"European civil war"

[MelPack]

let's not build a whole thread supporting such infantilism.

Indeed, indeed

Regards

Mel

[truthergw]

Calm down dear! - it's only a discussion forum.

Thank you both for the links.

The way that I read that I read the usage of the term is that it is purely a shorthand for an historical process that culminated in the displacement of 'European' hegemony in the world. This is substantially removed from a teleological proposition about European integration and re-writing history accordingly based upon 'misunderstandings'.

Regards

Mel

Presumably the obfuscation is indicative of a lack of real understanding?

[George Armstrong Custer]

Indeed, indeed

Regards

Mel

Are you saying the idea that wars could be avoided by politicians slugging it out in a field isn't reductive and infantile then?

ciao,

GAC

[MelPack]

Are you saying the idea that wars could be avoided by politicians slugging it out in a field isn't reductive and infantile then?

I advance no such proposition.

I merely offered the quote as a comparitor to indicate a lack of consistency when it comes to proclamations about 'the patronising tone of superiority' used in certain posts.

Why am I currently thinking of pots, kettles and greenhouses?

Regards

Mel

[Chris Martin]

The argument runs broadly that, at the beginning of the conflict, the various monarchies were from the same family and, towards the end of the period, there was a growing single culture & social elite. Europe was, therefor, homogenised.

More of a big family piss up then. We should call it the Troubled European Family Reunion of 1914-1918. Which would make Versailles the resulting Family Court case.

[SiegeGunner]

This is substantially removed from a teleological proposition ...

Which, if I understand the term correctly, is when someone has designs on your virtue ...

[George Armstrong Custer]

Why am I currently thinking of pots, kettles and greenhouses?

Regards

Mel

Beats me, because your attempted analogy doesn't work. I called the concept of politicians physically fighting our wars infantile and could back it up with an argument why. You merely had a pop at 'the usual suspects' mouthing off about something which you suggested didn't even exist, despite one source having been already noted earlier on the thread.

ciao,

GAc

[MelPack]

Presumably the obfuscation is indicative of a lack of real understanding?

Tom

I looked at the decription of the LSE course and frankly the title does not correspond with the content - a not unusual phenomenon given that academics often opt for snappy titles to attract students to their course.

As for the citation of Preston in the Wiki article, I do not have the book at hand, but to a degree he is right in asserting that the Spanish Civil War was a war between the major European powers.

Regards

Mel

[centurion]

As for the citation of Preston in the Wiki article, I do not have the book at hand, but to a degree he is right in asserting that the Spanish Civil War was a war between the major European powers.

An exageration - Britain and France were not involved in the way that Italy Germany and the USSR were. Even then they were largly involved by proxy through the supply of the sinews of war - the actual numbers of German Italian and Soviet citizens involved were relatively small

[George Armstrong Custer]

An exageration - Britain and France were not involved in the way that Italy Germany and the USSR were. Even then they were largly involved by proxy through the supply of the sinews of war - the actual numbers of German Italian and Soviet citizens involved were relatively small

I agree - whilst other European nations may have used the Spanish Civil War as a testing ground for the technology and tactics of war, this was a far cry from making it a European Civil War. Similarly, those individuals from other European nations who went to Spain to fight did so from ideological motives as represented by the politics of one side or the other in the Spanish Civil War, not as part of a Civil War between the nation states of Europe - and anyway, as there was no political pan-European entity, a war between those nations does not fit the definition of 'Civil War'.

ciao,

GAC

[truthergw]

Tom

..................

As for the citation of Preston in the Wiki article, I do not have the book at hand, but to a degree he is right in asserting that the Spanish Civil War was a war between the major European powers.

Regards

Mel

In other words, the Spanish Civil War was used by other European countries to rehearse their upcoming war, which was not a civil war unless we go in for some high redefinition of the meaning of Civil War. To describe a war which involved nations as far apart as Japan and USA and involved fighting in Middle East between the Ottoman Empire and the Entente as a European Civil War would take quite a bit of explanation to convince me.

[MelPack]

In other words, the Spanish Civil War was used by other European countries to rehearse their upcoming war, which was not a civil war unless we go in for some high redefinition of the meaning of Civil War.

That is your inference and not the substance of the comment that I made. I would dearly love to discuss the role of the European powers in the Spansh Civil War - it goes well beyond a 'testing ground' and 'rehearsal' argument. The fate of the Second Republic was determined to a very large degree by the interplay between the major powers. The denial of armaments to the Republic by Britain and France was as lethal as the counterrevolutionary intervention of the Soviet Union and military support for the fascists by Germany and Italy.

But to return to the topic in hand - I have re-read the Wiki article. It strikes me as very poor scholarship. The supposed adherents to the 'European Civil War' school of thought appear to be cited out of context and there is not one single source provided where the tenets of the 'school' are laid out in the manner suggested by the article.

I quite honestly believe that you are chasing a phantom.

Regards

Mel

[shinglma]

The supposed adherents to the 'European Civil War' school of thought appear to be cited out of context and there is not one single source provided where the tenets of the 'school' are laid out in the manner suggested by the article.

I don't recall it being a major tenet of Paul Preston's thought when he was my tutor in the mid-80's. However that might be because he only later espoused such theories - or more likely because I wasn't listening at the time

Regards

Mike S

[Guest]

Whose idea is it to now call the Great War of 1914-18 the European Civil War ?

Jay Winter.

1. From the Wikipedia:

"At Yale, he teaches a lecture course entitled "Europe in the Age of Total War, 1914-1945," in which he argues that World War I, World War II, and the inter-war period, are better understood as one "European Civil War."

2. In his contribution at Ypres, Dead Reckoning Passchendaele 1917 - 2007 Conference, November 2007

[centurion]

The denial of armaments to the Republic by Britain and France was as lethal as the counterrevolutionary intervention of the Soviet Union and military suport for the fascists by Germany and Italy.

Curious logic - by not participating you are participating! Huh!

[George Armstrong Custer]

Jay Winter.

Thanks for that addition to the list - Jay Winter is a well established historian. Some Phantom. Winter may be suggestive, as someone already hinted at, that this 20th century 'European Civil War' theory may find more favour, if not have originated, in the US. I can see how it might also find favour with those promoting ever greater European integration today though through its assumption that Europe can be viewed historically as a single entity whose wars are by definition 'Civil Wars.' Not a view I subscribe to.

ciao,

GAC

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Winter may be suggestive, as someone already hinted at, that this 20th century 'European Civil War' theory may find more favour, if not have originated, in the US.

I have heard it used by American academics, graduates and post graduates and a smattering of British ones too. I have not made a list of every single person I have ever heard/ read using it. There is a body of American opinion that regards Europe as all the same and the boarders as a small matter. I presume that it is the reverse of the melting pot: all these people came together in the USA, so the differences between them can't have been too great.

[John_Hartley]

it might also find favour with those promoting ever greater European integration today

Not necessarily by me (although I put myself on the "extreme integrationist" wing of that debate), except in the context of the remarks I made at post 6, making comparisons with the aftermath of the war between the American states.

[John Gilinsky]

Me thinks we doth dwell too much on sucheth gibberish! Civil wars are internal political divisions that spill out into armed conflicts within a nation. To refer to the continent of Europe which had both nation states and empires as fighting a civil war during 1914 - 1918 is a mixture as has already been pointed out partly of presentism, political correctness dictating history and delusional factual folly.

John

[George Armstrong Custer]

except in the context of the remarks I made at post 6, making comparisons with the aftermath of the war between the American states.

I don't see that as an unreasonable analogy, John, in so far as discussing the aftermath of a war between the nation states of a continent on the one hand and the federal states of a continent on the other. I'd draw the line at claiming that both were therefore 'Civil Wars' however.

Best,

George

[Gibbo]

I've searched for the phrase 'European Civil War' in JSTOR, which gives academics & students access to a wide range of journals. An article by Christopher Hollis in the October 1939 issue of a journal called The Review of Politics (vol. 1 no. 4) uses the phrase 'what was in essence the European Civil War of 1914.' There's no typo, the article is from 1939, NOT 1993. It was written before the war & praise Chamberlain.

The phrase appears in several reviews of Too Serious a Business: European Armed Forces and the Approach to the Second World War by Donald Cameron Watt, which was published in 1975 & brings together a number of lectures that he gave at Cambridge in 1973. It also appears in Milan Hauner's review of A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II by Gerhard L. Weinberg, which appears in the June 1995 issue of the American Historical Review, but in this case to indicate that Weinberg rejects the hypothesis, regarding 'the two world wars as fundamentally different.'

There are in total 60 appearances of the phrase in History & Political Science journals. Some are reviews or adverts for books, notably that of Cameron Watt. Other articles to use it are listed below. They generally mention it only once or perhaps twice. Articles that use it in a different context, notably to describe the Thirty Years War in 17th century have been omitted. The 'European Civil War' is regarded as being 1914-45 unless otherwise stated.

'The Future as Arbiter of Theoretical Controversies: Predictions, Explanations and the End of the Cold War'

James Lee Ray and Bruce Russett

British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1996).

This article attributes the phrase to John Lewis Gaddis's The United States and the End of the Cold War.

'The Seventy-Five Years' War, 1914-1989: Some Observations on the Psychology of American Foreign Policy-Making during the 20th Century.

Lee E. Dutter

Political Psychology, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Sep., 1991),

This has a section entitled THE EUROPEAN CIVIL WAR

'London Banks, the German Standstill Agreements, and 'Economic Appeasement' in the 1930s'

Neil Forbes

The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Nov., 1987),

This article doesn't use the phrase in the text but quotes an essay by Donald Cameron Watt called the 'European Civil War' that appears in The fascist challenge and the policy of appeasement (1983), edited by W. Mommsen & l. Kettenacker.

'The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency'

George H. Quester

International Organization, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Spring, 1970),

'Developing the Twentieth Century World History Course: A Case-Study at Ohio State'

John Rothney

The History Teacher, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Aug., 1987),

The European Civil War is the title of one lecture in this course.

'Nationalism in Eastern Asia'

William R. Braisted

The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Dec., 1954),

This quotes Asia and Western Domination by K. M. Panikkar, 'the Indian scholar -diplomat' as using the phrase to describe WWI.

'Nations Examine Their Past: A Comparative Analysis of the Historiography of the "Long" Second World War'

R. J. B. Bosworth

The History Teacher, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Aug., 1996),

This quotes West German President Richard von Weiszacker as using the phrase in a 1985 speech.

'The European Polity: Biography of an Idea'

Andreas Dorpalen

The Journal of Politics, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Nov., 1948),

This argues that 'all of [Woodrow] Wilson's World War I speeches proceeded from the assumption that that war was essentially a European Civil War.'

'The End of Communism in Eastern Europe'

George Schopflin

International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 66, No. 1 (Jan., 1990),

'Global Utopias and Clashing Civilizations: Misunderstanding the Present'

John Gray

International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 74, No. 1 (Jan., 1998),

This uses the phrase to describe WWI.

National Identity and the Idea of European Unity

Anthony D. Smith

International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 68, No. 1 (Jan., 1992),

This says that 'Pan-Europeans...believed that Eurropean integration was imperative to prevent a recurrence of any European Civil War.'

'Political Philosophy and the Theory of International Relations'

David S. Yost

International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 70, No. 2 (Apr., 1994),

This article discusses the recently publsihed lectures of Martin Wright, whoc believed that non-European nations saw WWII as a European Civil War, with Hitler introducing European "colonial methods" into Europe.

'William Harbutt Dawson: The Career and Politics of an Historian of Germany'

Stefan Berger

The English Historical Review, Vol. 116, No. 465 (Feb., 2001),

This uses the phrase in the context of the 1930s & conflict between fascism, democracy & communism.

[healdav]

The term 'European Civil War' or similar is not nor ever has been used by the EU in any context whatsoever. In fact, the wars are rarely if ever mentioned, even among the staff at coffee.

However, it is true to say that all the treaties signed before Britain joined the EU have the sentence "In order to make further wars in Europe impossible", in the preamble. For some reason putting this in upset Thatcher. Don't ask me why.

[Corporal Chris]

The term 'European Civil War' or similar is not nor ever has been used by the EU in any context whatsoever. In fact, the wars are rarely if ever mentioned, even among the staff at coffee.

However, it is true to say that all the treaties signed before Britain joined the EU have the sentence "In order to make further wars in Europe impossible", in the preamble. For some reason putting this in upset Thatcher. Don't ask me why.

There has probably been too much on this subject already but I will just sign off by saying that when in Brussels I have been in informal conversation with people from a number of different countries and this phrase has been used. I am not suggesting that it is part of an attempt to re-write history. On a more positive note off to France tomorrow so should have the 'photos promised by the end of next week.

Regards,

Chris.

[healdav]

Well all I can say is that after having worked for the EU for 32 years (albeit in Luxembourg, not Brussels), I can't remember the term ever being used.

No war was ever discussed at any time, except when I shared an office with a French guy who had been a pilot in the RAF and had once met the German who shot him down.

And that even though in the early days there were some people who had fought in WW2, and even some who were said to have fairly murky jobs - to go no further. The truth or otherwise of the assertions I have no idea about.

[centurion]

Just an odd thought given that the 'World Series' is confined to teams from North America (Japanese teams I understand have asked to compete but been turned down) could not America call the ACW the World War?