does nationalism inevitably lead to war ?. what was Germany like

NOT ANOTHER NAZI THEAD THERE ARE A MILLION BILLION ALREADY

STAAAAAAAHP IT

>>1336861
this isn't about nazism, its about nationalism and populism and their catastrophic results.

this is a also about current times, history seem to repeat itself indefinitely

>>1336842
Japan was unarguably the most nationalist country on Earth.
They seen a horde of invaders trading, and Japan was becoming different, so they stopped all trade to remain a peaceful country. Their nationalism was a source of their piece. It was colonialism and globalism which invaded it.

The only reason Germany ended up in war, was because they were invading German parts of different countries to form a new Germany, a German Germany, but they got a little airheaded and occupied a bunch of countries (non-nationalistically) The British empire, for example, wasn't nationalist; rather than keep to themselves and their nation's land, they invaded other lands on the premise of prosperity. Progress is something relatively new, the idea that technological advancement is a moral, and that type of greed is what created the globalist world.

>>1336912
>Imperial Japan
>Imperial

>>1336929
Japan ranks one of the most peaceful places on Earth today, and a lot of people say it's because of their conservative Japanese nature. Ethnocentrism certainly wouldn't hurt, and it's not hurting Japan at all.

>>1336912
>Japan
>peaceful
are you high ? they've been at war with pretty much all of their neighbor countries, committing torture and genocides on many occasion.

they were ruthless bastards

File: 1465292881822.png (382KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 853x480px

Germany inevitably leads to war.

>>1336967
The Tokugawa shogunate oversaw the longest period of peace and stability in Japan's history, lasting well over 250 years. During this period, they were completely isolationist. Merchants outside of the social hierarchy were considered greedy, and I can understand that, because the social hierarchy represents the Japanese society.

In any western country, for example, if we developed a governing social hierarchy, immigrants would be excluded from this, because anything an immigrant said would be for their own self-interest. Globalism is a self-interest principle. Nationalism focuses on the collective.

File: Portrait_of_M._Kemal_Ataturk (1).jpg (157KB, 420x550px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 420x550px

It depends.
Instating nationalism often needs some kind of strive, but thats always so with ideological shifts in society.
Nationalism appeals a lot to me, but you have to install safeguards and consider Orwells notes on nationalism in order to keep things peaceful and not create a massive spergout clouded by vanity and collectivism.

Positive Nationalist figures would be Ataturk, the marchrevolutionarys of germany, king Kamehameha and Habib Bourguiba who tried to avoid more conflict then nessecary and werent overly Irredentist.

>>1336842
Nationalism is just tribalism writ large.

Tribalism pretty much guarantees war, however, uniting so many families under large umbrellas, such as nations, usually means less wars - just when you do have them, they tend to be bigger.

On the other hand, they also are often shorter, as the whole "blood cries out for blood" thing is offset by a certain level of lack of personal investment and there's more apt to be converging political interests between nations. Thus, forgiveness comes easier over generations.

Obviously, there are several glaring exceptions to that rule.

An extreme rise in nationalism, however, is, yes, usually a sign that someone is soon to receive a beat down... Nearly anything taken to an extreme tends to be bad, thus a healthy amount of nationalism can hold a people together through hard times or reach great heights, but too much tends to result in everyone having a hard time, and can ultimately destroy a nation so overdosed.

>>1336912
How do you go from a peaceful country to killing 10s of millions of people in the Pacific?

>>1336842
>does nationalism inevitably lead to war ?.
No, communism does.

>>1336842
South Korea is the most nationalistic country on the planet and they haven't had a war in 50 years.

>>1339093
They are at constant war since 50 years

>>1336842
You have to understand that Nazis didn't created the German nationalism.

When you read Mein Kampf as a person little bit historically literate, you can see that as long as we're talking about most of "racial" and geopolitical stuff, Hitler is basically repeating the things that were said for years back in Imperial times. That Germans are numerous, strong and exceptional and deserve more land which they will find in the East.
Even outside of German Empire in what is today Baltic states you've had huge German minority that considered slavs to be subhumans(obviously they didn't have anything against the Tzar since he was in large part German) etc. etc.
The antisemitism is also expressed in the common beliefs of the time and the fact that during WW1 Jewish conscripts formed unproportionally large part of German Army(which means that they didn't dodge conscription as often as ethnic Germans, Poles, Serbs or French did) doesn't count because it was a belief order than the events we were talking about.

The second pillar of Nazism was Luddendorffian myth of stab in the back, which was mostly caused by propaganda and misinformation. Germans knew of hundred days offensive as about temporary withdrawal at best and before it they knew they defeated Russians and "almost won with France". They didn't knew that they Army was barely functional ever since the Spring offensive ended and their last counter-attack - a whole month before the war ended - was performed only on tactical scale and was total failure as Belgians(you know, the guys who had to smuggle reinforcements out of their occupied country for the last 4 years) repelled them. They were this weak at this point. This created conditions where Luddendorff along with his high-command peers like Hindemburg could avoid the fame of "General who lost a war", by creating a myth that Republican Government betrayed Germany when they've almost won the war. Of course it has jackshit to do with actual history as seen above.

>>1339126
The young NDAP(not NSDAP yet) was a fascist movement formed around people who were largely disappointed with the terms Versailles put on Germany.

(Whether they were fair or not - they were relatively fair as they were supposed to pay roughly as much as French had 40 years prior while French couldn't spend it to "gear up" against Germans but they've had to use it to rebuild destroyed country. In the end they didn't even pay half of it)

Hitler was sent to NDAP as an agent, mean to check if the movement was dangerous in any way. He shifted the focus of the party and made it more "attractive" for big business to support.

Long story short until 1939 - Hitler was doing quick rearmament and almost went bankrupt which basically forced him to start a war(or slow down which was seen as unacceptable).

The only actually new thing to the formula they've introduced was the realisation of Luddendorffian extreme militaristic ideas where the nation should be geared up to fight wars.

So as you can see - nationalism in fairly similar form as it's nazi version existed for a very long time and while it was an important reason why both wars were a thing, the direct motor behind them was either geopolitical(WW1 - Germany pushed for war because their analytics predicted that by 1917 Russian Empire will become unstoppable power) or purely economical(Hitler).