"European civil war"

[Desdichado]

Yes he died three or four years ago now I think. I first came across him in 1976 when he published his dual biography 'Crazy Horse & Custer' - one of his books which was later identified as having uncredited chunks from other peoples work in it. At that time Ambrose sported shoulder length hair, but his appearance seemed to become more conservative as did his views over the years. A shame about the plagiarism scandal, as he was a readable enough historian.

ciao,

GAC

On "The World at War", he appeared with long grey hair and wearing a knitted Arran sweater looking like an unemployed lobster fisherman. He was a bit too sanctimonious for my liking.

[Chris_Baker]

At the end of an otherwise quite decent film shown at Wellington Quarries (the recently opened cave system near Arras), the narrator refers to the Great War as the "First European Civil War". It's clearly some kind of right-on 21st Century European political statement, and I would argue it is misleading and inaccurate. Who is behind this?

[John_Hartley]

Chris

I have a recollection of a fairly extensive thread a few months back on said subject. My search skills seem to be playing up but I'm sure it's there somewhere.

John

[centurion]

There is a bunch of nutters in the USA who sometimes dress up in bedsheets who have been known to refer to it in this way. There is an associated web site that uses the term - it sometimes pops up when doing searches.

[Pete1052]

I heard the war called the "suicide of Western Civilization," and that was in the early '70s.

[Gibbo]

Here's a link to the previous thread. I have also heard the phrase The European Civil War used to present the entire period 1914-45 as a single war; how the proponents of the view that the events of 1914-45 were all part of the same conflict can also argue it to be European is beyond me.

[stevem49]

Possibly they mis-quoted 'The Great European War for Civilisation'

[nigelcave]

Possibly they mis-quoted 'The Great European War for Civilisation'

When I first heard this expression, over twenty yeas ago at least, the (unattributed) source mentioned was from India, and from such a perspective I can certainly see at least a point to the statement, if no stronger than that.

[Ron Clifton]

If you allow the usual definition of a "civil war" to be a conflict between groups in a single political entity, then neither the Napoleonic Wars, the First World War or the Second World War could possibly be described as "civil", although from a non-European perspective, and especially from the non-interventionist standpoint in the USA, they might seem to be so.

Both "European War" and "Great European War" were current at the time.

Ron

[Gibbo]

Those calling WWI the First European Civil War would, in order to justify their claim, prove the following:

A war between nations was a civil war.

A war in which both the people and the locations came from all round the world was European.

Even they managed to justify both the assertions above, and thus prove that it was a European Civil War, in order to call it the first such war, they would still have to explain why the same arguments didn't apply to The Thirty Years War, The Nine Years War, The War of the Spanish Succession, The War of the Austrian Succession, The Seven Years War and the Napoleonic Wars, plus perhaps some othes that I've missed out.

EDIT: corrected 'people and participants' to say 'locations and participants', shown in bold above, which was what I meant to say.

Edited 26 July , 2009 by Gibbo

[phil andrade]

At the end of an otherwise quite decent film shown at Wellington Quarries (the recently opened cave system near Arras), the narrator refers to the Great War as the "First European Civil War". It's clearly some kind of right-on 21st Century European political statement, and I would argue it is misleading and inaccurate. Who is behind this?

Sorry Chris, but I can reconcile myself to 1914-1918 being described as a "European Civil War", although designating it as the "first" of such is more contentious, IMHO.

Phil.

[centurion]

Sorry Chris, but I can reconcile myself to 1914-1918 being described as a "European Civil War", although designating it as the "first" of such is more contentious, IMHO.

Phil.

With all those well known European countries such as Russia, America, Brazil, Japan, Thailand (you might just possibly classify Turkey as European but...)

A number of extreme right wing groups like to characterise 1914 -45 as a European Civil War (sometimes calling it the Brothers War) with the implication that we should now unite to deal with the [pick hue according to prejudice of choice] hordes.

[salesie]

I can understand why such a label would be applied by some, and approved and supported by those with a vested interest in seeing Europe (the EU in particular) being viewed by the rest of the world as a single political entity. And, particularly with the one-hundreth anniversary rapidly approaching resulting in massive publicity, I can see why calling it the First would ideally suit those interests.

It is quite simply a case of "manipulating" history for political advantage in the present. Nothing new in this "historical spin", but it should be strenuously fought against wherever and whenever it appears.

Cheers-salesie.

[Spud Trevor]

I would agree with Salesie, my first reaction when I think of a civil war is the English or American civil wars - war's fought between people of the same nation. If you like to think of Europe as one nation, then the definition suits. However, trying to apply it retrospectively seems to me to be trying to make a current political point, rather than an accurate historical one.

Regards,

Spud

[Bingo794]

It is quite simply a case of "manipulating" history for political advantage in the present. Nothing new in this "historical spin", but it should be strenuously fought against wherever and whenever it appears.

Cheers-salesie.

Sounds like some US/Euro more clap-trap pumped out by some highly paid none-entity in the US/EU.

Manipulation, my initial thought, as soon as I read it.

What else are these people going to try and manipulate?

The interpretation of the conflict, how people are taught about it.............. nail on the head, salesie. (and spud)

With the passing of the last tommies, and the war passing into history......................

Dick

[John_Hartley]

Sounds like some Euro more clap-trap pumped out by some highly paid none-entity in the EU.

Although as the earlier thread indicates, the usage is not new and appears to be of north American origin.

[phil andrade]

Here I go...wobbling again ! I'm beginning to regret my contention that the term "European Civil War" might be apt.

I find it difficult, though, to ignore the cultural and social similarities that characterised so many of the warring nations in 1914 : the royal families were of the same blood in several of them. The social institutions in some cases mirrored each other.

Strictly speaking, of course, it wasn't a Civil War in the same way as the American or English conflicts had been.

It's the idea of Europe going to war with itself that I find sympathy with; it was Europe's war, and although it spread far and wide, it was fought by Europeans against Europeans. It marks the decline in European primacy.

I surprise myself writing this....I've never been a fan of the EU, and feel myself to be a bit of a "Little Englander", keen to acknowledge our insularity and to rejoice in it rather than repudiate it.

I'm still loathe to dismiss the title of "Europe's Civil War", and I better try and sort myself out!

Phil.

[healdav]

Sounds like some Euro more clap-trap pumped out by some highly paid none-entity in the EU.

Manipulation, my initial thought, as soon as I read it.

What else are these people going to try and manipulate?

The interpretation of the conflict, how people are taught about it.............. nail on the head, salesie. (and spud)

With the passing of the last tommies, and the war passing into history......................

Dick

Do tell me y the EU is behind this? Paranoia, I call it.

Those of us who have worked for the EU and actually know what is going on know that they deliberately never make any comment on the wars (except in the first treaties- Thatcher objected to it so it stopped). November 11 isa public holiday in Belgium for everyone except those who work for the EU (I await your complaint).

[Chris_Baker]

It appears that it is not just Wellington Quarries, but the Historial at Peronne, referring to the war this way. Curious if a coincidence. I may be being over-sensitive here, but I have a sniff of agenda. So I say again, who is behind it?

Mods you can still merge this into the other thread if you wish.

[Guest]

Someone with better French than I, might ask here.

http://www.carriere-wellington.com/

Mike

[shinglma]

or American civil wars

I think you mean War between the States...

Mike

[Kate Wills]

Mods you can still merge this into the other thread if you wish.

Two threads merged.

This has the elements of acquiescing to the wishes of a funding body. Wonder who?

[Terry_Reeves]

The term "European civil war" has been in use for many years by historians, including British ones. It is one of a number of theories about the war and the stresses and strains within Europe which may have been contributed to the outbreak of war. The idea that the Second World War was a continuation of the First has also been around for many years and is hotly debated subject by historians. Both philosophies are worth looking at rather than being dismissed out of hand, as they make a worthwhile contribution to the debate about how the two major wars started in the 20th Century and how they brought about change and elements of both have some merit.

TR

[Chris_Baker]

Interesting, Terry. Can you recall which historians and in which work?

[Alan Tucker]

Isn't one of these Niall Ferguson who sees both World Wars as wars for racial dominance?