The Concepts of Eastern and Western Europe

[Domen]

I had an interesting discussion about this with one Romanian guy (Fat frumos din lacrima) on another forum.

So I will post it here as a kind of introduction to this thread and to this discussion:

A very simple and reliable approach to defining Eastern Europe is found in the work of the famous English historian Alan Palmer. He called Eastern Europe "the lands between," which means the countries between Germany and Russia. That would mean that today's Eastern Europe would include the following countries: Albania, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, FYROM, Basarabia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine, Muntenegru, Serbia, Slovenia, Greece.

Historically these countries share more than just their position between the powerful countries of the Russians and the Germans. They have also had a type of nationalism that is usually different from West European nationalism, being based more on shared ethnicity than political loyalty; a much slower process of economic modernization and industrialization (due in part to their being land-locked and to their usual role as raw material providers to Western Europe); a complex mixture of religious groups which included large numbers of Eastern Orthodox Christians and Muslims; different patterns of landholding and inheritance; multinational empires imposed by outside powers that lasted for hundreds of years; and a historically close relationship between church and state.

This is a very oversimplistic approach.

Moreover, if we accept your definition, then Austria and Greece should also count as parts of Eastern Europe.

Not to mention that in the Balkans the Empire that played the crucial role throughout much of its history was the Ottoman Empire.

They have also had a type of nationalism that is usually different from West European nationalism, being based more on shared ethnicity than political loyalty;

This is also a kind of generalization in my opinion.

This type of ethnic nationalism is not common for all countries which you define as Eastern Europe (although I might agree that for a large part of them), but also this type of ethnic nationalism is common for some areas of what you would define as Western Europe.

Nationalism that is based on political loyalty, is especially typical for just two of Western European countries - France and Switzerland.

In case of other Western European countries, there is a mix of both types of nationalism, and in diferrent cases either one or the other type is more important. The same (such a mix of both types) can also be found in many of countries which you define as Eastern Europe.

In countries such as Great Britain or Spain, nationalism based on political loyalty is in fact very imperfect and unstable.

The cases of the Basques, Ireland, the Catalans, or Scotland (this year they will hold an independendence referendum) prove this.

a complex mixture of religious groups

During the 1500s and the 1600s an extremely complex mixture of religious groups was within the "Flickenteppich" of German states.

and a historically close relationship between church and state.

Wasn't a historically close relationship between church and state characteristic of states which created their own national churches?

For example England since the reign of King Henry VIII Tudor, who created the The Church of England ???

This is a very oversimplistic approach.

Moreover, if we accept your definition, then Austria and Greece should also count as parts of Eastern Europe.

Not to mention that in the Balkans the Empire that played the crucial role throughout much of its history was the Ottoman Empire.

A final way of conceptualizing Eastern Europe is to think of it as the sum of its two sub-groups: Central Europe and the Balkans. To understand the region in this way, two further definitions are required.

Central Europe: Scholars agree that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are Central European states, since they are located next to each other and share Habsburg heritage and, going back further in time, a legacy of an enormous amount of contact, both positive and negative, with the German-speaking world. Most scholars also consider Slovenia, Slovakia, and Croatia to be part of Central Europe.

The Balkans: The Balkans is a geographical term, which designates the large pensinula in the southeastern part of the European continent, connecting Europe to Asia Minor (Anatolia). Today, the Balkans include these independent countries: Greece, Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, rump Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), and Bosnia. Geographically, "European Turkey," a small region around Istanbul, is located in the Balkans. Some scholars also consider Croatia to be part of the Balkans. Croatia is some were in the middle, geographical Romania is the same.

The biggest dilemma with viewing Eastern Europe as the sum of Central Europe plus the Balkans is that neither of the sub-groups includes all of the countries in the "lands between" Germany and Russia. These are the countries to the east of Poland, such as Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Since these countries spent much of recent history under the control of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union, they are sometimes studied as part of Russian history. Although politically they have often been part of the Russian sphere, culturally they are in many ways closer to Central European countries.

Austria is west. Greece east.

But what you write might be true for defining of what is Eastern Europe today, or rather of what it was some 30 years ago.

Historically speaking there is no one definition of Eastern Europe, because this region was changing its boundaries over time.

For example in year 300 AD, Eastern Europe would be everything to the East of the Rhine River and to the North of the Danube River.

Today I think that the division for European Union / the rest of Europe should be applied, rather than for Western / Eastern Europe. Recent economic situation in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece is also indicating, that a division for Northern and Southern Europe is justifiable today. Nowadays we have Northern Europe which is generally dealing with the economic crisis very well, and Southern Europe which is not doing so well.

Your claim that Eastern Europe was a provider of raw materials for Western Europe was true only for a particular historical period. That gradually started to be true when Western European states beginned their colonization of other continents - during the 1500s and the 1600s.

Before 1500, it would be more justifiable to draw the line between West and East along the line between Orthodox and Latin Churches.

When you define Eastern Europe as areas which at some point started to lag behind economically, then large parts of territory which is today Germany must be included. Only several fragments of what is today Germany could keep up economically with the Netherlands, England or parts of France.

After ca. 1600, places like Spain and Portugal also started to economically lag behind places like the Netherlands, England or parts of France.

During the 1800s, Spain and Portugal were very poor parts of Europe, and foreign powers struggled for control over them.

Greece was also ruled for a long time by the Ottoman Empire - just like other parts of Balkans - and it was also a poor and backward area.

Ireland, Scotland and Scandinavia (including Denmark) for the most part of their respective histories were also poor and rather backward regions.

Industrialization started at first in England. Only later it gradually reached other parts of Europe. I am not particularly convinced about your assumption, that industrialization reached - for example - the area of Poland, later than - for example - the area of Spain. So the progress of industrialization was not from the western direction to the eastern direction, but rather from the north-west to the south-east and to the south-west.

So if you want to present the history of Western Europe as that of continuous and undisturbed progress - moreover, a progress which took place in entire territory which you define as Western Europe - then you are simply creating myths, which have little to do with facts.

And vice versa, if you want to show the history of Eastern Europe as that of always being "far behind" the West, this will also be a myth.

Austria is west.

For what reason Austria is west and not east, according to your definitions ???

Historically Austria was not exactly famous for early industrialization. Quite the contrary, it remained an agricultural country very long.

And Austria was economically lagging behind the most developed European countries since around the 1500s or the 1600s.

Finally - Austria was during some period located between the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire and the German Empire.

BTW - how do you count South Italy and Sicily, which are known to be historically (and today as well) underdeveloped regions ???

since they are located next to each other and share Habsburg heritage

Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Czechia, Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine, parts of Balkans, parts of Romania and Latvia also share Jagiellonian heritage.

And Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Estonia share the heritage of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Did you know, that Belarus in early 1990s was a well-developed and relatively modern (for a Communist Bloc) country with strong industry ???

Most people don't know this. But it is a fact. Belarus became one of the "black holes" of Europe after 1994, during the last 20 years.

Belarus was perhaps one of very few countries where Communism actually had a relatively positive impact.

But most of the Eastern Bloc (aka the Communist Block) became even more lagging behind the "leaders" due to Communism.

Compare the level of development of West Germany and East Germany in 1989 / 1990 to see, what Communism did to Eastern Europe.

In 1989 / 1990 East Germany had something like 3 times lower GDP per capita than West Germany in the same period.

Fat frumos din lacrima's theory is interesting but Domen also made some good points. Maybe he has a better one?

I have a theory that today Eastern Europe according to Western Europeans is equal to the Communist Bloc before 1989.

Already 25 years have passed since the collapse of Communism, but they still define the former Communist Bloc as Eastern Europe.

This applies even to these of former Communist countries, which are already members of the European Union.

BTW - I have nothing against the geographical, or even cultural, name "Eastern". For me Eastern is not something bad.

The problem is only that in the so called "West" this name - "Eastern Europe" - functions as something full of negative stereotypes.

Moreover - I keep wondering if there is really a higher purpose, a real and practical reason for dividing Europe like this.

This division seems to be either based on the Iron Curtain, or artificial - in modern conditions at least. We have year 2014, not 1980.

If it is supposed to mean areas with better economy vs. areas with worse economy, then today Southern Europe should be counted as one of those areas with worse economy, considering what economic crisis is now experienced by Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, etc.

And what do you think ??? Let's discuss.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Since Europe itself is a cultural construct, I remain that it is best to divide Europe in cultural spheres.

Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia were and are historically Catholic countries with important relations to Rome and the HRE and the culture of these modern countries reflects this.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Western Europe seems to end where Orthodoxy and Islam begin (That is to say, where Western Christianity ends). That's what Huntington and a few others who I've read seem to believe anyways.

It seems like a fair definition I think.

From it we get a definition of Western Europe that looks like this:

Spoiler :

 

[Tahuti]

I think countries like Poland and Hungary have more in common with Germany and the German speaking countries than Russia, Belarus or Ukraine. While I am not really in a position to judge and no should take too much credence to cultural theorism like this in general, the political history, the position of religion etc. seem to make them more Central European than Eastern European (which one can associate with Orthodoxy, non-use of the Latin alphabet etc.).

 

[dutchfire]

Nato = West
Warsaw pact = East

In terms of political history, the Cold War is still the most relevant thing. This might change at some point.

 

[Kyriakos]

NM, just saw this is RD so my comment wasn't really helpful

 

[warpus]

I look at this geographically... meaning that the centre of Europe is somewhere in Poland, Belarus, or Lithuania, and east is east of that.. west is west of it.

Culturally speaking the German "MittelEuropa" is a good litmus test as well.

 

[Domen]

When it comes to Medieval "western" styles in architecture (later I will maybe also make a map for post-Medieval styles) - this appears to be the approximate eastern extent of those styles (if anything, the boundaries should be further east, as it is possible that I missed some historical buildings):

Romanesque and Gothic styles are commonly associated with "Western" Europe. While the Russo-Byzantine style is associated with "Eastern" Europe.

For sure the two styles were overlapping each other in some regions of Medieval Europe, such as Serbia, Belarus, Ukraine, etc.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I guess I might as well mention Larry Wolff's Inventing Eastern Europe here. His thesis is that the stereotypes associated with that part of the sub-continent appeared during the Enlightenment era, for reasons he takes from Said's Orientalism. Probably only partially true, but intriguing.

 

[TheLastOne36]

When it comes to Medieval "western" styles in architecture (later I will maybe also make a map for post-Medieval styles) - this appears to be the approximate eastern extent of those styles (if anything, the boundaries should be further east, as it is possible that I missed some historical buildings):

<snip>

Romanesque and Gothic styles are commonly associated with "Western" Europe. While the Russo-Byzantine style is associated with "Eastern" Europe.

For sure the two styles were overlapping each other in some regions of Medieval Europe, such as Serbia, Belarus, Ukraine, etc.

Interesting that the territories of Prussia is excluded. Any thoughts why?

 

[Zack]

Do we really need to have this inane debate again?

 

[Domen]

Interesting that the territories of Prussia is excluded. Any thoughts why?

The region was Pagan at that time, and there lived the Baltic Prussians in that region at that time.

When during the 1200s Prussia was gradually Christianized, Romanesque-style architecture was no longer popular.

This is why no Romanesque-style architecture can be found there. Pagans simply did not construct Romanesque-style buildings.

So only Gothic-style architecture, which was popular during the 1200s, the 1300s and later, can be found in Prussia.

 

[TheLastOne36]

The region was Pagan at that time, and there lived the Baltic Prussians in that region at that time.

When during the 1200s Prussia was gradually Christianized, Romanesque-style architecture was no longer popular.

This is why no Romanesque-style architecture can be found there. Pagans simply did not construct Romanesque-style buildings.

So only Gothic-style architecture, which was popular during the 1200s, the 1300s and later, can be found in Prussia.

Ah I see.

Kinda regret sleeping through those architectural history lectures. (ok, not really)

Also of note, is that the Gothic-style architecture on that map (red) roughly correlates to the historical line between Catholic and Orthodox Christianity in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

 

[Domen]

Also of note, is that the Gothic-style architecture on that map (red) roughly correlates to the historical line between Catholic and Orthodox Christianity in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Yes - in territory of modern Belarus. Although while doing a research on that, I discovered that there were also some Gothic-style Orthodox churches.

Perhaps only a few of them, but still.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Do we really need to have this inane debate again?

Moderator Action: The discussion is fine so far. If you cannot contribute constructively, please do not post. Thanks.

 

[Traitorfish]

Nato = West
Warsaw pact = East

In terms of political history, the Cold War is still the most relevant thing. This might change at some point.

I agree to a point. But the post-Soviet experience is not uniform across the former "East", even less so than the Cold War itself (hardly identical in Kiev, Prague and Zagreb), so there's a strong argument for introducing further distinctions on those grounds. The trick, I'd say, is that those distinction have to be made for their own sake, and not to satisfy identification with "Catholic Europe" or what have you, however much they may turn out to coincide.

 

[TheLastOne36]

I agree to a point. But the post-Soviet experience is not uniform across the former "East", even less so than the Cold War itself (hardly identical in Kiev, Prague and Zagreb), so there's a strong argument for introducing further distinctions on those grounds. The trick, I'd say, is that those distinction have to be made for their own sake, and not to satisfy identification with "Catholic Europe" or what have you, however much they may turn out to coincide.

Hmm, I agree with you that it isn't enough to point at the distinctive experiences of the various post-soviet countries, point at a religious map and see a correlation between Catholic countries and shout causation. However, I also don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that religion itself has much to do with certain central/eastern European countries having better post-soviet experiences than others. Not all those countries are even on the same boat with their prior religious experiences. Poland for example embraced religion during the Cold War era, whilst its southern neighbors bolster one of the largest atheist percentages in the Europe.

May I offer another interpretation? Religion despite its arguable importance or lack thereof today, has historically had a significant role in shaping culture and social values. The modern societies in Poland, Czech Republic etc. have inherited that legacy and whatever that entails, the same as Western European countries. Now going back to our observation that Catholic eastern and central Europe are also the countries best-off in the post-Soviet world, can a possible answer here be that the 'Western capitalist model' can be implemented more successfully in societies with more 'western' values such as Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, than in eastern European countries like Romania, Ukraine or Russia?

Of course its entirely possible that it is just a correlation and that there are other factors at play instead. The Catholic countries are closer to the EU and have more lucrative trade relations with Western European countries, and have cumulatively received much more EU funding and outside investment than eastern neighbors. The Catholic countries also don't have to deal with Russian influence in their economy/politics or conflict (with the exception of Croatia) as was the case in the Balkans.

 

[dutchfire]

I agree to a point. But the post-Soviet experience is not uniform across the former "East", even less so than the Cold War itself (hardly identical in Kiev, Prague and Zagreb), so there's a strong argument for introducing further distinctions on those grounds. The trick, I'd say, is that those distinction have to be made for their own sake, and not to satisfy identification with "Catholic Europe" or what have you, however much they may turn out to coincide.

It's very well possible that in 10 or 20 years, we'll be talking about EU-15, EU-25 etc. instead of East and West.

 

[Domen]

http://s30.postimg.org/cce2r5xq9/GDP_per_capita_Europe_b.png

Link to video.

 

[Winner]

"Eastern Europe" as it is commonly used in the media today is an anachronistic term which in effect represents a linguistic attempt to maintain a historically aberrant division of Europe into two blocks.

It's idiotic for so many reasons which I explained so many times on this forum that anybody with some grasp of contemporary world affairs should use it very very very carefully.