...with all the hardships and problems in Europe do you agree or disagree this [WWII] was the final act if the unsaid Civil war? 

No.  If WWII had ended all the hardships and problems in Europe it would not have been followed by the Cold War.  Furthermore, who said European problems/hardships/divisions have ended?  What is happening now in the Balkans, Russia, etc. makes such a notion absurd.I think your idea of looking at World War II as an "unsaid Civil War" is faulty.  World War II was just another in a long series of wars in which one person/nation/alliance tried to gain an advantage over others.There has never been a European Civil War.  European wars have always been about one or more nations gaining an advantage over one or more other nations.  That includes World War II and the Cold War.I acknowledge that some people in Europe consider themselves European.  (Although I don't see that as including the Russians, who in both territory and population form the largest nation in Europe.) To the extent Europeans have fought among themselves for centuries they have a common history.  But they lack a common government, currency, language, alphabet, cuisine, religion, etc.  So I?m not ready to agree Europe has a common culture. Furthermore, I cannot see how anyone can claim Europe is or ever has been a single polity.  What I?ll stipulate is that in time Europe--more likely Western Europe--may become a nation.Civil Wars are fought within a nation?not between or among nations.   Europe has never been united as a single nation. 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.  Again, I fail to see how Europe can be said to have had a civil war--or even an "unsaid civil war."  Plus, as I said above, World War II did not end the problems/differences that have always divided Europe.

In my 38 years I have never received or sent a telegram. Any of you?

One Christmas day (in the late 1970s) my mother, siblings, and I received a telegram from my father who was in Alaska.  He wished us a Merry Christmas, said the phone lines were busy, and that he would keep trying to call us.

I think the Byzantine Empire doesn't get the attention it deserves.  The population of Constantinople fell from something 500,000 to 50,000 in the decades preceding its conquest by the Ottomans.  I believe it was the flight of the artisans and merchants from Constantinople to Italy that was cause of the Renaissance.

Scout1067 posted above: 1--the Great Drepression ended in 1939 2--that WWII didn't end the Great Depression.  I must respectfully respond:  I don't buy it.  IMHO "the facts" support the "popular myth" that WWII  ended the Great Depression.  So let's look at some facts:World War II started in 1939 when Germany invaided Poland.  If the Depression did end the same year WWII began it is too much for me to accept as being anything other than cause and effect.I think, however, it is wrong to conclude that (1) the Depression ended in 1939 and (2) that something other than WWII ended the Depression.  Here's why:The text on the website scout1067 cites (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm) states regarding 1939:The Depression is ending worldwide as nations prepare for the coming hostilities.  ?Is ending? is very different from ?is over.? Also the comment is about the worldwide recession, and thus is not necessarily applicable to the U.S. recession. I also note it says regarding 1939:"The United States will begin emerging from the Depression as it borrows and spends $1 billion to build its armed forces."Please note:1--It says "will begin emerging from the Depression"2--The cause it gives is spending for WWII armed forces  Yes, in 1939 industrial output improved.  That perhaps marked the beginning of the recovery, not the end of Great Depression.  (The Dow Jones Average did not reach pre-1929 levels again until 1954.)  Improved output was a direct result of WWII, which also started in 1939.The Great Depression was first and foremost about unemployment.  Before the Great Depression unemployment was under 5%.  It was not until 1942--after Pearl Harbor--that unemployment dropped to under 5%.  (The 1939 unemployment rate of 17% shows the Great Depression was far from over in 1939.)Year Unemployment 1928 4.2%1929 3.2%1930 8.7%1931 15.9%1932 23.6%1933 24.9%1934 21.7%1935 20.1%1936 16.9%1937 14.3%1938 19.0%1939 17.2%1940 14.6%1941 9.9%1942 4.7%1943 1.9%I submit that while the recovery may have begun in 1939, the Great Depression did not end in 1939. (To me it is ludicrous to say a nation with 17% unemploment isn't in the midst of a depression.)  I also submit "the facts" very much support the "popular myth" it was WWII that ended the Great Depression since unemployment levels did not reach pre-Depression levels until after the U.S became a WWII belligerent.

Thank you Phidippides.  That's what I meant.As Mark Twain said, "There are lies, **** lies, and statistics."   While statistically things in 1938 might have been better than they were in 1934 that doesn?t mean the Great Depression was over. They way my grandparents saw things the Depression was a period when they and their neighbors didn?t have jobs and couldn't make ends meet.  They and their neighbors didn't have jobs in 1938; they got jobs when WWII came along.My father talks of the first thing teachers did when school started was ask, "Who didn't have something to eat yesterday?" and then take those who answered 'yes' to get a bowl of soup.  Also how they'd sit around in the dark to save electricity.If you want to talk about people being in denial I'd say the people in denial are those who claim the Great Depression was over when people were still going to bed hungry; and in 1938 people were still going to bed without dinner.  Frankly I think my grandparent's definition of the Depression is superior to that used by those who say the Depression was over in 1938; IMHO an empty stomach trumps "the facts" anytime.

Southern ?King Cotton? strategy was based on the idea that Europe couldn?t do without the South?s cotton.  The Confederacy really expected England and/or France to provide it with military assistance , which had been the key to the American Revolution.  The South intended to follow this strategy again in what they were calling the Second American Revolution.Cotton, however, was not king.   There was a glut of cotton in Europe when the Civil War began.  Also, as Donald said, Europe found alternate sources of cotton in places such as Egypt and India.Often overlooked is the importance that wheat played; wheat turned out to be more important than cotton.  During the Civil War European harvests were poor and Europe needed the wheat it imported for the Mid-West.  One can wear last year?s coat, but one cannot eat yesterday?s loaf of bread and Europe was unable to find an alternate source for Northern wheat.The European aristocracy was sympathetic to the South; European military assistance was a real possibility as long as the war was framed in terms of the right to succeed from the Union.  It was the Emancipation Proclamation that made European help impossible.   It changed the view of the war from the right to succeed to the right to own slaves.   Lincoln paid a heavy domestic price for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, but it forever closed the door on European recognition and assistance.

I agree that without his Civil War involvement Lincoln wouldn?t rate as high.  However, I think he would rank far higher than presidents like Cleveland.  And much higher than HardingLincoln did far more than fight the Civil War.  Something that is unusual in a war time president.The Homestead Act was a significant factor in settlement of the west.  The same is true of the Pacific Railway Act which resulted in transcontinental railroads.  The land-grant college act had a major impact on both education and agriculture.  The formation of the Department of Agriculture as a cabinet post also left a mark on agricultural development.  The National Banking Act significantly strengthened our currency a financial system.Something I think that is often overlooked is Lincoln?s impact of party politics.  He was the first to win the presidency as a Republican?a new and weak party.  He built the party and it remained the dominant party for a considerable time after his death.  Granted the Civil War and Reconstruction were major factors in the growth of the party, but I don?t think the Republicans would have become such a dominant force without Lincoln.As I said, most war time presidents don?t have many domestic achievements.  Lincoln did; without the distraction of the war I think he'd have done more domestically.  All of which makes me think he?d have left a significant mark without the Civil War.