Latest from UKIP Daily

UKIP, Nationalism, And The World Wars

A little while ago, an intelligent and usually perceptive UKIP-hating friend of mine decided to mark the 70th anniversary of D-Day by saying that World War Two was fought to defeat “racism, xenophobia, and nationalism”. I understand where he got these ideas from: they’ve been the standard fare of British university courses about the World Wars since at least the 1980’s.

The final year undergraduate course I studied in this area was entitled “Nationalism, Internationalism and War: Europe c.1890-1914”. Nationalism was the black-hearted gun-toting villain of the piece; internationalism was the weak-kneed intellectual which shamefully caved in to its demands; and war (in this case, World War One) was the result of this abject surrender on the “battlefield of ideas” (as the Left used to call it). If you’ve ever wondered where our current civil servants and politicians get their current “our project right or wrong” attitude towards the European Union, look no further.

But who would be so foolish as to deny that nationalism played a vital role in the origins and outbreaks of both World Wars? Certainly not me. The problem is that nationalism is being misrepresented in relation to the World Wars of the twentieth century; this is because the cast list of ideas is missing one of its most important members. Let me explain. In 1914, Great Britain, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia all went to war with one important feature in common: they fought not as nations, but as empires.

For those who don’t know, nationalism is the political philosophy by which a self-identified people group looks to govern itself within a relatively large, usually continuous geographical area. Imperialism is all about a self-identified people group not only ruling itself but also ruling other people groups in such a way as to deny their present and future nationalistic ambitions.

Imperialism is all about treating others in a way one would rather not be treated. It is a violation of the ethical Golden Rule. This is not to say that empires never benefit their subjects, but it is to say that it’s never their primary purpose to do so. Such benefits are incidental, though not necessarily trivial.

We often think of empires as entities led to war to expand their territories. But mature empires also go to war to try to keep themselves in being; this is essentially what happened in 1914. Austria-Hungary wanted to invade and re-conquer Serbia to stop it from eventually grabbing more (mainly Serb-populated) territory from its holdings. Russia wanted to defend the Serbs from Austrian aggression because the Serbs were and are a Slavic people group, as are the Russians.

Germany wanted Austria-Hungary to remain in being as an empire because it was Germany’s only major military ally in Europe. France wanted to support Russia in the hope of encircling and containing Germany, which became a united empire by defeating France in 1871. Great Britain just wanted to trade with everyone, but eventually concluded that supporting France over Germany would be more likely to keep the peace on which trade depends, or at least leave a mainland Europe which would be easier to deal with after a future war.

World War Two was more than a German nationalistic reaction against the settlement imposed on the defeated Germany at Versailles in 1919. It was about trying to grab enough land and resources from other peoples to guarantee that Hitler’s regime would become and remain the unquestioned and unquestionable master of Europe. Newly conquered subject peoples were either to be deported or enslaved to varying degrees based on Hitler’s then widely shared racial prejudices. Once the Allies closed the borders to further emigration from lands conquered by the Reich, deportation was no longer an option. This was when an existing policy of brutal terror, most notably against the Jews, became instead one of mass extermination.

So what role did nationalism play in these conflicts? In both wars, nationalism was essentially a reaction against an attempt either to prop up an existing imperial settlement or to impose a new imperial solution. Nationalism lit the fuse in 1914, but imperialism put the powder kegs in place and painted the nationalists into a corner. Germany’s imperialistic nature in both conflicts can be seen from the fact that nationalistic propaganda played a key role in mobilising resistance behind the lines to the invading armies of both the Kaiser and Hitler.

So, what does all this have to do with UKIP and the EU? First of all, I think all this means we need to identify the EU as an empire and UKIP as a nationalistic reaction: a reaction against an attempt to integrate the United Kingdom into a new, European managerial empire governed on the basis of political and economic networking rather than along traditional ethnic lines. Secondly, it means UKIP needs to be careful not to give in to a thirst for revenge or retaliation, which often lies at the root of conflicts between rival nationalisms.

It would be best for everyone if the United Kingdom were able not only to leave the European Union peacefully, but afterwards to resume normal trading relations with its peoples as smoothly and quickly as possible. It is one thing to say that the UK doesn’t need to be part of the EU to flourish in the modern world. It’s quite another to say the UK doesn’t need to trade with the EU at all, and thankfully UKIP is not saying that.

Finally, UKIP needs to avoid becoming or being seen as an imperialistic party. Some may accuse it of this already by arguing that UKIP is trying to prop up the United Kingdom in defiance of the wishes of its constituent peoples. But the key point here is democratic consent. True, UKIP argues in favour of the continuing political union of the United Kingdom. But there is no doubt that, for instance, UKIP would recognise a “Yes” vote for Scottish pseudo-independence (rule from Brussels via one government instead of two can hardly be called independence). UKIP would not resort to force to hold the UK together. It would condemn and seek to punish by law any attempts to terrorise the UK’s historic people groups into either staying or leaving.

UKIP is absolutely right to contrast its attitude on this point with the EU’s contempt for democratic consent. In the eyes of the EU’s supreme overlords, it doesn’t matter how many Greek pensioners kill themselves in front of their national Parliament buildings; it doesn’t matter how many French people want to reassert control over their own national borders; it doesn’t matter how badly the Spanish want to devalue the Euro in an effort to stimulate their national economy. These things are seen as irrelevant because the European Project must continue regardless of what the EU’s inhabitants think, say or do. This is what makes the EU an empire and UKIP a nationalistic party. Do you see the difference?


Photo by Lone Primate

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

10 Comments on UKIP, Nationalism, And The World Wars

  1. The longer we stay in the EU the more the break-up of the UK is inevitable. Devolution/regionalisation has been engineered by the pro EU elite to facilitate this. It means the end of British patriotism/nationalism. If we really want to preserve the Union then we must leave the EU. However, if the Scots do decide to break-up the Union then it will provide England/Wales the opportunity and best chance to leave the EU. To continue the historical theme (history seems to repeat) we will find ourselves back to the circumstances of the reign of Queen Elizabeth 1. A “rogue” England, freely trading and the beginning of a new “Golden Age”.

  2. Great article

  3. David Hussell // August 4, 2014 at 5:56 pm //

    We must distinguish more clearly between patriotism, which is basically good, and nationalism which is not. So I demur from the penultimate sentence that says, “….and Ukip a nationalistic party”. No we are a patriotic party. “Do you see the difference?” Words count so let’s use the better ones. Apart from that it’s a good article, along the right lines.

    • Christopher Houseman // August 5, 2014 at 10:14 pm //

      I think UKIP’s chosen self-description as a patriotic party is a tactical legacy from the days when its opponents thought they could dismiss it as the BNP in another guise.

      Patriotism is about love of one’s own country and culture, nothing more. It motivated plenty of happily British people at the Commonwealth Games to cheer for athletes from their home countries. It has historically described plenty of Scots, Welsh and Irish who insistently described themselves as so even while conquering foreign lands in the British Army.

      Nationalism is specifically about the form of patriotism which seeks to be self-governing. This is why the Scottish Nationalists don’t self-describe as the Scottish Patriots. They know very well the description would not capture what they claim to want. They also know that, as a socialistic pro-EU party, they don’t need to worry about being dismissed as “racists”.

      I agree the word nationalist has been smeared in carefully selected instances; but given its distinctive meaning, I think that is exactly why UKIP needs to reclaim it from the rubbish heap to which the Europhile Left has tried to consign it.

  4. Sam_Beresford // August 4, 2014 at 1:42 pm //

    Great article – I think you’ve hit the nail on the head really. Here’s another one which develops some of these themes, from the philosopher Roger Scruton:

  5. I studied International Politics at University in the 1960s
    and nationalism was part of the course. At that time nationalism was certainly
    not considered to be a dirty word although a distinction needs to be made
    between nationalism as a desire of a nation to have its own state and nationalism
    as the pursuit by a nation-state of its own interests above anybody else’s. But
    as in so many areas, academia seems to have been taken over since then by
    people who see their role as the pursuit of their own narrow political agenda
    rather than the pursuit of knowledge. An obvious example is the study of climate
    but other examples abound aplenty. Issues relating to sexuality is another
    example. All the available evidence points to the two-parent family (one
    mother, one father) as the most secure environment in which to bring up
    children but how many Sociology Departments include that in their teaching?

  6. John Charlesworth // August 4, 2014 at 11:21 am //

    Having just complete my level III Empire module with the OU, I concur wholeheartedly. I find that intellectual arguments like this tend to knock the half-knowledgable Lefty for six; then, when they realise they have lost the academic argument, they pick on the man.

  7. Excellent article. Imagine what the international reaction would be if the UK were unilaterally pursuing an expansionist policy in Ukraine. Or if it were Germany, or France. We would rightly be condemned, whereas the EU’s imperialist actions have largely gone unnoticed, despite the inevitable consequence of “poking the Russian bear”.

Comments are closed.