It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A European Civil War

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Not a new idea - in fact there have been loads in recorded history - 2 in the last century.

With the American constitution, the South did not agree wholeheartedly with it and broke away as the confederate states with their own President. The Civil War reunified the country. (I understand it is over simplified).

The European constitution is coming up. If Britain, and others, refuse to sign, will this create another basis for war? All previous attempts at a united Europe (ie Napolean and Hitler) resulted in conflict.




posted on May, 2 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Short answer: no.

Slightly longer (pedantic) answer: in order to have a civil war, you must have a unified political entity. If war errupted in Europe, it would be a war, but not a civil war.

Even longer answer: the American civil war was based on the contents of the constitution, not the *existence* of the constitution. Rejection of the EU Constitution - as seems inevitable here in the UK, sadly - is primarily based on ignorance of the issues, tabloid journalism riding the jingoistic pony, and an anti-Blair backlash. These are not issues that will provoke a war, they will only defer the UKs entry to the EU proper.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   
On an off, though related, topic:

I wouldn't be surprised if, within the next ten yearse, we see a unification of Europe into one major country with each individual "nation" (as they are now) similar to the provences of Canada.

This is mostly based on the idea that the EU has made its bed for this situation: They've got a unified economy now, based upon the Euro. As a result, the more tightly affiliated they are, the more likely they are to also have a unified collective statehood.

As it stands now, too: Europe has got it's extreme leftists, and it's extreme rightists - these both are about 20% of the population. The balance is made up of left-of-centers. It wouldn't surprise me, over the next fifty years, to see this European conglomorate form, and have a socialist structure be unified throughout the continent: Most of Europe is well on its way. And then, to have an extremist faction attempt geurilla warfare.

Not sure if this all catogorises itself as civil war, but at least it's a start.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by mauskov
Not sure if this all catogorises itself as civil war, but at least it's a start.


"At least it's a start?" That does kind of sound like you're looking forward to it, mauskov!

Having ruminated on this subject, I've come to the conclusion that history will never record a European Civil War. My reason for saying this is that any open armed conflict in Europe would rapidly (*rapidly*) escalate:

The East-European and Balkan countries would turn to Russia, or possibly China, for military support. The UK would demand aid from America. Middle-Eastern countries (particularly Turkey) would begin sniping at the mediterranean countries (particularly Greece) or at each other. North Africa would dissolve into opportunistic alliances and raids. War would also errupt in ex-colonial territories. I believe a European war, if not swiftly resolved, would quickly grow to become WWIII.

Having said that, I still don't think it'll happen, but it's an interesting hypothetical football.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 06:24 AM
link   
A European Civil War is an impossible scenario. It would have already started with the countries that rejected the EU from the outset(ie: Switzerland).

I highly doubt that the Balkan States would turn to Russia, or even more unlikely, China, for help. Croatia and Slovenia are historically Western nations, with close ties to Austria and Germany. Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bosnia, after they get their act together, desperately want to get into the EU, and would not want to do anything to jeopardize that fact. Same goes for Turkey. Unless Islamic extremists take control of the helm in Turkey, they will pretty much either sit out a war, or join whatever side that Germany has taken.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 07:11 AM
link   
I don't think a unified Europe (i.e, one country) would work. For the first thing, there are too many languages. Look at the continuing debate and chatter in Canada as it relates to the cessation of Quebec. The same holds true for cultural and historical differences.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 07:21 AM
link   
As I said, this is all hypothetical. However:

A unified EU is, in my opinion, inevitable. The only question mark which remains is where the borders are drawn - will it include the UK, or will we drift yet further across the Atlantic? Will it expand further East beyond the existing plans?

The reason I suggested that the Balkan states would turn east for military assistance was a strategic one - I suspect that any European war would be likely to feature the traditional core EU countries against the latecomers. That situation, afer all, is not without precedent.

But you're correct, nathraq - culturally, I would say Europe is much more likely to resolve it's problems with diplomacy than with military force!

As an aside, consider this: would a unified European State view the US as an ally or a rival? What about China? How exactly would this hypothetical state change the balance of power around the world, and would it be a good thing?



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 07:34 AM
link   
IMO, it's a very remote chance that EU civil war would happen.

I think it's more predictable a clash of interest with the US and China. There i see problems, big problems...



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands
As I said, this is all hypothetical. However:

A unified EU is, in my opinion, inevitable. The only question mark which remains is where the borders are drawn - will it include the UK, or will we drift yet further across the Atlantic? Will it expand further East beyond the existing plans?


I agree wholeheartedly: It is inevitable, to an extent. Those countries with linked economic standards (as in the Euro) must also have a unified economic policy: That is, it wouldn't be feasible for one country to have socialism, another capitalism, etc.
"It is not only a good idea, but it is necessary." Otherwise, why would Europe keep a unified currency?



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   
If you all think that the single country is inevitable, then why is it that many of the Euro nations regret joining the single currency? Ireland's economy is struggling under the central bank's interest rate. Germany is not as strong as she was either. I think that the bank is run to suit the needs of Belgium and France more than anyone else.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   
A distinction should be drawn between the practical details of EU membership and the abstract idea. The *idea* is a good one, the implementation hasn't been perfect. In particular, certain excessively-optimistic rules to encourage financial harmony are now running into trouble, as Humpy (great name, btw) indicated.

Remember, however, that no grand project ever works perfectly from the beginning - teething troubles are unavoidable. Secondly, it's not only Ireland and Germany who are looking shakey - the dear ol' US hasn't been economically strong lately, and most countries in the west are facing a drop in growth and the threat of recession. It's almost unfair to judge the performance of the Euro in this economic context - we'll only be able to fairly assess it with a few year's hindsight.

Also, though I am loathe to criticise our European neighbours, I think that every damn country who signed up to the EU thought that they were going to be a special case - just as we in the UK think that *we* are a special case.

Besides all else, a unified currency does not necessarily mean a unified sovereignty. In a global marketplace, surely a global currency is only a matter of time?



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   
The United States of Europe is inevitable. This is why I am opposed to the EU as it stands drafted now.

If the EU were simply a unified defense organization like NATO, but without the US involvement and the like, and form its own internal trade organization, then Id think it would be a fantastic idea. That way, any future conflicts would remain in Europe instead of spilling out of thier borders like they always do.

But as it stands, its obvious the fate of the EU is all out federalism, like the US. The Us was constructed orginially where the individual states had total soverignty so long as they obeyed the constitution. But as we can see now, the centralized govornment is obvertaking us. It will happen with the EU. Borders will pretty much disappear, and only a few minor laws will be different in countries. The language barriers are also a factor. But ultimately, the central govorning commision for the EU will slowly gain power and be able to override the individual soverignty of individual nations, forcing them all under the control of one law, one govornment, ect. Not in the immidieate future, as there is too much opposition, just like there was in the beginning of the US. But it will happen. especially if you unilaterially all adopt the Euro.



posted on May, 7 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Scary to think of a unified Europe. What would it's ultimate agenda be? How about pushing there user-friendly liberal socialism onto the rest of the world. They've been trying to do that to America for years, especially through the U.N. And when you have situations like the current conflict in Iraq, the differences in opinion and policy are bound to become very heated. And if there's an EU with a united, strong military, there will come a time when they will not hesitate to use that military to enforce those policies, much like the United States does now.

Possibility for a future "Yanks vs. Euros" war? Maybe in the far future. I just feel sorry for countries like Great Britain and Switzerland, who would be caught in the middle of a war between European "one-worlders" and a United States which takes pride in it's nationalism and ideological democracy.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by wyrmw00d
Scary to think of a unified Europe. What would it's ultimate agenda be?


If nothing else, probably to have the best bargaining chip ever. They are a huge population base which needs to consume, and in the world market - and in world politics - could say "Jump!" and any country in the world would say "How hight?"



How about pushing there user-friendly liberal socialism onto the rest of the world. They've been trying to do that to America for years, especially through the U.N. And when you have situations like the current conflict in Iraq, the differences in opinion and policy are bound to become very heated.


Ohhh yes. The US pays about 35% of the UN's annual budget. But receives about 4% of its power. And, lest I bring up this sore subject, the entire basis of the UN is skewed. What other "peaceful" coalition thinks Saudi Arabia is an appropriate spearhead for the Coalition on Human Rights? Yeah, I didn't think so.



Possibility for a future "Yanks vs. Euros" war? Maybe in the far future. I just feel sorry for countries like Great Britain and Switzerland, who would be caught in the middle of a war between European "one-worlders" and a United States which takes pride in it's nationalism and ideological democracy.


With the exception (very, very large exception) of the Revolutionary War, Britain's generally been on the side of the United States - so has Australia - in most conflicts. Mainland Europe, as I've stated previously, has two extremes, and then a very left-of-center mass populace. It generally tends to lapse into strange, irresponsibly placed bouts of complacency and inaction, which generally catalyses any events (ie, WWII). The US is still one of the remaining countries in the world that - rightly or wrongly - takes a stand in the world community. Most countries, particularly in Europe, are so dreadfully fearful of any conflict that they will let anything short of their own rape and pillage be reason enough for "appeasement."

Just my ...er.... 2 cents?


[Edited on 8-5-2004 by mauskov]



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Uh, I hate to interrupt the opening bars of "Star-Spangled Banner" which seem to be playing behind the last few posts, but you guys sound as if you oppose the EU because it's ultimately a threat to the American hegemony.

Empires rise and fall, people - I'm British, I know this to be true. Isn't it about time we got over the nationalistic nonsense which has crippled international diplomacy for so long and embrace a future which is more about who we are than where we are?



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands
Uh, I hate to interrupt the opening bars of "Star-Spangled Banner" which seem to be playing behind the last few posts, but you guys sound as if you oppose the EU because it's ultimately a threat to the American hegemony.

Empires rise and fall, people - I'm British, I know this to be true. Isn't it about time we got over the nationalistic nonsense which has crippled international diplomacy for so long and embrace a future which is more about who we are than where we are?


In reality...its not a threat...atleast not for anytime in the near future...the first to join the EU where the more "powerful" countries in Europe...now they are letting everyone else in...which WILL weaken the union and Lower the value of the euro...its a good idea on paper...and if it was just just like NAFTA in North America...I think it'd be great....but the way they are heading...to ONE nation...wont work...



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands
Uh, I hate to interrupt the opening bars of "Star-Spangled Banner" which seem to be playing behind the last few posts, but you guys sound as if you oppose the EU because it's ultimately a threat to the American hegemony.

Empires rise and fall, people - I'm British, I know this to be true. Isn't it about time we got over the nationalistic nonsense which has crippled international diplomacy for so long and embrace a future which is more about who we are than where we are?


Sigh.
The point of my post isn't to suddenly turn an evil eye towards the empire that Europe may one day be. Rather, it's to point out the potential strength that it may have to throw around.
Egads

I like Europe, very, very much so. I'm just not sure if I want their political views dominating the world as a unified country. Ack.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mauskov
I'm just not sure if I want their political views dominating the world as a unified country. Ack.


Well, yeah, because it'd be terrible if one single country unfairly dominated global economics and politics, wouldn't it?

Oh, hang on... that's you guys!

But I think we can be agreed that whether Europe is unified or not, it's the manner in which they wield their power that will determine whether they are for good or ill in the world. Uncle Ben was right: with great power...



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeLands
But I think we can be agreed that whether Europe is unified or not, it's the manner in which they wield their power that will determine whether they are for good or ill in the world. Uncle Ben was right: with great power...


No, I agree with you.
If they unify, it is a divergent path of potential altruism and goodness, or evil liberal balderdash

I jest. But only halfway.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join