I am in dire need of help as soon as possible..I just would like your thoughts on this I do know there isn't a true "European Civil War"  But with all the hardships and problems in Europe do you agree or disagree this was the final act if the unsaid Civil war? PLEASE HELP

No it was not.  The Cold War, more specifically, the fall of the Berlin Wall ended the European Civil War.

I have issues with the whole concept of a “European Civil War”.  The nations of Europe have too much individual identity for this concept to hold much water.

I guess this would be an intriguing idea for the whole EU crowd to latch onto.  If the idea gained traction it could be used a s a political football to argue for the closer union that the political elites seem to want.My trouble with the notion is that the nations of Europe, while they share a common civilisation, have developed so differently both in their national and ethnic growth that the idea of a civl war being possible seems false.  There is too much ethnic and national divergence for their to be a true European Civil War.  The people of Europe dont see themselves as part of one whole they envision themselves within their own national context.  I don't know anyone who considers themself a European, evryone I know thinks of themselve as German, Czech, French, Greek, etc.  I just don't think the idea holds water.  It is intriguing though.

I do think there is a culture in Europe for Europeans to see themselves as “Europeans.”  World War II was a war to unite Europe under the Aegis of Nazism, while the Allies fought against it to keep the Continent divided according to the territorial sovereignty of the individual nation-states.  But now with the European Union formed, it can be argued (albeit a stretch), that the Allies really wanted to unite Europe under their own economic and socio-political model which we now have.  Rome actually united Europe and held it that way for several centuries.  Charlemagne tried to re-unify it under the auspices of the Holy Roman Empire (which was neither Holy nor Roman).  Napoleon tried to unite under the French Revolutionary umbrella, but his model was rejected by Britain and Russia.  Then Hitler took his turn.  So the idea that Europeans always wanted a supra-national state is a given, but the question has always remained how? and by whom?

Rome actually united Europe and held it that way for several centuries.  Charlemagne tried to re-unify it under the auspices of the Holy Roman Empire (which was neither Holy nor Roman).  Napoleon tried to unite under the French Revolutionary umbrella, but his model was rejected by Britain and Russia.  Then Hitler took his turn.  So the idea that Europeans always wanted a supra-national state is a given, but the question has always remained how? and by whom?

Donald?how about re-thinking that statement.I see evidence that many leaders/nations have tried to conqure Europe, but I don't see evidence that Europeans have ever really wanted to unite.  On the contrary, many nations/peoples have always resisted when a strong leader has tried to unite Europe.  Nor do I think it can be said Europe has ever been united as a single nation.  As I posted above:Scotland, Germany, Scandinavia, and Eastern Europe were never part of the Roman Empire.  Scandinavia, Spain, Hungary, the Bulkans, etc. were never part of the Carolingian Empire.  Scandinavia, England, France, etc. were never part of the Holy Roman Empire.  Great Britain and Portugal never come under Napoleon's control. And when has Russia--a major player in WWII and the largest nation in Europe--ever been part of anything that includes Western Europe? For that matter, when has the United Kingdom even been fully integrated into anything that includes all of Western Europe?  Today all the Western European nations do not even use the Euro--a very good indication that even Western Europe is still far from united.

      Stuck in a rut and need your insights? There are no literal books on this matter more opinion... need some thoughts...

There are in fact, books that address this revisionist issue.  One of them is The War of the World by Niall Ferguson.  This is an intriguing theory but one that is also easy to poke holes in.  If the last century represented a European Civil war then what about The Seven Years War, The Thirty Years War, and the Napoleonic Wars to name just a few.  This is an idea that just does not hold water no matter how attractive it is to revisionist and postmodern historians.