Is benelux western or central Europe?

If Germany isn't central Europe, what is?

Benelux is all bordering on Germany. Central and eastern and western aren't cultural terms, they're geographical.

First of all, it is a term that carries cultural weight. Second of all, geographically, the Beneloux are on the western half of Europe. .. .. .. . ..

>with a long history of Democracy
How long is long? We haven't had democracy until 1848, and we haven't had universal suffrage since 1919. Compared to a country like France (having had democracy in one form or another since roughly 1789 and having had universal suffrage since 1863) we're incredibly late to the game.

This "long history of democracy" spiel is just what politicians use to avoid admitting they have no fucking idea what Western European culture means. They'll even say Germany has a "long history of democracy" when Germany (by which I mean the whole Germany) has only been democratic since 1919, which lasted a bit over a decade before devolving to a totalitarian dictatorship.

What about the Dutch Republic in the 16th Century?

Austria, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, southern Poland, Slovenia. Debatably Bavaria, Northern Poland, and Croatia. Habsburg Europe basically, as the Austrian Empire was always the traditional bridge between western and eastern Europe it makes sense that its former territories would retain some of that identity.

Besides what you said about Benelux almost all applies to Denmark too, is Denmark western Europe as well?

Bavaria is Germany and northern Poland used to be Germany for a very very long time as well, longer than the Hapsburgs had any activity up there. You're pretty arbitrary here.

Not every republic is a democracy, friendo. It was an oligarchy, as evidenced by the fact that it alligned itself with the Ancien Régime coalition during the Napoleonic Wars. The only real democratic support at the time came from pro-Revolutionary Patriot dissenters, who practically invited over the French to drive out the Orangists in power.

We have a long Republican tradition, but in 1815 we threw that in the trash and now it has nothing to do with our culture anymore. We're monarchial cucks who pay even more tax money to our leech monarchs than even the British.

desu the historic landscape of even baden-wurttemberg (on the western side of germany... think black forest) is more akin to other parts of central europe, like bohemia, than to western europe.

denmark is scandinavian i.e. northern europe

Not according to your argument for why Benelux is western it isn't. We're all those things you said made Benelux western, apart from the French speaking obviously.

beneleoux, unlike denmark, has not had closer ties to sweden/norway historically. they do not speak a northern germanic language with a bridge to malmo... . . .. . .. . ..

I used Bavaria to refer to Southern Germany as a whole, even if that's not correct. Baden, Wuertemburg, and Bavaria were all firmly in the Austrian sphere of influence until relatively shortly before German unification.

Well, I'm not really sure if we're talking about geography, culture, or both here, so this is confusing. My reasoning for Bavaria is above and Northern Poland is because most of it is located in the former Prussian territories you mentioned.

I don't really know which measuring stick we're using anymore either, but no matter which one you use,Germany is 100% central Europe. They share history, politics, geography, language and genetics way more closely than Germany does with France or Britain.

What about Switzerland then, is that central, western or southern?

The Netherlands always sees itself as western europe.

In all situations.

To add. Dutch political thought doesn't even have a real concept of central europe.

Dutch people tend to think in east and west. Or North and South. But never more than two dimensions.

Portugal and Spain and France are Western Europe.
Flanders and Dutch and Frisians are kinda Central European,while Valonians are more Western...laid back, lazy folks.

Also historically central Europe defined itself as people not speaking french.

You know a four dimensional object casts a 3 dimensional shadow.
shit...Now I want to discuss the cavemen of Plato...

It's Western, debil.

For us the cold war borders are still alive. And Germany falls under the western part.

...

Benelux is european and a country unlike belgium.

I agree with this picture

besides from that the dutch definitly consider themselves to be western european.

>Flanders and Dutch and Frisians are kinda Central European

they're not though, no one in the netherlands would ever consider themselves to be central european.

You sound like a memes spouting machine, burger.

Eastern Europe

northern too

you didnt include russia, which easily makes up the eastern 1/3 of europe on its own. so ukraine is central in geographical view

Western Europe of course

we're the original Franks after all, we gave our name to our colony, Gaul.

culturally: the same as germany and denmark

geographically: west

see the problem is that west often includes countries such as portugal, spain, france, the UK and ireland, countries which the Netherlands does not have anything to do with. I would say we are part of the germanosphere together with germany switzerland and austria

if i was in a really silly mood i would say we would even fit better with denmark or norway than with france seeing that we are:

>protestant
>calvinist, i.e. janteloven society
>germanic peoples
>autistic people
>high standard of living

we don't have anything to do with those lazy catholic frogs

>culturally: the same as germany and denmark

wow m8, you forgot about France

Belgians, South-Dutch and Luxemburgers are Celto-Germanics after all, just like a good part of Gaul.

We're closer to the Southern Germans, while the North of NL is closer to Denmark and Northern Germany.

>we don't have anything to do with those lazy catholic frogs

He was speaking about the benelux m8, not just NL.

You won't find more than a handful of protestants here, we loathe the calvinist mentality, you should know that by now.

no such thing as central europe, benelux is french clay

>We're closer to the Southern Germans

There's a reason why Flanders has traditionally been called "Bavaria-at-the-North-Sea".

>you forgot about france
my whole post was literally about not belonging to france

>le genetics meme

i would go as far as to say that southern netherlands is culturally closer to northern netherlands than to belgium. Yes, we may be catholic, but keep in mind that we have been culturally brainwashed by northern holland for hundreds of years.

Catholic dutchmen (if there even are any left) are culturally and dogmatically the most protestant catholics in this world.

>He was speaking about the benelux m8, not just NL.

I was speaking about just NL

you mean France (read: Gaul) is Benelux clay?

see pic

rather, france is Dutch clay

that benelux clay was gallic and then frankish, thus quintessentially french.

Those frisians morons need to go

dutch can't own anything that doesn't come out of the sea

>territorial loss
>muh clay
>being a claynigger
stop

It's not just genetics, Southern NL has a history that has been intertwined with Belgium and Northern France for many centuries, going back 2500 years.

But yes, I agree that Southern NL catholics have been cucked by the calvinists up to the point of accepting their dominance. It was one of the main reasons we split in 1830. Dutch Limburg was with us, but coal was found and the Dutch made us give it to you in 1840 after the 10 years conflict.

Anyway, still, I feel that the southern provinces of NL are culturally closer to us. Except the Zeeland part of the Bible Belt where the reformed protestant ultras live.

A good way to test this, is to go with your tent for a bicycle ride through the Netherlands. What was noticable is that only in the calvinist parts of Zeeland, people refused filling our water bottle for us. In the other parts people wwere really friendly, we often could sleep in their gardens (in our tent) and they would show up with breakfast at our tent in the morning.

the dutch weren't in charge of this clay anymay so they don't deserve to get it back desu.

No, only part of NL is Frankish, in fact the Frisian and Saxon lands were only annexed later on, while the whole of Belgium was Frankish land.

Again, see: It is us who lost a lot of territory.

(I'm not even going to mention our colonies in Britain and Ireland and even the Polish coast during Belgae times)

frankish 'empire' was before concepts of either dutch/belgian/german/french existed though.

they spoke Dutch and they were ruled by Dutch speaking counts and so on, just like Burgundy was not French in any sense of the word before the French King conquered it.

so either north France is Dutch clay, or most of western Europe is Frankish clay (of which all of those countries are as much a successor as France or Belgium is)

Yes and no. Belgae were different from other Gauls because we were mainly Germanics who crossed the Rhine and adopted Gallic culture.

Belgae were Celto-Germanics, and the Franks were a confederation of mainly Celto-Germanic tribes. The Batavi, the Sicambri (later Salians), the Tencteri, Bructeri, Nervii, Ubii... they were all (Celto)Germanics who adopted Gallic costums and language. These were the tribes who formed the Frankish confederation.

You are right about the Frisian and Saxon morons.

>frankish 'empire' was before concepts of either dutch/belgian/german/french existed though.

doesn't really matter, as it concern the same people

anyway Belgium is the name of the land, (compare Bohemia for example, land of the Boii) so I was right. And the Belgae were part of the Franks. If not the main part.

I could as well have use the concepts Neustria and Austrasia.

Also, the Southern Netherlands have had a longer history separate from the Northern NL. Also, we're a different people than the Frisians and the Saxons who predominate in the Northern NL.

kijk wat jij niet vat is dat culturele verschillen binnen een tijd van laten we zeggen 400 jaar (hollandse dominantie binnen de nederlanden) of 200 (afscheid belgië uit nederland) compeet kunnen vervagen.

Het zuiden is op geen manier anders dan het noorden.

Oh ja je hebt een handjevol zeeuwse eikels ontmoet? er zijn ook genoeg brabantse en limburgse eikels.

de gemiddelde brabander voelt zich cultureel nauwer verwant aan de gemiddelde hollander of zelfs groninger dan aan de gemiddelde vlaming, qua taal; Noord-Brabants Dialect bestaat hier haast niet meer en zei die het spreken ontbreekt het vaak aan besef dat Noord Brabantse dialecten verwant zijn aan de zuidelijke Brabantse dialecten en qua cultuur; een brabander voelt zich nederlands, niet brabants. Romantische verhalen over voorchristelijke volkeren en middeleeuwse einheid doen de Brabander niks, hij voelt Nederlands en niks anders. Vlaanderen is in zijn ogen vooral een plek om alcohol en vuurwerk te halen, cultureel is het daar helemaal anders.

een reden te meer waarom we beter gescheiden blijven

Dat is niet meer dan kleinstaterij aan Belgische (Vlaamse) kant. Indien je localisme vastlegd (in de vorm van soevereine staten) dan versterkt dit zichzelf. Modern Frankrijk is ook opgebouwd uit delen die nog veel minder met elkaar te maken hadden dan Belgische en Nederlandse provinciën onderling op hun sterkste tegenstelling ooit, en behalve een paar historisch geïnteresseerden kraait er geen haan meer naar (snapt iemand de woordspeling hier trouwens?).

Ik voel me meer verbonden met Walen dan met West-Vlamingen oetz

Wij hebben onze culturele autonomie binnen België. Mochten we ons bij NL aansluiten, dan aanvaarden we een nieuwe dominante groep en mogen we eens te meer zoeken om consensus te bereiken, terwijl het gros van de Nederlanders ons als kolonie beschouwt net als in de periode 1815-1830.

Neen, die kleinstaterij van je is ons voordelig en we hebben meer autonomie dan we ooit in gelijk wel unitarisch VKN model zullen hebben.

Leve het federale België dus.

Denk dat West-Vlamingen een beetje een verhaal apart zoals de Friezen dat zijn.

Evengoed, van een afstand gezien is de Benelux een pot nat. Alleen het feit dat de Holland Stadhouders had en daardoor net niet genoeg macht kon projecteren hebben we nu België. Als daar een type als de Franse koning had gezeten, dan was het Nederlandse taalgebied denk ik wel bij elkaar gebleven.

Ik ben West-Vlaming en ik voel me meer verbonden met Walen dan met Antwerpenaars/Brabanders oetz.

>Wij hebben onze culturele autonomie binnen België

Ik zie niet waarom Vlaanderen/Belgie geen land binnen het Koninkrijk zou kunnen zijn, indien de Vlamingen/Belgen zo bezorgd zijn om die autonomie (vraag me af en hoeverre dat waar is trouwens, het gevoel van culturele autonomie heb je waarschijnlijk alleen door de lastige taalculturele situatie in Belgie).

>het gros van de Nederlanders ons als kolonie beschouwt net als in de periode 1815-1830.

Dit is totale onzin. Je zit al te lang in de Nederdraad.

Logisch, de tweede categorie ziet in hoe minderwaardig jullie wel zijn

North Africa

>this flag
>this language
You need to go back. I can't meme in this situation.

Binnen een VKN zouden we ook onze culturele autonomie eisen, daarvoor verschillen we te veel van de Nederlanders. Alsook, er is nog de kwestie van het Oranje koningshuis, die hier niet populair is. Als we dan toch België achter ons moeten laten, zullen de al republikeins gezinde Vlamingen niet gauw trouw zweren aan de Oranjes.

Maar nogmaals; waarom? Ik zie niet in waarom we terug moeten verenigd worden. Zoals zo mooi stelde, die tijd ligt ver achter ons en het is beter voor ons om de meest voordelige situatie te kiezen. Momenteel ligt dat binnen een federaal België, vergeet niet dat de Walen cultureel dicht staan bij ons en dat zij traditioneel altijd deel van de (Zuidelijke) Nederlanden uitmaakten.

Maar stel dat het dan toch zonder de Walen moet, dan beter gewoon onafhankelijk dan aan te sluiten bij Nederland. Dat ligt toch voor de hand?

Tja, jullie hebben toch maar mooi onze naam (graafschap Vlaanderen) overgenomen als een mooie kuk. Dat zegt toch al iets over onze superioriteit. We leven niet in de Brabantse Gemeenschap, nietwaar?

No, we must wrest northern France from Parisian influences.
Ik hoopte eigenlijk de Oranjes er tegelijk met de hereniging uit te gooien, een federaal Nederland dus. Het voordeel is duidelijk: samenwerking is al nergens ter wereld zo nauw tussen landen, beter wat lagen bureaucratie afschaven, samen sterker staan in Europa, en ondertussen is er veel meer gedeelde dan verdelende cultuur.

>Maar stel dat het dan toch zonder de Walen moet, dan beter gewoon onafhankelijk dan aan te sluiten bij Nederland. Dat ligt toch voor de hand?

helemaal mee eens, groot-nederland is leuk om over te dagdromen, maar de nare werkelijkheid is dat nederlanders geen belgen zijn en belgen geen nederlanders, we voelen haast geen band met elkaar. Daarbij zou een vereniging der landen meer gedonder opleveren dan dat het baten zou.

>>het gros van de Nederlanders ons als kolonie beschouwt net als in de periode 1815-1830.

>Dit is totale onzin. Je zit al te lang in de Nederdraad.

het spijt me enorm, maar ik geef Bart gelijk. De gemiddelde Nederlander zou inderdaad België eerder als een kolonie beschouwen dan als een nieuw gebied van hetzelfde land, althans dat sentiment krijg ik als ik de gemiddelde Nederlander er over aanhoor.

Denk bijvoorbeeld ook aan verwaande Randstedelingen die alles buiten de Randstad spottend "de provincie" noemen.

Als Brabanders en Limburgers al niet voor vol aangezien worden omdat het "reservebelgen" zijn, dan denk ik niet dat heuse belgen bepaald warm ontvangen worden.

>we
As a Parisian, I have to disagree. Benelux is next on the list. Prepare for assimilation

Don't confuse English with German.

Juist wel, de Belgische vlag heeft de Brabantse kleuren, is ontstaan met de Brabantse revolutie, het economisch zwaartepunt van Belgie is in Brabant, de Belgische hoofdstad is Brabants etc.

Laat dit de Walen maar niet horen!

Sorry, maar je maakt niemand wijs dat de verschillen binnen de lage landen groter zijn dat die binnen Italie, Duitsland of Frankrijk. Dat zijn ze gewoon niet. Maar, omdat Nederland en Belgie altijd klein zijn geweest, is men totaal onbekend met cultuur in bredere zin: dat wat verenigd. Lage Landers voldoen juist precies aan alles wat met Kleinstaterij bedoeld wordt: letterlijk kleine staten, maar ook kleine geesten. Het is ook geen wonder dat er van onze koloniale imperia veel minder overbleef dan van de Franse of Engelse.

Alleen in de Lage Landen is het iets dikker snijden van de frieten reden voor een eigen land.

I won't bother reading all the posts but according to OP we're central European because we share a border with Germany who have a history of being central Europe (in some parts) ?

We don't have any ties to central europe as far as I know. All central European countries had to deal with the east at some point and we haven't really. We look nothing like central Europeans, if anything we look more like danes and Germans. Squeezed by France which we owe our arts and philosophy to and by Germany who have similar work ethic and efficiency.

en juist vanwege die kleingeestelijkheid zeg ik dat het niet kan lukken.

the only reason we would be central is because of germany's everlasting influence

we are basically another bündesland in denial

the only classifier as to which part of europe we belong to is whichever part Germany belongs to in your mind

There should be a strong union between our central European countries.

Groot-Nederland wanneer?