What do you think about this map?

[Carlitos]

Maybe we should start to ask the other way round: What is so good about West?

That question concerned who should have made a map where exclude Spain from the West.

 

[Grizzly]

This map is more or less good, it depends of the criteria. What I notice here is that like almost always, southern europeans seem to have some complexes to be not in the "west". If we were in the 16th century, it would be maybe the contrary : northern europeans users would have fought to be in the same group as Spain or Italy. Other times, other mores...

 

[Carlitos]

A map that eliminates the Iberian Peninsula in the West is right? God come down and see it, the global sense that I am in the West is stronger than the option that is limited only to the European framework.

 

[Sirius2b]

I don't know if I am the only one that could see that "Mitteleuropa" is not a neutral term?.

:useless:

(It is different to say, for example "Mitte von Europa" than "Mitteleuropa".)

It is associated with a very definite view of German Imperialism, into an "Esphere" that they think "belongs to them".

See for example, how they include Poland (a country supposedly ethnically and linguistically more close to Russia, than to Germany, into that concept).

Mitteleuropa is the German term equal to Central Europe.[1] The word has political, geographic and cultural meaning.[2] While it describes a geographical location, it also is the word denoting a political concept of a German-dominated Central European federation that was put into motion during First World War.

In reality, "Mitteleuropa" is a another way to say "Grossdeutschland" + with associated sphere of influence.

This term was advanced in the last half of First World War, when the cost of the war was so great, that Germans began to think that they had to get something big in compensation for so much sacrifices.

After WW I there were some German goverments of the Weimar Republik that wanted to advance this project (e.g. Heinrich Brüning ).

Precisely the attempt to create "Mitteleuropa" by force, was what started WW II.

Regards.

 

[Sirius2b]

Sorry to tell you guys... but I think that some of you are missing "der Kern des Problems".

The term "Mitteleuropa" is not a neutral term that do not simply express "Central Europe", but on the contrary, usually is heavily politically charged.

It was coined at the end of the First World War, when the Propaganda began to radicalize, and is strongly associated with German Imperialism in the continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitteleuropa

Normally Germans do not considerer Polish as a culturally similar people to them. However in the map, they are put in a space, that excludes French and Belgians... which Germans consider, right or wrong, as much closer to them.

The division in the map is not "cultural"... it is intended to express "spheres of influence", or more bluntly said, imperialist visions or regions around a strong point.

In this case, our Spanish friends do not like to be excluded from Western Europe in the map, and righly so...

I for my part, just warn, that this map hides something much more deep. More sinister, if I am allowed to say it.

The Mitteleuropa plan was to achieve a hegemony over Central Europe by the German Empire and subsequent economic & financial exploitation of this region combined with direct annexations, settlement of Teutonic colonists, expulsion of non-Germans from annexed areas and eventual Germanization of puppet states created as a buffer between Germany and Russia.
The issue of Central Europe was taken by German thinker Friedrich Naumann in 1915 in his work Mitteleuropa. According to his thought, this part of Europe was to become a politically and economically integrated block subjected to German rule. In his program, Naumann also supported programs of Germanization and Hungarization as well.[4] Some parts of the planning included designs on creating a German colony in Crimea and colonization of the Baltic states.[5]
The ruling political elites of Germany accepted the Mitteleuropa plan during World War I while drawing out German war aims and plans for the new order of Europe.[4] Mitteleuropa was to be created by establishing a series of puppet states whose political, economic and military aspects would be under the control of the German Reich.[6] The entire region was to serve as an economic backyard of Germany whose exploitation would enable it to compete with the British Empire and any other competitors for the position of the world's dominant power.[6] Economic organization was to be based on German domination, with unfair commercial treaties imposed on countries like Poland and Ukraine. It was believed that the German working classes could be appeased by German politicians through the economic benefits of territorial annexation, settlement of Germans in Central and Eastern Europe and exploitation of conquered countries for the material benefit of Germany.[7]

Regards.

 

[Reinaert]

What are you talking about?

Spain is the most western country of Europe, together with Portugal..

Are some of you blind or what?

 

[Sirius2b]

Oh... @Maciamo already looked it from the very start...

The map is ok, even though it is schematic and oversimplified. You shouldn't try to find similarities between the extremities in each region, but rather look at the "centre of gravity" for the region.

The Middle Europe region obviously matches the boundaries of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire + Germany, Poland and the Baltic. Personally, I would have put Estonia in North Europe with Finland, while Latvia, Lithuania and eastern Poland would have gone to Eastern Europe with Russia. But if the map was made by Germans, I understand that they attempt to widen their own sphere of influence. I would have also added a chunk of northern Germany into North Europe.

I also don't understand why western Turkey is not in the same group as Greece and Bulgaria.

I should never underestimate Maciamo.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

P.S.

I also with @LeBrok and ask "what is wrong with being classified as South-Westen European?".

The more South, the better the climate.

Civilization entered Europe, from South to North.

That currently Northern Europeans manage better their Economies, for whatever historical factors in the last 1 or 2 centuries, should not be a reason to despise your own Geography, much more adventageous. Maybe with more potential for the future.

Regards.

 

[Antigone]

Sorry to tell you guys... but I think that some of you are missing "der Kern des Problems".
The term "Mitteleuropa" is not a neutral term that do not simply express "Central Europe", but on the contrary, usually is heavily politically charged.
The division in the map is not "cultural"... it is intended to express "spheres of influence", or more bluntly said, imperialist visions or regions around a strong point. Regards.

Quite, I find it alarming that maps of this calibre are still being peddled on German sites. In what context are they being used? Historical I hope?

I dislike categorization at best and a simple glance at the territory that supposedly comprises "Middle Europe", extending to southern and a fair chunk of northern coastlines is enough to suspect that something is wrong.

 

[iapetoc]

Antigone
that is truth,
that map dhows the area of influence economical and political and not much cultural.
cause france is Latin speaking but francais are of north are not considered old culture but R1b culture,
the cantral Europe is the Germany and the ex-Austrohungarian empire, or the states that show less resist in 2nd WW,

the France and UK have an alliance from ww2 and an economical ally, which slowly includes spain,
spain and italy are the weak of EU but still stronger than Aimos peninsula,
in fact aimos peninsula for many is the trash can of Europe, and some balkan people do anything to prove it.
it also shows the economical influence of great powers of Europe,
besides the balkan slowly enter again back to turkish economical influence since the decapitation of industry from Greece ex Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, comparing the industrial production of those to the decade 1960-1970, instead Turkey shows a big industrialization after the 1980,
you can understand that by comparing Greek industry before 1980, and after 1981 to today, remember that Bulgaria was 3rd industrial power in ex East block 8 in the world in chemicals and today is not even in Eurozone, and ex yugoslavia was leader of third world counsil, and today all these countries are ruins,
the economic wars are on the loose, and that map shows them clear,

 

[Mzungu mchagga]

Sorry to tell you guys... but I think that some of you are missing "der Kern des Problems".

The term "Mitteleuropa" is not a neutral term that do not simply express "Central Europe", but on the contrary, usually is heavily politically charged.

It was coined at the end of the First World War, when the Propaganda began to radicalize, and is strongly associated with German Imperialism in the continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitteleuropa

Normally Germans do not considerer Polish as a culturally similar people to them. However in the map, they are put in a space, that excludes French and Belgians... which Germans consider, right or wrong, as much closer to them.

The division in the map is not "cultural"... it is intended to express "spheres of influence", or more bluntly said, imperialist visions or regions around a strong point.

In this case, our Spanish friends do not like to be excluded from Western Europe in the map, and righly so...

I for my part, just warn, that this map hides something much more deep. More sinister, if I am allowed to say it.



Regards.

Alongside with Maciamo I've already mentioned at the beginning that this map was produced from a very germancentrist point of view. It's also more or less academic, because as you already said, the average German would probably protest being put into one cultural zone with Poland or Lithuania.
The literal translation for 'Central Europe' is 'Mitteleuropa'. So if this German word is politically incorrect, the region as such would have to be dissolved in German geography and language. Personally I don't think that neither StAGN nor German Wikipedia had any imperialist or national-socialist intentions when they created and published this map. As I know that you understand German very well, you can read the about the story of it's creation here:
http://141.74.33.52/stagn/Portals/0/070829_Text_ER4_05_jordan.pdf

The real reproach one can consider is that both StAGN and Wikipedia have been very uncareful, naive and insensitive when they came up with this map -just like me when I posted it in this forum!

And yes, retrospectivly after having read all the comments, I wish I had never brought this map up... :useless:

 

[Sirius2b]

Hello again, @Mzungu mchagga...

It is fair that I study the paper of Peter Jordan and his justifications on the names and subtance of his proposal of division of Europe into vast regions ("Grossgliederung") for his geographic-cultural purposes.

Although the use of the name Mitteleuropa was for me suspicious from the beginning, and he himself accept that the definition of this space was the central difficulty of his task "and all the other regions will be defined naturally from it" (!?)... one should not assume from the start "malice".

I think that it very much deserve a closer look.. thing that I will do right now.

Maybe some other doubts put forward by our Spanish, Greek and other friends here, could be clarified.

Regards.

 

[Sirius2b]

The paper is divided into the following sections, that are not similar in length or dept.

0. Ziele des Vorhabens.
1. Historische Entwicklung des Mitteleuropabegriffs.
2. Methodische Ansätze einer Grossgliederung Europas.
3. Methodik des Kulturräumliches Ansatzes.
4. Faktoren eines Kulturräumlichen Begriffs von Mitteleuropa.
a. Historische Prägung durch deutsche und jüdische Kultur (als spezifikum), usw.
b. Nebeaneinder oder zeitliche Abfolge von Protestantismus und Katholizismus, während Orthodoxie und Islam nur randliche Rolle spielten.
c. Im Vergleich zu Ost- und Südosteuropa frühe Entwicklung eines Städtesystems und eines Bürgertums als Gegengewicht zu Adel, Landesherrn und Kirche.
d. Frühe Existenz eines freien, keinem Grundherrn untergeordneten Bauerntums.
e. Tradition lokaler und regionaler Selbstverwaltung als Folgefrüheren politischen Partikularismus
f. Kulturelle (Sprache, Religion) und ethnische Vielfalt innerhalb von Staaten.
g. Politisch und wirtschaftlich stets dem Kontinent zugewandt (und nicht nach Übersee orientiert)
h. Im Vergleich zu Westeuropa verspätete, gegenüber Ost- und Südosteuropa aber frühe Industrialisierung
5. Großgliederung Europas nach kulturräumlichen Kriterien und ohne Berücksichtigung heutiger Staatsgrenzen (Abb. 5)
6. Großgliederung Europas nach Staaten (Abb. 6)
7. Quellen und Literatur.

First impressions:

The contents division have a lot of logic. Looks very professional.

As you said, a very German-Centrist vision. The analysis seems to think that if you define the center, all the other “branches” will be self-defined, by exclusion... Something like a Venn diagram, in which the most important “set”, is of course Germany. Therefore, most of the effort is put in justify the notion of “Mitteleuropa” (sections 1 and 4). From here, one can say that he do not regard all parts of Europe have the same “cultural importance”, or deserve the same amout of analysis.

Now, section 4a seems to me to be a trying to kick under the belt. Not only it is claimed German cultural importace, also Jewish one… disregarding e.g. Polish culture.

Didn’t the Germans exterminated the Jews in Poland (3 million) to the extent that only 5,000 – 10,000 live today there? Instead, why no to mention the cultural relevance of the 40 or more million Poles that CURRENTLY live in there? Why are Polish and Hungarian (and the rest) put behind German and Jewish culture?


Have not Jewish culture also had importance in other regions of Europe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_Jews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Jews


This is gross… but very much reflects the current state of mentality in Germany.

(Very good we are not in a German forum, so I doubt I would be kicked by Maciamo about the former paragraph, thing much probably to happen in any German forum).

Well the rest of section 4. seems to idealize Central Europe as a kind of “Community of Citizens”, developed apart from any kind of oppression, authoritarism or autocracy.

I agree that (4g.) as many French and Belgian historians claimed, this part of Europe had very little influence from the sea. If there is a difference between England, Spain, France, Italy, Belgium or Holand… is that these nations have a “maritime development” and history contrary to ("Mitteleuropa").

Well… this are just my first impressions. The more I read, the more interesting is it to me... Not because I take seriously (not anymore) the claims of the author regarding cultural history… but this is a treasure of what @Mzungu said: It is an very detailed academic compendium of a Germanocentric view, current view, about Europe.

I will continue reading it.

Regards.

 

[Antigone]

And yes, retrospectivly after having read all the comments, I wish I had never brought this map up... :useless:

No, it is good that you did bring the map up for discussion Mzungu mchagga, it is important to know what others are thinking. Isn't that the purpose of forums?

As I don't speak German I'm still at a loss to understand completely the exact context of the map and the explanation of "cultural" does not fit with the areas demarcated, particularly for Middle Europe.

It may be only wishful thinking on the part of the author but, in my opinion, the territories that are historically and culturally influenced by Germany are Austria, Switzerland, parts of Northern Italy, Northern France and England, The Netherlands and Denmark. That countries like Croatia, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania etc are included and whilst obvious others like England and Netherlands are excluded gives the appearance that the map is far more political than cultural.

After reading Sirius's latest reply it also seems that the author of the map is on one masive ego trip.

 

[hangman]

No, it is good that you did bring the map up for discussion Mzungu mchagga, it is important to know what others are thinking. Isn't that the purpose of forums?

As I don't speak German I'm still at a loss to understand completely the exact context of the map and the explanation of "cultural" does not fit with the areas demarcated, particularly for Middle Europe.

It may be only wishful thinking on the part of the author but, in my opinion, the territories that are historically and culturally influenced by Germany are Austria, Switzerland, parts of Northern Italy, Northern France and England, The Netherlands and Denmark. That countries like Croatia, Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania etc are included and whilst obvious others like England and Netherlands are excluded gives the appearance that the map is far more political than cultural.

After reading Sirius's latest reply it also seems that the author of the map is on one masive ego trip.

I agree...and Antigone you must not have at heart irrelevant remarks...don't feed the trolls. Best regards.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Nope! The westernmost tip of Ireland is even a little further west than the one of Portugal. And don't forget about Iceland!
Anyways, don't get too deep into geographic terms! These regions in Europe could aswell be called completely different. We already said that Spain is a Western AND Southern country.

If I close my eyes, take a pen and draw randomly a line through Europe, in the end I will find either a historical or cultural or political or economic or genetic or climatic or botanic border for sure!

The Azores (PT) are further west than Ireland or Iceland. Mainland Portugal is the most western geographic point in continental Europe and, counting the Azores, the most western European country as a whole.

 

[Antigone]

I agree...and Antigone you must not have at heart irrelevant remarks...don't feed the trolls. Best regards.

You misunderstand Hangman, my comment was not directed at Sirius nor at his opinions, the comment was directed at the person who made the map.

 

[Sirius2b]

You misunderstand Hangman, my comment was not directed at Sirius nor at his opinions, the comment was directed at the person who made the map.

Thank you @Atigone. I mayself understood you perfectly from the beginning.

Regards.

 

[Mzungu mchagga]

The paper is divided into the following sections, that are not similar in length or dept.

First impressions:

The contents division have a lot of logic. Looks very professional.

As you said, a very German-Centrist vision. The analysis seems to think that if you define the center, all the other “branches” will be self-defined, by exclusion... Something like a Venn diagram, in which the most important “set”, is of course Germany. Therefore, most of the effort is put in justify the notion of “Mitteleuropa” (sections 1 and 4). From here, one can say that he do not regard all parts of Europe have the same “cultural importance”, or deserve the same amout of analysis.

I can assure you that in everyday usage the term "Mitteleuropa" is neutral. Even though the term had a symbolic meaning at the beginning of the 20th century, today it is not associated anymore with historic events, like for instance the words "Lebensraum" or "Rasse" do, words which really dropped out of German language. "Mitteleuropa" really means "Central Europe", whether geographic, geologic, ecologic or cultural. Nothing more and nothing less.

Now, section 4a seems to me to be a trying to kick under the belt. Not only it is claimed German cultural importace, also Jewish one… disregarding e.g. Polish culture.

Didn’t the Germans exterminated the Jews in Poland (3 million) to the extent that only 5,000 – 10,000 live today there? Instead, why no to mention the cultural relevance of the 40 or more million Poles that CURRENTLY live in there? Why are Polish and Hungarian (and the rest) put behind German and Jewish culture?

If it comes to this map created by StAGN, it were really Germans and Jews who historically comprised a high amount of the intellectual elites in this area shown as Central Europe, and not Poles or Hungarians. But still you are right that all other ethnicities in this area were kind of neglected. Central Europe might as well have been orientated on the area Polish culture had it's influence on. In this case the shape of the area would have been somewhat different.
Ironically, if you'd asked an average German today of what he thinks Central Europe would consist of, he'd answer you Germany, Austria and Switzerland only. The area in which German is the mother tongue.

Have not Jewish culture also had importance in other regions of Europe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_Jews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Jews


This is gross… but very much reflects the current state of mentality in Germany.

(Very good we are not in a German forum, so I doubt I would be kicked by Maciamo about the former paragraph, thing much probably to happen in any German forum).

Naw, I don't think so...
Because of what? Because you've mentioned Germans and Jews in one sentence?

Well the rest of section 4. seems to idealize Central Europe as a kind of “Community of Citizens”, developed apart from any kind of oppression, authoritarism or autocracy.

I agree that (4g.) as many French and Belgian historians claimed, this part of Europe had very little influence from the sea. If there is a difference between England, Spain, France, Italy, Belgium or Holand… is that these nations have a “maritime development” and history contrary to ("Mitteleuropa").

Well… this are just my first impressions. The more I read, the more interesting is it to me... Not because I take seriously (not anymore) the claims of the author regarding cultural history… but this is a treasure of what @Mzungu said: It is an very detailed academic compendium of a Germanocentric view, current view, about Europe.

I will continue reading it.

Regards.

Yupp!

 

[Sirius2b]

Naw, I don't think so...

Because of what? Because you've mentioned Germans and Jews in one sentence?

I still mussing from what I have seen in some German forums...

Oh, Hitler was such a monster, that killed 6 million Jews... we are so repented... but, hey, why have we didn't killed 50 or 100 million Russians, instead of only 20? The world will be far nicer today...

Oh, the Nazis then were so "menschenverachtend"... but, hey, couldn't the Israelies and Amis just nuke those Palestineans, Lebanese and Iranian "Islamofaschisten" so the Middle East finds finally some peace?.

Ah, we are so proud of our "Holocaustleugnung" and anti-hate Laws... but, hey, these Turks "Kulturbereicherer" destroy everything that is decent in Germany... What could we made of them ( fertilizer or soap? ).

(Note that I am not speaking here and now, bad of the Jews or Israel, but only about conservative German mentality.)

Honestly, if you want to comment something about what I wrote, be my guest.

But I will not engage now in discussions about it, because it make me feel sick... and thankfully, I made my decission to not longer participate in German forums.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Look... I don't remember if last year or so, Germany won in a survey as the most popular country.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091117092256AAqWFC9

Germany still projects a good image to most people in the world. I think that is well deserved, according to what their goverments (specially of the SPD) actually projected intenationaly in speach and deeds since 1945 (At least till few years ago).

Still some people nowadays don't buy it... like the British, and you know that.

I don't want to continue to discuss it... but I have to recount what I saw. And believe me, I am not the only one...

I used to be extremely germanophile in my youth... but now, for better or worst, know better.

Of course, I don't generalize... I don't say all the Germans are like that.

+

 

[Garrick]

Mzungu mchagga

Term Mitteleurope is neutral, it is same as Central Europe.

And there's no reason to think you're wrong because you put the map.

There is an inconsistency on the map, or should all follow the state border (means for France, Italy, Serbia, Romania and Ukraine) or some other regions of some countries should be within any other sub-regions.