Writing Veterans’ History: A Conversation on the Twentieth Century
Overview and Origins of the Veterans’ History Discourse
Context of the Discussion: This article records a conversation between five specialists in veterans’ history, originating from a international workshop at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU), Munich. The workshop was organized by Ángel Alcalde and Xosé M. Núñez Seixas and focused on war veterans after , their social interaction, Cold War politics, and decolonization.
Conceptual Aims: The roundtable seeks to summarize the current state of scholarly research, address issues regarding definitions and methodologies, and stimulate debate on the veteran's role in social, political, and global histories of modern conflict.
Temporal and Geographic Scope: While focusing primarily on the post- period of the twentieth century, the discussion is transnational, referencing cases from the United Kingdom (UK), the United States (US), the Soviet Union, South Africa, Germany, France, and Australia.
The Global Significance of Veterans: Olivier Burtin highlights that the unprecedented number of veterans globally after makes them a critical lens for analyzing the evolving relationship between war and society.
Defining the Research Subfields of Veterans’ History
Transversal Subfields: Ángel Alcalde identifies three core thematic intersections in the discipline:
Political History: Focuses on the historical role of associations, organizations, and the political influence of veterans (e.g., inter-war French veterans or the British Legion).
Social History: Investigates disabled veterans, the administration of pensions, rehabilitation, and the societal reintegration of formerly mobilized individuals.
Cultural History: Concentrates on the construction and dissemination of veterans’ memory, memorials, and war literature.
Thematic Core: Beyond these categorizations, core research themes include demobilization, reintegration, and war-connected ailments.
Interdisciplinary Overlaps: Olivier Burtin notes that these fields frequently overlap; for example, the study of war memory involves both cultural artifacts (memorials) and political discourse (textbooks).
Shifting Narratives: Grace Huxford mentions a dissatisfaction with the reading of veterans solely as "broken" or problematic figures (the diminished masculinity narrative), advocating for a focus on veteran agency.
Methodological Approaches and Sources
No Singular Methodology: The discussants agree that veterans’ history does not have a unique method, but rather borrows from various historical disciplines.
Primary Sources:
Micro-level: Letters, photographs, diaries, memoirs, and material culture to understand individual transitions.
Macro-level: Newsletters, state records, congressional publications, and archives of veterans’ associations.
Anthropological Perspectives: Ángel Alcalde notes the use of anthropological theories, such as Eric J. Leed’s conceptualization of the war experience as a "rite of passage."
The DDR Model: The modern concept of Disarmament, Demobilisation, and Reintegration (DDR), used by agencies in post-conflict states like Mozambique or Liberia, is increasingly used to analyze historical demobilizations.
Oral History:
Grace Huxford emphasizes oral history as a tool for understanding community composition and evolving memory.
She notes its ties to the "reminiscence movement" used to promote well-being among older populations.
Caveats: Memory distortion and the potential for oral history projects to conceal racial tensions or "taboo memories" (as argued by Alistair Thomson) must be considered.
Multi-perspectival Approaches: Gary Baines utilizes discourse analysis and media studies to interrogate the "afterlife" of the South African Border War (–).
Defining "The Veteran": Issues of Inclusion and Construction
The Veteran as a Social Construct: Veteranhood is not a self-evident category; it is historically constructed by law, culture, and politics.
National Variations in Legal Definitions:
United States: Currently applies to anyone who served in the military for a minimum period, regardless of combat experience.
United Kingdom: More strictly reserved for those who served in military operations.
Mediation of Experience: A veteran’s identity is heavily mediated by class, race, gender, disability, and generation. Veterans of the same war do not necessarily identify with one another.
Monopoly on War Experience: Depending on the conflict, civilians (like Londoners during the Blitz) may also claim to have "been through" war. However, veterans usually enjoy a superior status based on their formal military enlistment and the state's moral obligation towards them.
The Role of Age: Grace Huxford notes that "veteranhood" is often a time-specific identity; many national service conscripts did not identify as veterans until retirement or old age.
Negotiating Boundaries: Mark Edele observes that determining who "counts" is difficult in total wars, civil wars, or resistance movements where the distinction between the front and the hinterland is blurred.
Socio-Political Agency and Collective Identity
Brutalisation Theory: Mark Edele and Ángel Alcalde discuss George Mosse’s "brutalisation" theory (the idea that veterans became actors of political violence). Recent research suggests that post-war political brutalisation is the exception rather than the rule.
Entitlement vs. Status Groups:
Status Group (Max Weber): Groups sharing special esteem and legal privileges.
Entitlement Group (Mark Edele): A collection of people with a shared sense of deserving special treatment based on wartime sacrifice, even if legal status or formal organizations are absent (e.g., Soviet veterans before ).
The Power of Associations: Veterans' groups are vital windows into their history but often represent only a fraction of the population. For example, the American Legion ( million members) represents only about of the US veteran population of million.
Fictive Kinships and Virtual Spaces: Gary Baines discusses how SADF veterans create "fictive kinships" (Jay Winter's term) and "mnemonic communities" in virtual pubs and social media to retreat into private enclaves or "discursive laagers" where they rehearse nostalgia.
The Veteran as a Class
Comparison to E.P. Thompson: Olivier Burtin proposes viewing veterans similarly to how Thompson viewed the English working class—possessing a distinct class consciousness.
Critique of Class Application: Ángel Alcalde argues that the socio-economic variety among veterans is too vast to apply a strict Marxist definition of class. He prefers the term "veteran identity."
Policy-Driven Identity: Burtin suggests a causal link between public policy (like the G.I. Bill or Social Security) and identity formation; the existence of material benefits encourages individuals to define themselves as a distinct group to defend those benefits.
Distinctive Features of Post-1945 Veteranhood
Watershed Moments:
: Marked by a "learning process" where policymakers tried to avoid the errors of (e.g., the implementation of the G.I. Bill of Rights).
Vietnam War: Changed Western perceptions of veterans as political actors and introduced new stereotypes related to anti-war movements.
Medicalization: The inclusion of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in the DSM III in provided a new lexicon. Gary Baines notes that Jerry Lembcke argues PTSD mutated from a medical category into a "social trope" or "badge of honor" for those who saw "real" war.
Total Population Ratios: In the US in , veterans made up of the population, compared to in the late nineteenth century.
Soviet Context: Soviet veterans of the "Great Patriotic War" eventually won significant status, overshadowing veterans of later conflicts like the wars in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and eastern Ukraine.
Veterans and the Shaping of Memory
Flesh-Witnessing: Grace Huxford cites Yuval Harari’s concept of "flesh-witnessing"—the belief that sensory military experience grants veterans an exclusive and authoritative understanding of war.
The Soldiers' Mantra: Gary Baines notes the mantra "We were there," which veterans use to claim ownership over the narrative of war and dismiss outside critics.
Mnemonic Communities: These are collective identities bound together by "schemata" (temporal narrative structures) and "scripts" (preconceptions). Veteran groups act as "memory makers" or "memory bearers" who select and reify versions of the past.
Visibility of Victims: Since , as civilians were directly targeted, the distinction between combatants and victims has blurred. Victims of war have gained visibility, sometimes challenging the traditional veteran-centric narrative.
National Stories: Veterans contribute to national stories through pilgrimages to battlegrounds, commemorations (Memorial Day), and lobbying for specific versions of history in school textbooks.
Questions & Discussion
On the Monopoly of War Experience: Gary Baines asserts that while veterans often claim exclusive authority on war due to first-hand experience, historians should not be disqualified by a lack of it. Multi-perspectival approaches are necessary to break the "self-fulfilling circle of truth."
On Political Loyalty: Ángel Alcalde warns against the assumption that all veterans supported a government just because a hegemonic association stated its loyalty. State-run organizations in authoritarian regimes (like Francoist Spain) are fundamentally different from independent associations.
On Collective Action: Mark Edele emphasizes that veterans' success in acquiring status is a political question; they can fail even under favorable conditions or succeed in unfavorable ones based on the post-war political context.
Reflecting on the readings assigned for this week, particularly those related to the discourse on veterans’ history, I found a deep connection to the themes presented in our lectures. The readings highlighted how the narratives surrounding veterans post-1945 have evolved, particularly in light of political and social changes. This aligns with the lecture materials that emphasized the fluidity of veteran identities and the changing perceptions of their roles in society.
The readings indeed enhanced my understanding of the thematic elements we discussed in class. For instance, the intersection of political history and veterans' social reintegration provided a fuller picture of the complexities veterans face. I was particularly struck by Olivier Burtin’s observation of the unprecedented number of veterans after 1945 as a lens for analyzing the war-society relationship, which deepened my appreciation for how these narratives are constructed.
I did grapple with certain disagreements, especially regarding the portrayal of veterans as primarily victims of their experiences or as 'broken' figures. Grace Huxford’s advocacy for focusing on veteran agency was enlightening; it challenged me to reconsider how veterans are often depicted in popular media versus their actual multi-dimensional identities.
On a personal note, I found the concept of 'flesh-witnessing' intriguing. It resonated with me because it encapsulates how lived experiences give veterans a unique authority over war narratives, yet it simultaneously raises questions about whose voices are recognized and amplified within these stories.
Overall, the insights gained from both the readings and lectures are reshaping my understanding of veterans’ history, compelling me to think critically about the representation of veterans in both historical and contemporary contexts.