No, no, I think everyone\’s got this wrong.
We should indeed have a Museum of European History.
Start with the Romans, the first attempt at a United Europe. The Germans were deliberately left out after they fairly bloodily insisted that they be so. Everyone else was killed until they agreed.
Charlemagne similarly hacked up everyone who disagreed with his being El Supremo and after he died it all fell apart again.
The English King (and at times, Duke of Normandy, Anjou, Aquitane etc) spent a few centuries arguing over the concept of subsidiarity with the French King. Lots more dead.
Everyone at one time or another went to war with Louis XIV over whether he should be El Supremo and Charles V was also the butt of a great deal of "Bugger off, foreigner" activity.
We\’ve also got the two more recent examples of Napoleon and Hitler who tried to create a United Europe under one or another supposedly "common ideology" (although, to be honest, Hitler\’s was was simple as Germans uber alles). Two attempts which were met by Britain\’s longest running foreign policy concept, that the Continent should never be united.
I think that telling the history of Europe as it actually was would be most instructive.
We might even point out that the basic idea of the EU itself is founded on a misconception. As even Sr. Barroso has pointed out, the EU started in order to stop Germany invading France. Again.
Now I\’ll admit to not knowing my history in detail in every nook and cranny, but I think they\’ve tried four times and succeeded three. Blucher\’s Prussians during the Napoleonic Wars, Then after Sedan, in WWI they tried and failed and in WWII they tried and succeeded, at least for a time. Should we assume that they would try again if not constrained by hte EU?
No, I don\’t think so. Rather, that now they\’ve had the experience of doing so and succeeding, that they won\’t do it again. After all, now they know that France isn\’t worth the winning of it.