The dissolution of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic was also accompanied by disputes concerning the division of common property. Even before the collapse of the common state, a part of the Slovak nationalist-oriented political representation repeated the claim that the Slovak standard of living and economy suffered from the political approach of central management from Prague. Despite the fact that many industries were historically established (for example, Czech industries created during the First Republic or the Austro-Hungarian Empire) and that financial resources were naturally concentrated in the larger cities and especially the capital, critics argued that Slovakia was losing natural and legitimate claims under Czech leadership.
This kind of politics also resonated strongly in civil society, resulting in strong pressure on the emerging independent Slovak political representation to fight for the greatest possible transfer of common property under the Tatras. Notwithstanding the fact that already under the former regime, following similar pressure, the federation moved several important enterprises and institutions to Slovakia, fights arose over key state enterprises that were considered theirs by both newly forming states.
Probably the most obvious example is the struggle over who owns the famous Czechoslovak armaments. Slovak complaints about being deprived of their armaments dominants by Prague still circulate in disinformation nationalist circles today. Most often, the difficulties and bankruptcies of Slovak armaments companies or the relocation of production to the Czech Republic are attributed to the decisions of Václav Havel, who was hated by many in Slovakia in the early 1990s. In reality, however, the decisions leading to the reduction of the arms industry in Slovakia were made before the Velvet Revolution.
During socialism, the heavy engineering plants in Martina belonged to the giants of the armaments industry on a global scale and employed up to 15,000 people. Many of them had specialised training, which helped the plants to develop a skilled middle class. The problem, however, was the orientation of production – it was primarily focused on tank production. Under socialism, these tanks were supplied mainly to Arab countries, which did not respect the agreements and often did not pay for the goods delivered. This is why, around 1987, the decision was made that, instead of the armaments production profile, the company would look for new production options that were in demand. In a short time, however, the company’s production could not be changed and so, after the advent of capitalism, mass redundancies were made. The remnants of the company’s production structures and assets began to be divided up by well-known businessmen connected with politicians, often with the sole intention of selling off what was left in the company. This naturally led to further bankruptcies and decline.
