what was the reaction to cowardice(now shell shock) by the army and the public in ww1?

Answer 1

"Cowardice" and "Shell Shock" are completely different. "Cowardice" is a reaction to the fear felt by any reasonable person in battle, but the reaction is to hide or run away, rather than facing the enemy with your comrades. And the reaction might have been to be shot on the spot.

"Shell Shock" is comparable to what they now call "Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome." It is the reaction to the stress of the battles you have fought, and the comrades you have seen fall.

That's not to say that a coward might not also feel shell shock, but they are not the same thing.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

Actually, shell shock was first coined in WWI as the soldiers came off the trenches after the constant artillery bombardments "in shock". It was treated almost as a physical ailment (and some papers thought it might be) and soldiers were taken to Field hospitals until the initial symptoms went away and then returned to the line. The Army had no mental health professionals at the time.
Now we call it PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder).

Answer 4

Often court-martial followed by a firing squad for the ordinary soldier. Officers were sent home to special hospitals

Answer 5

In 1915 The British Army in France was instructed that:
“Shell-shock and shell concussion cases should have the letter 'W' prefixed to the report of the casualty, if it were due to the enemy; in that case the patient would be entitled to rank as 'wounded' and to wear on his arm a 'wound stripe'. If, however, the man’s breakdown did not follow a shell explosion, it was not thought to be ‘due to the enemy’, and he was to [be] labelled 'Shell-shock' or 'S' (for sickness) and was not entitled to a wound stripe or a pension. [1] ”
In August 1916 Charles Myers was made Consulting Psychologist to the Army. He hammered home the notion that it was necessary to create special centres near the line using treatment based on:
Promptness of action.
Suitable environment.
Psychotherapeutic measures.
He also used hypnosis with limited success.
In December 1916 Gordon Holmes was put in charge of the northern, and more important, part of the western front. He had much more of the tough attitudes of the Army and suited the prevailing military mindset and so his view prevailed. By June 1917 all British cases of “Shell-shock” were evacuated to a nearby neurological centre and were labelled as NYDN – Not Yet Diagnosed Nervous”. ‘But, because of the Adjutant-General’s distrust of doctors, no patient could receive that specialist attention until Form AF 3436 had been sent off to the man’s unit and filled in by his commanding officer.’ 1 This created significant delays but demonstrated that between 4-10% of Shell-shock W cases were ‘commotional’ (due to physical causes) and the rest were ‘emotional’. This killed off shell-shock as a valid disease and it was abolished in September 1918."


Here's a sample from the second link:


"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. [11]

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." [12] 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." [13] Robert Zieger stated that "American psychiatrists and other medical officers largely avoided the 'treatments' that some British counterparts continued to inflict." [14] The United States government decided to accept the treatment of shell shock as a sickness, rather than punish those soldiers for malingering. [15]

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." [16] 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. [17]"
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." [18] 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. [19] In late 1916 articles began focusing on the shaken soldiers, urging sympathizers to support men who desperately needed treatment and rehabilitation facilities. [20] 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." [21] 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. [22]

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. [23] 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 onl"