5 ms·

'Northern Europe' used to refer to the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg and West Germany. But since the fall of the Iron Curtain and creation an

'Northern Europe' used to refer to the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg and West Germany. But since the fall of the Iron Curtain and creation and subsequent expansions of the EU, the name now usually indeed refers to the Nordics.

flohofwoe 6y ago
"Central Europe" appears to be the more correct geographical and cultural term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe As a German I would never consider Germany to be part of "Northern Europe", that's more fitting for the Scandinavian countries.
tilt_error 6y ago
The definition of what constitutes Europe (the continent) has absolutely nothing to do with either the EU or post WWII war politics. Everything west of the the Black Sea and the Ural Mountains in Russia is part of the European continent. In the context of volcanism, this is the only interpretation possible. Before the Iron Curtain fell, what was then called Western Europe was geographically rather tiny. Even during that political period, Northern Europe was basically Scandinavia and Fennica (the Northern Countries).
- brnt 6y ago
  When you specified Europe-the-continent you already admitted there's another way of seeing things ;)
  - rypskar 6y ago
    Might be a language thing, but Europe the continent is the only definition of Europe I know about
    - rob74 6y ago
      At least the only lasting definition, anything else is based on geopolitical affiliation and therefore temporary. Of course, the separation of Europe from Asia is also pretty artificial, but at least it's something more or less universally agreed upon...
- PeterStuer 6y ago
  If it would be in reference to 'Continental Europe', the calling the Eiffel region the 'heart of Northern Europe' is completely non-nonsensical as it would not even be above the mid-line of the continent. And inside 'old' Europe, There was a sharp contrast between the 'south' countries (Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal) that were economically less developed at the time, and the rest of the EEC members, that refereed in that context to themselves as 'North European'.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - toyg 6y ago
    Oi, who you callin' "economically less developed"? Italy boomed post-WWII, was in G6 in 1975, and is still very much among the top 8 industrialized countries. In fact, this narration of "backward Southern Europe" is very much a recent artifact of monetary crisis due to debt, rather than anything to do with industrial output.
    - Zach_the_Lizard 6y ago
      Italy's GDP per capita is something like $35k vs $47k in Germany. Roughly 75% of Germany's GDP per capita. "Less developed" is a bit harsh, but there are certainly differences in income level between these two countries. It gets weirder when you compare other countries' GDP per capita, though. Consider this: $38k is the GDP per capita of Mississippi, the lowest of any US state. That's still a bit higher than Italy's. Germany's $47k GDP per capita would, if it were a US state, put it at roughly 42 of 50 states. There's less than a 10% difference between Alabama's GDP per capita ($45k) and Germany's. Maine, New Mexico, Kentucky, and Montana are within a few hundred dollars. The US as a whole has a per capita GDP of $62k. This puts Germany at 72% of the US's GDP per capita. Americans don't talk about Germany as "undeveloped" despite an even greater gap between the US and Germany. Norway is another country with a high GDP per capita at $77k. I doubt many Norwegians describe Germany or the US as "economically less developed." (All numbers taken from Wikipedia's list of country / US state by GDP per capita rankings. Other measures like PPP, median income, life expectancy, etc. all clearly matter)

flohofwoe 6y ago

"Central Europe" appears to be the more correct geographical and cultural term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe As a German I would never consider Germany to be part of "Northern Europe", that's more fitting for the Scandinavian countries.

tilt_error 6y ago

The definition of what constitutes Europe (the continent) has absolutely nothing to do with either the EU or post WWII war politics. Everything west of the the Black Sea and the Ural Mountains in Russia is part of the European continent. In the context of volcanism, this is the only interpretation possible. Before the Iron Curtain fell, what was then called Western Europe was geographically rather tiny. Even during that political period, Northern Europe was basically Scandinavia and Fennica (the Northern Countries).

brnt 6y ago
When you specified Europe-the-continent you already admitted there's another way of seeing things ;)
- rypskar 6y ago
  Might be a language thing, but Europe the continent is the only definition of Europe I know about
  - rob74 6y ago
    At least the only lasting definition, anything else is based on geopolitical affiliation and therefore temporary. Of course, the separation of Europe from Asia is also pretty artificial, but at least it's something more or less universally agreed upon...
PeterStuer 6y ago
If it would be in reference to 'Continental Europe', the calling the Eiffel region the 'heart of Northern Europe' is completely non-nonsensical as it would not even be above the mid-line of the continent. And inside 'old' Europe, There was a sharp contrast between the 'south' countries (Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal) that were economically less developed at the time, and the rest of the EEC members, that refereed in that context to themselves as 'North European'.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- toyg 6y ago
  Oi, who you callin' "economically less developed"? Italy boomed post-WWII, was in G6 in 1975, and is still very much among the top 8 industrialized countries. In fact, this narration of "backward Southern Europe" is very much a recent artifact of monetary crisis due to debt, rather than anything to do with industrial output.
  - Zach_the_Lizard 6y ago
    Italy's GDP per capita is something like $35k vs $47k in Germany. Roughly 75% of Germany's GDP per capita. "Less developed" is a bit harsh, but there are certainly differences in income level between these two countries. It gets weirder when you compare other countries' GDP per capita, though. Consider this: $38k is the GDP per capita of Mississippi, the lowest of any US state. That's still a bit higher than Italy's. Germany's $47k GDP per capita would, if it were a US state, put it at roughly 42 of 50 states. There's less than a 10% difference between Alabama's GDP per capita ($45k) and Germany's. Maine, New Mexico, Kentucky, and Montana are within a few hundred dollars. The US as a whole has a per capita GDP of $62k. This puts Germany at 72% of the US's GDP per capita. Americans don't talk about Germany as "undeveloped" despite an even greater gap between the US and Germany. Norway is another country with a high GDP per capita at $77k. I doubt many Norwegians describe Germany or the US as "economically less developed." (All numbers taken from Wikipedia's list of country / US state by GDP per capita rankings. Other measures like PPP, median income, life expectancy, etc. all clearly matter)