Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Yugo" means "Southern," so technically speaking all those nations are not even part of "Eastern Europe," ( unless you use it in political terms) but "Southern Europe" .
So, you went to all that trouble to quibble about the definition of Eastern Europe, in . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
Islam isn't an ethnic group, it is a relgion. Islam is spread among Arabs, Persians, Indians, Indonesians, Africans and Eastern Europeans.
OK, so Grandstander meant "Southern Europeans", as in Moorish Spain and Portugal. And in Malta, where the national language is a dialect of Arabic. How does that change the point?
Please also note that "Yugoslavia" means "Southern region of the Slavic ethno-linguistic zone", which is most emphatically an Eastern bailiwick, from the standpoint of Europe, otherwise encompassing the regions lying east of Germany, all the way to the Bering Strait, which you can see from the Palin family yurt in what was once a Slavic outpost that extended down the coast nearly to San Francisco, which was regarded by its most civilized inhabitants as "The Far East".
OK, so Grandstander meant "Southern Europeans", as in Moorish Spain and Portugal. And in Malta, where the national language is a dialect of Arabic. How does that change the point?
".
No I did not. I meant Eastern Europeans. Read the thread.
No I did not. I meant Eastern Europeans. Read the thread.
I know you did. But Erasure notwithstanding, your point retains its validity, regardless of whether you called the Balkans Eastern (which they are) or Southern (which he wishes they were) Europe.
Your kneejerk assumption that I must always be wrong does not apply here, since I was defending your position. Which I do when you are right.
They have some common features but are at the polar ends of political philosophy. Have you never wondered why so many of the worlds richest people supported Facism in one or another of it's forms? Did you not know that the biggest reason for the appeasment of Hitler and the Nazis by the right wing upperclass European powers in France, England and most of the rest of Europe was the idea that the Nazis would remove the communist menace once and for all. There were also many American supporters of Hitler and his ideology. Henry Ford, Lindberg, Hearst and so many others.
The whole single line thing has been pretty much done away with in favor of a compass or two axis grid, the left-right axis represents economy from communism to neo-liberalism. The up-down axis tracks social leaning from authoritarian to anarchy. If you want to use a single line, you need to show at least two of them to get a good picture. Heck, even the more in vogue two axis system isn't really all encompassing.
The above chart plots Hitler vs. Stalin vs. Gandhi vs. Margaret Thatcher vs. Milton Friedman.
You'll see that the Stalin vs. Hitler meshes with the lines I posted earlier. The Nazi's were a more authoritarian state than the Soviets under Stalin, but they had a more liberal economy. The single line doesn't really capture this difference and shows a wider divide than really existed philosophically. If Hitler and Stalin could avoid discussing economics, they might have been rather chummy, lol.
The chart below shows the leanings of modern leaders. Please note that the two charts are borrowed from another site and I am using them as an example, not a fast and hard rule of the plots or even categories. The site certainly has it's own political agenda. In general though, this is how things are tracked and illustrated these days.
I know you did. But Erasure notwithstanding, your point retains its validity, regardless of whether you called the Balkans Eastern (which they are) or Southern (which he wishes they were) Europe.
Your kneejerk assumption that I must always be wrong does not apply here, since I was defending your position. Which I do when you are right.
What the %^*$@?
You wrote a declarative sentence misrepresenting what I had written.
Quote:
OK, so Grandstander meant "Southern Europeans", as in Moorish Spain and Portugal
Why would I read that and conclude anything other than what I concluded? How is claiming that I meant something that I clearly did not mean, "defending me?"
You wrote a declarative sentence misrepresenting what I had written.
Why would I read that and conclude anything other than what I concluded? How is claiming that I meant something that I clearly did not mean, "defending me?"
You missed the irony.
Quote:
OK, so Grandstander meant "Southern Europeans", as in Moorish Spain and Portugal
. . was meant to mean that the poster was insisting that that must have been what you meant. Your point was that Islam had penetrated well into Europe and he was only splitting hairs about whether your perfectly valid observation could be rejected and disproved by logically and systematically demolishing your quadrant differentiation. An area in which I defended you, and still do.
Areas of Islamic penetration and domination in Europe have been identified, and it makes no difference whether they are called Eastern or Southern Europe, they carry the weight of the proof you were offering to dispel an earlier unsupported notion.
So, you went to all that trouble to quibble about the definition of Eastern Europe, in . . .
OK, so Grandstander meant "Southern Europeans", as in Moorish Spain and Portugal. And in Malta, where the national language is a dialect of Arabic. How does that change the point?
It changes the point in such way, that Southern Europe is situated much closer to Africa/Middle East, so the penetration of Islam in those regions is quite explainable, but Eastern Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania) have got nothing to do with it.
Quote:
Please also note that "Yugoslavia" means "Southern region of the Slavic ethno-linguistic zone"
No, it means the land of Southern Slavs - just that, not more and not less.
Not sure about the OP, but this was never taught in my school. I too always thought the Communists and Nazis were the same. Interesting stuff, is this onDemand?
WHAT??
How can you go through school and not know that communism and national socialism are two different things??
Most of the Facists states in post WW1 Europe started out as leftist socialistic movements. This was done in order to get the common man's support. These movements then sold out to property interests once they gained power. In Germany the Nazi movement actually splintered which lead to the blood purge and that eliminated the left wing of the party completely. The Nazi party was dependent in the beginning with the General Staff going along with the programme.
Most of these officers were upper class Prussian Junkers to whom the idea of social or liberal anything was anathema. Of course these Military leaders were totally allied to the big money men of the day. The chemical and electrical monoplies. Big steel and munitions,banking and finance and of course big oil. Hitler was their darling once he promised to put down orgaznized labour once and for all. The taking over of the resourses of the inferior European countries also appealed to them. You have to remember that Germany has no oil and of course the General staff's solution for that was Russia's oil right from the beginning.
They did not count on the British being the bulldogs they really are and fighting to the finish over such a place as Poland. That fact really upset all of their plans and if they had not been fighting England they probably would have defeated the USSR. If that had been the case then they really would have had the world in their grip and who knows what would have happened then. They actually had well formulated plans for the taking of South America and then Mexico. We can all be thankful for the fighting spirit of the Brits and of course the Canuks, Aussies and Kiwis for holding the fort when the chips were down.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
