Both documents presented below are excerpts from the public discourse on the reintegration of soldiers maimed on the battlefields of World War I, which was invariably linked to productive work and self-reliance.

The scale of the war, the introduction of new weaponry, and advances in medicine resulted in an unprecedented number of veterans with disabilities, particularly amputees. As social problems deepened, economic crises unfolded, and labor shortages worsened, the countries involved in this global conflict were compelled to reconsider their approach to supporting wounded soldiers. This led to a shift away from a paternalistic, welfare-based model toward one focused on rehabilitation and social protection. Rehabilitation systems in various countries were designed not only to provide specialized medical care, but also to rapidly restore veterans’ ability to work and reintegrate them into the labor market.

Although the conversation about returning to “normal” life was transnational, it took on unique characteristics in Ukraine. Entering World War I as part of both the Russian Empire and Austria-Hungary, Ukrainian territories emerged from the conflict into an entirely new geopolitical reality. The war, a powerful catalyst for social and national revolutions, hastened the collapse of the Romanov and Habsburg monarchies, paving the way for state-building projects and armed struggles for power.

The article “Aid to Wounded Soldiers” appeared in late 1917 in the newspaper Nova Rada, the official publication of the Ukrainian Party of Socialist-Federalists. Its release was likely prompted by the proclamation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UNR) by the Central Rada on November 7 (20), 1917, and the subsequent structural changes in the General Secretariat, which had become the government. In this context, a representative of the newly established Department for the Care of Persons with Disabilities, F. Nikoniuk, raised the issue of disability as a widespread consequence of the war for the first time in the UNR, addressing the responsibility of the Ukrainian state and society toward wounded soldiers. Viewing care for veterans with disabilities as an act of justice, Nikoniuk argued that the executive branch’s primary task was to ensure that those who “sacrificed their health for others” could once again find themselves in “dignified conditions for working life”. Vocational rehabilitation was seen as a key means of achieving this goal. Specialized shelters and dormitories with workshops for learning trades, the formation of cooperatives and job exchanges, and the organization of vocational courses were intended to give hundreds of thousands of war-wounded men of working age the opportunity to earn their own living.

At the same time, the author of the article highlights another important goal of vocational retraining for veterans: reducing the financial burden on the state budget. As the military and political situation in the Ukrainian People’s Republic grew more volatile, with social conflicts and economic turmoil intensifying, bringing disabled former soldiers back to work became increasingly significant and demanded urgent attention from the authorities. To organize effective rehabilitation and achieve meaningful results, government officials depended on close cooperation with state institutions, local government bodies, public organizations, and private initiatives.

The complexity of these multifaceted interactions, along with conflicting priorities and poor coordination among the various actors involved in rehabilitation, is illustrated by a second document: an excerpt from a resolution of the Executive Board of the Kyiv Oblast (Krayovyi) Committee for the Provision of Prostheses to Amputees and Disabled Military Personnel. This excerpt was attached to an official letter from the Ministry of Labor to the Ministry of War of the Ukrainian state. The correspondence aimed to inform the General Military and Sanitary Administration — to which the Committee was subordinate — of the Board’s decision to close the training workshops for veterans with disabilities. Board members believed that the social adaptation and professional reintegration of former soldiers should fall primarily within the jurisdiction of municipal and zemstvo self-governing bodies. After reviewing reports on the training workshops’ activities and explanations from the teaching and administrative staff, the Board concluded that the educational tasks assigned to the Committee did not produce the expected results and that the efforts were unjustified.

Combining medical treatment, prosthetics, and vocational retraining for veterans with disabilities under one institution was common practice in many countries during World War I and the years that followed. The Board’s decision can be best understood against the backdrop of the difficult circumstances facing the Kyiv Committee and its orthopedic workshops in 1917–1918. The Committee began its work in 1915, as the Mariinskii Convalescent Home in St. Petersburg — the only prosthetics center in the Russian Empire at the time — could no longer meet the surging demand for artificial limbs from the unprecedented number of amputees and wounded soldiers. Formed through both public and private initiatives, the Committee quickly became another hybrid institution, partially funded by the state. After the fall of the Romanov monarchy, the Kyiv Committee was left in limbo. Funding was uncertain and, according to other sources, this uncertainty nearly brought prosthesis production to a standstill — coinciding with the decision to close the training workshops.

However, the document gives another reason for closing the training workshops: “extreme demoralization” among the trainees. The Board’s description of behavioral issues can be understood in light of the traumatic consequences of combat for wounded soldiers, their ability to return to civilian life, and society’s preparedness for their reintegration. At the same time, the reluctance of “yesterday” soldiers to learn and follow rules may also suggest considering “demoralization” as a form of resistance to the imposed rehabilitation model. As history professor Ana Carden-Coyne notes, while retraining was vital for both society and disabled veterans, many felt trapped in a “choice without a choice,” where they were all but forced to accept such training. Those providing physical and vocational rehabilitation typically expected obedience and gratitude, whereas the veterans believed that the state and society owed them a debt for their service (Carden-Coyne 2007, 551–558). As a result, misunderstandings and disputes frequently arose between wounded veterans and workshop staff, leading to accusations of poor treatment — illustrated by an excerpt from a resolution of the Board of the Kyiv Oblast Committee for the Provision of Prostheses to Amputees and Disabled Military Personnel.