As if the constant fear and visual atrocities of war were not enough, many World War II veterans arrived home to face another battle against their own society, the same society they fought to preserve and protect. After reading three articles (which I will later examine) concerning the treatment of veterans and their responses to this treatment, I want to discuss the ways in which people and governments struggled with the guilt of war.
Robert Dale, a PhD student at Queen Mary, University of London, argues that most veterans in the USSR received poor treatment from the government and hardly the fanfare and welcome that the media would have liked people to believe in his article, “Rats and Resentment: The Demobilization of the Red Army in Postwar Leningrad, 1945-50.” Russian veterans returned home, but not really “home” as thousands of buildings were destroyed, which made many former soldiers homeless. Soldiers returning to Leningrad saw the city as a shadow of itself, as 1/3 of the population remained. I wondered, why would the government care so much about presenting the impression that demobilized soldiers returned to a heroes’ welcome? Obviously, the government wanted to show that veterans enjoyed a special status not attainable in the West. The government also evidently thought that these soldiers were important enough to put in the effort of creating publicity for the illusion of comfort. I think the government’s inability to provide jobs and adequate housing because of bureaucracy and corruption resulted in guilt, it wanted to mask this guilt through banners, posters, and parades. Leningard’s society also treated veterans poorly through ignoring disabled veterans because “disabled ex-servicemen were an unwelcome presence in a city struggling to forget” (Dale, “Rats and Resentment,” 129). People felt irritated and uncomfortable when confronted with a veteran because that person reminded them of extreme difficulties endured because of the war. People felt embarrassed when seeing a disabled veteran because they may have felt guilty that that person had a disability endured by a war in which the civilian did not directly take part.
The USSR was not the only country struggling with a large population of veterans returning home. Christin Jarvis, a professor of English at the State University of New York, analyzes American society’s perceptions and “remasculinization” of veterans with psychiatric casualties in her article, “If He Comes Home Nervous: U.S. World War II Neuropsychiatric Casualties and Postwar Masculinities.” FDR and others focused on returning veterans to society as useful citizens, which is a different approach from the USSR. In order to help some veterans, the initial military assumption that soldiers were weak if they had psychiatric problems changed through vocabulary. “Combat exhaustion” and other phrases like it conveyed masculine toughness rather than weakness. The media depicted men with psychiatric casualties as heroic and masculine, in order to show people that they were indeed more than their mental wounds. The media displayed a sense of obligation to change society’s opinions of veterans with PTSD or other psychological ailments. Hollywood showed audiences that even the most severely physically and psychologically wounded veterans could return to happy, productive civilian lives (Jarvis, “If He Comes Home Nervous, ”111). I believe the media’s portrayal of veterans illustrated a societal feeling of guilt and responsibility for their “de-masculinization.” Just like in the USSR, people may have felt responsible for the wounds and embarrassed that they did not suffer like the wounded veteran did.
Prosthetics workshop, 1947 https://everybody.si.edu/media/655
Several women stand in a room filled with prosthetic legs as a World War II veteran demonstrates his prosthetic arm to them. I feel like this photograph really captures the essence of remasculinization. This photograph shows a man who is physically disabled, and yet his disability does not hinder him from speaking with women. Harold Hike, a journalist for the “The Afro-American” urged society to “greet the man, not the wound.” Remasculinization could be viewed as the momentum that starts advocacy for better treatment of people with disabilities.
On a slightly unrelated note: The pure fact that people felt that veterans needed to be “remasculinized” in the first place bothers me. The “remasculinization” of men demonstrates the importance of gendered distinctions on how a male or female should act and behave in American society in the 1940s. The implication is that if a man has a psychiatric issue, he is considered feminine. As if weakness is implicit in being a female.
Black Americans returned home to face another conflict with American society, the same society they fought to protect. Robert F. Jefferson, a professor at the University of New Mexico, discusses the discrimination and social oppression black veterans and disabled black veterans faced in his article, “Enabled Courage: Race, Disability, and Black World War II Veterans in Postwar America.” As I read about many black veterans who were harassed, beaten, and murdered by white civilians and policemen, I could only think of the irony of “fighting for democracy.” This democracy did not protect people of color. I wondered if the way African American veterans were treated after the war had to do with their military engagement, or if it was just another reflection of widespread racist policies and people. I think many white civilians feared the African American who wore the American uniform because of what it symbolized. As a soldier, the black veteran looked as if he had no fear. People who wished to harm them knew that he had the power to assert his equality. He was able to wear the American uniform and represent his country, and many people did not like the prospect of the African American having full access equal treatment.
Strength was needed to move past the hurdles of discrimination and unjust treatment that many veterans faced. Many veterans opened doors for the people who came after them. Physically disabled veterans created a push for disability activism, focusing on accessibility in urban spaces. Mentally disabled veterans raised awareness for mental illnesses and the need for proper treatment. African American veterans pushed for equality in benefits, like the GI bill. The treatment of veterans in post-war society has left a legacy on modern social activism.
I think that you made a really good point about how men struggled through war and then came home to more constant struggles. The photo you used to me depicted that physical wounds were deemed as more important than mental struggles which are harder for people to escape from than a physical wound is. These articles really stuck with me because we are never really taught how much soldiers are hurting after the war. We are taught about the celebrations that they have for them.
I thought the concept of guilt was a good point in that it is still something felt today when people see something as tragic as a veteran who fought dutifully and bravely for his country, only to be discarded by the government that was supposed to care for him in return for his service. And perhaps you’re right in saying that that guilt comes from the knowledge that they made a sacrifice for their country that forever changed them, and we did not. On that same note, many feel that kind of guilt even today from knowing that, in a way, they turned their backs on the suffering of those veterans and found that it is far easier to ignore them or brush them aside, to forget about them and the struggles and hardships they represent, than it is to make our own sacrifices and support them as their once supported us.