Defining nationalism before considering its development and emergence in the second half of the 19th century and the early 20th is useful because it offers us a good base for a greater comprehension of the phenomenon during this period of time. As Michael Hughes correctly points out in Nationalism in Society', commentators generally seem to agree that the nation is a concept of unity (1). The unity he is speaking of can be based on a variety of criteria ranging from language and culture to religious beliefs, of which Israel and Pakistan are examples. A nation has characteristics that isolates or differentiates it from others, individual features, which render it unique. Professor Mancini puts it as a natural community of people with a common territory and common origins, customs and language, united for a common life and common social awareness' (2). New nations forming in the 19th century meant fertile ground for new political organisations, and differences in between the political right and left became very apparent. Whereas the right commonly backed nationalism, socialists and the traditional left never came to terms with it. Methods of propaganda were obviously used to gather popular support but these methods varied from country to country, some using racism and xenophobic slogans and some relying solely on the love of the nation. For a nation to be stable it needed to be prosperous and free, like Guizot said, and in 1848 the revolutions broke out because countries had none of these features. The population's unrest developed into revolts and manifestations, some furthering their actions by going on and forming national revolutionary' groups. I will call them revolutionary' because they were a destabilising factor for the ruling forces. All over Europe in the period between 1880 and 1914 nationalism took a dramatic leap, becoming an important actor in politics and creating a number of fanatical movements. These were movements that focused on their nation, proudly lifting a national flag against foreigners, Jews and liberals. Movements within countries or empires developed like in the Austro-Hungarian Empire where local populations, Magyars in particular, demanded independence or at least more liberties.
Commonly, a high degree of aggressiveness could also be attributed to these forces originating from a will to expand or consolidate territories but this wasn't a general rule of nationalism, some simply wanted to expel foreigners. What is interesting to consider too is if the States drove the people to the First World War or if it is the people who led the nations into it.
[...] Europe in the period between 1880 and 1914 nationalism took a dramatic leap, becoming an important actor in politics and creating a number of fanatical movements. These were movements that focused on their nation, proudly lifting a national flag against foreigners, Jews and liberals. Movements within countries or empires developed like in the Austro-Hungarian Empire where local populations, Magyars in particular, demanded independence or at least more liberties. Commonly, a high degree of aggressiveness could also be attributed to these forces originating from a will to expand or consolidate territories but this wasn't a general rule of nationalism, some simply wanted to expel foreigners. [...]
[...] The advantage of having a large nation in central Europe that would have been able to defend itself in the eventuality of a new major conflict appealed to the population. My view is that there was a common spirit, something like what Hegel describes as the ‘Volksgeist', that was in the mind of every German man. Footnotes Michael Hughes, Nationalism in Society Germany 1800-1945, Hadder and Stoughton Ltd (1988) page 9. Michael Hughes, Nationalism in Society Germany 1800-1945, Hadder and Stoughton Ltd (1988) page 9. [...]
[...] Garibaldi's ‘March of the Thousand' in Sicily turned out to be a fantastic triumph for nationalism since he became a living legend but he rapidly became a concern for Cavour and a ‘Race to Rome' began for both men. Mazzini was more moderate and wanted to see Italy united in a peaceful way; he declared, when questioned about the unity of Italy: Yes; unity was and is the destiny of Italy. The civil primacy twice exercised by Italy- through the arms of the Caesars and the voice of the popes-is destined to be held for a third time by the people of Italy-the nation He led the Democratic Action party and with his followers was a ‘nation- lover', Italy should be based on her geographical conditions, language and literature. [...]
[...] From 1875 onwards the expulsion of foreigners was being thought about in France and Germany. Norman Davies explains that the darkness of the word nationalism appears in 1890 when an official statement declares that Germany is solely to be for Germans. In France Boulangism gave an early example of how quickly masses could unite believing whatever was fed to them. Anti-Semitic propaganda rapidly convinced large parts of the population that Jews were the roots to all problems that faced France. [...]
[...] From 1880 to 1914 the Republic witnessed the birth, or re-birth, of many extreme-right groups like the ‘Lihue des Patriots' led by Déroulède that developed rapidly in this period. These extreme-right wing groups managed to materialise and become important mainly due to the agitation that characterized France's political scene. Internal crises made the Republic tremble under the pressure of these nationalistic movements like the Boulanger and Dreyfus Affair. Leaders like Drumont, Maurras and Barrés all rejected the republican will to ‘internationalise' because they said that it undermined the nation's well being. [...]
using our reader.