"European civil war"

[centurion]

I think you mean War between the States...

Although the Mexican civil war could be regarded as an American civil war if one takes American to mean the continent and not the USA. On that basis European civil wars would include: Spanish 1 (Carlist), Spanish 2, Swiss (an 19th century affair), English 1 (Roses), English 2 and English 3 (although given the Scots involvement in the latter this could be called a British Civil War), British (the '45 which was an attempt on the British throne and involved Scots on both sides and an invasion of England), French, Hungarian and doubtless others

[John_Hartley]

I think you mean War between the States...

Or the War of Northern Aggression.

[Terry_Reeves]

Chris

I'm not going to rise to your bait, there is a large amount of material available about these two particular subjects if you care to research them. I have, and they formed part of my history degree over 20 years ago. Nothing has changed very much in this respect I can assure you.

Let me repeat; there is nothing about modern politics in this debate.

TR

[Steven Broomfield]

Or the War of Northern Aggression.

I've been to Newcastle on a Saturday night. I know what you mean. A decidely incivil war.

[Chris_Baker]

I'm not going to rise to your bait

?? I am genuinely interested in the source of this, Terry.

However, I can't say its the most pressing thing on my mind and I won't be taking part in this discussion any more. Unless I find a third important museum/memorial in France or Flanders using the terminology, at which point I'll return.

[salesie]

I worded my post extremely carefully, and repeat it here for clarity:

"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."

My reasons for wording it in this way are:

I can understand the varying, and sometimes competing, reasons why some trains-of-thought would use this label i.e. extreme right wing groups attempting to unite "white warriors" for "the cause", certain politicians in former colonies wishing to emphasise to their own people that they were duped into fighting in the "European war", some historians, especially post imperialists, wishing to put forward a new political slant on things, certain communist factions wishing to show that all workers are brothers but were duped into fighting a capitalist war, certain politicians and their supporters seeing it as being useful to the "cause" of a united states of Europe (the list is long enough so will add no more). I understand the reasons behind, and the basis, of their arguments - but I don't agree with them.

At no time did I blame anyone or any entity within the EU for the onset of such arguments, but I did say that I can see why such an argument would appeal to those intent on forming a united states of Europe, particularly with the increasing media attention that will accompany the rapid approach of the one-hundreth anniversary. Most of the aforementioned trains-of-thought have been going-on about a European Civil War for quite a while now, and such arguments have remained mostly obscure - but with the anniversary approaching I can see these ideas gaining prominence.

I will not go into detail, but, in my opinion, the basis of such an argument is fundamentally flawed i.e.

Calling the war between the diverse, and individual, political entities ensconced within defined borders, that existed in 1914 a civil war, must mean, by definition, that all the wars ever fought throughout history were civil wars. Simply because if a civil war is fought by single political entities, within defined borders, making war on their neighbours, who are also single political identities within defined borders, then how do we define a war fought solely within the defined borders of a single political entity that does not directly involve its neighbours?

The diverse political entities which went to war with each other, and not remaining inside their own borders, in 1914, may have had inter-related royal families, but this ignores the diverse political regimes in these countries. For example, France had no royal family at all, and Britain's royal family, though closely related to many European royal houses because of Queen Victoria's offspring, did not have autonomous political power. So, if two of the prime belligerents of WW1 did not have political-blood power, then what value does this point have?

Also, if this blood-relation argument is to be believed, then two other questions need answering. Firstly, if we believe in a biblical creation i.e. that we all stem from Adam and Eve, would not all wars be classed as civil wars if taking the blood-relation argument to its logical conclusion? And, secondly, if we believe in the scientific explanation that mankind populated the whole world from a very small area of Africa, then, once again, would not all the wars ever fought be civil wars?

I won't go on and bore you with more counter-argument (most have been mentioned already). As with all "good" arguments there are elements of truth within, elements of truth that, on the face of it, make plausible assertions that can strike a chord within a reader - but when looking deeper I can see clear political undertones, from a diverse range of vested interests, in this argument's contrived manipulation of history.

Cheers-salesie.

[centurion]

Indeed one could suggest that in the same way the Napoleonic Wars were a European Civil war and the Seven Years War before then, and then the Spanish Succession and before then the 30 Years War. Indeed one could go back to an Italian called Julius who went poncing around France, Spain bits of Germany and Britain.

To have a civil war one has to have a nation to hold it in first.

[John_Hartley]

I will not go into detail, but, in my opinion, the basis of such an argument is fundamentally flawed i.e.

Couldnt agree more. And I'm one of those who happily supports the concept of a "United States of Europe". Frankly it would be a nonsense for anyone to seriously suggest that the history and governance of Europe between 1914 and 1945 would particularly affect future governance. Perhaps that's why one can't find anyone seriously suggesting that it would.

[Bingo794]

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

I had another quick read through, and the old original thread. Thanks for pointing that one out, John

The North Americans ought to know better having had one, like us.

Europe is not a country on its own, even if it was, we are not a part of it. Look at what happens when you try to push countries together.

Call it a European civil war, it was a war we as outsiders, like the Americans, had to intervene in.

They are only words.

Dick

[Stephen Garnett]

A brilliant thread and one I would like to add a couple of comments to.

Firstly, this matters. The language of both academic and popular history is not created in a vacuum, it reflects personal ideas, interests and often an agenda. I am not qualified to offer perspectives on 1914-18 being a Civil War but I do know from my postgrad work within the early modern period that language is an instrument of control, whether intended or not. As an instrument of control it creates and influences particular thoughts and attitudes, which in turn create the opportunity for particular actions. This language arises from both the past itself and those representing it in the present and it is one that historians, as you all are now, must debate and attempt to get to the root of because of its incredible significance as an agent of change.

It only takes one or two academics to have the attention of politicians and national curricula will change. Indeed, the primary curriculum very nearly lost History and Geography as distinct subjects from September 2010 but fortunately this was averted.

Secondly and arising directly from my work on the early modern, civil war has more than a political definition. There is also an emotional intensity to it as citizen fights citizen and choices, even within smallest communities, must be made, leading to conflict and collaboration with those immediately about them.

The Oxford English Dictionary Online defines civil war as

'strife, troubles, etc.: such as occur among fellow-citizens or within the limits of one community.'

Again, I do not have the knowledge to make claims upon this as regards 1914-18 but that does not stop me posing questions:

Was this emotional intensity felt among the ruling families in 1914 Europe?

Was it felt by anyone else?

And finally, was 1914 Europe a community?

Kind regards,

Stephen Garnett

[salesie]

I take your point, Stephen. Language is the very essence of human thought itself. What came first, language or conscious thought? Without language how can we think, without thought how can we have language? The two are inseparable - indeed, I would argue they are one of the same. Consequently, language and our own thoughts are one, but it is the way we use language that influences the thoughts and actions of others and/or another's way of using language influences our own thoughts and actions, and it is the use of language wherein lies many problems and/or solutions, not language per se.

It is our ability to use and project language in different ways that separates us from animals, and this ability is both a curse and a great benefit. It means that we are capable of self realisation, an awareness of the world around us, and of individual, deep-seated rational thought, but we are also capable of great self-harm at times, capable of rationalising the irrational, capable of seeing things so differently to others that we choose to fight. But if no conflict of thought, no different use of language, how can we progress, either materially or intellectually? Surely, if all the same then all would be done with freedom of will? We don't get owt for nowt?

In my opinion, you can't separate conflict of thought, politics and emotional intensity, because they all depend on each other - therefore, all wars, not just civil wars, must have an emotional intensity amongst opposing populations for them to start in the first place, but there are degrees of emotional intensity i.e. if the emotional intensity is relatively low on one side or the other (or both) then the war will be short, but if of high intensity on both sides, and all other things being equal, then it will be a long and viciously cruel war and will only end when the ability and/or collective will to wage war of one side or the other is destroyed.

I believe that emotional intensity amongst Europe’s ruling families is an irrelevant point to this thread's main theme - because, as I said earlier, the political situation of two of the main belligerents at the outset (France and Britain) was not linked to the internecine strife of royal households.

As for the emotional intensity of the respective populations in 1914, it was extremely high on all sides - otherwise the war would not have started, would not have lasted so long and would not have been so viciously cruel. The big question is what created such emotional intensity? Greed, envy, ambition, fear, internal strife within some countries, nationalism, new ideas, old ideas, young, up and coming, potential empire-builders vying with old, existing empires, and the delusory deterrent effect of treaty blocs - in short, the politics of conflicting thoughts between countries. Indeed, a better name than European Civil War would be War of the European Blocs (but not much better).

Those who espouse the theory of the First European Civil War would have us believe that 1914 Europe was a de facto single community, that the similarities between royal families, between cultures, between legal systems, between political institutions etc. made it so. But in my opinion, the differences in all these aspects far outweigh the similarities.

Cheers-salesie.

PS: To highlight some of my thoughts on the curse of mankind being capable of great self-harm, here's a poem I penned a few months ago:

Armistice (from a trench rat’s perspective)

Left behind in this redundant trench;

No noise to drown and earth stock still,

How we hanker for that savoured sweet stench,

That signalled belly’s void to gorge up to its fill.

As they strained, battled against each others lair,

We dined liked kings from their wasteful plate.

Until they stopped gifting such wondrous fare;

Never a thought for us, our needs - our fate.

Thrown back into battle, against our old deadly foe;

Hunger, slow death, stalks this now useless ditch,

And life on the edge is how we must go.

Why did they cease from making us rich?

But somehow we know, from aeons past gone,

The chains they use to tether their beast

Will never be enough to arrest it for long,

And then, once more, on flesh we shall feast.

© John Sales 2009.