Abstract
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.
