This book explores the fate of the millions of Soviet soldiers who survived the Second World War and returned to Stalin's state after victory, tracing the veterans' story from the early post‐war years right through to the end of the Soviet Union in 1991. It describes in detail the problems they encountered during demobilization, the dysfunctional bureaucracy they had to deal with once back, and the way their reintegration into civilian life worked in practice in one of the most severely destroyed countries of Europe. It pays particular attention to groups with specific problems such as the disabled, former prisoners of war, women soldiers and youth. Using a wealth of archival documents as well as the recollections of veterans, contemporary movies, periodicals, and literature, this book analyses the old soldiers' long struggle for recognition and the eventual emergence of an organized movement in the years after the dictator's death. The Soviet state at first refused to recognize veterans as a group worth special privileges or as an organization. They were not a group conceived of in Marxist‐Leninist theory, there was suspicion about their political loyalty, and the leadership worried about the costs of a special status for such a large population group. And as the book shows, these preconceptions were overcome only after a long, hard struggle by a popular movement which slowly emerged within the strict confines of the authoritarian Soviet regime.

The article explores processes of group integration and disintegration among Soviet veterans of World War II during the first postwar decade. Approaches that focus on generation, legal privilege, formal organization, social mobility, or ideological outlook miss the considerable sociocultural complexity of this group. Between the end of mass demobilization in 1948 and the foundation of the Soviet Committee of War Veterans in 1956, former soldiers were integrated neither as a generation nor as a status group with formal privileges and their own organization (as would be the case in later years). What held them together was instead a shared sense of entitlement based on wartime sacrifice. During the first postwar decade, therefore, Soviet veterans are best understood as an “entitlement group.” Only in the 1960s and 1970s was this entitlement group transformed into a status group that became one of the major pillars of the late Soviet order.

shows remarkable interest in history in general and World War II in particular. This article explores this historian-president's attempts to codify the memory of this war in an open attempt to transmit a useful past to the younger generation. It argues that top-down models of historical memory are of little explanatory value in the Russian situation. The president rides a wave of historical revisionism that he shapes at the same time. Putin's government successfully uses it to mobilize Russian society against critical minorities within and perceived enemies without. The far-reaching consequences of this politicization for the history of World War II are sketched in the final section of the article.

By comparing Australia with the USSR (and not with the UK or other British dominions as is most often done) we advance two principal arguments. Firstly, despite the claims of some historians, veterans as a social entity are not the exclusive product of postwar discourse and the postwar political, cultural and social milieux in the countries for which soldiers fought. Rather, their emergence as a social group reflects the experience of mass soldiering in an age of total war. Secondly, it is possible to identify the factors which influenced the extent to which veterans’ claims to special entitlements were translated into special status. We identify eight structural factors which, if they did not determine, at least heavily influenced, the policy outcomes of veterans’ activism.

The question of Red Amy soldiers crossing the lines to the Germans during the German‐Soviet war of 1941–45 has long obsessed historians. Some have treated all Soviet prisoners of war as deserters to the enemy, while others have tried to minimize the phenomenon. This paper explores newly available evidence from German and Soviet sources in an empirical exploration of the reasons, the extent, and the problems of the process of switching allegiance at the frontline.