What's important to Czechs

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous (Czech-Related)' started by michal7, Jun 24, 2006.

  1. michal7

    michal7 Active Member

    For all those who are Czech, what do you feel is the most important thing for people outside the Czech Republic to know or understand about your country or history?
    Thanks in advance for your feedback!
  2. vratsab

    vratsab Member

    I think, that one of the most important things is not be called it part of Eastern Europe, even Czech republic was part of Eastern Bloc for about 40 years. Definetly closer culturally to Austria, Germany than any other nation. Czech (Bohemia) and Moravia are historic lands. Forever part of Central Europe (MittelEuropa).
  3. guither

    guither Member

    Interesting point. I think there is a bit of a tendency in the U.S. to generally think of Central Europe as Eastern Europe and to think of Eastern Europe as Asia.
  4. dzurisova

    dzurisova Well-Known Member

    That's strange, my husband is from there and he calls it Eastern Europe. Perhaps it's because he lived there when it was part of the Eastern block.
  5. TroskuAmericanka

    TroskuAmericanka Active Member

    And it makes perfect sense not to call it Eastern Europe either, because Czech´s capital is farther west than some of the other countries we say are in Western Europe... for example Austria, Finland and Sweden...
  6. Qcumber

    Qcumber Well-Known Member

    The East /West division is a joint-invention of the Americans and the Soviets after WWII in order to control us. Central Europe is definitely not Eastern Europe.
  7. Sova

    Sova Well-Known Member

    :?: :?: :?: :!: :!: :!:
  8. Qcumber

    Qcumber Well-Known Member

    :?: :? :?: :? :?: Is this new to you?
  9. wer

    wer Well-Known Member

    Yes, that's a peculiar point of view :?.

    The first time I heard I'm supposed to live in Eastern Europe was in George Bush's speech in 1990. I was very surprised. Yes, there was the Eastern bloc (Východ, Východní blok, tábor socialistických zemí v čele s bratrským Sovětským svazem etc.), but the term "Eastern Europe" was always, that mean even in the communistic era, used in strictly geographical meaning.
    But it's possible it was only my perception because I was'nt interested in politics before 1989 - I was too young.
  10. Qcumber

    Qcumber Well-Known Member

    Wer, do you agree or do you disagree with me?
  11. wer

    wer Well-Known Member

    I disagree. I think it's extremely simplified. I didn't hold this division against the USA but the soviet interest in world-duality is indisputable.
  12. Qcumber

    Qcumber Well-Known Member

    Very odd. Have you forgotten the Yalta agreement?
  13. wer

    wer Well-Known Member

    Of course I know Yalta agreement 8). But the Crimea Conference was'nt about world-bipolarity. That's only widespread myth :roll:. In fact, the conference was about post-war situation in Germany, war reparations, Polish frontiers, forced repatriation of all Russians across Europe, soviet entry in war against Japan, establishment of UN etc.

    The only conference about spheres of influence was in Moscow, October 1944. That's the famous Stalin's and Churchill's percentage auction. But sorry, no important American contribution in this story. And by the way, I agree with this Churchill's way of bargaining.
  14. Qcumber

    Qcumber Well-Known Member

    What about Roosevelt?

    "The Big Three had ratified previous agreements about the postwar division of Germany: there were to be three zones of occupation, one zone for each of the three dominant nations (France would later get a portion when the USA divided up a part of its zone and gave it to France). Berlin itself, although within the Soviet zone, would also be divided into three sectors, and would eventually become a major symbol of the Cold War because of the division of the city due to the infamous Berlin Wall, constructed and manned by the Soviet-backed Communist East German government."

  15. wer

    wer Well-Known Member

    What's the problem about Roosevelt?
  16. Qcumber

    Qcumber Well-Known Member

    Didn't you say: "But sorry, no important American contribution in this story." ?

    Was NATO a fiction? Was the cold war between the United States of America and the Soviet Union a fiction?

    Don't forget we were talking about of the partition of Europe into two block called the East(ern) block, owned by the Soviets, and the West(ern) block, owned by the Americans.

    Your view that Americans had nothing to do with all this is new to me, and frankly speaking, a bit odd. Perhaps you could expatiate on this.
  17. wer

    wer Well-Known Member

    Yes, I wrote it in the paragraph about the Moscow Conference.
    I never said the opposite. And I hope Nato still exists.
    I never said the opposite.
    Yes, I remember soviet tanks crushing Dubček's Administration.
    Sorry, I don't remember American tanks crushing de Gaulle's Administration.
    I never said this. I negate your phrase "joint-invention of the Americans and the Soviets... in order to control us".
    Perhaps you could prove the American contribution to this "joint-invention in order to control you" (I was controlled by Soviets).
  18. Qcumber

    Qcumber Well-Known Member

    Wer wrote:
    No, sorry, I don't want to go further into this political discussion. :) There is no doubt people were a lot happier in the US-controlled part than in the Soviet-controlled part, but ...

Share This Page