For it to be called the “European Civil War” would require Europe to have been a single national entity, and it never ever has been. To say otherwise is to completely debase the history and culture of every country/nation concerned.
Some MEPs are trying to promote the teaching in schools of such an historical narrative, which views the continent more as a single entity than a collection of individual nations. It holds that the First World War was simply one of a series of violent, internal divisions – suggesting an even share of the blame – and that peace only comes after the founding of the EU.
Critics attack this view as misguided and a way to simply promote the EU. Rather, they argue, the First World War was a fight between nation states and a victory over the forces of militarism.
However, it has long been popular with EU politicians, among them Javier Solana, the former Secretary-General, and Sergio Berlato, an Italian MEP, is currently campaigning to use the centenary to promote such a view.
He wants a history book, to be used in schools across the continent, to foster a common “European identity” and a “shared vision of the First World War as a ‘European civil war’”.
He said: “Without the awareness of belonging to a common ‘European homeland’ there will never be the necessary push for the strengthening of political union and British or Finnish citizens, for example, never understand why it is right to use a portion of their money to help the peoples of Europe that are in trouble.”
He has already secured an assurance from the European Commission that it will support “the publication of historical studies, aimed at secondary-school pupils, which are intended to promote a shared understanding of the First World War”.
But Dr Murrison, who was a surgeon commander with the Royal Navy, said: “I am not sure many historians would be particularly content with (viewing the war as a European civil war), it does not kind of work for most I think but certainly politically it would appeal to a certain mindset in Europe. Telegraph
The war was started by Germany, they were the aggressors and you cannot change this fact just because it doesn’t fit into todays EU super state narrative.
So the notion that MEPs are trying to teach that there was an even share of the blame is morally repugnant.
The idea that peace only comes after the founding of the EU is arrogant and presumptuous. The last thing those millions of brave men were thinking of was a EU super state. Peace only came because of naval blockade by Royal Navy and dogged determination of free nation states (and Russia) to resist aggression not to mention the immense human sacrifice.
The Germans almost won, last stages were desperate – if it wasn’t for the Commonwealth nations and the USA, tipping the balance, France would have fallen.
We lost our best men defending Europe from German domination, I shudder to think what would they would think of us now, how cheaply we have given our freedom away.
Civil war is fought between groups of people, normally with different beliefs or ethnic origins. There is normally a belief that one group is trying to do down or even eradicate another and as a result of this they tend to be extremely bloody with little regard for the niceties of war. If there is a view in one section of the general populous that the other side is trying to deprive their children of their fair entitlement, there is little that they are unwilling to do to protect them.
The First World War was fought between the armed forces of the various nation states and there was a clear distinction between the combatants and the non-combatants. In no way can this be called a civil war.
Seeking to force the people of Europe into a single federal state and then move wealth from one area to another, is more likely to bring about civil war than having independent sovereign states trading freely with each other ever will.