During the 4 years of the Great War women’s role within society had begun to change forever. With the vast majority of able-bodied men participating in the war effort on the continent, women were incorporated into the workforce to plug this gaping gap.
Furthermore with the post war economic boom and the emergence of the tertiary sector within the economy, men were returning to a very different place than the 1 they left.
All of these wholesale changes have to be taken into account when we are looking to judge just how successfully ex-servicemen were reincorporated into an ever-changing British society.
I personally believe that the fundamental problem that the government faced in 1918 was how to successfully deal with the vast number of soldiers that had been severely mutilated and maimed throughout the war.
All of other major European countries had taken the stance that, men injured as a direct consequence of the war should be looked after and financially supported by the state. Britain was the only leading nation that did not follow this humane ideology.
Some observers may argue that the government did financially support war stricken soldiers. This is correct in the sense that by late 1919 the government did make war pensions a statutory right, but at the same time made it clear the limits of the states responsibility for the reintegration of war veterans.
Under extensive duress the government did concoct a policy that would provide ex-servicemen with pensions, a training allowance and for a limited time, a non-contributory out of work donation.
If we take this information at face value it may be said that the government was doing its bit to assist the needy, but as we begin to explore the issues at hand in further depth a different picture begins to emerge.
The ministry of pensions founded in 1917 sought to restrict the states liability for maimed soldiers. Furthermore pension assessments, carried out by delegates from the ministry, were based exclusively on the degree of physical disfigurement or illness and did not take into account a man’s capacity to return to the workplace.
The level of financial assistance that the government provided was extremely low. The introduction of the pension was designed only to keep a man from destitution, and it failed to make provisions for his dependants.
Even the most severely disabled soldiers would receive below the minimum need for survival. In any given year as many as 2,000 badly disabled war veterans depended on sheltered workshops for their daily bread.
To further emphasise the government’s naivety and ignorance toward this matter, when the 1st minister for pensions was asked the reasons why the government refused to grant full pensions to those men whose disabilities were aggravated by military service, he replied that some of the troops were, “Veritable weeds.” (1)
Obviously this created uproar, not only among the ex-servicemen to which he was addressing, but also amongst an entire nation who were eternally grateful for everything that the soldiers had done to safeguard their futures.
For many of the disabled ex-servicemen the only way they could survive was if they found some form of paid employment. This again would prove most difficult as very few entrepreneurs were in favour of employing disfigured untrained ex-servicemen.
In contrast with the continental states the British government did not rate the reintegration of disabled men into the workforce as a priority.
The lord Mayor of Liverpool proclaimed at the time, “It was the sacred duty of the state to make adequate provision for all such cases…Parliament should be asked to take the responsibility, and not to shoulder a national duty upon private Philanthropy and charity.” (2)
In my opinion if it was not for the many Philanthropists and charities out there our war heroes would have been left on the scrap heap. Many citizens at the time volunteered to help and assist the disabled war heroes. It was their contribution to show the level of appreciation that was evident throughout society for the efforts of the war stricken ex-servicemen.
By early 1920, the state had retrained only 13,000 disabled men, while another 60,000 were waiting for a placement. Matters did not get much better as by 1922 with over 100,000 disabled ex-servicemen unemployed, the government closed admission to the training programs altogether. It was believed that the government was fearful that reintegrating war heroes into the workplace would necessitate an open-ended budget.
As the government believed that the state was not responsible for ensuring ex-servicemen were integrated back into society, it was left solely to Philanthropist and family members to help with the readjustment.
The fact of the matter was, that if disabled veterans wished to work, and many had no other choice, they had to rely on their own wits or the mercy of fellow citizens.
As the post war years progressed many maimed war heroes began to suffer psychological problems. Issues of masculinity began to emerge. The fact that the wounded soldier could no longer provide and support his family was hard to accept.
Their independence had gone, many were now reliant on their wife for full time support. The problem was enhanced further by the fact that many of the injuries suffered were superficial or limb loss. As many of the maimed remained psychologically intact, it made it harder to accept there newly found vulnerability and reliance on others.
Many historians over the years have emphasised the fact that women also suffered greatly with their partners being maimed. Not only did many women have to provide for the family domestically, it was now commonplace to see women supporting the family financially. A massive burden had been placed on many unsuspecting women; they had to stoically endure the government’s ignorance single-handed.
If we look back at the situation with hindsight, it becomes apparent that the public’s generosity went a long way toward easing hard feelings, but on the wider scale it was never really enough to provide for even a minority of disabled men.
Volunteers succeeded in brokering a peace between returning soldiers and the millions of Brits who wanted to do their ‘Bit’.
Unlike on the continent, British war veterans never became a political force.
I believe this is because of the overwhelming levels of empathy that the public showed towards them.
Deborah Cohen comments that the overwhelming support that the public showed, “Kept them out of the revolutionary societies but not off the public assistance rolls.” (3)
In conclusion, I personally believe that British servicemen returning from the front line were very poorly integrated back into society.
The able bodied men returning had a fighting chance to integrate themselves into what was a very different society to the 1 they had left.
In contrast to this the war heroes that had been severely injured or maimed as a consequence of war were treated extremely badly.
Many at best were segregated in sheltered workshops or placed in homes in the suburbs. In the most extreme circumstance, if it were not for the generosity of the public many would not have survived.
I believe it is fair to say that the returning servicemen were never fully rehabilitated either as workers or as citizens.
Word count: 1806
Referencing:
-
D. Cohen, The War Come Home: Disabled Veterans in Britain and Germany: 1914-1939, (2001), P. 26
-
D. Cohen, The War Come Home: Disabled Veterans in Britain and Germany: 1914-1939, (2001), P. 21
-
D. Cohen, The War Come Home: Disabled Veterans in Britain and Germany: 1914-1939, (2001), P. 102
Bibliography:
-
D. Cohen, The War Come Home: Disabled Veterans in Britain and Germany: 1914-1939, (2001).
-
J. Bourke, Dismembering the Male: Men’s Bodies, Britain and the Great War, (1999)
-
A. MacLaren, The Trials of Masculinity: Policing Sexual Boundaries: 1870-1930, (1998)