- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Which War Would Result In The Most Severe PTSD For Soldiers?
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:17 pm to Jobu93
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:17 pm to Jobu93
quote:
The Germans didn't muster the hatred of the Russians like either the Japanese or Americans.
Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure once Hitler was done with the Jews, the Slavs were next on his genocidal radar.
The Japanese had some respect for America, because it was us that taught them about modern warfare and then used that knowledge to rape half the continent. It was certainly worse blood between the Chinese and Japanese than the Japanese and Americans.
2
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:18 pm to Jobu93
quote:
The Germans didn't muster the hatred of the Russians like either the Japanese or Americans.
The battles in the western front in both world wars was considered a rather genteel affair. The eastern front, however, was terrible. Countless amounts of women were raped, when Germans would capture soviet towns, they'd go ahead and hang around 10 people just to get their points across. And it would go from there. The Russians were just as bad about that kinda stuff as the Germans were.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:20 pm to Crusty Juggler
quote:
because it was us that taught them about modern warfare
They didn't do a very good job of using it in the war, then. Because they definitely still fought in a WWI style.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:21 pm to jeffsdad
My great grandfather was exposed to poison gas in WWI and slept in a chair on the porch because the stale air of sleeping inside (no AC) irritated his lungs.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:25 pm to Soup Sammich
quote:
I really think Vietnam had to have been bad on soldiers because they weren't fighting for the freedom of their own country and families. They knew they could die at any time in a war a lot of them didn't want to be in.
The World War soldiers were fighting for their countries and the fate of the entire world. The soldiers believed in the cause for the most part.
I would think the PTSD per soldier would be higher for Vietnam than the World Wars. That doesn't mean one was more terrifying than the others but a soldiers mindset would be part of the cause.
What are you talking about? Let's leave WWII out of this since all leaders of all sides made their priorities and principles clear to their citizens. They knew what they were fighting for, and even the biggest pacifists to this day agree that WWII was necessary.
WWI though, no one had any clue what they were fighting for. Sure they knew their countries had alliances and beef with some other countries, but there was nothing clearly formed here. It was as murky as us fighting communism and Charlie in Vietnam.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:27 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
The Russians were a lot worse than the Germans.
WWI Then WW2 eastern front/pacific theater.
WWI Then WW2 eastern front/pacific theater.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:29 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
The comment was that "PTSD is caused by combat". That is false. In addition to that being false, wise guy, there are about a million other things that troops are exposed to that are not related to combat that can cause ptsd. It was an ignorant statement. Period.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:34 pm to Fratigerguy
quote:
The comment was that "PTSD is caused by combat". That is false. In addition to that being false, wise guy, there are about a million other things that troops are exposed to that are not related to combat that can cause ptsd. It was an ignorant statement. Period.
Shitty MREs?
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:35 pm to Fratigerguy
Read the title to the thread and tell me where in the frick you got confused and thought we weren't only talking about combat induced PTSD. I understand that you can get PTSD from a number of different things.
For example, I'm sure you got PTSD when you got gangbanged by your fraternity brothers.
For example, I'm sure you got PTSD when you got gangbanged by your fraternity brothers.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:35 pm to Fratigerguy
The OP, whether you like it or not, was about combat during wartime. If you want to debate who suffered more in their position - Marshall Dillon or Kojak - be our guest and start a new thread.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:37 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
I tried isolating to the fighting men. Civilian atrocities...nothing IMO matches Nanking.
Now, going back to the German/Russian or the Sino/American level of hatred, again, fighting men..
The Americans fought a soldier that didnt' look like hi and had no commonality whatsoever in religion. Pearl was all that they needed and they fed off of what the Japanese were already known to have done in China and against any POWs from early losses like the Philipines.
The Japanese saw the Americans as playboys and they were weak to the core. Lacking discipline, no warrior code. The Japanese were clearly superior to anyone they faced. The lowest level fighting man believed it to their very core.
Yes, Hitler had a want to lay waste to the Slavs, but that never really passed down to the Wehrmacht. The SS had it, but not the lay soldier.
The Russians, well, they were simply fighting for survival. There wasn't much regard for their own men. I do make a different stance from Stalingrad to marching into Germany. By the time the Russians were headed west they wanted their pound of flesh and were eager to collect.
Now, going back to the German/Russian or the Sino/American level of hatred, again, fighting men..
The Americans fought a soldier that didnt' look like hi and had no commonality whatsoever in religion. Pearl was all that they needed and they fed off of what the Japanese were already known to have done in China and against any POWs from early losses like the Philipines.
The Japanese saw the Americans as playboys and they were weak to the core. Lacking discipline, no warrior code. The Japanese were clearly superior to anyone they faced. The lowest level fighting man believed it to their very core.
Yes, Hitler had a want to lay waste to the Slavs, but that never really passed down to the Wehrmacht. The SS had it, but not the lay soldier.
The Russians, well, they were simply fighting for survival. There wasn't much regard for their own men. I do make a different stance from Stalingrad to marching into Germany. By the time the Russians were headed west they wanted their pound of flesh and were eager to collect.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:40 pm to Sao
quote:
The OP, whether you like it or not, was about combat during wartime. If you want to debate who suffered more in their position - Marshall Dillon or Kojak - be our guest and start a new thread.
Fair enough. I took it to mean which war would have caused the most severe ptsd. Not which would have had the most severe combat. Carry on.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:40 pm to Fratigerguy
quote:
That the root cause of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is combat? Likely because it isn't. There is combat induced ptsd. But to suggest that the traumatic, stressful situations that soldiers can be put in that are not related to combat aren't, or can't be the cause of ptsd is ignorance. Police, firemen, nurses, doctors, etc, etc, can all suffer from ptsd, and none of it is combat related
I agree with the other two guys who roasted you. You seem like a douche. BUT, I agree with your points. They are valid, but, irrelevant to a thread dealing with "Which WAR would result in . . . PTSD".
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:41 pm to Sao
Vietnam, Korea, World War I, the Civil War, the American revolution. All of those with more hand to hand combat.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:45 pm to Jobu93
quote:
Civilian atrocities...nothing IMO matches Nanking.
The only thing I can think of that comes close to that (and perhaps exceeding it) is the Siege of Baghdad. Hulagu had to move his entire camp up wind because of the stench of the atrocities being committed. The rivers literally ran black and red. It's been 800 years and they still haven't recovered from it.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:49 pm to Crusty Juggler
Well if we're going ancient..yeah, the Mongol Horde probably wins in a landslide.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:49 pm to Jobu93
quote:
Jobu93
All valid points.
It's also really sad the conundrum Soviet troops were in. They were fighting an enemy who would either a) kill them on the spot if captured or b) would be taken to a concentration camp and probably killed if captured. And they had a dictator on their side who would c) if they were captured, family members would be arrested and/or killed because of them, or d)would be shot on the spot if they tried to retreat due to Stalin's orders 227 and 270.
frick I hate Stalin.
This post was edited on 5/3/17 at 9:52 pm
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:53 pm to Crusty Juggler
There have been countless nasty sieges throughout history. Baghdad was just one of many done by the mongols alone. Historians love to emphasize the Baghdad siege bc they romanticize about some golden Islamic utopian society that never was. Truly, if all it took was a sack of one city 800 years ago to send an entire civilization into a permanent tailspin, then that civilization was ephemeral to begin with.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:55 pm to Jobu93
To be fair with the Siege of Baghdad, not many of the victims of PTSD lived long enough to experience its symptoms, as the Mongol horde was long hardened before then and most were smart enough to surrender to them before they got to Baghdad mode.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:58 pm to biglego
quote:
There have been countless nasty sieges throughout history. Baghdad was just one of many done by the mongols alone. Historians love to emphasize the Baghdad siege bc they romanticize about some golden Islamic utopian society that never was. Truly, if all it took was a sack of one city 800 years ago to send an entire civilization into a permanent tailspin, then that civilization was ephemeral to begin with.
It indisputably had the world's largest library at the time, so I think its loss is very tragic to humanity regardless due to the loss of knowledge. I know it was on the decline and that the library probably didn't have more than a century or two before some mad man burnt it to the ground, but the loss of it and Alexandria we are still feeling to this day.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News