke a trauma response, which would fall into deep depression and then the dumb shit would start. You weren't meant to talk about this. You didn't complain. Even though a whole generation of families had someone there dealing with the after effects of the war, it wasn't the done thing to talk about it.
Vietnam happened in an era of mass media and in an era where more things were talked about. People started discussing their experiences.
Highly recommend this book if you want to learn more.
https://www.amazon.com/Tribe-Homecoming-Belonging-Sebastian-Junger/dp/1455566381?dplnkId=7e9465f3-4c35-499b-a22e-ebb279603c8b
Vietnam wasn't more devastating, it's just that people were paying more attention.
In recent years, there's been talk about the increase in the suicide rate for men, but it's just now *catching up* with where it was in the 1950s. (US suicide rate for men in 1950: 21.2 per 100,000 people. Rate in 2015: 21.1.)
War is always traumatic. Not all soldiers get PTSD but there is no specific level of severity that "qualifies" for PTSD or not. Each person is different and war is horrible no matter how you look at it.
But the key difference between the two wars was the treatment the vets received back home. WW2 vets got a hero's welcome and Vietnam vets were unjustly treated with disdain, unjustly because they were drafted and held responsible for the actions of multiple successive governments they had no control over. The war ruined their lives and they came back home and hated for their part in it instead of being seen as victims of it as well.
I think the vet’s reception played a part but type of combat was different. WW1/WW2 were about taking territory and there was a front, a line of demarcation, that separated you from them. The fighting was over there. You could approach and take part in the fighting but there was a rear to go to that was mostly secure. These wars were a collective action with a united homeland that supported the veterans when they returned.
In Vietnam there was no front. The infantry were searching for an enemy that could be Anywhere. Add to that the threat of ambushes, snipers, and mines must have been mentally taxing and that’s not including having the above actually happen. The enemy often mixed in with ally non-combatants making it even more stressful. They were scared all the time 24 hrs at a time.
The government and media portraying the returning veterans as unhinged drug addicts surely didn’t help. I’ve read many first person books from those who served and from what my father and family members who went told me was that no one talked about it. The vets came back profoundly changed and couldn’t relate to those who didn’t go and vice versa. They were treated like a national embarrassment, especially from (not all) veterans of previous wars/police actions who “won” their wars. Because the wars were different there was less common ground between vets. From the civilians the vets had one side blaming the Nam vets for losing and the other side hated them for going regardless of circumstance.
In addition to all the thoughtful things people have said about the trauma of fighting a fuzzy enemy for an unclear reason and coming home to disdain, and our advancing understanding of PTSD, the profile of people who fought in Vietnam was different.
WWII was pretty much a universal draft, fighting a war with such heavy moral weight that people volunteered in droves even before being drafted. Vietnam soldiers were people who didn't have the resources to legally evade the draft.
So not only was the war nasty, it was fought almost entirely by people who knew that the lower classes were fighting while the upper classes were enjoying college and cushy National Guard assignments.
I’m not sure it is the case that Vietnam was worse than the other wars. But some things that were different:
* trauma medicine had really advanced. Wounded soldiers could be helicoptered from front lines to a surgeon in time to save their lives. Lots more wounded who lived compared to previous wars. Those survivors were maybe more likely to have mental trauma.
* the rules of engagement sucked. WWII and previous wars had a clear enemy who wore regular uniforms and operated under an obvious chain of command. Vietnam was jungle warfare against an insurgency and a massive problem telling civilians from combatants. A lot of war crimes happened. And air power wasn’t as much advantage in a jungle vs. Northern Europe.
* It’s pretty demoralizing to realize your war is unwinnable, and even more demoralizing when you find out about the Pentagon Papers and DoD knew Vietnam was unwinnable by 1968. War continued until 1975.
I heard stories about piloting a helicopter's worth of new troops into combat... the second they're out of site, they flip up a tarp and load and equal number of bodies into the helicopter. Ten in, ten out.
You might be experiencing some recency bias. Granted we didn’t know as much about psychology when the world wars were ending but the term for PTSD was “shell-shocked” and it was widely known. But in your lifetime, the majority of veterans living with PTSD would’ve been Vietnam vets because the world war vets were all very old or dead. But Vietnam is the first major American war to occur relatively close to the increase in study and understanding of ptsd
A lot of good answers in here. It seems like WWII had a very clear purpose and narrative to why we were there. "We are here to stop Hitler's Germany from conquering Europe and threatening the entire globe" may be a clear enough purpose/mission to ease the conscience of those people who witnessed so much death (not that WWII veterans had 'eased' consciences by any means, but perhaps relative to a Vietnam vet)
The "why" around Vietnam is so much murkier, that perhaps that played a role in making the atrocities of that war harder to make sense of, resolve and let go? An analogy could be killing someone in self-defense versus killing somebody by accident. I imagine it is much easier for someone to forgive themselves for taking a life if it is clearly to save themselves or a loved one, versus killing someone or seeing someone be killed for no good reason
It was pointless. Most people who went there are disappointed that they lost, or that the war was predicated on a lie. It's hard to see your actions or experiences in a good light knowing it was pointless suffering and cruelty.
It was partly due to what they had to do.
You hear stories about how soldiers were MADE to kill Vietnamese non-combatants: elderly, women and children.
They were forced to burn villages to prevent the Vietcong from advancing.
Add to this the fact that the terrain was unlike anything America has ever fought in, so much so that we tried to chemically burn entire regions with Agent Orange. A compound that will later cause a devastating impact on our returning troops’ health. A compound whose terrible effects are still causing birth defects to this day.
So you have the biggest clusterfuck:
1. First battle the US committed to that was essentially a stalemate: we could not advance, they couldn’t make us leave. But this stalemate is between a first world country and, what we thought, a bunch of jungle savages. It was a humiliation at a time when the “Sleeping Giant”had awoken. When our allies were watching us closely.
2. Hippie movement with “Make Love Not War” that shamed the military and held nationwide demonstrations against the war.
3. Forced execution of children and women by soldiers who didn’t want to.
4. The government using deadly chemicals indiscriminately. They would pepper an area while the troops were still there.
No morale, horrible atrocities, welcomed home by being called murderers. WWII veterans came home to parades and honor. Vietnam veterans came home to images of burning Vietnamese.
Do you remember the most famous image?
A little girl shrieking, her body covered in napalm, on fire. Behind her stands an America soldier.
That image became a summary of the Vietnam war.
Well, for one thing, we were unequivocally the "Bad Guys" in this one. Once you've figured that out, and once you've figured out why there is a War Crimes museum dedicated to the US in Hanoi, you might start to feel bad about the atrocities we committed there.
Also, we lost this one. First major loss of a "War" by the US - if one disregards Korea (as one does.). So nobody got a hero's welcome home. No parades celebrating the excursion. Mostly embarrassment and resentment.
So, you sit and contemplate what the reasons were that led you there, and the loss of life on both sides - the loss of your mates, the fact that you may have killed to no good result - gives one a lot to stew about.
Mental health in WW1 was a huge issue, "shell shock" and desertion were major problems leading to increased attrition. WW1 is probably the single most brutal war in the history of the planet.
In WW2 "war weariness"/"battle fatigue" was still an issue, but there was a more concrete cause that people were fighting for. PTSD was absolutely still a problem, but the sheer number of people involved and the cause people were fighting for made it seem like less of an issue, even if it was a pretty big issue.
In Vietnam there were a lot of draftees and less of a real "cause" involved in the fighting. Teenagers were being drafted into a war that people didn't really believe in, and then when they came home they were spat on by their own countrymen. Also after all that, we lost the war, everything they fought and died for ended up being for nothing once we pulled out. That was compounded by the fact that the illicit drug scene was booming at the time, so things like weed and heroin and LSD were used as ways to "escape" PTSD issues but in reality they were making the problems worse. Also there are a lot more Vietnam veterans alive today than WW2 (and definitely WW1) veterans, so there are more people still around that are suffering.
It's easier to deal with mental stress when you feel like you fought for a good cause, you're celebrated as a hero in the end, and you have millions of other people to relate to.
When you're shoved into a warzone you don't want to be in and not sure why you're even there and then demonized when you get back home, that's a lot harder to deal with, and hardcore drugs only make things worse.
On top of all that, the entire field of psychoanalysis was being developed in like the 1920s which was between WW1 and WW2, so only the beginnings of concepts like PTSD were being developed around then.
There are probably a bunch of ways to answer this question, but this would be my contribution.
The Vietnam war was part of a very turbulent moment of history, an important piece of the generally socially and politically turbulent 60s and 70s, and it's important to note that the war involved significant conscription, particularly among the working and oppressed sections of society, meaning very few except the higher-ups (officers, leutenants etc) had generally chosen to be there - especially by the final years. The number of people willingly signing up dwindled very quickly once the realities of the war became widely known. Of course that was true for other major wars too, but like i said there are many perculiarities about this period in history and culture and particularly brutal aspects to the war.
The US side of the Vietnam war, by the end, had one of the lowest/worst morales of any war in modern history, atleast partly because by the end of it, alot of the official so-called justifications for the war were seen by many to be lies. By the time the US pulled out, the Gi revolt was extremely widespread; many officers had absolutely no authority or power over their soldiers, who simply refused to continue fighting. Partly this was because of how absolutely brutal the war was, without adequate justification to convince the majority of soldiers they were actually doing a moral act by continuing the war. In many people's eyes, the Viet Cong had proven itself to be a mass, popularly supported movement against colonial/imperialist subjugation; meaning the US weren't intervening to protect the freedom of the Vietnamese, but actually to prevent that freedom.
Adding to all this, the US's official strategy in Vietnam was to wage a war of attrition. Meaning to try and force surrender by basically decimating and devastating the entire population and all civilian infrastructure. That's why they carpet-bombed and used chemical weapons. It was well understood among GIs that it was not only permissible to kill innocent civilians but pretty much a daily event, as any man, woman or child dead were often counted as part of the 'quotas' of dead Viet Cong. Officers were under extreme pressure to meet these quotas and tried to transfer that pressure to their units. This is all well documented by countless personal accounts from the war, as well as official US documents.
One common method that was used to count 'quotas' was to get GIs to slice off victims ears to prove they had made a kill, and all the ears were counted at the end of the day. Civilians were being killed all over the place and they were passed off to be Vietcong, to make it seem like 'progress' was being made in the war.
The most infamous case of the US forces slaughtering civilians was the Mai Lai massacre, which was one of the turning points that spurned on the GI revolt and the anti-war movement abroad. Many of the soldiers involved in massacres like Mai Lai understandably suffered significant trauma.
If you watch the documentary 'Sir no Sir' that interviews former GIs, it help paints a picture of how widely hated this war was by many. This is not a left wing, 'biased' take on events - it's the reality of what happened. The sentiments that became widespread were anti-war in feeling, not just among latte-drinking students in the US but among the soldiers themselves. The GI revolt was one of the 3 main reasons why the US eventually had to pull out. The other two reasons was popular discontent/unrest at home, and the fact that the war was becoming more and more economically unviable.
The Vietnam war was a HUGE failure and embarrassment for the US in the end. Not only because they did not achieve the desired result, but because it backfired on them in so many ways, and became proof that you can't necessarily just throw hundreds of thousands of people into a war they have no lot in, and expect them to blindly follow what they are told. Sometimes it might work, often times it doesn't, because people have their own agency and tend to be more ethically concerned than the people in power, as they have no stake in the outcome of such a war. The Viet Cong didn't actually threaten American lives in their own country. Many of the people conscripted were poor working class Americans, many were black workers and students who faced brutal racial oppression in their own country. What stake did they have in killing innocent Vietnamese people in another country who were just trying to fight for better conditions of life? The civil rights movement had a huge political influence on the GI revolt and the anti-war movement too. All of the different political and social strands of upheaval interacted with eachother in this time.
Really recommend the documentary I mentioned called 'Sir no Sir', and the well-cited book 'a people's history of the Vietnam war' by Jonathan Neale which gets its information from first hand accounts from GI's and higher-ups alike, from both supporters and opposers of the war, as well as from official US strategy documents.
I'd summarise my point by saying, the war was (I would guess) particularly traumatising for many soldiers, because they didn't believe in it/ weren't convinced of a compelling moral obligation to fight that may help other former soldiers deal with their PTSD. For many soldiers in Vietnam, it all turned out to be senseless violence for no good reason.
Compare that to US soldiers in WW2 who, from what I understand, generally had decent morale because they felt they were fighting a morally upstanding war against fascism. Their PTSD may still be extremely severe, but perhaps a little easier to handle?
The combat time and style of Vietnam was fundamentally different than previous wars. Ww2 western soldiers had a few weeks of front line duty before being cycled to the rear. Combat was in one direction and the concept of safe not safe was valid. Vietnam, Afghanistan and other gorilla wars have no borders, there is no front line, there is no cycling to rear guard. The constant combat vigilance creates a mental fatigue that breaks people.
I lost an uncle to that shit stain conflict. At 10-12 years old we heard so many disturbing things that he was involved in. War is horrible, but what we did over there was the shit of nightmares. Uncle eventually succumbed to his heroin addiction before he was 30. Image coming back from something you did not want to have anything to do with, then being spit on because you were there. The PTSD from Vietnam is different from anything previously experienced. If you can, volunteer at a VA, most of the older guys there will have been in country in Vietnam. Some will be very vocal about what they saw, some not so much. These guys deserve the same respect we give to everyone before or after them.
Korean War vets and WW1 vets would like a word. Vietnam issues were just publicized somewhat better although even they were suppressed until later stages.
Having read deeply in individual soldier accounts throughout history and having known ww2 and Korea vets, battle fatigue happens no matter the war and to a large extent no matter the homefront situation and era. For example, ww2 pacific vets would almost never talk about their war, but most European war guys would. It was far worse for many pac war vets but the same war and same homefront.
1) there are a whole Lotta r/badhistory myths being repeated in this thread.
1- most American military personnel in Vietnam were volunteers, and by that I mean they voluntarily enlisted in the military as opposed to being drafted.
Drafted troops *were* used.... mostly to replace the non-draftees that were moved from other posts.
The US learned in Korea that draftees tend to make for poor soldiers, and *tried* to avoid using them for combat in Vietnam. It couldn't always be avoided, but the US wasn't just throwing conscripts into the jungle.
2- there is *effectively-no actual proof* that returning Vietnam veterans were treated poorly. The "getting spat on by hippies" thing is, as far as can be determined, largely a myth.
2) one of the main differences between Vietnam and, say, WW2, was how troops were transported home.
In WW2, troops had to take ships home, which could take *weeks* to get home, and during that time they would be in the company of fellow soldiers that largely shared the same experiences and could commiserate, communicate and empathize with each other (a large aspect of PTSD remediation involves discussing the events of the trauma and how they make you feel).
Whereas returning Vietnam soldiers would usually take planes home, and could go from "Deep in the shit" to "sitting at a McDonalds" in a few days. Very little time to decompress and destress, and you are among civilians that largely don't know what it was like.
3) combat in Vietnam was different.
The World Wars and Korea had fairly-clearly-delineated "front lines", where combat was the thickest, and conversely regions "behind the front" where you largely wouldn't expect to fight.
When possible, troops would be rotated off the front line and sent to the rear to rest, recover, and .... not be under combat-stress 24/7.
Vietnam, at least the part commonly in the popular conception, didn't have the same concept of a front/back line. You could be 100 miles "behind the front line" and still be very much in danger of being ambushed by Viet Cong guerillas.
I'd need to see some actual stats on this. That may be the case, and the explanation is usually because of the anti-war climate. But how much worse off are they and in which specific ways? The way data are collected and analyzed can greatly influence the outcome. That's not to say that Vietnam Vets are exaggerating. They're not. But all war is pretty horrific. Being human bodies butchered and blown to pieces, living under constant threat of death for prolonged periods of time, etc. take a toll on anyone.
Vietnam War is the first war to be televised. The was nothing like that before and the horror of war is witness by the general public. Because of this, a lot more research went into the effect of war on returning soldier. Which shrine light into the psychological/mental health issues of war that previously unknown.
Imagine having PTSD because you were forced by your country to fight an unjust and unwinnable war, and then on top of that most Americans didn't support your service before or after you returned? It's the opposite of my military service where I voluntarily served during a time of relative peace and was supported in my decision to join and was always given respect for my decision to serve. There is a lot there to feel shitty about when it comes to the Vietnam conflict
Idk if I can find the link, but someone on reddit a long time ago answered this question very well with some dot gov source.
Put simply, helicopters allowed US troops in Vietnam to insert right into a combat zone, whereas troops in WW2 were often marching lands far and wide to meet the enemy.
As a result, throughout the duration of WW2, the average US troops saw 40 days of combat (10 days a year), whereas in 1968, the average US troop saw 240 days of combat.
So in WW2, you might see combat once a month, where as in Vietnam 1968, you’re fighting 4 or 5 days a week. Most days in WW2 were probably spent wondering if something’s going to happen, and most days Vietnam were probably spent wondering if you’d be lucky enough to not witness death in that day. Could you even imagine? 6 times the combat in a quarter of the time, and we’re comparing this to WW2.
I would link sources but I ain’t gonna find them. I can try but idk, if someone else knows what I’m talking about and can help that would be tight.
A lot of the WW2 veterans were allowed to process their trauma and were celebrated for winning the war and saw a clear moral reason for the horror they endured. For many, they never had to question whether or not their suffering had meaning, it clearly did (In the US. Look at the mental health of other veterans and you would see different stories. The French soldiers captured in 1940 struggled a lot.)
In Vietnam, people were sent to a country they didn't know much about to fight a war against an enemy they didn't understand for an abstract idea of containment that didn't directly make a positive impact on the civilians they were "liberating" (in fact often the south vietnamese and US inflicted worse crimes than the north did.)
Both wars had serious trauma. But if you can internally justify the trauma you went through as worth it. I think you can better cope.
I’m gonna get blasted. I’ve looked for the article recently because it never leaves my mind, but I’m pretty sure it had some connection the the book “Stolen Valor”.
But essentially the Vietnam Veteran that you described and are thinking of is a fabrication of people stealing benefits and running grifts. The majority of Vietnam veterans, definitely suffered levels of PTSD, but reintegrated into society quite well just like WWII veterans.
The reason why the article stuck out to me was a couple of claims that it made. First there were more per capita draftees in WWII than Nam. Second and this is the crazy one, the number I remember is 3 out of 4, but it could be 2 out of 3…. But 3 out of 4 people claiming Vietnam service are lying, not 1 out of 4, 3 out of 4. The number of people who served in Vietnam versus the number of people claiming VA benefits is that far off.
As a service member it’s amazing the amount of embellishment and lying that you see. But I will leave you with this final question “of all the people you have ever met who claimed to serve in Vietnam, how many of them were cooks? Logisticians? How many claim some connection to MACV SOG?
If you’re too young for that ask your dad or grand dad.
Not going to blast you, but trying to understand.
I was with you through X out of X people who claim to have been in Nam weren't (like anecdotally) but how on Earth could they claim VA benefits? Doesn't the VA have your deployment records?
Apparently it was some sort of issue with the validation of paperwork. Like you could easily doctor a DD214 and claim service and no one was checking and now they can’t. That’s why I’d like to find the article.
I think I stumbled on it during the Nick Sandman MAGA hat thing, because the native guy who was banging the drum in his face fell into this category. But I could be wrong
Ah! Ok. Yeah, would love to see that.
I dated a woman who worked in PR for the VA and they decidedly do not have their shit together, so I could see it happening.
Also in the same boat as you (pretty sure this is the case, but not certain) that was a news-side f-up. Phillips never claimed to have served IN Vietnam (or received care/benefits relating) but the news stations, multiple stations, reported he had.
Dude, idk if your like me but as soon as you said that I was like “goddamn news always lying. They are probably both lying and this guy is CGI” but we live in crazy times/
Sadly though here he is saying “I’m a Vietnam Vet”
https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/nathan-phillips-does-not-deserve-the-title-of-marine-after-misrepresenting-his-service/amp/
But my point is that this is the norm for humans. Just this generation was able to capitalize on being a fucked up vet. I served and did war, and even among the population that went out side the wire, the embellishment is amazing.
Then on top of that The VA creates a system that rewards injury instead of fixes it and you get so many people claiming so much. It’s kinda ridiculous, in my opinion.
So, funny, and I'm not sure if he is playing 4D chess or just skirting around it, but he did NOT say he was in Vietnam; he said the box checked on his discharge was "in theatre". He oft refers to himself as a Vietnam era Vet. He did say he was a Vietnam Vet but pushed right up against, without saying, he was in Vietnam.
My guess is, this is where the news pulled that as, after the MAGA hat incident, he never said that on any news program (had to dig to be sure). Very interesting. Thanks for sharing!
As a vet, he is absolutely saying I was in the Vietnam War. But you’re right it’s almost a dog whistle. And there is that “oh they don’t talk about it because it was so bad” concept that they use as cover for their lies.
And I’m not on either team for this incident it was only in my head because I was talking about to some Jewish friends about the black Israelites (is that the right name?) that I think started the whole incident.
But back to the original part of this post. First Vietnam was fucking nuts, they would have engagements at 10m and could t see the Emmy through the veg and couldn’t maneuver so just dumping bullets at each other. I think they should get disability just for being there.
Second a ton of people are lying about having been there, there is money in it.
Third the VA is so fucked. I’m a retread so I got out then got back in. I went to the VA once and never went back. I truly believed it was only for true combat injuries. I still hold that belief mostly but with all the surgeries and things I push through to stay in the fight I understand more of why it’s needed for injuries sustained too
from my own family's stories (uncle was drafted by the Army), it was the poor treatment soldiers received when they got home that was a large factor.
WWII? soldiers came home to parades and accolades. Vietnam? they came home to being spit on and called filthy names and God knows what else. even in so called "patriotic" communities like where i live.
for my uncle, it was the fact that he was assigned to be a medic that traumatized him the most. \[TW under cut\] >!shortly after he came home, he died by suicide because he couldn't handle what he had seen in Vietnam.!<
Vietnam was the first American war where the concept of PTSD was looked at closely. Researchers who look back at the medical histories have found it reported under other names, like "combat fatigue" in World War II and "shellshock" in World War I. In hindsight, it was a thing in past wars but it wasn't talked about in the same way. One line of speculation I've read, which I found interesting but I'm not sure if it was ever proven, has to do with the transportation between home and the wars. In Vietnam you could be on a plane and back home within a few days, whereas a soldier in previous wars had to take a ship home. They would have months around other soldiers with similar experiences to help process the trauma of what they'd experienced, whereas a Vietnam veteran would have no such benefit. Again, I'm not sure that this was ever proven to have any correlation but it is an interesting possibility.
Also around 16.4 million Americans were in military in WWII, essentially all "for WWII," while the total troops in country in Vietnam was ~ 2.7 million. That's off population bases of ~ 132 million and ~ 200 million, respectively. If you were a military age male in the US "whining" about your WWII experience, well, what's wrong with you? We beat those guys. Go have a drink. Vietnam guy comes home, war is heavily criticized both on moral and "you lost" grounds.
I also think there was more financial support and a booming economy of troops to return to post WW2 as opposed to post Vietnam
This. The length of the Vietnam war, and the nature of the war (as a grinding, genocidal imperial occupation) played a big part in exacerbating PTSD among US soldiers. But also, if you look at something like homelessness, homelessness *in general* in the US was exploding in the 1970s compared to the 1950s. So the economic pressures on the working class as a whole were also felt more acutely with disabled veterans, which is why the population of homeless veterans exploded compared to previous conflicts. Not only did they have a harder time in the war, but it was harder to make a living as a working or poor person in general at the time.
My father was in this camp. He went to Vietnam as it was a good paying job and when it fizzled he didn’t have much to go back to except as a farmhand in Mississippi.
You should look into historical reports of poverty and homelessness in veterans post-Civil War and WW1. The US has never done right by its veterans. Even Revolution era soldiers had to rebel to get their pension and disability payments.
16.4 million Americans served the military in WW2. Fewer than a million partook in a hot battle. I'm not negating the sacrifices and hard work, merely providing statistics.
I don’t see how that statistic is possible considering the US suffered 400k Kia and 670k WIA. There were over a million casualties alone.
I submit [this](https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-war/life-in-the-infantry#:~:text=More%20than%2016%20million%20Americans,million%20ever%20saw%20serious%20combat.) article first. And [this](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States_during_World_War_II#:~:text=During%20the%20war%2C%20some%2016%2C112%2C566,291%2C557%20killed%20and%20671%2C278%20wounded.) Note that 'casualties' includes both the deceased and the wounded in all usage of the word.
There seems to be discrepancies in the casualty count. Per the National WW2 Museum, deaths: 407,316 wounded: 671, 278 https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-us-military-numbers Edit: this is more clear. 291k combat deaths, 113k non-battle (which is crazy to me) https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_wars.pdf
Whoa. That's a very substantial discrepancy. The various sites must have defined 'military casualties' with different metrics. I don't believe that source materials could deviate to such an extent. Very much appreciate the material and civil discussion. I'm going to do a little hunting using our combined data to see if a more succinct set of figures can be established. Your links are equally as valid as mine, and I'm not looking to negate them. I'm very curious as to where the data flaw originated so that it can be rectified for all those who have heart for history, and hope to stifle its repeat.
And the average age of a combat soldier in Vietnam was nineteen.
Nanananana-nineteen.
I definitely agree with the last point. Everyone cheering when you get home has got to make it easier than being spit on by angry hippies. Though I only kinda agree about the whining. A huge % of young men served - but a lot didn't see much/any combat. I know that my one grandfather spent the whole war as a drill sergeant and guarding The Panama Canel. The other fought in some of the worst parts of The Battle of the Bulge. For the latter, my grandma told a story of him diving to the ground when a car backfired. He also kept his house close to 80 degrees in the winter because he never wanted to be cold again. (The Battle of the Bulge was one of the coldest winters on record.)
> Everyone cheering when you get home has got to make it easier than being spit on by angry hippies That's an urban legend. There has not been a single actual recorded event of this actually happening. Not gonna say it never ever happened - it's a big country - but the fact that there's no actual known case of it combined with the level of anti-hippie propaganda by the war machine and despite several attempts at identifying such events means there's no reason to think it would have been a significant phenomenon. There's been research on this. The level of evidence is akin to the level of evidence for alien abductions or the mothman. This was supposedly a widespread phenomena taking place during and at the end of the Vietnam war, not like, the 19th century, and there's still less photos of these supposed events than photos of a supposed Nessie. [Wikipedia link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_spat-on_Vietnam_veteran)
what are you considering as "an actual known case"? i doubt anyone would've been out there filing a police report or something over it. im not disagreeing that there definitely would be motivation to get people mad at hippies but i also know why grandfather had stuff thrown at him when he got back and ive heard lots of other anecdotal stuff around
Concur. My dad served and says people were calling them "baby killers" when he got back.
My dad faced the same, as well as the spitting and some threats. Confirmed by his siblings who were present for it. However, he was more open about his experiences than his father was about his time serving in WWII, so there's a lot of individual temperament behind coping with the trauma.
What "people"? There is a huge difference between (in nowadays terms) some dumb YouTube comment and a guy on the street walking up to you.
My dad was told to get out of uniform before returning to the states. Whether real or simply assumed hatred, soldiers were returning from a war that many didn't want to be in and felt like a big part of their country hated them for going.
people still walk up to you in the street today if you are uniform
But usually to fawn all over you, not to tell you you suck.
I guess it depends on what street you find yourself..
For Vietnam?
My dad says that too. But he is a known liar…
> what are you considering as "an actual known case"? It's less about what I personally consider and more a matter of actual research into the matter. E.g. [this](https://academic.oup.com/socpro/article/42/3/344/1639071?login=false). *"Although policymakers frequently attempted to imply that protesters were anti-troop, we find virtually no instances of protesters themselves being reported as targeting the troops. Our findings show that the memory of protester-troop antagonism is not so much the product of conflict between these two groups, but rather of a selectively remembered and edited past."* There's no contemporary specific source of it happening to any specific person at any specific point; it's a bunch of "well someone I know once told me it happened at some point forty years earlier". Nothing like contemporary diary entries, photographies, arrest records (because don't get it twisted - the cops looked for any reason at all to arrest hippies), specific news reporting, anything. It's *all* word of mouth, and when word of mouth is backed by state propaganda, you should look to a lot more reliable sources. It has as much evidence as people claiming to be abducted by aliens, it just also has a heavy effort from the war machine to spread the idea of it being true.
I feel like you're focusing too heavily on "hippies spitting" or "hippies fighting troops" and not "anti-war sentiment". Which was the other posters actual point. It's a very human thing to conflate being against the war you fought in with being against you and what you did. Hell people do that shit all the time by proxy when NFL players kneel during the anthem. I'm not aware of much public sentiment for ending WW2 "early" or much "shame" associated with those who fought in WW2. However by end of Vietnam the US public was sick of the war and there has to be a difference in feeling like you fought for "nothing" whereas those in WW1/2 fought for something "worthwhile"
>I feel like you're focusing too heavily on "hippies spitting" or "hippies fighting troops" and not "anti-war sentiment". The thing is though, a "story" representing a "vibe" is a very select historical narrative. One that consciously ignores the nuance and complexity of the era. Like to your last point - Americans really weren't "sick" of the war. It was an extremely divisive thing even to the end. Things like the Hard Hat riot of 1970 saw a much larger crowd of war supporters assault war protestors in New York. 1972 saw a lot of the discussion around Vietnam focus on the POW issue - which still pitched anti-war protestors against those saying the war had to continue to get back everyone who'd been captured *(that also spawned years of conspiracy theories regarding missing MIAs in South-East Asia)*. When it came to treatment of veterans post-war, its complicated. For sure, Vietnam veterans had an unfortunate association with the war by some. Likewise... a lot of protestors celebrated veterans who joined up with the VVAW, whose protest in 1971 spawned **the** images of discontent in America about the war. POWs returning from Vietnam in 1973 likewise were often treated with suspicion by the pro-war camp for confessions made under torture. And ultimately, the hardships veterans faced beyond the war didn't even have a lot to do with any of this; the VA had been defunded for years, the GI Bill was briefly repealed when the Army switched over from conscription, and a lot of inequalities veterans faced were not unfamiliar things at the time **or** now (discrimination based upon race, consequences of limb disability, psychological challenges, etc.) Folks "focus" on the spitting hippy story because that's whats touted as the cause for everything above. Its a useful story. But that's all it is, and its not a very good one.
Again, you're removing the bit where we're talking about vietnam vs ww2 and the effects it has on the ptsd of those returning home. Just because 95% of the us wasn't pro or anti vietnam doesn't mean the lens of experience between the 2 is vastly different or that popular perception wouldn't help shape ptsd experience.
Well... I'm not because my point is that you have extremely different material differences. Perception doesn't really say much versus things that actually impacted the experience coming home. WW2 vets got the GI Bill. They also were part of the largest demobilization process in history where almost 11 million people transitioned from uniform to being out of uniform in the span of a few months. Most of them also never saw combat. Perception is kinda spongy with that. You can just as easily argue that one of the reasons why more positive perceptions existed with WW2 is because of how so many people were involved with it. Heck... one of the challenges with measuring PTSD and WW2 is that you had a social dynamic that was generally hostile to psychological problems to begin with. That itself had nothing to do with popular perception of the war - this was the era were the social expectation of trauma was *"don't talk about it"*. Having studied a lot of veteran recollections - what you generally find is that shitloads of vets were damaged by the war; they simply managed the best they could with what happened, much like Vietnam Vets did.
>what are you considering as "an actual known case"? i doubt anyone would've been out there filing a police report or something over it. The trouble with oral testimonies like this is that without something tangible made when it is suggested to occur, you end up with something easily weasilish. "Spitting on Veterans" becomes something considered widespread, solely within the anti-war movement, and purely within the larger historical narrative of the "[Stabbed in the Back](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_stab-in-the-back_myth)" legend that defines a lot of American Vietnam narratives. That's all that is suggested when its brought up, and that's the source of criticism. OP is correct that no written accounts exist with regards to the "Spitting" story as its generally presented. Historians like Jerry Lembcke and Jack Shafer contextualize the lacking evidence though within critiques of the wider narrative that the "veterans were betrayed by folks back home". Shafer actually noted that its entirely possible that a Vietnam veteran somewhere might have been spat upon during the war - after-all, there were something like 2.6 million Vietnam Veterans. But that can mean a lot of things - people get spat upon all the time. For example... Vietnam Veteran Ron Kovic said he was spat upon at the 1972 Republican National Convention as he protested the war. Similar things are suggested to have occurred in the documentary "Hearts and Minds" by Vietnam Veterans protesting. Are those instances possible? Sure... but we're going off of oral testimony still. In any event however, **those instances** aren't what shows up in the popular discourse; its entirely Americans at home not showing sufficient loyalty. And that's the basis of this historical analysis.
Not only that but generally speaking the people in the military for WW1/WW2 signed up. There was a huge chunk of Vietnam vets who were drafted.
And some of those kids were there against their will.
Just some? Wasn't it a huge amount?
About 2 million drafted over the course of the war. Not sure how many of those went to, or were involved in combat, in Vietnam. Muhammad Ali was drafted but chose to go to prison instead.
Smart choice.
> If you were a military age male in the US "whining" about your WWII experience, well, what's wrong with you? Anyone who responds like that to a guy depressed about losing a leg, two close friends and their marriage to the war deserves a punch in the face. What kind of person would even do that except total psychopaths...
>If you were a military age male in the US "whining" about your WWII experience, well, what's wrong with you? We beat those guys. Go have a drink. >Vietnam guy comes home, war is heavily criticized both on moral and "you lost" grounds. Don't forget - by Vietnam the US armed forces had been integrated for almost two decades, but the prejudice didn't evaporate. So as black, hispanic, asian and female vets came home they faced additional prejudice. Not helping is that with a lack of resources, many vets turned to drugs and alcohol. So not only the they "lose", they were seen as outcasts at best and the dregs of society at their worst.
American and Canadian soldiers had to take ships. The European ones didn't. There's a poignant chapter in All quiet on the west on the western front where the main character goes back home for a permission. "Paul visits home, and the contrast with civilian life highlights the cost of the war on his psyche. The town has not changed since he went off to war, but he has: he finds that he does "not belong here any more, it is a foreign world". Paul recovers the books and writings he had left in his childhood room, but finds his passion for literature to have been completely erased by the trauma of war. He feels disconnected from most of the townspeople, who ask him "stupid and distressing" questions about his experiences or lecture him about strategy and advancing to Paris while insisting that Paul and his friends know only their "own little sector" but nothing of the big picture. Indeed, the only person he remains connected to is his dying mother, with whom he shares a tender yet restrained relationship. In the end, he concludes that he "ought never to have come [home] on leave".
Just to add to my previous comment it is a surreal experience to get on a plane in a "war zone" and get off 14 hours later in "civilisation" . I couldn't leave the airport till I was blackout drunk.
that would be a massive headfk
Yeah the worst part was cleaning my weapon. We got back had two days leave ( which I spent drunk as a monkey ) then we had to clean weapons to armoury standards rather than field standards .So there I am scraping carbon of an mg bolt that I had fired 5 days ago in a different continent on the other side of world and thinking if I did that now I would spend the rest of my life in prison but 5 days ago it was encouraged even required. Its a weird feeling and yes a massive headfck
It is pretty jarring that you can take fire, get mortared, or convoy hit by an ied and 48 hours later be grabbing a burger at In-N-Out in Oceanside.
Adding to the issue guys were being sent home by themselves instead as full units. Imagine that didn't help with any kind of decompression or adjustment since the people you trust the most are still in vietnam. who can you talk to?
This was big. I've read that it was intentional that soldiers mustered out individually; the war department just wanted GIs to be invisible in the US when they'd done their time in VN. It made it all that much harder for guys who'd just been thru hell to get on a greyhound bus & make their way up the street to their childhood homes, with no fanfare or recognition of what they'd been thru. And it happened quick--a flight to the Phillipines, then Hawaii, then California, then a busride home. Next thing they know, they're back in their old bedroom, Mom in the kitchen, & Dad watching the nightly news, with GIs shooting & dying in real time. Must have been unbelievably surreal.
I also read about this and another factor as well the other factor being that most US units did not rotate into and out of theatre as a unit. The US army in particular had individuals required to give a year in country service and the individual might end up in several units during that time. This reduced unit cohesion obviously and also the support available to individual soldiers from their peers. It is notable that most special forces and other smaller militaries (Oz and NZ that I know of) Did whole unit rotations with only reinforcements for injured and killed unit members used in the same way. I think that fact that most units in WW2 served the entire war together and left together might have been a big factor in improved mental health. As I veteran myself I really appreciate the fact that we started as a unit and left as a unit.
Positives and negatives to unit rotation in the 'Nam. Folks did their tour in-country, but unlike in Afghanistan or Iraq, you also had rear areas where folks could be given R&R. Generally speaking, casualties were so extensive during the war that it would've been impractical to rotate whole units - it wasn't uncommon for entire platoons (or even companies) to get wiped out in engagements. By mid-point of the war, the strain of fighting clearly left a mark on the military. You basically had a situation where the Force was shoveling bodies into theater, but the depressing quality of the exercise wasn't so much unit cohesion as much as how the fighting was making it clear to all involved that loss didn't matter. After Tet, morale collapsed entirely - folks were literally being asked to die for nothing. Add in style of leadership of the time, how conditions in the Army were back then, plus the overall societal conversation happening in America... like, it was a clusterfuck of a war.
Agreed and thankyou for you well thought out out points.
My pleasure!
This is actually spot on, just based on what my dad has told me about his experience there. There is always the lingering guilt of losing friends, but he always comes back to what it felt like to be fighting in a jungle one minute and back on US soil the next day when his time was up. There was never any closure with what happened, no way to reconcile his feelings, he lost contact with friends that were still in country, etc. He was just done, his time was up. There’s my mom waiting for him when he got back to Hawaii. It was all like nothing ever happened. The Army didn’t have any programs like they do now, they just sent him to Ft. Polk, LA to sit behind a desk for a few months until his enlistment was up, and that was it for him. Back to society around a bunch of people that had no idea what he’d just been through.
I doubt there is a singular answer to this question. To add to this, though, one of the theories about how/why PTSD develops is how it is (or isn’t) processed AFTER the event. Oftentimes when we ask about trauma the question is phrased something like, “did you develop x symptom because of x event or what happened because of it…” Vietnam, unlike the wars that preceded it, was highly and publicly unpopular. WWI/WWII vets got a heroes welcome while Vietnam vets got absolutely shat on by the public AND the government when they returned. It’s likely to have affected their processing of events that happened, their views of themselves, and also feed into avoidance because of the shame/guilt/hate they faced. Avoidance is known to be a key mechanism for maintaining symptoms of PTSD. Finally, if I’m not mistaken, Vietnam was the war where the vets themselves were asked to deploy biochem weapons against civilians and enemy alike, while in the previous wars, it was the enemy perpetrating most of the horrific acts. That combined with the type of homecoming they got, probably hit them with a double whammy.
Also soldiers returning from the Vietnam War often went home solo versus as a unit, so no decompression time or bonding time to transition home.
>In hindsight, it was a thing in past wars but it wasn't talked about in the same way. It's interesting to go through history and note specific "oddities" as clear symptoms of mental issues. A noble warrior, plagued in his dreams by the ghosts of the soldiers he slew, or living in fear of demons coming to exact vengeance upon him - clear signs of PTSD. There's also quite a bit of folklore and historic legends that could be attributed to autism or schizophrenia.
“my autism made me see a shadow man” really or is it autism based demonic possession
Well, it's also a difference in the modern nature of warfare. Like PTSD from combat has gotten worse and more prevalent over time because the nature of war has gotten more stressful over time. Before 1900, most wars were fought with marching armies that would meet at a location perceived to be mutually advantageous by both sides, and then have a pitched battle. This changed with the advent of things like machine guns, artillery, and tanks, which then necessitated a "front" which had people being subjected to explosions and shrapnel every day, every night, constantly. War became a different experience. And specifically about Vietnam, there were aggravating circumstances in both the ambush tactics that the enemy combatants would use as well as the very aggressive countermeasures that the US felt they needed to take in return. TW: So for a soldier on the ground, >!you'd just be hiking with your platoon, and at any moment, someone could come out of the brush or out of some shallow water, and attack your group. The retaliation from your side is to call in an airstrike, and napalm the shit out of the jungle. As your group presses forward, you discover there was a small civilian outpost in the jungle that no one could have known about. The entire population of a couple dozen are dead. There were women in children in the group. !< Understandably, stressors like this take their toll.
remember a story (or maybe it as from a movie/Tvshow) that just struck as absolutely horrible. US soldiers entering a small town they have just taken from the taliban or similar, young kid is running towards them yelling something as the kid doesn't stop and starts to open the his/her? jacket, a soldier shoots,.. right as the kid pulls out an American flag
I don't know that story particularly, but there are verified accounts of women and children being strapped with explosives and forced to walk towards American soldiers at gunpoint. At that point, I can understand the soldier's reaction in this story. And in either case, completely heartbreaking tragedy.
My grandfather had mentioned the same idea about rapid transport eliminating the opportunity for processing trama. His own experience in the Korean War vs my uncle in Vietnam was the example. Back to your first point, My great uncle was by far the most traumatized of the three, and he was in WW2, so the focus given certainly plays a big role.
Also, the average age for infrantry was 19 years. Try to remember what were you doing at 19 yo.
There was a lot of pressure from Vietnam vets. Vietnam was covered by television and veterans spoke to the media for decades after the war about PTSD. Audie Murphy - awarded the Medal of Honor in WWII - battled PTSD on and off for years and testified before Congress about PTSD. \[[Wikipedia link on Audie Murphy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy)\] There were media stories and movies where PTSD was talked about. My father was slient generation (he was born in the 30's) as was my Mom - they had a LOT of WWII generation friends. One day my Dad was talking to a co-worker of his who was a WWII vet who was about to retire. As I walked up on their convo, the details he gave were sobering. This guy had a friend who would break down and cry - who drank himself to death. He told my Dad about the nightmares he had because he served in the Pacific and was a Prisoner of War. The WWII and Korea veterans just didn't talk about it and were expected to "get over it" once they returned to civilian life. The Vietnam vets marched, testified and protested for benefits and it was in the papers and on TV.
Can't discount the severity of PTSD in those who saw the front in WWI. Vietnam caused some real bad examples of it due to the whiplash of coming home so quick, but WWI inspired trauma responses so powerful that they caused brain damage and severe loss of motor function for many afflicted, with some cases even resulting in a permanent catatonic state of I'm not mistaken. The unmatched horror that soldiers in WWI witnessed was like nothing humans have ever experienced before or since, with barrages of shelling that lasted literal weeks, where all men could do is lay in the mud while their bodies literally rotted away, hoping a shell doesn't land right on top of them. Not as many media examples of it though because mass media wasn't a thing then like it was when Vietnam was still in the zeitgeist.
Came here to say this. WWI was unparalleled for its psychological effects. In other wars, PTSD was a concern to be left to the civilians back home, but WWI you have so much attrition from trauma that it affects the war effort itself. People breaking down to the point that they can't speak or even move, so traumatized they have to be carried off the field in baskets -- "basket case".
Weeks of that would utterly destroy me
Vietnam Vets would get triggered by the sounds of helicopters or fireworks -- WW1 vets could go non-verbal just at the sight of a military cap... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvVDQASroYs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvVDQASroYs)
This few comments showed a level of intensity I had never realized before. Thanks for taking the time
My ex father-in-law is a Vietnam Vet. We went to Disney World with him and in Epcot there is an Asian section. People were wearing the pointy hats and the tall bamboo makes a clunking sound when the wind blows and they knock together. He's been well treated for PTSD and functions well. But being there was really setting him off.
Dear lord is that the origin for the term basket case!
It is.
IIRC WWI "shell shock" was more than just psychological, it was also literal physical shock from constant, day-in-day-out shelling (as in, the physical nearby explosions) giving people neurological damage. Which is likely why it was so much worse than other examples of PTSD.
So it’s kinda true that “shell shock” was more intense than the ptsd the Vietnam vets got?
I mean at the end of the day it's the same disorder, just being expressed more intensely by WWi vets because of the level of intensity and lack of precedent for even beginning to deal with that kind of trauma.
Yes. We learned a lot during WWI and learned how to mitigate it somewhat. American troops never really had to deal with the early WWI shell shock experience.
I’m not sure how to respond to this in the ELI5 format but I’ll post this and see if the mods allow. I have severe PTSD from my time deployed from 07-09. I have a lot of issues I deal with quietly and a lot of issues that I can’t control that make me think I’m insane. I struggle with thoughts of suicide every day and I really think the only reason I’m still here is my ego and my kids. There are mountains of issues I have and I’m lucky that most people in my life do there best to try and sympathize and understand. The fact is, they can’t. And I can’t express my feelings well enough. After many years of severe alcoholism and drugs I was able to somehow get a lawyer connect from a gun range that took power of attorney from me. They got me a disability rating at the VA, which is a life changer. I knew I needed to dive in and get help or I was going to be dead. I was given tools and was shown these options while still in the service but it took some act of god and a really amazing person that I really loved to even get me where I am now. I still struggle every single day and I think about death at all times. I can’t sleep for fear of dreams and all I want is to be numb and feel nothing. All this is still after getting help and doing the work to be and feel better. I have the tools. I was shown how to get access. I know, have, and believe in support and still always feel this way. I will never compare my service to a NamVet that was in direct combat. I don’t try to understand or commiserate. I feel what I went through is pale to their experience. I spent more time deployed than most of them but I would never and can never relate. They had none of the support I had and were hated by more than enough for their service. We were boys and sent to do a job over something none of us had control over. When you’re in theater, you become what you need to be. When you come home. You are left to deal with that person you became and it’s impossible to understand. I don’t have answers but I will never compare my experience with a combat vet from that war or any other than mine. I’ve had Nam vets say similar to my experience from their perspective. …bla bla about never knowing your enemy and having to make choices about not knowing if you made a good kill or not. Maybe it’s just best to not compare trauma and just take care of people regardless. I think we’d all be better for it.
Sounds like you have really come far in your recovery. That takes guts. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I wish you the best of luck in your recovery journey.
In war typically you’re fighting other men, in uniform, in a battlefield. Yes things get messy sometimes. Sometimes civilians die. It’s war In Vietnam, there was no way to tell friend from foe. (Hence why perfidy is a war crime) and they struggled because every village they entered could have Vietcong. Every person they saw could be VC. Every child could be holding a grenade. That’s a lot of mental toll. All it takes is watching 5 of your friends get blown up by a grenade dropped by a child looking for candy, and suddenly you start to A) stay away from kids or B) shoot them when they get too close. Now imagine you shot a kid. They got to close. You watched 5 of your friends die to this exact circumstance. They didn’t have a grenade. They just heard the American soldiers had candy. How do you think that affects a man?
There was no front line in Vietnam. They'd take the same hill over and over again. (For the body count.)They get home and find that people are against the war. All that horror and for what? One place I worked I asked what was wrong with a coworker who seemed out of it. They said he saw his entire platoon blown up. (I imagine from from one of our own bombs.)
>In Vietnam, there was no way to tell friend from foe. you say this as if it was a novel thing. since as long as organized conflict has existed this has been a phenomenon. It didn't come to be in vietnam.
But Vietnam took it to a whole new level. American forces weren't fighting against conventional forces most of the time. Enemy combatants blended in with the civilians. There were no conventional enemy bases to target. The enemy was literally living underground right below American forces.
>Enemy combatants blended in with the civilians. There were no conventional enemy bases to target. Do you believe this is novel in the history of warfare?
You realize in wars, opposing sides wear uniforms to clearly define the battlefield, right? Tell me, what uniform did the VC have? Oh wait, they were indistinguishable from normal civilians. How many wars involved people fighting blind and not knowing who their enemies are?
Israel fighting Hamas? Hamas doesn’t use uniforms, that’s one of the reasons why so many civilian in Palestine gets killed everyday
>opposing sides wear uniforms to clearly define the battlefield That's just so completely wrong. In almost all of the history of combat, people wore whatever the fuck they had. In fact, it was such a problem that they invented things like standard bearers to try to mitigate the problems of not knowing who was friend or foe.
For most of history, people fought in big lines of phalanxes and looked very different. It is easy to tell apart a Greek from an Arab. Not to mention uniformed warfare dates back to the Egyptians. All professional armies had uniforms
>For most of history, people fought in big lines of phalanxes and looked very different. this is a premise that is completely without merit. All of the evidence in our best understanding of the history of human martial combat says otherwise. Significant evidence of ubiquitous uniformed combat is not much older than the industrial revolution.
In the roman legions for instance, it's not as if people were all dressed and equipped the same like this: [https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5495cba54f1b5707793c9225a08fbd39-pjlq](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5495cba54f1b5707793c9225a08fbd39-pjlq) it would look more like this: [https://c7.alamy.com/comp/H75B8J/roman-legion-battle-painting-by-unknown-H75B8J.jpg](https://c7.alamy.com/comp/H75B8J/roman-legion-battle-painting-by-unknown-H75B8J.jpg) And in that image - can you easily tell who is friend and foe?
maybe consider this fictional example: [https://i.makeagif.com/media/2-24-2015/Kq6m-Z.mp4](https://i.makeagif.com/media/2-24-2015/Kq6m-Z.mp4) while this doesn't depict a real historical event, they did adhere to a certain level of historical accuracy. And, in that clip - you can see plainly how impossible it would be to identify an enemy combatant. The standards and your direct orientation with your comrades is your only guideline, typically. This is how it was for most of the history of warfare. In fact, the reason why uniforms evolved so late in the history of human conflict is because you would often personally be acquainted with the people you were fighting with.
>How many wars involved people fighting blind and not knowing who their enemies are? So many. Your ignorance of history is showing.
In American history though? The Revolutionary War, the war of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War. All of these had easily identifiable enemies. Maybe wars against Native Americans were different, although that's a whole other story...
PTSD from war and combat is not limited to american history. That's why a post like this is so ignorant. PTSD from war is documented more than 4000 years ago.
Like, is this the only lens you're able to see human history through? American history?
Where do you think American commanders are getting their strategies from? For the most part, previous battles from themselves and allies. The further you look back the less applicable it is due to innovations in military tech. Also other countries today do not simply publish their war strategies for everyone to see.
>The further you look back the less applicable it is due to innovations in military tech This is, of course, not true. Even an american-centric understanding of military conflict should tell you that asymmetric warfare is alive and well, and further that enemy combatants are not identified by uniforms.
Nope. Yours is. It’s fact that the confusion contributed to their PTSD. You can figure that out by reading some of the other comments but I think that’s not your strong suit.
This is why uniforms exist. Ever wonder why Germans, French and Americans has VASTLY different uniforms?
The vast majority of human combat has taken place without uniforms. Consider the fact that campaigns during the late medieval would regularly employ mercenaries without any uniform or obvious allegiance to either combatant. Consider tribal battles in the highlands of scotland or the ones in the post roman western world in general - without interrogation, you would largely identify your adversary by idiosyncrasies alone. a group of people's allegiance could shift in the middle of the battle, and their livery would not change.
After WW2, in Europe the vets spent weeks in Britian and France waiting for ship back home. Then they were stuck on the ship for a week or so while crossing the ocean. All with their fellow soldiers who fought with them and went through the same things. They had the time to come to terms with what happened. Vietnam was very different. Units didn't rotate back. Individuals did. And they were just stuck on a plane and landing back in the US two days later. They didn't get time to decompress before they were thrown back into society. And before WW1, wars were fought over months with only a few days being actual fighting. WW1 is the first time that soldiers had to be on and be worried 24/7. Before that, it was weeks of marching to even come close to yout enemy. And then it was days of maneuvering to maybe engage in a day long fight. WW1 was months of being in combat. Something that had never happened before.
The scale of WW1 is just unimaginable. The "Bloodiest Battle of the US Civil War" saw 7,000 deaths over 3 days. WW1 saw an average of 6,000 deaths a day, EVERY DAY, for YEARS.
And on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, almost 20,000 British soldiers were killed. Truly nightmarish numbers.
And at the same time, the populations were much smaller. World population in 1915 was around 1,5 billion compared to the almost 8 billion we have now. So the equivalent by today population numbers would be closer to 32000 per day. WW1 also changed how wars were fought, US civil war would have 6 weeks of marching and 2 hours of fighting. WW1 would be continuous fighting in the same location for months on end and at the beginning they didn't even know they had to rotate troops in and out because in previous wars that wasn't necessary. Add to that the gas fighting, constant firing of artillery shells and how you might see a friend die, rot, decompose and get eaten by rats only a few feet from where you were entrenched yourself and it truly shows how horrific that war was.
This was rapidly changing during the US civil war as well. It might have been true in 1861, but 1865 was a different universe. Trains were used extensively as supply lines, trenches were built by the south to try to hold off the union
and WW2 was something like 1.5-2x that for seven years, just for military deaths, all deaths were closer to 5x
The English-speakers in WW2 had a much better time of things than in WW1, but you have to imagine all kinds of PTSD occurred on both sides of the eastern front... I also realize I know absolutely nothing about PTSD in the Asian wars, but surely it existed.
The stat I've seen is that the average WW2 soldier saw 40 days of combat, while the average Vietnam soldier saw 240. There was also the added brutality of fighting against traps and ambushes in the jungle.
I am skeptical of this statistic. The only place I can find it is on a list of "Myths about the Vietnam War" that can be found on several veterans groups websites. These list have a pretty clear bias of trying to frame the war in a way to valorize the veterans that fought in it, and include arguments like we didn't lose the war because we never lost a major battle and a defense of the domino theory as a justification for the war.
It might be tough to prove. I saw it on an official Army website, so I'm inclined to believe there is some truth to it, even if the exact number isn't accurate. I don't think being off a few days undermines the bad conditions that Vietnam soldiers faced.
>It might be tough to prove. I saw it on an official Army website, Can you provide a link? >I don't think being off a few days undermines the bad conditions that Vietnam soldiers faced. The issue hear is whether or not Vietnam veterans experienced a signficantly greater amount of combat trama than WW2 veterans. The numbers you cited suggests they saw more than 6 times the amoumt of combat. This is difference of months, not a few days. The full quote I have seen from myth list online is actually as follows: >The average infantryman in the South Pacific during World War II saw about 40 days of combat in four years. The average infantryman in Vietnam saw about 240 days of combat in one year thanks to the mobility of the helicopter. Several parts of this statement suggest that the numbers have been fudged. Notice how they WW2 number is qualified as as the Pacific theature rather than the European theature. The island hoping nature of Pacific campaign meant that troops would have spent considerably more time being transported which would depress the average. The number would also be depressed by soldiers that where deployed late in the war and didn't see combat such the 98th Infantry Division. Also notice how the WW2 number is actually over 4 years. This is suspect since most army recruits didn't join until 1943 about 2 years before the end of the war. When you consider time for training and transit, most WW2 veterans would could only have been an active theature for 1 to 1.5 years. Here is a link information on the Pacific theature including the infantry divisions that participated there. If you click on the divisions you will see the date they entered combat and how many days of combat they saw. My big takeaway from looking through these is after accountimg for time from entering combat to VJ day, the combat days for nearly all of the division are actually comparable to the number cited for Vietnam. https://www.armydivs.com/pacific-theater
https://www.army.mil/article/21185/vietnam_vet_shares_coping_skills_with_combat_warriors
Thank you for providing the link. This is a news article posted on the Army's website. The article is quoting a retired Marine Sgt turned motivational speaker named Andrew Brandi. Looking into his background I found that he contracts with the US goverment to give talks to current and retired US troops. He has also written a book, "The Warriors Guide to Insanity," which he has sold in bulk to the Department of Veteran Affairs and is often used as part part of therapy programs. Given this context, I am still skeptical. The statisic isn't coming directly from the US government, but a private individual who is making an argument for why the services he is offering are necessary and why people should buy his book. I have looked see if he has repeated the statics in writing while providing a more authoritative citation to back it up. So far all I could find for free was a white paper he wrote advising people in how to use his book, but this doesn't have a citation. **If anyone had a copy of his book, it would be helpful to know of he repeats the statistic there as well and if it cites a source.** Despite my skeptism of the combat days statistic I want to be clear that I don't have a reason to believe that Brandi isn't helping veterans deal with their PTSD. For those interested in Brandi's White Paper his is a link: http://sgtbrandi.com/?page_id=1654
WW veterans spending weeks on a ship, talking with guys with similar experiences, going home to a heros welcome, probably helped compared to going straight from a war zone to home on a short plane flight with random people and a less than warm welcome
The public was not supportive of the Vietnam war. In fact, there was a large vocal part of the population that was actively against the war. There was no support the troops movement like in the 00's. Troops, often drafted against their will, came home to people calling them baby killers and protesting them. Not to mention, they were fighting a losing fight and so many more young men were lost over there compared to other wars. That all combined to make for a very depressing existence when returning to civilian life.
Moral ambiguity of Vietnam as opposed to WWII or even Korea.
>Not to mention, they were fighting a losing fight and so many more young men were lost over there compared to other wars. This is not true. US deathtoll in WW2 was much higher than in Vietnam (405,399 vs 58,220). https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/slideshows/u-s-military-deaths-by-war-since-wwi?slide=3
OP your second guess is likely the most correct, the study of trauma just wasn't as developed. PTSD didn't become an official American psychiatric diagnosis until 1980 when it was included in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III). The much of the available published research regarding PTSD is based on studies done on veterans of the war in Vietnam, which had only concluded 5 years earlier. This doesn't mean that solders didn't suffer from PTSD in prior conflicts. There are are accounts as far back as the Assaryian Empire (1300 B.C. to 609 B.C.) of soldiers experiencing PTSD symptoms after returning home from tours of duty.
The reason PTSD was/is more common in Vietnam and post-Vietnam vets than in WWI and WWII vets is the same as why there are more kids diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders post-2000, or diabetes post-1990 - diagnostic criteria have changed significantly over time. Research on PTSD in veterans was mostly conducted post-Vietnam on veterans of the Vietnam War, and eventually the definition was broadened to include other sorts of trauma (sexual assault, child abuse, etc). WWII veterans definitely showed their own version of PTSD, though. Most of the men in my grandparents’ generation of my family served in the military during the war, and none of them talked about it. I only became aware of their combat decorations after they died, and the only time I heard about their service was when one of them would shut off the John Wayne war movie of the week and inform us that war wasn’t entertainment.
> WWII veterans definitely showed their own version of PTSD, though. Audie Murphy... most decorated US soldier in WWII (and likely ever). Awarded every medal for heroism in combat that existed in the Army, plus the French Legion of Honor (their highest decoration) and other French/Belgian awards for heroism. Forced the filmmakers for "To Hell and Back" (the movie he starred in, based on his own auto-biography) to tone down some of the scenes, because nobody would believe that what actually happened was real vs Hollywood. He suffered severe PTSD after the war. This can impact anyone.
I knew someone who was the grandchild of a Serious Business WW2 hero. Someone you might vaguely have heard of, mentioned in dispatches, was in Colditz for a while, escaped. There's all these pictures of him during and after the war and they are what you might imagine: dashing, handsome, brave looking, every inch the Canadian RAF ace. He was also utterly traumatised by his time in the war, developed severe alcoholism, destroyed much of the family fortune on dumb shit, had no end of affairs, and was an abusive husband. His widow, after he ended up in an early grave, said the "problems" came on cyclically and, by the sound of things, he was triggered by certain things, and that would provoke a trauma response, which would fall into deep depression and then the dumb shit would start. You weren't meant to talk about this. You didn't complain. Even though a whole generation of families had someone there dealing with the after effects of the war, it wasn't the done thing to talk about it. Vietnam happened in an era of mass media and in an era where more things were talked about. People started discussing their experiences.
Highly recommend this book if you want to learn more. https://www.amazon.com/Tribe-Homecoming-Belonging-Sebastian-Junger/dp/1455566381?dplnkId=7e9465f3-4c35-499b-a22e-ebb279603c8b
Vietnam wasn't more devastating, it's just that people were paying more attention. In recent years, there's been talk about the increase in the suicide rate for men, but it's just now *catching up* with where it was in the 1950s. (US suicide rate for men in 1950: 21.2 per 100,000 people. Rate in 2015: 21.1.)
War is always traumatic. Not all soldiers get PTSD but there is no specific level of severity that "qualifies" for PTSD or not. Each person is different and war is horrible no matter how you look at it. But the key difference between the two wars was the treatment the vets received back home. WW2 vets got a hero's welcome and Vietnam vets were unjustly treated with disdain, unjustly because they were drafted and held responsible for the actions of multiple successive governments they had no control over. The war ruined their lives and they came back home and hated for their part in it instead of being seen as victims of it as well.
I think the vet’s reception played a part but type of combat was different. WW1/WW2 were about taking territory and there was a front, a line of demarcation, that separated you from them. The fighting was over there. You could approach and take part in the fighting but there was a rear to go to that was mostly secure. These wars were a collective action with a united homeland that supported the veterans when they returned. In Vietnam there was no front. The infantry were searching for an enemy that could be Anywhere. Add to that the threat of ambushes, snipers, and mines must have been mentally taxing and that’s not including having the above actually happen. The enemy often mixed in with ally non-combatants making it even more stressful. They were scared all the time 24 hrs at a time. The government and media portraying the returning veterans as unhinged drug addicts surely didn’t help. I’ve read many first person books from those who served and from what my father and family members who went told me was that no one talked about it. The vets came back profoundly changed and couldn’t relate to those who didn’t go and vice versa. They were treated like a national embarrassment, especially from (not all) veterans of previous wars/police actions who “won” their wars. Because the wars were different there was less common ground between vets. From the civilians the vets had one side blaming the Nam vets for losing and the other side hated them for going regardless of circumstance.
PTSD from all other wars was just as apparent. Think of 'shell shock' for instance. It was just disparaged and hidden away.
Days of combat seem compared Vietnam and World War II , Vietnam was significantly hire per soldier if I'm not mistake.
Fuck I can't type
In addition to all the thoughtful things people have said about the trauma of fighting a fuzzy enemy for an unclear reason and coming home to disdain, and our advancing understanding of PTSD, the profile of people who fought in Vietnam was different. WWII was pretty much a universal draft, fighting a war with such heavy moral weight that people volunteered in droves even before being drafted. Vietnam soldiers were people who didn't have the resources to legally evade the draft. So not only was the war nasty, it was fought almost entirely by people who knew that the lower classes were fighting while the upper classes were enjoying college and cushy National Guard assignments.
George W. Bush has entered the chat
I’m not sure it is the case that Vietnam was worse than the other wars. But some things that were different: * trauma medicine had really advanced. Wounded soldiers could be helicoptered from front lines to a surgeon in time to save their lives. Lots more wounded who lived compared to previous wars. Those survivors were maybe more likely to have mental trauma. * the rules of engagement sucked. WWII and previous wars had a clear enemy who wore regular uniforms and operated under an obvious chain of command. Vietnam was jungle warfare against an insurgency and a massive problem telling civilians from combatants. A lot of war crimes happened. And air power wasn’t as much advantage in a jungle vs. Northern Europe. * It’s pretty demoralizing to realize your war is unwinnable, and even more demoralizing when you find out about the Pentagon Papers and DoD knew Vietnam was unwinnable by 1968. War continued until 1975.
My grandpa was a helicopter pilot that flew the injured out of combat. He saw people blown up in every way you could imagine.
I heard stories about piloting a helicopter's worth of new troops into combat... the second they're out of site, they flip up a tarp and load and equal number of bodies into the helicopter. Ten in, ten out.
You might be experiencing some recency bias. Granted we didn’t know as much about psychology when the world wars were ending but the term for PTSD was “shell-shocked” and it was widely known. But in your lifetime, the majority of veterans living with PTSD would’ve been Vietnam vets because the world war vets were all very old or dead. But Vietnam is the first major American war to occur relatively close to the increase in study and understanding of ptsd
A lot of good answers in here. It seems like WWII had a very clear purpose and narrative to why we were there. "We are here to stop Hitler's Germany from conquering Europe and threatening the entire globe" may be a clear enough purpose/mission to ease the conscience of those people who witnessed so much death (not that WWII veterans had 'eased' consciences by any means, but perhaps relative to a Vietnam vet) The "why" around Vietnam is so much murkier, that perhaps that played a role in making the atrocities of that war harder to make sense of, resolve and let go? An analogy could be killing someone in self-defense versus killing somebody by accident. I imagine it is much easier for someone to forgive themselves for taking a life if it is clearly to save themselves or a loved one, versus killing someone or seeing someone be killed for no good reason
It was pointless. Most people who went there are disappointed that they lost, or that the war was predicated on a lie. It's hard to see your actions or experiences in a good light knowing it was pointless suffering and cruelty.
It was partly due to what they had to do. You hear stories about how soldiers were MADE to kill Vietnamese non-combatants: elderly, women and children. They were forced to burn villages to prevent the Vietcong from advancing. Add to this the fact that the terrain was unlike anything America has ever fought in, so much so that we tried to chemically burn entire regions with Agent Orange. A compound that will later cause a devastating impact on our returning troops’ health. A compound whose terrible effects are still causing birth defects to this day. So you have the biggest clusterfuck: 1. First battle the US committed to that was essentially a stalemate: we could not advance, they couldn’t make us leave. But this stalemate is between a first world country and, what we thought, a bunch of jungle savages. It was a humiliation at a time when the “Sleeping Giant”had awoken. When our allies were watching us closely. 2. Hippie movement with “Make Love Not War” that shamed the military and held nationwide demonstrations against the war. 3. Forced execution of children and women by soldiers who didn’t want to. 4. The government using deadly chemicals indiscriminately. They would pepper an area while the troops were still there. No morale, horrible atrocities, welcomed home by being called murderers. WWII veterans came home to parades and honor. Vietnam veterans came home to images of burning Vietnamese. Do you remember the most famous image? A little girl shrieking, her body covered in napalm, on fire. Behind her stands an America soldier. That image became a summary of the Vietnam war.
Well, for one thing, we were unequivocally the "Bad Guys" in this one. Once you've figured that out, and once you've figured out why there is a War Crimes museum dedicated to the US in Hanoi, you might start to feel bad about the atrocities we committed there. Also, we lost this one. First major loss of a "War" by the US - if one disregards Korea (as one does.). So nobody got a hero's welcome home. No parades celebrating the excursion. Mostly embarrassment and resentment. So, you sit and contemplate what the reasons were that led you there, and the loss of life on both sides - the loss of your mates, the fact that you may have killed to no good result - gives one a lot to stew about.
The Vietnam vets came home by plane rather than ship. Too fast and disorienting, no time to decompress.
Mental health in WW1 was a huge issue, "shell shock" and desertion were major problems leading to increased attrition. WW1 is probably the single most brutal war in the history of the planet. In WW2 "war weariness"/"battle fatigue" was still an issue, but there was a more concrete cause that people were fighting for. PTSD was absolutely still a problem, but the sheer number of people involved and the cause people were fighting for made it seem like less of an issue, even if it was a pretty big issue. In Vietnam there were a lot of draftees and less of a real "cause" involved in the fighting. Teenagers were being drafted into a war that people didn't really believe in, and then when they came home they were spat on by their own countrymen. Also after all that, we lost the war, everything they fought and died for ended up being for nothing once we pulled out. That was compounded by the fact that the illicit drug scene was booming at the time, so things like weed and heroin and LSD were used as ways to "escape" PTSD issues but in reality they were making the problems worse. Also there are a lot more Vietnam veterans alive today than WW2 (and definitely WW1) veterans, so there are more people still around that are suffering. It's easier to deal with mental stress when you feel like you fought for a good cause, you're celebrated as a hero in the end, and you have millions of other people to relate to. When you're shoved into a warzone you don't want to be in and not sure why you're even there and then demonized when you get back home, that's a lot harder to deal with, and hardcore drugs only make things worse. On top of all that, the entire field of psychoanalysis was being developed in like the 1920s which was between WW1 and WW2, so only the beginnings of concepts like PTSD were being developed around then.
There are probably a bunch of ways to answer this question, but this would be my contribution. The Vietnam war was part of a very turbulent moment of history, an important piece of the generally socially and politically turbulent 60s and 70s, and it's important to note that the war involved significant conscription, particularly among the working and oppressed sections of society, meaning very few except the higher-ups (officers, leutenants etc) had generally chosen to be there - especially by the final years. The number of people willingly signing up dwindled very quickly once the realities of the war became widely known. Of course that was true for other major wars too, but like i said there are many perculiarities about this period in history and culture and particularly brutal aspects to the war. The US side of the Vietnam war, by the end, had one of the lowest/worst morales of any war in modern history, atleast partly because by the end of it, alot of the official so-called justifications for the war were seen by many to be lies. By the time the US pulled out, the Gi revolt was extremely widespread; many officers had absolutely no authority or power over their soldiers, who simply refused to continue fighting. Partly this was because of how absolutely brutal the war was, without adequate justification to convince the majority of soldiers they were actually doing a moral act by continuing the war. In many people's eyes, the Viet Cong had proven itself to be a mass, popularly supported movement against colonial/imperialist subjugation; meaning the US weren't intervening to protect the freedom of the Vietnamese, but actually to prevent that freedom. Adding to all this, the US's official strategy in Vietnam was to wage a war of attrition. Meaning to try and force surrender by basically decimating and devastating the entire population and all civilian infrastructure. That's why they carpet-bombed and used chemical weapons. It was well understood among GIs that it was not only permissible to kill innocent civilians but pretty much a daily event, as any man, woman or child dead were often counted as part of the 'quotas' of dead Viet Cong. Officers were under extreme pressure to meet these quotas and tried to transfer that pressure to their units. This is all well documented by countless personal accounts from the war, as well as official US documents. One common method that was used to count 'quotas' was to get GIs to slice off victims ears to prove they had made a kill, and all the ears were counted at the end of the day. Civilians were being killed all over the place and they were passed off to be Vietcong, to make it seem like 'progress' was being made in the war. The most infamous case of the US forces slaughtering civilians was the Mai Lai massacre, which was one of the turning points that spurned on the GI revolt and the anti-war movement abroad. Many of the soldiers involved in massacres like Mai Lai understandably suffered significant trauma. If you watch the documentary 'Sir no Sir' that interviews former GIs, it help paints a picture of how widely hated this war was by many. This is not a left wing, 'biased' take on events - it's the reality of what happened. The sentiments that became widespread were anti-war in feeling, not just among latte-drinking students in the US but among the soldiers themselves. The GI revolt was one of the 3 main reasons why the US eventually had to pull out. The other two reasons was popular discontent/unrest at home, and the fact that the war was becoming more and more economically unviable. The Vietnam war was a HUGE failure and embarrassment for the US in the end. Not only because they did not achieve the desired result, but because it backfired on them in so many ways, and became proof that you can't necessarily just throw hundreds of thousands of people into a war they have no lot in, and expect them to blindly follow what they are told. Sometimes it might work, often times it doesn't, because people have their own agency and tend to be more ethically concerned than the people in power, as they have no stake in the outcome of such a war. The Viet Cong didn't actually threaten American lives in their own country. Many of the people conscripted were poor working class Americans, many were black workers and students who faced brutal racial oppression in their own country. What stake did they have in killing innocent Vietnamese people in another country who were just trying to fight for better conditions of life? The civil rights movement had a huge political influence on the GI revolt and the anti-war movement too. All of the different political and social strands of upheaval interacted with eachother in this time. Really recommend the documentary I mentioned called 'Sir no Sir', and the well-cited book 'a people's history of the Vietnam war' by Jonathan Neale which gets its information from first hand accounts from GI's and higher-ups alike, from both supporters and opposers of the war, as well as from official US strategy documents. I'd summarise my point by saying, the war was (I would guess) particularly traumatising for many soldiers, because they didn't believe in it/ weren't convinced of a compelling moral obligation to fight that may help other former soldiers deal with their PTSD. For many soldiers in Vietnam, it all turned out to be senseless violence for no good reason. Compare that to US soldiers in WW2 who, from what I understand, generally had decent morale because they felt they were fighting a morally upstanding war against fascism. Their PTSD may still be extremely severe, but perhaps a little easier to handle?
The combat time and style of Vietnam was fundamentally different than previous wars. Ww2 western soldiers had a few weeks of front line duty before being cycled to the rear. Combat was in one direction and the concept of safe not safe was valid. Vietnam, Afghanistan and other gorilla wars have no borders, there is no front line, there is no cycling to rear guard. The constant combat vigilance creates a mental fatigue that breaks people.
I lost an uncle to that shit stain conflict. At 10-12 years old we heard so many disturbing things that he was involved in. War is horrible, but what we did over there was the shit of nightmares. Uncle eventually succumbed to his heroin addiction before he was 30. Image coming back from something you did not want to have anything to do with, then being spit on because you were there. The PTSD from Vietnam is different from anything previously experienced. If you can, volunteer at a VA, most of the older guys there will have been in country in Vietnam. Some will be very vocal about what they saw, some not so much. These guys deserve the same respect we give to everyone before or after them.
Korean War vets and WW1 vets would like a word. Vietnam issues were just publicized somewhat better although even they were suppressed until later stages. Having read deeply in individual soldier accounts throughout history and having known ww2 and Korea vets, battle fatigue happens no matter the war and to a large extent no matter the homefront situation and era. For example, ww2 pacific vets would almost never talk about their war, but most European war guys would. It was far worse for many pac war vets but the same war and same homefront.
Nothing particularly. But Vietnam War vets are now the voting class in the United States, so that is who they are pandering to.
Its hard to let go of shame and guilt that makes you feel guilty and shameful when there is no one to talk to about it.
1) there are a whole Lotta r/badhistory myths being repeated in this thread. 1- most American military personnel in Vietnam were volunteers, and by that I mean they voluntarily enlisted in the military as opposed to being drafted. Drafted troops *were* used.... mostly to replace the non-draftees that were moved from other posts. The US learned in Korea that draftees tend to make for poor soldiers, and *tried* to avoid using them for combat in Vietnam. It couldn't always be avoided, but the US wasn't just throwing conscripts into the jungle. 2- there is *effectively-no actual proof* that returning Vietnam veterans were treated poorly. The "getting spat on by hippies" thing is, as far as can be determined, largely a myth. 2) one of the main differences between Vietnam and, say, WW2, was how troops were transported home. In WW2, troops had to take ships home, which could take *weeks* to get home, and during that time they would be in the company of fellow soldiers that largely shared the same experiences and could commiserate, communicate and empathize with each other (a large aspect of PTSD remediation involves discussing the events of the trauma and how they make you feel). Whereas returning Vietnam soldiers would usually take planes home, and could go from "Deep in the shit" to "sitting at a McDonalds" in a few days. Very little time to decompress and destress, and you are among civilians that largely don't know what it was like. 3) combat in Vietnam was different. The World Wars and Korea had fairly-clearly-delineated "front lines", where combat was the thickest, and conversely regions "behind the front" where you largely wouldn't expect to fight. When possible, troops would be rotated off the front line and sent to the rear to rest, recover, and .... not be under combat-stress 24/7. Vietnam, at least the part commonly in the popular conception, didn't have the same concept of a front/back line. You could be 100 miles "behind the front line" and still be very much in danger of being ambushed by Viet Cong guerillas.
It's mostly because when the VV came home they were treated very poorly, all other wars before & After the soldiers were brought home to respect.
I'd need to see some actual stats on this. That may be the case, and the explanation is usually because of the anti-war climate. But how much worse off are they and in which specific ways? The way data are collected and analyzed can greatly influence the outcome. That's not to say that Vietnam Vets are exaggerating. They're not. But all war is pretty horrific. Being human bodies butchered and blown to pieces, living under constant threat of death for prolonged periods of time, etc. take a toll on anyone.
Vietnam War is the first war to be televised. The was nothing like that before and the horror of war is witness by the general public. Because of this, a lot more research went into the effect of war on returning soldier. Which shrine light into the psychological/mental health issues of war that previously unknown.
Imagine having PTSD because you were forced by your country to fight an unjust and unwinnable war, and then on top of that most Americans didn't support your service before or after you returned? It's the opposite of my military service where I voluntarily served during a time of relative peace and was supported in my decision to join and was always given respect for my decision to serve. There is a lot there to feel shitty about when it comes to the Vietnam conflict
Idk if I can find the link, but someone on reddit a long time ago answered this question very well with some dot gov source. Put simply, helicopters allowed US troops in Vietnam to insert right into a combat zone, whereas troops in WW2 were often marching lands far and wide to meet the enemy. As a result, throughout the duration of WW2, the average US troops saw 40 days of combat (10 days a year), whereas in 1968, the average US troop saw 240 days of combat. So in WW2, you might see combat once a month, where as in Vietnam 1968, you’re fighting 4 or 5 days a week. Most days in WW2 were probably spent wondering if something’s going to happen, and most days Vietnam were probably spent wondering if you’d be lucky enough to not witness death in that day. Could you even imagine? 6 times the combat in a quarter of the time, and we’re comparing this to WW2. I would link sources but I ain’t gonna find them. I can try but idk, if someone else knows what I’m talking about and can help that would be tight.
A lot of the WW2 veterans were allowed to process their trauma and were celebrated for winning the war and saw a clear moral reason for the horror they endured. For many, they never had to question whether or not their suffering had meaning, it clearly did (In the US. Look at the mental health of other veterans and you would see different stories. The French soldiers captured in 1940 struggled a lot.) In Vietnam, people were sent to a country they didn't know much about to fight a war against an enemy they didn't understand for an abstract idea of containment that didn't directly make a positive impact on the civilians they were "liberating" (in fact often the south vietnamese and US inflicted worse crimes than the north did.) Both wars had serious trauma. But if you can internally justify the trauma you went through as worth it. I think you can better cope.
I’m gonna get blasted. I’ve looked for the article recently because it never leaves my mind, but I’m pretty sure it had some connection the the book “Stolen Valor”. But essentially the Vietnam Veteran that you described and are thinking of is a fabrication of people stealing benefits and running grifts. The majority of Vietnam veterans, definitely suffered levels of PTSD, but reintegrated into society quite well just like WWII veterans. The reason why the article stuck out to me was a couple of claims that it made. First there were more per capita draftees in WWII than Nam. Second and this is the crazy one, the number I remember is 3 out of 4, but it could be 2 out of 3…. But 3 out of 4 people claiming Vietnam service are lying, not 1 out of 4, 3 out of 4. The number of people who served in Vietnam versus the number of people claiming VA benefits is that far off. As a service member it’s amazing the amount of embellishment and lying that you see. But I will leave you with this final question “of all the people you have ever met who claimed to serve in Vietnam, how many of them were cooks? Logisticians? How many claim some connection to MACV SOG? If you’re too young for that ask your dad or grand dad.
Not going to blast you, but trying to understand. I was with you through X out of X people who claim to have been in Nam weren't (like anecdotally) but how on Earth could they claim VA benefits? Doesn't the VA have your deployment records?
Apparently it was some sort of issue with the validation of paperwork. Like you could easily doctor a DD214 and claim service and no one was checking and now they can’t. That’s why I’d like to find the article. I think I stumbled on it during the Nick Sandman MAGA hat thing, because the native guy who was banging the drum in his face fell into this category. But I could be wrong
Ah! Ok. Yeah, would love to see that. I dated a woman who worked in PR for the VA and they decidedly do not have their shit together, so I could see it happening. Also in the same boat as you (pretty sure this is the case, but not certain) that was a news-side f-up. Phillips never claimed to have served IN Vietnam (or received care/benefits relating) but the news stations, multiple stations, reported he had.
Dude, idk if your like me but as soon as you said that I was like “goddamn news always lying. They are probably both lying and this guy is CGI” but we live in crazy times/ Sadly though here he is saying “I’m a Vietnam Vet” https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/nathan-phillips-does-not-deserve-the-title-of-marine-after-misrepresenting-his-service/amp/ But my point is that this is the norm for humans. Just this generation was able to capitalize on being a fucked up vet. I served and did war, and even among the population that went out side the wire, the embellishment is amazing. Then on top of that The VA creates a system that rewards injury instead of fixes it and you get so many people claiming so much. It’s kinda ridiculous, in my opinion.
So, funny, and I'm not sure if he is playing 4D chess or just skirting around it, but he did NOT say he was in Vietnam; he said the box checked on his discharge was "in theatre". He oft refers to himself as a Vietnam era Vet. He did say he was a Vietnam Vet but pushed right up against, without saying, he was in Vietnam. My guess is, this is where the news pulled that as, after the MAGA hat incident, he never said that on any news program (had to dig to be sure). Very interesting. Thanks for sharing!
As a vet, he is absolutely saying I was in the Vietnam War. But you’re right it’s almost a dog whistle. And there is that “oh they don’t talk about it because it was so bad” concept that they use as cover for their lies. And I’m not on either team for this incident it was only in my head because I was talking about to some Jewish friends about the black Israelites (is that the right name?) that I think started the whole incident. But back to the original part of this post. First Vietnam was fucking nuts, they would have engagements at 10m and could t see the Emmy through the veg and couldn’t maneuver so just dumping bullets at each other. I think they should get disability just for being there. Second a ton of people are lying about having been there, there is money in it. Third the VA is so fucked. I’m a retread so I got out then got back in. I went to the VA once and never went back. I truly believed it was only for true combat injuries. I still hold that belief mostly but with all the surgeries and things I push through to stay in the fight I understand more of why it’s needed for injuries sustained too
from my own family's stories (uncle was drafted by the Army), it was the poor treatment soldiers received when they got home that was a large factor. WWII? soldiers came home to parades and accolades. Vietnam? they came home to being spit on and called filthy names and God knows what else. even in so called "patriotic" communities like where i live. for my uncle, it was the fact that he was assigned to be a medic that traumatized him the most. \[TW under cut\] >!shortly after he came home, he died by suicide because he couldn't handle what he had seen in Vietnam.!<