Fordism is widely accepted outside France and isn't restricted to regulation theory. It pops up, independently in marxist industrial sociology (Johnson-Forest / Braverman) as the concrete results of research. It appears as a concrete research object, a theoretical category, and a transcended political and theoretical moment in Autonomism (Cleaver, Reading Capital, libcom).
One issue with Fordism is that one needs a stable definition if you're going to move forward. Considering Fordism as both
- A method of social and technical relations of production within the factory, focused on Taylorism, deskilling, management imposition of machines and brutalisation to [attempt and fail] at taking the knowledge of control of actual production out of the hands of workers; and,
- A method of ordering and distributing the products of widespread consumer production (ie: increasing sector IIb) as a way to stave off declining rates of profit, including, but not limited to, a widespread consumer economy, increased male full time worker (unionised) pay, increased male majority ethnicity permanency and work availability, an attempt at "full" employment, restriction of women from the work place, forced domesticity for women, the development of a "fuller" welfare state aimed at increasing the quality of labour (health and education mainly)
This is a relatively standard definition: Fordism is both a social and technical arrangement of production *AND* a channelling of social product to the working class in general by soaking up the reserve army of labour (unemployed) and increasing wage and non-wage returns to labour.
Fordism entered Europe due to the WW I
The following is an Autonomist answer:
Fordism entered advance industrial societies as a form of social and technical relations of production, largely as a reaction to radical syndicalism (US's IWW, UK's shop steward, France, Germany, Soviet Union) and workers' revolutions (Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Soviet Union). This happened slowly, sector by sector, as the increased productive potentials of firing a whole bunch of skilled tradesmen and replacing them with unskilled general labour operating machines that "embodied" the skill (Gramsci on this) indicated a higher level of profit.
However, if you're aware of the least Marx you'd know that an increase in the Organic Composition of Capital, the "machiney"-ness of production, causes over-production (your "surproduction" in English) and leads to a declining rate of profit and a momentary crisis such as, why, a great depression.
The working class remained undisciplined through until the end of WWII. Why after WWII did the working class become "disciplined" generally, and retreat to mere industrial militancy and occasional insurrections in the East?
Because after WWII Fordism's broader elements developed: a method of ordering and distributing the widespread consumer production.
What roles did WWI and WWII play in this? Directly, little. The Marshall plan was directed against working class self-activity, as was the imposition of Comecon. The introduction of Fordist production methods in the 1920s was directed against the skilled workers who lead syndicalist unions.
The broader point is: War empowers workers. Total wars impose elements of Fordism as a general economic relationship: forced labour quality standards (even if they fail) and full employment. Full employment is generally considered to empower workers, as it indicates capital is no longer able to use a reserve army of labour (the unemployed) against the employed. So WWI and WWII both strengthened and aggrieved labour movements.
And these strong and aggrieved labour movements had to be dealt with.
In the 1920s Capital turned to Fordism in the factory.
In the 1950s Capital turned to Fordism in society.