#49. It has been said that Eastern Europe is a political region more than a physical region. Would you agree or disagree with this statement? You must provide a solid argument for your position.

I'm not sure if I've posted this up already, but here's what I have so far for my answer:

I agree that Eastern Europe is not so much a distinct physical region as it is a political one. For decades after WWII it formed a buffer between the West and the Communist superpower, the Soviet Union. Today the region is made up of a number of countries seeking to find a new identity and a new place in the world. Political changes have very dramatically changed and altered boundaries in Eastern Europe. One good example is of Germany, which was once East Germany and West Germany. Today, merged together these two form Germany.
For many years southeastern Europe from between the Black Sea and the Adriatic Sea, has been the scene of conflicts. Forces, both from east and west, have pulled at the people of the northern Balkan peninsula. This region is split by many different religions, ethnic differences, politics, and by languages. Even though there have been great empires ruling the Balkans, the people have never really become part of a larger national identity.
He also offered a plan for economic restructuring, or perestroika. This plan called for a gradual change from a command system to private ownership. Under this plan, the government began to allow factory managers rather than central planners to decide what to produce and how much to charge for the goods. Several factories were also converted by the government from the production of military goods to the production of consumer goods.
Farmers were starting to be granted long-term leases on land. The new leader hoped to increase food production, and for the first time in decades, people were allowed to set up independent businesses. With all this freedom, many people called for an end to communism and the domination of the central government.

I'm still not done, but is it OK so far?

Please see our previous answers we've posted for you and MC.

http://www.jiskha.com/search/index.cgi?query=Eastern+Europe+is+a+political+region+

I found those posts by typing Eastern Europe is a political region in the search box in the upper right of this page.

It seems like your response includes some scattered information that may not directly address the question about whether Eastern Europe is more of a political region than a physical region. To provide a solid argument for your position, I would suggest focusing on the following points:

1. Historical and political context: Eastern Europe has historically been influenced by political shifts and power struggles. The region acted as a buffer between the West and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, with political divisions like the Iron Curtain defining the region for much of the 20th century.

2. Changing boundaries: Eastern Europe has experienced significant boundary changes as a result of political transformations. Examples include the reunification of East and West Germany and the breakup of Yugoslavia into several independent countries. These changes highlight the fluidity of political boundaries within the region.

3. Ethnic and cultural diversity: Eastern Europe is characterized by a diverse mix of ethnic and cultural groups. This diversity often leads to political and social tensions, as different groups assert their identities and interests, further emphasizing the political nature of the region.

4. Geopolitical influences: Eastern Europe continues to be influenced by external geopolitical forces, such as the European Union, NATO, and Russia. These political alliances and rivalries shape the region's dynamics and decisions, further reinforcing its political nature.

By structuring your response around these key points, you can provide a more focused and convincing argument for why Eastern Europe is more of a political region than a physical one.