Although the book is a multiauthor compendium, the reader gets the history of psychological trauma in a coherent fashion. Depending on the reader’s needs, he or she can use the data to advantage in his or her field of clinical practice or research with the facilitating context of historical background. The authors have largely stuck to their function as historians; therefore, clinically trained readers are free to lend their own clinical interpretations to the data. Comparing my own studies of psychiatry in World War I (1) with the composite picture created by several different authors in this book, I found historical affirmation of my thesis that Allied psychiatrists approached the traumatic syndromes in the military differently than their colleagues of the Central Powers. The democratic political base of the Western Allies encouraged a more sensitive, scientifically more open, and more humane approach than the more primitive, repressive measures practiced by German and Austrian psychiatrists, reflecting their countries’ relatively more autocratic regimes and their own different roles as government agents. The paper by Bruna Bianchi on Italian psychiatry in World War I is particularly interesting in this regard. Italy was the exception among the Western Allies in that its autocratic form of government (where the psychiatrists were direct agents of the government, as they were in Germany) used methods more similar to those of their enemies (the Germans and the Austrians) rather than their Western Allies. The very convoluted paper on French military psychiatry, which contains very controversial views about the complexities and variations of French neuropsychiatry, nevertheless, because of historical documentation, confirms the persistence in France of democratic civil safeguards in spite of the pressures of military necessity.