#2 Veterans- Veterans of WW2

  War is a destructive event that can leave nations crippled politically, defensively, and demographically. In the case of World War 2, many countries in Europe had to rebuild their infrastructures and armies, all while attempting to alleviate the massive loss of population that struck the continent. One group of people that faced this hardship in a unique way was the large number of newly created veterans. This week’s readings focus on the experiences of veterans following WW2, most importantly on the stark contrast between the veterans of some countries opposed to others. These articles show that the lives of veterans following the war were difficult all over the world, but in some areas they faced issues unparalleled by their rivals. An important theme that jumps out of these readings is the huge difference felt by veterans of the war, sometimes depending on the country you fought for. In their article “Total War and Entitlement: Towards a Global History of Veteran Privilege”, Martin Crotty and Mark Adele compare the treatment of veterans in Australia and the Soviet Union, following both WW1 and WW2. Their research shows that although people in Australia dealt with issues of jealousy and discontent, whether it be the veterans disapproval of citizens who didn’t fight or citizens feeling less gratitude towards certain groups of veterans, the general acceptance was that veterans deserved some amount of respect and recompense for their actions in war. In describing veterans of WW1, Crotty and Adele note, “The moral debt owed them by a society that sent them to war and acclaimed them as having, somewhat tautologically, both created and saved the nation through heroic battlefield exploits, was obvious” (Crotty-Adele, p20). This feeling is blatantly the opposite for veterans returning to the Soviet Union. The authors note that following both world wars, soldiers returning to Russia and the USSR were expecting promises made at their departure to be fulfilled, such as guarantees of jobs, food, income, etc. However, the governments of Russia and the USSR instead often treated their veterans as is they were regular citizens returning, giving them the same harsh treatment that was already doled out to their citizens. The USSR expected returning soldiers for the most part to find their own work and become cogs in the communist system, and to wait for the benefits of the revolution the government promised was coming. This treatment is also shown in Robert Dale’s article “Rats and Resentment: The Demobilization of the Red Army in Postwar Leningrad”. Dale uses the example of Leningrad to explain in fine detail the harsh treatment returning Soviets received. As described by Dale, “The death and destruction wrought upon Leningrad and its people and the impact of wartime violence upon combatants made it difficult to sustain the myth that returning troops came home to popular acclaim” (Dale, p121). This myth is also shown in the picture at the top of the page. The USSR used enormous resources to create a propaganda campaign portraying the homecoming of soldiers to Leningrad as a joyful return to a prosperous home. The reality of the situation was often not what was represented. While this image shows a happy moment, soldiers arriving home a few years later talk of no crowds or decorations, only broken promises. This situation highlights the many different experiences felt by veterans following WW2.