I'm currently listening to Judt's postwar audiobook. I'm half-way to the end, and without having read anything else about that era it seems really interesting. However, I can't help but wonder what are the main criticisms from other historians against the narrative offered in the book (I'm guessing that there should be some).
Considering that Judt is a left-leaning writer, I found his writing about left wing and right wing politics in post-war Europe incredibly balanced; I've re-read it once already, and it's one of my favourite books on modern European history. I haven't seen or heard any significant criticism of Post War (if anyone has, by all means...).
So far as I can tell, he does an excellent job of chronicling Europe in the Post WWII years.
In a discussion based seminar I took in Fall '14, my classmates voiced some concerns - reasonably so, especially after my taking a WW2 class. Big caveat here, we were only assigned the last ~100 pages.
Bearing this in mind, some classmates were not happy with his treatment of Europe as a whole. They felt that the separate legacies and theaters of the war required a very distinct and different discussion of postwar. Considering the blood letting and immense population transfers during and after the war in the East, to do so would be wise.
Hope that gives you something to think about as you read along. I very much enjoyed what I did read of the book, and plan to return to it sometime.
Just found this thread. I finished the book the other day. Amazing book.