Was the Moral Price paid worth it?

Judt explains in his work, Postwar, that post-war stability in Europe was largely based on the horrific actions of Hitler and Stalin, as well as the population transfer and ethnic cleansing of minorities, brought about by Europeans during and directly after the war because the outcome of these actions was, as Judt puts it, a “tidier” and more homogenous Europe. Even though the moral price paid by Europeans, both in condemnable actions and then disregard of these actions, brought much needed stability to the continent, it is difficult to argue that it was the right thing for Europe to do and that it created a better Europe in the end. The most apparent negative outcome of the new, “tidier” Europe is the high levels of xenophobia that developed in post-war European countries and that persists to this day. For example, in France the third largest political party is the National Front, an extremist, right-wing party, whose motto is France for the French and whose platform vehemently opposes immigration. The creation of homogeneous European states essentially led to Europeans being more uncomfortable with a highly diverse Europe, when formerly, as Judt points out, Europe had been an “interwoven tapestry of overlapping languages, religions, communities and nations.”(8) Now, people can argue against this by pointing to the European Union as an example of acceptance and diversity in Europe. In response, I agree that the EU demonstrates, to a certain degree, a mixing of nationalities, but it is important to note that most of the countries in the EU still desire to maintain their national sovereignty and national identity. Europeans want to assert that they are not all alike and there is no single European identity, which is one of the impediments to the full consolidation of the EU. Additionally, Europeans are incredibly wary of admitting states to the EU that are dissimilar from member states, like Turkey, further demonstrating their discomfort with the presence of “others”, as Judt calls them.
Of course, there is essentially nothing Europeans could have done to stop Hitler and Stalin’s extermination, but the acts of ethnic cleansing and forced population transfers that took place after the war could have been avoided and stability still be ensured. Additionally, Europeans could have acknowledged the horrific crimes that Hitler committed against the Jews without threatening stability. Fortunately, Europeans eventually began to acknowledge their condemnable actions, but to think if things had occurred differently during and directly after the war, I am certain Europe would be a different place today, whether it would be better or worse I cannot say, but it is likely that they would be less fearful of diversity and more accepting of others because they would realize that it was intolerance and the non-acceptance of others as humans having worth that enabled the crimes against humanity to be committed during and after World War II.