Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I remember vividly being taught in Grade 10 history by a gentleman that routinely displayed all sorts of weird behaviour and intolerance to any loud noises. Asked my father what the heck was wrong with him and he, a veteran of 4 full years overseas in three theaters during WWII, informed me the man had suffered "shell shock" from WWI trench bombardments at Ypres.
My own father was one who was injured twice and returned to action both times within a couple of weeks but who never once told his two sons of his experiences while overseas. We found out about his exploits as a senior Troop Sergeant tank commander (a real deal Brad Pitt) only after his death by reading his personal diaries, letters home to mom, and the two telegrams informing our mom he had been wounded in action and "more details would be forthcoming as soon as they became available" .... usually three weeks later, informing her he had already returned to his unit.
Because there were so many per-capita volunteers from Canada for both world wars that returned with all sorts of battle damage, everyone was exposed to some knowledge of their ailments and tended to simply let them be instead of making some big deal out of it. Those old boys basically had no choice but to get on with their lives as best they could because their own brethren soldiers were doing so without complaint and had little tolerance for those who tended to whine about their plight..
Those were the days long before baring your soul on Oprah was the way to get attention.
That's just the way it was then. Now, it's generally accepted that keeping those psychological wounds to yourself and not getting help is a bad thing …. but as opined by another poster, one wonders if we've perhaps overdone the attention and made too much of the "sympathy thing" without really addressing the actual treatment of the causes.
Most of the guys that I served with don't talk about it. I don't discuss what we did there with anyone. No sense burdening anyone else.
Most of the guys that I served with don't talk about it. I don't discuss what we did there with anyone. No sense burdening anyone else.
That is exactly the same mindset veterans of the two world wars, the Korea conflict AND the Vietnam action share. The very worst of those in my mind would be the Vietnam era veteran because that war became so unpopular and polarized your nation into predominantly two identifiable demographics, those who simply wished it would end and those who publicly, overtly vilified the troops involved. That latter part was unique to that war. No other returning veteran was subjected to outright scorn by their own citizens.
Vietnam vets had very little in the way of respect or admiration by a huge segment of their citizenry so it would be no surprise to this writer that the veterans of that war would have even less tendency to "share" their experience, even amongst themselves.
The memorial wall and nearby statuary go a long way to mitigate some of that but, only to those who are willing and able to visit it.
Hmm. I suspect those young guys in the provided link have never enlisted. Nor would they enlist if there was no draft.
I'm a vet.
The fact is: every war causes trauma to its participants. Trauma is the essential reason for all wars. War seems to be an essential part of our specie's development.
If they were worried about military vets getting drunk, and that possibly causing any PTSD to morph into something else, why would the laws also apply to kids who had never enlisted?
Im wondering why the alcohol companies didnt use their power and influence to get these laws changed, its pretty clear they have GREAT lobbyists...so it would make perfect sense for them to demand 18-20 yrs old be allowed to purchase booze....especially today!
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
It does make you wonder what the reason for that is, why would they be totally fine with sending 18 yr olds to fight and die in wars, but then turn around and tell them they are not allowed to legally drink alcohol?!!
One also wonders why the alcohol companies do not step up to change this, they do have the leverage and influence to get it changed, and if their tv commercials are any indication, they seem to be very patriotic.
It does give me some comfort in knowing there are many retail stores out there, that WILL sell alcohol to soldiers who are under 21 ( I remember these from friends I had that were soldiers, basically if they showed their military ID, the retailer would sell them alcohol).
US Forces could legally drink at 18 in the UK, and beer was never rationed. Churchill made sure that certain things were never rationed such as alcohol, cigarettes and fish and chips (french fries).
No one was going to stop an 18 year old American soldier that was going to war from having a drink, or treat them differently to other allied troops.
Britain even set up a special board to increase production to the domestic market and armed forces, and US troops culd be seen in pubs acros Britain. There were also no segregation laws, so all soldiers could drink in pubs. Britain even cut a deal with Ireland in order that we exchanged grain for Guinness.
Spirits (Liquor) was harder to come by, but was still available and by 1944 the allies had succeeded in getting many more supplies across the Atlantic as the threat of German u-boats started to wane, so there was US beer and liquor coupled with cigarettes.
The same applies today, and Americans visiting other countries can drink publically according to local laws and that includes US Service Personnel, who are still served at 18 in the UK and across most of Europe and there are even fewer laws relating to private consumption.
Sadly Iceland wasn't as well prepared last year when US Forces drank the place dry during a NATO exercise.
I joined the Army at age 19 in 1957 and I had no trouble buying beer on post. It was a different beer than civilian beer, I remember it being called 3.2 beer. Alcohol percent I guess. But it was beer.
"I had no trouble buying beer on post." That was changed and all military linstalations went by what the state law was.
That is exactly the same mindset veterans of the two world wars, the Korea conflict AND the Vietnam action share. The very worst of those in my mind would be the Vietnam era veteran because that war became so unpopular and polarized your nation into predominantly two identifiable demographics, those who simply wished it would end and those who publicly, overtly vilified the troops involved. That latter part was unique to that war. No other returning veteran was subjected to outright scorn by their own citizens.
Vietnam vets had very little in the way of respect or admiration by a huge segment of their citizenry so it would be no surprise to this writer that the veterans of that war would have even less tendency to "share" their experience, even amongst themselves.
The memorial wall and nearby statuary go a long way to mitigate some of that but, only to those who are willing and able to visit it.
I served in Vietnam. I understand why they hated us. The public was lied to daily but so were we. That was 50 years ago. Just a blip on the radar to me.
Totally agree. Why did those veterans from WWII, who saw some extreme carnage and violence, manage to, comparatively speaking, get on with their lives without suffering from PTSD like many of our warriors do today?
Because in WWII, they knew their cause, our cause, was just. The warrior of today is put into impossible situations like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and then left to sort it all out if he or she make it home in one piece.
my father was at pearl harbor and suffered PTSD although not given that name till the 70s...
ww2 soldiers were transported home on ocean liners which gave them a cooling off period..unlike Vietnam where one day combat then FLOWN home in less than 24hrs...
much controversy exists now about the english taking children as young as 14-15 in their army in ww1
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19472
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvis44102
much controversy exists now about the english taking children as young as 14-15 in their army in ww1
During WW1 the recruitment policy for Britain's Regular Army was that a recruit had to be taller than 5 feet 3 inches and aged between 18 and 38 (although he could not be sent overseas until he was aged 19).
This was however slighly different in terms of the Territorial Army which was not obliged to serve overseas, would take anyone 17 and above.
The Army was made up of volunteers until 1916 when conscription of those 19 plus was introduced.
Some indivuals did forge birth certificates and openly lie about their age, although it was never British policy to take underage soldiers. However s desperate need for troops and recruiting sergeants were often less than scrupulous and with few checks made, around 250,00 under age solduers did fight in France.
Last edited by Brave New World; 08-18-2019 at 07:59 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
