War Neurosis: Shell Shock, Combat Trauma, and the History of PTSD
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
War neurosis is a historical term for war-related nervous and psychological breakdown, not a current diagnosis. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, physicians used overlapping labels such as traumatic neurosis, war neurosis, shell shock, war neurasthenia, and later combat exhaustion to describe distress and disability after battle. Those labels emerged from the medicine, military institutions, causal theories, and diagnostic systems of their own periods. They should not be converted automatically into a modern diagnosis.
The historical connection to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is real, but it is not one-to-one. Some people described as having war neurosis or shell shock had experiences that resemble what clinicians now recognize as PTSD. Others had acute stress reactions, dissociative or functional neurological symptoms, depression, anxiety, persistent somatic complaints, blast-related or other brain injury, or mixed presentations that modern assessment would separate. Historian Tracey Loughran therefore cautions against treating shell shock simply as an early name for PTSD; her analysis of World War I shell shock shows that the category was shaped by the medical knowledge, military pressures, and cultural assumptions of its time.
For a broader explanation of the old umbrella term, see Neurosis: What It Means Today, Symptoms, History, and Modern Diagnoses. This article owns the narrower historical question of war neurosis, shell shock, combat trauma, and the pathway toward modern trauma diagnosis.
War Neurosis: The Short Answer
War neurosis referred to mental, nervous, behavioral, and sometimes striking bodily symptoms associated with military service and combat. It was never one stable disease with one universally accepted mechanism. Depending on the country, period, clinician, and theoretical school, the label could carry assumptions about physical shock, nervous exhaustion, hysteria, dissociation, fear, unconscious conflict, constitutional vulnerability, compensation, or combinations of these factors.
Shell shock became the best-known British World War I expression, but even that term quickly became unstable. Charles S. Myers's 1915 Lancet report, Contribution to the Study of Shell Shock, described soldiers with severe sensory and memory disturbances after nearby shell explosions. The term initially sounded as though it named a blast-induced physical injury. Yet similar syndromes appeared in men without a direct shell explosion, and clinicians increasingly confronted cases that could not be explained by a single mechanism.
Modern PTSD is different in status and structure. It is a defined clinical diagnosis in current systems. In the United States, PTSD is classified in DSM-5-TR within trauma- and stressor-related disorders; the National Center for PTSD's DSM-5-TR summary describes qualifying trauma exposure, characteristic symptom domains, duration, clinically significant distress or impairment, and exclusion requirements. In ICD-11, PTSD is classified under disorders specifically associated with stress, with its own diagnostic requirements in the WHO ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements.
What Did “War Neurosis” Mean Historically?
The phrase belongs to a longer prehistory of traumatic disorders. Nineteenth-century physicians had already argued over nervous syndromes after railway and industrial accidents. Hermann Oppenheim's concept of traumatic neurosis became a major reference point in debates over whether persistent post-accident symptoms reflected subtle organic injury, psychological processes, hysteria, or other mechanisms. Those controversies supplied conceptual material later reused in military medicine.
The historical review by Marc-Antoine Crocq and Louis Crocq traces the expression Kriegsneurose, or war neurosis, to the German physician Honigman after the Russo-Japanese War and describes its relationship to earlier terms such as combat hysteria and combat neurasthenia. Their history of psychotraumatology also shows how military conflicts repeatedly generated new labels for clusters of symptoms that medicine had difficulty fitting into existing categories.
That makes “war neurosis” a family-resemblance term rather than a timeless diagnosis. It could refer to acute collapse during service, persistent post-combat disability, conversion-like neurological symptoms, intense anxiety, disturbed sleep, traumatic memories, exhaustion, autonomic complaints, or combinations of these. The meaning changed with clinical theory and administrative practice.
This is why the historical term must be read in context. A diagnosis written in a 1917 military chart tells us how a clinician and institution classified the case at that time. It does not by itself tell us what diagnosis the same person would receive under DSM-5-TR or ICD-11.
From Traumatic Neurosis to War Neurosis
Before World War I, traumatic neurosis was heavily associated with accidents, especially railway and workplace injuries. The diagnostic debate was inseparable from questions of causation, compensation, and the legitimacy of symptoms that could be disabling despite limited visible pathology. Similar issues followed the concept into wartime medicine, where the stakes included military manpower, pensions, responsibility, and the question of whether a soldier could or should return to duty.
The transfer from civilian accident medicine to military psychiatry did not produce a clean new disease. Instead, war amplified existing tensions. A soldier might have blast exposure, fear, exhaustion, grief, sleep deprivation, infection, pain, physical injury, repeated near-death experiences, and intense institutional pressure at the same time. Historical clinicians tried to divide those experiences into categories using the tools available to them.
Later scholarship has challenged simplified stories in which psychiatry supposedly moved in a straight line from an organic theory to a psychological one. A review of German war-neurosis debates argues that the field became more multidimensional, with clinicians considering structural injury, dissociative and conversion phenomena, psychogenic mechanisms, predisposition, and situational factors rather than one single explanatory axis. See Tölle's historical analysis.
Shell Shock in World War I
The term enters medical discussion
World War I exposed soldiers to artillery on an unprecedented scale and produced large numbers of casualties with dramatic neurological and psychological symptoms. Myers's 1915 report helped establish “shell shock” in medical discussion. The patients he described had disturbances of memory and special senses after explosions nearby. He noted similarities with what the medicine of the period called hysteria.
The phrase was compelling because it condensed a frightening clinical problem into two words: the shell and the shock. It also appeared to offer a physical explanation that fit industrial warfare. But the apparent clarity did not last. Many soldiers developed comparable symptoms without a documented close blast, while others exposed to explosions had clear physical injuries, concussions, hearing damage, or other neurological consequences.
Shell shock soon meant more than blast injury
As cases accumulated, “shell shock” became a broad wartime label. Symptoms described in historical records included tremor, weakness, abnormal gait, paralysis-like states, mutism, sensory loss, amnesia, dizziness, headaches, disturbed sleep, nightmares, anxiety, startle, emotional lability, exhaustion, and impaired concentration. The exact mixture varied widely. Modern readers should resist the temptation to translate every one of these phenomena into one present-day disorder.
Edgar Jones, Nicola Fear, and Simon Wessely's historical review comparing shell shock with mild traumatic brain injury is especially useful here. It shows that early clinicians often assumed head injury or toxic exposure, but subsequent observations made a purely physical explanation inadequate. Explanations then moved among organic, psychological, and behavioral models. The history is clinically relevant because modern blast exposure can involve genuine brain injury, psychological trauma, or both.
Shell Shock Was a Diagnostic Problem, a Military Problem, and a Social Problem
A wartime diagnosis did more than describe symptoms. It affected evacuation, hospitalization, return to duty, pension eligibility, perceptions of courage, and sometimes disciplinary decisions. That administrative environment shaped the category. Physicians were not classifying anonymous symptom clusters in a laboratory; they were making decisions inside institutions under extraordinary pressure.
That context helps explain why moral language and medical language often collided. Some soldiers with disabling symptoms were suspected of malingering or weak character, while others were recognized as ill or injured. Contemporary practice no longer treats combat-related distress as evidence of cowardice, and current diagnostic systems do not define PTSD as a failure of will. The history remains important because stigma can survive long after diagnostic terminology changes.
Historical scholarship also warns against romanticizing shell shock as a single moment when medicine finally “discovered trauma.” Loughran's work emphasizes that the category was a specifically wartime construction, shaped by the concerns and practices of early twentieth-century Britain. This perspective preserves the reality of suffering while avoiding a retrospective diagnosis imposed on every historical case.
The Organic–Psychological Debate Was Never as Simple as It Sounds
Popular histories often tell the story as a contest between two camps: one claimed shell shock was physical brain damage, the other claimed it was psychological. The real history was messier. Clinicians disagreed about concussion, microscopic neurological injury, exhaustion, hysteria, dissociation, suggestion, fear, unconscious conflict, predisposition, and learned behavior. Individual cases could contain both bodily injury and psychological trauma.
That complexity matters today. A person exposed to a blast may have symptoms from mild traumatic brain injury, PTSD, hearing or vestibular injury, pain, sleep disruption, depression, substance use, or multiple interacting conditions. The historical mistake to avoid is assuming that an unexplained symptom must be either “organic” or “psychological.” Modern assessment is built around differential diagnosis, comorbidity, and evidence about the actual presentation.
The broader history of post-combat syndromes similarly shows that symptom patterns and medical explanations have changed across wars. A peer-reviewed historical review of post-combat disorders compares shell shock with other war-related syndromes and asks how biological exposure, psychological stress, medical attention, and cultural expectations interact in the form a disorder takes.
How War Neurosis Was Treated During World War I
Treatment was heterogeneous because the diagnosis was heterogeneous. Historical approaches included rest, reassurance, graded activity, suggestion, hypnosis, psychotherapeutic methods, occupational routines, physical rehabilitation, and various forms of electrical treatment. Some interventions were humane by the standards of their time; others were coercive or were designed primarily to restore military function.
One influential military approach was treatment close to the front, delivered quickly, with an expectation of recovery and return to useful function. The later acronym PIE refers to proximity, immediacy, and expectancy. This model is often presented as an early success story, but the evidence is more limited than the legend.
Jones and Wessely's review of forward psychiatry found that historical claims for effectiveness were often stronger than the evidence justified, especially when the claimed outcome was prevention of chronic PTSD. An outcome study of 3,580 soldiers admitted to a World War I forward unit found that fewer than one in five returned directly to combat units; many went to hospitals, convalescent settings, or base duties. The study is a reminder that “return to duty” and long-term mental health are different outcomes.
Historical treatment should therefore be studied as history, not copied as a modern clinical protocol. Current trauma care is based on contemporary diagnosis, evidence, patient circumstances, and present-day professional standards.
From Shell Shock to Combat Exhaustion and Battle Fatigue
The terminology changed again during World War II. “Shell shock” lost diagnostic favor, while expressions such as battle fatigue, combat exhaustion, and combat stress reaction became more prominent. These labels often emphasized the cumulative effects of prolonged combat, fatigue, fear, and operational strain rather than one dramatic shell explosion.
The National Center for PTSD's professional history traces how military and psychiatric terminology shifted across wars before PTSD became a formal diagnosis. The changes were not merely synonyms replacing one another. Each label reflected a different mixture of clinical theory, military doctrine, and classification practice.
A useful distinction follows: “combat stress reaction” is not simply the modern name for shell shock, and shell shock is not simply the old name for PTSD. These categories arose in different systems and served different clinical and administrative purposes.
The Route to PTSD in DSM-III
The modern PTSD diagnosis entered the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1980 with DSM-III. That date is a major classification boundary. The American Psychiatric Association's DSM history describes DSM-III as a major reorganization built around explicit diagnostic criteria and a more etiologically neutral approach. The formalization of PTSD occurred inside that broader transformation of psychiatric classification.
The road to DSM-III drew on more than combat psychiatry. Clinical knowledge about survivors of war, concentration camps, disasters, accidents, sexual violence, and other traumatic events contributed to the recognition that severe post-traumatic syndromes could follow an external event and could occur across populations. The Vietnam War was historically important in the U.S. debate, but the diagnosis was not designed as a disorder unique to veterans.
This transition also changed what counted as the diagnostic object. “War neurosis” centered the setting of war and inherited the conceptual baggage of neurosis. PTSD defined a syndrome linked to qualifying traumatic exposure, with specified symptom requirements and impairment, and it could occur after many kinds of trauma.
Is War Neurosis the Same as PTSD?
No. The safest historical and clinical formulation is that the categories overlap in part. Some cases described historically as war neurosis or shell shock are compatible with symptoms now associated with PTSD, but the historical labels also included presentations that would fall elsewhere today. A chart entry from 1916 cannot be translated mechanically into a DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 diagnosis.
The distinction is important enough to have its own comparison page: Neurosis vs PTSD: Traumatic Neurosis and Modern Trauma Diagnosis. That article owns the direct comparison intent. The present page focuses on the military history of the older terms.
Three reasons prevent a one-to-one mapping. First, the old labels were broader and less standardized. Second, modern PTSD has explicit requirements that historical records often do not document. Third, many historical symptoms are diagnostically nonspecific: nightmares, startle, fatigue, poor concentration, autonomic arousal, depressed mood, pain, memory complaints, weakness, and sensory symptoms can occur in multiple psychiatric, neurological, sleep, pain, and medical conditions.
What Historical War Neurosis Might Map to Today
A modern clinician assessing a person with combat-related symptoms starts with the person's current presentation rather than with the historical umbrella. Depending on timing, symptoms, impairment, exposures, injuries, and exclusions, the differential may include PTSD, acute stress disorder or acute stress reactions, depressive and anxiety disorders, dissociative disorders, functional neurological disorder, substance-related conditions, sleep disorders, persistent pain, mild traumatic brain injury, other neurological injury, and medical conditions.
This is a map of possible modern territories, not a conversion table. Historical “war neurosis” does not equal the union of all those diagnoses, and no individual diagnosis follows simply because the person experienced combat.
The same principle applies to the wider neurosis vocabulary. The English Hub's Types of Neurosis: Historical Categories and Their Modern Equivalents explains how old neurosis categories fragmented across modern diagnostic families. “Equivalent” in this context means historical relationship or partial inheritance of clinical territory, not guaranteed diagnostic identity.
Modern Diagnostic Status: DSM-5-TR
War neurosis and shell shock are not DSM-5-TR diagnoses. DSM-5-TR, published in 2022, retains PTSD within trauma- and stressor-related disorders. The adult PTSD criteria remained unchanged from DSM-5, according to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs National Center for PTSD.
Current PTSD diagnosis requires more than having experienced war or feeling distressed afterward. It depends on the nature of exposure, the required symptom pattern, duration, clinically significant distress or impairment, and exclusion of other explanations. This is one reason historical labels cannot substitute for current assessment.
The distinction also protects against overdiagnosis. The World Health Organization's 2026 PTSD fact sheet emphasizes that most people exposed to potentially traumatic events do not develop PTSD. Distress after combat can be intense and clinically important without necessarily meeting diagnostic requirements for PTSD.
Modern Diagnostic Status: ICD-11
ICD-11 likewise does not use “war neurosis” as a current diagnosis. In the 2024 ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements, PTSD is coded 6B40 and complex PTSD 6B41 under disorders specifically associated with stress. Acute stress reaction is classified separately as a factor influencing health status or contact with health services rather than as a mental disorder.
This architecture demonstrates how far modern classification has moved from a neurosis umbrella. Instead of grouping war-related distress under one inherited label, ICD-11 distinguishes specific syndromes and clinical states according to their diagnostic requirements.
Shell Shock and Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
The shell-shock history remains relevant because modern warfare again raises questions about blast exposure and brain injury. The clinical challenge is not solved by choosing between “physical” and “psychological” explanations. Blast can cause genuine neurological injury, while the same event can also be psychologically traumatic. Symptoms such as headache, dizziness, concentration problems, irritability, sleep disturbance, and memory complaints can overlap across conditions.
Jones, Fear, and Wessely argue that World War I shell shock and modern mild traumatic brain injury occupy comparable positions in military medical debate without being the same condition. Their historical review warns that early shell-shock theories became too simple when they assumed one hidden injury explained every case.
For a modern reader, the practical lesson is straightforward: blast exposure deserves appropriate medical and neurological evaluation when indicated, and psychological trauma deserves appropriate mental health assessment when indicated. One does not invalidate the other.
Functional Neurological and Dissociative Presentations in the Historical Record
Some of the most visually dramatic shell-shock cases involved paralysis-like weakness, abnormal movements, tremor, mutism, sensory loss, gait disturbance, or episodes that physicians of the period described using the language of hysteria. Modern medicine uses different concepts and criteria. Functional neurological disorder and dissociative disorders are current diagnostic territories with their own definitions; they should not be retroactively assigned to every historical patient.
Historical descriptions nevertheless show why shell shock cannot be reduced to the modern PTSD symptom profile. The category sometimes included neurological-looking symptoms that were central to the clinical presentation. A modern differential would also have to exclude structural neurological injury, toxic exposure, sensory injury, medication effects, and other medical causes before interpreting such symptoms.
War Neurosis, Stigma, and the Myth of Weakness
One persistent misconception is that war neurosis was simply an old medical name for cowardice. The historical record is more complicated. Military institutions sometimes interpreted breakdown through moral or disciplinary frameworks, and accusations of malingering existed. At the same time, physicians documented disabling symptoms, developed treatment systems, debated mechanisms, and struggled with large numbers of affected soldiers.
Modern PTSD science rejects the idea that a diagnosis can be inferred from character weakness. Trauma-related disorders emerge from interacting biological, psychological, and social processes. Exposure severity and repetition, prior experiences, injury, support, context, and other factors can influence risk. The presence or absence of PTSD is not a measure of bravery.
This matters because historical vocabulary can carry stigma when used casually today. Calling someone “shell-shocked” may function as metaphor, but it should not be mistaken for a clinical diagnosis. “War neurosis” belongs mainly to the history of psychiatry, neurology, psychoanalysis, and military medicine.
What the History of War Neurosis Teaches About Diagnosis
The history demonstrates that diagnostic categories are not merely new names attached to an unchanged disease. Categories organize observations: they determine which symptoms are grouped together, which causes are considered plausible, which distinctions matter, and which treatments or administrative decisions follow. When the category changes, the clinical map can change with it.
That does not make historical suffering unreal. Soldiers who trembled, could not speak, relived battle, could not sleep, collapsed under stress, experienced paralysis-like symptoms, or remained disabled after combat were experiencing real impairment. Historical precision gives those experiences more, rather than less, seriousness because it avoids forcing different phenomena into a single modern template.
It also explains why retrospective diagnosis has limits. A modern diagnosis depends on information that old case records may never have collected: exact symptom duration, qualifying exposure, functional impairment, substance use, medical findings, neurological examination, temporal course, and exclusion criteria. Historical comparison can identify resemblance; it cannot reconstruct missing clinical data.
Treatment Implications Today
A person seeking help now should be assessed using current clinical categories, not treated for “war neurosis.” If PTSD is present, evidence-based PTSD treatment applies. If a brain injury, functional neurological disorder, depression, anxiety disorder, substance-use disorder, sleep disorder, pain condition, or another problem is present, care should address that condition and the person's overall clinical picture.
The 2023 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Acute Stress Disorder separates acute stress reactions or acute stress disorder, PTSD assessment and diagnosis, and PTSD management into distinct modules. That structure captures a central modern principle: exposure to trauma is not itself a diagnosis, and treatment follows the identified current condition.
Historical treatments should not be used as evidence merely because they were common. Modern treatment recommendations depend on contemporary trials, systematic reviews, guideline methods, safety standards, and clinical judgment. The history of war neurosis can illuminate where current ideas came from, but it does not replace current evidence.
Common Misconceptions
“Shell shock is just the old name for PTSD.”
Shell shock overlaps historically with PTSD, but it covered a broader and less standardized range of physical and psychological presentations. Some cases may resemble PTSD; others may map better to different modern conditions or mixed injury-and-trauma presentations.
“Shell shock was caused only by exploding shells.”
The name encouraged that interpretation, but clinicians soon saw similar symptoms in soldiers without a close explosion. At the same time, actual blast injury was and remains medically important. The historical category mixed questions of concussion, trauma, exhaustion, dissociation, and other mechanisms.
“War neurosis was one disease.”
It functioned as an umbrella or period-specific label whose meaning varied across national and theoretical traditions. It was not a standardized diagnosis equivalent to one current DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 disorder.
“Everyone exposed to war develops PTSD.”
Traumatic exposure can produce profound distress, but PTSD is not inevitable. WHO states that most people exposed to potentially traumatic events do not develop PTSD. Risk varies with the event, repeated exposure, injury, prior experiences, social support, and other factors.
“If a historical soldier had nightmares and tremor, we can diagnose PTSD retrospectively.”
Those symptoms may be compatible with PTSD, but they are insufficient by themselves. Current diagnosis requires a defined symptom pattern, duration, impairment, and exclusions, and historical records often lack the necessary information.
How to Read an Old Diagnosis of War Neurosis Today
When “war neurosis,” “shell shock,” “battle fatigue,” or a related label appears in a historical record, first identify the date, country, military system, and clinical tradition. The same words did not always mean the same thing across places and decades.
Second, separate the label from the described phenomena. What symptoms were recorded? Was there a blast, head injury, sensory injury, infection, pain, sleep deprivation, repeated combat exposure, dissociation, nightmares, panic, depression, or functional neurological presentation? The descriptive record is often more informative than the category name.
Third, distinguish historical interpretation from modern comparison. A historian can explain what the diagnosing clinician meant. A modern clinician can explain what diagnoses might now be considered. Neither step justifies declaring a present-day diagnosis for a person based only on an old label.
Finally, keep the mapping probabilistic and plural. War neurosis is part of the genealogy of modern trauma medicine, but its territory was redistributed across several modern diagnoses and medical specialties.
FAQ
What is war neurosis?
War neurosis is a historical medical and psychiatric term used for nervous, psychological, and sometimes bodily symptoms associated with war and combat. Its meaning varied by period and theory. It is not a current DSM-5-TR or ICD-11 diagnosis.
Is war neurosis the same as PTSD?
No. The two concepts overlap historically, but war neurosis was broader and less standardized. Some historical cases could resemble modern PTSD, while others could involve acute stress reactions, dissociative or functional neurological symptoms, depression, anxiety, brain injury, somatic symptoms, or mixed presentations.
Is shell shock the same as PTSD?
No. Shell shock was a World War I category shaped by contemporary theories of blast, nervous injury, hysteria, exhaustion, and psychological trauma. Modern PTSD is a defined diagnosis with explicit criteria. Historians caution against treating the two as synonyms.
Who coined the term shell shock?
Charles S. Myers helped establish the term in medical literature with his 1915 Lancet article “Contribution to the Study of Shell Shock,” describing soldiers with striking sensory and memory symptoms after nearby shell explosions.
Who coined the term war neurosis?
Crocq and Crocq's historical review credits the German physician Honigman with coining Kriegsneurose, or war neurosis, in 1907 after experience connected with the Russo-Japanese War. Earlier related concepts, especially traumatic neurosis, had already been used in accident medicine.
Was shell shock a brain injury?
Some soldiers undoubtedly suffered physical effects of blast or other injuries, but shell shock as a historical category included many cases that could not be explained by one brain-injury mechanism. Modern practice therefore keeps neurological injury and psychological trauma in the differential rather than treating them as mutually exclusive explanations.
Is war neurosis in DSM-5-TR?
No. DSM-5-TR does not diagnose war neurosis. PTSD and other current disorders are assessed using their own diagnostic criteria.
Is war neurosis in ICD-11?
No. ICD-11 uses current categories such as PTSD and complex PTSD within disorders specifically associated with stress. War neurosis is a historical term, not an ICD-11 diagnosis.
What replaced war neurosis?
There is no single replacement. The historical territory was divided among modern trauma- and stress-related diagnoses, neurological and functional neurological conditions, dissociative disorders, mood and anxiety disorders, somatic and pain presentations, and other conditions. The appropriate modern category depends on the actual clinical presentation.
Can a historical shell-shock diagnosis prove that someone had PTSD?
No. It can provide evidence that the person experienced a syndrome recognized by wartime medicine, and the recorded symptoms may resemble PTSD. A modern PTSD diagnosis requires information that many historical records do not contain.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. DSM History. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/about-dsm/history-of-the-dsm
Crocq, M.-A., & Crocq, L. (2000). From shell shock and war neurosis to posttraumatic stress disorder: A history of psychotraumatology. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 2(1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2000.2.1/macrocq. PubMed Central
Jones, E., Fear, N. T., & Wessely, S. (2007). Shell shock and mild traumatic brain injury: A historical review. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164(11), 1641–1645. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.07071180. PubMed
Jones, E., Thomas, A., & Ironside, S. (2007). Shell shock: An outcome study of a First World War ‘PIE’ unit. Psychological Medicine, 37(2), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291706009329. PubMed
Jones, E., & Wessely, S. (2003). “Forward psychiatry” in the military: Its origins and effectiveness. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16(4), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024426321072. PubMed
Loughran, T. (2012). Shell shock, trauma, and the First World War: The making of a diagnosis and its histories. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 67(1), 94–119. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhmas/jrq052. PubMed
Myers, C. S. (1915). Contribution to the study of shell shock. The Lancet, 185(4772), 316–330. Reprint: https://jmvh.org/article/contribution-to-the-study-of-shell-shock/
Tölle, R. (2005). The “war neurosis”—an early model of a pluridimensional outlined trauma-theory in psychiatry. Nervenarzt, 76(9), 1123–1129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-005-1942-1. PubMed
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, National Center for PTSD. PTSD and DSM-5. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/treat/essentials/dsm5_ptsd.asp
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, National Center for PTSD. PTSD History and Overview. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/treat/essentials/history_ptsd.asp
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs & U.S. Department of Defense. (2023). VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Management of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Acute Stress Disorder. https://healthquality.va.gov/HEALTHQUALITY/guidelines/MH/ptsd/
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263
World Health Organization. (2026, September 11). Post-traumatic stress disorder. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/post-traumatic-stress-disorder