Search icone
Search and publish your papers

The emergence of new forms of nationalism between 1848 and 1914

Or download with : a doc exchange

About the author

Level
Advanced

About the document

Published date
Language
documents in English
Format
Word
Type
presentations
Pages
9 pages
Level
Advanced
Accessed
9 times
Validated by
Committee Oboolo.com
0 Comment
Rate this document
  1. Introduction
  2. High degree of aggressiveness
  3. Theobald Von Bethmann Hollweg's declaration
  4. The decline of the empire
  5. Occupation of Italy
  6. Martin Clark's view
  7. The Franco- Prussian war
  8. Internal crisis and nationalistic movements
  9. Hebrew as the official language
  10. The situation of the Jews in Europe
  11. Conclusion
  12. Bibliography

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. [...]


[...] I do agree with Kedourie, to a certain extent in any case, when he says that it was not a question of left and right wings; Mazzini was a socialist but I do believe that the more virulent forms of nationalism were attributed to the extreme right wing. In my opinion this can be attributed to the fact that racist traits are more familiar with the extreme right. The departure of many Jews to Palestine can be seen as a forced move but it should be very clear that the Jews were also nationalistic, only that they did not have a ?home' before 1948. [...]

Similar documents you may be interested in reading.

Birth and assertion of Czech nationalism

 History & geography   |  Modern history   |  Presentation   |  01/10/2011   |   .doc   |   10 pages

History of England (1815-1914)

 Economics & finance   |  Economics   |  Term papers   |  01/10/2011   |   .doc   |   34 pages

Top sold for modern history

Critical analysis of the letter collection of Einhard

 History & geography   |  Modern history   |  Presentation   |  09/29/2010   |   .doc   |   4 pages

The American Revolution: who was more to blame; the British or the American agitators

 History & geography   |  Modern history   |  School essay   |  01/30/2017   |   .doc   |   2 pages