Which countries are considered Eastern European?

Status
Not open for further replies.
They saved you from extermination at the hands of the Nazis. Generalplan Ost documents aimed for an 80% population reduction in the Baltic provinces - worse even than in Russia. That was if Himmler didn't get his who literally said that he hoped all Baltic people could be made to 'disappear'.

The reasons for this are quite relevant to this thread: it is because the Nazis thought that Baltic people looked Eastern European (and hence were racially undesirable) and had an Eastern European culture. Now, I think neither of these things are bad, but you seem to have some gripes with this.

Oh, and you seem absolutely clueless about the Soviet genocide that followed WWII. Basically, you just said that 'the state of Israel should be thankful to Nazi Germany, because they owe their existence to them'. It is so mind-blowingly offensive, indecent even, that I don't even know where to begin.

But I'm not offended by idiots, so I'm not going to further elaborate on that.
 
I actually have done research on Nazi racial policies in the Baltics. As in, I've read through the archives. Most of what you wrote here is outright incorrect. Actually, upon further inspection, every single statement you made is factually incorrect.

Latvians and Estonians were deemed suitable for Germanization. Only Latgalians and Lithuanians were to be deported (and even then not exterminated) and either sent further East or used as guards and overseers of Slavic forced labour camps in Siberia on an industrial scale. Latgalians, just like the Belarusians, were deemed culturally backwards, based on their century-long connection to the Russian Empire under the Vitebsk Governorate. 'They were so backwards, they should not be considered a threat' is very close to a quotation of one Nazi official.

Note that I'm talking about Nazi policy after the invasion of the Soviet Union and after the Baltics were occupied. That was the first time they carried actual 'research' measuring skulls and the like. Their policies were updated accordingly based on what they saw on the ground.

You got duped. Quoted directly from the Generalplan Ost document:

Auch bei den baltischen Völkern, führte Schubert weiter aus,sei die Zahl der rassisch Wertvollen nicht so erheblich. Eine Besiedlung des Landesmit Deutschen sei nicht unmöglich.

Plug it in a translator. Schubert, the Nazi racial scientist, compares the percentage of desirables to Poland, where it was 3-5%.

Mind you that's the moderate perspective - Himmler wanted a clean slate.
 
Oh, and you seem absolutely clueless about the Soviet genocide that followed WWII. Basically, you just said that 'the state of Israel should be thankful to Nazi Germany, because they owe their existence to them'. It is so mind-blowingly offensive, indecent even, that I don't even know where to begin.

But I'm not offended by idiots, so I'm not going to further elaborate on that.

No, Russian soldiers literally died in droves defending Eastern Europe against genocidal colonization. Are you joking now?
 
You got duped. Quoted directly from the Generalplan Ost document:
Plug it in a translator. Schubert, the Nazi racial scientist, compares the percentage of desirables to Poland, where it was 3-5%.
Mind you that's the moderate perspective - Himmler wanted a clean slate.
The planned Nazi racial policy towards the Baltic peoples has been clearly outlined in: "Abschlußbericht der rassischen Musterungskommission Ostland, 05.11.1942. R90/148, BA."
The distinction between ethnic Latvians and the people of Latgale has been clearly implied in "Betrifft: Dr. H. Schlau: Rassenpolitische Erwagungen zur Umvolkung der Letten, Schlau, 15.02.1942. R 70/5/89, LVVA."
There's a lot of information on future Nazi racial policies in the reports by Nazi ethnographic researcher Dr. Georg Leibbrandt and in the reports compiled by Dr. Gunther Holz that were sent to Leibbrandt. They are available in Latvian historical archives.
The initial Nazi racial policies were radically changed during the course of the occupation of Latvian and Estonian territories, as they had no anthropometric data and had not carried out any extensive ethnographic research beforehand.
Your quoation speaks of the Baltic peoples as a single entity, while it has been well documented that Lithuanians, Latgalians, Latvians and Estonians were all measured separately, as I explained previously.
In any case, your original point collapses on itself irrespective of Nazi policies. What we experienced was forced expulsion, mass murder and mass deportations with the intent of Russifying our nation under the hands of the Soviets. The difference between the Nazis and the Soviets is that the Soviets actually tried to do it.
To say that we should he thankful for that is immoral, evil and only a degenerate would think of something like it.
 
Gee, I guess we just don't get it, Markod.

50cal's whole point seems to be that there's something wrong with being "Eastern European", because that means "Slavic", and for him as well as for the Nazis, according to him, SLAVS would eventually all go to the crematoria, but Latvians and Estonians weren't and aren't "Untermenschen" and would be spared after being "Germanized".

I guess it was true for some: lots of Latvian guards at extermination camps.

Nobody brought up the Hajnal line? St. Petersburg to Trieste, guys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line
 
Gee, I guess we just don't get it, Markod.
50cal's whole point seems to be that there's something wrong with being "Eastern European", because that means "Slavic", and for him as well as for the Nazis, according to him, SLAVS would eventually all go to the crematoria, but Latvians and Estonians weren't and aren't "Untermenschen" and would be spared after being "Germanized".
I guess it was true for some: lots of Latvian guards at extermination camps.
There's nothing wrong with being Eastern European. It is wrong to label other countries Eastern European when they, in fact, are not Eastern European.

Did I make my point simple enough for you to understand?

As for Nazi concentration camps, one of my great grandfathers was imprisoned in Salaspils. I guess it is too tempting to resort to ad hominem attacks when your worldview is challenged, you have no counter-arguments, yet you are too weak to accept new information and adjust your views accordingly.

Just point at me, call me a Nazi and make it easier for you, you coward.
 
The planned Nazi racial policy towards the Baltic peoples has been clearly outlined in: "Abschlußbericht der rassischen Musterungskommission Ostland, 05.11.1942. R90/148, BA."
The distinction between ethnic Latvians and the people of Latgale has been clearly implied in "Betrifft: Dr. H. Schlau: Rassenpolitische Erwagungen zur Umvolkung der Letten, Schlau, 15.02.1942. R 70/5/89, LVVA."
There's a lot of information on future Nazi racial policies in the reports by Nazi ethnographic researcher Dr. Georg Leibbrandt and in the reports compiled by Dr. Gunther Holz that were sent to Leibbrandt. They are available in Latvian historical archives.
The initial Nazi racial policies were radically changed during the course of the occupation of Latvian and Estonian territories, as they had no anthropometric data and had not carried out any extensive ethnographic research beforehand.
Your quoation speaks of the Baltic peoples as a single entity, while it has been well documented that Lithuanians, Latgalians, Latvians and Estonians were all measured separately, as I explained previously.
In any case, your original point collapses on itself irrespective of Nazi policies. What we experienced was forced expulsion, mass murder and mass deportations with the intent of Russifying our nation under the hands of the Soviets. The difference between the Nazis and the Soviets is that the Soviets actually tried to do it.
To say that we should he thankful for that is immoral, evil and only a degenerate would think of something like it.

You are references sources that aren't available anywhere - whatever they contained, they were irrelevant to the policies of the SS. If you are interested in learning what was actually happening in the Baltics, I would recommend Tilman Plath's work on this particular topic. The SS policemen made no difference between Latvians and Slavs, and there was no intention whatsoever to assimilate them. Himmler wanted the Baltic populations gone. He refers to the 'former states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia" in his letters - they considered the extirpation of Baltic national identity a fait accompli.

I assume you pulled these things from some Latvian Nazi site? Get a grip.
 
You are references sources that aren't available anywhere - whatever they contained, they were irrelevant to the policies of the SS. If you are interested in learning what was actually happening in the Baltics, I would recommend Tilman Plath's work on this particular topic. The SS policemen made no difference between Latvians and Slavs, and there was no intention whatsoever to assimilate them. Himmler wanted the Baltic populations gone. He refers to the 'former states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia" in his letters - they considered the extirpation of Baltic national identity a fait accompli.

I assume you pulled these things from some Latvian Nazi site? Get a grip.
You're obviously not very academically oriented or competent in historical research. BA = Bundesarchiv. Do I need to tell you how to access it? PM me if you're interested.

As for pulling these things out of some Nazi site, the author of this is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Ezergailis.

Germanization entailed exactly the same thing the Soviets carried out in Latvia during the Soviet occupation (and almost succeeded). Latvians would be wiped out culturally and assimilated. Which is what I already said previously. Assimilation doesn't mean extermination.

I have read correspondences between Rosenberg (who was half Estonian/Latvian himself) and Hitler's representatives regarding the racial policies towards the Baltic peoples. There was never a plan to ethnically cleanse any of the Baltic aboriginal populations.
 
There's nothing wrong with being Eastern European. It is wrong to label other countries Eastern European when they, in fact, are not Eastern European.

Did I make my point simple enough for you to understand?

As for Nazi concentration camps, one of my great grandfathers was imprisoned in Salaspils. I guess it is too tempting to resort to ad hominem attacks when your worldview is challenged, you have no counter-arguments, yet you are too weak to accept new information and adjust your views accordingly.

Just point at me, call me a Nazi and make it easier for you, you coward.



You're the one who said that the Nazis distinguished between Slavs, whom we know were all to be exterminated, and Latvians/Estonians, who were capable of being "Germanized", and so clearly were not untermenschen.

The clear implication was that the Germans were just recognizing an obvious difference. In addition to Protestantism, the obvious difference was, what? Genetic? Racial?

Regardless, Eastern European for you clearly means Slavic, and equally clearly you find having your country grouped with them extremely troublesome, perhaps insulting. Is that right? Or are we getting the wrong impression?

If my reference to Latvian guards in Nazi extermination camps is what made you lose your temper, I'm afraid facts are facts. It happened. Don't shoot the messenger. It happened in my country too, if to a lesser extent. At least we don't hold parades to honor these people, however.

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/einsatz/lativia.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Legion

Oh, you may have missed some of our threads dealing with religion and the Nazis. Protestants were much more likely to vote for Hitler than Catholics. Put that in your hat and smoke it.

Just generally, I'm trying to be more tolerant, so I didn't give you an infraction. If you continue with these over the line insults, however, there will be consequences.
 
You're obviously not very academically oriented or competent in historical research. BA = Bundesarchiv. Do I need to tell you how to access it? PM me if you're interested.

As for pulling these things out of some Nazi site, the author of this is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Ezergailis.

Germanization entailed exactly the same thing the Soviets carried out in Latvia during the Soviet occupation (and almost succeeded). Latvians would be wiped out culturally and assimilated. Which is what I already said previously. Assimilation doesn't mean extermination.

I have read correspondences between Rosenberg (who was half Estonian/Latvian himself) and Hitler's representatives regarding the racial policies towards the Baltic peoples. There was never a plan to ethnically cleanse any of the Baltic aboriginal populations.

You might want to produce a single piece of evidence that the Generalplan Ost changed in the years of the Baltic occupation.

The treatment of the general population by the SS shows no evidence of it. There's no indication that Himmler changed his mind, or that Ehlich changed his mind. With Himmler inevitably gaining power the policies outlined in GO would have actually been the better option.

Plans to expel Latvians predate WWII and the Nazis:

„Kann nicht auch Kurland, einem autonomen Polen vorgelagert, für uns brauchbarwerden als bäuerliches Kolonisationsland, wenn wir die Letten nach Rußland abschieben?Früher hätte man das für phantastisch gehalten, und doch ist es nicht unausführbar.“

There was widespread sentiment among Germans that the Baltic countries were theirs. One can see manifestations of this already in the atrocities committed by the Freikorps long before WWII.

I think you might have read propaganda by the Reichskommissariat - they made prolific attempts to win over native populations especially in the later years of the war. Himmler and the SS never intended to assimilate Latvians. Tilman Plath explicitly mentions this in his book 'Zwischen Schonung und Menschenjagden'. It was Himmler and the SS who were responsible for the ethnic cleansings - and I assure you Himmler wanted Latvians gone. Even Volksdeutsche like Rosenberg himself were considered suspect.
 
You're the one who said that the Nazis distinguished between Slavs, whom we know were all to be exterminated, and Latvians/Estonians, who were capable of being "Germanized", and so clearly were not untermenschen.
The clear implication was that the Germans were just recognizing an obvious difference. In addition to Protestantism, the obvious difference was, what? Genetic? Racial?
Regardless, Eastern European for you clearly means Slavic, and equally clearly you find having your country grouped with them extremely troublesome, perhaps insulting. Is that right? Or are we getting the wrong impression?
If my reference to Latvian guards in Nazi extermination camps is what made you lose your temper, I'm afraid facts are facts. It happened. Don't shoot the messenger. It happened in my country too, if to a lesser extent. At least we don't hold parades to honor these people, however.
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/einsatz/lativia.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Legion
Oh, you may have missed some of our threads dealing with religion and the Nazis. Protestants were much more likely to vote for Hitler than Catholics. Put that in your hat and smoke it.
Just generally, I'm trying to be more tolerant, so I didn't give you an infraction. If you continue with these over the line insults, however, there will be consequences.
You're not being rational.

I can discuss Nazi racial policies and challenge the view that everyone was about to be mass murdered without being associated with the ideology. Do you not agree?

My entire point was that the Nazis and the Soviets had the same plans in mind for us. Complete assimilation, deportations and the settlement of Russians/Germans in our lands.

How exactly does that make you believe I somehow subscribe to that hogwash? You seem to have forgot the original point markod made.

"I must be thankful to the Russians for trying to wipe us out." This is the statement that started it all. It would be a borderline hate speech offence here.

After that statement was made, I went on to explain why it makes no sense on two levels:
a) the Nazis were not going to exterminate us,
b) the Soviets did try to wipe us out culturally, just like the Nazis would.

I can put it into very simple, vulgar even, terms. Maybe this will help some people understand my point. Somehow I'm a Nazi, because I'm not thankful a rapist beat up another rapist. Both were trying to rape me. I'm definitely a Nazi, because I'm explaining that one of them wasn't a murderer, but a rapist. What you're saying is "oh, I bet you loved being raped by that one guy". No. I didn't. Do you not realize how offensive that is?

Eastern European means Eastern Orthodox. When I think of Eastern Europe, I think of Byzantium. I think of the Hajnal line. I think of East Slavs. I don't consider Czechs or, say, Croatians to be Eastern European. That label makes little sense. I think of late industrialization, I think of late urbanization, I think of high illiteracy rates in the 20th century. I think of illiterate slave-like serfs living off the land and then being herded into living in cities and being taught how to read. I think of track suits and alcoholism, I think of Soviet-styled apartment blocs. I think of spitting on the streets, golden teeth and babushkas. I think of a highly ostentatious sense of style. Of bright, shiny things and gold. Of bright red and bright green and light blue being used at the same time. I think of corruption, authoritarianism and officials riding in fancy SUVs, while others sputter around in Ladas. I think of a very parochial, sexist society. I think of domestic violence. I think of gays being beat up in public. I think of censorship. I think of general poverty. I think of women dressing like prostitutes.

I don't think they're inferior in any way, but I do believe they have been extremely unlucky in the way the dice has rolled for them. The way history has played out. It has a lot to do with the vast territory, lack of exchange of ideas throughout the last few hundred years, lack of trade, lack of investment and the fact that backwards authoritarianism has helped to keep it all together. But, unfortunately, it is what defines it as a political/cultural region of Europe.

If it was up to me, I wouldn't use this term at all. And, yes, Angela, it is offensive to be labeled 'Eastern European' in such a context. I would be slightly upset if I was called a Southern European as well, but the label 'Eastern Europe' contains a lot more layers to it than geography alone, which makes it especially insulting.
 
You're not being rational.

I can discuss Nazi racial policies and challenge the view that everyone was about to be mass murdered without being associated with the ideology. Do you not agree?

My entire point was that the Nazis and the Soviets had the same plans in mind for us. Complete assimilation, deportations and the settlement of Russians/Germans in our lands.

How exactly does that make you believe I somehow subscribe to that hogwash? You seem to have forgot the original point markod made.

"I must be thankful to the Russians for trying to wipe us out." This is the statement that started it all. It would be a borderline hate speech offence here.

After that statement was made, I went on to explain why it makes no sense on two levels:
a) the Nazis were not going to exterminate us,
b) the Soviets did try to wipe us out culturally, just like the Nazis would.

I can put it into very simple, vulgar even, terms. Maybe this will help some people understand my point. Somehow I'm a Nazi, because I'm not thankful a rapist beat up another rapist. Both were trying to rape me. I'm definitely a Nazi, because I'm explaining that one of them wasn't a murderer, but a rapist. What you're saying is "oh, I bet you loved being raped by that one guy". No. I didn't. Do you not realize how offensive that is?

Eastern European means Eastern Orthodox. When I think of Eastern Europe, I think of Byzantium. I think of the Hajnal line. I think of East Slavs. I don't consider Czechs or, say, Croatians to be Eastern European. That label makes little sense. I think of late industrialization, I think of late urbanization, I think of high illiteracy rates in the 20th century. I think of illiterate slave-like serfs living off the land and then being herded into living in cities and being taught how to read. I think of track suits and alcoholism, I think of Soviet-styled apartment blocs. I think of spitting on the streets, golden teeth and babushkas. I think of a highly ostentatious sense of style. Of bright, shiny things and gold. Of bright red and bright green and light blue being used at the same time. I think of corruption, authoritarianism and officials riding in fancy SUVs, while others sputter around in Ladas. I think of a very parochial, sexist society. I think of domestic violence. I think of gays being beat up in public. I think of censorship. I think of general poverty. I think of women dressing like prostitutes.

I don't think they're inferior in any way, but I do believe they have been extremely unlucky in the way the dice has rolled for them. The way history has played out. It has a lot to do with the vast territory, lack of exchange of ideas throughout the last few hundred years, lack of trade, lack of investment and the fact that backwards authoritarianism has helped to keep it all together. But, unfortunately, it is what defines it as a political/cultural region of Europe.

If it was up to me, I wouldn't use this term at all. And, yes, Angela, it is offensive to be labeled 'Eastern European' in such a context. I would be slightly upset if I was called a Southern European as well, but the label 'Eastern Europe' contains a lot more layers to it than geography alone, which makes it especially insulting.

The problem is you're wrong, and you haven't managed to cite a single piece of evidence for your assertions. If you think an ominous report bei Leibbrandt, who was laid off and replaced by one of Himmler's SS men, changed anything about Generalplan Ost you are absolutely delusional. Rosenberg himself was suspected of sympathizing with easterners due to his background, and he had absolutely zero reach. His plans to grant a state to Ukrainians were completely ignored, as was his proposed repatration of Jews in Madagascar or Guyana.

Himmler and Hitler were 100% aligned when it came to the treatment of eastern populations. Himmler and his SS were going to get rid of everyone in the Baltics, and assimilation was never on the table.

Oh and you might not realize it, but all those awful stereotypes might as well apply to your country in many peoples minds. Many indubitably Eastern European countries are better developed than Latvia: Poland, Slovenia, the Czech republic. Everyone considers those countries Eastern European. Latvia's PPP is only barely higher than Russia's, and the former has been an EU member for a while. As for your hatred of Russia, I'd like to remind you of the many achievements in literature, science and the arts that came from this country.These should be enough to call your laughable prejudices into question.

Your citations earlier in the thread only lead back to your reddit account, where you made exactly the same kind of posts (word for word, it seems you just copypasted some of them) which weren't received well. After 3 years you might just want to accept that Latvia is in Eastern Europe and that the Nazis didn't like you.
 
You're not being rational.
I can discuss Nazi racial policies and challenge the view that everyone was about to be mass murdered without being associated with the ideology. Do you not agree?
My entire point was that the Nazis and the Soviets had the same plans in mind for us. Complete assimilation, deportations and the settlement of Russians/Germans in our lands.
How exactly does that make you believe I somehow subscribe to that hogwash? You seem to have forgot the original point markod made.
"I must be thankful to the Russians for trying to wipe us out." This is the statement that started it all. It would be a borderline hate speech offence here.
After that statement was made, I went on to explain why it makes no sense on two levels:
a) the Nazis were not going to exterminate us,
b) the Soviets did try to wipe us out culturally, just like the Nazis would.
I can put it into very simple, vulgar even, terms. Maybe this will help some people understand my point. Somehow I'm a Nazi, because I'm not thankful a rapist beat up another rapist. Both were trying to rape me. I'm definitely a Nazi, because I'm explaining that one of them wasn't a murderer, but a rapist. What you're saying is "oh, I bet you loved being raped by that one guy". No. I didn't. Do you not realize how offensive that is?
Eastern European means Eastern Orthodox. When I think of Eastern Europe, I think of Byzantium. I think of the Hajnal line. I think of East Slavs. I don't consider Czechs or, say, Croatians to be Eastern European. That label makes little sense. I think of late industrialization, I think of late urbanization, I think of high illiteracy rates in the 20th century. I think of illiterate slave-like serfs living off the land and then being herded into living in cities and being taught how to read. I think of track suits and alcoholism, I think of Soviet-styled apartment blocs. I think of spitting on the streets, golden teeth and babushkas. I think of a highly ostentatious sense of style. Of bright, shiny things and gold. Of bright red and bright green and light blue being used at the same time. I think of corruption, authoritarianism and officials riding in fancy SUVs, while others sputter around in Ladas. I think of a very parochial, sexist society. I think of domestic violence. I think of gays being beat up in public. I think of censorship. I think of general poverty. I think of women dressing like prostitutes.
I don't think they're inferior in any way, but I do believe they have been extremely unlucky in the way the dice has rolled for them. The way history has played out. It has a lot to do with the vast territory, lack of exchange of ideas throughout the last few hundred years, lack of trade, lack of investment and the fact that backwards authoritarianism has helped to keep it all together. But, unfortunately, it is what defines it as a political/cultural region of Europe.
If it was up to me, I wouldn't use this term at all. And, yes, Angela, it is offensive to be labeled 'Eastern European' in such a context. I would be slightly upset if I was called a Southern European as well, but the label 'Eastern Europe' contains a lot more layers to it than geography alone, which makes it especially insulting.

You probably don't see it, but you've proved my point. Your hysteria over this possible labeling of your country by a quasi "geographical" term is because of your hateful attitudes toward Slavic people. You consider them "lower", less evolved than your people, and presumably Germans etc, and that is why you're so incensed that anyone would associate your country with them. I'm sure Hitler and Himmler would have completely agreed with you. The only thing you don't do is publicly ascribe it to "race".

Not good enough.

I don't debate people with such hateful viewpoints.

As to one of your main, what, supporting points, that the Nazis considered you worthy of assimilation, sorry for the disappointment, but you haven't proved it. All you're doing is culling incorrect information from racist Latvian sites written by people who desperately don't want to believe that their beloved Nazis didn't consider them "ubermensch". Pathetic.

I know very well what the hajnal line means and which countries are and are not in it. Why else would I bring it up? I was trying to be objective. That's lost on people like you. Nor, fwiw, do I completely "buy" it, but that's for another discussion.
 
Deary me, I guess you're not being taught history in Albania.
The part about million bodies wasn't hyperbole. If you're willing to challenge that point further, I'll give you a fair chance and let you do some research of your own first before schooling you.
Of course we learn history in Albanian schools but to be honest the history of Latvia is not studied as a separate branch. Maybe is wrong but, never heard of any Latvian civilization or Empire. You are free to share some knowledge here and in this way to promote your country.
Also:
a) you should probably educate yourself on how proportional election systems work — having the most votes doesn't mean you won,
I have some knowledge about proportional and majority voting systems. Here we have a mix, a very complex system.
b) granting people voting rights is the right thing to do.
The rights of the minorities are granted in our Constitution.
As for being careful, we don't have any reason to be careful. I am prepared, though, if you're wondering. I'm keeping my assault rifle and sidegun at home, just like a good deal of my friends are. If need be, we're going to add another million bodies to our lovely soil. It makes it more fertile.
From what i have been able to read here in this thread, during the twentieth century you have been threatened with being extirpated on one hand by the Germans and on the other side by the Russian genocide as you personally admitted and which is seen from the results of the elections.
However, i hope that one day i will have the possibility to visit your beautiful country as a tourist and not obliged by article 5 of NATO, because on that occasion, this map of yours would be ..... a funny game.
I also have a curiosity, why in your map Montenegro is in the Western part of Europe?
 
Looking on the map, the geometrical map center of gravity of Europe seems to be between north Romania, south-east Poland and western Ukraine. So Romania, Poland, W Ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary seem to be physically no way east, but the center of Europe.
 
According to tripsavvy.com/countries-of-eastern-europe-explored-1501460 Eastern European countries are:

  • Russia
  • Czech Republic
  • Poland
  • Croatia
  • Slovakia
  • Hungary
  • Romania and Moldova
  • Serbia
  • Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia
  • Slovenia
  • Bulgaria
  • Ukraine and Belarus
  • Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Albania, Kosovo, and Macedonia
But according to Wikipedia all countries on Balkan peninsula as well as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia are also Eastern European countries. I guess because geographical Europe sweeps from the Iberian peninsula to the Ural Mountains
 
Of course we learn history in Albanian schools but to be honest the history of Latvia is not studied as a separate branch. Maybe is wrong but, never heard of any Latvian civilization or Empire. You are free to share some knowledge here and in this way to promote your country.

I have some knowledge about proportional and majority voting systems. Here we have a mix, a very complex system.

The rights of the minorities are granted in our Constitution.

From what i have been able to read here in this thread, during the twentieth century you have been threatened with being extirpated on one hand by the Germans and on the other side by the Russian genocide as you personally admitted and which is seen from the results of the elections.
However, i hope that one day i will have the possibility to visit your beautiful country as a tourist and not obliged by article 5 of NATO, because on that occasion, this map of yours would be ..... a funny game.
I also have a curiosity, why in your map Montenegro is in the Western part of Europe?

countries with orthodox Christianity are close to Islam. So Only Catholic countries are considered western with the exception of Hungary, Finland, Estonia who are not genetically European.
I have heard when Mohamed created Islam in 7 century ad, Christianity of Greeks served as a model, so again Orthodox countries are closer to islam
 
Topic has been turned to one of crazy Balkan Topics

Check United Nations Geoscheme
 
Half the threads on this site are ruined by Balkan ignorance and hyper-Nationalism. Amazing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 27217 times.

Back
Top