Talk:Mitteleuropa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles	WikiProject Europe	(Rated Start-Class)
	Europe portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of cross-border nature on Wikipedia.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Admitting that I've no particular knowledge with regard to German WWI-plans, I would propose that the current wording of the first sentence would need adjustment:

Mitteleuropa (German for Central Europe) refers to the policy created by the Central Powers in the last years of the World War I.

The policy in question did in my belief include also Finland, but Finland is hardly considered mitteleuropäisch by Germans. The current wording strikes me as slightly confused. One ought to differentiate between the policy, that may have affected Mitteleuropa, and the actual region. Mitteleuropa rather refers to the region than to the policy. /Tuomas 17:00, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, although I'm not sure about Finland. Perhaps the Central Powers were very glad that Finland was born, but the very concept of Mitteleuropa assumed the creation of small puppet states on the territory actually controlled by Germany and Austria-Hungary. Finland was far, far away.

Anyway, I'll try to reword the initial sentence. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:31, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Mitteleuropa is the German word for Central Europe - it's a geographical term (and not an evil german secret plan to destroy Poland)  ;-) I don't see why there is an extra article for this (cause there's also Central Europe and Mitteleuropa is just the German translation) - you don't need to translate every english word into german an then make an extra wiki-article (in the english wiki) for it - that's just absurd !!! M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.204.109 (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between the words 'central-europe' and 'mitteleuropa'. The first is only a geographical term, while the german word is connected to a political sense. The ideas about 'mitteleuropa' in the 19th- and 20th- century were overloaded by political notion that appeared in those times in central-europe states such as Germany and Czechoslovakia. It is more than just a geographical term. (Lammers 28-09-2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.117.117 (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 puppet states 2 confused as to the map 3 Mitteleuropa und Rumänien 4 Merge with Central Europe 5 Updated and expanded

[edit] puppet states

Good Idea, Ruhrjung. I switched the puppet state thingie a bit since I don't know anyone who would argue that those states were independent (perhaps except for Ukrainian nationalists). However, perhaps the puppet thing should be expanded a bit. After all most of these countries had various degrees of independence and at the end of 1918 Germany effectively lost control over most of them. Should we expand it or are the linked articles enough? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 18:23, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Trieste is very mitteleuropean, as well as the slovenian sides et are not mentioned?

[edit] confused as to the map

the last paragraph does not match the map: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland liberated themselves, after the collapse of Imperial Germany and Austria-Hungary at the end of World War I. Soon they gained international recognition and participated in signing of the Versailles Treaty as members of the Entente. The other two (Belarus and Ukraine) were taken over by Russian SFSR and became Republics of the Soviet Union. The map does not match this as it does not highlight any of what would be the USSR (except the Kaliningrad Oblast). Should we not contain this article to mitteleuropa and not the territories of Brest-Litovsk?

--Jadger 02:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mitteleuropa und Rumänien

I don't understand the latest changes made to the article. As if in the German literature (where the term Mitteleuropa was born) there isn't any mention of Romania. That's very absurd since all the german sources have Romania included in Mitteleuropa. See just the many results from Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mitteleuropa+rum%C3%A4nien If you ask for more sources I will bother to pick them up and fill a 100 of them in the article. Marc KJH (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not a particularly good argument. First, just the fact that Mitteleuropa and Rumänien appear on the same page proves nothing. (E.g., de:Iguanodon says that the Iguanodon was found in "Westeuropa, Mitteleuropa, Rumänien, Nordamerika, Nordafrika und in der Mongolei", and [1] says that you can reach Romania from Mitteleuropa for example with the Orient-Express.) Second, my google search (searching for German language pages only) yields 155,000 German pages for "Mitteleuropa rumänien", while I get 367,000 German pages for "Osteuropa rumänien". (Not that this proves anything, either.)

Austrian (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Austrian, the reason why Romania is counted to Eastern Europe from the same reason as Poland, Czechoslowakia, Hungary, GDR, Bulgaria etc. --Olahus (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Central Europe

I think we should merge this article into Central Europe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.218.188 (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

agree, but everything within this article is already within the Central Europe article.. so theres nothing to merge. Just delete it. --Buffer v2 (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The article as it presently exists has no reason for being. However, much information was removed about the connotations that the German term has acquired when used in English. In German, Mitteleuropa is Central Europe. In English, Mitteleuropa is a particular attitude towards Central Europe. Khajidha (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

-Additional discussion

"Mitteleuropa" and Central Europe do not bear the same meaning. In English, it is basicly a geographical reference. I will refrain from entering the discussion regarding the geographical composition of Central-Europe in relation to the mentioned historical differentiaition.

The German word "Mitteleuropa" bears two dimensions; The obvious geographical one, which itself already contains a lot of variation since consensus on it's meaning does not exist. Various historians and sociologists have worked out or used a number of different meanings. In some scenario's Mitteleuropa lies between Germany and Russia, bordered by the Baltics in the North and the Aegean in the South. In other variations Scandinavia and Finland are included in the North, as well as all of the Balkans. The geographical dimension to this understanding depends per source, and for simplicity sake, I'd recommend using a similar meaning as presented by the British understanding of Central Europe.

The second dimension is basicly cultural, but up to some extent political and socio-economical. This dimensions basicly consists of present day nationstates as Germany, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland, Rumania. Additional states in the likes of Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Albania and Greece can be added, but this depends on the sources used. It should be mentioned that "Mitteleuropa" as a cultural reference has changed it's meaning quite a bit through time. One of the more general elements is the fact that the region had, as it does today, enjoyed significant economical cooperation. Due to the ethnic barier the prime uniting elements in the region were it's autocratic political evolution prior to 1918 and the presence of a sizeable jewish/jiddish minority. Some authors argue that the dissapearence of the Jewish minority after 1945 basicly robbed "Mitteleuropa" of it's cultural essence. Especially in the 19th century the region was important because of it's vulnerability for Germany. During the era of the Balance of Power Germany was undeniably the prime force in the region and had significant economic relations. Especially after 1989 the relevance of "Mitteleuropa" increased from a political point of view. For European stability in the post-cold war era it is vital that Germany is naturally free in it's pursuit of economic prosperity. However the political balance within the continent should be kept in check as, even now, voices are raised in Germany to critize the Oder-Niesse border with Poland.

Other then these quick notes I should add that "Mitteleuropa" has been considered as a potential counterweight between Western Europe and Russia, as well as a potential balance between capitalist West and communist East. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.207.88 (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to add a topic about the history of the concept 'Mitteleuropa' to this article. In this topic you can see the relevance for the existence of this article. --131.174.130.30 (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Montessquieu (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The term has a unique connotation and deserves its own article. That connotation could be better set out in the article. But an incomplete entry does not mean an article should be deleted/merged. Cayzle 16 February 2009 —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC).

it doesn't has this 'connotiation' in German (maybe in English, if it's a English-used term that should be mentioned) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.225.88 (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree - they are slightly different concepts, but that can best be brought out in a single article.Ehrenkater (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't merge - Seems to me to have a meaning of its own in English, whether or not it has two separate meanings in German. Basil Liddell Hart wrote in Strategy: "For, on the one hand, [Germany] could unquestionably have consummated the dream of Mittel-Europa, while on the other, the blockade was still a loose grip, and could hardly have been tightened effectively so long as the United States remained outside the [First World War]." Hart's revisionism notwithstanding, this statement implies that it is at least a separate concept in English usage. Strikehold (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the merge. The term is used in English but the meaning is not so different as to require a whole different article, a redirect and a subsection in the main article will suffice. Hobartimus (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the merge. Every German-English dictionary translates the German term "Mitteleuropa" with "Central Europe". --Olahus (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with the merge the term has specific if various meanings and deserves article.--Molobo (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

only in your mind. mitteleuropa is NOTHING else than the german term for central europe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit] Updated and expanded

On the meaning of the world and designs of the German Empire. This is a fascinating topic, and I believe more needs to be added. Essentially the German Empire saw Central and Eastern Europe and its non-German population as equivalent to African colony and African tribes to be exploited and colonised economically by right of cultural and racial supriority. I also read on connections between Herero Genocide, Mitteleuropa and eventual policies in WW2 by German military and state.--Molobo (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)