But many would disagree. A substantial number of Poles and Czechs
would argue that their lands and peoples are geographically, culturally,
and historically more western than eastern European. ^* This is a point of
view that is also shared by a number of Slovaks, Hungarians, and also
by two of the Yugoslav peoples--the Slovenes and the Croats. Many
Romanians, although scarcely in a position to base a claim on geography
or history, have often thought of their nation as an outpost of western
culture in the east.

If only the Serbs, Bulgarians, Macedonians, and Albanians can be
said to be fairly content with their status as East Europeans, it must be
noted that there are representatives of other peoples who object to being
left out. Thus, it is certainly true that a traditional definition of Eastern
Europe between the two world wars would have included the three in-
dependent Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Similarly, al-
though an independent Ukrainian state has made only the briefest of
appearances in modern times, many Ukrainians believe that their land
should be an independent East European nation. Some authors would
also include Finland and Greece in the region, but this is decidedly a
minority view.

Since compromise (and controversy) are inescapable, the author has
chosen a definition that is deemed most likely to appeal to the probable
audience. It is assumed that most readers will have developed their interest
in the history of Eastern Europe in consequence of being intrigued by
the complexities of the area as it is now defined. Thus, this text will
consider Eastern Europe from the standpoint of contemporary political
realities: the Baltic states and the Ukraine will be excluded in view of
their de facto integration into the Soviet Union proper rather than into
its bloc; Yugoslavia and Albania, no longer in the bloc, will be retained
because they are still a part of the same communist political-economic
milieu as their neighbors. Greece, non-communist after a near miss, will

-xii-