European Civil War

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  The European Civil War is not a war you will find in any history textbook under that name. It is a concept, a way of reframing the bloodshed that tore Europe apart across the first half of the twentieth century. The idea asks a provocative question: what if World War I and World War II were not two separate catastrophes, but two rounds of the same fight?

  Historians have wrestled with where to draw the lines. Some mark the beginning in 1914 and the end in 1945, folding in the chaos of the interwar years. Others trace the roots back to the Franco-Prussian War, which began on the 19th of July 1870. Still others argue the story does not close until the reunification of Germany in 1990. The London School of Economics even offered a course titled "European Civil War: 1890 to 1990," treating a full century as a single convulsion.

  But this is not a settled verdict. Consensus among historians does not support the notion of a European Civil War. What makes the concept worth examining, then, is precisely the argument it generates. The questions it raises about shared culture, royal blood, and the birth of the European Union are questions that cut to the heart of how Europe understands its own history.

• 2. The Case For

  ›

  Paul Preston made the case plainly in his 1996 work The Republic Besieged: Civil War in Spain 1936-1939. He described the Spanish Civil War as "an episode in a greater European Civil War that ended in 1945." Preston was not alone at the London School of Economics, where Dr. Robert Boyce taught the concept as a course in its own right.

  The argument rests on a few connected pillars. At the outbreak of World War I, the heads of state across many European nations were so closely related as to constitute branches of a single family. Their legal systems, though separate, had evolved along remarkably similar lines. Most European nations traced the roots of their culture to two shared sources: Christianity and classical antiquity.

  J. M. Roberts, writing from Duke University in his 1996 work A History of Europe, stated that "the European Civil War ended the dominance of Europe in the world." That framing matters. A civil war, by definition, happens when competing parties within the same country or empire struggle for control of central power. Civil wars typically end with the emergence of a new or restrengthened authority. Proponents point to the European Union as precisely that outcome.

  An early voice came from an unexpected direction. Indian diplomat K. M. Panikkar referenced the concept in his 1955 book Asia and Western Dominance 1498-1945, applying a chronological range of 1914 to 1945. Decades later, historian Stephen Ambrose offered a memorable formulation in the 1970s television series The World at War. He observed that 1945 saw an invasion of an exhausted Europe by Russian and American armies, "thus ensuring that no European nation actually wins the European Civil War."

• 3. The Case Against

  ›

  Critics of the concept reach for a different set of facts. European nations at the start of the period were divided by sharply distinct religions and political systems. The idea that they formed a single unified civil society, the prerequisite for a civil war, strains under that weight.

  The global scope of both world wars is another problem the concept struggles to absorb. The role of the United States in these events is difficult to explain within the construct. So is the involvement of combatants from South America, including Brazil, and from the Pacific, including Thailand. The Japanese invasion of China and campaigns in the Pacific and Southeast Asian theaters fall well outside any European frame.

  The Spanish Civil War and the Russian Civil War, running from 1917 to 1923, introduce a further complication. Both are already understood as civil wars in the traditional sense. Folding them into a larger European civil war creates internal contradictions. The ideological content of nationalist and communist movements, the collapse of monarchies, and the rise of social democratic parties and trade unions across the period all resist being flattened into a single European conflict.

  The University of Massachusetts Boston dates the beginning of the conflict to 1917, with the Russian Civil War, and the end to 1945. The University of Hong Kong's Department of History proposes splitting the content into two sections: one covering 1914-1945, and a second covering 1945 onwards. These divergent starting points illustrate how the concept has yet to achieve any settled geographic or chronological form.

• 4. The EU as Resolution

  ›

  Anthony Adamthwaite, professor emeritus of Sociology at the University of Rome and also connected to the University of California, Berkeley, is among the academics who have drawn on the European Civil War framework. For those who use the concept, the aftermath of World War II is not simply a peace settlement. It is the resolution of the civil war itself.

  Elites across Europe, in the years following 1945, began building what would eventually grow into the European Union. For proponents of the European Civil War thesis, this is not a coincidence. A civil war typically concludes when a new or restrengthened central authority emerges from the wreckage. The European Union represents exactly that kind of outcome, scaled to a continent.

  The London School of Economics course framed it this way: 1945 was the end date of the conflagration, and the second half of the twentieth century represented the aftermath. In other words, the decades of European integration that followed were consequences of the war, not departures from it. The concept of the European Civil War has, in this reading, found one of its most practical uses. It frames European integration not as an idealistic political project, but as the logical conclusion of a century of self-destruction.

  Pre-Reformation European societies had long acknowledged a communal religious bond, and the dynasties of European royal houses had remained intertwined across centuries. Whether those older ties were strong enough to make the violence of 1914-1945 an internal matter, rather than a clash of genuinely separate nations, remains the open question at the center of the debate.