Historic post-war reconstructions. Lessons for Ukraine

by Gabriele Bonafede

This article is intended more for the wide public than specialists. It contains information and analysis that might be useful for central, regional and local administrations of Ukraine in their effort to reconstruct their country. At the same time, I kept the language accessible for the wider public with the objective of providing insights for everyone.

The present article is also the first of a series that intends to provide a general picture of comparison with other historic reconstruction efforts in a selected number of countries. These are selected to be comparable in size and population with nowadays Ukraine. The selected countries are West Germany, Italy, France and Japan.

Subsequent articles will focus on each country to provide more information on strategic issues, such as how foreign aid has been strategically spent and what lessons can be learnt – in a broad and general perspective – for the future reconstruction of Ukraine.

General considerations on historic post-war reconstructions

In other words, the present article starts with a broad evaluation of quantities involved, compared to the general conditions at the end of the war. That is, comparing the selected countries with Ukraine in terms of very general aspects and themes, including the size of funds allocated by EU to launch and implement the reconstruction of Ukraine versus funds of Marshall Plan for post WWII Western Europe and US funds for post WWII in Japan.

In the selection there are figures also for what concerns UK. However, the case of UK is an outlier, as shown in Table 1. Therefore, UK will be considered as a special case and for punctual commentary.

Physical destruction

All selected countries were physically devastated at the end of the WWII. All major cities suffered intensive strategic bombardments. Transportation infrastructures had been particularly hit in France, Italy and Germany to pave the way for the invasion of Allied troops and limit the capacity of defence for German armies. In addition, many medium-sized cities, such as Caen in France, were virtually razed to the ground by close combats within the urban area. A fate known also by the Germany capital, Berlin, and many other cities across France, Germany and Italy.

Although main Japan was not attacked via land, it suffered huge devastations from intensive bombardments. Two cities – Hiroshima and Nagasaki – were totally obliterated by nuclear bombs. Tokyo and other industrial cities in Japan and Germany – such as Hamburg, Dresden and many others – were almost entirely destroyed by conventional bombing.

Only the japanese island of Okinawa was invaded and hutterly destroyed. But all main Japanese islands had been physycally destroyed almost everywhere, including all major ports, infrastructure and industrial centers at a degree even higher than in Germnay, France and Italy .

Physical war destruction in Ukraine

Many cities of Ukraine have been suffering the same fate since 2022. Individually, dozens of small Ukrainian cities – such as Bakhmut or Marinka – have been literally razed to the ground as well. However, the physical destruction of cities and infrastructure of Ukraine is somehow more localized along areas and regions where the frontline has been stable for more than three years.

In contrast, Italy, France, Germany and Japan have suffered more extensive physical destruction in their entire territory. In other words, physical destruction in Ukraine has been in many cases more intensive, yet localized in specific regions.

Therefore, the reconstruction of Ukraine has the advantage of showing more regionalized needs. This simple and broad fact, can help in terms of prioritization of geographical efforts, offering the option of a more clear-cut locational strategy in the initial reconstruction effort.

War damages on economy

Contrary to general belief, the economy of Nazi Germany grew at a fast pace during WWII up to 1944 and even in the first two months of 1945. That growth was achieved thanks also to the systematic looting of occupied countries, huge amounts of enslaved foreign labour force and intensive military production. It was a growth certainly curbed by strategic bombing campaigns on German cities and infrastructure, but the real ordeal for German economy came when the institutional and economic functioning of the country collapsed as a result of military defeat and counter-invasion from Allied armies.

Collapsed economy in Germany and Japan

In fact, figures calculated by various sources (see this link and also other links at the end of the article) show that German economy really collapsed when Allied armies invaded Germany in 1945. The economic situation of Germany became almost that of minimal subsistence in the years 1945-1948, largely becoming a barter economy based on humanitarian aid from occupying powers. In 1946 the GDP of Germany had fallen back to the levels of 1902.

Within this context, it is not easy to estimate the GDP of Western part of Germany (West Germany) in 1945. In Table 1, it is considered at roughly 200 USD billion, or two-thirds of figures calculated for the whole of Germany (including East Germany).

In 1945, the economy of Japan had collapsed too under the weight of a lost war and widespread destruction caused by conventional and nuclear bombardments.

War and post-war economy of France and Italy

In contrast, the economies of France and Italy had endured a catastrophic reduction while in war times. Mark Harrison, calculates that Italy experienced a stagnating economy in the first three years of war (1940-1942) and then a sharp decline from 1943 to 1945 when the country became a battlefield for opposing armies and a looting field for Germany in the richer Northern portion still held by Nazi armies. By 1945 Italian economy had shrunk by around 40% compared to 1938. That is, a level similar to year 1921, according to other sources too.

Similarly, France endured a sharp decline in GDP in the four years of German occupation (mid-1940-mid-1944), and started to recover already in 1945 when French administration was firmly restored while only marginal parts of France were not yet liberated. In 1945, French economy was shattered too, and GDP levels were similar to 1919.

Yet all these economies recovered very rapidly given the circumstances and by 1950s all of them had already reached a level much higher than pre-war performances, both in general level and growth pace. By 1960s all of them would reach additional spectacular growth.

Ukraine is in a much better position

In contrast, Ukrainian economy shrank steeply only in 2022. That is, only in the first year of war, due to Russian aggression. Since 2023 Ukrainian economy has been actually growing, thanks to massive foreign aid and technological/industrial conversion to war effort – despite almost 20% of its territory occupied by Russia. The Ukrainian economy of 2025, although in undeniable difficulty, is overall in a much better shape than that experienced by continental Western Europe and Japan of 1945.

Crossed by fighting armies

Furthermore, France, Italy and Germany were all entirely crossed by fighting armies amid massive bombardments on military and civilian targets. Countless French and Italian cities had been obliterated by savage urban warfare, which added ordeal on intensive bombardment. Caen, for instance, was bitterly contested for weeks, resulting in a complete obliteration of a medium-size city. Similar fate occurred to Catania and Troina in Sicily, Italy, in 1943. Countless French, Italian and German cities experienced urban warfare which added destruction to strategic and tactical bombing.

Urban warfare was much more apocalyptic in the Eastern part of Germany, with large cities such as Berlin, Konigsberg (Kaliningrad) and Breslau completely annihilated. But the Western portion of Germany was drastically damaged too by crossing armies and urban warfare, which added to destruction from intensive strategic and tactical bombardments. Only by April 1945 Germans started to surrender en masse on the Western front, saving what was left of cities such as Munich or Nuremberg from additional urban warfare destruction on top of aerial bombing.

Crossing armies and frontlines in Ukraine

By contrast, damaged directly caused by crossing armies in Ukraine is geographically limited to specific regions. That is, on the regions that witnessed the war of position and countless assaults and shelling in the Eastern part of the country. Yet, that damage is probably much more devastating at local level than in similar situations occurred in subsequent Western frontline pauses of WWII France, Italy and Germany.

In addition, the Russian army is still employing the same devastating tactics implemented in their WWII urban warfare. That is, a progressive encirclement of urban areas and a systematic destruction from all sides. Intensity of destruction resulted in dozens of small and medium-sized Ukrainian cities completely obliterated, as it was the case in the Eastern Front of WWII. In addition, the current military firing power and capacity is much more destructive than that of 1939-45. Cities such as Bakhmut present apocalyptic destruction comparable to that caused by WWII nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Minefields

Furthermore, Ukraine reconstruction will have to face a huge cost to clear immense minefields. In fact, the war in Ukraine has been much more positional than the war of movement witnessed in WWII.

This has induced a proliferation of minefields at intensity and extension levels never matched before. The same goes for destructions caused by intensive shelling, with war-zones landscapes matching and even surpassing the lunar effect of First World War frontlines. That has certainly a huge impact on costs for reconstruction and effort to relaunch local economies in these regions.

Foreign countries initially charged for administration and/or reconstruction

Much more important in terms of civil and economic reconstruction is the institutional and administration aspect. Here, too, Ukraine has a clear advantage compared to the situation of Germany, Italy and Japan of 1945.

In 1945 the very base of national administration in Germany and Japan was essentially wiped-out and therefore inexistent. Occupying powers were charged of every aspect of administration for several years. In Italy the situation was slightly better, with only the region of Sicily witnessing a similar condition in 1943-44.

Germany and Japan were shattered and annihilated not only in physical and economic terms, but also in ethical, moral and administrative terms. They had not only lost the war amid dystopic destruction. They were shattered in the very soul of every single citizen, amid an appalling psychological, human and material condition. Indeed, Germany and Japan were not in the condition of independently running their own country before the 1950s.

France

The experience of France in 1944-45 demonstrates that reconstruction results started sooner because French themselves were in charge since liberation. In fact, a French administrative structure replaced the German occupation since the liberation of the first French municipality.

The national administration managed the country with much faster and efficient use of resources since the very beginning of post-war reconstruction, even while the war was still going on in 1945.

Not surprisingly, the GDP of France started to recover already in 1945, whereas Germany and Japan endured at least three years of complete disarray and chaos before actual recovering.

Italy

Italy benefited by a national administration and new political class systematically forming on the ashes of fascism as the frontline moved progressively northward from summer 1943 to the spring 1945. By the second half of 1945 a new and young Italian political class was already administrating the country thanks to the cooperation among different anti-fascist parties re-emerged overnight already at the fall of fascism dictatorship of 25 July 1943. Despite all chaos and ordeals endured in a civil war amid crossing foreign armies, Italy had at least a political class able to set-in for immediate post-war administration already in 1945-46.

Ukraine

Again, here Ukraine has a substantial advantage compared to the situation of Germany, Japan and even Italy of 1945. In Ukraine there is in fact a well-functioning administration backed by an entire continent – the European Union (EU). Therefore, the reconstruction of Ukraine can count on much better administrative conditions and, especially, run since the beginning by Ukrainian people themselves.

Ideally, Ukraine can perform even much better than post-WWII France, as the Ukrainian administrative structure and texture is, and has been, in place all along the war period without the traumatic, ambiguous (Vichy government in Southern France) and long pause occurred in France from mid-1940 to mid-1944.

Need for broad institutional reform

Another fundamental aspect is the need of broad institutional reforms. Again, Germany and Japan had to rebuild the very foundations of a democratically functioning State.

Italy too needed it. But at least, Italy had already re-built a democratically-oriented and a young political class, well symbolised by the emerging PM Alcide De Gasperi and quite a large number outstanding men and women. They were charged since the very beginning of transforming a dictatorship-monarchy into an advanced liberal, democratic and pluralist Republic.

By mid-1946 Italy started to have an independent and liberal institutional and administrative framework to plan for post-war reconstruction. That was thanks to the launch of the Italian Republic and a Constitutional Assembly freely voted by the entire population, including women for the first time. By the launch of Marshall Plan in 1948 the country has already the first post-war and post-dictatorship elected government and a firm network of local elected administrations able to act for their competence.

Re-foundation of a functioning State in Germany and Japan

Whereas Italy could institutionally focus on reconstruction actions in a relatively short period of time, the other two defeated powers had to wait much longer at least at national level. Amid a profound economic, social, identity and moral crisis, Germany and Japan struggled for a few years to be a fully-fledged independent and liberal state.

West Germany was formally established only on 23 May 1949 in the form of a Federal Republic comprising all territories controlled by Western Allies, including the Western part of Berlin. West Germany was entitled with Marshall Plan funds already in 1948, but it could benefit from independent decisions on use of foreign aid only by mid-1949. Furthermore, as shown in the Table 1, Germany accessed much smaller volumes of aid provided by the Marshall Plan.

Japan had to wait even longer, as only in 1952 it signed a peace agreement with US and started to act independently to run reconstruction efforts, foreign policy, etc.

For four to seven long years, both countries had to rebuild almost from scratch their political class and core institutional framework, amid extreme socio-economic difficulties.

Rekindling France

France was in much better situation, not only because had eventually won the war. However, France too had to build a new functioning system at least in terms of political class, electoral system, administrative and planning organization. The legacy of collaborationist Vichy Republic played a hindering role too, as well as the dramatic decolonization process.

Institutional reform needs in Ukraine compared to post-war reforms in Europe

Nowadays Ukraine is in a much better position than Italy, Germany and Japan for what concerns the need of reforms and national/international institutional frameworks. In addition, back in 1945 the formation of EU and a lasting peace were still a dream, or a wishful a perspective.

New continental and inter-continental perspective for Western arrangements played certainly a role already at Marshall Plan’s times, thanks to outstanding political personalities such as Adenauer and Erhard (West Germany), De Gasperi (Italy), De Gaulle (France) and Yoshida (Japan). However, the current situation for Ukraine is much better because EU exists since long and has pledged and provided full institutional, financial and material support for the reconstruction of Ukraine even before the end of the war.

Compared to almost all of Marshall Plan’s recipients, the need of instructional and administrative reforms for Ukraine is much more limited.

Entire EU backing post-war reconstruction of Ukraine

Ukraine can also count on a long experience of EU and the western World in managing all aspects of post-war (and post-dictatorship) reconstructions – not only for what concerns the Marshall Plan. And this experience includes a long list of items running from administrative capacity, regional development policy, trade arrangements, environment protection, rule of law, energy management, etc. In fact, all items that are contained in the EU-accession negotiation process already implemented with outstanding results for many other large European countries such as Spain, Poland and Romania.

The very existence of the acquis-communtaire built by EU in more than seven decades is an additional key-factor making much likelier the perspective of a faster, more effective and efficient reconstruction of Ukraine

Foreign Aid for Reconstruction

Let’s now briefly compare Foreign Aid now and then. As reported in the Table 1 above (it can be opened in a different window by clicking on it), the Marshall Plan was hardly equal in volume and intensity across assisted countries. Not surprisingly, allied nations who fought together with US against Germany and Italy – UK and France – received a much stronger help from US, both in absolute and relative terms.

Marshal Plan, intensity of aid by country

From 1948 to 1952 UK received almost 3.2 USD billion, France more than 2.7 USD billion, Italy 1.5 and Germany (West Germany) almost 1.4. In relative terms, each British citizen received around 765 USD at current value and each French citizen around 760 USD. Italians and Germans received much less per capita, around 350 USD and 330 USD respectively. That is, Italians and Germans received per capita half the amount obtained by their British and French peers.

Japanese people received more or less the same amount per capita as Germans for the reconstruction. However, we will see in the focus about Japan, that their economy was particularly helped by unforeseen favourable events – not least the stimulus on Japan’s economy occurred when providing supplies for the US army fighting in the Korean war (1950-1953).

In per-capita terms the EU aid to the reconstruction of Ukraine looks much bigger. At a staggering 1200 USD per capita equivalent, it is twice the US Marshall Plan per-capita aid for France and UK. And it is four time the per capita aid received by Italy and Germany after WWII. In addition, figures are calculated by considering only the currently pledged EU funds and its intended leverage effects for the reconstruction of Ukraine. That is, the EU Ukrainian Facility (UF) for reconstruction and related items. Possibly, these figures could be much higher, ether from other sources or by increasing the initially pledged funds.

Foreign Aid compared to the size of economy

When comparing with the size of the economy, France was – not surprisingly – much more helped than Italy and Germany. The multi-annual Marshall Plan provided in four to five years the equivalent of 20% of France’s annual GDP. Figures were much lower for Italy (12%) and West Germany (only 5%). UK received only 7% of its annual GDP. But UK’s conditions were far better. In fact, the UK economy had not experienced a sharp decline, actually was still growing while in war.

The EU funds pledged for Ukraine compared to annual GDP are similar to those received by France. Even when considering an additional economic growth for 2025, the value of UF is more or less equal to 20% of current GDP of Ukraine.

Conclusions

From the above considerations, it appears that perspective for post-war reconstruction of Ukraine and additional socio-economic development are set to be much more likely and faster than those achieved in post-war continental Europe decades ago. According to current figures and compared to objective conditions, Ukraine has indeed good chances to achieve better results than the best case – France of 1945.

The very challenging point might be the cost of clearing minefields on war-torn Ukrainian territory. In that respect, returning large areas to economic capacity risks to be very expensive and take very long. As for now these areas are relatively large but still localized in specific regions and districts.

Indeed, the institutional position of Ukraine is also much stronger than that endured by Germany and Japan, and even Italy and France back in 1945. Pledged financial aid is massive compared to previous epochal experience of reconstruction. An entire continent comprising 27 developed countries and acting as a single and very experienced player (EU) is helping one single national entity – Ukraine.

On the other hand, it is very important to see how foreign aid is spent. In the next articles, I will try to show main strategic options chosen by different countries (Germany, France, Italy and Japan) to implement post-war reconstruction. This exercise might help to draw lessons for the implementation of Ukrainian post-war reconstruction along with relevant underlying policies.