Since it's supposed to be pronounced "CHECK-ia" it's pretty difficult to mix up with Chechnya and that mixup is also one of the reasons for the new name.
- 2
Czechia
- Thread starter Anichent
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Have Czechoslovakia and Slovakia exist makes as much sense has having Austria, Austria-Hungary, and Hungary exist all at the same time. If Czechoslovakia and Slovakia exists, the Czechs should get an event were they have to either relinquish claims on Slovak territory and be renamed Bohemia, or they go to war over the land.
- 1
If Slovakia exists then the other country should either be called Czech Republic (republic of Czechs basically as the puppet state of Slovakia was called the Slovak Republic) or Bohemia-Moravia, as the area was composed of the two regions of Bohemia and Moravia. However if it is released without the Moravia region then it would not make sense.
This discussion is hilarious to me. So here are my 2 cents:
1) It seems weird not because both countries would have the land that was historically only in one of them at any time (or in yet another country), but because Czechoslovakia kinda assumes that it has Slovakia somewhere inside. In sandbox Czechs could rule over Africa and Slovak over Brazil nad a little piece of India. Or whatever - it is theoretically possible (crazy, but possible). But the name doesn´t add up. Czecho_Slovakia AND Slovakia. To me, the problem is logical (X can be here, or there, but not at two places at once - here in the meaning of being part of 2 states at once), not geographical or historical.
2) The new name for my country seems off to me, but I suprisinlgy have to agree that it isn´t a totally bad idea. It glosses over Moravia and Silesia, but then again the name Czech Republic already does the same stupid thing. It could be mistaken with Chechnya, but the US already did confuse us with Chechnya anyway (and let´s be frank, they can sometimes confuse France with Iraq, so no amount of nice naming will save us here).
1) It seems weird not because both countries would have the land that was historically only in one of them at any time (or in yet another country), but because Czechoslovakia kinda assumes that it has Slovakia somewhere inside. In sandbox Czechs could rule over Africa and Slovak over Brazil nad a little piece of India. Or whatever - it is theoretically possible (crazy, but possible). But the name doesn´t add up. Czecho_Slovakia AND Slovakia. To me, the problem is logical (X can be here, or there, but not at two places at once - here in the meaning of being part of 2 states at once), not geographical or historical.
2) The new name for my country seems off to me, but I suprisinlgy have to agree that it isn´t a totally bad idea. It glosses over Moravia and Silesia, but then again the name Czech Republic already does the same stupid thing. It could be mistaken with Chechnya, but the US already did confuse us with Chechnya anyway (and let´s be frank, they can sometimes confuse France with Iraq, so no amount of nice naming will save us here).
- 3
I'm not Czech, and have no ties to the Czech Republic, and yet I feel that having Czechoslovakia exist without Slovakia is a stupid concept. A similar example would be East Germany covering all of Germany, yet still being called "East" Germany. It just doesn't make any sense.
- 4
- 3
Aspirational country naming is a real thing. If (as a consequence of some weird series of events) Czechoslovakia is released in Prague by the Allies or Comintern while Slovakia exists as a Fascist state, it seems perfectly reasonable to me: assume this "Czechoslovakia" has one or two token Slovaks in the cabinet, who hope to recapture their homeland for the combined state ASAP. Technically, there was a Czechoslovak government in exile in London concurrently with the Slovak State exercising nominal sovereignty in Bratislava. So, historical reality was not too far from the "illogical" situation in the screen-shot.
If, on the other hand, a single faction wants to release both a state in Bohemia/Moravia and a separate state in Slovakia, as an intended final settlement of this question, then it obviously makes no sense to name the former Czechoslovakia. And the situation from my first paragraph should also soon be resolved to either Slovakia being absorbed into Czechoslovakia or else retaining its independence after being conquered by the victorious faction, in which case Czechoslovakia should be re-named. But, to be honest, by this point in the game I usually don't really care what small countries in Central Europe are called.
So I share the opinion of those who say it's context-dependent. And those who say it's a bit of a silly discussion.
If, on the other hand, a single faction wants to release both a state in Bohemia/Moravia and a separate state in Slovakia, as an intended final settlement of this question, then it obviously makes no sense to name the former Czechoslovakia. And the situation from my first paragraph should also soon be resolved to either Slovakia being absorbed into Czechoslovakia or else retaining its independence after being conquered by the victorious faction, in which case Czechoslovakia should be re-named. But, to be honest, by this point in the game I usually don't really care what small countries in Central Europe are called.
So I share the opinion of those who say it's context-dependent. And those who say it's a bit of a silly discussion.
- 3
>all countries who have claims on each other's land are permanently at war, right guise?
That's literally the opposite. A small country saying that it is actually the rightful ruler of a larger part, but only hold a section of it, is a perfectly common thing. A big country saying that it's actually rightfully only the government of a subset of the land it governs is absurd, as you rightly point out.
What is disputed territory?
Case 1:
Republic of Ireland in WW2 says that the south and the north are rightfully their clay. The government in Northern Ireland disagrees.
Case 2:
Czechoslovakia says that Czechnya and Slovakia are rightfully their clay. The government in Slovakia disagrees.
Except the pro-Treaty and anti-Treaty forces DID fight each other. The Irish Civil War was bloody. That's why I'm saying Czechoslovakia should have to fight in order preserve its title.
Additionally:
-The country of Macedonia has to call itself the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia because of disputes with Greece who owns the province of Macedonia. (Why should Czechoslovakia be a different case?)
-When the Federal Republic of Central America broke apart into smaller states and even though the capital of the country was in San Salvador, the country of El Salvador doesn't refer to itself as the FRCA anymore. (Why wouldn't Czechoslovakia rename itself too?)
-When Yugoslavia broke up, none of the countries retained the title of Yugoslavia after the other members gained their independence. (Again, why wouldn't Czechoslovakia rename itself too?)
I didn't say permanently at war. I said that Czechoslovakia ether should renounce its claims or fight for them. If they don't fight for their claims and they refuse to relinquish them, what right do they have in saying that territory is there's?
Nazi Germany claimed Austria was a rightful part of the Reich and annexed it. So why should Czechoslovakia be able to claim Slovakia is part of their territory, but face no negative repercussions upon doing so? Additionally if they don't want to retake that land, why do they have the name in the first place?
The Irish Civil War was bloody, yes. It also ended in 1923. The claim I was talking about was laid with the 1937 constitution when the Irish Free State turned into the Republic of Ireland. Unless they laid this claim and jumped into a time machine to go and fight over it decades in the past, the county was released and claimed another country, but didn't go to war for it.
The country of Macedonia officially names itself the Republic of Macedonia. The other bit is attached by bodies such as the UN because said bodies liked Greece better when it was being argued about.
So, you didn't say that it was a choice between dropping the claims or war, just that they should have to choose between not having the claims any more and entering into a state of formal armed conflict? Countries lay claims and just sit on them until opportunities arrive, or sit on them forever. Always have done, always will, perfectly common.
I don't even... Communist China claim Taiwan is a rightful part of their country and aren't trying to annex it. So why should Czechoslovakia have to constantly fight for their claim or lose it? It's your claim, you choose what to do with it. I know it's weird, but some people make different political choices to Hitler. Wanting the land back and going to war for it right now no matter what are not synonymous. I want a new laptop, and I'm not going to drive off right now and rob a laptop shop; I'm going to wait for a way to get what I want which won't end up going horribly wrong for me.
It's not about the claim, it's about the name. Taiwan calls itself Taiwan and not China, even though they view their government as the rightful successor to the country before the civil war.
And if Macedonia has to change their name because they're in the UN, shouldn't the Czechs change their name because they're in the LoN? Granted the League isn't modeled in HOIV, but they still were historically.
And if Macedonia has to change their name because they're in the UN, shouldn't the Czechs change their name because they're in the LoN? Granted the League isn't modeled in HOIV, but they still were historically.
- 2
The issue isn't that the Czech republic doesn't exist per se, it's that there is a case in HoI3 where the German Bohemia-Moravia + Sudetenland (i.e. the modern Czech republic) is controlled by one group, while the German puppet Slovakia is controlled or annexed by another. In HoI3 if you annexed Germany's territory as an allied state, you would wind up with Slovakia as a puppet and then in order to liberate as much as you could, you would end up with "Czechoslovakia" in control of purely Czech lands, while "Slovakia" remianed as an independent state. Since Czechoslovakia's name is based on it being a union of Czech and Slovak regions, this makes no sense - if it was independent, it would be just the Czech state or perhaps "Bohemia".
Since Slovakia exists, they should also include a releaseable czech nation to avoid this issue. A very minor problem, but at least in hoi3 one that popped up frequently.
- 1
I'm sorry to say, Taiwan actually calls itself Republic of China and claimed all of China at least until 1992, making it an excellent counter-example to your argument. The fact of two Chinas and the persistence of international recognition for tiny Taiwan as mighty China (e.g. Taiwan held the "China" seat in the UN until 1971) was one of the awkward facts of the Cold War. It may legitimately strike anyone as illogical, but that does not make it false.
This is the exact problem. Several common-sense solutions exist.
- 2
But when you read it you only look at the first and last two letters like with ever other word.
Form a logical objectiv point of view of course it's a problem. But the world is not shaped by logic and objectivity. Slovakia and Czechoslovakia are displayed in the political map mode and this is a political issue! Rejecting the claim to slovakia and changing the name should absolutly be an option. It should also be possible not to recognize it's independence or current goverment.
The simplest way to put this in game termes: If the relations are good --> czechoslovakia rejects it's claim and renames it selfe. If the relationship is bad they keep the name and the claim and the hostility increases. Of course they could also make it so that czechoslovakia and slovakia can only be released if the other doesn't exist. Or they could write an event where they can peacefully unifiy if the relations are good. The options are numerous but the real problem is that the game doesn't seem to adress the issue that both states exist not the fact that both states exist.
Austria, Austro-Hungaria and Hungery could all exist during a rebellion to end the monarchy. With monachies it's easy to find the silliest examples. The empiror title itselve changes it's meaning through out history. Why would various duchies, primarily in the geographical region Germania be ruled by King of the romans and call it the holy roman empire?
Fun fact it wasn't called "East germany. The name is just a way of rationalising the fact that it didn't rule all of germany and still officaliy called itselve "Deutsche Demokratische Republik."(German Democratic Republic)
Taiwan has a strong insentiv to stop calling itselve china. The threat of the chinese peoplesrepublik! So the Central American Republic renamed itselve. So did eventually Serbia after Yugoslavia ended. But the loss of terretory in real live alone doesn't change the name of countries. For that sombody has to face the reality that the terretoral loss is either unreversible or to simplely not want to reverse it. Finally political region names irationally change there meaning through out history all the time. Why are the netherlands still called netherlands even though strictly speaking they only hold a small part of the southern netherlands today? Why has saxony moved south since the early middle ages? It's not a matter of reason or planing.
Last edited:
- 1
How about the 19th century North German Confederation? It didn't just rule the geographical region of north germany. It also owned most of central and even a tiny part of south germany
Edit: Basically raw history doesn't make any sence and it never has.
Last edited:
Argument that Czechoslovakia is the correct term and Czech Republic exists just from 1993 is ridiculous. Czechoslovakia did not exist before 1918. So during game timeline it is not so old anyway. When you are able to have Slovakia in the game, you should be logically able to have Czech Republic / Bohemia / whatever in the game.
Yes I am Czech and that does not make my point invalid.
Yes I am Czech and that does not make my point invalid.
How about the 19th century North German Confederation? It didn't just rule the geographical region of north germany. It also owned most of central and even a tiny part of south germany
They were the northernmost Germans.
Well, this discussion is hilarious. Do you guys realize that Czechoslovakia is defacto state-construct or lets say some sort of federative state composed of Czech lands and Slovak lands? In fact after the war the form of goverment changed to proper federative state where a Czech republic and Slovak republic together composed a Czechoslovak republic. So the concept of having a Slovakia and Czechoslovakia in the same time on map is nonsense and should be corrected in the game.
That leads to a rather interesting quiestion if a Czechoslovakia as a country tag should be used or exist only if there are both Czech and Slovak country tag under their sovereign goverment (and only democratic one).
That leads to a rather interesting quiestion if a Czechoslovakia as a country tag should be used or exist only if there are both Czech and Slovak country tag under their sovereign goverment (and only democratic one).
"How do I logic: the thread"
Premise 1: The CZS federation has to have both a CZ-claiming and an S-claiming government.
Premise 2: There is an S-claiming government that is not part of the CZS federation.
Conclusion: The CZS federation cannot exist.
This could be an introductory example of a bad argument in a formal logic course. It relies on the hidden third premise that there can't be two or more governments claiming Slovakia.
- 1