Was WW1 & 2 a European civil war?

[Dinner]

Personally, given the centuries of history of Europe being divided into nation states, I'm not sure this is a true historical view point instead of a modern EU view point, but, it seems to be a popular view point that 1914 to 1945 was a European civil war with a long armistice in the middle. The modern EU thinking is that the end result of this European civil war was that no European power won and instead outsiders, the US & the USSR, won.

[SlowwHand]

Mulling over something that may or may not be a true historical view point.
I know you think Christmas is just crap, but even at that, that's sad. To spend just an ordinary...Tuesday or Thursday on it would be pathetic. This is beyond mere pathetic. It's truly sad. You have no life at all.

[germanos]

No. First of all fighting spanned the Globe. Secondly, the Ottoman Empire and Japan were two major non-european powers involved. Thirdly, the USSR cannot be viewed as an outsider in the european theater. Russia has been at the heart of european powerplay for centuries, that they turned communist only reaffirms their european orientation.

And where did you get the idea that it's the EU's viewpoint that the wars were a big civil war?

[One_more_turn]

You could make that argument about WW1, but not WW2.

I would argue that Japan first started WW2 by attacking China in 1937.

[Dauphin]

The American War of Independence was more a British civil war than WWI or WWII were European civil wars.

[fed1943]

WWII was indeed a civil war (alliances were formed by governments politics, not by countries) but WWI was not.

[Dinner]

Mulling over something that may or may not be a true historical view point.

That may or may not be true but it is like talking about motor boating. Sure, the girls don't want to mention motor boating but the truth is guys are some motor boating fools.

[Patroklos]

I would like you to provide a basis for your OP claim that anyone or consequence of enough people to matter think this in the EU.

[Heraclitus]

It depends. If the EU ever becomes a fedearl superstate WW1 and WW2 will be seen as the European Civil War.


If the American Revolution would have failed it would have been known as the American rebellion and if the South had won the war the American Civil War would have been known as the Second War of Independence or something like that.


I think 1914 to 1945 period does have elements of something that could be called the European civil war (just think how the Russian and Spanish civil wars where affairs that had massive involvment from most major European powers, and how various resistance and collaborator factions operated during WW2).

Also just because WW2 was a global affair this doesn't mean there can't be a thing like a European Civil War that happened in Europe and was part of the Global World War. Just like the Great Patriotic War is a part of WW2.

[Elok]

Even today, the EU is not a country. It's an even sillier local version of the UN. So no.

[Drake Tungsten]

WWI/WW2 was a classic hegemonic war, with the British trying to keep the Germans down. In no way could it be considered a civil war.

[Dr Strangelove]

WW 1 and WW 2 were the death rattles of colonialism. I think that if you were to go back and examine how the various European nationalities thought about each other and talked about each other you could not remotely consider those wars "civil" wars between different factions of a common political entitiy. It took the deaths of over 50 million people to convince the chauvinists of Europe to seriously think about setting aside some of their petty nationalistic prejudices and committing themselves to doing something positive to prevent another war.

[Cort Haus]

The American War of Independence was more a British civil war than WWI or WWII were European civil wars.

[Dr Strangelove]

What will China be like in 30 years when the per capita GDP is almost the same as Europe's or America's?

[JEELEN]

It depends. If the EU ever becomes a fedearl superstate WW1 and WW2 will be seen as the European Civil War.


If the American Revolution would have failed it would have been known as the American rebellion and if the South had won the war the American Civil War would have been known as the Second War of Independence or something like that.


I think 1914 to 1945 period does have elements of something that could be called the European civil war (just think how the Russian and Spanish civil wars where affairs that had massive involvment from most major European powers, and how various resistance and collaborator factions operated during WW2).

Also just because WW2 was a global affair this doesn't mean there can't be a thing like a European Civil War that happened in Europe and was part of the Global World War. Just like the Great Patriotic War is a part of WW2.

WW I possibly (though there is still debate in the EU whether Turkey is 'European' enough, so...), but WW II deserves its name, with all continents involved in some part of it.

Also, the only major involvement with the Spanish Civil War came from Germany, Italy and the USSR; Germany in particular used it as a 'testing ground' for aerial warfare.

That said, it may be fair to say that WW I triggered WW II; whether that justifies labeling both dissimilar wars as 'European Civil War' seems stretching historical facts a bit too far.

On another note, saying that Japan started WW II in 1937 is beyond reasonable; by that time Japan wasn't allied to Germany and Italy and the Japanese-Chinese war might have remained a 'local' conflict if the Japanese navy hadn't won out in the internal conflict whether to strike south or north (i.e. vs the USSR). At any rate, the involvement of Japan alone makes WW II definitely not a 'European Civil War'.