What do you think?
Rate this book
Central Europe
Unlike some other reproductions of classic texts (1) We have not used OCR(Optical Character Recognition), as this leads to bad quality books with introduced typos. (2) In books where there are images such as portraits, maps, sketches etc We have endeavoured to keep the quality of these images, so they represent accurately the original artefact. Although occasionally there may be certain imperfections with these old texts, we feel they deserve to be made available for future generations to enjoy.
- GenresHistory
390 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1917
About the author
Friedrich Naumann
138 books2 followersGerman liberal politician and Protestant parish pastor.
Originally a follower of the conservative-clerical Christian Social Party, Naumann later became interested in the social theories of Max Weber.
In 1896 he cofounded the National-Social Association as an liberal active of the Social-Democrats.
Later in his life, Naumann worked for an approachement of German social democratic and liberal movements, but faced major opposition from conservatives.
In 1919 Friedrich Naumann was among the founders of the social liberal German Democratic Party and was elected into the Weimar Germany Parliament.
Naumann is often considered an advocate of German nationalism, due to his book Mitteleuropa (1915) on the geopolitics of a Central Europe under German leadership.
Originally a follower of the conservative-clerical Christian Social Party, Naumann later became interested in the social theories of Max Weber.
In 1896 he cofounded the National-Social Association as an liberal active of the Social-Democrats.
Later in his life, Naumann worked for an approachement of German social democratic and liberal movements, but faced major opposition from conservatives.
In 1919 Friedrich Naumann was among the founders of the social liberal German Democratic Party and was elected into the Weimar Germany Parliament.
Naumann is often considered an advocate of German nationalism, due to his book Mitteleuropa (1915) on the geopolitics of a Central Europe under German leadership.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 28, 2018
I read this book because of my interest in Intermarium.
Intermarium is defined as remaining, often against one’s will, in the overlapping areas of influence of Moscow, Berlin, and Ankara. Roughly speaking, it means this part of Europe which is stretched between the Adriatic, Baltic and the Black Sea (hence the Latin name meaning "Between the seas").
The disputes about existence, essence, and elements defining Intermarium overlap with debates concerning an equally abstract entity called “Mitteleuropa.” Geographers, particularly German, like Karl Andreé, Julius Fröbel or Johann Georg Kohl, already in the years preceding the Spring of Nations, cut our continent along the north-south axis, then following the east-west and diagonal lines and taking into account the course of the great rivers, would deduce about the existence of Europe’s heartland and the special German mission in this area. Later, this trend of thinking solidified in the writings of Friedrich List, and Joseph Partsch, and finally Friedrich Naumann.
Mitteleuropa was invented in the nineteenth century by Constantin Frantz, a German diplomat and political journalist who in fear of Russian hegemony in Europe, postulated the creation of close ties between the Polish and German economy. Frantz’s idea was later developed by Friedrich Naumann, a German theologian and politician, who postulated subordination of the Central and Eastern European countries (including Poland and Ukraine) to the German economy, which would ensure political bonding of this region with Germany.
Needless to say, I don't find this vision too appealing. It perpetuates a neo-colonial thinking in international relations, it is aimed at subordinating various nations and states and lock them the power trap in what Giselher Wirsing patronizingly called Zwischeneurope (Intermediate Europe). Paradoxically, this very fact allows us to differentiate between Mittleleuropa and Intermarium; whereas the former is externally initiated and driven (usually from the Western flank), the latter is an indigenous, so to speak, initiative putting itself not in opposition, but on an equal foot, with other European networks of power relations.
All in all, a very outdated and dangerous vision of Europe. May it rest in peace.
Intermarium is defined as remaining, often against one’s will, in the overlapping areas of influence of Moscow, Berlin, and Ankara. Roughly speaking, it means this part of Europe which is stretched between the Adriatic, Baltic and the Black Sea (hence the Latin name meaning "Between the seas").
The disputes about existence, essence, and elements defining Intermarium overlap with debates concerning an equally abstract entity called “Mitteleuropa.” Geographers, particularly German, like Karl Andreé, Julius Fröbel or Johann Georg Kohl, already in the years preceding the Spring of Nations, cut our continent along the north-south axis, then following the east-west and diagonal lines and taking into account the course of the great rivers, would deduce about the existence of Europe’s heartland and the special German mission in this area. Later, this trend of thinking solidified in the writings of Friedrich List, and Joseph Partsch, and finally Friedrich Naumann.
Mitteleuropa was invented in the nineteenth century by Constantin Frantz, a German diplomat and political journalist who in fear of Russian hegemony in Europe, postulated the creation of close ties between the Polish and German economy. Frantz’s idea was later developed by Friedrich Naumann, a German theologian and politician, who postulated subordination of the Central and Eastern European countries (including Poland and Ukraine) to the German economy, which would ensure political bonding of this region with Germany.
Needless to say, I don't find this vision too appealing. It perpetuates a neo-colonial thinking in international relations, it is aimed at subordinating various nations and states and lock them the power trap in what Giselher Wirsing patronizingly called Zwischeneurope (Intermediate Europe). Paradoxically, this very fact allows us to differentiate between Mittleleuropa and Intermarium; whereas the former is externally initiated and driven (usually from the Western flank), the latter is an indigenous, so to speak, initiative putting itself not in opposition, but on an equal foot, with other European networks of power relations.
All in all, a very outdated and dangerous vision of Europe. May it rest in peace.
Displaying 1 of 1 review