The strength of the nation was purely defined and reflected by the strength of its military forces. The new Kaiser leader of the German nation was synonymous with his country. He was young, enthusiastic, nationalistic, and obsessed with military power and imperial expansion, which was what the country wanted. Though he thought the British were avaricious and hypocritical, he envied the power they possessed and was desperate for national success.
Under the French support, Italians united against the Austrian-Hungarian Empire to take back Italian-speaking territories, including Venice. The process began in , with the Congress of Vienna acting as a detonator, and was completed in when Rome became the capital. Britain, for example, had by this time enjoyed two centuries of imperial, commercial, and naval dominance. The British Empire spanned one-quarter of the globe, mainly through the colonies it had set up all over the world.
They believed that they could never be slaves to anyone. The British had also been shrewd, as London had spent the 19th century advancing her imperial and commercial interests and had been avoiding wars at all costs. However, the unification of Germany in , the speed of German armament, and the self-righteousness of Kaiser Wilhelm II caused concern among British nationalists. By , the streets of London were filled with dozens of tawdry novellas warning of German, Russian, or French aggression using racial stereotyping and innuendo.
Germans were depicted as cold, cruel, and calculating, Russians as uncultured barbarians, the French as leisure-seeking layabouts, and the Chinese as a race of murderous, opium-smoking savages. The rulers of these countries were mocked by penny novelists, cartoonists, and satirists. Two of the most popular targets were the German kaiser and the Russian tsar; both ridiculed for their arrogance and ambition. The British soon became a popular target for the German press and Britain was painted as expansionist, selfish, greedy, and obsessed with money.
This came about because the world was divided into spheres of influence and large empires. Many regions, races, and religious groups wanted to be free from imperialism. A case in point, in Russia, more than 80 ethnic groups in Eastern Europe and Asia were forced to speak Russian, recognise the Russian tsar as their leader, and practice the Russian religion.
This eventually led to the Russian Revolution, which ended the reign of the royal family and tsars. Pan-Slavism was the belief that the Slavic people of Eastern Europe should be independent and have their own nation, and that they were a powerful force in the region. It was predominantly in Serbia where it had risen significantly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Pan-Slavism was mainly opposed to the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the control and influence it had over the region.
Imperialism which is defined as political, military and economic domination of strong nations over weaker territories and militarism therefore played a role because of the glorification within the military and war itself. For example the First World War. This war happened because people wanted more power and therefore it was partly caused by Nationalism. Conclusion: To conclude my findings, I think we can say the long-term effects of Nationalism are both negative and positive.
The Treaty of Versailles is one of the main reasons Hitler rose to power. It saw Germany face territorial losses, reparations of the damaged, which were caused by the war, and is known to be the blame for starting World War I.
It provided a rich material for Hitler to use to gain support of the people. Several events went down in order to instigate the beginning of this war, including the demands Austria-Hungary made of Serbia, the steadily increasing prices of war, and the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand which finally pushed it over the edge and was the leading cause in the outbreak of World War One.
Even though there were many other causes, Nationalism, Imperialism, Militarism, and Alliances were definitely the main leading causes. Nationalism was only one of the four main motives that helped World War One begin.
This resulted in Germany, Britain and France getting involved through their respective alliance systems. Why did Men Want to Fight?
One of the main reasons men signed up to the army was because they wanted to get away from their boring lives back in Britain. Going to war was glamorized as being a big adventure so choosing between a boring job or an exciting adventure was a no-brainer.
World War 1 was the first global conflict as it was a struggle between the leading world powers in Europe that had colonised the 19th century.
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Bosnia, heir to the Austrian-Hungary throne was a major trigger factor that led to the World War breaking out. It initially began as a European quarrel caused by the rivalry between nations which led to a series of mobilisations. In addition, there were many other vital factors to consider and these include Imperialism, Nationalism, Alliances and Militarism.
This essay will explain how the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in triggered a number of events that led to the outbreak of World War 1. World War I started in , after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and lasted until However, historians feel that a number of factors contributed to the competition between the great powers that allowed war on such a widespread scale to break out.
The more a national minority within a state is oppressed within a state the higher the likelihood of such groups turning to violence to achieve their aims. The Nazi leadership under Hitler implemented this desire for a unified German nation through the occupation of the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia in October Hence the more hegemonic and assertive a nationalist state or group, the more likely they are to use violence to achieve their aims, increasingly the likelihood of war.
This is the most dangerous strain of nationalism that has been associated with the destructive wars of the twentieth century. Although direct links between nationalism and war can be drawn, there are several indirect causal links.
These can be classified into three areas of significance — structural, political and perceptual concepts [11]. Structural concepts are concerned with the physical distinctions and divisions influencing the likelihood of nationalist sentiments and divisions forming within a given region. However, this is disputed by academics such as Gagnon, who argue that it is wrong to assume a mixing of nationalities increased the likelihood of conflict, citing the Yugoslav conflict as an example [15] — there was a significantly high inter-ethnic marriage rate prior to the outbreak of conflict, as well as widespread healthy social interactions between ethnic and national groups.
Therefore is it wrong to assume that mixed nationality-communities are more inclined to break into violence than homogenous communities. However, it is correct as Van Evera argues that when state borders follow ethnic or nationality divisions, the likelihood of internal conflict between opposing nationalist groups decreases, although this may not always be the case one state may feel aggrieved by their perceived lack of territory, or another such basis for conflict. Hence, the legitimacy and defensibility of state borders is a crucial factor in whether a nationalist group or state will use force against another.
If they are too one-sided i. Several perceptual factors, entwined with political factors can also be regarded as indirect causes, in certain cases creating the conditions within communities that can lead to an increased likelihood of conflict. Cultural identity is crucial in forming a coherent nationalist grouping — the greater divide between cultural groups the greater the likelihood of war.
Nationalist sentiments may be instilled in a population through nationalist symbols, propaganda, emphasis on national history, language and other methods. Historical conflict and disagreements between national or ethnic groups may increase the likelihood of war — the disagreement over mutual history between the two groups may lead to a victim mentality, with both sides feeling aggrieved and wronged by the other.
This is especially true in the case of war crimes and other such results of conflicts — the more a group can attach blame to another group, the higher the likelihood of war between the two opposing sides. A nationalist government may invoke such feelings of division in order to appeal to popular opinion; hence the less legitimate a government, the more likely such nationalist divisions can lead to war.
National minorities may be targeted by such political scape-goat policies, where ethnic or racial stereotyping can be employed to bolster a sense of nationalism in the face of a perceived internal threat.
0コメント