Talk:New Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have removed the following sentences: "The term implies that there is no single Pan-European identity in the European Union, but that it is divided (and that part of it is 'better'). It is a common example of the conservative American view-point on European affairs, and is regarded as an "ignorant"-one by many European politicians and many others." The former sentence is particularly ill-executed. The fact that an entity can be subdivided does not prevent its ultimate unity. "Old Europe" and "New Europe" can still make up a united Europe. I suspect that the "implication" is really an inference and as such only relevant if we can state who has inferred it. I also note that the lists of countries at Old Europe and New Europe do not tally. One article refers to post-communist states (as contrasted with those west of the Iron Curtain), and the other makes the division based on degree of support for the war. Something is clearly amiss. Perhaps the terms aren't as exactly defined as some people would like them to be… --Stemonitis 01:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that this is frequently regarded as a surerb example of American ignorance in Europe. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Neutral point of view?

"...used by conservative political analysts in the United States"

Not only... this is official commercial created by Polish government agency PAIZ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRdLcqhpoQ8

www.paiz.gov.pl

[edit] Many of the mentioned countries did not support an invasion of Iraq.

For example Croatia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Serbia & Montenegro. It's also uncertain whether Ukraine, Moldova and Bosnia actually supported the war. Merat 18:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This makes this sentence rather inaccurate: "'New European' countries were originally distinguished by their governments' support of the 2003 war in Iraq, as opposed to an "Old Europe" noted as unsupportive of that war." So, I am removing the list of countries associated with "New Europe". --Merat 18:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


I've added some detail about actual support for the invasion, which illustrates better what the OE/NE distinction really meant. I've also added references.Dwtray2007 19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I would like to see also a map. Marc KJH (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This definition is wrong and biased.

New Europe is not "a rhetorical term used by conservative political analysts in the United States to describe European post-Communist era countries." The statement: "'New European' countries were originally distinguished by their governments' support of the 2003 war in Iraq, as opposed to an 'Old Europe' noted as unsupportive of that war." is also untrue. The term "New Europe" has nothing to do with the 2nd Iraq War. New Europe refers to the ten post-communist Eastern European countries that have joined the European Union since 2004. These countries include: Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic; all of which joined the EU in 2004. These countries were followed by Romania and Bulgaria, who both joined the EU in 2007. The distinction between "New Europe" and "Old Europe" has nothing to do with a country's political stance regarding the Iraq War, but rather is in reference to New Europe's emerging and growing economy versus Old Europe's established economy. The distinction between New Europe and Old Europe can also be in reference to New Europe's new democracies (the Iron Curtain has only been raised for 17 years) versus Old Europe's established democracy. Bfriedlander (talk 03:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)