http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe
The first is probably the reason why "conservatives" are so concerned about the latter.pretty much, but then, the balkans are in berlin.Austria is on the Balkans.
But touché none the less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe
The first is probably the reason why "conservatives" are so concerned about the latter.pretty much, but then, the balkans are in berlin.Austria is on the Balkans.
Yeah, but the Encyclopedia Britannica and the CIA World Factbook do. So?Not even the UN uses the "central europe" catergory when splitting up Europe.
Yeah, but there are some definitions. They are not "common" as in universally agreed upon. But they exist and some of them are more sensible than others.It just proves there isn't a common definition and you can call those areas whatever you please.
From what I know the Bohemian Premyslid dynasty held at one point royal crown of Hungary and Poland. Both Bohemia and Hungary were at one point directly ruled by Polish king. Bohemia and Hungary were involved in war over Austria. Bohemia and Poland were fighting for control of Silesia(eventually part of Prussia)and Krakow region (lesser Poland) which has eventually become part of Austro-Hungary. Hungary had at least one king who was at the same time Holy Roman Emperor. Prague was two times "capital" of Holy Roman Empire. There are more historical evidence like this but its clear that the easiest way for Polish expansion was eastwards...I'd say Poland has had much more history involving Lithuania than it has with Hungary or Bohemia.
Not even the UN uses the "central europe" catergory when splitting up Europe.
It just proves there isn't a common definition and you can call those areas whatever you please.
Lithuania is also Catholic and also has the Roman alphabet, but Lithuania is in the Lithosphere whilst Poland is bipolar.
That is the Rino Dog of Ruthenia, it has magical powers. Its horn is ground and used in a potion that keeps garden gnomes at bay.
From what I know the Bohemian Premyslid dynasty held at one point royal crown of Hungary and Poland. Both Bohemia and Hungary were at one point directly ruled by Polish king. Bohemia and Hungary were involved in war over Austria. Bohemia and Poland were fighting for control of Silesia(eventually part of Prussia)and Krakow region (lesser Poland) which has eventually become part of Austro-Hungary. Hungary had at least one king who was at the same time Holy Roman Emperor. There are more historical evidence like this but its clear that the easiest way for Polish expansion was eastwards...
Quackers said:It just proves there isn't a common definition and you can call those areas whatever you please.
It exists because people care to distinguish it that way. Thats all- very simple...Central Europe doesn't exist, it's Western or Eastern
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
...that the ridiculous insistance of Poland being in Central Europe is about as relevant to anything as the idea of charismatic bacon.
Also, he is right. Poland is in Eastern Europe.
Here is a compromise everyone, give us back Lwow, Luck, Bresc, Grodno and Vilnius and then we can be Eastern European.![]()
Done, if Germany gets Schlesien, Posen, Pomerellen, and Westpreußen back.