Nationalism After Ww2

Nationalism is a powerful force that can unite people working towards a common goal, but when it is taken to the extreme it can cause major disharmony in society, evident in the numerous genocides during the Age of Imperialism, the Fascist party's rise to power, and the Japanese’s unwillingness to surrender during World War II. Nationalism is dangerous, because it warps the minds of the individuals in the organization, creates prejudice and discrimination, and can be easily manipulated into a weapon against humanity.

My first reason to back up my statement on why nationalism was the reason this broke out is the “pointing of the finger”, which was found in document 5. All of the diffrent countries didn't want to take the fall on anything and so they just decided to blame it on another country. To me this is probably the most accurate reason because it

Nationalism shaped the development of European countries from the way some European countries disagreed with the way they were being ruled. In document 7 it says, “So long as we live. What foreign force has seized, we’ll reclaim with sabre.” Poland decided that they didn’t like the way they were being treated and would gain back their countries independence as many times as needed. Hungary realized that they wanted independence when the man who dared call himself king did something that made the people of Hungary angry. “. . . he erases the Hungarian nation from the list of independent nations of Europe . . .” (Doc 3). In Russia workers wanted better rights and reformed, this event was called Bloody Sunday. Bloody Sunday lead to even greater problems, “Bloody Sunday leads to Revolution in 1905.” (Doc 5).

The Ottoman empire fell behind in industrial and political developments while European colonies in the Middle East where eager for independence. The Ottoman Empire was dissolved creating independent states and the modern Middle East; crashing the empire’s large scale economy it had sustained during the past into smaller independent economies. With the economic disparity between these countries after the Ottoman empire disintegrated, social conflicts raised, creating a long term deficit in these regions economy, complicating the recovery of the losses from the war. This was mostly seen in regions within the Middle East that began civil movements against their colonial leaders, who had promised them political rewards for sending military troops and resources towards the warfare participating in the war. Due to the fact that only specific nations gained independence based on their ethnicity, there were economic differences in small areas within the same region, illustrating economic inequality within the Middle East.

The East, the land of cotton, fine silks, and rich coffee, was the land of three of the most powerful empires to ever grace the surface of the earth. The Mughal, Safavid, and Ottoman Empires were known as the gunpowder empires, and they were feared throughout Europe because of their horsemanship, their power, and their armies. They dominated the stage for centuries, but, as with all things, history moves on. It stops for no man, and all goods things eventually come to an end. So it was with the powers of the East. As Europe prospered from exploration and improved though revolution, the Middle East suffered from poor weather, internal dissent, and a currency crisis that sucked the rulers in like quicksand. And so it was that the epicenter of the world shifted; Europe took the title of midpoint between East and West (Lecture, 09.09.).

Nationalism has played a crucial role in world history over the past centuries. It continues to do so today. For many, nationalism is indelibly associated with some of the worst aspects of modern history, such as the destructive confidence of the Napoleon’s army and the murderous pride of Nazi Germany. Large numbers of people, descent in their hearts, have carried out unbelievable atrocities for no better reason than their nation required them to. Authoritarian and totalitarian regime have crushed dissent, eliminated opposition, and trampled on civil liberties in the name of the nation.

Evaluate the political role of Nationalism in the 20th Century- was it more important as a force for unification or disintegration.

The modern conception of the Middle East was molded in the early 20th century. The French and the British both formulated their foreign policy in the Middle East to help advance their own self interests. Power hungry and desperate for new land, British and French governments struggled to shape the Middle East. Britain’s unwillingness to learn about the people living in the Middle East, coupled with their underestimation of Arab nationalism, made for an inauspicious state. People in these Middle Eastern nations were unable to advocate for themselves and were taken advantage of by corrupt government officials or imperializing western powers. The French and British erred by disregarding pertinent information about the nationalist feelings of the

An Arab nationalist, Faisal bin Hussein, initially attempted to negotiate independence for Arab states at the Paris Peace conference, but he failed to secure and agreement. He and other nationalists then went on to form an Arab Congress in Damascus, Syria where they declared independence, but it was ignored by Europe. Faisal’s nationalists got together again and declared him king of an independent Syria. Nationalists in Iraq performed a similar action, but both Syria and Iraq were met with a ruthless European military intervention.

This lack of connection has caused economic and administrative problems which have caused the nations of the Middle East to suffer greatly through poverty and widespread revolts. “That is Saudi Arabia. I have family and many friends there, but if I wish to visit them—or they to visit me—I must have a visa and go through customs. Why? We are one people, the Arabs, and we should be one nation, but instead we have been divided into—what, 22?—different countries. This is wrong. We should all be together.”(Anderson, 3) This quote from the article expresses the great discontent of many Arabs over the separation of Arabia, and may well be the most important point of the article. This separation has caused many wars and uprisings and many believe this could have been avoided if the struggles of Lawrence had been fruitful. “…Maybe some of the very old ones still believe he was a friend of the Arabs, but almost everyone else, we know the

Before the war, nationalism had swept through the world, most notably playing a role in other

After WWII many new nations sprung up dew to Nationalism. Many of these nations were

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

British and French were main actors in that period which came after the collapse of ottoman power and state formation. After the industrial revolution and Enlightment, there was a new need for raw materials that counts as the main reason of the European mandate over Middle East(Fawcett, 2005).At that period the states were existed, but not every element of a modern state, because they were under other powers and there were only conflicts, resistance of self-determination, and

The history of the Middle East shows the complexity of the region. From colonialism; the Tanzimat reforms which emphasised on minority rights and relations between Muslims and non-Muslims; the Constantinople agreement between Britain, France and Russia; the Sykes Picot; the Balfour Declaration; the Arab revolts of June 1916 to October 1918 against Ottoman rule; the Baghdad Pact; Nasser’s diplomatic success of the 1955 Suez crisis which led him to be seen as the hero of the Arab world; the setting up of the United Arab Republic of Egypt and Syria in February 1958 and the overthrow of Qasim and Mosaddegh government, one can see that the history of the Middle East is rich and complex. It cannot be understood with Huntington’s simplistic label of the Middle East as ‘Islamic states’. Korany states that ‘the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and Iraq’s factional in-fighting; Iraq’s 1990-invasion of Kuwait and rising Sunni-Shia rifts show Huntington’s theory to be a self-fulfilling prophesy, if not a misleading conceptual lens’ (Korany, 2016, p. 83). This can be seen when analysing the Cold war era, where leaders of Middle Eastern countries were