Throughout the nineteenth century three political ideals began influencing states and their citizens like no other ideals had done before. These ideals were liberalism, socialism and, the most important, nationalism. Each one possessed its own uniqueness which inspired mass followings of people that would last thoroughly into the twentieth century. Each one also proved to form a catalyst for the modernisation of many European countries. However, in comparison, none of these ideals had the impact that the nationalistic approach had. This is due to many reasons which ranged from the fact that not everyone was affected by socialism or that ninety percent of people in eighteenth century Europe lived in a ‘nation­state’ which acted as a breeding ground for nationalism growth. A nation­state is a bordered country with its own culture and, the main component of a nation, language. Once politically tapped, this shared heritage and collective ideas could easily take the form of nationalism and depending on the capability of the leadership in control the approach could take many different directions, the most well­known being: ‘Pride Nationalism’ which originated from France or ‘Blood and Soil Nationalism’ from
Germany. One of the greatest accomplishment of nationalism was its ascension to the dominant doctrine of ordinary people’s lives at the expense of religion whose power had become a tattered shadow of previous centuries. However, that is not to say that, once in power, nationalist government promoted and succeeded in achieving prolonged peace and prosperity; in fact, the opposite usually occurred. Aggressive stances between neighbouring countries during the late
1800s became a formality because every nation looked up their adjoined countries as potential threats. As Charles de Gaulle put it ‘Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.’1 In this scholarly work, I will endeavour to display the significant authority nationalism controlled over governments throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, while highlighting both the positive and negative consequences that resulted from nationalist approaches. We, fittingly, begin our look at nationalism in the inaugural country to embrace the ideal,
France. However, up until around 1870, there was a greater importance, from every aspect of
French society, placed on loyalty to the separate provinces rather than the state itself. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, France underwent a huge modernisation and industrialisation

1

Jonathan Fenby, General: Charles de Gaulle and the France He Saved
The
(London: Simon & Schuster,
2010), p.45

duration. These societal changes are attributed, along with the development of nationalism, to
‘morphing the common French peasant into a civilised Frenchman.’2 A sense of identity was given to the French peasantry that only nationalism could provide. The peasants, unable to speak
French, became isolated and alienated from the urban French population. However, with industrialisation came closer relations with French speaking city communities which helped assimilate the peasantry while ridding them of traditional stereotypes such as poor hygiene and inappropriate clothing. Change was the favored worldview and as school became the realm of inspiring patriotism through the use of songs, gymnastics, and writing. France condemned itself as a kingdom and viewed itself as a fatherland. Visual tools such as maps were changed to reflect their changing perception of what France was as a nation. In these ways, the peasants became socialised to the expectations of higher French society. Military conflict brought an additional push forward toward nationalism and political solidarity3. Nationalism strengthened as a result of growing military presence that was necessitated by the French Revolution and Franco­Prussian
War. The Great War further strengthened nationalism and patriotism due to the need for the conscription of soldiers. The conscription of soldiers into the military, created an environment that relied on the connectedness that the soldiers felt for their country since there was a lack of other motives for individual soldiers to fight for a specific cause. This self­determination to fight for one’s country was inspired by the immense nationalistic and patriotic pride that existed within Europe; no other political ideal could inspire such unwavering loyalty. Empires that contained many nations could not survive in the total war state that characterises modern warfare during the Great War. The Great War, as it did with every country currently riding the nationalism tidal wave, aided the growth of the ideal in France through the increased government control, propaganda, and ethnocentrism among French citizens. Although we can discuss the nationalist culture and might that France contained, it was dwarfed by our next country,
Germany.


Eugene Weber,
Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France
,1870-1914 (Stanford: CA,
Stanford University Press, 1976)
3
Hudson Meadwell,
The Long Nineteenth Century
(New York: NY, Routledge, 2002)
2

At the beginning of the century, Germany was not a united nation, a combination of duchies and principalities, perhaps with a common purpose, and a common language and culture, but separated politically. However, by the time of German unification in 1871 the traditional
European balance of power had shifted with the rise of Germany and decline of France.
Economically, this was due to many different reasons: Germany’s greater interaction with the second Industrial Revolution in Belgium and Germany had a more steady population growth who were highly educated and mobile. Germany also possessed the most important statesman of the second half of the century in Otto von Bismarck, the founder and Chancellor of the Second
German Reich. Bismarck possessed a single goal, German unification, and to achieve this he disregarded colonisations, avoided anymore military conflict and ignored engagement with the
Balkans. His goal of unification was to be achieved with his mastery of nationalism of a shared
German culture with Prussia as the undisputed leader. Bismarck, the self­proclaimed
Junker
, now looked to consolidate this new nation in what was a particularly volatile and unpredictable
European environment. Domestically, he found the most precarious threats to Germany’s stability to be Catholicism and Marxism. Both ideals were universal and had the ability to inspire as great, or even greater, loyalty than nationalism. Marxism, like all left or right wing parties, he particularly distrusted as he said publicly ‘A government must not waiver once it has chosen it's course. It must not look to the left or right but go forward.’4 However this battle against two hugely powerful ideals was to end in failure for Bismarck. Mainly, due to the outrage caused by
Bismarck’s attacks on the Catholic Church that took shape in the form of the Falk Laws of 1871.
This defeat against Catholicism became known as
Kulturkampf
. One of the distinguishing characteristics of German nationalism is the disposition of those in power to spring automatically to the defense of “national honour.” Bismarck, the supreme egotist and the classic hater, identified himself with a sense of a national honor. He would have no one interfere with with matters of strictly national concern. This immeasurable importance placed on nationalism in
Germany would continue longer than any other state; lasting right up until 1945 when it was reinvigorated to promote hatred by the Nazis.

4

W. O. Aydelotte, Bismarck and British Colonial Policy (Philadelphia: Blackwell Publishing, 1937), p.6

The final, but no less important, country to come under nationalist influence during the late nineteenth century was Italy. The main nationalist movement of Italy, known as
Risorgimento
, culminated in the unification of the Kingdom of Italy in 1871. Italian nationalism, like German, focuses on the glory of past centuries, in this case nationalism asserts that Italians are the ethnic and cultural descendants of the ancient Romans. After the unification of Italy was completed in 1871, the Italian government faced domestic political crises from all corners and constant internal tensions, resulting in it resorting to embarking on a colonial policy to divert the
Italian public's attention from internal issues; a similar policy adopted by many countries throughout the nineteenth century. In these years, one of the most prominent figures of Italian nationalism was Francesco Crispi whose actions as prime minister were characterised by a high patriotism that often appeared as a form of obsession for the national unity and defence from hostile foreign countries. In comparison, Crispi wasn’t too unlike Bismarck in many ways. Both placed strong emphasis on the impact nationalistic sentiment and both valued national security in an erratic European landscape. However, there were some startling differences that drew a line underneath their similarities. Crispi, unlike Bismarck, saw great value in the Monarchy’s position in society, he even went as far to say ‘the monarchy unites us; the republic would divide us.’5 Crispi also saw foreign adventures as a necessity to a newly founded European state, the opposite of Bismarck who placed no importance on the matter. These patriotic triumphs and examples of Italians military ability turned into tremendous failures. After colonising small
African provinces in the East, Italy’s progress was swiftly halted after they failed to conquer
Ethiopia. Forced to retreat after sustaining almost 15,000 casualties. Next Italy waged war with
Turkey from 1911 to 1912. After defeating the Turks, Italy gained Libya and the Dodecanese
Islands.
However, these attempts to gain popular support from the public failed, and rebellions

and violent protests became so intense that many observers believed that the young Kingdom of
Italy would not survive. Although it did survive, it did so at the expense of rash, trivial exemplifications of Italian nationalistic pride.

Lucy Riall,
The Italian Risorgimento: State, Society and National Unification
(London: Routledge 1994), p.
38
5

The rise of nationalism as the fundamental ideology of any government, fueled by imperialist expansion and rapid industrial trade, provoke fierce contest internationally which convinced individuals that maintaining the welfare of their own nation was the ultimate priority.
The major nations of Europe, through the search for colonial glory or industrial rivalries, found themselves caught up in a continuous and unrelenting tournament in which each country's’ main goal was to trump all others. This intense international competition, started through the shared ideal of one’s nation being the foundation of one’s identity, committed Europeans to follow a destructive path would eventually result in not just one, but two world wars where nationalism lay as the paramount cause.

Bibliography
Aydelotte, W. O., Bismarck and British Colonial Policy (Philadelphia: Blackwell Publishing, 1937)
Fenby, Jonathan,
The General: Charles de Gaulle and the France He Saved (London: Simon & Schuster,
2010)
Meadwell, Hudson,
The Long Nineteenth Century
(New York: NY, Routledge, 2002)
Riall, Lucy,
The Italian Risorgimento: State, Society and National Unification
(London: Routledge 1994)
Weber, Eugene,
Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France
,1870­1914 (Stanford: CA,
Stanford University Press, 1976)