|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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.
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 22.214.171.124 (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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
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?
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)
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  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)
Merge with Central Europe
- 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)
"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 188.8.131.52 (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. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:01, 22 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).
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)
- only in your mind. mitteleuropa is NOTHING else than the german term for central europe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- As I (and several other people on this page) have stated before: When the German word mitteleuropa is used in English, it is used to refer to the Nazi and other nationalistic German designs for the future of Europe. When German sources using mitteleuropa to mean central europe only as a region are translated into English, the simple term Central Europe is used. As this is the English wiki, this special English use should be covered. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Forgot to log in. Khajidha (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree For me, Mitteleuropa does not mean anything else than Central Europe. Some of those who disagreed pointed out that they have different connotations, but nobody has explained what is meant by that. In any case, if it is nothing else than a connotation that distinguishes Mitteleuropa from the regular term Central Europe, I think the former should be explained in the latter. At last, show me one dictionary that translates the German term Mitteleuropa to itself in English . Tomeasy T C 23:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree with the merge. Mitteleuropa, as used in English, almost always refers to German designs on Central and Northern Europe during both world wars. In the English language it has more similarity to concepts like Lebensraum, Greater Germany, or other articles on supranationalism than it does to Central Europe, regardless of the term's meaning in the original German. Similar examples can be found in the term reich, which in German simply means "state" or "realm," but which in English has a direct connotation related to German nationalism and imperialism. Nivenus (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Disagree with the merge - Mitteleuropa isn't merely the name of Central Europe. It is a very specific plan, outlined by Naumann in his 1915 book Mitteleuropa, to create a federation of states, controlled economically and politically by Germany, that was intended to function as a buffer zone between Germany and Russia, and a replacement for colonies, which Germany lacked. It was the plan to provide the Lebensraum for Germany by later annexing and colonizing said states, that they wanted to realize through the Treaty of Brest Litovsk in 1918 with Soviet Russia, than later in the Second World War through the Third Reich's invasion of Poland and war with the USSR. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
- please?! can't you stop your anti-german hate mongering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Neunhist: Please explain
Recently you've been reverting the article to a version by yourself, complete with POV comments on sources mentioned in the article itself. Your own source, Mitteleurope by Naumann state that he wants both economic and military union, in contrary to one of your claims. Now, some of these sources used may be biased, but the correct response is not to inject more bias into the article, but for a reasoned discussion. Notable, famous historians, such as Fritz Fischer have wrote about Mitteleuropa in compelling depth from the perspective of time, and these are the sorts we should probably cite. You mention Devastated Poland wa sproduced during World War One, but so was Naumann's book. Now, the version of the article not affected by your edits, whilst possibly biased, seems to be superior to its current state. Thus, I revert it, and hope it gets locked before returning to its current state. I will trawl through JSTOR in the coming days to see what pops up on mitteleuropa, and see what comes up, because it is an interesting topic.Compoundinterestisboring (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Compound! Please note that this highly(!) biased article was "edited" by Molobo, who is a person that was banned on several History forums for his polish nationalism and his spreading of hate against Germany. Most sources he put in are either war/communist Poland propaganda or in other cases allied authors intend on justifiying the farce of peace treaty otherwise known as Versailles treaty. Most people pushing for Naumann´s Plan NEVER EVER wanted Expulsion and the other vile things the propaganda spread. And Fritz Fischer is, how shall I put it, not the best source either. He had very left-leaning views when he wrote about the WW1 and some of his hypotheses are proven wrong, since some more archives are now open to public. Look at the critics by fellow historians Gerhard Ritter, Hans Herzfeld or E. Zechlin among others. I will cut out some emotional parts of my text, but my addition will stay, since, if you read Naumann´s book and some of the more neutral authors, you can easily see that his paln was far better than what Europe got with Versailles and the previous version of this "article" is dripping with anti-German Propaganda. You have to put some mediating in. Btw. I did not claim that a military union was not in the cards, just that the economic part was much more important, which would have lead to a Proto-EU decades earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neunhist (talk • contribs) 22:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I came to this article with no prior knowledge on the subject, and I am leaving no more informed. Almost every point in this article is contradicted by in-text arguments; I don't have any idea what the mainstream views of the topic are, or even how to evaluate the ideas presented. I have no prior bias here, so the back-and-forth has just left me confused. Since it appears that editors have been unable to reach anything approaching a consensus, or even a civil coexistence, I am flagging this article for expert review. Dpenn89 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I am visiting this article over a year later, and still nothing has been done. The article is neither encyclopedic nor informative. Some particularly problematic aspects:
- It's not clear to me if Mitteleuropa as a cultural or political term is only relevant to the WW1 period, or at times before and after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nojamus (talk • contribs) 14:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- The "Geography" section takes for granted the views of one modern (not contemporary) German cartographic organization. It presents a list of countries and a map that are debatable (Don't get me started on where they choose to draw some of those regional lines...). A few more countries are then appended to this list without any referencing. The only really relevant sources would be from the late 19th or early 20th century, or from modern sources that discuss the history of this period.
- The "Conceptual History" section is even worse. The title itself is poor because it does not tell me what I'm going to find here. The main text is confusing. There doesn't seem to be a central thesis; just a bunch of disjointed facts. Some of the sentences leave me wondering what I am meant to conclude from them. And the section is entirely unreferenced and heavy on links to other articles.
- The "Mitteleuropa Plan" section is written fairly well, but it is incomplete. It ends on a note about the British fearing the plan, without actually telling us if they did anything about it. Moreover, there is no discussion in the article of what became of the Mitteleuropa concept. Does it have a role in German politics today? etc. This is vital information.
- As Dpenn89 said a year ago, there are some contradictions in the article. One reason might be because the "Conceptual History" and "Mitteleuropa Plan" sections were probably written by different authors who did not pay attention to each other's writing. This probably also explains why Mitteleuropa is italicized in some places and not italicized in others. Nojamus (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
An answer from the UN
Seeing all the spats about European sub-divisions (Europe is quite small for dividing!), I have decided to contact the UN and as what they think abou the fact that their geoscheme is so extensively used on Wiki. This is what I received:
Thank you for your email.
The geographical groupings used by the United Nations Statistics Division follow the M49 Standard for Area Codes for Statistical use, details of which can be found here: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49.htm
The designations employed and the presentation of material at this site do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The assignment of countries or areas to specific groupings is for statistical convenience and does not imply any assumption regarding political or other affiliation of countries or territories by the United Nations.
"Regions" are so drawn as to obtain greater homogeneity in sizes of population, demographic circumstances and accuracy of demographic statistics (another example is Russia -- it is in the continent of Asia but it belongs in the Eastern Europe "region"). This nomenclature is widely used in international statistics but it is by no means universal.
I hope this is useful.
The UN Demographic Yearbook Team.