Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I like the wikipedia article: there are "almost as many definitions of Eastern Europe as there are scholars of the region".[1] A related UN paper adds that "every assessment of spatial identities is essentially a social and cultural construct
I agree with the first definition: "There are "almost as many definitions of Eastern Europe as there are scholars of the region."
The same goes for the rest of Europe east of France (e.g. Germany and Italy are "central" Europe according to one scholar who wrote what was once considered a classic European history).
I disagree with the second. Instead it should read "any assessment of spatial identities is essentially based on the political expediencies of the writer and/or the men in power sponsoring him."
Again to the OP, what is the (political) purpose of the question? Then someone, anyone, can provide an answer, based on his own expediencies of the moment.
I remember reading what was at one time a classic on European history that considered Germany and Italy as central Europe.
Germany is still widely considered Central Europe along with Switzerland, Austria, Poland and the Czech Republic. I have never heard of Italy regarded as such though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bale002
If one day, for example, it becomes politically expedient for both sides to have Turkey join the EU, then all of a sudden we will hear all sorts of historical and cultural explainations of why Turkey has always been part of Europe since year one.
As badly as certain people want that to happen, current events are swinging the pendulum away from that possibility.
The true definition of Eastern Europe is significant Orthodox, Byzantine and Ottoman influence through last 1500+ years. Then you have those cold-war era definitions, or language based... What you wanna say is maybe "Eastern Block".
I like the wikipedia article: there are "almost as many definitions of Eastern Europe as there are scholars of the region".[1] A related UN paper adds that "every assessment of spatial identities is essentially a social and cultural construct
Yes, that's as good an explanation as any... It's interesting that even today, no one really speaks of Greece as being part of Eastern Europe, even though it has a lot shared history and culture with it's Balkan neighbors (always considered Eastern Europe)--but in the Cold War period it was part of NATO.
Much of Eastern Europe has had a heavy Germanic influence through conquest and colonization by the Teutonic Knights or Prussians or Austrians historically(along with Russian or Ottoman influence). Until post-World War II you still had German posession(and a large number of Germans) in parts of what is now Poland like East Prussia or Silesia. And much of the food and architecture in the adjacent countries of Eastern Europe is similar to Germany or Austria. But if you travel through the region you find that while the Balkan countries share a lot of similarities, as do those in Central Europe or the Baltics---there is still as much difference between Estonia and Albania as between Iceland and Spain. I mean, what really unites the nations of Western Europe--Scandinavia is pretty far removed from Romance language speaking countries on the Mediterannean.
But it is as much an arbitrary division as anything. I think it's easy to group together Eastern Europe, because of the 45 years of the Eastern Communist Bloc in the popular mindset. Even before then, in the pre-World War I period, where Germany and France and Sweden and most of the countries in the western half of Europe were already established nation-states, most of the countries in what was considered to be Eastern Europe were still part of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, or Ottoman empires. And in the post-World War I period the new nation states of Eastern Europe were the weaker states that were the easy prey or collaborators with the Axis regimes(or the USSR). Eastern Europe is as much defined by it's conquerors and political development as by anything else. The region has always been in the middle of other empires, and while the Poles and the Hungarians had large medieval kingdoms, for much of history the nations of Eastern Europe have been ruled by outside powers.
Is it the economy? What language group it belongs to? The religion people follow?
I mean, what really unites ALL eastern european countries, aside from an experience of Communism? Most of eastern Europe is Slavic, but Hungary, Romania, Lithuania, Moldova, Latvia, and Albania are not, what makes them similar to the Slavic countries?
I was going to say being traditionally Orthodox, but much of eastern Europe is Roman Catholic or Protestant (and even Muslim).
Economically too, generally speaking, eastern Europe is less prosperous, but again, can you really regionalize based on prosperity?
The definition of Western and Eastern Europe is a combination of countries geographically located in the western/eastern parts of Europe, but also those that share similar cultural and political views.
During the Cold War West European countries were the non-Communist states of Europe that were allied with the United States to some degree.
As a result even geographically central and eastern countries that steered clear of Soviet influence were usually included and called an Eastern Block.
Today this term is highly volatile and countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia are clearly Central European and the label Eastern European is being increasingly regarded as derogatory in a Central European context.
Capitalism against Communism can no longer be used to clarify difference; instead vague and imprecise definitions exist.
Countries like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are clearly a Baltic States and now EU members and belong to Northern Europe due to geographic, cultural, historical reasons.
The German term "Mitteleuropa" ( Middle Europe) include Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Switzerland due to German influence, Germanic cultural hegemony and historical events.
Transcaucasia and former Soviet Union states up to Ural are are considered to be part of Eastern Europe in both a political and a cultural sense.
Countries east of Italy and south of Hungary are considered south-central and south-east Europe. However due to cultural diversity of the region, affiliation of individual countries may be difficult.
Countries described as Western European are invariably high-income developed countries, characterized by democratic political systems, mixed economies combining the free market with aspects of the welfare state, and most are members of NATO and the European Union.
Depending on definition countries in each region can be grouped differently (geographical, political, climatical, linguistic, and cultural )
The region has always been in the middle of other empires, and while the Poles and the Hungarians had large medieval kingdoms, for much of history the nations of Eastern Europe have been ruled by outside powers.
Not sure which states you are referring to. But except artificial countries like Slovakia or Belarus there was always a kingdom that is linked to current country. Also you are using word nation... it wasn't used in current sense during medieval times. If you link Holy roman empire let say to Germans or France, you need to link it to other eastern european countries too.
Germany is still widely considered Central Europe along with Switzerland, Austria, Poland and the Czech Republic. I have never heard of Italy regarded as such though.
The southeastern tip of Italy extends as far east as Budapest, the center of Slovakia, and even almost as far east as Warsaw, certainly much further east than Berlin.
For some five hundred years (500 years), parts of southern Italy were under the administration of the East Roman Empire.
I have never heard that the Balkans are always considered eastern Europe, unless Croatia, for example, is not considered the Balkans.
The one thousand year (1,000 years) sea-faring Venetian Empire, for example, based in what most people would consider western Europe, embraced much of coastal eastern Adriatic (e.g. Croatia) and extended throughout much of the eastern Mediterranean.
Again, the 45-70 years of the Moscow-based dictatorship (and its satellites - e.g. Yugoslavia), though still fresh in living memory, was too short to draw any historical conclusions. By that token, then, parts of southern Spain were under East Roman administration for about 70 years from around 550-620, does that make those parts of southern Spain eastern Europe? Nah, even for the specialists, on balance, that episode is hardly more than a page or a footnote.
In short, Euro-Mediterranean geography and its human history are too complicated for such neat groupings as eastern and western, they simply defy it (fractal geometry).
Again, the answer to the question depends on the momentary political expediencies of the person(s) asking it.
Even on a more contemporary and practical level, banks and other businesses, or even government agencies, may have central and eastern Europe divisions and departments, and for each of those banks and other businesses, or government agencies, what those departments and divisions entail exactly will depend on the nature of the business and the business model adopted. One would have to carefully read the pertinent sections of the financial statements or ask the executives.
For example, UniCredit, a major Italian-German-Austrian bank based in Milan, has a Central and Eastern European division which includes operating assets in Russia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgystan, with a current emphasis on Turkey.
An expression of EU political ambitions or simply operating expediency at the moment?
Would the executives of UniCredit favor Turkey's entry into the EU? What propaganda would they make? What about French banking executives whose banks have little or no direct operating assets in Turkey? What propaganda would they make?
The true definition of Eastern Europe is significant Orthodox, Byzantine and Ottoman influence through last 1500+ years. Then you have those cold-war era definitions, or language based... What you wanna say is maybe "Eastern Block".
I like the wikipedia article: there are "almost as many definitions of Eastern Europe as there are scholars of the region".[1] A related UN paper adds that "every assessment of spatial identities is essentially a social and cultural construct
No!It's wrong to say that the definition of Eastern Europe is significant Orthodox,Byzantine and Ottoman influence.Poland,Czech Republic,Slovakia,Hungary,Slovenia and Croatia have west/German/Austro-Ugar influences,also Baltic countries like Estonia,Lithuania and Latvia don't have Byzantine or Ottoman influences.Only the east and south part of Eastern Europe have that kind of influences like Albania,Macedonia,Serbia,Bosnia,Bulgaria..
The southeastern tip of Italy extends as far east as Budapest, the center of Slovakia, and even almost as far east as Warsaw, certainly much further east than Berlin.
For some five hundred years (500 years), parts of southern Italy were under the administration of the East Roman Empire.
I have never heard that the Balkans are always considered eastern Europe, unless Croatia, for example, is not considered the Balkans.
The one thousand year (1,000 years) sea-faring Venetian Empire, for example, based in what most people would consider western Europe, embraced much of coastal eastern Adriatic (e.g. Croatia) and extended throughout much of the eastern Mediterranean.
Again, the 45-70 years of the Moscow-based dictatorship (and its satellites - e.g. Yugoslavia), though still fresh in living memory, was too short to draw any historical conclusions. By that token, then, parts of southern Spain were under East Roman administration for about 70 years from around 550-620, does that make those parts of southern Spain eastern Europe? Nah, even for the specialists, on balance, that episode is hardly more than a page or a footnote.
In short, Euro-Mediterranean geography and its human history are too complicated for such neat groupings as eastern and western, they simply defy it (fractal geometry).
Again, the answer to the question depends on the momentary political expediencies of the person(s) asking it.
Even on a more contemporary and practical level, banks and other businesses, or even government agencies, may have central and eastern Europe divisions and departments, and for each of those banks and other businesses, or government agencies, what those departments and divisions entail exactly will depend on the nature of the business and the business model adopted. One would have to carefully read the pertinent sections of the financial statements or ask the executives.
For example, UniCredit, a major Italian-German-Austrian bank based in Milan, has a Central and Eastern European division which includes operating assets in Russia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgystan, with a current emphasis on Turkey.
An expression of EU political ambitions or simply operating expediency at the moment?
Would the executives of UniCredit favor Turkey's entry into the EU? What propaganda would they make? What about French banking executives whose banks have little or no direct operating assets in Turkey? What propaganda would they make?
Ex-Yugoslavia was not USSR satellit.The ex-Yugoslavia is the only ex-communist country in Europe that was not under USSR control.The ex-Yugoslavia was not behind iron wall during the cold war.The ex-Yugoslavia was pretty much open country for domestic people to go on the west,and the west people to go in Yugoslavia and tourism on the Adriatic see (Croatia) was very developed and ex-Yugoslavia was because of that reasons the most economic developed communist country in the Europe and one of them (Slovenia) is today the richest ex-communist country in Europe by GDP.It's wrong to put in the same basket ex-Yugoslavia and the countries that was behind the iron wall for the 45 years.Belive me I live there whole my life i know what I'm talking about...
Ex-Yugoslavia was not USSR satellit.The ex-Yugoslavia is the only ex-communist country in Europe that was not under USSR control.The ex-Yugoslavia was not behind iron wall during the cold war.The ex-Yugoslavia was pretty much open country for domestic people to go on the west,and the west people to go in Yugoslavia and tourism on the Adriatic see (Croatia) was very developed and ex-Yugoslavia was because of that reasons the most economic developed communist country in the Europe and one of them (Slovenia) is today the richest ex-communist country in Europe by GDP.It's wrong to put in the same basket ex-Yugoslavia and the countries that was behind the iron wall for the 45 years.Belive me I live there whole my life i know what I'm talking about...
I'm sure you do, but you missed the point.
The point was that even ex-Yugoslavia was a historically short-lived entity and the territories that it encompassed were/are at various times in European history western, central, eastern, southern, Illyrian, Greek, Macedonian, Roman, Byzantine, Slav, Ottoman, etc., and back again, European, and I'm sure that some smooth-talker could try to argue that at one point it was even part of northern Europe.
Satellite in this case merely means that its lands bordered on those of the Moscow-based dictatorship and experienced some influence (e.g. "communist"), not without analagous precedents in history (e.g. Byzantine influence in Serbia).
The point was that even ex-Yugoslavia was a historically short-lived entity and the territories that it encompassed were/are at various times in European history western, central, eastern, southern, Illyrian, Greek, Macedonian, Roman, Byzantine, Slav, Ottoman, etc., and back again, European, and I'm sure that some smooth-talker could try to argue that at one point it was even part of northern Europe.
Satellite in this case merely means that its lands bordered on those of the Moscow-based dictatorship and experienced some influence (e.g. "communist"), not without analagous precedents in history (e.g. Byzantine influence in Serbia).
Well,then West Germany is also satellite...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
