The representation of WW2 becomes different as participants are no longer eye witnesses.
The conflict of how history is interpreted in the modern day relies on many things:
- Historians should maintain a veto right
- History should be understood in relation to the sources
Exam questions are on: definitions, text comprehension, historical understanding, or practically anything, so you don’t actually know anything…
Recap done
Session 3:
Populism - a group that claims to represent ‘the real’ people (not the elite).
For the most part populism was an accusation (a negative thing), however nowadays there are parties who openly describe themselves as populist.
Continuous decline of trust in the government.
New forms of today’s politics characterized by social media and big tech influence.
Idea that democracy is generally on the decline since 2004/5.
Populism as defined by Muller:
- Attempts to fundamentally undermine democracy by essentially denying it.
- Exclusion - differentiating from other parties, differentiating from certain groups.
- Accusing the election of being rigged after losing.
- New vision of the state - integrating party members into the state
- Cultural wars are exploited in order to appeal to a certain group
Since populist parties speak for the people, the basis of truth is on the opinion of the people, rendering that they cannot factually be wrong.
3 levels of understanding populism:
Phenomenon - the concept
analytical tool - for understanding the historical events
normative approach - fitting existing historical events into predetermined concepts is ultimately an arbitrary process
Illiberal democracy - at first glance appears to be democratic but is actually lacking free speech, etc.
In the 50s and 60s there were more trust in the community and the government. The view in the 60s were that there is constant progress. There is a tendency to regard is as retrotopia.
Question Conway: How to explain “particular muted character of western Europe in the roughly twenty-five year period from the end of the 1940s to the early 1970s”?
After 20s and 30s fascism is no longer a political option.
The cold war acted as a pacifier of the western Europe, because of two poles of power, and belonging to one of them is enough to not fight with the ones from the same pole.
Focus on building a successful capitalistic model as to not make the communist model appealing.
Help of the Marshall plan that created more homogeneity about the different political parties.
How much space for change were there after ww2?
- High expectations for social and political change
- But, the limiting factors of the dual democratic/communist choice to be made
Koningskwestie - the referendum in Belgium in the 1950 against the king
Corporatistic politics - corporations, unions played a big role in politics
Role of women: more women in the workforce, they were allowed to vote, generally more rights, women organizations play a part in politics
Rescue of the nation state: xx
Politics become more detached from normal people, specialists, etc. - lays the seeds for populism, as representing the people becomes more complex
Christian democracy:
- Promises stability. An example of it - Angela Merkel
- In the 50s - 70s they didn’t have contenders from the right
- Profit from the female voters (unusual, for the most part they voted for more liberal parties)
- Central topics: family, stability, tradition, anticommunism
- No confrontation with the fascist past
Conclusion:
•50s and 60s as period of political stability in western Europe, but:
•Exceptional circumstances (Postwar recovery, absence of right-wing extremism, Cold War)
•Degree of democracy to be qualified: corporatism, still partial exclusion of large groups (women)
•More tensions than often acknowledged
•Completely different development in Eastern Europe (and partially Southern Europe)
Free world - a problematic assumption