Talk:European Civil War

comments
If you want to use this theory, include Balcanic wars 1912 and 1913, without them is difficult to understand the start of WW1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.92.244 (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The European Civil War, if extended to include the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, should also be extended further to include the Napoleonic Wars. There can be no argument that the French people, on the eve of the Franco-Prussian War, were itching for a fight and the chance to complete the conquest of Prussia began by Napoleon 60 years earlier. The combatants in the Napoleonic Wars (France and allies vs. Germany and allies) closely resembles those of all the later conflicts from 1870 onwards. And, as is well known, the French people themselves viewed the 1870 conflict as but the culmination of Napoleon's dreams. Therefore, the European Civil War = 1800 - 1945. AND, this explains the ultimate origin of the conflict: the REPUBLICAN POPULIST faction, provoked by the American Revolution, spread to France by returning soldiers, and which flowered in the French Revolution under Napoleon... versus the Christian Monarchist Ancien Regimes that represented the "European Old Guard". The Euro. Civil War therefore is properly 1789 - 1945. Ultimately, the populist democratic/republican faction of the French Revolution and Napoleon defeated the conservative European "Old Guard", whose last gasp was breathed in Germany under Hitler. All of this really should be no argument. For example, the Italian Communist Partisans in Italy during WWII were called the "Garibaldi Brigades" (in part). Garibaldi was a famous Populist Republican from the mid 19th century, even BEFORE the Franco-Prussian War (!). And Garibaldi, in turn, lauded Napoleon's ideals... etc... thus can we connect all the European conflicts from 1789 - 1945.

The following ignorance should be ignored if not removed from this page, as it clearly is not intended to facilitate honest discussion. --Todeswalzer 19:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

European Civil War... Commies win... EU formed as Union of European Socialist States... Europe exterminated... lands repopulated with 3rd World Immigrants... Communist agenda achieved, liquidation of White Europeans no European nation has a positive indigenous White European birth rate FACT Commies don't like Euros If you're a Euro, or of European heritage, you shouldn't like Commies

Removed this added line: "It is therefore also impossible to blame an international conflict on a single group, entity or a nation."

Not sure this logically follows from the sentence it followed (or is even true). Niall Ferguson and many many others have attempted to argue that the First World War was entirely Germany's fault and down to internal German plolitical pressures rather than external or international ones. So, even if you disagree with their argument, I'm not sure it's possible to use the European Civil War as a contcept to dismiss it entirely. 86.134.163.149 13:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've put the word "state" in quotation marks in the section arguing in favour of the case that the conflicts of 1870-1945 were in fact a "European civil war". This is because no one -- international law, academics, the EU itself -- seriously considers the EU to be a state in the traditional sense of the word and the term is only used because no other suitable one exists. --Todeswalzer 19:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What isn't a Civil War?
I'd just like to put this out there, but if a series of wars, between people who had not been politically united in 1000 years is a civil war, then what war isn't a civil war? Couldn't we then classify the past 10000 years of Human history as being part of the Human Civil War?(Lucas(CA) (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC))

Historiography
I'm pretty sure the historiography of this article is off. It indicates the concept originated in the 80s and 90s. However see the article Second Thirty Years War which says that term originated in 1946, one year after the end of WWII. Of course "Thirty Years" is not the same as "Civil War", but in concept they are the same, which is really what is important. My guess is discussions of European Civil War have been around since soon after the end of WWII. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
As another user has pointed out, this isn't in ANY definition of a Civil War. This article declares every war, ever, to be a civil war by it's logic. Even in this ridiculous understanding, the United States was fighting a "civil war" during WW1 and WW2.

Everything in this article is already addressed in other articles or articles of their own. There is absolutely no need for this ridiculous, typically Americocentric view of the world. 203.206.11.64 (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Support. Though I take offesne to you calling it "amercentric". We don't see it as a civil war. 69.115.70.39 (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Article has serious WP:RS and WP:ORIGINAL issues. Still no source for the term 'European Civil War' six years after the article was created. Let alone what the term is all about.-- JacksonKnight 21:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an editor, I don't know how to do edit wikipedia and I have no interest in entering into endless bickering conversations. A quick google search for European Civil War (to answer your citation issue gives 80 million results. Obviously, most are not relevant, but on the first page are these: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2131484/House-European-History-museum-EU-serious.html http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/history/twentieth-century-european-history/civil-war-europe-19051949 http://historyarthistory.gmu.edu/courses/1183/course_sections/7162 And this page (discussing the Mail article) which opens up yet more citations of the concept. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=234617 I'm sorry, but this seems like a real thing that is discussed, regardless of anyone's objections to whether or not European Civil War is an appropriate concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.96 (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Americans are disclaiming responsibility for this term, which leaves me personally in no doubt where it originates, which is from proponents of a federalist EU. My own view is that the term is nonsense on any objective level. Civil wars sometimes end in stronger union than before. And WWII led to a free trading agreement which led to closer cooperation and governance between the separate countries of the EU. The proponents of this theory are saying that because of this similarity, the whole of Europe should be treated as a single country before the free trade agreement even happened? That's like saying a yellow submarine must in fact be a banana. Should the item be deleted? No. It should remain as a place where people can read a reasoned critique of the concept. Ifount (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

IF this has existed, the origin would be
IF this has existed ("the European Civil War"), the origin would be History doesn't just begin at a chosen point. However there is a connection between the World Wars. And a connection between WW1 and the Franco-Prussian war. And a connection between that war and the Napoleon wars etc. I think that by the very least the title should be changed. Wars between nations doesn't count as "civil wars". Europe isn't like North America - one might just travel 100 km to suddenly not understand the language, one need a different currency, the food is different and even the road signs may differ. I.o.w. Europe is not a nation, even if f.i. football (real football, played with the feet) is an example of common understanding. Boeing720 (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * the Revolutionary/Coalition/Bonnaparte/Napoletanic Wars or
 * the Thirty Years War 1618-48 or
 * the Hundered Year war
 * the wars of the Roman Empire against Greece, Carthago etc

Sections that violate WP policy (Probably)
This is possibly the first section of this talk page that isn't speculation or WP:ORIGINAL, so I'll keep this short and sweet.

The "The supporting case" and it's counterpart should not be part of this article. It breaks 3 & 4 of WP:NOT by showing arguments rather than facts, and, depending on the original authors' POV, could be breaking WP:SOAP.

However, I don't want this to go to AfD, as it is a good article in other respects, and it clearly describes the term and its applications.

Would like to see some response, otherwise I will simply delete the offending sections.

A Sentient Sock (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

yes, I'm not sure what to do about this either. It is a marginal theory, not supported in any sense by the mainstream European historians of the past 100 years. I'd hardly consider Pat Buchanan an historian, much less main stream, and he seems to be the primary proponent of this argument. The very fact that it is difficult to pin a start date on this trend reinforces the idea of its fallibility. However, that said, the article begins well (although it falls apart later), and I think it could use some work to strengthen it. If someone wants to tackle that, I'll be happy to be a resource. I'd say definitely clarify the offending sections, because showing the pros and cons of the argument makes some sense. Short of that, they could be deleted, yes. auntieruth (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , OK, gonna start cleaning it. I get the feeling someone may start an edit war though...A Sentient Sock (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've had a better idea. I'll bring it up on the European History WikiProject, and see what they have to say about it.A Sentient Sock (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So, clearly neither of you actually did ANYTHING to improve the page. You're just the typical "tag-and-run" morons who somehow have the time to leave idiotic templates and pointless talk page comments, even though you apparently don't have the time to actually improve the page. I'm going to remove both of them, one of them has been there for over 10 years. 1.157.95.133 (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on European Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090226221828/http://hkuhist2.hku.hk:80/2013.html to http://hkuhist2.hku.hk/2013.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051119102113/http://www.lse.ac.uk:80/resources/calendar2004-2005/courseGuides/HY/2004_HY101.htm to http://www.lse.ac.uk/resources/calendar2004-2005/courseGuides/HY/2004_HY101.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Linked to Noltes thesis over the german language link
This page is linked to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europ%C3%A4ischer_B%C3%BCrgerkrieg, which covers an entirely different topic, and is almost entirely unrelated. Historikerstreit or Ernst Nolte#Der_europäische_Bürgerkrieg would make more sense to link toward from the german article. BMlinhart (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Quite a delayed reply, but I'm in the process of reading this work now, and it actually is pretty aligned (with slight gaps due to higher or lower emphasis
 * When I finish I may come back to this, but they don't seem misaligned at all in terms of what to be included/excluded Bluetik (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)