Today, I’m going to discuss one of the most common questions and disputes in European Geopolitics!
Alright, I’m exaggerating a bit. But if I received a dollar for every time this discussion popped up in lectures, online forums, or conversations with friends, I would be living a swell life.
These concepts are subjective and arbitrary.
The most commonly accepted idea of the ” European borders” is the Ural and the Caucasus mountains. Some people debate if Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan count or not. There is even a sliver of Kazakhstan west of the Ural mountains. When I went to Kazakhstan, quite a few people told me that they grew up being told they live on the Eurasian continent, which makes more sense than the concept of Europe and Asia. Map projections are mediocre. The way we label continents does not follow the exact tectonic plates. There isn’t even a separate European plate, there is a Eurasian plate, so maybe the Kazakhs are right.
But honestly, the modern border between Asia and Europe is a historical and cultural construct. When I took a course in graduate school called the “Geopolitics of Central Europe,” the professor asked the students in the first class what they considered Central Europe. Nearly everyone in the room had a different answer on what counts as Central Europe.
The British, Dutch, and American students saw Germany, Switzerland, and Austria as Central Europe. Many of them viewed the Czech Republic as Eastern Europe. The Czechs say they are the heart of Europe, so they can’t be Eastern European. Many Slovenes and Croatia think they are the true Central Europeans. The Baltic students claim that Lithuania is in Central Europe. They might be on to something! If you were to find a midpoint within Europe’s most commonly accepted version, you would end up just outside of Vilnius. Some contrarian students said the concept of Central Europe is a myth. It is only Eastern Europe and Western Europe! Who is right?
What the space cadet considers “Central Europe.”
The area that I regard as Central Europe is the area that was under the Habsburg Empire and Austria-Hungarian empire. Not all of the area, but it is a more or less rule of thumb I use when categorizing Central Europe. I follow what most of my professors from graduate would have said. However, not all of them had a consensus even.
Generally, I count Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Hungary. Croatia and Bosnia could be counted, along with some regions in Romania, Ukraine, and Serbia. But aside from some areas in these countries, I don’t usually count them.
But these countries were under the Iron curtain, so it’s Eastern Europe!
Vienna is further east than Prague and Ljubljana. Slovenia was part of Yugoslavia which was never under the ‘iron curtain”. Yugoslavia was under the nonaligned movement. The Habsburg empire lasted for centuries. The Warsaw pact and Yugoslavia have no comparison. Many of the temperaments and quirks can be linked to their Austrian counterparts.
I still disagree with you!
Refer to the previous heading! We can go in circles. I’ve seen scholars duke it out. Debate if the sliver in Western Ukraine should belong. South Tyrol? Have it. Vojvodina. Sure, Adopt Lithuania! Feel free to post your map of Central Europe in the comments.
What about the Balkans and Central Europe?
The difference between where Central Europe ends and where the Balkans end is almost as heated as trying to find an idea. This is without even trying to distinguish Eastern Europe. Mr. Slavoj Žižek has an excellent answer to this.
So there you have it, folks; geographical labels in the cultural sense can be somewhat subjective. Don’t focus too much on them. It is like this all over the world. If I asked my friend in Austin, Texas, and my friend in Birmingham, Alabama, to make a map of the Southern US, I promise it would be different. It’s fun to argue about them, but there comes the point when it is a broken record.
That was really interesting..never thought about the Austro-Hungarian aspect before..