The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
How come in post-Soviet eastern Europe, Estonia, Latvia and Konigsberg all still have significant numbers of Russian settlers, yet Lithuania and Poland don't? Member of the Anti-Fabulousness League since 1987.
I'll have to profess ignorance in the subject matter, but from my understanding Lithuania actively tried to minimize immigration, whereas Estonia and Latvia did not (thus explaining Lithuania's comparatively small Russian minority compared to the other two Baltic states).
And why wouldn't Kaliningrad have a significant Russian population? It is in Russia, after all... "The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
Tihany, in Lake Balaton, with a smaller lake on top.
Or a large island?
Well, large or not, there is a prominent one between Buda and Pest (Margit-sziget = Margharet Island).
</thread hijack by the Hungarian Tourist Office> *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
It s not a place that is attractive to tourists, unless you enjoy seeing the rotting hulks of undecommissioned nuclear-powered ships and submarines sitting in the tidal river in downtown Murmansk. Or the obliterated nature within 50 kms of the nickel smelters. Or the people with an average life span below 50.
It's the most depressing place I've visited. You can't be me, I'm taken
But what I'm not sure about is how your circle was supposed to close around buying Budapest-nickel-Nickel mines-Kola peninsula; or why PIGL sees peninsulas or islands necessary for closing the circle :-) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Those acid pollution caused by those Kola smelters have had a rather disastrous effect on N. Finnish forests. In fact that was why I was there in Kola in '95, with a team of forest scientists. I just found the book based on the research while clearing out some dusty shelves. You can't be me, I'm taken
The latest move is to increase the amount of timber burnt domestically for energy - currently running at about 5 million tonnes, with about 70 million cubic metres surplus currently reaching maturity annually. (I am not sure how to correlate those figures)
The technology for burning fibre has made huge strides regards water/air pollution by-products. Boiler techonology using fluid beds + highly efficient scrubbers has seriously reduced pollution - but only at the most modern plants. The same can be done for coal - but it requires the building of new plant. Circularized Fluid Bed technology decimates almost anything ecept for heavy metals that are easier to catch with the latest scrubbers. I am not a coal advocate, but there is technology to handle it's fairly clean use for energy production. You can't be me, I'm taken
I can't parse this :-) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The western-centric notion of "Eastern European" includes any one who cooks with sour cream, knows what is slivovitz, and (hates the Russians exclusive-or started WW1). We've never heard of Belorus or Moldavia, so don't know how to account for them.
In that sense, the geographic central Europe and the cultural eastern Europe are the same.
Am I missing something important here?
Geographically, depending on who did the calculation, the center of Europe is somewhere between Southwestern Lithuania and the Northwestern edge of the Carpathian Basin [today in Slovakia and the Westernmost tip of Ukraine].
Historically, "Central Europe" used to be the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Prussia, and the Habsburg Empire (was earlier Austria and Kingdom of Hungary, became later Austria-Hungary). Culturally, this made some sense for the following reasons: Eastern border roughly the Eastern extent of Western Christianity (which meant very real political alliance systems and exchange beyond religion), these continental countries were off East of the dominant maritime nations making up Western (and Northern) Europe, and there was the Ottoman Empire to the Southeast. With German unification in the 19th century, all of Germany shited into "Central Europe".
To give some evidence, Central European Time (CET, the timezone today extending from Spain to Hungary, but originally only from Germany and on to Transsylvania and Galicia, areas then in Austria-Hungary but today in Romania resp. Ukraine) was established at the request of the Hungarian State Railways (see here).
In all the descendant countries, the region is called thus to this day. In the West, however, after the Iron Curtain descended across the continent, "Eastern Europe" became what was beyond.
After the fall of 'communism', there was confusion. Finding that the locals are confused and aren't that enthralled by their "Eastern Europe" terminology, some Westerners (especially those immigrating fro here...) had no trouble with the old terminology (see the Soros-funded Central European University). Then there are the new 'compromise terms', used on international fora to please us but apparently unknown to most Westerners: Central-Eastern Europe, Eastern-Central Europe (CEE/ECE), the same with "and".
But Western usage is confused also for reasons entirely unrelated to our sensitivities. What complicates the picture is
Quite a bit in the genesis of the modern use of the term if you look at the debates in the seventies and eighties. Quite prominent a theme in fact in the contributions of your co-national, Gyorgy Konrad. To be fair this part of the argument was at least as much intended to counter anti-East European prejudices among Westerners as an expression of anti-Russian prejudice. But the latter is a real factor.
I must admit I had no clue. Intrigued, I started off for a search; and so far I find there was apparently a so-called "Central Europe Debate", in which Konrád participated; kicked off by Milan Kundera's 1984 essay "The Tragedy of Central Europe", positing that in Central Europe is a part of the West kidnapped by the East, where intellectuals fight for European values against Soviet-Russian "de-Europeanisation", and that Central European intellectualism was the real center of European civilisation. That's strong tobacco indeed. Apparently, his strongest critic in the ensuing debate was emigrant Russian poet Joseph Brodsky. I am still reading.
(At any rate, while I may have absorbed Cewntral Europe myths created by the eighties dissident movement, I doubt my geography class curriculum was influenced by Konrád & co.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
On the Central Europe Debate, this article both connects and separates it from a debate among historians about Central Europe as separate cultural region, which started in the seventies.. E.g. the intellectuals were really for the re-joining of the two sides of the Iron Curtain, not an identity separate also from the West (but a purer essence of it if we look at Kundera).
Hm, maybe I should write a diary.
Or maybe you are already better-read for that :-)
At any rate, thanks for sending me on this search. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
That must have been muddled up with the German factor at least since the rise of Prussia in the Seven Years' War. If my source is right, the Central Europe idea got traction in the West in the form of the German Threat (and in Prussia/Germany Mitteleuropa became popular in the form of natural hegemonic area for regional dominance). Then again, it also claims that the East-West division idea finally supplanted the North-South idea (in which Russia was the Giant of the North) only with the Crimean War. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Apparently, a central theme in the historians' debate on Central Europe from the seventies was the development of feudalism as something separating out such a region, in particular the second serfdom. Which brings me to thing about an earlier era. Catholics contend that what connects Europe historically above all is its common Christian past. But the spread of Christianity was just as much the spread of the then modern society model of feudalism. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
The policies meant that overall industry grew rather slow in Lithuania; there were few industrial wonders to brag about. At the breakup in 1990, Lithuania was still a very agricultural country, with over 30% of population still rural. But the upside was, of course, minimal minority worries.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 17
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 10 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 32 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 3 comments
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Oui - Sep 18
by Oui - Sep 1713 comments
by Oui - Sep 154 comments
by Oui - Sep 151 comment
by Oui - Sep 1315 comments
by Oui - Sep 13
by Oui - Sep 124 comments
by Oui - Sep 1010 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 103 comments
by Oui - Sep 10
by Oui - Sep 92 comments
by Oui - Sep 84 comments
by Oui - Sep 715 comments
by Oui - Sep 72 comments
by Oui - Sep 63 comments
by Oui - Sep 54 comments
by gmoke - Sep 5