Display:
In the context we were talking about, membership in the Warsaw Pact would seem to offer a reasonable basis of classification.
by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 06:12:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So your "important historical distinctions" extend only 60 years into the past, and evenn the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires are too far in the past to matter?

Part of the point DoDo is trying to make is that after the fall of the Soviet bloc, the countries of the former Austro-Hungarian empire have  been very quick to reclaim their Central European identity.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 06:17:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"So your "important historical distinctions" extend only 60 years into the past, and evenn the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires are too far in the past to matter?"

I can't see where the Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian enpires have much to do with NATO.

If you are so desperate to pick an argument, may I suggest FreeRepublic.

by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 06:21:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How well do you know that part of the world? You'd be shocked at the things they consider relevant from their history.

And please don't assume people are trying to pick arguments ...

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 06:25:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
On my trip I learned that in Lithuania, there was only ever one king (Mindaugas). And that 1000 years later they still celebrate him with an annual all-out weekend party.

Also, there is a hill in the countryside where for 200 (or is it 300?) years, people have been laying crosses and various artifacts, with messages, for loved ones.

by Alex in Toulouse on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 06:29:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Found wikipedia articles about both:

Hill of Crosses

Statehood day

by Alex in Toulouse on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 06:33:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, as it happens, there are connections between the issue of joining NATO and pre-Warshaw-Pact histories.

The Russophobia you rightly noted as a factor goes back at least a century more for a number of former East Bloc countries.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire also has a role in the second motivation I named in my long reply, e.g. leaving behind ethnic tensions after it fell apart. Meanwhile, memory of the Ottoman Empire played a not insignificant role at least in Hungary in relation to the third motivation I named, a reason people think that it is unsafe to stand alone while a big power might be swaggering around. I also note that both Empires played a significant role in the arguentation of the nationalist anti-NATO camp, who feared for sovereignity, of being subjugated by yet another Empire, betraying the heritage of the countless rebels/revolutionaries against these Empires (something in which I now, after Iraq, see more truth than back then...)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 06:46:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am very aware of how that part of the world has been the battle ground in the struggles of various empires for many centuries. I've spent a good bit of time reading about the history of it. That's one of the reasons that I am interested in how that history is playing out in the present political machinations. The spectre of that history is one of the major challenges to the EU in its efforts to develop some sort of cohesive "force".
by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 07:15:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is it reasonable to use this classification on this sole basis when other classifications based on other grounds exist? It can lead to confusions and debates. Meanwhile the term "former East Bloc" would much better describe what you want to describe.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 06:17:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it is reasonable in the context. I think that you are also hard pressed to find something to start an argument about.
by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 06:22:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No.

You probably don't realise how dismissive the above sounded. This DOES matter to people from here. You would find out if you travelled here. But if you find this sub-discussion annoying, I don't want to squabble, let's end it here (and I ask Migeru to stand away too), and please read my other, longer comments about the issue of what motivated people and elites in X Europe to join NATO.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 06:33:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I can certainly understand that when discussing many subjects it would be very inappropriate to try to lump the whole of Europe into two large blobs. That is essentially what the cold war created and it was tragic and destructive. I am very interested in trying to understand the perspectives of people who are still living with some of the results of that. I did find your views about the dynamics of the NATO affiliation very interesting.
by Richard Lyon (rllyon@gmail.com) on Mon Jul 31st, 2006 at 06:44:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep. I'll add another illustration of the historical dimension to the NATO accession debates to that comment (because adding it here would make it too indented).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Aug 1st, 2006 at 06:15:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hey, I haven't made any further comments on this thread since last night.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 1st, 2006 at 06:41:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The comment you reply to was posted at 12:33 AM, not PM :-)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Aug 1st, 2006 at 06:56:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I only now read it.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Aug 1st, 2006 at 06:56:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series