Hmm, they can be pretty nebulous concepts but in the political sense at hand in terms of continuity of governance countries are the political state and can be destroyed or dismantled. Nations are the people and cultures they comprise. Under different circumstances, for example a peaceful constitutional reform you could certain argue Italy was the same country but in addition to losing large amounts of territory there was a whole “invasion and civil war that the previous government decisively lost” thing. If anything you would argue that for a time there were two countries of Italy and the one that hated fascists won, but that wasn’t the country known as the Kingdom of Italy.
Under nationalist reckoning you could have a country actually comprised of multiple nations, for example look at Czechoslovakia. Nationalists would argue that their split was an inevitable consequence of trying to force two nations to form a country together.
Is the Czech Republic to your mind the same country as Czechoslovakia? By the apparent standards being argued it has the old capital, nearly 75% of the population, and the same bureaucracy that was running everything in Czechoslovakia, it just lost a bunch of rural territory. Losing territory alone certainly doesn’t stop a country from being the same country after all, so why is the Czech Republic not the same country as Czechoslovakia under a different name and governmental standard?
Yes, normally as long as there is legal continuity, countries retain their identity through changes of systems of government.
For example today’s Germany is generally considered to be the same country as the North German confederation founded in the 19th century.
Likewise the end of communism in Eastern Europe didn’t cause Bulgaria, Poland, or Hungary to cease existing, just change their form of government.
Once again, you don’t understand the difference between a country and a nation.
How are you defining them?
Hmm, they can be pretty nebulous concepts but in the political sense at hand in terms of continuity of governance countries are the political state and can be destroyed or dismantled. Nations are the people and cultures they comprise. Under different circumstances, for example a peaceful constitutional reform you could certain argue Italy was the same country but in addition to losing large amounts of territory there was a whole “invasion and civil war that the previous government decisively lost” thing. If anything you would argue that for a time there were two countries of Italy and the one that hated fascists won, but that wasn’t the country known as the Kingdom of Italy.
Under nationalist reckoning you could have a country actually comprised of multiple nations, for example look at Czechoslovakia. Nationalists would argue that their split was an inevitable consequence of trying to force two nations to form a country together.
Is the Czech Republic to your mind the same country as Czechoslovakia? By the apparent standards being argued it has the old capital, nearly 75% of the population, and the same bureaucracy that was running everything in Czechoslovakia, it just lost a bunch of rural territory. Losing territory alone certainly doesn’t stop a country from being the same country after all, so why is the Czech Republic not the same country as Czechoslovakia under a different name and governmental standard?