If you pose this question to a person on the street, it would be expected that the answer would be a variation on “absolutely nothing.” While some, may answer “industrial development” or “scientific advancement,” it would not be expected that the answer would be “nationalism” or “unification”.
Within the 21st century, nationalism is regarded as a dirty word. Its relationship with Nazism and fascism, a nasty parcel left over from World War 2, frames nationalism as a source of internal divide, leading to war and genocide. Nationalism, within this lens, is regarded as a tool of right-wing groups or extremists seeking to explain how those they believe to be not a part of their vision of a nation state, are the cause of their discontent. For example, in Australia, groups such as Reclaim Australia, campaign for a return to a White-Australia policy, using nationalism as an excuse or a tool to exclude non-white people from their vision of Australia. On the other side of the spectrum, left-wing groups consider the use of nationalism to be undesirable because of this connection between nationalism and racism. Rather than being synonymous with right-wing racism, nationalism is a tool to shape the identity of a nation state and the how people fit within this nation, regardless of the political identity of the state or governing bodies. While this identity can choose to focus on the exclusion of other groups of people, the context of the development of a national identity determines how a state’s national identity is shaped and harnessed by individuals in power.
War, is only one example of the context in which nationalism, and national identity can be shaped and harnessed by powerful individuals. However, in the case of times of war, this national identity is limited by the fear of a security threat, and can limit who the state, or the individuals who control the state, can define as an enemy of the nation. War is regarded in this case, as wars fought with traditional weapons and battlefield tactics, between two or more states who have the ability to distinguish between military and civilian populations.
WITH WAR
When war is declared by a government, they must garner the support of their entire or at least the majority of their population to ensure that their military and civilian populations remain productive and involved in the war effort. The best way a government can garner this support is by creating or harnessing a national identity, to justify why their nation state has to go to war with another nation state. This justification is provided on the basis that their national identity, or shared cultural, political, religious or linguistic identity (to name a few connecting factors that make up a national identity), is more important than another states national identity and thus more deserving of winning the war.
The creation of Germany, is but one example of a national identity harnessed by an individual in power in times of war to provide for a justification for winning a war, but also to ensure a large and separate population could be harnessed for the war effort. The unification effort of Prussian statesman Otto von Bismarck, culminating in the official 1871 unification of Germany, finds its roots within the multitude of conflicts within Europe in the 19th century. As a result of conflicts with their European neighbours, namely the French Revolutionary Wars (1792-1802), the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) and the Austro-Prussian War (1866), Prussia sought the advantage of uniting the regions of what is now called Germany, to increase the power of the Prussian Keiser, and protect Prussia from their European neighbours. Drawing on shared the shared history and traditional culture of the regions that would become Germany, Bismarck spun ‘German’ as an identity that was significantly different from that of ‘French’ or ‘Austrian’. Through education programs, and the celebration of shared culture and tradition, a more unified national identity was born. Upon entry in the Franco-Prussian war (1870-1871), it became inevitable that the unification of the German identity would become the physical unification of the German Empire. While German national identity had existed before the rise of Bismarck, relations in wartime with its neighbours, and the national identity project of Bismarck, created a physical unified German state with a unified identity with a clear contrast to that of its European rivals.
Significantly, this national identity of the state pitted itself against the identity of another state. In a project to ensure unity within its borders, Bismarck used wartime to mobilise the population for protection against other European states. This is opposed to a national identity pitting itself against individuals that could reside within the borders of a nation state, creating divisions that could make the mobilisation of military and civilian populations for warfare difficult for the government.
WITHOUT WAR
Without the backdrop of a war, powerful individuals attempt to create a unified national identity that contrasts itself with individuals within the same state. These powerful individuals identify individuals with a particular identifiable difference, such as religion, skin colour or even ways of dressing, to declare as a security threat to that of their national identity, and blame for issues such as economic inequalities, lack of jobs or criminal activity within the borders of a state.
Take the rise of racist, right-winged nationalist movements in Europe as an example. Alternative for Germany (AFD), Germany’s largest opposition party platforms on the basis of anti-immigration and questions the influence of Islam within Germany. Currently in coalition with the People’s Party and Social Democrats, the Austrian, The Free Party (FPÖ) rose to power on it’s heavy anti-immigration policy, and its members have frequently been caught up in accusations of racism. Marine Le Pen, while failing in the second round of the presidential elections in France 2017, her party National Front (FN) has since been changed to National Rally and support has since been growing for her racist and anti-immigration policies within France. While this is by no means an exhaustive list, these parties give a snapshot of the anti-immigration, and racist sentiments within 21st century Europe. What each of these parties have in common, is the uniting of a group of people, in this case, white European’s, in a nationalist cause against those that they perceive do not fit within their idea of their country’s national identity. Rather than addressing the root cause of the migrant crisis, wars within the Middle East and Northern Africa, these parties choose to focus on what is perceived as the direct threat to economic stability and crime within their nations; non-white migrants.
Without the potential for war on their borders, the national identity of a state is not threatened by another nation state, and thus does not have a symbolic entity to contrast itself against. The national identity is harnessed to focused on what is perceived to be a direct threat to individual’s everyday lives; other individuals with obvious physical or religious differences. This serves to divide individuals that exist within the borders of a state, and does not have the same potential for unification that national identities created in the face of war have.
WAR: SO WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?
War is good for the creation of a nation state that sets itself in contrast and conflict with the external threat of another state. It ensures that populations within borders are united for the mobilisation of military and civilian populations for the war effort, and discourages internal divisions within states. Populations without war attempt to set the national identity against other individuals, perceiving these individuals as the cause of the issues within the state that they share.
This analogy is not perfect. Divisions between populations will always exist with states that are at war, particular against individuals who may have originated from the very country they are fighting. This also cannot explain the anomaly of Nazi Germany, a national identity that pitted itself against non-Aryan individuals who were blamed for economic insecurities, rather than blaming the effects of losing World War 1 on their neighbouring nation states.
Nor does this analogy set out to excuse the devastating effects of war. Rather, it sets out to present nationalism as a neutral term, that can be harnessed for both unity and division within states. War only provides a context that limits how a national identity can be shaped or harnessed by powerful individuals, for the unification rather than division of people within a state.
