Frost27 said:
I see where the confusion arises. The intent I was trying to convey was more the validity and importance of nationalism from a personal perspective. As in, its import to the individual or group practicing it.
This is fair enough, though as I've mentioned unless it is wartime this has little practical benefit.
Frost27 said:
I do have to disagree that it's only internal benefit is supressing dissent during wartime, though that has been a use for it in the past in cases.
Fair enough, I should note that I do view it as a positive quality in that case, though of course it works just as well for both teams.
Frost27 said:
Nationalism is also what brought about the American industrial revolution
The 13 colonies composing the union were primarily an agrarian countries, as they, like all of Britain's colonies, had relied primarily on exporting agricultural produce and minerals to Britain in return for processed goods from the British isles. Therefore becoming an industrial nation was fundamentally opposed to colonial nationalism because it economically became the thing it had fought. This was more pronounced in the colonies where servitude was still practised and led to the latter civil war, which the nationalist elements lost decisively.
The primary causes of the industrial revolution in the US was the presence of capital, technology, and the absence of inhibiting political structures like serfdom (at least in significant parts of the US) and the guild systems which held back progress in most of Europe. Likewise the absence of internal tariffs, a large internal market for industrial goods, a large internal market with cheap unprocessed goods and so forth made it economically favourable to pursue industrialization.
Frost27 said:
, kept the American economy and industry alive during World War II
Nope, the reason industry and the economy 'flourishes' during wartime is massively increased public spending.
Frost27 said:
and allowed not only the American revolution but many other revolutions around the world to thrive and succeed.
This is not true. The US is fundamentally anti-nationalist as the 13 different nations which made up the union were forced to cede a significant part of their authority to the federal government. Britain would have had no difficulty defeating 13 small countries, especially seeing how these would be unlikely to have obtained massive and unconditional support from the Kingdom of France.
Frost27 said:
And while it was turned to a dark purpose, it is what allowed Germany to drag itself from its state after WW I to the superpower it was at the start of WWII.
No, as stated previously this was due to increased public spending. There is also a misconception here, as Germany was far from a superpower at the start of WW2, the equipment was in smaller numbers and in inferior quality compared to that of their adversaries.
The reason for German success was a combination of factors, including superior leadership, a larger base of professional soldiers, and a superior command structure. They did have good morale, but this was related more to their national-populist leadership and early successes than the fact that they were Germans, and even the Nazis were internationalist in scope, even if their list of approved races were limited. (Baltics, Scandinavians and blue-eyed blondes from around the world to some degree)
Frost27 said:
While nationalism can often have negative connotations and uses, pride in a nation is not always a bad thing.
It carries no notable peacetime benefits and, while they vary, they can have massive penalties to the overall interests of the peoples involved. As such, pride in a nation does little to help. Pride in major achievements and the encouragement of innovation and rationalism have shown to convey significant benefits however.
