Account for the Failure of Nationalist Movements in Southeast Asia in the Period 1900-1941.

The years after World War One brought about vast changes to many parts of the world. Places like South Asia and the Middle East were able to see the need for self government away from foreign control. This sparked a number of nationalist movements during the 1920’s and 1930’s. The Middle East had to Westernize to rid foreign control while India had to be united under non-violence and Hindu values.

The British on the Malay Peninsula & the French in Indochina nibbled at the borders of Siam

Nationalism has been extremely important and influential in shaping the modern world we see today, causing revolutions, rebellions and the constant reshaping of world maps continuing even today. Its appeal is something that I don’t believe will diminish in the future. Many theologians and political commentators alike agree that Nationalism has perhaps been one of the most prominent political ideologies of the modern world “No single political doctrine has played a more prominent role in shaping the face of the modern world than nationalism” 1, and doesn’t look like ceasing to be as influential anytime

Nationalism was formed with the idea that a nation is made up of people who are joined together by common language, customs, cultures and history. It held the belief that one should be loyal to the people of their nation, not a king or empire. Nationalists believed that people of a single nationality should unite under a single government. The concept of Nationalism emerged in the French Revolution and was spread to the rest of Europe by Napoleon’s conquests.

The process of decolonization proved to have its own struggles within those who were seeking their independence from imperialist powers. Evidently, these nationalist movements were different in many regions, but they generally shared the sentiment that “Westernization” had taken something away from them. This proved to be the case in Africa and Asia, where the colonization movement from imperialist powers was of strong presence, and that had trouble weakening during and after the Cold War. Part of this struggle was due to the forms of government that were imposed, and because many of these colonies had been in this position for such long time that they were not able to predict upcoming conflicts after their independence. However, in many cases, the problems were more complicated and often implied a combination of reaction to westernization and internal conflicts. Undoubtedly,

A third influence with the nationalism movement was Giuseppe Garibaldi. He was a leader that was in charge of many soldiers. He was able to use nationalism to bring his men together and be independent,”This people is its own master” (Garibaldi, 191). This was a form of nationalism because it brought his men, of the same country, together to fight. Another point that he brings up is that he does not want his men to be strangers. In order to be united they have to know one another, “We shall meet again before long to march together to the redemption of our brothers who are still slaves of the strangers” (Garibaldi, 192). He wants no strangers so that everybody can be

The Malayan Emergency was a guerrilla war fought in pre- and post- independence Federation of Malaya. The main antagonists were the Common Wealth Armed forces on one side and the Malayan National Liberation Army, and the military arm of the Malayan Communist Party on the other side. The Common Wealth Forces armed the communist party during their war with the Japanese Army in the Second World War. The Malayan Emergency was originally the colonial government’s term for the conflict. The rubber plantation and tin mining industries pushed for the use of the term “emergency” since their losses would not have been covered by the insurances if they had been termed a war.

I. Nationalism was most effective for the colonized peoples of India and South East Asia

6. Nationalism can be both a unifying and disunifying force in many different ways. One way nationalism was a unifying force was that it brought people together who were not loyal to the king and did not want him to rule. Many of these people we known as liberals and radicals. Since they were not loyal to their kings they were instead loyal to their people or to those that they shared a common bond with. Nationalism was also able to unify masses of people. Specifically nationalism was able to unify the country of Italy when nationalist in Italy had looked for leadership form from the largest and most powerful kingdom in the Italian states, Piedmont-Sardinia. Another country that was also unified by nationalism in the mid-1800's was the country

During this time period, both India and Japan faced a new situation: the new imperialism of Europe. India was unable to defend themselves, thus leading to them becoming a colony of Britain. Japan however, selectively borrowed from the Europeans after proving themselves to be equals of the once superior Europeans. Despite having such contrasting fates, both India and Japan had similarities in the miserable work conditions for peasants. But because India was a colony while Japan was a country, India data was recorded by British officials and Japanese data was record by Japanese officials. Another difference was the source of labor for textile production. India had mostly men workers whereas Japan

The Japanese pursuit for an empire in South East Asia helped changed the balance of world power away from Europe, by taking their most lucrative colonies. Soon after the Japanese defeat in World War II, most of the colonies won their independence from their European masters. This essay will be arguing that despite the vast geographical distance and cultural, racial differences, as well as the different time periods involved, Japanese and European intentions were very similar, and that these similarities contributed to the weakening of Imperialism as a doctrine. To do so, this essay will be examining the reasons for the Japanese

Nationalism is a widely debated ideology that differs based on the historian’s definition. For example, Benedict Anderson attempts to define nationalism as "an imagined political community [that is] imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign"(Anderson, pg 6). Anderson also believes the main causes of nationalism can be

BIBLIOGRAPHYBarnett, A. (1965), 'Multiple factors', in Pichon Loh (ed.) 'The Kuomintang Debacle of 1949: Conquest or Collapse?' D.C. Heath & Company, BostonBianco, Lucien. (1971), 'Origins of the Chinese Revolution, 1915-1949' Stanford University Press, StanfordChang, Carsun. (1965), 'Chiang Kai-shek and Kuomintang dictatorship', in PichonLoh (ed.) 'The Kuomintang Debacle of 1949: Conquest or Collapse?' D.C. Heath& Company, BostonChang, Kia-Ngua. (1965) 'War and Inflation' in Pichon Loh (ed.) 'T

Nationalism has become one of the most powerful uniting-and occasionally separating-powers of the modern age. Throughout history, there were numerous countries that exemplified both sides of this classic European belief. However, as time has passed, this pride and promotion of one’s country has developed far beyond the scope of Europe. Nationalist feelings fester in all parts of the globe now, and with that comes more complicated expressions of the sentiment, as well as carefully crafted governments that exist for the sole support of nationalist fervor.

The political and social conditions of Europe before the onset of the World War I were extremely unstable and undergoing a rapid transition that was driven by national interests of different nations living in the region. Nationalism was endorsed to promote patriotism among masses and to achieve political objectives that were in alignment with the national or political interests of countries. As the time passed, the growing influence of imperialism and the ideology of nationalism manifested multifaceted