Why did Czechoslovakia divorced ?

Even after the Velvet Revolution in 1989, Czechoslovakia remained a federal state, and the link between Czech and Slovakia was so strong then. I read some of the Czech's ideas, and they said that "Everything was better if Czech and Slovakia remained one". So why should they divorce ?

Read some history,it would answer you the best
It was a federal state of 2 countries and each had the constitutional right to separate.
2 states,2 peoples,2 languages etc.
In short,Czechia had too much influence over Slovakia

Yeah the Czechs and the Slovaks were two different people. In fact from what I understand it was a clean mutual split.

the nation of czechoslovakia was a mixture of two extremely nationalist ethnicities who disliked each other. The nation was put together after WWI when they declared independence from Austria-Hungary. They peacefully split in 1993

It was an act of political maneuvering by the political elite of both sides. If you look at any poll of either side at the time of the split, the majority of people (Czechs and Slovaks) wanted to remain one unified country. But the leaders of their respective countries had different plans.

Quote:

the nation of czechoslovakia was a mixture of two extremely nationalist ethnicities who disliked each other.

This is just nationalist bullshit right here.

Another dangerous fact was the economical difference of Czech and Slovakia, were Slovakia was become nearly completly dependent from gifts of Czech. In Belgium there is a simular situation between Flanders and Wallonia. With 7 gouvernements in one country to organize three communities and three regions, they try to prevent it from splitting. But the economical difference between the rich Flanders and the poor Wallonia is by far the most important argument to split. But as far as I know today the situation between Czech and Slovakia has swapped, so splitting because of economical motives isn't always that safe.

Quote:

This is just nationalist bullshit right here

While the guy that you replied is obviously wrong, his message has a grain of truth.

Nationalism still plays a significant role in Central and Eastern Europe in a way or another.
Playground for various empires, this area shaped and reshaped frequently her national borders and national identities, especially
in the last 200 years.

Breaking up of Czechoslovakia was just another chapter in this saga.

As far as I know nationalism never has broke up countries. It's an argument most of the politicians use to get the people behind them, but all the countries I've seen that have been split up, had big economical differences.

CommuSoft wrote:

As far as I know nationalism never has broke up countries.

What about Serbia from Austria-Hungary?

KurtFF8 wrote:

This is just nationalist bullshit right here.

OH REARYYYY?
To say that nationalism didn't play a role in the separation of the SSR's is stupid. Nationalism obviously exists, and it obviously causes separation

Quote:

What about Serbia from Austria-Hungary?

Are you saying that Serbia was a part of Austro-Hungarian monarchy?
It newer was.
If that is not what you've meant,than sry.

proletarian wrote:

What about Serbia from Austria-Hungary?

Not Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire.

CommuSoft wrote:

know nationalism never has broke up countries. It's an argument most of the politicians use to get the people behind them, but all the countries I've seen that have been split up, had big economical differences.

Russian Empire, Soviet Union, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, British Empire, French Empire, Spanish Empire. It happens all the time.

Loz wrote:

Are you saying that Serbia was a part of Austro-Hungarian monarchy?
It newer was.
If that is not what you've meant,than sry.

No that's not what I meant. But Serbian nationalists were behind the assassination of Franz Ferndinad, because of the Austria-Hungarian claim over Bosnia-Herzegovina. If that isn't a country's destruction over nationalism, I don't know what is.

Austro-Hungary did indeed collapse because of nationalism.But is because of the fact that 2 nations enslaved numerous Slavic nations,not because of Serbian pretensions on Bosnia
Bosnia was never "original" A-U land,it was annexed by Austro-Hungary after the Berlin congress

Loz wrote:

Austro-Hungary did indeed collapse because of nationalism.But is because of the fact that 2 nations enslaved numerous Slavic nations,not because of Serbian pretensions on Bosnia

I don't know. That did start WWI and WWI did help to break up A-H

WW1 did indeed start because of assassination of throne-heir of A-U,but it was just an excuse,not the real reason.
Countries were preparing for a war,and only a spark was necessary to start it.
And,A-U was held by force(remember 1948 and Hungarian revolution),it was already "rotten inside" before WW1.

Loz wrote:

And,A-U was held by force(remember 1948 and Hungarian revolution),it was already "rotten inside" before WW1.

Which has obvious nationalist roots. Nationalism definately contributed to Austria-Hungary's dissolution. Just like nationalism contributed to Czech's dissolution

Not really national forces, but more ethic and cultural forces are the root of those divorces I think. But in my opinion there still needs to be an economical factor. Look at Spain. A country where in the middle ages, islam and catholic belief lived together without conflicts. But the greed of the catholic church, made an end to this collaboration.

I think it's more of the greed of proclaimed catholic princes then the greed of the church. religion was a tool of feudalism and an excuse to make war and expand.

CommuSoft wrote:

Not really national forces, but more ethic and cultural forces are the root of those divorces I think.

nationalism is derived from a common history, ethnicity, religion, and/or cultural background. So the root of the forces were nationalism.