Why Do So Many Marriages Fall Apart During and After War?

Separation, suppressed conflict, and wartime infidelity don't just strain relationships. Research shows they create a debt that often comes due after the danger has passed.

The Short Answer

If a marriage survived a war and then fell apart once things were supposed to get better, that's not a rare or strange outcome. It's a documented pattern.

Divorce rates spike sharply in the first year or two after conflict ends. Finland recorded over 5,600 divorces in 1945 alone, Denmark saw 7,500 the following year, both far above prewar norms before gradually declining (Malinen, 2018). Among military couples separated by deployment, infidelity rates during a single year-long deployment have been measured as high as 22.6%, compared to community estimates of just 1.5 to 4% annually (Balderrama-Durbin et al., 2017). And when infidelity happens during deployment, close to 75% of those marriages end within 6 to 9 months of reunion (Balderrama-Durbin et al., 2017).

The pattern that emerges across this research isn't that war makes people fall out of love. It's that survival mode requires couples to defer the hard conversations, and that deferred conflict comes due later, often with interest.

Key Takeaways

• Divorce rates consistently spike in the first one to two years after war ends, driven by hasty wartime marriages, prolonged separation, and unresolved trauma.

• Couples in conflict or deployment situations tend to suppress relational problems to preserve safety and connection, which defers rather than resolves the strain.

• Infidelity during deployment is dramatically more common than in the general population, and it's strongly associated with divorce at reunion.

• Suspicion and eroded trust, even without confirmed infidelity, can destabilize a relationship just as much as infidelity itself.

• Recovery after wartime betrayal or reunion strain is possible, but it isn't linear, and it usually requires deliberate support, not just time.

• 
  

The Problem: Survival Mode Isn't Built for Relationship Maintenance

Here's something worth naming honestly: during active conflict or deployment, couples aren't choosing to avoid each other's needs out of neglect. They're doing what the situation demands.

Research on military couples describes something researchers call a coping paradox. Partners emotionally distance themselves before an anticipated loss, like a deployment, as a way of protecting against the pain of separation. That distancing suppresses conflict in the short term, but it generates unresolved tension that doesn't just disappear (Knobloch et al., 2022). Venting emotions during deployment often made things worse rather than better, leading couples to avoid difficult conversations altogether (Knobloch et al., 2022).

There's also a pattern called protective buffering, where the partner at home shields the deployed partner from household stressors, and the deployed partner withholds details of their own experience to avoid worrying the person back home (Knobloch et al., 2022). Both people are trying to protect each other. But the result is two people managing real strain in near-total isolation from one another, which isn't sustainable indefinitely.

This isn't limited to military deployment. Couples living through civilian war zones show the same pattern. Torture-surviving Congolese couples who stayed together through conflict reported that the war profoundly damaged their relationship, damage that persisted well into the postwar period and required structured therapy to address (Morgan et al., 2020). Prioritizing survival over relational processing is adaptive while the threat is active. It's just not free.

The Evidence: What Actually Happens to Relationships Under War

The data here is worth sitting with rather than skimming.

Infidelity during separation is far more common than most people expect. Among Airmen deployed to Iraq for a year, sexual infidelity occurred in 22.6% of marriages, several times higher than typical annual rates (Balderrama-Durbin et al., 2017). Distance, reduced intimacy, and communication constraints all converge to elevate the risk, and couples who already had relationship distress or had considered separation before deployment were especially vulnerable (Balderrama-Durbin et al., 2017).

Suspicion alone, confirmed or not, can wreck a reunion. Homecoming surfaces months of unanswered questions. Research following 287 military couples across eight waves found that suspicion about a partner's deception, and eroded trust more broadly, reliably predicted relational uncertainty in the months after homecoming (Knobloch et al., 2020). One qualitative study described the emotional toll in stark terms: partners cycling between caring for their returning service member and confronting suspected betrayal reported intense distress, including fighting, instability, and depression (Monk et al., 2020).

Wartime infidelity carries a steep cost. Nearly 75% of married Airmen who experienced infidelity during a deployment cycle divorced within 6 to 9 months of returning home, compared with only 5% of those without infidelity (Balderrama-Durbin et al., 2017). Separation rates are meaningfully higher in couples affected by infidelity than in comparison samples, 36% versus 22 to 25% (Stavrova et al., 2022).

Postwar mental health directly destabilizes partnerships. Among civilians in conflict-affected regions, PTSD prevalence reaches nearly 24%, with depressive symptoms around 25.6% (Ahmed et al., 2024). One woman in a Colombian study described her husband waking depressed and explosive, unapproachable until the household adjusted around his volatility, behavior she directly attributed to war trauma (Restrepo et al., 2024). Researchers have also found that men who lost their role as economic providers during conflict sometimes turned to violence as a way of reclaiming a sense of power in the household, a dynamic that often persists after conflict ends because accountability structures remain limited (Restrepo et al., 2024).

This Is Deferred Emotional Debt, Not Relationship Failure

I want to offer a different way of understanding this pattern, because the standard framing, that war-strained marriages simply couldn't survive the pressure, misses something important.

What the research actually describes is a debt structure. During active conflict or separation, couples take out an emotional loan: they defer conflict, suppress needs, and manage strain in isolation, in exchange for immediate safety and functioning. That loan isn't forgiven when the war ends. It comes due, usually all at once, right when everyone assumed things would finally get easier.

This reframe matters because it changes the question a struggling couple might ask themselves. Instead of "why couldn't we survive this," a more accurate question is "what did we defer, and how do we finally deal with it now that it's safe to." The relationship didn't fail during the war. It did exactly what it needed to do to get both people through it. The postwar strain isn't evidence the relationship was weak. It's evidence the debt is now due.

This framing also helps explain a pattern researchers keep finding: some couples who stay together after infidelity or reunion strain describe long relationship history, shared experience, and belief in future fidelity as reasons for choosing to rebuild (Mitchell et al., 2025). They're not naive about what happened. They're recognizing that the strain came from circumstance as much as character, even while still holding the person accountable for what they did with it.

What Actually Helps

Name the debt structure explicitly, together. Couples navigating postwar or post-deployment strain benefit from understanding that suppressed conflict during the crisis period was adaptive, not a sign either partner didn't care. This doesn't excuse harmful behavior like infidelity or violence, but it does reframe the underlying dynamic accurately.

Rebuild communication deliberately, not just resume it. Structural barriers during separation often forced couples into sharing news and affection while avoiding real problems (Knobloch et al., 2022). That pattern doesn't automatically correct itself at reunion. It usually requires intentional practice in talking about harder things again.

Address trust and suspicion directly, even without confirmed betrayal. Relational uncertainty at reunion is driven by suspicion and eroded trust as much as by actual infidelity (Knobloch et al., 2020). Couples benefit from creating space to voice suspicion honestly rather than letting it fester unspoken.

If infidelity did occur, expect a nonlinear recovery process. Research describes affair recovery as a dual process, an oscillation between connection and disconnection as the injured partner works through truth, trust, and an ethical imbalance that takes real time to rebalance (Walravens & Rober, 2023). Decisional forgiveness, choosing to stop bitterness and revenge thoughts, tends to come before emotional forgiveness, the actual restoration of positive feeling, and they require different coping work (Chi et al., 2019).

Consider structured therapeutic support rather than going it alone. A three-stage integrative treatment addressing the cognitive, behavioral, and emotional aftermath of infidelity has shown real promise for couples working to rebuild (Gordon et al., 2005). For individuals who can't access couple therapy, group interventions focused on infidelity have produced significant reductions in trauma symptoms and increases in self-efficacy (Ripoll-Núñez & Gordon, 2024).

Address mental health strain as its own priority. Since PTSD and depression directly destabilize relational functioning, treating the individual trauma, not just the relationship dynamics, is often necessary before relational repair can hold (Ahmed et al., 2024).

If You're Navigating This

Give the postwar or post-deployment period real time before drawing conclusions. The first year after reunion is statistically the highest-risk window. That doesn't mean the relationship is doomed. It means this is a genuinely difficult adjustment period, not a quiet sign of incompatibility.

Separate the circumstance from the character, without excusing harmful behavior. Understanding that survival mode created conditions ripe for suppressed conflict or even infidelity doesn't mean excusing what happened. It means having an accurate picture of how it happened, which actually makes forgiveness or informed decision-making more possible, not less.

Get support that's built for this specific strain. Generic couples counseling can help, but therapists with experience in deployment reintegration, war trauma, or infidelity recovery specifically tend to understand the mechanisms at play more precisely.

Watch for individual trauma symptoms in your partner, and in yourself. If depression, PTSD, or unexplained volatility is present, that needs direct attention. Relationship repair rarely holds if the underlying trauma is left untreated.

Know that staying and rebuilding is a legitimate choice, and so is not staying. The research shows both paths, reconciliation and separation, are common and valid outcomes. Neither one is evidence of a stronger or weaker relationship on its own.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do divorce rates spike right after a war ends, not during it? During active conflict, couples suppress relational problems to preserve safety and functioning. Once the external threat recedes, deferred grief, resentment, and betrayal resurface, which is why divorce rates in postwar populations like Finland and Denmark peaked sharply in the first year or two after conflict ended (Malinen, 2018).

Is infidelity during deployment really more common than in civilian life? Yes. Research on Airmen deployed for a year found sexual infidelity in 22.6% of marriages, compared to community estimates of 1.5 to 4% annually. Distance, reduced intimacy, and communication limits during separation all elevate the risk substantially (Balderrama-Durbin et al., 2017).

Can a relationship survive infidelity that happened during deployment? Yes, though it's difficult and nonlinear. Recovery typically involves decisional forgiveness first, then emotional forgiveness, along with rebuilt communication and trust. Structured therapy improves outcomes meaningfully compared to navigating it without support (Chi et al., 2019; Gordon et al., 2005).

Does suspicion of infidelity cause the same damage as actual infidelity? It can. Research following military couples found that suspicion about a partner's deception, separate from confirmed infidelity, reliably predicted relational uncertainty and significant emotional distress after reunion (Knobloch et al., 2020; Monk et al., 2020).

What helps couples rebuild after war-related relationship strain? Naming the suppressed-conflict pattern honestly, rebuilding communication deliberately, addressing trauma symptoms directly, and seeking therapy experienced in deployment or war-related relational strain all show meaningful benefit in the research (Morgan et al., 2020; Gordon et al., 2005).

If a relationship strained or broke during or after war, that's not proof it was fragile. It's proof it carried real weight, under conditions most relationships never have to face.

The debt that comes due after conflict ends is real, and it deserves to be paid down deliberately, not rushed or ignored. Whether that means rebuilding together or choosing separately to move forward, the goal isn't to pretend the war didn't happen to the relationship too. It's to finally deal honestly with what it cost.

Survival mode got you through the war. It was never meant to be the whole relationship.

References

Ahmed, S. H., Zakai, A., Zahid, M., Jawad, M. Y., Fu, R., & Chaiton, M. (2024). Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive symptoms among civilians residing in armed conflict-affected regions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. General Psychiatry, 37. https://doi.org/10.1136/gpsych-2023-101438

Balderrama-Durbin, C. M., Stanton, K., Snyder, D., Cigrang, J., Talcott, G., Slep, A. S. M., Heyman, R., & Cassidy, D. (2017). The Risk for Marital Infidelity Across a Year-Long Deployment. Journal of Family Psychology, 31, 629-634. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000281

Chi, P., Tang, Y., Worthington, E., Chan, C., Lam, D., & Lin, X. (2019). Intrapersonal and interpersonal facilitators of forgiveness following spousal infidelity: A stress and coping perspective. Journal of Clinical Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22825

Gordon, K., Baucom, D., & Snyder, D. (2005). Treating couples recovering from infidelity: an integrative approach. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(11), 1393-1405. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20189

Knobloch, L. K., Knobloch-Fedders, L. M., Yorgason, J., Basinger, E. D., Abendschein, B., & McAninch, K. G. (2020). Suspicion about a partner's deception and trust as roots of relational uncertainty during the post-deployment transition. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38, 912-934. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520970645

Knobloch, L. K., Monk, J. K., & Wadsworth, S. M. M. (2022). Relationship Maintenance among Military Couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40, 734-772. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221105025

Malinen, A. (2018). Marriage Guidance, Women and the Problem(S) of Returning Soldiers in Finland, 1944-1946. Scandinavian Journal of History, 43, 112-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/03468755.2017.1379173

Mitchell, E., Brown, K. S., Spencer, J., & Harris, K. (2025). Staying Together After Infidelity: An Exploration of the Decision-Making Process of Recovery From the Perspective of the Injured Partner. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.70110

Monk, J. K., Basinger, E. D., & Abendschein, B. (2020). Relational turbulence and psychological distress in romantic relationships in the military. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37, 942-964. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519883701

Morgan, E. A., Wieling, E., Hubbard, J., & Dwanyen, L. (2020). Perceptions of War Trauma and Healing of Marital Relations Among Torture-surviving Congolese Couples Participating in Multicouple Therapy. Family Process. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12487

Restrepo, M. T., Padilla, D., Ungemack, J., & Schensul, S. (2024). Armed conflict effects in intimate partner violence: Revealing pathways using the socioecological framework. Global Public Health, 19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2024.2394822

Ripoll-Núñez, K., & Gordon, K. C. (2024). Dealing with couple infidelity in romantic relationships: A group intervention feasibility study. Family Process. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.13029

Stavrova, O., Pronk, T. M., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2022). Estranged and Unhappy? Examining the Dynamics of Personal and Relationship Well-Being Surrounding Infidelity. Psychological Science, 34, 143-169. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221116892

Walravens, G., & Rober, P. (2023). Relational recovery after infidelity as a dual process: A model based on the experiences of female injured partners. Family Process. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12857