It’s Not Always ‘Welcome Home’

At the conclusion of World War Two an approximate sixteen million veterans returned to American soil. This number represents a very small fraction of the estimated 1.9 billion soldiers who served in WW2 from all nations combined. Naturally the large number of veterans returning home after the war caused debate and frustration on the home front. Many veterans returned with obvious physical wounds sustained in battle. However, many other veteran’s had less obvious scars. The public labeled soldiers discharged for mental reasons “cowards” and “feminine”. In an effort to alter this frame of mind many scholars and medical professionals opted to use phrases such as “exhaustion” and “battle fatigue” (Jarvis pg. 101). Christina Jarvis explains the shift in rhetoric in her article, “If He Comes Home Nervous”. Jarvis writes, “despite the fact that labels such as ‘battle fatigue,’ ‘combat exhaustion,’ and ‘old sergeant syndrome’ actually represent approximately one quarter of the war’s total neurosychiatric admissions, military personnel and the public readily embraced the terms because they destigmatized psychiatric wounds by conveying a sense of masculine toughness rather than weakness”(pg. 101). She advocates that the change in language regarding mental illness and psychological trauma was necessary to help veterans return to civilian life.

Contrasting Jarvis, Martin Crotty and Mark Edele discuss veterans and veteran entitlement in the USSR and Australia in their article, “Total War and Entitlement: Towards a Global History of Veteran Privilege”. Their article chronicles the development, or lack there of, of veteran benefits in the USSR and Australia. Crotty and Edele identify eight factors which contributed to a veterans ability to gain entitlement status. The factors are as follows: perceived moral debt, conscript vs. volunteer status, soldier vs. non-soldier sacrifice, unity of veteran’s movements, democratic or non-democratic nations, state’s opinion on veterans, state’s ability to meet economic demands of veterans, and presence of a welfare state (pg. 19). With these eight factors in mind it is easy to draw the broad conclusion that veterans in democratic (Allied) nations faired better than those under the control of Communist regimes. Also I think it is interesting to note that both Crotty and Edele are from Australian universities. Therefore their tendencies to portray veteran’s entitlement success in Australia vs. the USSR should be considered with some skepticism.

Meanwhile, Robert Dale’s article, “Rats and resentment: The Demobilization of the Red Army in Postwar Leningrand, 1945-1950” studies the discrepancy between the demobilization of Russia’s army portrayed in the media compared to actuality. While the media portrayed grand homecoming parades with excited women and children, in actuality, many Red Army soldiers did not return home until 1948 or later. Often these men returned home in tattered uniforms and did not receive the pay they had been promised (Dale pg. 122-123). The poor treatment of Red Army soldiers during demobilization can be attributed to some of the themes discussed in Crotty and Edele’s article. For example, many Red Army Soldiers did not receive benefits simply because the state could not afford to do so. Compared to the USA’s sixteen million veterans. Russia had nearly twenty million veterans. In addition to these veterans there was also an estimated seven to twenty million Soviet civilian deaths. Due to the high number of civilian deaths, the Soviets tended to treat their solders as less like heroes and more as a burden to society.

There was a clear difference in how democratic nations (USA, GB, and Australia) treated its veterans compared to the USSR. Also the disparity between veterans with physical limitations compared to those with psychiatric limitations was exacerbated  in the USSR. There was a general feeling in the US and GB that those who came home with psychological trauma, such as PTSD, were weaker and less masculine than those with physically injuries. This feeling was intensified in the USSR, where the state and the civilian population treated veterans of the Red Army with less dignity due to the high number of civilian casualties.

Jarvis’s article discusses some alarming rhetoric that was used to describe the mentally unstable veteran. The American public used words such as “feminine”, “neurotic”, and “coward” to describe those suffering from psychological  trauma post war. The New York Times article posted above highlights this language with the use of the word, “neurotic”. The article also put mental-hygiene clinics akin to “night school” classes. Thus, downplaying the challenges faced by those with psychological wounds. The millions of veterans returning home placed a huge economical and financial strain on their home countries. However, the wide disparity in entitlements and statuses award reflected the growing discrepancy between West and East as the Cold War began.

Sources:

NY Times article: VETERAN CLINICS TO AID NEUROTICS: Administration will establish 50 mental hygiene and neurosis stations for treatment to use intensive therapy the locations chosen. 1945. New York Times (1923-Current file)1945.

Crotty, Martin, and Mark Edele. “Total War and Entitlement: Towards a Global History of Veteran Privilege.” Australian Journal of Politics & History 59, no. 1 (2013): 15-32.

Dale, R. “Rats and Resentment: The Demobilization of the Red Army in Postwar Leningrad, 1945–50.” Journal of Contemporary History 45, no. 1 (2010): 113-33.

Jarvis, Christina. “”If He Comes Home Nervous”: U.S. World War II Neuropsychiatric Casualties and Postwar Masculinities.” The Journal of Men’s Studies 17, no. 2 (2009): 97-115.