4 ms·

I recently read some books on history of Postwar Europe, and they contains a lot of things which were counter to what I had previously assumed. * Postwar Europ

I recently read some books on history of Postwar Europe, and they contains a lot of things which were counter to what I had previously assumed. * Postwar European countries were almost all homogeneous, as non majority ethnicities were driven out either during the war (Germany) or during the immediate post war period (Poland, Czechslovakia). * Before Europe became prosperous, it very not welcoming of other ethnicities, even Europeans of other countries. * Apart from America, we have not seen evolution of prosperous countries which are both democratic and heterogeneous, and America faces it's own problems due to the same. Europe was not used to these, but the same thing seem to be playing out there. * A lot of liberal European policies came into existence only after the prosperity. A slight dip in prosperity can easily turn things very ugly. Given all this, the rise of far right in Europe doesn't feel surprising.

mytailorisrich 3y ago
There were waves of migration within Europe before WWII, that sometimes created some tension but by and large it only took a generation to assimilate them because in general (1) they made efforts to assimilate and (2) cultures were close enough that it wasn't too difficult. An example is Italian migrants to France (and other European countries) in the late 19th and early 20th century. What has happened since and is still happening, is a combination of continuously very large numbers of migrants and lack of assimilation.
sofixa 3y ago
> Postwar European countries were almost all homogeneous Where are you getting this from? From Spain through France to Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, with Belgium as the cherry on top, many countries in Europe had ethnic and religious minorities, sometimes quite significant ones, or flat out multiple main ethnic and religious groups (Belgium or Yugoslavia that had 4 main ethnic groups from 3 religions). Even Germany had two religious groups (Catholic and Protestant). Also it's exactly after WW2 that immigration from the colonies to France ramped up, both of pieds noirs (French people from the colonies getting expelled from the now independent countries) and not, with the associated building boom of new cities around Paris to have somewhat to house all the people. Unless you're using "homogenous" as a racist dog whistle for skin colour, as if it matters, it's simply untrue.
- crop_rotation 3y ago
  This is one of the sources I am using for my comments: https://www.amazon.com/Postwar-History-Europe-Since-1945/dp/0143037757 https://www.amazon.com/Postwar-History-Europe-Since-1945/dp/... Yugoslavia (and all the violence that happened during and post it's collapse) is not a good example of what happens in a heterogeneous countries once the dictator was out. Belgium and the two main areas/languages of it only came to harmony after the prosperity, and it mostly functioned like two countries within a state with almost all the powers to the two separate regions. Ethnic minorities did exist in Europe before the wars, but in the post war period most countries kicked their ethnic minorities out. Catholic and Protestants had to endure centuries of violence (almost as long as the history of the USA itself) together before learning to live together. Sure, after a long long period of assimilation everything can become assimilated together like that. > it's exactly after WW2 that immigration from the colonies to France The immigration to France was almost entirely from Algeria, not multiple colonies. And that too didn't go well and the immigrants faced tons and tons of discrimination. By homogeneous I mean culturally homogenous here. You seem to use the word racist very casually, as if anyone whose opinions sound untrue to you is driven by racism. You also state something as simply untrue yet cite nothing to back such strong claims.
  - sofixa 3y ago
    > Yugoslavia (and all the violence that happened during and post it's collapse) is not a good example of what happens in a heterogeneous countries once the dictator was out. But it is a perfect example of a highly heterogeneous society being quite prosperous (relatively for the Eastern bloc and their starting position, which was a pretty much destroyed country), held together by nothing but a dictator. > Belgium and the two main areas/languages of it only came to harmony after the prosperity, and it mostly functioned like two countries within a state with almost all the powers to the two separate regions It started functioning as two separate countries within a state to an extent only in the 1970s, which is hardly "post-war". Before that the Flemish were discriminated against quite heavily. > Ethnic minorities did exist in Europe before the wars, but in the post war period most countries kicked their ethnic minorities out. Yes, this is your premise, but as I said, it's flat out untrue. Spain didn't kick out Catalans; France didn't kick out Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, various colonial descendants, or the Corsicans; Belgium didn't kick out the Flemish; Yugoslavia didn't kick out the Bosniaks; Italy didn't kick out the Austrians in Tyrol; Bulgaria didn't kick out the Tatars or Turks; Romania didn't kick out the Hungarians, etc etc etc. Your premise is somewhat true in a very narrow geographic region, namely Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland, where mass population transfers occurred. But trying to generalise it to an European wide thing and link prosperity to it is wrong, and yes, does sound like a racist dog whistle, but not because I don't like it, simply because you're trying to link kicking the "others" out to prosperity which is what many far right parties and persons have promised. > The immigration to France was almost entirely from Algeria, not multiple colonies. And that too didn't go well and the immigrants faced tons and tons of discrimination It was mostly from the Magrheb, including Algeria, but also Portugal. And yes they did, so France wasn't homogenous yet was still hugely prosperous? > You also state something as simply untrue yet cite nothing to back such strong claims. The strong claims of basic demographics in multiple European countries? Wasn't aware a source was needed for them, here you go as a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Tyrol?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Tyrol?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France (Immigration after WW2)

mytailorisrich 3y ago

There were waves of migration within Europe before WWII, that sometimes created some tension but by and large it only took a generation to assimilate them because in general (1) they made efforts to assimilate and (2) cultures were close enough that it wasn't too difficult. An example is Italian migrants to France (and other European countries) in the late 19th and early 20th century. What has happened since and is still happening, is a combination of continuously very large numbers of migrants and lack of assimilation.

sofixa 3y ago

> Postwar European countries were almost all homogeneous Where are you getting this from? From Spain through France to Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, with Belgium as the cherry on top, many countries in Europe had ethnic and religious minorities, sometimes quite significant ones, or flat out multiple main ethnic and religious groups (Belgium or Yugoslavia that had 4 main ethnic groups from 3 religions). Even Germany had two religious groups (Catholic and Protestant). Also it's exactly after WW2 that immigration from the colonies to France ramped up, both of pieds noirs (French people from the colonies getting expelled from the now independent countries) and not, with the associated building boom of new cities around Paris to have somewhat to house all the people. Unless you're using "homogenous" as a racist dog whistle for skin colour, as if it matters, it's simply untrue.

crop_rotation 3y ago
This is one of the sources I am using for my comments: https://www.amazon.com/Postwar-History-Europe-Since-1945/dp/0143037757 https://www.amazon.com/Postwar-History-Europe-Since-1945/dp/... Yugoslavia (and all the violence that happened during and post it's collapse) is not a good example of what happens in a heterogeneous countries once the dictator was out. Belgium and the two main areas/languages of it only came to harmony after the prosperity, and it mostly functioned like two countries within a state with almost all the powers to the two separate regions. Ethnic minorities did exist in Europe before the wars, but in the post war period most countries kicked their ethnic minorities out. Catholic and Protestants had to endure centuries of violence (almost as long as the history of the USA itself) together before learning to live together. Sure, after a long long period of assimilation everything can become assimilated together like that. > it's exactly after WW2 that immigration from the colonies to France The immigration to France was almost entirely from Algeria, not multiple colonies. And that too didn't go well and the immigrants faced tons and tons of discrimination. By homogeneous I mean culturally homogenous here. You seem to use the word racist very casually, as if anyone whose opinions sound untrue to you is driven by racism. You also state something as simply untrue yet cite nothing to back such strong claims.
- sofixa 3y ago
  > Yugoslavia (and all the violence that happened during and post it's collapse) is not a good example of what happens in a heterogeneous countries once the dictator was out. But it is a perfect example of a highly heterogeneous society being quite prosperous (relatively for the Eastern bloc and their starting position, which was a pretty much destroyed country), held together by nothing but a dictator. > Belgium and the two main areas/languages of it only came to harmony after the prosperity, and it mostly functioned like two countries within a state with almost all the powers to the two separate regions It started functioning as two separate countries within a state to an extent only in the 1970s, which is hardly "post-war". Before that the Flemish were discriminated against quite heavily. > Ethnic minorities did exist in Europe before the wars, but in the post war period most countries kicked their ethnic minorities out. Yes, this is your premise, but as I said, it's flat out untrue. Spain didn't kick out Catalans; France didn't kick out Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, various colonial descendants, or the Corsicans; Belgium didn't kick out the Flemish; Yugoslavia didn't kick out the Bosniaks; Italy didn't kick out the Austrians in Tyrol; Bulgaria didn't kick out the Tatars or Turks; Romania didn't kick out the Hungarians, etc etc etc. Your premise is somewhat true in a very narrow geographic region, namely Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland, where mass population transfers occurred. But trying to generalise it to an European wide thing and link prosperity to it is wrong, and yes, does sound like a racist dog whistle, but not because I don't like it, simply because you're trying to link kicking the "others" out to prosperity which is what many far right parties and persons have promised. > The immigration to France was almost entirely from Algeria, not multiple colonies. And that too didn't go well and the immigrants faced tons and tons of discrimination It was mostly from the Magrheb, including Algeria, but also Portugal. And yes they did, so France wasn't homogenous yet was still hugely prosperous? > You also state something as simply untrue yet cite nothing to back such strong claims. The strong claims of basic demographics in multiple European countries? Wasn't aware a source was needed for them, here you go as a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Tyrol?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Tyrol?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France (Immigration after WW2)