Nationalism, War, and Hegemony

A man walks toward a podium with thousands in attendance his rhetoric is an attempt to change the course of a nation. In 1939, Adolf Hitler gave a speech to rally not only the people behind a single political group but also blatant Nationalistic tendencies. The Nationalism in Hitler's cause was to insist that the German people were superior to other races. Miller (1997) explains many times there is confusion regarding the differences between Patriotism and Nationalism. Nationalism based on the culture of a particular group (and sometimes race) and, Patriotism with the land and specific location of society (Miller, 1997). Both are an association of protection but, each under one particular premise, which at times cross leading to misidentification. Following WWI the German people felt both dishonored and lacked direction not to mention having to rebuild a war-torn society from the ashes of defeat. Among the Axis powers forms of imperialism and fascism also found an audience in the post-World War I nations across Europe and Japan. Mees (2004) stipulates by each society allowing views of hate to infiltrate their daily lives fueled by an ethnocentric ideology and racism leading to a conflict of which the world had never before seen. The Allies believed that protecting their lands and way of life was a form of patriotism and in no way, was associated with a Nationalist point of view. However, the allies in Europe before the U.S. entry and led by Churchill were also presenting a form of Nationalism as well. Without this Neo-nationalist movement, the British may not have found a way to organize the people within the borders of their country. Examining the racial, xenophobic, and ethnocentric fundamentals of Nationalism present a view of an unbridled propensity for conflict and the necessary ideology for war.

During the early stages of World War II, many of the Axis power used Nationalism to gain the trust of their society to focus ambitions both political and economic. Mees (2004) postulates that Hitler's specific form of Nationalism gave rise to a racially charged and xenophobic view. The Jewish population in Germany faced the brunt at the birth of the National Socialist Party in Germany as Hitler stirred violent rhetoric throughout the community. The rounding up and resulting deaths of millions of Jews will never wash away from the annals of history. Mees (2004) describes Hitler's historian's use of sometimes misinterpreted historical events were used to present validity of the German people's right to rule. The use of ancient text, runes, war history, and the swastika symbol were all incorporated (Mees, 2004). The German people, some of which who were unfamiliar with history, the victim of economic instability, and compelled for change became Hitler’s captive audience (Mees, 2004).

Hobbes & Macpherson (2003) elucidates rhetoric involving sovereignty of the people and nations often found its way into the political speeches of Nationalist leaders. Using the focus of sovereignty and history Hitler built a vision of a single racial power under the divine leadership (Mees, 2004). The use of “Divine promise” made the German people believe only Hitler could lead them to glory and out of the economic and political turmoil (Mees, 2004). Increases in military spending and violent rhetoric are all common means which present themselves as a nation spirals towards war and conflict. Once a plan was focused and gain acceptance among the people war became the machine by which to ease hardships. Attacking Poland, the Nazi Army (according to the German people) was driving out those who were lesser and did not accept a German dominate vision of the future. Rousseau & Cranston (2004) However, proposes the use of power is to give direct orders and invoke a sense of duty may be the drive behind a society coming together at a time of war. By using Hobbes & Macpherson (2003) descriptions, Nationalist leaders also gave direction by which the remedy to oppression. Hobbes & Macpherson (2003) suggests the political party under the state/commonwealth have rule over the people as such removes freedom from the society as a whole. The resulting birth of what seemed at first to be simply autocratic government soon destabilized into a full dictatorship. The political climate and subsequent “Iron Fist” of the Nazi party came to bare which allowed open disagreements with Hitler's party to result in death (Hobbes & Macpherson, 2003).

The use of media and propaganda remained steadfast throughout the war on both the axis and allied sides of the war. O'Shaughnessy (2009) explains the use of propaganda was a form of brand marketing used to entice vision of grandeur patriotism among the people. The Nazi ideology was the guiding force behind the entire philosophy of a Germany focused on domination. O'Shaughnessy (2009) that media methods within Germany were carefully constructed to show German dominance on all levels technological, political, and economic. Battles won were portrayed as victories of unparalleled might and losses were rarely if at all reported (O'Shaughnessy, 2009). The act of not publicizing failures or adjusting specific counts would not be possible without complete control over the media, which is another sign of a dictatorship control system over society. Using such means sparked among German society a keen sense of invincibility and power validity to the words of their leader. O'Shaughnessy (2009) indicates that military equipment was even a method of propaganda as in the example of the Stuka dive bomber which load scream was for fear effects only and had no other purpose. Propaganda and the media have always been a focus when attempting to gain societies trust for violent actions and conquest. Chomsky (2003) interprets many of the practices in Nazi Germany were subject to workability issues among society and required restructuring for specific presentations. The U.S. Once entering the war used their forms of propaganda to strike fear in the hearts of every American to reiterate the need for patriotic duty within the population Chomsky (2003). The U.S. Formed the United States Office of War Information to guide the public toward solidarity. The future of the U.S. in post-WWII would show, however, that propaganda could be twisted to gain support for the unjust and possibly imperialistic venture as well as military actions (Chomsky, 2003).

The implications surrounding the violence and scapegoating of the Jewish population is the result of a xenophobic form of Nationalism. Reedles (2010) describes the Nazi regimes need to find an adversary within their homeland came in the way of the Jewish population. Reedles (2010) postulates the German Jewish community within German borders were considered tainted and not of full-blooded descent. As the Nazi policies took hold the Jewish people even had all signs of citizenships taken away (Reedles, 2010). One could argue, that the case of the Jewish people represented not only a foe but, a target of opportunity by which the Nazi party first flexed its muscle. Reedles (2010) suggests the Nazi party found their case for destruction of the Jewish population in the presentation of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion “which reportedly was a plan by Jews to take over the world. The importance of Nationalism was used to focus the German people and to make them believe that if they did not rise extinction of Germany would be at hand. (Reedles, 2010). Nazi parties focus on the Jewish population displays the ability to charge a society with animosity and incorporate a new target, thus, war, and fighting became a constant means of persuasion. A culture desensitized to violence tends to slip down a path filled with unimaginable atrocities. In recent years, the use of Nationalism as a patriotic means has once again reared its head in protest to world peace. Later, we will examine the rise of White Nationalism and the 2016 election.

Zeskind (2009) indicates that the xenophobic tendencies within political parties have attempted several times to become part of the mainstream political landscape. Zeskind (1996) suggests many white supremacists parties holding views that were both racist and xenophobic found themselves on the fringe of society following WWII. Society, therefore, only allowed for limited influence on governmental and other public offices. Zeskind, (1996) describes factions such as the Neo-Nazi and KKK although violent and criminal at times were beginning to understand they would not accomplish much under their current standard operating procedure. Zeskind (2009) postulates many of the xenophobic tendencies and racial inequality double as a matter of public safety. Racism can be generalized among members of a nation or society, however; xenophobic tendencies are directly proportional to Nationalist behavior (Zeskind, 2009). Fear of death and destruction allowed xenophobic conservative groups to redirect powers by aligning themselves with other “right-wing” conservatives and declared many xenophobic tendencies that became nationalistically blurred into patriotic exuberance. Later, we will bring to light examples of White Nationalism today as it correlates to socioeconomics and ethical change. Redles (2010) showed that such tendencies of exclusion and violence often spiral into something much more sinister. Displays present and the past bring light to Nationalism drive to perpetuate violence and possibly a shying away from the ethical and moral behavior of society.

War and violence as associated with Nationalism may signal a change in the Ethical and Moral direction of the people. Rousseau & Cranston (2004) visions of conflict and dysfunction find their bases in a shift in focus of a nation. To focus on profits and divisive rhetoric brings about a form of society which identifies with the “I” vs. the needs of a community (Rousseau & Cranston, 2004). Rampant greed and separatist tendencies are a mainstay within the ideology of Nationalism. When war becomes the stage by which a Nation or Government wishes to display Nationalistic tendencies, a removal of ethical safeguards are a signal of change. Lee (2013) recognizes that pacifism being a logical course by which diplomacy becomes the means of conflict resolution, Nationalists often prefer violent displays and a show of force.Lee (2013) theorizes the pacifist does not understand the differences between a just and unjust war as all war to the pacifist is without cause, Nationalists see violence as a just means of negotiation.

Wars fought using political parties wielding a war machine must have a designation for those within and outside the war effort in the form of combatants and non-combatants. Hensel (2007) paints a picture by which a combatant is those armed and intended to engage adversaries in conflict. Ethical concerns arise, however, as other factions enlisting the use of children to carry out violent actions. Lee (2013) suggests when a society is without ethics by nature or dysfunction the use of more barbaric tactics becomes the nature by which conflicts find remedies. Rae (2014) examines the rise of sovereignty violations and the inclusion of collateral damage as an example of an ethical change in U.S. society. Rae (2014) stipulates the issues during the war in Afghanistan are a prime example by which the war on terror has amplified Nationalistic tendencies.

The U.S. Media displaying a roadside bomb injuring troops and then countered by a vision of a drone dropping bombs on the enemy is a means by which propaganda may sway ethical concerns. Rae (2014) specifies that the designation of target value would allow collateral damage sometimes but not limited to school, daycares, and children are playing outside. Lee (2013) demands that an examination of tendencies to rely on violent means is a definite change in ethical behavior that may be an effect of Nationalist and Xenophobic tendencies. Reedles (2010) explains that early in WWII what started as conventional warfare means soon spiraled into genocide and the killing of many innocent Jews by barbaric means. The cruel methods by which the Jews perished fits right into Lee (2013) assessments regarding the degeneration of ethical behavior during the war and when influenced by a Nationalist agenda would only instigate violent means by those at home and on the front lines as justifiable in the face of war. Fear by extermination is an ideological standard among the Nationalist movement. The use of fear to those not educated will spark hate in the minds and hearts of society. Evoking violence in the people only seems to spiral a nation into a dark place where the only return to a productive society is by complete self -inflicted destruction.

Nationalism and warlike tendencies may be summed up in the simple yet effective choice in an audience by which to first present ones’ message. Schrock-Jacobson (2012) postulates that socioeconomics comes into play as the signal that will appeal to those who do not fully understand the scope of conflicts or political jargon. Manipulation can occur quite quickly when the population being at a socioeconomic disadvantage are either merely uneducated or lack the means by which to acquire knowledge (Schrock-Jacobson, 2012). The control of education plays to the advantage of Nationalist parties as without oppositions to the rhetoric the public is easily swayed. Schrock-Jacobson (2012) indicates political organization comprised of the affluent often use Nationalism as a means by which to project intentions of conquest local and abroad. According to Schrock-Jacobson (2012) “Nationalism can provoke the wrath of "national enemies" and their foreign allies, lead to biased strategic assumptions, create domestic interest groups that favor aggressive foreign policies, permit the suppression of domestic opposition groups, and provide the necessary conditions for "nationalist bidding wars” (p. 826). The danger in wartime actions under a Nationalist regime makes the normal individual in society a tool of the political machine. Schrock-Jacobson (2012) identifies assumptions of enemy capabilities and discrimination against groups opposing violent actions lead a Nationalistic governmental toward violent confrontations and war. Nationalism with an ethnic focus may have a specific means by which to cause conflict. Racism and xenophobic behavior present an almost immediate enemy either domestic or foreign-born. Schrock-Jacobson (2012) explains though that not all forms of Nationalism are bad as many times a form of “Civic Nationalism is the foundations for revolutionary actions around the world. To gain the trust of the people and rally to a specific cause may be the most critical part of Nationalistic agendas.

Schrock-Jacobson (2012) discusses several issues regarding the long-lasting effects of Nationalism on a given society. One of the most obvious is retaliatory actions by those who have been attacked in the past to accomplish Nationalist agendas. Schrock-Jacobson (2012) also suggests changes in ideology may be hard-fought among the people as generational attitudes may take hold and sustained by members of society. The positions of military leaders carrying out Nationalist actions may be difficult to change and in effect lead to an uprising among military members (Schrock-Jacobson, 2012). Those military members are the “projection of power” often after once being on the battlefield find combat ideologies difficult to leave behind in the midst of a major course correction politically. Lastly, the prolonged effects of a Nationalist agenda with a high amount of military expenditures may pose very difficult as most economic focus changes come at great pains and inflict harm on society. Schrock-Jacobson (2012) elucidates that Nationalism used economically to recover may be seen by many in society as the only means of growth as before Nationalism in the society economies suffered. Whatever a society looks to finds a way toward peace and out of the shadow of Nationalism ideology, changes among the people will be hard fought. The United States is currently fighting their battle with Nationalism, and it's darker form “White Nationalism” which has many areas of society at odds with one another.

Lieberfeld (2005) interprets the causes of the Iraq war not just to be actions to preserve safety for the American people but also presented as a Nationalist and xenophobic ideology. The Iraq war was seen by many as a war in which the public was manipulated to carry out the whims of an affluent political party. Schrock-Jacobson (2012) lists causes by which America's actions would be Nationalist. Lieberfeld (2005) also explains that the use of economic benefits to the elites within the political party played an essential before the invasion of Iraq. Schrock-Jacobson (2012) indicates the use of military options to gain economic advantages also supports a predisposition to conflict and war. The Nationalist tendencies displayed by the U.S. were at the beginning of the war in Iraq were indeed in their infancy. As time passed, the focus was not just on the war in Iraq but also singled out the opposition on two front by which to focus war efforts. The actions of the U.S. choosing to focus on the Muslim religion as described by Zeskind (2009) led America to a dangerous precipice of an ethnically focused form of Nationalism. The reactions of the American people toward war actions abroad and death of soldiers led to a rise in hate associated with Muslims within the United States. The Neo-Nazi, KKK, and other racists groups previously in the shadows believed America was now more accepting of their ideology began to stir. Brodkin (2005) finds Muslim /Islamophobia has expanded from anti-Semitism against Jews in Europe and the United States. Brodkin (2005) suggests the anti-Semitism has become institutionalized among many religious groups. The difference at this point for the racist groups is a choice to align themselves with mainstream political parties. Currently, the U.S. meets all the criteria brought forward via Schrock-Jacobson (2012) which leads a nation to conflict and wartime actions.

Schrock-Jacobson (2012) indicates the U.S. is already suffering from the costliest war in their short history. Now rattled by economic woes, and immigration issues were on the brink of another election. The election cycle of 2015-2016 gave rise to something never seen in American history. A candidate came forward with charisma and hate driven rhetoric associated with not only Muslim but, also Hispanic families in his crosshairs (President Trump’s dangerous nationalism, 2017). Reedles (2010) description of the rise of Nazi powers in Germany allow one to consider the Rhetoric, charisma and economic woes addressed by candidate Donald Trump in close similarity to the growth of Nazi Germany. The perfect storm of Nationalism, a charismatic often openly violent and easy to lash out individual encompasses all manner of individuals bent on Nationalistic ideology (President Trump’s dangerous nationalism, 2017). Socioeconomic factors during the election came into plain sight during the election as America's system of education had been suffering a funding crisis was very apparent as charisma which often appeals to the uneducated was, in fact, more significant than the substance of policy. Mr. Trump presenting xenophobic rhetoric now had the backing of Neo-Nazi and White Nationalist “Right Wing” conservative groups (President Trump’s dangerous nationalism, 2017). Only time will tell if the checks and balances our countries two hundred and thirty-seven-year-old constitution stand in the way of conflict.

The modern history of the world shows that conflict and Nationalism can be difficult to combat on the world stage. Issues of economics, religion, ideology, and persecutions are a significant contributor to a nation that heads down the road to Nationalism. Once established Nationalism is a coiled snake waiting for the precise time to strike lashing out at the nearest declared enemy at home or abroad. The ethical dilemma of a nation caught in the Nationalist grip focusing from one violent action to the next only leaves a societies moral standards at best in question. As of late “White Nationalism” seems to be the selections of the American people. Violent groups once seen as traitors to American ideals have now found a voice and are spreading their violent and divisive rhetoric to the current generation. An increase in military spending and a move away from the arts, science, and education intends to keep the population uneducated and unaware of the current administration's intentions. America, now poised for conflict as much of the criteria for a Nationalist driven conflict has been met; the fuse is drawn, awaiting a spark that will set the entire world ablaze.

References

Brodkin, K. (2005). Xenophobia, the State, and Capitalism. American Ethnologist, 32(4), 519-520. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3805342

Chomsky, N. (2003). Hegemony or Survival: America's quest for global domination. New York: Henry Holt and Co.

Hensel, H. M. (2007). The law of armed conflict: constraints on the contemporary use of military force. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate.

Hobbes, T., & Macpherson, C. B. (2003). Leviathan. London: Penguin.

Lee, S. P. (2013). Ethics and war: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lieberfeld, D. (2005). Theories of Conflict and The Iraq War. International Journal of Peace Studies, 10(2), 1-21. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41852927

Mees, B. (2004). Hitler and Germanentum. Journal of Contemporary History, 39(2), 255-

270. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3180724

Miller, R. (1997). Killing for the Homeland: Patriotism, Nationalism, and Violence. The Journal

Of Ethics, 1(2), 165-185. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25115543

O'Shaughnessy, N. (2009). Selling Hitler: propaganda and the Nazi brand. Journal Of Public

Affairs (14723891), 9(1), 55-76.

President Trump’s dangerous nationalism. (2017). America, 216(3), 8.

Rae, J. D. (2014). Analyzing the drone debates: targeted killing, remote warfare, and military technology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Reedles, D. (2010). The Nazi Old Guard: Identity formation during apocalyptic times. Nova

Religion, 14(1), 24-44. Document ID: 2064622971. Retrieved from the ProQuest database.

Rousseau, J., & Cranston, M. W. (2004). The social contract. London: Penguin Books.

Schrock-Jacobson, G. (2012). The Violent Consequences of the Nation: Nationalism and the Initiation of Interstate War. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 56(5), 825-852. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23414712

Zeskind, L. (2009). Blood and politics: the history of the white nationalist movement from the margins to the mainstream. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux.

Zeskind, L. (1996). White racist counterculture. Nation, 263(13), 20-24