Following the conclusion of the second World War, there was a rush of people returning to their respective societies. So many people were rejoining the places that they once considered home, that in some instances, the newly returned were in such great a number that they redefined their local society. One group that had a particularly large impact on their societies was the returning veterans of the war.
Veterans of WWII, were changed people, regardless of what side of the war that they fought on. They had endured a variety of experiences ranging from exploring foreign communities affected by the war to enduring the harsh combat of total war, often bearing witness to death and destruction. In almost all cases, these veterans had lived for and nearly died for their countries. They held an attitude that they had “done their part” and it would be up to their home states to decide just how much “their part” was worth. In an article written by Christina Jarvis, titled, “‘If He Comes Home Nervous’: U. S. World War II Neuropsychiatric Casualties and Postwar Masculinities“, Jarvis quotes Professor George Pratt of Yale University who had a strong premonition about the importance of veteran reception and treatment. In 1944 Pratt said, “What is done wisely or unwisely for [veterans] will be a sign and measure of our times and a forecast of our future” here. Pratt’s foreshadowing shined light on the new problem of the era: “How do we treat veterans?”
Societal treatment of veterans and veteran assertions were studied by Martin Crotty and Mark Edele in 2013. In their article, “Total War and Entitlement: Toward a Global History of Veteran Privilege“, they revealed that veteran status in individual nations after the war did was not all that different based on location or even based on what side of the war the veteran fought on. Comparing the veterans of Australia to those of the Soviet Union, there appeared to be an feeling of entitlement among veterans. Many felt that because they had done their part in fighting for their country, they deserved special treatment over those who chose not to serve or who cowered when it came to time to stand up for their ways of life. But regardless of how the veterans felt, their societies determined their ultimate reception.
Historian Robert Dale, argues that veterans of the Soviet Union have been guided to believe they were welcomed back to their home societies effectively and efficiently, in “The Demobilization of the Red Army in Postwar Leningrad, 1945-1950″. In reality, many soldiers could not even return to their homes because they had been knocked down or destroyed for their resources. It was not until decades later that the veterans received ample benefits from their government that helped produce the fog of an easy re-assimilation.
American government fought to keep the psychological trauma produced by the war out of the media until 1944 when it could not longer be contained. The idea of psychological injury surely would have had a negative effect on armed forces recruitment prior to the military drafts. But even as these mentally wounded veterans returned home, the ideals for dealing with them were short-sighted. The army initially held a “whip it yourself” attitude, meaning get over it without professional assistance. To seek help was thought to be emasculating. Advertisements for “quick fixes” for mental trauma ruled the media, but in the end, veterans suffered at the hands of themselves and their societies.
In all cases, reception of veterans following the conclusion of World War II was controversial and handled inefficiently.
I keep finding parallels between the stigma of PTSD among the American veterans of WWII and the stigma of depression among today’s teens. After WWII, like you said, it was considered unmanly to ask for help or show signs of being mentally unstable. People had to work to change the stigma. In a sense, I feel as though we have changed the stigma and progressed a long way since WWII. We consider PTSD as a serious medical disorder that needs every bit of attention as a physical one. This change happened gradually. Now, when I think about suicide rates among teens, I see the same issues. Many have this idea that these teens can simply walk outside, get some fresh air, or just look at life positively and they will be cured of their depression. Men, especially, feel as though asking for help is unmanly. Slowly advocates for change are shining light on this stigma and describing to others how depression is in fact a serious medical issue. What I take away from this parallel is history truly does repeat itself. Why can we not take what we have learned from the past- that mental disorders are as serious as physical ones- and apply to today’s leading mental disorders?
One thing I took away from the readings was the great disparity between how society treated veterans with physical wounds opposed to those with mental wounds. Also it was worth noting the differences in veteran benefits given to countries such as USA, GB, and Australia compared to the USSR. I think it is interesting to note that although the USA appeared to give more entitlements to its veterans that did the USSR it still treated mental and physical wounds differently. This disparity between wounds I project was exacerbated in countries like the USSR were benefits for veterans was limited. On a stylist note I like how you linked the articles into your blog.
I agree, I think that the way veteran’s mental disorders were handled were not done efficiently. We need to get rid of the image that crying and asking for help is seen as unmasculine so that veterans and others will ask for help so they can recover. Many veterans waited to get treatment, since the media hid the fact that veterans without physical wounds were not fine. Even with the acknowledgement of psychiatric injuries, it still took too long for the problem to be addressed properly. I thought it was interesting to read about how the USSR put on a show of parades for their returning veterans, but in reality they returned to a war tattered home and people were more concerned with their own problems rather than the problems the veterans had. With limited resources available, it was hard to give veterans the benefits they desired.