Reevaluating Society's Perception of Shell Shock:
A Comparative Study Between Great Britain and the United States
By Annessa Cathleen Stagner
West Texas State University
The combination of traditional fighting techniques and new technology in World War I forced both soldiers and officers to face devastating situations that tested not only their courage, but also their mental strength as well. While society had taught men to be tough and brave at all times, many broke upon enduring the horrifying environment of the trenches. It is obvious that men's ability to hold on to such an extreme ideal of manhood was unrealistic; however, many men tried. Jessica Meyers quoted Private Miles, who explained his emotional conflict saying, "I was frightened out of my life at nighttime. I was jellified, but I was more afraid of people knowing that I was afraid-- just a sort of bravado-- I mustn't show them I was afraid."  Like private Miles, many men tried to suppress their emotions, stay in control, and live up society's standard of masculinity. The devastating impact of war on soldiers, however, quickly forced society to confront the inability of soldiers to maintain society's idealistic courage. Some returning soldiers suffered through nightmares, while others suffered physically, exhibiting nervous twitches, blindness, or limb dysfunction.  In 1915, physician C. S. Myers unknowingly acknowledged the result of soldier's mental conflict between idealistic courage and survival leading to a form of nervous disorder, which he termed shell shock. 
The large number of soldiers affected by shell shock continues to engage World War I historians even today. "The heightened code of masculinity that dominated in wartime was intolerable to surprisingly large numbers of men."  Nearly 80,000 men in Britain were diagnosed with shell shock during the War, and the number of cases continued to rise after the War ended. Some estimates, including undiagnosed soldiers, claim 800,000 British cases and 15,000 American cases.  Shell shock was not just a disease of the common soldier either. Myra Schock acknowledged "historians have generally taken it for granted that officers experienced shell shock in far greater numbers than soldiers of other ranks."  Inevitably numerous soldiers from all ranks were diagnosed with shell shock, thus having a tremendous impact on all of society.
Shell-shocked soldiers made an impression on society not only because of their sheer numbers, but also because they called into question masculine ideals of the era. Governments suddenly found themselves confronted with sizable numbers of men who claimed to be unable to fight, but showed no visible signs of wounds. After the war ended, society had to face those same men who remained in a strange mental state. To adequately interpret and judge both societies' reactions to shell shock, it is important to examine how the governments dealt with it, and how opinion makers, through writers and especially the media, reacted to their actions. By examining the Times as well as the New York Times one is able to gain an understanding of what the views influencing the public were, not only during the war, as some historians describe, but also after. It is only then British and American societies' reactions to shell shock compared to those of their governments can be exposed.
During World War I, the British government's primary focus was to keep as many men available for service and in the field as possible. Shell-shocked soldiers directly hindered the army's ability to successfully wage war because their inability to fight decreased the army's number of active troops. Myra Schock pointed out the conflict doctors experienced when trying to balance their governmental obligations with their own sympathy for the mentally strained soldiers. The doctors knew firsthand what shell shock felt like and realized it as a genuine sickness among the troops. However, the British government viewed shell shock as a form of malingering, deserving court martial, and many soldiers "were shot for cowardice, even when doctors argued that the accused was suffering from a medical condition caused by trauma and/ or shell shock."  Schock stated British "doctors attempted to draw firm distinctions between their service as doctors and their role as members of the armed services at war."  The British government clearly put pressure on doctors and officials to treat shell shock harshly, not as a disease, but as a form of malingering.
Other historians have argued the government became more sympathetic when it became evident that those affected were experienced soldiers and officers. Joanna Bourke stated, "society as a whole acknowledged that of those affected, some had war medals for valiant behavior under fire."  They were not cowards, but some of the best fighting men Britain had. Instead of acknowledging the disease's legitimacy among the troops, however, the government still discredited many of its victims. Attempts were made to "protect" officers of high status by classifying them as victims of "anxiety neurosis" or "neurasthenia," while common soldiers were classified as victims of "hysteria neurosis," a purely feminine disease.  The differing titles reflected the British government's willingness to make a clear distinction between the legitimate illness of its officers and the unfounded appeals of its psychologically weak common soldiers.
While the government did not intend to allow shell shock to hold any legitimacy among its troops, experienced soldiers' and officers' traumatic experiences convinced to advocate for proper treatment of the shell-shocked soldiers. Virtually ignoring the existence of shell shock within common soldiers initially, Peter Leese suggested the government proceeded to improve treatment only as a result of strong public opinion.
Shell Shock Patient
On the Home Front, the army could not completely ignore the journalists, politicians and soldiers who discussed shell shock, so here too it became necessary to limit the conditions definition and rework its meanings, especially by promoting a limited, empirically defined view of the disorder in educational talks and semiofficial public appeals. By promoting the cure of officers in 'special' hospitals, it never the less became possible to incorporate the condition into public notions of 'honorable' suffering. 
According to Leese, the public's initial interest in shell shock persuaded the British government to give the soldiers proper treatment. After realizing the potential anti war threat shell-shocked soldiers produced, the government took action to ensure shell shock would become a subject that would rally the people in favor of the war effort rather than against it. Agreeing with Leese, Jessica Meyer noted in her dissertation that "by controlling of diagnosis and treatment the [British] government was at liberty to recognize whichever theory of causation and treatment suited it."  The government initially did little to protect the shell shocked; however, they later became eager to utilize the soldiers' condition in their own efforts to curtail pubic opinion.
While holding the same ultimate goal of the British government, that of maintaining troops, the United States government dealt with shell shock differently. The government strove to prevent the public outcry and large losses of combat ready men shell shock had produced in Great Britain. "At training camps, the aim was to weed out as many potential shell-shock cases as possible through rapid psychiatric interviews and intelligence tests, used for the first time on a mass scale."  Robert Zieger stated that "American psychiatrists and other medical officers largely avoided the 'treatments' that some British counterparts continued to inflict."  The United States government decided to accept the treatment of shell shock as a sickness, rather than punish those soldiers for malingering. 
The governments' views of shell shock due to their actions in denying it legitimacy or helping to prevent and treat it can be fairly simply defined. The general public's perception of shell shock, however, is somewhat more difficult. Both governments strove to deal with shell shock in light of their own war efforts. The British denied its legitimacy in order to discourage what they considered malingering, while the United States hoped to keep up home-front morale through preventative screening.
Most likely, the general public knew little about how shell-shocked soldiers hindered military efforts. However, they quickly became aware of the disease's social implications. The soldier had not only failed at being a courageous hero, but had fallen subject to hysteria, a purely feminine disease. Some doctors even called it hysteria, which emphasized the soldiers' inability to maintain their masculinity. Female Malady stated, "signs of physical fear were judged as weakness and alternatives to combat- pacifism, conscientious objection, desertion, even suicide-were viewed as unmanly."  Upon realization that soldiers' self-control over their emotions was unachievable, shell shock destroyed society's ideal masculinity.
One of the most obvious ways to identify society's conflict between shell-shocked soldiers and masculinity can be seen through the work of popular World War I writers such as Rebecca West and Siegfried Sassoon. Rebecca West's novel The Return of the Soldier generated sympathy for Chris, a shell-shocked man who returned home without any memory of his former life. In her novel the shell-shocked soldier was welcomed home, and the reader was made to feel much compassion for him as he and his family struggled to return to normal life. The welcoming family, although restless at times, still remained patient and dedicated to Chris's recovery.
West's novel spoke of excellent relations between shell shock victims and society, yet not all works of literature portrayed that same positive ending. Sassoon's famous poem "Survivor," by contrast, portrays a vividly negative image of how society viewed the shell-shocked soldier.
|...the shock and strain / Have caused their stammering, disconnected talk. / Of course they're 'longing to go out again,'-/ These boys with old, scared faces, learning to walk./ They'll soon forget their haunted nights; their cowed / Subjection to the ghosts of friends who died-/ Their dreams that drip with murder; and they'll be proud / Of glorious war that shattere'd all their pride.../ Men who went out to battle, grim and glad; / Children, with eyes that hate you, broken and mad. 
Shell Shock Patient
According to Sassoon, society did not sympathize with shell-shocked soldiers, but rather rejected them completely, referring to the hatred of children. Interpreting society's view based on his work is also difficult because it is unclear whether he acknowledged actual existing hatred or simply wrote to encourage sympathy. Paul Fussell noted the importance of Sassoon's work, but also reminded his readers that "the further personal written materials move from the form of daily diary, the closer they approach the figurative and the fictional."  It must not be taken for granted that Sassoon's writings, although mostly in prose, may still be far from factual.
Articulate and passionate writers such as West and Sassoon vividly expressed their own views of the societies' reentering shell-shocked soldiers. How accurate their portrayals were, however, is difficult to interpret. Just as governments were influenced by their hope to keep men on the front, West and Sassoon may have also been influenced by personal experiences. Sasssoon, for example, had served on the front and arguably experienced shell shock first hand. Governmental actions and popular writers clearly prove, however, that shell shock was indeed a topic of discussion for numerous groups of people, and as a result quickly found its way into popular, universal discussion outlets in the media. Popular newspapers such as the Times of London and the New York Times reflect society's interest in shell shock through numerous articles and editorials. In England and America, large newspapers allowed opinion makers to develop and maintain views of shell shock that reflected not only their own beliefs, but the general views of their own society as well.
Because of Great Britain's early entrance into World War I, the Times of London was one of the first to report on the development of shell shock among troops. As early as May 25, 1915 an article in the Times entitled "Battle Shock: The wounded mind and its cure" validated the new disease and possible psychological treatments.  In late 1916 articles began focusing on the shaken soldiers, urging sympathizers to support men who desperately needed treatment and rehabilitation facilities.  Early on, then, despite their government's lack of acknowledgement, British opinion makers were quick to recognize the growing problem of shell shock and encouraged compassion. Peter Leese confirmed society's early initiative to investigate shell-shocked soldiers' treatment. "In 1915, the initial concern was wrongful certification, and throughout the war there was public apprehension that war heroes were locked in asylums against their will and to the shame of the nation."  The fear that shell-shocked soldiers were being court-martialed further concerned the public. In the Times on December 19,1917, Mr. Chancellor tried to reassure the public by stating that no soldier was shot before being examined by a medical officer. 
Initially, writers of the New York Times also took interest in learning more about shell shock. Although much later in February 19, 1918, the first article informed its readers of the new medical language, discussing causes, prevention, and possible cures, such as music and electrical shock.  The United States government's approach to shellshock as a legitimate disease meriting early intervention, however, meant no need or concern for the court martial of soldiers. The news stayed informative, serving only to update the public in new discoveries.
Many historians confine opinion makers' portrayal and stance on shellshock within the War time frame itself. Based on the United States' early intervention, they contend that Americans maintained their sympathies towards shell-shocked soldiers while British society's sympathy remained unsupported by their government until much later in the War. Robert Zieger, for instance, believed America's compassion for victims of shell shock was made evident by the governments amazingly sympathetic treatment techniques. Anthony Babington stated "the Americans adopted a more understanding attitude towards their shell-shocked men at the front and treated them less harshly."  American psychiatrists and doctors on the front may have treated their patients better compared to the British, but the United States' publics' view of shell shock after the War, or how long their initial view lasted, is not identified. Zieger, Babington, and others lead one to assume attitudes toward shell shock never changed, yet society must have been impacted by the sudden influx of those soldiers back into their homes, businesses, and communities after the War ended. Examination of opinion makers' news and editorials further reveal a clear shift in views towards shell shock, and a distinction between wartime attitudes, assumed to carry on after the war, and the actual attitudes of opinion makers in postwar society.
Medal of Honor Recipient
Wear of Battle
The Times continued to sympathize with shell shock victims throughout the War. "The notion that war could produce mental as well as physical casualties was soon accepted and caught the public's imagination because it seemed a manageable problem that could be dealt with quickly and easily."  Towards the end of the War and directly after, public opinion in Britain gained such momentum and strength that it forced the British government to take action to preserve their own reputation and ensure the public's support of the war effort. "Initially a potential threat to morale on both the Western Front and the Home Front, then, shell shock was later used to help promote the war effort and enhance the idea that the state was engaged in a dedicated campaign to assist the well-being and health of its soldiers."  Using the media, the government rallied people to sympathize with shell-shocked victims, and the Times reflected the government's efforts. While a large portion of articles responded to the public's fascination and interest in the patients and how they were to be cured, articles increasingly noted and complimented new government treatment facilities, reflecting the government's successful involvement and effort in molding the public's perception of shell shock. 
American's sympathy for the shell-shocked never fully developed after the war as it did in Great Britain. Norman Fenton stated, "the average American was sympathetic with the war neurotic and yet at the same time regarded him with something of the fear of the unknown."  Nathan Hale believed, "despite an immediate American interest in 'shell shock' when America entered the war, more than three times more popular articles dealt with psychoanalysis than with the war neuroses from 1915-1921."  It is important to note, however, that instead of the government intentionally working to mold public opinion as it did in Great Britain, it was individual psychiatrists in the United States who "tried to arouse sympathetic understanding for shell-shock victims... defending them against what they believed was ignorant and unreasoning prejudice." 
Psychologists wrote in the New York Times in articles such as "War Has Made Many Medical Problems" by Dr. S. W. Lambert and "Snug Harbor for the Shell Shocked," which described the treatment of the shell-shocked in a new hospital.  Although psychologists tried to maintain the American public's interest in shell shock, however, they were unable to maintain the sympathetic view held so strongly by the British.
Shell Shock Patient
Even months after the war ended, the initial understanding the British government had fed its society during the war continued to influence the public's views. Leese commented that "after the peace settlement the issue of war neurotic ex-service men provided a symbolic rallying call for those concerned with the proper treatment, cure and readjustment of all veterans."  The general public took up the cause of veterans and worked to help in their rehabilitation. On March 1, 1920, an editorial in the Times called for volunteers who would "adopt" a shell-shocked soldier to aid in his recovery.  Another article in June 14, 1920 encouraged people to treat shell-shocked soldiers in a friendly way in order to support them in their rehabilitation into civilian life. Beginning in 1921, the public focused its attention on the reports of the War Office Committee Inquiry into Shell Shock headed by Lord Southborough.  The committee drew conclusions on how shell-shocked soldiers had been treated on the front as well as at home by their government, and investigated the heated question of court martialling of shell-shocked men. The articles reveal opinion makers' positive, accepting view of shell-shocked men, as they used neutral, medically toned language through terms such as nervous ills and neurasthenic soldiers.
A few articles in the United States followed the same pattern of interest and concern in shell shock. Touchstone magazine published in New York "hoped to make the rehabilitation of such veterans its major war work."  The majority of articles, however, did not portray the men in such a positive light. Norman Fenton suggested shell shock was viewed with sympathy in America, yet he also stated that "it ran on to the weirdest fantasy of insanity. For instance, a veteran arrested for cutting off a girl's braid was given publicity as a case of shell shock."  The New York Times confirmed the negative, contradictory American perception of shell shock. Unlike those in Great Britain, American shell-shocked soldiers were labeled insane or mentally deranged in almost every article.  As early as January 8, 1921, one article was entitled "Insane ex-soldiers put with criminals."  Although the majority of articles seemed informative, the language they use clearly classified soldiers with shell shock as dangerous outcasts of society. "Insanity" and "mentally deranged" delivered a very different message to readers compared to the British terms of nervous ills and neurasthenic soldiers.
America's attitude towards shell shock shifted once again in the summer of 1922
with a surge of instances in which shell-shocked soldiers were seen as violent and harmful.  On May 30, one article described a man who upon becoming angry broke the glass office partition in a Red Cross center. The article dramatized the situation by including the remark, "women screamed and fainted," to categorize shell shocked men as not only violent, but also dangerous to fragile women.  A little more than a month later, the very next article relating to shell shock described a veteran who heard a cannon and "los[t] his mind." The article again exaggerated the unpredictability of shell-shocked men and their threat to society stating it took "a dozen comrades" to overpower him and take him to the hospital.  Another similar article described a soldier who escaped from his hospital. The article called special attention to the fact that he had "knocked down a young woman and continued running until he was caught by a traffic police man."  Even as late as December an article portrayed an escaped shell-shocked veteran as a harmful criminal who had to be stopped. 
While many historians believe American opinion makers held a much more sympathetic view of shell-shocked soldiers both during and after the War, the vast number of articles in the New York Times does not support their claim. Initially Americans seem to have been more sympathetic, but it was only the government who, aware of the consequences of the British government's mistake in ignoring shell shock, took measures to prevent the same problems. The British government's intervention and the public's concern for court martial preserved the care and sympathy of the mentally wounded men even after the war. Despite psychiatrists' efforts, Americans, on the other hand, quickly lost interest in the soldiers' care, instead portraying them as outcasts, labeling them insane, and characterizing them as destructive, unpredictable, and violent.
It can be said that some historians have neglected the fact that a government's actions do not always necessarily reflect the general public's perceptions and beliefs. British society continued emphasizing their government's initial mistake in dealing with shell shock, while American society neglected to even acknowledge the significant impact early intervention and treatment had for the shell-shocked soldier, and how well their government dealt with the situation. While the British government did in fact treat their mentally wounded men with incredibly less sympathy during the war, it is forgotten that after the war, the public did in fact act to sympathize and advocate for the returning soldiers. On the other hand, while the United States government was significantly more sympathetic to shell-shocked soldiers during the war, American society certainly did not treat returning soldiers with the sympathy and admiration they deserved.
Shell Shock Patient
Whether or not governmental actions are the sole cause of why the two societies initially reacted similarly, but then developed different perspectives is a question that remains to be researched. The inner workings of public opinion are multifaceted, not limited to governments, writers or opinion makers and are often affected by other issues such as economic stability and world events. For the time being, however, it must be taken into consideration that although the American government was accepting of shell-shocked victims, the American public's sympathy quickly deteriorated after the war, while British society became a strong advocate of their injured soldiers' rights.
1 Jessica Meyer, "Shell-shock within Narratives of Loss in Britain, 1915-1939" (MA Degree supervised by Dr. Jay Winter, Pembroke College. Cambridge 17 July 2000), 52.
2 For examples of various symptoms see Elmer Ernest Southard, 1876-1920. Shell-shock and other Neuropsychiatric Problems Presented in Five Hundred and Eightynine Case Histories from the War Literature, 1914-1918 ((c1919). Reprinted New York: Arno Press, 1973).
3 Jay Winter and Blaine Baggett. The Great War and the Shaping of the 20th Century (New York: Penguin Studio 1996), 212.
4 Elaine Showalter, Female Malady: Women, Madness, and English Culture, 1830-1980 (New York: Pantheon, 1985), 172.
5 Nathan Hale, The Rise and Crisis of Psychoanalysis in the united States: Freud and the Americans, 1917-1985 (New York: oxford University Press, 1995), 15.
6 Myra Schock, "Healing the Patient, Serving the State; Medical Ethics and the British Medical Profession in the Great War" (Ph. D. diss., University of California at Berkeley, 2000), 149.
7 Ibid., 111.
8 Ibid., 101.
9 Joanna Bourke, Dismembering the Male: Men's Bodies, Britain and the Great War (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996),111.
10 Winter and Bagget, 212.
11 Peter Leese, Shell Shock: Traumatic Neurosis and the British Soldiers of the First World War (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2002), 66.
12 Ibid., 32.
13 Hale, 16.
14 Robert Zieger, America's Great War: World War I and the American Experience (Lanhan, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc, 2000), 110-111.
15 Ibid., 17.
16 Showalter, 172.
17 "Survivors" Craiglockhart. Oct. 1917 in Collected Poems of Siegfreid Sassoon (New York, The Viking Press, 1949), 90.
18 Paul Fussell, The Great War and Modern Memory. (London: Oxford University Press, 1975), 310.
19 Times (London), "Battle Shock: The Wounded mind and its cure: A special Hospital (By our Medical correspondent) 25 May 1915.
20 See for example Times (London) "War Shaken Men: The Treatment of the Neurasthenic: Plea for Institutions" 27 November 1916, and "For War Shaken Men: Treatment of Neurasthenics" 28 December 1916.
21 Leese, 57.
22 Times (London), "Soldiers Shot for Cowardice" 19 December 1917.
23 For articles on causes see for example Times (London), "Shell Shock not Serious" 2 July 1918 and "Minds as Affected by Battle" 3 July 1918. For prevention see Psychologists teaching Soldiers" July 5. For possible cures see "Men from Trenches in Hospitals here" 19 February 1918, "Shell Shock Mastered, Physician reports" 10 May 1918, and "Preparing to Care for Shell Shocked Men" 4 June 1918.
24 Anthony Babington, Shell-shock: a History of the Changing Attitudes to War Neurosis. (London: Leo Cooper, 1997), 107.
25 Ibid., 58.
26 Leese, 63.
27 See for example Times (London)"Mending the Broken Soldier: Our Debt to the Surgeon." 12 August 1916, "Cure of Shell-shock: Organization of Homes of recovery: Sgt. Collie's Scheme." 14 June 1917, "Neurasthenic Cases." 28 March 1918, and "Neurasthenia and Shell-shock." 16 April 1919.
28 Norman Fenton, Shell Shock and its Aftermath. (St. Louis: the C.V. Mosby Co., 1926), 86.
29 Hale, 21.
30 Ibid., 21.
31 New York Times, "War Has Made Many Medical Problems." 3 March 1918 and "Snug Harbor for the Shell Shocked." 2 January 1921.
32 Leese, 123.
33 Times, "Friends of the Shell shocked Guild for Practical Help-march 1 1920.
34 See for instance Times (London),"Shell Shock" 29 April, 1921, "Prevention and Cure of Shell Shock: Terms of War Office Inquiry" 2 September 1921, "Shell Shock: Social Significance of Courage" September 1921, and "Shell Shock Inquiry: War Office Committee Report" 13 May 1922.
35 Hale, 21.
36 Ibid., 87.
37 Refer to Table 1.
38 New York Times, "Insane ex-soldiers put with criminals" 8 January 1921.
For more articles labeling soldiers insane or mentally deranged, see "Reports on War Disabled: Treasury office says 40% of them are Mentally Deranged" 1 January 1921, "Sick and Insane Soldiers Increase" 16 January, and "70,000 Insane Soldiers Uncared For" 4 April 1921.
39 Refer to Table 2.
40 "Crazed Man Scares Red Cross Workers" 30 May 1922.
41 New York Times, "Shell Shocked veteran at Peakskill hears Cannon and Imagines He is Again in War" 17 July 1922.
42 New York Times, "Shell Shock victim flees" 3 August 1922.
43 New York Times, "Insane Veteran Trips Guard and Escapes; Held for Annoying Mrs. Raymond T. Baker" 23 December 1922.
New York Times
Southard, Elmer Ernest. Shell-shock and other neuropsychiatric problems presented in five hundred and eightynine case histories from the war literature, 1914-1918. (c) 1919. Reprinted New York: Arno Press, 1973.
Badsey, Stephen. "Mass Politics and the Western Front." BBCi online (May 26, 2003) .
Bourke, Joanna. "Shell Shock during World War One." BBCi online (May 4, 2003) .
Spiller, R. J. "Shell shock." American Heritage 41 (May/June 1990): 74-86.
Weinberg, S. Kirson. "The Combat Neuroses." American Journal of Sociology 51 (March 1946): 465-478.
Young, Allan. "W. H. R. Rivers and the War Neuroses." Journal of the history of the Behavioral Sciences 35 (Fall 1999): 359-378.
Babington, Anthony. Shell-shock: a history of the changing attitudes to war neurosis. London: Leo Cooper, 1997.
Bourke, Joanna. Dismembering the Male: Men's Bodies, Britain and the Great War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Fenton, Norman. Shell Shock and its Aftermath. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby Co., 1926.
Fussell, Paul. The Great war and Modern Memory. London: Oxford University Press, 1975.
Hale, Nathan G. The Rise and Crisis of Psychoanalysis in the United States: Freud and the Americans, 1917-1985. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Hart, Bernard. The Modern Treatment of Mental and Nervous Disorders: a lecture delivered at the University of Manchester, on 25th March 1918. London: Manchester University Press, 1918.
Hynes, Samuel. A War Imagined: the First World War and English Culture. NewYork: Atheneum, 1991.
Leese, Peter. Shell Shock: Traumatic Neurosis and the British Soldiers of the First World War. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2002.
Showalter, Elaine. Female Malady: Women, Madness, and English Culture, 1830-1980. New York: Pantheon, 1985.
[Sassoon, Siegfried]. Collected Poems of Siegfried Sassoon. New York: The Viking Press, 1949.
Sassoon, Siegfried. Sherston's Progress in The Memoirs of George Sherston. Garden City, New York: Country Life Press, 1937.
Smith, Grafton Elliot. Shell Shock and its Lessons. London: Manchester University Press, 1917.
West, Rebecca. Return of the Soldier. New York: Penguin Books, 1998.
Wilson, Jean Moorcroft. Siegfried Sassoon: The Making of a War Poet: A Biography 1886-1918. London: the Old Piano Factory, 1998.
Winter, Jay, and Blaine Baggett. The Great War and the Shaping of the 20th Century. New York: Penguin Studio, 1996.
Yealland, Lewis R. Hysterical Disorders of Warfare. London 1918.
Zieger, Robert. America's Great War: World War I and the American Experience. Lanhan, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc, 2000.
Meyer, Jessica. "Shell-shock within Narratives of Loss in Britain, 1915-1939." MA diss., Pembroke College. Cambridge, 2000.
Schock, Marya. "Healing the Patient, Serving the State; Medical Ethics and the British Medical Profession in the Great War." Ph. D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2000.
Research Paper prepared under the McNair Scholars Program; supervised by Dr. Bruce Brasington.
Copyright ©1999 - 2001, The Western Front Association, US Branch
Website maintained by M. Hanlon