So I've been thinking outside my field again folks...

Basically I've been thinking about how World War Two probably meant an accidental mass treatment of ADHD.

Probably.

Stick with me folks...

There are two parts to this point.

Part One is that I strongly suspect that those sections of the military that saw the frontlines likely had an overrepresentation of men with ADHD.

This is for a number of reasons:

1. Men with ADHD are arguably more likely to be the demographic that combatants are drawn from.

Less likely to be in secure employment, less likely to be in long term/stable relationships and more likely to have a history of violence prior to enlisting.

2. They were also arguably more likely to already be enlisted in standing armies. This is for 2 reasons
a: ADHD is inherited & so 1. was likely to lead to military traditions in families and
b: the structure of the military has been indicated as aiding management of the disorder.

3. They were probably more likely to find themselves in the military, but also more likely to be in combat roles. Not just because of histories of violence, but also ADHD generally doesn't make for great administrators. The demographics in 1. also mean less likely to be officers.

4. ADHD is an impediment to impulse regulation: more likely to be caught up in enlistment fervour. But also when it comes to conscription 1. means they'd be less likely to be excluded as they'd be less likely to be working valuable jobs or be married etc.

5. Finally, the roving focus of ADHD could make for better soldiers, as does some of the manifestations of emotional dysregulation. This likely would entail a greater survival rate and also entry into more elite or combat orientated roles.

Estimates of rates of ADHD in the general population are notoriously difficult to state with certainty but let's say we go with 5%.

Given the above + the shorter lifespan that comes with the disorder, I'd say we're not looking at a small percentage of frontline troops here.

That established and we're at the second part. Which is simpler and involves drugs.

Which you probably already guessed.

Drugs, from alcohol to magic hallucinogens have long been a feature of warfare, and the Second World War didn't buck this trend.

US field rations for example included chocolate and coffee (caffeine), and cigarettes (nicotine).

Those were the drugs that most soldiers consumed habitually (many people with ADHD self medicate using caffeine), but WW2 also saw the introduction of amphetamines/pharmaceutical stimulants as "pep pills" to enhance soldiers' combat effectiveness.

Pharmaceutical stimulants of the kind first deployed en mass to combat troops are the main and most effective treatment for ADHD today.

Treatment of ADHD using dextroamphetamine for example leads to a wide range of life improvements from relationship with family to increased IQ

The distribution of pep pills to soldiers, at least in popular culture, is usually taken as a kind of bizarre or messed up story, of Nazi methhead super-soldiers and wacky drugged-out GIs.

The accidental treatment of ADHD, likely with the aforementioned improvements, is missing.

It's a hell of a way to get what was pretty unregulated and accidental treatment, and there are a range of obvious issues that come with this idea.

One is the relationship between ADHD and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Individuals with ADHD are vastly more likely to suffer from PTSD, and the experience of war is archetypal trauma.

However I suspect it is entirely possible, given that both ADHD and PTSD have a genetic element, that there is a tangled causality there.

If, because of 1-5, a person with ADHD is more likely to see combat, and thus experience PTSD, and if both have a genetic element... then you're looking at a sort of military inheritance that is both cultural (dad served) but also at the level of genes.

This thread comes with two massive caveats and a final addition.

Caveat one, I am not a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist.
Caveat two, I've studied WW2 but not at length or this specific aspect of the war.

So basically I have nfi what I'm talking about. So take it as a thought experiment not an argument.

The addition is that it leaves out women, as @amaenad points out. It is however possibly also a factor with, for example, nurses. I don't know either way https://twitter.com/amaenad/status/1318853243112476674