Page 176

AD ALTA

JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

WELFARE STATE VS. WARFARE STATE

MILAN KATUNINEC

Department of Political Sciences, Faculty of Philosophy,

Universitas Tyrnaviensis in Trnava, Hornopotočná 23, 918
43Trnava, Slovak Republic

email:

mkatunin@truni.sk

This paper is an outcome of the VEGA scientific project No. VEGA 1/0131/18
entitled Europe in Movement. Multicausality of Present Democracy Crisis and the
Rise of Extremism in Europe.

Abstract: The presented study pays attention to potential risks of extremism for
democracy in Europe. In this context it follows the military success of Nazi Germany
in the summer of 1940 alongside the conceptions of the ´New Order´ in Europe, which
pressured British policy-makers to focus greater attention to social issues. The study
also sheds light on the activities of institutions which provided opportunities for
notable individuals from across the political spectrum to discuss problems of social
policy. Under the leadership of William Beveridge, a social system was developed
which was primarily funded from the state budget. The Beveridge Report was
presented as a key instrument of radical social security reforms, which gained quite
wide admiration in post-war western Europe.

Keywords: Beveridge, Europe, Great Britain, Nazi Germany, New Order, Welfare
state.

1 Introduction

The primary junction of all contemporary interpretations of the
wrecking of democracy in the interwar period of some European
countries is multicausality. Also due to the fact that many
countries now face multiple crises, we must not underestimate
the fact that, in the wake of the Great Depression of the 1930s,
modern mass society allowed the Nazis to attract voters from
across the social spectrum. In times when socio-economic
subjects were at the forefront, traditional political parties moved
ineptly over the political terrain. In addition to the worsening
social and economic situation, these standard parties were also
burdened by the long-term accumulation of causes for which
they were held accountable by their antagonists. Hitler’s success
is often used as an example of how some countries can lose their
freedom from within in a democratic way. The German Nazis
realized that the political and social climate in the country had
also helped them to achieve this success. In the conflict between
democracy and totalitarianism, it is often forgotten that the
German Nazis tried to take advantage of the fact that German
social policy had enjoyed great international prestige since the
time of Bismarck's social reforms.

The military success of Nazi

Germany in the summer of 1940 pressured British policymakers
to focus intensively on the welfare state. Many prominent
experts from several scientific fields participated in various
social reforms, and a number of their social proposals such as the
health care system named after William Beveridge served as the
basis for the post-World War II welfare state.

2 Material and methods

The proposed study seeks to contribute, through the knowledge
of our recent past, to the development of critical thinking in the
coming generation, which is growing in a complicated world of
huge possibilities as well as threats. The main aim of the study is
to highlight the potential risks of the growing popularity of
extremism for democracy in Europe as well as the importance of
social issues in a democratic society. Historical experience with
the ascendance of totalitarian regimes to power very clearly
shows how easily “power can rise up from the ground” on a
wave of political crisis, growing dissatisfaction and the inability
or unwillingness of democratic politicians to solve existing
social problems.

An important aim of this study is also to point

out the activities of the United Kingdom focused on the analysis
of various crucial economic aspects concerning the post-war
period. The research design of this study is characterized by
empirical data and background information vested in available
primary and secondary sources. Secondary sources in my
research are predominantly books and studies of internationally

recognized authors. Primary sources are represented by archival
materials, which are fundamental for research in the field of
historical and political sciences, integral to social sciences, in
comprehending the actions and evolution of political actors. In
the study a historical, comparative and analytical research
method is used. I also tried to combine chronological and
thematic approaches.

2.1 Results and discussion

Although the United Kingdom (UK) is no longer a member of
the European Union and British Euroscepticism is not just a
phenomenon of recent times, a lot of inspiration and ideas

for

integration and the welfare state on our continent have emerged
in this country. The purpose of this study is to highlight the
potential risks for democracy in Europe by focusing on the Nazi
conceptions of the "New Order of Europe" (Neuordnung
Europas). The study also pays attention to some social and
economic activities in Great Britain, which gained quite wide
admiration in post-war western Europe, as well as to some
proposals on European post-war integration. Many discussions
are currently led on the crisis of democracy in the interwar
period. What is usually not mentioned, however, is that various
influential politicians leading democratic parties acted with
certain arrogance even when the political and social situation
became critical, as if nothing could go wrong. In the research,
we tried to take into account the fact that in a time of socio-
economic crisis, democratic states must not underestimate the
risk of possible decline in public trust. From the historical
experience we know that the Great Depression of the 1930s was
used by the Nazi propaganda, which tried to conceal the real
goals of Hitler's imperial policy behind the New Order of
Europe. This goals were based on pseudo-scientific theories of
race, the supremacy of the Aryan race, ethnic discrimination.

During the 1930s, Britain followed a policy of appeasement. The
war with Germany pressed British policy-makers to focus more
attention on European integration and social issues, which
played an important role in the post-war development of Europe.
In the interwar period various European intellectuals promoted
the idea that cooperation transcending borders can become
means to strengthen democracy and peace.

At the time of the

Munich Agreement, the Federal Union was launched in Britain.

It set up the Federal Union Research Institute, chaired by
William Beveridge. The institute had specialized sections in
which various aspects of post-war European integration were
discussed and analyzed.

In June 1941, the British government appointed Beveridge to
head in inquiry into Social Insurance and Allied Services. The
Minister without Portfolio Arthur Greenwood

The first influential European politician in the League of Nations who voiced his

support for a union of European nations was Aristide Briand. He recognized the
benefits of a union of the European nations in the political, economic and social
spheres. At a meeting of the League of Nations in 1929, Briand expressed his belief
that an organised cooperation is feasible in Europe, not only on the economic level,
but on the political one as well. The representatives of all twenty-seven present
European states entrusted Briand to issue a memorandum on the organization of such a
union. However, in 1929, political thinking in Europe was already affected by the
Wall Street Crash of 1929 and its possible impact on certain European countries
caused their political representatives to shift their attention towards protecting their
own economic interests.

announced in

the House of Commons that under the leadership of Beveridge,
a survey was to be conducted, "taking into account
representations received from responsible organizations and
persons concerned with the problems involved" (Social
Insurance and Allied Services, 1942). Representatives of several
Christian churches in Britain also took part in the struggle with
Nazi German propaganda, and Archbishop William Temple set
in opposition the terms “welfare state” and “power state”,
pointing out Britain’s preoccupation with providing aid in the

The founders of the Federal Union were Charles Kimber, Derek Rawnsley and

Patrick Ransome.

Arthur Greenwood (1880–1954) was a prominent member of the Labour Party and

for more than two years a member of the War Cabinet. In 1940, he was an advocate of
British resistance to the aggression of Nazi Germany.

- 176 -