- This topic has 3 voices and 3 replies.
-
Posts
-
Where do you draw the line when it comes to Nationalism going bad? Compare Bismarck with Hitler. Both were nationalists, but only one was bad.
Well, I don't know that “only one was bad” (see the May Laws under Bismark). Comparing anyone to Hitler will make a person look much better, even if that person does have some bad policies or practices (even ones that might be considered egregious human rights abuses in today's mindset). I think in the end nationalism goes bad when it translates into the violation of fundamental human rights either of the citizens of that state or of foreigners.
I dont think both were nationalists. Hitler certainly was but not Bismarck, I would classify him as a German Patriot. Bismarck only sought the glorification and unification of Germany where hitler sought conquest and domination. the two are incomparable I think. It is apples to oranges.What we need is a stricter definition of Nationalism.
Well let's define it then. Is isolationism nationalism and for the opposite, is an aggressive foreign policy nationalism? By aggressive I don't mean bomb everybody, I mean getting in everyone's business to make sure they're behaving in accordance with your country's best interests. (FYI, I have no problem with the latter)Phid, why I compare the two is because it's the same country. Bismarck was all about Germany and improving Germany only. Hitler was all about Germany too, but he wanted to expand the "empire."
Bismarck was all about Germany and improving Germany only. Hitler was all about Germany too, but he wanted to expand the "empire."
I think you have hit on the difference here. Patriotism does not envision bettering your country at another nation's expense. I know that that does not necessarily aplly 100% to Bismarck, but at least he was only dealing with Germans. Perhaps you could apply Wilson's ideal of ethnic self-determination to what Bismarck was trying to do.
