Well, nationalism is in the news again particularly as folks on the right get tired of blind nationalism trumping
.jpg)
OK, for those of you interested in the subject, read on... For those not. Oh well.
Introduction
Nationalism, liberalism, and
socialism are the three competitive ideologies that came of age in Europe
during the long nineteenth century. All
three are inextricably tied to the development of the modern era and every
modern nation-state had elements of each in its creation, formation, and
maturation. This essay examines
nationalism in general but focuses in particular on the historiography of the
dawn of nationalism in the German states up unto the mid nineteenth
century. While this essay certainly
cannot purport to be an exhaustive survey of the history of the time, efforts
have been made to narrow the survey to the major contributors to the study of
nationalism and historians with concentrations in modern German history.
Due to its relative youth, nationalism
as a topic for study only started near the end of the nineteenth century. The rise of nation states and associated
nationalist movements that focused on ethnicity, common languages and cultures,
and patriotism necessitated scholarly interest in this development. At the outset and due to the close
chronological proximity, the study of nationalism had a very positive tone. But
following the Great War, the study of nationalism took a much more sinister one
as conventional thought casted the blame of the carnage at the feet of the
inspirers of nationalist fanaticism rather than at the diplomats who failed in
their brinksmanship. The fanatical
return to a cult-like, romantic nationalism manipulated by Hitler and the
National Socialists severely altered the study of nationalism from the 1930s
until the end of the Cold War. In the
immediate aftermath of the horrors of Nazism, historians studied the subject to
attempt to explain what went wrong between 1939 and 1945.
After the Iron Curtain descended
across Europe, Marxist interpretations of nationalism took a long view of the
subject, relegating it to tumultuous crises of modernity or a tool used by
capitalist elites to control the workers of the world. Serious scholarship of the issue practically
ceased and works on the topic were shoehorned into the Marxist narrative.
When the cracks in the Marxist
system appeared in the inability of the nebulous, international socialist
ideology to transcend the differences highlighted by nationalism, the studiers
of nationalism zoomed out the lens from just Germany to focus on areas of the
world that showed similarities. The
total collapse of the international socialists with the fall of the Soviet
Union, the unification of Germany, the abandonment of socialism in the Warsaw
Pact, and the Nazi-like ethnic violence that ripped apart the Balkans
deservedly drew historians’ focus away from the Third Reich to a broader
historiography of the topic. Similarly,
the use of nationalism in other parts of the world, notably anti-colonial
nationalism in Africa, pan-Arabism in the 1970s and 1980s, and rifts between
socialist nations like China, Vietnam, and Soviet states highlighted the need
to broaden the topic.
Friedrich Meinecke – The First Nationalist Historian
The first historian of note to deal
with the subject of nationalism in Germany was the venerable Friedrich Meinecke
whose Weltbürgertum und Nationalstaat[1] was the first in-depth look at the
creation of the Second Reich. Not only
was Meincke a historian studying nationalism, he could also be considered an
historian who was also a nationalist. Because
of his nationalist perspective and the fact he was a historian, Meinecke can be
considered, by default, the first nationalist historian. In Weltbürgertum
und Nationalstaat, he glowingly explores the intellectual and philosophical
founders of German nationalism and traces connections with the political
movements that forged the sentiment into the Prussian-dominated state in the
late 1800s. Meinecke devotes
considerable attention to the struggle between the liberal nationalists attempt
to pull Prussia into an federalist union as a state amongst equals and the
Prussian Junker successful effort to draw in the German states under its
hegemony.[2]
For obvious historical reasons, Meinecke’s positive
perspective of nationalism was challenged by the defeat in the Great War and
fairly obliterated by the Second World War.
Meinecke re-examined his perspective and sought to explain the
catastrophe by applying the blame solely to the rise of Nazism while neglecting
the roots behind it.[3]
Carlton J. H. Hayes – The Father of Nationalism
Carlton J. H. Hayes is widely regarded
as the founder of the study of nationalism.
A professor of history at Columbia University from 1910 until 1950,
Hayes influenced many historians. In Essays on Nationalism, Hayes, at the
outset, recognizes the difficulty in studying nationalism as it is subject to
“deep and powerful emotions” and
touches all manner of
current popular prejudices – personal, national, religious, and racial – and he
who would expose the mainsprings of nationalist thought and action must guard
particularly against his own emotional bias and at the same time face
courageously the distrust and opposition of a large number of his fellows whose
own manifold prejudices are enshrined in a collective herd-prejudice.[4]
In keeping with his self-administered
warning to gently tread on the subject, and after defining nationality as a
distinct and separate entity from “nation”, Hayes delicately states that
nationality, in addition to observable, recognizable commonalities, may also be
a shared consciousness.[5]
With this careful definition of nationality, Hayes goes on to explain
nationalism is a very modern phenomenon and fused nationality with patriotism;
creating a higher loyalty than one’s self.
Similarly to Meinecke, Hayes traces the intellectual and philosophical
beginnings of nationalist sentiment to romantic Germans such as Herder and
Schlegel.[6]
One theme Hayes develops is
nationalism as a religion. He
demonstrates in the continuity of history that humans are predisposed to
serving something or someone. This may
be one’s family, tribe, culture, religion, or state. But while many have likened the appeal of
nationalist emotion to that of religious devotion, Hayes explores this in the
context of the systematic, ‘enlightened’ destruction of Christian tradition,
scholarship, and world-view. Even while
denigrating the established beliefs of the church, the attackers of faith
traditions demonstrate a faith unto themselves:
Most
of them got excited about a God of Nature who started things which he could not
stop and who was so intent upon watching numberless worlds go round in their
appointed orbits and so transfixed by the operation of all the eternal
immutable Laws which he had invented that he had no time or ear for the little
entreaties of puny men upon a pygmy Earth.
This God of Nature was obviously not much of a person and not much of a
power; he was only a fraction of the God of the Christians. … They praised him
with a voice so loud that he would have heard them if he could have heard anyone,
and with a voice so awed that it betrayed the religious fervor which moved
them.[7]
Hayes’ obvious disdain for
hypocrisy aside, he goes on to show the various other utopian humanist beliefs
developed during this period requiring just as much faith as to believe in the
equal humanity and divinity of Christ.[8] Among these, Hayes shows the worship of the
state as a very real phenomenon maintaining similar tenants and rituals as that
of organized religion.
The key to understanding Hayes’
significant contribution to this historiography is the context in which he
wrote it. Hayes devoted much of his
life’s work to exploring the history of the nineteenth century through the lens
of the horrors of 1914 through 1918.
Hayes delves into themes of militarism and nationalism, intolerance, and
understandably has a negative view of the subject in general.
1931 saw a Hayes student, Robert R.
Ergang publish a look at the contribution of Johann Gottfried Herder to the
cultural impetus of the German nationalist movement. An inspirer of individuals like Hegel,
Goethe, Schlegel, and Fichte,[9]
Herder believed culture to be a collective quality rather than an individual
possession.[10] Ergang concentrated most on Herder’s
exploration of language as the most important commonality of the German people.
In 1934, Koppel S. Pinson, a Jewish
emigrant historian was inspired by Hayes to explore the close connection
between piety and nationalism in Germany.
Pinson showed that “certain intellectual, psychological, and emotional
reactions engendered and developed within the religious sphere of Pietism, came
in the course of time to be transferred to the realm of nationalism and
nationality.”[11] Pietism brought into eighteenth-century
Germany an emotionalism and enthusiasm which were hitherto lacking. This provided the emotional basis for the
subsequent nationalism.”[12] He did not attempt to attribute the rise of
nationalism solely to personal and emotional faith, but maintained it to be a
factor.
The Post-War Era: Kohn, Snyder, and Pflanze
If Hayes can be considered the
father of nationalism, Hans Kohn would be the number one contender for that
title. Kohn wrote extensively on the
subject of nationalism, particularly German nationalism between 1940s and
1960s. Personal experience deeply influenced
his historical perspective. A German Jew
born in Prague at the close of the nineteenth century, Kohn came of age with an
outside, but still close perspective of the negative consequences of radical
nationalism.[13] A cultural Zionist, as opposed to the
political Zionism advocated by Theodore Herzl, Kohn focused on the subject of
nationalism most of his life. With such
a biography, it seems odd that Kohn would argue for a more nuanced,
understanding view of nationalism when the prevailing opinion of the armchair
historian upon the discovery of the horrors of Nazism was, as Charles Beard
wrote, “Nationalism equals war. War equals evil. Therefore nationalism must and
will be extirpated.”[14]
Kohn’s wrote his first seminal work
on the topic, The Idea of Nationalism[15],
in the waning years of the Second World War.
According to Kohn the conventional wisdom of the time attributed
nationalism to “fictitious concepts which have been accepted as having real
substance. One holds that blood or race
is the basis of nationality, and that it exists externally and carries with it
an unchangeable inheritance; the other sees the Volkgeist as an ever-welling source of nationality and all its
manifestations.”[16] Kohn explains there can be no such simplistic
understanding of nationality but attributes the concept to a unique combination
of the following factors: “common descent, language, territory, political
entity, customs and traditions, and religion.”[17]
In Prelude to Nation-States[18],
Kohn explains the development of the nation state, with particular emphasis on
the French and German models from the Revolution to the end of the Napoleonic
wars. To Kohn, the concept of the nation
as a singular, distinct political and cultural entity is a modern development
that saw its root in the Enlightenment, the collapse of the ancien régime in France, and reaction
toward Napoleonic aggression at the beginning of the long century. Kohn sees three distinct paths to nation-hood:
the Anglo-American model[19],
the French, and the German. The first
was marked by a melding of tradition with enlightenment values; a conservative
liberty with emphasis on shared ideals and values rather than simple ethnicity
and language. The second was the
volatile, extremist, overboard rejection of the past in which the Jacobin
terror and the rise of Napoleon were the inevitable outcomes of such a radical
break in tradition. This mode was marked
by an ideology of the collective and exchanged the blind devotion toward the church
for a fanaticism for the state. Kohn
states the third mode, the German model, was a strange mixture of contemporary
geopolitical realities that was animated by the reactions to the Napoleonic
invasions and occupations. These
geopolitical variables included the ongoing fragmentation of the hegemony of
Austria in central Europe; the ascendency of Prussia to fill that void; the
fusing of a shared German culture, language, and literature; and the rise of romanticism.
Kohn’s contemporary, Louis L.
Snyder, a professor of history at the City College of New York explored the
topic of nationalism to probably an even greater extent than Kohn. Snyder chose to concentrate nearly
exclusively on the German model of nationalism.
One of his first works on the subject, German Nationalism: The Tragedy of a People[20],
published in 1952, is a mature look at the totality of the subject from its
beginnings to the immediate post-war timeframe.
In explaining the vacuum left either by the fall of the feudal system
and accompanying monarchies, or by the threatened fall of established powers,
Snyder contrasts the “twin current[s]” guiding those changes; that of
liberalism and nationalism. Liberalism
“rejects any restraints upon the freedom on this individual, repudiates any
tyranny which would interfere with the right of freedom of conscience or of
social or intellectual liberty … and, in general, seeks to enlarge the area in
which the human spirit is free to voyage in self-discovery,” while nationalism
looks upon the state as the grantor and guarantor of freedoms and serves as the
individual’s object of uttermost allegiance.[21]
Snyder explained the differences in
outcomes of the French and British models as contrasted with the German as the
inability of German nationalism to successfully marry these two streams into
one in its own struggle for modernity.
The intellectuals and advocates of the aufklärung gained no traction in the common people as the French Revolution
appeared across the Rhine. It took the
invasion of Napoleon to provide the purchase for the feet of those determined
to bring to life a romantic vision of a powerful German state. Lamentably, to Snyder, the emergence of
Prussia as the opportunistic driver ensured an ambitious monarch would take the
reins of the newly birthed sentiment.
Of course Snyder does not rely on
so simplistic a cause. In his later books
on the subject, he attributes the origins of German nationalism to the
eccentricity and duality of the German character; the turning to romanticism in
response to the demoralizing occupation of Napoleon, the common education in
German cultural values through the Brothers Grimms’ Hausmärchen, the binding together the economies through the Zollverein, and the cult of militarism
among others.[22]
[23]
Snyder also broadened the focus
from Germany in particular to nationalism in general, defining the word in The Meaning of Nationalism.[24] In it, he admits the concept and
understanding of nationalism is so nebulous that he advocates a multi-disciplinary
approach; drawing particular definitions from geography, psychiatry, linguistics,
religion, political science, psychology, philosophy, sociology, and
psychoanalysis. He expands on the
subject by applying the multidiscipline definitions upon nationalism’s various
manifestations.
Snyder and Kohn’s contemporary Otto
Pflanze showed the Prussian utilitarianism in the use of nationalism in the
struggle to gain the upper hand over Austria in its dominance in central
Europe. Bismarck shrewdly understood the
awesome potential nationalist sentiment tied to Prussian power. In Bismarck and the Development of
Germany: The Period of Unification 1815–71,[25] Pflanze argues Bismarck
opportunistically used liberal tenants to pacify those still clamoring for change,
thus neutering the liberals, while offering pride through military might and
nationalist fervor.
Marxist History
The 1960s and 1970s saw the height
of the Marxist historians on the subject.
For the most part, they tended to downplay the importance of nationalism
due to the perceived preeminence class struggle maintains over all. The transcendence of Marxist theory over all
else impacted the intellectual effort Marxist historians devoted toward it. The 1960s saw Hobsbawm’s The Age of Revolution: 1789-1848 and the development of his dual
revolution theory, which while important to the field, did not address
nationalism to the extent of his predecessors. In 1970, Brown professor Norman
Rich myopically gushed over the Marxist history while casually dismissing
nationalism as a side-topic confined to the nineteenth century. Rich claimed that
while nationalism was once destructive and formidable, it could no longer
overcome ideological divides like in divided Germany.[26] Abraham Ashkenasi’s Modern German Nationalism[27]
formulaically laid the blame for the development of nationalism upon “atavistic
elite groups”[28]
and went on to explain contemporary East-West German relations through that
perspective. While not a study of nineteenth century nationalism, Richard J.
Evans in Rethinking German History
attributes the calamity of the Third Reich not to rigid submission to authority
but to the stressors brought about by radical social changes.[29]
Post-Marxist History
In 1983, Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities: Reflections on the
Origin and Spread of Nationalism[30],
a work written on the heels of the 1979 Chinese invasion of Vietnam, explored
the topic of nationalism at the beginning of the end of the Marxist school of
thought. That incident and the Russo-Sino split questioned the Marxist
narrative of the preeminence of the ideology over nationalism. In the book Anderson argues that “nationality
… as well as nationalism, are cultural artifacts of a particular kind” and that
“the creation of these artifacts towards the end of the eighteenth century was
the spontaneous distillation of a complex ‘crossing’ of discrete historical
forces.”[31] Echoing Hayes’s concept of the perception of
nationality, he postulated that the nation “is an imagined community”, quoting
Ernest Gellner, “nationalism is not the awakening of nations to
self-consciousness: it invents
nations where they do not exist.”[32]
Though Anderson presents a slightly
varying definition of a nation, he does not stray too far from Snyder’s
explanations for the origins of nationalist thought. After exploring the explosion of the
publishing industry in confluence with the Protestant Reformation in the German
states, Anderson says “the convergence of capitalism and print technology on
the fatal diversity of human language created the possibility of a new form of
imagined community.”[33] Similar to Snyder, Anderson also focuses on
language as an important variable in the development of nationalist thought in eighteenth
and nineteenth century Europe. What
distinguishes Anderson’s analysis on this subject, though, is where he ties in
the matter of “comparative history” in the use of translation of ancient and
classical texts in the eighteenth century to demonstrate the value or even
superiority of contemporary culture to the ancient. At this point Anderson may be unintentionally
describing the beginnings of romanticism within Europe.
Revisionist History
Historians like William O. Shanahan
and Robert M. Berdahl in the 1970s and 1980s began to question the Meinecke
narrative of German nationalism being attributable solely to shared cultural
values as opposed to the French model founded upon political idealism. While appreciating the sizable influence of a
shared political perspective in the French experience, Berdahl and Shanahan
contend the German path to nation-hood was not void of political impetus of a
positive, or non-reactive, nature.
Berdahl begs the question of what spurred the shared cultural experience
of the Germans into political reality. “How
did the ideas of the intellectual elite become the experience of the nation? …
What happened between 1800 and 1848 that increased the appeal of nationalism as
a political movement?”[34] Berdahl discounts the sole accreditation of
the last question to the Napoleonic wars by pointing out that there was still a
clamoring for unification even after the expulsion of the French interlopers.[35]
Shanahan levies similar criticism
by pointing to the Confederation of the Rhine of 1806 to 1813. Rather than simply posing the question like
Berdahl, Shanahan answers it by positing the various principalities of the
Rhine capitalized on their commonalities, melding them in a utilitarian manner
into a nationalist sentiment with which to maintain their own power and control
the population. Seizing on the issues of
citizenship, secularism, and equality, the German princes used nationalism as a
goad to move their subjects years before Bismarck capitalized on the sentiment
to unify the Reich. Because of the waves
of revolution, “a new myth had to be devised that both explained and
legitimized government … Nationalism proved to be the form of myth most
suitable to the ideals and realities of that era.”[36] Shanahan brings up another vital point in
highlighting the deep chasm of religious differences that still split the
German states, speculating if those differences between Lutheran and Catholic
were indeed stronger than the pull of other cultural commonalities.[37]
In 1978, James J. Sheehan, a
previous president of the American Historical Association and Stanford
University Professor, devoted a book to the subject of German liberalism in the
Nineteenth Century.[38]
In this work, Sheehan expands on Kohn’s understanding of the different paths of
nationalism in the Anglo-American, French, and German models and differs from
Snyder’s complete divergence of liberalism and nationalism. Sheehan claims liberalism as a political
ideology was used by both conservative nationalists and progressives. Sheehan bolsters his argument by defining
liberalism as more than simple individualism, what we may call libertarianism
in today’s climate; and more than the social construct Marxists attempt to
impose upon the word.[39] Instead Sheehan paints a comprehensive
picture of liberalism in eighteenth and nineteenth century Germany that pits
idealistic, progressive philosophers turned party operatives against
Burke-like, utilitarian, conservative politicians seeking to use liberalism as
a pacifier against social upheaval.
Sheehan notes both these intractable entities used nationalist language
and imagery to pull the people along with them, but the inability of the
progressive wing to unify prior to 1848 and their fragmented nature lost out to
the Bismarck Blut und Eisen
unification of Germany under Prussian political ‘liberalism.’
In 1990, while contributing to Themes in Modern European History: 1830-1890,[40]
Cardiff University’s Bruce A. Haddock tied the origins of nationalism to
discontent amongst the cultured and literate against the hegemony of French
culture, language, and literature. Haddock
returns to explaining the cultural aspects of nationalism by pointing to
Herder’s disdain for the French influence.
He makes the point that it was more a negative, reactionary movement
than a positive, seamlessly tying this cultural impetus together Kohn’s
political explanation for the reaction to the French invasion during the
Napoleonic wars.[41]
[42]
In 1992, Boston University
professor Liah Greenfeld wrote a book challenging the pessimism and
conventional thought on the subject. In Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity[43],
Greenfeld retells the rise of nationalism mostly by redefining the term. She uses charts to graphically represent the various
etymological shifts in definition of the nation and nationality over the years
and arrives with a contemporary, more benign, and philosophical understanding
of the term, linking nationalism to a democratic society as an idyllic end
state.[44] [45] In this redefining of the term, she almost
joins Francis Fukuyama in presenting an end
of nationalism within history. She
explores the paths of Germany, France, Britain, Russia, and the United States
and their particular development of nationalism. She bucks the established thought by
maintaining Britain was the first nation in the modern sense of the word. Critics of her scholarship have pointed out
that by “neglecting politics and state-making,” Greenfeld “tells only
half of a story.”[46]
Helmut Walser Smith, a contemporary
modern German historian, likens historiography to painting and uses the
metaphor of the vanishing-point. To a
historian painting a picture of a period of history, the perspective of the eye
of the artist defines how the picture will appear. The entire composition has in common a
singular vanishing point. In his work The Continuities of German History,[47]
Smith explains how this common vanishing point influences the entirety of
various historians’ work on modern German history. He describes how many of the German
historians in the wake of 1945 used the defeat and the ascendency of National
Socialism as the vanishing point that particularly influenced their understandings
of the nineteenth Century.
Conclusion
Even though the schools of thought
on the origins and causes of nationalism evolve with time, not many question
the importance of nationalism as a particularly powerful ‘ism’ in western and
central Europe at the turn of the nineteenth century. Much of the heavy lifting of conventional
historical thought on the dawn of nationalism in this context has been done by
luminaries like Hayes, Kohn, and Snyder. Many more minor figures, to include
many contemporary historians, have created niche areas of focus, expanding into
other disciplines to develop their own particular component theories on the
subject. As the age of nationalism seems
to fade under a resurgence of religious fundamentalism from political Islam, it
is incumbent upon historians to explain contemporary nationalism and how it
fits in today’s world.
Bibliography
Ashkenasi, Abraham. Modern German Nationalism. New York: Schenkman Publishing Company, 1976.
Anderson Benedict. Imagined
Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London:
Verso, 1983.
Beard Charles, “Review of The Idea
of Nationalism by Hans Kohn,” The
American Political Science Review 38, no. 4 (August 1944), 801-803.
Berdahl, Robert M. “New Thoughts on German Nationalism.” The American Historical Review 77, no. 1
(February 1972).
Evans, Richard J. Rethinking
German History. London: Allen & Unwin, 1987.
Ford, Guy Stanton. “Review of Weltbürgertum und Nationalstaat: Studien zur Genesis des Deutschen
Nationalstaates by Friedrich Meinecke.” The
American Historical Review 34, no. 4 (July, 1929), 826-827.
Goldstone Jack A. “Review of Nationalism:
Five Roads to Modernity by Liah Greenfeld.” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 25, no 4 (Spring, 1995)
652-654.
Greenfeld, Liah. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity.
Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1992.
Hayes, Carlton J. H. Essays on
Nationalism. New York: MacMillan, 1926.
Hayes, Harmon. “Review of Herder
and the Foundations of German Nationalism by Robert Reinhold Ergang.” American Journal of Sociology 38, no. 5
(March 1933), 809-811.
Kohn, Hans. “The Eve of German Nationalism (1789-1812).” Journal of the History of Ideas 12, no.
2 (April 1951).
Kohn, Hans. The Idea of
Nationalism: A Study In Its Origins And Background. Piscataway, NJ:
Transaction Publishers, 2005.
Kohn, Hans. Nationalism and Realism: 1852-1879.
Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1968.
Kohn, Hans. Prelude to Nation-States: The French and German Experience, 1789-1815.
Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1968.
Meinecke Friedrich. Weltbürgertum
Und Nationalstaat: Studien Zur Genesis Des Deutschen Nationalstaates.
Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1922.
Pflanze, Otto. “Bismarck and German Nationalism.” The American Historical Review 60, no. 3
(April 1955).
Pinson, Koppel S. Pietism
as a Factor in the Rise of German Nationalism (New York: Octagon Books,
1968).
Rich, Norman. The Age of Nationalism and Reform:
1850-1890. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1977.
Smith, Helmut Walser. The Continuities of German History: Nation,
Religion, and Race across the Long Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2008.
Snyder, Louis Leo. German Nationalism: The Tragedy of a People;
Extremism Contra Liberalism in Modern German History. Harrisburg, PA: The Stackpole Company, 1952.
Snyder, Louis Leo. The Meaning of
Nationalism. New York: Greenwood Press, 1968.
Snyder, Louis Leo. Roots of German Nationalism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press,
1978.
Shanahan, William O. “A Neglected Source of German Nationalism: The
Confederations of the Rhine, 1806-1813.” In Nationalism:
Essays in Honor of Louis L. Snyder, edited by Michael Palumbo & William
O. Shanahan, 103-130. London: Greenwood Press, 1981.
Waller, Bruce ed. Themes in Modern
European History: 1830-1890. London: Unwin Hyman, 1990.
Wolfson, Phillip J. “Friedrich Meinecke
(1862-1954)” Journal of the History of
Ideas 17, no. 4 (October, 1956), 511-525.
[1]
Friedrich Meinecke, Weltbürgertum Und
Nationalstaat: Studien Zur Genesis Des Deutschen Nationalstaates (Munich:
R. Oldenbourg, 1922).
[2]
Guy Stanton Ford, “Review of Weltbürgertum
und Nationalstaat: Studien zur Genesis des Deutschen Nationalstaates by
Friedrich Meinecke” The American
Historical Review 34, no. 4 (July, 1929), 826, 827.
[3]
Helmut Walser Smith, The Continuities of German History: Nation,
Religion, and Race across the Long Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2008), 17.
[4]
Carlton J. H. Hayes, Essays on
Nationalism (New York: MacMillan, 1926), 3.
[5]
Ibid., 19.
[6]
Ibid., 52.
[7]
Ibid., 98-99.
[8]
Ibid., 99.
[9]
Harmon Hayes, “Review of Herder and the Foundations of German Nationalism by
Robert Reinhold Ergang,” American Journal
of Sociology 38, no. 5 (March 1933), 809.
[10]
Robert R. Ergang, Herder and the Foundations of German Nationalism (New York:
Octagon Books, 1966), 87.
[11]
Koppel S. Pinson, Pietism as a Factor in
the Rise of German Nationalism (New York: Octagon Books, 1968), 25.
[12]
Ibid.
[13]
Hans Kohn, The Idea of Nationalism: A
Study in its Origins and Background (Piscataway, NJ: Transaction
Publishers, 2005), xii-xiii.
[14]
Charles Beard, “Review of The Idea of
Nationalism by Hans Kohn,” The
American Political Science Review 38, no. 4 (August 1944), 802.
[15]
Ibid.
[16]
Ibid., 13.
[17]
Ibid., 13-14.
[18]
Hans Kohn, Prelude to Nation-States: The
French and German Experience, 1789-1815 (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand
Company, Inc., 1967).
[19]
In this, Kohn also includes the Low Countries and Scandinavian.
[20]
Louis L. Snyder, German Nationalism: The
Tragedy of a People (Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole, 1952).
[21]
Ibid., ii.
[22]
Ibid.
[23]
Snyder, Roots of German Nationalism (Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press, 1978).
[24]
Snyder, The Meaning of Nationalism
(New York: Greenwood Press, 1968).
[25]
Otto Pflanze, Bismarck and the Development of Germany: The Period of
Unification 1815–71
(Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1963).
[26]
Norman Rich, The Age of Nationalism and Reform: 1850-1890 (New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, 1970), 44
[27]
Abraham Ashkenasi, Modern German
Nationalism. New York: Schenkman
Publishing Company, 1976.
[28]
Ibid., 29.
[29]
Richard J. Evans, Rethinking German
History (London: Allen & Unwin, 1987).
[30]
Benedict
Anderson, Imagined Communities:
Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1983).
[31]
Ibid., 14-15.
[32]
Ibid., 15.
[33]
Ibid., 48.
[34]
Robert M. Berdahl, “New Thoughts on German Nationalism,” The American Historical Review 77, no. 1 (February 1972), 68.
[35]
Ibid., 69.
[36]
William O. Shanahan, “A Neglected Source of German Nationalism: The
Confederations of the Rhine, 1806-1813,” in Nationalism:
Essays in Honor of Louis L. Snyder, edited by Michael Palumbo & William
O. Shanahan (London: Greenwood Press, 1981), 105.
[37]
Ibid., 108-109.
[38]
James J. Sheehan, German Liberalism in
the Nineteenth Century (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978).
[39]
Ibid., 5.
[40]
Bruce Waller ed., Themes in Modern
European History: 1830-1890, (London: Unwin Hyman, 1990).
[41]
Ibid., 221.
[42]
Which, taken together could make the case that the French themselves created
the German aggressor to the east.
[43]
Liah Greenfeld, Nationalism: Five Roads
to Modernity (Cambridge, MA:: Harvard University Press, 1992).
[44]
Ibid., 5-9.
[45]Jack
A. Goldstone, “Review of Nationalism:
Five Roads to Modernity by Liah Greenfeld,” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 25, no 4 (Spring, 1995)
652-653.
[46]
Ibid., 654.
[47]
Helmut Walser Smith, The Continuities of
German History: Nation, Religion, and Race across the Long Nineteenth Century
(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008).
No comments:
Post a Comment