Postwar Rehabilitation

Throughout the Second World War, Europe was a collection of mobilized and conflict-centric societies which depended on dynamic leaders and strong national identities. Obviously these wartime conditions presented neither a strong basis for prolonged economic success nor a culture in which traditional democratic ideals could flourish. Thus, in recognizance of Europe’s current state of affairs, this transition from highly centralized entities into a wide collection of “hybrid” and liberal democracies reveals much about the priorities of Europe immediately following the end of the war.

            Following this thought, it seems fairly likely that there was a backlash against the authoritarian ideals which flourished both before and during the war. Judt makes a distinct point, however, of emphasizing the widespread receptiveness to the concepts of economic planning and increased state involvement in social affairs. His argument, as outlined in the 3^rd chapter of “Postwar”, links the intense wish for political stability and the necessity of economic reconstruction in order to justify this support. Therefore, Europe’s economic policy was the direct realization of the population’s wishes.

            While this explanation does account for the end result of the transition, it misses a major factor in the process.  It is hard to justify the theory that economic planning and increased state involvement were directly preferred by the European population, when the ruling governments did little to decentralize their wartime power. Thus, it becomes much more likely that European governments simply maintained their status and, at the same time, garnered widespread support for their policies. While essential policies were passed during this postwar period, the impetus for such actions was not pluralism, but rather the desire to extend the powers of wartime governments.