Today we learn that the European Union (our real ruler) is opening a £44m museum that will be a House of European History. This vanity project in and of itself is an offensive waste of money as governments and peoples tighten belts across Europe.
But what I found most offensive of all is that World War II is to be described as “the European Civil War”.
Blaney points out the obvious. Namely, that the World War was, well, a world war, and not an internal European matter. But what he fails to point out is that the attempt to re-cast World War II as a European “civil war” is obviously a propaganda effort to have people believe that the European Union is one unitary state instead of a collection of independent states. It’s is no doubt part of the larger program to have all of Europe ruled from Brussels than from independent nation-state capitols.
Those familiar with American federalism might find this somewhat reminiscent of the battle over what to call the US war that occurred from 1861-1865. That war, obviously a war of secession, and not necessarily also a civil war, strictly speaking, was christened a “civil war” for obvious reasons: it reinforced the idea that the United States in 1861 was a single political entity and not a union of independent states. Disagreement with the latter assertion was widespread, both north and south in the 19th century, although that position is now long forgotten.
That being said, I should note that I use the term “Civil War” because I find it to be sufficiently accurate in its description of many aspects of the war. There was widespread violence within states and small communities to justify a term “civil war” as often commonly used, including the existence of both pro-North and pro-South governments within some Western states (such as New Mexico and Arizona). Moreover, the nature and goals of decentralized guerilla fighting in places like Missouri and Kansas, suggests a more complex conflict than a term like “The War Between the States” might suggest (“The War of Northern Aggression” is obvious propaganda in its own right). Since numerous conflicts over central control within several states does suggest a civil war situation, albeit a multi-fronted one, perhaps the most accurate term might be “the Civil Wars of 1861-1865.” I don’t expect that to catch on any time soon, however.
3:57 pm on July 28, 2014
