|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Sept 15, 2018 15:44:40 GMT
This is a very well researched book by highly respected author Tony Judt. Tony explains Europe's turn toward Socialism after WWII. His thesis is that everyone was poor. Virtually all wealth on the continent had been destroyed. There was no health care, no employment, no money, just universal poverty. Thee US Government had created the Marshall Plan and contributed 13 Billion US Dollars to the recovery. That was a huge amount of money at the time that would equate to hundreds of billions in today's currency. Those funds provided welfare that helped people get back on their feet. When the Marshall plan expired, those governments had no choice but to continue offering benefits. People came to expect their governments to subsidize them. As new generations were born and grew up these benefits, and the accompanying high taxes, were expected as normal and appropriate. People didn't question those policies until recently when a flood of immigrants arrived and began demanding those same benefits. Finalist for the Pulitzer Prize Winner of the Council on Foreign Relations Arthur Ross Book Award One of the New York Times' Ten Best Books of the Year Almost a decade in the making, this much-anticipated grand history of postwar Europe from one of the world's most esteemed historians and intellectuals is a singular achievement. Postwar is the first modern history that covers all of Europe, both east and west, drawing on research in six languages to sweep readers through thirty-four nations and sixty years of political and cultural change-all in one integrated, enthralling narrative. Both intellectually ambitious and compelling to read, thrilling in its scope and delightful in its small details, Postwar is a rare joy.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Sept 30, 2018 21:43:39 GMT
This is a very well researched book by highly respected author Tony Judt. Tony explains Europe's turn toward Socialism after WWII. His thesis is that everyone was poor. Virtually all wealth on the continent had been destroyed. There was no health care, no employment, no money, just universal poverty. Thee US Government had created the Marshall Plan and contributed 13 Billion US Dollars to the recovery. That was a huge amount of money at the time that would equate to hundreds of billions in today's currency. Those funds provided welfare that helped people get back on their feet. When the Marshall plan expired, those governments had no choice but to continue offering benefits. People came to expect their governments to subsidize them. As new generations were born and grew up these benefits, and the accompanying high taxes, were expected as normal and appropriate. People didn't question those policies until recently when a flood of immigrants arrived and began demanding those same benefits. Finalist for the Pulitzer Prize Winner of the Council on Foreign Relations Arthur Ross Book Award One of the New York Times' Ten Best Books of the Year Almost a decade in the making, this much-anticipated grand history of postwar Europe from one of the world's most esteemed historians and intellectuals is a singular achievement. Postwar is the first modern history that covers all of Europe, both east and west, drawing on research in six languages to sweep readers through thirty-four nations and sixty years of political and cultural change-all in one integrated, enthralling narrative. Both intellectually ambitious and compelling to read, thrilling in its scope and delightful in its small details, Postwar is a rare joy. Thanks for drawing this book to my attention, Das. I'll certainly read it with interest. From your summary of it I'd pick up on a few points that are a bit arguable. In the first place socialism in Europe long predated WWII. There had been socialist governments in many countries long before the war (to say nothing of fascism in Italy, Nazism in Germany and Bolshevism in Russia.) So socialism didn't as it were come out of a clear blue sky - it was an established and relatively popular political movement. The degree of poverty in Europe also varied dramatically from country to country. The Swiss and Swedes (who had stayed neutral) were relatively prosperous; the Greeks were relatively poor; Eastern Europe soon found itself under Communism enforced by Russian troops so there wasn't a choice for the people what system they lived under. France dithered but broadly was more anti-Communist than pro-Communist; Holland actually MURDERED some Dutch Communists (using the Dutch police to do the job); Belgium was never that attracted to Communism; the West Germans were so devastated by the war and the trauma of Nazism that they were prepared to do almost anything.) In Britain, 1945 saw the return of a Labour government. A lot of that was opposition to years of Conservative rule as much as positive enthusiasm for socialism. And of course the Labour government did introduce a lot of good policies as well as some dubious ones. Marshall Aid was motivated more by a fear of Communism on the part of the US than anything else. I don't think most of Western Europe would have gone over to Communism but the Cold War created a climate of paranoia. But I'll certainly study the book, Das. Once again thanks for drawing it to my attention!
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Oct 29, 2018 21:45:04 GMT
You're very well read and perceptive Lin. When an author paints in broad generalities there are always holes in his arguments. Our world is too complex for such generalities to apply universally.
Socialism as a political system goes far beyond the welfare state. Physical and economic devastation was everywhere in Europe after WWII with Switzerland the major exception. Almost everyone needed help, some more than others.
There is no question that people receiving handouts from the government do become acclimated to receiving handouts and want them to continue.
Successful politicians are often those who confiscate funds from the wealthy and use the money to buy votes from the less successful, but more numerous, members of society. They also try to convince both sides that they're doing it for their own good.
|
|