Nations and States

Hugh Seton-Watson

Nations and States

An E n quiry into the Origins of N a tions
a n d the Politics of N ationalism

Methuen-London
AII rights reserved. No part o f this publication m ay he reproduced or transm itted in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy,
recording, or any inform ation storage and retrieval system , without perm ission in
writing fro m the publisher.

First published 1977, by M ethuen & Co. Ltd.

II New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE
© 1977 Hugh Seton- Watson

Typeset in the USA

Printed in Great Britain
at the U niversity Printing House,
Cam bridge

ISBN 0 416 76810 5

 M.H.S-W.
dilectissimae
lab o ru m et g a u d io ru m
participi
Ganz vergessener Völker Müdigkeiten
Kann ich nicht abtun von meinen Lidern
Noch weghalten von der erschrockenen Seele
Stummes Niederfallen ferner Sterne
Contents

Preface...........................................................................................................................xi

1 Nations and Nationalism ................................................................................1

2 Europe: The Old Continuous Nations....................................................15

From empire to sovereign stale The old continuous nations The
— —

British and Irish nations— The French— The Iberian nations— The
Netherlanders— The Scandinavians— The Swiss— The Russians

3 Europe: Movements for National U nity...............................................89

Greater and lesser Germany— Italian unity— The Greeks and the
‘Great Idea' Panslavism— The Poles: from partition to unity— The
—

Yugoslavs

4 Europe: Multi-National Empires and New N ations...................... 143

Multi-national empires— Czechs and Germans in Bohemia— The
Hungarians— The Slovaks— The Romanians— The Ukrainians

5 European Nations Overseas..................................................................... 193

The expansion o f Europe— From settlement to independence— The
United States— The Spanish American nations— The Brazilians —

The Canadians— White South Africans— The Australians

6 West Asia and North Africa: Muslim Empires and

Modern N ations........................................................................................... 239
The rise and fa ll o f Muslim empires— The revival o f Iran— European
domination— Islamic modernism and Panislamism— The Iranians —

The Turks— The Arab nation

vii
 v//7 Contents

7 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations...........................................273

Empires and cultures— European domination — China: decline and
revival— The Japanese — Hindus, Muslims and British in India —
India: multi-lingual nation or multi-national state?— P akistan-
South-east Asia— From the empire o f the tsars to the Soviet empire

8 Africa: Colonial Empires, New States and New Nations...............323

Early African states— European colonisation— Imperial policies and
attitudes— African nationalism— African states and nations
9 Race and Nation: White Racialism and
Anti-White Nationalism ...........................................................................355
Racialism— Black and white in the Americas— Black and white in
South Africa— The American Indians

10 Diaspora Nations......................................................................................... 383

Types o f diaspora — The Jews — Anti-semitism and Zionism — Isra el-
Overseas Indians— Chinese and Malaysians

11 Class and Nation......................................................................................... 417

'Feudalism’ and ‘bourgeoisie’— Bureaucracies and intelligentsias —
The Polish and Hungarian cases— The language manipulators —
Immigrant societies— Anti-colonialist elites— Nationalist elites under
communist rule— National and class struggles

12 Nationalism and Ideological Movements............................................443

Nationalism and liberalism — Socialism — Fascism— Communism

13 Nations, States and the Human Community.................................... 463

Patterns o f national movement— The nation as object o f worship—
Nationalism as a cause o f war— Sovereignty and national cultures—
The sovereign state and the international order— Dissolution o f
national cultures— National cultures and human civilisation
 Contents ix

Notes............................................................................................................................. 485

Bibliography.............................................................................................................. 507

Index..............................................................................................................................545
Preface
This b o o k is the result n o t only o f a few years o f intensive stu d y a n d writing,
but o f a large p a rt of a lifetime spent trying to u n d e r s ta n d this force o f
n atio n a lism w hich has c o n tin u e d to s h a k e the w orld in w hich 1 have lived. I
m ust th e re fo re begin w ith a bit o f a u to b io g r a p h y .
I was m a d e a w a re at a very early age o f the existence o f nations. M y first
n a tio n a l s y m b o l w as K ing R o b e rt a n d the spider. S ta r tin g m y fo rm a l
e d u c a tio n in a F r e n c h school, I im b u e d so m e o f th e m y th o lo g y o f
V ercingetorix, St. L ouis a n d the C h e v alier B ayard , befo re m a k in g th e
a c q u a in ta n c e at my first English school o f K ing A lfred a n d his cakes. M y
father was c o n s id e ra b ly involved in the em erg en c e o f new states in C e n tra l
E urope, a n d n o t only th e n am es b u t s o m e o f the a c to r s in th o se events
becam e f am iliar h o u s e h o ld figures. T h e te x t- b o o k s f r o m w hich 1 learnt
m o d e rn E u r o p e a n H isto ry h a d been w ritte n by m en w h o b o th h o p e d a n d
believed, in th e age o f W ilso n ia n liberalism , th a t the liberty o f th e citizen
a n d th e liberty o f the n a tio n were inseparable.
In m y p e n u ltim a te y ea r at school A d o lf H itler bec am e C h a n c e llo r o f the
c o u n try w hich he was to r e n a m e the T h ir d Reich. Im m e d iate ly after leaving
school I h a d m y first d irect ex perience o f the T h ir d Reich a n d o f th e
G e rm a n s as people. In the follow ing years I visited co u n tries to the so u th
a n d ea st o f G e r m a n y , a n d the m o re I saw the less it seem ed to me th a t the
claim s o f n atio n alists a n d th e rights o f in dividuals could easily be r e c o n ­
ciled. Believing th a t n atio n alism , w hich pro v id ed the h a rd core o f the
fascist m o v e m e n ts w hich pullulated in th o se lands in th o se tim es, was a
m enace to b o th liberty a n d peace, I p u t m y faith in in te rn a tio n a lis m , a n d
looked f o r a b etter f u tu re to socialism. N o wiser n o r m o r e foolish th a n
th o u s a n d s o f my c o m p a tr io ts , t h o u g h w o rrie d by the R ib b e n tr o p - M o lo to v
treaty, I a d m ir e d Soviet R ussia b o th as the ally w hich b o re the m ain b u r d e n
o f fighting afte r 1941, a n d as a socialist state. It was the news fro m
‘liberated’ E a s te r n E u r o p e afte r 1944, a n d p erso n a l o b se rv a tio n o f th e
im plication s o f ‘lib e r a tio n ’ o n the s p o t in 1946 a n d 1947, w hich destroyed
these illusions, w h ich w ere n o less re m o te f r o m reality th a n had been the
W ilson ian illusions w hich preceded th e m . In the last th irty years a
m ultitu d e o f crim es hav e been c o m m itte d in th e n a m e o f socialism by

xi
xii Preface

persons w h o m the historical pioneers o f socialism w o u ld hav e been loth to

recognise as th eir disciples.
As I have g one o n s tu d y in g n atio n a lism , a n d travelled fro m tim e to tim e
in E u ro p e , the M u slim w orld a n d N o r t h A m eric a, w ith o ccasional sh o r te r
jo u r n e y s still f u rth e r afield, it has bec om e ever clearer to me, b o th th a t
injustices a n d conflicts betw een classes a n d betw een n a tio n s rem a in bitter
realities, a n d th a t so far neither natio n alists n o r socialists— n o r indeed any
one else— have f o u n d answ ers to them . N a tio n s exist; conflicts between
n a tio n s exist; natio n alists in p o w er often d o violence to the h u m a n rights o f
their subjects; a n d a t te m p ts to a bolish n a tio n a l loyalties, even w hen
ostensibly pu rsu ed in the n am e o f h ighe r h u m a n solidarity, d o n o t achieve
their object, b u t d o increase the s u m to ta l o f explosive h u m a n h a tre d in the
w orld.
All this has convinced m e th a t merely to inveigh a g a in st n atio n alism
d o es little to help the h u m a n race. It now seems to me m o r e desirable to
sp a re d e n u n c ia tio n s a n d ra th e r to seek u n d e r s ta n d in g a n d c o m p a ssio n for
the longings an d the frailties alike o f h u m a n in dividuals a n d o f nations.
N atio n alism has been a pressing a n d d a n g e r o u s force t h r o u g h o u t my
lifetime; bu t it has h a d its ro o ts in historical processes g oing far bac k into
the past. T o study n a tio n a lism , one m ust be interested in politics, sociology
a n d history. T he im pre ssion w hich I had a lre ad y as a n u n d e r g r a d u a te , th a t
it is im possible to d r a w a clear line o f d e m a r c a tio n betw een ‘social’ an d
‘n a t io n a l’ or between ‘n a t io n a l’ a n d ‘in te r n a tio n a l’ p roblem s, a n d th a t past
a n d present are q u ite inextricably b o u n d up w ith e a c h o th e r, has been
stren g th en e d by a lm o s t ev ery th in g th a t I have learnt o r seen in the
in terven ing years. W h e n social scientists stress the need to c o m p a r e
p h e n o m e n a w hich m a y have p o ints o f sim ilarity; a n d w h en h isto ria n s insist
on the ab s o lu te u n ique ness o f every historical event; I find m yself agreeing
w ith both. T he eith er-o r-ism which d o g m a tic a lly rejects all c o m p a r is o n , or
which dismisses u n iq u e n ess as u n im p o r ta n t, seems to me the m a rk o f the
b a r b a ria n ; a n d b a r b a ria n s are to be fo u n d w ithin all ac a d e m ic ‘disciplines’.
Both the c o m p a r a b le a n d the u n iq u e exist; the se a rc h e r afte r t r u th m u st
struggle always to keep th e m in balance, kn o w in g t h a t he will never be
entirely successful. If this w ere generally ac cepted, we could be sp ared a
great deal of odium academicum.
1 have n o t s o u g h t in this w o rk to e la b o r a te a n y general th e o ry o f
n atio n alism . I have learnt m u c h fro m m o d e rn pion eers in this field, such as
A n th o n y S m ith a n d K arl D e u ts c h ;1 but 1 have n o t tried to follow th eir
paths. 1 have also n o t so u g h t either to an alyse n a tio n a lism as a d o ctrin e, or
to collect sam ples o f natio n alist rheto ric. M y c o n c e r n is r a th e r with the
f o rm a tio n o f n atio n s, th e activities o f natio n alist m o v e m en ts, a n d the ways
in w hich these have influenced a n d been influenced by th e em ergence,
c re atio n a n d disso lu tio n o f states. In this field to o th e re is a lre ad y a large
 Preface xiii

literature; a n d 1 ow e m o r e th a n I ca n ever a c k n o w le d g e to m y m a n y
predecessors, a m o n g w h o m the tw o o u ts t a n d in g se em to me Htans K o h n
a n d E ugen L em berg. 1 d o n o t th in k h ow ever th a t I a m tre a d in g precisely in
the fo o tste p s o f a n y o f the m . 1 have tried to d o s o m e th in g m u c h less th a n to
create a general th e o ry , n am ely to ju x t a p o s e a n d to c o m p a r e e x a m p le s
fro m different p eriods a n d different p a r ts o f the w o rld .
N a tio n a list m o v e m e n ts have been a n o u ts t a n d in g fe a tu re o f th e in te r n a ­
tio n a l landscap e in my tim e, a n d seem likely so to r e m a in for m a n y years
yet. T hey are a w o rld-w ide p h e n o m e n o n . M y aim h a s been to c o n t r i b u te to
u n d e r s ta n d in g t h e m —t h a t is, b o th to e x p la in th e p h e n o m e n o n to m y
c o n te m p o r a r ie s w h o are dim ly a w a re th a t they a r e affected by it, a n d to
p rovide s o m e m a teria l a n d som e g u id a n c e to those w h o intend to e x p lo re
the p h e n o m e n o n in d e p th . In this b o o k a n u m b e r o f h isto ric al e x a m p le s are
presented, so m e coverin g a few d ecades a n d o th e rs rea ch in g b a c k over
centuries. T h e facts c o n ta in e d in my brief case h istories a re easily d isc o v e r ­
able elsewhere, but they have n o t all been set side by side p revio usly in one
b o o k . It is m y p u r p o s e to enable, a n d indeed p e r s u a d e , p erso n s w h o are
fam iliar with som e or m a n y o f these cases to lo o k at o th e rs w ith w hich they
are n o t fam iliar. T h e facts have been selected b e c a u s e it h as seem ed to m e
th a t they a re the m o st significant fro m the po in t o f view o f the processes
with w hich 1 a m co n c ern ed : f o r m a tio n o f n a t io n a l con scio u sn e ss, m o v e ­
m ents for n a tio n a l in dep endence, m o v e m e n ts f o r n a tio n a l un ity a n d
f o rm a tio n o f n a tio n s th r o u g h ac tio n by th e state. E ach section o f each
c h a p te r is c o n c e rn e d w ith one or m o re o f these processes in re la tio n to the
n a tio n or state u n d e r co n s id e ra tio n . N o single se ction is, o r was in te n d e d to
be, a s u m m a r y o f th e h istory o f an y n a tio n o r o f a n y state. A ny o th e r p erso n
th a n m yself w ould have included m u c h th a t 1 h av e left o u t, a n d left o u t
m u c h th a t 1 have p u t in. But one has to m a k e o n e ’s ow n choice.
P r o f o u n d ly c onv in ce d as 1 a m th a t m o d e r n n a t io n a lis t m o v e m e n ts are a
w o rld -w ide p h e n o m e n o n , I have felt th a t 1 c a n n o t sh irk the o b lig a tio n to
look a t m o v e m e n ts all ov er the w orld. T his m e a n s th a t 1 c a n n o t con fine
myself to n a tio n s w hose countries, lan guag es a n d c u ltu r e s are f am iliar to
me. M y o w n expe rien c e as a rea der o f o th e r p e o p le ’s b o o k s h as been th a t
the m e th o d of the s y m p o s iu m , in w hich in d iv id u al e x p e rts o n p a r tic u la r
aspects of a p ro b le m , o r on p a r tic u la r regions o f the w orld, c o n t r i b u te
s e p arate ch a p te rs, is se ld o m successful; a n d th a t th e view o f a single m ind,
even if in c o m p le te a n d d isto rte d , can s o m e tim es hav e the virtue o f unity. It
is m y h o p e t h a t m y efforts m a y c o n t ri b u te s o m e th in g to the u n d e r s ta n d in g
o f th e p h e n o m e n a o f n a tio n s, states a n d n a tio n a list m o v e m e n ts, a n d th a t
they m a y stim u la te o th e rs w hose p erso n a l c o m b in a t io n s o f expe rien c e a n d
kno w ledge a r e d ifferent fro m mine, to try their h a n d in t u r n at a n overall
o n e-m in d view, a n d so c o rre c t a n d im p ro v e o n m y w o r k , a n d th u s p ro v o k e
o th e rs in t u r n to co rre c t a n d im p ro v e o n theirs.
xiv Preface

T h o u g h this b o o k is long, I have tried n o t to m a k e it w ordy. I have

so u g h t to m arshall m y a r g u m e n ts , facts a n d h yp othe ses w ith o u t em bellish­
m e nt. T h e rea d er m a y find my n a rra tiv e bald, t h o u g h I m u st h ope not
uncon v in cin g . 1 ca n assu re h im o r her th a t the un d erly in g e m o tio n is n o t
cold. 1 have been m indful t h r o u g h o u t my la b o u rs o f the m en a n d w o m e n ,
the lands, artefacts a n d cultures w hich have deeply affected m y sight a n d
th o u g h t, w h eth e r o r n o t this becom es a p p a r e n t in m y w ords. Scenes an d
co n v e rsatio n s, cro w d s a n d solitudes, the cruel fate o f friends a n d the
survival o f o thers, a n c ie n t ruins in f o u r c o n tin e n ts, m edieval cities in three
an d m o u n ta in s a n d forests in five, jo stle to g e th e r in my m e m o ry , a n d lie
b en e a th m y d r a b prose, p e r h a p s occasionally inserting a to n g u e o f flame
th r o u g h a cra c k in its flat surface. T o express all these e m o tio n s , to give
th a n k s for all th a t 1 have seen, h ea rd , learnt, f o rg o tte n o r reta in ed , is
b e y o n d m y pow ers. S o m e th i n g o f the resu ltan t m o o d is c o n ta in e d w ithin
the lines fro m H ug o vo n H o fm a n n s th a l which I have p re su m e d to q u o te on
a n o t h e r page.
1 have read e n o u g h histo ry to k n o w th a t the inte rp lay of personalities,
institu tions, ideas, im p e rso n a l forces a n d m ere ch a n c e is exceedingly
c o m p le x a n d infinitely variable, a n d this has caused m e to d istrust allegedly

L
c o m p re h en siv e a n d scientific theories. 1 a m also painfully a w a re th a t
history, still m o re t h a n th e n a t u r a l sciences, needs a n d gets c o n s ta n t
revision. It is hard e n o u g h to keep u p w ith these revisions even in o n e ’s ow n
specialised field: to d o so o n the scale o f tim e a n d space with w hich this
b o o k is c o n c ern ed , w ou ld su rp ass th e ability even o f a genius. M o st o f my
rea ders will the re fore have little difficulty in finding o u t-o f-d a te in te r p re ta ­
tions in these pages. Even so, a little scepticism is in o r d e r a b o u t ‘rev o lu ­
tio n a r y ’ discoveries in h isto rio g ra p h y : often, w h en so m e years have passed
since such historic b r e a k -th r o u g h s , the historical la n d sca p e, beheld fro m a
ce rtain distance, loo k s r e m a rk a b ly sim ilar to th a t d epicte d by o u t-o f-d a te
p redecessors. A nd is there a ‘c o r r e c t’ distanc e fo r a view o f history, an y
m o r e th a n fo r a view o f a city— P aris fro m the level o f th o se hopeful
fish erm e n on the b a n k s o f th e Seine, o r o f the bouquinistes a b o v e th e m , or
the to w e r o f N o tre D a m e , o r th e steps o f the S acré C o e u r, o r a n overflying
je t at 30,000 feet?
M y sources have been various. F irst is the p rin te d w o r d — historical
d o c u m e n ts a n d in te rp re tativ e w orks, im agin a tiv e literatu re a n d periodical
press. I have listed in the b ib lio g ra p h y som e o f th o se w o rk s w hich have
bee n m o st useful to m e, a n d in w hich rea d ers m a y find a w ealth o f fu rth e r
in f o rm a tio n shou ld they wish it. A secon d source has been c o nve rsation,
sp read over at least fo rty years a n d nearly as m a n y lands. Individual
co n v e rsa tio n s m ay p ro v id e a sm aller q u a n tity o f in f o rm a tio n th a n massive
answ ers to d istrib u te d q u es tio n n a ire s, b u t they leave m o r e vivid m em ories,
a n d w ith luck a n d persistence ca n fairly often be che ck e d against ea ch o th e r
 Preface xv

o r a g a in st d o c u m e n ts . A th ird source has been such travel as has c o m e my

way, in peace a n d in w ar, including c o u n trie s in w hich I knew no
in d ige n ous people a n d c ould n o t read th e n ew spap ers. T o see w ith o n e ’s
o w n eyes not only buildings a n d paintings b u t a l s o — p e r h a p s still m o r e —
lan d sca p es, ca n be n o less co n d u c iv e to u n d e r s ta n d in g t h a n to read book s.
C o n v e rs io n into L a tin script o f the n a m e s o f p erso n s o r places in n o n -
L atin la nguages alw ays presen ts in su p e ra b le difficulties, a n d it is p r o b a b ly
im possible to satisfy all specialists. S o m e n a m e s have a c q u ir e d a n English
spelling w hich, t h o u g h ina cc ura te, is widely accepted: in such cases it is this
spelling w hich I have used. In m o st cases o f E ast E u r o p e a n languages I
have a d o p t e d the ac ce nts or cedillas in use in th e ir c o u n tries, b u t som e
e xc eptions have been m a d e w here special difficulties arose. T h e greatest
difficulty h as been w ith A r a b a n d C hinese nam es. T o use all th e diacritical
m a rk s o f orien talists seem ed to me, rightly o r w rongly, u n su ita b le for a
b o o k w hich claim s n o place in specialised orien talist literature. T h e ad hoc
c o m p ro m ise s betw een specialist usage, p o p u la r spelling a n d c o m m o n sense
to w hich I have resorte d are o f co u rse o p e n to valid objectio ns. 1 h ope
how ever th a t the p erso n s a n d places will be recognisable, a n d a s k in d u l­
gence o f the r e a d e r in view o f th e f o rm id a b le c o m p le x ity o f the task.
I a m m ost g rateful to the R ockefeller F o u n d a t i o n fo r the weeks w hich I
was able to spend at the Villa Serb elloni in Bellagio, in S e p te m b e r 1971,
w hen I e m b a r k e d o n the a c tu a l w riting o f the b o o k , a n d to Mr. a n d Mrs.
William O lson for e n s u rin g such perfect c o n d itio n s for the b e ginning o f the
enterprise. M y g r a titu d e is equally d u e to the C o u n c il o f th e S c h o o l of
Slavonic a n d East E u r o p e a n S tudies fo r stu d y leave d u r in g the a u t u m n
term o f 1975.
M y friends S te p h e n Clissold a n d P ete r L y on read the w hole o f the text;
an d their c o m m e n ts , based on long expe rien c e a n d dee p k now ledg e, were
o f great help to me. M a n y colleagues have b een g e n e ro u s w ith th e ir tim e,
a n d b o th stu d e n ts a n d o th e r aud iences o v er the years have b o th stim u la ted
a n d en c o u ra g e d me. 1 re m e m b e r w ith special affection m y colleagues a n d
stude nts a t In d ia n a U niversity a n d the U niversity o f W a sh in g to n . I should
ulso like to expre ss m y a p p r e c ia tio n to m y publishers, a n d my perso n a l
gratitu d e to A n to n y F o rs t e r a n d F re d e ric k P ra e g e r fo r th e ir s u p p o r t a n d
confidence a t a tim e w h en these w ere sorely needed.
O f m y tw o g rea test debts, on e is to m y fath e r, m o s t o f w hose active life
was involved in these p ro b le m s, a n d w h o ar o u s e d , su stain e d a n d d ee pene d
my interest in them ; th e o th e r is n o te d o n a n o t h e r page.
 1 Nations and Nationalism

The object o f this b o o k is to e x a m in e th e processes by w hich n atio n s have

been form ed, the types o f political m o v e m e n ts w hich have so u g h t to a c h ie v e
w hat has been considered to be the n a tio n a l p u rp o se , a n d the ways in w hich
such m ov e m en ts have influenced a n d been influenced by the internal
policies o f states a n d the relations o f states w ith each other.
T he d istinction betw een states a n d n a tio n s is f u n d a m e n ta l to m y w hole
theme. S tates ca n exist w ith o u t a n a tio n , o r w ith several n ations, a m o n g
their subjects; an d a n a tio n can be c o te r m in o u s w ith the p o p u la tio n of one
state, o r be included to g e th e r w ith o th e r n a tio n s w ithin one state, or be
divided betw een several states. T h ere w ere states long before there were
nations, a n d there a r e so m e n atio n s th a t are m u c h old e r th a n m o st states
which exist tod a y. T h e belief th a t every sta te is a n a tio n , o r th a t all
sovereign states a r e n a tio n a l states, has d o n e m u c h to o b fu sca te h u m a n
u n d e rsta n d in g of political realities.j A sta te is a legal a n d political o r g a n is a ­
tion, w ith th e po w er to req u ire obedienc e a n d loyalty fro m its citizens. A
n ation is a c o m m u n ity o f people, w hose m e m b e rs are b o u n d to g e th e r by a
sense o f solidarity, a c o m m o n culture, a n a t io n a l consciousness. Yet in the
c o m m o n usage o f English a n d o f o th e r m o d e r n la nguages these tw o distinct
relationships are fre q u en tly c o n f u s e d j
In the U nited S tates the e x p r e s s i o n ‘th r o u g h o u t the n a t io n ’ sim ply m eans
‘th r o u g h o u t the c o u n t r y ’. In the m a in E u r o p e a n languages the w o rd s
‘in te rn a tio n a l re la tio n s’ a n d th eir e q u iv a le n t a re used to d e n o te the
relations betw een states. T h e o rg a n is a tio n set u p a t the en d o f th e S eco n d
W o rld W a r w ith th e h o p e o f p rev enting w a r a n d p r o m o tin g peace b etw een
states was called ‘U n ite d N a ti o n s ’, a n d its p red e cesso r h a d been called
‘League o f N a ti o n s ’. But m e m b e r s h ip o f b o th these o rg a n isa tio n s was
c on fined in fact to g o v e r n m e n ts of states. It was as su m e d in the age o f
P re sid ent W ilson th a t states w o u ld e m b o d y n atio n s; th a t the people of
every state w o u ld f o r m a n a tio n ; a n d t h a t eventually, in th e g o ld e n age of
self-d e term in a tio n w h ich w as d aw n in g , every n a t io n w o u ld have its state.
I here were o f c o u rse in 1918 m a n y such states: the ex p re ssio n ‘n a t io n - s ta te ’
in such cases reflected a reality. T h ere were, how ever, m a n y others, so m e o f
2 Nations and States

w hich becam e m e m b e rs o f the L eagu e o f N a tio n s, o f w hich this was n o t

true. T h e rh eto ric o f W ilson w as still used in the age of R oosevelt (a
f o u n d in g fa th e r o f the U nited N a tio n s, th o u g h he did n o t live to see it
function). M a n y o f the original m e m b ers, a n d m a n y w h o later jo in e d it,
w ere n atio n -states, b u t m a n y o f ea ch ca te g o ry w ere not. T h e U nited
N a tio n s in fact h a s p ro v e d to be little m o r e t h a n a m eeting place for
rep rese ntatives o f D isu n ited States. T h e f re q u en tly h e a r d cliché th a t ‘we
live in a n age o f n a tio n - s ta te s ’ is at m o st a h alf-tru th . W h a t is a rg u a b ly true
is th a t we live in a n age o f sovereign states. M a n y people believe t h a t state
so vereign ty is a m a jo r cause o f in te r n a tio n a l tensio n, a n d a p o te n tia l cause
o f f u tu re wars; a n d th a t steps shou ld be ta k e n to d im in ish it. It is also often
asserte d th a t ‘the age o f the n a tio n -sta te is c o m in g to a n e n d ’. T h e t r u th is
less simple; the p ro b le m s o f sovereignty a n d o f n atio n a lism , o f states a n d o f
n a tio n s, a re n o t th e same. T h e r e hav e been tim es w h en the existence o f state
so vereign ty has b een a ca u se of w ar, a n d o th e rs w h en the a s p ira tio n s o f
n a tio n s have led to w ar. T h e re have been e x a m p le s in recent tim es o f
d im i n u tio n o f state sovereignty, a n d it is q u ite possible t h a t th e re will be a
g row ing tre n d in this direction. But the d is a p p e a ra n c e o f state sovereignties
has n o t caused the d is a p p e a ra n c e o f n ations, a n y m o r e th a n the c re a tio n of
new state sovereignties has sufficed to create new n ations. W h e th e r n atio n s
can be d estro y e d is a subject for dispute.
Even m o re co n fu sio n c o m m o n ly a ttac h es to the w o rd ‘n a tio n a lis m ’. It is
often used to d e n o te an y fo rm o f collective selfishness o r aggressiveness o f
w hich the w riter o r sp e a k e r d isa p p ro v e s. It has b ec o m e a p ejora tiv e te rm ,
used in c o n tra s t to th e respectable w o rd ‘p a t r i o tis m ’. In fact, ‘I a m a patriot:
y o u are a n a tio n a list’.
G o v e r n m e n ts are often said to have ‘n a tio n a list’ policies if they p ursu e
th e ir o w n interests a t the ex p e n se o f o th e r g o v ern m e n ts. ‘E c o n o m ic
n a tio n a lis m ’ is the p u r su it o f th e su p p o s e d e c o n o m ic interests o f the people
o f one c o u n try , w ith o u t reg ard fo r th o se o f o th e r peoples in o th e r
co untries. Yet selfish reg a rd for their o w n interests has b een a feature o f the
policies o f countless g o v e rn m e n ts t h r o u g h o u t history, long before n a t io n ­
alism o r n atio n s were hea rd of. A n o th e r misuse o f the w o rd s ‘n a t io n a l’ a n d
‘n a tio n a lis m ’ relates to the collectivist policies o f the g o v e r n m e n ts o f states.
In the course of the last half-ce n tu ry g o v e rn m e n ts, w h e th e r as a result o f
m ilita ry o r financial p ressures o r o f the ideological c onviction s o f th e ir
politicians, have in terven ed m o r e a n d m o re in th e e c o n o m ic activities an d
private lives o f th eir citizens, have m obilised m o r e a n d m o re their persons
a n d th e ir possessions. T h is tre n d w as d escribed in th e F r e n c h lan g u ag e by
th e useful w o rd étatisme, w hich has n o sa tisfac tory equ iv ale n t in English.
S eizure o f p r o p e r ty o r o f business enterprises by the state (étatisation) has
b ee n m isleadingly r e n d e re d in English as ‘n a tio n a l is a t io n ’, a n d this w o rd
has also passed in to F r e n c h a n d o th e r languages. It is m isleading because
the seized p ropertie s are in reality placed at th e d isposal n o t o f the n a tio n
 Nations and Nationalism 3

b u t o f a d o m in a n t b u r e a u c r a tic caste.
T his b o o k is co n c e rn e d w ith n a tio n s a n d states, a n d only to a lesser
e x te n t w ith n atio n alism . Nevertheless th e w o rd a n d th e p h e n o m e n o n of
‘n a tio n a lis m ’ will f re q u en tly occ u r in the fo llow ing pages, a n d it is
necessary a t the ou tse t a t least to give s o m e in d ic a tio n o f w h a t I m e a n by it.
As I see it, the w o rd ‘n a tio n a lis m ’ has tw o basic m e an in g s . It w o u ld greatly
im prove the clarity o f individual an d public th in k in g if th e w o rd could be
s h o r n o f all ac cretion , a n d confined to these tw o. O n e o f these m e an in g s is a
d o c trin e a b o u t th e c h a ra c te r, interests, rights a n d d u tie s o f n atio n s. T he
second m e a n in g is a n o rganised political m o v e m e n t, d esig ned to f u r th e r the
alleged aim s a n d interests o f nations.
The tw o m o st generally so u g h t a im s o f such m o v e m e n ts hav e been
in d ep endence (the c re a tio n o f a sovereign state in w hich the n a tio n is
d o m in a n t) , a n d n a tio n a l unity (the i n c o r p o r a t io n w ith in the fro ntiers o f
this state o f all g ro u p s w hich are con sid ered , by them selves, o r by those
w ho claim to speak fo r th e m , to belong to the n atio n ). In the case o f m a n y ,
th o u g h n o t o f all, n a tio n s there has been a f u rth e r ta s k f o r nation alists: to
build a n a tio n w ithin a n in d e p e n d e n t state, by e x te n d in g d o w n to the
p o p u la tio n as a w hole the belief in the ex istence o f th e n a tio n , w hich, before
ind ependence was w o n , was held only by a m ino rityl
I shall be co n c e rn e d in this b o o k overwhelmingly~with th e m o v e m en ts. I
shall n o t rigidly limit discussion o f m o v e m e n ts to th e p u rsu it o f th e three
aims o f in d e p en d e n ce , un ity a n d n a tio n -b u ild in g , b u t th e y will o ccu py
m ost o f m y a tte n tio n . W ith the d o ctrin e, o r ideology, this b o o k is h a rd ly
co ncerned at all. T h e r e a r e a lre a d y m a n y g o o d b o o k s , b o th old a n d new, o n
this subject. As a d o c trin e , it is n o t very interesting, being essentially a
variant o f eig hteenth c e n tu ry d o c trin e s o f p o p u la r sovereignty, w ith h alf­
digested c h u n k s o f socialism a d d e d to the b ro th in th e c o u rse o f tim e. It has
inspired im m en se o u tp u ts o f rh etoric, a n d ea ch b r a n d h as its o w n p eculiari­
ties, so m e o f w hich m u st be a d m itte d to be p ic tu resq u e , t h o u g h literary
distinction a n d b e a u ty a re qualities w hich I sh o u ld h esitate to a t tr ib u te to
them. T h e p r e p a r a tio n o f a n a n th o lo g y o f n a tio n a lis t rh e to ric has n o t been
part o f the ta sk w hich I hav e u n d e r ta k e n ; b u t such a n th o lo g ie s exist, som e
with p e n e tr a tin g c o m m e n t a r ie s , 1 a n d rea ders w h o se m a in interest lies in
that field w o u ld d o well to stu d y the m .

All t h a t h as been said a b o v e assu m es th e use o f th e w o rd ‘n a t io n ’, a n d this is

m uch m o r e difficult to e xplain. M a n y a t te m p ts have been m a d e to define
nations, a n d n o n e hav e b een successful. T h e m o s t w idely k n o w n w ith o u t
d o u b t is th a t o f the late J o s e p h S talin , w h o se w o r k Marxism and the
National Question, b ased o n a n article w hich he w ro te at th e req u e st o f
I cnin in 1913, was la ter diffused in scores o f la ngu age s in scores o f millions
ill copies. All th a t S talin could say was th a t a n a t io n m ust have four
4 Nations and States

ch aracteristics: a c o m m o n lan guag e, a c o m m o n te rrito ry , a c o m m o n

e c o n o m ic life a n d a c o m m o n m e n tal m a k e -u p . N o g r o u p w hich did n o t
possess all four was entitled to be con sid ered a n atio n . T h e f o u rth o f these
characteristics is o f c o u rse vague. O n e m a y indeed stron gly argue th a t
vagueness is in h e re n t in the p h e n o m e n o n itself. But th a t is n o t a n a r g u m e n t
used by S talin; o n the c o n tra ry , he seems to have believed, a n d it was
certainly claim ed on his b e h a lf by his disciples, th a t his f o u r po ints
p r o v id ed a fully scientific definition. S talin m e n tio n e d neith er religion n o r
h isto rical tr a d itio n . T h e tr u th is t h a t S talin ’s article was w ritte n n o t as a
piece o f social-political analysis, b u t as a p o le m ic — arising o u t o f th e
c o n d itio n s o f 1913, a g a in st the Je w ish socialist m o v e m e n t, the Bund —
in te n d ed to p rove t h a t th e Je w s were n o t a n a t io n . 2
M o st definitions have in fact been designed to p rov e that, in c o n tra s t to
the c o m m u n ity to w hich the definer belonged, so m e o th e r g r o u p was n o t
entitled to be called a n a tio n . T h e d istinctio n b etw een ‘cu ltu ra l n a t io n ’ (a
c o m m u n ity united by lan g u ag e o r religion o r historical m y th o lo g y o r o th e r
c u ltu ra l bo n d s) a n d ‘political n a t io n ’ (a c o m m u n ity w hich in a d d itio n to
c u ltu ra l b o n d s also possesses a legal state stru c tu re ) has a t tim es been
useful, b u t it to o has often been m isused for the p u r p o s e n o te d above.
In nine tee n th c e n tu r y C e n tr a l E u ro p e a d istin c tio n was m a d e between
‘n a t io n s ’ a n d ‘natio n alitie s’, the fo rm e r being the su p e rio r categ ory. ‘M y
c o m m u n ity is a natio n : y o u rs is a n a tio n a lity ’. W h o le the o ries w ere based
o n this distinction, the p u r p o se o f w hich was to d e n y the sta tu s o f n a tio n to
others. In later ch a p te rs I shall discuss the d istin c tio n at g r e a te r length.
A p a r t fro m th e sense m e n tio n e d , th e w o rd ‘n a t io n a l ity ’ has, in th e English
lang uage (m o re frequ ently in its British th a n in its A m e r ic a n v aria n t), the
m e a n in g o f ‘state citizensh ip’ (Staatsangehörigkeit is th e m o r e precise
G e r m a n term ). W h e n I have occasion , in the follo w ing pages, to refer to
th is legal category, I shall use the u n a m b ig u o u s w o rd ‘citizenship’. T h e r e is,
how ever, a third sense in w hich ‘n a tio n a lity ’ ca n be used: as a n e u tra l a n d
a b s tra c t w o rd , m e a n in g the q uality o f b e longing to a n atio n . T h is is at tim es
a useful co n c ep t, a n d it is th e on ly sense in w hich I shall use it, w ith o u t
q u o t a t i o n m a rk s, in the follow ing pages.
A n o th e r distin ctio n seems at first sight to have m u c h to c o m m e n d it: the
distin ctio n between ‘n a t io n ’ a n d ‘tr ib e ’. T he w o rd ‘tr ib e ’ has usually been
a p p lied to c o m p a ra tiv e ly small g ro u p s o f people, w ith a r a th e r low level o f
cu lture. S u ch were the tribes w hich th e R o m a n s m et in G a u l a n d G e r m a n y
(there was no G au lish o r G e r m a n ic ‘n a t io n ’), o r th e g ro u p s, follow ing
v a rio u s leaders, w h o s p o k e v a rio u s Baltic o r S lav o n ic o r T u rk ic languages,
a n d c a m e in to conflict w ith the H o ly R o m a n , B yzantine a n d A b b asid
em pires. O th e r ex a m p le s ca n be f o u n d a m o n g the v a rio u s la n d invaders o f
I n d ia a n d C h in a. T h e S co ttish clans, a n d the septs in to w h ich they were
divided, m igh t also be co nsid ered to be ‘tr ib e s’; a n d s o m e th in g o f the sam e
 Nations and Nationalism 5

sort could be fo u n d also in Ireland. In th e n in e te e n th c e n tu r y E u r o p e a n

e x p lo re rs, a n d th e E u r o p e a n a d m in is t r a to r s w h o follow ed in th e ir steps,
m a d e fre q u e n t use o f the w o rd ‘tr ib e ’ fo r A fric an peoples. M o s t o f these
c o m m u n itie s, scattered across the globe a n d th e centuries, s h a re d a fierce
lo yalty bo th to th e ir chiefs a n d to fellow -m em b ers o f th e c o m m u n ity . T he
difficulty is to decide at w h a t p o in t ‘triba l c o n s cio u sn e ss’ bec om e s ‘n a tio n a l
c o n s cio u sn e ss’. T h o s e w h o use the w o rd ‘trib e ’ o f o th e rs a re usually
c on vince d t h a t they them selves belo n g to a h igher c u ltu re a n d a re lo o k in g
at p erson s o f a low er culture. S u ch was c e rtainly th e view o f R o m a n s a n d
Chinese, a n d in m o d e r n tim es o f E u r o p e a n co lo n ial officials. Yet a r b it r a r y
diffe ren tia tio n betw een ‘n a t io n ’ a n d ‘tr ib e ’ closely resem bles the d ifferen ti­
atio n betw een ‘n a t i o n ’ a n d ‘n a tio n a lity ’ discussed a b o v e , a n d a m o u n t s to
no m o r e t h a n t h a t betw een ‘my g r o u p ’ a n d ‘y o u r g r o u p ’. In th e in d e p e n d e n t
new states o f A frica, ‘trib a lis m ’ has b e c o m e a b la n k e t te r m t o cover, a n d to
c o n d e m n , a n y sort o f m o v e m e n t for a u t o n o m y , let a lo n e s e p a ra te sta te ­
hoo d. Nevertheless, great differences in c u ltu r a l level have existed, d o exist,
an d are recognisable. S h o u ld one say th a t in 1900 th e Y o r u b a s were a
n ation , a n d th e D in k a s a tribe? H o w ca n differences in th e level o f c u ltu re
be m e a su re d , a n d w h o 1$ a n im pa rtial ju d g e ? Because th e re a re n o clear
answ ers to these q u e s tio n s, o n e has to be very c a u tio u s in th e use o f the
w o rd s ‘n a t io n ’ a n d ‘trib e ’; yet the difference do es exist, j u s t as the difference
in the s p e c tr u m betw e en blue a n d green exists, t h o u g h the c o lo u rs m erge in
the h u m a n eye w hich b eh o ld s the rain b o w .
1T h u s I a m driv en to the co n c lu sio n th a t no ‘scientific d e f in itio n ’ o f a
nktion can be devised; yet th e p h e n o m e n o n has existed a n d exists. All t h a t 1
can find to say is th a t a n a tio n exists w h en a significant n u m b e r o f people in
a c o m m u n ity c o n s id e r them selves to f o r m a n atio n , o r b eh a v e as if they
form ed one. It is n o t necessary t h a t the w hole o f the p o p u la tio n s h o u ld so
feel, o r so b eh a v e, a n d it is n o t possible to lay d o w n d o g m a tic a lly a
m in im u m p erc e n ta g e o f a p o p u la tio n w hich m u s t be so affected. W h e n a
significant g r o u p ho ld s this belief, it possesses ‘n a t io n a l co n sc io u sn e ss’.
C o m m o n sense suggests th a t if this g r o u p is exceedingly sm all (let us say,
less th a n o n e perc en t o f th e p o p u la tio n ) , a n d do es n o t possess g rea t skill in
p ro p a g a n d a , o r a s tr o n g disciplined a r m y to m a in ta in it u ntil it has been
able to spread n a tio n a l co nsciousne ss d o w n in to m u c h b r o a d e r s tr a ta o f the
p o p u la tio n , th e n the n a tio n a lly conscio u s elite will n o t succeed in c re a tin g a
nation, a n d is unlikely to be ab le to indefinitely re m a in in p o w e r on the
basis o f a fictitiou s n a t io n J
It is h o p e d th a t these in tr o d u c to r y r e m a rk s have served to indicate the
n a tu re o f m y subject; a n d t h a t this will b e c o m e clearer in th e c o u rse o f later
chapters.
6 Nations and States

T h e d o c trin e o f n a tio n a lis m dates f ro m the age o f th e F r e n c h R e v o lu tio n ,

b u t n a tio n s existed befo re the d o c trin e was f o rm u la te d . O nce the d o ctrin e
h a d been f o rm u la te d , it was used as a ju stific a tio n f o r cre atin g natio n alist
m o v e m en ts, a n d th e n sovereign states to e n c o m p a s s th e la nds in w hich it
was claim ed th a t n a tio n s lived.
T h e F re n c h rev olu tio n arie s, a n d th e ir disciples o u tsid e F ra n ce , zealously
sp rea d oversim plified versions o f so m e o f the ideas o f the eighteenth
c e n tu r y E n lig h ten m e n t. In the re v o lu tio n a r y e ra a m a n w h o h a d a little
e d u c a tio n , setting him a b o v e the m a jo rity , felt h im self b o th qualified an d
m o ra lly b o u n d to tr a n s la te his principles into political ac tio n . G o v e r n m e n t
m u st n o w be based, n o t o n th e accidents o f histo ry a n d privilege, on
in stitutions a n d hierarchies w hich h a d g r o w n u p in th e past, b u t on ra tio n a l
principles, w o rk e d o u t in p r o g ra m m e s a n d b lue prints. {Nationalism as a
d o c trin e was derived f r o m the e ig h tee n th c e n tu r y n o tio n o f p o p u la r
so ve re ig n ty .! In F ra n ce , w h en the h a te d old regim e h a d been o v e rth ro w n ,
p o w e r belonged to the n a tio n , o r to th o se w h o claim ed to speak fo r it. It
w as ob v io u s w h o w ere the F re n c h nation : F ra n c e w as p o p u la te d by
F re n c h m e n , a n d F r e n c h m e n were n o t to be f o u n d o u tsid e F ra n c e , th o u g h
th e re were so m e th o u s a n d s o f p eople o f F re n c h speech o n the b o rd e rs o f
S w itze rland a n d Belgium. Beyond the R h in e a n d the A lps things were not
so clear. T he enem y, the old regim e, was easily identifiable, b u t it was not
o b v io u s w h a t sh o u ld be the units in w hich p o p u la r sovereignty sh o u ld be
exercised. T h e an s w e r increasingly given by the local co n v e rts to the new
ideas was the G e r m a n n a tio n , o r the Italian n a t i o n — n o t j u s t the people of
H esse-K assel o r o f Lucca.
j N atio n alist d o ctrin e, as it developed in th e N a p o le o n ic era, h ad also
a n o t h e r sou rce, the cult o f in dividuality , b o th p e r so n a l a n d cu ltu ral. T h e
G e r m a n p h ilo s o p h ers F ich te a n d H e r d e r stressed the im p o r ta n c e o f
lan g u ag e as the basis o f n a tionality. H e r d e r em p h a sise d the divine diversity
o f the family o f n atio n s, the u n iq u e q u a lity o f ea ch cu ltu re. His e n th u sia sm
w as by n o m ean s con fin e d to the G e rm a n s: in a f a m o u s c h a p te r o n ‘th e
S lav s’ he idealised th e ir m o r a l a n d cu ltu ra l qualities. H e r d e r ’s ideas spread
to the few e d u c ated p erso n s a m o n g the sm aller a n d m o r e b a c k w a r d peoples
o f C e n tr a l a n d E a s te r n E u ro p e . E ac h g r o u p in t u r n felt m o r e strongly th a t
th e c o m rp u n ity w ith w hich it identified itself w as, o r o u g h t to be m a d e into,
a natio n /)

I shall m a k e no a t t e m p t to s u m m a r is e th e ideas o f the f o u n d in g fathers o f

n a tio n a list d o ctrin e, o r to trace th e ir p h ilo s o p h ic origins. T his h as been
d o n e by m a n y w riters, a n d p e r h a p s best o f all in a recent s h o r t m a s te r ­
piece.3 It is, how ever, i m p o r t a n t to d istinguish betw e en two categories o f
n a tio n s, w hich we will call the old a n d th e new. T h e old a re th o se w hich h a d
 Nations and Nationalism 7

a c q u ir e d n a t io n a l ide n tity o r n a t io n a l c o n s c io u s n e s s before th e f o r m u l a ­

tio n o f the d o c trin e o f n a tio n a lism . T h e new a re th o s e fo r w h o m tw o
processes d e v e lo p e d sim ulta n eo u sly : th e f o r m a tio n o f n a t io n a l c o n s c io u s ­
ness a n d th e c r e a tio n o f n a tio n a list m o v e m en ts. B o t h processes w ere the
w o rk o f sm all e d u c a te d political elites.

T h e old n a t io n s o f E u r o p e in 1789 w ere th e English, S c o ts , F re n c h , D u tc h ,

C astilians a n d P o rtu g u e s e in the west; the D a n e s a n d Sw edes in th e n o r th ;
an d the H u n g a r ia n s , Poles a n d R ussians in the east. O f these, all b u t th ree
lived in s ta te s ruled by p erso n s o f th e ir n a tio n a lity , anid th e re fo re nee d ed n o
n a tio n a l in d e p e n d e n c e m o v e m e n t; t h o u g h this o f c o u r s e does n o t m e a n
th a t these p eo ples did n o t suffer fro m v a rio u s d e g r e e s o f political o r social
o p p ressio n , a n d so, in the o p in io n o f radicals a n d re v o lu tio n a r ie s , ‘n e e d e d ’
liberation. T h e three ex c e p tio n s w ere th e S cots, w h o since 1707 h a d sh a re d
a single sta te w ith th e English a n d th e W elsh, while p reserving i m p o r t a n t
institutions o f th e ir o w n; a n d th e H u n g a r ia n s a n d P o le s , w h o w ere sim ply
subjected t o foreign rule. T h e H u n g a r ia n s had at o n e tim e been divided
between th r e e states (the H a b s b u r g M o n a r c h y , th e O t t o m a n e m p ir e a n d
the p r in c ip a lity o f T r a n sy lv a n ia ) , b u t at th e en d o f t h e e ig h te e n th c e n tu r y
were all su b je ct to th e H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y ; w h e r e a s th e P oles h a d bee n
divided since 1795 betw e en th e k in g d o m o f P r u s s i a , the R u s s ia n e m p ire
an d th e H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y . T h u s , t h o u g h P oles a n d H u n g a r ia n s h a d a
c o n tin u o u s n a t io n a l co n scio u sn e ss g o in g b a c k fo r several cen turies, the
co n tin u ity o f the P o lish a n d H u n g a r ia n sov ereign s ta te s h a d been b ro k e n .
T h ere w ere also a t this tim e o th e r c o m m u n itie s in w h ic h th e re w as, in th e
ed u c ated class, u n d o u b t e d a w a re n ess o f a c u l tu r a l c o m m u n i t y a n d a long
history, b u t in w hich the f o r m a tio n o f n a t io n a l c o n s c io u sn e ss eve n in th e
elite w as in c o m p le te. S u c h w ere the G e r m a n s a n d Ita lians; p e r h a p s also th e
Irish, C a ta la n s a n d N orw e g ian s.
In the rest o f E u r o p e th e re was little sign o f n a t i o n a l consciousness. In
these la n d s, new n a t io n s -were f o rm e d in th e c o u r s e o f the follo w ing
century, a n d this process was th e n e x te n d e d , by e d u c a t e d elites influenced
by E u r o p e a n ideas, in to th e M u slim lands, s o u t h e r n a n d ea ste rn A sia a n d
s u b - S a h a r a n Africa. N a ti o n s o f E u r o p e a n origin also em e rg e d in th e
colonies o f se ttle m en t in A m e ric a , S o u t h A fric a anid A ustralia.
T h e d istin c tio n b etw e en old a n d new n a tio n s se em s m o r e rele v an t t h a n
that b e tw e e n ‘h isto ric a l’ a n d ‘u n h is to ric a l’, w h ich c a m e in to use in C e n tr a l
E urope in th e late n in e te e n th century. All n a t io n s h a v e a h istory. S o m e o f
the co m m u n itie s in w hich, in 1789, n a t io n a l c o n s c io u s n e s s did n o t exist, o r
was still w ea k , h a d h a d lo n g a n d b rillian t h isto rie s— n o t only th e Italians
an d G e r m a n s , b u t th e G re e k s a n d B o h e m ia n s a n d Serbs. H o w ev er,
c o n tin u ity h a d b ee n b r o k e n b y c o n q u e st. T h e b a s ic difference, th e n , is
8 Nations and States

betw een old c o n tin u o u s n a tio n s a n d new natio n s; a n d it is o f som e

im p o r ta n c e for o u r them e.
T h e process o f f o r m a tio n o f n a tio n a l identity a n d n a tio n a l consciousness
a m o n g th e old n atio n s was slow a n d o bscure. It was a s p o n ta n e o u s process,
n o t willed by a n y one, t h o u g h there were g rea t events w hich in certain cases
clearly accelerated it.
In m edieval E u ro p e the w ord natio was in legal use, b u t it did n o t m e a n
the sam e thing as the m o d e r n ‘n a t io n ’. M a n y m edieval universities a t t r a c t ­
ed m a n y stude nts fro m o th e r lands beside their ow n. These w ere placed in
nationes, n a m e d a fte r the te rritorie s f r o m w hich the largest n u m b e r o f each
orig in a ted , b u t includin g also p erso n s fro m o th e r co u n trie s.4
In T ra n sy lv a n ia in th e fifteenth c e n tu ry there w ere three nationes
recognised by law, w h o were represented in the T ra n s y lv a n ia n Diet:
H u n g a r ia n , Szekely a n d S a x o n . 5 T h e H u n g a r ia n natio was co nfined to
p ersons o f nob le s ta tu s, b u t n o t to th o se of H u n g a r ia n speech. T h e Szekely
a n d S a x o n s , in c o n tra s t to th e H u n g a r ia n s , had no serfs in th e ir c o m m u n i­
ty, a n d the w hole p o p u la tio n was to som e ex te n t represented.
T h o u g h the w o rd natio th u s varied in m e an in g , it a n d its derivatives in
m o d e r n languages essentially c o m p rise d restricted categories. S e p a ra te
w o rd s existed to describe the w hole p o p u la tio n : populus peuple, people,
,
popolo and pueblo. In the lands f u rth e r east, ho w ever, as th e ideas o f the
E n lig h te n m e n t b egan to sprea d, this d istin ctio n b ec am e b lu rre d . Volk in
G erm an, and narod in th e Slav languages, so o n c a m e to c o m b in e the
m e anings of natio and populus, a n d such a d a p ta tio n s as Nation an d
natsiya were little used.6
In the case o f th o se w hich I have called the ‘old n a tio n s ’ a process to o k
place o f w hich it is difficult to p in p o in t the stages, b u t o f w hich the result is
u n m is ta k a b le . F o r ex a m p le , in 1200 neith er a F re n ch n o r a n English n a tio n
existed, b u t in 1600 b o th w ere im p o r ta n t realities. At the first o f these quite
a r b itra rily chosen d ates, the co u n tries n o w k n o w n as F ra n c e a n d E ngla nd
were ruled by m o n a r c h s a n d n o b le m e n w h o s p o k e the sam e lan g u ag e , had
m u c h the sam e o u tlo o k , a n d fo u g h t w ars a g a in st ea ch o th e r because o f
conflicting claim s to the te rrito ry , o r jo in e d each o th e r in fighting the
M uslim s in th e C ru sa d es. T h e ir subjects were m ostly serfs, w h o h ad no p a rt
in public affairs, s p o k e in b o th co u n trie s a variety o f languages, a n d were
b o u n d by duties to w a r d their feud al su p e rio rs a n d the ch u rc h . A t the
secon d d a te these tr a d itio n a l oblig a tio n s had n o t d is a p p e a re d , b u t the
differences betw een the peoples o f the tw o co u n trie s had e n o r m o u s ly
increased, while w ithin b o th co u n trie s there was a m u c h stro n g e r a n d w ider
sense o f c o m m u n ity . E ng lish m en a n d F re n c h m e n recognised them selves as
such; acce p te d o b liga tions to the sovereign; a n d a d m itte d the claim o f the
sovereign o n th e ir loyalty a t least in p a r t because the sovereign sym bolised
the c o m m u n ity as a w hole, sto o d for F ra n c e , o r fo r E n g la n d . T h ere were of
r

Nations and Nationalism 9

course exceptions to this sta te m en t. T h e r e w ere still regions a n d social

s trata w hich had h a rd ly been affected, yet the tre n d w as u n q u e s tio n a b le .
I )uring the in tervening centu ries larger se ctions o f th e p o p u la tio n h a d been
d ra w n u p w a r d s into pub lic life, a n d th e a w a re n e s s o f f o rm in g a c o m m u n ity
had spread d o w n w a r d s into th e p o p u la tio n . T h is w as largely a m a tte r of
econom ic a n d social d e v e lo p m e n t, o f g r o w i n g tr a d e , specialised m a n u f a c ­
tures, th e rise of cities a n d th e e n r ic h m e n t o f m e rc h a n ts . S ch o o ls a n d
learning began to flourish ( th o u g h f o r m a l e d u c a t io n still only affected a
small m inority), a n d the F re n c h a n d E nglish la n g u ag e s b e c am e fixed by a
growing literature, b o th religious a n d secular. T his was, to use a m o d e rn
term , a g r o w th o f c o m m u n ic a ti o n , a lb eit restricted in scope. In this process
geography, ec o n o m ic s, language, religion, a n d the p o w e r o f th e state all
played their part. T h e last was, on b a la n c e , the m o s t i m p o r ta n t, fo r it was
the g ro w th o f the m o n a rc h ic a l p o w e r — o f its m ilitary, fiscal a n d b u r e a u ­
cratic c o n tro ls — w hich d e term in e d th e b o u n d a r ie s w ith in w hich th e sense
of c o m m u n ity sh o u ld develop.

I n the case o f the new n a tio n s the p ro ce ss is easier to g r a s p , f o r it t o o k place

over a m u c h sh o r te r perio d a n d is well d o c u m e n te d . T h e leaders o f n a t io n a l
m ovem ents since the F re n c h R e v o lu tio n have been by d e finition artic u la te
persons, a n d their p r o p a g a n d a a m o n g th e ir o w n p o p u la tio n s , designed to
im plant in th e m a n a tio n a l c o n s c io u sn e ss a n d a desire f o r political ac tio n ,
I hough largely c o n d u c te d by w ord o f m o u t h , w as also p u t in w riting a t the
lime. T h e g ro w th o f new m o d e rn m e a n s o f c o m m u n ic a ti o n still f u rth e r
decelerated the process in the tw e n tie th c e n tu r y in c o m p a r is o n w ith the
nineteenth. In the case of the new n a t io n s o f n in e te e n th a n d early tw en tieth
ecntury E u ro g e , the m a in facto r in th e c r e a tio n o f n a t io n a l conscio usn ess
was la n g u ag e ] In the f o rm a tio n o f th e o v erse as n a t io n s o f E u r o p e a n origin,
econom ic an a g e o g ra p h ica l causes w ere th e m o s t i m p o r ta n t. In colo n ial
Africa, state b o u n d a r ie s a r b itra rily fixed by im p e ria l g o v e r n m e n ts largely
determ ined the units w ithin w hich the a t t e m p t was m a d e to c reate m o d e r n
tuitions. In India a n d C h in a the a t t e m p t to build m o d e r n n a tio n a l m o v e ­
ments was s u p e rim p o se d on a n c ie n t civilisations to w hich the E u r o p e a n
categories o f n a tio n a lity had only lim ited relevance)
A fu n d a m e n ta l f e a tu re o f all these m o v e m e n ts is t h a t th e n a tio n a list
elites were only ab le to m obilise s u p p o r t fro m p ea sa n ts, m e rc h a n ts ,
iirtisans o r fac to ry w o rk e rs because m a n y p e rso n s in these v ario u s classes
were d isc o n te n ted w ith political a n d social c o n d itio n s. O n e m ay plausibly
ii i gue th a t the f o u n d a ti o n s o f their d is c o n te n t w ere e c o n o m ic . Nevertheless
the d isc o n te n t was direc ted by th e n a t io n a lis t elites into n atio n alist
m ov em ents r a th e r t h a n to w a r d s e c o n o m ic ch a n g e. W h e r e this h a p p e n e d ,
one m ay say th a t th e m asses a c c e p te d n a tio n a lis t r a t h e r t h a n social
10 Nations and States

r e v o lu tio n a ry leadership. A s this b o o k is c o n c e rn e d w ith n atio n alist

m o v e m en ts, a t te n t io n will be c o n c e n tra te d inevitab ly o n the activities,
political aim s a n d social c o m p o s itio n o f th e n a tio n a list elites r a th e r t h a n o n
th e n a t u r e o f their follo w ers’ e c o n o m ic grievances. W i th o u t the d isc o n te n ts
th e re w o u ld have been n o m o v e m en ts; b u t w ith o u t the n a tio n a list elites the
m o v e m e n ts w ould n o t have been n ationalist.
I shall be obliged fro m tim e to tim e to m e n tio n widely d ivergent religious
a n d secular cultures, e c o n o m ic p ro b lem s, f o rm s o f g o v e r n m e n t, foreign
policies a n d d ip lo m a tic a n d m ilitary events; but these are essentially
p e rip h e ra l to my subject. T h e perip h e ra l subjects are o f vast im p o r ta n c e in
them selves, b u t they are n o t my them e.
In the process of f o rm a tio n o f n a tio n a l con sciousn ess, a n d in m o v e m en ts
to r n a tio n a l in d e p en d e n ce a n d unity, th ere has been in each case a different
c o m b in a t io n o f certain c o n s ta n tly rec u rrin g forces: state pow er, religion,
lang uage, social d isc o n te n ts a n d e c o n o m ic pressures. W he re political a n d
social po w er are c o n c e n tra te d in a g r o u p w ho differ in b o th religion an d
lan g u ag e fro m the m a jo r ity o f the p o p u la tio n a m o n g w h o m they dwell, a n d
an e d u c a te d elite is em erg in g f r o m th a t p o p u la tio n , th e n the o p tim u m
c o n d itio n s are given fo r the rap id g r o w th o f a n a tio n a list m o v e m en t. W he re
several small elites o f different languages are em erg in g w ithin the sam e
state, o r w here the p o p u la tio n shares either the religion or the lang uage o f
its rulers but n o t b o th , a m o re c o m ^ e x s itu a tio n arises, a n d the tasks of
n a tio n a list leaders are m o re difficult
M y first in te n tio n was to m a k e a r o u g h ty p o lo g y o f n atio n alist m o v e ­
m e n ts by g r o u p in g cases a c c o r d in g to the relative im p o r ta n c e , in the
f o r m a tio n of n a tio n a l consciou sness a m o n g th e ir people, o f the m a in forces
listed ab ove , in p a r tic u la r o f the state, religion a n d language. T h u s, one can
say w ith o u t m u c h h esita tio n th a t the F re n c h n a tio n grew up to g e th e r with
the F re n c h m o n a rc h y ; th a t religion played a decisive role in the m a k in g of
the Irish natio n; a n d th a t S lo v ak a n d U k ra in ia n n a t io n a l consciousnesses
w ere based on language. H o w ev er, I f o u n d so m a n y cases in w hich it was
im po ssib le to give a definite p rio rity to one fac to r o v er the others, th a t I
decided instead to a r r a n g e m y m a teria l a c c o r d in g to c o n v e n tio n a l regional
divisions. This d o es n o t m e a n th a t c o m p a r is o n o f th e o p e r a tio n o f these
m a in forces is neglected: on the c o n tra ry , these fac to rs a re c o n s ta n tly
em p h a sise d , a n d sim ilarities or differences a re p o in te d out, t h o u g h I have
also as su m e d th a t m y rea ders are ca p a b le o f disc o v erin g p a tte rn s for
themselves.
E ac h case has b een ta k e n historically. I feel n o need to ap ologise for the
elem e n t o f ch ro n o lo g ic a l n a rra tiv e w hich this m u s t imply. A serious
stu d e n t o f n a tio n a list m o v e m e n ts c a n n o m o r e ignore their p as t th a n a
d o c t o r ca n ignore th e m edical histo ry o f his p atients. I have tried to pick
th o se m o m e n ts in tim e w hich seem to m e to have b een decisive for the
 Nations and Nationalism 11

f o r m a tio n <of n a tio n a l consciousness, a n d fo r th e struggles fo r in d e p e n ­

dence a n d unity. In the case of ‘new ’ n a tio n s these processes a r e well
d o c u m e n te d , a n d the t a s k — n o t always easy or sim ple in practice th o u g h
obv io u s in p rin cip le— is to m a k e the essential la n d m a r k s a n d tre n d s sta nd
o u t f r o m t h e ch ro n o lo g ic a l detail. In th e case o f ‘o ld ’ n a tio n s the ta sk is
m u c h more: difficult, for the historical re c o rd fro m w hich one m u st select or
discard is m u c h longer a n d richer, a n d leads b ack to a n c ie n t cultures w hose
essence c o u l d not be briefly e x p o u n d e d in a w o rk of this kind, even if per
impossibile th e re existed in this w orld a p erso n ca p a b le o f grasp in g the
essence o f a ll these cultures. A second f o rm id a b le difficulty is th a t, d u rin g
the stages o f their h istory in w hich th e n a tio n a l identity a n d self-
consciousmess o f these ‘o ld ’ n atio n s were fo rm e d , the co n c ep ts o f ‘n a tio n a l
c o n s c io u sn e ss’ a n d th e m o d e rn co n c e p t o f ‘n a t io n ’ did n o t exist. T h e
leaders hadl n o idea th a t they were e nga g ed in fo rm in g natio n s. T h is is the
basic d iffe ren ce betw een the ‘o ld ’ n a tio n s a n d th e p o s t - 1789 ‘new ’ nations:
in the case o f the latter, the le aders k new perfectly well w h a t it was th a t they
were tr y i n g to d o — w hich d o es not, o f course, m e an t h a t w h a t they
achieved in fact was w h a t they h ad set o u t to achieve.
T h e r e is a n inh erent a n d in escapable a n a c h r o n is m in th e a p p lic a tio n to
the past o f t h e ‘o ld ’ n a tio n s o f the categories derived f r o m the histo ry o f the
‘new’. Yet this has to be d o n e , a n d aspec ts o f the earlier cu ltu res a n d
in stitu tio n s, a n d events from m edieval o r even an c ie n t tim es w hich seem
relevant to the f o r m a tio n o f n a tio n a l consciousness, have to be m en tio n e d .
It m ay s e e m o d d to the re a d e r th a t w ith in a few pages I refer to the
e x a m in a tio n system o f the S u n g d y n asty , the T ’aip in g R ebellion a n d M a o
Tse-tung; o r to the re p la c e m e n t o f Pictish by Irish G aelic in S c o tla n d , the
fall in to d is u s e o f literary L o w la n d S c o ts afte r the c o u r t o f J a m e s VI
a d o p te d s o u t h e r n English, a n d the discovery o f oil off th e N o r t h Sea coast
of S c o tla n d . Yet f u rth e r reflection m a y induc e the r e a d e r to sh a re my
conviction th a t j u x ta p o s it io n o f this so rt c a n n o t be avo id ed.
I have g iv e n a g o o d deal o f space to the g r o w th a n d th e r e fo rm of
languages. I have h ad to rely on th e w o rk o f h isto ria n s o f language, b u t
liuve been ab le to s u p p le m e n t this by m y o w n kno w led g e o f s p o k e n a n d
written la n g u a g e s, a m a te u r i s h a n d n o n -te c h n ic a l t h o u g h this m a y be. J u s t
bccause h is t o r y o f la n g u ag e is usually in o u r tim e kept so rigidly a p a r t from
c o n v e n tio n a l political, e c o n o m ic a n d social history, it has seem ed to me
desirable t o b rin g it to g e th e r w ith these, even a t th e cost o f less expertise.
T h re e c h a p t e r s ar e co n c e rn e d w ith E u ro p e : the secon d w ith th e c o n t in u ­
ous n a t io n s , th e th ir d w ith m o v e m e n ts for n a tio n a l unity , a n d the fo u rth
with ‘n e w ’ n a tio n s arising w ith in m u ltin a tio n a l states. It has som e tim es
been difficu lt to decide in w hich c a te g o ry to place ce rtain cases. T h e P oles
could h a v e b een tre a te d as a n old c o n t in u o u s n a tio n , o r the S erbs a n d
< i o ats as n e w n a tio n s arisin g w ithin th e O t t o m a n a n d H a b s b u r g em pires.
12 Nations and States

H o w ev er, the aspect o f the Polish case w hich seem ed to m e o f greatest

interest for the th e m e o f this b o o k was th e m o v e m e n t to reu n ite a n a tio n
a lre a d y divided betw een three em pires; a n d o f the S e rb ia n a n d C r o a tia n
cases th e m o v e m e n t to create a c o m m o n Y ug oslav sta te a n d n a tio n , a n d the
obstacles w hich it e n c o u n te re d .
T he fifth, sixth, seventh a n d eighth c h a p te rs are co n c e rn e d w ith m o v e ­
m ents for in d e p en d e n ce by the peoples of colo nial em pires, the co n s e q u e n t
e m erg ence o f new states, the a t te m p ts to create new n a tio n s w ith in th e m ,
a n d the o n e case w h ere all such efforts have been s u p p re ss e d — th e Soviet
R u ssian em pire. T h e regions in w hich these p r o b le m s a re consid ered in
t u r n are the lands o f E u r o p e a n se ttle m en t overseas, th e w estern p a r t of th e
M u slim w orld, E ast A sia a n d Africa. T h e subject o f th e n in th c h a p te r is the
rela tio n sh ip between racialism (white, black an d red) a n d n atio n alist
m o v e m e n ts in the A m eric as a n d S o u th Africa. T h e te n th c h a p te r considers
d ia s p o r a nations, th a t is, n atio n s w hich have a large n u m b e r o f their
m e m b e rs scattered in c o m m u n itie s o v er great distances. T h e m o st obv ious
case is the Jew s, b u t overseas C hinese a n d In dians a re tw o others.
T h e role o f different social classes in n a tio n a l m o v e m en ts, a n d especially
in the leadership o f these m o v e m en ts, is o f g rea t interest a n d im p o rta n c e .
T h e eleventh c h a p te r is dev o ted to this subject. T h e tw elfth c h a p te r is
co n c e rn e d w ith the r ela tio n sh ip o f o th e r m a jo r political m o v e m en ts, based
on ideologies, to n atio n a lism , a n d the e x te n t to w hich they have influenced
ea ch other. N o a t te m p t is m a d e a t p h ilo s o p h ica l analysis, o r m odel-
building, n o r is a n y sy stem atic s u m m a r y o f these ideologies given; all these
thing s ca n easily be fo u n d in a n a b u n d a n t ( th o u g h c o n tra d ic to ry , a n d n o t
alw ays intelligible) literature. M y co n c e rn is to sh o w n o t w h e th e r the ideas
a re valid, o r logically c o h e re n t, but w h e th e r a n d h o w they have influenced
ea ch o th e r, a n d w h e th e r a n d to w h a t e x te n t th o se w h o profess o n e ideology
have in practice follow ed a n o th e r . T h is has o f course m a d e it necessary
f r o m tim e to tim e to discuss som e o f the ideas; but my c o n c e r n has been
w ith liberal, socialist, fascist a n d c o m m u n is t m o v e m e n ts as political
realities a n d historical case-studies (fro m w hich som e ten tativ e g ene ralisa­
tio n s ca n be risked), r a th e r th a n w ith a b s tra c t p r o p o sitio n s .
N a tio n a list d o ctrin es will no m o re sta n d up to critical analysis th a n an y
o th e r ideologies, yet this has n o t prev e n ted th e m fro m c a p tu r in g m e n ’s
m inds. N a tio n a lis m has been responsible for floods o f rheto ric a n d for the
d e b a s e m e n t o f h u m a n language. N atio n alists have s h o w n ig n o r a n t c o n ­
te m p t fo r in stitu tio n s, c u s to m s a n d beliefs w hich h ad p ro v ed th e ir w o rth
fo r centuries, a n d hav e replaced th e m w ith fragile stru ctu re s a n d em p ty
slogans. E x tr e m e n a tio n a lis m h as bee n a c ru d e s u b s titu te religion, rep la c­
ing w ithered faith by fan a tica l hatre d s. T o o often its le aders have been
f ru stra te d social misfits an d s e lf-im p o rta n t semi-intellectuals. A t its w orst,
e x tre m e n atio n a lism has led to m a ssacres a n d forcible exp u lsio n s of
 Nations and Nationalism 13

millions o f m ain ly in n o c en t people.

N evertheless, the n a tio n is s o m e th in g w hich has b een fo rm e d , a t least in
m a n y lands, by lon g historical processes, w hich it is foolish, as well as
a r r o g a n t, to despise. In th e years after 1789 the p r o b le m o f fin ding a unit
for th e exercise o f p o p u la r sovereignty w as a real p r o b le m , a n d th e n ation ,
based usually o n langu age, was th e only a n s w e r w h ich c ould have been
given a t th a t time. T h e in to leranc e a n d the illusions o f n a tio n a lis m are p a rt
o f the in toleranc e a n d the illusions o f d e m o c ra c y . If th e d o c trin e of
n atio n alism ca n be t o r n to pieces by analysis, so ca n th e d o c trin e o f p o p u la r
sovereignty. It is a r g u a b le , an d it certainly c a n n o t be irrefutably d isproved,
th a t m en were h a p p ie r u n d e r the g reat d es p o tic em p ires o r the petty feudal
sovereignties th a n u n d e r m o d e rn mass d em o c ra c ie s o r n a tio n states, even
th o u g h these m o re prim itive regim es lacked television sets a n d c o m p u ters.
Yet this is useless w isd o m in a world w hich has b e c o m e divided into mass
societies, in w hich sovereign states have bec om e firm ly ro o te d , a n d in
which there is no p ro sp e c t o f a retu rn to the past.
2 Europe: The Old Continuous
Nations

I'rom empire to sovereign state

I he long p ro ce ss by w hich in E u ro p e sovereign states a ro se a n d n ations
were f o rm e d has its origins in th e co llapse o f the R o m a n E m p ire, the
uttem pts to revive a n im perial pow er, the slow d ec ay o f th e revival, a n d the
still slow er w ith e rin g a w a y o f its m ytholog y.
H istory, o f course, do es n o t begin w ith the R o m a n em pire, n o r was the
em pire sim p ly the heir to th e R o m a n republic o r to th e Italian tribes fro m
which its f o u n d e r s sprang. E veryon e k n o w s th a t first H ellas a n d th e n
C hristian ity c o n t r i b u te d to the legacy o f R o m e; b u t R o m e ’s Hellenistic
heritage c o n t a in e d a P ersian elem ent, itself derived no d o u b t in p a r t from
ligypt a n d S u m e r . T h e R o m a n e m p e r o r w as less r e m o te f r o m th e G re a t
K mg, th e K in g o f K ings, th e Shahinshah, th a n f ro m th e p h ilo s o p h e r-k in g
ill Plato; R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t ow ed so m e th in g to X erx es as well as to
I hemistocles.
I he b a r b a r ia n s b e y o n d the limes reg a rd e d the e m p ire w ith a d m ir a tio n as
well as w ith r e se n tm e n t. T h e rulers o f the b a r b a r i a n k in g d o m s w hich aro se
when the e m p ir e b r o k e u p willingly preserved so m e p a r ts o f its s tru c tu re
Hnd a b s o r b e d so m e o f its values; while th e b ish o p o f R o m e still claim ed th a t
In* d ila p id a te d city w as the ce n tre o f C h r is te n d o m . In th e second capital,
( o n s ta n tin o p le , th e im p e rial in stitu tio n survived, a n d its a u t h o r i ty still
r htended a r o u n d th e E a s te r n M e d ite rr a n e a n . T h e first a t t e m p t at revival o f
line em p ire u n d e r J u s t i n i a n (reign 527-65) lasted b u t a few years. Less th a n
ti h u n d red yea rs la ter th e E a s te r n M e d ite r r a n e a n reg io n was lost p a rtly to
I In S assa n id P ersian s a n d th e n w holly to th e M u s lim p o w e r w hich b u rst
nut o f the A r a b i a n desert. A b are h a lf c e n tu r y la ter the Im p eria l City
«H listood siege by a n A r a b navy.
I Ik· second a t t e m p t to resto re the e m p ire c a m e f r o m th e W est, a n d was
I In punt a c h ie v e m e n t o f th e kin g o f the F r a n k s a n d th e b is h o p o f R om e.
I In pope crowned Charles the Great Holy Roman Emperor on Christmas
I >nv 800. The rivalries of his descendants reduced the empire to a fiction.
Wlirii it was more effectively restored, by Otto 1 (reign 936-73), its real
16 Nations and States

p o w e r was based n o t in the lands in w h ich the L atin lang u ag e h a d rem a in ed

d o m in a n t in several ‘R o m a n c e ’ v a r ia n ts — F ra n c e a n d Italy — b u t in G e r ­
m a ny . F r o m this tim e o n w a r d s , th e W e ste rn E m p ire was essentially a
G e r m a n institution , a l th o u g h the e m p e r o rs long claim ed a ce rtain s h a d o w y
a u th o rity ov er the o th e r rulers o f W e ste rn C h r is te n d o m ; a n d fo r several
centuries these rulers did n o t o penly re p u d ia te th e claim , t h o u g h in practice
th e y p u rsu e d their ow n d y n as tic interests. T h e sam e is tru e o f the attitu d e s
o f rulers to the o th e r p o te n ta t e w h o claim ed u niversal a u t h o rity , th e pope.
It was p e r h a p s a b o v e all the bitter, a n d f re q u en tly renew ed, conflict
betw e en e m p e r o r a n d p ope, leading to rep e ate d w ars betw een Italian cities
a n d betw een G e r m a n feudal m a g n ate s, a n d to fre q u e n t invasions o f Italy
by G e r m a n tr o o p s , w hich fatally u n d e r m in e d the a u t h o r i ty o f b o th , an d
stre n g th e n e d th e secular rulers, especially the kings o f F ra n c e a n d E ngland.
T h e k id n a p p in g in 1303 o f P o p e Boniface VII I by soldiers o f K ing Philip
IV, w hich set off th e G re a t S ch ism in the C h u r c h o f R o m e , is a useful
sym bolic la n d m a r k in this process.
■Similar tendencies ca n be seen in the R o m a n em p ire o f the East. T h e
in stitu tio n of e m p e r o r was directly descend ed fro m C o n s ta n tin e , th o u g h
n u m e ro u s individuals a n d d ynasties succeeded ea ch o th e r, w ith o r w ithou t
violence. T h e c h u r c h o f C o n s ta n ti n o p le grew ever f u rth e r a p a r t from the
ch u rc h o f Rom e: th e re were perio ds o f ac u te q u arrellin g a n d periods o f
conciliation, b u t in effect they h ad b ec o m e se p a r a te c h u rc h es by the
eleventh century, b e c o m in g generally k n o w n to h istoria ns as th e ‘C a th o lic ’
a n d the ‘O r t h o d o x ’ churches. W ith in the e m pire, how ever, th e secular an d
sp iritua l au th o rities r em a in ed m u c h m o re closely u n ite d th a n in the West:
q u arrels betw een in d iv id u al ea ste rn e m p e r o rs a n d p a tria r c h s never to o k on
th e sam e dim e n sio n s as th o se betw e en w estern e m p e r o rs a n d popes.
T h e rulers o f the b a r b a r ia n k in g d o m s bey o n d the em pire, con v e rted at
different periods to th e ea ste rn fo rm of C h r is tia n ity — the B ulgarians,
R u ssian s a n d S e r b s— looked to th e em p ire w ith th e sam e c o m b in a t io n of
a d m ir a tio n a n d re se n tm e n t as h a d the c o n v e rted b a r b a r ia n s o f the W est
to w a r d s the em p ire o f R o m e. King S im e o n o f Bulgaria (reign 893-927)
w ished to bec om e associa te e m p e r o r in C o n s ta n tin o p le . T he rulers o f the
secon d B u lg arian e m p ire (1185-1393) aim ed , in th e ir w ars w ith the
F r a n k is h rulers o f C o n s ta n ti n o p le after 1204,1 to m a k e them selves e m p e r ­
ors. Still later, S te p h e n D u s h a n o f S erb ia (reign 1331-55) h a d him self
cro w n e d e m p e r o r o f the S erbs a n d G re ek s in 1345. H ow ever, n o S e rb ia n o r
B ulgarian C h a rle m a g n e was e n t h r o n e d in C o n s ta n tin o p le . Before this
co uld h a p p e n , the k in g d o m o f R u ssia w as c o n q u e r e d by the M o n g o ls
betw e en 1237 a n d 1241, a n d b o t h B ulgaria a n d S erb ia w ere reduced to
su b m issio n by th e O t t o m a n T u r k s in the late f o u rte e n th a n d fifteenth
centuries. C o n s ta n tin o p le itself held o u t, u n d e r a resto re d G re ek d y nasty,
u ntil 1453. T h e disa ste r o f O t t o m a n c o n q u e s t th u s forestalled th e process
 Europe: The Old Continuous Nations 17

by w hich ea ste rn equ iv ale n ts of the sovereign k in g d o m s o f F ra n c e an d

E n g la n d m ight have arisen.
T h e rise o f the centralised sovereign state in the W est w as ac c o m p a n ie d
by th e rise of new social g ro u p s. City b u rg h ers, secular state officials a n d
m e d iu m la n d o w n e rs a c q u ir e d som e o f the p o w e r w hich in previous
centuries h ad b een m o n o p o lise d by g rea t la nded m a g n ate s. T hese new
social g ro u p s often s u p p o r te d the m o n a rc h s , a n d were often w elcom ed as
allies, o r m a n ip u la te d as political in s tru m e n ts , by th e m . T h ese g ro u p s
c o n tin u e d to have conflicting interests, yet w ere also increasingly linked by
a c o m m o n loyalty. H o riz o n ta l links betw een the subjects grew stro n g , in
a d d itio n to the vertical links betw een ruler, feudal su p e rio r a n d inferior.
T h e interests a n d wishes o f the people b eg a n to fo rm p a r t o f the basis o f
legitim acy o f g o v e rn m e n t.
It is im p o r ta n t to recognise n o t only t h a t th e m o d e rn n a tio n , w hich cam e
into existence in this perio d , was s o m e th in g different f r o m the m edieval
natio — a w o rd w hich had v arious m e a n in g s in d ifferent places a n d
p e rio d s— but also th a t th e process o f the f o r m a tio n o f a m o d e r n n a tio n did
n o t ta k e place in all th e sovereign states w hich em erged f r o m the fifteenth
ce n tu r y o n w ard s. T w o o u ts t a n d in g sovereign sta te s— F ra n c e a n d
E n g la n d — ca n rightly be described as ‘n a t io n states’. I n these tw o cases, the
fo r m a tio n o f the sta te a n d the f o rm a tio n o f th e n a tio n a d v a n c e d together:
th e n a tio n was f o rm e d w ith in th e b o u n d a r ie s o f the state, a n d th o se w ho
lived outside th o se b o u n d a r ie s did not b elo n g to the n a tio n . T h e w o rd s
‘sovereign sta te ’ a n d ‘n a tio n sta te ’ are n o t ho w ev e r in terchan geable: it is a
regrettab le m istak e o f m a n y d istinguished histo ria n s, especially o f Britain
a n d A m eric a, to use th e m as if they were. S c o tla n d , H o lla n d , Castile an d
S w e d en bec am e b o th sovereign states a n d n a tio n states. T his is not,
how ever, tru e o f th e k in g d o m o f S p a in , a n d still less o f th e n u m e ro u s
principalities ( so m e o f w hich possessed for lo n g p erio d s effective sove r­
eignty a n d c o n s id e ra b le p o w e r a n d influence) w hich a ro se in the g e o g r a p h i­
cal are as usually k n o w n as G e r m a n y a n d Italy; a n d it is very q u e s tio n a b le
w h e th e r th e p h rase ‘n a tio n s ta te ’ sh o u ld be used o f P o la n d o r of H u n g a r y ,
th o u g h b o th o f these were sovereign states, a r g u a b ly a lre a d y in the eleventh
ce n tu ry , certainly by th e fo u rte en th .
D espite great re g iona l variety, the m a in lines o f the political a n d social
o r d e r o f m edieval C a th o lic E u ro p e were sim ilar. T h e essence of this o r d e r
was t h e existence o f m u tu a l o b lig a tio n s betw een social g ro u p s, g u a r a n te e d
by law a n d by institu tio n s. In p a rtic u la r, th e u p p e r class h ad ce rtain rights
which the ruler was b o u n d to recognise. T h e r e were b itter struggles, for
centuries o n en d , betw e en the ce n tral p o w e r a n d th e social elite, w ith each
g ainin g a n d losing battles, enjoyin g a s c e n d a n c e o r suffering inferiority
so m e tim es for long p erio d s a t a time. N evertheless, lo o k in g b a c k w a r d for
m a n y centuries fro m m o d e r n tim es, o n e sees th a t th e re was alw ays a
IH Nations and States

balancc between m o n a r c h y a n d nobility. T his system o f b alan c es was

feudalism, a w o rd w hich sh o u ld p ro p e rly be used fo r this p h e n o m e n o n a n d
not sim ply to d e n o te all types o f p re -in d u stria l e c o n o m y in w h ich la n d is
mostly held by a r a th e r sm all n u m b e r o f la n d o w n e rs, w h o o b ta in their
wealth by the se rfd o m , o r so m e o th e r fo rm o f d e p e n d e n c y , o f th e p ea sa n t
majority.
In m edieval E u ro p e a th ir d elem e n t a p p e a r e d in the b alan c e, the
organised m e rc h a n ts a n d m a n u fa c tu r e rs o f the cities, w h o also w o n their
rights a n d institutions g u a r a n te e d by law. T h e feud al o r d e r c o n tin u e d to
exist long after th e city p o p u la tio n h ad bec om e n u m e ro u s a n d wealthy.
C a p ita lism coexisted w ith a n ag ric u ltu re based o n s e rfd o m o r o n a p o o r
an d d e p e n d e n t te n a n try . B o th belonged to th e feudal order. In th e cou rse of
tim e, in n o rth -w e ste rn E u ro p e u r b a n ca p ita lism c a m e to d o m in a te the
ec o n o m y , a n d la n d o w n e r-d ire c te d a g ric u ltu re to play a se co n d a ry part;
while in p arts o f ea ste rn E u ro p e u r b a n c a p ita lism receded after a period of
g r o w th (the so-called ‘se co n d se rf d o m ’ in P o la n d a n d P russia). B ut in the
w h ole o f C a th o lic E u r o p e feudalism left its m a r k o n political a n d ethical
th inking.
T h e process by w hich privileges w ere w o n by successive social elites, a n d
e x p a n d e d ( n o t w ith o u t b itter struggles) to low er levels o f the social
p y r a m id , was the p r e c o n d itio n fo r th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f individualist
th in k in g , a n d for th e g r o w th of a r a th e r large politically con scious u p p e r
s tr a t u m , b o u n d to g e th e r by h o r iz o n ta l ties o f solid arity a n d n o longer
linked on ly vertically in hie ra rc hic al s u b o r d in a tio n . Individu alist th in k in g
a n d h o riz o n ta l solid arity were th e s ta rtin g -p o in ts for th e g r o w th of
n a t io n a l consciousness. T o a t tr ib u te these p h e n o m e n a solely to th e rise o f
ca pita lism a n d of a bourg eo isie is a n error: they m ust be trac ed b a c k m u c h
fu rth e r, to the feu d a l order. T h is was, how ever, m u c h less tr u e o f the
B yzantine em p ire ( th o u g h elem ents o f feudalism a r e n o t w holly lacking),
a n d was u n k n o w n in M u sc o v ite R u s sia ( th o u g h p e r h a p s n o t i n Kiev R ussia
before th e M ongo ls).
A second featu re o f m edieval E u ro p e was a h in d r a n c e to the g r o w th b o th
o f th e sovereign sta te a n d o f n a t io n a l co nsciousness. T h is was th e tendency
o f m o n a rc h s , w ho h a d a c c u m u la te d p o w e r over a g re a t te rrito ry , to divide
it u p b etw een heirs a n d th e re b y dissolve a g rea t ce n tre o f political pow er,
a n d p o s tp o n e th e g r o w th o f b o th sta te a n d n atio n . T his was to be seen in
A n g lo - S a x o n a n d A n g ev in E n g la n d , in th e s e p a r a tio n o f B u rg u n d y fro m
F ra n c e by K ing J e a n in 1360, in th e b r e a k -u p o f P o la n d in the th ir te e n th
c e n tu ry a n d in th e rise a n d fall o f th e C h ristia n k in g d o m s o f n o r th e r n
S pain . T he sam e p h e n o m e n o n o c c u rre d in Kiev Russia. In M u slim states,
how eve r, a n d in C h in a afte r th e reign o f the F irs t E m p e ro r , it was n o t o f
c o m p a r a b le im p o rta n ce .
A th ird subject for brief c o m m e n t is the R e fo r m a tio n . T h e rejection o f
 Europe: The Old Continuous Nations 19

th e p a p a l a u t h o ri ty over the c h u r c h was a result p artly o f increased learning

a n d individual religious th in k in g (in th e E n g la n d o f Wycliffe as well as in
the Bohem ia o f Hus); partly o f g ro w in g pride in the d e v e loping secular
language; a n d partly o f o b jection s by m o n a rc h s , secular officials a n d even
b ish o p s to th e claim s o f the p o p e in d is ta n t R o m e to interfere in th eir
affairs. E c o n o m ic a n d social forces bec am e closely in te rw o v e n with
religious, a n d th o se co u n tries in w hich P ro te s ta n tis m prevailed w ere those
in w hich b o th the en terp rise a n d the political in fluence o f capitalists grew
m ost strik ingly— t h o u g h n o t until q uite a long tim e afte rw a rd s. A r g u m e n ts
as to w h e th e r ca pita lism bred th e R e fo r m a tio n , o r the R e fo r m a tio n
capitalism , m a y be left to th o se w h o specialise in d e te r m in in g th e prio rity of
hens a n d eggs. It is here o f interest to n o te the d ifferent influence o f the
R e f o r m a tio n in different c ou ntries, as rega rds th e g r o w th o f sovereign
states a n d o f n a tio n a l consciousness.
T h e R e f o r m a tio n was a long period o f latent o r overt civil w a r in m o st o f
E u ro p e , b u t th e results varied fro m c o u n t r y to c o u n try . In S p ain , P o rtu g a l
a n d Italy th e refo rm ers were c ru shed. In E n gla n d, S c o tla n d a n d S c a n d i n a ­
via they prevailed. In Ireland a small m in o rity o f foreigners im posed their
rule, b u t n o t th e ir new faith, o n a C a th o lic people. T h e N e th e r la n d s a n d
G e r m a n y were p a r titio n e d , afte r decades of w a r w hich b r o u g h t e c o n o m ic
p rosp erity to the first a n d d isa stro u s d e v a s ta tio n to the latter. In F ra n c e
half a ce ntury o f cruel civil w a r ended w ith stren g th en e d n a tio n a l c o n ­
sciousness a n d unity, a n d w ith the stro n g es t single state in E u ro p e stro n g er
th a n ever. In P o la n d th e C o u n t e r - R e f o r m a ti o n d ro v e b a c k the initially
successful refo rm ers w ith o u t b lo o d s h e d o r severe persecution. In H u n g a r y
an uneasy co e x istence o f C h ristia n faiths was m a d e possible only because
the d isa stro u s d efe at by the O tto m a n s a t M o h a c s in 1526 led to its p a rtitio n
u n d e r three ru lers— th e C a th o lic H a b s b u r g em p e ro rs , the M u slim sultans
indifferent to q u a rre ls a m o n g C h r istia n dogs, a n d the C alvin ist princes o f
Transylvania.
A few w ords m a y be a d d e d o n th e th r e e cases o f E n g la n d , F ra n c e a n d
( ic r m a n y .
In E n g la n d the initial drive c a m e f r o m the m o n a r c h ’s desire to bec om e
sovereign. H e n r y V III enjoyed s u b sta n tia l s u p p o r t in his resistance to the
pope, b u t his t r e a tm e n t o f C a th e rin e o f A r a g o n m a d e h im u n p o p u la r . T h e
co n fiscation o f th e m o n a s te r y la n d s w o n s u p p o r t fro m th o se w h o expected
ID enrich them selves, b u t also a n ta g o n is e d large n u m b e rs o f C a th o lics w ho
rebelled a n d w ere cru sh e d . In the follo w ing reigns religious conflicts
l» i am e m o re o p e n a n d m o r e bitter. P ro te s ta n tis m g ained g r o u n d , th o u g h
I he old religion still r e m a in e d s tr o n g a n d sm o u ld e rin g d isc o n te n t so m e ­
times b ro k e o u t in consp ira cies o r a r m e d rebellion. F o r d ecad es o n end
I upland was in a c o n d i tio n o f la ten t civil w ar. T h e d ep e n d e n c e o f C a th olics
• m i foreign s u p p o r t stre n g th e n e d th e a s so c ia tio n o f P r o te s ta n tis m w ith
20 Nations and States

English n a tio n a l in d epend ence; a n d by the end o f E liz a b e th ’s reign the

process o f f o rm a tio n o f English n a tio n a l conscio usne ss h ad been virtually
c o m p leted . T h e civil w ars o f th e seven te en th ce n tu ry did n o t s h a k e it.
In F ra n c e religious division d eve lope d into o p e n w ar, w ith each side
lo o k in g to foreign s u p p o r t — the G uises to S p ain a n d the H u g u e n o ts less
successfully to the N e th e r la n d s a n d E n gla nd. A lre a d y in the late fifteenth
c e n tu r y n a t io n a l consciousne ss h ad deeply p e n e tr a te d th e F re n c h people. It
w as at first indissolubly identified with b o th the m o n a r c h y a n d the C a th o lic
C h u r c h . As P ro te s ta n t heresy grew, th e C a th o lics reg a rd e d it as a th r e a t to
b o th n a tio n a n d m o n a rc h y . F in d in g the m o n a r c h ag a in st th e m , the
P ro te s ta n ts te n d ed to shift the em p h a sis o f loyalty fro m king to nation.
W h e n the king tu r n e d a g a in st the Guises, the C a th o lic s did the same. T h u s
a t the accession o f H enri IV b o th C a th o lic s a n d P ro te s ta n ts claim ed to be
fighting fo r the nation: n a tio n a l unity was being tre a te d as a g re a te r goo d
th a n religious tru th . H en ri IV him self seem ed to c o n f ir m this view by the
ac c e p ta n c e o f the M ass w hich w on him Paris. T h e G uises now becam e the
a n ti- n a tio n a l p arty, se rva nts o f S pain. A t the en d o f it all, F ra n ce , th a n k s to
its large p o p u la tio n a n d g rea t resources, was stro n g e r th a n ever, a n d all
F r e n c h m e n professed d e v o tio n to th e F re n c h n atio n . T his by n o m eans
m e a n t th a t unity o f religious or political views existed , o r th a t civil
dissension w as over. T h e re a fte r, c o n te n d in g parties were to claim to speak
fo r the F re n c h nation: as in E ngla nd in the seventeenth ce ntury, n o higher
focus o f loyalty was sought.
In G e r m a n y the R e f o r m a tio n was very largely a m o v e m e n t o f grow ing
n a t io n a l consciousness, directed a g a in st the Italian p op e, exto lling the
G e r m a n language as th e equ a l o f L atin for the ex p re ssio n o f Biblical tru th .
T h e r e w as no G e r m a n sovereign state w hich c ould c o m m a n d the loyalty of
G e r m a n s , for th e a u t h o r i ty o f the e m p e r o r was little m o r e th a n a sh a d o w of
p a s t glory, a n d the s tre n g th o f the H a b s b u r g s lay n o t in G e r m a n y b u t in the
N e th e r la n d s a n d S pain. T h e g r o w th o f G e r m a n n a tio n a l consciousness,
w h ich co in cided w ith the R e f o r m a tio n , was n ot, as in E n g la n d , canalised
by a centralising single m o n a rc h y , or, as in F ra n c e , c o n ta in e d w ithin the
limits o f a single po w erfu l state. G e r m a n P ro te s ta n ts bec am e d e p e n d e n t on
the p ro te c tio n o f a n u m b e r o f te rrito ria l princes, a n d this was rein fo rced by
the a l a r m felt by m e r c h a n ts a n d sm aller la n d o w n e rs a t th e P e a s a n t R evolt
o f 1525 a n d the excesses o f th e A n a b a p tists. W a rs betw een G e r m a n
princes, w ith the H a b s b u r g s as th e c h a m p io n s o f th e C a th o lic C h u r c h ,
en d e d with the a d o p t io n a t th e Peace o f A u g sb u r g o f th e principle of cujus
regio, ejus religio, w hich was r a th e r fa v o u ra b le to the P ro te sta n ts. Sixty
years later the T h irty Years W a r was triggered o ff by the revolt o f th e
B o h e m ia n P r o te s ta n t nobility in 1618, a n d b eg a n w ith a successful c o u n t e r ­
offensive in G e r m a n y o f the H a b s b u r g s a n d their B a v aria n allies. This,
ho w ever, p r o v o k e d in te rv e n tio n f r o m o utsid e, a n d the w a r bec am e a
 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 21

struggle o f the S p a n is h a n d A u stria n H a b s b u r g s a g a in st S w e den, F ra n ce

and the n o r th e r n N eth e rlan d s. W h e n it e n d e d , the forces m a k in g for
( ie r m a n un ity a n d a single G e r m a n n a tio n a l consciousne ss were reversed
for at least a h u n d r e d years.

I lie old continuous nations

I his c h a p te r is co n c e rn e d with som e o f th o se peoples a m o n g w h o m , at least
in a su b stan tia l political class, there d eve lope d m a n y centu ries a g o a
n atio n al consciou sne ss w hich was never in te r ru p te d by e x te r n a l blows. T he
two oldest are the F re n c h a n d the English. T h e f o r m a tio n o f the n a tio n a l
consciousness o f each o f these tw o is indissolubly c o n n e cted , not only with
the g ro w th o f tw o sovereign states, but w ith the u n sc ra m b lin g o f th e links
between th e m caused by the claim s o f the king o f F ra n c e o n the h o m a g e of
the king o f E n g la n d , a n d o f the king o f E n g la n d on th e territories o f the
king o f F ra n ce . T h e g r o w th o f b o th n a tio n s coincided w ith the g r o w th an d
c o n s o lid a tio n of tw o states; b u t the e v o lu tio n o f the F re n c h language an d
the c re a tio n o f the English had a g rea t p a rt in the process, as did th e breach
id the English c h u r c h with the p ope a n d the persistence o f the F re n ch
ehiirch in loyalty to R om e. T h e English n a tio n sha re d the British Isles w ith
I lu ce o th e r n atio ns. O ne o f these, the Scots, bec am e a n a tio n in th e process
of defe n d in g its o w n state ag a in st English invasion. A s e c o n d , t h e Irish, was
c o n q u e re d by the E nglish, bu t s tu b b o r n ly d efe n d ed its c u ltu re a n d forged
its n atio n al con sciousness in u n e n d in g struggle. T h e t h i r d , the W elsh, never
possessed its o w n state, b u t it to o preserved its n a tio n a l identity. F ra n c e
wus built by the c o n q u e s t o f regions o f widely different culture. T h e
i rn tra lis in g F r e n c h m o n a rc h y , a n d its successors the centralisin g republics,
seemed to have succeeded in im p o sin g a single F re n c h n atio n a lity o n all;
sit in the late tw en tieth c e n tu ry th ere w ere signs th a t this process was no t
*111itc so c o m p lete as it h ad a p p e a r e d . T h e com plexities o f the relations
I t! ween the f o u r n a tio n s o f the British Isles m a k e it necessary to devote
I HOl c space to th e m t h a n to th e F re n ch ; b u t this does n o t imply th a t the
history o f F ra n c e is less c o m p le x o r less rich, a n d no one is m o r e conv in ced
ill l lie c o n t r a r y t h a n th e p rese n t writer. H o w ev er, 1 a m n o t u n d e r ta k in g a
i n m p rch e n siv e political, c u ltu r a l o r social history o f th e F re n c h o r the
Hi itisli o r a n y o th e r peoples, b u t a t te m p tin g briefly to in te rp re t the process
ill the f o rm a tio n o f natio ns.
An equ a l degree o f c o m p le x ity m a r k s th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f the peoples of
tin Iberian p en insula, w hich has at tim es bee n c o n ta in e d w ith in o n e state,
In i lw last three c e nturies in tw o, b u t has been in h a b ite d fo r m u c h longer
IItn 11 that by several natio n s. S c a n d in a v ia is a n o t h e r n a tu ra lly definable
mi which three n a tio n s grew u p in a lte r n a tin g a s so cia tio n o r discord
22 Nations and Stall's

w ith each o th e r, w hile tw o m o re grew o n th e p erip h e ry , th e F in n s in the east

a n d th e Ice lan d e rs in th e n o rth -w e st.
T h e fo rm a tio n o f th e D u tc h n a tio n is a case o f th e d iv isio n in tw o o f a
c o m m u n ity w hich, w ith a n ec o n o m y a n d a c u ltu re as a d v a n c e d as a n y in
E u ro p e , w as g ro w in g in to a single m o d e rn n a tio n ; b u t relig io u s div isio n ,
fo re ig n m ilita ry p o w er a n d new e c o n o m ic o p p o rtu n itie s in d is ta n t seas
pulled a n d k ep t th e tw o halves a p a r t, m a k in g o n e in to a n a tio n a n d leaving
th e o th e r in u n c e rta in sta tu s.
T h e S w iss w ere a n d rem a in ed u n iq u e in th e ir p e c u lia r free in stitu tio n s,
th e ir n e u tra lity a n d th e ir still m o re p e c u lia r q u a lity o f a m u lti-lin g u a l as
well as m u lti-re lig io u s n a tio n .
T h e la st case co n sid ered in this c h a p te r is R u ssia, a n a tio n n o t less th a n
five h u n d re d , a n d p e rh a p s ov er a th o u s a n d , y ears old: th e a rg u m e n t o n this
su b je c t is n o t only ch a rg ed w ith p o litica l e m o tio n b u t is itself d e p e n d e n t o n
w h a t c o m m u n ity sh o u ld be d escrib ed h isto ric a lly as th e R u ssian n atio n .
T h e re a d e r is rem in d ed once m o re th a t th e fo llo w in g sectio n s a re n o t
h isto rie s— n o t c h ro n o lo g ic a l o r p o litic a l o r so cial o r c u ltu ra l, th o u g h
e lem en ts o f ea ch o f th e se asp ec ts are to u c h e d a t tim es. T h ey a re su m m aries
a n d in te rp re ta tio n s o f th e process o f fo rm a tio n o f n a tio n s. T h o se m o m en ts
in tim e w hich seem to th e w riter im p o rta n t a re th o se w h ich a re m e n tio n e d ,
a n d th ey ran g e fro m th e n in th c e n tu ry to th e tw e n tie th ; an d th o se forces o r
te n d en c ies w hich w ere m o st effective— sta te , la n g u ag e , relig io n , social
class— v ary fro m one p erio d to a n o th e r.

The British and Irish nations2

T h e islan d o f B rita in w as in h a b ite d in th e first c e n tu ry BC by p eo p les
o rg an ise d u n d e r v a rio u s te rrito ria l ru lers, w h o sp o k e lan g u ag es o f th e
C eltic g ro u p . B eginning w ith Ju liu s C a e s a r’s in v a sio n o f 55 BC, R o m a n
arm ies co n q u e re d m o st o f th e islan d , e sta b lish in g a line o f fo rts b etw een th e
F irth s o f F o rth a n d C lyde b u t p e n e tra tin g also in to F ife a n d th e H ig h la n d s,
o ccasio n ally rea ch in g th e e x tre m e n o rth . R o m a n ru le, a n d a m ix ed L atin -
C eltic civ ilizatio n , lasted a b o u t fo u r h u n d re d years in m o st o f B ritain ; a n d
even in th e re m o te r p a rts o f W ales a n d S c o tla n d , w h ich th e R o m a n s never
go v ern e d , a n d in Ire la n d , w hich th e y nev er in v a d ed , so m e in flu en ce o f th e ir
cu ltu re w as felt.
In th e h a lf ce n tu ry w hich follow ed th e d e p a rtu re o f th e R o m a n s , th e
s o u th e rn p a rt o f th e island w as co n te ste d b etw een A ngles, S a x o n s an d
C elts, a n d in the n o rth -w e st Irish in v a d ers se ttle d in A rg y ll an d th e
H eb rid e s. In th e n in th ce n tu ry , a n d a g a in in th e late te n th an d early
elev en th , raid e rs fro m D e n m a rk a n d S c a n d in a v ia rav a g ed th e co asts o f
B ritain , an d also o f Ire la n d , a n d settled in large n u m b e rs in so m e regions.
 Europe: The Old Continuous Nations 23

I Ins w ell-know n sto ry need n o t be to ld here, b u t a few w o rd s a re n ee d ed o n

th e em erg en ce, fu sio n o r d isin te g ra tio n o f states.
A n A n g lo -S a x o n sta te o f K en t in th e so u th -e a st k e p t fairly close c o n ta c t
w ith th e c o n tin e n t, a n d in 597 its ru le r a c ce p te d C h ristia n ity fro m th e
R o m a n em issary , C o n sta n tin e : th e see o f C a n te rb u ry w as fo u n d e d . A m o re
p o w erfu l A n g lo -S a x o n sta te em erged in N o rth u rn b ria. E ssen tially th is
sla te ex te n d e d fro m th e H u m b e r to th e F o rth , a n y its p o p u la tio n sp o k e
o v erw h elm in g ly th e A ngles’ lan g u ag e. Its b o u n d a r ie s h o w ev er, flu c tu a te d
as a resu lt o f fre q u e n t w ars, an d th e ir p recise lo c a tio n fo r th e last h a lf o f th e
first m illen n iu m A D is n o t k n o w n . C h ristia n ity c a m e to N o rth u m b ria in
th e early sev en th c e n tu ry fro m Ire la n d th ro u g h S c o tla n d . In 664, h ow ever,
th e N o rth u m b ria n kin g w as p ersu a d ed by em issaries fro m C a n te rb u ry to
tra n sfe r th e allegiance o f his ch u rc h to d irec t su b o rd in a tio n to R o m e.
N o rth u m b ria , w hich b ecam e one o f th e m a in ce n tres o f le arn in g an d
c u ltu re in W e ste rn E u ro p e , w as u n d e r c o n s ta n t a tta c k fro m th e k in g d o m o f
M ercia, in c e n tra l E n g la n d , w hose m ain ru lers w ere th e p a g a n P e n d a (6 3 0 -
55) a n d th e C h ristia n O ffa (757-95). M ercia w as also en g ag ed in w arfa re
a g a in st the C eltic p eoples o f W ales, w ho succeeded in m a in ta in in g in d e­
p e n d e n t p rin cip alities. N o rth u m b ria a n d M ercia su c cu m b e d to th e a tta c k s
o f th e N o rsem e n , a n d a D an ish sta te e m b ra c e d a. larg e p a rt o f ea ste rn
E n g land. T h e k in g d o m o f W essex, in th e s o u th anc| w est, rem ain ed as th e
stro n g h o ld o f S a x o n E n g lan d . O f th e several d ialects sp o k e n in E n g la n d , it
w as th a t o f W essex w hich w as first estab lish ed in a C onsiderable lite ra tu re ,
p ro tec ted by th e e n c o u ra g e m e n t w hich th e g re a t kir,g A lfred (871-99) gave
to sch ools an d learn in g . H is g ra n d so n E d g ar (957-75) u n ite d th e g rea ter
p a rt o f w h a t has beco m e k n o w n as E n g la n d , th o u g h its b o u n d a rie s in th e
n o rth a n d w est w ere u n c e rta in . F o rty y ea rs la te r K i^g C a n u te o f D e n m a rk
b ecam e ru le r o f E n g la n d fro m 1017 to 1035. A fter his d e a th n early all the
A n g lo -S a x o n lan d s b ecam e u n ite d fo r th e first tim e u n d e r K ing E d w ard ,
th e C o n fesso r, fro m 1042 to 1066. T h is success was· sh o rt-liv e d . D isag ree­
m en t as to th e su ccession en a b le d D u k e W illiam 0 f N o rm a n d y (o f
S c a n d in a v ia n d esce n t b u t F re n ch by c u ltu re ) to d efeat all rivals, an d to
c o n q u e r E n g lan d up to th e N o rth u m b ria n , C u m b rja n a n d W elsh b o rd e r­
lands. T h e co n so lid a te d E nglish m o n a rc h y date^ essen tially fro m th e
N o rm a n C o n q u e st o f 1066.
M e an w h ile also in th e n o rth e rn p a rt o f th e island sev eral states em erged.
T h e larg est in a re a w as th a t o f the P iets, th e c h a ra c te r o f w hose lan g u ag e is
still a su b ject o f c o n tro v e rsy . T h e P ictish k in g d o m e m b ra ce d th e H ig h la n d s
a n d th e e a ste rn lands d o w n to th e F irth o f T ay. Living s o u th o f th e P ictish
k in g d o m , in th e la n d s fro m S olw ay to F ife, were; o th e r C eltic peoples,
w hose lan g u ag e w as o f th e W elsh (‘P -C eltic’) r a th e r th a n Irish (‘Q -C eltic’)
v a ria n t.3 T h e m o st im p o rta n t state to em erg e in th is reg io n w as called
S tra th c ly d e . T his te rrito ry w as also k n o w n by th e n am e C u m b ria , w hich
24 Nations and States

ap p lied to m o st o f the lan d betw een C lyde a n d th e S o lw ay F irth , an d

so m etim es also to th e lan d b ey o n d th e F irth , la te r k n o w n as C u m b e rla n d .
C h ristia n ity reach ed th is region in th e fifth ce n tu ry ; its p io n e e r w as S t
N in ia n , w h o w as active in th e S o lw ay reg io n , b u t th e e x te n t o f its
p e n e tra tio n h as n o t been d e te rm in e d . In A rgyll th e k in g d o m o f D a lria d a
w as fo rm e d fro m several ch ieftain cies o f Irish G ae lic -sp e ak in g p eo p le,4
k n o w n to w riters in L atin as Scoti. T h ro u g h th e m C h ristia n ity sp rea d m o re
w idely, being in tro d u c e d by S t C o lu m b a , w ho w as activ e a t his b ase on th e
island o f Io n a fro m 563 to 597. F in ally th e s o u th -e a st, o r L o th ia n , h ad a
p re d o m in a n tly A ngle p o p u la tio n .
T h e N o rth u m b ria n k in g d o m m ight well have rem a in ed w ith its b o u n d ­
ary o n th e F irth o f F o rth h ad it n o t been h a rd pressed first by M ercia a n d
th e n by th e D a n e s.5 T he early h isto ry o f all these p eo p le rem a in s o b sc u re
an d c o n tro v e rs ia l, b u t th e u n io n o f P iets a n d S co ts u n d e r K en n eth
M c A lp in in 843 can be co n v e n ie n tly ac ce p te d as th e d a te o f th e fo u n d a tio n
o f th e k in g d o m o f S c o tla n d . In 1018 th e k in g d o m ex te n d e d to include
S tra th c ly d e . In th e n o rth , how ever, it w as n o t p o ssib le to d efeat the
in v a d in g S c a n d in a v ia n s. W hen the k in g d o m o f N o rw a y b ecam e effectively
o rg a n ise d ,6 it e x ten d e d its rule ov er th e W e ste rn Isles, th e O rk n e y s an d
S h e tla n d s, a n d th e m a in la n d o f C a ith n e ss.

T h e islan d lying to th e w est o f B ritain , o n the fa r frin g e o f E u ro p e , w as

nev er co n q u e re d by th e R o m a n s, th o u g h th ey knew o f its ex isten ce. T h e
Irish G aels— n o t th e isla n d ’s earliest in h a b ita n ts , b u t th e first o f w h o m
th e re is w ritte n evid en ce— visited o r raid e d th e co a sts o f B rita in , a n d , as
n o te d a b o v e , fo u n d ed th e k in g d o m o f D a lria d a in th e p a rt o f S c o tla n d la te r
k n o w n as A rgyll.
C h ristia n ity reached Ire lan d in th e first h a lf o f th e fifth ce n tu ry . Its first
m issio n a ry , S t P a tric k , w as a R o m a n citizen fro m E n g la n d . In th e six th
c e n tu ry all Ire la n d w as C h ristia n . Its ch u rc h w as d iffe ren tly o rg an ise d from
th a t o f R o m e, fo r th e m o n a ste rie s h ad g re a te r a u th o rity th a n the b ish o p s.
Irish m o n k s sp ead th e G osp el, n o t o nly in S c o tla n d a n d n o rth e rn E n g lan d
b u t also on th e c o n tin e n t. In th e recovery o f E u ro p e fro m th e d isa ste rs o f
th e G e rm a n ic in v a sio n s a n d M u slim a ssa u lt, a n d in th e fo u n d a tio n o f
m edieval C h ristia n civ ilisatio n , Ire la n d h ad a g re a t p a rt to play.
In th is Irish g o ld e n age, th e island w as ru led by a m u ltip lic ity o f m in o r
an d m a jo r te rrito ria l chiefs, w hose Irish d e sig n a tio n s h av e tra d itio n a lly
been ren d e re d in E nglish as ‘k in g ’. In the n in th c e n tu ry th e re em erg ed th e
office o f H igh K ing, w ho h ad c e rta in lim ited p o w ers to sp e ak o n b e h a lf o f
a ll.7 Ire lan d also h ad its in te lle ctu al elite. S ide by side w ith ch u rc h an d
m o n k s, a n d a b s o rb e d in to th e new C h ristia n c u ltu re , w as a secu lar
p ro fe ssio n , derived fro m th e p re -C h ristia n p ast, th e //// o r tra d itio n a l poets
 Europe: The Old Continuous Nations 25

a n d wise m en. T h e Irish lan g u ag e grew in to a fine vehicle for p o etry an d

relig io u s th o u g h t. Irish civ ilisatio n w as d iffe re n t fro m , b u t n o t in fe rio r to ,
th a t o f th e L atin W est.
In th e m id -n in th c e n tu ry b egan th e series o f blow s fro m o u tsid e w hich
have p lagued Ire lan d u n til th e m o st recen t tim es. T h e first in v a d ers w ere
th e V ikings, w ho raid e d all her co asts b u t estab lish ed th em selv es m o st
successfully alo n g the e a ste rn an d s o u th e rn sho res. A t th e en d o f th e te n th
c e n tu ry th e Irish w ere able to sto p the tid e, u n d e r th e H igh K ing B rian B oru
(fro m 976 king o f M u n ste r an d high kin g 1002-14). T h e V iking co lo n ists
rem a in ed w here they w ere e stab lish ed , b u t w ere largely a b s o rb e d in to Irish
cu ltu re.

E n g la n d u n d e r th e N o rm a n m o n a rc h y b ecam e a stro n g m ed iev al k in g d o m .

T h e m o n a rc h s a n d th e higher nob ility sp o k e F re n c h , in tro d u c e d a F re n ch
ty p e o f feudal o rg a n isa tio n an d p a rto o k o f the gro w in g n o rth e rn F re n ch
c u ltu re , w hich sp rea d in to a su b sta n tia l p a rt o f th e S a x o n p o p u la tio n . A t
th e sam e tim e th e A n g lo -S a x o n language, so m e S a x o n in stitu tio n s an d
w ays o f th in k in g su rv iv ed .8 T h e tw o societies co e x isted , th e o n e su p e rim ­
posed on th e o th e r, th e tw o p e rh a p s m o re n ea rly m ixed w ith in th e ch u rc h
th a n w ith in th e se cu lar m a ch in e ry o f g o v e rn m e n t. O ne c a n h ard ly sp eak o f
an E nglish o r a F re n ch n a tio n before th e th irte e n th cen tu ry : ra th e r th e re
w ere tw o F re n c h -sp e a k in g m o n a rc h s, w ith c a p ita ls respectively in P aris
a n d in L o n d o n , a n d m an y F re n c h -sp e a k in g te rrito ria l m a g n ate s, w ith
o b lig a tio n s to a n d claim s on each o th e r, reco g n isin g a n d v io la tin g each
o th e r’s law s, c o m b in in g w ith o r c o m b a tin g ea ch o th e r as circ u m sta n ce
m oved them .
T h e S co ttish m o n a rc h y to o h ad , a fte r th e v ic to ry of M a lco lm C a n m o re
o ver M a cb e th in 1057, a s tro n g N o rm a n F re n c h elem en t, in th e c o u rt an d in
th e n o b le m en to w h o m M alco lm gave la n d s a n d in flu en ce. T h e lan d
f ro n tie r a n d th e legal re la tio n sh ip b etw een th e tw o kings w ere su b jects o f
c o n fu sio n an d rep e ate d w arfa re. T h e kin g o f S c o tla n d held E n g lish la n d s o f
th e k in g o f E n g la n d , fo r w hich he ow ed liege to him , but he d id n o t accep t
th e claim o f th e E nglish C ro w n , th a t he ow ed liege fo r all his lan d s, w hich
w o u ld have m a d e S c o tla n d a d e p e n d en c y o f E n g la n d .9 T h is claim w as on
th e w hole successfully resisted a n d it w as also m u ch helped by th e bull o f
P o p e C elestine III Cum universi o f 1192, w hich declared th a t th e S co ttish
ch u rc h w as im m ed ia te ly su b je ct to th e H o ly See, th u s en d in g th e rig h ts o f
th e A rc h b ish o p ric o f Y o rk ov er S c o tla n d . A S co ttish sta te , a n d S co ttish
lo y alty to its king, b e g a n to ta k e shap e. T h e k in g ’s hold o v er th e H ig h lan d s
was d u b io u s, a n d it w as n o t u n til 1266 th a t th e kin g o f N o rw a y (a fte r an
unsuccessful naval e x p e d itio n a g a in st th e F irth o f C lyde in 1263) ced ed th e
W estern Isles a n d C a ith n e ss to S c o tla n d . In th e islands G aelic a n d N o rse
26 Nations and States

la n g u ag es a n d c u ltu re s co e x isted , a n d p a rtly fu sed , as is sh o w n by th e

m ix tu re o f place n am es su rv iv in g to m o d e rn tim es. O rk n e y a n d S h e tla n d
re m a in e d N o rw e g ian fo r tw o ce n tu ries m ore. F o u r lan g u ag e s w ere still
sp o k e n in S c o tla n d : F re n c h a t th e C o u r t a n d in th e u p p e r class; A n g lo -
S a x o n in th e so u th -e a ste rn lands; G aelic in th e H ig h la n d s a n d Islan d s; a n d
th e C eltic la n g u ag e o f S tra th c ly d e -C u m b ria in d im in ish in g are a s in th e
so u th -w est.
A t th e close o f th e th irte e n th ce n tu ry th e en d o f th e m a le line o f M alco lm
C a n m o re ’s d y n a sty co in cid e d w ith th e p resence o n th e E n g lish th ro n e o f an
e x c e p tio n a lly ab le a n d aggressive ru ler, E d w ard I (1272-1307).
W h e n th e d irec t line o f th e S c o ttish ro y al h o u se d ied o u t in 1290, th e rival
cla im a n ts, J o h n Balliol a n d R o b e rt B ruce, b o th d esce n d ed fro m g ra n d ­
d a u g h te rs o f D avid I, a p p e a le d to the E n g lish king. E d w a rd ch o se B alliol in
1292, b u t claim ed th a t th e kin g o f S c o tla n d sh o u ld d o h o m a g e to h im fo r
his k in g d o m . B alliol’s h a lfh e a rte d a tte m p ts to escap e v assalag e w ere
c ru sh e d in 1296. H o w ev er, th e h u m ilia tio n o f B alliol p ro v o k e d arm e d
S c o ttish resistan c e. T h ere follow ed sev en teen y ears o f m a in ly g u errilla -
ty p e w arfa re, led first by S ir W illiam W allace a n d th e n by R o b e rt B ruce,
g ra n d so n o f th e unsuccessfu l c la im a n t o f 1292. B ruce w as cro w n ed k ing in
1306 a t S cone, b u t he h ad to go in to h id in g fo r tw o y ears b efo re resu m in g
th e struggle. H is triu m p h cam e w ith th e d efe at o f a larg e E nglish a rm y led
by E d w a rd II a t B a n n o c k b u rn in 1314, a n d th e re c o g n itio n by th e E nglish
o f S c o ttish in d e p en d e n ce by th e T re a ty o f N o rth a m p to n o f 1328. E ven so,
th e E nglish th re a t to S c o tla n d c o n tin u e d th r o u g h o u t th e fo u rte e n th an d
fifte e n th cen tu ries. S c o tla n d w as ab le to surv iv e th a n k s n o t o n ly to th e
e ffo rts o f its ru lers a n d p eo p le (w hich w ere g re a tly im p a ire d by q u a rre ls o f
reb e llio u s m a g n a te s w ith ea ch o th e r a n d w ith th e cro w n ) b u t also to th e
p re o c c u p a tio n o f th e kings o f E n g la n d w ith F ra n c e — lin k e d w ith S c o tla n d
by th e fre q u en tly renew ed ‘A u ld A llia n ce’— a n d to th e ir in v o lv e m e n t in th e
E nglish civil w ars o f th e late fiftee n th ce n tu ry .
N ev erth eless, it is safe to say th a t by th e tim e o f B ruce a S c o ttish n a tio n
w as a risin g in th is p o o r a n d p o ly g lo t c o u n try . T h e m o st im p o rta n t single
agen cy in b rin g in g th is a b o u t h ad been th e m o n a rc h y , a n d th e in stitu tio n s
w h ich it h ad cre ate d . In th e w o rd s o f a n e m in e n t rec en t h isto ria n , ‘th e
h o m o g e n eity w as n o t ra c ia l o r lin g u istic b u t fe u d a l a n d g o v e rn m e n ta l. It
w as ex p re ssed m o st clearly in th e h a b it o f a c o m m o n fe u d a l alleg ian ce to a
s tro n g m o n a rc h y , a n d in th e o b se rv a n ce o f a su b s ta n tia l b o d y o f accep ted
law a n d c u s to m ’.10

T h e f o rm a tio n o f th e S c o ttish n a tio n w as m a rk e d by g re a t su fferin g an d

b a rb a rity , b u t it w as still m o re fo rtu n a te th a n th a t o f th e Irish . It is a
strik in g p a ra d o x th a t th e S co ts, a h e te ro g e n e o u s m u lti-lin g u a l p o p u la tio n
 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 27

w ith a r a th e r low level o f c u ltu re , em erg ed as a n a tio n c a p a b le o f secu rin g

its p o litical in d e p en d e n ce , w hile the Irish, a h o m o g e n e o u s p eo p le w ith a
h ig h e r as well as an o ld e r c u ltu re , re m a in e d a c o n q u e re d n a tio n . T h e rea so n
is p e rh a p s th a t th e rulers o f S c o tla n d , being su rro u n d e d by a N o rm a n
a risto c ra c y an d reig n in g ov er A ngle, C eltic a n d S c a n d in a v ia n su b jects,
w ere respected by th e N o rm a n ru lers o f E n g la n d w h o w ere in a sim ilar
p re d ic a m e n t; a n d th a t the decisive clash b etw een th e tw o m o n a rc h ies d id
n o t co m e u n til th e S c o ttish sta te w as s tro n g e n o u g h , a n d h ad su fficien t
m o ra l s u p p o r t fro m th e p a p a c y an d in d ire c t physical s u p p o r t fro m F ra n ce ,
to w ith sta n d th e shock.
T h e Irish did n o t h av e th ese ad v a n ta g e s. T h e re w as n o u n ified Irish state;
a n d it w as th e q u a rre ls betw een c o n te n d e rs fo r th e h igh k in g sh ip w hich
en a b le d the N o rm a n in v ad ers to set fo o t in Irelan d in 1169. T h ey w ere
follow ed in 1171 by K ing H en ry II h im self, w ho a ssu m ed so v e reig n ty o v er
all Ire lan d . H en ry ’s a c tio n w as s u p p o rte d by th e p o p e, w h o w as keen to see
th e Irish ch u rc h reo rg an ised on w h at he c o n sid e re d a p ro p e r basis o f
ep isco p a l h ie ra rc h y , a n d effectively su b o rd in a te d to R o m e. F ro m th e first
th e E nglish cro w n reg a rd e d th e Irish as m ere su b je cts, a n d resp ected
n e ith e r th e ir in stitu tio n s n o r th e ir cu ltu re. H ow ever, effective N o rm a n o r,
la ter, E nglish rule w as co n fin e d to th e east an d so u th -e a st. A n g lo -N o rm a n
a risto c ra tic fam ilies a c q u ire d g rea t d o m a in s a c ro ss th e so u th a n d s o u th ­
w est, b u t in th ese lan d s th e in tru d e rs w ere in fact re p e a te d ly a b s o rb e d in to
Irish cu ltu re; an d in th e n o rth an d n o rth -e a s t o f Ire lan d th e re w as little, if
a n y , change.
In 1315 Ed w ard B ruce a tte m p te d to a c c e p t th e offer o f th e h igh k in g sh ip
o f Ire la n d , w ith help fro m his b ro th e r K ing R o b e rt o f S c o tla n d ; b u t th is
e n te rp rise , a ttra c tiv e in d is ta n t re tro sp e c t to seekers a fte r C eltic u n ity ,
failed th ro u g h unw ise stra te g y a n d in a d e q u a te su p p o rt. In th e seco n d p a rt
o f th e c e n tu ry the E n glish m o n a rc h y trie d to tig h te n its g rip . In 1366 th e
D u k e o f C laren c e im p o sed th e S ta tu te s o f K ilk en n y , in te n d e d rig o ro u sly to
s e p a ra te E nglish fro m Irish , to restric t c o n ta c ts b etw een th e tw o c o m m u n i­
ties a n d to en su re a n in fe rio r sta tu s fo r th e Irish , w h o w ere re g a rd e d w ith
c o n te m p t by th e E nglish m o n a rc h ’s E nglish c o u n sello rs. R ic h a rd II la te r
e stab lish ed th e E n g lish ‘P a le ’, a p p ro x im a te ly b etw een D u n d a lk an d
W a te rfo rd , w ith th e o rig in a lly V iking se ttle m e n t o f D u b lin as th e c en tre o f
E n g lish pow er. D u rin g th e fiftee n th c e n tu ry th e E n g lish a risto c ra c y in
Ire lan d b ecam e in volved in th e w ars o f th e v a rio u s p re te n d e rs to th e
E nglish th ro n e , chiefly o n th e Y o rk ist side. T h e u ltim a te v ic to r in E n g la n d ,
H en ry T u d o r, d ecid ed th a t he m u st m a k e his a u th o rity o v er Ire la n d m o re
effective. H is g o v e rn o r, S ir E d w ard P o y n in g s, in tro d u c e d in th e Irish
p a rlia m e n t o f 1495 th e so-called ‘P o y n in g s’ L aw ’, w hich m a d e th e c allin g o f
a p a rlia m e n t in Ire la n d su b ject to th e specific c o n se n t o f th e k in g o f
I n g la n d , a n d w as desig n ed to en su re th e p e rm a n e n t su b je c tio n o f Irish to
28 Nations and States

E n g lish in terests. In fact, the new policy w as d irec ted n o t so m u c h ag a in st

th e Irish p o p u la tio n as a w hole, as a g a in st th e g re a t A n g lo -Irish fam ilies,
th e so-called G erald in es, descen d ed fro m M a u ric e F itzg e rald , on e o f th e
in v a d in g b a ro n s o f 1169.

T h e W elsh h ad even less o f a u n ite d sta te th a n th e Irish. S p e a k in g v ario u s

‘P -C e ltic ’ o r B ry th o n ic d ia lec ts, th ey w ere, like th e Irish, o rg an ise d in trib es
w ith ch ieftain s. L ike th e Irish, they a c c o rd e d a high place in th e ir society to
p o ets an d to m usic; an d a W elsh lite ra tu re , n o t in fe rio r to Irish lite ra tu re ,
em erg ed . T h e ch ieftain cies o f W ales w ere in p rac tice g ro u p e d in to th ree
m a in te rrito rie s — G w y nedd in th e n o rth , P ow ys in th e c e n tre , a n d D eh eu -
b a rth in the so u th . T h ere w as a t th e sam e tim e a m o n g m o st W elsh m en a
sense o f m e m b ersh ip in one co m m u n ity , k n o w n by th e n am e C y m ry ,
ro u g h ly e q u iv ale n t to ‘fe llo w -c o u n try m e n ’.
T h e first N o rm a n kings, p reo c cu p ie d w ith th e e sta b lish m e n t o f th e ir
feu d a l m o n a rc h y over th e A n g lo -S a x o n s an d w ith th e ir claim s on the
F re n c h m a in la n d , paid little a tte n tio n to W ales. In th e b o rd e rla n d s an d
a lo n g the s o u th c o a st N o rm a n m a g n ate s ( t h e ‘m a rc h e r b a ro n s ’) e stab lish ed
th e ir pow er: in C h e ste r, H erefo rd an d P e m b ro k e . It w as th e . E arl o f
P e m b ro k e , R ic h a rd ‘S tro n g b o w ’, w ho led the N o rm a n -E n g lish in v asio n o f
Ire la n d in 1169.
In th e early th irte e n th ce n tu ry th e stro n g e st p rin c ip a lity in W ales w as in
G w y n ed d , ruled fro m 1200 to 1240 by L lyw ellyn a b lo rw e rth . D u rin g
re p e a te d w ars w ith th e m a rc h e r b a ro n s, a n d a t tim es w ith th e k ing of
E n g la n d , he held his ow n an d b ecam e th e lead er o f th e W elsh princes. His
g ra n d so n , L lyw ellyn II, rea sserte d tw en ty y ears a fte r his d e a th th e su p re m ­
acy o f G w y n ed d , an d w as reco g n ised by H en ry III o f E n g la n d , in the
T re a ty o f M o n tg o m e ry o f 1267, as h e re d ita ry P rin ce o f W ales. It w as his
m ista k e to refuse to E d w ard I, o n his accessio n , th e h o m a g e to w hich the
k ing co n sid e re d him self e n title d .11 In th e su m m e r o f 1277 E d w ard invaded
W ales, a n d L lyw ellyn a c ce p te d a red u c ed sta tu s an d te rrito ry b u t w as still
tre a te d as P rin c e o f W ales. H ow ever, th e new E nglish regim e caused
d isc o n te n ts w hich b u rst into a rising in 1282. L lyw ellyn him self w as killed
in a m in o r sk irm ish , a n d W elsh resistan c e w as cru sh e d . A la st W elsh revolt
w as su p p ressed in 1295. T h e h eir to th e E nglish th ro n e w as given th e title o f
P rin ce o f W ales in 1301, a n d th is rem a in ed th e c u s to m u n til p rese n t tim es.
W ales w as in c o rp o ra te d in th e k in g d o m o f E n g la n d , th o u g h fo r a lo n g tim e
local g o v e rn m e n t rem a in ed in W elsh h a n d s a n d th e re w as n o sy stem atic
in terferen ce w ith W elsh la n g u ag e o r cu ltu re.

In the fo u rte e n th a n d fifteen th ce n tu ries th e re slow ly em erg ed a fa c to r of

 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 29

decisive im p o rta n c e fo r E nglish n a tio n a l co nsciousn ess: th e fo rm a tio n o f

th e E nglish language.
A t first tw o lang u ag es co ex isted in E n g la n d . T h e c o n q u e ro rs sp o k e a
r a th e r p ro v in cial fo rm o f F ren ch . A n g lo -S a x o n s o f th e u p p e r classes, an d
th o se w ho asp ire d to h ig h er office o r h ig h er social s ta tu s u n d e r th e
c o n q u e ro rs, le arn ed th is N o rm a n F re n ch . T h e b u lk o f th e p o p u la tio n
sp o k e v ario u s A n g lo -S a x o n dialects: th e e a rlie r su p rem a cy o f th e W essex
d ia lec t d isa p p e a re d as th e re w as now no sig n ifican t A n g lo -S a x o n lite ra ­
tu re . F o r th e ir p a rt, m a n y o f th e N o rm a n s learn ed an A n g lo -S a x o n speech
in o rd e r to con v erse w ith th e ir subjects. T he accessio n o f H en ry 11 in 1154
b ro u g h t an influ x o f F re n c h m e n fro m c e n tra l F ra n c e o r P ro v en ce w h o
w ere influenced by th e literary ren aissan ces o f b o th P aris an d L an g u ed o c.
F ro m this tim e the c u ltu ra l links o f th e u p p e r class o f E n g la n d w ith F ra n c e
n o lo n g e r w ent th ro u g h N o rm a n d y . D u rin g th e n ex t tw o c e n tu ries, th o u g h
h ig h e r F re n ch cu ltu re prev ailed in c o u rt circles, th e n o b ility o f E n g lan d
ca m e to sp eak increasin g ly th e lan g u ag e o f the c o u n try . H o w ev er, th is
la n g u ag e itself ra p id ly ch a n g ed . It w as a p p ro x im a te ly fro m 1250 to 1400
th a t the lan g u ag e b ecam e flooded w ith F re n ch w ords: so m e th in g like
10,000 can be tra c e d to this perio d . In th e fo u rte e n th c e n tu ry th e d ialect o f
th e a re a n o rth -e a s t o f L o n d o n , th e m o st densely p o p u la te d a n d c o m m e r­
cially p ro sp e ro u s reg io n , p revailed o ver o th e r d ia lec ts, an d fro m it em erged
th e lan g u ag e o f th e ca p ita l. T h e y ear 1362 is a d a te o f sy m b o lic im p o rta n ce :
it w as th e n th a t E nglish replaced N o rm a n F re n ch in th e law c o u rts, an d
th a t th e o p en in g o f P a rlia m e n t w as c o n d u c te d fo r th e first tim e in E nglish.
T h is process is u sually k n o w n as th e rep la ce m en t o f O ld E nglish (p re-
N o rm a n A n g lo -S a x o n ) by M iddle E nglish. It is, o f co u rse , tru e th a t th e re is
a c o n tin u ity betw een A n g lo -S a x o n an d E nglish. T h e b asic stru c tu re an d
sy n ta x rem a in ed , a n d th e basic w ords m o st used by sim p le p eo p le rem ain ed
th e o rig in a l A n g lo -S a x o n w ords, so m e w h a t m odified . O n e m ay th e re fo re
say th a t w h a t h ad h a p p e n e d w as th a t E nglish had been en ric h ed by th e
a d d itio n o f F re n c h w ords. Y et this seem s an in a d e q u a te d escrip tio n . T h e
pro cess w as m o re th a n th e a c q u isitio n o f foreign lo a n -w o rd s— as L atin
w o rd s passed th ro u g h th e ch u rc h in to G e rm a n an d P o lish , o r as A rab ic
w o rd s passed in to S p an ish . R a th e r, o n e sh o u ld say th a t tw o lan g u ag es,
A n g lo -S a x o n a n d F re n c h , flow ed to g e th e r, a n d fro m th e m em erg ed a new
la n g u ag e , n e ith e r A n g lo -S a x o n n o r F re n c h b u t E nglish. A s E nglish grew
in to a m o d e rn , rich , flexible la n g u ag e , evolving u n d e r th e g u id a n ce o f
W ycliffe, C h a u c e r, S p e n se r a n d S h a k e sp e a re , in n u m e ra b le co n cep ts be­
ca m e ex p ressib le in sy n o n y m s o f A n g lo -S a x o n o r F re n c h o rig in . F o r th is
p ro cess, w hich rem a in s essen tially h id d e n fro m the h isto ria n , th e best
m a jo r E u ro p e a n p a ra lle l is th e em erg en ce o f th e R o m a n ia n la n g u ag e , in
w hich a R o m an c e speech d erived fro m L atin flow ed to g e th e r w ith S la v .12
I n b o th processes th e re w ere p erio d s o f sy stem a tic b o rro w in g , m o re intense
30 Nations and States

in th e R o m a n ia n case (w hich w as q u ic k e r, m o re co n scio u s a n d m o re

artific ia l) th a n in th e E n g lish .13
O ne m ig h t th e re fo re risk th e g e n e ra lisa tio n th a t, th o u g h E n g lan d w as a
la n d o f h u m a n civ ilisatio n fro m the tim e o f Ju liu s C a esa r, an d even ea rlier,
an E nglish n a tio n an d an E nglish la n g u ag e only cam e in to ex isten ce in th e
fo u rte e n th ce n tu ry . F ro m th is tim e on ly d ates th e h isto ry o f E n g la n d , as
o p p o se d to th e h isto ry o f th e p eoples o f B ritain . In S c o tla n d , th e d iv ersity
o f p eo p les a n d lan g u ag es rem a in ed g re a te r u n til later: it is a rg u a b le th a t th e
f o rm a tio n o f a S c o ttish n a tio n w as h a rd ly c o m p leted b efo re th e six tee n th
ce n tu ry .
E nglish n a tio n a l co n scio u sn e ss, an d the p rid e o f e d u c a te d E n g lish m en in
th e ir ow n lan g u ag e, w ere stre n g th e n e d by th e long w ars w ith F ra n c e a n d by
th e flu c tu a tin g d isc o n te n t o f c h u rc h m e n w ith th e claim s m ad e on th e ir
d e v o tio n by th e fo reign h ie ra rc h y o f a ch u rc h to rn by sc h ism .14 In th e
six te e n th ce n tu ry v a rio u s fo rces cam e to g e th e r to fo rg e a stro n g sense o f
n a tio n a l id e n tity . T h e R e fo rm a tio n w as b o th a m o v e m en t o f id eas a n d a
rejectio n o f fo reign d o m in a tio n . T h e E nglish tra n s la tio n s o f th e Bible, the
religious po lem ical lite ra tu re in E nglish, en ric h ed th e lan g u ag e, an d
co in cid ed w ith a g reat flow ering o f p o etry . T u d o r d e s p o tism a p p e aled b o th
to th e greed o f la n d o w n e rs a n d m e rc h a n ts fo r th e w ea lth o f th e m o n a ste rie s
a n d to re se n tm e n t a g a in st fo re ig n e rs— b o th th e F re n c h m e n w h o h ad been
enem ies o f E n g la n d fo r tw o h u n d re d y ears a n d th e S p a n ia rd s w h o se sea­
b o rn e w ealth offered prizes to E nglish raid e rs. In th e reign o f E liz ab e th the
u p su rg e o f lite ra tu re , th e ferm en t o f religious an d p o litica l ideas, th e rise o f
new so cial forces a n d th e sense o f m o rta l d a n g e r a n d crisis, all c o n trib u te d
to th e em ergence o f a n E nglish n a tio n . F o r h u n d re d s o f th o u s a n d s , if n o t
p e rh a p s yet fo r all, sub jects o f th e cro w n lo y alty w as no w given n o t o nly to
fe u d a l su p e rio r, o r c h u rc h , o r d is ta n t sovereig n , b u t to th e n atio n : th e links
w hich b o u n d th e p o p u la tio n to g e th e r w ere n o t o n ly v ertical b u t also
h o riz o n ta l.
T h e g ro w in g stre n g th o f th e E nglish p ro v ed to be a m ix ed blessing fo r the
W elsh. In S e p te m b e r 1400 a W elsh la n d o w n e r, O w ain G lyn D w r (o r
G len d o w e r), led a rebellion in th e n o rth . Its o rig in lay a t least largely in
O w a in ’s p e rso n a l griev an ces a n d land d isp u tes, b u t it so o n b ecam e a rising
o f th e W elsh a g a in st th e E nglish, e x te n d in g to a large p a rt o f th e p rin c ip a li­
ty. T h e rebels w ere r a th e r successful u n til 1406 w h en th e E n g lish re c o n ­
q u e st b eg a n to g ain g r o u n d . By 1410 th e rev o lt w as a lm o st o v er, an d O w ain
h a d m y sterio u sly d isa p p e a re d . T h e ac cessio n o f H en ry V II, a W e lsh m an ,
to th e E nglish th ro n e a ro u se d som e h o p es in W ales, b u t it w as in fac t the
T u d o r m o n a rc h s w ho effectively ce n tra lise d g o v e rn m e n t a n d in sisted on
th e sta tu s o f E nglish as th e sole official la n g u ag e , w hile W elsh c o n tin u e d to
be sp o k e n by th e h u m b le r classes a m o n g them selv es.
In S c o tla n d , to o , a la n g u ag e d ev e lo p e d fro m th e flo w in g to g e th e r o f
 Europe: The Old Continuous Nations 31

S a x o n a n d F re n c h , th o u g h w ith less o f th e la tte r, a n d w ith r a th e r m o re

fro m C eltic an d S c a n d in a v ia n sources, th a n in th e so u th . T h is la n g u ag e
w as sp o k e n n o t on ly in th e ea st o f S c o tla n d b u t also in n o r th e r n E n g lan d .
S co ts, o r ‘n o rth e rn E n g lish ’, w as sp o k e n a t th e S c o ttish c o u rt a n d by th e
so cial elite (w ho m ig h t o r m ig h t n o t also sp e ak G aelic), as well as by th e
L o w lan d p o p u la tio n as a w hole. It w as th e lan g u ag e o f th e p o ets R o b e rt
H e n ry so n a n d W illiam D u n b a r. It m ig h t have d ev elo p ed as a d istin c t
lite ra ry lan g u ag e in to m o d e rn tim es h ad n o t th e u n io n o f th e cro w n s in
1603 b ro u g h t th e p re d o m in a n c e o f s o u th e rn E nglish th ro u g h its e x te n sio n
to th e c o u rt, a d m in is tra tio n an d u p p e r class o f S c o tla n d .

T h e R e fo rm a tio n in S c o tla n d b ro u g h t d iv isio n s w hich la ste d lo n g e r th a n in

E n g la n d . H en ry V III’s d ic ta to rs h ip p rev ailed a g a in st th e reb e llio n o f 1536,
a n d th e accession o f E liz a b e th m ad e it possib le to u n d o th e effects o f th e
M a ria n re a c tio n w ith o u t m a jo r u p h ea v als, th o u g h reb e llio n w as long
la te n t an d briefly e x p lo d e d in 1570. E n g la n d w as sp a re d th e civil w ars
w hich rav ag ed F ra n c e a n d G erm a n y . T h e S c o ttish R e fo rm a tio n to o k p lace
a g a in st th e fa m ilia r b a c k g ro u n d o f riv alry betw een th e F re n c h a n d E nglish
p arties. T h e first successes o f th e R e fo rm e rs w ere d efe ate d by F re n c h
tro o p s w hich, b ased a t L eith fro m 1550 to 1560, u p h eld th e regim e o f M a ry
o f G uise. M a ry S tu a r t’s tu m u ltu o u s reig n (1560-67) e n d e d w ith th e v icto ry
o f th e R efo rm ers, d e p e n d e n t on E nglish su p p o rt.
A fte r Ja m e s VI b ecam e effective ru le r o f S c o tla n d , a n d his p o w er h ad
been in creased w h en he also b ecam e J a m e s I o f E n g la n d , he b eg an his
effo rts to re c o n stru c t an a u th o rita r ia n e p isc o p a l stru c tu re in a P ro te s ta n t
S c o ttish c h u rc h , to m ak e it a m e n a b le to his fo rm o f ro y a l d esp o tism .
C h a rles I c o n tin u e d th is e ffo rt, a n d p ro v o k e d a m ig h ty rea ctio n . T h e
S c o ttish n a tio n a l C o v e n a n t o f 1638 set u p a d e m o c ra tic s tru c tu re fo r th e
c h u rc h w hich w as in c o m p a tib le w ith ro y a l d esp o tism . R o m a n C a th o licism
h a d b eco m e a m in o r fo rce in S c o tla n d , b u t S c o ttish P ro te s ta n ts w ere
b itte rly d ivided b etw een C o v e n a n te rs a n d E p isc o p alian s. T h is w as a m a tte r
o f stro n g ly held relig io u s co n v ictio n s, b u t it w as also a p o litic a l d iv isio n ,
w h ich ca n p e rh a p s fairly be d escrib ed (th o u g h th e w o rd s are a n a n a c h ro ­
nism ) as a stru g g le b etw e en d ic ta to rs h ip a n d d e m o crac y , o r b etw e en so cial
c o n s e rv a tism a n d so cial ch a n g e. T h ese th in g s w ere o f c o u rse also a t issue in
th e E n glish C ivil W a r. C o v e n a n te rs a n d C ro m w ell w ere u n ea sy allies fro m
1643 to 1648, b u t C ro m w ell’s d ecisio n to ex e cu te C h a rle s I a n ta g o n is e d th e
S co ts. T he resu lt w as a w a r w hich C ro m w e ll’s g en e ral w o n , a n d fro m 1652
to 1660 S c o tla n d w as u n d e r E n g lish rule. T h o u g h th is ru le w as c o m p a ra ­
tively h u m a n e, a n d C ro m w ell’s relig io u s po licy d id n o t g re a tly d iffe r fro m
S c o ttish aim s, yet E n g lish ru le w as re se n te d as such. T h e re s to ra tio n o f
C h a rles II w as w elco m ed , b u t it w as fo llo w ed b y v in d ic tiv e rep risa ls
32 Nations and States

(e x e c u tio n o f th e 8 th E arl o f A rgyll o n 24 M ay 1661) a n d by p e rse c u tio n o f

th e C o v e n an ters. S co ts w ere still d ivided in to relig io u s c a m p s w h en Ja m e s
V II a n d II w as d riv en o u t o f th e B ritish Isles by D u tc h W illiam .

In Ire lan d th e R e fo rm a tio n h a d q u ite d iffe ren t, a n d d isa stro u s, c o n se q u e n ­

ces. T h e Irish w ould n o t a c ce p t P ro te s ta n t d o c trin e s, th e c o m m o n peo p le
even less th a n th e u p p e r n o b ility . L ittle a tte m p t w as m a d e by th e E nglish
P ro te s ta n ts to p e rsu a d e th e m by th e o lo g ic al a rg u m e n t a n d in tellig en t
p ro p a g a n d a ; an d th e neglected c o n d itio n o f Irish e d u c a tio n a n d secu lar
c u ltu re m a d e th e Irish peo p le m o re im p e rm e a b le to p ro p a g a n d a th a n m ost.
R a th e r, th e E nglish relied o n b ru ta l fo rce, an d this served o n ly to s tre n g th ­
en Irish d e v o tio n to th e old fa ith , a n d to c re a te h a tre d a g a in st E n g la n d . F o r
th e ir p a r t th e E nglish ru lers th o u g h t o f th e Irish as a b a r b a ro u s a n d in ferio r
p eo p le, ever in clined to p ro v id e help to th e in te rn a l en em ies o f th e ru lers o f
E n g la n d , o r to seek h elp fro m th e fo re ig n en em ies o f E n g la n d , an d
th e re fo re to be w atc h ed w ith v ig ilan t su sp icio n , a n d co erced in to su b m is­
sion. A s so o ften h a p p e n s in such h isto ric al p ro cesses o f esc a la tio n , each
side b ehaved m o re a n d m o re as the o th e r side ex p e cted it to b ehave. T his
w as th e essence o f th e re la tio n sh ip b etw een Ire la n d a n d E n g la n d fro m the
late six te e n th ce n tu ry u p to th e m id -tw e n tie th a n d b ey o n d . T h e fac t th a t a t
m o st tim es d u rin g these tra g ic ce n tu ries th e re w ere Irish m en , E n g lish m en ,
a n d S co tsm en , b o th C a th o lic a n d P ro te s ta n t, w h o loved th e ir ow n an d
ea ch o th e rs’ c o u n try deeply, w ho knew a n d u n d e rsto o d b o th cu ltu res, a n d
w h o believed th a t Irish, E nglish a n d S c o ttish cu ltu re s co u ld a n d sh o u ld
c o e x ist in peace a n d m u tu a l resp ect, a n d m ig h t even fru itfu lly in flu en ce
ea ch o th e r, barely affects th e tr u th th a t th e p re d o m in a n t tre n d o n b o th
sides w as d is tru s t a n d h a tre d . Irish n a tio n a l feeling a n d n a tio n a l h a tre d w as
in e x tric a b ly b o u n d up w ith th e relig io u s schism .
T h e m ain events in th is lo n g tale a re well k n o w n . In th e w ar w hich beg an
in 1595, n o t only th e d efence o f th e old fa ith , b u t also th e p a rtic u la r
in te rests o f th e O ’N eills a n d O ’D o n n els a n d th e ir fo llo w ers w ere involved.
S p a n ish aid w as in a d e q u a te . D efea t o f th e reb ellio n , w h ich h ad n o t been
co n fin ed to th e n o rth , w as follow ed by th e P la n ta tio n o f U lster, settlin g
S c o ttish a n d E nglish P ro te s ta n ts in w h a t h ad been th e m o st u n in te rru p te d ­
ly Irish p a rt o f Ire la n d . F o rty y ears la te r, Ire la n d w as o n C h a rles I’s side in
th e E nglish C ivil W ar. A C o n fe d e ra c y o f K ilk en n y , o f Irish C a th o lic
n o ta b le s, w as fo rm e d , w ith h o p es o f a t least e n d in g P ro te s ta n t p erse cu tio n
o f th e old ch u rc h , even if it w ere n o t to be re sto re d to th e sta tu s w hich
w o u ld en a b le it to p erse cu te P ro te s ta n ts . In a n y case th e d e fe a t o f C h a rles,
a n d C ro m w ell’s b ru ta l re p re ssio n o f 1649-52, d e stro y e d th ese h o p es,
cau sed f u rth e r severe legal d isc rim in a tio n a g a in s t C a th o lic s, a n d b ro u g h t
fu rth e r large-scale se ttle m e n t o f E nglish a n d S co ts in Ire la n d . T h e R e s to ra ­
 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 33

tio n d id little to im p ro v e th e lo t o f th e Irish. C h a rles II w as to o w ea k , an d

to o afra id o f E nglish a n ti-p o p e ry , to d o m u c h ; b u t P re sb y te ria n s in U lster
as w ell w ere v ictim s o f d isc rim in a tio n . F in ally , in th e crisis o f 1688 m o st o f
Irelan d to o k th e side o f th e C a th o lic J a m e s II a g a in st D u tc h W illiam III.
O n ce m o re, th e C a th o lic s w ere d efe ate d , th is tim e largely by th e b rav e an d
effective o p p o sitio n o f th e U lster P ro te s ta n ts , fo r w h o m th e d efen ce o f
L o n d o n d e rry a n d th e B attle o f th e B oyne (14 J u n e 1690) have rem ain ed
p ro u d b attle-cries ever since.

A lrea d y in th e six te e n th c e n tu ry th e f o rm a tio n o f E n g lish n a tio n a l

co n scio u sn ess h a d been co m p le te d , a n d th e b itte r p o litica l, so cial an d
religious conflicts an d th e civil w ar o f th e se v en te en th d id n o t b rea k E nglish
n a tio n a l id en tity ; no m o re th a n th e firm ly e stab lish ed F re n c h n a tio n a l
id e n tity w as b ro k e n by religious w ars o r Frondes. T h e case o f S c o tla n d
a ro u n d 1700 is m o re co m p lic ate d .
T h e m a jo rity o f S co ts w ere united b eh in d th e P re sb y te ria n C h u rc h , an d
a lm o st all S co ts ch e rish ed th e tr a d itio n o f S c o ttish in d e p en d e n ce going
b ack th ro u g h B ruce a n d W allace to th e m edieval realm a n d th e d ista n t
C eltic p ast. T h ey knew very w ell th a t th e y w ere n o t E n g lish m en . A t th e
sam e tim e d eep d iv isio n s se p a ra te d H ig h la n d e r fro m L o w la n d e r, G ael
fro m S a x o n ; an d u n rec o n cile d religious m in o ritie s still su rv iv ed . T hese
v ario u s fru s tra tio n s ex p ressed th em selves in th e co n flict la ten t betw een
Ja c o b ite s a n d W higs.
T o th e E nglish sta te sm e n o f Q ueen A n n e ’s reign a n d th e ir frie n d s in th e
g o v e rn m e n t o f S c o tla n d , th e best so lu tio n seem ed to be th e u n io n o f th e
tw o k in g d o m s in o n e state. T h e H a n o v e ria n p rin ce w h o w as to be th e
q u e e n ’s successor in L o n d o n w ould th e n n o t have to fe a r th a t his rival
m ig h t be c o n s titu tio n a lly accep ted by a n eig h b o u rin g k in g d o m in th e sam e
islan d . T h e e c o n o m ic c o n d itio n s o f the A ct o f U n io n , as p assed by th e
S c o ttish p a rlia m e n t o n 16 J a n u a r y 1707, w ere fa v o u ra b le ; th e w hole
stru c tu re o f S c o ttish law a n d th e S c o ttish legal p ro fe ssio n w as p reserv ed ;
an d se p a ra te A cts g u a ra n te e d th e su p re m a c y o f th e C h u rc h o f S c o tla n d in
its P re sb y te ria n fo rm , d eriv ed fro m th e C o v e n a n ts o f 1638 an d 1643. In
re tu rn , th e S c o ttish p a rlia m e n t ceased to ex ist, a n d th e k in g d o m s o f
S c o tla n d a n d E n g la n d w ere m erged in th e U nited K in g d o m o f G re a t
B ritain . T h e re w as to be one sta te , b u t th e re rem a in ed tw o n a tio n s, S co ts
a n d E nglish.
T h e U n io n w as n o t p o p u la r, a n d it w as a t le ast p a rtly b ro u g h t a b o u t by
c o rru p tio n o r p ressu re u p o n m e m b ers o f th e S c o ttish p a rlia m e n t. It d id n o t
p rev e n t th e J a c o b ite reb e llio n s o f 1715 a n d 1745, b o th o f w hich sta rte d in
S c o tla n d , an d th e seco n d o f w hich w as fo llo w ed by c o ld -b lo o d e d killings
a fte r th e b a ttle o f C u llo d e n a n d p e rse c u tio n o f H ig h la n d e rs fo r m a n y years.
34 N ations and States

Y et in th e lo n g e r te rm th e U n io n w o rk e d r a th e r w ell. S co ts a n d E n g lish
to g e th e r w en t th ro u g h th e h o rro rs a n d th e triu m p h s o f th e In d u stria l
R e v o lu tio n : m a d e , ru le d a n d th e n d ism a n tle d th e B ritish em p ire; a n d
fo u g h t tw o w o rld w ars, in w hich th e b lo o d trib u te o f S c o tla n d w as
p ro p o rtio n a te ly g re a te r th a n th a t o f E n g la n d . A ll th is w h ile S c o tla n d ’s
k irk a n d law a n d sch o o ls re m a in e d in S co ttish h a n d s , th e S cots rem a in ed
a n a tio n , a n d S cots a n d E n g lish o n th e w hole resp e cte d , even lik ed , each
o th e r.
T h e E n g lish a n d S c o ttish n a tio n s w ere fo rm e d b y th e h isto ric a l pro cess
su m m a rise d a b o v e , a n d b o th existed lo n g b e fo re m o d e rn d o c trin e s o f
n a tio n a lis m w ere fo rm u la te d . E n g lish n a tio n a lism n ev er ex isted , since
th e re w as n o need fo r e ith e r a d o c trin e o r a n in d e p e n d e n c e s tru g g le .15
E n g lish n a tio n a l co n scio u sn ess ce rtain ly existed fo r five ce n tu ries o r m o re;
b u t it is a rg u a b le th a t d u rin g th e n in e te e n th c e n tu ry it d isa p p e a re d ,
m e rg in g in to a B ritish n a tio n a l c o n scio u sn e ss, w h ich th e E n g lish te n d e d
to a p p r o p r ia te to th e m se lv e s.16 M a n y S cots a n d W elsh also a c q u ire d this
B ritish n a tio n a l co n scio u sn e ss; b u t o th e rs c o n tin u e d to feel them selv es
m e m b ers o f S co ttish a n d W elsh n a tio n s , w hile sh a rin g lo y a lty to th e
B ritish sta te a n d B ritish em p ire, a n d b ein g m o v e d in tu r n b y B ritish
p a trio tis m , B ritish im p e rialism a n d (a fte r 1947) B ritish in v e rted im p e ria l­
ism . H o w ev er, a m o n g S cots a n d W elsh n o t o n ly n a tio n a l co n scio u sn ess
b u t also n a tio n a lism ex isted , since v ary in g b u t c o n s id e ra b le n u m b e rs o f
th o se w h o c o n s titu te d th e S co ttish a n d W elsh n a tio n s felt, as th e E nglish
n a tio n c o u ld n o t feel, th e need to d e fe n d th e ir n a tio n a l id e n tities w ith in
th e B ritish sta te , o r even to seek in d e p en d e n ce .
T h e W elsh w ere less d istu rb e d by th e R e fo rm a tio n th a n th e E n g lish o r
S co ts: th e y re m a in e d o b e d ie n t to th e o ld fa ith fo r lo n g e r, a n d p assed o v er
to th e new w ith less c o m m o tio n . It w as in th e e ig h te e n th ce n tu ry th a t
im p o r ta n t relig io u s d iffe re n c e s a p p e a re d b etw e en W elsh a n d E n g lish ,
ow in g to th e ra p id sp re a d o f M e th o d ism . T h e ch ap el b ec am e n o less th e
sy m b o l o f W elsh n a tio n a lity th a n th e k irk o f S c o ttish . T h e stru g g le to
d ise sta b lish th e o ffic ia l C h u rc h o f W ales, w h ich c o n tin u e d u n til th e eve o f
th e F irs t W o rld W a r, m o b ilise d W elsh n a tio n a l feelin g . S till m o re im p o r­
ta n t w as th e revival o f W elsh as a lite ra ry la n g u a g e , w h ich d a te s, like
M e th o d ism , fro m th e e ig h te e n th c e n tu ry . T h e y ea rly eisteddfod festivals
w ere in stitu te d in 1789, th e ir p rim e m o v e r b ein g T h o m a s Jo n e s o f C o rw en .
In th e early n in e te e n th c e n tu ry W elsh w as sp o k e n b y th e g re a t m a jo rity o f
th e p o p u la tio n o f th e still v ery ru ra l p rin c ip a lity . T h e th r e a t to W elsh cam e
fro m th e in d u stria l re v o lu tio n , b a se d o n th e rich s o u th e rn co a l fields.
In d u s try b ro u g h t to th e W e lsh , as to o th e r p eo p les b e fo re a n d since, b o th
w ea lth a n d m isery, b u t it also b ro u g h t flo o d s o f E n g lish im m ig ra n ts in to
W ales as well as d raw in g W elsh m en to jo b s in E n g la n d . A t th e b eg in n in g
o f th e tw e n tie th ce n tu ry less th a n h a lf th e p o p u la tio n o f th e p rin c ip a lity
 Europe: The O ld Continuous N ations 35

sp o k e W elsh , a n d by th e m id-1970s on ly a b o u t a fifth . M assiv e u n e m p lo y ­

m en t in th e 1930s b ro u g h t m ass s u p p o rt fo r so cialism ; b u t by th e 1960s
fea r fo r th e fu tu re o f th e la n g u ag e a n d re se n tm e n t o f th e im p a c t o f
u n ifo rm E n g lish -c o n tro lle d b u re a u c ra c y (w hich d id n o t d im in ish w h en
L a b o u r cam e to p o w er) w as h elp in g th e n a tio n a list p a rty P la id C y m ru ,
w h ich called in d e lib e ra te ly vag u e te rm s fo r W elsh se lf-g o v e rn m e n t.
In S c o tla n d d iffe re n c e o f la n g u ag e w as c o m p a ra tiv e ly u n im p o rta n t.
G aelic w as still sp o k e n b y a b o u t 80,000 p e rso n s in th e 1970s a n d th e re w as
a re m a rk a b le ren a issa n ce o f G aelic p o e try . B u t th o u g h th is gave h o p e th a t
th e la n g u ag e w o u ld b e sav ed , it co u ld n o t be serio u sly ex p ected th a t it
w o u ld b ec o m e th e c h ie f la n g u ag e o f S c o tla n d . A tte m p ts w ere also m a d e to
d ev e lo p a lite ra ry n o n -C e ltic la n g u ag e , L a lla n s, c o n tin u in g th e tra d itio n
o f H e n ry so n a n d D u n b a r. T h is to o p ro d u c e d so m e fine p o em s by D o u g las
Y o u n g an d o th e rs; b u t th e S co ttish p o litic a l revival in th e tw e n tie th
c e n tu ry co u ld n o t, to th e sam e ex ten t as th e W elsh , be b a se d o n la n g u ag e .
In S c o tla n d in d u stria l d e v e lo p m e n t h a d m u c h th e sam e e ffe c t as in W ales,
a g ro w th o f b o th w ea lth a n d p o v e rty a n d c o n sid e ra b le im m ig ra tio n ; b u t
th e la tte r co n siste d less o f E nglish th a n o f Irish m e n , co m in g u su ally fro m
m a te ria l c o n d itio n s w o rse th a n th o se o f th e S cots. S co ttish in d u s try , like
W e lsh , su ffe re d fro m g re a te r u n e m p lo y m e n t th a n E n g lish in th e 1930s a n d
f ro m g re a te r loss o f e x p o rt m a rk e ts a f te r 1945; a n d as in W ales th e re su lt­
a n t d is c o n te n t w as largely ex pressed in socialism o r c o m m u n ism . H o w ­
ev er, th e b elief th a t th e S cots as a n a tio n sh o u ld h av e n o t o n ly th e ir o w n
k irk , law , a n d sc h o o ls b u t also th e ir o w n p o litica l in stitu tio n s n ev er d ied
o u t a f te r 1707. It w as stim u la te d by th e Irish m o v e m en t fo r H o m e R ule,
a n d grew w ith th e c o m b in a tio n o f e c o n o m ic h a rd s h ip a n d c u ltu ra l revival
in th e 1930s a n d a fte rw a rd s . In th e 1970s th e S co ttich N a tio n a l P a r ty m a d e
g o o d u se o f th e h o p es a ro u se d by oil e x p lo ita tio n in th e N o rth S ea, m o s t o f
w h ich w as in S co ttish r a th e r th a n E n g lish w ate rs. B u t n a tio n a l u n ease
a m o n g S cots w as m u c h m o re w id e sp re a d th a n th e e le c to ra l s u p p o rt, let
a lo n e th e activ e m e m b e rsh ip , o f th e S N P . T h e re w as re se n tm e n t a t th e
a ttitu d e o f so m a n y E n g lish m en w ho, w hile sincerely believing them selv es
n o t to b e in a n y sense E n g lish im p e rialists, yet refu sed to reco g n ise th e
d istin c t n a tio n a lity o f th e S cots, ta lk in g as if th e fu tu re o f S c o tla n d w ere
sim p ly a p ro b le m o f d e c e n tra lisa tio n . T h e re w as also a g ro w in g feeling
th a t n o t o n ly h a d th e B ritish em p ire ceased to exist b u t th a t th e a c tu a l an d
p o te n tia l ru lers o f B rita in (o f w h ate v er p o litic a l p e rsu a sio n ) h a d lo st all
b elief in th em selv es. T h ese view s m ig h t be m is ta k e n , b u t th e E n g lish
p o litician s o f th e m id-1970s w ere d o in g very little to p ro v e it.

T h e case o f Ire la n d , w h ere n a tio n a lism b ec am e a p o w e rfu l fo rc e , a n d

cre ate d b itte r a n d a p p a re n tly in so lu b le c o n flic ts, needs fu lle r d iscu ssio n .
36 N ations and States

In eig h tee n th ce n tu ry Ire la n d , in a c lim a te o f relig io u s scep ticism , th e

d isc rim in a to ry law s, th o u g h still legally in fo rc e, w ere m ild ly ap p lied .
D u b lin b ec am e, like E d in b u rg h , a c e n tre o f th o u g h t a n d c u ltu re in th e
E n g lish la n g u a g e w h ich w as yet d istin c t fro m th a t o f E n g la n d . D e m a n d
grew a m o n g th e A n g lo -Irish u p p e r class, w h ich th o u g h t o f itse lf as Irish ,
fo r g re a te r in d e p e n d e n c e . T h e ex a m p le o f th e A m e ric a n co lo n ies sh o w ed
th e d a n g e r, w hile th e g o o d b e h a v io u r o f th e Irish V o lu n te e rs d u rin g th e
w a r w ith A m e ric a stre n g th e n e d th e D u b lin le a d e rs’ case. T h e re su lt w as
th e e sta b lish m e n t in M ay 1782 o f an in d e p e n d e n t Irish P a rlia m e n t, th a t
is, th e a b a n d o n m e n t o f P o y n in g s ’ L aw .
T h is P a rlia m e n t re p re se n te d on ly th e e d u c a te d P ro te s ta n t A n g lo -Irish .
A p a rtia l e n fra n c h ise m e n t o f C a th o lic s in 1793 m a d e sm all d iffe ren ce : th e
g re a t m ass o f th e Irish n a tio n w as o u tsid e p o litica l life. R a d ic al id eas b eg an
to m a k e them selves felt, especially a fte r 1789. In O c to b e r 1791 W o lfe T o n e
a n d so m e o f his frie n d s fo rm e d th e S ociety o f U n ite d Iris h m en . T h ey w ere
ra d ic a l d e m o c ra ts , d e d ic a te d to th e lib e rty a n d p ro g re ss o f th e Irish n a tio n ,
reg a rd le ss o f relig io n . T h e ir o rig in a l stre n g th w as in U lste r, especially
a m o n g P re sb y te ria n s— still su b je c t to civil d isa b ilitie s— b u t th ey also w on
su p p o rt fro m C a th o lic s. In 1795 T o n e left Ire la n d fo r A m e ric a , a n d next
y ea r w en t to F ra n c e , to p la n F re n ch a id fo r a reb e llio n in Ire la n d . In M ay
1798 th e reb e llio n to o k place; F re n c h aid arriv e d to o late, a n d w as
d e fe a te d ; W o lfe T o n e w as c a p tu re d by th e E nglish fro m a F re n ch sh ip an d
la te r killed h im self, w hile several o th e rs, a rre ste d b e fo re th e reb ellio n ,
w ere ex e cu ted . T h e reb e llio n co n v in ce d W illiam P itt th a t th e Irish P a r lia ­
m e n t m u st be a b o lish e d , a n d Ire la n d re p re se n te d d irec tly in th e E n g lish
P a r lia m e n t a t W e stm in ste r. T h e U n io n w as b ro u g h t a b o u t by a v o te o f th e
Iris h P a rlia m e n t o f 7 J u n e 1801. T h e reb e llio n led b y R o b e rt E m m e t in
1803, en d in g w ith his ex e c u tio n , w as a n ep ilo g u e.
N in e te e n th ce n tu ry Irish po litics w ere p lay ed b e fo re tw o d istin ct a u d ie n ­
ces: th e B ritish P a rlia m e n t a n d th e p eo p le o f Ire la n d . T h e lead in g fig u re in
th e first p e rio d w as D an ie l O ’C o n n e ll. It w as he w h o se ta le n ts as a n o ra to r
a n d as an o rg a n ise r b ro u g h t th e Irish C a th o lic p e o p le in to Irish p o litics.
H is v ic to ry in th e C la re elec tio n o f 1828, even o n th e u n fa v o u ra b le
re stric te d fra n c h ise o f th e tim e, ca u se d P a rlia m e n t to p ass th e C a th o lic
E m a n c ip a tio n A ct o f 1829; b u t th e re st o f O ’C o n n e ll’s ca re e r, d ev o ted to
th e m ass c a m p a ig n fo r th e R ep eal o f th e U n io n , w as a failu re .
F ro m 1845 to 1848 Ire la n d w as d e v a sta te d b y th e F a m in e resu ltin g fro m
th e fa ilu re o f th e p o ta to c ro p . It red u c ed m o re th a n a th ird o f th e p eo p le to
d e s titu tio n , co st p e rh a p s a m illio n d e a d , a n d set in m o tio n th e m ass
e m ig ra tio n overseas w h ich , to g e th e r w ith a d ra stic a lly lo w ere d b irth ra te ,
re d u c e d th e p o p u la tio n o f Ire la n d b etw e en 1845 a n d 1880 fro m a ro u n d
eight m illio n to five m illio n . It w as n o t u n til th e 1870s th a t th e Irish
p o litical elite h ad su ffic ie n tly rec o v ered fro m th e d isa ste r to resu m e th e
 Europe: The O ld Continuous N ations 37

p a rlia m e n ta ry stru g g le .
A g re a t le ad e r a p p e a re d in C h a rles S tew art P a rn e ll, a P ro te s ta n t
la n d o w n e r fro m W icklow C o u n ty . H e w as a b le to h a rn e ss th e a g ra ria n
d isc o n te n t o f th e Irish p e a sa n ts to his m o v e m e n t fo r Irish H o m e R u le, a n d
to w eld to g e th e r th e Irish m e m b ers o f p a rlia m e n t in W e stm in ste r so as to
p la y , by n e g o tia tio n s o r by o b s tru c tio n , a decisive ro le in th e riv alries
b etw een th e C o n se rv a tiv e a n d L ib e ra l p a rtie s a t W e stm in ste r. H e sh o w ed
e q u a l u n d e rs ta n d in g o f, a n d e q u a l a b ility to d ire c t, th e p a rlia m e n ta ry a n d
th e a g ra ria n stru g g le , n e ith e r publicly c o m m ittin g h im se lf to th e use o f
fo rc e n o r a b ju rin g it. H e p e rsu a d e d G la d s to n e to a d o p t H o m e R ule. T h e
sp lit in the L ib e ra l P a rty in 1886, th e e x p lo ita tio n by th e C o n serv ativ es o f
U lste r P ro te s ta n t m is tru s t, a n d th e a b ility o f th e H o u se o f L o rd s to
fru s tra te C o m m o n s m a jo ritie s, w ere fo rm id a b le o b sta cles; b u t w h at
d e fe a te d th e Irish ca u se w as th e sc a n d a l o f P a r n e ll’s d iv o rc e case in 1890,
w hich led to th e d isin te g ra tio n o f th e Irish N a tio n a list p a rlia m e n ta ry
g ro u p . In th e fo llo w in g years so m e g o o d th in g s h a p p e n e d in Ire la n d : in
p a rtic u la r th e system o f la n d h o ld in g a n d th e q u a lity o f Irish a g ric u ltu re
w ere im p ro v e d . B ut th ese w ere th in g s d o n e fo r th e Irish by o ffic ia ls
re sp o n sib le to an E n g lish g o v e rn m e n t, n o t by th e p eo p le o f Ire la n d .
T h ro u g h o u t th ese years th e re h ad been Irish m en w h o c a red n o t fo r
so cial re fo rm s o r fo r so m e new fed e ra l re la tio n sh ip b etw een Ire la n d an d
E n g la n d , b u t q u ite sim p ly w an te d to get rid o f th e E n g lish a lto g e th e r.
Ire la n d m u st be h erse lf, even if p o o r a n d w eak , a n d all m e an s, in clu d in g
p h y sical fo rc e, sh o u ld be u sed. T h ey w ere in flu e n ced by E u ro p e a n re v o lu ­
tio n a ry n a tio n a lism (Ita lia n , P o lish a n d H u n g a ria n ); to o k a ro m a n tic
in te re st in th e C eltic p a s t, as B a lk a n n a tio n a lists in B y z an tin e p a s t; a n d
id ealised th e d e v o u t Irish p e a sa n try w hile insistin g th a t th e Irish n a tio n
co m p rised P ro te s ta n ts as w ell as C a th o lic s. T h e first sig n ific a n t g ro u p ,
Y o u n g Ire la n d , w as re sp o n sib le fo r a m in o r a tte m p t a t an a rm e d risin g in
A u g u st 1848 a t B a llin g arry in C o u n ty T ip p e ra ry , w hich led to th e tr a n s ­
p o r ta tio n to A u s tra lia o f sev eral o f its le ad e rs. M o re im p o r ta n t w as th e
secret society fo u n d e d in 1858, m a in ly by Ja m e s S tep h e n s a n d J o h n
O ’M a h o n e y , w h o se Irish b ra n c h b ecam e k n o w n as th e Irish R e p u b lic a n
B r o th e rh o o d (IR B ), a n d th e A m e ric a n as th e F en ia n B ro th e rh o o d . T h e
C a th o lic h ie ra rc h y re p u d ia te d th e society. S everal o f its le ad ers w ere
a rre s te d , a n d sp e n t lo n g y ears in p riso n . In M a rc h 1867 a n a rm e d risin g by
sm all n u m b e rs o f c o n s p ira to rs in D u b lin , C o rk , T ip p e ra ry a n d L im erick
w as q u ic k ly su p p re sse d . T h e m o st e ffic ie n t o f th e m en o f 1867, J o h n
D ev o y , escap ed to A m e ric a , w here he actively fin an c ed an d o rg an ise d
Irish co n sp ira cies fo r a n o th e r fifty years.
A t th e tu rn o f th e c e n tu ry Irish n a tio n a lism a c q u ire d a c u ltu ra l d im e n ­
sio n . S om e o f I re la n d ’s ab lest m in d s d ev o te d them selv es to c re a tin g , o r
rev iv in g, an Irish c u ltu re as d iffe re n t as p o ssib le fro m E n g lish . A ro u n d
38 N ations and States

1830 th e re h a d b een so m e tw o m illio n Irish -sp e a k e rs in Ire la n d . P u b lic

e d u c a tio n , w hich fro m th is tim e o n w a rd s m a d e r a th e r s u b sta n tia l p r o ­
g ress, w as in th e E n g lish la n g u ag e : a t th e tim e, O ’C o n n e ll a n d o th e r
p ro m in e n t Iris h m e n fa v o u re d th is. T h e F a m in e d e a lt a te rrib le b lo w to th e
la n g u a g e , since b o th m o rta lity a n d e m ig ra tio n w ere h ig h e st in th e G aelic­
sp e ak in g d istric ts. A t th e end o f th e c e n tu ry Irish -sp e a k e rs w ere a sm all
a n d d w in d lin g m in o rity . T o c o m b a t th is, th e G aelic L ea g u e w as fo u n d e d
in 1893, its tw o lead in g fig u res D o u g las H y d e a n d E o in M acN eill. Y ears o f
h a rd w o rk su cceeded in in tro d u c in g th e te ac h in g o f Irish in to p rim a ry
sc h o o ls, a n d so m e w h a t ex ten d in g it a t se c o n d a ry a n d u n iv e rsity levels.
D u rin g th e sam e y ears a p p e a re d th e first w o rk s o f a g re a t p o e t, W illiam
B u tler Y eats, a n d th e p lays o f J . M . S ynge, as w ell as m u c h lesser lite ra ­
tu re , w ritte n in E n g lish b u t p ro fo u n d ly in flu e n c e d by Irish tra d itio n s a n d
c u s to m s, o r a t least by se rio u s e ffo rts to d isco v er a n d u n d e rs ta n d these.
T h e ir e ffo rts w ere in e v ita b ly m a rk e d by fru s tra tio n s a n d po lem ics. T h e re
w as m u c h d e n u n c ia tio n — in E n g lish — o f ‘A n g lo -Iris h ’ a ttitu d e s as a
c o rru p tin g fo rc e. Y et w h o w ere th e A n g lo -Irish ? W h o w ere th e Irish ?
W ere o n ly C a th o lic s, o r o n ly p e a sa n ts, o r o n ly G ae lic -sp e ak e rs, en title d to
use th a t p ro u d n am e? C o u ld lite ra tu re a n d th e a rts be m a d e a s u b stitu te fo r
p o litics, to k eep th e Irish n a tio n a l s tro n g a t a tim e w h en p o litics in Ire la n d
seem ed d o o m e d to sta g n a tio n ? O r sh o u ld lite ra tu re b e s u b o rd in a te d to
p o litics? T h ese q u e stio n s co u ld fin d n o an sw e r, n o r co u ld th e Irish escape
th e fa te w hich tra p p e d th e m in the la n g u a g e o f th e ir c o n q u e ro rs.
T h e a d v e n t o f th e L ib e ra ls to p o w er in E n g la n d in 1905, a n d th e ir c o n ­
flict w ith th e H o u se o f L o rd s , gave th e Iris h m e m b ers o f th e B ritish P a r lia ­
m e n t a new ch a n c e to m a k e them selves felt. L ed by J o h n R e d m o n d , th ey
presse d fo r H o m e R u le, a n d th e B ritish p rim e m in iste r, H e rb e rt A sq u ith ,
c a u tio u s ly ag re ed . H o w ev er, th e g ro w in g o p p o s itio n o f U lste r, e n c o u r­
ag ed b y th e C o n se rv a tiv e P a rty a n d en jo y in g stro n g sy m p a th y in th e
B ritish o ffic e r c o rp s, b lo c k ed th e w ay. In th is situ a tio n th e ea rlier h o stility
to all c o o p e ra tio n w ith an y E n g lish rec o v ered g ro u n d . Its m o st effectiv e
sp o k e sm a n w as A r th u r G riffith , e d ito r since 1899 o f The United Irishman,
w h o la u n c h e d in 1905 th e slo g a n Sinn Fein (‘O u rse lv e s’). G riffith u rg ed
c o m p le te a b s te n tio n fro m p a rlia m e n ta ry po litics a n d an u n c o m p ro m isin g
p rio rity fo r Irish n a tio n a l in te rests in all fields, esp ecially in th e ec o n o m ic.
H e to o k , r a th e r stran g e ly , as his m o d e l fo r a c tio n th e p olicies o f th e
H u n g a ria n p a trio ts o f th e 1860s w hich h a d led to th e 1867 c o m p ro m is e .17
A n o th e r im p o r ta n t d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e se y ears w as th e g ro w th o f
w o rk in g -c lass a c tio n , still o n a sm all scale, w ith m ilita n t tr a n s p o r t w o rk e rs
in B elfast a n d D u b lin as th e v a n g u a rd . F ro m th is m o v e m e n t em erg ed a
le ad e r o f u n u su a l ta le n t a n d o f a n o rig in a l, so c ialist a n d M a rx ist, tu r n o f
m in d , Ja m e s C o n n o lly .
T h e H o m e R ule crisis rea ch ed its clim ax in th e su m m e r o f 1914. U lster
 Europe: The O ld Continuous N ations 39

V o lu n te ers in th e n o rth w ere m a tc h e d by Irish V o lu n te ers in th e s o u th , an d

b o th secretly o b ta in e d a rm s fro m G e rm a n y to use a g a in st each o th e r. T h e
o u tb re a k o f w ar in A u g u st p o s tp o n e d th e crisis. R e d m o n d ac ce p te d
A s q u ith ’s p ro p o s a l th a t th e H o m e R ule Bill o f 1912 s h o u ld b e p laced o n th e
s ta tu te b o o k , to co m e in to fo rc e a t th e en d o f th e w ar w h en P a rlia m e n t
sh o u ld h av e discu ssed a m e n d in g le g isla tio n to m eet U ls te r’s w ishes.
W a r, h o w ev er, in e v ita b ly m a d e so m e Irish m e n rev e rt to th e o ld policy
o f a llia n ce w ith th e enem ies o f E n g la n d . T h e G e rm a n s, ca st in th e ro le o f
th e S p a n ia rd s o f 1601 a n d th e F re n ch o f 1798, re sp o n d e d te p id ly to th e
o v e rtu re s o f th e o ld A m e ric a n Irish v e te ra n , D evoy , a n d o f S ir R o g er
C a se m e n t. T h e IR B successfu lly in filtra te d th e Irish V o lu n te e rs, b u t
c o n s p ira to ria l c o n fu sio n a t th e last stages m a d e it im p o ssib le to m o b ilise
la rg e n u m b e rs o f m en fo r th e a rm e d risin g . T h is to o k p la ce o n 24 A p ril
1916. A b o u t 1600 m en to o k p a r t in D u b lin , a n d h eld p a rts o f th e city fo r a
w eek; th e re w ere sm a lle r a rm e d a c tio n s in th e co u n ties o f W e x fo rd a n d
G alw ay . Ja m e s C o n n o lly a n d P a tric k P e a rse , th e s c h o o lm a ste r p o et,
ex p ected to g o to th e ir d e a th s: success w as o f lesser m o m e n t to th e m th a n
th e ir d e te rm in a tio n to m a k e th em selves a b lo o d sacrifice. T h ey w ere
a m o n g th e fiftee n ex e cu ted a fte r th e risin g w as su p p re sse d . A s a m ilita ry
e n te rp rise , it w as a p a th e tic fa ilu re , b u t its ro m a n tic circ u m sta n c e s, a n d
th e ca p ac ity o f Irish m e n to be m o v ed by fallen m a rty rs, m a d e it a lm o st a
v ic to ry . A ll re v o lu tio n a ry m o v e m en ts tre a s u re th e ir m a rty rs, b u t th e
c o n s ta n t in v o c a tio n o f th e g lo rio u s d e a d b y th e ex trem ists o f Irish
n a tio n a lism fa r exceeded n o rm a l p ra c tic e , a n d a m o u n te d a lm o st to a
m y ste ry relig io n o f a n eso teric sect.
In th e n ext tw o y ears it b ec am e clea r th a t H o m e R u le lib e ralism w as
d e a d in Ire la n d , a n d th a t S in n F ein h a d triu m p h e d . U n d e r th is n a m e all
u n c o m p ro m isin g n a tio n a lists cam e to g e th e r, a n d th e Iris h n a tio n , o u t­
sid e U lste r, fo llo w ed th e m . A t th e 1918 elec tio n to th e B ritish P a rlia m e n t,
S in n F ein w o n a lm o st all th e seats th a t d id n o t go to U lste r U n io n ists. T h e
se v en ty -th ree elected S in n F ein e rs c o n s titu te d them selv es th e p ro v isio n a l
p a rlia m e n t o f th e Iris h R e p u b lis, Dail Eireann, in J a n u a r y 1919. T h e re
fo llo w ed a lm o st th re e y ears o f w ar a g a in st th e E n g lish in th e n a m e o f
th e D ail, led by th e m o s t e m in e n t su rv iv o r fro m E a ste r 1916. E a m o n D e
V a le ra , a n d th e ru th le ss g u e rrilla ch ief, M ic h ae l C o llin s. I t w as fo u g h t n o t
in re g u la r m ilita ry a c tio n s b u t in ra id s, ex p lo sio n s, m u rd e rs a n d rep risa ls,
in w h ich th e irre g u la r B lack a n d T a n s, re c ru ite d as au x ilia rie s b y th e
E n g lish , d id th e ir b est to co m p e te in b ru ta lity w ith th e R e p u b lic a n s. T h e
w a r e n d e d in D ec em b e r 1921 w ith a c o m p ro m ise w h ich g av e tw en ty -six
c o u n tie s th e su b sta n c e o f in d e p e n d e n c e a t th e co st o f th e secession o f six
c o u n tie s a n d th e a c c e p ta n c e o f D o m in io n s ta tu s a n d a lin k w ith th e B ritish
c ro w n . T his w as less th a n D e V ale ra co u ld ag ree to , a n d th e re fo llo w ed a
y ear o f civil w ar, m o re m u rd e rs a n d c o u n te r-m u rd e rs a m o n g w h o se victim s
 40 Nations and States

w as M ich ael C ollins. A cease-fire ag re e m e n t en d ed th e civil w ar in M ay

1923. In 1928 D e V alera decided to a c ce p t th e facts a n d to re tu rn to
p o litica l life, b u t th e irre co n c ila b les k ep t on th e stru g g le as th e Irish
R e p u b lic a n A rm y (IR A ). S eek in g aid fro m th e en em ies o f th e E n g lish , th ey
ca m e in th e 1930s u n d e r s tro n g fascist influence.
T h e Irish F ree S ta te d id re a so n a b ly well, a n d th e B ritish g o v e rn m e n t
trie d h a rd to co n c iliate it. In 1938 N eville C h a m b e rla in ag reed to e v a cu a te
th e Irish p o rts w hich th e 1921 tre a ty h ad left to B ritain . In 1939 he ag reed to
Irish n e u tra lity in the S eco n d W o rld W a r, th o u g h th is serio u sly w eak en ed
B rita in ’s defences. T h e Irish g o v e rn m e n t b eh av ed as a g en u in e n e u tra l, b u t
50,000 Irish m en fo u g h t in th e B ritish a rm y a g a in st H itle r— m o re th a n
c o u n te rb a la n c in g th e s p o ra d ic effo rts o f th e IR A o n H itle r’s b eh alf. In 1948
Ire la n d b ecam e a rep u b lic, w ith B ritish co n sen t.
T h e re w ere also neg ativ e asp ects. Ire la n d rem a in ed very p o o r, its w elfare
services prim itiv e. In tellec tu al life w as largely d o m in a te d by th e C a th o lic
C h u rc h , a n d a t tim es a n d in p a rts o f th e c o u n try (th o u g h n o t alw ay s o r
• ev eryw here) th is d o m in a tio n w as o b sc u ra n tist. T h e sin cere an d en erg etic
effo rts o f th e Irish g o v e rn m e n t to revive th e Irish lan g u ag e h ad d is a p p o in t­
ing results. T he fact th a t Irish w as ta u g h t in all sc h o o ls, a n d th a t a
kn o w led g e o f Irish w as n ecessary fo r e m p lo y m e n t in g o v e rn m e n t service,
h a rd ly seem ed to help. O fficial sta tistics claim ed th a t in 1961 th e re w ere
716,420 Irish -sp e ak e rs (27.2 p erc en t o f th e p o p u la tio n ), b u t a n u n o fficial
e x p e rt e stim a te in 1951 w as th a t only 35,000 p erso n s used Irish as th e ir
o rd in a ry m e d iu m o f speech, a n d only 3,000 w ere ig n o ra n t o f E n g lish .18
T h ese w ide d isc re p an c ie s w ere, o f co u rse , d u e to d iffe re n t n o tio n s o f w h at
w as m e a n t by sp e ak in g Irish. T h e effo rts o f d ev o ted sc h o la rs a n d p a trio ts
w ere th w a rte d by the in d ifferen ce o f m illio n s w h o p aid lip service to Irish
c u ltu re b u t ig n o red it, a n d by th e a p p e a l to sim p le p eo p le o f th e jo y s of
M a m m o n p u rv ey ed by television a n d to u rists . S till, Irish rem a in ed a living
la n g u ag e , a n d w hile it lived th e re w as h o p e th a t it w o u ld survive.
T h e g re a te st f ru s tra tio n o f all to Irish p a trio ts w as th e d iv isio n o f th e is­
lan d . F ro m 1921 the U n io n ists firm ly c o n tro lle d U lster. T h e C a th o lic m i­
n o rity en jo y ed th e w elfare services, a n d w ere rep rese n ted a t W e stm in ster,
b u t th ey w ere k ep t o u t o f p o litica l life. T h is w as ho w th e g re a t m a jo rity
o f P ro te s ta n ts w an te d it. H o p es th a t th e rise o f th e la b o u r m o v e m en t w ould
b rid g e the g ap b etw een th e tw o c o m m u n itie s w ere d isa p p o in te d : fo r m ost
U lster w o rk e rs, th e p o p e w as a bigger m en ace th a n th e b o ss. C a p ta in
T eren c e O ’N eill, w ho b ecam e p rim e m in iste r o f U lste r in 1963, set him self
to im p ro v e rela tio n s w ith th e R ep u b lic. B elated g estu res o f re fo rm set o ff
m assive d isc o n te n ts. T h e C ivil R ig h ts A sso c ia tio n s ta rte d d e m o n stra tio n s
in th e w in te r o f 1968-69 w hich led to violence. B efo re lo n g th e IR A had
ta k e n ov er th e struggle. Its p o litica l o rie n ta tio n h a d ch a n g ed since th e
1930s: H itle r w as d e a d , fascism d isc re d ite d , a n d th e p a tro n s o f a n ti-B ritish
 Europe: The Old Continuous Nations 41

a c tio n w ere th e c o m m u n ist sta te s. In th e late 1960s th e IR A le ad e rsh ip w as

p e n e tra te d w ith g ro w in g success by c o m m u n ists, a n d a d o p te d M a rx is t o r
q u a s i-M a rx ist term in o lo g y . T h is b ro u g h t a sp lit in th e o rg a n isa tio n : w hile
th e ‘O fficials’ k e p t to the new tre n d , t h e ‘P ro v is io n a ls’ re p u d ia te d th e S o v iet
fo rm o f sta te , a n d p referre d u n lim ite d m u rd e r a n d a rso n w hile m o u th in g
slo g an s in creasingly influenced by T ro tsk y ists. It w as th e P ro v is io n a ls w ho
m ad e m o st o f the ru n n in g in th e early 1970s.
W h a t w as now being d e m a n d e d w as n o lo n g e r th a t U lster C a th o lics
sh o u ld have full a n d eq u a l rights, b u t th a t U lster sh o u ld be fo rcib ly
in c o rp o ra te d in the R epublic: th e claim w as n o t, o f co u rse , b eing officially
ad v a n ce d by th e D u b lin g o v e rn m e n t, b u t it w as n o t re p u d ia te d w ith m uch
en th u sia sm s o u th o f th e b o rd e r. T h e B ritish a rm y w as in e v ita b ly b ro u g h t in
to keep o rd er. Its p resence red u ced , b u t co u ld n o t e lim in a te , th e m u rd e rs,
b o m b in g s an d to rtu rin g s o f Irish m en by Irish m en . A t first th e C a th o lic s
ech o ed th e IR A ’s d e n u n c ia tio n o f th e B ritish a rm y as fo re ig n in v a d ers a n d
o p p re sso rs, th e n so m e P ro te sta n ts, to o , saw B ritish so ld iers as th e ir
en em ies because th e ir ow n effo rts a t m u rd e r a n d to rtu rin g w ere o p p o se d .
T h e IR A h o p ed so to d isg u st th e B ritish w ith Ire lan d th a t it w o u ld co m p el
th e B ritish g o v e rn m e n t to w ith d ra w th e B ritish a rm y , o p e n in g up th e
p ro sp e c t o f a new Irish civil w ar, by no m eans co n fin e d to U lster, since it
w ould bring in v o lu n te e rs fro m S c o tla n d a n d fro m the R e p u b lic to fig h t fo r
each side, a n d m ig h t w ell lead to m ass rep risa ls a g a in st th e h u n d re d s o f
th o u sa n d s o f Irish w o rk e rs em p lo y ed in E n g la n d an d S c o tla n d . If the
B ritish rem a in ed , th e y w ould be h ated . If th ey cleared o u t, th e y w o u ld still
be h a te d , a n d w o u ld have b etra y ed a c o m m u n ity m o re lo y ally d ev o ted to
th e m th a n a n y o th e r in th e w o rld o u tsid e B ritain . V iolence w as b ein g used,
on e sid e a rg u e d , to fo rc e tw o -th ird s o f th e p eo p le o f a free c o u n try to ac cep t
d ic ta tio n by o n e -th ird . N o t so, said th e ir o p p o n e n ts, it w as b ein g used to
m a k e o n e -th ird o f th e p o p u la tio n o f o n e islan d a c ce p t th e w ishes o f tw o -
th ird s. T h e a rg u m e n ts c o n tin u e d , w hile th e g u n m e n ex ercised th e ir tra d e .
O f Y eats’s terrib le b e a u ty , o nly th e te r r o r rem a in ed .
F ro m th e beg in n in g , th e Irish n a tio n a l m o v e m en t w as in te n d ed to brid g e
th e religious d ifferences; yet th e fact o f tw o religious c o m m u n itie s re­
m a in ed th e essence o f th e p ro b le m . In th e so u th th e C a th o lic C h u rc h
w ielded c u ltu ra l a n d p o litica l p o w er in a n in creasin g ly lib e ral sp irit, b u t it
co u ld n o t ov erco m e th e m is tru s t o f th e P ro te s ta n ts in th e n o rth . T h ey w ere
n o t g o in g to be w o n o v er b y p ro m ise s o f new w elfare le g isla tio n in th e
R ep u b lic: th ey m ig h t o r m ig h t n o t believe these p ro m ises, b u t th e co n flict
betw een th e m a n d th e R e p u b lic w as n o t a b o u t w elfare services.
Ire lan d in th e ea rly 1970s w as n o t a c o u n try o f tw o n a tio n s . T h e re w as a
n a tio n in Irelan d : it c o m p rise d th e p eo p le o f th e R e p u b lic , in c lu d in g m o st
o f its few rem a in in g P ro te s ta n ts , an d m o st o f th e U lster C a th o lics. T h e
rem a in in g m illion p eo p le w ere Irish m en , b u t d id n o t b elo n g to th e Irish
42 Nations and States

n a tio n , o r fo rm a n a tio n them selves. T h ey w ere d ev o te d to th e u n io n w ith

B rita in , b u t th e y w ere n o t E n g lish m en o r S co tsm en . T h e ir d es ce n d an ts
m ig h t beco m e p a rt o f th e Irish n a tio n a t som e fu tu re d a te , b u t th is w o u ld
ta k e tim e, a n d it w ould re q u ire m o re th a n a few se cu la risin g o r w elfare laws
in D u b lin .

In 1976 th e U n ited K in g d o m w as n o t u n ite d , a n d G re a t B ritain w as no

lo n g e r g rea t, d u e to th e a c tio n s n o t o f its enem ies b u t o f its o w n citizens.
T h e cen tu ries-lo n g p rocess o f u n io n o f S a x o n -D a n is h , A n g lo -C e ltic a n d
C e ltic-N o rse te rrito rie s in to one k in g d o m a p p e a re d in th e first h a lf o f th e
tw e n tie th c e n tu ry to h av e been ra th e r successful. It also seem ed to have
been a c ce p te d by th e C eltic W elsh; a n d th e w o u n d s left by th e s e p a ra tio n
a n d p a rtitio n o f Ire lan d seem ed to be healing.
A q u a r te r c e n tu ry la te r n o n e o f th is w as tru e . Y et lo y a lty to a c o m m o n
B ritish h o m e la n d , d e v o tio n to th e B ritish cro w n an d p rid e in th e B ritish
fo rm o f civ ilisatio n w ere n o t d e a d , a n d w ere n o t co n fin e d to th e m id d le-
aged o r th e m id d le c la ss.19 T h is is n o t less tru e b ecau se th ese se n tim e n ts
w ere seld o m ex p re ssed by p o litician s o r m e d ia -m e rc h a n ts. T h e tr u th w as
th a t th e f o u r n a tio n s w ere b o u n d to g e th e r, w h e th e r th ey liked it o r n o t, a n d
th a t it w o u ld be b e tte r to live to g e th e r peacefully in so m e s o rt o f ag reed
c o n fe d e ra tio n th a n to h a te a n d te a r ea c h o th e r to bits. It w as fo r E nglish
a n d Irish p o litician s to show n o t only th a t th ey w ere ab le to be g e n e ro u s to
ea c h o th e r a n d to th e S co ts a n d W elsh, b u t th a t th ey ca red su fficien tly for
B rita in a n d fo r Ire la n d to p u t the lives o f th e p eo p le w h o lived in b o th
islan d s a b o v e th e ir d o g m a s, van ities a n d fears.

The French
T h e F re n c h w ere th e first E u ro p e a n p eo p le to be fo rm e d in to a n a tio n , and
F re n c h g o v e rn m e n ts w ere th e p io n eers o f th e E u ro p e a n fo rm o f ce n tralised
a d m in is tra tio n a n d u n ifo rm n a tio n a l c u ltu re . T h is d o es n o t m ean th a t the
h o m o g e n eity o f F re n c h n a tio n a l c o n scio u sn e ss a n d c u ltu re w ere a b s o lu te ,
even in th e 1970s; b u t th a t th e y w ere m o re s u b s ta n tia l th a n a n y o th e r
n a tio n ’s it w o u ld be d ifficu lt to deny. T h e p ro cess by w h ich th is resu lt w as
achieved w as long, a n d w as a tte n d e d by a p p a llin g su fferin g s, yet fo r th e last
m illen n iu m th e d ire c tio n h as been u n c h a n g e d . T h is is w h y it h a s b een fo u n d
possib le to d iscuss th e F re n c h case m u c h m o re b riefly th a n th e B ritish: it is
n o t b ecause F re n c h h isto ry a n d c u ltu re a re less in te re stin g , o r less v alu ab le
to th e h u m a n race, th a n B ritish. S u ch a view c o u ld h a rd ly b e m a in ta in e d by
a n y m o d e ra te ly in te llig en t p erso n a c q u a in te d w ith th e b a re facts: le ast o f all
by th e a u th o r o f these p ag e s.20
 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 43

T h e la n d k n o w n in m o d e rn tim es as F ra n c e w as m o stly in h a b ite d , in th e

first ce n tu ry BC, by p eoples o f C eltic speech, o rg an ise d in sev eral trib e s o r
c o n fe d e ra tio n s. T h is lan d w as c o n q u e re d by th e R o m a n s, an d b ecam e
k n o w n as T ra n sa lp in e G au l. In it L a tin -sp e a k e rs a n d C e ltic-sp ea k ers
co e x isted , b u t in th e c o u rse o f fo u r h u n d re d y ears o f R o m a n ru le L atin
im p o sed itself o n m o st o f th e c o u n try . Islan d s o f C eltic speech rem a in ed ,
especially in B rittan y in th e n o rth -w e st; a n d in th e w estern p a rt o f th e
P y ren ees, stretch in g n o rth in to th e p lain s a n d alo n g th e c o a st, th e n o n -
C eltic a n d n o n -L a tin B asque lan g u ag e w as sp o k en .
W e m u st briefly refer to th e basic facts o f th e fo rm a tio n o f sta te s in
F ra n c e in th e seco n d h a lf o f th e first C h ristia n m illen n iu m . T h e b are
ch ro n o lo g y is well k n o w n , b u t its c u ltu ra l a n d social c o n te n t a re v ig o ro u sly
d isp u te d by e ru d ite m en. A t th e en d o f th e fifth c e n tu ry m o st o f G a u l cam e
u n d e r th e rule o f th e F ra n k s , a p eo p le o f G erm a n ic sp eech w h o had
p rev io u sly lived in th e R h in e valley a n d L ow C o u n trie s, b etw een V erd u n
a n d T o u rn a i, a n d w ho gave the c o u n try th e n am e by w hich it h as since been
k n o w n : F ra n ce . T h e ir chief, C lovis, b ecam e a C h ristia n in 496, a n d sta rte d
th e so-called M e ro v in g ian d y n asty . G e rm a n ic F ra n k s an d G a llo -R o m a n s
co ex isted in th e new k in g d o m , w ith th e la tte r p ro v id in g th e skilled
a d m in is tra to rs in ch u rc h an d sta te . In th e c o u rse o f tim e th e local v a ria n t o f
L atin , th e ‘R o m a n c e ’ la n g u ag e , prev ailed ov er th e F ra n k ish , ta k in g o n ly a
few G erm a n ic w o rd s in to its v o ca b u la ry . In tim e also , as a re su lt o f q u a rre ls
b etw een rival C h ristia n p rin ces, th e M e ro v in g ia n rulers lo st th e ir g rip o ver
larg e te rrito rie s. In th e m id -e ig h th ce n tu ry u n ity w as re sto re d w h en P ép in ,
so n o f a p ow erful g en e ral a n d ‘m a y o r o f th e p alac e’, w as a n o in te d k in g by
th e p o p e a t R h e im s, a n d fo u n d e d th e C a ro lin g ia n d y n a sty w h o se m o st
illu strio u s m e m b e r w as C h a rle s th e G re a t (C h a rle m a g n e ), fo u n d e r in 800 o f
th e H o ly R o m a n E m p ire w hich claim ed a u th o rity ov er C h ristia n W estern
E u ro p e . T he p a rtitio n o f th is em p ire b etw een rival heirs in 843 resu lted in
th e re c re a tio n o f a se p a ra te k in g d o m o f F ra n c e , w hich ex c lu d e d a b ro a d
strip o f te rrito ry , fro m th e c o a st o f th e L ow C o u n trie s d o w n to th e R h o n e
valley, la te r k n o w n as L o rra in e .21 T h e C a ro lin g ia n s su ffered fre q u e n t raid s
o n th e ir C h a n n e l c o a st b y S c a n d in a v ia n s. In 912 th e S c a n d in a v ia n lead er
R o llo w as given a large te rrito ry in th e n o r th , w hich b ecam e th e lan d o f th e
N o rth m e n , o r N o rm a n d y . H ere, as fo u r h u n d re d years p rev io u sly in th e
case o f th e F ra n k s , th e R o m a n c e lan g u ag e s o o n ca m e to p rev ail o v er th a t o f
th e in v a d ers, a n d th e N o rm a n s w ere F re n c h -sp e a k e rs by th e en d o f th e
te n th ce n tu ry .
In 987, a fte r th e C a ro lin g ia n d y n a sty ca m e to an en d , H u g h C a p e t w as
elected king o f F ra n c e , a n d fo u n d e d a d y n a s ty w hich lasted fo r th ree a n d a
h a lf ce n tu ries. H is p o w e r w as in p rac tice lim ited to th e reg io n a ro u n d P aris,
k n o w n as th e Ile de F ra n ce . F ro m th is c e n tre th e F re n c h sta te e x p a n d e d ,
d esp ite p erio d ical se tb a c k s, u n til it rea ch ed its m o d e rn fro n tie rs o n th e
44 Nations and States

P yrenees, th e A lps, th e tw o seas a n d p a rt o f th e R h in e. W ith th e F re n ch

m o n a rc h y a n d th e F re n c h sta te th e re grew th e F re n c h n a tio n . It w as a
p a in fu l p ro cess, ach iev ed by th e e x p e n d itu re o f b lo o d a n d iro n o n a scale
w hich m ak es th e w o rd s la te r a ttrib u te d to B ism arck seem like te a-tim e
p a tte r. It w as by n o m ean s inevitable. It req u ired th e su b je ctio n o f
te rrito rie s as g rea t as th e lie de F ra n c e , w ith ru lers n o less p o w erfu l an d
ta le n te d , an d w ith th e ir ow n cu ltu res no less c a p a b le o f flo w erin g th a n th a t
o f P aris. T h e sto ry o f th e in c o rp o ra tio n o f these te rrito rie s fo rm s th e larg er
p o r tio n o f th e story o f th e g ro w th o f th e F re n c h n a tio n .
N o rm a n d y w as u n ite d w ith th e k in g d o m o f E n g la n d a fte r 1066, w ith th e
e x c e p tio n o f th e years 1079 to 1106 w hen it w as held by a y o u n g er so n o f
W illiam th e C o n q u e ro r. W hen th e cro w n o f E n g la n d p assed in 1154 to
H e n ry o f A n jo u , w ho h ad p rev io u sly a c q u ire d la n d s in th e so u th -w e st by
his m a rria g e w ith E le a n o r o f A q u ita in e , a huge A n g ev in em p ire em erg ed ,
o n b o th sides o f th e C h a n n e l, su rp a ssin g in p o w er th e k in g d o m o f F ran ce.
H o w ev er, th e F re n ch kings o b stin a te ly resisted , by d ip lo m a c y a n d by
e c o n o m ic skill as well as by force. In 1204 P h ilip p e II A u g u ste c o n q u e red
N o rm a n d y , a n d a fte r his v ic to ry a t B ouvines in 1214 w as a b le to red u ce th e
F re n c h po ssessio n s o f th e king o f E n g la n d in th e so u th -w est. T h e se ttle­
m e n t o f 1259 (T re a ty o f P aris) betw een L ouis IX (S a in t L o u is) an d H en ry
III o f E n g la n d m ad e ch a n g es, b u t d id n o t stre n g th e n th e p o w er o f th e
E n g lish k in g o n F re n ch soil.
In th e reign o f P h ilip p e A u g u ste th e F re n c h sta te also e x p a n d e d to the
so u th . B eyond th e L oire w as O cc ita n ia, in w hich th e re lived essen tially a
d iffe re n t peo p le, w ith a d iffe ren t c u ltu re a n d a d iffe ren t lan g u ag e (th e
langue d ’oc as o p p o se d to the langue d ’oif).22 T h e M e d ite rra n e a n c u ltu re o f
th e s o u th , w ith its tr o u b a d o u r lite ra tu re , m o re s o p h istic a te d so cial rela­
tio n s h ip s a n d easier m a n n ers, its douceur de vie a n d u n b ro k e n c o n tin u ity
w ith th e R o m a n w o rld , in sp ire d b o th je a lo u sy a n d c o n te m p t in the
b ellig e re n t a n d p u rita n ic a l n o rth e rn e rs. T h e d esire o f th e n o rth e rn ru lers to
seize th ese la n d s ac q u ired m o ra l resp e cta b ility th a n k s to th e sp rea d in th e
s o u th o f d o c trin e s w hich w ere n o t so m u c h a C h ristia n h eresy as a d iffe ren t
religion: M a n ich e an ism , w hich b eg a n in Ira n a th o u s a n d y ears ea rlie r, a n d
w as ta k e n u p successively by th e P a u lic ia n s in A rm e n ia , th e B ogom ils in
th e B a lk a n s a n d th e cathari in Italy. Its disciples in L a n g u e d o c w ere k n o w n
as A lb ig en sian s, fro m th e city o f A lb i in th e la n d s o f th e C o u n t o f
T o u lo u se . E x h o rta tio n s fro m R o m e co u ld n o t m ak e the c o u n ts a c t a g a in st
th e ir su b jects o n th e scale re q u ire d by p a p a l o rth o d o x y . In 1209 P o p e
In n o c e n t III d eclared a c ru sa d e a g a in st th e A lb ig en sian s. It w as led by a
F re n c h -sp e a k in g n o b le m a n , S im o n de M o n tfo rt. T h e n o rth e rn in v asio n
led to a n allia n ce betw een R a y m o n d o f T o u lo u se a n d P e te r II, k in g o f A ra ­
gon. T h ey w ere, how ever, d efe ate d a t th e B attle o f M u re t in S e p te m b e r
1213.
 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 45

T h is m u st be reg a rd e d as a h isto ric al la n d m a rk , c o m p a ra b le to B a n n o c k ­

b u rn a ce n tu ry la te r b u t leading to th e o p p o site result. T h e fo rm a tio n o f a
sta te b ased o n M e d ite rra n e a n se a-p o w er, e x te n d in g fro m C a ta lo n ia to th e
R h o n e a n d in c lu d in g th e B alearic Islan d s, is so m e th in g th a t m ig h t have
h a p p e n e d , in n o w ay m o re im p o ssib le th a n th e su rv iv al fo r fo u r h u n d red
y ears o f a n in d e p e n d e n t S c o tla n d . If so, th e h isto ry o f b o th F ra n c e an d
C a stile w ould have been d iffe ren t. H o w ev er, th e n o rth p rev ailed . T h e
co u n ts o f T o u lo u se b ecam e h u m iliated vassals o f th e sa in tly K ing L o u is IX ,
w h o se soldiers in 1244 c a p tu re d th e last A lb ig e n sia n fo rtre ss o f M o n tség u r,
b u rn in g m en an d w o m en p riso n ers alive in a vast h o lo c a u st on th e sp o t. In
1251 m o st o f th e lands o f T o u lo u se p assed to A lp h o n se , y o u n g e r b ro th e r o f
th e k ing o f F ra n ce , a n d tw en ty y ears la te r becam e p a rt o f th e ro y al d o m a in .
T h e d u ch y o f B u rg u n d y , w hich in clu d ed p a rt o f th e la n d s o f th e m id d le
k in g d o m o f L o th a rin g ia , w as u n ite d w ith th e k in g d o m o f F ra n c e in th e
elev en th ce n tu ry , b u t K ing H enri I gave it in 1031 to his b ro th e r R o b e rt,
w h o se d e sce n d an ts ru led it as a se p a ra te p rin c ip a lity u n til 1361, w h en it
rev erted to th e F re n ch cro w n . A t th is tim e th e F re n c h K ing J o h n w as
en g ag ed in w ar w ith th e king o f E ngland: th e so-called H u n d re d Y ears’ W a r
w hich began as a resu lt o f E d w ard 111’s claim th a t he, n o t P h ilip o f V alois,
sh o u ld in h e rit the F re n c h th ro n e in 1326. T h is w ar, it s h o u ld be n o te d ,
b eg a n as a struggle betw een tw o F re n c h -sp e a k in g m o n a rc h s, s u p p o rte d by
a h etero g en e o u s co llec tio n o f m o re o r less loyal F re n c h -sp e a k in g m ag ­
n ates. T h e arm ies n o t on ly o f th e k ing o f F ra n c e b u t also o f th e k ing o f
E n g la n d consisted very largely o f F re n c h -sp e a k in g so ld iers, as w ell as o f
p e rso n s w hose lan g u ag e w as B reton, B asque o r D u tch . T h e w ar a t first
w ent a g a in st th e F re n ch king b o th in th e n o rth a n d in the so u th -w est. J o h n ,
ho w ev er, saw fit to give B u rg u n d y in 1363 to his son P h ilip th e B old, an d
u n d e r his successors it c o n tin u e d to be a se p a ra te p rin cip ality .
In th e last d ecad es o f th e fo u rte e n th c e n tu ry th e stru g g le b etw een th e
P la n ta g e n e t a n d V alois m o n a rc h ie s c o n tin u e d ; an d it b e g a n to be seen as a
stru g g le betw een F re n c h m e n an d E n g lish m en . B oth F ra n c e a n d E n g lan d
w ere to r n by th e riv alries o f p rinces a n d by b itte r class co n flicts, yet in b o th
c o u n trie s n a tio n a l co n scio u sn e ss also grew . In F ra n c e , c o n tro l o f g o v e rn ­
m e n t in th e n am e o f th e in sa n e K ing C h a rle s VI w as d isp u te d b etw een the
fa c tio n s o f th e D u k e o f O rlé a n s an d th e D u k e o f B urg u n d y . In 1407 P h ilip
o f B u rg u n d y ’s m en m u rd e re d L ouis o f O rlé a n s, a n d in 1419 J o h n o f
B u rg u n d y w as m u rd e re d by th e A rm a g n a c s (as th e O rlé a n ists b ecam e
k n o w n , ow ing to th e p ro m in e n c e in th e ir cau se o f th e fero cio u s C o u n t of
A rm a g n a c ). F ra n c e w as th u s to r n by civil w a r w hen H en ry V o f E n g lan d
in v ad ed .
In th is second p h ase o f th e H u n d re d Y ea rs’ W a r, th e E nglish p revailed
n o t o n ly by th e ir m ilita ry v a lo u r, b u t b ecau se th e new D u k e o f B u rg u n d y ,
P h ilip the G o o d , allied h im self w ith th e m . T h is allia n ce c a n be e x p lain e d
46 Nations and States

n o t on ly by th e p assio n s o f th e F re n c h civil w ar, b u t also by th e fac t th a t th e

B u rg u n d ia n sta te , e n o rm o u sly stre n g th e n e d by its u n io n , th ro u g h a series
o f d u c a l m a rria g es, w ith th e L ow C o u n trie s, E n g la n d ’s p rin c ip a l tra d in g
p a rtn e r, h a d co m m o n e c o n o m ic in te rests w ith E n g la n d a g a in st F ran ce.
U n d er B u rg u n d ia n p ressu re, C h a rles VI in 1420 p ro m ise d th e F re n ch
c ro w n to H en ry V. W h e n C h a rles VI died in 1422, his rig h tfu l h eir th e
dauphin, w h o b ecam e K ing C h a rles V II, w as in rea lity h a rd ly m o re th a n a
m in o r te rrito ria l p rin ce (sco rn fu lly d escrib ed by his en em ies as ‘roi de
B ourges’). H o w ev er, th e tid e tu rn e d ; a n d th is (w h a te v e r th e latest an d
fu tu re discoveries o f h isto ric a l rese arch m ay reveal) h as been an d will
p e rh a p s alw ay s be sym b o lised by th e relief o f O rléa n s, th e last im p o rta n t
city lo y al to th e d a u p h in , fro m siege by th e E ng lish u n d e r th e in sp ira tio n o f
J e a n n e d ’A rc, follow ed by th e c o ro n a tio n o f th e d a u p h in as C h a rle s V II in
R h eim s in 1429, also th e w o rk o f J e a n n e . T h e re a fte r C h a rles V H ’s forces
b eg an to g ain g ro u n d ; B u rg u n d y w as reconciled w ith F ra n c e by th e T re a ty
o f A rra s in 1435; a F re n c h a rm y w as b u ilt w hich in 1450 b e a t th e E nglish a t
th e b a ttle o f F o rm ig n y ; a n d so o n a fte rw a rd s th e w h o le so u th -w est w as
lib e ra te d .23
In the second h a lf o f th e fifteen th ce n tu ry E n g la n d w as in its tu rn to o
m u ch w eak en ed by civil w ar to th re a te n F ra n c e serio u sly . L o u is XI (1461-
83), th e ea rliest o f th e m o d e rn c e n tra lisin g kings, b u ilt up the m ilitary ,
fin a n c ia l a n d a d m in istra tiv e s tru c tu re o f F ra n c e , a n d by sk ilfu l d ip lo m ac y
o u tw itte d th e d u k es o f B u rg u n d y an d B rittan y , a n d th e k in g o f E n g lan d ,
w h o to g e th e r w ould have been m o re p o w erfu l th a n he w as. In 1477, w hen
C h a rles o f B u rg u n d y w as killed fig h tin g th e Sw iss a t N an cy , m o st o f
B u rg u n d y cam e to F ra n c e a n d w as nev er a g a in lo st.24 L ouis X I’s son
C h a rles V III m a rrie d A n n e, th e heiress o f B rittan y , a n d th is v alu ab le
stra te g ic te rrito ry to o cam e u n d e r d ire c t ju ris d ic tio n o f th e cro w n . T he
B reto n s c o n tin u e d to sp eak th e ir C eltic la n g u ag e , a n d reta in ed som e o f
th e ir in stitu tio n s a n d cu sto m s, b u t they to o b ecam e F re n c h m e n , c o n trib u t­
ing g rea tly to th e p o w er o f th e F re n c h sta te , esp ecially p e rh a p s to its navy.
By 1500 th e essen tial steps h a d been ta k e n to w a rd s th e cre a tio n o f th e
F re n c h sta te a n d th e F re n c h n a tio n . T h e re w as f u rth e r te rrito ria l e x p a n ­
sio n , ea st o f th e R h o n e , u p to th e A lps, in to L o rra in e a n d to th e u p p e r
R h in e, as w ell as failu re to e x p a n d in to th e L ow C o u n trie s; b u t, fo r all th e
b lo o d a n d tre a su re w h ich th ese successes o r failu res co st, th e y are o f
s e c o n d a ry im p o rta n c e w h en c o m p a re d to th e e a rlie r in c o rp o ra tio n o f
N o rm a n d y , B rittan y , A q u ita in e , L a n g u e d o c a n d B u rg u n d y .
F ra n c e w as the stro n g e st C h ristia n sta te , w ith th e m o st fertile la n d an d
rich est e c o n o m ic resources. Its su p re m a c y w as, h o w ev er, th re a te n e d in th e
six te e n th c e n tu ry by th e em erg en ce o f H a b s b u rg p o w er b ased o n S p a in , th e
Low C o u n trie s, G e rm a n y , Italy a n d A m erica; a n d still m o re, by th e effects
o f th e R e fo rm a tio n .
 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 47

T h e sp rea d o f C alv in ism in th e m id -c e n tu ry a la rm e d th e m o n a rc h s, w as

tre a te d w ith a lte rn a tin g to le ra n c e a n d re p re ssio n , b u t co u ld n o t be p re v e n t­
ed. C o m p ro m ise s w ere m a d e b u t w ere o f s h o rt d u ra tio n . F ro m 1562 to
1598 F ra n c e w as in o v ert o r la te n t civil w a r a b o u t relig io n . In ev itab ly , th e
w a r in volved p o litica l, te rrito ria l, social a n d e c o n o m ic issues. It is a rg u a b le
th a t th e relativ e success o f H u g u e n o t (P r o te s ta n t) d o c trin e s in th e so u th
w as p ro m o te d by c o n tin u e d re se n tm e n t a g a in st n o rth e rn C a th o lic s by
th o se w ho w ere still deeply p erm e ate d by th e old s o u th e rn cu ltu res,
in c lu d in g even so m e th in g o f th e h eritag e o f th e A lb ig en sian s. T h e sm all
k in g d o m o f N a v a rre , th e reg io n o f B earn, u n d e r th e ru le o f J e a n n e
d ’A lb re t, w as in effect a C a lv in ist sta te in w hich a n O c c ita n ia n d ia lec t w as
sp o k e n . J e a n n e ’s son, H en ri IV o f F ra n c e , sp o k e th is la n g u ag e m o re
n a tu ra lly th a n he sp o k e F re n ch .
In th e co u rse o f th e civil w ar new p o litica l a n d p h ilo so p h ic ideas
em erg ed , ex p ressed by B odin, M o n ta ig n e an d lesser m en. M o re a n d m o re
p eo p le cam e to feel th a t F ra n c e w as m o re im p o rta n t th a n specific th e o lo g i­
cal d o c trin e s, th e n a tio n m o re im p o rta n t th a n th e sect. A t first th e
C a th o lic s p ro fited fro m th e p eo p le’s rev eren ce fo r th e m o n a rc h y , the
sy m b o l o f u n ity a n d g rea tn ess o f F ran ce: it w as th e H u g u e n o ts w h o w ere
th e rebels. L ater, w hen th e rig h tfu l king w as a H u g u e n o t a n d th e e x tre m e
C a th o lic s, th e p a rty o f th e G uises, allied them selv es w ith S p a in , it w as th e
H u g u e n o ts, o r th epolitiques on th e m id d le g ro u n d , w h o w ere th e p a trio ts.
H en ri IV, ac ce p tin g th e old faith in 1593 in re c o g n itio n th a t ‘P a ris w as
w o rth a m ass’, u n ite d th e m a jo rity o f F re n c h m e n . In his la te r years F ra n c e
m a rv ello u sly rec o v ered fro m its sufferin g s, n o d o u b t b ecau se its peo p le
w ere still the m o st n u m e ro u s, in tellig en t a n d skilled in E u ro p e ; anfl H en ri
w as rem e m b ere d as o n e o f the g re a te st kings o f F ra n c e , w iser a n d m o re
g en e ro u s th a n P h ilip p e A u g u ste a n d p e rh a p s th e e q u a l o f S a in t L o u is. T o
O c c ita n ia n p a trio ts o f m o d e rn tim es, h o w ev er, H e n ri IV is a n a m b iv a le n t
figure: he w as a g re a t le ad e r a n d ru ler, b u t his v ic to ry h a d th e effect o f
m e rg in g O c c ita n ia n c u ltu re w ith F re n ch .
F ra n c e suffered, th o u g h less severely th a n E n g la n d , fro m in te rn a l strife
in th e sev en te en th ce n tu ry . R ichelieu, M a z a rin , L ouis X IV a n d C o lb e rt
p u rsu e d c e n tra lisa tio n . T h is p ro v o k e d o p p o sitio n fro m reg io n s w ith th e ir
o w n tra d itio n s, fro m th e to le ra te d b u t in secu re H u g u e n o ts a n d fro m th e
n o b ility . In th e lo n g stru g g le c e n tra lisa tio n p rev ailed . T h e p ro cess c o n ­
tin u e d rig h t th ro u g h th e e ig h te e n th ce n tu ry . In the re v o lu tio n a ry u p h ea v al
a fte r 1789, th e re w as a stro n g d e m a n d fo r d e c e n tra lisa tio n , fo r a federal
F ra n c e in w hich th e p eo p les o f th e d iffe ren t reg io n s w o u ld h av e th e ir ow n
c u ltu re s, a n d in w hich th e su rv iv in g la n g u ag e s w o u ld have th e ir place. T his
d e m a n d w as rejected a n d su p p ressed first by th e J a c o b in s a n d th e n by
N a p o le o n . In th e lesser re v o lu tio n a ry crises o f 1851 a n d 1871 th e d em an d
fo r fed e ra lism ag a in a p p e a re d in th e O c c ita n ia n la n d s. In all cases c e n tra l­
48 Nations and States

ism p rev ailed . It b ec am e p a rt o f re v o lu tio n a ry a n d re p u b lic a n o rth o d o x y

th a t reg io n a lism w as ‘re a c tio n a ry ’. R e v o lu tio n a rie s, n o less th a n m o n ­
a rc h s, gave a high p rio rity to th e m ilita ry stre n g th o f F ra n ce . C e n tra lis a ­
tio n m a d e F ra n c e p o w erfu l, b u t a heavy price w as p aid , n o t o nly in
fre q u e n t fo re ig n w ars a n d fin an cial e x h a u s tio n b u t also in th e p erse cu tio n
o f ta len ts.
P e rh a p s th e m ain in stru m e n t o f c e n tra lisa tio n an d o f n a tio n a l g rea tn ess
w as th e F re n c h language. W e have seen a lre a d y h o w R o m a n c e d eriv ed
fro m L a tin survived, w ith very few a d d itio n s fro m C eltic, F ra n k is h o r
S c a n d in a v ia n sources. A fte r th e c o n q u e st o f L an g u e d o c, th e n o rth e rn
v a ria n t becam e the on ly lan g u ag e o f th e p o litica l a n d c u ltu ra l elite, th o u g h
in several p rovinces o f th e so u th th e peo p le k ep t th e ir o w n d istin c t speech,
a n d th is w as also used in local pu b lic in stitu tio n s. T h e c e n tra l g o v ern m e n t
h ow ever becam e m o re aw a re o f th e im p o rta n c e o f la n g u ag e fo r p o litical
pow er. In 1539, by the E d ic t o f V ille rs-C o tte re ts, F ra n ç o is I m ad e F re n ch
th e sole official lan g u ag e. T h is m e a n t th a t, th o u g h s o u th e rn speech
c o n tin u e d to be used in p riv ate life, it lost its in s titu tio n a l basis. T h e
R en aissan c e b ro u g h t a flow ering o f F re n ch lite ra tu re , to w hich so u th e rn e rs
richly c o n trib u te d . U n d er H enri IV th e su p re m a c y o f n o rth e rn F re n ch was
m a in ta in e d . In the se v en te en th ce n tu ry th e A cad ém ie F ra n ç a ise , fo u n d ed
by C a rd in a l R ichelieu, becam e a m ighty in s tru m e n t fo r m o u ld in g an d
c o n tro llin g th e language. B oth ac ad e m ic ian s an d g re a t w riters c o n trib u te d
to th e p ro cess, m a k in g F re n c h th e m o st p erfect in stru m e n t o f h u m a n
sp eech a n d th e la n g u ag e o f all civilised m en fo r so m e th re e h u n d re d years.
T h e d iffu sio n o f F re n ch la n g u ag e an d F re n c h cu ltu re th r o u g h o u t th e w orld
b ecam e a highly specialised ta sk , a fo rm o f d ip lo m a c y w hich m a in ta in ed
F re n c h p o w er in the w o rld long a fte r its basic m a te ria l fo u n d a tio n s had
b een w eak en ed . It w as a m a g n ifice n t ac h ie v em e n t, c o m p a ra b le w ith th e
in v e n tio n o f th e C hinese script: it d id n o t o p e ra te fo r so long, b u t it affected
a w id er are a.
T h e F re n c h n a tio n , like th e E nglish, w as fo rm e d by h isto ric al p rocess,
a n d n eeded n e ith e r a d o c trin e n o r an in d e p en d e n ce m o v e m en t to assert
itself. T h e id e a b eh in d th e e x p a n sio n o f th e re v o lu tio n a ry a rm ies w as no
F re n c h n a tio n a lism : r a th e r it w as an en th u sia sm to sp rea d th e new
lib e ra tin g id eas to o th e r p eo p les, w hich la te r tu rn e d in to th e d esire to
im p o se F re n c h im p e rial ru le u p o n th ese peo p les. T h e re w as, in th e years
a fte r 1870, so m e th in g called F re n c h n a tio n a lism , o r nationalisme intégral,
p ro p o u n d e d by C h a rle s M a u rra s a n d o th e rs; b u t th is w as essen tially a
p o litica l id eology desig n ed fo r in te rn a l p o litica l stru g g le b etw een F re n c h ­
m e n .25 It w as rejected by th e m a jo rity o f F re n c h m e n ; b u t n a tio n a l c o n ­
sciousness, aw a re n ess o f th e c u ltu ra l id e n tity o f th e F re n c h n a tio n , w as
c o m m o n to the g rea t m a jo rity o f F re n c h m e n , even if th ey also tre a su re d
th e ir local tra d itio n s an d resented th e p a ssio n fo r u n ifo rm ity o f P a risia n
 Europe: The Old Continuous Nations 49

b u re a u c ra ts.
In th e tw en tieth c e n tu ry o th e r lang u ag es w ere sp o k e n in F ra n c e besides
F re n ch : D u tc h o n th e b o rd e rs o f F la n d e rs, G e rm a n d ia lec t in A lsace,
Ita lia n in C o rsic a an d N ice, C a ta la n in R o u ssillo n , fo rm s o f langue d ’oc
fro m L im oges to P ro v en ce, B asque in th e w estern P y ren ees, B reto n in
B rittan y . In th e 1970s th e re em erged m ilita n t g ro u p s w h ich d e m a n d e d
resp e ct for th e ir lan g u ag es a n d reso rte d to vio len ce.26 T h ese g ro u p s w ere
still m o re p e rip h e ra l to F re n c h p o litical life th a n w ere th e S c o ttish an d
W elsh n a tio n a list m o v e m en ts to B ritish; yet th e ir p o te n tia l im p o rta n c e for
th e fu tu re co u ld n o t be ignored.

The Iberian nations

H isp a n ia w as th e n am e given by th e R o m a n s to th e w hole Ib erian
P en in su la: fro m it deriv e the n am es E sp a n a a n d S p ain . In th e p en in su la in
a n c ie n t tim es lived v a rio u s C eltic p eo p les, a n d a lo n g th e n o rth -e a s t
A tla n tic c o a st a n d o n b o th sides o f th e P y re n ee s th e B asq u es, sp e ak in g a
la n g u ag e u tte rly d iffe ren t fro m the C eltic, L atin o r G erm a n ic lan g u ag es.
O n th e M e d ite rra n e a n co a st w ere P h o e n ic ia n a n d G reek co lo n ies; a n d a
larg e p a rt o f this reg io n w as b ro u g h t u n d e r C a rth a g in ia n rule in th e late
th ird c e n tu ry BC. R o m a n c o n q u e st b egan a fte r th e C a rth a g in ia n s left in
206 BC, b u t w as n o t co m p leted fo r ce n tu ries. R o m a n rule lasted n early
seven h u n d re d years, a n d d u rin g this tim e m o st o f th e p o p u la tio n cam e to
sp e ak d ialects o f L a tin , w ith th e n o ta b le e x c e p tio n o f th e B asques.
D u rin g th e fifth c e n tu ry A D several G e rm a n ic p eop les passed th ro u g h ,
o r settled in, th e p en in su la . F ro m th ese em erged th e k in g d o m o f th e
V isig o th s. T h e G erm a n ic c o n q u e ro rs w ere n o t very n u m e ro u s, a n d L atin
speech c o n tin u e d to prevail. T h e fact th a t th e V isigoth ru lers fo llo w ed th e
A ria n h eresy 27 n o t on ly placed th em in co n flict w ith C a th o lic ru lers, b u t
also se p a ra te d S p a in for so m e tw o ce n tu ries fro m C a th o lic E u ro p e , th e re b y
c o n trib u tin g to stre n g th e n S p a n ish c u ltu ra l id e n tity . C o n v e rsio n o f K in g
R e ca re d to C a th o licism , p ro b a b ly in 586, e n d e d th e sch ism a n d s tre n g th ­
en ed th e L a tin influences. B efore long th e V isigoths b ecam e a b s o rb e d in
w h a t su rv iv ed o f R o m a n c u ltu re , th e ir lan g u ag e yield in g to L atin.
In 711 the first M u slim a rm ies in v a d ed S p a in , a n d w ith in a few y ears h ad
c o n q u e re d a lm o st all th e p en in su la . T h e M u slim ru lers w ere a t first su b ject
to th e U m ay y a d C a lip h in D a m a sc u s, b u t b ecam e in d e p e n d e n t a fte r th e
v ic to ry o f th e A b b a sid s o v er th e U m a y y a d s;28 a n d in th e te n th ce n tu ry th e
ru le r o f C o rd o b a d ec la re d h im self caliph.
In M u slim S p a in , k n o w n in A ra b ic as A l-A n d a lu s, w h ich re a c h e d its
highest level o f civ ilisatio n in th e te n th c e n tu ry , a la rg e p a rt o f th e
p o p u la tio n w ere th e d e sc e n d a n ts o f th e p re-M u slim in h a b ita n ts , w h o
c o n tin u e d to speak R o m a n c e d ialects, d erived fro m L atin , th o u g h m a n y o f
50 Nations and States

th e m also le a rn t A ra b ic . T h e re w ere a lso la rg e n u m b e rs o f new settlers,

b ro u g h t by th e c o n q u e ro rs. A m o n g these, p e rso n s o f A ra b o rig in w ere only
a m in o rity , th o u g h th e y c o n s titu te d th e p o litical elite a n d b ro u g h t w ith
th e m n o t only th e ir A ra b p rid e o f rac e b u t also th e trib a l riv alries a n d
h a tre d s o f A ra b ia . F a r m o re n u m e ro u s w ere B erb ers fro m N o rth A frica,
w h o h a d th e sta tu s o f mawali — p e rso n s c o n v e rte d to Islam , em a n c ip a te d
fro m servile sta tu s by an A ra b p a tro n , a n d ta k in g A ra b ic n am es, o ften th a t
o f th e ir p a tro n . S u b se q u e n t g e n e ra tio n s a b a n d o n e d th e ir B erb er lan g u ag e
a n d a d o p te d A rab ic. T h e re w ere also n u m e ro u s co n v e rts to Islam a m o n g
th e S p a n ish p o p u la tio n . T h ese to o a d o p te d A ra b ic n am es an d b ecam e
g ra d u a lly less an d less d istin g u ish a b le fro m th e o th e r elem en ts o f th e
M u slim p o p u la tio n .
T h o se p erso n s w ho rem a in ed C h ristia n s en jo y ed th e rig h ts g ra n te d by
M u slim ru lers to ‘p eo p le o f th e b o o k ’. T h e ir co n n e c tio n s w ith th e C a th o lic
w o rld w ere in e v ita b ly sp o ra d ic , an d th e ir ch u rc h w as th u s to a large e x te n t
in d e p e n d e n t, m a in ta in in g its ow n ritu a l, d iv e rg e n t fro m th a t o f R om e.
T h ese C h ristia n s w ere k n o w n as mozarabes. T h ey h a d m a n y b ilin g u al
sc h o lars, w ho m ade tra n s la tio n s fro m A ra b ic (in c lu d in g so m e an c ie n t
G reek lite ra tu re p rev io u sly tra n sla te d by A ra b s) w h ich b ecam e widely
k n o w n in C a th o lic E u ro p e . In M uslim S p a in th e re w as also a flo u rish in g
Je w ish c o m m u n ity , w hose leaders h ad c o m m a n d o f sev eral lan g u ag es a n d
m a d e g re a t c o n trib u tio n s to th e c o m m o n c u ltu re.
In th e n o r th th e resid u a l C h ristia n te rrito ry w as red u c ed to A stu ria s a n d
G alicia, th e lan d betw een th e m o u n ta in s a n d th e A tla n tic . In 718 th e
C h ristia n s d efeated a M u slim a rm y a t th e B attle o f C o v a d o n g a , a fte r w hich
a m o re o rg an ise d sta te w as estab lish ed . A t th e e a ste rn en d o f th e P yren ees
th e F re n c h estab lish ed a ‘S p a n ish M a rc h ’ o n th e C a ta la n co a st. T h is w as
fo rm e d in to a C o u n ty o f B arcelo n a c e n tre d o n th a t city, w hich w as
rec o v ered fro m the M uslim s in 801. By th e end o f th e n in th ce n tu ry th e
c o u n ts, w ho ru led m o st o f th e C a ta la n la n d s u p to T a rra g o n a , h a d m ad e
them selv es in d e p e n d e n t o f th e ir F ra n k is h o v erlo rd s.
In the te n th ce n tu ry O v ied o , th e c a p ita l o f A stu ria s , w as su rp a sse d by
L eo n , w hich gave its n am e to th e w h o le k in g d o m . T h e kings o f L eon
co n sid ered them selves th e heirs o f th e V isig o th ic k in g s, an d claim ed th e
title o f emperador (e m p e ro r) as a sy m b o l o f th e ir su p re m a c y o v er o th e r
C h ristia n ru lers in th e p e n in su la . T h e e a ste rn n e ig h b o u r o f L eo n w as
N a v a rre , b ased essentially o n th e reg io n o f B asq u e p o p u la tio n . T h e tw o
k in g d o m s w ere a lte rn a te ly allies a n d rivals, th e ir d y n a stie s w ere closely
in te rre la te d , a n d th e y ex c h a n g e d ru le rs a n d te rrito rie s a c c o rd in g to a
c o m p lic a te d system o f succession. F ro m L e o n em erg ed th e c o u n ty , la te r
k in g d o m , o f C astile. D u rin g th e elev e n th a n d tw elfth c e n tu rie s, C astile
g ra d u a lly ca m e to su rp a ss L eon in real pow er. D y n astic su ccessio n s led to
rep e ate d u n io n an d se p a ra tio n betw een th e tw o k in g d o m s, u n til th ey w ere
 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 51

fin ally reu n ited in 1230, u n d e r F e rd in a n d 11 o f C astile. N a v a rre e x p a n d e d

e a stw a rd s to in clu d e th e c o u n ty o f A ra g o n in th e elev en th ce n tu ry . In 1134
A ra g o n se p a ra te d fro m N a v a rre , an d in 1137 th e c o u n t o f B a rc elo n a, w ho
h ad m a rrie d th e heiress to A ra g o n , u n ite d th e C a ta la n a n d A ra g o n e se lan d s
in a single k in g d o m . T h e in stitu tio n s o f A ra g o n a n d C a ta lo n ia rem a in ed
se p a ra te . In th e fa r w est, a C o u n ty o f P o rtu g a l w as estab lish ed a t th e en d o f
th e elev en th ce n tu ry , as a lo rd sh ip su b je ct to C astile. In 1139 th e first
c o u n t’s successor, A fo n so H en riq u e s, d ec la re d h im self k ing o f P o rtu g a l.
H is p o sitio n w as stre n g th e n e d by th e d ec isio n o f th e p o p e to reco g n ise
P o rtu g a l as an in d e p e n d e n t k in g d o m in 1179.
T h e k in g d o m o f A stu ria s increased in s ta tu re a n d p o w er a fte r th e alleged
d isco v ery o f th e to m b o f S t J a m e s the A p o stle in G alicia. O n th e site o f th e
to m b a ro se th e sh rin e o f S a n tia g o de C o m p o ste la . T h is b ecam e th e ce n tre
o f p ilg rim ag es fro m all ov er C a th o lic E u ro p e . A lo n g th e p ilg rim s’ ro u te
to w n s a n d co m m ercial c e n tres aro se . T h e pilg rim ag e b ro u g h t ec o n o m ic
p ro sp e rity a n d a rtistic influences, a ttra c tin g m o n k s an d b u ild e rs as w ell as
v o lu n te ers fo r the w ars a g a in st th e M uslim s.
T h e e x p a n sio n o f th e C h ristia n sta te s so u th w a rd s p ro ce ed ed in th ree
d irec tio n s: fro m C astile, fro m C a ta lo n ia a n d fro m P o rtu g a l. T h is p ro cess,
k n o w n as the Reconquista , h ad so m e th in g o f th e q u a lity o f a cru sa d e, an d
lasted som e tw o h u n d re d years. T h e co llap se o f th e c a lip h a te o f C o rd o b a ,
a fte r th e d e a th o f th e g re a t M u slim sta te sm a n A1 M a n su r in 1002, gave th e
C h ristia n ru lers th e o p p o rtu n ity to place m an y sm all M u slim p rin cip alities
in v assalage to them . T h e first series o f C h ristia n successes cu lm in a ted in
th e c a p tu re o f T o le d o in 1085; b u t th e tid e w as reversed w h en th e
A lm o rav id s, a B erber d y n a s ty fro m M o ro c c o , b ro u g h t fresh forces a g a in st
th e C h ristia n s in 1086. T h e C h ristia n a d v a n c e w as resu m ed in th e tw elfth
c e n tu ry , b u t w as once m o re reversed by th e still m o re fo rm id a b le A lm o -
h ad s, w h o cam e w ith fierce religious fe rv o u r fro m b ey o n d th e A tla s a n d th e
b o rd e rs o f th e S a h a ra . In th e first h a lf o f th e th irte e n th c e n tu ry th e
re c o n q u e st e n tered its decisive stage. T h e C a stilia n s o f F e rd in a n d 11(1217-
52) to o k C o rd o b a in 1236 an d Seville tw elve y ears later; u n d e r F e rd in a n d ’s
c o n te m p o ra ry , J a im e II o f A ra g o n (1212-76), th e C a ta la n s to o k th e
B alearic Isla n d s, a n d c a p tu re d V alencia in 1238. T h e P o rtu g u e se c a p tu re d
L isb o n in 1147 a n d clea re d th e so u th by th e m id -th irte e n th ce n tu ry . All th a t
rem a in ed u n d e r M u slim rule in th e p e n in su la w as th e e m ira te o f G ra n a d a ,
w here th e N asrid d y n a sty m a in ta in e d itself fo r tw o h u n d re d years m o re.
R e la tio n s b etw een th e C h ristia n a n d M u slim sta te s h ad n o t been
u n ifo rm ly hostile th r o u g h o u t th e p erio d o f th e R e c o n q u ista . T h e re w ere
lo n g p erio d s o f peace, a n d th e re w ere m en o n ea ch side w h o u n d e rsto o d
an d respected th e c u ltu re o f th e o th e r. T h is w as m o re tru e o f C a stile th a n o f
L e6n. T h e mozarabes a n d Je w s play ed th e p a r t o f in te rp re te rs n o t o n ly in
th e literal sense as tra n s la to rs o f b o o k s b u t also in th e w id er sense o f
52 Nations and States

c u ltu ra l in te rm ed ia ries. T h e re c o n q u e st b ro u g h t large n u m b e rs o f M uslim s

u n d e r C h ristia n rule. T hese w ere k n o w n to th e S p a n ia rd s as mudejares. In
th e first h u n d re d y ears a n d m o re th e y en jo y ed p ro te c tio n a n d religious
to le ra tio n . M u slim , Je w ish a n d C h ristia n c o m m u n itie s co ex isted in such
cities as T o le d o o r Z a m o ra u n d e r C h ristia n rule no less th a n h a d p rev io u sly
been th e case in C o rd o b a o r V alencia u n d e r M u slim rule. T h e mudejar
c o n trib u tio n to cra fts, a rc h ite c tu re a n d sc u lp tu re w as very im p o rta n t. All
th is ch a n g ed a b ru p tly in th e late fifteen th c e n tu ry , w h en a new sp irit o f
fa n a tic ism m a d e itself felt in th e C a th o lic h ie ra rc h y in th e w hole p en in su la,
b u t chiefly in C astile.
F ro m th e b eg in n in g o f th e R e c o n q u ista p erio d , th e th ree sectio n s o f th e
p en in su la b eg a n to d ev elo p o n d iffe ren t lines. T h is w as especially tru e o f
language. In th e late elev en th ce n tu ry th e sp o k e n R o m a n c e fo rm s beg an to
be used increasin g ly in lite ra tu re . F ro m th is p erio d also d a te s th e g ro w in g
su p rem a cy o f th e d ia lec t o f th e c e n tra l a re a (C a stilia n ) o v er th o se o f the
n o rth -w e st (G a lic ian a n d L e6nese) w hich had been m o re im p o rta n t in
e a rlie r lite ra tu re as w ell as in p u b lic usage. The Poem o f the Cid, w ritten
so m e tim e in th e m id -tw elfth c e n tu ry a n d rela tin g to th e e x p lo its o f th e
g re a t so ld ier a d v e n tu re r R o d rig o D ias de V ivar, k n o w n as th e C id
C a m p e a d o r, w as th e first g re a t w o rk o f se cu la r lite ra tu re in C astilian . In
th e th irte e n th ce n tu ry , u n d e r th e in fluence o f th e troubadours o f L an g u e­
d o c, C a ta la n p o etry flo u rish ed , an d th e w o rk s o f th e g rea t C h ristian
p h ilo s o p h e r R a m o n L ull (1232-1315) w ere w ritte n in C a ta la n as w ell as in
L atin . T h e P o rtu g u e se la n g u ag e , w hich dev elo p ed fro m th e d ia lec t o f
G alicia, w as well fo rm ed by th e fo u rte e n th c e n tu ry , w h en it w as used for
p o e try an d h isto ric al ch ro n icles.
G e o g ra p h ic a l situ a tio n , m ilita ry an d e c o n o m ic o p p o rtu n itie s , gave the
p eoples o f th e th ree reg io n s d iffe ren t p o litical a n d social d ev elo p m en t.
C a stile rem a in ed p rim a rily a c o n tin e n ta l sta te , its p o w er c e n tred in the
c e n tra l p la te a u , th o u g h it h ad access to th e Bay o f B iscay in th e n o rth a n d to
b o th th e A tla n tic a n d th e M e d ite rra n e a n in th e s o u th , th e la tte r fro m
Seville th ro u g h th e stra its o f G ib ra lta r. M ilita ry a n d relig io u s influences
w ere alw ays very stro n g . E x p a n sio n w as to th e s o u th , w ith th e c ru sa d in g
m issio n o f en d in g M u slim ru le in th e p e n in su la , a n d p e rh a p s in n o rth
A frica to o . P o rtu g a l w as m o re o rie n te d to w a rd s th e o cean . W ith th e ir long
c o a stlin e th e P o rtu g u e se w ere w ell fitte d to be seafarers, a n d it w as th ey
w ho in th e late fiftee n th c e n tu ry b ecam e th e p io n e ers o f E u ro p e a n o cean ic
e x p lo ra tio n . T h e C a ta la n s faced the M e d ite rra n e a n , a n d fro m th e earliest
tim es h ad been in terested in tra d e . T he C a ta la n s m a d e them selves felt, in
th e th irte e n th a n d fo u rte e n th ce n tu ries, n o t o n ly as tra d e rs b u t as s e a-b o rn e
c o n q u e ro rs, fro m Sicily a n d N ap les as fa r as th e A eg ean . T h ese o v erseas
e n te rp rise s w ere th e w o rk o f a n u rb a n p a tric ia n class in B a rc elo n a, as well
as o f th e la n d ed nob ility .
 Europe: The Old Continuous Nations 53

T h e d istin c tio n s a re o f c o u rse a p p ro x im a te . T h e C a stilian s, to o , to o k

p a r t in o ceanic e x p lo ra tio n , b ased o n Seville, an d th e ir d isco v eries in
A m eric a exceeded th o se o f th e P o rtu g u e se in A frica a n d A sia: w hile th e
P o rtu g u e se n o less th a n th e C a stilian s so u g h t, w ith n o m o re lo n g -te rm
success, to c o n q u e r p a rt o f n o rth A frica fro m th e M u slim s. N ev erth eless,
th e ste re o ty p e o f b o u rg eo is tra d in g C a ta la n s , h ie ra rc h ic al m ilita ry C a stili­
an s a n d e x p lo rin g n av a l P o rtu g u e se is n o t very fa r fro m th e tru th .
In th e fifteen th c e n tu ry one m ay say th a t th e re ex isted th ree C h ristia n
n a tio n s in the p e n in su la — th re e S p a n ish n a tio n s, n o t o n e — in a d d itio n to
th e M uslim peo p le o f the G ra n a d a sta te . T h e w o rd S p a in w as r a th e r a
g eo g ra p h ica l th a n a n a tio n a l term . It w as in fact used in th e p lu ra l las
Espahas even as late as th e eig h te e n th ce n tu ry . F o r P o rtu g u e se an d
C a ta la n s th e w o rd Hispania inclu d ed th e ir ow n h o m e la n d s, a n d th ey
w o u ld ce rtain ly n o t ag ree to th e exclusive a p p r o p r ia tio n o f th is n am e by th e
C a stilian s. F in ally , th e re still rem a in ed , in th e c o rn e r w h ere th e P yren ees
m e t th e A tla n tic , th e B asque people, living p a rtly in A ra g o n , p a rtly in th e
new sm all k in g d o m o f N a v a rre w hich w as a d e p e n d en c y o f F ra n c e , an d
p a rtly in C astile.
T h e fo u rte e n th an d fifteen th ce n tu ries w ere a p erio d o f in te rn a l strife in
C a stile, a n d to a lesser e x te n t also in A ra g o n . In 1383 th e P o rtu g u e se
d y n asty cam e to an en d , a n d th e kin g o f C astile, w h o m th e last king
F e rn a n d o I h ad recognised as his heir, claim ed th e th ro n e . H e w as resisted
by a P o rtu g u e se p re te n d e r, J o h n o f A vis, a n d y ea rs o f w a r en su ed in w hich
th e C a stilian s h ad F re n c h arm e d s u p p o rt a n d th e P o rtu g u e se E nglish. T h e
b a ttle o f A lju b a rro ta o n 14 A u g u st 1385 w as an im p o rta n t P o rtu g u e se
v ictory, an d a fte r so m e m o re years o f w a r th e in d e p en d e n ce o f P o rtu g a l
u n d e r the A vis d y n a sty w as recognised. A civil w ar in C a stile fro m 1467 to
1469 end ed w hen K ing H en ry IV (1454-74) a c ce p te d his sister Isab ella as his
h eir. A ra g o n to o w as d e v a sta te d by a civil w ar betw een 1461 an d 1472. It,
to o , co n c ern ed th e successio n to the th ro n e , b u t w as also a b itte r struggle
b etw een social classes. In 1469 P rincess Isab e lla m a rrie d F e rd in a n d , h e irto
th e th ro n e o f A ra g o n , a n d th e tw o k in g d o m s b ecam e u n ite d in 1479. F ro m
th e u n io n a ro se th e k in g d o m o f S p a in , w hich u n d e r th e H a b s b u rg ru lers
C h a rles I (1516-56) a n d P h ilip II (1556-98) b ec am e th e g re a te st p o w er in
E u ro p e . In 1580 P h ilip II successfully claim ed th e successio n to th e
P o rtu g u e se th ro n e , a n d th u s a single m o n a rc h ru led th e w h o le p en in su la.
In 1492 th e M u slim k in g d o m o f G ra n a d a ceased to ex ist. T h e reyes
catolicos, F e rd in a n d a n d Isab e lla , p ro m ise d th e M u slim s free ex ercise o f
th e ir religion a n d resp ect fo r th e ir p ro p e rty , d ress a n d cu s to m s, as w ell as
m a in te n a n c e o f th e ir local g o v e rn m e n t. W ith in a few y ears, h o w ev er, th ese
p ro m ises h ad been b ro k e n , a n d a rev o lt b ro k e o u t in th e A lp u ja rra s region
in N o v em b er 1499. A fte r its su p p re ssio n a n official p o licy o f c o n v e rsio n o f
th e M uslim s w as a d o p te d , b u t it w as n o t in fac t very v ig o ro u sly p u rsu ed .
54 Nations and States

The Moriscos, as th e su p p o se d c o n v e rts w ere ca lle d , w ere n o m in a lly

C h ristia n s, b u t in p rac tice lived a n d believed as b efo re. T h is s ta le m a te cam e
to a n en d in 1568 w hen th e a c c u m u la te d relig io u s a n d e c o n o m ic rese n t­
m e n ts o f th e Moriscos fo u n d e x p re ssio n in an a rm e d rev o lt w hich lasted for
tw o years. A fte r it w as o v er, th e p o p u la tio n o f th e fo rm e r k in g d o m o f
G ra n a d a w as fo rcib ly d e p o rte d an d d istrib u te d th r o u g h o u t C astile. T h e
la st c h a p te r in this trag ic sto ry cam e in 1609 w hen th e g o v e rn m e n t o f P h ilip
III decid ed to expel all the Moriscos fro m S p ain . T h is d ra stic step was
ta k e n in o rd e r to e lim in a te once a n d fo r all a d a n g e ro u s p o te n tia l ally o f th e
M u slim enem y: even a fte r th e su p p re ssio n o f th e 1568 rising, Moriscos h ad
rem a in ed in to u c h w ith O tto m a n an d M o o rish raid e rs fro m th e B a rb a ry
c o a st. It is also a rg u a b le th a t th e ex p u lsio n w as in p a rt a g estu re to win
p u b lic a p p ro v a l a t a tim e w hen th e S p a n ish g o v e rn m e n t h ad been co m ­
pelled to m a k e a tru c e w ith th e successful N e th e rla n d s h ere tics.29 A b o u t
275,000 p e rso n s suffered th is fate. T h e ir rem o v a l, like th a t o f a b o u t 150,000
Je w s exp elled from S p a in in 1492, stre n g th e n e d th e n a tio n a l a n d c u ltu ra l
h o m o g e n e ity o f C astile, a t th e co st o f losin g m a n y o f its eco n o m ically
v a lu a b le citizens.
T h o u g h th e re w as n o w o n e k ing o f S p a in , th e e a rlie r p rin c ip a litie s—
P o rtu g a l, A ra g o n a n d C a ta lo n ia — re ta in e d th e ir se p a ra te in stitu tio n s.
P h ilip II w as obliged to resp ect the rights o f A ra g o n . In th e sev en teen th
c e n tu ry , as th e strain s o f w ar in d is ta n t lan d s, a n d o f th e m is m an a g em e n t o f
th e p e n in su la ’s ec o n o m y a n d fo reig n tra d e , m a d e th em selv es felt, it seem ed
in creasin g ly d esira b le to cen tralise a n d sim plify th e a d m in is tra tio n , if o nly
to en su re th a t all reg io n s m a d e a d e q u a te m ilita ry a n d fin an cial c o n trib u ­
tio n s to th e co m m o n cause.
T h is w as th e aim o f th e C o n d e -D u q u e de O liv ares, w h o fro m 1621 to
1643 w as th e m o st p o w erfu l m in iste r o f K ing P h ilip IV. In p a rtic u la r, a fte r
th e o u tb re a k o f w ar w ith F ra n c e in 1635, he in creased his p ressu re on th e
C a ta la n s. T h e resu lt w as d isa stro u s fo r him . T h e co m m ercial classes and
th e p e a sa n ts o b jected to th e fin an c ial d e m a n d s, th e p eo p le o f c o u n try an d
cities o b je cte d to h av in g C a stilia n tro o p s b illeted o n th e m , th e priests
e n c o u ra g e d th e m to resist, a n d the n o b ility a n d e d u c a te d classes w ere
w o rrie d b y th e o b v io u s in te n tio n o f O liv ares to ta m p e r w ith C a ta la n
c o n s titu tio n a l liberties. In d iv id u a l a rm e d clash es, a n d a n ill-advised
a tte m p t to a rre s t a m e m b e r o f th e elected Diputacid o f C a ta lo n ia , led to the
o u tb r e a k o f a rm e d reb ellio n in M ay 1640. In D e c em b e r 1640 th e lead ers o f
th e rev o lt p ro cla im e d C a ta lo n ia an in d e p e n d e n t rep u b lic u n d e r F re n ch
p ro te c tio n ; a n d w hen th ey fo u n d th a t th is w as n o t a c c e p ta b le to th e F re n c h ,
th e y d ec la re d th e alleg ian ce o f C a ta lo n ia to th e k in g o f F ra n ce . O n 26
J a n u a r y 1641 a jo in t C a ta la n a n d F re n c h fo rc e d efe ate d th e S p a n ish a rm y
a t M o n tju ic h o u tsid e B a rc elo n a. F o r n in e y ears C a ta lo n ia w as se p a ra te d
fro m C astile. H ow ever, th e C a ta la n s w ere d is u n ite d , th e an a rc h ic a l
 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 55

te n d en c ies o f th e B a rc e lo n a rad ic als w o rrie d th e u p p e r classes, a n d ab o v e

all F re n c h rule w as so o n fo u n d to be n o less a rb itra ry th a n C astilian . In
1652 B arcelo n a s u rre n d e re d to P h ilip IV’s forces, a g en e ral p a rd o n w as
given, a n d fo r th e n e x t fifty y ears th e re w as n o q u e s tio n a g a in o f su p p re ss­
in g C a ta la n rights.
T h e sam e y ea r 1640 also b ro u g h t the secession o f P o rtu g a l. T h e M a d rid
g o v e rn m e n t co u ld sp a re few tro o p s fro m its m ain w ar fro n ts, a n d th e D u k e
o f B raganga w as a b le to m ak e h im self king. T h e re sto ra tio n o f P o rtu g u e se
in d e p en d e n ce w as g en erally p referre d to u n io n w ith C astile. S u p p o rte d by
th e ir o verseas reso u rce s, a n d by help fro m F ra n c e a n d E n g la n d , th e
P o rtu g u e se w ere ab le to h o ld o u t. A fter S p a in h ad m ad e peace w ith F ra n c e
in 1659, P h ilip IV p re p a re d to rec o n q u e r P o rtu g a l, b u t his a rm ies d id n ot
d o well. D efeated a t th e b a ttle o f V ila V igosa in J u n e 1665, th e y w ere u n ab le
to reassert them selves. S p a in fo rm a lly reco g n ised th e in d e p en d e n ce o f
P o rtu g a l in F e b ru a ry 1668. T h e s e p a ra tio n p ro v ed to be lasting.
T h e C a ta la n p ro b le m re a p p e a re d in th e W a r o f th e S p a n ish S uccession.
T h e F re n c h c a n d id a te , P h ilip V, w as d e te rm in e d to m o d e rn ise his k in g d o m
th ro u g h c e n tra lisa tio n , o n th e m o d el o f th e B o u rb o n m o n a rc h y . H e
rep e ate d ly refused to c o m m it him self to recognise tra d itio n a l C a ta la n
liberties. T h e C a ta la n s th e re fo re su p p o rte d th e A u stria n H a b sb u rg c a n d i­
d a te , A rc h d u k e C h a rles. T h e C a ta la n rev o lt o f 1705 w as a t first successful,
w ith B ritish n av al s u p p o r t a n d so m e A u stria n land forces. H o w ev er, it
so o n b ecam e c lea r th a t th e allies w ere on ly te m p o ra rily in te reste d in th e
C a ta la n s. W h en C h a rles b ecam e e m p e ro r in 1711, he h ad to re tu rn to
C e n tra l E u ro p e , a n d w hen th e T o ries ca m e to p o w er in E n g la n d th ey w ere
resolved to m ak e peace quickly. In the d ip lo m a tic n e g o tia tio n s th a t en d ed
w ith th e T re a ty o f U tre c h t, th e E nglish an d A u stria n s w en t th ro u g h th e
m o tio n s o f a sk in g fo r th e p ro te c tio n o f C a ta la n rights; b u t P h ilip V refused
to yield, a n d th e C a ta la n s w ere a b a n d o n e d . T h e city o f B arcelo n a n e v e rth e ­
less d ecid ed to resist, a n d a fte r a h ero ic siege it w as sto rm e d by P h ilip ’s
forces o n 11 S e p te m b e r 1714.
U n d e r th e B o u rb o n m o n a rc h y , S p a n ish a d m in is tra tio n w as ce n tralised
as it h ad never been befo re. T h e c o u n try w as p ro b a b ly b e tte r g o v ern e d , as a
resu lt o f th e refo rm s o f C h a rles 111 (1759-88), b u t th e in te n tio n w as
c e rta in ly to su b m e rg e th e id e n tity o f C a ta lo n ia in th e la rg e r u n it. Y et th e
d ifferences re m a in e d , a n d w hen S p a in h ad been w eak en ed by th e w ar
a g a in st N a p o le o n , th e loss o f th e A m eric an co lo n ies, th e re v o lu tio n o f 1820
a n d its su p p ressio n b y th e F re n c h in 1823, a n d finally by th e m iseries o f th e
C a rlist w ar o f 1833-40, b o th C a ta la n a n d B asque n a tio n a lism reem erg ed to
ch allen g e th e S p a n ish state. B oth b ec am e m o re im p o rta n t as a resu lt o f
in d u stria l d e v e lo p m e n t (tex tiles in B a rc elo n a fro m th e m id -n in e te e n th
ce n tu ry , an d m etallu rg ica l in d u stry in th e B ilb ao regio n a t th e b eg in n in g o f
th e tw en tieth ); b u t in b o th cases th is d e v e lo p m e n t w as a lso a so u rce o f
56 N ations and States

w eakness fo r n a tio n a lism , since b o th c a p ita l a n d la b o u r w ere a ttra c te d

fro m o th e r p a rts o f S p a in , a n d th e aim s o f C a ta la n a n d B asq u e n a tio n a lism
w ere liable to conflict w ith th o se o f S p a n ish c a p ita lism as a w hole a n d o f
th e w id er S p a n ish so cialist m o v em en t.
T h e revival o f th e C a ta la n la n g u ag e d a te s fro m th e 1830s w ith th e p o etry
o f A rib a u , a n d still m o re o f th e priest V erd ag u e r. In th e 1870s th e re w as a
large lite ra ry o u tp u t in C a ta la n , ra n g in g fro m p o e try to jo u rn a lism : the
first re g u la r d aily n e w sp a p er in C a ta la n , Diari Catala , sta rte d in 1879. T he
un su ccessfu l a tte m p ts to set u p a fed e ra l rep u b lic in S p a in in th e five
tro u b le d y ears w hich follo w ed th e o v e rth ro w o f th e m o n a rc h y in 1868 had
a stro n g s u p p o rt in C a ta lo n ia . L ead in g C a ta la n s su b m itte d a Memorial to
K ing A lfo n so X II in 1885, calling fo r a p o litic a l system b ased n o t on
c e n tra lism b u t o n a u to n o m ie s, a n d e x to llin g th e s u p e rio r v ita l forces o f th e
C a ta la n s. In 1894 w as p u b lish ed a Catechism by P ra t de la R ib a, w hich
a sk ed fo r a ‘C a ta la n sta te in fed erativ e u n io n w ith th e o th e r n a tio n s o f
S p a in ’. T h is view w as ex p re ssed in th e B ases o f M a n re sa , w hich su m m ed up
th e d e m a n d s o f m o d e ra te C a ta la n n a tio n a lists fo r h o m e ru le w ith in S p ain .
A f u rth e r stage w as the fo rm a tio n o f a p o litical p a rty , th e Lliga Regionalis-
ta, in 1901. T en years la te r th e L liga to o k p a r t in a c o a litio n g o v e rn m e n t in
M a d rid , an d o b ta in e d a co n c essio n in th e fo rm o f Mancomunidad, an
officially a p p ro v e d c u ltu ra l a u th o rity w ith so m e p o w ers o v er th e fo u r
p ro v in ces o f C a ta la n p o p u la tio n . T h is, how ev er, still fell far sh o rt o f the
k in d o f se lf-g o v e rn m e n t th a t n a tio n a lists desired . In 1906 an a tte m p t to
fo rm a single C a ta la n fro n t, th e Solidariedad Catalana, h ad failed; an d in
1922 a new p a rty , th e Accio Catala, w as fo rm e d u n d e r C o lo n el F ra n c isc o
M acia. W h e reas th e leaders o f th e L liga, P ra t d e la R ib a a n d F ra n c isc o
C a m b o , w ere socially c o n serv ativ e a n d w ere w illing to c o o p e ra te w ith
m o n a rc h ist p o litic ia n s in M a d rid , M acia a n d his c o lleag u e L u isC o m p a n y s
p referre d allian ce w ith th e rep u b lican s.
M e an w h ile th e sw elling w o rk in g class o f B a rc elo n a h ad b eco m e an
im p o r ta n t p o litica l force. R e cru ite d n o t on ly fro m c h ild re n o f p ea sa n ts
fro m th e o v e rp o p u la te d C a ta la n c o u n try sid e , b u t also fro m n u m e ro u s
im m ig ra n ts fro m A n d a lu sia , w ho did n o t sp eak C a ta la n , it cam e u n d e r
sy n d icalist a n d a n a rc h ist le ad e rsh ip , o rg an ise d in th e p o w erfu l tra d e u n io n
Confederacion Nacional del Trabajo (C N T ), th e riv al o f th e so cialist Union
General de Trabajadores (U G T ). T h o u g h th e C N T w as n o t a g a in st C a ta la n
se lf-g o v ern m en t, it h ad to ta k e a c c o u n t o f its n o n -C a ta la n m e m b ers, p u t
w o rk e rs’ in te rests first, a n d w as su sp icio u s o f big in d u stria lis ts like C a m b o .
B asque n a tio n a lism w as in h ib ite d b y th e e x tre m e d iv erg en ce o f th e
B asque la n g u ag e fro m a n y o th e r k n o w n to n g u e . T o d ev e lo p a m o d e rn
lite ra tu re in this to n g u e w as a fo rm id a b le ta sk . A n o th e r d ifficu lty w as th a t
th e B asques w ere an o v erw h elm in g ly p e a sa n t p eo p le, w ith a v ery sm all
m iddle class. F ro m th e ir ran k s em erged m en o f in te lle ctu al d istin c tio n , but
 Europe: The O ld Continuous N ations 57

th e y te n d ed to be a b s o rb e d in S p a n ish c u ltu re , to w rite in C astilian .

N ev ertheless, a m o n g th e peo p le o f th e B asque la n d s, w h ich ev er th e ir
lan g u ag e, th e re w as a stro n g desire fo r se lf-g o v ern m en t. T h e a s so c ia tio n o f
th e B asques w ith th e d efe ate d C a rlist cau se led to the loss o f th e ir m edieval
lo cal liberties, a n d it w as fro m a d e m a n d fo r th e ir re s to ra tio n th a t a
n a tio n a list m o v e m en t aro se . Its fo u n d e r w as S a b in o d e A ra n a , w ho
fo u n d e d th e Partido nacional vasco (P N V ) in 1894. H is aim w as a u n ite d
B asq u e h o m e la n d , E u z k a d i, w hich w as to c o m p rise th e S p a n ish p ro v in ces
o f V izcaya, G u ip u z c o a , A lav a a n d p a rt o f N a v a rra , as w ell as th e B asq u e­
sp e ak in g lands on th e F re n ch side o f th e P yrenees. T he p a rty d id its best n o t
o n ly to revive in te rest in B asque tra d itio n s a n d c u sto m s b u t also to
p ro m o te lite ra tu re in th e B asque language, a n d to resist th e p e n e tra tio n o f
C astilian a t th e e x p e n se o f B asque th ro u g h in d u stry a n d th e sch o o ls.
T h e unsuccessful d iso rd e rs in B a rc elo n a in 1917, a n d th e d ic ta to rs h ip o f
G en e ra l P rim o de R iv era fro m 1923 to 1929, stre n g th e n e d th e rad ic al
fo rces. M a cia’s C a ta la n Left P a rty ( Esquerra ) jo in e d w ith th e S p an ish
R e p u b lic an s, an d w hen th e R ep u b lic ca m e in to ex isten ce in 1931 th e y w ere
rew ard ed by th e c re a tio n o f a C a ta la n reg io n a l g o v e rn m e n t, th e Generali-
tat, w hich p re p a re d a d ra ft fo r C a ta la n a u to n o m y w hich w as su b m itte d to
th e C o n s titu e n t C o rte s in M a d rid , a n d a c ce p te d by it w ith sm all m o d ific a­
tio n . T h is lo o k ed like a real v icto ry a t la st fo r C a ta la n n a tio n a lism , b u t it
d id n o t last long. T h e C N T w ould n o t c o o p e ra te w ith th e Esquerra, an d
th e re w ere strikes a n d rio ts in B a rc elo n a w hich helped to b rin g a b o u t th e
d efe at in M a d rid o f th e m o d e ra te L eft a n d th e v ic to ry o f th e R ig h t. W h en a
still m o re right-w ing g o v e rn m e n t w as fo rm e d in O c to b e r 1934, th e re w ere
rev o lts in B arcelo n a, as w ell as in M a d rid a n d th e A stu ria s m in in g to w n s.
T h e B arcelo n a rising w as p u t d o w n by th e a rm y , loyal to th e M a d rid
g o v e rn m e n t, an d w as n o t su p p o rte d by th e C N T w o rk e rs. C a ta la n a u to n ­
o m y h a d lasted tw o years.
T h e R e p u b lic in 1932 offered an a u to n o m o u s sta tu te to th e B asques,
w hich w as rejected by th e N av a rrese, still C a rlist in sy m p a th y , b u t accep ted
by th e o th e r th re e p ro v in ces. T h e B asques d id n o t rev o lt in 1934, b u t th ey
d islik ed th e v ic to rio u s rig h t-w in g g o v e rn m e n t b ecause it clearly s to o d fo r
ce n tralism .
T h e y ea r 1936 b ro u g h t a P o p u la r F ro n t o f th e p a rtie s o f th e L eft, w hich
in clu d ed th e C a ta la n Esquerra. T h e B asques did n o t jo in it, b u t th ey
p referre d it to th e c e n tra list R ig h t. T h e C N T an d A n a rc h ists also d id n o t
jo in it, b u t th ey sh o w ed a relativ e b en ev o len ce w hich cau sed m a n y o f th e ir
w o rk e rs to v o te fo r it, b rin g in g a b o u t its e le c to ra l v ic to ry o n 16 F e b ru a ry
1936. U n d er th e P o p u la r F ro n t g o v e rn m e n t, th e C o rte s b e g a n to c o n sid e r a
s ta tu te o f a u to n o m y fo r G alicia, b u t le g isla tio n h a d n o t y et been en acted
w hen the m ilita ry rev o lt o f 17 J u ly s ta rte d th e th re e y ears o f civil w ar.
D u rin g the w ar C a ta lo n ia w as a s tro n g h o ld o f"th e R e p u b lic , b u t its
58 Nations and States

p eo p le w ere fa r fro m u n ite d , a n d th e ir re la tio n s w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t, first

in M a d rid a n d th e n in V alen cia, w ere fa r fro m h a p p y . T h e Generalitat w as
revived, a n d fo r six m o n th s (N o v e m b e r 1936 to M ay 1937) th e C N T n o t
o n ly c o o p e ra te d w ith C o m p a n y s, th e fo u n d e r o f th e Esquerra , h av in g
le a rn e d th e lesson o f the 1934 d isa ste r, b u t even to o k p a r t in th e M a d rid
g o v e rn m e n t co a litio n . T h is cam e to a n en d as a resu lt o f a feud b etw een th e
increasin g ly in flu e n tial a n d efficient C o m m u n ist P a rty (w h ich succeed ed in
ta k in g o v er th e Partido socialista unificado de Cataluna (P S U C ) an d a
T ro tsk y ist g ro u p k n o w n as Partido obrero de Unificacion Marxista
(P O U M ). T h e ir q u a rre l a ro se n o t fro m C a ta la n o r S p a n ish p ro b lem s, b ut
fro m th e d is ta n t fa n a tic ism s o f S o v iet R u ssian in te rn a l p o litics. T h e
P O U M m a d e a n in effectu al in su rre c tio n , w as cru sh e d , an d its m em b ers
th e n p u rsu e d w ith ru th le ss cru e lty by th e C o m m u n ist a n d P S U C lead ers,
w ith th e e x p e rt aid o f S o v iet secu rity p o lic em en sen t fo r th e p u rp o se. T h ese
events a n ta g o n is e d th e C N T an d A n a rc h ists, a n d b ro u g h t o d iu m on the
C a ta la n n a tio n a lists. T o th e m o re c o n serv ativ e R e p u b lic a n s, th e y a p ­
p e a re d to be aid in g an d a b e ttin g b lo o d th irsty a n a rc h is ts , w hile to S p an ish
socialists th e y seem ed perversely to be p u ttin g C a ta la n in te rests b efo re the
c o m m o n cause. W h en G e n e ra l F ra n c o w o n th e w ar, C a ta la n n a tio n a lism
w as a t first p ersecu ted as ru th lessly as socialism .
T h e B asques, to o , su p p o rte d th e R e p u b lic in th e th re e p ro v in ces,
th o u g h n o t in N av a rre. T h e R e p u b lic e n a c te d a B asq u e sta tu te o f a u to ­
n o m y in 1936. S tro n g ly C a th o lic , socially co n serv ativ e, b u t b ased on
s tro n g p o p u la r s u p p o rt d e m o c ra tic a lly ex p re ssed , th e B asq u es fo u g h t
b rav e ly , a n d m o re h u m a n e ly th a n m o st o f th e ir fellow R e p u b lic a n s, b u t
F ra n c o co m p le te d th e c o n q u e st o f th e B asq u e lands by 1937. A fter th a t
th ey , like th e C a ta la n s, lo st th e ir a u to n o m y .
In th e first y ears o f th e F ra n c o regim e p u b lic use o f b o th th e C a ta la n an d
th e B asq u e lan g u ag e w as fo rb id d e n , a n d p e rso n s k n o w n to h av e n a tio n a list
sy m p a th ie s w ere su b jected to p e rse c u tio n o f v a rio u s k in d s: th e ir lead ers
e ith e r h ad fled th e c o u n try o r h ad been im p riso n e d .
T w en ty y ears o f e c o n o m ic reco v ery a n d in d u stria l p ro g re ss b ro u g h t a
c e rta in m ellow ing o f th e regim e. T h e B asque a n d C a ta la n la n d s w ere in the
f o re fro n t o f pro g ress, a n d so h a d a h ig h e r s ta n d a rd o f living th a n C astile
(w ith th e sole ex c e p tio n o f M a d rid ). P ro sp e rity d id n o t c o m p e n sa te fo r
n a tio n a l sub jectio n : o n th e c o n tra ry , as in so m a n y o th e r cases th a t will be
d iscussed in th is w o rk , th e effect w as r a th e r to stim u la te n a tio n a l c o n ­
sciousness a n d d isc o n te n t. T h e large in flu x o f C a stilia n la b o u r to b o th
B a rc elo n a a n d B ilbao b en e fited th e C a ta la n a n d B a sq u e s ta n d a rd o f living,
b u t aro u se d th e fear th a t C a ta la n a n d B asqu e c u ltu re s w ere facin g a new
d a n g e r o f bein g su b m e rg e d . A t the sam e tim e th e c e n tra l a u th o ritie s b eg an
to sh o w m o re to le ra n c e fo r n a tio n a l c u ltu re s. F o lk lo re festiv als w ere
p e rm itte d , p erio d icals w ere allow ed in b o th C a ta la n an d B asque, a n d som e
 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 59

h o u rs o f b ro a d c a stin g tim e, th o u g h n o t o f telev isio n , w ere a llo tte d to th em .

O n e sch o o l in S an S e b a s tia n used B asq u e as its lan g u ag e o f in stru c tio n .
V o lu n ta ry p a rt-tim e scho o ls, called Ikastolas, w ere c re a te d fro m p riv ate
fu n d s to help th e use o f B asque b o th in speech a n d in w ritin g , a n d p riests
p la y ed a n activ e p a rt in th em . All these lim ited im p ro v e m e n ts (as seem s to
be u su a l in such s itu a tio n s) p ro v o k e d n o t g ra titu d e b u t rese n tm e n t.
C a ta la n s a n d B asques felt th a t the w ea lth w hich th ey w ere p ro d u c in g w as
bein g co n su m ed by th e less in d u strio u s a n d e n te rp risin g C a stilia n s, an d
th a t w hile th ey m a d e th e ec o n o m y w o rk , th e C a stilian s w ere g ettin g th e
best jo b s in g o v e rn m e n t a n d a rm e d fo rces, an d th e b est o p p o rtu n itie s fo r
e d u c a tio n an d ca reers w ere g o in g to C a stilia n child ren .
T h e leaders o f th e P N V w ere in exile in F ra n ce . T h a t th ey h ad c o n s id e ra ­
ble in fluence a m o n g th e B asques in th e h o m e lan d w as sh o w n by th e
im p ressive g en e ral strik e o f 1947. H ow ever, th is d e m o n s tra tio n o f B asque
so lid a rity h ad n o ta n g ib le results. It w as p ro b a b le th a t th e P N V still h ad th e
passive s u p p o rt o f th e p ro fe ssio n a l elite w hich fo rm e d th e p o te n tia l
le a d e rsh ip o f B asque n a tio n a lism , in c lu d in g a large p a r t o f th e C a th o lic
clergy. H ow ever, in th e 1960s a p p e a re d a new ty p e o f n a tio n a lism , a
c o n s p ira to ria l g ro u p d ev o ted to a rm e d stru g g le a n d a ssa ssin a tio n . T his
w as th e E T A (Euzkadi ta Azkatsuna, o r ‘B asque h o m e la n d a n d fre e d o m ’),
fo u n d e d in 1959, w hich c a rrie d o u t a n u m b e r o f v io le n t a c ts c u lm in a tin g in
th e killing o f th e S p a n ish p rim e m in iste r o n 20 D e c em b e r 1973. E T A
su ffered n o t only fro m police rep ressio n b u t fro m d issen sio n a n d s e c ta ria n ­
ism w ith in its ra n k s; yet its activities d rew w o rld -w id e a tte n tio n to th e
B asq u e p ro b le m a n d stre n g th e n e d th e n a tio n a l co n scio u sn e ss o f th e
B asq u e peo p le in S p a in a n d to som e e x te n t also o n th e F re n c h side o f th e
P y ren ees.
C a ta la n n a tio n a lism used less se n sa tio n a l m e th o d s, b u t w as p o te n tia lly
m o re d a n g e ro u s to th e S p a n ish sta te . In d ee d , th e fierce re a c tio n o f th e
M a d rid g o v e rn m e n t to B asq u e te rro rism w as p ro b a b ly largely d u e to its
fea rs o f in d ire ct effects in C a ta lo n ia . T h e m o st im p o rta n t ev en t o f th ese
y ears in C a ta lo n ia w as th e A ssem bly o f C a ta lo n ia w h ich w as held illegally
o u tsid e B a rc elo n a in N o v e m b e r 1971, a tte n d e d by re p re se n ta tiv e s o f th e
P S U C , th e Esquerra, a n d several new n a tio n a lis t p arties. All ag reed in
d e m a n d in g th e re s to ra tio n o f th e 1932 sta tu te , a full p o litica l am n esty ,
p o litica l a n d civil lib erties. T h e A n a rc h ists also still ex isted in C a ta lo n ia ,
th o u g h it w as im p o ssib le to e stim a te th e ir stre n g th . T h a t C a ta la n n a tio n a l­
ism w as still alive w as sh o w n by th e d e m o n s tra tio n in B a rc elo n a a t th e tim e
o f th e first visits o f K ing J u a n C a rlo s a fte r th e d e a th o f F ra n c o . B o th
C a ta la n a n d B asque n a tio n a lism fac ed n o t o n ly th e h o stility o f th e
d efe n d ers o f th e old regim e, b u t th e c e rta in ty th a t, w h a te v e r th e ir s h o rt­
te rm c o m m o n in te re sts, th e y w ere b o u n d to co n flict, as th e y h ad in 1936-37,
w ith a ll-S p a n ish m o v e m en ts o f so cialism , c o m m u n ism a n d a n a rc h ism .
<50 Nations and States

In th e 1970s th e ex isten ce o f a S p a n ish n a tio n w as a m a tte r o f d isp u te , as

it h a d b een fo r ce n tu ries p ast. D o u b tle ss a m a jo rity o f th e p o p u la tio n o f th e
S p a n ish sta te co n sid ered th em selves to be S p a n ia rd s , a n d m o st o f these
id en tified ‘S p a n is h ’ w ith ‘C a stilia n ’. O th e rs felt th em selv es to be b o th
S p a n ia rd s a n d C a ta la n s, o r b o th S p a n ia rd s a n d B asques, in m u ch th e sam e
w ay as m a n y co n sid ered them selv es to be b o th B ritish a n d S co ts, o r B ritish
a n d W elsh. F o r th e m , S p a in w as, like G re a t B rita in fo r th e B ritish , th e
n am e o f a sta te an d o f a c u ltu re ra th e r th a n o f a n a tio n . S till o th e rs felt
th em selves to be on ly C a ta la n s o r o nly B asques, an d w o u ld be c o n te n t o nly
w ith sovereign sta te h o o d .
T h e H a b sb u rg rulers h ad called them selves kings n o t o f S p a in b u t o f th e
S p a in s (las Espanas), as th e R o m a n o v ru lers h ad called th em selv es
e m p e ro rs o f ‘all th e R u ssias’. In th is sense P o rtu g a l h ad been on e o f th e
S p a in s, th o u g h it h ad finally b ro k e n a w a y in 1640, th e re b y d ep riv in g th e
S p a n ish k ings o f th e rig h t to co n sid e r them selv es ru lers o f all th e S p a in s—
as th e P o rtu g u e se d eleg ates to th e peace co n fe re n ce o f U trec h t in 1713 had
p o in te d o u t.30 In th e late tw e n tie th c e n tu ry th e re w as n o q u e stio n o f
P o rtu g a l giving up its in d e p en d en ce. Y et B asque a n d C a ta la n s w ere as
d iffe ren t fro m C a stilia n s as w ere P o rtu g u e se . T h ere w ere also th e G a li­
cian s, n e ig h b o u rs o f P o rtu g a l in th e n o rth , sp e ak in g a la n g u ag e very close
to P o rtu g u e se , n e ith e r a sk in g fo r u n io n w ith P o rtu g a l n o r claim ed by th e
P o rtu g u e se , yet also w ith o u t d o u b t d iffe ren t fro m C a stilian s. S om e
o b se rv e rs w o u ld arg u e th a t m o d e rn m ass m ed ia e x e rte d so stro n g a
p re ssu re th a t C a stilian c u ltu re an d a ce n tralised S p a n ish n a tio n a l c o n ­
sciousness w ere b o u n d to im pose them selves. O th e rs w o u ld reply th a t
n a tio n a l lan g u ag es a n d c u ltu re s w ere n o t so easily a b s o rb e d , a n d th a t a
b e tte r an sw e r to S p a in ’s p ro b le m s w ould be a fed eral sta te , p e rh a p s even a
fe d e ra tio n o f th e w hole Ib e ria n P en in su la.

The Netherlander
E ven a b rie f g lance a t th e m a p will show th a t th e L ow C o u n trie s, w ith th e ir
c e n tre in th e R h in e D e lta , fro m w hich th e y e x te n d w estw a rd to th e n a rro w s
betw een E n g la n d a n d th e C o n tin e n t a n d n o rth w a rd to th e p o in t w here th e
c o a st o f E u ro p e tu rn s sh a rp ly a n d p e rm a n e n tly to w a rd s th e ea st, o cc u p y a
p o sitio n o f th e g re a te st stra te g ic an d c o m m ercial im p o rta n c e .
In R o m a n tim es, th e L ow C o u n trie s w ere a rem o te fro n tie r o u tp o st. It
w as n o t u n til th e m edieval G e rm a n em p ire h a d b een co n so lid a te d , a n d
co m p a ra tiv e ly sta b le social a n d p o litic a l c o n d itio n s h ad been e stab lish ed in
F ra n ce , E n g la n d a n d S c a n d in a v ia , th a t th e ir e c o n o m ic a n d c u ltu ra l
p o te n tia l co u ld be dev elo p ed . In th e elev en th c e n tu ry tra d e fro m th e B ritish
Isles a n d th e B altic lands passed th ro u g h th e N e th e rla n d s, u p th e R h in e a n d
 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 61

ac ro ss th e A lps in to Italy , w hile th e p ro d u c ts o f th e M e d ite rra n e a n to o k th e

reverse ro ad . T he L ow C o u n trie s, a n d especially F la n d e rs, becam e n o t only
a co m m ercial b u t a n in d u stria l ce n tre. P ro sp e ro u s cities a ro se , w ith
b o u rg eo is a n d a rtis a n classes, first a m o n g th e m B ruges a n d G h en t.
T h is region w as divid ed in to a n u m b e r o f te rrito ria l so v ereig n ties, o f
w hich F la n d e rs w as sub ject to th e k ing o f F ra n c e a n d th e o th e rs to th e
G e rm a n em pire. Its cities p ro d u c e d n o t on ly m a te ria l g o o d s b u t a u n iq u e
c u ltu re , in clu d in g th e beg in n in g s o f a se cu la r lite ra tu re in a d istin ct
G erm a n ic la n g u a g e — Dietsch, as it w as called by th e th irte e n th ce n tu ry
p o et J a n M a e rla n t. S ide by side w ith th e tr a d itio n a l lo rd s, th e cities b ecam e
te rrito ria l a n d m ilita ry pow ers. It w as th e pleb eian in fa n try m e n w ho
d efeated th e feu d a l a rm y o f th e kin g o f F ra n c e a t the B attle o f C o u rtra i in
1302.
A t th e end o f th e fo u rte e n th ce n tu ry F la n d e rs a n d A rto is ca m e in to the
p o ssessio n o f th e D u k e o f B u rg u n d y (1384) P hilip th e G o o d th ro u g h
m a rria g e; an d his successors ac q u ired H a in a u lt, H o lla n d a n d Z ea lan d
(1428) a n d B ra b a n t (1430). T h o u g h p rin ces o f th e F re n c h ro y al h o u se , th e
d u k e s o f B u rg u n d y b ecam e in d e p e n d e n t so vereigns a n d in d eed b itte r rivals
o f th e F re n ch kings. T h e B u rg u n d ia n a n d N e th e rla n d s p o rtio n s o f th e ir
d o m a in w ere nev er w elded to g e th e r by a co m m o n p a trio tism . T h e leading
c o u rtie rs, sold iers a n d p o litical figures w ere B u rg u n d ia n s, w hile th e
N e th e rla n d s played th e m ain ec o n o m ic role. F re n ch w as th e lan g u ag e n o t
o nly o f B u rg u n d y b u t also o f A rto is, H a in a u lt an d s o u th e rn F lan d e rs.
H o w ever, th e m ain div isio n w as n o t b etw een the la n g u ag e g ro u p s b ut
b etw een B u rg u n d y , w ith its feu d a l social a n d p o litica l o rd e r, a n d th e
in creasin g ly b o u rg eo is society o f th e N e th e rla n d s. W ith in th e L o w C o u n ­
trie s th e re w ere also differences. T h e n o rth w as a lre a d y sp ecialisin g in
se afarin g an d m a ritim e tra d e , w hile th e s o u th w as o ccu p ied w ith in d u stry
a n d w ith la n d -b o rn e tra d e . T h e peo p le o f F la n d e rs, fro m lo n g ex p erien ce,
h a d a deep h o stility to F ra n c e , w hile th o se o f H o lla n d h ad no su ch feeling.
W h en D u k e C h a rle s th e Bold o f B u rg u n d y w as killed in b a ttle w ith the
Sw iss in 1477, m o st o f th e B u rg u n d ia n la n d s passed to L o u is X I o f F ran ce,
b u t C h a rle s’s d a u g h te r M a ry , w ho m a rrie d th e H a b sb u rg A rc h d u k e
M a x im ilia n (la te r e m p e ro r), reta in ed the L ow C o u n trie s. T h e ir so n P hilip
m a rrie d th e heiress to th e S p a n ish th ro n e . A s he died y o u n g , it w as his son
C h a rles w ho c o m b in e d in his p erso n th e so v e reig n ty o f th e L ow C o u n trie s
a n d S p ain , a n d w as also elected e m p e ro r in 1519.
It w as in th e tim e o f C h a rles V 31 th a t th e R e fo rm a tio n m ad e itself felt in
th e L ow C o u n trie s. T h e m in d s o f th ese m o st in tellig en t a n d c u ltu re d of
E u ro p e a n s, w hose o u ts ta n d in g ex a m p le w as th e g re a t E ra sm u s o f R o tte r­
d a m , w ere w ell p re p a re d fo r th e new ideas. T h e influ en ce first o f M a rtin
L u th e r, an d th e n o f th e B aptists, sp re a d fro m G e rm a n y , a n d so m e w h at
la te r th e d o c trin e s o f C a lv in fro m G en e v a a n d F ra n ce . It w as th e la tte r
62 Nations and States

w hich p ro v e d to be th e m o st effective. T h e u p p e r classes o f th e L ow

C o u n trie s w ere to le ra n t to th e re fo rm e rs, b u t also w ished to av o id a b rea ch
w ith R o m e an d w ere a la rm e d by th e te n d en c ies to so cial rad ic alism
c o n ta in e d in th e new ideas. E m p e ro r C h a rle s V w as a firm en em y o f heresy,
a n d issued decrees a g a in st it, b u t th ese w ere n o t fiercely a p p lied . C h a rles
w as b y u p b rin g in g a N e th e rla n d e r r a th e r th a n a S p a n ia rd a n d d id n o t press
his p eo p le to o h a rd .
A ll th is ch a n g ed w ith th e accessio n o f P h ilip II to th e th ro n e o f S p ain . He
insisted o n c e n tra lisa tio n o f g o v e rn m e n t a n d c h u rc h , a n d o n th e e x tirp a ­
tio n o f heresy. In 1567 he sen t the D u k e o f A lb a to th e N e th e rla n d s w ith
S p a n ish tr o o p s to su p p ress o p p o sitio n . T h e resu lt w as to d riv e even
m o d e ra te m en in to revolt. T h is m o v e m en t h ad th re e d istin c t asp ects,
closely in te rtw in ed : n o n e a t s e p a ra tio n o r e x a c t lab ellin g o f th e m is
p ossible. T h ere w as th e rev o lt o f th e n o b ility , in d efen ce o f its p o litical
rig h ts, a g a in st th e a u to c ra c y o f P h ilip II; th e rev o lt o f th e g re a t m a jo rity o f
th e p eo p le a g a in st d o m in a tio n by a rro g a n t fo re ig n ers fro m S p a in ; a n d th e
re v o lt o f P ro te s ta n ts (them selv es d iv id ed in to sev eral su b d iv isio n s an d
sects) a g a in st th e p erse cu tio n o f th e In q u isitio n .
A t first A lb a w as successful, a n d his en em ies w ere cru sh e d w ith o u t pity.
In 1572, how ev er, C a lv in ist refugees fro m E n g la n d c a p tu re d th e island
fo rtre ss o f B rill, a n d set u p th e rule o f th e ‘S ea B eggars’, c o n tro llin g th e
m o u th s o f th e g rea t rivers a n d c o m m a n d in g th e sea a p p ro a c h e s . Z ea lan d
a n d H o lla n d w ere lib erated by th e m , an d C a lv in ist ru le w as im p o sed by
force.
T h e seco n d stag e ca m e w hen, e x h a u ste d by th e h o rro rs o f w ar an d
re p ressio n , th e lead ers o f s o u th a n d n o rth co m b in ed in o p p o sitio n to th e
S p a n ish g o v e rn m e n t to m a k e th e P ac ific a tio n o f G h e n t o f 8 N o v em b e r
1576. T h is w as essentially a te rrito ria l d iv isio n , w ith C alv in ism to be
p re d o m in a n t in th e n o r th a n d C a th o lic ism in th e s o u th . H o w ev er, th e
a g re e m e n t d id n o t last. E x tre m e re fo rm e rs, w h o w ere also so cial rad icals,
seized p o w er in G h e n t a n d o th e r D ie tsc h -sp e a k in g cities o f F lan d e rs.
W illiam th e S ilen t, P rin c e o f O ra n g e, did his best to p reserv e th e union:
c o n siste n tly , he fo u g h t a n d w o rk e d fo r u n ity o f th e L ow C o u n trie s ag a in st
S p a in reg a rd le ss o f relig io u s differences. H e failed , h o w ev er, fo r th e
n o b ility o f th e s o u th e rn p ro v in ce s, m a in ly o f F re n c h sp eech , frig h ten e d by
th e social rad ic alism o f th e re fo rm e rs a n d to so m e e x te n t also a n im a te d by
d islik e o f the D ietsch -sp e ak in g p o p u la tio n , fo rm e d th e U n io n o f A rras,
an d su b m itte d to P h ilip II. In J a n u a r y 1579 w as fo rm e d th e U n io n o f
U trec h t, co n sistin g o f th e n o rth e rn p ro v in ce s only.
T h e th ird stage o f th e stru g g le b e g a n w ith g re a t v ic to ries fo r th e S p an ish
c o m m a n d e r, A lessan d ro F a rn e se , D u k e o f P a rm a . In th e su m m e r o f 1584
he o cc u p ie d m o st o f F la n d e rs, a n d o n 10 J u ly 1584 th e a ssa ssin a tio n o f
W illiam o f O ra n g e d ep riv e d th e N e th e rla n d e rs o f a g rea t lead er. H o w ev er
 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 63

th e y reco v ered , p a rtly b ecau se S p a n ish p o w er w as d iv e rte d first to th e

A rm a d a a g a in st E n g la n d an d th e n to w ar w ith H en ri IV o f F ra n c e ; an d
p a rtly b ecause th e N e th e rla n d s h ad a b rillia n t gen eral in W illia m ’s succes­
so r, M a u ric e o f N assau . D u rin g th e n e x t y ears M a u ric e rec o v ered F rie s­
la n d , G ro n in g e n a n d G e ld e rla n d , w hile P a rm a co m p le te d th e c o n q u e st o f
th e so u th . In 1609 a tw elve-year tru c e w as signed. T h e fro n tie rs th e n
e stab lish ed as p ro v isio n a l p ro v e d — w ith so m e m o d ific a tio n — very lastin g .
T h e result o f fo rty y ears o f w ar had th u s been a te rrito ria l p a rtitio n o f th e
N e th e rla n d s. T h e p rocess o f th e f o rm a tio n o f a single N e th e rla n d s n a tio n ,
w hich h ad b eg u n a t least in th e tw elfth c e n tu ry , w as a rre ste d . T h e d iv isio n
betw een th e tw o halves o f th e N e th e rla n d s w as now based on religion:
C a lv in ism b ecam e o n e o f th e fo u n d a tio n s o f th e new D u tc h n a tio n , w hile
th e p eo p le o f th e s o u th e rn N e th e rla n d s rem a in ed C a th o lic. A t th e b eg in ­
n ing o f th e w ar, th e v a rio u s religious g ro u p s h a d been sc attered all o v er th e
N e th e rla n d s. H ow ever, th e m ilita ry s tre n g th o f th e P ro te s ta n ts h ad b eco m e
c o n c e n tra te d in th e n o rth ; a n d th e fro n tie r e v e n tu a lly ac ce p te d by b o th
sides c o rre sp o n d e d a p p ro x im a te ly to th e line o f th e g re a t rivers. T h is w as to
so m e e x te n t a strateg ic b o u n d a ry , a lth o u g h this sh o u ld n o t be e x a g g erated :
d u rin g th e w ar th e rivers, especially w hen fro zen in w in te r, h ad n o t p ro v ed
so fo rm id a b le an o b sta cle to th e arm ies o f e ith e r sid e .12 T h e fact rem ain ed
th a t th e L ow C o u n trie s w ere now d iv id ed , a n d th a t th e peo p le o f th e n o rth ,
in w hich P ro te s ta n ts p re d o m in a te d n u m e rically a n d held all th e p o litical
p o w er, grew in to a new n a tio n , w hile th e peo p le o f th e s o u th rem ain ed
su b ject to foreign ru le a n d lost th e elem en ts o f n a tio n a l id e n tity w hich th ey
h ad o nce had.
T h e div isio n w as n o t q u ite so sim ple. P ro te s ta n ts fro m th e so u th to o k
refuge in the n o rth , a n d c o n trib u te d g re a tly to th e su b se q u e n t ec o n o m ic,
c u ltu ra l an d p o litical ac h ie v em e n ts o f th e new s ta te — w h ich w as k n o w n
co rrec tly as th e U n ited P ro v in c es (o f w hich th e re w ere seven), b u t w as
w idely k n o w n a b ro a d by th e n am e o f th e m o st p o w erfu l o f th ese p ro v in ces,
H o lla n d . T h e re still rem a in ed m an y C a th o lic s in the n o rth , a b o u t a th ird o f
th e p o p u la tio n , w ho w ere to le ra te d , th o u g h su b je ct to p o litica l d isabilities.
In th e so u th n o P ro te s ta n ts w ere to le ra te d . In th e n o rth , th e lan g u ag e o f th e
w h o le peo p le, a n d o f p u b lic a d m in is tra tio n , w as D u tc h . In th e s o u th , a
large p a rt o f th e p o p u la tio n sp o k e F re n c h (th o u g h th e p ro p o rtio n d im in ­
ish ed as a resu lt o f th e d irec t a n n e x a tio n to F ra n c e d u rin g th e sev en te en th
c e n tu ry o f A rto is, C a m b ra i a n d p a rts o f F la n d e rs an d H a in a u lt by L ouis
X IV ), a n d F re n c h w as th e lan g u ag e o f p u b lic business.
D u rin g th e se v e n te e n th ce n tu ry th e re w as a sp le n d id flo w erin g o f
e c o n o m ic e n terp rise, overseas e x p a n sio n , a rt a n d lite ra tu re in th e n o rth .
T h is w as th e g re a t age o f D u tc h p a in tin g , a n d th e age in w h ich th e D u tc h
se a b o rn e em p ire w as e s ta b lish e d , fro m B razil to th e M o lu c ca s. It c a n n o t be
said th a t th e so u th sta g n a te d . Its ec o n o m y w as m o re efficien t a n d p ro sp e r-
64 Nations and States

o u s th a n m o st p a rts o f E u ro p e , a n d th e C o u n te r-R e fo rm a tio n h ad its

a rtistic ach iev em en ts. N ev erth eless, it lagged fa r b eh in d th e n o rth .
T h e b elief in a single N e th e rla n d s n a tio n , th e b itte r reg ret a t its p a rtitio n ,
survived fo r m a n y years, b u t by th e end o f th e c e n tu ry it h a d a lm o st fad ed
aw ay. T h is w as m ain ly b ecau se H o lla n d h ad b eco m e a w o rld p o w er, w ith
in te rests in m a n y d is ta n t lan d s, a n d also b ecau se its re la tio n s w ith o th e r
E u ro p e a n pow ers h ad b ec o m e tra n sfo rm e d . T h e tw o sta te s w hich, in th e
stru g g le fo r in d e p en d e n ce , h ad fro m tim e to tim e given so m e d irec t o r
in d ire ct aid to th e D u tc h (as th e p eo p le o f the n o rth e rn N e th e rla n d s were
h en c efo rth called in E n g lish )— F ra n c e a n d E n g la n d — h ad b eco m e her
rivals o r enem ies, w hile h e r old en e m y — S p a in — h a d ceased to be d a n g e r­
o us. T h e E nglish w ere c o m p e tin g w ith th e D u tc h in th e seas o f th e w orld;
a n d even th e m u tu a l sy m p a th ie s o f C ro m w ell an d de W itt (b o th P ro te s­
ta n ts a n d rep u b lican s) d id n o t co u n terw eig h th e co n flict o f sta te interests.
T h e F re n ch h ad designs o n th e so u th e rn N e th e rla n d s, a n d p ro p o sed to th e
D u tc h , w h en th e y w ere still th e ir allies, p a rtitio n schem es. T h ese th e D u tc h
rejected b ecause they d id n o t w ish to be b ro u g h t in to d irec t physical
c o n ta c t w ith F ra n ce : a s o u th e rn N e th e rla n d s b u ffe r sta te , u n d e r S p an ish
rule, seem ed b e tte r su ited to D u tc h in terests. In 1672 b eg an th e lo n g p erio d
o f w ar a g a in st L ouis X IV , in w hich th e D u tc h w ere at tim es in d ead ly
d a n g e r, b u t fro m w hich th e y em erg ed v ic to rio u s th o u g h w eak en ed . By th e
T re a ty o f U tre c h t o f 1713 th e s o u th e rn N e th e rla n d s w ere tra n sfe rre d fro m
S p a in to A u stria , b u t th e p a rtitio n rem a in ed .
D u rin g th e eig h te e n th c e n tu ry F re n c h a n d B ritish in te rests c o n ten d e d
w ith ea ch o th e r in D u tc h politics. T h is riv alry to so m e e x te n t co in cid ed
w ith th e lo n g co n flict (w hich h ad also d o m in a te d th e se v en te en th ce n tu ry )
betw een R e p u b lic a n s a n d s u p p o rte rs o f th e H o u se o f O ran g e. In 1787
P ru ssia n forces, w ith B ritish a p p ro v a l, fo rc ib ly resto re d th e P rin ce o f
O ra n g e a g a in st th e p ro -F re n c h P a tr io t p a rty . In th e sam e y ears, th e
refo rm s o f J o s e p h II a n ta g o n is e d p io u s C a th o lic s in th e A u stria n N e th e r­
la n d s, w hile failing to satisfy th e m o re e n th u sia stic p u p ils o f th e E u ro p e a n
E n lig h ten m e n t. T h e rev o lt o f th e s o u th e rn N e th e rla n d s a g a in s t A u stria in
1789 w as an u n ea sy allia n ce o f co n serv ativ es a n d rad ic als. In D e c em b e r the
rebels p ro cla im e d th e U nited S ta te s o f B elgium . A y ea r la te r th e A u stria n
a rm y re c o n q u e re d the c o u n try , b u t in A p ril 1792 th e a rm y o f th e F re n ch
R e v o lu tio n inv ad ed . D u m o u rie z d efe ate d th e A u stria n s a t th e B attle o f
Jé m a p p e s o n 6 N o v em b er. In F e b ru a ry 1793 th e A u stria n N e th e rla n d s
w ere a n n e x e d to F ra n ce , a n d this in c lu d ed th e p eo p le o f th e F re n c h -
sp e ak in g b ish o p ric o f Liège, w hich h ad jo in e d B elgium in 1789. In H o lla n d
the div isio n betw een co n serv ativ es an d rad ic als rem a in ed deep . W h en th e
F re n ch invaded th e U n ited P ro v in c es in J a n u a r y 1795, th e P a trio ts
w elcom ed th em w hile th e P rin ce o f O ra n g e w ent in to exile. A B atav ian
R ep u b lic w as p ro cla im e d , w ith g en u in e s u p p o rt fro m a large p a rt o f th e
 Europe: The Old Continuous Nations 65

p eo p le. In 1806, how ever, N a p o le o n d ecid ed to m a k e his b ro th e r L ouis

k in g o f H o lla n d , a n d in 1810 H o lla n d w as a n n e x e d d irec tly to F ra n ce . T h u s
th e w hole N e th e rla n d s w as u n ite d a fte r tw o h u n d re d y ears, b u t u n d e r
F re n c h rule.
T h e d efeat o f N a p o le o n b ro u g h t th e re s to ra tio n o f th e H o u se o f O ran g e.
T h e g re a t po w ers, especially B ritain a n d P ru ssia , w ish in g to b u ild s u b s ta n ­
tia l states on th e b o rd e r o f F ra n ce , decid ed th a t the N e th e rla n d s sh o u ld
b ec o m e a single k in g d o m . T h o u g h th e rea so n fo r its c re a tio n w as to be
fo u n d in g rea t p o w er strateg y , it m ig h t have been ex p e cted , fro m a
tw e n tie th ce n tu ry persp ectiv e, th a t th e e n te rp rise w o u ld have been a
success, a n d th a t th e D u tc h -sp e a k in g peo p les o f th e tw o p a rts o f th e
N e th e rla n d s w ould be h a p p y to be re u n ite d w ith each o th e r. T h is d id n o t
p ro v e to be th e case. T h e religious d ifference p ro v ed to be m o re im p o rta n t
th a n th e u n ity o f la n g u ag e . E ven th is u n ity w as im p erfect, as th e s ta n d a r d ­
ised literary D u tc h o f th e n o rth differed fro m th e sp o k e n to n g u e o f th e
so u th e rn e rs, o r F lem ings. In th e so u th , th e u p p e r an d m id d le classes w ere
o v erw h elm in g ly F re n ch -sp ea k in g , a n d th e solidly F re n c h -sp e a k in g te rri­
to ry h ad been in creased by th e accessio n o f th e te rrito ry o f Liège. T h e
a tte m p t to in tro d u c e th e m u ch m o re m o d e rn , b u t secu lar, system o f D u tc h
sch o o ls in to th e so u th p ro d u c e d h ostility. E ssentially, th e C a th o lic co n v ic­
tio n s o f the g rea t m a jo rity in th e s o u th w ere a n ta g o n is e d by D u tc h a ttitu d e s
a n d policies; th e p o litical class, being F re n c h by sp eech , w as activ ely
h o stile; an d th e D u tc h -sp e a k in g m a jo rity w as to o passive, a n d to o little
inv o lv ed in p o litica l life, to give c o u n te rv a ilin g su p p o rt. T h e resu lt w as th a t
th e u n ite d k in g d o m on ly lasted fro m 1815 to 1830. In th e la tte r y ea r, the
successful J u ly R e v o lu tio n in F ra n c e trig g e re d o ff a rev o lt in th e so u th e rn
N eth e rlan d s; a n d a lo n g d ip lo m a tic crisis e n d ed w ith th e e sta b lish m e n t o f a
new k in g d o m o f B elgium , w hile th e k in g d o m o f th e N e th e rla n d s w as
red u ced to th e old seven provinces.
In B elgium , how ever, th e existen ce o f tw o lan g u ag es so o n led to co n flict.
A s th e ec o n o m y b ecam e m o re co m p lex , a n d sc h o o lin g im p ro v e d , g rea t
n u m b e rs o f ch ild ren o f p le b eian D u tc h - (o r F lem ish -) sp e ak in g fam ilies
en tered th e p ro fe ssio n a l a n d business classes, a n d th e d e m a n d grew fo r
e q u a l o p p o rtu n itie s fo r m em b ers o f th e tw o c o m m u n itie s, a n d e q u a l sta tu s
fo r the F le m ish -D u tc h la n g u ag e w ith F re n c h in p u b lic life a n d ed u c a tio n .
T h is m o v e m en t w as stre n g th e n e d by th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f F lem ish lite ra tu re
in th e second h a lf o f th e ce n tu ry ; a n d F lem ish d e m a n d s w ere m o re p ressin g
a fte r th e suffrag e law o f 1892, w hich b ro u g h t the F le m ish -sp e a k in g m asses
in to p o litical life. F lem ish h o stility to th e F re n c h -sp e a k in g B elgians (o r
W a llo o n s) w as so b itte r th a t, in th e F irs t W o rld W a r, th e G e rm a n
o cc u p y in g forces w ere ab le to find a g o o d d ea l o f su p p o rt. W ith th e ir
(Raad van Vlanderen)
e n c o u ra g e m e n t, a F la n d e rs C o u n c il w as fo rm e d a n d
held a m eeting in B russels in F e b ru a ry 1917. In D ec em b e r 1917 th e C o u n c il
66 Nations and States

re p u d ia te d th e a u th o rity o f th e g o v e rn m e n t o f B elgium (still allied to

F ra n c e a n d c o m m a n d in g th e B elgian a rm y fig h tin g a g a in st G erm a n y ), an d
p ro cla im e d te rrito ria l a u to n o m y fo r th e F lem ish d istric ts. A fter th e w ar
Belgium w as re sto re d , a n d th e w artim e events d id n o t p ro v e to o b itte r to
allo w th e tw o co m m u n ities to live to g e th er. N ev erth eless, betw een th e w ars
B elgian p o litical life w as m u c h influenced by th e F le m ish -W a llo o n co n flict,
w hich w as n o t elim in ated by th e u su a l d e m o c ra tic d iv isio n s betw een
co n serv ativ es, liberals a n d socialists. In th e S eco n d W o rld W a r less
d a m a g e w as d o n e th a n in the F irst, as the d iv isio n b etw een resisters an d
‘c o lla b o ra to rs ’ did n o t co in cid e w ith th e linguistic d ivision: th e re w as no
less fascism a m o n g th e W a llo o n s th a n a m o n g th e F lem in g s. A fter th e w ar
th e co n flict resu m ed , th o u g h in peaceful fo rm .
T h e situ a tio n in 1974 w as th a t th e re w ere 5,527,094 p erso n s in t h e ‘region
o f N e th e rla n d s sp eech’; 3,142,378 in th e ‘reg io n o f F re n c h sp eech ’; an d
1,054,970 in B russels, w hich w as reg a rd e d as b ilin g u al.
A n in te re stin g fe a tu re o f th e F lem ish n a tio n a list p ro b le m w as th a t the
g re a t m a jo rity o f the peo p le o f H o lla n d show ed n o in terest in u n itin g w ith
th e F lem ish: a t th e m o st, th e re w as a m ild sy m p a th y fo r th e ir cause.
E q u ally , th e F lem ish n a tio n a lists w ere n o t m u ch in te reste d in u n itin g w ith
H o lla n d . T h e idea o f a single sta te o f tw en ty m illio n D u tc h m e n seem ed to
have n o ap p e a l o n e ith e r side o f th e b o rd e r. T h is co u ld n o t be ex p lain e d
sim p ly by th e religious fa c to r, fo r a b o u t 40 p erc en t o f th e p o p u la tio n o f
H o lla n d w ere C a th o lic s, a n d these had for long ceased to be ex clu d ed fro m
p o litica l life b y legal re stric tio n s. R e la tio n s betw een th e tw o sta te s a fte r
1830 w ere n o rm a lly g o o d . In b o th c o u n trie s, s u p p o rt fo r th e E u ro p e a n
m o v e m en t o f th e 1950s w as stro n g , a n d b o th d id w ell in th e E u ro p e a n
E co n o m ic C o m m u n ity . T h e F le m ish -W a llo o n co n flict th e re fo re seem ed
likely to p ro d u c e c o n tin u e d g ru m b lin g a n d h a rd p o litica l b a rg a in in g , b ut
n o th in g m o re d an g e ro u s. It is p ro b a b ly tru e th a t relig io n w as th e m ost
im p o rta n t single fa c to r in th e h isto ric al p ro cess o f th e c re a tio n o f a D u tch
n a tio n , th o u g h strateg ic a n d ec o n o m ic fa c to rs p lay ed a g re a t p a rt to o , as
this b rie f su m m a ry sh o u ld have show n. It w as u n q u e s tio n a b le th a t in th e
1970s th e re ex isted a D u tc h n a tio n . T h e B elgians, by c o n tra s t, d id n o t fit
in to th e ca te g o ry o f ‘n a tio n ’, b u t w ere, w ith o u t d o u b t, a m o st successful
c o m m u n ity .

The Scandinavians
T h e h isto ry o f the p eoples o f th e S c a n d in a v ia n p e n in su la b egins in ea rn est
w ith th e irru p tio n o f th e V ikings in to E u ro p e in th e ea rly n in th ce n tu ry . T h e
rea so n s fo r th is h u m a n e x p lo sio n , w hich to o k N o rw e g ian s d o w n th e o u te r
c o a sts o f S c o tla n d a n d Irelan d a n d th ro u g h th e stra its o f G ib ra lta r, an d
 Europe: The Old Continuous Nations 67

D an e s to th e e a st c o a st o f E n g la n d , n o r th e r n F ra n c e a n d n o rth e rn
G e rm a n y , rem a in o b scu re. It seem s possib le th a t th e re w as a large in crease
o f p o p u la tio n in th e p rec ed in g p erio d , w hich in a c o u n try w ith lim ited
a g ric u ltu ra l resources a n d w ith in h a b ita n ts a c c u sto m e d to th e sea, w o u ld
be likely to d riv e peo p le to overseas e x p e d itio n s. Q u a rre ls betw een rival
lead ers, in sm all co m m u n ities se p a ra te d fro m each o th e r by m o u n ta in
ran g es, p ro b a b ly also played th e ir p a rt. W h a t is c e rta in is th a t th e
N o rw e g ian s desig n ed , a n d p ro d u c e d in su fficien t n u m b e rs, a new an d
o u tsta n d in g ly successful ty p e o f sh ip , c a p a b le o f tr a n s p o rtin g in v a d in g
fo rces fo r long d istan c es ov er th e op en o cean . W hy th is te c h n o lo g ic a l leap
fo rw a rd ca m e in N o rw a y , a n d n o t elsew here, is also o b sc u re .33
T h e p eoples o f S c a n d in a v ia , very sim ila r to each o th e r in la n g u ag e an d
c u ltu re , b ecam e o rg an ise d in to th ree sta te s, in all o f w hich C h ristia n ity
becam e officially estab lish ed d esp ite p ro lo n g e d fierce resistan ce, an d
p o litica l in stitu tio n s b ecam e deeply influenced by th o se o f th e G e rm a n -
L a tin W est. T hese p rocesses w ere essen tially c o m p leted by th e e arly tw elfth
ce n tu ry . E ach o f th e th re e w as pulled by g e o g ra p h ic a l forces in d iffe ren t
d irec tio n s.
D e n m a rk , th e m o st p o p u lo u s o f the th re e , th e rich est in a g ric u ltu ra l
reso u rce s an d th e n e a re st to C h riste n d o m , w as pulled to w a rd s th e N o rth
S ea a n d th e w estern p a rt o f th e s o u th B altic co ast. T h e first D an ish
b ish o p ric s w ere fo u n d ed in th e m id -te n th c e n tu ry , K ing H a ra ld B lu eto o th
w as co n v e rted in 960, a n d th e a rc h b ish o p ric o f L und w as e stab lish ed in
1104. T h e g re a t kin g C a n u te u n ite d E n g la n d , N o rw a y a n d D e n m a rk u n d e r
his rule, b u t a fte r he died in 1035 his k in g d o m b ro k e up. D e n m a rk itself,
ho w ev er, rem ain ed th e nu cleu s o f a stro n g sta te , c o m p e tin g w ith th e
G e rm a n H a n sa cities fo r th e B altic tra d e , in allia n ce o r in co n flict w ith th e
G e rm a n em p ero r.
T h e N o rw e g ian sta te w as b ased essen tially on th e so u th -w e ste rn ‘b u lg e’
o f th e S c a n d in a v ia n p e n in su la , its m ain ce n tres being O slo , B ergen an d
T ro n d je m . T he fa r n o r th w as very th in ly in h a b ite d . T h e first C h ristia n ru ler
w as O la f T ry g g v a so n , w ho re tu rn e d fro m E n g la n d in 995 a d e v o u t
C h ristia n . H e w as d efe ate d a n d killed in b a ttle a t S o ld in 1000, a n d N o rw a y
cam e u n d e r D a n ish rule fo r tw en ty years. T h e n ex t N o rw e g ian ru ler, O la f
H a ra ld sso n , la te r ca n o n ise d as S t O laf, w aged w ar w ith v a ria b le success
a g a in st th e D an e s, w hile fo rc ib ly C h ristia n isin g his ow n su b jects. H e w as
killed a t th e b a ttle o f S tik le sta d o n 29 J u ly 1030 by an a rm y o f reb ellio u s
p ea sa n ts. T h is ev en t c a n be v a rio u sly in te rp re te d as th e m a rty rd o m o f a
sa in t a n d n a tio n a l h e ro , o r as th e v ic to ry o f th e e m b a ttle d p eo p le a g a in st a
V iking ru le r b en t o n p e rso n a l revenge, u sin g D a n ish an d S w ed ish tro o p s to
m ak e g o o d his claim s, a n d b a c k e d by lesser n o b le m e n g reed y fo r th e la n d s
o f b igger n o b le m en . H is successo r M a g n u s (1030-54) c o m p leted th e
c o n v e rsio n o f N o rw a y by m ild er m e th o d s a n d m a d e e ffo rts to reco n cile
68 Nations and States

ruler a n d people. N o rw a y essentially faced o u tw a r d to th e ocean, an d

p o u r e d fo rth its m a n p o w e r o n d ista n t lands. T h ey colonised Iceland an d
G r e e n la n d , a n d the N o rw e g ia n em p ire survived in the H eb rid e s until 1263
a n d in O rk n e y a n d S h e tla n d u n til 1450. T h e S co ttish a n d Irish n a tio n s were
la rgely d esce nded f r o m N o rw e g ian s, w h o se role in h u m a n history has th u s
bee n a g o o d deal larger t h a n th e f o rm a l rec o rd of the N o rw e g ia n state, the
w ea k est o f the three S c a n d in a v ia n states, w o u ld suggest.
T h e S w e d ish state c a m e into being by the u n io n o f tw o peoples, th e Svea
a n d th e G o th s , u n d e r K ing S v e rk e r in 1134. Its nucleus w as in the region
a r o u n d lakes M â la r, V à n e r a n d V atten. T h e so u th o f the S c a n d in a v ia n
p e n in su la (the provinces o f S can ia a n d H allan d ), exc ep t for a few brief
intervals, fo rm e d p a r t o f the k in g d o m o f D e n m a r k ; while th e far n o r th had
a sparse p o p u la tio n o f F in n s a n d L app s. C h ristia n missions c a m e to
S w e d e n in the eleventh ce n tu ry , b u t the p a g a n religion, ce ntred o n its shrine
in U p p sala, resisted well into the tw elfth. U p p sala only becam e the
a rc h ié p is c o p a l seat o f S w e d en in 1164, a n d the first c o r o n a tio n o f a
S w e d ish kin g by a n a r c h b is h o p was th a t o f Erik K n u ts s o n in 1210. S w eden
faced ea stw a rd s, across th e Baltic to th e rivers w hose c o u rse led up to the
w ate rsh ed fro m w hich m u c h gre a te r rivers desce nded th r o u g h R ussia to the
Black S ea a n d the C a sp ia n . T r a d e w ent by these river ro u tes to B yzantium ,
D a m a s c u s a n d B aghd ad: U m ay y a d as well as A b b a sid coins were fo u n d on
the island o f G o tla n d . S w edes played a p a r t (su b se q u e n tly m u c h contested
ow in g to the n a tio n a list p assions o f h isto ria n s) in the f o u n d a ti o n o f the
R u s sia n sta te of Kiev. In the th ir te e n th ce n tu ry S w edish rulers also
a d v a n c e d , f u r th e r to the n o r th , across the G u lf o f B o th n ia into F in lan d ,
claim in g fo r their c o n q u e s ts over th e p a g a n F in n s the c h a r a c te r of
crusad es. T h e resistance o f R u ssian princes was o v erc o m e, a n d by the
P eac e o f N ô te b o r g o f 1323 m o st o f F in la n d bec am e S w edish. T h e people
b e c am e C h ristia n s b u t k e p t their o w n a b s o lu te ly d istin ct language. S w e d ­
ish n o b le m e n ac q u ire d large trac ts o f land, a n d in th e few cities the
m e rc h a n ts w ere m ostly S w edes o r G e r m a n s . F o r S w e dish m edieval rulers
the m a in e n e m y in the Baltic w ere th e R ussian s. R e la tio n s w ith the G e r m a n
H a n s a cities, w hich h a d in Visby o n the island o f G o tla n d o n e of th e ir m ost
im p o r ta n t tr a d in g centres, w ere se ld o m co rd ia l, b u t they te n d ed to be
u n ea sy allies a g a in st th e ir c o m m o n rival the k ing o f D e n m a r k .
D u rin g th e fo u rte e n th a n d fifteenth cen tu ries c o n t r a d ic t o r y forces
o p e r a te d for a n d a g a in st the u n io n o f the S c a n d in a v ia n kin g d o m s. T he
a m b itio n s o f individuals a n d o f cliques w ere tied u p w ith flu ctu atin g
political a n d social d isc o n te n ts affecting larger n u m b e rs. N o rw a y an d
S w e d en c a m e u n d e r on e ru ler in 1319, b u t th e u n io n was dissolved in 1363.
Princess M a rg a re t o f D e n m a r k m a rrie d th e king o f N o rw a y , a n d succeeded
to the th r o n e s o f b o th D e n m a r k a n d N o rw a y af te r the d e a th s o f her
h u s b a n d a n d son. In 1388 rebellious S w edish n o b le m e n invited M a rg a re t
 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 69

to b ec o m e sovereign o f S w e d e n as well. In 1397 a n assem b ly o f re p re s e n ta ­

tives o f all th ree k in g d o m s at K a lm a r agre ed o n a U n io n o f D e n m a r k ,
N o r w a y a n d S w e den, each o f w hich was, how ever, to preserve its ow n
institutions. M a rg a re t’s successor a n ta g o n is e d leading S w edes by his
reliance on D a n is h a n d G e r m a n advisers even in th e g o v ern in g o f S w eden;
a n d his inv olvem ent o f S w eden in Baltic w ars d a m a g e d w ider S w edish
e c o n o m ic interests. In 1434 a n d 1436 the m iners a n d p ea sa n ts o f the
D a la r n a region, in alliance w ith p a r t o f the nobility, revolted a g a in st the
king, a n d in 1439 he was d ep o sed . T h u s in th e th ird q u a r te r o f the fifteenth
c e n tu ry S w eden was in fact a n in d e p e n d e n t state, t h o u g h the D a n is h king
still h a d claim s to sovereignty, an d was still su p p o r te d by pow erful factions
in S w eden. A f o rm a l re sto r a tio n o f th e U n io n o f K a lm a r in 1483 s o o n
b e c a m e a fiction. S w ed en, u n d e r the regency o f three m e m b e rs o f the
aristo cratic S tu re family, w as again in d e p e n d e n t.
T hese p ro tra c te d struggles h ad three d istinct b u t related aspects. O ne
w as the effort by p a r t o f th e S w edish nobility a n d free p e a s a n try to win
c o n s titu tio n a l rights, in th e face o f the D a n is h kings’ atte m p ts , b a c k e d by
a n o t h e r p a r t o f the nobility, to set up a fo rm o f centralised roy al a b s o lu t­
ism. In this effort th e social a s p ira tio n s a n d e c o n o m ic grievances of
p e a sa n ts an d to w n s m e n also played a n im p o r ta n t part. A t the sam e tim e
there was, especially in the central provinces o f Sw eden, g ro w in g aw a re ness
o f th e difference betw een Sw edes a n d D a n e s , a n d a n unw illingness to be
ruled by D a n is h m o n a rc h s . T h irdly, in th ese years th e d isc o n te n t w ith the
ab uses o f p o w er by the C a th o lic hie ra rc h y, w hich was g ro w in g o n the
E u r o p e a n m a in la n d , w as sp re a d in g also to S c a n d i n a v ia — especially in
D e n m a r k , less in S w e d e n a n d least o f all in the m o r e d is ta n t N o rw a y a n d
Iceland.
All three trends c a m e to g e th e r in the crisis o f 1518-23, w h en C h ristia n II
o f D e n m a r k , a n energetic a n d gifted m o n a r c h w ith s tr o n g ab s o lu tist
inclinations, in vaded S w e d en w ith a large a r m y to reclaim his heritage,
s u p p o r te d by the h a te d a r c h b is h o p o f U p p sa la , G u sta v T rolle. C h r is tia n ’s
a i m w as to create a single centralised m o n a r c h y over all S c an d in av ia ,
w h ich w ou ld have been a m a jo r E u r o p e a n p ow er. H e was a t first successful.
H e c a p tu r e d S to c k h o lm , a n d had eighty lead in g Sw edes exe cu ted o n
ch a rg es o f heresy w hich, it w as quite clear, w ere politically m o tiv ate d . But
C h r is tia n ’s tr iu m p h was brief. A leadin g S w e dish n o b le m a n , G u sta v Vasa,
raised rebellion in D a la r n a , th o u s a n d s j o in e d his cause, a n d w ith the help
o f th e H a n s a city o f L ü b e c k th e D a n is h forces w ere d riv en o u t o f S w eden.
T his in t u r n led to the o v e r th r o w o f C h r is tia n II by his D a n is h subjects.
In th e follow ing decades b o th D e n m a r k a n d S w e d en w ere ravag ed by
d isp u te d successions, a risto c ra tic factions a n d p o p u la r in surrec tio ns. In
b o th co u n tries P r o te s ta n tis m prevailed, partly t h r o u g h religious co nvic­
tion a n d partly th r o u g h th e desire o f the m o n a rc h s to get th e ir h a n d s o n the
70 Nations and States

w ealth of the bishops, a n d o f th e n obles to seize m o n a s tic lands. F r o m this

p e r io d o f social, political a n d religious u p h e a v a l th e re em erg ed n o t only
tw o states, b u t also d istinct S w edish a n d D a n is h n a t io n a l consciousnesses,
by n o m e a n s confined to the u p p e r classes b u t e x te n d in g also to to w n sm e n
a n d pea sa nts. T he tw o states bec am e b itter rivals fo r s u p r e m a c y in the
Baltic. F o r a s h o rt tim e a t the end o f the six tee n th c e n tu r y — w h en the
G e r m a n cities were in decline, the D u tc h w ere stru ggling fo r th e ir lives
a g a in st S p a in , a n d S w e d en a n d P o la n d were involved in a dy nastic
stru ggle— D e n m a r k was the leading Baltic pow er. H ow ever, on ce the V asa
d y n a s ty was firm ly establish ed, the a r m y refo rm ed a n d a s tr o n g a r m a m e n t
in d u s try cre ate d (with s o m e help f r o m th e econ o m ic ally m o r e a d v a n c e d
D u tc h ) , S w e d en f a r o u td is ta n c e d her rival, a n d b e c a m e o n e o f the great
p o w ers o f E u ro p e .
N o rw a y r em a in ed u n ite d w ith D e n m a r k . A n a t te m p t by C h ristia n II in
1531 to use N o rw a y as a base fro m w hich to recov er his k in g d o m , w ith the
help o f the N o rw e g ia n h ie ra rc h y a n d o f so m e S w e dish C a th o lic exiles
in clud ing G u sta v T rolle, was d e f e a te d , a n d b r o u g h t the w ra th o f the victor
o n th e N o rw egians. C h r istia n III (1535-59) d ec la re d in 1536 th a t N o rw a y
‘h ere after shall n o t be o r be called a k in g d o m a p a r t, b u t a d ep e n d e n c y o f the
D a n is h rea lm a n d C r o w n fo r all tim e’. T h is th r e a t was only partly achieved.
N o rw a y still retained its old judicial a n d a d m in istra tiv e stru c tu re , but a
s w a r m o f D a n is h la n d o w n e r s a n d officials d esce n d ed o n its people. T h e
a d v a n c e o f P ro te s ta n tis m was slow er t h a n in D e n m a r k o r S w ed en, a n d still
slow er in Iceland, b u t it w as essentially c o m p le te d by the en d of the century.
In 1660 N o r w a y ’s p o sitio n in relation to D e n m a r k so m e w h a t im prove d,
w h e n the in tr o d u c tio n o f royal a b s o lu tis m in D e n m a r k placed the tw o
k in g d o m s o n a f o o tin g o f eq u a lity u n d e r the sam e ruler. T his was follow ed
by im p r o v e m e n ts in the m a te r ia l c o n d itio n o f p e a sa n ts a n d to w n sm e n .
N o rw e g ia n n a t io n a l co nsciousne ss w as less dev e lo p e d t h a n D a n is h or
S w edish, b u t it survived in d o r m a n t form .
T h e invo lv e m e n t o f b o th D e n m a r k a n d S w e d en o n the P r o te s ta n t side in
the T h ir ty Years W a r , S w e d e n ’s te rrito ria l e x p a n s io n o n th e so u th e rn
Baltic c o a st, a n d th e conflict betw een S w e d e n a n d R ussia u n d e r C ha rles
X II a n d P e te r the G re a t d o n o t b elo n g to the m a in th e m e o f this b o o k . O n e
m u st ho w ev e r m e n tio n th e repeated struggle betw e en S w e d en a n d D e n ­
m a r k fo r th e s o u th e rn e x tre m ity o f th e S c a n d in a v ia n p e n in su la a n d fo r the
islands o f the w estern Baltic. S w e d en ’s tr a d i n g interests c o u ld n o t be secure
as lon g as b o th sides o f th e S o u n d (the sea p assage c o n n e c tin g the Baltic
w ith the N o r t h Sea) were in D a n is h sovereignty. A t the e n d o f the sixtee n th
c e n tu r y S w e d e n ’s only direct access to the N o r t h S ea w as by a n a r r o w strip
o f c o a st betw een N o rw e g ia n a n d D a n is h la n d , o n w hich the p o r t o f
G o th e n b u r g was built. It b e c am e a m a in a i m o f S w e dish policy to a n n e x
H a lla n d a n d S cania, a n d so a tta in n a t u r a l fro n tiers a lo n g the w hole coast.
 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 71

By the Peace o f B r o m se b ro in 1645 the S w edes a c q u ire d H a lla n d , as well

as the Baltic islands o f Osel a n d G o tla n d . In 1658 by the P eac e o f R osk ild e
C h a rle s X o f S w e d en a c q u ir e d Scania. C h a rle s n o w n o u rish e d m u c h th e
sa m e a m b itio n as C h ristia n II a ce n tu ry a n d a h a lf earlier to cre ate a single
S c a n d in a v ia n em pire, this tim e u n d e r th e su p r e m a c y o f S w eden. H ow ever,
the p ea sa n ts o f S can ia felt allegiance r a th e r to the D a n is h th a n to the
S w edish cro w n , a n d they did n o t like th e regim e installed by the Swedes.
W h e n w ar b r o k e o u t ag a in , the S c a n ia n s revolted aga in st S w eden , b u t by
th e Peace o f C o p e n h a g e n o f M a y 1660 S c a n ia was re tu r n e d to Sw ed en. In
th e n e x t S w e d ish -D a n ish w ar, fro m 1675 to 1679, the S c a n ia n s aga in
w elcom ed a n d helped th e D anes, b u t o n ce m o r e S can ia w as left to S w eden
by th e peace trea ty (signed at F o n ta in e b le a u in S e p te m b e r 1679). In th e
n ex t th irty years it w o u ld seem th a t S w e d ish n a t io n a l consciousness
replaced D a n is h in S can ia; for w hen the D a n e s aga in invaded the p rovince
in 1709 the S c a n ia n s show ed them selves loyal to Sw eden. T h o u g h the
people o f the so u th e rn provinces c o n tin u e d right u p to prese nt tim es to
speak dialects in s o m e ways closer to D a n is h th a n to Sw edish, th ey becam e
Swedes.

In the eig h teen th c e n tu ry the rise of R ussian po w er becam e a th re a t to the

S w edish hold over F in lan d . R u sso -S w ed ish w ars w ere f o u g h t in F in la n d in
1741-43, 1788-90 a n d 1808-09. T h e last o f these en d e d w ith the se p a r a tio n
o f F in la n d from S w e d en, a p p r o v e d by N a p o le o n w h o w as t h e n the ally of
T s a r A le x a n d e r I. T h e ts a r recognised the legal system w h ich h a d b een in
o p e r a tio n d u r in g five cen turies o f a s so c ia tio n w ith S w e d en, a n d the
P r o te s ta n t religion w hich the F inns h ad a c q u ir e d as a c o n s eq u e n ce o f the
S w edish R e fo rm a tio n . H e established a n elected D iet o f F in la n d , based o n
estates as the S w edish Riksdag h a d been. It w as generally believed th a t the
G r a n d D u c h y o f F in la n d was a state d istinct from the R u s s ia n em p ire but
s h a rin g a c o m m o n ruler, not t h a t F in la n d h a d b een in c o rp o r a te d in Russia.
T h e first D iet m e t a t Borg& in 1809, a n d was a d d re sse d by the tsa r in person,
b u t was n o t s u m m o n e d a g a in fo r m o r e t h a n fifty years. T h e practical
c o n d u c t o f affairs w as in the h a n d s o f S w edes, w h o f o rm e d a lm o s t the
w h ole la n d o w n in g class a n d m o st o f th e m o r e p r o s p e r o u s to w n sm e n .
S w edish was th e official lan g u ag e o f th e c o u n try , t h o u g h a b o u t 85 percent
o f th e p o p u la tio n w ere F in n ish -sp ea k in g . H ig h e r e d u c a tio n w as c o n d u c te d
in S w edish, a n d p r im a ry e d u c a tio n w as still very sparse.
G ra d u a lly d u r in g th e first h a l f o f the n in e te e n th ce n tu ry th e re em erged
fro m the F in n ish m a jo r ity a sm all e d u c a te d elite, w hich h ad benefited fully
fro m Sw edish c u ltu re b u t b e g a n to d e m a n d o n b e h a lf o f its u n e d u c a te d
c o m p a tr io ts a n e d u c a tio n in F innish, a n d the use o f F in n is h side by side
w ith Sw edish in pub lic life. T h e F in n ish n a t io n a l m o v e m e n t w hich now
72 Nations and States

dev e lo p e d w as b ased essentially on la n g u ag e , a n d w as d irected n o t against

the R u s sia n g o v e r n m e n t b u t a g a in st th e S w e d ish -sp ea k in g privileged
classes. It resem b led closely the n a tio n a l m o v e m e n ts, based o n la nguage,
w hich aro se in C e n tra l E u r o p e a n d the B alkans, a n d w hich a re discussed in
a la ter c h a p te r; b u t we m e n tio n it here b ecause the f o r m a tio n o f the F innish
n a tio n is m o s t c o nve n ie ntly tre a te d in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e o th e r S c a n d i n a ­
vian nations.
As in C e n tr a l E u ro p e , th e leaders o f the n a tio n a l m o v e m e n t were p ersons
w h ose p rofessio n largely consisted of th e h a n d lin g o f language: writers,
teachers, p a s to rs a n d lawyers. T h e stu d y o f folklore a n d th e rediscovery
a n d piecing to g e th e r o f p o p u la r epic p o e try w ent to g e th e r w ith the
p u b lic a tio n o f g r a m m a r s a n d d ictionaries, a n d led to th e a p p e a r a n c e of
periodicals w hich served to s ta n d a r d ise a F in n ish literary language, on
b e h a lf o f w h ich s tr o n g e r political d e m a n d s could be a d v a n ce d .
A d istin c tio n m u s t be m a d e at this p o in t b etw een F in n s (w hose language
is F in n ish ) a n d F in la n d e r s (a te r m w h ich includes b o th F in n s a n d S w e d ish­
s p e ak in g in h a b ita n ts o f F in lan d ). F in la n d e r s s h o w ed them selves loyal
subjects o f th e ir g r a n d - d u k e even in the C r im e a n W a r, an d the g o v ern m e n t
o f S w e d en resisted the efforts o f the British a n d F re n c h to bring it into the
w a r a g a in st Russia. T h e g r a n d - d u k e ( w h o was also T s a r A le x a n d e r 11 of
Russia) w as well pleased w ith his F in lan d e rs. In 1863 he decided to
s u m m o n th e Diet. It passed several refo rm s in fin an c e a n d e d u c a tio n , an d
in tro d u c e d o n 1 A u g u st 1863 a L a n g u a g e O rdinance>w hich laid d o w n th a t
F in n ish sh o u ld be p laced o n a n e q u a l level w ith S w e dish in all public
business w ithin tw en ty years. T h e im p le m e n ta tio n a n d e x ten sio n o f this
m e a su re d u r in g the n e x t d ecad es was a c e n tra l issue in the politics of
F inland: th e S w e d ish -sp e a k in g m inority, b e tte r e d u c a te d a n d b etter placed
in the m a c h in e ry o f g o v e r n m e n t, tried to r e ta rd the process, while the m ain
natio n alist p arty , th e Old Finns, pressed their case a n d enjoyed a g o o d deal
o f s y m p a th y a m o n g the h ig h e r civil se rva nts in S t P etersburg.
T h is s itu a tio n c h a n g ed in the 1890s. T h e re n o w existed su bstantia l
F in n ish profession al a n d business classes, w ith friendly a t titu d e s to w a r d s
the Russians. It was the R u s sia n g o v e r n m e n t w hich forfeited this loyalty
a n d friendship by d e n y in g the s e p arate s ta te h o o d o f F in la n d a n d insisting
th a t it was a province o f th e R u s sia n em pire. T his c h a n g e d a t titu d e was p art
o f a general policy c o m m o n ly k n o w n as R u ssifica tion , w h ich is discussed
later, It suffices here to say t h a t the new policy had the effect o f bringing
I inns a n d S w e d ish -sp ea k in g F in la n d e r s to g e th e r in a c o m m o n hostility to
Russia. I his rem a ined tr u e u n til F in la n d b ec am e a n in d e p e n d e n t sta te in
1918, It is also true that in d e p e n d e n c e was the result o f a b itte r civil w ar, but
it was fo u ght between classes, n o t betw e en language g rou ps: th e re were
I inns a n d S w e d ish -sp ea k ers a m o n g b o th R eds a n d Whites.
I lie course o! I in la nd’s histo ry in the n ex t half ce n tu ry was far fro m
 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 73

sm o o th , but it included one r e m a rk a b le a c h ie v em e n t, w hich m a d e F in lan d

u n iq u e a m o n g the new states o f the tw en tieth century. T h o u g h the F inns
f o rm e d a n o v erw helm ing m a jority, they n o t only preserved eq u a l sta tu s for
the S w edish language in are as w hich h a d S w e d ish -sp ea k in g p o p u la tio n s,
b u t genuinely ac cepted their S w e d ish -sp ea k in g fellow-citizens as equals.
F o r their p art, S w e d ish -sp ea k in g F in la n d e rs genuinely ac cepted F in la n d as
their co u n try , while reta in in g th e ir S w edish n a tio n a l culture. T h u s one
eq u a l citizenship a n d tw o n a tio n s existed peacefully side by side w ithin one
state.

D u rin g the last stages o f the N a p o le o n ic w ars F rederick VI of D e n m a r k

(1808-39) rem a ined loyal to the F re n ch e m p e r o r, while K ing C harles XIV
of S w eden (the F re n c h - b o r n fo rm e r N a p o le o n ic m a rsh a l B e rn a d o tte )
persua ded first the R u s sia n tsa r an d then the o th e r allies th a t he should be
c o m p e n sa te d for the loss o f F in lan d to R u ssia by his pred ecessor in 1809,
a n d rew arded fo r his m ilitary c o n t r i b u tio n to the defeat o f N a p o le o n , by
a n n e x in g N orw a y. W h e n F rederick re n o u n c e d N o rw a y o n 14 J a n u a r y
1814, the N orw egians them selves wished to be com pletely ind e p en d e n t,
a n d an assem bly held at the Eidsvold iron w o rk s n ea r C h r is tia n ia 34 a d o p t e d
on 10 A pril a new c o n s titu tio n . T he N o rw e g ia n cro w n w as offered to
P rince C h ristia n F re d erick o f D e n m a r k , w h o accepted it. T h e S wedish
king was obliged to invade N o rw a y , b u t th ere was n o t m u c h a r m e d
resistance. T he c o n s titu tio n w hich C h a rles X IV accepted w as a m odified
version o f th e Eidsvold d o c u m e n t. N o rw a y was declared to be a n in d e p e n ­
d e n t k in g d o m united w ith S w eden by a c o m m o n m o n a rc h .
D u rin g the n in e tee n th c e n tu ry N o rw e g ia n n a tio n a l feeling grew
strong er. This was closely co nne cted w ith c o n tro v e rs y a b o u t the language.
T h e re had always been several dialects in N o rw a y . T h e R e f o r m a tio n cam e
to N o rw a y in D a n is h tr a n sla tio n s of the scriptures, an d the e d u c ated class
learned D an ish , while the people as a w hole c o n tin u e d to use their
respective dialects. W ritte n a n d p rin te d N o rw e g ia n w as essentially the
sam e as D an ish , t h o u g h it included a ce rtain n u m b e r o f specifically
N o rw e g ia n w o rd s a n d expressions. In th e 1840s there w as a g row ing
interest in folklore, p o p u la r stories a n d poetry. F r o m th is develo ped a
m o v e m e n t to create a genuinely N o rw e g ia n w ritte n language. T h e o u t ­
s ta n d in g figure was Ivar A asen, w ho p r o d u c e d in 1848 a new N orw e g ian
g r a m m a r , a n d in 1850 a N o rw e g ia n d ic tio n a ry . H e a n d his follow ers urged
landsmal
the a d o p t io n o f (lan g u a g e o f th e co u n try ), based to a large ex ten t
o n old N orse, in c o n t r a s t to the existing literary language ( riksmal ). Even
before A a se n ’s tim e th e w ritte n lang uage h a d been p r o n o u n c e d quite
differently fro m th e D a n is h w hich it so closely resem bled o n the printed
page. F r o m A a se n ’s tim e o n w a r d s , as w riters a n d jo u r n a lis ts felt the need
74 Nations and States

to in tr o d u c e m o r e a n d m o r e p o p u la r ex p re ssio n s into th e ir w o rk , w ritten

N o rw e g ia n diverged increasingly fro m D anish. N evertheless the differen­
ces betw e en w ritte n a n d s p o k e n N o rw e g ia n , w hich fro m th e 1930s c a m e to
be called boksmal (‘b o o k la n g u a g e ’) a n d nynorsk (‘new N o rw e g ia n ’),
r e m a in e d real u p to the present.
A t the en d o f the c e n tu r y N o rw e g ia n n a tio n a lis m h a d b e c o m e a s tro n g
force. It w as p artly s tim u la te d by th e in te r n a tio n a l r e p u ta tio n w o n by such
grea t figures as the w riters Ibsen a n d Bjeirnson a n d the e x p lo re rs N an se n
an d A m u n d s o n . M o re im p o r ta n t were g row ing differences betw een the
tr a d i n g interests o f N o rw a y a n d S w eden. In 1895 the N o rw e g ian g o v e rn ­
m e n t d e m a n d e d a s e p a ra te c o n s u la r service for N o rw a y , w hich the S w edish
c ro w n , bac k ed by Sw edish public o p in io n , refused. T h e final crisis cam e in
the sp ring o f 1905. T he p rim e m inister o f N o rw a y , a Bergen sh ip o w n e r
n a m e d P e te r M ichelsen, p assed a bill t h r o u g h th e N o rw e g ia n p a rlia m e n t
Storthing
(, ) creating the se p a r a te c o n s u la r service. T h e king vetoed it o n 27
M ay. T h ere was a d e a d lo c k , as no N o rw e g ia n politician w ould fo rm a
m inistry to c a rry o u t Sw edish policies. O n 7 J u n e th e Storthing declared
th a t, as the kin g was u n a b le to find m en to gov ern on his behalf, th e royal
p o w e r h ad ceased to fu n ctio n , a n d the u n io n w ith S w e d en u n d e r one
m o n a r c h was dissolved. T h e Sw edish g o v e r n m e n t, unw illing to use force
ag a in st N o rw a y , accep ted the facts, a n d by the K arlsta d C o n v e n tio n s of 23
S e p te m b e r 1905 N o rw a y bec am e a n in d e p e n d e n t kin g d o m .
T h e last S c a n d in a v ia n state to co m e into existence was Iceland, w hich
se p a r a te d fro m D e n m a r k in several stages. It o b ta in e d effective h o m e rule
in 1874; w as recognised as a n in d e p e n d e n t state linked w ith D e n m a r k only
by a c o m m o n m o n a r c h y in 1918; a n d fo rm a lly p ro cla im e d the u n io n
dissolved in 1944. T h e u n io n had alw ays been loose. Icelanders ruled
them selves, a n d their se p a r a te n a tio n a l c h a r a c te r was preserved n o t only by
the utte rly different physical c o n d itio n s in w hich they lived b u t still m o r e by
th e ir lan guag e, w hich h a d r em a in ed close to th e old N o rse o f the Sagas
d u r in g the centuries in w hich m o d e rn S w edish a n d D a n is h h ad evolved an d
g r o w n sim pler. T h e still m o r e re m o te a n d very thinly p o p u la te d G re e n la n d
r e m a in e d u n d e r D a n is h sovereignty.
In th e c e n tu r y a n d a q u a r t e r follow ing th e N a p o le o n ic w ars all S c a n d i n a ­
via h a d enjoyed a lm o st u n in te r r u p te d pea ce .35 All th e S c a n d in a v ia n
n a tio n s grew p ro sp e ro u s, a n d a d o p t e d successful d e m o c r a tic institutions,
in very m u c h the sam e way. T h e n o tio n o f S c a n d in a v ia n solidarity was
w id esp re ad , t h o u g h it s to p p e d s h o rt o f a n y serious a t t e m p t a t political
u n ion. W h e n F in la n d b ec am e in d e p e n d e n t, it was re g a rd e d as a S c a n d i n a ­
vian state, t h o u g h its p eople w ere m u c h p o o r e r a n d its political life m u c h
s to r m ie r t h a n th o se o f its w estern n e ig h b o u rs. As lon g as peace a n d
n eu tra lity prevailed, S c a n d in a v ia n fra te r n a l se n tim e n ts w ere a n in e x p e n ­
sive luxury. But the S eco n d W o rld W a r engulfed all S c a n d in a v ia except
 Europe: The Old Continuous Nations 75

S w eden. T he spectacle o f S w edes g ro w in g richer o n n eutrality, while they

them selves suffered o c c u p a tio n by H itler’s arm ies, revived la ten t ill-will
a m o n g D an es a n d N o rw e g ia n s ag a in st Swedes. O n the o th e r h a n d it m ay
be arg u e d th a t S w e d e n ’s a r m e d neutra lity helped to d issu ad e the Soviet
le aders from tre a tin g F in la n d harshly in the h o u r o f victory, a n d th a t
Soviet reluctance to align S w e d en w ith h e r enem ies in the 1950s saved
F in la n d ’s indep endence.
S c a n d in a v ia n solidarity in th e 1970s was n o t j u s t rhetoric. T h e re were
five n atio n s, each w ith its in d e p e n d e n t state: Swedes, D an e s, N orw egian s,
Icelanders a n d Finns. T h e five were b o u n d by a n aw a re ness th a t they had
very sim ilar cultures a n d social system s, yet they w ere certainly five
natio n s, n o t one.

The Swiss
S w itze rland has long been a n e x c ep tio n , f r o m the p o in t o f view of
natio n ality , in E u ro p e , a n d indeed in the w h ole w orld. In S w itzerland
several la nguages were s p o k e n , bu t it was n o t a m u ltin a tio n a l state: rathe r,
in the n in eteenth a n d tw e n tie th centuries the Swiss were a m ultilingual
n ation . In 1960 the language o f nearly 75 percent was G e r m a n , of 20
perc ent F re n c h , o f 4 perc ent Italian a n d o f 1 perc en t R h a e t o - R o m a n s c h .
T h e first o f these figures is slightly m isleading, fo r the n o r m a l lang uage o f
these th r e e -q u a rte r s was a speech su b sta n tia lly different fro m G e r m a n ;
how ev er, a lm o s t all w ere also ca p a b le o f sp e a k in g G e r m a n , a n d learnt it at
school. T h e F re n c h s p o k e n in S w itze rland also differed significantly fro m
t h a t o f F rance: it was closer to P ro v e n ça l, a n d was claim ed as occitan by
O c c ita n ia n n a tio n a lis ts .16 R h a e t o - R o m a n s c h was a L atin dialect which
develop ed into a distinct language: in 1938 it was recognised as the fo u rth
‘n a t io n a l’ language o f S w itze rlan d, while only the o th e r th ree r em a in ed
‘official’ languages.
T h e classical d a te for the f o rm a tio n o f the Swiss C o n f e d e r a tio n is 1291,
t o w hich is officially linked the Bundesbrief ( F e d e ra l C h a rte r ) w hich united
th e th ree original c a n to n s o f Uri, S ch w y z a n d U n te rw a ld e n ; b u t a m o re
a p p r o p r ia t e d a te is 1315, w hen the a r m y o f these c a n to n s defeated th e a r m y
o f L eo p o ld o f H a b s b u r g . Z ü ric h jo in e d th e C o n f e d e r a tio n in 1351, Bern in
1353, a n d in the m id -six tee n th ce n tu ry th e re were th irte en confed erates.
T h e C o n f e d e r a tio n survived th e R e fo r m a tio n , w hich divided the p o p u la ­
tio n n o t o nly b e tw e en C a th o lics a n d P ro te s ta n ts b u t also betw een P r o te s ­
t a n t disciples o f Calvin , L u th e r a n d Zw ingli. A fter 1515 n o new territories
were a d m itte d to full m e m b e r s h ip o f the C o n f e d e r a tio n , b u t close alliance
w as m a in ta in e d w ith th e im pe rial city o f G e n e v a a n d o th e r F re n c h -
s p e ak in g lands w hich succeeded in e s c a p in g th e sovereignty o f th e king of
76 Nations and States

F ra n ce . S o m e land s o f Italian speech w ere also a n n e x e d , a n d b e c am e in

effect subject te rritories.
A d ra stic re o rg a n is a tio n occ u rre d w h e n th e a r m y o f the F re n c h R e v o lu ­
tio n o v e r r a n th e c o u n try a n d set u p a centralised H elvetic R epublic, to
w hich eight new c a n to n s w ere a d d e d , a n d in w hich all citizens w ere given
e q u a l rights including the use o f their language. In the peace se ttle m ent of
1815 the te rrito ria l ch a n g es o f th e re v o lu tio n a r y perio d were recognised,
a n d th e C o n f e d e r a tio n n o w h ad tw en ty -tw o ca n to n s. T h e un reso lved
conflicts b etw e en th e c on servative a n d rad ic al forces (w hich to so m e ex te n t
also coincided w ith the cleavage betw een C a th o lics a n d P r o te s ta n ts ) cam e
to a h e a d in the civil w a r o f 1847, in w hich a Sonderbund o f seven c a n to n s
so u g h t to b re a k aw a y but was defeated. T h e r e were n o f u rth e r changes. T he
Swiss sh a re d respectively in th e m o d e r n cultu res o f F ra n c e , Italy an d
G e r m a n y -A u s tr ia , b u t w ere n o t te m p te d to forego th e individuality an d
unity o f their c o m m o n h o m e la n d in o r d e r to m erge them selves severally in
th ree g rea t n e i g h b o u rin g n a tio n a l states. T h e d y n a m is m o f Fascist Italy
a n d o f N a ti o n a l Socialist G e r m a n y m a d e r a th e r little im pre ssion o n them:
as con servative b ourgeois, m a n y Swiss m ight agree with the a n t i­
c o m m u n is t rhetoric, but the claim s o f the Duce to infallibility a n d the
delights o f th e Fiihrerprinzip left m o st o f th e m cold.
T h e m ultilin g u a l n a tu re o f th e Swiss sta te was n o fiction, a n d Swiss of
d ifferent speech u n d o u b te d ly felt them selves to belo n g to the sam e single
n atio n . It w o u ld be to o m u c h to say t h a t m o s t Swiss were deeply im p re g ­
n a te d w ith tw o o r m o r e cultures, o r t h a t Swiss n a tio n a lity w as based o n a
synthesis o f th e th ree m a in c o n tin e n ta l W est E u r o p e a n cultures. M o st
Swiss h a d a t least a s m a tte rin g o f one o th e r language o f S w itzerland
besides th e ir ow n, t h o u g h th e th ird lan g u ag e o f th o se w h o k new th ree was
as likely to be English as a th ir d Swiss lan guag e. T h e e q u a l sta tu s o f the
lan guag es w as d u e to a m u tu a l to le ra n c e w hich w as p r o b a b ly closer to
indifference th a n to u n d e r s ta n d in g o r a d m ir a tio n .
N evertheless the successful co e xistence a n d th e f o r m a tio n o f a m ultilin ­
gual n a t io n seem m a rv e llo u s a c h ie v em e n ts w h en th e y are set beside the
long series o f F r a n c o - G e r m a n w ars a n d the d isin te g ra tio n o f A u stria-
H u n g a r y ow ing to the id e n tifica tion o f la n g u a g e g r o u p s w ith distinct
nations.
P e r h a p s the basic r e a s o n fo r the success w as geo g ra p h ica l. S w itzerland
lay ac ross som e o f the m o s t im p o r t a n t t r a d e ro u te s b e tw e en n o r th an d
so u th , west a n d east. T h e t r a d e gave rise to p r o s p e r o u s cities at the h e a d o f
the R h in e a n d R h o n e a n d beside the larger lakes; w hile beh in d the cities
were m o u n ta in valleys, difficult o f access to arm ies u n til m o d e r n times.
E xperie n ce pro v ed th a t it was to the interest o f th e m o r e po w erfu l rulers to
leave the Swiss alo n e ra th e r th a n to try to c o n q u e r them . T h e Swiss were
excellent soldiers; they proved a d m ir a b le allies to King I.ouis XI o f F rance,
 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 77

b ringing C h a rles the Bold o f B u rg u n d y to his ruin in 1477, a n d they

d efe ate d the e m p e r o r M a x im ilia n in th e S w a b ia n W a r in 1499.
Left to them selves, they did n o t neglect the m ilitary virtues: first-class
m e rc e n a ry soldiers re m a in e d on e o f th e ir p rin cip al e x p o rts. T h ey also
p r o s p e r e d in business. T h e sto rm y in te rlud e o f the F re n c h r e v o lu tio n a r y
inv asion (includ ing the brilliant retrea t c o n d u c te d th r o u g h their land by a
R ussian a r m y u n d e r S u v o ro v in 1799) was the only m a jo r b rea ch o f Swiss
n eu trality, w hich m a y be said to have d a t e d fro m 1515 a n d to have kept
S w itze rland o u t o f the T h ir ty Years W a r a n d the big E u r o p e a n w ars o f the
e ig hteenth century. In 1815 Swiss n e u tra lity bec am e p a r t o f m o d e rn
in te rn a tio n a l law, b u t w as subjected to c e rta in c o n d itio n s req u ired by the
E u r o p e a n powers. S o m e o f these the Swiss later d isreg a rd ed w ith im p u n i­
ty; a n d this has entitled th e m to claim th a t their n eu tra lity is s o m e th in g
d ec la re d an d im posed by themselves, n o t a concession o b ta in e d by peti­
t io n . 37
N e u tra lity m a d e possible th e long a n d increasing e c o n o m ic p ro sp e rity of
the Swiss, especially in the tw en tieth ce n tu ry w h en n e i g h b o u rin g lands
w ere plunged in tw o w orld wars. P ro sp e rity reinforced the preference of the
Swiss for their status: p e r h a p s increased th e ir n a tio n a l self-satisfaction.
If g e o g ra p h y m a d e possible in d epen dence a n d n eutrality, a n d n eutra lity
p rosp erity, this does n o t m e an th a t the Swiss a re n o t them selves resp o n si­
ble for their great ach ie v em e n t. In p a rtic u la r, the Swiss co n fe d eral system
based on ca n to n s, t h o u g h derived fro m the facts o f s e p a r a tio n o f valley
c o m m u n itie s fro m ea ch o th e r by high m o u n ta in barriers, w hich m a d e self-
g o v e r n m e n t in small u nits n a tu ra l, c ou ld n o t have d eve lop e d w ith o u t
ex c e p tio n a l political skill a m o n g leaders a n d a n unu su a lly c o n s tru c tiv e an d
public-spirited a t titu d e a m o n g the m ajority. T h e Swiss record o f religious
to le ran ce is also q u ite e x c ep tio n al, a n d also testifies to g rea t qualities
a m o n g the people.
T h e Swiss e x a m p le show s th a t it is possible fo r language g ro u p s an d
religious g ro u p s to g ro w to g e th e r into o n e n a tio n , w ith o u t d e s tro y in g the
indiv idual cultu re o f any. It is n o t possible fo r o th e r peoples to a d o p t,
rea d y -m a d e , either the geo g ra p h ica l s itu a tio n o r the historical experience
o f the Swiss; b u t o th e r n atio n s, b o th new a n d old, ca n learn fro m them .

The Russians
T h e first R u s sia n state grew a lo n g the valley o f th e river D n iep e r. Its ca pital
was Kiev, built o n th e river in the b o r d e r z o n e betw een the n o r th e r n forests
a n d th e s o u th e rn steppes. Its p eople s p o k e d ialects fro m w h ich are derived
th e m o d e rn e a ste rn S lav la n g u a g e s— R u s sia n , U k r a in ia n a n d B yelorus­
sian. T he early histo ry o f the peoples o f S lav speech, a n d the e x te n t o f the
78 Nations and States

lan d w hich they in h a b ite d , rem a in s o bscure. T h e D n ie p e r valley fo rm e d an

im p o r ta n t p a r t o f the t r a d e r o u te betw een S w e d en a n d B yzantium , a n d
th e re w ere S c a n d in a v ia n s a m o n g the fo u n d e r s o f Kiev R us, as the state
c a m e to be called. H o w ev er, a m o n g its subjects S lavs f o rm e d th e o v er­
w h elm in g m a jo rity , a n d s o o n the rulers to o a d o p t e d the speech an d
c u s to m s o f the people.
C h r istia n ity reached K iev fro m B ulgaria a t the en d o f th e n in th century,
a n d a c e n tu r y later the G re a t P rin c e V lad im ir m a d e it th e official state
religion, w ith the blessing o f the e m p e r o r a n d the p a tr i a r c h o f C o n s ta n ti n o ­
ple. T h e language k n o w n as C h u r c h S lavonic, w hich h ad develop ed in the
B ulgarian ch u rc h as a result o f the la b o u rs o f S t C yril a n d St M e th o d iu s,
the em issaries o f th e p a tr i a r c h o f C o n s ta n tin o p le , b e c am e th e language of
the R u s s ia n churc h. T h e S lav o -B y z an tin e m ixed cu ltu re w hich h a d been
g ro w in g u p in B ulgaria t o o k o n a new f o r m in R ussia. Kiev R u s becam e
p a r t o f th e Byzantine C o m m o n w e a lth . 38 T h e new state also e x ten d e d its
c u ltu ra l influence a n d its political a u t h o r i ty to the n o r th a n d n orth-w est,
f a r in to th e forest zone, c o m in g into c o n ta c t w ith peoples o f F in n o -U g r ia n
speech, stretching fro m th e E sto n ia n s o n th e Baltic co a st to the U d m u r ts o f
th e m id d le V olga valley.
Kiev R u s did n o t long re m a in a large single state. T h e c o m p lic a te d rules
o f th e princely succession led to sub divisio n o f te rr ito r y a n d to arm e d
struggles betw een rival claim an ts. T h e so u th e rn la nds w ere also o pen to
rep e ate d atta c k s, varying in scale fro m m in o r raids to m a jo r invasions, by
n o m a d ic p eoples o f T u r k i c speech. T h e steppes to the n o r th o f th e Black
Sea w ere sparsely in h a b ite d ; th e re was n o t m u c h settled ag riculture; an d
vast a re a s w ere a n o m a n ’s la n d in w hich sm all o r large b a n d s o f arm e d
h o r s e m e n ro ved a n d raided. T h e resources o f th e g r a n d prince of Kiev were
largely e m p lo y ed in m eetin g th e d a n g e r fro m the steppes a n d resisting
rebellions by his relatives. Kiev itself ceased to be a n effective centre of
pow er. In the m id-tw elfth ce n tu ry V lad im ir in ce n tral R ussia a n d N o v g o ­
ro d in the n o rth -w e st h a d stro n g e r rulers a n d g r e a te r w ealth. D u rin g this
perio d large n u m b e r s o f F in n o -U g r ia n s in the c e n tra l forests a d o p t e d not
only O r t h o d o x C h ristian ity b u t also S lav speech. T h e people of the centre
a n d th e n o r t h w ere o f m ix e d S lav a n d F in n o - U g r ia n stock, th o se o f the
so u th a m ix tu re o f S lav a n d T urkic. T h e y sh a re d one c h u r c h a n d one
w ritte n ecclesiastical lan g u ag e , b u t the s p o k e n la nguage s h a d b eg u n to
diverge, giving rise to w h a t w ere la ter called G r e a t R u s s ia n a n d Little
R u s sia n .39 T h e ruler o f Kiev h a d a sh a d o w y sovereign status, b u t his
practical a u t h o r i ty was negligible. In reality th e re was n o t one R u ssian
state b u t several.
T h e results o f the d isa stro u s c o n q u e s t by th e M o n g o ls b etw e en 1237 a n d
1240 a re a m a tte r o f c o n tro v e rs y a m o n g h istorian s. T h e p rev a len t view o f
the nin e tee n th ce n tu ry R u s sia n school was th a t m ost o f the people o f the
 Europe: The Old Continuous Nations 79

so u th m ig ra ted n o r th w a r d s , leaving the s o u th a lm o s t em p ty , a n d p ro v id in g

a physical c o n tin u ity betw een the p r e - M o n g o l a n d p o s t- M o n g o l R u ssian
peoples a n d states, b etw e en Kiev a n d M osc ow . A g ain st this, h isto ria n s of
U k ra in ia n n a tio n a list o u tlo o k m a in ta in e d t h a t the p eople o f th e so u th
r em a in ed w here they were, a n d t h a t the M o n g o l c o n q u e s t f u rth e r increased
the n a tio n a l differences betw een G re a t R u ssian s a n d U k ra in ia n s. T h e t r u th
p r o b a b ly lies betw een the tw o extrem es. It is ce rtain th a t the m e tr o p o lita n
o f Kiev m ove d to the n o r th at the end o f the th ir te e n th c e n tu ry , a n d it m a y
be a s su m e d th a t som e o f the people followed. It is, how ever, also in d is p u ta ­
ble t h a t in Galicia a n d V olhy nia in d e p e n d e n t R u ssian principalities
c o n tin u e d to exist afte r th e M o n g o l invasion. G alicia was for a tim e
w ith o u t d o u b t the m o st flo u rish in g R u s sia n cu ltu ra l centre to survive. In
the m id -f o u rte e n th c e n tu ry P o la n d ac q u ired w estern G alicia, while the
la nds to the ea st o f this, as far as th e D n iep e r, becam e p a r t o f the
L ith u a n ia n state, w h ose rulers were p ag a n at the tim e o f its fo u n d a tio n , a n d
sp o k e a langu age o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n typ e w hich is neith er S lav n o r
G e r m a n ic .40 As it e x p a n d e d its te rrito ry , how ever, a m a jo r ity o f its subjects
consisted o f O r t h o d o x Slav-speakers. T h e d y n as tic u n io n betw een P o la n d
a n d L ith u a n ia in 1386 did not b rin g m u c h ch a n g e .41 L ith u a n ia had its ow n
institu tions, a n d m a y be reg a rd e d as a W est R u s sia n sta te o f O r t h o d o x
p o p u la tio n , one o f tw o heirs to Kiev Rus. T his s itu a tio n w as c h a n g e d by the
U n io n o f L ublin o f 1569, w hich created a P o lis h - L ith u a n ia n C o m m o n ­
w ealth with a single g o v e r n m e n t. L ith u a n ia retained som e in stitutions o f its
ow n, b u t its s o u th e rn la n d s— th e city o f Kiev a n d the provinces o f P o d o lia
a n d V o lh y n ia — w ere in c o rp o r a t e d in th e P o lish p o r tio n o f th e c o m m o n ­
wealth.
T h e seco nd heir to Kiev Rus em erged in ce n tral Russia. H ere several
R u s sia n principalities existed, their princes d esce nded fro m th e Kiev
princely family. All w ere vassals o f th e G r e a t K h a n o f the G o ld e n H o rd e ,
th e T a t a r state b ased o n the V olga valley w hich was th e heir to the
M ongo ls. T hese w ere the principalities o f R o s to v , T v er, R y a za n , Y aroslavl
a n d M osc ow . T o th e m s h o u ld be a d d e d the city states o f N o v g o ro d , P sk o v
a n d V yatk a. D u r i n g the tw o h u n d r e d years w hich follow ed th e M o n g o l
in v asion, the princes o f M o s c o w succeeded in o b ta in in g first place a m o n g
th e R u s sia n princes. In this th e y usually h a d the s u p p o r t o f the T a t a r k hans,
w h o m they h a n d le d w ith skilful dip lo m ac y . T h e y were also su p p o r te d by
th e O r t h o d o x C h u rc h . T h e T a t a r s , like o th e r M u slim rulers, recognised
n o n - M u s lim religious c o m m u n itie s, a n d gave th e ir ecclesiastical le aders
a u t h o r i ty over the lay p o p u la tio n o f th e ir faith. T h e m e tr o p o lita n s o f the
c h u r c h fro m the early f o u rte e n th c e n tu ry o n w a r d s gave their s u p p o r t to the
princes o f M osc ow . In 1326 th e title o f M e tr o p o l i t a n of Kiev was replaced
by th a t o f M e tro p o lita n o f M o s c o w a n d all R u s sia .42
D u rin g th e reign o f Iv an III th e G re a t (1462-1505) b o th N o v g o r o d an d
80 Nations and States

T v e r w ere subjected to M o s c o w by force, a n d the lesser te rritorie s in

prac tice su b m itte d to M o s c o w ’s leadership. W hile the p o w e r o f M o sc o w
h a d g r o w n w ith in the region o f R u ssian p o p u la tio n , th e p o w e r o f the
T a t a r sta te h a d declined. In 1480 Iv an III felt s tr o n g e n o u g h to refuse
tr ib u te to th e G o ld e n H o rd e . S o o n a f te r this th e H o r d e b r o k e up into
s e p a ra te k h a n a te s o f K azan, A s tr a k h a n a n d th e C r im e a , w h o se rivalries
co uld be exp lo ite d by the M u sc o vite rulers.
T h e e s ta b lish m e n t o f M o s c o w ’s sovereignty o v er n o r th e r n a n d central
R ussia was a c c o m p a n ie d by a stre n g th e n in g o f the p o w e r o f th e g rand
prince o v er his subjects, in cluding his nobility. In this, to o , the princes
en joyed the s u p p o r t o f th e ch u rc h . T h e g r o w th o f th e R u s sia n a u to c r a c y
rea ched a first clim ax u n d e r Ivan IV the T errib le (1533-84). T h re e partial
e x p l a n a tio n s o f this process m a y be m e n tio n e d . F irst is the physical
c h a r a c te r o f th e R u ssian lan d, a vast plain in w hich forests an d rivers were
insufficient barriers, s u r r o u n d e d by enem ies to th e west, so u th a n d s o u th ­
east. In o r d e r to resist these d an g e rs, society h ad to be militarised a n d the
ce n tral p o w e r h ad to be s tren g th en e d , m o r e th a n in sm aller co u n tries with
m o r e effective n a tu ra l barriers. S econ dly, the Byzantine d o c trin e of
a u to c r a c y was h a n d e d d o w n by the O r t h o d o x C h u r c h . T hirdly, the
R u s sia n rulers h a d befo re th e m the e x a m p le o f th e centralised, despo tic
a n d m ilitarised form o f g o v e r n m e n t w hich existed in th e T a t a r state. It is
n o t possible neatly to d isentangle the B yzantine a n d T a t a r elem en ts in the
R u s sia n political tr a d itio n . Both m ust have m a d e their c o n trib u tio n . It is
w o r t h n o tin g th a t in Kiev R us th e re were rep rese n tativ e institutions,
u n k n o w n in the Byzantine em pire: there was in fact a b alanc e between
a u to c r a c y a n d oligarchy w hich suggests r a th e r th e p a tte r n o f feudal
W e ste rn E u r o p e th a n t h a t o f C o n s ta n tin o p le . A fter the M o n g o l invasion
this b alan c e d isa p p ea rs. T h is m a y p e r h a p s give g r o u n d s to a rg u e th a t it was
r a th e r the T a t a r th a n the B yzantine fo rm o f centralised rule w hich in­
fluenced the M u sc o v ite rulers; o r t h a t the difference betw e en M uscovite
a n d K ievan m e th o d s o f g o v e r n m e n t c o r r e s p o n d s to differences betw een the
G re a t R u s sia n a n d U k r a in ia n n a tio n a l ch a racters; b u t certainly neither
h y p o th e sis ca n be s u p p o r te d by conclusive evidence.
In p ractice o f course so m e M u sc o v ite rulers w ere w ea k m en d e p e n d e n t
o n their fav ourite s a n d th e ir m inisters. In R ussia, n o less th a n in oth e r
c o u n tries, g o v e r n m e n t w as a t tim es oligarchical, a n d in d ividu al m e m b ers
o f th e higher nobility (called in M u sc o v y ‘b o y a r s ’) m a n ip u la te d princes an d
t o o k g rea t p o w e r a n d w ea lth fo r them selves. But in c o n tra s t to th e feudal
W est, privileges were n o t in stitution alised, th e re w as n o fo rm a l division of
p o w e r b etw een the m o n a r c h a n d th e social elite, a n d th ere w ere n o effective
c o r p o r a te o rg a n isa tio n s w ith legally defined a n d legally defensible rights.
T h e close identificatio n o f the c h u r c h w ith th e a u to c r a c y w as also
co n n e c te d with the fact th a t M usc ovy was the only sovereign sta te w hose
 Europe: The Old Continuous Nations 81

ruler was O rt h o d o x : the O r t h o d o x o f th e B alk a n s were u n d e r the T u rk is h

y oke ( th o u g h t by m a n y p ious M usco vites to be a p u n is h m e n t fro m the
A lm ig h ty for th e tr e a c h e ry o f the G reek prelates w h o in 1439 had bow ed
befo re the p o p e 43), while the C h ristia n peoples o f the rest o f E u r o p e owed
allegiance to the R o m a n schism atics fro m th e tru e faith. T h e g r o w th o f the
M usc ovite state a t the ex p e n se o f its n e ig h b o u rs th u s had so m e th in g o f the
c h a r a c te r o f a crusade. This was especially tru e o f relations w ith the
M uslim T a t a r s a n d the C a th o lic Poles. T h e m o s t e x tre m e f o r m u l a ti o n of
the religious m ission o f th e M usc o vite prince w as the d o c trin e o f th e T h ird
R o m e, expressed in a letter o f 1511 fro m th e m o n k P h ilo th e u s o f P sk o v to
Vasily III (1505-33). M o sc o w was the heir to R o m e a n d C o n s ta n tin o p le :
‘T w o R o m e s have fallen, a th ird stan ds, a f o u r th there shall n o t be’. T his
never bec am e th e official d o c trin e o f R u s sia n g o v e rn m e n ts, b u t the
m en tality o f w hich it was a reflection was r a th e r w id esp re ad in the political
class o f M uscovy for a very long time.
T h e e x p a n s io n o f M uscovy, like th a t o f Castile, was a cru sa d e ag a in st the
infidel. H ow ever, as in S p a in , there was respect fo r the M u slim s a n d their
civilisation. T a t a r princes in conflict w ith th e ir k insm en to o k refuge in
M uscovy, were well tre a te d a n d given lands. U ltim ately they o r their
d e s c e n d a n ts bec am e C h ristia n s a n d p artially russified their n am es, but the
process o f assim ilatio n t o o k tim e, a n d these T a t a r s n o t only were influ­
enced by b u t also influenced th e ir R u s sia n n eig h b o u rs. T h e M usc ovite view
o f P o la n d was also a m ix tu re o f h ate a n d a d m ir a tio n . In th e six tee n th an d
seventeenth centuries Polish culture held g rea t a t tr a c tio n s for ed ucated
Russians.
Ivan IV increased th e p o w e r o f the ruler, a n d he was the first to ta k e the
title o f tsar (derived, like kaiser , fro m C a esa r). But partly because o f the
w eakn ess o f his successor an d his lack o f a n heir, a n d partly because of the
strains a n d d isc o n te n ts caused by Ivan IV’s ex c ep tio n ally ty ran n ical rule,
the sta te u n d e r w e n t a severe crisis a t the b e ginning o f the seventeenth
century. P olish a n d S w edish arm ies invaded, while b o y a rs a n d p reten ders
tried to d ispu te th e th ro n e . M o sc o w itself was twice occupied by Polish
tr o o p s. P e a s a n t revolts aga in st la n d lo rd s a d d e d to the chaos. D u rin g
nearly a d ec ad e o f this ‘tim e o f tro u b le s ’ th e re em erged a s tro n g p o p u la r
p a trio tism , affecting n o t only nobles a n d to w n s m e n b u t also peasants.
W h e th e r this p a trio tic feeling, m obilised in to effective m ilita ry resistance
by th e n o b le m a n D m itr i P o z h a r s k y a n d the N izhnii N o v g o ro d m e rc h a n t
M inin, ca n be e q u a te d w ith n a t io n a l con sciousn e ss is difficult to say. T he
p r e d o m i n a n t e m o tio n s w ere religious a n d tr a d itio n a l. R u ssian s c a m e to the
defence o f O rt h o d o x y , o f H o ly R ussia a n d o f the R u ssian land (russkaya
zemlya). A n a tio n a l assem bly, the zemskii sobor , elected M ichael R o m a ­
no v to be tsar, a n d once m o re th e a u t o c r a c y b ec am e the focu s o f loyalty. It
w o uld be d o c trin a ire to d e n y th a t the p eople o f ce n tral R ussia h ad b eg u n to
82 Nations and States

behave like a n atio n . P e r h a p s one m a y say th a t this g rea t m o v e m e n t

represents a p p r o x im a te ly the sam e stage in the d e v e lo p m e n t o f R ussian
n a t io n a l consciousness as the m o v e m e n t in F ra n c e a g a in st the English at
th e tim e o f J e a n n e d ’Arc.
U n d e r T s a r M ichael (1613-45) the p o w e r of the sta te was built u p once
m o re, w ith th e close c o o p e r a tio n o f the ch u rc h , w hose p a tria r c h in the first
p a r t o f the region was the ts a r ’s o w n f a th e r, F ilaret. T h e process c o n tin u ed
u n d e r T s a r Alexei (1645-76). S e r fd o m was for the first tim e firmly
estab lished in the S ta tu t e ( Ulozhenie ) o f 1649. T h e zemskii sobor did not
bec om e a p e r m a n e n t o r a n im p o r ta n t in stitu tion. T h e a u to c r a c y was
reinforced. A lexei him self was o p e n to W e s te rn — m ainly Polish and
S w e d ish— c u ltu r a l influences. H e e n c o u r a g e d the brilliant N ikon, p a tri­
a rc h o f M o s c o w fro m 1652 to 1667, in his refo rm s o f the liturgy, th e sacred
te xts a n d the o r g a n isa tio n o f the ch u rc h . T h e new ideas were b r o u g h t
largely by g r a d u a te s o f the Kiev A ca d em y , w hich u n d e r Polish rule had
bec om e the m o s t a d v a n c e d cu ltu ra l ce n tre in the O r t h o d o x w orld. T hey
a r o u s e d b itte r hostility in the R u ssian ch u rc h , w hich was split by a
p r o f o u n d schism. G re a t n u m b e rs o f priests a n d la y m en b ro k e with the
ch u rc h , a n d so u g h t escape in c o m m u n itie s o f the faithful in rem o te forests.
D espite official perse cu tio n , a very large p a rt o f the R u ssian people
re m a in e d schism atics o r se cta rians right up to m o d e rn tim es. T h e schism
was never h ealed. T h e view held by th e dissenters o f the m id -sev enteenth
ce ntury, th a t the state a n d the tsa r were in stru m e n ts o f A ntichrist,
p r o fo u n d ly influenced later R u ssian religious a n d political thin king.
T s a r A lexei b a c k e d N ik o n aga in st the dissenters; b u t w hen N ik o n began
to claim , like a m ediev al p ope, th a t the c h u r c h as th e spiritual p o w e r was
su p e rio r to the state, A lexei b r o k e him. T h e p a r tn e rs h ip o f th e state with
th e ch u rc h , w h ich h a d b r o u g h t so m u c h a d v a n ta g e to the state, was to be
like the p a r tn e rs h ip o f the rider with the horse. T his w as carried still fu rth e r
by T s a r P e te r I th e G re a t (1682-1725), w h o abolish e d the p a t r ia r c h a te an d
s u b o r d in a t e d the c h u r c h to a d e p a r tm e n t o f th e civil g o v e rn m e n t, the H oly
S y n o d . P e te r dev o ted his reign to the s tre n g th e n in g o f the state. His first
p rio rity w as m ilita ry a n d nav a l pow er, a n d n ex t c a m e m e asu res to im prove
the efficiency o f th e civil g o v e r n m e n t m a c h in e a n d to fo ster b o th in d ustry
a n d e d u c a tio n as m e an s o f m a k in g R u s sia m o r e pow erful. P e te r le arned all
th a t he c o u ld f r o m m o r e a d v a n c e d c o u n trie s — Sw eden, H o lla n d , E ngla nd
a n d F r a n c e — n o t b ecau se he co n s id ered W e s te rn values su p e rio r to
R u ssian b u t because he w a n te d to m a k e R u s sia stron g. H e was im m ensely
energetic, ru thless a n d cruel, indifferent to m o r a l o r religious values yet
also to a large ex te n t p erso n a lly disinterested. H e s p o k e o f h im self as a
se rva nt o f the state, a n d this p r o b a b ly r ep rese n ted his real feelings.
A lrea d y u n d e r Alexei, R ussia had gained te rr ito r y in the south-w est; the
result o f the w ars between P o la n d an d M uscovy arising o u t o f th e C ossack
 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 83

rebellion was th a t M u sc o v y ac q u ire d the U k ra in e east o f the D n ie p e r a n d

th e city o f Kiev. P ete r b eat the Swedes a t P o lta v a ( 1709), a c q u ir e d a stretch
o f Baltic coastline, a n d built his new ca p ita l S t P e te rsb u rg o n the m a rsh y
b a n k s o f the N eva. T h e G r e a t N o r t h e r n W a r (1700-21) m a d e his c o u n try
one o f the great po w ers o f E u ro p e . Its n a m e was n o w n o longer M u sc o v y
b u t Russia, a n d P e te r h im self to o k th e R o m a n title o f Imperator.
P e te r’s refo rm s had involved n o t only th e a d o p t io n o f W e ste rn habits
a n d te ch n iq u e s b u t also the e m p lo y m e n t o f W est E u ro p e a n s in R u ssian
g o v e r n m e n t service. T his c o n tin u e d in th e e ig h tee n th century. T h e a n n e x a ­
tio n o f the Baltic provinces offered ca re e r o p p o r tu n itie s to the relatively
well e d u c ated G e r m a n n o b le m e n a n d b u rg h e rs o f these la n d s as well as to
subjects o f m o re westerly cou ntries. P ete r’s succession passed to a series of
G e r m a n princesses. H ow ever, the in stitu tio n o f a u to c r a c y pro v ed stro n g e r
th a n the persons w h o served as a u to c r a ts . T h e d e m a n d fo r a legal division
o f pow ers between m o n a r c h a n d nobility was ex tre m ely small. A n a t te m p t
to d o this at th e succession o f E m press A n n a in 1730 was prev e n ted by the
G u a r d s officers in the capital. T h o u g h they them selves were to so m e exten t
a n elite o f the noble class, they u ph eld u nlim ited a u to c ra c y . In 1762 a n o t h e r
G e r m a n w o m a n a s su m e d p o w e r afte r her h u s b a n d , P ete r III, h ad been
m u r d e r e d . As C a th e rin e II the G re a t (1762-96) she p roved as s tr o n g a n d
resourceful a n a u t o c r a t as a n y pure R u ssian tsar.
D u rin g the eigh tee n th c e n tu ry W e ste rn cu ltu ra l influences grew in
R ussia, a n d becam e ex tre m ely attractiv e to the u p p e r classes. In the highest
circles F re n c h was s p o k e n , but still m o r e R u ssian n o b le m e n learned
G e r m a n . A d m ir a t io n for foreign cu ltu re coincid ed with pride in R u ssia’s
achievem ents, a n d th e tw o e m o tio n s were often in conflict w ithin th e sam e
m ind . F o r the first tim e R ussians b eg a n to ta k e a n interest in th e ir ow n
language. In the first beginnings o f a se cu la r R ussian literature, foreign
m o d e ls a n d styles w ere im itated, b u t serious a t te m p ts w ere now m a d e to
purify a n d to d evelop the R u ssian language. U ngainly foreign w o rd s and
p h rase s were to be rem o v e d , b u t th ere w ere tw o schools o f th o u g h t as to the
best w ay to develop th e lang u ag e in the future. S o m e th o u g h t th a t it sh ould
be based as closely as possible o n th e old C h u r c h S lav onic, o th e rs o n the
sp o k e n language. T h e R u s s ia n A ca d em y , f o u n d e d in 1783 a n d m odelled on
th e Académie Française, w as especially co n c e rn e d w ith these m a tte rs. It
p u b lis h ed betw een 1789 a n d 1794 a six-volum e R u s sia n d ic tio n a ry , a n d in
1802 its official R u s s ia n g r a m m a r . T h e c o n tro v e rs y betw een the tr a d i tio n ­
alists a n d the m o d e rn ists, w h o se chief respective sp o k e s m e n were A d m ira l
A. S. S h ish k o v a n d th e h is to ria n N. M . K a r a m z in , so m e w h a t resem bled
the c o n tro v e rs y w hich d ev e lo p e d a r o u n d this tim e a m o n g th e G re ek
p a trio ts b etw een th e s u p p o r te r s o f th e ‘p u r e ’ a n d th e ‘d e m o tic ’ lan guag es.44
I n R ussia it was essentially the m o d e rn ists w h o w on. T h e y w ere justified by
the rapid a n d brilliant flow ering o f R u s sia n literature , w h o se g reatest
84 Nations and States

e x p o n e n t, the p o et A le x a n d e r P u s h k in , reached th e height o f his p ow ers in

the 1820s.
G ro w in g prid e in the R u ssian lan g u ag e coincided w ith g ro w in g pride in
R u s sia n m ilita ry ac h ievem ents, which reached a clim ax in the defeat of
N a p o le o n o n R u ssian soil in 1812 a n d th e s u b se q u e n t v ic torious c a m p a ig n s
in E u ro p e , en d in g in the e n try o f R u s sia n t r o o p s into Paris. T h o u s a n d s of
y o u n g R u ssian s o f the u p p e r classes, serving as a r m y officers, saw E u r o ­
p e a n co u n tries, con versed in F re n c h o r G e r m a n o r English w ith E u r o ­
peans, a n d bec am e fam iliar w ith the cu ltu re a n d w ith th e social an d
political ideas o f c o n t e m p o r a r y E u ro p e . In to tw o d ec ad e s fro m 1805 to
1825 w ere pac k ed m o r ta l d a n g e r a n d heroic ach ie v em e n t, a m arvellous
flow ering o f lang u ag e a n d literature a n d a s u d d e n fe rm e n t o f new and
ex c iting ideas. In these years the f o r m a tio n o f n a tio n a l consciousness at
least in the u p p e r layers o f R u ssian society was c o m p leted , a n d there were
stirrings even a m o n g the p e a sa n t masses. U n fo r tu n a te ly , in the s h o rt term
m ilitary victory s tren g th en e d the rea ctio na ries, w h o arg u e d th a t the old
regim e, in clu ding s e rfd o m a n d b ru ta l d es p o tism , had been justified by
R u s sia ’s d efe at o f N a p o le o n . T h e m in o rity w ho felt otherw ise were too
w ea k to m a k e themselves felt by legal m eans, reso rte d to c o n s p ira cy (the
D e c e m b r ist R ising o f 1825) a n d w ere destro y e d . T h e r e follow ed thirty
years o f a lm o s t s ta g n a n t b u re a u c r a tic rule u n d e r N icholas I (reigned 1825-
55).
H o w ev er, thing s were n o t the same. In 1832 C o u n t Sergei U varov, w ho
s h o rtly afte rw a rd s was m a d e m in iste r o f e d u c a tio n , p r o p o u n d e d in a n
official re p o r t to th e e m p e r o r the d o c trin e th a t R ussia s h o u ld be based on
the th ree principles o f A u to c ra c y , O r t h o d o x y a n d N a tio n a lity (natsional-
nost ).45 T h e first tw o o f these w ere very old, but the third was new. N o t only
the e m p e r o r a n d the ch u rc h , b u t the R u s sia n n a tio n , claim ed th e loyalty of
th e R u s sia n citizen. N ea rly h alf these citizens w ere still serfs, w h o c ould be
b o u g h t a n d sold as g o o d s a n d chattels. M o r e th a n h alf s p o k e a la nguage
o th e r t h a n R ussian. W h a t th e n was the R u ssian n a tio n , a n d w h a t was its
place in E u ro p e ?
T h e so-called W esternisers believed th a t it m u st evolve as th e E u ro p e a n
n a tio n s h a d evolved. H ith e r t o its h isto ry h ad been b a rb a ric . R ussia
belonged neith er to E u r o p e n o r to Asia, f o r it h a d learn ed n o th in g fro m the
cu ltu re o f W est o r East. In the w o rd s o f P. A. C h a a d a e v , in his ‘P h ilo s o p h i­
cal L etter’ published in 1836, ‘n o u s faisons lacune d a n s l’o r d re intellectuel’.
By c o n tra s t, the so-called S lav o p h ils believed th a t p r e - P e tr in e R u s sia h a d
been a c o m p a ra tiv e ly h a p p y a n d h ea lth y society, w ith its o w n cu ltu re based
o n O r t h o d o x y , a n d w ith m u tu a l u n d e r s ta n d in g a n d respect between
a u t o c r a t, nobility a n d people. T his essential un ity a n d h a r m o n y h a d been
b ro k e n by Peter, with his hasty a n d b ru tal e n fo r c e m e n t o f foreign m e th o d s
a n d institutions, a n d his c re a tio n o f a b u re a u c ra c y , staffed by G e r m a n s an d
 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 85

o th e r foreigners, w hich k ep t the ruler a n d th e p eople a p a r t. N ich o las I a n d

his advisers disagreed with b o th W esternisers a n d Slavophils. T hey wished
to m o d e rn ise R ussia in o r d e r to m a k e h e r stron g, a n d in this they
co nsidered them selves the heirs o f P eter the G re a t. At the sam e tim e they
rejected m o d e r n W e ste rn political a n d social ideas a n d m o st W e ste rn-type
refo rm s, while s h a rin g w ith the S lavophils a ce rtain m o ralisin g n atio n alist
belief in the su pe riority o f R ussia to th e W est. O nly defeat in the C r im e a n
W a r b ro u g h t a b o u t (in 1861) the e m a n c ip a tio n o f the serfs, a n d so m a d e it
possible to include the w hole p o p u la tio n in the n a tio n a n d to ex tend
R u s sia n n a tio n a l c onsciousne ss fro m the social elite d o w n in to the masses.
A lrea d y u n d e r N icho las I th e re was p ressure fro m the O r t h o d o x C h u r c h
for the a b o litio n o f the U n iate C h u r c h 46 a n d for forcible co n v e rsio n o f
M uslim s, a n d to a lesser e x te n t o f C a th o lic s an d P ro te sta n ts. T h ere was
also pressure fro m th e a r m e d forces to m a k e fro n tie r regions safer by
settling reliable R u ssian s a m o n g the u n tr u s tw o r th y peoples o f the Baltic
c o a st a n d o f the C a u c a s ia n region. But these pressures still fell far s h o r t o f a
sy stem atic a p p lic a tio n o f U varo v's principle o f natsionalnost. W h a t was
required o f a subject o f the e m p ire was still essentially th a t he sh o u ld be
loyal to the tsar, n o t th a t he should be a R ussian.
A new a t titu d e em erged g ra d u a lly in th e 1880s. It was c o n n e cted with the
g r o w th o f the b u re a u c ra c y , a n d w ith a c o n s cio u s a t te m p t by T s a r A le x a n ­
d e r III (1881-94) to reverse the re fo rm in g tr e n d s o f his fa th e r ’s reign. It was
ac c o m p a n ie d by a great o u tp o u r in g o f o ste n ta tio u s religious piety a n d of
co nserv ative rhetoric. T h e political, social a n d cu ltu ra l origins o f th e new
a t titu d e , a n d o f the policy w hich resulted f r o m it, w ere r a th e r c o m p lic ate d
a n d rem a in in som e respects obscure, b u t o f the p h e n o m e n o n itself there
ca n be no d o u b t.
T h e essence o f the new policy, w hich bec am e k n o w n as ‘R u ssifica tio n ’,
w as the claim th a t all subjects o f the e m p ir e sh o u ld co n s id e r them selves
Russians, a n d sh o u ld owe allegiance n o t only to the m o n a r c h b u t also to
the R u ssian natio n . T h e R u ssian lang uage a n d culture, to w hich less th a n
h a lf o f the p o p u la tio n o f the em p ire belo nged , m u st be im p o s ed in the
co u rse o f tim e o n all subjects. P ro v id e d th a t they p u t R ussia first, an d
preferre d R u s sia n c u ltu r e to their o w n original cu ltu re, th e re w as no
obje ctio n to th e ir usin g th e ir ow n languages in th e ir h o m e s o r in p ersonal
friendships.
T h e first m e asu res o f R ussifica tio n w ere d irected precisely ag a in st those
n a t io n s w hich h ith e r to h a d been im p e cc ab ly loyal to the t s a r — especially
the Baltic G e r m a n s a n d th e A rm e n ia n s.
In 1887 R u s sia n w as m a d e c o m p u ls o r y as th e la n g u ag e o f in stru c tio n in
all state schools in th e Baltic provinces a b o v e the lowest p r im a ry classes,
a n d this was later e x te n d e d to private schools. T h e a n c ie n t a n d fa m o u s
Domschule in Reval was closed d o w n . In 1893 th e U niversity o f D o r p a t,
86 Nations and States

w h ich h a d long been o u ts t a n d in g a m o n g R u s sia n universities b u t w hose

la n g u ag e o f in stru c tio n w as G e r m a n , w as closed, a n d sho rtly a fte rw a rd s a
new university was establish ed in the city w ith in stru c tio n in Russian.
R u s sia n was also m a d e the lan g u ag e o f c o u rts o f law. T h ese m e asures
bitterly a n ta g o n is e d the G e r m a n s , w h o f o rm e d th e la n d o w n in g an d
business classes o f the th ree Baltic provinces; b u t did n o t in a n y w ay benefit
the m a jo r ity peoples, the L atv ian s a n d E sto n ia n s, to w hich belonged
a l m o s t the w hole p e a s a n try as well as the incipient u r b a n w o rk in g class an d
a sm a ll intellectual elite o f school teachers, P r o te s ta n t p a s to rs a n d a few
lawyers.47 F o r the L a tv ia n s a n d E sto n ia n s, R u s sia n was as m u c h a foreign
lan g u ag e as G e r m a n , b u t did n o t have, like G e r m a n , th e a d v a n ta g e o f
m a k in g availab le to th o se w h o learned it a wide E u r o p e a n culture.
T h e A r m e n ia n s h ad lo n g b ee n a m o n g the m o st d e v o te d subjects o f the
tsa r, a b o v e all because R u s sia n m ilitary p o w e r w as th e ir m a in h o p e fo r the
lib e ratio n o f th e m a jo r ity o f th e A r m e n ia n people, w h o still lived u n d e r
O t t o m a n rule. T h e A rm e n ia n s were a highly e d u c a te d C h r is tia n natio n ,
with a long h isto ry a n d cu ltu re, ce ntred a r o u n d th e ir m o n o p h y s ite church.
T h e ir schools were m a in ta in e d by the c h u r c h , w hich covered the co st from
tithes paid to it by the p o p u la tio n . T h e R u ssian b u r e a u c r a ts , w ith their
pas sio n fo r u n ifo rm ity in a d m in is t r a tio n a n d their g ro w in g n atio n alist zeal,
c ou ld n o t to le ra te this situ atio n . In 1896 A r m e n ia n sch ools w ere tr a n s ­
ferred to the R u s sia n m inistry o f e d u c a tio n , a n d th eir costs w ere to be
d efray e d by the a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f a p a r t o f the A r m e n ia n c h u r c h funds.
W h e n the p o p u la tio n objected, the R u ssian g o v e rn o r-g e n e ra l decided to
co nfiscate th e w hole o f th e c h u r c h ’s c u ltu r a l funds, a n d this w as eventually
d o n e in 1903. It was m e t by passive resistance in the fo rm o f a m ass b o y co tt
o f R u s s ia n schools, law c o u r ts a n d p ub lic au th o rities : the necessary
fu n ctio n s w ere carried o u t by unofficial A r m e n ia n bodies w hich c o m ­
m a n d e d th e respect o f th e p o p u la tio n .
F in la n d w as a th ird special case. In th e m id -n in e te e n th ce n tu ry the
m o v e m e n t o f th e F in n s to achieve e q u a lity w ith the S w e d ish-spea king
m in o r ity 48 h a d enjoyed R u s s ia n s u p p o r t. H o w ev er, pressures w ere building
u p in R ussia to ch a n g e this situatio n. B u rea u cratic u n ifo rm ity was felt
necessary; th e re were c o m p la in ts t h a t R u s sia n b u sin e ssm e n were p rev ented
f r o m o p e r a tin g in F in la n d while F in n ish in d u s try h a d access o n fa v o u ra b le
te rm s to the R u s sia n m a rk e t; a n d it was felt in to le ra b le t h a t F in lan d e rs,
w hose security was g u a r a n te e d by R u s sia n m ilitary stren g th , sh o u ld not
serve in the R u s sia n arm y . In response to these pressures a new policy was
a d o p t e d in th e 1890s. M ilita ry service w as in tr o d u c e d , R u s s ia n officials
a n d b u sine ssm e n tried to install them selves in F in la n d , a n d efforts were
m a d e to in tr o d u c e R u s sia n as a subject ( b u t n o t as language o f instruction)
in m o st F in n ish schools. In the last years before the F irst W o rld W a r things
got m u c h worse. T h e claim was raised in S t P e te rs b u r g t h a t the laws o f the
 Europe: The O ld Continuous Nations 87

R u ssian em p ire sh o u ld be b in d in g in F in la n d , a n d the c o m p e te n c e o f the

F in n ish p a r lia m e n t was red uced to t h a t o f a p ro vin cial assem bly dealing
w ith local m a tte rs. R u s sia n political leaders insisted th a t F in la n d was a n
integral p a r t o f the R u s sia n em pire, a n d d enied th e F in n ish view th a t there
w as n o m o re th a n a p erso n a l u n io n t h r o u g h a m o n a r c h w h o was a ts a r in
one c o u n try a n d g r a n d - d u k e in the o th e r. T h e new R u ssian d o c trin e s met
with b itter resistance fro m the Finns, first at th e t u r n o f the ce n tu ry a n d
th e n after 1908. It is a r g u a b le th a t A le x a n d a r I l l ’s a n d N icholas II’s
officials were co n c e rn e d only to assert the sovereignty o f the R u ssian state,
a n d to s u b o r d in a te F inn ish to R ussian interests, a n d th a t n o a t te m p t was
yet m a d e to im p o se th e R u ssian language o n the people o f F in la n d a t the
e xp ense o f their own: F in n ish a n d Sw edish still re m a in e d the la nguages o f
schools, c o u r ts a n d pub lic affairs.
T h e R u ssian R e v o lu tio n o f 1905 was as m u c h a re v o lu tio n o f no n -
R ussians aga in st Russification as it w as a rev o lu tio n o f w o rk e rs, p ea sa n ts
a n d radical intellectuals a g a in st au to c ra c y . T he two revolts were o f course
c o nn ected: th e social r e v o lu tio n was in fact m o st b itter in n o n - R u s s ia n
regions, w ith P olish w o rk e rs , L atvian p e a sa n ts a n d G e o r g ia n p ea sa n ts as
p ro tag o n ists. T h e ts a r ’s concession in O c to b e r 1905 o f a n a tio n a l p arlia­
m e n t ( S ta te D u m a ) elected on a fairly b r o a d franchise, benefited n on-
Russians. T h ey were stron gly represen ted in the first tw o D u m a s , a n d their
v ario u s v o lu n ta ry cu ltu ra l o r g a n isa tio n s were allow ed to o p e ra te freely,
while F in la n d h ad a new c o n s titu tio n w ith a virtually sovereign p a r lia m e n t
based o n universal (including w o m e n ’s) suffrage. All these gains were
whittled d o w n afte r th e disso lu tio n o f the S e co n d D u m a in 1907. F in la n d
was reduced to provincial status; the cu ltu ra l o rg a n isa tio n s o f Poles,
U k ra in ia n s a n d o th e rs w ere so restricted by the a u th o ritie s as to be a lm o st
useless; a n d re p re s e n ta tio n o f n o n - R u s s ia n s in the D u m a was drastically
r educed by a new electoral law. T h e result was w id es p re ad a n d g row ing
d is c o n te n t a m o n g h a lf th e ts a r ’s subjects.
It w o u ld be w ro n g to imagine th a t R ussifica tio n was the wish only o f a
h a n d fu l o f r e a c tio n a r y m inisters an d b u re a u c r a ts . T he tr u th is ra th e r th a t
aggressive n a tio n a lis m was p o p u la r a m o n g a large p a r t o f the R ussian
people, o f all social classes. E x tr e m e R u s sia n n a tio n a lis m was in fact the
only effective m e a n s a v a ila ble to the R u s sia n politicians o f th e R ight to
m obilise p o p u la r s u p p o r t, a n d p ro m ise d well for the f u tu re o rg a n is a tio n of
a c onservative m ass m o v e m e n t. H ow ever, th e rev o lu tio n s o f F e b r u a r y a n d
O c to b e r 1917 a n d th e Bolshevik victo ry in the civil w a r resulted in a
d ifferent course o f policy. E v en so, R u s s ia n n a tio n a lis m a n d m e asures of
Russification by n o m e a n s c a m e to a n en d as a result o f th e victories of
L enin a n d Stalin.
3 Europe: Movements for National
Unity

T h e m o v e m e n ts discussed in this c h a p te r aim ed at th e u n io n w ithin one

large state of c o m m u n itie s divided a m o n g several sovereignties— in som e
cases scattered over g rea t d ista n c e s— w h ich th o se actively en g a g ed in the
m o v e m e n ts believed to co n s titu te a single n atio n . In three o f the five cases
here chosen as ex a m p le s o f this p h e n o m e n o n (Poles, G re ek s a n d Y u g o ­
slavs) the o v e r th r o w o f foreign rule was also a ce n tral aim: the struggles for
in d e p en d e n ce an d unity a d v a n c e d to gether. In the o th e r tw o ( G e rm a n s a n d
Italians) foreign rule was o nly a m a rg in al factor, t h o u g h o p p o s itio n by
foreign g o v e rn m e n ts was m o r e im p o r ta n t.
T h re e general characteristics m ay be n o te d , w hich a p p ly in varying
degrees to m o st o f these m o vem ents.
F irst is a so rt o f M essianism w hich tr a n s c e n d s the n o r m a l p a tte r n of
nationalistic rheto ric a n d a r r o g a n c e , a c o n v ictio n th a t the great united
n a tio n for w hich the struggle is being w aged is the b e a r e r o f universal
values, beneficial for all m a n k in d , w hich give this n a tio n a divine mission,
o r confe r on it a m o r a l o r cu ltu ral su p e rio rity over all others. T h e peculiar
p r o fu n d ity o f G e r m a n cu ltu re, the in c o m p a r a b le purity o f the fu tu re Italia
de!popolo , P o la n d the C h rist a m o n g n atio n s, the fusion o f the glories o f
H ellas a n d the glories o f C o n s ta n tin o p le in m o d e rn Ellinismos — all are
e x a m p le s of a sim ilar state o f ex a lta tio n . O n ly the Y ugoslavs o p e ra te d a t a
m o r e m u n d a n e a n d so b e r level— w hich do es n o t m e a n th a t fan aticism was
n o t a b u n d a n t a m o n g th e m to o , cre atin g in n u m e r a b le h u m a n tragedies.
S econdly, these n o b ly m o tiv a te d c h a m p io n s o f unity laid claim to
territories w here o th e rs lived, a n d h ad little o f th eir nobility to sp a re for the
t r e a tm e n t o f th e ir in h a b ita n ts . E x a m p le s a re G e r m a n attitu d e s to Czechs,
I talian to Slovenes, P o lish to U k ra in ia n s, G re ek to A n a to l ia n T u rk s a n d
S e r b ia n to A lban ians.
T hirdly, th e c o m b in a t io n o f exa lte d claim s a n d excessive te rrito ria l
greed b r o u g h t disasters o n a hero ic scale. T h e t r iu m p h a n d collapse o f the
S e c o n d a n d T h ir d Reichs left the land s o f G e r m a n cu ltu re divided in three.
P o la n d was shifted h u n d r e d s o f miles w e stw a rd a n d k ep t in b o n d a g e to one
o f its previous c o n q u e r o rs . Hellenism w as driven o u t o f A sia a n d A frica
90 Nations and States

a n d grievou sly dim in ish e d in the e a s te r n m o s t o f its islands. T h o se w hich

h a d c o m e closest to th e ir aim s, after th eir full sh a re o f d isaster a lo n g the
w ay, w ere th e Italians a n d th e Y ugoslavs, th o u g h b o th h a d f o u n d in the
c o u rse o f th e ir disasters th a t un ity was so m e th in g d iffe ren t fro m w h a t they
h ad im agined .
T h e G e r m a n a n d Italian m o v e m e n ts held the centre o f the stage in
in te rn a tio n a l politics for m o r e t h a n h alf o f the n in e te e n th ce n tu ry , an d
c o n tin u e d to th r e a te n w o rld peace u n til the m id -tw e n tie th , or later. Italian
unity was n o t co m p leted w h e n K ing V itto rio E m m a n u e le ’s tr o o p s entered
R o m e o n 20 S e p te m b e r 1870. G r e a te r G e r m a n y rem a in ed unrealised w hen
the S e c o n d G e r m a n R eich w as p ro c la im e d in th e H all o f M ir r o rs at
Versailles in 1871; a n d t h o u g h it was a chieved in the T h ir d R eich o f A d o lf
Hitler, it only lasted five o r seven y e a r s .1
T h e G e r m a n a n d Italian struggles in volved m ilitary a c tio n by one n on -
G e r m a n g rea t p o w e r — F r a n c e — a n d by tw o w hose p o p u la tio n w as p re ­
d o m in a n tly G e r m a n — A u s tr ia a n d Prussia; a n d affected th e d ip lo m a c y o f
tw o m o r e — B ritain a n d Russia. B oth m o v e m e n ts cut ac ross a n d intensified
se veral o f th e m a in conflicts th e n r a g in g t h r o u g h o u t m o s t o f E u r o p e a n
society; betw e en m o n a r c h y a n d rep ublic, c h u r c h a n d state, conservative
la n d o w n e r a n d liberal b o u rg eo is, to w n a n d c o u n try , e m p lo y e r a n d w orker.
I shall n o t discuss these conflicts as such, n o r arg u e a b o u t th e virtues a n d
vices o f th e p olitical a n d social regim es w hich resulted fro m n a tio n a l unity,
o r f r o m the efforts to w a r d s it. I shall m e n tio n so m e o f these political a n d
social issues, as well as th e g rea t in te r n a tio n a l conflicts k n o w n to an y
p e r s o n w ith even a sm a tte rin g o f h istorical know ledge; b u t m y a t te n tio n
will be c o n c e n tra te d o n th e d e m a n d s , ac tio n s , political a ttitu d e s a n d social
re c ru itm e n t o f th e nationalists.
T h e P olish m o v e m e n t was designed to reunite a people, a m o n g w hose
political class n a tio n a l conscio usne ss w as w ith o u t d o u b t p ro fo u n d ly
ro o te d . T h e struggle h a d to be c o n d u c te d a g a in st th e g o v e r n m e n ts o f three
great pow ers, b u t it was n o t sim ply a m a tte r o f d e ta c h in g the regions of
P o lish speech f r o m th ree em pires. T h e re w as a h a r d core o f te rrito ry ,
in h a b ite d by u n q u e s tio n a b le P o lish m a jo ritie s, b u t th e re w ere also b r o a d
b a n d s o f m ixed p o p u la tio n in the west w here P oles a n d G e r m a n s lived side
by side; a n d still m o re in the east, w here Poles o v erla p p e d n o t with
Russian s b u t w ith L ith u a n ia n s , Byelorussians a n d U k ra in ia n s. D efinition
o f the b o u n d a r ie s in west a n d east, a n d th e claim o f Poles to rule over large
p o p u la tio n s o f the b o r d e r peoples, w ere in se p a ra b le f r o m th e struggle for
Polish indep en d e n ce a n d unity. T he e x tre m e c o m p le x ity o f these issues
m a k es it necessary to d ev o te m o r e space to earlier p erio d s th a n in the
G e r m a n a n d Italian case.
T h e r e had been a Polish sta te with k n o w n frontiers, b u t there h ad never
been a n y th in g th a t could be called a G re ek state. T h e B yzantines, it should
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 91

be rem e m b e re d , consid ered themselves R o m a n s (Romaioi). G re ek culture,

w h e th e r in its Hellenic o r its B yzantine fo rm , h a d h ow ever deeply p e n e tr a t­
ed the peoples of the w hole ea ste rn M e d ite rr a n e a n basin. Inevitably, G reek
natio n alists conceived fan ta stic plans for the f u tu re G r e a te r Greece. As in
the P olish case, in d e p e n d e n c e a n d unity w ere in se p arab le fro m e x p a n s io n
a t the expense o f n e ig h b o u rin g peoples.
In the B alkans a S e rb ia n state c a m e into existence in the first d ecades o f
the nin e tee n th ce n tu ry , a n d e x p a n d e d its te rr ito r y in the n ex t h u n d r e d
years. In the n o rth -w e st o f th e p eninsula, Slovenes a n d C r o a ts a n d S erbs
lived u n d e r H a b s b u r g rule, a n d h ad n a tio n a l m o v e m e n ts w ith m u tu a lly
conflicting as p ira tio n s . In o p p o sitio n to these c o n t r a d ic t o r y n ationalist
aim s, there was a n o t h e r political m o v e m e n t w hich aim ed a t a single state o f
all so u th e rn Slavs. T h o s e w h o up h eld this ‘Y ugoslav I d e a ’ were essentially
try in g to create n o t only a new state, w ith o u t histo rical p recedent, b u t a
new natio n . In the Y ugoslav case, as in the P olish, e x tre m e com p lex ity of
th e linguistic a n d regional divisions m a k e s it necessary to d evote m o re
space to it th a n to the m u c h m o re generally k n o w n G e r m a n a n d Italian
cases.
S o m e m o v e m en ts for g re a te r unity have been given n am es beginning
w ith the classical G re ek w o rd for ‘e v e ry th in g ’— p a « . It has n o t seemed to
me necessary to d ev o te a s e p a ra te section to ‘p a n - m o v e m e n t s ’ as such. In
the present c h a p te r P a n g e r m a n is m is discussed in c o n n e c tio n w ith the
G e r m a n m o v e m e n t fo r unity. It has, how ever, seemed w o r t h while to
d ev ote a brief section to P ansla vism , w ho se im p o r ta n c e has som e tim es
bee n e x a g g erated by h isto ria n s b u t w hich m ust be seen in b r o a d e r
perspective. T his section is placed im m ed ia te ly before th e section o n the
m o r e historically interesting m o v e m e n ts fo r P o lish a n d S o u t h Slav unity.

Greater and lesser Germany

T h e w o rd Germania is th e title o f a f a m o u s w o rk by T ac itu s, in w hich
the cu s to m s a n d n a t io n a l c h a r a c te r o f ‘th e G e r m a n s ’ a re discussed at
length. Since th e n , how ever, the peoples d escribed as G e r m a n s , a n d the
c o u n t r y k n o w n as G e r m a n y , have greatly cha n g ed . T h e valleys o f the
R h in e a n d u p p e r D a n u b e , w ith th e ir p o p u la tio n s , were in c o rp o r a t e d in the
R o m a n em pire. C o u n tle ss th o u s a n d s o f persons, d esce n d ed fro m people
w h o sp o k e a la n g u ag e th a t m igh t be called G e r m a n a n d w hose original
h o m e s were in so m e p a r t o f G e r m a n y , b e c am e a b s o r b e d into the p o p u la ­
tions o f F ra n ce , E n g la n d , S p a in a n d n o r th e r n Italy. T h e H o ly R o m a n
E m p ire created by C h a rle m a g n e inc lu ded th e f o rm e rly R o m a n p o r tio n s of
G e r m a n y , b u t his w a rs a g a in st B avarians a n d S a x o n s b r o u g h t fu rth e r
territories into it. T h e e m p ire re c o n stitu te d by O tto I w as based o n
92 Nations and States

G e r m a n y ; b u t it m a in ta in e d its claim to sovereignty over Italy, as well as to

d isp u ted lands o f F re n c h a n d D u tc h speech on its w estern border.
In the follow ing c e nturies G e r m a n y se ld o m a p p r o x im a te d to a unified
single state. T h e e m p e r o rs w ere fre q u en tly in conflict w ith the p opes, an d
G e r m a n n o b le m e n , prelates a n d arm ies w ere to be f o u n d on b o th sides,
fighting in G e r m a n y a n d in Italy. P o w e rfu l vassals o n the periphery,
d efe n d in g the e m p ir e ’s b o r d e r s a g a in st D anes, Poles a n d H u n g a r ia n s , built
up increasingly in d e p e n d e n t states o f th e ir ow n. E lections o f e m p e r o rs were
o ccasions a t best fo r intrigues a n d at w o rs t fo r civil w ars betw een rival
parties.
Yet t h o u g h the e m p e r o rs ’ a u t h o r i ty was little m o r e th a n a sh a d o w , the
m y th o f th e em p ire c o n tin u e d to have s o m e m e an ing, a n d was associated
w ith the g r o w th o f a G e r m a n cu ltu re w hich ow ed m u c h to the p r o sp e ro u s
cities o f the R hine valley, B a v aria a n d the N o r t h S ea a n d Baltic coasts,
centres o f in te r n a tio n a l t r a d e a n d o f m agnificent build in gs a n d plastic arts.
G ro w in g prid e in this c u ltu re led to the g r o w th o f a ce rtain G e r m a n
n a tio n a l co nsciousness. T h e exp re ssio n ‘H oly R o m a n E m p ire o f G e r m a n
(‘Das heilige römische Reich deutscher Nation
n a t io n ’ ’), w hose first use is
difficult to estab lish b u t d a te s essentially fro m the m id-fifteenth century,
sym bolised this consciousness.
G e r m a n n a t io n a l feeling was a pow erful fa c to r in th e G e r m a n R e f o r m a ­
tion. T his was a tim e n o t only o f new religious th o u g h t a n d social ferm ent
but also o f n a tio n a l r ea ctio n a g a in st d o m in a t i o n by despised Italian priests.
G e r m a n literature , w hich goes bac k into th e M id d le Ages, was greatly
s tim u la te d by the R e fo r m a tio n : M a rtin L u th e r ’s Bible w as a literary as well
as a religious la n d m a rk .
T hese tren d s to w a r d s th e f o rm a tio n o f a G e r m a n n a tio n were reta rde d
by the religious w ars o f the six tee n th ce n tu ry , a n d still m o re by the
c a m p a ig n s o f S w edish, S p a n ish a n d F r e n c h as well as G e r m a n arm ies on
G e r m a n soil w hich are c o n v e n tio n a lly k n o w n as th e T h irty Y ears’ W a r
(1618-48). T hese disasters im p o v e rish ed the G e r m a n e c o n o m y , b u t they did
not d e s tro y G e r m a n culture. G e r m a n n a tio n a l con scio u sn e ss rem a in ed ,
b u t was essentially passive: e d u c a te d G e r m a n s at least w ere a w a re th a t they
were G e r m a n s , b u t th e y felt n o pressing need to fo rm a single G e r m a n state
th a t w o u ld be unlike the still n o m in a lly existing H oly R o m a n E m pire, a
political reality. T h e G e r m a n ru lers— f r o m th e H a b s b u r g s in A u stria, the
kings o f P russia a n d the electoral princes o f B a varia to th e a rc h b is h o p s of
M a in z a n d Köln a n d the p atricia n s o f th e free cities o f L ü b ec k , H a m b u r g
a n d B rem en — m a n a g e d their ow n sovereignties, a n d h a d no wish fo r unity.
T h e E u r o p e a n E n lig h te n m e n t p ro d u c e d a fu rth e r flow ering o f G e r m a n
literature in the eig h tee n th ce n tu ry , c u lm in a tin g in the p o e try o f G oethe.
I he F re n ch re v o lu tio n a ry arm ies were at first w elcom ed by m a n y G e r m a n s
in the west a n d south-w est, bu t N a p o le o n ’s w ars a n d ty r a n n y eventually
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 93

p r o d u c e d a reaction, sta rtin g w ith the e d u c a te d b u t also s p r e a d in g to large

n u m b e rs in th e p o o r e r classes, at first sim ply aga in st the F re n c h a n d th e n
f o r a united G e r m a n ‘f a th e rl a n d ’. T his m o v e m e n t was used by the A u str ia n
e m p e r o r 2 a n d the king o f P russia, b u t th e y a n d their advisers d istru sted it
p ro fo u n d ly , a n d w o u ld h e a r no m ore o f it once their e n e m y N a p o le o n was
defeated.
G e r m a n y after the defeat o f N a p o le o n was divided in to a m u c h sm aller
n u m b e r o f states th a n in the eig hteenth c e ntury, b u t still th e re w ere thirty-
nine. T he G e r m a n C o n f e d e r a tio n w h ich n o w replaced the d e fu n c t H o ly
R o m a n E m pire was h ard ly less fictitious. It had no ce n tral p arliam e n t.
T h ere was a Diet (Reichstag) in F r a n k f u r t w hich was in fact a place for
n eg o tia tio n s a n d b a rg a in in g between th e delegates of the th irty -n in e state
g o v e rn m e n ts. T h ere were also a r r a n g e m e n ts for the p rovisio n o f m ilitary
co n tin g en ts fo r c o m m o n aims.
All the states were ruled by G e r m a n g o v e rn m e n ts. It is true th a t the king
o f E n g la n d a n d the king of D e n m a r k were sovereigns in th ree territories of
G e r m a n speech ( H a n o v e r , Schleswig a n d H olstein), b u t these lan ds were
ruled quite in d e p e n d e n tly o f th o se k in g d o m s . T h ere w ere p erso n s of
G e r m a n speech in S w itzerland (recognised as sovereign a n d neu tra l by the
T re a t y of V ienna), in Alsace u n d e r F r e n c h rule a n d in the Baltic provinces
u n d e r R u ssian rule, a n d in several sm all c o m m u n itie s in s o u th e r n a n d
ea ste rn H u n g ary . H ow ever, these p eople did n o t feel them selves to be
natio n ally op pressed , n o r was th eir c o n d itio n a source of m u c h in d ig n a tio n
in G e r m a n y .3
T h e r e was th u s n o q u e s tio n o f G e r m a n s suffering fro m foreign rule. T he
p ro b le m was n o t in de pend e nce b u t unity. T o large a n d g ro w in g n u m b e rs in
all p arts of G e r m a n y , a n d m ainly a m o n g the u r b a n e d u c a te d classes,
n a tio n a l unity n o w seemed a pressing need. T h is was in e xtrica bly c o n n e c t­
ed w ith th e p ro b le m o f c o n s titu tio n a l reform , b o th for individu al states a n d
fo r G e r m a n y as a w hole. T h e d e m a n d for the unity o f the G e r m a n people
could n o t be se p a ra te d fro m the d e m a n d th a t the people sh o u ld have
political rights. N a tio n a lism an d liberalism were in te rco n n ec te d , th o u g h
the a d m ix tu r e varied a c c o r d in g to p erson, class, region a n d circum stances.
T h e tw o giants a m o n g the G e r m a n states, A u stria a n d P russia, were
in evitably involved in these asp ira tio n s. T h e d y n astic rivalry w hich had set
th e m against each o th e r in the previou s c e n tu ry r e a p p e a r e d in th e fo r m o f
c o m p e titio n f o r th e le adership of G e r m a n y . M e tte rn ic h was stro ngly
o p p o s e d to b o th n a tio n a lis m a n d liberalism , a n d did his best to disco urage
G e r m a n rulers fro m giving th e ir subjects co n s titu tio n s. In this he was not
entirely successful: rep rese n tativ e in stitu tio n s o f a so rt existed in six states
o f ce n tral a n d so u th -w e ste rn G e r m a n y , B a d en being th e m o s t successful.
H ow ever, s tu d e n t d e m o n s tr a ti o n s in 1817, a n d th e m u r d e r o f a R u ssian
w riter a n d fo rm e r official by a G e r m a n s tu d e n t in 1818, en a b le d M e tte rn ic h
94 Nations and States

to force t h r o u g h th e R eichstag the ‘K a r ls b a d decrees’ of A u g u st 1819 w hich

tighten ed cen so rsh ip a n d all f o rm s o f c o n tro l over intellectual life. In 1837
the new king o f H a n o v e r abo lish e d the c o n s titu tio n , a n d th e n dism issed
seven G o ttin g e n professors w h o refused to ta k e the o a th o f allegiance,
a r o u s in g w idesp re ad in d ig n a tio n th r o u g h o u t G e rm a n y .
A n i m p o r ta n t fa c to r w o rk in g to w a r d s G e r m a n unity, t h o u g h its m otive
was essentially ec on om ic , w as th e f o rm a tio n o f the c u s to m s u n io n between
Prussia a n d H e s s e - D a rm s ta d t in 1828. It was e x te n d e d in the follow ing
years to cov e r all exc ept A u s tr ia in the east a n d O ld e n b u r g , H a n o v e r a n d
B runsw ick in th e n o rth -w e st. T h e G e r m a n Zollverein, as it was called in
1834, pow erfully c o n trib u te d to th e e c o n o m ic u n ific ation o f G e r m a n y , a n d
to the influence o f P russia w ith in it.
D u rin g the 1840s pu blic discu ssion in general, a n d the d e m a n d for unity
in p articu la r, bec am e m o re pressing, especially in the m o r e liberal s o u t h ­
w estern states. T h e accession o f F re d erick W illiam IV to th e th r o n e of
P russia in 1840 also a r o u s e d hopes, for he show ed so m e sy m p a th y for
G e r m a n n a tio n a l feeling, a n d his a t titu d e to w a r d s liberal ideas was, if not
friendly, a t least vacillating. In n o r th e r n G e r m a n y n a tio n a lism was s tim u ­
lated by the fact th a t D a n is h voices were raised in fa v o u r of sim ply
a n n e x in g Schlesw ig a n d H o lste in to D e n m a r k , a n d o f p u sh in g the D an ish
b o r d e r s o u th to the river E ider, so as to include in D e n m a r k th a t p o rtio n of
the p o p u la tio n o f Schleswig w hich was D a n is h in speech a n d n a tio n al
feeling.
T h e crisis in G e r m a n affairs c a m e in 1848. T h e news o f th e F e b r u a r y
R e v o lu tio n in P a ris p r o d u c e d results all o v er G e r m a n y . N ew g o v e rn m e n ts
o f liberal c o m p le x io n w ere fo rm e d in B aden, H a n o v e r, W iirtem b e rg ,
H e s s e - D a rm s ta d t a n d Bavaria. O n 14 M a rc h th e re was a rev o lu tio n in
V ienna, M e tte rn ic h was d ism issed by the e m p e r o r , a n d a c o n s titu tio n was
p rom ise d. O n 18 M a rc h th ere was r e v o lu tio n in Berlin, a n d sim ilar
pro m ise s w ere m a d e. D u r i n g M a r c h a n d the first h a lf o f A pril there were
p e a sa n t risings in s o u th -w e ste rn a n d ce n tral G e r m a n y , a n d riots by
w o rk e rs in the R h in e la n d a n d S ax o n y . A m eetin g in H eid e lb e rg o n 5
M a rc h set u p a c o m m itte e to o rg an ise a n assem bly to p r e p a re fo r a n a tio n a l
G e r m a n p a rlia m e n t. F o r m e r a n d p re se n t m e m b e rs o f sta te assem blies a n d
so m e city councils w ere invited to atte n d . Several h u n d r e d p erso n s c a m e to
F r a n k f u r t, a n d the G e r m a n C o n f e d e r a tio n ’s R e ic h sta g was in d u c e d to give
its fo rm a l a p p r o v a l to the electoral law fo r the p r o p o s e d f u tu re G e r m a n
p arliam e n t. T h e franchise was o bscurely w o rd e d a n d v a rio u sly applied , b u t
in the n ex t w eeks a b o u t 800 p e rso n s w ere elected, a n d a b o u t 500 were
prese nt w hen the p a r lia m e n t o p e n e d in th e P a u ls k irc h e in F r a n k f u r t o n 18
M ay 1848.
T h e task o f the A ssem bly was to p r o d u c e a c o n s titu tio n for a united
G e r m a n y . W ith the a r g u m e n ts a b o u t the fo rm o f g o v e rn m e n t, a n d the
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 95

c o n s e q u e n t differences betw een the liberal m a jo rity a n d the conservative

a n d radical m inorities, we are n o t here c o n c ern ed . T h e p r o b le m o f G e r m a n
un ity at once raised the q u estio n , w h a t was G e rm a n y ? T h e easiest a n s w e r —
states w ith p r e d o m i n a n tly G e r m a n p o p u la tio n , o r w ith G e r m a n ru lers—
raised a n u m b e r o f difficulties. S w itze rlan d was exclu d e d fro m th e first,
a n d Alsace could n o t be included w ith o u t a w a r w ith F ra n ce . B o h e m ia had
been for centuries a p a r t o f the H oly R o m a n E m p ire, b u t the m a jo r ity o f its
p o p u la tio n s p o k e C zech a n d were b e c o m in g increasingly c onvince d th a t
they were a n a tio n distin ct fro m the G e r m a n s . T h e Czechs, led by the
histo ria n Palacky, refused to ta k e p a r t.4 T his was also the a t titu d e of
politically conscious p erso ns a m o n g the S lovenes, w h o fo rm e d th e m a jo r i­
ty in the s o u th - e a ste rn p a r t o f the A lpin e p rovinces o f A u stria. In P russia
the Poles began to p u t f o rw a r d claim s, a n d fo r a tim e th e Berlin g o v e r n ­
m e n t, fro m liberal s y m p a th y a n d a n t i- R u s s ia n feeling, show ed som e
sy m p a th y for the m . H o w ev er, local G e r m a n a n d P olish p o p u la tio n s in the
P o z n a n (P o se n ) pro v in ce clashed, a n d by m id - M a y th e Poles h a d been
suppressed by P ru ssia n m ilitary force. In Schlesw ig a n d H o lste in the
G e r m a n p o p u la tio n set up a p rov isional g o v e r n m e n t in Kiel, a n d a n ­
n o u n c e d its in te n tio n to jo in un ited G e r m a n y . O n 10 A pril P ru ssia n tr o o p s
invaded H olstein to s u p p o r t their claim . T h e a t te m p t o f the British foreign
secretary. L ord P a lm e r s to n , to n eg o tiate a c o m p ro m is e , leaving are as o f
D a n is h p o p u la tio n to D e n m a r k a n d allo w in g the rest to jo in G e r m a n y , was
unsuccessful; b u t R u s sia n pressure o n th e P ru ssia n g o v e r n m e n t b r o u g h t
a b o u t a n arm istice, signed at M a lm ö o n 26 A u g u st, a n d the e v a c u a tio n of
D a n is h territory. In F e b r u a r y 1849 the D a n e s d e n o u n c e d the arm istice,
w a r was renew ed, the P russians a d v a n c e d into D e n m a r k , b u t R u ssian
pressure ag a in b r o u g h t a b o u t a n arm istice, on 10 July.
D u r i n g 1848 o p in io n in the F r a n k f u r t A sse m b ly was p ola rised betw een
the 'g re ate r G e r m a n ’ ( grossdeutsch) p r o g r a m m e , w hich w o u ld in clude all
the G e rm a n -s p e a k in g territories o f th e H a b s b u r g M o n a r c h y in G e r m a n y ,
a n d th e ‘lesser G e r m a n ’ ( kleindeutsch ), w hich w o u ld leave A u s tr ia o u t a n d
in effect give s u p r e m a c y to Prussia. T h e grossdeutsch p r o g r a m m e was
s u p p o r te d b o th by so m e conservatives, w h o e x p e cted th a t A u s tr ia n
p a r tic ip a tio n w ou ld c o u n te r b a la n c e radical policies, a n d by so m e radicals,
w h o se principles ca u se d th e m to insist t h a t the w hole G e r m a n people m ust
be in cluded in free G e r m a n y . T he situ a tio n in A u stria w as extre m ely
c o n fu se d t h r o u g h o u t 1848.5 V ienna was in revolt a n d the im perial c o u r t
w as forced to m o v e to I n n s b ru c k f r o m M a y till July. In O c to b e r a new
r e v o lu tio n a r y o u t b r e a k in V ienna ca u se d th e c o u r t to flee to O lo m o u c
(O lm ü tz ) in M o r a v ia . A u s tr ia n a rm ie s w ere figh ting in Italy a n d in
H u n g a ry . It was n o t until N o v e m b e r t h a t th e G e r m a n -s p e a k in g H a b s b u r g
lands were b r o u g h t u n d e r co n tro l. Effective p o w e r in A u s tr ia w as in th e
h a n d o f Prince Felix S ch w arze n b erg . A tra d itio n a lis t a n d a conservativ e in
96 Nations and States

his d e t e r m in a tio n to m a in ta in th e m o n a rc h y , unaffected him self by

n a tio n a l preferences a n d c o n t e m p t u o u s o f d e m o c r a c y a n d o f politicians,
yet in so m e ways m o d e rn - m in d e d a n d even socially en ligh tened, S ch w ar-
ze n b erg w ished sim ply to inclu de th e w hole m o n a rc h y , w ith all its different
peoples, in the new G e r m a n y , a n d so d o m in a te th e w hole of C e n tral
E u ro p e . H e was n o t so m u c h grossdeutsch in o u tlo o k as a c h a m p io n o f a
G r e a t e r A u stria w hich w o u ld have sw allow ed u p G e r m a n y .
T his was a n u n a c c e p ta b le p ro spec t to the vast m a jo r ity o f the F r a n k f u r t
A ssem bly, a n d w h en S c h w a r z e n b e r g o n 4 M a rc h 1849 dissolved the
A u s tr ia n p a rlia m e n t, a n d th e n im posed a new c o n s titu tio n o n A u stria, he
b e c am e even less attractiv e. T h e kleindeutseh school o f th o u g h t prevailed
a t F r a n k f u r t, a n d o n 28 M a r c h th e assem b ly elected th e king o f P russia as
e m p e r o r o f th e f u tu re G e r m a n y . H ow ever, F re d e ric k W illiam gave a vague
reply, a n d a t the en d o f A pril the P ru ssia n g o v e r n m e n t decided t h a t it could
n o t acce p t th e c o n s titu tio n n o w p r o p o s e d by the assem bly unless it were
s u b stan tia lly m odified. All delegates to th e assem bly fro m A u stria a n d
f ro m P ru ssia were o rd e re d by th e ir g o v e r n m e n ts to re tu r n hom e. T he
r e m n a n t o f th e assem bly, w hich included so m e a d m ir a b le liberal leaders
b u t h a d n o p o w e r b ehind it, was asked to leave F r a n k f u r t. It m ove d to
S tu ttg a r t , w here it was finally su p p ressed o n 18 J u n e by the soldiers o f the
W iir te m b e r g g o v e rn m e n t. T h e re was a b rief a r m e d u p risin g in p ro te s t in
D re sd en , in w hich such p ic tu resq u e figures as the c o m p o s e r R ich a rd
W a g n e r a n d the a n a r c h is t M ichael B a k u n in played th e ir p a rt, a n d a m o re
serious revolt in the P a la tin a te a n d Baden led by a P olish d e m o c r a t,
G e n e ra l L u d w ik M ierosiaw ski.
T h e r e was a m in o r e pilogue in the f o rm o f p ro p o s a ls by a close friend of
F re d erick W illiam , G e n e ra l J o s e p h v o n R a d o w itz , for a n as socia tio n
betw e en a n a r r o w e r G e r m a n em pire, d o m in a te d by P russia, a n d a w ider
c o n f e d e r a tio n , to include the w hole H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y . T h e schem e had
insufficient s u p p o r t fro m th e sm a lle r G e r m a n states, a n d w as o p p o se d by
A u stria. In th e conflict w hich develo ped d u r in g 1850 betw een P ru ssia a n d
A u stria o n a n u m b e r o f p o in ts , A u stria had the s u p p o r t o f Russia. A t a
m eetin g in O lo m o u c o n 29 N o v e m b e r 1850 betw een S c h w a r z e n b e r g a n d
the P ru s s ia n p rem ier, E d w in w o n M a n te u ffe l, A u s tr ia views prevailed.
T h e a p p a r e n tly c o m p lete victo ry o f A u s tr ia , b ac k e d by the f o rm id a b le
T s a r N ich o las I, was short-lived. S c h w a r z e n b e r g died in 1852, a n d was
replaced by m e n o f far less political ability. I n P ru ssia, O tto v o n B ism arck
bec am e p re m ie r in 1862. T h e w ars in the C r im e a a n d Italy tr a n s f o r m e d the
E u r o p e a n d ip lo m a tic a n d m ilita ry scene. I n 1866 P ru s s ia w e n t to w a r w ith
A u stria a n d m o st o f the o th e r G e r m a n states. T h e P ru ssia n s w ere vic to r­
ious. In the peace settlem en t, A u stria w as th e n c e fo rth exclu d e d fro m
G e r m a n affairs; H a n o v e r a n d som e sm aller n o r th G e r m a n states were
a n n e x e d to Prussia; a n d the rest were united in a N o r t h G e r m a n C o n f e d e r ­
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 97

atio n u n d e r P ru ssia n leadership. In 1870 c a m e th e F r a n c o - P r u s s ia n W a r,

in w hich the so u th G e r m a n states also to o k p a r t o n P ru ssia ’s side. P ru ssia n
victory was follow ed by the p r o c la m a t io n o f the G e r m a n em pire, w hich
was jo in e d by B avaria a n d th e o th e r s o u th e r n states. D efeated F ra n c e h ad
to cede n o t only G e r m a n -s p e a k in g Alsace b u t also F re n c h -sp e a k in g
L orraine. T hese te rrito rie s w ere in c o rp o r a t e d in the new e m p ire as a
Reichsland, fo r w hich the im perial g o v e r n m e n t was directly responsible.
T h e new em p ire preserved the identity o f th e sm aller states, in c ludin g the
royal o r g r a n d - d u c a l titles o f som e rulers, a n d a c o n s id e ra b le variety of
institu tio ns a n d laws. But Prussia c o n ta in e d a b o u t tw o -th ird s o f the
p o p u la tio n a n d m o r e th a n tw o -th ird s o f the ind u stria l resources. T h e
political life of the em p ire had som e strik in g c o n tra d ic tio n s. T he im perial
R eichstag was elected by universal suffrage, b u t the P ru ssian p a r lia m e n t by
a three-class franchise w eighted heavily in fa v o u r o f w ealth a n d la n d o w n e r-
ship. T h u s tw o -th ird s o f the in h a b ita n ts o f the em pire, while d e m o c r a tic a l­
ly electing the central p a rlia m e n t, enjoyed m u c h less th a n d e m o c r a tic rights
in m o st m a tte rs o f in ternal politics a n d social policy m ost directly affecting
their lives. There were often great co n tra s ts betw een the policies o f P ru ssia
a n d o f the o th e r states, for e x a m p le in the tr e a tm e n t o f the g ro w in g socialist
m o v e m e n t, or o f C a th o lics (w ho fo rm e d a large m in o rity in P ru ssia, an d
included a su b sta n tia l n u m b e r o f Poles). Yet despite these c o n tra d ic tio n s,
u n d e r the em p ire the sense o f G e r m a n n a tio n a l identity steadily increased.
This was p r o b a b ly least tru e o f the old u p p e r classes a n d o f the p ea sa n ts in
the m o r e b a c k w a rd ru ra l areas, m o st tr u e o f the rising business a n d
professional m iddle classes. As for the rapid ly g ro w in g w o rk in g class, its
political sp o k e sm e n w ere in b itter o p p o s itio n to the w hole regim e (alw ays
in w ords, b u t p erh a p s less strongly in practice as the years passed), b u t they
certainly considered them selves to b e lo n g to th e G e r m a n nation.
T h e G e r m a n e m p ire had brilliant m ilitary a n d e c o n o m ic progress to
kleindeutsch
show . T h e p r o g r a m m e a p p e a r e d to have tr iu m p h e d . Yet the
grossdeutsch idea h ad n o t died, least o f all in A ustria. It is a c o m m o n p la c e
Ausgleich
th a t afte r the o f 1867 A u s tr ia - H u n g a r y was based o n a G e r m a n -
H u n g a r ia n c o n d o m in iu m , w ith each o f these tw o n a tio n s p r e d o m i n a n t in
o n e h alf o f the m o n a rc h y . T h e t r u th is m o r e co m p le x . It is tr u e th a t G e r m a n
w as th e langu age o f th e d y n asty , the h ig h e r b u r e a u c r a c y a n d the a rm e d
forces, as well as of the flo u rish in g business a n d c u ltu r a l life o f the w estern
p a r t o f the m o n a rc h y . A u s tr ia n s o f G e r m a n speech c o u ld play a full p a rt, in
tr a d e a n d science, literatu re a n d jo u r n a l is m , in the w ider G e r m a n w orld,
a n d at the sam e tim e th e y could be p r o u d o f th e ir role as th e m o s t ad v a n c e d
people w ithin the m o n a rc h y , c o n t r i b u tin g m o s t to its progress. In th e 1870s
a n d 1880s, w hen political a n d cu ltu ra l le ad e rsh ip o f the G e r m a n -s p e a k in g
people o f A u stria was in th e h a n d s o f L iberals, m a n y o f w h o m were o f
Je w ish origin, there was n o t m u c h d isc o n te n t w ith this situation : it was
98 Nations and States

possible a t th e sam e tim e to feel oneself a G e r m a n , to p ride on eself on

G e r m a n culture, a n d to be a d ev o ted se rv a n t o f the d y n a s ty a n d the
m o n a rc h y .
Im perceptib ly , to w a r d s the end o f the ce ntury, the clim ate o f o p in io n
ch a n g ed . A lrea d y in th e 1870s th e re w ere s o m e fa n a tic s w h o w ished to tear
the G e r m a n -s p e a k in g lands a w a y fro m A u stria a n d jo in th e m to the
G e r m a n Reich. In o r d e r to o v erc o m e B ism arc k ’s o b je ctions, s o m e even
lau n ch e d a m o v e m e n t, w ith th e slo ga n Los von Rom (‘a w a y fro m R o m e ’),
to c o n v e rt C a tholics to P ro te sta n tism . T his was a failure. Yet in the
follow ing years a s tro n g G e r m a n n a tio n a list m o v e m e n t, a n ti-S e m itic an d
an ti-L ib eral, grew up in A ustria.
T h is was in p a r t a r ea ctio n o f a y o u n g e r g e n e r a tio n a g a in st the c o m p la ­
cency o f its elders, a fairly general p h e n o m e n o n in E u ro p e a t the fin de
siecle. It ow ed m u c h to th e rivalry o f G e r m a n s try in g to e n te r business a n d
the pro fe ssions w ith the Je w s w h o m th e y f o u n d securely established in
these fields, especially in V ienna. It was u n u su a lly s tr o n g in the b o r d e r la n d s
o f B o h e m ia a n d C a rin th ia , w here G e r m a n s fo u n d th e ir e n tre n c h e d p o si­
tio n s th r e a te n e d by the C zechs or the Slovenes, w h o were rapidly a d v a n c ­
ing in e d u c a tio n , in e c o n o m ic activity a n d in n a tio n a l feeling. T h e new
G e r m a n n atio n alists w ere bitterly critical o f the H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y .
T h ey did n o t believe th a t the G e r m a n s were d o m i n a n t in the A u s tr ia n half
o f th e em pire. O n the c o n tra ry , as they saw it, the ruling class consisted of
m e n o f G e r m a n origin w h o h ad b etray ed the G e r m a n n a t io n a l ideal, a n d by
th e ir to le ran ce to w a rd s n o n - G e r m a n s were allow ing the la tte r g ra d u a lly to
ta k e over th e w hole co u n try . A n d it m u st be a d m itte d th a t there was a
c e rta in t r u t h in this a r g u m e n t. T h e H a b s b u r g s a n d th e ir se n ior g o v e rn m e n t
servan ts w ere in n o sense G e r m a n n atio nalists. T h ey h a d n o desire to G e r ­
m a n ise th e Slavs o r to drive th e Je w s o u t o f business o r c u ltu r a l life. T he
C zech a n d S lovene n atio n alists sincerely h a te d th e V ien n a rulers fo r im ­
p osing G e r m a n h eg e m o n y , b u t the G e r m a n n atio n alists h a te d th e m n o less
sincerely f o r failing to d o so. It is a stran g e irony th a t the one large mass
m o v e m e n t a m o n g G e r m a n -s p e a k in g A u s tr ia n s w hich w ished the M o n a r c h y
to survive w as the socialist m o v e m en t. T h o u g h in principle r ep u b lican s an d
revo lu tio n arie s, K arl R e n n e r a n d O tto B auer, e a c h in his d ifferent way,
w ished to reorganise th e state in such fa s h io n as to satisfy ea ch n atio n a lity
b u t to m a in ta in the w hole, giving n o n a t io n h e g e m o n y o v er th e others.
T h e e x tre m e G e r m a n natio n alists in A u stria w ere essentially P a n g e r-
m ans. T h e ir a im was to u n ite all G e r m a n s , b u t n o t to relinquish rule by
G e r m a n s ov er the lesser peoples o f the D a n u b e Basin. T h e ir plans were
sim ilar to th o se o f the A ll- G e r m a n L ea g u e w hich existed in the R eich, an d
w hich enjoy ed so m e s u p p o r t fro m G e r m a n business a n d f r o m professors
a n d jo u r n a lis ts o f im perialist inclination. T h e A ll-G e rm a n L eague aim ed at
a reversal o f Felix S c h w a r z e n b e r g ’s designs o f 1849. Both he an d they had
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 99

p la n n e d to co m b in e the w hole o f G e r m a n y w ith the w hole o f th e H a b s b u r g

M o n a rc h y ; b u t w hereas S ch w a rz e n b e rg had wished the H a b s b u r g s to
d o m in a te this vast are a, the A ll- G e r m a n L eague a n d its A u s tr ia n well-
w ishers reg a rd e d m o st o f the H a b s b u r g la n d s as a colo n ial a r e a to be
d o m in a te d by th e G e r m a n s , th e m a ste r p eople to w h o m ‘p u r e ’ (n o n -Je w ish )
G e r m a n s fro m A u s tr ia sh o u ld also belong.
T he P a n g e r m a n s w ere only a m in o rity g r o u p in A u stria, a n d th e ex te n t
o f th e A ll-G e rm a n L e a g u e ’s influence in th e R eich before 1914 is d eb a ta b le.
H ow ever, d u r in g the c o u rse o f the First W o rld W a r there is n o d o u b t th a t
b o th g ained g r o u n d rapidly. T h e peace o f Brest-L itovsk, im posed on
R ussia in M a rc h 1918, was a victory for th e m ; a n d there is n o t m u c h d o u b t
th a t if th e ce ntral po w ers h a d w o n the w ar, the peace se ttle m ent b o th in the
west a n d in the s o u th -e a st w o u ld have c o r r e s p o n d e d to th e ir wishes.
Instead o f this, G e r m a n y was defeated, a n d gave up A lsa c e -L o rra in e to
F ra n c e , so m e small te rr ito r y to Belgium a n d large are as o f p r e d o m in a n tly
P olish speech to the resto re d Polish state; while th e H a b s b u r g M o n a r c h y
d isin teg rated , the tr a d itio n a l A u s tr ia n lan ds w ere f o rb id d e n to u nite w ith
G e r m a n y a n d m a d e into a s e p arate repu blic, a n d the B o h e m ia n a n d
M o r a v ia n G e r m a n s were in c o rp o r a te d a g a in st th eir will in th e new sta te o f
C z ec ho slova kia. G e r m a n y itself b e c am e a repub lic, b u t th e old internal
sta te b o u n d a r ie s w ere m a in ta in e d , a n d c o n s id e ra b le p ow ers still reserved
to sta te g o v e rn m e n ts. As before 1914, a b o u t tw o -th ird s o f th e p o p u la tio n
a n d o f the ec o n o m ic resources were in P russia. T h e peace se ttle m en t was
generally felt to be unju st. In p articu la r, P ru ssian s resented th e very
existence o f a P olish state; m a n y — p e rh a p s m o s t— A u stria n s c o n tin u e d to
resent their s e p a r a tio n f r o m G e r m a n y ; a n d n ea rly all B o h e m ia n G e r m a n s
objected to being placed u n d e r Czech rule.
T hese rese n tm e n ts re m a in e d s tro n g even in the perio d o f g reatest
stability a n d p ro sp e rity o f the W e im a r R ep u b lic , a n d were e n o r m o u s ly
increased by the sufferings o f th e great e c o n o m ic dep re ssio n fro m 1929
o n w a r d s . B o th ec o n o m ic m isery a n d n atio n alist re se n tm e n t w ere s y ste m a t­
ically a n d successfully ex p lo ite d by the A u s tr ia n - b o r n A d o lf H itler, w h o
him s elf h a d g r o w n u p in Linz a n d V ien n a in the clim ate o f anti-S e m itic ,
a n ti-S la v G e r m a n n a tio n a lis m o f th e last years o f th e H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y .
H itler abo lish e d the old state b o u n d a r ie s w ith in G e r m a n y ; p ro cla im e d the
T h ird R eich t h a t was to last a t h o u s a n d years; a n n e x e d A u stria , the
G e r m a n -s p e a k in g p a r t o f B o h e m ia (o r Sudetenland), a n d c o n q u e r e d the
w hole o f E u ro p e . In his pla n s he m a d e g o o d use o f the sm aller G e r m a n
m inorities scattered t h r o u g h so u th - e a s te rn E u ro p e , a n d cre ate d a b u r n in g
h a tre d o f G e r m a n s as such in m o s t o f th e c o n tin e n t, especially in P o la n d
a n d R u ssia. His v ersio n o f th e G re a te r G e r m a n R eich w o u ld hav e ap p a lle d
the m edieval em p e ro rs , thegrossdeutsch sp o k e s m e n in th e P a u ls k irc h e a n d
Prince Felix S c h w arze n b erg , but was ac ce p te d w ith e n th u sia sm by the
100 Nations and States

pupils o f the A ll-G e rm a n L eague in th e R eich a n d in A u stria.

W h e n H itle r’s T h ird R eich collapsed in 1945, a terrible fate o v e r to o k the
G e r m a n s o f the ea ste rn lan ds. M o r e th a n ten m illion p eo p le were expelled
f ro m the lands ta k e n ov er by P o la n d a n d f ro m the B o h e m ia n an d
M o r a v ia n b o rd e rla n d s . H o w m a n y h u n d r e d s o f th o u s a n d s perished in th e
process will never be e xa ctly k n o w n . N o t only the te rr ito r y held by P o la n d
af te r 1918, b u t all the la n d s east o f the O d e r a n d w estern Neisse rivers were
lost. P a r t o f E ast P ru ssia was a n n e x e d to th e Soviet R u ssian em pire, an d
I m m a n u e l K a n t’s city o f K ön ig sb e rg w as r e n a m e d K alinin grad. A u stria
once m o r e b e c am e a s e p a ra te republic, a n d was c o m m itte d by the peace
tr e a ty o f 1955 never to u n ite w ith G e r m a n y . M o st d is a stro u s o f all for
G e r m a n s , th e line o f d e m a r c a tio n betw een the o c c u p a tio n zones o f the
Sov iet U n io n o n the one h a n d an d o f the British, F re n c h a n d A m eric an s on
the o th e r, b e c am e a fro ntier between tw o states, while the fo rm e r ca pital of
Berlin was also divided in tw o , the w estern secto r being entirely s u r ro u n d e d
by th e te rr ito r y o f the S oviet-c o n tro lled G e r m a n D e m o c r a tic Republic.
T h u s in the 1970s th e re were in E u ro p e fo u r states o f G e r m a n speech. O f
these, S w itze rland had survived u n c h a n g e d all th e c a ta s tr o p h e s o f the
tw e n tie th ce ntury. T he c o n d itio n o f the o th e r th ree p resented a striking
histo rical irony. T h e tw o states w hich h ad d o m in a te d G e r m a n history in
m o d e r n tim es, a n d w hich had also in v arying degrees rep resented the
a b s o lu tist a n d m ilitary tr a d itio n s of the G e r m a n people, w ere far excelled
in p o w e r a n d p ro sperity by the regions in w ho se history peaceful ec o n o m ic
en terp rise a n d cu ltu ra l ac h ie v e m e n t h a d been m o re n o ta b le th a n triu m p h s
in d ip lo m a c y o r w ar. A u stria was a small b u t c o m f o r ta b le state o f eight
m illio n in h a b ita n ts; residual P russia a n d its s o u th e r n n e ig h b o u rs were a
m o st u n c o m fo r ta b le h o m e fo r eighteen millions; while H a m b u r g , M u n ic h ,
F r a n k f u r t a n d C o lo g n e w ere th e m a in centres o f a successful m o d e rn polity
w ith m o r e t h a n fifty million citizens living in nine federal units.
T h e re was p le n ty o f evidence in the 1950s o f th e h a tre d felt by the subjects
o f th e E a s t G e r m a n sta te fo r th e ir rulers. T h e re w as a ste ady d r a in of
e m ig r a tio n to the W est t h r o u g h the d e m o c r a tic island of W est Berlin. In
J u n e 1953 th e re was a massive w o rk in g class rising in E ast Berlin a n d oth e r
ind u stria l centres o f E ast G e r m a n y , b u t th e in te rv en tio n o f Soviet A rm y
ta n k s caused th e a b a n d o n m e n t o f resistance, w ith o u t m a n y casualties. T he
S oviet a n d E ast G e r m a n rulers f o u n d the existence o f W est Berlin a n
into lerab le n uisance, b u t n e ith e r the b lo c k a d e o f 1948-49 n o r the th r e a ts of
1960-61 c o uld a b o lish it. In the s u m m e r o f 1962 a wall w as built right
th r o u g h th e city, a n d E ast G e r m a n f ro n tie r g u a rd s were given o rd e rs to
sh o o t to kill all w h o tried to cross it. T his p u t a n en d to the em ig ra tio n
w estw ards. In the follow ing years m o r e intelligent e c o n o m ic policies led to
strikin g m a teria l progress in East G e r m a n y . A q u a r te r c e n tu r y afte r the
division o f G e r m a n y , th o se w h o had g ro w n up in the ea ste rn r u m p state not
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 101

only accepted it as a fact, b u t felt pride in its e c o n o m ic a n d social

achiev em ents, a n d a certain loyalty to the state as such, even if they had
little love for its ac tu a l rulers, a n d still less for th e ir S oviet R u ssian im perial
m asters. At the sam e tim e so m e o f th e m felt a ce rtain m o ra l su p e rio rity to
the people o f W est G e r m a n y , w h o seemed to th e m to live in a d egenerate
capitalist p lu toc racy, a land o f g rea t lu x u ry a n d c o n tin u e d poverty,
m o rally d e c a d e n t an d d e p e n d e n t on A m e ric a n p a tro n a g e . In this view they
felt s tren g th en e d by the violent d e n u n c ia tio n o f the W est G e r m a n regim e
w hich po u red forth fro m W est G e r m a n s p o k e sm e n , especially from
stu d e n ts a n d y o u n g e r writers.
Yet th o u g h the tw o G e r m a n states w ere k e p t a p a r t by e x te rn a l force, by
divergent e c o n o m ic policies a n d by the m en talities a n d loyalties o f their
citizens, the consciou sne ss of the G e r m a n s as a single n a tio n rem a ined a
fact, an d the desire fo r reu nific ation was strong. H ow ever, tw o points
sh ould be distinguished. It was felt as a n injustice th a t G e r m a n s sh o u ld not
be m e m b ers o f a single state; b u t w h a t was still m o re intolerable was th a t
on e-th ird o f th e G e r m a n n a tio n sh ould be d ep riv ed o f political a n d cu ltu ral
liberty a n d be subject to e x p lo ita tio n a n d h u m ilia tio n by the Soviet
R ussian imperialists. The existence o f tw o G e r m a n states w as resented; but
if th e re were to be tw o gen u in e G e r m a n states, w ho se citizens could fo rm
their o w n institu tio ns a n d policies w ithin their o w n c o u n try , this w ould at
least be tolerable. A n in d e p e n d e n t P russia, fo rb id d e n by in te rn a tio n a l
trea ty to be reun ited w ith the rest o f G e r m a n y bu t w ith tru e in ternal
sovereignty a n d free institutions, w o uld be a c c e p ta b le to m o s t G erm a n s. It
was not, how ever, a c c e p ta b le in 1970 to the c o m m u n is t leaders o f the East
G e r m a n state o r to th e ir o v e rlo rd s in M oscow, a n d it did n o t seem likely to
bec om e so for a long time.
T h e case o f A u stria pro v id ed an e x a m p le o f w h a t m ight be achieved if
there were th e will to try it. By the trea ty o f 1955, signed by the great
pow ers, A u stria was f o rb id d e n to jo in itself to G e r m a n y . T w o G e r m a n ­
sp e ak in g states, b o th possessing free in stitu tio n s but with ra th e r different
political systems, existed very h appily side by side. A u stria n s could take
their full p a rt in the cu ltu r a l life o f the G e r m a n -s p e a k in g w orld. T here was
n o p erso n a l o r professional o r business rela tio n sh ip th a t a n A u s tr ia n m ight
wish to have w ith a W est G e r m a n w hich he c ould n o t have. T h e Anschluss-
verbot did n o t inhibit A u s tr ia n s a n d G e r m a n s in th o se co n ta c ts w ith each
o th e r w hich m a tte re d to b o th . A u strian s w ere c o n te n t to live in the
A u s tr ia n republic; A u stria was th eir h o m e la n d ; they felt a n o r m a l patrio tic
loyalty to A u stria, a n d did n o t n eed to ask them selves w h e th e r their d ee p er
loyalty was to a n a b s tr a c t Grossdeutschland n o t yet created. If ever a
sim ilar s itu atio n cou ld be p r o d u c e d betw een W est a n d E ast G e r m a n y , w ith
a free P russia b o u n d by a n Anschlussverbot, th e n the ideal o f w hich so
m a n y g en e ratio n s had d r e a m e d in vain, a h ea lth y G e r m a n y w ith in a
health y E u ro p e , m ight be w ith in sight.
102 Nations and States

Italian unity
T h e p e n in su la a n d islands k n o w n in m o d e r n tim es as Italy w ere lands of
a d v a n c e d civilisations (Hellenic, C a r t h a g in ia n , E tru sc a n , R o m a n ) long
before th e C h ristia n era. W h e n the R o m a n em p ire b r o k e u p, these lands
b ec am e d ivided betw een v ario u s G e r m a n ic rulers a n d Byzantine em p e ro rs ,
a n d la ter b o th M uslim A ra b s a n d N o r m a n a d v e n tu r e r s estab lish ed th e m ­
selves in Sicily a n d , m o r e briefly, o n the m a in la n d . R o m e itself rem ained
the residence o f the p o p e o f C h r is te n d o m . F r o m th e elev enth c e n tu ry new
centres o f p o w e r aro se a r o u n d th e tr a d i n g cities o f the n o r th a n d centre: one
o f these, the republic o f Venice, becam e a n im perial p o w e r in the eastern
M e d ite rr a n e a n , f o u n d e d on c o m m e r c e b u t also o n the a n n e x a t io n o f
te rr ito r y in h a b ite d by Italians (V e ro n a ) a n d by C r o a t s (D a lm a tia ).
F r o m th e vig o ro u s e c o n o m ic life o f m edieval n o r th e r n Italy there
develo ped a u n if o rm w ritte n Italian language, used by th e social an d
intellectual elite a n d ex p re ssed in a literature w ho se g reatest figure was the
p o et D a n te Alighieri. T h o u g h political rivalries a n d small-scale w ars
c o n tin u e d , a certain sense o f a c o m m o n Italian culture, o f Italian solidarity
a g a in st foreigners, b e c am e w idespre ad . T h e r e were th u s the beginnings of
a n I ta lia n n a tio n a l c o n s cio u sn e ss— s o m e th in g w hich h ad never existed in
R o m a n , b a r b a r ia n o r Byzantine tim es. O n e m a y arg u e t h a t th e Italian
n a t io n derives fro m the fifteenth c e ntury, especially fro m th e years afte r the
P eac e o f L odi (1454), w h en a conscious a t te m p t was m a d e to preserve
w ith in Italy a balance o f p o w e r based o n five Italian states: the d u c h y o f
M ilan , the republics o f Venice a n d Florence, R o m e o f th e popes, a n d the
k in g d o m o f Naples.
T his b a la n c e was b r o k e n by the F re n c h inva sion o f 1494, follow ed by a
S p a n is h co u n ter-in v asio n . Italian cu ltu re still flo urished b u t Italian politics
were d o m in a te d by foreign sta te s— first F ra n c e a n d S p ain , th e n A ustria.
T h e m a in ex c ep tio n , Venice, was n o t so m u c h a n Italian as a M e d ite rr a ­
n e a n state.
T h e ideas o f n o r th e r n E u r o p e m a d e th e ir im p a ct, a n d in th e eig hteenth
c e n tu r y Italy h a d its o w n sple nd id E n lig h te n m e n t, e x te n d in g even to
b a c k w a r d N ap les a n d p r o d u c in g a rich c r o p o f p h ilo s o p h ic a l, scientific,
legal a n d h u m a n ita r ia n figures. Inevitably, d e m o c r a tic t h o u g h t led Italians
to t h in k of th e liberty a n d u n ity o f Italy. T h e F re n c h R e v o lu tio n a r o u se d
g r e a t h opes, b u t the reality o f F re n c h im p e rial rule d is a p p o in te d m ost.
A fte r 1815 the E u r o p e a n victors tried to re sto re the p a t te r n o f small
states, w ith A u stria directly o r indirectly d o m i n a n t o v er th e w hole p e n in su ­
la. All these states were ruled by Italians, in th e sense th a t the a d m in is t r a ­
tio n was ca rrie d o u t by p erson s w h o s p o k e Italian. H o w ev er, tw o o f the
te rrito rie s ( L o m b a r d y a n d Venetia) w ere subject to a m o n a r c h , the centre
o f w hose p o w e r lay o utsid e Italy (the e m p e r o r o f A u stria); several o th e rs, of
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 103

w hich the m o st im p o r t a n t was the G r a n d D u c h y o f T u sca n y , were in fact

A u s tr ia n p ro te c to ra te s; A u s tr ia n po w er was m a in ta in e d by the p resence of
n o n - Ita lia n tr o o p s (m o stly G e r m a n o r C ro a tia n ); a n d A u s tr ia n political
influence was every w here used to m a in ta in a b s o lu tis m a g a in st reform . O ne
o th e r state also h a d a q uite peculiar status: the p o p e was n o t only a
te m p o r a r y ruler b u t also S u p re m e P o n tif f o f the universal C a th o lic
C h u rc h . F o r the n ex t th ree d ecades after 1815 the c h u r c h clearly s u p p o r te d
ab so lu tism . T he p a p a c y was consid ered by liberals to be, a n d in t r u t h was, a
centre o f E u r o p e a n R e actio n.
M a n y Italians objected intensely to a b s o lu tis m a n d resented the po w er
o f foreigners in Italy. T h ey believed in f re ed o m for the citizen a n d Italy for
the Italians. This state o f affairs m ight be b r o u g h t a b o u t in one o f three
ways. T h e first was a league o f th e Italian states to exclude the foreigner,
a n d to set u p som e so rt o f Italian c o n fe d e ra tio n . T he second was th a t the
people of Italy s h o u ld rise a g a in st all its o p p re sso rs, d o m e stic a n d foreign,
a n d create a d e m o c r a tic Italian republic. T h e th ird was th a t one Italian
state shou ld u nite Italy u n d e r its leadership. T h e first was con sid ered at
different tim es by prac tisin g politicians as well as by intellectuals, but
n o th in g cam e of it. U n d e r the 1815 se ttle m en t Italy did n o t even have
a n y th in g c o r r e s p o n d in g to the ineffective G e r m a n C o n f e d e r a tio n n o r th of
the Alps. T h e second w as the d r e a m of revo lu tio n arie s; it w as a tte m p te d
fro m tim e to tim e, b u t the a t te m p ts were crushed . T h e th ird , in 1815, was
p e r h a p s the m o st im p r o b a b le o f the three, yet it was by this m e a n s th a t Italy
was unified in the end.
M o st Italians were b u t little c o n c ern ed w ith such ideas. T h e ec o n o m ic
a n d cu ltu ra l level o f Italy as a w hole was far below th a t o f G e r m a n y . M ost
Italians were pea sa nts, d ev o ted to the c h u r c h a n d — especially in the
k in g d o m o f N ap le s— to their rulers. In the u p p e r a n d m iddle classes s tro n g
estab lished interests— la n d o w n e rs, b u re a u c r a ts , priests— u p h eld the exist­
ing regim es. New political ideas were fo u n d a m o n g the liberal professions
in the cities, a n d to so m e e x te n t also in the aristocrac y. T h e sp rea d o f these
ideas ca n in large m e a su re be a ttr ib u te d to F re n c h influence in the
N a p o le o n ic p e rio d, b u t it w o u ld be w ro n g to ig nore the s tr o n g native
tr a d i tio n o f re fo rm in g th o u g h t o f eigh tee n th c e n tu ry M ilan, F lo re n ce a n d
N aples. A n o th e r i m p o r t a n t fa c to r in the Italian s itu a tio n was the p a t r i o t­
ism o f in d ividual cities, p r o u d o f their g lorious past. S o m e tim e s this to o k
th e fo rm o f a n t a g o n is m to a n o t h e r city w ith w hich one h a d been in c o r p o ­
r a te d in th e course o f th e series o f in te r n a tio n a l c h a n g e s— f o r e x a m p le , of
G e n o a ag a in st T u rin , o r o f L iv o rn o a g a in st F lorence. P olitical ideas h ad to
so m e ex te n t trickled d o w n to the m e d iu m a n d low er s tr a t a o f society in the
m o re a d v a n c e d Italian tow ns. H ostility to th e o u ts id e r c a m e n a tu ra lly to
th e m , a n d this d ev e lope d easily in to the idea o f freeing Italy f r o m fo re ign­
ers.
104 Nations and States

T h e first a r m e d a c tio n s a g a in st the 1815 se ttle m e n t— the m ilitary

rev o lu tio n s in N ap les in J u ly 1820 a n d in P ie d m o n t in M a rc h 1821— were
p rim a rily d irec ted a g a in st a b s o lu tism a n d in f a v o u r o f a c o n s titu tio n , but
th e idea o f Italian un ity w as p a r t o f the objectives o f th e secret society o f th e
carbonari , w h o were involved in the N aples ac tio n . Both revo lu tio n s were
c ru sh e d by A u s tr ia n tr o o p s , w hich inv a d ed at the reque st o f th e rulers.
T h e r e w ere fu rth e r m in o r in su rrec tio n s in 1831 in M o d e n a , P a r m a a n d
Bologna: these t o o were cru sh e d by A u s tr ia n inte rv en tio n . In the sam e year
G iu se p p e M azzin i fo u n d e d in M arseille th e o r g a n is a tio n Young Italy ,
g r o u p in g rad ical re p u b lic a n exiles a n d m a in ta in in g illegal links w ith Italy.
In 1833 so m e follow ers o f M azzini w ere involved in a c o n s p ira c y in
P ie d m o n t, w h o se discovery by the police was follow ed by executions.
D u r i n g th e 1840s so m e Italian writers b egan to p u t th e ir faith in the
p a p a c y as a rallying po in t for a new Italy: they bec am e k n o w n as the ‘neo-
G u e lp h ’ m o v e m en t. In 1843 Vicenzo G io b e rti pub lish ed in Brussels his
Moral and Civil Primacy o f the Italians , d ed ica ted to Silvio Pellico, the
f o rm e r political p riso n e r a n d a u t h o r o f Le mie prigioni. H opes o f the
p a p a c y greatly increased w ith the election in J u n e 1846 o f a new p o pe, Pius
IX, w h o fa v o u r e d so m e re fo rm s, a n d was widely t h o u g h w ro n g ly credited
w ith s y m p a th y b o th for liberal policies a n d for resistance to A u stria n
h e g e m o n y in Italy. H e w as d istru sted by th e A u strian s; a n d the belief in a
c o m m o n cause o f Italy a n d the p o p e was s tren g th en e d w hen in 1847
A u s tr ia n t r o o p s used a n excuse to o c c u p y the city o f F e r r a r a o n pap a l
te rritory . In the sam e y ea r a p p e a r e d in T u rin the first n u m b e r o f a
period ical w ith a title w hich was to b ec o m e im m ensely p o p u la r: II Risorgi-
mento. Its ed ito rs were C o u n t C esare B albo a n d C o u n t C am illo C a v o u r.
T h e first events o f the r e v o lu tio n a r y y ea r 1848 in Italy t o o k place in the
so u th . O n 9 J a n u a r y th e re were riots in P a le rm o , w hich so o n grew into an
insurrection . By th e end o f the m o n th the w hole island was lost to the
B o u r b o n k in g exc ept the citadels o f S y ra cu se a n d M essina. O n 29 J a n u a r y
King F e r d in a n d II g ra n te d a c o n s titu tio n to his subjects in N aples, b u t this
did n o t cause the Sicilians to r e tu r n to th e ir allegiance. O n 8 F e b r u a r y King
C a rlo A lb e r to o f P ie d m o n t a n d S a r d in ia gave a co n s titu tio n ; o n 15
F e b r u a r y th e G r a n d D u k e o f T u sca n y , L eo p o ld II, did the same. O n 14
F e b r u a r y P iu s IX a p p o i n te d a c o m m issio n to e x a m in e the r e fo rm o f the
secu lar in stitu tio n s o f the P a p a l S tates, a n d a m o n t h la ter it publish ed its
p r o p o s e d F u n d a m e n ta l S tatu te.
M e anw hile th e re h a d o cc u rre d th e m o r e im p o r ta n t r ev o lu tio n s in P aris
a n d in V ienna. T h e news o f the second o f these inevitably a n d rapidly
p r o d u c e d repercussio ns in L o m b a r d y a n d V enetia. T h e first d isorders
o cc u rre d in Venice on 16 M a rc h , th ree d ay s afte r the V iennese events; a n d a
week later th e cro w d s h ad c a p tu r e d the A rsenal, d istrib u te d arm s, a n d set
up a re v o lu tio n a ry g o v e rn m e n t u n d e r D aniele M a nin . O n 18 M a rc h
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 105

r e v o lu tio n b r o k e o u t in M ilan, an d after five d ay s o f heroic a n d costly

fighting the A u stria n c o m m a n d e r , the o c ta g e n a r ia n F ie ld - M a rsh a l C o u n t
J o s e p h von R a d etzk y , was forced to retire from the city. K n o w in g th a t they
co u ld n o t h o p e alo n e to defy the m ig h t o f A u stria, the M ilanese a n d the
V enetians ap p e aled to King C a rlo A lb e r to o f S av o y to help th em . T his
irresolute, a m b itio u s a n d enig m atic m a n decided to act. M o ved by a
c o m b in a t io n o f d ynastic a n d n a tio n a l e n th u sia sm , he w ent to w a r w ith
A ustria. His ac tio n a r o u se d e n th u sia sm f a r afield. T h ere w ere revolutions
in P a r m a , P iacenza a n d M o d e n a , all th ree o f w hich sent so m e tr o o p s to
help L o m b a rd y . T h e r e were also v o lu n te ers fro m T u sc a n y , the P a p a l
S ta te s a n d Naples. E n th u s ia s m for Italian un ity a n d in d e p en d e n ce , fo r the
c o m p lete e x p u lsio n o f the A u strian s, sp rea d t h r o u g h o u t the peninsula.
Events did n o t live u p to ex p e ctatio n s. C a rlo A lb e rto seemed m ore
interested in o rg an isin g a plebiscite fo r the u n io n o f L o m b a r d y with
P ie d m o n t (held w ith highly gratifying results o n 29 M ay) t h a n w ith fighting
the A ustrians. Pius IX on 29 A pril m a d e a speech in f a v o u r o f peace, to the
rage o f his subjects w h o w a n te d to fight A u stria. O n 15 M a y King
F e r d in a n d recovered p o w e r in N aples af te r s u p p ress in g so m e street riots,
b u t n o m in a lly m a in ta in e d th e new c o n s titu tio n in force. M ean w hile
R a d e tz k y received rein fo rcem en ts a n d supplies, reg ro u p e d his forces,
re c a p tu re d Vicenza o n 11 J u n e , a n d betw een 25 a n d 27 J u ly defeated the
P ie d m o n te se in a series o f e n g a g e m e n ts k n o w n as the Battle o f C u sto za .
C a rlo A lb erto retired, a n d o n 6 A u g u st th e A u stria n s reentered M ilan.
T h re e days later a n arm istic e was signed, w hich left a lm o s t all L o m b a r d y
a n d V enetia in A u s tr ia n possession. O nly th e city o f Venice, pro tec ted by
its lagoons a n d with o p e n access to the sea, r em a in ed u n v a n q u ish e d .
D u rin g the a u t u m n a n d w inter, while the A u s tr ia n g o v e r n m e n t was
occupied with tro u b le s in its ow n d o m in io n s n o r th o f the A lps, as well as in
G e r m a n y , politics in c e n tra l Italy m oved to th e left. O n 15 N o v e m b e r the
p rim e m inister o f the p a p a l g o v e r n m e n t was m u r d e r e d , a n d nine d ay s later
Pius IX fled to G ae ta. A t th e end o f th e y ea r it was a n n o u n c e d th a t a
N a tio n a l A ssem bly w o u ld be c o n v o k e d in R om e. It m et o n 5 F e b r u a r y
1849, a n d three day s la ter issued a decree in f o u r points: th e te m p o r a l
p o w e r o f th e p a p a c y was abo lish e d ; the R o m a n P o n tif f was to be g u a r a n ­
teed in d e p e n d e n c e in the exercise o f his sp iritu a l pow er; th e R o m a n state
was to b ec o m e a republic; a n d ‘th e R o m a n R e p u b lic w ou ld have w ith the
rest o f Italy the rela tio n s w hich c o m m o n n a tio n a lity req u ires’. O n 21
F e b r u a r y the G r a n d D u k e o f T u s c a n y fled to jo in P ius IX in G ae ta. O n 5
M a r c h M azzini a rriv e d in R o m e , a n d at th e en d o f th e m o n th the A ssem bly
elected a tr iu m v ira te in w hich M azzin i w as the leading figure. T his was the
brief heroic perio d o f th e I ta lia n R e v o lu tio n . R o m e was to be in every sense
the ca p ita l o f Italy, its g o v e r n m e n t a n d th e e x p re ssio n o f the Italian idea in
its purest form , a n d o f th e m o st perfect d e m o c ra c y . R o m e o f th e C aesars
106 Nations and States

a n d R o m e o f th e P o p es h a d passed aw ay, to be succeeded by R o m e o f the

P eople, the m o s t g lorious o f th e m all.
U n fo r tu n a te ly reality w as less kind. H o p e s w ere revived w h en o n 20
M a rc h 1849 C a rlo A lb e r to renew ed hostilities w ith the A u stria n s , h aving
c h ivalrously given them twelve d ay s p reviou s notice. T h re e days later, at
th e Battle o f N o v a r a , th e P ie d m o n te s e w ere d efe ate d. C a rlo A lb e rto
a b d ic a te d th e n e x t day, a n d his successor V itto rio E m a n u e le II m a d e a new
arm istice w ith R a d e tz k y on 26 M a rc h . T h is was n o t universally obeyed.
T he G enoe se revolted aga in st the arm istice a n d a g a in st the hated P ie d m o n ­
tese o n 31 M a r c h , b u t w ere m ilitarily occu p ie d by P ie d m o n te s e forces o n 10
April. T h e p eo p le o f Brescia fo u g h t th e A u s tr ia n s fo r ten days, fro m 23
A pril t o 2 M a y . This b itte r affair cost a b o u t 1,000 Italian a n d 500 A u stria n
d e a d — h ig h e r casualties t h a n the regu la r b attle a t N o v ara. D u rin g A pril the
A u stria n s e n tered T u sc a n y , a n d had to fight h a rd for L iv o rn o , w here there
were e x e cu tio n s a n d acts o f b r u ta lity afte r su rre n d e r. A t the end o f M a rc h
the B o u r b o n s b egan th e rec o n q u e st o f Sicily, w here the rev o lu tio n ary
forces were led by the P ole M ieroslaw ski. P a le rm o was occupied o n 15
M a y . M iero staw sk i w ent off to fight ag a in for re v o lu tio n in sou th-w est
G e rm a n y .
A t v ario u s tim es in the prec ed in g year Italians h ad h o p ed th a t F ra n ce
m ig h t help th e Italian cause, o r m ight a t least d efend P ie d m o n t against
A u stria. T hese h o p es h a d failed. H o w ev er, in A pril 1849 the F re n ch
g o v e r n m e n t a t last to o k a h a n d in Italian affairs— n o t to help the Italians
a g a in st A u stria, b u t to a n tic ip a te th e A u s tr ia n s in s u p p ress in g the R o m a n
republic. T h ere was a first a t ta c k by th e F re n c h e x p e d iti o n a r y force, u n d e r
G e n e ra l O u d in o t, o n 30 A pril, th e n a m o n t h o f n eg o tiatio n s. In J u n e
fighting was resu m ed. T h e o u ts t a n d in g figure in th e defence o f R o m e was
G iu se p p e G arib a ld i. H e a n d M azzini w o u ld have resisted longer, b u t on 30
J u n e th e R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t decided to c a pitu late . T h e re was little
b r u ta lity o r p erse c u tio n o f rep ublicans. Both G a rib a ld i a n d M azzini left
R o m e.
T h e last I ta lia n resistance c a m e to a n en d w h en Venice s u rre n d e re d o n 24
A u g u st, h av in g b een free fo r fifteen m o n th s , the longest perio d o f any
Italian te rrito ry . M a n in a n d his colleagues w ere able to leave in a F re n c h
ship. O n 6 A u g u st P i e d m o n t a n d A u s tr ia f o rm a lly m a d e peace. As in
G e r m a n y , so in Italy th e re v o lu tio n a r y p e r io d e n d e d w ith a n a p p a r e n tly
c o m p le te v ic tory for the A u s tr ia n a n d the a b s o lu tis t cause.
W ith in little m o r e t h a n tw e n ty years, h ow eve r, A u s tr ia n p o w e r was
b r o k e n , a n d Italy u n ite d , by a c o m b in a t io n o f P ie d m o n te s e d ip lo m a c y an d
a r m e d force, g rea t p o w e r politics a n d rene w e d Italian re v o lu tio n a r y action.
C o u n t C a v o u r, w h o d o m in a te d the P ie d m o n te s e scene f r o m 1850 to 1861,
was a c onserv ative refo rm er, well a w a re o f e c o n o m ic a n d m ilitary realities,
d e te rm in e d to s tren g th en P ie d m o n t internally, set on the territorial
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 107

a g g r a n d ise m e n t o f his o w n c o u n try yet also inspired by the n o tio n o f a

united in d e p e n d e n t Italy. His foreign policy was m a rk e d by d ip lo m a tic
skill a n d failure, g o o d a n d b a d luck, a n d he w as forced to a d a p t h im self to
the wishes o f s tr o n g e r pow ers; yet in the e n d it w as essentially successful. In
A pril 1859 he p ro v o k e d A u stria into a t ta c k in g him , the F re n c h c a m e to his
aid , a n d F re n c h m ilita ry victories in J u n e a t M a g e n ta a n d Solferin o
resulted in the a n n e x a t io n o f m o s t o f L o m b a r d y to P ie d m o n t. M e an w h ile
new g o v e rn m e n ts in T u sca n y , P a r m a , M o d e n a a n d B o lo g n a d e m a n d e d
u n io n w ith P ie d m o n t. C a v o u r w as able to o b ta in F re n c h c o n s e n t to this by
ceding S av o y a n d Nice to F ra n c e in M a rc h 1860. In A p ril follow ers of
M azzini revolted in Sicily: in this m o v e m e n t th ere was th e usu al c o m b in a ­
tio n o f n a r r o w e r Sicilian hostility to N ap les a n d w ider e n th u s ia s m for a n
Italian republic. In M a y G a rib a ld i la n ded w ith his th o u s a n d volun teers,
was w elcom ed in P a le rm o , a n d crossed to the m a in la n d ; a n d by S e p te m b e r
he h a d m a d e him self m a s te r o f N aples. T h e P ie d m o n te se a r m y m oved
s o u th t h r o u g h the p a p a l lands o f U m b r ia a n d th e M a rc h es, a n d G a rib a ld i
h ad to su b m it him self to V itto rio E m a n u ele . In all these in te rm e d ia te lands
plebiscites were held, in w hich large m a joritie s voted fo r u n io n with
P ie d m o n t, in its new guise as the k in g d o m of Italy. T h e re r em a in ed
V enetia, w hich was w o n in 1866 (five years a f te r C a v o u r ’s d e a th ) as a result
o f th e P ru ssian victory o v er A u stria, a n d R o m e itself, w hich th e Italian
a r m y e n tered on 20 S e p te m b e r 1870, a f te r th e defeat by P ru ssia h ad
c o m pelled the F re n c h to rem o v e the a r m e d force w hich h a d k e p t the
Italians o u t ten years earlier.
I talian unity was still n o t com p lete, f o r th e p ro vince o f T r e n to a n d the
city o f Trieste, b o th w ith a p r e d o m in a n tly Italian p o p u la tio n , r em a in ed in
A u stria , a n d e x tre m e Italian n atio n alists also laid claim to la nds o f Slovene
p o p u la tio n f u rth e r inla n d , to th e w hole o f Istria, a n d to D a lm a tia , w hich
t h o u g h inh a b ite d by C r o a t s a n d S erb s h ad once belon ged to Venice, a n d
w h ose historic cities b o re a n u n m is ta k a b ly Italian a p p e a r a n c e . S o m e o r all
o f these lands w ere th e objective o f I ta lia n patrio ts: th e y w ere k n o w n as
‘u n r e d e e m e d Italy’(Italia irredenta ), a p h r a se w hich in tro d u c e d a new te rm
to th e v o c a b u la ry o f in te r n a tio n a l politics.
M o r e im p o r ta n t w as the q u e s tio n o f the a t titu d e to Italy o f its ow n
people. T h e s ta te s m a n M a s s im o d ’Azeglio, f o r m e r p rim e m inister of
P ie d m o n t , is said to hav e observed: ‘W e have m a d e Italy: n o w we have to
m a k e Italian s’. T h e p o p e w as irreconcilably o p p o s e d to th e new state, a n d
f o rb a d e C a th o lics to ta k e p a r t in its political life: a s u b sta n tia l p r o p o r ti o n
obeyed. T h e rejection o f th e regim e by the socialist m o v e m e n t was
so m e th in g w hich Italy s h a re d w ith o th e r E u r o p e a n c o u n tries, b u t was the
m o r e a la r m in g b ecau se it coincided w ith C a th o lic a b s te n tio n . T h e rise of
socialism a m o n g b o t h in d u stria l a n d a g ric u ltu r a l w o rk e rs b r o u g h t b itter
struggles a n d violence in Emilia, R o m a g n a a n d Sicily. A n a r c h is t influences
108 Nations and States

w ere also im p o r ta n t. T h e class struggle w as fiercer in Italy t h a n in

G e r m a n y , t h o u g h G e r m a n y had a far larger ind u stria l p ro le ta ria t a n d was
re g a rd e d as th e m a in s tro n g h o ld o f M a rx is m .
F inally th e re was a p r o f o u n d cleavage betw een n o r th a n d so u th , so
p r o f o u n d th a t it could well be said t h a t th e re were tw o n ations. In the
fo rm e r k in g d o m o f N aples loyalty to the B o u r b o n d y n a s ty to o k a long tim e
to die out. Sicilian se p a ra tism re m a in e d a force. B rig andage in the so u th
h ad b o th ec o n o m ic a n d political u n d e rto n e s. R e s e n tm e n t a g a in st th e
n o r th e rn e rs, a n d especially the P ie d m o n te se , w h o as su m e d the key posts in
a d m in is t r a tio n a n d business so u th o f the A p en n in e s, w as very strong.
P ie d m o n te se d o m in a tio n o f Italy was less in stitutionalised th a n Prussian
d o m in a tio n o f G e r m a n y , b u t it was possibly m o r e su b stan tia l. T o s peak of
Italy as a co lo n y o f the P ied m o n tese , in w hich the L o m b a r d s h ad the
secon d best share, is a n e x a g g e ra tio n b u t n o t a gro ss d isto rtio n . As Italy
m a d e progre ss in in d u stry a n d in e d u c a tio n in th e first decad es after unity,
the c o n t r a s t betw een the flourishing n o r th a n d the b a c k w a r d so u th only
grew.
F orty-five years afte r unity, the n a tio n was once m o re bitterly divided in
1915 o n th e q u e s tio n o f n e u tra lity o r belligerence in the E u r o p e a n W a r. T h e
w a r p a rty , w hich had its way, was a n u n n a t u r a l alliance o f ex tre m e
n atio n alists o f a u t h o r i ta r ia n views w ith d e m o c r a ts a n d radicals devoted to
the cause o f liberty for w hich they believed F ra n c e a n d Britain to be
fighting. A g ain st in te rv ention w as the v e te ra n L iberal leader G iolitti, the
s y m b o l o f th e old regim e, w h o by a c o m b in a t io n o f electoral c o r r u p tio n ,
m a n ip u la tio n o f vested interests a n d genuinely progressive social policies
a n d political re fo rm s h a d m a d e a n o u ts t a n d in g c o n t r i b u tio n to Italy’s
progress. Also aga in st in te rv en tio n was the m a jo r ity o f the pow erful
socialist m o v e m e n t. B a ro n S o n n in o , the foreign m inister o f the w a r years,
was d e te r m in e d to sell Italy ’s m ilitary help at a high price: he got fro m the
Allies a p ro m ise n o t only o f T r e n to a n d T rieste b u t also o f the B renn er Pass
(leaving th o u s a n d s o f A u s tr ia n G e r m a n s inside Italy) a n d o f all Istria an d
m o st o f D a lm a ti a (placing a b o u t a m illion C r o a t s a n d S lovenes u n d e r
Italian rule). S o n n in o ’s policy was in direct conflict w ith th e fo rm e r ideas of
M azzini, w h o h a d believed th a t Italy sh o u ld be the ally, friend a n d
p r o te c to r o f th e S o u th Slavs. M a z z in i’s ideas were unsuccessfully defended
by the socialist L e o n id a Bissolati a n d th e rad ic al p ro fe sso r G a e ta n o
Salvem ini. W h e n it c am e t o th e final p o s t- w a r s e ttle m ent, largely ow in g to
the o b jections o f P re sid e n t W ilso n a n d his A m e r ic a n e x p e r t advisers w h o
were n o t b o u n d by the T re a ty o f L o n d o n o f A p ril 1915, Italy got less th a n
had b een p ro m ise d . She h ad to give up D a lm a ti a , b u t still she got a q u a r te r
o f a m illion G e r m a n s in the S o u th T y ro l a n d m o r e t h a n h a lf a million
C r o a t s a n d S lovenes in Istria a n d to th e n o r th o f Trieste.
T h e divisions caused by the a r g u m e n ts a b o u t in te rv en tio n in the w ar
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 109

were carried over into the p o st-w a r years, a n d were a d d e d to e c o n o m ic

tro u b le s a n d class struggles. F r o m these years o f fear an d h a tre d , a m o u n t ­
ing a lm o s t to civil w ar, em erg ed as v ic to r B enito M ussolini a n d his Fascists.
It is w o rth n o tin g th a t the struggle betw een the Fascists a n d their enemies
t o o k place a lm o st entirely n o r th o f the A pen nines: the people o f th e so u th
were for the m ost p a r t a passive o bject o f policy. T he division between
n o r th a n d so u th r em a in ed in the Fascist era. N o r did M ussolini, fo r all his
rheto ric, unite the people o f n o r th e r n Italy. His regim e was ruthless, an d
for a tim e enjoyed the s u p p o r t o f the p r o s p e r o u s W est E u r o p e a n pow ers.
H ow ever, the struggle ag a in st F ascism never ceased, a n d it w as f o u g h t by
the w o rk in g class a n d by the intellectuals, in cluding a m in o rity a m o n g
active C atho lics. T o the leaders o f a n ti-F a sc is m , especially to radical a n d
socialist intellectuals, this was a new R iso rg im en to . T h ey w ere the heirs to
M azzini a n d G arib a ld i, a n d M ussolini was the successor to King B o m b a of
N aples o r E m p e r o r F ra ncis o f A ustria. T his was felt still m o r e strongly
w hen M ussolini m a d e his alliance w ith H itler’s T h ir d Reich. Italians were
no less bitterly divided o n the issue o f e n try into w ar in 1940 th a n they had
been in 1915; b u t M u sso lin i’s d ic tato ria l p o w e rs en abled h im to d r a g Italy
o n to H itle r’s side. T h e defeats w hich the Italian a r m e d forces suffered were
certainly d u e in large p a r t to th e fact th a t m illions o f Italians h ad n o wish to
fight fo r F ascism . D efea t b r o u g h t the o v e r th r o w o f M ussolini, a n d this led
to the o c c u p a tio n o f Italy by G e r m a n forces. M o st Italians n o w saw H itle r’s
arm ies as the enem ies o f Italy. T h e resistance m o v e m e n t w hich w as th e n
org an ise d , w ith s u p p o r t in all social classes, was truly a struggle for
n a tio n a l in d e p en d e n ce as well as for political f re ed o m a n d social justice.
In alliance with Hitler, M ussolini h ad a n n e x e d in 1941 large territories
fro m Y u gosla via— m o st o f D a lm a tia , a large p a rt o f S lo v en ia a n d a
p r o te c to r a te over M o n te n e g r o . In d efeat, Italy n o t only gave up these
gains, but also h ad to yield Istria a n d the su rro u n d in g s o f Trieste. This
m e a n t n o t only th a t a lm o s t all the S o u th S lavs of th e b o r d e r la n d s becam e
subjects o f Yugoslavia, b u t also t h a t the cities o f w estern Istria, w hich h ad
until this tim e h a d a lm o st solid Italian p o p u la tio n s , were lost. T his m ay be
re g a rd e d as a re tr ib u tio n for the greed o f S o n n in o . If, in 1919, the Italian
g o v e r n m e n t had acce p te d the ‘W ilson L in e’, dividing Istria m o r e o r less
a c c o r d in g to n atio n ality , P a r e n z o a n d P ir a n o m ight have r em a in ed Italian.
A t the b eginnin g o f the last q u a r te r o f th e tw e n tie th c e ntu ry, th e fabric of
Italian society a n d political life was still fragile. T h e division betw een n o rth
a n d so u th h a d n o t been elim in ated. I n d u stria l d e v e lo p m e n t a n d better
e d u c a tio n h a d m a d e so m e im p a c t in th e so u th itself. T h e great cities of
T u rin a n d M ilan, a n d sm a lle r industrial centres in the n o r th , h ad a ttr a c te d
h u n d r e d s o f th o u s a n d s o f s o u th e rn e rs, w h o se b e h a v io u r a n d m e ntality
seemed strange a n d b a r b a r o u s to the n o r th e r n e r s , a n d isolated th e m in
g h etto s o f their ow n. Italy still c o n ta in e d w ithin its fro n tiers th e h e a d q u a r ­
HO Nations and States

ters for th e w h ole w orld o f the C a th o lic C h u r c h , w h o se p o w er, w ealth an d

influence p r o fo u n d ly affected th e Italian people. T h e c h u r c h afte r 1945
fully re-entered Italian political life, b u t it was th e t u r n o f the w o rk in g class
( g row ing in n u m b e rs a n d e c o n o m ic p o w e r as in d u stry prog ressed ) to
secede, u n d e r the le adership o f the c o m m u n is t party. T h ere was talk o f a n
‘h istoric a g r e e m e n t’,6 o f c o o p e r a tio n o r even reco n ciliatio n betw een these
tw o g rea t forces, b u t little sign th a t it c o uld be achieved; while p e rh a p s a
th ird o f th e p eople r e m a in e d unw illing to subject them selves either to
priests o r to com m issars.
Even so, it could be arg u e d th a t the forces w o rk in g fo r a single Italian
n a t io n a l conscio usn ess a n d cu ltu re were stro n g e r th a n th o se pulling the
n a tio n a p a r t. M a ssim o d ’A zeglio’s ta sk o f ‘m a k in g Italians’ had been
c o m p leted . In the process, force a n d fra u d a n d e x te r n a l m isfortune s had
had th e ir p a rt; b u t th e m y th o f the special m o ra l q u a lity a n d E u r o p e a n
m ission o f th e Italian n a tio n , th e conv ictio n s o f th e m o d e r n p r o p h e ts from
G io b e r ti to S alvem ini, h a d also m a d e th e ir c o n trib u tio n .

The Greeks and the ‘Great Idea’

In th e eig h tee n th ce n tu ry O t t o m a n em p ire, O r t h o d o x C h ristia n s te n d ed to
be iden tified — by the O t t o m a n a u th o ritie s , by foreign E u ro p e a n s , a n d by
them selves— w ith G re e k s.7 N early all C h ristia n s w h o held high r a n k in the
c h u r c h , o r possessed w ealth fro m land or fro m co m m e rc e , o r occupied
secular p o sts o f im p o r ta n c e u n d e r th e su ltan , were, a n d considered
th em selves to be, G reeks. T h ey described them selves n o t by th e classical
n a m e o f Hellenes, bu t by the B yzantine n a m e o f R o m a n s ( Romaioi ), of
w hich the T u rk is h form was Rum.
T h o u g h successful G reeks were s u r r o u n d e d by th e c o n t e m p t a n d envy of
M uslim s, a n d t h o u g h th e ir lives were in co n se q u e n c e so m e tim es u n p le a s­
a n t a n d alw ays insecure, G re ek s u n d e r O t t o m a n rule h a d u n d o u b te d
o p p o r tu n itie s to m a k e g o o d , even brilliant, careers. F r o m the P h a n a r io t
elite, th e lay officials a n d rich G re ek families w hich s u r r o u n d e d the
p a tria r c h o f C o n s ta n tin o p le , th e sultans t o o k , fro m the en d o f th e seven­
te e n th c e n tu r y o n w a r d s , m a n y o f th e highest d ign itaries o f the cen tral
g o v e r n m e n t, as well as th e rulers of the tw o D a n u b i a n principalities
in h a b ite d by R o m a n i a n s — M o ld a v ia a n d W allachia. In th o se tw o lands,
the P h a n a r io t princes b u ilt u p a c o u r t a n d a n u p p e r b u r e a u c r a c y c o m p o s e d
o f G reeks. C h ristian s w ere n o t s u p p o se d to b e a r arm s, b u t th e re were
G reeks in th e O t t o m a n n a v y in large n u m b e rs , a n d so m e even held high
rank . T h e r e were are as su c h as Suli in s o u th e r n E p iru s a n d M a n i in the
so u th e rn P elo p o n n e se w hich w ere in effect ruled by G reek trib a l chieftains,
w h o paid their tr ib u te to the O tt o m a n g o v e r n m e n t but were n o t tro u b le d
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r N ational Unity 111

by the presence o f T u rk is h officials. A n o t h e r im p o r t a n t elem e n t o n the

G re ek scene were th e klephts, rebel b a n d s w h o lived in the m o u n ta in s an d
m a in ta in e d them selves by p lunde r. T hese fugitives fro m th e law a t tim es
p rofessed, o r h ad a ttr ib u te d to the m , p a trio tic motives. T h ey w ere su r­
r o u n d e d in the p o p u la r m in d by heroic m y th , a n d they a c q u ir e d c o n s id e r a ­
ble skill in irre g u la r w arfa re. T h e re were also officially sp o n s o r e d C h ristia n
irregulars, k n o w n as armatoloi , w h o were su p p o se d to g u a r d villages a n d
klephts
tr a n s p o r t ro utes aga in st the , b u t w h o w ou ld so m e tim es go over to
th e m , individually or in groups.
T h e se a-b o rn e tr a d e o f the O tt o m a n e m p ir e w as p r e d o m i n a n tly in G reek
hands: there were m a n y A rm e n ia n , T u rk ish , A r a b a n d Je w ish m e rc h a n ts ,
but they kep t to th e land. In the late e ig h tee n th c e n tu ry tr a d e sub stan tia lly
increased, a n d G re ek seafarers did well o u t o f it. In the A ege an islands,
especially H y d r a a n d C hios, bigger a n d m o r e m o d e r n ships w ere built, a n d
sh ip b u ild in g a n d tr a d in g families m a d e su b s ta n tia l fortunes.
It is im p o r ta n t to n o te th a t the G reek p o p u la tio n was widely a n d thinly
d istrib u te d w ithin the O tt o m a n em p ire, a n d th a t there were also G reek
c o m m u n itie s in foreign cities. In the p e n in su la a n d the A egean islands the
p o p u la tio n was c o m p a c tly G re ek , t h o u g h c o n s id e ra b le n u m b e rs o f T u r k s
dw elt a m o n g th e m in so m e of the tow ns. G reeks fo rm e d large u r b a n
m inorities in C o n s ta n ti n o p le , A le x a n d ria , B ucharest, Ia$i, the p o rts o f the
low er D a n u b e , a n d in the co a sta l cities o f A sia M in o r b o th in the A ege an
a n d the Black Sea. T h e r e were also m a n y G re e k villages in the in te rio r o f
A sia M in o r. O u tsid e the O t t o m a n em pire, the I o n ia n islands h ad a m ainly
G re ek p o p u la tio n . T h e y belong ed to the republic o f Venice until 1797, were
th e n occupied in tu r n by F re n c h , R u s sian s a n d British, a n d c a m e into
British possession by th e V ienna peace settlem ent. F u r t h e r afield, there
were G re ek m e rc h a n t c o m m u n itie s in T rieste, Venice, V ienna, A m s te r d a m
a n d o th e r W est E u r o p e a n cities.
D u rin g the e ig h tee n th ce n tu ry E u r o p e a n e d u c a tio n a n d ideas m a d e
them selves felt a m o n g a co n sid erab le p a r t o f the G re e k people. T h e
P h a n a r io t princes o f M o ld a v ia a n d W a lla ch ia s u p p o r te d so m e excellent
schools a n d collected libraries o f E u r o p e a n books. K now ledge o f F re n c h
w as q uite w idespread a t their courts. C o n s ta n ti n o p le also had good
schools, a n d foreign lang u ag e s were s p o k e n a n d foreign literature read.
W e a lth y islanders f o u n d e d schools f r o m th e ir t r a d e a n d profits. U n d e r
V ene tia n rule the I o n ia n islands offered G re ek s the c h a n ce o f e d u c a tio n
a n d access to Italian culture. S m all b u t g ro w in g n u m b e rs o f G re ek s fro m
th e O t t o m a n e m p ire studied a b r o a d , especially a t P a d u a b u t also at
V ienna, Leipzig a n d o th e r G e r m a n universities. G re e k colonies in W e ste rn
E u ro p e helped the e d u c a t io n o f th e ir c o m p a tr io ts b o th by inviting in divid­
uals to stu d y in the W est a n d by se n d in g m o n e y t o f o u n d a n d s u p p o r t
schoo ls o n O tt o m a n te rritory.
112 Nations and States

In crea sin g c o n ta c t w ith the W est in tr o d u c e d th e ideas o f the E u r o p e a n

E n lig h te n m e n t to G reeks. T his process was e n c o u r a g e d by m a n y o f the
P h a n a r i o t rulers of M o ld a v ia a n d W a lla chia, b u t was d isa p p ro v e d by the
p a tria r c h a te , a l th o u g h in d ividual priests a n d even b ish o p s f a v o u red it.
N a tu r a l science a n d ra tio n a lis m were felt as a th re a t to O r t h o d o x piety.
Especially im p o r ta n t was the cult o f a n c ie n t Greece in E u r o p e a n E n lig h ten ­
m e n t literature. Classical learning a n d th o u g h t w ere praised by the
philosophes o f the W est as o ld e r th a n , a n d su p e rio r to, C hristianity. G reeks
in th e W est learned t h r o u g h this literature a b o u t th e ir o w n past, w hich, if
n o t entirely ig no red, had at least been very little k n o w n to the intellectual
elite o f C o n s ta n tin o p le eith er in the last perio d o f the B yzantine em p ire or
u n d e r O t t o m a n rule. T h e p r e se n ta tio n to the e d u c ated G re ek public of
a n c ie n t Hellas, as seen th r o u g h the eyes o f F re n c h enc yclo pae d ists an d
s e n tim e n tal W e ste rn philhellenes, was a b o v e all th e w o rk o f A d a m a n tio s
K o ra is (1748-1833). A native o f S m y rn a , w h o h a d sp e n t six years in
A m s te r d a m a n d six in M o n tp e llier, a n d fro m 1788 until the end o f his long
life lived in P aris, K orais was a n inde fa tig a ble a u t h o r o f tran slatio n s,
original w o rk s, articles a n d letters. H e dev o ted him self to the p r o p a g a tio n
o f th e E n lig h te n m e n t a m o n g the G reeks a n d o f the G re ek cause a m o n g the
F re n c h , a n d a b o v e all to the d e v e lo p m e n t o f a literary m o d e r n G reek
lan g u ag e , to be fo rm e d by the infusion o f classical w o rd s in to the spo k e n
to n g u e a n d by th e sy sté m a tisa tio n o f its f o rm a l stru ctu re . K orais to o k care
n o t to a t ta c k religion o r the O r t h o d o x C h u r c h as such, b u t he fought
bitterly a g a in st all cu s to m s, in stitu tion s a n d ideas w hich seemed to him to
be su pe rstitious survivals f r o m a n age o f d a r k n e s s , p rev e n tin g a retu rn to a
g lo rious p as t w hich w ou ld also e m b o d y in itself all th e w isd o m o f new
en lig h te n ed E u ro p e .
T h e O r t h o d o x h ie ra rc h y disliked this m ix tu re o f classics an d r a ti o n a l­
ism. T h ey to o w ere b e c o m in g im p a tie n t o f O t t o m a n rule as they saw it
declining, th e y to o were b e c o m in g affected by a new pride in being G reeks.
But if the O t t o m a n em p ire w ere to be d estro y e d (a n d this did n o t seem
im m in e n t, n o r did it seem wise to ta k e big risks o n so d is ta n t a prospect),
they h o p e d t h a t it w o u ld be replaced by so m e th in g like the old Byzantine
em p ire, b as ed o n a u to c r a c y a n d O r t h o d o x y , p r o b a b ly u n d e r the p ro te c tio n
o f a u t o c r a ti c O r t h o d o x Russia.
T h e G re ek e d u c ated class was in fact d iv ide d betw e en th e follow ers o f the
E n lig h te n m e n t a n d th e follow ers o f tr a d i tio n a l O r t h o d o x y , a n d this
division r em a in ed long afte r in d e p e n d e n c e w as achieved. In the ed u c ated
class the views o f K ora is certainly g ained g r o u n d , b u t th e y d id n o t r o u t the
o p p o s in g views; while f o r m o s t G reeks th e old values lo n g rem a ined
unchallenged. T h e division is on e w hich has its parallels in the histo ry of
o th e r n atio n s exp o sed to a s u d d e n influx o f m o d e rn ideas a n d practices. It
recalls, fo r e x a m p le , the c o n tra s t betw een S lav o p h ils a n d W esternisers in
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 113

Russia, refo rm ers a n d tra d itio n a lists in m id -n in e te e n th c e n tu r y J a p a n , a n d

P an islam ists a n d T u rk ish n atio n alists in the last d ecades o f th e O tt o m a n
em pire. In Greece the division was for a tim e co nc ea le d in th e e n th u s ia s m o f
the W a r o f In dep e ndence . T h e G reek rebels needed b o th religious a n d
secular rhetoric, a p p e a ls b o th to classical g lory a n d to O r t h o d o x y . T he
w o rd Hellene was so o n ac cepted as the n a m e o f the G re e k people, a n d th e
new w o rd Ellinismos, w hich c o m b in e d the tw o m e aning s o f G reek civilisa­
tio n a n d o f the w hole G re ek c o m m u n ity in the w orld, c a m e in to general use
by politicians a n d intellectuals.
T h e first G reek w h o h ad a plan for a n in su rrec tio n a n d fo r a liberated
Greece was R higas o f Velestino, a T h essalian w h o served in high p osts in
W a llachia, sp e n t so m e years in V ienna, a n d was h a n d e d over by the
A u stria n s to th e T u r k s in T rieste in 1798 as a r e v o lu tio n a ry c o n s p ira to r ,
a n d hanged in Belgrade. R higas was the a u t h o r o f p oem s, re v o lu tio n a ry
p ro c la m a tio n s a n d a c o n s titu tio n , closely m ode lle d o n the F re n c h c o n s titu ­
tions o f 1793 a n d 1795. In this d o c u m e n t he s p o k e o f th e sovereign people
o f th e p r o p o se d state as includ ing ‘w ith o u t distin ctio n o f religion a n d
la n g u a g e — G reeks, A lb a n ia n s, Vlachs, A rm e n ia n s, T u r k s a n d every o th e r
race’. It is clear t h a t R higas envisaged a state m u c h larger th a n the te rr ito r y
c o m p a c tly in ha bite d by G reeks, a n d t h a t he wished to e n s u re equ a l rights
to all its in h a b ita n ts. W h e th e r he reg a rd e d the A lb a n ia n s a n d Vlachs as
s e p a ra te n ations, o r as G reek s o f different speech, is n o t clear.
The Philike Hetairia (Society o f Friend s), fo u n d e d in O dessa in 1814 by
th ree G reek m e rc h an ts , was a b etter org an ise d an d m o re a m b itio u s
co nspiracy. M uch o f its h isto ry still rem a in s o b sc u re a n d c o ntro ve rsial. It is
h o w ev e r ce rtain t h a t its le aders h o p ed to enlist the s u p p o r t o f all th e B alkan
C h ristia n peoples, a n d to liberate the w h o le pen in su la fro m the T u r k s with
R u ssian aid. It seems th a t in their m in d s the distin ctio n betw een ‘G re e k ’
a n d ‘O r t h o d o x ’ was still blu rred. It is n o t k n o w n how they in tended to
d e m a r c a te ‘G reece’ fro m the rest o f the liberated Balkans. T h e y a tte m p te d
to enlist s u p p o r t fro m Serbs, R o m a n ia n s a n d Bulgarians fo r th eir projected
in surrec tion, b u t w ith little success.8 A sm all force led by Prin ce A le x a n d e r
Y psilanti, w h o held th e r a n k o f general in th e R u ssian a r m y , crossed the
b o r d e r in to M o ld a v ia o n 22 F e b r u a r y 1821. A t first it was w elc om e d as it
ad v a n c e d . H o w ev er, T s a r A le x a n d e r I d e n o u n c e d the ac tio n , a n d w hen
R u s sia n a id w as seen to be a n illusion the en terp rise was d o o m e d .
Y p sila n ti’s m e n f o u g h t b rave ly a g a in st the T u rk s , b u t by J u n e th e y were
crushed. H o w ev er, a n o t h e r rising b r o k e o u t in th e G reek p eninsula, led by
local n ota bles, a n d it was n o t crushed. F ig h tin g w ent o n f r o m 1821 to 1827
in th e P elo p o n n e se , R o u m e li a n d the islands. In th e en d th e G re ek s were
saved by the g rea t p o w ers, w h o p r ev e n ted th e E g y p tia n fleet a n d arm y ,
su m m o n e d by the su ltan , f r o m c o n q u e r in g th e P e lo p o n n e s e , a n d still m o re
by Russia, w hich w e n t to w a r w ith T u r k e y in 1828 a n d w h o se a r m y reached
114 Nations and States

A d ria n o p le in A u g u st 1829. By the L o n d o n P ro to c o l o f 3 F e b r u a r y 1830

G reece w as recognised as a n i n d e p e n d e n t state. Its te rr ito r y was restricted
to R o u m e li, A ttic a a n d th e P e lo p o n n e s e w ith th e w estern A e g e an islands.
T he m a jo r ity o f th e G reek s o f the O t t o m a n em p ire w ere n o t in cluded in the
new state.
A G re e k sta te n o w existed, b u t a G re e k n a t io n still h a d to be m a d e. This
was ren d e re d difficult by th e division, a lre a d y n o t e d , b etw een th e tr a d i tio n ­
alists a n d th e w esternisers. It w as still fu r th e r c o m p lic ate d by the p ro b le m
o f th e language. K orais h a d in te n d ed to create a new language, en riched by
m u c h o f th e classical past. A t first he w as s u p p o r te d by th e liberals a n d
o p p o s e d by th e trad itio n alists. H ow ever, in the new state the new artificial
lan g u ag e s o o n bec am e ac cepted by the e d u c a te d u p p e r s tr a t u m as a w hole,
p rogressive a n d co nserv ative alike. T his ‘p u r e ’ lan g u ag e ( Kathairevousa)
w as unintelligible to the p eople as a w hole, w hich c o n tin u e d to use its
‘d e m o tic ’ speech. T h e differences b etw een the tw o languages bec am e a
difference o f class a n d it a c c e n tu a te d the division o f the n a tio n ; o r rather,
by d ividing the G re ek p o p u la tio n it re ta rd e d the em erg en c e o f a G reek
n a tio n . L a t e r in the ce n tu ry , progressive G re ek s a d v o c a te d the use o f
d em o tic , a n d th e division betw een kathairevousa a n d dim otiki, w hich had
prev iously c u t acro ss the division betw een left a n d right in politics, te nded
to coincide w ith it. In im agin a tiv e literatu re d e m o tic prevailed, b u t in the
press a n d official business th e ‘p u r e ’ held sway. T h e c o n tro v e rs y was still
alive in th e th ir d q u a r te r o f the tw en tieth ce n tu ry , t h o u g h d e m o tic steadily
g ained g r o u n d .
O n e th in g o n w hich all G reeks could agree was th a t the G re ek state m u st
be e x p a n d e d to include th e u n re d e e m e d b r e th r e n . P rog ress w as slow. T h ere
w ere unsuccessful revolts by the G reek p o p u la tio n o f C re te in 1841, 1858
a n d 1866. I n 1864 the British g o v e r n m e n t ceded to G reece th e Ion ian
Islands, w h ich B ritain h a d held since 1812. In 1881 G reece received nearly
all T h essaly a n d a c o r n e r o f E pirus.
It w as n o t u n til th e B a lk a n w a r o f 1912 a n d 1913 t h a t G re e k aim s in the
n o r th w ere achieved. T his w as largely th e w o rk o f E le u th e ro s Venizelos, the
C r e t a n politician w h o in 1910 b ec am e p rim e m in iste r in A th e n s a n d w h o
m a d e th e alliance w ith B u lgaria a n d S e r b ia w hich defe ate d T u rk e y . In J u n e
1913 G reece a n d S erb ia to g e th e r d efe ate d Bulgaria. T h e result was th a t
G reece a c q u ir e d all s o u th e r n M a c e d o n ia , s o u th e r n E p iru s a n d th e islands
o f th e e a ste rn A ege an f r o m T h a s o s to S a m o s; b u t she failed to o b ta in the
islands o f the D o d e c a n n e se , in cluding R h o d e s , w h ich w ere ta k e n by Italy
af te r its w a r w ith T u r k e y in 1911.
It re m a in e d to libe rate th e G reeks o f A sia M i n o r a n d T h ra c e a n d to
possess the im perial city o f C o n s ta n tin e , repla cing th e C resce n t once m o r e
by the C ro ss in J u s t i n i a n ’s c a th e d ra l o f St S o p h ia . T his w as the G re a t Idea
w hich h ad fo r long inspired so m e G reek p atrio ts, a n d since the B alkan
 Europe: M ovem ents for National Unity 115

W a rs h a d b ec o m e the p a s sio n a te desire o f millions. Greece h a d suffered

h u m ilia tio n a n d n a t io n a l fru s tra tio n d u r in g th e F irst W o r ld W a r , being
used as a p a w n by b o th belligerent sides; b u t Venizelos h a d sto o d firm ly by
th e W e ste rn pow ers, a n d th e ir victory p ro m ise d to be his. T h e Allies in 1915
h a d p ro m ise d C o n s ta n ti n o p le to Russia. T h e Bolshevik R e v o lu tio n h ad
p u t a n en d to th a t, b u t Venizelos agre ed th a t the city sh o u ld for th e tim e
being be placed u n d e r som e in te r n a tio n a l co n tro l. G reece, h ow ever,
c laim ed all T h ra c e a n d a large slice o f A sia M in o r based o n S m y rn a . In
M a y 1919 G reek tr o o p s la n d ed in Asia M in o r , a n d in the early s u m m e r
th e y did well, occ u p y in g b o th T h ra c e a n d w estern A n a to lia . T h e T re a ty of
Sèvres o f 10 A u g u st 1921 g ra n te d m o st o f Venizelos’ d e m a n d s . A c c o rd in g
to available statistics, in T h ra c e w ith o u t C o n s ta n ti n o p le th e re were 416,000
G reeks a n d 524,000 T u rk s , a n d in th e p rovince o f S m y r n a 629,000 G reeks
a n d 974,000 T u rk s . T h is still left a b o u t a m illion a n d a h alf G reeks as
m in o rity c o m m u n itie s living a m o n g T u rk is h m ajorities, in the c apital a n d
in A n atolia.
M e anw hile th e T u rk is h natio n alists w ere o rg an isin g them selves u n d e r
K em al A ta tü rk . G uerrilla actio n s were m a k in g them selves felt in the are a
occupied by the G re ek s, a n d it was clear th a t there w ou ld be bitter
resistance to a n y f u rth e r G reek adv a n ce . In N o v e m b e r 1920 a G reek
general election b r o u g h t a se n satio n al swing. Venizelos w as defeated, his
e n e m y King C o n s ta n ti n e r e tu r n e d , a n d th e bitterness w hich h ad divided
G reek political life in 1917 revived in m o r e ac u te form . T h e new g o v e rn ­
m e n t tried to o u t d o its predecessors in p a trio tism , a n d o rd e r e d a general
a d v a n c e into A n a to lia . T h e T u rk s d efe ate d th e m on the S a k a r y a river in
A u g u st 1921, an d in th e follow ing y ea r th e re were m o r e d efeats, en d in g in
d iso rd erly retrea t a n d e v a c u a tio n o f the a r m y , a n d m a ssac re a n d a r s o n in
S m y rn a . T his w as follow ed by a c o n v e n tio n o f 30 J a n u a r y 1923 w hich
p r o v id ed for c o m p u ls o r y e x c h an g e o f p o p u la tio n s betw een Greece a n d
T u rk e y . In p ractice the T u r k s expelled th o se G re ek s w h o h a d n o t alre ad y
fled. In th e process, as they escaped o r were driven o u t o f th e ir ho m e s
scattered th r o u g h A sia M in o r , there were h eavy losses. T h e r e h a d been
a b o u t 2,500,000 G re ek s in T u rk e y in 1910: the n u m b e r w h o rea ched Greece
w as a b o u t 1,400,000, o f w h o m la ter official statistics show ed th a t 1,221,849
h a d been settled by 1928. S o m e th o u s a n d s o f G reeks still re m a in e d in
T u rk e y , a n d w ere allow ed to live a n d w o rk there, o th e rs em ig ra te d to
d is ta n t lands; b u t the n u m b e r w h o p erished in the c o nvulsions o f 1922 m ust
h a v e a m o u n t e d to h u n d r e d s o f th o u s a n d s .
T h e A sia M i n o r c a ta s tr o p h e h a d dee p effects o n G re e k political life. T h e
r e tu r n in g Venizelists exe cu ted several o f th e R o y a list politicians a n d th e
c o m m a n d e r- in - c h ie f u n d e r w h o m the d isa ste r o cc u rre d , th e re b y sta rtin g a
blo o d -fe u d betw een R oy alists a n d R e p u b lic a n s w hich m a d e itself felt for
d ec ad e s afte rw a rd s. T h e e c o n o m ic effects w ere also drastic. T h e refugees
116 Nations and States

b r o u g h t w ith th e m skills w h ich e n riched the G reek e c o n o m y ; b u t a s u d d e n

increase o f to ta l p o p u la tio n by a b o u t a q u a r te r w as b o u n d to place a n
intolerable strain o n G re ek society. Greece is n a tu ra lly a b a r r e n co u n try ,
a n d th e c re a tio n o f new jo b s lagged well b e h in d the p o p u la tio n pressure,
bo th betw een the w orld w ars a n d after the S e c o n d W o rld W ar. T h is was a
m a jo r cause o f the class conflicts, ideological divisions a n d political hatre ds
w hich c o n tin u e d to plague the G reeks well into the third q u a r te r o f the
tw en tieth century.
G reece a c q u ire d W e ste rn T h ra c e fro m Bulgaria, lost it in 1941, an d
recovered it in 1945. A fter the S e c o n d W o rld W a r Italy gave u p the
D od ec anne se.
T h e o n e rem a in in g te rrito ry w ith a large c o m p a c t G reek p o p u la tio n not
u n ite d w ith G reece was th e island o f C y p ru s, leased by Britain fro m the
O tt o m a n em p ire in 1878 a n d a n n e x e d in 1914. T h e British g o v e rn m e n t
co nsid ered ceding it to Greece in 1915 if G reece w o u ld jo in the Allies in the
w ar, b u t difficulties o n b o th sides p u t a n end to the p ro p o sal. In 1945 it
m ight hav e bee n ceded to G reece, b u t at th a t tim e G reece was to r n by civil
war, th e T u rk is h g o v e r n m e n t objected to h aving a G re ek g o v e rn m e n t close
to its so u th -e a ste rn coast, a n d the increasing strategic im p o r ta n c e of
T u r k e y to th e British a n d th e ir allies c a u se d th e m to pay m o re a tte n tio n to
T u rk i s h wishes. In the mid-1950s the G re ek g o v e r n m e n t started a d ip lo ­
m atic a n d p r o p a g a n d a c a m p a ig n for the u n io n o f C y p r u s with Greece
(enosis)\ a n d G re e k n a tio n a lists in C y p ru s itself org an ise d guerrilla forces
w h ose m a in o c c u p a tio n w as the a s sa ss in a tio n o f o th e r G re ek s o r o f British
soldiers. In 1959 the British, G reek a n d T u rk is h g o v e r n m e n ts agreed on the
e sta b lish m e n t o f a n in d e p e n d e n t republic o f C y p ru s, in w hich the civil
rights o f b o th G reeks (80 perc en t o f th e p o p u la tio n ) a n d T u rk s (20 p ercent)
sh o u ld be g u a ra n te e d .
In p ractice this so o n failed to w o rk , as the presiden t, the O r t h o d o x
A r c h b is h o p M a k a r io s , ig nored the rights o f the T u rk is h C ypriots. V arious
districts o f T u rk i s h p o p u la tio n fo rm e d m in ia tu r e states w ithin the state;
b o th G re e k a n d T u rk is h a r m y officers f r o m the m a in la n d c o m m a n d e d rival
militias; a n d a n u n ea sy peace was k ep t by U nited N a tio n s forces. In 1974
the m ilitary d ic ta to rs w h o th e n f o rm e d the g o v e r n m e n t in A th en s, p r o b a ­
bly in a de s p e ra te a t t e m p t to ste m th e ir o w n u n p o p u la r i ty w ith th e G reek
people by a ‘n a tio n a l v ic to ry ’, b r o u g h t a b o u t , t h r o u g h th e ir officers in the
island, the seizure o f p o w e r by a f o r m e r te rr o r is t w h o p ro c la im e d enosis.
T h e result was a massive inva sion o f C y p r u s by th e T u rk i s h a r m y , w hich
proce eded to o c c u p y a b o u t h a lf th e island. T h e r e w ere m a ssacres o n b o th
sides a n d nearly h alf th e G re ek C y p r io ts lost th e ir hom es. It w as a
repetition, o n a sm aller scale a n d w ith less b lo o d s h e d , o f th e A n a to lia n
trag e d y o f 1919-21.
T h e history o f the G reek n a tio n a l cause since 1821 is th u s d o m in a te d by a
 Europe: M ovem ents for National Unity 117

b itte r p a r a d o x : th e G re ek sta te steadily e x p a n d e d its te rrito ry , while

Ellinismos steadily r etrea te d . T h e A sia M in o r e x p u lsio n s w ere th e single
m o s t d r a m a tic episode in the retrea t, b u t th e re were others. T h o u s a n d s of
G reeks were forced o u t o f R u s sia — f ro m the Black Sea p o rts, the C rim e a
a n d th e C a u s a s u s — n o t in a single flo o d b u t in a trickle w hose v o lu m e
d e p e n d e d on the ch a n g in g policies o f the So viet regime. M a n y m et their
d e a th s in collectivisation a n d th e p u rges o f 1936-39. T h e g rea t G re ek
c o m m u n ity in E gypt, w ith its centre in A le x a n d r ia b u t stretching up the
Nile valley into the S u d a n , was also steadily w o rn aw a y by the p ressures of
the new A ra b natio n alism . T h e p rospects o f the G reek tr a d i n g c o m m u n i ­
ties in ea ste rn a n d s o u th e rn A frica were less th a n brilliant. T h e T u rk ish
invasion o f C y p ru s seemed likely p e r m a n e n tly to reduce the p o p u la tio n
a n d the te rrito ry o f G reeks o n the island. N evertheless the G re ek s rem a in ed
a se afaring a n d tr a d in g people, a n d especially in th e A m ericas th e re were
G reek c o m m u n ities w hich, th o u g h they h ad bec om e A m e ric a n , m a in ta in e d
interest in Greece. It w ou ld be to o m u c h to say th a t the in te r n a tio n a l role o f
the G reeks had co m e to a n end. Yet w ith o u t d o u b t in the lands a r o u n d the
M e d ite rr a n e a n a n d Black Sea, w here G re e k culture, in its v ario u s form s,
h ad n o u r is h e d in classical, R o m a n , Byzantine a n d even O t t o m a n tim es, the
m o d e rn age b ro u g h t decline. Millions o f talen ted people were forced o u t of
the rich lan ds a n d c h a lle nging o p p o r tu n itie s o f the M e d ite rr a n e a n pe­
rip hery into a small, beautiful, b a r r e n pen in su la a n d its a t t e n d a n t islands,
c o o p e d u p to g e th e r w ith the millions o f ta len ted people w h o w ere alre ady
there. T o o m u c h u n u se d , or insufficiently used, h u m a n ta lent o f e x c e p tio n ­
al quality is as explosive as d y n a m ite , as G reek history o f the tw entieth
c e n tu r y show ed.
J u d g e d by the s ta n d a r d s o f av erage m o d e r n n atio n a lism , Greece did well
eno u g h : its te rrito ry e x p a n d e d , a n d its o u t p u t o f cha u v in ist rheto ric was
well u p to the n o r m . But by the s ta n d a r d s o f th e ap ostle s o f Ellinismos, w h o
saw m o r e th a n this in th e revival o f G reece, the story has been a failure. It is
a tale o f high idealism a n d cruel m isfo rtu n e , o f hubris a n d nemesis, w hich
has yet to find its A eschylus.

P an sla v ism

T h e w o rd ‘S lav ’ b elo ngs essentially to the field o f philology. T h ere are Slav
la nguages, as th e re are L a tin (o r R o m a n c e ), G e r m a n ic (o r T eu to n ic),
F in n o -U g r ia n a n d T u rk i c languages.
T h e early history o f th e p eoples o f S lav speech re m a in s o bscure, despite
th e achie v em e n ts o f recent historical research. Slavs a p p e a r in th e w riting
o f Byzantine a n d G e r m a n chronicles, as S lav -spea kers p e n e tr a te d into the
Balkans o r G e r m a n -s p e a k e rs colonised la n d s a r o u n d o r b e y o n d th e Elbe.
118 Nations and States

T h e n ea rest th in g to a ‘S lav c u ltu r e ’ k n o w n to h isto ry w as f o u n d in early

m edieval Bulgaria. It resulted fro m the a d o p t i o n o f th e inva d in g B ulgars—
a T u r k i c p eop le fro m the V o lga ste p p es— o f the S lav speech o f the people
w h o m th e y c o n q u e r e d in the lands s o u th o f th e D a n u b e , w hich bec am e
k n o w n as B ulgaria; fro m the tr a n s l a ti o n o f the sc ripture s into this Slav
lang uage by th e O r t h o d o x m issionaries St Cyril a n d St M e th o d iu s; an d
f r o m a ce rtain fruitful c u ltu ra l in te r p e n e tra tio n betw een G reek- an d
S lav-spea k ers w ithin the w id er c o m m u n ity o f the Byzantine c o m m o n ­
w ealth. T his ‘Slav c u ltu r e ’ also ex te n d e d fro m B ulgaria in to Kiev R ussia
a n d in to M a c e d o n ia a n d S erbia. E ven so, the s e p a ra te d e v e lo p m e n t o f the
Bulgarian, K ievan a n d S e r b ia n states set limits to th e unity o f the culture;
a n d th e co n q u e sts by T a t a r s a n d O t t o m a n s h ad the effect o f splintering a n d
provincialising it. T h e M u sc o vite cu ltu re, w hich e m erg ed as the T a t a r
declined, inhe rited this S lav -B y z an tin e c u ltu re b u t tu r n e d it in to s o m e th in g
different.
A m o n g the W e ste rn S lav -sp ea k in g peoples the only c o m m o n cu ltu re
w as C a tholicism . T h a t th e re was ever a specifically ‘S lav’ cu ltu re c o m m o n
to P oles, Czechs, a n d C r o a t s is a m yth. It m a y be a rg u e d th a t there was
s o m e th in g o f a c o m m o n cu ltu re betw een C zechs a n d S lo v ak s in th e G re a t
M o r a v ia n em p ire, o r b etw e en Slovenes a n d C r o a t s in th e day s o f the
C r o a t i a n k in g d o m , b u t these things are w ra p p e d in barely p e n e tra b le early
m edieval mists. C o m m o n ac c e p ta n c e o f C a th o lic cu ltu re, o r c o m m o n
sub je ctio n to th e p re d ic a m e n t o f m edieval se rfd o m , o f persons o f Slav
speech, does n o t c o n s titu te a specific Slav culture. T h e r e w ere Polish a n d
B o h e m ia n cultures, a n d P o lish a n d B o h e m ia n sta te s— usually at enm ity
w ith ea ch other.
S o m e th in g ca n be m a d e o f evidence o f a feeling o f Slav solidarity aga in st
G e r m a n s a t th e Battle o f G rU nw ald o f 1410, a t w hich the T e u to n ic Knights
w ere d efeated by a P olish a r m y w hich in cluded Czechs a n d Byelorussians.
However, this was b u t a b rie f political episode. G ru n w a ld was a n im p o r ta n t
event in the history o f the P olish state, w hich th e re a f te r in c o rp o r a te d
B yelorussian a n d U k r a in ia n subjects to w h o m its rulers e x te n d e d n o m ore
Slav b r o th e r ly love t h a n to the rulers o f n e ig h b o u rin g Bohem ia.
It was f r o m th e S o u th S lav lands u n d e r T u rk is h rule th a t the first
s p o k e s m a n o f m o d e rn P a n sla v ism em erged . T h e C r o a t i a n priest J u r a j
K r iia n ic in 1659 h a n d e d to T s a r Alexei o f M o s c o w a w o rk entitled
‘R u s sia’s policy’, in w hich he a rg u e d t h a t six S lav peoples (R u ssian s, Poles,
C zechs, Bulg arians, S erbs a n d C ro a ts) lo o k e d to R u s sia for lib e ratio n from
T u r k s a n d G e rm a n s. It m a d e b u t small im p re ssio n o n the tsa r, a n d K rizanic
spent m o r e th a n fifteen years in exile a t T o b o ls k in Siberia.
M o re influential was th e c h a p te r on Slavs by H e r d e r in his Ideen zur
Geschichte der M ensehheit o f 1784, in w hich ‘the S lavs’ w ere credited with
propensities to d e m o c ra c y , love o f peace, m usic a n d folk p oetry, an d
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 119

co n tra s te d w ith the a r r o g a n t w a r rio r G e r m a n s . T h is c h a p te r w hich, w ritte n

by a G e r m a n with a guilt co m p le x , stran g e ly fo re sh a d o w s th e E u r o p e a n
guilt co m p lex on im pe rialism of the m id -tw e n tieth ce n tu ry , was m ost
influential a m o n g the e d u c a te d m in o rity in the lands o f Slav speech. T he
presence o f R ussian tr o o p s in B o h e m ia in 1805 a n d 1813 m a d e o r d in a r y
Czechs a w a re o f th e sim ilarity o f th e ir languages. J u n g m a n n , H a n k a a n d
their friends s o u g h t c o n t a c t w ith Russians. T h r o u g h the travelling R u ssian
natio n alist p ro fe sso r M ichael P o g o d in th e y c a m e into c o n t a c t w ith C o u n t
U v aro v, the po w erfu l m iniste r of e d u c a tio n o f N icholas 1, a n d received
so m e small financial help.
It was a m o n g the Czechs th a t the p io neers o f scholarly P an sla v ism were
to be fo u n d , a n d they were jo in e d by tw o S lo v a k s — J a n K ollar (1793-1852)
a n d Pavel J o s e f S a fa rik (1795-1861). B oth w ere L u th e ra n s , a n d b o th had
fre q u e n t c o n ta c t w ith the o th e r peoples o f Slav speech in the H a b s b u r g
M o n a rc h y , b u t very little k n ow ledge o f Russia. K olla r stu died in Bratislava
a n d in Je n a . He a tte n d e d the W a r tb u r g festival o f G e r m a n stu d e n ts in
c o m m e m o r a tio n o f L u th e r in 1817, a n d was m u c h influenced by th e ideals
a n d m en tality o f the G e r m a n stu d e n t m o v e m e n t. H is love-hate rela tion ship
w ith the G e r m a n s is sym bolised by the fact th a t the girl w ho inspired his
lo n g p o e m Slavy d iera (‘d a u g h t e r o f S la v a ’), w hich idealised the nob le past
a n d c h a r a c te r o f th e Slavs, in H erder-lik e spirit, a n d a p p e a le d to th e unity
o f A ll-S lav d o m (Vseslavie), was the d a u g h t e r o f a S a x o n p a s to r w h o
b e c am e his wife. K o lla r b e c am e p a s to r o f th e S lo vak L u th e ra n c h u r c h in
B u d a p e st for m o re th a n tw en ty years. In 1837 he published in G e r m a n , in
B udapest, a w o rk o n ‘literary rec ip ro c ity ’ betw een th e Slavs, a s tro n g
m ix tu re o f learning a n d n a tio n a l p a s sio n .9 T h e Slavs, he claim ed, w ere one
n a tio n , the m o st n u m e ro u s in E u ro p e . T h e y m ust only unite in o r d e r to
m a k e their stren gth felt. Every e d u c a te d Slav sh o u ld th e re fo re learn three
o th e r Slav ‘d ialects’ in a d d itio n to his own.
T he Poles, to o , h ad a P an sla v ism o f th e ir ow n. M ic kiewicz’s co n c e p t of
the Polish n a tio n as a C h rist a m o n g the n a tio n s, a n d C z a r to r y s k i’s interest
in the fate o f th e sm aller n a tio n s o f Slav speech in the O t t o m a n em p ire a n d
in the H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y , o f w h o m the Polish n a tio n was th e n a tu ra l
leader, were to so m e e x te n t c o m b in e d in the political o u tlo o k o f m a n y
n in e te e n th ce n tu ry P o lish p atrio ts. Poles c ou ld be consid ered the largest
S lav n a tio n only o n the a s s u m p tio n th a t the R u ssians were n o t Slavs a t all,
b u t F in n s or M o n g o ls o r T a t a r s w h o h a d a d o p t e d a S lav language. This
view was widely held by P o lish nation alists.
In c o m p e titio n in P a n s la v d e m a g o g y , th e R u ssian s, w ith th e ir larger
n u m b e rs a n d pow erfu l state, c ould alw ays o u tb id the Poles. P an sla v ism in
R ussia was a d o c trin e justifying th e im p e ria l e x p a n s io n o f the R u s sia n
state, p r o p o u n d e d by in d e p e n d e n t R u s s ia n intellectuals a n d p r o fo u n d ly
d istru sted , th o u g h s o m e tim es e x p lo ite d , by R u ssian rulers. P an sla v ism
120 Nations and States

m ight be useful to a r o u s e S lav -sp ea k in g subjects o f th e H a b s b u r g M o n ­

a r c h y a g a in st the V ien n a g o v e rn m e n t; b u t N icholas I, as a conserv ative
m o n a rc h , h a d n o wish to d is r u p t the H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y , even w hen its
policies conflicted w ith his own. P an sla v ism was m o r e useful aga in st the
O t t o m a n T urks: the B alk a n Slavs were O r t h o d o x (an d th e re fo re m ore
d esira b le subjects th a n the C a th o lic Czechs), a n d their ‘lib e ra tio n ’ could
p r o m o te R u s sia n strategic a m b itio n s in the Black S ea a n d th e Straits. In
the in te r n a tio n a l d ip lo m a tic crisis o f 1875-78 A le x a n d e r 1l’s foreign policy
was significantly influenced by a P an sla v lobby, b u t the d i s a p p o in tm e n t of
the 1878 peace se ttle m ent caused it to dim in ish rapidly.
T h e r e was a ce rtain revival in th e years before 1914, in the fo rm o f
‘N eo slav ism ’. Its m ain sp o k e s m e n were P oles a n d Czechs w ho h o p e d to
reconcile A u s tr ia a n d Russia, isolate G e r m a n y , a n d im p ro v e the situation
o f the P oles in a m o r e d e m o c r a tic Russia. T h e m o v e m e n t failed ow ing to
the refusal of R u ssian g o v e r n m e n ts to m a k e con cessio ns to Poles, as well as
to conflicts betw een P oles a n d U k ra in ia n s a n d betw een S erbs a n d B ulgar­
ians.
In th e S eco n d W o rld W a r the h ard -p re sse d g o v e r n m e n t o f Stalin
r eso rte d to P a n sla v p r o p a g a n d a (until th e n d isa p p ro v e d as ch aracteristic
o f “tsa rist r e a c tio n ’) in o r d e r to a r o u s e s u p p o r t in G e r m a n -o c c u p ie d
E u ro p e . In the follow ing th irty years this was revived fro m tim e to time,
t h o u g h it never played a very large p a r t in Soviet p r o p a g a n d a . It was clear
t h a t it was n o m o re th a n a m in o r w e a p o n o f S oviet R ussian im perialism ,
i m p o r t a n t chiefly as a th e o re tic a l ju stific a tio n fo r the falsification, o n
Soviet o rd ers, o f the h isto ry o f th e S lav -sp e a k in g n a tio n s o f C e n tral an d
E astern E u ro p e . A m o n g the peoples them selves ‘Slav solid arity ’ was no
longer a living issue: th e Soviet invasion o f C z ec h o slo v a k ia in 1968
d es tro y e d w h a te v e r h a d survived o f ea rlier illusions.
H ow ever, t h o u g h P a n sla v ism p roved to be fan ta sy , the idea o f the unity
o f the S o u th Slav peoples b ec am e a real political force, as will be sho w n
later.

The Poles: from partition to unity

O n th e n o r th -e a s te r n b o r d e r o f C a th o lic E u r o p e a ro se in the late te n th
c e n tu r y (tra d itio n a l d ate 966) the k in g d o m o f P o la n d , w hich was a
p ow erful sta te in the early eleventh ce n tury , a n d f ro m the m id -fo u rte e n th
o n w a r d s fo r th ree h u n d r e d years. T o its ea st lay t h e O r t h o d o x R u s sia n
p rincipality o f Kiev a n d the p a g a n Baltic peoples, o f w hich th e m o st
i m p o r ta n t w ere th e L ith u a n ia n s . 10
As has been s h o w n a b o v e , a b o u t a h u n d r e d years afte r T a t a r c o n q u e st
had destro y e d the first R u ssian state, the w estern a n d sou th -w estern
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 121

R u ssian lands, includ ing Kiev itself, w ere c o n q u e r e d by th e L ith u a n ian s.

A fter a c e n tu ry o f vacillation by his pred ecessors betw een C h ristian ity a n d
p ag a n ism , the L ith u a n ia n prince Jagiello, faced w ith the hostility of the
G e r m a n K nights o f the T e u to n ic O r d e r 11 a n d the M u slim T a ta r s , c a m e to
term s w ith his third n e ig h b o u r, the k in g d o m o f P o lan d . In 1386 he accepted
C a th o lic C h ristian ity a n d m a rrie d the heiress to the th r o n e o f P o la n d , of
w hich he becam e king: his L ith u a n ia n subjects also bec am e C a tho lics, but
m o st o f his R u ssian subjects rem a ined O r t h o d o x . D u rin g th e n ex t ce n tu ry
the relations betw een the tw o p arts o f this P o lish - L ith u a n ia n c o m m o n ­
w ea lth fluctuated. L ith u a n ia always had its o w n in stitutio ns, a n d a t tim es
its o w n in d e p e n d e n t ruler; yet essentially L ith u a n ia a n d P o la n d w ere allied
ag a in st o th e r states. In the sixtee nth c e n tu ry P olish influence greatly
increased. This was a period w hen P o la n d bec am e a E u r o p e a n g reat pow er,
a n d w hen Polish arts, literature a n d a r c h ite c tu r e flourished as p a rt of
R enaissance E u ro p e . A t this tim e t o o P r o te s ta n tis m m a d e r a p id progress
in P o la n d a m o n g th e la n d o w n in g an d u r b a n classes, t h o u g h it h a d m u c h
less effect on the p ea sa n try . All these influences also m a d e them selves felt in
L ith u a n ia. W he reas in the previous c e n tu ry a m ajo rity o f the people of
L ith u a n ia had been O r t h o d o x of Slav speech, w ith those s p e ak in g the
L ith u a n ia n lan guag e only a m inority o f th e p o p u l a t i o n —so th a t L ith u a n ia
was essentially no less entitled to be describ ed as a R u ssian state t h a n the
still frail bu t g row ing principality o f M u s c o v y — in the sixtee n th c e n tu ry
L ith u a n ia b ecam e largely p olon ised, a n d M uscov y, w hich had n o w c a s t off
T a t a r sovereignty, em erg ed as u n q u e s tio n a b ly the lead ing O r t h o d o x a n d
R u ssian state. T his tre n d was reinforced w h en the ties betw e en L ith u a n ia
a n d P o la n d were m a d e still closer by th e U n io n o f L ublin o f 1569. T h o u g h
L ith u a n ia n institutions were to som e e x te n t preserved, the tw o c ountries
b e c am e one, with a single p a r lia m e n t (Sejm ) a n d g o v ernm e n t.
D u rin g the last years o f the six tee nth c e n tu r y P r o te s ta n tis m lost g r o u n d
in P o la n d , largely th r o u g h the w o rk o f the Je su its, w h o w ere e n c o u r a g e d by
King S igism und III (1587-1632). T h e ir successes a m o n g the P olish e d u c a t­
ed classes (which were w on n o t by perse cu tio n b u t by a r g u m e n t, su p p o r te d ,
it is tru e , by m a teria l in d u c e m e n ts an d p ressures fro m the secular a u t h o r i ­
ties) en c o u ra g e d th e m to tu r n their a t te n t io n to the O r t h o d o x p o p u la tio n
o f L ith u a n ia. T h e ir a im was to resto re th e U n io n o f F lo re n ce o f 1439, by
w hich, in a d es p e ra te a t t e m p t to o b ta in W est E u r o p e a n help for C o n s t a n ­
tin o p le aga in st the T u rk s , the O r t h o d o x o ec u m e n ica l p a tria r c h had agreed
to th e re u n io n o f the O r t h o d o x C h u r c h w ith th e C h u r c h o f R o m e o n term s
d ic ta te d by th e p ope. T h e L ith u a n ia n O r t h o d o x leaders h o p e d for a
c o m p re h e n siv e u n io n w h ich w o u ld include th e ch u rc h es o f M u s c o v y a n d o f
C o n s ta n tin o p le , a n d w o u ld be co n n e c te d w ith a c tio n by C h ristia n E u ro p e
a g a in st the T u rk s ; w h erea s the a im o f the J e su its w as sim ply the s u b o r d in a ­
tio n o f the O r t h o d o x o f L ith u a n ia to th e pope. It was this latter c o n c e p tio n
122 Nations and States

w hich prevailed a t the m eetin g o f O r t h o d o x a n d C a th o lic c h u r c h m e n fro m

6 t o 10 O c to b e r 1596 a t B rest-L itovsk. A m a jo r ity o f th e O r t h o d o x
c h u r c h m e n agreed to U n io n , o n the basis th a t they sh o u ld ac ce p t th e
su p r e m a c y o f the p ope, b u t s h o u ld keep th e ir liturgy in c h u r c h S lavonic,
the m a rr ie d p r ie sth o o d , a n d o th e r lesser points. T h ey th u s re m a in e d a
d istin ct g r o u p w ith in th e w o rld -w ide C a th o lic c o m m u n ity , usually k n o w n
as U niates, o r G re ek -C a th o lic s.
H o w ev er, the O r t h o d o x C h u r c h c o n tin u e d to exist, side by side w ith the
U niate, in the territo ry o f P o la n d - L ith u a n ia . T h o se w h o rem a in ed loyal to
the old c h u r c h suffered disabilities, a n d th e ir h ie ra rc h y was n o t recognised
un til 1634, by K ing S ig is m u n d ’s successor. O r t h o d o x y re m a in e d especially
s tr o n g a m o n g th e U k ra in ia n C o ssac k s o f th e so u th -ea st, w h ose resistance
cre ate d th e first historical f o u n d a ti o n s fo r th e e m e rg en c e o f U k ra in ia n
n a t io n a l consciousness, discussed in the n ex t ch a p te r.
In the eig h tee n th c e n tu ry the grievances o f the O r t h o d o x p o p u la tio n in
P o la n d w ere used as a n ex c use by the R u s sia n E m p ress C a th e rin e 11 for her
n u m e ro u s in te rv en tio n s in P olish affairs. T hese c u lm in a te d in the three
p a r titio n s o f 1772, 1793 a n d 1795, by w h ich P o la n d w as divided betw een
the R u s s ia n em p ire, the H a b s b u r g M o n a r c h y a n d the k in g d o m o f P r u s ­
s ia .12 By the p artitio n s, m o s t o f the lands o f the fo rm e r g r a n d d u c h y o f
L ith u a n ia c a m e u n d e r R u s sia n rule. In these lands Poles in the strict sense
( p erso n s o f C a th o lic faith w h o se first la n g u ag e was Polish) were a m in o rity ,
t h o u g h th e y in cluded m o s t p e rso n s o f e d u c a tio n , m o st la n d o w n e rs a n d a
c o n s id e ra b le n u m b e r o f pea sa n ts. M o st p ea sa n ts h ow eve r were L ith u a n i­
ans, B y e lo ru ssia n s13 o r U k ra in ia n s, while the co m m e rc ia l classes consisted
overw h elm in g ly o f Jews.
T h e U n iates w ith in th e te rrito rie s a n n e x e d to R ussia w ere viewed with
b itter hostility by the h ie ra rc h y o f the R u s sia n O r t h o d o x C h u rc h . In 1839
they w ere forcibly reu n ited w ith O r t h o d o x y , a n d th e U n iate C h u r c h was
d epriv ed o f legal existence w ith in the R u s sia n em pire. W ith in the fo rm erly
P olish te rritorie s ac q u ire d by A u stria th e U n iate C h u r c h survived, an d
played a n i m p o r t a n t p a r t in the d e v e lo p m e n t o f a n a t io n a l m o v e m e n t
a m o n g th e U k ra in ia n s o f E a s te r n Galicia. It is a histo rical iro n y th a t, in the
o nly p a r t o f f o r m e r P o la n d in w hich the U n ia te C h u r c h str u c k s tr o n g roots,
it played a role directly o p p o site to t h a t w h ich h a d bee n in te n d e d fo r it by
the rulers o f P o la n d : instea d o f p r o m o tin g p o lo n is a tio n , it helped to build a
n a tio n w h ich challenged P o lish n a t io n a l claim s.
P oles did n o t ac ce pt th e p a rtitio n s as final. T h e ir leaders placed their
hopes o f re sto r a tio n first in the R u s sia n T s a r A le x a n d e r I 14 a n d th e n m o re
seriously in the F r e n c h e m p e r o r. In 1806 N a p o le o n , w ith P o lish volunteers
fighting in his arm y , entered P o la n d in the c o u rse o f his w a r a g a in st P ru ssia
a n d Russia, a n d by the T r e a t y o f Tilsit o f J u ly 1807 a m u c h reduced a n d
s e m i-in d ep e n d en t Polish sta te w as resuscitated in th e fo rm o f the g r a n d
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 123

d u c h y o f W a rsaw , c o m p o s e d o f m o st o f th e P olish la nds fo rm e rly ta k e n by

P ru ssia, a n d placed u n d e r the sovereig nty o f th e k ing o f S a x o n y . In 1809 its
te rr ito r y was increased by p a r t o f th e la nds ta k e n by A u stria, w hich was
d efeated in t h a t y ea r by N a p o le o n w ith P o lish help. In 1812 N a p o le o n ’s
in vasion force in R ussia included nearly 100,000 P olish t ro o p s. T h e d efeat
o f N a p o le o n in R ussia, th e recovery o f P ru ssia a n d A u s tr ia a n d th e final
victory o f the Allies over F ra n c e h ad th e effect o f a re sto r a tio n o f the
P a rtitio n s, w ith s u b sta n tia l te rritoria l ch a n g es to the a d v a n ta g e o f Russia
a t the ex p e n se o f b o th P ru ssia a n d A u stria.
T h o u g h the P olish state h ad d is a p p e a re d , the P olish n a tio n survived.
U n d e r the old c o m m o n w e a lth , the n a tio n had consisted, in law a n d in fact,
o f th e nobility ( szlachta ), a class w hich c o m p rise d a b o u t a te n th o f th e
p o p u la tio n (in som e districts as m u c h as a fifth), a n d m a n y o f w hose
m e m b e rs were small fa rm e rs o r m e m b e rs o f u r b a n professions. It w as the
nobility w h ich in the first h alf o f the n in e te e n th c e n tu ry f o rm e d the core o f
the n a tio n a l m o v e m e n t. T h e p ea sa n t m a jo rity were r a th e r passive, th o u g h
this sh o u ld n o t be ex a g g erated : the p e a s a n ts ’ n a tio n a l consciou sness was
w e a k e r th a n th a t o f th e szlachta, b u t it existed.
It is, how ever, im p o r ta n t to distinguish betw een th o se w h o w ere C a t h o ­
lics a n d w hose lang u ag e was Polish, a n d th o se o f w h o m neith er o f these
things was true. In the p o st- N a p o le o n ic age, only th o se w ere P oles w h o felt
them selves to be Poles. P olish p a trio ts were d e te r m in e d to resto re the
Polish state in its old frontiers, yet the t r u t h was th a t the P olish n a tio n a n d
the p o p u la tio n o f th e fo rm e r Polish sta te w ere n o t the sa m e thing. T here
w ere persons o f C a th o lic faith a n d L ith u a n ia n speech, a n d o f Polish speech
a n d Je w ish faith, w h o con sid ered them selves to be Poles; b u t a m o n g
p erso n s o f G e r m a n , Byelorussian a n d U k r a in ia n speech a n d o f P ro te s ta n t,
U n iate o r O r t h o d o x religion, loyalty to the m e m o r y o f the P olish c o m m o n ­
w ea lth was w ea k a n d rapidly waning.
T h e m o v e m e n t fo r Po lish in d e p e n d e n c e in th e n in e te e n th c e n tu ry h ad , in
the eyes o f its ow n m e m b e r s a n d of a large p a r t o f liberal a n d d e m o c r a tic
o p in io n in E u ro p e a n d A m eric a, a peculiarly hero ic a n d universal c h a r a c ­
ter. T h e Poles consid ered themselves, a n d w ere widely co n s id e re d to be, a
n a t io n m a rty re d in the cause o f liberty, fighters fo r th e f re e d o m o f
m a n k in d . T h e im m e d ia te occ asio n fo r the S e co n d P a r titio n , w h ich was
decisive in the d e s tru c tio n o f P o la n d , h a d b een the C o n s titu tio n o f M a y
1791, a d o c u m e n t inspired by the F re n c h a n d A m e r ic a n R ev olutions,
w hich h a d en a b le d C a th e rin e II to s m e a r the P oles as ‘J a c o b i n s ’. T a d e u sz
K o sciu szk o (1746-1817), le ad e r o f the revolt o f 1794, w as a h e ro to all
E u r o p e a n d e m o c r a ts , a n d his n a m e w as ce le b ra ted , a m o n g o th e r things, by
b eing given to the highest m o u n ta in in A u stralia. T h e P o lish legions
f o u n d e d by H e n r y k D ^ b r o w s k i believed them selves to be soldiers o f liberty
everyw here. T h e ir sloga n was: ‘fo r o u r liberty a n d y o u r s ’ (za naszq i waszq
124 Nations and States

wolnosc). P oles played a p r o m in e n t p a r t in the rev o lu tio n s o f 1848 in Italy,

G e r m a n y a n d H u n g a ry . It w as n o t o nly o n the E u r o p e a n Left th a t the Poles
w ere ad m ired : th e y were also the darlin gs o f th e C a th o lic C h u r c h , a b o v e all
in F ra n ce . M a n y Polish le aders c o m b in e d religious w ith social r e v o lu tio n ­
ary zeal in a m a n n e r w hich was b e c o m in g rare in E u ro p e in th e m id ­
n in e te e n th ce n tury . T h e m o s t striking ex p re ssio n o f this a t titu d e was in the
w ritings o f th e poet A d a m M ickiewicz, w h o a t tr ib u te d to the Poles a
C hrist-like role a m o n g the n ations: by its sacrifices, P o la n d w ou ld redeem
the n a tio n s as Je su s had redeem ed h u m a n ity . T his im a g ery fell into disuse
later in the c e ntury, but a religious d im e n s io n rem a ined in P olish n a t io n a l­
ism: th e n a t io n b e c am e a n ersatz deity to m en w h o had lost tra d itio n a l
faith.
T h e r e was a n ob v io u s c o n t ra d ic t io n betw een this p a s s io n a te a n d unself­
ish d e v o tio n to the P olish n a tio n a n d the refusal to a d m it the right of
Byelorussians, U k ra in ia n s o r L ith u a n ia n s to have n a tio n a l identity a n d
n a t io n a l a s p ira tio n s o f th e ir ow n. P o lish insistence o n the recovery of all
the e a s te rn b o r d e r la n d s m a d e it difficult for R ussian s even o f liberal
o u tlo o k to s u p p o r t th e P olish cause. In the first h a lf o f the nineteenth
c e n tu r y the conflict betw een P olish a n d R u ssian aim s was in fact m ainly
d u e to th e a r g u m e n t a b o u t historical L ith u a n ia. R u ssian p a trio ts regarded
the old g r a n d d u c h y as m a in ly a ‘R u ssian la n d ’. T hey , n o less th a n the
Poles, refused to recognise th e rights o f Byelorussians a n d U k ra in ia n s to
se p a r a te n a t io n a l status.
T h e P o lish m o v e m e n t w as also divided o n political a n d social problem s.
T h e ar isto c r a tic tr e n d , w h o se o u ts t a n d in g e x p o n e n t was P rin c e A d a m
C z a rto ry sk i (1770-1861), f a v o u red a n oligarchic liberalism , while the
radicals, rep rese n ted by th e exiled D e m o c r a tic Society, consid ered th e m ­
selves heirs to th e Ja c o b in s . E ven the radicals, how ever, paid ra th e r little
a t te n t io n to th e interests o f the p ea sa n ts, a n d to th e need fo r land reform:
this cost th e m som e p o p u la r s u p p o r t in th e revolts o f 1830 a n d 1863.
T h r o u g h o u t th e n in e te e n th c e n tu r y P o lish political leaders fluctuated
betw een th e tw o tactics o f in su rre c tio n a n d o f c o m p ro m ise . Insurrec tion
twice b r o u g h t defeat, a n d was follow ed by a r ea ctio n to w a r d s co m p ro m ise.
But c o m p ro m is e to o b r o u g h t p o o r results, a n d a la te r g e n e ra tio n once
m o re inclined to w a r d s insu rrec tio n , w hich was on ce m o r e crushed. This
was P o la n d ’s trage dy, d e te r m in e d by th e o v e rw h e lm in g force o f her
enem ies a n d th e indifference, o r m erely v erba l s u p p o r t, o f th o se g o v e r n ­
m ents w hich w ere re g a rd e d as P o l a n d ’s friends. It w as these b itte r facts, far
m o re th a n th e inevitable faults o f j u d g m e n t o f in d ivid ual P o lish leaders,
which a c c o u n te d fo r Polish failures. N evertheless th e failures invariably
p ro d u c e d b itter re c rim in a tio n s a n d m u tu a l accusations.
T h e tactic o f c o m p ro m is e co nsisted s o m e tim es in a t te m p ts to brin g the
Polish Q u e stio n before the g o v e r n m e n ts o f the great po w ers th r o u g h
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 125

perso n a l c o n ta c ts w ith p r o m in e n t W est E u r o p e a n sta te sm en . A t o th e r

tim es it consisted in c o o p e r a tio n w ith th e g o v e rn m e n ts of th e three
p a r titio n in g po w ers, in the h o p e o f im p ro v in g the lot o f the Polish people.
A t o th e r tim es again, it consisted in c o o p e r a tin g w ith on e o f th e three
p ow ers, in the h o p e th a t it w ould s u p p o r t P olish interests a g a in st the oth e r
tw o, a n d p erh a p s even reun ite the P olish land s w ith in its b o u n d arie s. In
this h ope leading Poles urged c o o p e r a tio n w ith R ussia betw een 1815 an d
1830, fro m 1857 to 1863, in 1905 a n d in b o th w orld wars; with P russia in
1848 a n d briefly in th e early 1890s; a n d w ith A u stria in 1865 a n d 1914.
T hese m a jo r aspects o f th e P olish m o v e m e n t sh o u ld be a p p a r e n t from a
brief survey o f the f lu ctu atio n s o f the P o lish cause from 1815 until recent
tim es.

E m p e ro r A le x a n d e r 1 o f R ussia was a sincere friend o f th e Poles, t h o u g h he

did n o t hesitate to sacrifice th e m w hen it seem ed to h im th a t th e m o st
urg en t interests o f R ussia required it, o r w h en the pressure o f R ussian
n a tio n a l feeling a g a in st P o la n d was t o o s tr o n g to resist. His a i m was to
u nite all the Polish lands in a single k in g d o m , o f w hich he w ou ld be the
sovereign; b u t pressure by A u stria a n d Britain a t the peace congress of
V ien n a forced him to ac ce pt less th a n he h ad intended. T h e result w as the
f o r m a tio n o f a small k in g d o m of P o la n d (k n o w n to Poles as ‘th e C ongress
K in g d o m ’), c o r r e s p o n d in g ro u g h ly to the te rrito ry o f N a p o le o n ’s g ran d
d u c h y o f W a r sa w afte r the w ar o f 1809. A le x a n d e r was king, a n d the
g o v e r n m e n t a p p a r a t u s a n d a r m y o f his k in g d o m was distinct fro m th o se of
th e R ussian em pire. A c o n s titu tio n , w ith a p a r lia m e n t elected on a
restricted franchise, was p rep a re d by Prin ce A d a m C z a r to r y s k i a n d
a p p r o v e d by A le x a n d e r in N o v e m b e r 1815. All this m a d e A le x a n d e r for a
tim e genuinely p o p u la r w ith the Poles. T h e y h ad still, how ever, o n e m a jo r
unsatisfied wish: t h a t the la n d s a n n e x e d by C a th e rin e II, c o rre s p o n d in g
essentially to the fo rm e r L ith u a n ia, sh o u ld be reunited w ith the k in g d o m .
A le x a n d e r gave vague private as su ra n ce s th a t he w o u ld d o this, but
R u ssian n a tio n a l feeling was in practice to o s tr o n g to p erm it it. H e did
h o w ev e r allow the university o f Vilna to b ec o m e a cen tre for the p o lonisa-
tio n t h r o u g h e d u c a tio n o f a g ro w in g n u m b e r o f U k ra in ia n s a n d Byelorus­
sians. In 1823 a co n s p ira c y was discovered a m o n g V ilna university
s tud e nts, follow ed by arrests a n d p rison sentences. F r o m this tim e Polish-
R u s sia n relations steadily d e te rio ra te d . T s a r N ich o las I, w h o succeeded his
b r o th e r A le x a n d e r in D e c e m b e r 1825, m a in ta in e d th e c o n s titu tio n in the
C ongress K in g d o m , b u t he d istru sted a n d w as d istru sted by the Poles. N ew
conspiracies w ere f o rm e d , a n d in N o v e m b e r 1830 rebellion b r o k e o u t in
W a rsa w , follow ed by a w a r betw een the P olish a n d R u s sia n arm ies. T he
c a p tu r e o f W a r s a w by G en e ra l P askievich o n 8 S e p te m b e r 1831 ended
126 Nations and States

P olish resistance. T h e c o n s titu tio n o f 1815 was a b r o g a te d , a n d in L ith u a ­

nia a n d th e U k ra in e stre n u o u s efforts were m a d e to replace P olish by
R u s sia n e d u c a tio n . A new university w as set u p in Kiev in 1833 for this
express p u rp o se .
F o r th e n e x t q u a r te r c e n tu r y th e P olish e m ig r a tio n in W e ste rn E u ro p e
re g a rd e d R ussia as th e su p r e m e enem y, a n d so u g h t ways o f enlisting help
f ro m a n y q u a r te r. O f the p a r titio n in g pow ers, the least o b je ctio n ab le
a p p e a r e d to be Prussia. King F re d erick W illiam 111 reg a rd e d him self to
so m e e x te n t as a G e r m a n , b u t he did n o t th in k o f his k in g d o m as a purely
G e r m a n state. If his subjects w ere loyal to him , th e y w ere entitled to respect
fo r th e ir n a tionality. H e w as willing to c o n s id e r P ru ssia as a state o f tw o
n atio n s. I n a M a n ife sto o f 15 M a y 1815 to the p eople o f th e g r a n d d u c h y of
P o sen ( P o z n a n ) — the m a in te rr ito r y o f P o lish p o p u la tio n left to P russia by
the 1815 se ttle m en t— he said: ‘Y ou will be in c o rp o r a te d in my M o n a rc h y
w ith o u t hav in g to d e n y y o u r n a tionality . . . . Y o u r lan g u ag e will be used
side by side w ith G e r m a n in all pu blic business, a n d every o n e o f y o u shall
have access, in a c c o r d a n c e w ith his abilities, to public office in the G ra n d
D u c h y as well as to all offices, h o n o u r s a n d dignities o f m y k in g d o m ’. These
g en e ro u s w o rd s w ere belied by th e p rac tica l policies o f g o v e r n o r Flottw ell
o f P o s e n f r o m 1830 to 1840, w h o c on sciou sly set him self the ta sk of
a b s o r b in g the P oles into the G e r m a n n a tio n by the in tr o d u c tio n o f the
G e r m a n la n g u ag e into the sc h ools a n d a d m in is tra tio n . H o w ev er, w ith the
accession o f F re d e ric k W illiam IV in 1840 h o p es revived, a n d G e rm a n isin g
pressure dim inished.
In A u stria t h e re was n o g lim m e r o f hope: M e tte rn ic h ’s regim e c o m b a te d
the n a t io n a l a s p ira tio n s o f the P oles as relentlessly as th o se o f the o th e r
n a tio n s o f th e H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y , a n d his rejection o f all d e m o c ra tic
ideas was u n c o m p ro m is in g . T h e radical w ing o f the Polish e m ig ra tio n in
P aris, the D e m o c r a tic Society, a t te m p te d a rising in G alicia in 1846. T his
ev o k e d positive h ostility f r o m th e P o lish p ea sa n ts, w h o w ere m o r e bitterly
o p p o s e d t o the P o lish la n d o w n in g class on social g r o u n d s t h a n to V ienna
o n n atio n al. A savage civil w a r b r o k e o u t, in w hich p ea sa n ts killed
la n d lo rd s a n d p lu n d e re d m a n o r s while th e A u s tr ia n a u th o ritie s lo o k e d on,
o r even e n c o u r a g e d the p ea sa nts.
In 1848 th e re were P oles fighting in th e re v o lu tio n a r y ra n k s in several
c o u n tries, b u t little w as achieved fo r P o la n d . L u d w ik M iero slaw sk i, o n e o f
the leaders o f th e D e m o c r a tic Society, f o u g h t for th e Sicilians in J a n u a r y ,
a n d led the revolt in s o u th -w e ste rn G e r m a n y a g a in st th e su p p re ss io n o f the
G e r m a n A ssem b ly in J u n e 1849; the P ie d m o n te s e a r m y ’s ch ief o f sta ff in
M a rc h 1849 was a Polish general, C h rz a n o w sk i; a n d in H u n g a r y the P olish
general Bern p ro v e d a brilliant c o m m a n d e r . Yet n o th in g stirred in R u ssian
P o lan d . In the first weeks af te r the r e v o lu tio n in P aris a n d Berlin, th e re was
talk o f w a r aga in st Russia, in w hich the F re n c h a n d G e r m a n peoples w ould
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 127

help th e Poles to rec o ver th eir independence. T s a r N icholas was for a sh o r t

tim e genuinely afraid . H ow ever, the F r e n c h g o v e r n m e n t h ad no in te n tio n
o f risking w ar, a n d in P ru ssia the h o n e y m o o n perio d o f G e r m a n -P o lis h
frie ndsh ip did n o t last long. A t the b eg in n in g o f M a y 1848 P ru s s ia n tr o o p s
forced the P oles o f P o se n into su bm ission. T h e Poles still placed som e
h o p es in their G e r m a n friends. T heir d e le g a tio n in F r a n k f u r t ask ed o n 23
M a y fo r recognition by the A ssem bly o f a n in d e p e n d e n t P o la n d , while
p ro m isin g th a t all fro n tier districts in w hich the m a jo rity o f the p o p u la tio n
s h o u ld freely ask fo r in clusion in G e r m a n y , sh o u ld be ceded to G erm a n y .
T h is request was n o t well received, a n d in a n y case the F r a n k f u r t A ssem bly
was u n ab le to d o an y th in g . M ean w h ile in A u s tr ia n P o la n d the a u th o ritie s
e n c o u r a g e d th e U k ra in ia n s a t the ex p e n se o f the Poles, a n d rep e ate d their
policy of playing p ea sa n ts o ff aga in st la n d o w n e rs. M in o r acts o f resistance
by Poles in C r a c o w on 26 A pril a n d in L w 6w o n 2 N o v e m b e r were easily
suppressed.
T h e Polish e m ig r a tio n h a d new h opes w ith the o u tb r e a k o f w a r between
the W e ste rn pow ers a n d R ussia in 1854. H o w ev er, they got no m o re from
F re n c h a n d British sta te sm en th a n a few am ia b le w ords. In particu la r,
Louis N a p o le o n , w h o had plans fo r a c tio n a g a in st A u stria in n o r th e r n
Italy, did n o t intend to get involved in a n all-o u t w a r w ith R ussia fo r the
sake o f P o la n d while A u stria stayed n eu tra l a n d grew relatively stronger.
H e fo u g h t a limited w ar, w o n his prestige victory w ith the c a p tu r e of
S ev asto p o l, a n d p re p a re d to find in a c h a ste n e d R ussia a useful d ip lo m atic
p a r tn e r for the future.
T h e beginning o f m a jo r social a n d political re fo rm s in R u s sia u n d e r
A le x a n d e r II p ro m ise d som e im p ro v e m e n ts for P o la n d . T h e new tsa r was
a n x i o u s to conciliate the Poles, a n d f o u n d in M a rq u e s s A le x a n d e r Wielo-
polski a p r o m in e n t Pole w h o was willing to im p le m e n t m o d e ra te reform s.
H e failed to win P olish s u p p o r t. T h e co nservatives agre ed w ith his general
aim s, but did n o t d a r e to incur o d iu m in the eyes o f P olish p a trio ts by
saying so in public, unless W ielopolsk i c o u ld get fro m th e tsa r a n u n d e r t a k ­
ing th a t L ith u a n ia w o u ld be b r o u g h t u n d e r the sam e fo rm o f g o v e r n m e n t as
the C on gress K ing d o m : this was so m e th in g t h a t no R u ssian ruler could
give. F o r their p a r t, the radicals were o p p o s e d to a n y c o o p e r a tio n w ith the
R u s sia n g o v e rn m e n t. In 1861 a n d 1862 th e re were d e m o n s tr a ti o n s a n d
a tte m p te d a s sassin atio n s, a n d W ielo p o lsk i w as forced into repression.
W h e n he a n n o u n c e d t h a t he w ould c o n s c r ip t y o u n g P oles in to th e R u ssian
a r m y , th e radicals decided o n a r m e d rebellion. F ig h tin g b eg a n in J a n u a r y
1863, a n d w ent o n f o r m o r e t h a n a year, in the f o r m n o t o f o p e n w ar
betw een arm ies as in 1831 b u t o f a g u errilla m o v e m e n t in m a n y p a r ts o f th e
co u n try .
R e pre ssion in R u s sia n P o la n d was a c c o m p a n ie d by d is trib u tio n o f land
to the p e a sa n ts o n r a th e r fa v o u ra b le term s. T h e a im w as to p e rsu a d e the
128 Nations and States

Polish p e a sa n ts th a t the R u ssian g o v e r n m e n t was their friend, the Polish

la n d o w n e rs th e ir only enem ies, a n d th a t P olish in d e p e n d e n c e was a crazy
d r e a m o f these enemies. T h e r e n o w b eg a n a policy o f system a tic R ussifica­
tion, n o t only in L ith u a n ia a n d the U k ra in e b u t also in the C ongress
K in g d o m . S ch ools a n d universities were used as in stru m e n ts o f R ussifica­
tion; R u s sia n replaced P o lish as the la n g u ag e o f in stru c tio n as well as of
public a d m in is tra tio n ; a n d n u m b e rs o f R u ssian officials were b r o u g h t to
serve in P o lan d . T h e policy was unsuccessful, for Poles retained th eir
lang uage a n d th e ir n a t io n a l consciousness: in fact, ju s t because they were
m o re p r o s p e r o u s th e P o lish p ea sa n ts b ec am e m o r e a w a re o f the Polish
n atio nality. D u r i n g the last d ecades o f the c e n tu ry in d u stry m a d e great
progress in R u s s ia n P o la n d , a n d Poles b ec am e fac to ry w orkers, profes­
sional a n d business m en in g ro w in g n u m b e rs.
In P ru ssia, a new policy o f forced G e r m a n is a tio n began in the 1880s.)lt
was co n n e c te d w ith B ism a rc k ’s policy o f K u ltu rkam pf directed aga in st the
C a th o lic C h u r c h , b u t was n o t confined to religious affairs: the exclusion o f
the P olish la n g u ag e fro m schools an d a d m in is t r a tio n w ent a h e a d , a n d the
g o v e r n m e n t gave public fu nds to assist the p u rch a se o f Polish landed
p r o p e r ty by G e rm a n s. In 1899"w as fo u n d e d the Deutsches Ostmarkenve-
rein, w hich directed a n ti- P o lis h p r o p a g a n d a a n d organised the c a m p a ig n
a g a in st P o lish la n g u ag e a n d o w n ersh ip o f land. T h e re was m u c h inflated
n a tio n a list rh eto ric , inc lu d in g talk o f a ‘policy o f e x t e r m in a tio n ’ (Ausrot-
tungspolitik ) as a n aim . In practice the m e th o d s used were fairly m ild, an d
they w ere n o t effective. T h e Poles clung to their land, th e ir lang uage an d
their n a t io n a l culture. In fact, th e p r o p o r t i o n o f Poles in the province of
P osen ( P o z n a n ) rose betw een 1867 a n d 1910 fro m 62 to 71 per cent.
F r o m 1865 o n w a r d s the p a r titio n in g p o w e r w hich tre a te d the Poles best
was A u stria. A G alician D iet, elected o n a limited franchise, m et in Lw 6w ,
a n d th e G alician p ro vin cial a u th o ritie s w ere given wide p ow ers over local
e c o n o m ic affairs, public h e a lth a n d schools. Poles were also elected to the
ce n tral p a rlia m e n t (Reichsrat) in V ienna. T h e m a in o b je ctio n ab le feature
o f this system, fro m the P o lish p o in t o f view, was th a t the civil a n d political
rights w hich they enjoyed w ere also available to the U k ra in ia n p o p u la tio n
in East Galicia. T h e d e m a n d s o f th e U k ra in ia n s b e c am e still m o re pressing
w hen universal suffrage was in tr o d u c e d in to th e V ienna p a rlia m e n t in
1907. S o m e Polish leaders tried to p ersu a d e V ienna to sh o w a m o r e m a rk e d
preference for Polish over U k ra in ia n claims; so m e so u g h t a n u n d e r s ta n d ­
ing w ith the U k ra in ia n s a g a in st Russia, a n d to som e e x te n t a g a in st Vienna;
while som e even so u g h t c o o p e r a tio n w ith R ussia a g a in st th e U kra in ia n s.
If o n e co n sid ers the w hole Polish n a tio n , in th e th ree p a rtitio n in g
em pires, o n the eve of th e F irst W o rld W a r , on e m u s t n o te tw o m a in
divisions in political o u tlo o k . T h e first was betw een socialists an d b o u r ­
geois d e m o c ra ts : the tw o m ain parties, the Polish S ocialist P a r ty ( P P S ) an d
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 129

the N a tio n a l D e m o c r a ts (Endecja) w h o se o u ts ta n d in g s p o k e s m a n was

R o m a n D m o w sk i, h ad their follow ers in all th ree territories. T he second
division was betw een th o se w ho believed th a t som e c o o p e r a tio n w ith
R u ssian s was possible, a n d th o se w h o re g a rd e d R ussia as th e im placab le
e n e m y a n d the G e r m a n po w ers as the lesser evil. This division cut ac ro ss the
parties, a n d was to be fo u n d in all th ree em pires. D m o w s k i believed th a t the
m ain d a n g e r c a m e fro m G e r m a n y , a n d th a t A u stria was to o w eak to
p rovide a c o u n te rw e ig h t to it. He ho ped for refo rm s w ithin R ussia which
w o uld give th e P oles se lf-govern m ent in th e ir h o m e la n d while offering
th e m the c h a n ce o f splendid careers in th e vast R u ssian em p ire, w h ere their
s u p e rio r abilities a n d cu ltu re w ould f a v o u r th e m in c o m p e titio n with
Russians. He also f a v o u red ‘n eoslavism ’, th e p u rp o se o f w hich was to
p ersu a d e the A u s tr ia n g o v e r n m e n t th a t A u stria sh o u ld be n o t th e second
G e r m a n bu t the second Slav great p o w er in E u ro p e ; should in effect replace
her alliance with G e r m a n y by a n alliance w ith Russia. His m o r e d is ta n t aim
was, with R ussian help, to d e ta c h P ru ssia n P o la n d fro m G e rm a n y . In the
socialist m o v e m e n t th e re was also a s tro n g tre n d in f a v o u r o f c o o p e r a tio n
w ith R u s sian s— n o t w ith the g o v e r n m e n t bu t w ith the w o rk in g class. This
tre n d becam e very po w erful d u r in g the r e v o lu tio n a ry y ea r 1905. T he
o p p o site view was th a t P o l a n d ’s h ope lay in the d e s tru c tio n o f the R ussian
em p ire, a n d th a t this c ould only be b r o u g h t a b o u t by the G e r m a n pow ers.
T h e chief c h a m p io n o f this view was a socialist, J o s e f P ilsudski. H e disliked
hav in g to sid e 'w ith G e r m a n y , but he believed th a t A u stria could protect
P olish interests w ithin the G e r m a n c a m p , a n d t h a t o n e d a y G e r m a n y in its
t u r n w ould be d efe ate d by th e W estern pow ers. Sim ilar, t h o u g h less f a r ­
sighted o r co m p le x , views w ere held by s o m e Polish conservatives,
especially in Galicia.
W h e n the E u r o p e a n W a r b ro k e o u t in 1914, P itsudski led legions o f
Polish v o lun teers to fight with the A u s tr ia n s against Russia. W h e n the
R ussians had been d riv en o u t o f P o la n d , he q uarrelled with the G e rm a n s,
a n d was im p riso n e d in M a g d e b u r g fortress. T h e final result o f the w ar
fulfilled P ilsud ski’s h opes, for Russia was bea te n by G e r m a n y , a n d
G e r m a n y by F ra n c e a n d Britain. Polish in d e p en d e n ce bec am e a fact in
1918.
A t this po in t the difference between th e P olish n a tio n a n d the historical
P o lish sta te em erg ed in a c u te form . In the W est, the vic to rio u s great pow ers
gave the benefit o f th e d o u b t to the P oles a t th e ex p e n se o f the G e r m a n s in
d r a w in g th e frontiers in P o m e r a n i a a n d Silesia— th o u g h they gave a goo d
d eal less th a n P olish n atio n alists w o u ld have liked, a n d cre ate d a n
a w k w a r d p r o b le m t h r o u g h th e s e p a r a tio n o f E ast P ru ssia fro m B r a n d e n ­
b u r g by a belt o f P o lish te rrito ry , the so-called ‘P olish C o r r i d o r ’. In the
E ast, Pilsudski w ished to revive th e old P o lish state, a n d indeed e x te n d its
te rrito ry , in a new f o rm , by a federal u n io n b etw e en P o la n d a n d a
130 Nations and States

U k r a in ia n state. These pla n s failed, a n d afte r the P o lish-S oviet R ussian

w a r o f 1920 a c o m p ro m is e f ro n tie r was ac cepted w hich h a d th e effect th a t
the old p a rtitio n s o f P o la n d w ere replaced by p a rtitio n s of b o th Byelorussia
a n d the U k ra in e , w ith the larger sh are o f each o f these tw o c o u n trie s going
to R u ssia b u t a s u b sta n tia l slice to P o lan d .
G e r m a n n atio n alists w ere n o t only e m b itte re d by the inclusion o f nearly
a m illion G e r m a n s in P o la n d , b u t resented the very existence o f a Polish
state. T h e Soviet rulers in te n d e d in the course o f tim e to a n n e x the rest of
Byelorussia a n d U krain e. In the 1920s b o th G e r m a n y a n d R ussia were
w eak, b u t once they h ad recovered P o la n d was in grave d an g e r. In
S e p te m b e r 1939 th e fifth p a r titio n o f P o l a n d 15 to o k place, betw een H itler’s
T h ird Reich a n d S ta lin ’s So viet U nion . T h e S eco n d W o rld W a r cost the
Poles a b o u t six million d e a d , m o re th a n h a lf o f this n u m b e r co nsisting of
Jews. W h e n H itler had been d efe ate d, the Sov iet U nio n kept a lm o st all th a t
it h a d ta k e n from P o la n d in 1939, b u t c o m p e n s a te d th e Poles by giving
th e m m o s t o f E ast P ru ssia a n d by a d v a n c in g their w estern fro n tier to the
O d e r a n d W estern Neisse rivers. A b o u t eight million G e r m a n s were
expelled, a n d th eir places ta k e n by P oles fro m the East or f ro m the
o v e r p o p u la te d p rovinces o f P o la n d p roper. In the follow ing q u a r te r o f a
ce n tu ry the high P olish b irth rate had filled the gap: th e Polish n a tio n an d
the p o p u la tio n o f the Polish state n o w coincided.
T his brief survey o f the Polish n a tio n a l struggle requires a short
c o m m e n t. In th e Polish case e x tre m es o f g en erosity a n d m eanness, o f high
idealism a n d o f fan a tica l disreg a rd for the rights o f o th e r n a tio n s, exceed
the n o r m a l p a t te r n o f n atio n a lism . R e p ea ted ly , the d e t e r m in a tio n to
im p o se P olish rule o n L ith u a n ia n s , Byelorussians a n d U k ra in ia n s deprived
th e P o les o f a n o p p o r tu n ity o f viable in d e p e n d e n c e for th e P olish people
w ith R u s sia n co n s e n t (in the 1820s, 1862, 1920). T h e early p r o p h e ts o f the
P o lish cause set very high sta n d a r d s , a n d a g a in st th e m the ju d g m e n t of
reality m u s t a t tim es be h arsh . ‘F o r o u r fre e d o m a n d y o u r s’ was a noble
a s p ira tio n , a n d it was indeed often tr a n s f o r m e d into reality. T h erefo re,
w h e n P o lish t r o o p s m a rc h e d into C z ec h o slo v a k ia in A u g u st 196816 they
w ere defiling the essence o f P olish history: it was as if they h a d inscribed on
th e ir s ta n d a r d s the w o rd s ‘f o r o u r e n s lav e m en t a n d y o u r s’ (za naszq i waszq
niew ol f). It is also a b itte r t r u t h t h a t P o l a n d ’s hero ic efforts h a d been
callously ex p lo ite d in the p as t by o th e r po w ers to th e ir a d v a n ta g e , a n d th a t
the help o f F r a n c e a n d B ritain, often s o u g h t a n d so m e tim es p ro m ise d ,
in v a riab ly pro v ed useless. P o la n d indeed suffered f r o m false friends; yet
th e spectacle of P olish t r o o p s m a rc h in g in to B o h e m ia side by side with
B rezhn ev’s R ussians a n d U lb r ic h t’s P ru ssia n s w as s h o c k in g even in the
w orld o f 1968. W ith su c h allies P o la n d h a d n o need o f friends.
T hese things m u s t be said, a n d yet it m u s t be a d m itte d th a t th e y a re less
th a n just. T h e trag e d y o f th e P oles was t h a t fo r tw o h u n d r e d years, save for
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 131

a few b rief intervals, th e y were at the m ercy o f tw o n a tio n s f a r stro n g e r th a n

they, w hose rulers at tim es show ed g re a t cruelty, a n d se ld o m sh ow ed
th em selves ca p a b le o f g e n e r o s ity .17 F o re ig n e rs have b la m ed the P oles for
reckless in su rrec tio n s a n d fo r abject c o o p e r a tio n . Yet b o th have been
eq ua lly fruitless a n d e qua lly inevitable. R evolt is cru sh e d , so on e accepts
th e c o n q u e r o r; the c o n q u e r o r replies w ith a n o t h e r r o u n d o f o p p re ssio n , so
o n e revolts. R e volt is crushed . . . . T he idiot cycle rep eats itself. T h e r e is no
escape in sight.

The Yugoslavs
A t the b eginning o f th e nin e tee n th c e n tu r y a lm o st all th e la n d stretch ing
f ro m the so u th -e a ste rn Alps to the Black Sea, b o u n d e d by the rivers D r a v a
a n d D a n u b e in the n o r th a n d by the A d riatic a n d A eg ean in th e so u th , was
in h a b ite d by p eople s p e ak in g Slav dialects. T h ese m erged in to ea ch o th e r
as o n e travelled fro m n o rth -w e st to s o u th -e a st. D u rin g the first h a lf o f the
ce n tu ry , as th e result o f p io n e erin g w o rk by n ative scholars, three d istinct
literary languages w ere f o r m e d — Slovene, S e r b o - C r o a tia n a n d B ulgarian.
In term e d iate dialects c o n tin u e d to be s p o k e n , such as the kajkavski v a r ia n t
in c e n tra l C r o a tia , th e sh opski dialect in th e b o r d e r districts betw een S erb ia
a n d B ulgaria, a n d a n u m b e r o f dialects in M a ce d o n ia .
T hese S lav -sp ea k in g p eople w ere d ivided b etw e en three religions. T h o se
o f th e north -w e st, a n d o f th e A driatic co a sta l strip, w ere m ainly C ath olics.
T h o s e o f the lower D a n u b e , M o r a v a , V a r d a r a n d M a rits a valleys a n d of
the lands betw een th e m w ere m ain ly O r t h o d o x . In the ce n tral region o f
Bosnia, a n d o n the so u th e rn slopes o f the R h o d o p e M o u n ta in s , w ere m a n y
M uslim s o f Slav speech.
T h e peoples still h a d d im m e m o ries o f p a s t h isto rical g reatness. T he
triu n e k in g d o m o f C r o a t ia , S la v o n ia a n d D a lm a ti a h ad n o t been f o rg o tte n ,
n o r th e k in g d o m s o f S erbia, B osnia a n d B ulgaria. In 1800 n o t m u c h was
left o f the m . P a r t o f C r o a t ia h a d r em a in ed u n d e r H a b s b u r g rule even a t the
height o f T u rk is h p ow er; m o r e h ad b e e n re c o n q u e r e d a t th e en d o f the
seven te en th centu ry; a n d the s o u th e rn fro n tiers o f the M o n a r c h y h a d been
settled w ith S erbs w h o h a d fled fro m T u rk i s h rule a n d h a d received land in
r e tu r n f o r m ilitary service. T h ese ‘m ilita ry f ro n tie r s m e n ’ f o rm e d a distinct
political u n it in th e H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y . D a lm a ti a h a d been se p a ra te d
fro m C r o a t ia in 1420 a n d bec am e p a r t o f th e la n d s o f the V ene tia n republic:
it re m a in e d V enetian u n til the repu blic w as dissolved in 1797. A fter this it
p assed first to F re n c h a n d th e n to A u s tr ia n rule, b u t was k e p t s e p a ra te from
C ro a tia . In the m o u n ta in s b e h in d the so u th - e a s te rn c o r n e r o f the A d riatic
was th e principality o f M o n te n e g r o , w h o se O r t h o d o x S lav p eople h ad
never been c o n q u e r e d by th e T u rk s. T h e rest o f the region, fro m Bosnia to
132 Nations and States

the Black S ea a n d f r o m B elgrade to th e A eg e an , still belong ed to the

O t t o m a n em pire.
It is easy to e x a g g erate o r to u n d e r r a te the collective consciousness of
these p eoples in 1800. T h e historic n am es o f C r o a t a n d S erb were widely
used. T h e n a m e Slovene w as also c o m in g in to wide use a m o n g th e people o f
the A lpin e n o r th -w e st c o r n e r o f the region, w ho h a d never possessed a
firm ly org an ise d state o f th e ir ow n, b u t were certainly aw a re o f the
difference in language a n d cultu re betw een them selves a n d their G e r m a n -
o r Italia n -sp e a k in g n eig h b o u rs. In the m o u n t a i n o u s ce n tral regions an d in
S erbia, life w as largely b ased o n the p a tria r c h a l e x te n d e d fam ily (zadruga)
w hich h as bee n rightly rep rese n ted as the core o f S e rb ia n n a tio n a l culture
in the centuries o f T u rk is h rule. A n o th e r i m p o r ta n t in fluence were the
p o p u la r epics (narodne p esm e ), preserved orally, largely co n c ern ed with
the hero ic d ay s o f the O t t o m a n c o n q u e s t o f the old kin g d o m s. In the
eig h tee n th c e n tu ry s o u th e rn H u n g a r y , w h ere the exiled S e rb ia n O r t h o d o x
M e tr o p o l ita n a te was estab lished in S re m sk i K arlovci, w as a ce n tre of
e d u c a tio n f o r Serbs. In C r o a t ia a n d in the Slovene A lps o p p o r tu n itie s for
sc h o o l w ere r a th e r better. A few learned S o u th Slavs m a d e th e ir a p p e a r ­
ance. O n e w as Je rn e j K o p ita r, a Slovene living in V ienna, a m o s t eru d ite
lib ra ria n a n d linguist. A n o t h e r was a n O r t h o d o x priest, D ositej O b ra d o v -
ic, w h o travelled widely in E u ro p e , was deeply influenced by th e E n lig h ten ­
m e n t, a n d pub lished w o rk s in his language. Still m o r e im p o r ta n t was the
H erze g o v in ia n S erb, V u k K aradzic, w h o pu blished five v o lu m e s o f p o p u ­
la r epics f ro m 1841 o n w a r d s , a n d did m o r e th a n a n y o th e r single p erson to
cre ate a m o d e r n S e r b o - C r o a tia n language, based o n his o w n H erzegov ini­
a n d ialect, b u t b ro a d ly ac ce p te d in the follow ing years by b o th C r o a ts and
S erbs as th e ir own.
T h e first m a jo r political event in the m o d e r n history o f the S o u th Slavs
was th e rev o lt o f the S erbs u n d e r K a r a D jo r d je in 1804. T his was essentially
a m o v e m e n t o f d isc o n te n te d p ea sa n ts, directed a g a in st the lawlessness of
local T u r k i s h p o te n ta te s a n d usurpers,· a n d n o t designed to o v e rth ro w
O t t o m a n rule as such. T h e rebels freed a s u b sta n tia l region so u th of
Belgrade, betw e en the D r i n a a n d M o r a v a rivers, th e so-called ‘land o f
forests’ (S u m a d ija ). T h e ir success was facilitated by the fact th a t fro m 1806
o n w a r d s the T u r k s w ere a t w a r w ith R u s sia in th e D a n u b i a n principalities:
a l th o u g h n o t m u c h direct R u s sia n aid rea ch ed the S erbs, the T u rk s were
to o occu p ie d elsew here by th e m a in R u s s ia n a r m y to m a k e a m a jo r effort to
re c o n q u e r S erbia. T his c h a n g e d in 1813, w h e n R ussia h a d m a d e peace w ith
T u rk e y ; all E u ro p e was c onvu lsed by the last stages o f th e w ar again st
N a p o le o n , a n d the su lta n h a d th e ch a n ce to p u n ish his rebellious subjects.
It n o w b e c am e a d irect fight a g a in st th e T u r k s as such, a n d a n a t io n a l
struggle for S e rb ia n f re e d o m , inevitably a g g ra v a te d a n d em b itte re d by the
e x p lo sio n o f the latent hatre d betw een C h ristia n s a n d M uslim s. S erbia was
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 133

cru sh e d in 1813, b u t in 1817 a new leader, MiloS O b re n o v ic , a m o re

c u n n in g politician a n d a n ab ler d ip lo m a t t h a n K a ra D jordje, achieved a
limited success; a n d as a result o f the R u s s o -T u r k is h w a r o f 1828-29 a n d o f
g rea t p o w e r d ip lo m a c y a n in d e p e n d e n t S e rb ia n state w as established,
ow in g only n o m in a l allegiance to O t t o m a n suzerainty.
F u r th e r west, five years (1809-14) o f a n n e x a t io n o f Slovene a n d C r o a t ia n
lands to N a p o le o n ’s F re n c h em pire as the p rovince o f ‘Illyria’ left their
m a rk o n at least a n e d u c a te d m inority. T h e stu d y o f S lav dialects a n d
g r a m m a r , the influence o f H e r d e r ’s ideas a b o u t language in general a n d
a b o u t the Slavs in p a rtic u la r, a n d the a p p e a r a n c e o f r o m a n tic P anslavism ,
especially a m o n g the Czechs, had effects also in the S o u th Slav lands o f the
H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y . T h e o u ts ta n d in g figure was the C r o a t ia n w riter
Ljudevit Gaj, w h o bec am e th e leader o f a n ‘Illyrian m o v e m e n t’. In his
periodical Danica he a rg u e d th a t there w as a single Illyrian people, o f Slav
speech, stretch ing fro m the Alps to V arna. T h o u g h this was only ta lk, an d
th e re w as no q u e s tio n o f a n y actio n to c re a te a great Illyrian state, it was
o b je ctio n ab le to the a u th o ritie s in H u n g a ry , with w hich C r o a t ia was united
u n d e r H a b s b u r g rule. M e tte rn ic h in 1843 fo rm a lly fo rb a d e use o f the n am e
Illyria. T h e idea o f S o u th S lav n atio n a lity a n d unity survived how ever.
In 1848 b o th C r o a t s a n d S erbs fo u n d th e ir n a tio n a l a s p ira tio n s rejected
by th e m a k e rs o f the H u n g a r ia n R e v o lu ti o n ,18 a n d in co n se q u e n c e s u p p o r t ­
ed the H a b s b u r g g o v e r n m e n t aga in st the H u n g a ria n s. W hile the fighting
w ent o n in H u n g a ry , the rulers o f S erb ia, bey o n d the D a n u b e a n d S av a
rivers at Belgrade, re m a in e d p ru d e n tly inactive, n o t d a r in g to an ta g o n is e
b o th A u stria an d Russia. H ow ever, they w ere interested in th e liberation of
th e ir k in sm en u n d e r T u rk is h , a n d even tu a lly also u n d e r H a b s b u r g , rule.
T h e chief m inister o f P rin c e A le x a n d e r K arad jo rd je v ic , Ilija G araS anin,
p re p a re d in 1843 a f ar-rea ch in g project (nachertanie) fo r S o u th Slav unity.
T h e H a b sb u r g s s h o w ed no g ra titu d e to C r o a t s o r Serbs. U n d e r the
restored a b s o lu tism , the S o u th Slavs h a d the a d v a n ta g e s o f fairly g o o d
g o v e r n m e n t a n d som e m a teria l a n d c u ltu ra l progress, b u t n o concessions
were m a d e to their n a t io n a l asp ira tio n s. In 1867 the H a b sb u r g s, h aving
m a d e the C o m p r o m i s e w ith H ungary,, left the C r o a t s to m a k e the best
te rm s they co uld w ith th e H u n g a r ia n s o n th eir ow n. All they go t was a
limited region al a u t o n o m y , w ith a p rovincial D iet a n d the use o f C r o a t ia n
as th e language o f a d m in is tra tio n . D a lm a ti a re m a in e d u n d e r the rule o f
Vienna: th u s the fo rm e r triu n e k in g d o m c o n tin u e d to be divided. T here
were also C r o a ts in Istria, a s e p a ra te p rovince, in w hich Italians fo rm e d
nearly h alf the p o p u la tio n a n d were b o th cultu rally a n d politically d o m i ­
nan t. T he Slovenes were divided betw een f o u r p ro v in ce s— Istria, G orizia,
C a r in th ia a n d C a rn io la (o n ly in the last o f w hich they f o rm e d a n ov er­
w h elm in g m a jority), a n d in th e city o f Trieste.
In D a lm a tia u n d e r A u str ia n rule the C r o a t ia n m a jo r ity succeeded over
134 Nations and States

the years in w inn in g c o n tro l o f public life fro m th e Italian m in o rity w hich
h ad long b een f a v o u re d by V ienna. D a lm a ti a h o w ev e r was a n exceedingly
p o o r c o u n try , a n d very little was d o n e fro m V ien n a to develop its resources
o r p r o te c t the e c o n o m ic interests o f its people. C r o a t s in b o th provinces
a g ita te d unsuccessfully fo r th e u n io n o f D a lm a ti a w ith C r o a tia . In b o th
D a lm a ti a a n d C r o a t ia th e re were also large S e r b ia n m inorities. H ere as
elsew here, th e n o r m a l distin ctio n betw een S e rb a n d C r o a t was religious.
Both s p o k e th e sam e lang uage (differences o f dialect were a m a tte r o f
r egiona l n o t o f religious division), b u t O r t h o d o x w ere S erbs a n d used the
Cyrillic a l p h a b e t, while C a th o lics were C r o a t s a n d used th e L atin a lp h a b e t.
H ow ever, in so u th e rn D a lm a ti a there was also a r a th e r small n u m b e r of
C a th o lics w h o consid ered them selves to be Serbs.
T h e relations betw e en C r o a t s a n d S erbs b ec am e a m a tte r o f great
im p o r ta n c e in the political life o f C r o a tia . T h e re w ere tw o m a in tren d s
a m o n g the C ro a ts. O n e m a y be called th e G r e a te r C r o a t i a n idea. Its chief
e x p o n e n t w as A n te StarCevic. Essentially, he re in te rp re te d the Illyrian idea
o f Gaj. In his view there w as o n e n a tio n living betw een the A lps a n d the
Black Sea, b u t its n a m e was n o t Illyrian b u t C r o a tia n . T h e C r o a t ia n n a tio n
sh o u ld in clude those w ho, in the course o f tim e, h ad bec om e O r t h o d o x or
M uslim s. T h e o th e r n a m e s used by people living in this region were
re giona l descrip tio n s, n o t n a tio n a l n am es. It was possible to spe ak o f those
w h o lived in the region k n o w n as S erb ia as ‘S e r b s’, b u t it was w ro n g to
spe ak o f S erbs as a n a tio n . T h o se w h o insisted o n calling them selves a
S e rb ia n n a t io n Stardevic viewed as enemies. Stardevic w as a b itter enem y
o f b o t h A u s tr ia a n d H u n g a ry , t h o u g h he w as willing if necessary to ac c e p t a
H a b s b u r g as ruler. His a i m was a g rea t in d e p e n d e n t C r o a t ia n state,
e x te n d in g far in to the existin g land s of the O t t o m a n em p ire, possibly as far
as th e Black Sea. This state c ou ld at m o s t be linked by p erso n a l d yn astic
u n io n w ith A u s tr ia a n d H u n g a ry : its in stitu tio n s m u st be com pletely
se parate . Stardevic w as a fan a tica l d e fe n d e r o f the c o n s titu tio n a l rights of
the m edieval C r o a t ia n S ta te (hrvatsko drza vn o pravo). He gave to his p a rty
the n a m e o f P a r ty o f P u r e R i g h t . 19
T h e altern ativ e tr e n d m a y be called the Y ugoslav Idea. Its chief e x p o n e n t
w as Iv an J u r a j S tro s m a je r (1815-1905), f o r m a n y years C a th o lic b ish o p of
D ja k o v o . H e recognised t h a t C r o a t s a n d S erbs w ere different, b u t believed
th a t th e y w ere fra te r n a l n a tio n s , b elo n g in g to a g re a t S o u t h Slav (Y u g o ­
slav) c o m m u n ity . H e to o w ished to see a g re a t free S o u th S lav state, b u t he
did n o t believe th a t it co u ld be sim ply called C r o a t ia o r S erbia. T h e m a in
task was to liberate S o u t h Slavs f r o m O t t o m a n rule. S tro s m a je r ’s a t titu d e
to th e H a b s b u r g M o n a r c h y was a m b ig u o u s . H e h a d n o love fo r A u s tr ia n
rule, a n d still less fo r H u n g a r ia n , b u t he d id n o t see a n y p ro sp e c t o f the
b r e a k -u p o f the M o n a rc h y , n o r p e r h a p s did he even desire this. His
g e n e r a tio n a n d the n ex t h ad as their task to m a k e the best they could o f life
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 135

w ith in the fra m e w o r k o f th e M o n a rc h y . T his did n o t m e a n th a t they w ould

n o t have liked a c om pletely in d e p e n d e n t S o u t h S lav state, only th a t this did
n o t arise as a serious possibility. T h e a c c u s a tio n so m e tim es m a d e later
a g a in st S tro s m a je r a n d his follow ers by e x tre m e S e rb ia n natio n alists, th a t
th e y w ere s ubservient to A u stria, is irrelevant. C e rtain ly S tro s m a je r d id as
m u c h as a n y o n e to p r o m o te the n o tio n o f so lid arity betw een the S o u th Slav
peoples, n o t least by his use o f the rich in c o m e o f his diocese fo r ed u c a tio n ,
in clu ding the f o u n d a ti o n o f th e first a c a d e m y o f a rts a n d sciences in a
S o u th Slav land. E stab lished in Z a g r e b in 1867, it was significantly entitled
‘Y ugoslav A c a d e m y ’.
T h e g o v e r n m e n t o f the sm all free state o f S e rb ia was chiefly interested in
lib e ratin g fellow -Serbs w h o lived b o th to the s o u th a n d to the west o f
S e r b ia u n d e r O tt o m a n rule. Prince M ic h ae l O b re n o v ic h a d a m b itio u s
pla n s for a league o f B alk a n states a n d p eoples to drive th e T u r k s o u t of
E u ro p e , b u t he was assassin ate d in 1868 before this c ould be a tte m p te d .
W h e reas Prince M ichael th o u g h t in te rm s o f th e e x ten sio n o f the S e rb ia n
state to include S erbs a n d p erh a p s Bulgarians, y o u n g e r S erb s o f radical
o u tlo o k , a b o v e all the socialist S v e to z a r M a rk o v ic , o p p o s e d policies o f
state a g g ra n d ise m e n t, bitterly criticised th e B a lk a n ty pe o f b u re a u c r a tic
ab s o lu tis m w hich had g r o w n u p in S erbia, a n d aim ed at a n alliance o f free
a n d equ a l B alk an nations.
In 1875 th e re was a rebellion o f S erbs in H erze g o v in a a g a in st T u rk ish
rule, followed som e m o n th s later by a rebellion in Bosnia. Both h a d been
e n c o u r a g e d by r e v o lu tio n a r y activities b ased o n S erbia a n d M o n te n e g r o ,
a n d were also s u p p o r te d by the S erbs o f s o u th e r n H u n g a ry . S erb ia itself
w ent to w a r w ith T u rk e y in 1876 a n d was d efe ate d, a n d in 1877 R u ssia w ent
to w ar. In the c o m p le x in te r n a tio n a l d ip lo m a tic crisis o f 1876-78 the
R u s sia n g o v e r n m e n t sacrificed S erb ian interests; a n d B osn ia a n d H erze­
gov ina, the tw o S e rb ia n la n d s m o st a r d e n tly desired by p a trio ts in S erbia,
w ere placed u n d e r A u s tr ia n a d m in is t ra tio n while still n o m in a lly subject to
O t t o m a n suzerainty. T his decision cre ate d b itter h a tre d a g a in st A u s tr ia in
S erbia. W ith the M o n a rc h y , S tro s m a je r w as greatly d isa p p o in te d , a n d in
H u n g a r y th o se S erbs w h o h a d expressed s u p p o r t fo r th e S e rb ia n cause
a g a in st T u rk e y were p ersecuted by th e a u t h o ritie s in B udapest. T h e ir
o u ts t a n d in g le ader, S v e to z a r M iletic, w as im p riso n e d f o r so m e years. It
m u s t be a d m itte d t h a t the p eople o f B o snia g ained f r o m th e ch a n g e, fo r
A u s tr ia n rule w as m o r e civilised th a n O t to m a n , a n d so m e m a teria l
progress w as achieved in th e n e x t th irty years. T h e follow ers o f Stardevic
were n o t entirely displeased, fo r it seem ed to brin g n e a r e r th e ir lo n g -te rm
a i m o f a G re a te r C r o a t ia , in w hich th e y insisted t h a t B o snia m u st be
in cluded, even th o u g h S erbs w ere twice as n u m e ro u s in t h a t pro v in ce as
C ro ats. T h e B osn ian S erbs rem a in ed f u n d a m e n ta lly hostile to A u stria , a n d
in S erb ia a g ro w in g n u m b e r h en c efo rth co n s id ered A u s tr ia to be S e r b ia ’s
136 Nations and States

m a in en e m y , m o r e d ea d ly t h a n th e tr a d itio n a l b u t declining e n e m y T urkey.

A n eq ua lly im p o r t a n t result o f the 1878 se ttle m en t was the c re a tio n of an
in d e p e n d e n t B ulg arian sta te .20 A lrea d y f o r so m e d ecades past, th e literary
la n g u a g e a n d the n a t io n a l identity o f th e B ulgarians h ad greatly developed.
It was definitely n o lon ge r possible to c o n s id e r th e m p a r t o f the sa m e n a tio n
as the C r o a t s a n d Serbs, as Gaj had co n s id ered th e m at the tim e o f the
Illyrian m o v e m e n t o f the 1830s, t h o u g h it was still possible to include th e m
in th e n o tio n o f a Y ugoslav c o m m u n ity o f fraternal n atio n s. U n fo rtu n a te ly
th e tre n d o f th e last d ecades o f the c e n tu ry was n o t to w a r d s fraternity. The
s e p a r a te S e rb ia n a n d B ulg arian states b e c a m e centres o f rival interests. T he
m a ste rs o f the tw o sta te m a ch in e s wished to e x p a n d , a n d inevitably clashed
w ith e a c h other. This tr e n d w as reinforced by th e fact th a t, u n d e r the 1878
C o n g r e s s o f Berlin settlem ent, S erb ia was designed to be a vassal of A ustria
a n d B ulgaria o f Russia. T his division o f spheres o f interest, w hich agreed
w ith th e co n v e n tio n a l w isd o m o f w hich B ism arck was the o u ts ta n d in g
e x p o n e n t, did n o t w ork. A u stria h ad a n ta g o n is e d the S erbs by seizing
Bosnia, while the R ussians m a d e them selves disliked in liberated Bulgaria
by th e ir a r r o g a n t b eh a v io u r. C o n s e q u e n tly each sm all sta te looked to the
rival o f its official p r o t e c t o r — S erb ia to R ussia a n d B ulgaria to A ustria.
T h u s A u s tr o -R u s s ia n rivalry was not a p p e a s e d b u t e x a c e rb a te d by the
Berlin settlem ent.
T h e m a in object o f rivalry b etw een S e rb ia a n d B ulgaria w as M a ce d o n ia ,
lying to the s o u th o f S e rb ia a n d to the west o f Bulgaria. T h is was assigned
t o Bulgaria by th e original d r a f t R ussian peace tr e a ty w ith T u rk e y at S a n
S te f a n o in M a r c h 1878, b u t as a result o f British a n d A u s tr ia n pressu re had
been restore d to T u rk e y by the Berlin treaty. T h e p eople o f M a c e d o n ia
w ere o f five la nguages a n d o f b o th O r t h o d o x a n d M u slim religion, b u t the
largest single g r o u p s p o k e S lav dialects w hich were closer to B ulgarian th a n
to S erb ian . A m o n g th e m were tw o political trends: one f a v o u red sim ple
a n n e x a t io n to Bulgaria, the o th e r a im e d at a n in d e p e n d e n t M a c e d o n ia n
state, a n d a rg u e d t h a t th e M a c e d o n ia n Slavs were a s e p a ra te S o u th Slav
n a t io n , distinct f r o m b o t h Bulgarians a n d S erbs At first the S erb ian
g o v e r n m e n t was n o t m u c h interested in M a c e d o n ia , t h o u g h it certainly
w ished to push S e rb ia ’s fro n tiers f u r th e r to the so u th a n d south-w est.
H ow ever, afte r B osnia h a d bee n d en ied to S erb ia, th e idea o f c o m p e n s a tio n
o n a larger scale in the s o u th seemed m o r e attractiv e. D u r i n g the last
d cc ad c s o f the ce n tu ry a r m e d b an d s, s u p p o r te d by the g o v e r n m e n ts o f the
n e ig h b o u rin g states, f o u g h t ea ch o th e r a n d th e T u rk s , m a k in g M a c e d o n ia
a b y w ord for p lu n d e r, m u r d e r a n d a n a rc h y . T h ere w ere G reek b ands,
S e rb ia n lu iu ls a n d B ulgarian b a n d s , T u rk is h r eg u la r a n d irre g u la r tro o p s,
A lb a n ia n b and s a n d b a n d s o f M a c e d o n ia n a u to n o m is ts , so m e o f w h o m
so m e tim es c o m b in e d with ea ch o th e r b u t m o r e often carried on a struggle
ol all against all. In 1903 there was a large-scale rising o f M a c e d o n ia n Slavs
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 137

ag a in st the T u rk s , follow ed by reprisals a n d th e es ta b lish m e n t o f an

in te rn a tio n a l g e n d a rm e rie of th e E u r o p e a n powers.
In C r o a t ia fro m 1883 to 1903 C o u n t K h u e n - H e d e rv a ry m a in ta in e d a p o ­
litical b alan c e w hich satisfied the H u n g a r ia n g o v e rn m e n t. He played off
S erbs again st C r o a ts , fixed election results (o n a very restricted franchise)
by c o r r u p tio n a n d in tim id a tio n , a n d could alw ays find a sufficient n u m b e r
o f subservient persons to e n s u re a m a jo rity in the Diet. H ow ever, in 1903
long repressed d isc o n te n t b u r st o u t in a series o f street d e m o n s tr a ti o n s a n d
m in o r violence, a n d K h u e n - H e d e rv a ry w as rem o ved. In the sam e year a
n u m b e r o f C r o a t ia n a n d S e rb ia n m e m b ers o f the several regional a ssem ­
blies signed R e so lu tio n s in F iu m e (R ije k a) a n d Z a r a ( Z a d a r ) in fav o u r of
the reu n io n o f D a lm a ti a with C r o a tia a n d o f c o o p e r a tio n betw een C r o a ts
a n d Serbs. A C r o a t - S e r b ia n c o a lition was fo rm e d fro m som e o f the
existing parties, w hich offered its c o o p e r a tio n to th e H u n g a r ia n O p p o s i­
tion, th e n engaged in a b itter struggle with the V ienna g o v e r n m e n t for
c o n tro l o f H u n g a r y ’s a r m y a n d finances. T h is c o o p e r a tio n was a failure, for
s o o n afte r the H u n g a r ia n O p p o s itio n c a m e to po w er, it b r o k e its prom ises
to the C ro ats, in C r o a t ia the n o r m a l w o rk in g o f le gitim ate institutions
virtually c a m e to a n end betw een 1908 a n d 1913. O nly one sm all faction o f
the successors o f StarcSevic were willing to c o o p e r a te w ith V ienn a ag a in st
b o th H u n g a r ia n s a n d Serbs, in the h o p e o f o b ta in in g a G r e a te r C ro a tia ,
including Bosnia, with the co nsent o f the V ienna g o v e rn m e n t.
C o o p e r a tio n w ith the V ienna g o v e r n m e n t was still the p rev a lent a ttitu d e
a m o n g the Slovenes. F o r th e m the essential a im was u n io n o f all th e lands
o f Slovene p o p u la tio n a n d p r o te c tio n o f their lang u ag e a n d cu ltu re ag ainst
G e r m a n a n d Italian. T h ey did n o t sh a re the hostility o f StarCevic’s disciples
to w a r d s the Serbs, b u t it was clearly essential for th e m to c o o p e r a te with
the C r o a ts , the only n e i g h b o u rin g people w h ich did n o t th r e a te n Slovene
n a tio n a l interests. T h e Slovene P eo p le’s P a rty , the largest g ro u p , led by
C a th o lic priests a n d s trongly influenced by the C h u r c h , still h ad confidence
in the M o n a rc h y , believing the d y n a s ty to sta n d for a policy a b o v e
n atio n a lism , G e r m a n o r o th e r. T h e S lov ene Liberals w ere m o re sceptical
a b o u t th e M o n a r c h y a n d m o r e inclined to a Y ugoslav ideal w hich w ould
e m b ra c e the S erbs as well.
F o r their p a r t the S erbs o f th e M o n a r c h y w ere divided betw een the
Y u goslav a n d the G r e a t e r S e rb ideas. T h e la tte r w as sim ply t h a t all la n d s of
S e rb ia n p o p u la tio n s h o u ld be a n n e x e d to Serbia. T his view was p r e d o m i­
n a n t a m o n g the B osn ian Serbs. T he S erbs o f so u th e rn H u n g a r y a n d of
C r o a t ia a n d D a lm a ti a w ere divided. Very few positively w ished the
M o n a r c h y to survive, b u t h a d to m a k e their p la n s o n the a s s u m p tio n th a t it
w o uld. T h e Y ugoslav tre n d p u t fra te rn ity a n d c o o p e r a tio n w ith the C r o a ts
as th e ir first priority, w h erea s th e G re a te r S erb s sim ply p u r su e d w hate v er
tactics were re c o m m e n d e d by the Belgrade g o v e rn m e n t.
138 Nations and States

T h e f o r m a l a n n e x a t i o n o f B osnia to the H a b s b u r g M o n a r c h y in 1908

t u r n e d th e a t te n t io n o f th e S e rb ia n g o v e r n m e n t once m o r e to th e south.
W ith e n c o u r a g e m e n t f r o m th e R u s sia n g o v e r n m e n t, it so u g h t alliances
w ith B ulgaria a n d G reece. T h ese were m a d e in 1912, a n d in th e a u t u m n of
th a t y ea r w a r w as d ec la re d o n T u rk e y . In this w a r th e S erb ian a r m y had
brilliant successes, a n d these a r o u s e d e n o r m o u s e n th u s ia s m a m o n g all the
S o u th S lav subjects o f th e H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y , especially a m o n g the
e d u c a te d y o u n g e r g e n e r a tio n , in clud ing stu d e n ts a n d sc hoo lchildre n. In
this g e n e r a tio n the idea n o w bec am e w idespre ad o f a single ‘n a tio n o f three
n a m e s ’ (troim eni narod) — Slovenes, C r o a t s a n d Serbs. T h e ir a im was a
single sta te to include t h e m all. T his c ould only be a chieved by in c o r p o r a t­
ing S erb ia in th e M o n a r c h y o r by d e s tro y in g the M o n a rc h y . T h e first was
m o ra lly im p ossible in view o f S e r b ia ’s heroic rec ord a n d o f A u s tr ia ’s
sinister political m e th o d s a n d persistent hostility; th e re fo re th e second was
the on ly possibility. T h is a t titu d e was o f c o u rse still a m in o rity tren d , but it
was g ain in g g r o u n d a m o n g the m ost active a n d intelligent o f th e M o n a r ­
ch y ’s S o u th Slav subjects.
T h e victories o f th e B a lk a n allies a g a in st th e T u r k s were follow ed by
inability to ag re e on the spoils. T h e A u s tr ia n g o v e r n m e n t’s refusal to
p erm it S e r b ia access to the A driatic, let alo n e to yield Bosnia, m a d e gains in
M a c e d o n ia seem still m o r e im p o r ta n t to the S e rb ia n g o v e r n m e n t, w hose
tr o o p s were in c o n t r o l o f m o st o f th a t pro v in ce w h en th e fighting w ith the
T u r k s s to p p e d . B ut t o the B ulgarians M a c e d o n ia w as th e ir m o st sacred
aim , a n d the S e rb -B u lg a ria n trea ty o f 1912 had p ro m ise d m ost o f it to
th e m . T h e result was the S e c o n d B alk an W a r o f J u n e 1913, in w hich the
Bulgarian a r m y a tta c k e d the S erbs a n d G re ek s a n d was repulsed, a n d in
w hich B ulgaria w as also in v a d ed by R o m a n ia n s a n d T u rk s . T he greatest
pa rt o f M a c e d o n ia w as th u s a n n e x e d by S erbia, w h o se a u th o ritie s sim ply
denied n o t on ly t h a t the M a c e d o n ia n S lavs w ere Bulgarians, b u t even th a t
they h ad a n y peculiar c h a r a c t e r o f their own: they were sim ply declared to
be ‘S o u th S e r b s’, a n d w oe betide th e m if th e y denied it.
T h e F irst W o rld W a r was triggered o ff by th e m u r d e r o f the heir to the
A u stria n th r o n e by a B o s n ian S erb , a n d it e n d e d w ith th e c r e a tio n o f a
Yugoslav state. D u r i n g th e w a r th e C r o a t ia n a n d Slovene, a n d even the
S e rb ia n , soldiers o f th e A u s tr ia n a r m y f o u g h t b rave ly fo r th e M o n a rc h y ,
m ainly because th e y o bje cte d to Italian designs o n th e ir h o m e la n d s , b u t the
desire to unite all th ree peoples, w h e th e r inside o r o u tsid e th e M o n a rc h y ,
did not dim in ish. W h e n th e A u s tr ia n p a r li a m e n t w as recalled in 1917, the
S o u th Slav leaders d e m a n d e d u n ity o f th e S o u th Slavs a n d in d e p e n d e n t
institutions, while p r o c la im in g th e ir loyalty to th e H a b s b u r g d y n a s ty — in
in dividual cases fro m real conv ictio n , b u t m o r e usually f ro m obviou s
pru d c n c c in w artim e.
In I ) c ie m b e r 1914 the S e rb ia n p a rlia m e n t passed a reso lu tio n in f a v o u r
 Europe: M ovem ents fo r National Unity 139

o f lib erating all its S e rb ia n , C r o a t ia n a n d S lovene b ro th e rs. This was also

th e a im o f exiled Slovenes, C r o a t s a n d S erb s f ro m A u s tr ia - H u n g a r y w h o
w ere active in B ritain, F ra n c e a n d Italy d u r in g th e w ar. H o w ev er, ac u te
d isa g re em en ts a ro se betw een th e m a n d th e S e rb ia n g o v e r n m e n t, led by
N ik o la PaSic, w hen it b ec am e k n o w n th a t Italy h a d been p ro m ise d Istria
a n d D a lm a ti a in re tu r n for its en try into th e w a r on the W e ste rn side. T he
exiles n o w h ad r e a so n to fear th a t C r o a t ia w ould be divided into three
p a r t s — som e given to Italy, so m e (so u th e r n D a lm a tia ) to S erbia, a n d the
rest left as a r u m p still u n ite d w ith H u n g a ry . PaSic did n o t like this
p ro sp ec t, b u t he to o k the co n v e n tio n a l d i p lo m a t’s view: he w o u ld get as
m u c h as he c ould, a n d w ait for a m o re fa v o u r a b le tim e to get the rest, by
d ip lo m a c y o r by w ar. F o r him , B osnia a n d s o u th e rn H u n g a r y were the
m o st im p o r ta n t territories, while M a c e d o n ia h ad to be k ep t at a n y cost.
D a lm a ti a a n d C r o a t ia h ad in his eyes a m u c h low er priority.
L ater in the w a r a f u rth e r conflict dev e lo p e d betw een PaSic a n d the
exiles. PaSic was im m ensely p ro u d o f th e S e rb ia n state, a n d he saw the
fu tu re S o u th Slav state as a n e x te n sio n o f S erbia. PaSic sto o d in the
n in e tee n th ce n tu ry radical tr a d itio n w hich con sid ered c e n tralism to be
progressive, a n d reg a rd e d f ar-rea ch in g regio nal a u t o n o m ie s as re a c tio n a ry
a n d disruptive. T h e re fo re he w a n te d a large c entralised state, to be fo rm e d
by a n e x te n sio n o f the S e rb ia n a d m in istra tiv e a p p a r a tu s , b u t in h a b ite d by a
single ‘th re e -n a m e d n a t io n ’. O n th e o th e r h a n d the exiles fro m the M o n ­
arc h y , while a d m ir in g S erb ia, felt th a t the S e rb ia n sta te sh o u ld cease to
exist, to be replaced by a n entirely new state, Y ugoslavia. T h e y also wished
th e new state to respect old e r historical a n d regio nal d istinctions, a n d to
preserve so m e o f the old e r in stitutions. PaSic was obsessed w ith the
e x a m p le o f P ie d m o n t. T h e exiles a r g u e d t h a t P ie d m o n t h a d been sw al­
low ed u p in Italy. PaSic k n ew th a t, o n th e c o n tra ry , P ie d m o n t had
d o m in a te d Italy afte r unity. S e rb ia in th e new state, was, in his schem e, to
be a m ix tu re o f P ie d m o n t a n d Prussia.
In N o v e m b e r 1918 PaSic h ad his way. H e was able to e x p lo it the fear
b o th o f Italian aggression a n d o f r e v o lu tio n a r y d is o r d e r in C e n tr a l E u ro p e ,
to force th e political le aders o f the S o u t h Slavs of th e d isinteg rated
H a b s b u r g M o n a r c h y to ac c e p t u n io n w ith S erb ia w ith n o p relim in ary
co n d itio n s. T h e new S e r b -C ro a t- S lo v e n e sta te was p ro c la im e d o n 1
D e c e m b e r 1918. Less t h a n th ree years la ter a ce n tralist c o n s titu tio n was
voted by the assem bly, a g a in st the o p p o s itio n o f federalists, including the
m o s t po w erfu l C r o a t i a n g r o u p , the C r o a t i a n P e a s a n t P a r ty . T h ere fol­
low ed seven years o f political intrigue, in w hich all the m a in parties kept
c h a n g in g th e ir tactics, b u t n o th in g was solved. In 1928 the C r o a t ia n
P e a s a n t P a r ty leader S te p a n R a d ic was s h o t in p a rlia m e n t, a n d la ter died
o f his w o u n d s. In J a n u a r y 1929 K ing A le x a n d e r in tr o d u c e d a d ic tato rsh ip .
H e professed to be a c tin g o n b e h a lf o f a single Y ugoslav n a tio n , tr a n s c e n d ­
140 Nations and States

ing S e rb ia n no less th a n C r o a t i a n n atio n alism . In p ractice the s u p p o r te r s of

the d ic ta to rs h ip were a lm o s t exclusively S erbs ( th o u g h m a n y , p e rh a p s
m ost, S erbs detested it), a n d th e C r o a t s w ere a g a in st it a lm o s t to a m an.
T h e result was th a t it o p e r a te d in fact as a d ic ta to rs h ip o f th e G r e a te r S erbs
over the rest. T his was even m o r e tru e in M a c e d o n ia th a n in C roatia:
g o v e r n m e n t was co n s id e ra b ly m o r e b r u ta l, a n d M a c e d o n ia n s w ere forced
to call them selves ‘S o u th S e r b s ’, while s u p p o r te r s either o f in d e p e n d e n t
M a c e d o n ia o r o f u n io n w ith Bulgaria w ere pitilessly repressed.
A tte m p ts at S e r b - C r o a t reconciliation in the late 1930s h ad som e
success, b u t f u n d a m e n ta lly a m a jo rity o f the p o p u la tio n detested the
regime a n d was a t best lu k e w a r m a b o u t th e survival o f the state. In 1941 the
invasion by the G e r m a n s a n d th eir allies b r o u g h t the collapse o f Y ugoslavia
w ith in a few days. O n its ruins was cre ate d a C r o a t ia n state, hea d ed by the
C r o a t ia n fascist A nte Pavelic, while the Slovene la nds w ere p a rtitio n e d
betw een G e r m a n y a n d Italy, a n d M a c e d o n ia was given to Bulgaria.
P avelic’s state seemed f o r a tim e a victory for the G r e a t e r C r o a t ia n idea, for
the d r e a m s o f StarCevic. T h o u g h P avelic h ad to s u r re n d e r m ost of
D a lm a ti a to Italy, he w as allow ed to a n n e x all Bosnia. H ow ever, the
m assacres by P avelic’s m en o f S erbs a n d Jew s, the a r m e d resistance o f the
survivors, a n d the successful n a tio n a l a n d civil w a r w aged by the c o m m u ­
nists led by T ito , reduced the C r o a t ia n state to a n a rc h y .
T h e c o m m u n is ts w on the civil a n d n a tio n a l w a r o f 1941-45 n o t only by
their c o u r a g e an d m ilitary skill, a n d by the m ilitary supplies w hich they
received fro m th e British a n d A m eric an s, b u t also because they were able to
offer the people of Y ugoslavia a b e tte r pro sp ec t th a n endless m u tu a l
massacre. T h ey con sistently prea ch ed un ity o f all Y ugoslavs a g a in st the
fascist c o n q u e r o rs , the enem ies o f all alike. At first th e ir p r o p a g a n d a fell on
d e a f ears; b u t their o w n ex a m p le , a n d the d e m o n s tr a ti o n by their o p p o ­
nents o f the h o r r o r a n d v anity o f e x tre m e n a tio n a lism , a t tr a c te d to them
g ro w in g n u m b e rs o f recruits f r o m all p arts o f the co u n try .
A fter they h a d w on, th e y in tro d u c e d a c o n s titu tio n , closely m odelled on
t h a t o f th e Soviet U n io n , in w hich th e re w ere to be six republics: Slovenia,
C r o a tia , Bosnia, S erb ia, M o n te n e g r o a n d M a c e d o n ia . It n o w becam e
official d o c trin e th a t there was n o Y ug osla v n a tio n b u t f o u r n a t io n s —
Serbs, C r o a ts , Slovenes a n d M a c e d o n ia n s — living to g e th e r w ithin one
state, as well as several n a t io n a l m inorities, o f w hich the m o st im p o r ta n t
were A lb a n ia n s a n d H u n g a r ia n s . In p ractice the Y ug oslav state was n o
m o r e a fe d e ra tio n th a n w as the Soviet: a t m o s t th e re was s o m e d ev o lu tio n
o f pow er, u n d e r the tight g ra sp o f a highly centralised c o m m u n is t party.
H ow ever, the new rulers m a d e sincere a n d successful a t te m p ts t o sto p
d isc rim in a tio n on g r o u n d s o f n a tionality.
A fter the b rea ch w ith the Soviet U n io n in 1948, th e political system
u n d e rw e n t a series o f changes, b o th form a l a n d info rm al. In the late 1960s
 Europe: M ovem ents for National Unity 141

n o t only the six r e p u b lican g o v e r n m e n ts b u t the r e p u b lican c o m m u n is t

parties began to p u rsu e d ivergent policies. N a tio n a l tensions r e a p p e a re d ,
p a rtly in the fo rm o f conflicts between th e ec o n o m ic ally a d v a n c e d a n d
b a c k w a r d republics (the f o rm e r o b je cting to th e use o f the p r o d u c t o f their
la b o u r to finance the latter, a n d the la tte r p ro te stin g th a t th e aid w hich they
received was to o little) a n d partly in the fo rm o f a r g u m e n ts a b o u t cu ltu re
a n d language, especially betw een C r o a t s a n d Serbs.
I'he Y ugoslav c o m m u n is ts hoped to end the old rivalry betw een Serbs
a n d Bulgarians for M a ce d o n ia . T h ey m a in ta in e d th a t the M a c e d o n ia n s
w ere a distinct n a tio n , w ith a language a n d a history o f th e ir ow n. All
a t te m p ts to im pose S e rb ia n d o m in a tio n o n th e m were definitely a b a n ­
d o n e d . Press, literature an d e d u c a tio n in the new M a c e d o n ia n literary
language, derived fro m w h a t had previously been n o m o re th a n a sp o k e n
dialect, were very successfully p r o m o te d , a n d M a c e d o n ia n b e c am e the
ac cep ted language o f public business in the republic. T h o u g h the c o m m u ­
nist g o v e r n m e n t o f n e i g h b o u rin g Bulgaria w as n o t co n v in ce d , the people o f
M a c e d o n ia them selves a p p e a r e d to have accepted th e ir new n a tio n a l
identity; an d M a c e d o n ia n c o m m u n is t le aders sp o k e fro m tim e to tim e o f
the need to in c o rp o r a te in the M a c e d o n ia n republic the people o f 'A e g e a n
M a c e d o n ia ’ (described by the G reek a u th o ritie s as ‘S la v o p h o n e Hellenes’)
a n d o f 'P i r i n M a c e d o n ia ’ (w h o m the B u lg arian g o v e r n m e n t d ec la re d to be
perfectly o r d in a r y p a trio tic Bulgarians).
A n interesting s itu a tio n a ro se in Bosnia, w here the M uslim s increased
m o r e rapidly th a n the S erb s a n d C r o a ts , a n d in the early 1970s w ere the
m ost n u m e ro u s o f the three c o m m u n ities. W h a t were they? T h ey were
ce rtain th a t they were n o t S erb s o r C r o a ts , a n d official d o c trin e n o w denied
(realistically) th a t th e re was a Y ugoslav n atio n . T h ey c ou ld h a rd ly be called
a B osnian natio n , because this w ould d ep riv e the S erbs a n d C r o a ts w ho
lived in B osnia o f th e ir B osnian ch a ra c te r. It th e re fo re seem ed difficult to
resist the c onc lusion th a t they fo rm e d a M u slim n a tio n . S p e a k in g the sam e
S e r b o - C r o a tia n la n g u ag e as their n e ig h b o u rs, b u t united by religion,
historical an d cu ltu ra l tra d itio n , they fo rm e d a c o m p a c t c o m m u n ity , as the
p eo ple o f P a k is ta n had never d one. It seem ed a r g u a b le th a t a million
p eo ple in the centre o f Y ugoslavia were o n e o f m a n y n a tio n s o f M u slim
faith in the w orld, b u t the only 'M u s lim n a t i o n ’.
A n o th e r n a tio n a l p ro b le m o f im p o r ta n c e in Y ugoslavia was the A lb a n ­
ians. D ivided betw een a s u b o r d in a te te rr ito r y o f the S e rb ia n republic
( k n o w n as the K o so v o - M e to h ija a u t o n o m o u s region) a n d th e republic of
M a c e d o n ia , they n u m b e r e d a b o u t 1,200,000. T h is w as a larger p o p u la tio n
t h a n t h a t o f the w ho le M a c e d o n ia n o r M o n te n e g r in republic; it was also
o v er o n e -th ird o f the to ta l n u m b e r o f A lb a n ia n s in the w o rld, a n d was
c o n c e n tra te d a lo n g th e n o r th e r n a n d ea ste rn b o rd e r s o f th e A lb a n i a n state.
T h e claim either to f o r m a seventh republic o f Y ugoslavia, o r to be unite d
142 Nations and States

w ith the A lb a n ia n state, was difficult to refute o n g r o u n d s o f principle. T h e

rate o f n a t u r a l increases o f th ese A lb a n ia n s w as a b o u t d o u b le th a t o f the
S erbs w h o lived a m o n g them .
N a tio n a lis m h ad n o t d is a p p e a re d in Y ugoslavia: on the c o n tra ry , its
d isru p tiv e effects caused a l a r m , w hich led to a rea ssertio n o f a u th o ritie s
policies by th e c o m m u n is t p a r ty in the early 1970s. N evertheless, it
rem a in ed tru e th a t the forces w o rk in g fo r th e s tre n g th e n in g o f a single
Y u goslav state, based o n eq u a lity for its co n s titu e n t n ations, were stro n g er
th a n th e y h a d ever been; a n d th a t the Y ugoslavs w ere the only c o m m u n is ts
w h o h a d genuinely achieved progress to w a r d s so lu tio n o f n a tio n a l conflicts
w ith in a m u ltin a tio n a l state, t h o u g h they h ad b eg u n their task in e x c e p tio n ­
ally difficult circum stan ces.
4 Europe: Multi-National Empires
and New Nations

Multi-national empires
A t th e b eginn ing o f the n in e te e n th c e n tu ry th e re w ere th ree g rea t em p ires in
E u ro p e w hose subjects h a d included for c e nturies m a n y d ifferent religious
c o m m u n itie s a n d lang u ag e g ro u p s. T hese w ere the H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y ,
the R u ssian a n d the O t t o m a n em pires. It w as in th e n in e te e n th ce ntury,
u n d e r the influence o f the p e n e tr a tio n o f the ideas o f the E n lig h te n m e n t o f
the p reviou s ce ntury, t h a t religious belief, pride in lang uage, historical
legends a n d discoveries a n d v ariou s social a n d e c o n o m ic d isc o n te n ts fused
to g e th e r to create, in the m in d s o f g ro w in g e d u c a te d elites, th e con viction
th a t their respective c o m m u n itie s c o n s titu te d n ations, a n d sh o u ld be
recognised as such. W h e n this belief had sp rea d fro m th e pioneers to a
significant p a r t o f the p o p u la tio n , g en u in e n a t io n a l m o v e m e n ts c a m e into
existence. A t this po in t, w h a t h a d previously b een m u lti-lingu al a n d m u lti­
religious states b e c a m e m u lti-n a tio n a l em pires; a n d th e q u e s tio n aro se
w h e th e r they c ould a c c o m m o d a t e w ith in th e ir b o r d e r s the new claim s to
reco g n itio n o f different n atio n s, o r w h e th e r th e leaders o f th e m o v e m e n ts
c ou ld be c o n te n te d only w ith sovereign te rrito ria l in d ependen ce.

T h e first o f the th ree em p ires to be seriously affected was the O t to m a n , n o t

becau se the new n a tio n a l elites were m o r e n u m e r o u s o r b e tte r e d u c a te d
th a n th o se in A u s tr ia o r R u s sia (the c o n t r a r y w as the case); b u t b ecause th e
O t t o m a n state w as being u n m is ta k a b ly w e a k en e d by unsuccessful w ars
ag a in st C h ristia n pow ers, f r o m w hose g o v e r n m e n ts they c o u ld exp e ct help.
Since th e O t t o m a n c o n q u e st, th e B a lk a n subjects o f the su lta n h ad been
ru led a c c o rd in g to th e m illet system, a n a p p lic a tio n o f th e principles
tr a d itio n a lly a pp lied to n o n - M u s lim c o m m u n itie s in lands ruled by M u s ­
lims. R e c o g n itio n w as given to religious c o m m u n itie s as such ( O r th o d o x ,
A rm e n ia n , Jew ish) a n d th e religious le a d e r bec am e the le ad e r in all
m a tte rs, spiritua l a n d secular, o f th e w h o le c o m m u n ity , subject to the
s u l t a n . 1 W ishing to centralise all O r t h o d o x c o m m u n itie s u n d e r a single
144 Nations and States

h ea d, the su lta n reasserted the a u t h o r i ty o f th e p a tria r c h o f C o n s ta n ti n o ­

ple. A p p o in tm e n ts w ith in the religious h ie ra rc h y were w ithin the exclusive
ju r is d ic tio n o f the p a tria r c h , subject to th e a g re e m e n t o f the syno d o f the
c h u r c h .2 T h e p a t r i a r c h ’s c o u r ts ju d g e d n o t only ecclesiastical cases, b u t also
secular d isputes b etw een O r t h o d o x ; b u t d isp utes betw een a n O r t h o d o x
a n d a M u slim were left to M u slim c o u rts. T h e p a tria r c h was c o m m itte d to
s u p p o r t the g o v e r n m e n t’s d e m a n d s fo r ta x es fro m the O r t h o d o x . He had
n o respo nsib ility fo r collecting th e m , b u t it was his d u ty to p u t pressure on
th o se w h o failed to p ay taxes, if necessary to e x c o m m u n ic a te the m . In his
c a p a c ity as secular le ad e r (e th n a rc h ) the p a tria r c h req uired lay officials,
including p erso n s o f a high level o f e d u c a tio n a n d skill. T h u s a certain
se cula r b u r e a u c r a c y grew up a r o u n d th e p a t r i a r c h ’s h e a d q u a r te r s in the
P h a n a r q u a r te r o f C o n s ta n tin o p le . T his incipient C h ristia n elite o f officials
a n d m e rc h a n ts , som e o f w h o m ac q u ired c o n s id e ra b le w ealth, a n d all of
w h o m were G reeks even if th e ir origin was n o t necessarily G reek, becam e
k n o w n as P h a n a r io ts .
C o n v e rs io n of B alkan C h ristia n s to Islam to o k place o n a c onsiderable
scale in th ree regions in the Balkans. T h e first was Bosnia, w here a large
n u m b e r of p eople of S e r b o - C r o a tia n speech bec am e M uslim a n d rem ained
M u slim until th e p rese nt tim e .3 T h e seco nd reg ion w as the R h o d o p e
M o u n ta in s to the n o r th o f the A egean. H ere c o n s id erab le n u m b e rs of
p erso n s of B ulg arian speech bec am e M uslim s. T h e y bec am e k n o w n as
P o m a k s . T h e th ird regio n was A lban ia. T his m o u n ta in o u s c o u n try was not
c o n q u e r e d u ntil 1467: the A lb a n ia n S k a n d e r b e g was th e last C h ristian
le ad e r in the B alkan s t o resist the T u rk s . A fter th e final c o n q u e st, the
m a jo r ity o f th e A lb a n ia n s e m b ra c e d Islam , t h o u g h th e re re m a in e d som e
C a th o lic A lb a n i a n tribes in the n o r th , a large n u m b e r o f A lb a n ia n
O r t h o d o x in E pirus, a n d scattered c o m m u n itie s o f O r t h o d o x A lb a n ia n s as
f a r into p e n in su la r G reece as A ttica.
T h e c o n d itio n o f th e B a lk a n O r t h o d o x u n d e r O t t o m a n rule was pre c a r­
ious a n d hu m iliatin g , b u t it w as n o t intolerable. In a n y case, as the s u lta n ’s
g o v e r n m e n t was stro n g , th e y h a d no choice b u t to su b m it to it. A t a m ore
soph istica te d level, this w as also the a ttitu d e o f the O r t h o d o x h ierarchy a n d
the P h a n a r io ts . T o so m e e x te n t they r e g a rd e d the su lta n as the successor o f
the e m p ero r: th e h a b it o f d eference to a u to c r a c y , inc u lca te d by Byzantine
tra d itio n s, w as tr a n sfe rre d to the M u slim lo rd o f the im p e rial city. F o r one
th in g at least th e y were g rate fu l to the T u rk s : th e y p r o te c te d th e m fro m the
aggressio n a n d the pern ic io u s d o c trin e s o f the W e s te rn R o m a n s c h ism a t­
ics.
A fter the A u stria n victories over th e O t t o m a n s a t th e en d o f the
seven te en th c e ntury, th e perspective g ra d u a lly c h a n g ed . A t least in the
h ie ra rc h y a n d in the secular e d u c ated class th e possibility o f T u rk ish
collapse began to be ta k e n seriously, a n d c o n ta c ts were m a d e with
 Europe: M ulti-N ational Empires and New Nations 145

C h ristia n g o v e rn m e n ts, especially w ith the R ussian, since R ussia was a n

O r t h o d o x pow er. In 1770 w hen the R u s sia n fleet o f E m p ress C a th e rin e II,
engaged in w a r w ith T u rk e y , a p p e a r e d off the M a n i pen in su la in the
P elo p o n n e se, the local G re ek p o p u la tio n , w h ich h a d been p re p a re d
b e fo re h a n d by R u ssian em issaries, rebelled. H ow ever, T u rk i s h reprisals
were so severe th a t there was no rising by C h ristia n s d u r in g C a th e rin e ’s
seco nd T u rk ish w ar (1788-92).
D u rin g the eig hteenth c e n tury , as E u r o p e a n ideas b eg an to reach at least
a small elite o f the B alk an C h ristia n peoples, interest d eve lope d in the
specific tr a d itio n s a n d langu ages o f ea ch o f th e m , as o p p o s e d to their
c o m m o n p r e d ic a m e n t as m e m b e rs o f th e O r t h o d o x millet a n d subjects of
a n infidel ruler. This tre n d prevailed in th e nex t c e n tury , leading to w a r d s
th e em ergen ce o f several B alkan n a tio n s, based o n lan g u ag e a n d on
historical m yth o lo g y , a n d th e b re a k -u p o f th e unity of O rt h o d o x y . A lready
early in the ce n tu ry D im itrie C a n te m ir , P rin c e o f M o ld a v ia , w ro te h istori­
cal a n d descriptive w o rk s a b o u t his c o u n try ; a n d the w ritings o f T ra n s y l­
v a n ia n R o m a n ia n U n iate priests a b o u t th e history o f the R o m a n ia n s
b e c am e k n o w n ac ross the C a rp a th ia n s . T h e S e rb ia n O r t h o d o x M e tro p o li­
ta n a te at S re m sk i K arlovci, established by the A u s tr ia n au th o rities,
bec am e a centre o f S e rb ia n learning. A n o t h e r w o rk o f g rea t im p o rta n c e
was th e Slavic-Bulgarian H istory w ritte n in 1762 by a B ulgarian m o n k o f
the m o n a s te ry o f H ile n d ar on M o u n t A th o s, F a th e r Paisii, w hich was read
in m a n u s c r ip t by his m o r e e d u c ated c o m p a tr io ts a n d bec am e the classical
te x t o f early B ulgarian n ationalism .
T h e revolts o f th e S erbs aga in st the T u r k s in 1804 a n d o f the G reeks in
1821, a n d their consequences, have been considered in th e previous
c h a p te r; the R o m a n ia n n a tio n a l m o v e m e n t will be discussed a t greater
length in this c h a p te r. It rem a in s to say a little here o f tw o o th e r B alkan
n a tio n a l m o v e m en ts u n d e r O tt o m a n ru le — the B ulgarian a n d the A lb a n ­
ian.
Bulgaria rem a ined u n d e r O t t o m a n c o n t r o l after the C r im e a n W ar. Here
to o , how ever, n a tio n a l consciousness was spreading. Its bearers were the
sm all b u t g ro w in g n u m b e r o f B ulgarians e d u c a te d a t sc hools in C o n s t a n ­
tinople, in Russia, in R o m a n ia o r in c o u n trie s f u rth e r west. A native
B ulg arian m e rc h a n t class also b egan to m a k e itself felt, a n d pro v id ed som e
leadership. F o re ig n sc holars t o o k a n inte rest in the B ulg arian language,
o u ts t a n d in g a m o n g th e m the R ussian Yurii Venelin. A collection o f
B ulg arian p o p u la r epic p o e try w as pub lish ed in 1861 in Z a g re b , w ith the
help o f the C r o a t ia n b ish o p J o s i p S tro s m a je r. A decisive m o m e n t in the
B ulgarian n a tio n a l revival w as the e s ta b lish m e n t in 1870, by a firm an o f the
su ltan , o f a s e p a ra te B u lg a ria n O r t h o d o x C h u r c h , w ith its o w n e x a r c h a t its
head. T h is was the result o f ten y ea rs o f struggle by th e B u lg arian
p rie sth o o d , essentially a n a tio n a list m o v e m e n t in ecclesiastical fo rm . T h e
146 Nations and States

priests, fo rm in g a very h igh perc en ta g e o f the still very sm all e d u c a te d elite

o f th e B ulgarians, were n a tio n a l leaders. In the n ex t years Bulgarian
revo lu tio n arie s, based in R o m a n ia , cre ate d a c o n s p ira to r ia l n e tw o rk in
Bulgaria, a n d in A pril 1876 th e re was a n a r m e d rebellion, q uickly an d
savagely suppressed by th e T u rk s . H ow ever, a y ea r later R ussia w ent to w ar
w ith T u rk e y , a n d a t th e C o n g ress o f Berlin in 1878 there c a m e into
existence a B ulg arian state, w hich was en larg ed in 1885, a n d to o k its place
in B a lk a n politics.4
T h e last B a lk a n p eo p le to develop a n a tio n a l m o v e m e n t were the
A lban ian s. F o r th e m , religion was a dividing ra th e r th a n a unifying factor.
T h e m a jo r ity w ere M uslim s, a m o n g w h o m the Bektashi sect were e x t re m e ­
ly im p o r ta n t, b u t o th e rs w ere O r t h o d o x o r C a tholic. It was n o t until late in
the ce n tu ry t h a t th e idea to o k r o o t th a t the c o m m o n fa c to r o f the A lb a n ia n
lan guag e sh o u ld be consid ered m o re im p o r t a n t th a n the conflict between
C h ristian s a n d M uslim s. T h e A lb a n ia n s w ere also d ivided betw een the tw o
m a in g ro u p s o f G hegs a n d T o sk s, living respectively n o r th a n d so u th of the
river S h k u m b i. T h e G hegs were org anised in clans, while the social
stru c tu re o f th e T o sk s was based on large la n d o w n e r s a n d d e p e n d e n t
peasants. T h e r e was also a difference betw e en G h eg a n d T o s k dialects. T he
A lb a n ia n s p ro v id e d excellent soldiers f o r th e O t t o m a n arm ies, a n d sc at­
tered c o m m u n itie s were to be fo u n d in R o m a n ia , G reece a n d Italy.
T h e first j o in t political a c tio n by leading A lb a n ia n s in o p p o sitio n to the
O t t o m a n g o v e r n m e n t w as the League o f P rizren, f o rm e d in 1878, which
a s k ed th a t all land s o f A lb a n ia n speech sh o u ld be reg ro u p e d into a single
te rr ito r y (instead of f o u r provinces), a n d th a t it sh o u ld be given a u t o n o m y
u n d e r th e sultan. T hese d e m a n d s led to seriou s fightin g in 1881, after which
som e m in o r concessions w ere m ade. D u rin g the nex t decades the A lb an ian
trib a l leaders a n d la n d o w n e rs m a d e efforts to d ev elop schools for A lb a n ­
ians, a n d som e were established by A u stria n s a n d Italians. A lb a n ia n s also
o b ta in e d e d u c a tio n a b r o a d , especially in Italy. T h e A lb a n ia n cause suf­
fered a serious reversal as a result o f th e B a lk a n w ars o f 1912-13. T errito ries
o f A l b a n i a n p o p u la tio n , a m o u n t i n g to m o r e th a n a th ird o f the whole
A lb a n ia n people, passed t o S erb ia, M o n te n e g r o a n d Greece. T he re m a in ­
ing tw o -th ird s w ere f o rm e d into a n A lb a n i a n sta te in 1914.
A fter a n o t h e r th irty years o f d o m in a tio n o r direct a n n e x a t io n (fro m
1939) by Italy, A lb a n ia o b ta in e d effective in d e p e n d e n c e only u n d e r
c o m m u n is t rule in 1945. T h e A lb a n ia n g o v e r n m e n t n o t unjustifiably
viewed all n e ig h b o u rin g states w ith suspicion, a n d received som e s u p p o r t
fro m d is ta n t C h in a. T h e A lb a n i a n c o m m u n is t s ’ so lu tio n to the religious
diversity w hich h ad w e a k en e d A lb a n i a n n a tio n a lis m w as to persecute
Islam , C a th o licism a n d O r t h o d o x y w ith eq u a l ferocity: th e un ity o f the
A lb a n ia n n a tio n was at least o u tw a r d ly impressive.
 Europe: M ulti-N ational Empires and New Nations 147

T he second o f the E u r o p e a n em pires to b e c o m e a m u lti-n a tio n a l state, a n d

to be th re a te n e d by n a tio n a l m o v e m e n ts fro m w ithin its fro ntiers, was the
H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y .
F o r the H a b s b u r g rulers, Kaisertreue (loyalty to th e e m p e r o r) was the
essential req u irem en t. W h e n th e A u s tr ia n H a b s b u r g s first becam e a
co n sid erab le p o w e r in E u ro p e , they practised religious d isc rim in a tio n
a m o n g their subjects— a g a in st P ro te s ta n ts in B ohem ia a n d H u n g a ry , to
so m e e x te n t a g a in st O r t h o d o x in T ra n sy lv a n ia b u t n o t aga in st O r t h o d o x
S erbs settled o n th e ir so u th e rn m ilitary frontier, a n d a g a in st Jews. This
d isc rim in a tio n b e c am e m u c h m ilder in th e e ig h tee n th ce n tu ry a n d c a m e to
a n en d after J o s e p h IPs Edict o f T o le ra tio n in 1780. As for languages, all
were su p p o se d to enjoy official respect: the p rim a cy o f G e r m a n o r L atin in
a d m in is t ra tio n was a m a tte r o f c o m m o n sense, n o t of n a tio n a l d isc rim in a ­
tion. T h e co n c e p t o f n a tio n a lity was, ho w ev er, rejected by M e tte rn ic h a n d
his successors as a p a r t o f the b o d y o f liberal d e m o c r a tic d o ctrin e. T here
was no A u str ia n n atio n , a n d no o th e r n a tio n s either. T h e w o rd Nationalität
was in tro d u c e d into official p arla n ce to d esign ate the a d m itte d ly existing
d istinct c o m m u n itie s o f cu ltu re a n d lan g u ag e a m o n g the e m p e r o r ’s s u b ­
jects: the w hole p o in t a b o u t the pro m ise to give each N ationalität its rights
w as th a t the existence o f one o r m o r e n a tio n s was denied. G e r m a n , Italian
a n d H u n g a r ia n n a tio n s were denied in 1848-49. It was only the tw o
d is a stro u s w ars o f 1859 a n d 1866 th a t forced the e m p e r o r first to give up his
Italian territories a n d th e n to m a k e con cessio ns to his H u n g a r ia n subjects:
in 1867 H u n g a r y b ec am e essentially a d istinct state, a n d its rulers th e re a fte r
d ec la re d it to be a n a t io n a l state. In the rest o f the M o n a rc h y , how ever,
t h o u g h a tte m p ts w ere fre q u en tly m a d e to satisfy specific c laim s o f n a t io n ­
alists, o r to play th e m off aga in st each o th e r, Kaisertreue r em a in ed the
basic principle o f legitim acy. It was far fro m ineffective. M illions o f
A u s tr ia n subjects served th e e m p e r o r loyally in peace a n d w a r until th e end.
H ow ever, n a tio n a lis m was n o t overcom e: it steadily g ained g r o u n d , an d
w h en A u stria was d efeated in w ar in 1918 th e M o n a r c h y b r o k e up into
n a tio n a l states.
T h e R u s sia n tsa rs t o o ask ed in the first instan c e fo r loyalty to themselves
a n d th e ir dynasty. T h e r e w as su b sta n tia l d is c rim in a tio n in f a v o u r o f the
O r t h o d o x a n d a g a in st Je w s a n d M uslims: th e re w as c e rtainly less religious
to le r a tio n t h a n in J o s e p h in e A ustria. T h e ra n k s a n d privileges w ithin the
em p ire were h o w ev e r b ased o n social class, n o t o n language; a n d there was
n o q u e s tio n o f o n e n a t io n being privileged, since the very idea o f the n a tio n
w as re p u d ia te d . T h e P oles w ere p u n ish e d b y T s a r N icholas I in 1831 n o t
becau se they were P o les b u t b ecau se th e y w ere rebellious subjects. T here
w ere R u ssian s in th e early n in e tee n th c e n tu r y w h o w ished to m a k e n on-
R u s sian s in to R u ssian s, b u t th e y d id n o t receive im perial s u p p o r t.
148 Nations and States

H o w ev er, in th e second h alf of th e n in e te e n th a n d the first h alf o f the

tw en tieth c e ntu ry , th ere c a m e in to existence a d o c trin e w hich, in tw o m u lti­
n a t io n a l states, o v e rsh a d o w e d , o r indeed replaced, the principle of dynastic
loyalty as th e basis o f legitim acy of g o v e rn m e n t. T his d o c trin e I will call
‘official n a tio n a lis m ’. T h e leaders o f the m o st pow erful n a tio n s co nsidered
it their task, a n d indeed th e ir m o ra l du ty , to im pose th e ir n a tio n a lity on all
their subje cts— o f w h a te v e r religion, la n g u ag e o r culture. As th e y saw it, by
d ra w in g these people u p w a r d s in to their ow n su p e rio r culture, they were
co n fe rrin g benefits o n them ; while at the sam e tim e they were s tren g th en in g
their sta te by cre atin g w ith in it a single h o m o g e n e o u s nation.
T h e r e are tw o o u ts t a n d in g ex a m p le s o f the a p p lic a tio n o f this d o c trin e in
E astern E urope: M a g y a risa tio n in H u n g a r y after 1867, a n d R ussification
in th e R u s s ia n em pire u n d e r A le x a n d e r III a n d N icholas II. O f the la tter
s o m e th in g has been said in a p revious c h a p te r, a n d there will be fu rth e r
references to it later. H ere the m a in em p h a sis will be o n the H u n g a r ia n
case, w ith o ccasional c o m p a r is o n b etw een it a n d the Russian.

T h e m o s t im p o r ta n t f a c to r in the d e t e r m in a tio n o f n a tio n a l m o v e m en ts in

m o d e r n tim es in C e n tra l a n d E astern E u ro p e , in the three m u lti-n atio n a l
em p ires, was language: this does n o t o f c o u rse m e a n th a t religious an d
e c o n o m ic fac to rs did no t also play their p a rt, a n d massive social d isc o n te n t
alw ays u n d e r la y th e m all.
In this c h a p te r five n a tio n a l m o v e m e n ts are co n sid ered . T h e brief
sections on ea ch are in te n d e d to note specific fea tu re s o f each, including
ce rtain decisive m o m e n ts a n d a few decisive personalities; but it m a y be
useful to begin w ith a b rief c o m p a riso n .
F o u r — Czechs, S lovak s, R o m a n ia n s a n d U k r a in ia n s — were at th e end of
the e ig h te e n th c e ntury, o r even later, su b m e rg e d g r o u p s w hich had no
officially recognised place in the political life o f th e ir states. T h e fifth—
H u n g a r ia n s — h a d legal s ta tu s b u t were d e p e n d e n t, to a n e x te n t w hich was
increasingly u n a c ce p ta b le, o n foreign rulers. S ocial a n d cu ltu ra l dev e lo p ­
m ents, b r o u g h t a b o u t by the policies o f c onsciously m o d e rn isin g rulers,
cre ate d in all five cases intellectual elites w hich increasingly identified
them selves w ith the u n e d u c a t e d a n d u n d erp riv ile g ed m ajorities o f their
lang uage g ro u p s; they c a m e to t h in k o f th e la n g u ag e g r o u p as a n atio n ; a n d
sp rea d this la n g u ag e -b a sed n a tio n a l c o n scio u sn e ss d o w n into the lower
s tr a t a o f the c o m m u n ity . T h e process w as ac ce le ra ted by in te r n a tio n a l
forces— w a r a n d d ip lo m a c y — w hich w ere b e y o n d th e ir c o n tro l, b u t w hich
were used by th e ir le aders to o b ta in in d e p e n d e n t state sovereig nty based on
their natio n . In f o u r cases in d e p e n d e n c e was achieved, in o n e (the U k ra in ­
ian) it was denied. In th r e e o f these f o u r cases (th e Czech, S lo v ak a n d
R o m a n ia n ) the a c h ie v em e n t o f in d e p e n d e n c e a n d unity was felt, a t least at
 Europe: M ulti-National Empires and New Nations 149

the tim e, to be a victory; in the f o u rth case (the H u n g a r ia n ) th e re was a

series o f p artial victories a n d partial d efeats w hich defy sim ple classifica­
tion.
T h re e o f th e five n atio n s (Czechs, S lo v a k s a n d H u n g a r ia n s ) em erg ed
fro m the H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y ; a n d o n e (the R o m a n ia n ) fro m three:
H a b s b u r g , R u s sia n a n d O tto m a n . T h e unsuccessful U k ra in ia n n a tio n a l
m o v e m e n t b egan to em erge fro m the R u s sia n em p ire a n d the H a b s b u r g
M o n a rc h y ; the U k ra in ia n n a tio n was d ivide d between the Soviet R ussian
e m pire, the Polish a n d the R o m a n ia n states, a n d was finally in c o rp o r a te d
w holly in the first o f these three.
C e rta in u n a v o id a b le difficulties are in volved in an y e x a m in a tio n o f these
five cases.
T h e d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e lan g u ag e c o m m u n ity o f C zech speech into the
m o d e rn Czech n a tio n is indissolubly c o n n e c te d w ith the m o v e m e n t fo r
G e r m a n n a tio n al unity. T h e w ider G e r m a n m o v e m e n t has a lre a d y been
discussed in outline; b u t a n a r r o w e r se cto r o f it will have to be discussed
ag a in in the B o h e m ia n c o n tex t.
T h e n a tio n a l m o v e m e n t o f the H u n g a r ia n s was directed in its first p hase
m ainly aga in st th e H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y , a n d c o n ta in e d a n elem ent o f a n ti-
G e r m a n n ationalism : this struggle led to b rief victory a n d th e n defe at in
1848, followed by a n in c o m p le te victory, in 1867. In its second phase
H u n g a r ia n n atio n a lism was directed p rim a rily aga in st the n o n - H u n g a r i a n
n a tio n s living in H u n g a r y — t h o u g h this te n d e n c y h ad also been present
before 1848, a n d the a n t i- H a b s b u r g te n d e n c y re m a in e d im p o r t a n t after
1867. T h u s in its first p hase the aim was to liberate the H u n g a r ia n n a tio n
fro m foreign rule, in the second phase to im p o se H u n g a r ia n n atio n a lity on
o th e r n a tio n s w hich the H u n g a r ia n lead ers did n o t recognise as natio n s.
T hese tw o distinct phases, o f which the second is especially significant as a n
e x a m p le of Official N a t i o n a l i s m —w hich is fo u n d in o th e r p arts o f the
w o rld at o th e r tim es— m a k e s it necessary to d evote co n s id e ra b ly m o re
space to the H u n g a r ia n case th a n to the others.
It is h o p ed th a t the r e a d e r will p u t up w ith these asy m m e trie s a n d
inconveniences; a n d will respect the a u t h o r ’s a s su ra n c e t h a t he tried h a r d to
av oid th e m b u t could not.

Czechs and Germans in Bohemia

T h e k in g d o m o f B o h e m ia existed fro m a t least the te n th c e n tu ry a n d the
lan g u ag e o f th e m a jo r ity o f its subjects w as Czech. D u r i n g the M id d le Ages
c o n s id e ra b le n u m b e rs o f G e r m a n -s p e a k in g im m ig r a n ts es tablished t h e m ­
selves, especially in cities a n d in m in in g districts. In th e fifteenth c e n tu ry
B ohem ia had b ec om e a c o u n t r y o f tw o languages. B ohe m ia was the first
150 Nations and States

C a th o lic c o u n t r y in w hich a large-scale R e f o r m a tio n m o v e m e n t a p p e a re d .

A sso c iate d w ith th e n a m e o f th e g rea t religious le ad e r J a n H u s, it p r o v o k e d
the w r a th o f th e p ope, w h o s u m m o n e d C a th o lic rulers to cru sa d es aga in st
it. In th e series o f H ussite w ars fro m 1419 to 1437, the B o h e m ia n s held their
ow n a g a in st th e ir enemies. T h e in v a d in g forces consisted m a in ly o f
G e r m a n soldiers, b u t th e re w ere C z ec h -sp eak e rs a m o n g th e m , ju s t as there
were G e r m a n -s p e a k e rs fighting in the H ussite rank s. As a result, in th e tw o
centuries follow ing th e H ussite w ars, th e re grew u p so m e th in g w hich m ay
r e a so n a b ly be called a B o h e m ia n n a t io n a l consciou sne ss, w ith a n incipient
B o h e m ia n n a tio n o f tw o languages. D iffe re nt P r o te s ta n t faiths coexisted
w ith C atho licism .
T h e tre n d was, how ever, reversed w h en the revolt o f th e B o hem ian
nob ility a g a in st the newly elected K ing F e r d in a n d II in 1618 triggered off
the T h ir ty Y ea rs’ W a r , w hich cost th e lives o f a b o u t a th ir d o f the B oh e m ia n
p o p u la tio n as well as r u in in g a once p r o s p e r o u s a n d a d v a n c e d ec o n o m y .
T h e vic to rio u s H a b s b u r g s im p o s e d th e C a th o lic faith by force. Politically
conscious B o h e m ia n s w ere killed, driv en in to exile o r red uced to silence. A
new u p p e r class was f o rm e d fro m the foreig n families w h o m the H a b s b u r g
e m p e r o rs b r o u g h t in fro m o th e r p a r ts o f E u ro p e . T h e old B ohem ian
n a tio n , w hich had ex te n d e d fro m th e a risto c ra c y d o w n t h r o u g h the sm aller
nob ility in to th e m iddle levels o f th e social p y ra m id , h a d virtually ceased to
exist. A t th e en d o f th e seven te en th ce n tu ry G e r m a n was s p o k e n by the
u p p e r class as a whole, a n d by m e r c h a n ts a n d officials in the tow ns. Czech
r e m a in e d only as the lang u ag e o f p ea sa n ts. T h e re were B o h e m ia n n o b le ­
m e n w h o k n e w Czech, b u t they w ould s p e ak it to th e ir se rva n ts r a th e r th a n
to th e ir social equals. T h is w as th e age o f the t r i u m p h a n t C o u n t e r -
R e fo r m a tio n , p u r su e d by the C a th o lic h ie ra rc h y w ith b o th p erse cu tio n an d
p ersu a sio n , a n d o u tw a r d ly sym bolised by th e sp le n d o u rs o f b a r o q u e
arc hitec ture.
F r o m th e m id -e ig h te e n th c e n tu r y th in g s b egan to cha n ge. P o p u la ti o n
a n d resources recovered. F r o m the C z e c h -s p e a k in g m asses th e re em erged
a n u p p e r s tr a t u m o f rich p ea sa n ts a n d tr a d e rs , w h o b eg a n t o claim m ore
respect a n d w ider o p p o r tu n itie s fo r th e ir language. T his m a y be p u t in
gene ral term s, as a p h e n o m e n o n c h a racteristic o f sim ilar s itu atio n s w hich
later a ro se in o th e r countries: u p w a r d social m o bility o f p erso n s involves a
d e m a n d for u p w a r d social m ob ility o f th e ir language. T his d e m a n d was
viewed w ith s y m p a th y by th e re fo rm in g b u r e a u c r a ts o f M a r ia T h e re s a a n d
J o s e p h II. T h e la tte r e m p e r o r insisted t h a t G e r m a n s h o u ld be the lan g u ag e
o f th e higher a d m in is t ra tio n in all his em p ire, b u t he w as n o t o p p o s e d to the
use o f o th e r languages in pu blic affairs a t th e local level. H e w as ea g er to
ed u c a te his subjects, a n d w ished this j o b to be p e r f o rm e d by th e ch u rc h ,
which he was d e term in e d to s u b o r d in a t e to th e state. At the sam e tim e he
gave (by his P a te n t o f T o le ra tio n o f 1781) o p p o r tu n itie s o f careers to
 Europe: M ulti-N ational Empires and New Nations 151

P ro te s ta n ts a n d Jew s, a n d abo lish e d (by a decree o f 1 N o v e m b e r 1781)

se rfd o m , t h o u g h n o t en d in g all fo rm s o f forced la b o u r. C h a irs o f C zech
language w ere established a t the M ilita ry A c a d e m y a n d a t th e universities
o f V ienna a n d P ra gue; sc hool te x tb o o k s , a g r ic u ltu ra l m a n u a ls a n d reli­
gious w o rk s w ere p ublish ed in Czech; a n d officials in regions o f Czech
speech were officially en c o u ra g e d to le a rn Czech.
T h u s sp o n ta n e o u s forces a n d official policy c o m b in e d to f a v o u r a revival
a n d d e v e lo p m e n t o f the C zech language, a n d this in tu r n p r o d u c e d a
g ro w in g id entification o f n a tio n a n d language. T he c o n c e p t o f a Czech
n a tio n really d ates f r o m this p e rio d .5 T h e lead in g figure in the revival was a
C a th o lic priest, J o s e f D o b ro v s k y (1753-1829), the a u t h o r o f the first
system atic g r a m m a r o f Czech, a n d o f a histo ry o f Czech lang uage a n d early
literature. D o b ro v s k y w as essentially a m a n o f the E n lig h te n m e n t, believed
in the p o w e r o f r ea so n a n d learning, h a d n o use fo r a n y n a t io n a l fanaticism ,
a n d wished fro m p h ila n th r o p ic m otives to benefit his p eo ple by i m p ro v in g
th e ir k now ledge o f their o w n culture. F o r m o st o f his life he was financially
m a in ta in e d by a n enlightened nob le fam ily, th e C o u n t s N ostitz, w h o keenly
f a v o u red his researches. D o b ro v s k y was interested in all the Slav la n ­
guages, a n d indeed felt th a t th e re was essentially a single Slav language,
divided into several m a jo r dialects ( M undarten ). T h is idea was carried
f u rth e r in the next g e n e ra tio n by J o s e f J u n g m a n n (1773-1847), th e so n o f a
pe a sa n t, w hose ca reer w as se co n d a ry sc h o o l teaching. H e pub lish ed in 1825
a histo ry o f C zech literatu re , an d b e tw e en 1835 a n d 1839 a p p e a r e d his
p io n e erin g five-volume C z e c h -G e rm a n d ic tio n a ry . T h e third g rea t figure
w as the h isto ria n FrantiSek P ala ck y (1798-1876), w h o becam e the archivist
o f the b r o th e r s C o u n t K a s p a r a n d C o u n t F r a n z S te rn b e rg , a n d played a n
active p a r t in the f o u n d a ti o n o f the B o h e m ia n M u s e u m in P rag ue, o f w hich
the S te rn b e rg s were th e m o st active initiators. T h e m u s e u m was c o m p leted
in 1822, a n d it published a m o n th ly review in b o th languages fro m 1827.
H o w ev er, afte r f o u r years the G e r m a n m o n th ly ex p ire d for lack o f s u p p o r t,
w h ereas the C zech periodical, u n d e r a new title Casopis ceskeho muzea,
co n tin u e d vigo ro u sly .6 T his c o n tra s t is o f sym bo lic significance: the
m u s e u m in fact b e c a m e essentially a C z ec h affair, a n object o f pride to the
Czech people, t h o u g h P ra g u e for so m e tim e yet was a h a lf- G e r m a n city. In
1829 P a la c k y a n d o th e rs fo u n d e d M atice ie sk a , a fu n d c o n trib u te d by
p riv ate subscribers to financ e the p u b lic a tio n o f b o o k s in Czech. It to o h ad
strik in g success in the follow ing decades. F r o m 1836 o n w a r d s b egan to
a p p e a r th e successive v o lu m e s o f P a la c k y ’s H isto ry o f B ohem ia. W ritten
originally in G e r m a n , it was a p io n e erin g w o r k o f sc h o larsh ip , b u t it was
also th e classic ex p re ssio n o f w h a t b e c a m e the n a t io n a l C zech historical
m y th , like all m y th s a c o m b in a t io n o f t r u t h a n d in v e n tio n , settin g aga in st
ea ch o th e r th e peaceful, cu ltu red , fre e d o m -lo v in g Slavs a n d the bru tal,
aggressive G e rm a n s. A n im p o r ta n t event in the c o n s tru c tio n o f the
152 Nations and States

m y th o lo g y w as th e discovery, by J u n g m a n n ’s pupil V aclav H a n k a , a n

e x p e r t o n C zech p o p u la r p oetry , o f tw o a n c ie n t m a n u s c r ip ts w hich show ed
the existence o f epic an d lyric p o e try in C zech in the M iddle Ages. T h e tw o
m a n u sc rip ts , revealed in 1817 a n d 1818, w ere viewed w ith scepticism by
D o b ro v s k y , b u t were g enerally accepted. In the 1880s they w ere show n,
a fte r careful e x a m in a tio n by C zech scho lars, to have b een deliberate
forgeries. T his ep isode to o is o f so m e sy m bolic significance in th e history of
the d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e m o d e r n C zech natio n .
T h e le aders o f the C zech n a tio n a l revival were tech n ic ia n s o f language,
a n d la n g u ag e bec am e the criterio n o f n a tio n a l identity. T h e C zechs were
s u r r o u n d e d by the far m o r e n u m e ro u s G e r m a n n a tio n . T h ey badly needed
a po w erfu l friend, a n d th e a s su ra n c e th a t they were p a rt o f a g reat an d
irresistible force. T his friend a n d this force m ost o f th eir leaders th o u g h t
th a t th e y h ad f o u n d in th e n o tio n o f unite d S la v d o m , led by the m ighty
R u ssian em pire.
C zech n a tio n a l feeling m u st be d istin g u ish e d clearly fro m P an slavism ,
b u t it is b e y o n d d o u b t th a t it received c o m fo r t a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t fro m it.
Slav solidarity was a n d rem a in ed a n e m o tio n o f som e c o m p lex ity an d
m a n y v aria tio n s, fro m the expertise o f the philologist to the rheto ric o f the
R u ssian im perial p ro p a g a n d is t. N o t all C zech n atio n alists to o k m u c h
interest in o th e r Slavs. N o t all Czech p an slav s had m u c h e n th u sia sm for the
R ussia o f the tsars. P ala ck y reg a rd e d ts a rism as a m e nac e to E u ro p e , a n d
felt t h a t S lav so lidarity obliged h im to s y m p a th ise with Poles, w h o were
S lav victims o f R ussian o p pression. O ne C zech w h o had lived tw o years in
R ussia, K arel H avlidek (1820-56), a rad ical d e m o c r a t a n d the m o st brilliant
j o u r n a l is t the C zech people has p r o d u c e d , h ad no illusions. He later wrote:

S o I re tu r n e d to P ra g u e as a sim ple C zech, even w ith so m e secret so u r

feeling ag a in st the n a m e Slav w hich a sufficient k n ow ledge o f Russia
a n d P o la n d has m a d e suspect to me. A b o v e all, I exp re ss m’y firm
co nvictio n th a t the Slavs, th a t m e a n s 't h e R ussians, the Poles, the
Czechs, the Illyrians etc., a re n o t one n a tio n . T h e n a m e Slav is an d
s h o u ld for ever re m a in a purely g eo g ra p h ic a l a n d scientific n a m e . 7

T h e C zech cu ltu ra l revival enjoyed w id es p re ad s y m p a th y fro m liberal

B o h e m ia n s o f G e r m a n speech, b o th n o b le m e n a n d m id d le class. U n d e r the
M e tte rn ic h regim e, the m a in c o n c e r n o f th o s e w h o o p p o s e d the g o v e r n ­
m e n t w as to w in c o n s titu tio n a l a n d civil liberties. T o so m e e x te n t these
aim s, cha racteristic o f E u r o p e a n liberalism as a w hole, were sh a re d in
B o hem ia by p ersons o f C zech a n d o f G e r m a n speech. T o so m e e x te n t also
liberal aim s ov erla p p ed w ith a s p ira tio n s fo r p rov incial a u t o n o m y , w hich
set a large p a r t o f the B o h e m ia n no bility a g a in st the centralised an d
increasingly u n ifo rm b u r e a u c r a tic system preferred by the g o v e r n m e n t in
 Europe: M ulti-N ational Empires and New Nations 153

V ienna.
In 1848 the e x a m p le of the r e v o lu tio n in P a r is p r o d u c e d radical stirrings
in P ra g u e slightly earlier th a n in Vienna. D u rin g M a rc h 1848 tw o succes­
sive petitions to V ienna d e m a n d e d eq u a l s ta tu s for the tw o languages in all
official business, an d a d m in istra tiv e un ity fo r the th ree provinces of
B ohem ia, M o r a v ia a n d Silesia. In A pril th ere cam e into existence a
N a tio n a l C o m m itte e o f over a h u n d r e d persons. G e r m a n -s p e a k e rs were at
first included, b u t m o s t o f th e m so o n resigned. A P ro v isio n al G o v e r n m e n t
C o u n c il was set up on 28 M ay, u n d e r C o u n t Leo T h u n , o f w hich P alacky
was a m e m b er. At the b e ginning o f J u n e a P a n sla v C o n g ress in P ra g u e was
a tte n d e d by m o re th a n th ree h u n d r e d p erso ns, m ostly fro m the M o n a rc h y
b u t including the R ussian a n a r c h is t M ichael B aku nin. M eanw hile the
rela tio n sh ip o f the new a u th o ritie s to V ien n a was u n ce rtain . T h e re were
an ti-Jew ish riots a n d w o rk e rs ’ unrest. B arricades were set u p, a n d Prince
A lfred W in d isc h g ra tz, c o m m a n d i n g th e im perial tr o o p s in B ohem ia,
decided to suppress w h a t he regard ed as rebellious activities. A fter a few
d ay s o f d es u lto ry fighting, on 18 J u n e P ra g u e was u n d e r his c o m p lete
co n tro l.
T h e m o st im p o r ta n t c o n s eq u e n ce o f 1848 for the Czechs was the
revelation th a t B ohem ia had bec o m e a land o f tw o n ations. Even later th a n
this th e re were still persons, in the nobility a n d civil service, w h o felt
them selves to be B o h e m ia n p atrio ts, but th e re was no d o u b t th a t this was a
d w in d lin g m inority. T h e cleavage, w ith in the politically as p irin g m iddle
classes, h ad been m o st clearly revealed by the a r g u m e n ts as to w heth e r
B o h e m ia was o r w as n o t p a r t o f G e r m a n y . T h e o rganisers o f the elected
G e r m a n A ssem bly in F r a n k f u r t, p la n n in g a new united d e m o c r a tic G e r ­
m a n y , h ad invited th e B o h e m ia n s to send th e ir representatives. P ala ck y
replied in a n o f te n - q u o te d letter o f 11 April. T h e Czechs, he arg u e d , were
n o t G erm a n s. T h e links o f Bo hem ia w ith the G e r m a n em p ire had been
purely dynastic. T h e C zech n a tio n was d istinct fro m the G e r m a n nation .
T h e Czechs, how ever, w o u ld be loyal to the H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y , provided
th a t they w ere able to ta k e their place beside the o th e r n a tio n s w ithin it. ‘If
A u s tr ia did n o t exist it w o u ld be necessary to c reate her, in the interests of
h u m a n ity itself.’ P a la c k y ’s w o rd s reflected the p r e d o m i n a n t o p in io n of
politically co nscious Czechs o f his tim e. Equally, fro m this tim e o n w a rd s
th e p r e d o m i n a n t o p in io n a m o n g B o h e m ia n s o f G e r m a n speech was th a t
th e y belong ed to th e G e r m a n n a tio n , a n d th a t the Czechs did not.
In the second h a lf o f the n in e tee n th c e n tu r y th e conflict betw een Czechs
a n d G e r m a n s in B o h e m ia grew steadily m o r e bitter. It w as n o t sim ply an
a r g u m e n t betw een federal a n d centralised g o v e r n m e n t, o r a claim by
Czechs fo r c om p letely e q u a l sta tu s f o r th e ir language, t h o u g h b o th these
issues were im p o r ta n t. B e n ea th these specific issues lay a g ro w in g m u tu a l
intoleranc e, a d e t e r m in a tio n by ea ch n a tio n to d o m in a te th e other. T he
G e r m a n s believed them selves to be c u ltu rally a n d m o rally su p e rio r to the
154 Nations and States

Czechs; r e g a rd e d th e C zech lang u ag e as a n o u tla n d is h fo r m o f speech; a n d

c o n s id e re d it a b s u r d t h a t it sh o u ld be placed on a n eq u a l f o o tin g w ith
G e r m a n . T h e e x tre m e G e r m a n n atio n alists h o p e d to c o m p e n s a te fo r their
n u m e rical inferiority w ith in B o h e m ia by the b a c k in g o f th e G e r m a n
em pire. A s th e V ie n n a g o v e r n m e n t refused to identify itself w ith the
G e r m a n n atio n alist cause as such, th e y detested V ienna; a n d a lunatic
fringe f a v o u re d secession fro m A u stria a n d in c o r p o r a t io n in B ism arck ’s
R eich.8 In this they received no e n c o u r a g e m e n t fro m Bismarck. F o r their
p art, the e x tre m e C zech n atio n alists reg a rd e d the G e r m a n s as in tru d e rs,
a n d w ere d e te r m in e d to d o m in a te the m . A t th e en d o f the c e ntury, som e
B o h e m ia n G e r m a n s p r o p o s e d th a t B o h e m ia sh o u ld be a d m in istra tive ly
divided in tw o , into a G e r m a n land a n d a C zech land. T his was bitterly
o p p o s e d by th e Czechs, w h o insisted o n the historical, physical an d
e c o n o m ic un ity o f B ohem ia. T h e case fo r th e un ity o f B o hem ia could
indeed be d efe n d ed by s tr o n g a rg u m e n ts ; b u t it was n o t so m u c h th a t the
natio n alists w ere c onvin ce d by the a r g u m e n ts as th a t th e y b ra n d ish e d the
a r g u m e n ts as w e a p o n s in a w a r o f w ords.
T h r o u g h o u t the c e n tu r y the Czechs m a d e e c o n o m ic a n d cu ltu ral p r o ­
gress. A t the en d o f th e 1840s a lm o s t the w hole p o p u la tio n o f school age in
C z ec h -s p eak in g districts w ent to school. A class o f C zech small business­
men w as fo rm e d , a m o n g w h o m brew ers a n d millers were especially
im p o r ta n t. T extile, m in in g a n d m etallurgical in d u stry d eve lope d steadily:
at first the leading capitalists were G e r m a n s , o r Je w s o f G e r m a n speech, but
in tim e C zech industrialists to o m a d e th e ir a p p e a r a n c e . In d u stry created a
large C zech ind u stria l w o rk in g class. T h e cities bec am e Czech, a n d after a
tim e-lag city g o v e r n m e n t to o passed into Czech h ands. A t the en d o f the
1860s was fo u n d e d th e first C z ec h -o w n e d large b a n k , the Zivnostenska
Папка , based at first la rgely o n small savings b u t d ev e lo p in g into a m a jo r
capitalist enterprise. T hese were also years o f p rog re ss in literature, music
a n d d r a m a . In 1862 th e N a tio n a l T h e a tr e , built by massive su b sc rip tio n in
small a m o u n ts fro m a large p a r t o f the n a tio n , was o p e n e d , only to be b u rn t
d o w n w ithin a few weeks. A fresh c a m p a ig n o f p o p u la r sub sc rip tio n
c o n tin u e d for nearly tw e n ty years, a n d in 1881 it w as a t last opened.
A n o th e r very im p o r ta n t in stitu tio n was the g y m n a stic society S o k o l ,
fou n d ed in 1862, designed n o t only to im p r o v e the h e a lth o f its m e m b ers
but also to s tren g th en discipline a n d to incu lcate n a tio n a list e m o tio n .
F o r twelve years af te r 1848 B o hem ia, like the rest o f the M o n a rc h y , was
ruled b ureaucratically. In 1860 the e m p e r o r b eg a n to e x p e r im e n t with
quasi c o n s titu tio n a l g o v e rn m e n t. T h e C zechs were dissatisfied, a n d in 1867
thcii representatives w ith d re w f r o m the A u s tr ia n p a r li a m e n t ( Reichsrat ),
an d rem ained aw a y u n til 1879. In 1866 P a la c k y , e m b itte re d by his
ox pci iencc o f the rulers o f A u stria, to w h o m he h ad dec la re d his loyalty in
I84K, w rote in his b o o k The Idea o f the Austrian State the very different
 Europe: M ulti-National Empires and New Nations 155

sta te m en t: ‘before A u stria was, we were: a n d w h en A u stria no longer is, we

still shall be.’
D efea t of A u stria by P russia in 1866 led to a n ag r e e m e n t w ith H u n g a ry ,
b u t the hopes o f the Czechs th a t B o h e m ia to o w ould be recognised as a
k in g d o m w ith its o w n rights, a n d th a t they w ould c o n tro l it, were
d isa p p o in te d . A tte m p ts m a d e by the A u str ia n rulers betw een 1895 an d
1898 to legislate fo r e qu a lity between the tw o lang uages a r o u se d the
o p p o sitio n o f first G e r m a n a n d th e n C zech m e m b ers o f the Reichsrat ;
m e m b ers becam e how lin g m o b s th r o w in g in k -p o ts at ea ch oth e r; a n d the
e m p e r o r had to rule A u stria by decree. T he in tr o d u c tio n o f universal
suffrage in A u stria in 1907 increased the p a r lia m e n ta r y stren g th o f the
socialists, w h o were s tr o n g in Bo hem ia; b u t the im peccably in te rn atio n a lis t
sentim ents expressed by so m e leading socialists did n o t elim ina te s tro n g
natio n alist passions a m o n g w o rk e rs o f b o th nations.
In the F irst W o rld W a r Czech politicians had widely different aims.
Karel K ra m a f, le ad e r o f the Y o u n g C zech P a rty , h o p e d fo r R ussian
victory, a n d p la n n e d a S lav U n io n u n d e r R ussian sovereignty, with
Bohem ia o n e o f its units u n d e r a R u ssian prince. M o st Czech radical
nationalists had little faith in a n in d e p e n d e n t B ohem ia: th e y wished to stop
being subjects o f the H a b s b u r g s an d to bec om e subjects o f the tsar, w h o m
they fondly im agined to be a n im a te d by b enevolent Slav sen tim ents. Czech
S ocial D e m o c r a ts h a te d the regim e o f the tsars, a n d h o p e d th a t the
H a b s b u r g M o n a r c h y w o u ld be replaced by a socialist republic, in which
Czech w o rk e rs a n d th e w hole Czech people w ou ld be e q u a ls o f the o th e r
nations. A th ird p o in t o f view was th a t of P ro fess o r T h o m a s G arrig u e
M a s a r y k , one o f th o se w h o had e x p o s ed H a n k a ’s forgery, a n o p p o n e n t of
e x tre m e n atio n a lism b u t a natio n ally co n s cio u s Czech a n d a bitter en e m y
o f G e r m a n im perialism . M a sa ry k p u t his faith in d e m o c r a c y o f the A nglo-
S a x o n type, believed in th e victory o f the w estern pow ers a n d desired a n
in d e p e n d e n t sta te o f th e C zechs a n d S lovaks.
T he course o f the w a r f a v o u re d M a s a r y k . A fter the ce n tral po w ers h ad
defeated Italy at C a p o r e tto , a n d im po sed their will o n Soviet R ussia by the
Peace o f Brest-L itovsk, the w estern p o w ers h a d no choice b u t to s u p p o r t
the d iss o lu tio n o f the H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y . In 1918 M a s a r y k ’s o u ts t a n d in g
d ip lo m a t E d u a r d BeneS e x tra c te d fro m th e Allies r ec o g n itio n o f a C z e c h o ­
slovak pro v isio n a l g o v e rn m e n t. W h e n the M o n a rc h y b eg a n to collapse
fro m w ithin in the a u t u m n o f 1918, th e C zech political leaders in P ra g u e
to o k over, a n d elected M a s a r y k , w h o h a d travelled fro m L o n d o n to Russia
a n d the U n ited S tates, as presid e n t o f th e new republic.
W ith in the new C z e c h o slo v a k rep ublic w ere th ree a n d a h alf million
G e r m a n s , fo rm in g a q u a r t e r o f the p o p u la tio n . In 1919 these G e r m a n s
wished to jo in eith er residual A u stria o r the G e r m a n republic: they were
p revented by the Allies, w h o accepted th e u sua l C zech historical, ec o n o m ic
156 Nations and States

a n d strateg ic a rg u m e n ts. T h is decision c a n be d efe n ded o n firm g ro u n d s,

but it w as w ith o u t d o u b t a denial o f the principle o f se lf-d e term in a tio n of
nations. T h e Czechs also h a d a n u n ea sy r ela tio n sh ip to the S lovaks, which
will be discussed later, a n d a H u n g a r ia n m in o rity o f th re e -q u a rte r s o f a
m illion w as in c o rp o r a te d a g a in st its will. T h e F irst C z ec h o slo v a k R epu b lic
had a d e m o c r a tic a n d h u m a n e fo rm o f g o v e r n m e n t, a n d a d m ir a b le social
institutions; b u t it was n ever willingly ac ce p te d by m u c h m o re th a n half its
in h a b ita n ts. T he great e c o n o m ic d ep re ssio n o f the 1930s a n d the a d v e n t of
H itler m a d e the B o h e m ia n G e r m a n s fa na tica lly o p p o s e d to the republic;
a n d th e su rre n d e r o f the w estern pow ers at M u n ic h b r o u g h t the a m p u t a ­
tion o f the B o h e m ia n b o r d e r la n d s , follow ed in M a rc h 1939 by the
a n n e x a t io n o f all the C zech lands to H itler’s T h ir d Reich. T h e re b y the
wildest d r e a m s o f th e B o h e m ia n G e r m a n ex tre m ists o f the 1890s were
exceeded: n o t only was G e r m a n B ohem ia rem o v e d fro m C zech c o n tro l, but
all B o h e m ia was sw allow ed u p, not by a m edieval Holy R o m a n E m pire,
but by a to ta lita r ia n em p ire w hose raison d ’etre w as the s u p r e m a c y o f a
m a ste r race o f G erm a n s.
H itler is o n rec o rd as p la n n in g to d e s tro y the C zech people by the three
m e th o d s o f forced G e r m a n is a tio n , d e p o r ta tio n a n d e x te r m in a tio n . He
w ent so m e w ay to w a r d s a p p ly in g his principles to the e d u c a te d elite o f the
n a tio n , o f w h o m tens o f t h o u s a n d s were d estro y e d . T h e C zech w o rk e rs an d
pea sa nts, how ever, p ro v e d t o o useful fo r his w a r effort, a n d so were
allow ed to enjoy (at least by th e s ta n d a r d s o f the b eleaguered Festung-
Europa o f 1942-45) r a th e r g o o d m a teria l c o n d itio n s. M e anw hile the exiled
C z ec h o slo v a k g o v e r n m e n t o f P re sid e n t BeneS ag re ed w ith the Soviet
leaders th a t the w hole G e r m a n p o p u la tio n s h o u ld be expelled fro m
B o h e m ia a n d M o r a v ia , a n d this w as acce p te d by th e British a n d A m e ric a n
leaders. In M a y 1945 B o h e m ia was lib e rate d , w ith very little fighting or
d e s tru c tio n , by the Soviet a n d A m e r ic a n arm ies. A b o u t a m illion G e r m a n s
lied, a n d tw o m illions m o r e were s u b se q u e n tly expelled. T h e y were ro b b e d
o f their possessions, a n d several h u n d r e d th o u s a n d s o f m en, w o m e n a n d
c hildren perished in the process. G e r m a n p r o p e r ty w as ch e ap ly a c q u ire d by
the Czech p ea sa n ts a n d w o rk e rs w h o h a d previo usly w o rk e d f o r Hitler. All
they h ad to d o in re tu rn w as to s u p p o r t the C o m m u n is t P a r ty o f C z ec h o slo ­
vakia, w hich h ad this v a lu a b le source o f p a t r o n a g e a t its disposal.
W ith the seizure o f p o w e r by the c o m m u n is ts th r e e years later, s o m e ­
thing ra th e r sim ilar to th e p la n s o f K r a m a f o f 1914 w as achieved. T he
C zech lands bec am e a p rovince o f th e R u s sia n em p ire. H o w ev er, in place of
a R u s sia n g r a n d - d u k e the C zechs were ruled by c o m p a t r i o t s — ideological
fanatics w h o had at their side R u ssian advisers e x p e rt in the inv e n tio n of
co nspiracies, jud ic ia l m u r d e r o f o p p o n e n t s a n d falsification o f the n a t io n ’s
history. T h e latter item included the need to d e n ig ra te a n y C zech historical
figure w hose actio n s were displeasing to the new masters: fo re m o st a m o n g
 Europe: M ulti-National Empires and New Nations 157

these was the late P re sid e n t M a sary k .

Nevertheless these m e th o d s p roved no m o r e successful th a n previo us
a t te m p ts to d es tro y the n a tio n a l consciousne ss or rem o u ld the n a tio n al
identity o f the Czechs. W ith in tw enty years they had b eg u n to tell a t least
p a r t o f the tr u th a b o u t them selves a n d to refo rm the regim e to w hich they
w ere subjected. T h e a t te m p t at ‘c o m m u n is m w ith a h u m a n face’, associated
with th e n am e o f A le x a n d e r D u b d ek , failed in 1968; Soviet R u ssian
im perial rule was reim p o sed ; a n d refalsification o f history was launched.
E xperience suggested th a t it was unlikely to w o rk in the long te rm .
T he long history o f the Czechs show s m o r e trage dy th a n hap p in ess, m ore
fan aticism th a n m e a su re d ju d g m e n t. T h e Czechs have s h o w n m o re talent
fo r m usic th a n for politics, fo r rh etoric th a n for action. Yet they have been a
c o m p le x a n d c o n tra d ic to ry people. T o foreign visitors the m o d e rn Czechs
a p p e a r e d kindly, reliable a n d ra th e r prosaic; but i m p o r ta n t episodes in
their past c o n tra d ic t this im pression. O ne need only recall the sectarian
frenzies of the H ussite w ars o r the crazy fantasies o f the Panslavs,
buttressed by H a n k a ’s forgeries. N a tu r e has been kind to th e m , bu t m a n
has not. B o h e m ia is a land w ash e d for longer by d ee p er stre a m s o f native
a n d foreign b lood th a n a lm o st an y o th e r; restored ag a in a n d aga in by
patien t toil; a d o r n e d by som e o f the nob lest buildings m a n has raised, the
b irth p la ce o f m u c h o f his g reatest music; often th re a te n e d a n d never secure;
the very heart o f E urope.

The Hungarians
T h e H u n g a r ia n n a tio n , as it existed before the T u rk is h victory o f M o h i c s
in 1526, was confined to th o se w ho h ad the legal status o f nobility. This
class a m o u n te d to m o r e th a n 5 per cent o f the p o p u la tio n , a n d included
m a n y p o o r people w h o lived like peasants. H u n g a ry was a c o u n t r y o f m a n y
languages, a n d n o t all H u n g a r ia n n o b le m e n h ad H u n g a r ia n (o r M agyar)
for their first la n g u ag e .9
W h e n the T u rk s w ere driv en fro m H u n g a r y at the en d o f th e seventeenth
century, a n d the w hole fo rm e r k in g d o m c a m e u n d e r H a b s b u r g rule,
H u n g a r ia n s h a d m a n y re a so n s for d isc o n te n t, even if th e y w ere glad to see
the last of the T u rk s . T h e c o u n try was very sparsely p o p u la te d , a n d
cultivable land h a d fallen in to disuse o n a v ast scale. T o im p ro v e it, a n d to
d efend th e new s o u th e r n fron tiers a g a in st th e T u rk s , the H a b s b u r g s
b r o u g h t in settlers w h o w ere n o t H u n g a r ia n s . G e r m a n p e a sa n ts ac q u ire d
land west o f the D a n u b e a n d in the s o u th -e a st (B ac sk a a n d th e B a nat of
T em esvar). S erb s w ere settled in large n u m b e rs a lo n g the so u th e rn
b o r d e r — the so-called M ilitary F r o n ti e r — w hich was a d m in is te r e d se p a r ­
ately from the rest o f the k ingdom . In the east, R o m a n ia n settlers spread
158 Nations and States

w estw a rds fro m T ra n s y lv a n ia in to th e Tisza plain. It was a m a jo r grievance

to th e H u n g a r ia n s th a t T ra n s y lv a n ia was n o t reu n ited w ith H u n g a ry , bu t
was preserved as a d istinct principality, as it h ad been in O t t o m a n times.
F u r th e r r e se n tm e n t was ca u se d by the activities o f the C a th o lic C h u rc h ,
w h ose em issaries busily set them selves to sp rea d the C o u n t e r - R e f o r m a ti o n
in the new ly liberated lands, to defeat the C alvinist a n d L u th e ra n heresies
w hich h a d bee n allow ed to flourish while the infidel held sway. All these
d isc o n te n ts c o n trib u te d to th e revolt led by F ra n cis R â k o cz i in th e first
d ec ad e o f the eig hteenth century.
D u r i n g th e eig hteenth c e n tu ry the p o p u la tio n increased rapidly, the
a g r ic u ltu ra l e c o n o m y b eg an to p ro sp er, a n d the H u n g a r ia n c h a r a c te r o f the
a d m in is t r a tio n was s tren g th en e d . In re tu r n fo r its s u p p o r t o f M a ria
T h e r e s a a g a in st F re d erick II o f P russia, the H u n g a r ia n D iet insisted th a t
she s h o u ld reg a rd H u n g a r y as a s e p a ra te k in g d o m o f w hich she was queen.
In practice H u n g a r y , t h o u g h ad m in iste re d by H u n g a r ia n s , was ruled m u c h
as V ie n n a wished; b u t w h e n J o s e p h II tried to a p p ly his refo rm s to
H u n g a r y , he m e t w ith fierce resistance. T h e nobles objected to his efforts to
im p ro v e th e s itu atio n o f th e p ea sa n ts, a n d his decree on the use o f G e r m a n
in a d m in is t r a tio n a r o u se d m o r e w id esp re ad hostility. In 1790 H u n g a r y was
in a sta te o f p r e p a r a tio n fo r rebellion, a n d H u n g a r ia n em issaries were
discussing w ith the king o f P ru ssia a c tio n a g a in st A u stria. J o s e p h IPs
successor, his b r o th e r L eo p o ld II, r etrea te d. T h e decree a b o u t G e r m a n was
w ith d r a w n , a n d L a tin b e c a m e ag a in th e official language. L eo p o ld re p e a t­
ed the a s su ra n c e o f his predecessors th a t H u n g a r y was a s e p a ra te kin g d o m ,
a n d h a d h im self cro w n ed in Buda.
T h e crisis o f 1790 gave a n a d d e d im p e tu s to a m o v e m e n t w hich alre ad y
existed fo r th e d e v e lo p m e n t, a n d fo r the public use, o f the H u n g a r ia n
language. T h e s itu a tio n w as r a th e r d ifferent fro m th a t in B ohem ia. T he
C zech la n g u ag e b y this tim e h a d ceased to be used by the B o h e m ia n u p p e r
classes, a n d it was b u t little used in w riting. It had to be rescued fro m its
lowly c o n d itio n , a n d m a d e a su itable in s t r u m e n t fo r m o d e r n literature. In
H u n g a ry , H u n g a r ia n h a d alw ays been used by th e u p p e r classes, n o t only in
speech b u t also in w riting, t h o u g h n o t in pu b lic business. It w as, how ever, a
very c ru d e in stru m e n t. T h e initiative for im p ro v in g it c a m e fro m persons
fam iliar w ith m o d e r n E u r o p e a n a n d especially G e r m a n literatu re , a n d
influenced by the ideas a n d th e literary f ash io n s o f th e E n lig h te n m e n t. In
the H u n g a r ia n revival it w as w riters w h o p la yed th e m a in p a r t, r a th e r th a n
g r a m m a r ia n s a n d philologists as in th e C zech case. T h is is n o t to say th a t
H u n g a r ia n s d id n o t b o th nee d a n d receive th e a t te n t io n o f g ra m m a r ia n s .
T h e o u ts t a n d in g figure was N ich o las R êvai, w h o was a t w o r k o n H u n g a r ­
ian p h ilology a lre a d y in th e 1780s, a n d p ro d u c e d his m a in w o rk , a
historical g r a m m a r , betw een 1803 a n d 1805, tw o years before his death .
But th e leadin g p erson a lity in the w hole m o v e m e n t was F ra n cis Kazinczy
 Europe: M ulti-N ational Empires and New Nations 159

(1759-1831), w h o bec am e k n o w n as th e fa th e r o f m o d e r n H u n g a r ia n
lit e r a tu r e .10
B uda pest, to w hich the university was tr a n sfe rre d in 1784 fro m the small
provin cial to w n o f T r n a v a , was the m a in centre o f intellectual life. T h e first
literary reviews, h ow ever, a p p e a r e d in K a s s a 11 in the n o rth -e a s t, a n d in
th e m K azinczy played a lead in g part. He was a b o v e all a n organiser. He
sp e nt m o st o f his tim e a t his c o u n try h o m e , f r o m w hich he c o n d u c te d a n
e n o r m o u s c o r r e sp o n d e n c e , e n c o u r a g in g writers to f u rth e r efforts a n d
criticising th e m sternly, even p eda ntic ally, if he th o u g h t their w o rk below
the high s ta n d a r d s he set the m . He to o k his p a rt in the con trov ersies,
c u s to m a ry in the early stage o f d e v e lo p m e n t o f n a tio n a l literature (for
in stance, of R ussian a n d o f m o d e rn G reek), between the c h a m p io n s of
neologism s a n d th o se w h o wished to keep the old fo rm s a n d v o c a b u la ry
un ch a n g ed . He laid the f o u n d a ti o n for the later flow ering o f poets an d
w riters g re a te r th a n he.
As the lang uage d eve lope d, the d e m a n d for its use in public business in
place o f the d e a d la n g u ag e L atin grew m o r e urgent. T h is d e m a n d was
inevitable, b u t it raised difficult new p roblem s. H u n g a r ia n was the la n ­
guage o f only h a lf the p o p u la tio n o f H u n g a r y p ro p e r, o f on e-th ird in
T ra n sy lv a n ia , a n d o f a small m in o rity in C r o a tia . T he citizens o f H u n g a r y
o f n o n - H u n g a r i a n speech were willing to acce p t L atin as th e official
lan guag e, b u t objected to being m a d e t o use H u n g a r ia n , a difficult to n g u e
w ith n o rese m b la n ce to a n y o f the m a in la ng uage s o f E u ro p e . T h ey were
also b e ginning to d evelop their o w n languages, to ta k e pride in their
g ro w in g literatures, a n d to feel t h a t th e y were so m e th in g m o r e th a n
la n g u a g e -g ro u p s— t h a t they were n a tio n s, d istin ct f ro m the H u n g a r ia n
natio n .
As long as political life was co n fin e d to the tr a d itio n a l natio — the
n o b ility — th e p ro b le m was n o t acute. V irtually all m e m b e rs o f th e nobility
knew Latin, a n d (with the ex c e p tio n o f th e C r o a ts ) nearly all h a d a w o rk in g
kno w led ge o f H u n g a r ia n . But the d e m a n d fo r the use o f H u n g a r ia n in
pub lic business w as b o u n d to be a n in se p a ra b le p a r t o f the p r o g r a m m e o f
the d e m o c ra ts , w h o a im e d to e x ten d political rights f r o m the nob ility to
o th e r classes. It w as a m a tte r of faith to th e m th a t all w h o belon ged to th e
H u n g a r ia n n a tio n m u s t k n o w th e H u n g a r ia n language. Increasingly, the
criterio n o f m e m b e r s h ip o f th e n a tio n w as n o t class b u t language. S lovaks,
Serbs, R u th e n e s o r R o m a n ia n s w h o did n o t speak H u n g a r ia n c o u ld not
b e c o m e m e m b e rs o f the H u n g a r ia n n a tio n , b u t p ea sa n ts a n d oth e rs o f
lowly social origin w h o did k n o w H u n g a r ia n could. Since H u n g a r ia n
natio n alists o f d e m o c r a tic o u tlo o k w ere g en e ro u s m e n , they w ished to
m a k e av ailable as s o o n as possible to as m a n y as possible the c h a n ce of
en terin g th e H u n g a r ia n n a tio n a n d o f e n jo y in g civil rights. T h e only w ay
w as to d evelo p public e d u c a tio n rapidly, a n d to m a k e th e scho ol the
160 Nations and States

in s tru m e n t for en a b lin g ch ild ren of n o n - H u n g a r i a n speech to learn H u n ­

garian.
T h e division w ithin the ra n k s o f H u n g a r ia n liberals a n d n ation alists
co n c e rn e d the speed at w hich this process o f e d u c a tio n sh o u ld ta k e place,
an d th e sta tu s w hich sh o u ld be given to langu ages o th e r t h a n H u n g aria n .
T he radicals wished to m a k e H u n g a r ia n th e sole lan g u ag e o f a d m in is t r a ­
tion a n d o f instru ction. I n stru c tio n in the new schools was to be in
H u n g a r ia n , a n d th o se schools w hich a lre a d y existed, in w hich instruction
was given in a n o t h e r lan guag e, sh o u ld be forced to ch a n g e over to
H u n g a r ia n afte r as s h o rt as possible a perio d o f tra n sitio n . T he radicals
ag re ed t h a t th e re was n o o b je c tio n to th e use o f o th e r lan guag es in private
houses a n d in p erso nal relations, b u t as f a r as possible these la nguages
s h o u ld n o t be used in public. T h e m o d e ra te s asked only th a t H u n g a r ia n
s h o u ld be the official language, th a t public officials sh o u ld k n o w it a n d th a t
it sh o u ld be th o r o u g h ly t a u g h t in the schools. T h e y did n o t co n sid er it
inadm issib le th a t officials should c o m m u n ic a te in la ng uage s o th e r th a n
H u n g a r ia n w ith persons w h o knew no H u n g a r ia n , o r th a t th e re shou ld be
schools in w hich in stru c tio n was given in o th e r la n g u a g e s— pro v id ed that
H u n g a r ia n was also ta u g h t. T h ey were o p p o se d to a n y c o n t e m p t u o u s
tr e a tm e n t o f o th e r lang uages a n d cultures. S lo v ak s o r R o m a n ia n s had
every right to develop a n d to ta k e pride in S lo v ak o r R o m a n ia n culture.
T h e y m u s t n o t, how ever, th in k o f them selves as b e longin g to a S lo v ak or
R o m a n i a n natio n : there c ould be only on e n a tio n in H u n g a ry , the M ag yar.
T h e only e x c e p tio n to this rule co n c ern ed the C ro a ts, w h o h ad always h ad a
p ec ulia r legal rela tio n sh ip to H u n g a ry , a n d were p e r h a p s entitled to
c o n s id e r them selves a n a t io n too.
T h e po litical classes o f n o n - H u n g a r i a n speech consisted m ainly of
m o d e ra te , r a th e r co nservativ e men. T h e ir loyalty was to the d y n asty , to the
ruler (w h o m they th o u g h t o f as ‘e m p e r o r ’ m o r e th a n as ‘king o f H u n g a r y ’),
r a th e r th a n to the H u n g a r ia n sta te o r the H u n g a r ia n n ation. H ow ever, they
did n o t wish to q u a r r e l w ith the H u n g a r ia n s , a n d t h e y recognised th a t it
was r e a so n a b le t h a t H u n g a r ia n sh o u ld be the sta te language. At the sam e
tim e they refused to co n s id e r th e ir o w n languages as in a n y w ay inferior to
H u n g a r ia n . T h ey w ere p r o u d o f th e ir o w n recent a n d ac ce le ra ting c u ltu ra l
progress. T h e y t o o k a g ro w in g interest in the affairs o f n e ig h b o u rin g
peoples w h o m they felt to be th e ir kin: th e S e rb s o f the k in g d o m of S erbia,
the R o m a n ia n s o f the se m i-in d e p e n d e n t principalities b e y o n d the C a r p a ­
th ia n s, a n d th e S lov aks, th e o th e r Slav peoples in general. In d ica tio n s of
this interest a la r m e d the H u n g a r ia n s . T h e S lovaks, they feared, were
infected with P ansla vism , a n d R o m a n ia n s w ith D a c o - R o m a n i s m . T hese
fears, t h o u g h ex a g g e ra te d , were n o t a b s u rd : the fantasies o f so m e S lovak
a n d T ra n s y lv a n ia n R o m a n i a n jo u r n a lis ts lent w eight to th em . If these
d a n g e r o u s infections w ere at w o rk , th e n it seem ed to the H u n g a r ia n
 Europe: M ulti-National Empires and New Nations 161

natio n alists to be a m a tte r o f urgency, o f th e very security o f th e H u n g a r ia n

state, th a t a vig o ro u s policy o f M a g y a r is a tio n (o r inc u lca tio n o f the
H u n g a r ia n language th r o u g h the schools) sh o u ld be a d o p te d . But the m ore
the n atio nalists c la m o u r e d fo r M a g y a risa tio n , th e m o r e the S lo v ak s a n d
S erbs a n d R o m a n ia n s d istrusted the H u n g a r ia n s , a n d the fiercer becam e
their ow n natio n alism . T his esca lation o f n a tio n a l a n t a g o n is m s was
a lre a d y far ad v a n c e d before the e x p lo sio n o f 1848.
T h e c o n tra s t betw een radicals a n d m o d e ra te s in the H u n g a r ia n r a n k s is
personified in the relations betw een C o u n t S te p h e n Szechenyi a n d L ouis
K ossuth.
Szechenyi was th e so n of a n e n lighten ed a r is to c r a t w h o had been chiefly
responsible for e s tablishing the N atio n al M u s e u m at the b eg in n in g o f the
century. He him self travelled widely in W e ste rn E u ro p e , a n d h a d re a d m ore
widely still. His aim s w ere e c o n o m ic a n d c u ltu r a l progress fo r H u n g a ry .
His speeches, b o o k s a n d a c tio n s were c o n s ta n tly d e v o te d to this end. He
w as in fav o u r o f social reform , especially in the inte rest of th e p ea sa n ts; a n d
he did n o t fear to o p p o s e the policies o f th e rulers in V ienna. H ow ever, he
h a d the eig h teen th c e n tu r y preference for r e a so n ov er passion; he w as n o t
in a hu rry; a n d he believed th a t e n o r m o u s im p r o v e m e n ts c ould be m a d e
w ith o u t violent political struggles a n d w ith o u t insulting a n d injuring o th e r
g roups.
K ossu th c a m e fro m a small nob le fam ily w h o se m o r e d is ta n t origin was
S lovak. He s h a re d S zech enyi’s aim s, b u t he w ished to go fu rth e r; he was in
a hu rry ; an d he was a p as sio n ate political fighter, w ith a genius fo r o r a to r y
a n d a gitation. W ith the passage o f years he b e c a m e m o re radical, a n d the
m o o d o f the H u n g a r ia n politically con scio u s class increasingly follow ed his
lead. Essentially his aim s w ere the sovereignty o f th e H u n g a r ia n state, the
liberation o f p ea sa n ts fro m the rem ain s o f s e rfd o m , the political e n f r a n ­
ch isem ent o f the H u n g a r ia n people a n d th e M a g y a r is a tio n o f th e w hole
p o p u la tio n — all to be achieved as q uic k ly as possible.
K o s s u th ’s m e th o d s a n d p ersona lity b e c am e ever m o r e distasteful to
Szechenyi. T h e y clashed, especially o n th e la n g u a g e q u estio n . Szechenyi
f a v o u re d g r a d u a l in tr o d u c tio n o f H u n g a r ia n in to pub lic business a n d
ed u c a tio n , a n d careful c o n s id e ra tio n for th o se o f different speech. Pressure
o f H u n g a r ia n public o p in io n was for m o r e d ra s tic m easu res. In fact a series
o f laws w ere en a c te d — in 1836, 1840 a n d 1844. T h e last laid d o w n th a t
H u n g a r ia n was to be the exclusive lan g u ag e o f p a r lia m e n t, g o v e rn m e n t
a n d a d m in is tra tio n , a n d was to becom e th e sole lan g u ag e o f in stru c tio n in
schools as s o o n as the necessary a d d itio n a l legislation c o u ld be c om pleted.
E x c e p tio n s w ere m a d e fo r C ro a tia . Szechenyi h a d vainly w a rn e d ag a in st
such in to le r a n t h aste in a n a d d re ss to the A c a d e m y o n 27 N o v e m b e r 1842.
T h e idea th a t the s u p e rio rity o f H u n g a r ia n c u ltu r e c o u ld be d e m o n s tr a te d
by violence a g a in st th e cu ltu re o f H u n g a r y ’s in h a b ita n ts o f n o n - H u n g a r i a n
162 Nations and States

speech w as especially r e p u g n a n t to him . H o w e v e r, his in fluence was

w an in g , while K ossu th grew ever m o re p o p u la r.
K o s s u th ’s g reat m o m e n t c a m e in 1848. T h e H u n g a r ia n R e v o lu tio n ,
w h ich was set off by th e events in P aris a n d V ienna, m a y be said to have
sta rte d o n 15 M a rc h , w h en a d e p u t a ti o n o f th e H u n g a r ia n p a r lia m e n t cam e
to V ie n n a w ith a n A d d re ss to th e C r o w n c o n ta in in g f ar-rea ch in g political
d e m a n d s , a n d a m ass d e m o n s tr a ti o n in Pest was a d d re ssed by the poet
S a n d o r P etoffi a n d o th e r R a d ic al speakers. T h e d e m o n s t r a t o r s ’ d e m a n d s
w ere largely satisfied by th e p a r li a m e n t’s ‘A pril L aw s’. T hese included
e x te n sio n o f p a r lia m e n ta r y franchise to all m ales aged tw en ty (subject to a
sm all p r o p e r ty qualifica tio n a n d the ability to spe ak H u n g a ria n ); abolished
e x e m p tio n s o f n o b le m e n fro m ta x a t i o n a n d all la b o u r oblig a tio n s of
p e a sa n ts to la n d o w n e rs; set u p a N a tio n a l G u a r d ; a n d p ro m ise d equality
before th e law, equality o f all religions, a free press a n d free ed u c a tio n . T he
m o o d o f re v o lu tio n a ry e n th u s ia s m ex te n d e d to m o st o f the p o p u la tio n of
the cities, a n d grad u a lly p e n e tr a te d th e p e a s a n try to o . T h e h ero ic events of
the follow ing y ea r a n d a h alf u n d o u b te d ly e x te n d e d H u n g a r ia n n a tio n al
co nsciousness to m o st p eople o f H u n g a r ia n speech.
T w o m a jo r p ro b le m s a ro se however: w h a t w ould the V ienna g o v e r n ­
m e n t do, a n d w h a t liberties were the H u n g a r ia n d e m o c r a ts willing to give
to th e ir fellow-citizens o f n o n - H u n g a r i a n speech?
T h e A u s tr ia n g o v e r n m e n t, p reoccupied by u n re st in V ienna, Bo hem ia
a n d n o r th e r n I ta ly ,12 s o u g h t a c o m p ro m is e w ith the H u n g a ria n s. M e a n ­
while th e resistance o f the n o n - H u n g a r i a n n a tio n s to th e H u n g a r ia n
g o v e r n m e n t, in w hich K o ssu th was th e le ading figure, grew. It p rovided the
V ien n a le aders w ith a n o p p o r tu n ity to play th e m a g a in st each other.
K o s s u th ’s a t titu d e , w h ich was w ith o u t d o u b t a p p r o v e d by m ost H u n g ar-
ian political leaders, was a c o m b in a t io n o f unrealistic benevolence an d
n a t io n a l intolerance. T h e n o n - H u n g a r i a n s were cultu rally inferior, an d
m u s t be so trea ted: it w as intolerab le t h a t they sh o u ld have the sta tu s of
e q u a lity w ith the ruling H u n g a r ia n natio n . H ow ever, th e y need have no
g r o u n d s fo r d isc o n te n t, fo r as H u n g a r ia n citizens th e y w o u ld enjoy all
liberties, a n d every effo rt w o u ld be m a d e to tr a n s f o r m th e m into H u n g a r ­
ians, afte r w hich all w o u ld be well w ith th e m . K o s s u th a n d his friends
g enuinely believed t h a t th e y w ere d o in g th e n o n - H u n g a r i a n s a kindness by
giving th e m th e ch ance o f b e c o m in g a b s o rb e d in th e su p e rio r H u n g a r ia n
culture. T o refuse this kin d n e ss w as n a tio n a lis t fanaticism : to im p o se it by
force w as to p r o m o te progress. T h e sug gestion th a t R o m a n ia n s , S lo v ak s or
S erbs were n atio n s, w ith a n a t io n a l cu ltu re o f th e ir o w n , was sim ply
ridiculous nonsense. L a t e r in life, in his lo n g exile in W e ste rn E u ro p e ,
K o ssu th recognised th a t he h a d been w ro n g , a n d devised v ario u s schem es
for fede ra tion in C e n tral E u ro p e w hich h ad no c h a n c e o f being carried out.
In his ow n c o u n try , his n a tio n a l intoleran c e r em a in ed ac cepted doctrine.
 Europe: M ulti-N ational Empires and New Nations 163

T h e final o v e r th r o w of K o ssu th ’s g o v e r n m e n t in A u g u st 1849 was

follow ed by ex ecu tio n s, im p r is o n m e n ts a n d ab s o lu tist g o v e r n m e n t. D efeat
by F ra n c e in 1859, a n d by P ru ssia in 1866, fo rc ed the A u s tr ia n g o v e rn m e n t
to reverse its policies. In 1867 the centralised e m p ire was tr a n s f o r m e d into a
d u a l m o n a rc h y , to be k n o w n as A u s tr ia - H u n g a r y . H u n g a r y was to have its
o w n g o v e r n m e n t in B uda pest, w hich was to e njoy a very wide m e asu re o f
sovereignty. T h e a r m y c o m m a n d , d ip lo m a c y a n d ce rtain e c o n o m ic pow ers
re m a in e d c o m m o n to the w hole M o n a rc h y , a n d w ere h an d le d by c o m m o n
m inisters in V ienna a p p o in te d by the crow n.

F r o m 1867 to 1918 H u n g a r y w as a sem i-sovereign state, ruled by a small

political class b ased o n a very small electorate. It still fo rm e d p a rt o f the
H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y , a n d its leaders professed loyalty to th a t d y n asty; yet
they claim ed th a t it w as a n atio n al s ta te — th e sta te o f th e H u n g a r ia n
n atio n , o f th o se w ho se lan g u ag e was M a g y a r. H u n g a r ia n s fo rm e d ra th e r
m o re th a n h a lf the in h a b ita n ts o f H u n g a ry , e x c lu d in g C r o a t i a . 11 If the
p o p u la tio n of C r o a tia were included in the p o p u la tio n o f H u n g a ry , then
the M a g y ars were in a n overall m in o rity in th eir o w n co u n try .
T h e H u n g a r ia n political class was divided by the A u s tr o - H u n g a r ia n
C o m p r o m i s e o f 1867. A large m in o rity c o n tin u e d to profess the principles
o f 1848: to th e m n o th in g less th a n c o m p le te sovereign in d e p en d e n ce was
acceptable. T h ey w ere willing th a t the e m p e r o r o f A u stria, F r a n z Josef,
s h o u ld be king o f H u n g a r y , b u t his H u n g a r ia n k in g d o m w as to be s e p arate
f ro m all his o th e r d o m in io n s , in c o m p lete c o n tro l o f its a r m e d forces an d
foreign policy, a n d free to regulate its e x te rn a l tr a d e as it wished. By
c o n tra s t, the m a jo r ity o f the political class ac ce p te d the C o m p ro m i s e , on
the g r o u n d s th a t it was th e best se ttle m ent available, a n d th a t it b r o u g h t
H u n g a r y solid a d v a n ta g es. H ow ever, even the s u p p o r te r s of the C o m ­
pro m ise still viewed V ienna w ith suspicion. T h ey m a in ta in e d a n a ttitu d e of
c o n s ta n t a n d g ru d g in g vigilance.
H u n g a r ia n g o v e r n m e n ts fo u g h t in fact a tw o - fr o n t w ar, again st V ienna
a n d a g a in st th e n o n - M a g y a r s w ithin H u n g a ry . The 1867-ers (o r s u p p o r te r s
o f ‘D u a li s m ’) te n d ed to see V ienn a as p referable to the n o n - M a g y a rs , while
the 1848-ers (o r In d e p e n d e n c e p arty ) te n d e d , at least as long as they were in
o p p o s it io n , to express s o m e h o p e th a t th e y m ight get s u p p o r t fro m th e n o n -
M a g y a r s a g a in st V ie n n a in r e t u r n fo r s o m e concessions. H o w e v e r, b o th
sections o f the H u n g a r i a n political class f u n d a m e n ta l ly re g a rd e d b o th
A u s tr ia a n d the n o n - M a g y a r s as o p p o n e n t s — th e first to be resisted, the
second to be a b s o rb e d .
T h is requires so m e q ualifications. T h e H u n g a r i a n political leaders, of
b o th g ro u p s, were m e n o f liberal o u tlo o k : th e y still reg a rd e d them selves as
heirs to the ideals o f 1848. T h e y believed th a t all H u n g a r ia n subjects should
164 Nations and States

en jo y the civil a n d political rights a p p r o p r ia t e to th eir class (which

ex c lu d e d the p o o r a n d u n e d u c a te d m ajority), w h ate v er their origin. T hey
also believed th a t H u n g a r y sh o u ld be e q u ip p e d with m o d e r n industries an d
a m o d e r n school system, a n d set them selves to this ta s k w ith great energy.
T h e i r a t titu d e to th e n o n - M a g y a r s w as set o u t in the N a tio n a lity L aw o f
1868, the w o rk o f B aron Jo s e p h E otvos. T his laid d o w n th a t n o n - M a g y a rs
s ho uld be e d u c ated in their o w n lang u ag e at p r im a ry school level, a n d in
ce rtain cases also at se co n d a ry level, a n d th a t they sh o u ld be able to use
their la n g u a g e — either directly o r th r o u g h in te r p re te r s — in dealings with
the pu b lic a utho rities. H ow ever, it also stated th a t th e re was in H u n g a ry
only on e n a tio n (nem zet), the H u n g a r ia n nation: it alo n e was entitled to
sovereignty in its ow n te rrito ry . H u n g a r ia n citizens o f n o n - M a g y a r lan­
guage w ere entitled to e q u a l rights, p rovid ed th a t they learned the M a g y ar
la n g u ag e a n d regard ed them selves as H u n g a ria n s. T h ey m u st n o t suffer
an y d isc rim in a tio n because they s p o k e their original lang uages a t h o m e or
a m o n g their friends. But they m u st not be allow ed a n y so rt o f collective
institutions as a c o m m u n ity , still less be given a n y so rt of territorial
a u t o n o m y . It was o f c o u rse o b v io u s th a t these n o n - M a g y a r la nguage
g ro u p s did in fact c o n s titu te distinct c o m m u n itie s; b u t the w o rd a p p r o p r i ­
ate to d esig nate th e m was no t ‘n a t io n ’ b u t ‘n a tio n a lity ’, a w o rd ta k e n from
A u s tr ia n legal te rm in o lo g y (in G e r m a n , N ationalitdt , in M a g y a r nem zet-
iseg). T his did n o t a p p ly to the C roats: they were a ‘n a t io n ’, an d in their
h isto rical territories C r o a t ia n , n o t M a g y ar, was the official language in
a d m in is t r a tio n a n d in schools.
T h e tr o u b le a b o u t the E o tv o s policy was th a t it did n o t c o r r e s p o n d to
reality. T h e n o n - M a g y a r s w ere n o longer m ere lan g u ag e g ro ups. T hey had
h a d n a tio n a lly con scio u s social elites since the begin n in g o f the cen tury ,
a n d n a tio n a l consciousne ss h a d been sp re a d in g steadily d o w n w a r d s into
the low er social levels ever since, largely o f c o u rse as a result o f the
p r o p a g a n d a o f the elites. T h e events o f 1848 had s h o w n th a t R o m a n ia n ,
S e r b ia n a n d S lo v a k n a tio n s existed a n d th a t th e y were in process of
d r a w in g the p e a sa n t m asses in to th eir n a tio n a l m o v e m en ts. In th e second
h alf o f the n in e tee n th ce n tu ry m o st o f th e ir leaders w o u ld certainly have
been willing to rem a in H u n g a r ia n subjects, to recognise t h a t the M a gy ars
were first a m o n g the n a tio n s o f H u n g a r y , a n d th a t M a g y a r m u st be the
official la n g u ag e o f the state, p r o v id ed t h a t they to o were recognised as
n atio n s, a n d w ere allow ed th e ir ow n a u t o n o m o u s in stitu tio n s a n d c o n tro l
o f their o w n schools w ith in the te rrito rie s w here th e y f o rm e d a clear
m a jo rity o f the p o p u la tio n . T h is the H u n g a r ia n politicians ab solutely
refused to consider. T h e legalistic d o c trin e w ith w h ich a w hole g e n e ratio n
was deeply im bue d p e rm itte d o f no a rg u m e n t: the d o g m a o f th e single
H u n g a r ia n political n a tio n was n o t o p e n to discussion. T h ey also feared
th a t, if they g ra n te d a n y te rrito ria l a u t o n o m y , this w o uld only be a first
 Europe: M ulti-N ational Empires and New Nations 165

stage to w a rd s the b r e a k -u p o f H u n g ary : th e S erbs a n d R o m a n ia n s w ou ld

secede to jo in the n e i g h b o u rin g k in g d o m s o f S e rb ia a n d R o m a n ia ; a n d the
S lo v ak s w ou ld d e m a n d u n io n w ith either M o r a v ia o r G alicia, o u tsid e the
H u n g a r ia n frontiers. In th e light o f s u b s e q u e n t history, o n e m u st a d m it
t h a t this fear was n o t u n re a so n a b le , b u t it was certainly ex a g g e ra te d . T he
w a rning s o f P a n sla v a n d D a c o - R o m a n i a n 14 sep aratist d an g e rs, as ju stific a ­
tio n s fo r repression, p rov ed to be self-fulfilling prophecies.
T h e E o tv o s policy was the re fore basically u n a c c e p ta b le to R o m a n ia n ,
S e rb ia n a n d S lo v a k subjects o f H u n g a ry . As fo r the ‘R u th e n e s ’ o f n o r t h ­
east H u n g a ry , a k in to the U k ra in ia n s o f e a ste rn G alicia, they were
econo m ic ally a n d cultu rally so b a c k w a r d th a t it is hard to say w h a t th eir
a t titu d e was. T h e on e n o n - M a g y a r g r o u p w hich ac cepted the new regim e
enthusiastically, a n d m a d e the m ost o f th e ch a n ce s th a t it offered, w ere the
J e w s . 15
In practice, how ever, E o tv o s ’s N a tio n a lity Law was h o nestly applied
only for a few years. In 1875 th e three m ain political g ro u p s o f 1867-ers
united to form, a L iberal P a rty , an d its le ader, K&lm&n Tisza, b ecam e
p rem ier, a n d held office until 1890. He w as th e initiato r o f the policy w hich
bec am e k n o w n as M a g y a risa tio n , b o th in the schools a n d in the general
a d m in is tra tio n . F o r a s h o rt tim e in the early 1890s pressure was s o m e w h a t
relaxed," a n d p erm ission was given to h old a N atio n alitie s C ongress in
B uda pest in A pril 1895. It was a tte n d e d by S lo v ak , R o m a n ia n a n d S e rb ia n
representatives, w h o issued a s ta te m e n t o f th e ir political wishes. In the next
years pressure increased again.
J u d g e d by the m e th o d s o f the m id -tw e n tie th ce n tu ry , in E u ro p e or
b e y o n d , the forcible M a g y a r is a tio n of K a lm a n T isza a n d his successors
w as c o m p a r a tiv e ly mild; yet in a n age w hich w as a c c u s to m e d to h u m a n e
s ta n d a r d s in g o v e r n m e n t it was resented as unjust a n d brutal. T h e 1879
E d u c a tio n A ct m a d e it c o m p u ls o r y to teach M a g y a r in all p r im a ry schools,
a n d enforced this t h r o u g h sc hoo l inspe ctors w h o behaved in a b r u ta l a n d
insulting m a n n e r in n o n - M a g y a r regions. In practice the n o n - M a g y a r
c hildren reacted by o b stin ate ly refusing to learn. T h e H u n g a r ia n g o v e r n ­
m e n t spen t a large p a r t o f its e d u c a tio n b u d g e t on largely unsuccessful
efforts to force M a g y a r o n n o n - M a g y a r c h ild ren while neglecting the
sc hools in regions o f p u re M a g y a r p o p u la tio n , w here p ea sa n ts an d
ag ric u ltu ra l la b o u re rs c o n tin u e d to be neglected by th e M in istry o f
E d u c a tio n . A n o t h e r w e a p o n o f M a g y a r is a tio n was the use o f vague clauses
in th e press laws, f o r b id d in g inc ite m en t o f class a g a in st class, o r o f
n a tio n a lity aga in st n atio n a lity , o r ‘insults to th e M a g y a r n a t i o n ’, im p o sin g
o f fines o n new sp a p ers a p p e a r in g in n o n - M a g y a r languages, o r sending
ed ito rs o r writers to p riso n fo r a y ea r o r so. R e p e a te d fines d rov e
new sp a p ers into b a n k r u p tc y . It was possible fo r th e surviving edito rial sta ff
to f o u n d a new p a p e r u n d e r a new n am e, b u t it w as th e n subjected to fu rth e r
166 Nations and States

petty p erse cu tio n until it t o o was driven o u t o f business. T hese c a t-a n d -

m o u se tactics, a n d the persistent p erversion o f the law, cre ate d m o re and
m o r e enem ies for H u n g a r y , a n d b r o u g h t the law itself into c o n te m p t. T he
c o u rts w ere sim ply reg a rd e d as en e m y s tro n g h o ld s, in w hich n o justice
c ould be o b ta in e d . Political redress was equally u n o b ta in a b l e , because the
n a r r o w suffrage ex cluded the great m a jo rity o f n o n - M a g y a rs , as well as
m o st M a g y a r pea sa nts a n d w orkers. Even w ith the very small electorate,
elections w ere falsified a n d electors were in tim id a ted . S o m e tim e s villages
w hich were polling centres w o u ld be sim ply s u r r o u n d e d by g en d a rm es,
w h o w o u ld n o t a d m it th e as sem bled electors until late a t night, w hen they
were to ld the poll was closed a n d th e officials h a d g o ne hom e.
F r o m 1903 to 1906 H u n g a r y was in a state o f v irtual rebellion aga in st
V ienna, ow ing to the d e m a n d by H u n g a r ia n politicians for a se p arate
arm y , w hich th e king re f u s e d .16 T he 1848-ers were sw ept to pow er, a n d they
even p e rm itte d the h o ld in g o f free elections in co n stituen cies o f non-
M a g y a r p o p u la tio n , in the h o p e o f o b ta in in g s u p p o r t from the n o n-
M a g y a r s ag a in st V ienna. In 1906 the n u m b e r o f rep rese ntatives o f n on-
M a g y a r s in p a r lia m e n t was d o u b le d . H ow ever, h o p es were soon
d is a p p o in te d . T errified by th e king’s th r e a t o f universal suffrage, which
w o u ld n o t only have s tren g th en e d the n o n - M a g y a r s but w ou ld have given
the M a g y a r sm all te n a n ts a n d ag ric u ltu ral la b o u re rs a vote, the 1848-er
le aders gave up their d e m a n d s a b o u t the arm y . T h e ir g o v e r n m e n t reverted
to the policies o f its p red ecessors to w a r d s the n o n - M a g y a rs . T h e E d u c a tio n
A ct o f 1907 w as even m o r e o b je c tio n a b le t h a n th a t o f 1879. T h e new
g o v e r n m e n t even g ra tu ito u sly a n ta g o n is e d th e C r o a ts , w ith w h o m it had
p revio usly f o rm e d a n alliance, by in tr o d u c in g the M a g y a r lan g u ag e o n the
C r o a t i a n railways. In 1910 the 1867-ers c a m e b a c k to pow er. T h e ir leader
C o u n t Istv a n T isza paid o cc asional lip service to the idea o f universal
suffrage, a n d w ent th r o u g h the m o tio n s o f n e g o tia tio n s w ith the R o m a n ­
ians a n d Slovaks; b u t his only real aim was to split th e ir le ade rship by
intrigues, a n d no con stru c tiv e results were achieved.
N o t all politically artic u la te M a g y a rs accep ted forcible M agyarisa tio n : it
was criticised by H u n g a r ia n radical d e m o c r a ts a n d socialists, w h o were,
how ever, prev e n ted by the electoral system f r o m exercising an y political
influence. E m in e n t a m o n g th e critics was the sociologist O s z k a r Jaszi. He
po in te d o u t t h a t the policy o f the tw o T iszas w as c o u n te r -p r o d u c tiv e . If
only th e y h a d given the n o n - M a g y a r s e q u a l rights a n d h a d s h o w n respect
for their languages a n d cultures, he a r g u e d , they w o u ld in the co u rse o f tim e
have b ec o m e loyal H u n g a r ia n s a n d w o u ld have been a b s o r b e d in M a g y a r
culture. H e p o in te d to th e increase in n u m b e r s o f th e H u n g a r ia n s since the
e ig h tee n th century. T h e cities w hich h ad g r o w n u p in th e last h u n d r e d years
h ad a b s o rb e d great n u m b e rs o f n o n - M a g y a r s into a n increasingly a t t r a c ­
tive a n d sophisticated culture. T his process had been no t p ro m o te d but
 Europe: M ulti-N ational Empires and New Nations 167

a rrested by the tricks a n d co e rcio n o f the Tiszas. Ja szi h o p e d th a t, if only

the d eg e n erate political class could be rem o v e d f r o m pow er, land be
d istrib u te d to the p ea sa n ts, a n d the vote be given to all citizens, a new
H u n g a r y could arise in w hich one M a g y a r cu ltu re c o uld coe x ist w ith m a n y
languages.
Jciszi’s vision was n o ble b u t unco nvincing. His m o d e l w as the United
States. He arg ued th a t, as a new n a tio n a n d a new cu ltu re h a d been created
in A m eric a fro m im m ig ra n ts fro m m a n y different n atio n s, so a new
H u n g a r ia n cultu re c o u ld be m a d e fro m the conflu e n ce o f several half­
develop ed cultu res based o n several different languages. But his a n a lo g y
w as misleading. In the U nited S tate s the im m ig r a n t c o m m u n itie s were
sm all groups, u p r o o te d fro m h o m e la n d s w hich they h ad left th o u s a n d s o f
miles behind, a n d positively seeking a b s o r p ti o n in a new n a tio n w hich, at
the tim e w hen they arrived , h ad ta k e n firm sha pe, t h o u g h it w as still
ca p a b le o f m o d ific atio n as they grew in to it. In H u n g a r y the n o n - M a g y a r
n atio n s lived in c o m p a c t c o m m u n itie s in their old h o m e la n d s . Even in the
cities, w hich were indeed islands o f M a g y a r cu ltu re in a n o n - M a g y a r sea,
there were g ro w in g up c o u n te r -c u ltu r e s w ith th e ir o w n cu ltu ra l elites. Thus
Kolozsv&r, the ce n tre o f M a g y a r cultu re in T ra n sy lv a n ia , was a t th e sam e
tim e Cluj, the centre o f the R o m a n i a n c o u n te r-c u ltu re ; a n d K assa the
M a g y a r city was also KoSice th e S lo v a k city. U rb a n is a tio n o f a p ea sa n t
people in a c o u n try w hose u r b a n civilisation has been cre ate d by a n o t h e r
people does n o t necessarily lead to th e loss o f n a tio n a l identity by the
form er: it m a y r a th e r intensify this identity, as th e late tw en tieth c e n tu ry
cases o f F re n c h C a n a d i a n s a n d of n eg ro c o m m u n itie s in th e N o r t h o f the
U nited S tate s suggest. J&szi’s analysis o f the failures of M a g y a r isa tio n was
right, b u t the o p p o r tu n ity w hich he t h o u g h t H u n g a r y h a d missed p r o b a b ly
never existed.

It is instructive to c o m p a r e M a g y a r is a tio n w ith R ussification. T h e sim ilari­

ties a re obvious, b u t th e re were also differences. First, the M agyarisers
w ere in a basically m o r e difficult situ a tio n t h a n the Russifiers, because
m o st of the n o n - M a g y a r s lived in c o m p a c t settle m en ts n e x t to th e frontiers
o f in d e p e n d e n t states ruled by their k in sm en , a n d co n se q u e n tly the incen­
tive to se p a ra tism w as genuinely present. It m a y be arg u e d th a t S erbs a n d
R o m a n ia n s living u n d e r H u n g a r y before 1914 lived b etter a n d w ere ruled
in a m o r e civilised m a n n e r t h a n the subjects o f the tw o B alk a n states,
t h o u g h this a r g u m e n t m u s t be received w ith s o m e scepticism . But even if
th e y had been m u c h b e tte r ruled, if m e n such as O s z k a r Ja szi h a d been in
p o w er, the a t tr a c t io n w o u ld still have b ee n very stro n g . I n th e case o f the
S lovak s, the spectacle o f th e Czechs living in M o r a v ia a n d B o h e m ia , close­
ly a k in to th e m a n d living u n d e r far m o r e f a v o u r a b le c o n d itio n s w ithin the
168 Nations and States

sam e em p ire, was also d isruptiv ely attractiv e; th u s the desire o f m a n y S lo ­

vaks to c o m e u n d e r the sam e rule as the Czechs c o n s titu te d , fro m the M a g ­
yar p o in t o f view, a sort o f ‘se p a r a tis m ’. T h e Russifiers h a rd ly faced this
p ro b lem . T h e only n o n - R u s s i a n peoples w h o lived n ex t to a sovereign state
o f th e ir k in sm e n were the R o m a n ia n s in B essarabia a n d the Azeri T u r k s in
A ze rb a ïd ja n : in the second case it was u n c e rta in w h e th e r their ‘k in s m e n ’
w ere th e T u r k s w ith w h o m th e y shared a lan g u ag e or the P ersians with
w h o m th e y sh a re d d e v o tio n to th e Shii b r a n c h o f Islam; a n d in an y case it is
d o u b tf u l w h e th e r either sta te exercised m u c h a t tr a c t io n o n th em . As fo r the
Poles a n d U k ra in ia n s, they knew th a t th e ir k insm en u n d e r A u stria n rule
w ere b e tte r tr e a te d th a n th e y were, b u t this did n o t m a k e th e m wish to be
A u s tr ia n subjects. T h u s th e R u ssian rulers were in a basically m u c h m ore
f a v o u r a b le p o sitio n th a n the M a gyar. S e p a r a tis m was n o t a serious d a n g e r
fo r th e m , a n d if th e y h a d set them selves to tre a t the n o n - R u s s ia n s in a
h u m a n e m a n n e r , they w o u ld have h ad a m u c h b etter c h a n c e of w inning
their loyalty t h a n the M a g y a rs could have had.
T h e p o in t w as th a t they did n o t wish this. T h e d o g m a o f a u to c r a c y , an d
in la ter years th e d o g m a o f th e s u p e rio rity o f O r t h o d o x y a n d o f the R ussian
n a tio n , h ad to be p u t in to effect, regardless o f consequ ences. The M a g y a r
s ta te sm e n were m e n o f a liberal past, w h o show ed their liberalism by their
a t titu d e to the Jew s, b u t b etra y ed it by th e ir policies to the n o n -M a g y a rs.
C riticism by liberal R u s sian s o f R u ssificatio n w as very sim ilar to crit­
icism by liberal H u n g a r ia n s o f M a g y a risa tio n . T h e o u ts t a n d in g R ussian
liberal th in k e r, P. B. S truve , a t ta c k e d S to ly p in ’s t r e a tm e n t o f the n o n - R u s -
ians f r o m essentially the sam e p o in t o f view as O s z k â r Jâ szi. Like him,
he h a d as his m o d e l th e U n ite d S tates. H e th o u g h t o f a new R ussian ‘n a tio n
in the m a k in g ’, into w hich the cultu res o f the n o n - R u s s ia n peoples could be
a b s o rb e d in the course o f tim e, m od ify in g a n d en ric h in g it in the process.
Like Jâszi, S tru v e was ig n o re d by the rulers. F r o m a b r o a d e r historical
p o in t o f view, lo o k in g b a c k f r o m th e 1970s, S tru v e ’s views are o p e n to
precisely the sam e o b jection s as Jâ s z i’s. In R ussia, as in H u n g a r y b u t unlike
the U nited States, the subject n a tio n s lived in c o m p a c t c o m m u n itie s in their
t r a d itio n a l h o m e la n d s . In R ussia, as in H u n g a r y , th e cities were centres not
only o f officially sp o n s o r e d c u ltu re b u t o f th e c o u n te r -c u ltu r e o f the subject
n atio n s, w hose new n a tio n a l elites w ere f o r m e d in them .

D efeat in w a r in 1918 b r o u g h t the d isin te g r a tio n o f H u n g a r y . F o r a tim e it

seem ed possible th a t the R u s sia n e m p ire w ou ld d isin teg rate to o , b u t it
revived in a new fo rm , w ith c o m p a r a tiv e ly sm all losses o f te rrito ry . A vast
e m p ire, re m o te fro m o th e r centres o f p o w e r, was less vuln e ra b le t h a n a
ra th e r sm all c o u n t r y situ ate d in th e centre o f E u ro p e .
T h e H u n g a r ia n state lost m o re th a n h alf its te rrito ry , a n d nearly one-
 Europe: M ulti-National Empires and New Nations 169

th ird o f the H u n g a r ia n n a tio n was placed u n d e r foreign rule (in R o m a n ia ,

C z ec h o slo v a k ia a n d Yugoslavia). Before a n d d u r in g the S eco n d W o rld
W a r so m e o f these lands w ere resto red t o H u n g a r y by H itler in his years o f
victory; b u t these w ere lost ag a in in 1945.
T he policy o f Official N a tio n a lism was n o t how ever a b a n d o n e d in
C e n tr a l E u ro p e afte r th e defeat o f H u n g a ry . T h e H u n g a r ia n m inorities in
the th ree successor states ex perienced a t r e a tm e n t n o t unlike th a t w hich the
rulers o f H u n g a r y h ad m eted o u t to the n o n - M a g y a r s before 1918. T h e
g o v e r n m e n t o f P o la n d also a d o p t e d a policy o f Official N a tio n a lism
to w a r d s its n o n - P o lis h subjects betw een th e w orld wars. T h e c o m m u n is t
g o v e rn m e n ts w hich c a m e to p o w e r in these c o u n trie s afte r 1945 h ad quite
different principles, b u t their practices were n o t so different as m ight have
been e x p e c t e d .17

The Slovaks
In the late nin th ce n tu ry th e re existed, o n b o th sides o f th e m iddle D a n u b e
an d in the lands lying to the n o rth -w e st o f it, a sta te o f co n sid erab le p ow er,
the M o r a v ia n em pire. T h ere are but f?w references to it in historical
d o c u m e n ts , b u t g o o d arc h aeo lo g ica l evidence has bec om e a va ila b le in
recent years. It was d e s tro y e d by the H u n g a r ia n invasions at the end o f the
ce ntury, a n d its people b e c am e H u n g a r ia n subjects. M a n y were no d o u b t
a b s o rb e d in th e H u n g a r ia n p o p u la tio n a n d a d o p t e d its language. H ow ever,
th o se w h o lived in the valleys a n d foothills o f th e C a rp a th ia n s , which
bec am e the n o r th e r n m o s t region of the H u n g a r ia n state, retained th e ir Slav
speech. T hese were the an c e s to rs of th e m o d e rn Slovaks.
T h e S lo v ak s were united w ith the H u n g a r ia n s for m o re t h a n a th o u s a n d
years. W h e n H u n g a r y w as divided by th e T u r k i s h c o n q u e st, the S lovaks
rem a in ed in th a t p a r t w hich w as effectively ruled by th e H a b sb u r g s. A
small n u m b e r o f S lo v ak s h ad th e sta tu s o f n o b le m e n , a n d so fo rm e d p a r t of
the H u n g a r ia n natio n . T h e g rea t m a jo rity were peasan ts. M o st S lo vaks
w ere C ath olics, but a b o u t a fifth of th e m were L u th e r a n P ro te sta n ts. T he
S lo v ak L u th e ra n s h ad a c q u ir e d their faith fro m c o n ta c t w ith the G e r m a n
m in orities w hich lived in so m e o f the to w n s in th e ir midst; b u t th ere had
also bee n som e earlier c o n ta c ts w ith the B o h e m ia n H ussites.
D u r i n g a lm o st a th o u s a n d years there w as n o th in g w hich c o uld be called
a S lo v a k n a tio n , a n d it is a r g u a b le t h a t there h a d never been a S lo v ak state
(even t h o u g h the M o r a v ia n em p ire was la ter claim ed as such). T he c re atio n
o f a S lo v a k n a tio n in the n in e tee n th c e n tu r y is essentially the em ergence of
a la n g u ag e g r o u p in to n a t io n a l consciousness. T h e r e is n o m o r e striking
e x a m p le th a n the S lo v a k case o f the role o f la n g u a g e in n a tio n -fo rm in g ;
a n d fo r this rea so n, t h o u g h the S lo v ak s w ere a n d are still a very small
170 Nations and States

people, th e ir case deserves so m e d etailed a tte n tio n .

It was the refo rm s o f J o s e p h II w hich gave new o p p o r tu n itie s of
e d u c a t io n to a t least a significant n u m b e r o f S lovak s. T h e P ro te s ta n ts
m a d e q u ic k e r use o f these o p p o r tu n itie s t h a n th e C a th olics. As in o th e r
c ou ntries, they were m o r e a w a re o f th e value o f schools. It is also w o rth
n o tin g t h a t a m a rrie d p r ie sth o o d is a fa c to r f a v o u r a b le to the g r o w th o f a n
e d u c a te d class, since the ta ste fo r le arn in g ca n be tr a n s m itte d directly from
p a re n ts to children. H o w ev er, C a th o lic priests also played th e ir p a r t in
d ev e lo p in g schools. T h e single m o st e m in e n t figure o f the S lo v a k E n lig h t­
e n m e n t was F a t h e r A n t o n B ern o lâk , a u t h o r o f a g r a m m a r o f S lovak ,
p ublished in 1787, a n d o f a d ic tio n a ry in six v olum e s w hich did n o t a p p e a r
until afte r his dea th . In 1789 B ernolâk a n d so m e friends a t the G eneral
S e m in a r y in B ratislava f o u n d e d a S lo v a k Scientific S ocie ty (Slovenske
uiene tovarisstvo), w hich later had its ce n tre in th e sm all to w n o f T rn a v a ,
fo rm e rly th e seat o f the H u n g a r ia n University. T h e society p ublished w orks
in S lo v ak , in cluding im p ro v in g w o rk s o n a g r ic u ltu re a n d e c o n o m ic s w hich
were the speciality of J u r a j F ân d ly . A b o u t th r e e -q u a rte r s o f the m e m b e r ­
ship o f nea rly 450 w ere C a th o lic priests. D u r i n g the sam e tim e the
P r o te s ta n ts h a d d ev e lope d their ow n intellectual g r o u p in Bratislava. T he
leading figure was J u r a j PalkoviC, w h o estab lished in 1803 a te a c h in g post
in ‘C z ec h o slo v a k lite r a tu r e ’ at the L u th e r a n lycée in Bratislava. T h e r e was
also a learned society in the sm all m in in g to w n o f B a n sk a Bystrica from
1810.
T h e C a th o lic a n d P r o t e s t a n t g ro u p s disagreed o n the basic p ro b le m of
lan guag e, a n d b e h in d this d isa g re e m e n t lay c o n flictin g views o n the
n a tio n a l identity o f th e S lov aks. B ern olâk had based his g r a m m a r an d
d ic tio n a ry o n the dialect s p o k e n in the w estern p a rt o f the S lo v ak lands, in
the valley o f th e V ah. T h is dialect he a n d his friends h o p e d to m a k e into the
c o m m o n literary la n g u ag e o f all S lovaks. T h e P ro te s ta n ts preferred the
la n g u ag e o f th e C zech Bible, to be a d a p te d a n d en ric h ed by w o rd s in
c o m m o n use in S lovakia. T h e P ro te s ta n ts w ere well a w a re o f the B o h e m ia n
H ussite tr a d itio n , w h ich th e y ac cepted as th eir ow n . T h e y believed th a t
th e re w as essentially a single la n g u ag e o f C zechs a n d S lovaks, a n d t h a t this
needed only to be efficiently w o rk e d o u t a n d th e n a d o p t e d by b o th alike.
T h ey believed th a t C zechs a n d S lo v ak s c ould a n d s h o u ld be m a d e into a
single n atio n . H ence th e ir use o f th e w o rd ‘C z e c h o s lo v a k ’ fo r b o th
literatu re a n d n a tio nality. T h e y also te n d e d to th i n k o f th e C zec h o slo v a k s
as fo rm in g a single ‘tr ib e ’ (km en) w ith in a w id er S lav n a tio n . T h e C a th olics
c ould have n o s y m p a th y fo r a H ussite tr a d itio n , b u t th e y to o h a d som e
sense o f k inship w ith th e C zechs a n d w ith th e o th e r peoples o f S lav speech.
T h e ir m a in c o n c e rn was, how ever, w ith th e ir o w n sm all S lo v a k nation.
D u rin g the 1830s the g ro w in g pressure fo r official use o f H u n g a r ia n , a n d
the g ro w in g m u tu a l m istru st betw een H u n g a r ia n s a n d e d u c a te d S lovaks,
 Europe: M ulti-N ational Empires and New Nations 171

m a d e C a th o lic a n d P r o t e s t a n t S lo v ak s c o n s cio u s o f the need to w o rk to ­

gether. In 1834 w as f o u n d e d a n a s so cia tio n o f lovers of S lo v a k speech a n d
literature , o f w hich th e p a n s la v ideologist J a n K o lla r 18 was p reside nt
a n d M a rtin H a m u l j a k — a follow er o f B e rn o lâ k — was secretary. Its jo u r n a l
ac cep ted c o n trib u tio n s in b o th v a ria n ts o f S lovak. K o lla r in these years
m a d e g rea t efforts to secure a c o m p ro m is e , o n the basis o f Biblical Czech
b u t w ith a large a d d itio n o f p o p u la r w o rd s. H ow ever, he could n o t
p ersu a d e the B e rn o lâ k p arty , a n d he w as also re p u d ia te d by J u n g m a n n ,
P a la c k ÿ a n d the C zech intellectual leaders. In 1842 a petitio n to the
e m p e r o r, pro testin g a g a in st a n a t te m p t by the H u n g a r ia n g o v e r n m e n t to
force the L u th e ra n s in to fu sio n with the C alvinists in o r d e r to ensure
d o m in a tio n o f H u n g a r ia n s o v er all P ro te s ta n t affairs, was signed only by
L u th e ra n s , a n d was ig nored in Vienna.
T h e m a n w h o settled th e lan guag e d isp u te was L u d o v it S tûr. H e was a
P ro te s ta n t, was e d u c a te d in G e r m a n y a t the U niversity o f Halle, a n d
re tu rn e d to B ratislava to act as assista n t to P alkoviô a t th e lycée. He
believed th a t the B ern o lâk p a rty were right in seeking to base the literary
lan g u ag e o n the p o p u la r speech o f S lo v a k ia r a th e r th a n o n Biblical Czech,
b u t th a t the dialect o f the w estern region w h ich they h ad ch o sen was the
w ro n g one. He preferred the dialect o f the c e n tra l region (T u re c co u ntry ).
In 1844 he was dism issed fro m his post in B ratislava lycée by the H u n g a r ia n
au th o ritie s , b u t in the follow ing y ea r he o b ta in e d p erm ission from
V ie n n a — in o p p o s itio n to the wish o f th e H u n g a r ia n s — to p ublish a
periodical, Slovenskje Nârodrije Novini. T h is was w ritte n in his preferred
dialect, a n d he also publish ed a b o o k in ju stific a tio n o f the dialect, a n d in
1846 a new S lo v ak g r a m m a r . H e was o n e o f the fo u n d e r s in 1844 o f the
T a t r in Society, to w hich b o th C a th o lics a n d P ro te s ta n ts belonged. In 1847
a m eeting o f this society a t C a ch tice b r o u g h t a b o u t a n a g re e m e n t to a d o p t
S t u r ’s p r o p o s e d fo rm o f the language, a n d to p r e p a re a m ass p e titio n to the
g o v e r n m e n t w ith th e d e m a n d s o f the S lovaks.
T hese plans w ere o v e r ta k e n by the re v o lu tio n in H u n g a r y in 1848. T he
principles p r o cla im e d by th e H u n g a r ia n r e v o lu tio n arie s w ere a ttra c tiv e to
politically conscio us S lo v ak s, b u t s y m p a th y f o r the H u n g a r ia n cause
w a n e d rapidly w h en it b e c am e clear t h a t th e H u n g a r ia n s w o u ld n o t
co n s id e r S lo v ak wishes. T h ese were m o st fully f o rm u la te d in the d e m a n d s,
p re p a re d by Stür a n d his friends, w hich w ere a d d re ssed to the e m p e r o r a n d
to th e H u n g a r ia n g o v e r n m e n t in M a y 1848. T h ey a s k ed fo r a p a r lia m e n t of
the n a tio n s o f H u n g a r y , in w hich all these n a tio n s a n d their la nguages
w o u ld have eq u a l sta tus; a d d itio n a l s e p a ra te assem blies fo r ea ch n a tio n ;
a n d th e use in pub lic affairs o f the m o th e r to n g u e o f the p o p u la tio n , n o t of
H u n g a r ia n exclusively. T h e y also p r o p o s e d t h a t ea ch n a t io n sh o u ld have
its n a tio n a l system o f e d u c a tio n , fro m the e le m e n ta ry u p to the university
level. F o r S lovak s, th e la n g u ag e o f in stru c tio n m u st be S lov ak, a n d
172 Nations and States

a r r a n g e m e n ts m u s t be m a d e for S lo v ak to be ta u g h t to H u n g a r ia n children
a n d H u n g a r ia n to S lo v a k children. T h e d e m a n d s also in clu ded th e libera­
tio n o f the v ario u s categories o f p e a sa n ts fro m th e ir rem a in in g la b o u r
d uties to the la n d o w n e rs. T h ey were rejected, a n d th e leaders were forced to
escape f r o m H u n g a r y a n d to fo rm a S lo v a k N a tio n a l C o u n c il on A u str ia n
territory. Inevitably, since the m ain e n e m y in th e eyes o f the S lovak
d e m o c r a ts was h en c e fo rth the H u n g a r ia n g o v e r n m e n t, they d rifted into
s u p p o r t o f th e A u s tr ia n c o u n te r-re v o lu tio n . W h e n JelaCic a d v a n c e d on
H u n g a r y in the a u t u m n , S lo v a k a r m e d b a n d s a tta c k e d the H u n g aria n s;
a n d w h e n JelaCic retrea te d , th e re tu r n in g H u n g a r ia n s im p riso n e d , a n d in
som e cases h a n g e d , S lo v ak s w h o m they consid ered guilty o f rebellion.
W h e n the H a b s b u r g s h ad r e c o n q u ered H u n g a ry , th e S lo v ak s hopefully
a sked the new e m p e r o r F r a n z Josef, in a petition o f 19 M a rc h 1849, for
e q u a l sta tu s f o r the S lo v ak s a m o n g the n a tio n s o f the M o n a rc h y , a n d for
the r e m o v a l o f the S lo v ak la nds fro m H u n g a r ia n sovereignty; b u t the
petitio n was d isregard ed. T h e ir only rew ard for their loyalty to the dy n asty
was a sm all increase in the n u m b e r o f S lo v ak s e m p lo y ed in official
positions, a n d a few vague w o rd s o f e n c o u r a g e m e n t to b o th K ollar an d
Stur.
T h e revival o f p a r li a m e n ta r y life in the M o n a r c h y in the early 1860s re­
vived S lo v ak hopes. A new m e m o r a n d u m was d r a w n u p in J u n e 1861, a s k ­
ing fo r the f o r m a tio n o f a n a u t o n o m o u s S lo v ak district (okolie) in U p p er
H u n g a ry . T his was refused, b u t som e concessions were g ran te d . A senior
s e c o n d a ry sc hool (g y m n a siu m ) w ith S lo v ak lan g u ag e of in stru c tio n was set
up in 1862 a n d a secon d in 1867, a n d a lo w er-gra d e se co n d a ry school
tw o years later. In 1863 w as f o u n d e d the M atice Slovenska, in TurCiansky
S vaty M a rtin . It b e c am e the ce n tre o f S lo v a k cu ltu ra l life— p ub lishing
literature, ho ld in g e x h ib itio n s a n d meetings, ad vising f a rm e rs on ec o n o m ic
affairs a n d generally sp re a d in g n a tio n a l co nsciousne ss into low er levels of
S lo v ak society.
T h e e s tab lish m e n t o f a H u n g a r ia n g o v e r n m e n t in B ud apest, u n d e r the
C o m p r o m i s e o f 1867, b r o u g h t renew ed pressures a g a in st the non-
H u n g a ria n s. T h e H u n g a r ia n n a tio n a lists asserted th a t S lo v a k cultural
institu tio n s were being u se d to sp rea d P anslavism . In 1874 b o th the S lovak
g y m n a siu m s w ere closed, a n d in 1875 M atice Slovenska was suppressed.
In th e n e x t decades v a rio u s political g ro u p s a ro se a m o n g the Slovaks,
but they m a d e n o im p re ssion o n th e official political life o f H u n g a ry . In the
F irst W o rld W a r S lo v ak political activity c a m e to a n end. O n th e R ussian
fro nt, S lo v ak as well as C zech soldiers deserted to th e R u ssian s in
co n sid erab le n u m b e rs. M a s a r y k in his exile in the W est s p o k e o n b e h a lf of
S lo v ak s as well as o f Czechs, a n d arg u e d t h a t th e S lo v ak s m u s t be included
in the fu tu re In d e p e n d e n t B ohem ia. In M a y 1918 he met the leaders o f
S lo v a k im m ig ran ts to the U nited S tate s at P ittsb u rg h . He signed an
 Europe: M ulti-National Empires and New Nations 173

a g re e m e n t w ith th e m , p ro m isin g th a t w ithin the future C z ec h o slo v a k state

the S lovaks should have their ow n a d m in istra tiv e a n d judicial system, th a t
S lo v a k shou ld be the official lang uage in S lo v ak ia , a n d t h a t there s h o u ld be
a S lo v ak Diet.
As the H a b s b u r g M o n a r c h y b egan to disin teg rate in the a u t u m n o f 1918,
som e S lov aks set up a N a tio n a l C ounc il, w hich on 30 O c to b e r m et in
T urCiansky S vaty M a rtin , a n d pro cla im e d the u n io n o f S lovakia with the
Czechs. T h e sta te m e n t included the w ords: ‘T h e S lo v ak n a tio n is p a r t o f the
C zec h -S lo v a k n a tio n , u n ite d in language a n d in the histo ry o f its c u ltu r e ’.
T his was accepted by m ost politically p r o m in e n t S lovaks, but n o t by the
leader of the P eo p le’s P a rty , th e n atio n alist C a th o lic priest A n d re w H linka,
w ho w ent into o p p o s itio n fro m the earliest days o f the new C z ec h oslov a k
republic.
D u rin g the n ex t tw en ty years the S lo v ak s were divided into three m ain
g ro u p s. O n the left were the socialists a n d c o m m u n ists, closely linked to
their C zech co m ra d e s. In the centre, th e f o r m e r follow ers o f M a s a r y k s u p ­
ported the A g ra ria n s, a p a rty o f b o th C zechs a n d S lovaks. O n the w hole
these accepted the idea o f a single C z ec h o slo v a k n ation. O n the right, the
follow ers o f H linka insisted on the s e p a ra te n a t io n h o o d o f th e S lo v ak s a n d
d e m a n d e d far-rea ch in g a u t o n o m y . T h e relative stren g th o f the three
g ro u p s varied, b u t for m o st o f the h istory o f th e republic H lin k a ’s follow ers
had s o m e th in g like h a lf the S lo vak e lec to ra te behind them .
A t the tim e o f the f o r m a tio n o f the republic, the n a tio n a l consciousness
o f the S lov aks had n o t yet been c om pleted. T h ere was n o d o u b t th a t they
were natio n ally d istinct fro m the H u n g a r ia n s , b u t the n a tu re o f their
rela tio n sh ip to the C zechs w as in d o u b t. E ven th o se S lo v a k s w h o were
eager to call them selves C z e c h o slo v a k s e x p e cted th a t their p eo p le’s differ­
en t tra d itio n s a n d o u tlo o k w ould be respected. But m a n y o f the Czechs
w h o now p o u red into S lo v ak ia , as officials a n d bu sinessm en a n d m e m b ers
o f skilled professions (in all o f w hich fields there were far to o few S lov aks
av ailable to p rovide fo r the c o u n t r y ’s needs), b eha ved in c onside ra tely or
even c o n te m p tu o u s ly , tre a tin g the S lo v ak s as c o u n t r y b u m p k in s w h o h ad
to be civilised, a n d despising their religious beliefs as prim itive superstition.
These brash a n d energetic C zech d e m o c r a ts , m a d e dizzy by the s u d d e n
victory o f their n a tio n , clearly identified C z ec h o slo v a k w ith Czech, an d
were in no d o u b t th a t it was th e ir task q uic kly to tr a n s f o r m the b a c k w a rd
S lo v ak s into Czechs. All this e m b itte re d th e S lo v ak s, a n d stren g th en e d
H lin k a ’s m o v e m en t. T h in g s got w orse in the 1930s, w ith the high tariffs
w h ich cut S lo v ak ia off f r o m its n a tu ra l m a r k e t in th e H u n g a r ia n plain, an d
with the steep fall in f a r m prices a n d the m assive in d u stria l u n e m p lo y m e n t,
m a d e still m o r e p a in fu l by the fact th a t the b ir th -ra te was m u c h higher
a m o n g S lo v ak s t h a n a m o n g Czechs. T h e rise o f N a tio n a l Socialism in
G e r m a n y also had its effects. T h e G e r m a n s were th e enem ies o f the Czechs,
174 Nations and States

th e re fo re the ex tre m e w in g o f the S lo v a k a u t o n o m is t s reg a rd e d th e m as

g o o d friends o f th e S lovaks. A n ti-sem itism was also, fo r historical reasons,
p o p u la r a m o n g Slovaks. T h e result was th a t H lin k a ’s p a r ty was strongly
p e n e tr a te d by N az i influences, still m o r e afte r the d e a th o f H lin k a in 1938.
W h e n C z ec h o slo v a k ia w as forced to c a p itu la te to the T h ir d Reich at
M u n ic h , S lo v a k ia o b ta in e d a u t o n o m y u n d e r c o n t r o l o f the P e o p le ’s Party,
a n d in M a r c h 1939 w h en H itler a n n e x e d the Czech lands, S lo v a k ia was
m a d e a n in d e p e n d e n t sta te u n d e r H itler’s p rotec tion .
W ith in H itle r’s F o rtre s s E u ro p e fro m 1940 to 1944 th e S lo v ak s did
r a th e r well. T h e effects o f the w a r were less th a n elsew here, a n d few Slovaks
w ere ex p e cted to serve in the arm y . S lo v ak politicians em itte d the requisite
fascist rheto ric, b u t in practice they tre a te d th e ir o p p o n e n t s mildly:
p e r so n a l a n d fam ily c o n n e ctio n s, a n d a kind o f p a r is h - p u m p solidarity,
m itigated the im p a c t o f H itlerism . T he terrib le ex c e p tio n to this s ta te m en t
w ere the Jew s, w h o were h a n d e d over to H itler’s mass e x te r m in a to r s .
In the s u m m e r o f 1944 th e Soviet a r m y a p p r o a c h e d S lo v ak te rrito ry. At
this p o in t a n a tio n a l rising to o k place, in w hich c o m m u n is ts a n d S lovak
n atio n alists jo in e d . It was cru sh e d by the G e r m a n s , a n d follow ed by
merciless te rro r. T h o se S lo v a k s w h o were left in p o w e r had to act as servile
age n ts o f G e r m a n y , a n d as th e Soviet a r m y a d v a n c e d S lo v a k villages a n d
to w n s w ere laid waste.
W h e n the new C z ec h o slo v a k republic w as set up in 1945, all the political
le aders fo rm a lly recognised th a t Czechs a n d S lo v ak s were tw o n atio n s, th a t
the old c o n c e p t o f C z e c h o slo v a k ism h a d to be a b a n d o n e d . It was in fact
a b u n d a n t l y clear th a t the S lo v ak s h ad achieved full n a t io n h o o d , th a t the
S lo v a k n a t io n w as n o w coex tensive w ith the S lo v a k - s p e a k in g people; but
fo rm a l r ec o g n itio n a n d p rac tica l im p le m e n ta tio n w ere n o t the same. Czech
a n d S lo v a k politicians c o n tin u e d to d istru st each o th e r, a n d this was
ex p lo ite d by the C o m m u n is t P a r ty a n d its Soviet R u s sia n p a t ro n s to
im p ose th e ir will o n b o th alike. U n d e r th e c o m m u n is t regim e in tro d u c e d in
1948, th e a u t o n o m o u s in stitu tio n s g ra n te d to S lo v a k ia af te r the w ar were
e m p tie d o f all c o n ten t, a n d p r o m in e n t S lo v a k c o m m u n is t politicians were
persecuted as ‘b o u rg eo is n a tio n a lists’. S u p p re sse d S lo v a k n a tio n a l feeling
m a d e itself felt in the 1960s, a n d indeed p ro v id e d th e first im pulse to w a r d s
the p ressure f o r liberty w hich rea ched its c lim a x in 1968. D u rin g the sh o rt
p erio d o f f re e d o m in th a t year, it lo o k e d as if C zechs a n d S lo v ak s were at
last b e g inn ing to find a b a la n c e d a n d d u r a b le r ela tio n sh ip , based o n the
reco g n itio n b o th o f th e ir d istin ct n a tio n a lity a n d o f a special solidarity
between the m . D is a p p o in tm e n t follow ed: the Soviet R u s sia n y oke was
cla m p e d d o w n o n b o th Czechs a n d S lovak s, a n d th e federal co n s titu tio n
in tro d u c e d in 1968 was unlikely to give th e S lo v ak s significantly m o r e th a n
the earlier a r r a n g e m e n t o f 1945, since it to o was rapidly e m p tie d o f real
c o n t e n t by foreign d o m in a tio n .
 Europe: M ulti-National Empires and New Nations 175

The Romanians
T h e m o st striking th in g a b o u t the R o m a n ia n s is th a t, living in the east of
E u ro p e , betw een the C a r p a th ia n s a n d th e Black Sea, they have a p r e d o m i­
n a n tly L atin language. T his language has been in m o d e rn tim es the m a in
identifying m a rk o f the R o m a n ia n n a tio n a n d the basis o f its n a tio n al
m ov e m ent.
T ra n sy lv a n ia a n d m o s t o f W a lla ch ia w ere c o n q u e r e d by the R o m a n
E m p e r o r T r a ja n in 101 A D a n d were ev a c u a te d by the R o m a n s u n d e r
E m p e r o r A u re lia n (275-80 A D ). D u rin g this period the people w ho
inh a b ite d the r e g io n — th o se in d ige nou s D a c ia n s w h o survived the w a r of
c o n q u e st a n d the im m ig ra n ts fro m o th e r p arts o f the R o m a n e m p ir e —
a d o p t e d L atin as their language. A fter the R o m a n w ith d ra w a l these lands
suffered successive w aves o f invasion, a n d very little is k n o w n o f the history
o f their p o p u la tio n . It is n o t until the f o u rte e n th c e n tu ry th a t r ea so n ab ly
solid d o c u m e n ta r y evidence show s the presence o f people s p e a k in g w hat
was th e n k n o w n as the W a lla c h ia n language. T his lan g u ag e h a d a c q u ir e d a
very large n u m b e r o f S lav w o rd s, but its L atin s tru c tu re a n d m ainly Latin
v o c a b u la ry rem a in ed . F r o m this tim e th e histo ry o f this people c a n be
trac ed ad e quately.
M o d e rn R o m a n ia n h isto ria n s believe th a t d u r in g the ‘m issing’ centuries
the L atin -s p eak in g d e s c e n d a n ts of the D a c ia n s a n d o f T r a j a n ’s legions
r em a in ed in their h o m e la n d a n d preserved th e ir langu age, w ith the
inevitable m o d ific atio n o f v o c a b u la ry ca u se d by the invasions. T ra n s y lv a ­
nia, W a lla chia a n d M o ld a v ia (the last o f w hich the R o m a n s never
system atically su b d u e d , b u t w hich c a m e u n d e r R o m a n influence a n d later
was filled by im m ig ra n ts fro m the so u th a n d n o rth -w e st) fo rm , in their
view, the th ree historic h o m e la n d s of the R o m a n ia n s , in w hich th e y have
been c o n tin u o u sly present.
H u n g a r ia n h isto ria n s claim , on the c o n tra ry , t h a t the L atin -sp eak in g
p o p u la tio n left w ith A u re lia n o r was d e s tro y e d by th e invasions, a n d th a t
T ra n sy lv a n ia was in h a b ite d fo r centuries by Slavs, w h o in th e ir t u r n were
p a rtly destro y e d a n d p a rtly a b s o rb e d by th e H u n g a r ia n s w h o c o n q u e r e d
the c o u n t r y at the en d o f th e n in th century; while the L a tin -s p e a k in g people
so u th of the C a r p a th ia n s were sim ilarly d isp laced or a b s o rb e d by the
Bulgarians. T h e surviving L atin -s p eak e rs lived for th e n ex t cen turies in the
B alkan peninsula, p la y ed a lead in g p a r t in th e secon d B ulg arian em p ire in
the th ir te e n th ce ntu ry, a n d p e n e tr a te d n o r t h o f the D a n u b e a n d u p into
T ra n sy lv a n ia in th e p e r io d w h ich follow ed the d e v a sta tio n s o f the M o n g o l
invasion.
T hese rival th eories a re o f co urse inspire d by n a tio n a list m otives, a n d
neith er ca n be pro v ed by a d e q u a t e evidence. It seems m o r e p r o b a b le t h a t
co n sid erab le n u m b e rs o f L atin -sp eak in g people re m a in e d t h r o u g h o u t the
176 Nations and States

centuries in these lands th a n th a t they all d is a p p e a re d a n d a c om pletely new

lot t o o k th e ir place a th o u s a n d years later. T his d o es n o t o f cou rse exclude
th e p r o b a b ility t h a t there was large-scale im m ig r a tio n also a t the la te r date.
I n a n y case, c e rtainty will never be a tta in e d . W h a t c o n c ern s us in this w o rk
is t h a t a lre a d y before 1400 people s p e ak in g this la n g u ag e fo rm e d a m a jo rity
o f th e p o p u la tio n in M o ld a v ia , W a lla chia a n d T ra n sy lv a n ia , a n d th a t from
th e m em erged the R o m a n ia n nation.
T h e people o f M o ld a v ia a n d W a lla chia were O r t h o d o x C h ristian s, a n d
th e ir rulers resisted the O t t o m a n invasions d u r in g the fifteenth century,
afte r w hich they b ec am e vassals o f th e sultans, enjoying su b stan tia l
sovereignty w ithin th e ir lands. In T ra n sy lv a n ia th eir k insm en to o were
O r t h o d o x , b u t w ere subjects o f H u n g a r y until 1526 a n d th e n of a H u n g a r ­
ian prince, w h o was also a vassal o f the su ltan , b u t w as in practice less
effectively co n trolled by the T u r k s t h a n th e o th e r tw o princes. F o r o n e year
(1600-01) M ich ael the Brave bec am e ru ler o f W a lla ch ia, M o ld a v ia a n d
T ra n s y lv a n ia at once. T h is w as a result o f in te r n a tio n a l d ip lo m a c y a n d war,
n o t o f a n y n a tio n a l p r o g r a m m e to unite the O r t h o d o x people o f Latin
speech in o n e k in gdom . H ow ever, there were so m e signs o f so m e th in g that
c ou ld be called, in la te r te rm in o lo g y , R o m a n ia n patrio tism ; a n d the
ex plo its o f M ichael the Brave inevitably fu rn ish ed a r g u m e n ts to R o m a n ia n
h isto ria n s tw o centuries later. A t the en d o f the se v en te en th c e n tu ry the
O t t o m a n g o v e rn m e n t, a la r m e d by t h e te n d e n c y o f the princes o f M o ld a v ia
a n d W a lla c h ia to c o m b in e w ith their enemies, a n d p a rtic u la rly w ith Russia,
repla ce d th e m by right G re ek s fro m C o n s ta n ti n o p le ( P h a n a r i o t s ) . '1' These
new rulers, obliged to b uy th e princely a p p o i n tm e n t w ith huge sums,
c o m p e n s a te d them selves by merciless e x t o r t io n o f ta x es fro m th e ir su b ­
jects: P h a n a r i o t rule th e re fo r e w orsened the lot o f th e p easan ts. S o m e of
the P h a n a r i o t rulers h o w e v e r were m en o f great c u ltu re , w h o s u r ro u n d e d
them selves w ith le arned m en a n d d eve lope d ed u c a tio n . T h e cultu re which
grew a r o u n d th e tw o c o u r ts was m ain ly G reek , a n d the princes also
e n c o u r a g e d W estern, especially F re n c h , science a n d ideas. F r o m this at
least th e u p p e r class R o m a n ia n s benefited, a n d so m e progress was also
m a d e in e d u c a tio n in the R o m a n i a n language. In T ra n sy lv a n ia , th e U niate
C h u r c h in tr o d u c e d in 1691 by E m p e r o r L e o p o ld I m a d e it possible fo r a
m in o rity o f R o m a n ia n s to o b ta in a g o o d e d u c a tio n a n d to ta k e p a r t in
public life.20 T h u s the e ig h tee n th c e n tu r y w as the tim e w h en m o d e rn
R o m a n i a n n a tio n a l consciousne ss b e g a n to g row , o n b o th sides o f the
C a rp a th ia n s .
In T ra n sy lv a n ia the U n iate b ish o p I n o c e n tiu M ic u d efe n d ed the R o m a n ­
ian cause in the Diet. In a speech in 1737 he referred to t h e ‘the W a lla c h ia n
n a t io n ’ bu t was met w ith s h o u ts of: ‘T h e W a lla c h ia n s a r e only a plebs'. He
a p p e a le d w ith o u t success to V ienna a n d to the p o p e in his struggle for
 Europe: M ulti-National Empires and New Nations 177

political rights fo r his people. He was forced to resign his see in 1751 a n d
en ded his days in R o m e. In the second h alf o f the ce n tu ry th ere a p p e a r e d a
n u m b e r o f scholarly studies in the R o m a n ia n language, th e w o rk o f the so-
called T ra n s y lv a n ia n S ch o o l, designed to sh o w th a t the R o m a n ia n s were
n o t only the original in h a b ita n ts o f T ra n sy lv a n ia , b u t tru e R o m a n s ,
d esce n ded fro m T r a j a n ’s legions. T hese w o rk s were th e earliest clear
s ta te m e n t o f w h a t b e c a m e the R o m a n ia n n a t io n a l historical m yth o lo g y ,
the f o u n d a ti o n o f m o d e r n R o m a n i a n n a tio n a lism . T ra n s y lv a n ia n R o m a n ­
ian sc holars also w o rk e d o n the a d o p t i o n o f th e L atin a l p h a b e t for the
R o m a n ia n language in place o f the Cyrillic, w hich had long been in use in
the O r t h o d o x C h u r c h . T h e d e v e lo p m e n t o f schools u n d e r J o s e p h II also
benefited the R o m a n ia n s , especially th o se living in the regio n o f A ra d a n d
T em esvdr, o utside T ra n s y lv a n ia p ro p er. T h e n u m b e r o f R o m a n ia n s u n d e r
H a b s b u r g rule was increased in 1775, w h en A u stria a n n e x e d the n o r t h ­
w estern c o rn e r o f M o ld a v ia (k n o w n as B u ko vina).
T he d isc o n te n t o f the R o m a n ia n p o p u la tio n o f T ra n sy lv a n ia was not
co n fin e d to the a s p ira tio n s fo r political eq u a lity o f the e d u c a te d m inority.
In 1784 to o k place a large-scale revolt a g a in st th e la n d o w n e rs, led by a
p e a sa n t, H o ria, w ith u n d e r to n e s o f n a tio n a l re se n tm e n t o f R o m a n ia n s
a g a in st H u n g aria n s. In 1791 a petitio n to the e m p e r o r set fo rth the
grievances o f the T ra n s y lv a n ia n R o m a n ia n s , a n d was signed by the tw o
R o m a n ia n bishops, O r t h o d o x an d U niate. Entitled Supplex Libellus
Valachorum, it insisted th a t the R o m a n ia n s w ere the a u t o c h t h o n o u s
people, th a t they fo rm e d th e m a jo rity o f th e p o p u la tio n , th a t they h a d been
unju stly ro b b e d o f their rights a n d th a t they s h o u ld be recognised as a
f o u rth natio in ad d i tio n to H u n g a r ia n s , S zekely a n d S a x o n s. It called f o r a
n a tio n a l assem bly to p r e p a re m easures fo r th e a c h ie v em e n t o f full e qua lity
for th e R o m a n ia n s . E m p e r o r L eopo ld II m erely passed th e petitio n to the
T ra n s y lv a n ia n Diet, w h o se H u n g a r ia n a n d S a x o n m e m b e rs rejected it.
D u r i n g the eig h tee n th c e n tu r y M o ld a v ia a n d W a lla ch ia bec am e th e a tre s
o f w a r between R u ssian a n d T u rk ish arm ies. A s a result o f the w a r o f 1806-
12 R ussia a n n e x e d th e ea ste rn h a lf o f M o ld a v ia , betw een th e rivers P r u t
a n d D niester, w h ich b e c am e k n o w n as B essarabia. It seem ed inevitable
th a t all M o ld a v ia a n d W a lla c h ia w ou ld be a n n e x e d to the R u s sia n em pire.
In th e next years th e G re e k n a tio n a list secret society Philike Etairia 21
energetically rec ruited s u p p o r t in M o ld a v ia a n d W a lla chia, inc lu d in g som e
R o m a n ia n s . O n e o f these w as T u d o r V lad im irescu, a sm all la n d o w n e r
f r o m w estern W a lla c h ia (O ltenia) w h o h a d served as a n officer in the
R u s s ia n arm y. H e raised a rebellion in O lte nia in F e b r u a r y 1821, sh ortly
befo re the G re ek forces o f Y psilanti e n tered M o ld a v ia . V lad im iresc u ’s
m o v e m e n t was as m u c h social as n atio n al: he w as follow ed by pea sa nts
w h o wished to be freed f r o m the o p p re s s io n o f th e la n d lo r d a n d th e ta x -
178 Nations and States

collector. V ladim irescu believed th a t the R u s sia n a r m y w ould shortly

m a rc h , a n d th a t the defeat o f the T u r k s by R ussia w o u ld b rin g liberty.
W h e n it b e c am e clear th a t th e re was to be no R u s sia n s u p p o r t, V ladim ires­
cu w as unw illing to fight th e battles o f G reeks, fo r w h o m neith er he n o r his
follow ers h a d s y m p a th y , a g a in st th e o v e rw h e lm in g O t t o m a n pow er. He
tried to n eg o tiate his o w n te rm s with the T u rk s , b u t was c a p tu r e d by the
G re ek s a n d killed.
V lad im iresc u ’s rising w as n o t h o w ev er w ith o u t result. It bec am e clear to
the T u r k s th a t the R o m a n ia n s disliked th e G reeks, a n d th a t only th e la tter
w ere d a n g e r o u s to O t t o m a n interests. In the n ex t years G re ek influences
w ere elim inated, G reek sc hoo ls a b o lish e d , G reek tra d e rs d isc o u ra g ed an d
G re ek officials dism issed. R o m a n ia n s to o k th eir place. In the next years
new schools w ere f o u n d e d , te ac h in g m e th o d s w ere im p ro v e d , a n d a
sta n d a r d is e d literary R o m a n i a n lan g u ag e w as fo rm e d . T h e R o m a n ia n
lang uage refo rm ers b r o u g h t th o u s a n d s o f neologism s o f L atin, F re n c h or
I talian d e riv a tio n into use, a n d succeeded in repla cing th e Cyrillic by the
L a tin a lp h a b e t. In the g ro w in g publish ed literature, w h e r e — as was fre­
qu en tly th e case— L a tin a n d Slav sy n o n y m s existed, it w as the L atin fo rm
w hich w as preferred. S im ila r tre n d s w ere a t w o rk in T ra n s y lv a n ia , where
R o m a n i a n c u ltu ra l life was ce ntred r o u n d th e leaders o f the tw o churches,
w h o c o o p e r a te d w ith ea ch o th e r to s u p p o r t a n d d evelop the existing
R o m a n i a n schools a n d t o f o u n d p eriod icals using th e R o m a n ia n la nguage.
A y o u n g e r g e n e r a tio n o f profe ssiona l p e o p le — la wyers, teachers, small
b u sin e ssm e n — b eg a n to a p p e a r.
T h e rev o lu tio n s o f 1848 h ad im p o r ta n t effects b o th in T ra n sy lv a n ia an d
in th e tw o D a n u b i a n principalities (as M o ld a v ia a n d W a lla ch ia were called
in E u r o p e a n d ip lo m a tic language).
A t a m eetin g a t Blaj, th e ce n tre o f th e U n ia te C h u r c h i n T ransy lv a n ia , the
view w as exp ressed th a t T ra n sy lv a n ia sh o u ld only be united with H u n g a r y
if th e R o m a n ia n s were given fully eq u a l s ta tu s w ithin the c o m m o n
k in g d o m . O n 15 M a y 40,000 R o m a n i a n p e a s a n ts a s sem b led on a m e a d o w
o utside Blaj, w h ich b e c am e k n o w n as t h e ‘field o f liberty’, in the presence of
th e b ish o p s o f b o th ch urches. T h e m eetin g asked for a n election to the
T ra n s y lv a n ia n Diet, in w hich R o m a n ia n s sh o u ld be rep rese n ted in p r o p o r ­
tio n to th e ir sh a re o f th e p o p u la tio n , a n d t h a t th e D iet sh o u ld th e n decide
w h e th e r T ra n s y lv a n ia s h o u ld be u n ite d w ith H u n g a r y . T h e m eetin g also
asked for a system o f R o m a n i a n schools in T ra n sy lv a n ia , to c u lm in a te in a
R o m a n ia n university. T h e D iet ig n o red the d e m a n d s , asserte d t h a t politi­
cal a n d social liberties h a d a lre a d y b ee n p r o m ise d by th e A p ril L aw s o f the
H u n g a r ia n p a rlia m e n t, a n d advised the R o m a n ia n s to go to B u d a p e st to
discuss their claim s w ith th e H u n g a r ia n g o v e r n m e n t. T h e O r t h o d o x
b ish op, A n d re i $ a g u n a , a d eleg a tio n to B u d a p est fro m J u ly to
S e p te m b e r to plead the R o m a n i a n case, b u t w ith o u t result. In the H u n g a r ­
 Europe: M ulti-N ational Empires and New Nations 179

ian p a rlia m e n t, B a ro n N ich o las W esselenyi, the o u ts t a n d in g liberal n a t io n ­

alist o f the p receding decades, s p o k e in f a v o u r o f concession s to the
R o m a n ia n s , b u t he w as overruled by K ossuth.
In M o ld a v ia a n d W a lla ch ia d u r in g the 1830s a n d 1840s there em erged
g ro u p s o f y o u n g m e n o f u p p e r class families, e d u c a te d in W e ste rn E u ro p e
o r fam iliar w ith W estern ideas, w ho o p p o s e d th e political regim e (e sta b ­
lished, by R u s so -T u rk ish ag re em e n t, in 1832) w h ich left p o w e r in the h an d s
o f th e richer la n d o w n e r s a n d denied fre e d o m o f speech a n d political
o rg an isa tio n . Several o f th e m w ent in to exile in P aris, w here th e y w ere in
to u c h w ith F re n c h radicals a n d w ith the follow ers o f M azzini a n d the
P olish revolu tionaries. In M a y 1848 they r e tu r n e d to B ucarest, a n d a t the
end o f J u n e they a n d th e ir friends seized p o w e r in W a llachia. T h e
re v o lu tio n a ry g o v e r n m e n t r em a in ed in p o w e r for a b o u t th ree m o n th s a n d
tried to n eg otiate w ith the T u rk s . H o w ev er, R u s sia n pressure fo rc ed the
O t t o m a n g o v e r n m e n t to refuse a c o m p ro m is e , a n d at the en d o f S e p te m b e r
T u rk is h tr o o p s o cc upie d Bucarest.
T h e W a lla ch ian rev olu tio n arie s, who.se m o st brilliant le ade r w as N icolae
Bdlcescu, a n d their P o lish friends, reg a rd e d the R u ssian t s a r as th e ir m a in
enem y , a n d th e re fo re passio n ately desired c o o p e r a tio n with H u n g a ry .
U n fo r tu n a te ly this was now q uite impossible. As th e c o m p lete b rea ch
betw een V ienna a n d B u d a p e st a p p r o a c h e d in th e a u t u m n , the T r a n s y lv a n ­
ian R o m a n ia n s to o k th e side o f V ienna. A R o m a n i a n N a tio n a l C o m m itte e
was set up, a n d in large p arts o f T ra n s y lv a n ia R o m a n i a n officials t o o k over
the a d m in is tra tio n . In th e a u t u m n o f 1848 R o m a n ia n a r m e d forces, led by
A v ra m Iancu, began to fight the H u n g a r ia n s , d ec la rin g th e ir loyalty to the
d ynasty. In F e b r u a r y 1849 B ishop § a g u n a , to g e th e r w ith R o m a n ia n
leaders fro m T ra n sy lv a n ia , fro m the pro v in ce (B a n a t) o f T e m e s v a r a n d
fro m B ukovina, p rese n ted a p etition to the new E m p e r o r F r a n z J o s e f in
O lo m o u c . T h ey a s k ed for a single R o m a n i a n d u c h y , u n d e r the H a b s b u r g
cro w n , w ith re p re s e n ta tio n in the im perial p a r lia m e n t a n d the central
g o v e rn m e n t, w ith its o w n a n n u a lly elected rep rese n tativ e assem bly, a n d
w ith R o m a n ia n as th e lan g u ag e o f a d m in is t r a tio n in its te rrito ry . It h a d no
success. T h e c o n s titu tio n o f 4 M a rc h 1849 did n o m o r e th a n a b s tra c tly
p r o c la im the principle o f e q u a lity o f all the n atio n alitie s a n d languages.
M e a n w h ile in T ra n s y lv a n ia Ia n c u ’s forces held o u t a g a in st th e H u n g a ria n s.
In M a y Bdlcescu m et K o ssu th , a n d in J u ly he saw Iancu, in a vain h o p e o f
reconciling H u n g a r ia n s a n d R o m a n ia n s . A t this stage all the H u n g a r ia n s
c o u ld offer w as e m p ty v e rb a l assu rances: the R u s sia n a r m y m a rc h e d , an d
H u n g a r y w as so o n crushed.
By a R u s s o - O tt o m a n C o n v e n tio n o f M a y 1849, b o th R u ssian a n d
T u rk is h tr o o p s w ere s ta tio n e d in the tw o principalities. In 1851 the
R u ssian s w ithdrew , b u t in 1853 they w ere b a c k ag a in , a n d their re tu r n was
the im m ed ia te cause o f a R u s s o -T u r k is h w a r w hich escalated in to the
180 Nations and States

C r im e a n W a r. In J u n e 1854 A u s tr ia n p ressure caused the R u ssian s to

r e tre a t f r o m th e principalities, a n d A u s tr ia n tr o o p s to o k their place, w ith
O t t o m a n consen t. F o r a tim e it lo o k e d as if the R o m a n i a n lands, having
escaped R u s sia n d o m in a tio n , w o u ld fall u n d e r A u stria n . T o som e R o m a n ­
ians this was n o t a lto g e th e r a n u n w elc o m e p ro sp ec t, since it w o u ld m e an
t h a t all th e lands o f R o m a n i a n p o p u la tio n w o uld be united u n d e r o n e ruler.
H o w ev er, th e m u tu a l m is tru s t a n d c o n c e r n fo r b alan c e o f p o w e r o f the
E u r o p e a n g rea t p o w ers p rev e n ted this. By the T re a ty o f P aris o f 1856 the
R ussians ceded to the O t t o m a n e m p ire the so u th e rn h alf o f eastern
M o ld a v ia (B essarabia) a n d th e po w ers set to w o rk to p re p a re a suitable
political system fo r th e principalities.
In F e b r u a r y 1859 the tw o principalities w ere u n ite d u n d e r one ruler,
A le x a n d e r C u z a, an d in F e b r u a r y 1866 he w as replaced by a prince o f the
G e r m a n fam ily o f H ehenzollern-Sifcgm aringen. T h u s th e m o d e r n R o m a n ­
ian sta te c a m e in to existence. It was u n d o u b te d ly th e result o f the efforts of
th e m in o r ity o f politically con scio us R o m a n ia n s , b u t it was also largely due
to a fa v o u r a b le i n te r n a tio n a l situation . A t b o th m o m e n ts o f crisis, in 1859
a n d in 1866, th e tw o po w ers m o st ca p a b le o f f ru stra tin g R o m a n i a n aims
w ere otherw ise p reoc cupie d: A u stria in 1859 faced w a r w ith F ra n c e in Italy,
a n d in 1866 w ith P ru ssia, while Russia so u g h t g o o d relations with F ra nce
o r P russia. T h e E u r o p e a n g o v e r n m e n t w hich m o s t co nsiste ntly s u p p o r te d
the R o m a n i a n cause was the F re n ch ; the British g o v e r n m e n t, w hich was at
first o p p o se d , was p e r s u a d e d by N a p o le o n 111 to ch a n g e its policy. T h e last
f o rm a l stage to w a r d s R o m a n i a n sovereignty w as achieved in 1877, w hen
R o m a n i a n t r o o p s t o o k p a r t in the R u s s o -T u r k is h w a r on the R u ssian side.
R o m a n i a h a d to p ay a price, by ceding so u th e rn B essarabia once m o r e to
Russia, b u t the prince w as re w a rd e d in 1881 by being recognised by the
p o w ers as K ing C ha rles o f R o m a n ia .
In T ra n sy lv a n ia th e R o m a n ia n s w ere n o t r ew ard ed for their loyalty to
th e H a b sb u rg s: th e m e re fact t h a t the H u n g a r ia n s were repressed did not
im p ro v e the R o m a n i a n s ’ lot. W h e n F r a n z J o s e f m a d e the C o m p ro m is e
w ith the H u n g a r ia n s in 1867, he h a d to a p p r o v e th e u n io n o f H u n g a r y with
T ra n sy lv a n ia . In the follow ing d ecades th e R o m a n ia n s w ere subjected to
M a g y a risa tio n . T h e R o m a n i a n N a tio n a l P a r ty , f o u n d e d in 1881, d e ­
m a n d e d the re sto r a tio n o f T ra n s y lv a n ia n a u t o n o m y , universal suffrage
a n d the use o f R o m a n i a n la n g u ag e a n d R o m a n i a n p erso n n e l in the
a d m in is tra tio n . In J u n e 1892, ju s t over a h u n d r e d years since the Supplex
Libellus Valachorum , a M e m o r a n d u m w as su b m itte d to E m p e r o r F ra n z
Jo se f, listing R o m a n ia n grievances a g a in st H u n g a r ia n policy a n d a p p e a l­
ing fo r reform . F r a n z J o s e f sim ply passed it o n to the H u n g a r ia n prim e
m inister, w h o re tu rn e d it u n o p e n e d to its a u th o rs . In M a y 1894 th e le aders
o f the R o m a n ia n N a tio n a l P a r ty were p u t o n trial fo r ‘in citem ent aga in st
the H u n g a r ia n n a t io n ’, the evidence being the M e m o r a n d u m itself. Fifteen
 Europe: M ulti-National Empires and New Nations 181

p erso n s received p riso n sentences, a n d the p a rty was officially dissolved.

T his repression did n o t p rev e nt R o m a n i a n s f r o m c o n testin g seats at
elections despite th e u n f a v o u r a b le electoral law. In the 1906 elections they,
like th e S lovaks, w o n m o r e seats th a n u sua l in th e H u n g a r ia n p a rlia m e n t,
b u t in th e n ex t years the old H u n g a r ia n m e th o d s o f c o r r u p tio n a n d
in tim id a tio n redu ced th e ir n u m b e rs again.
O n the eve o f th e F irst W o rld W a r th e R o m a n ia n s o f T ra n s y lv a n ia were
in a difficult situ ation. T h e ir tr a d itio n a l loyalty to the H a b s b u r g s had
b r o u g h t th e m no p ro te c tio n against H u n g a r ia n misrule. S o m e o f their
ablest leaders h o p ed th a t the heir to the th r o n e , A r c h d u k e F r a n z F e r d i­
n a n d , w o uld so o n succeed his aged uncle a n d w ou ld help them . T h ey were
en c o u ra g e d in this belief by m a n y politicians in the k in g d o m o f R o m a n ia ,
w h o a b o v e all feared R u s sia n e x p a n s io n a n d th e re fo re did n o t wish the
H a b s b u r g M o n a r c h y to b re a k up. O th e rs preferred c o o p e r a tio n w ith the
H u n g a r ia n Left, a b o v e all w ith the socialists. T hey h o p e d th a t, if once
universal suffrage w ere carried in H u n g a r y (as it h ad been in A u stria in
1907), a new d e m o c r a tic system would, em erg e w hich w ould give R o m a n ­
ians their rights w ith in the M o n a rc h y . O th e rs had lost all h ope o f fair
tr e a tm e n t fro m eith er V ien na o r B u d a p est, a n d aim ed only at th e d is r u p ­
tion o f th e M o n a r c h y a n d the u n io n o f T ra n s y lv a n ia w ith the k in g d o m of
R o m a n ia . T his was also the view of th e m o r e radical political g ro u p s in the
kin g d o m . T h e o u ts t a n d in g s p o k e sm e n fo r this ‘D a c o - R o m a n i s t ’ s e p a r a t­
ism were the p o et O c ta v ia n G o g a in Transylvania a n d the histo ria n
N icolae lo rg a in the k in g d o m . Inevitably, the R o m a n ia n n a tio n a l m o v e ­
m e n t in T ra n sy lv a n ia was rent by these c o m p e tin g factions, a n d its official
leaders had difficulty in k eeping all o p tio n s o p e n a n d re ta in ing everyone
w ithin the fold.
In the first years o f the w ar, R o m a n i a n soldiers in the A u s tr o - H u n g a r ia n
a r m y fo u g h t loyally o n the R u ssian a n d even on the Italian fro n t. T he
R o m a n ia n g o v e r n m e n t d rag g e d on n e g o tia tio n s w ith the W e ste rn Allies,
d e term in e d to get the m a x im u m te rrito ry at m in im u m risk. W h e n R o m a ­
nia c a m e into the w a r in A u g u st 1916 it m et w ith m ilitary disaster, th o u g h
its arm ies rallied in defence o f M o ld a v ia in 1917. T he collapse o f R ussian
m ilitary resistance to the ce n tral p o w ers caused R o m a n ia to m a k e s e p arate
peace w ith G e r m a n y in 1918, b u t also m a d e it possible for R o m a n ia n
t r o o p s to occ u p y Bessarabia, w hose p o p u la tio n w as in m a jo rity R o m a n ­
ian.
T h e collapse o f th e H a b s b u r g M o n a r c h y in the a u t u m n b r o u g h t the
secession o f H u n g a ry . T h e new H u n g a r ia n g o v e r n m e n t’s e x p e rt o n rela­
tions w ith the n o n - H u n g a r i a n s , the sociologist O sz k â r Jâ szi, was u n ab le to
p e r s u a d e the R o m a n ia n s to re m a in w ith in H u n g a r y o n a n y term s. In
T ra n sy lv a n ia th e R o m a n i a n s to o k over th e a d m in is t r a tio n o f their h o m e ­
lands. In co nscio u s im ita tio n o f th e Blaj m eetin g o f 1848, th e leaders
182 Nations and States

s u m m o n e d the p ea sa n ts to A lb a Iulia. H ere a n assem bly o f m a n y t h o u ­

sa n d s ac claim ed a reso lu tio n in fa v o u r o f th e u n io n o f all R o m a n ia n s in one
state. A fte r p r o tra c te d a r g u m e n ts at the peace co n fe re n ce, m o st o f the
R o m a n i a n claim s w ere ob ta in ed : n o t only T ra n s y lv a n ia a n d B u k o v in a, but
m o st o f th e B a nat o f T e m e s v a r a n d a b r o a d strip o f pla in la n d betw een the
T r a n s y lv a n ia n m o u n ta in s a n d th e river Tisza. N o w th e R o m a n ia n s were
the m a ste rs, a n d a m illion a n d a h a lf H u n g a r ia n s were subject to th e ir rule.
T h e political regim e in R o m a n ia betw een the w ars was u n p le a sa n t for
m o st R o m a n ia n citizens. T h o u g h progress was m a d e, especially in e d u c a ­
tio n a n d in industrial d e v e lo p m e n t, a n d th o u g h so m e leading politicians
were c o nvince d d e m o c r a ts a n d som e o f these held p o w e r fo r so m e years,
yet o n the w hole th e a d m in is t r a tio n re m a in e d b o th c o r r u p t a n d bru tal. The
e c o n o m ic d ep re ssio n o f the 1930s a n d the rap id increase o f p o p u la tio n
co m b in e d to increase the po v erty o f the peasants. T hese things affected
b o th R o m a n ia n a n d H u n g a r ia n citizens o f R o m a n ia , but inevitably the
H u n g a r ia n s te n d e d to reg a rd them selves as victims no t only o f social
injustice a n d political repression, b u t o f specifically a n t i- H u n g a r i a n poli­
cies p u r s u e d by R o m a n i a n g o v e rn m e n ts. It is p r o b a b ly tru e th a t H u n g a r ­
ians suffered m o r e t h a n R o m a n ia n s . F o r e x a m p le , w hen the sw eeping land
refo rm o f th e 1920s to o k land fro m the big la n d o w n e r s in Transylvania
(w ho were H u n g a ria n s), th e land was red istrib u ted a m o n g R o m a n ia n
p ea sa nts, a n d very little was given to the landless o r very p o o r H u n g a r ia n
p ea sa n ts w h o lived in the region. W h e n new e m p lo y m e n t was created by
new industries, jo b s te n d e d to be given to R o m a n ia n s ra th e r th a n to
H u n g a r ia n s . In a n y case the g o v e r n m e n t o f H u n g a r y did its best to exploit
d isc o n te n t, a n d c o n d u c te d a n energetic c a m p a ig n , by p r o p a g a n d a a n d by
d ip lo m ac y , fo r revision o f the frontiers.
H u n g a r y w as n o t R o m a n i a ’s only en em y. T he g o v e r n m e n t o f Soviet
R ussia was also d e te r m in e d to recov er e a ste rn M o ld a v ia ( o r Bessarabia), in
w hich m o r e th a n h alf th e p o p u la tio n consisted o f R o m a n ia n s an d the o th e r
half w as a m ix tu re o f U k ra in ia n s , R ussians, B ulgarians, Turks a n d sm aller
gro u p s. T h e collapse o f F ra n c e in J u n e 1940 en a b le d the Soviet g o v e r n ­
m ent, w ith th e a p p r o v a l o f H itler, to seize Bessarabia. S talin also surprised
his G e r m a n ally by ta k in g the n o r th e r n p a r t o f B u k o v in a, o n the g ro u n d s
th a t its p o p u la tio n was U k ra in ia n . It w as n o w th e t u r n o f th e H u n g a r ia n s to
ask fo r th e ir share. In A u g u st 1940 th e G e r m a n a n d I talian g o v e rn m e n ts
dictated a p a r titio n o f T ra n s y lv a n ia w h ich gave nearly 1,000,000 H u n g a r ­
ians a n d n ea rly 1,500,000 R o m a n ia n s to H u n g a r y , while leaving r a th e r less
t h a n 500,000 H u n g a r ia n s a n d 2,000,000 R o m a n ia n s to R o m a n ia . T h is of
co urse satisfied n either side, b u t en a b le d H itler to e x tra c t m o r e soldiers a n d
m o r e resources fo r his w a r in R ussia f r o m ea ch g o v e r n m e n t in t u r n by
th r e a te n in g to m o dify the 1940 decisions to the d is a d v a n ta g e o f o n e o r the
other.
 Europe: M ulti-N ational Empires and New Nations 183

In 1945 the old f ro n tie r with H u n g a r y was resto re d , b u t th e Soviet

g o v e r n m e n t k ep t B e ssa ra b ia a n d n o r th e r n B ukovina. A t first the new
R o m a n i a n g o v e r n m e n t m a d e great efforts to satisfy its H u n g a r ia n subjects
(w ithin the f ra m e w o r k o f c o m m u n is t p a r ty d ic ta to rsh ip ). In p articu la r,
in stru c tio n in H u n g a r ia n in schools w as m u c h increased, a n d a s e p arate
H u n g a r ia n university w as set up, beside the R o m a n i a n university, in the
T ra n s y lv a n ia n ca p ita l o f Cluj (in H u n g a r ia n , K olozsvar). In the late 1950s,
how ever, a m o r e n a tio n a list a t titu d e a p p e a r e d in official policy, the
H u n g a r ia n university was sup p ressed , a n d the H u n g a r ia n s c o m p la in e d of
d is c rim in a tio n o n n a tio n a l lines in the a d m in is t r a tio n , e d u c a tio n a n d the
econom y .
T h e u n iq u e fea tu re o f T ra n sy lv a n ia is th a t it has been fo r cen tu ries a
c o u n t r y o f tw o n a tio n s, each w ith its ow n h istory a n d culture. N either
R o m a n ia n s n o r H u n g a r ia n s ca n rightly be called ‘m in o rities’: T ra n sy lv a n ia
is historically b o th a R o m a n i a n land a n d a H u n g a r ia n land. T h e r e has also
been a ‘m in o rity ’— th e S a x o n s — w h o have also m a d e a g rea t c o n t r ib u tio n
to the history o f T ra n sy lv a n ia . T h e h ap p iest so lu tio n fo r T ra n sy lv a n ia , in
th e age o f n a tio n a lism , w o u ld have been th a t it sh o u ld be a n in d e p e n d e n t
state w ith equ a l rights for all three n a tio n s, o r th a t it sh o u ld have been
i n c o rp o r a te d , to g e th e r w ith all the R o m a n ia n lands, in a larger unit. O ne
such u n it m ight have been a f e d e ra tio n o f H u n g a r y , T ra n s y lv a n ia a n d
t r a n s - C a r p a th ia n R o m a n ia . A n o th e r c o m b in a t io n , ac tu a lly suggested by
s o m e R o m a n ia n s in 1848, m ight have been th e u n io n o f M o ld a v ia a n d
W a lla ch ia w ith the H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y . Yet n o such schem e was ever
a c c e p ta b le to th o se w h o h a d the p o w e r o f decision. T he A u s tr ia n g o v e r n ­
m e n t had no wish to a n ta g o n is e R ussia fo r the sake o f the R o m a n ia n s .
W h e n the H u n g a r ia n s h ad a political m a jo r ity in the Diet, th e y forced
th r o u g h u n io n w ith H u n g a ry ; a n d w hen in 1867 H u n g a r ia n politicians had
F r a n z J o s e f a t their m ercy th e y o b ta in e d u n io n fro m him. T h e R o m a n ia n s
th e n pleaded fo r T ra n s y lv a n ia n a u t o n o m y , a n d were ig nored. L ater, w hen
the R o m a n ia n s were in a p o sition to use th e ir m a jo rity o f th e p o p u la tio n ,
they im p osed th e ir so lution. It was n o w th e tu r n o f the H u n g a r ia n s to plead
fo r a u t o n o m y , a n d they in t u r n were ignored.
T h e re was a s tra n g e love-hate re la tio n sh ip betw een th e tw o natio n s.
H u n g a r ia n politicians in B u d a p e st d isplayed a friv olous a r r o g a n c e , based
o n a very t h o r o u g h ig n o ran c e, to w a r d s the R o m a n ia n s w h o m th e y saw as
s u b - h u m a n b a r b a r ia n s , n a t u r a l serfs, stin k in g W a lla ch s w h o m M a gyars
w ere entitled to o r d e r a b o u t a n d to insult. R o m a n i a n politicians in
B ucarest replied w ith a n im p e n e tra b le r e se n tm e n t, a n d o b stin a te defensive
hostility, b ased o n e q u a l ig n o ran c e, seeing in the H u n g a r ia n s savage
A siatic o p p re sso rs w h o se p ride it w as th e d u ty a n d th e pleasure o f
R o m a n ia n s to h u m iliate. Yet a m o n g R o m a n ia n s a n d H u n g a r ia n s in
T ra n sy lv a n ia w h o k n e w ea ch o th e r, w h o s p o k e ea ch o th e r ’s la n g u ag e a n d
184 Nations and States

k n ew each o th e r ’s literatu re, a r t a n d folklore, this a t titu d e did n o t always

prevail. T h e r e w ere th o s e o n b o th sides w h o felt m o r e in c o m m o n with
fello w -T ra n sy lv a n ian s o f the o th e r la n g u ag e th a n w ith m e n o f th e ir ow n
speech fro m the centres o f p o w e r b e y o n d T ra n sy lv a n ia.
In the 1970s H u n g a r ia n s in R o m a n ia c o u ld use th e ir lan g u ag e in public
affairs, a n d b o o k s a n d periodicals w ere p ublish ed in H u n g a r ia n in large
n u m b e rs. T h e tr o u b le was th a t this was not e n o u g h for the m . T he
g o v e r n m e n t in B ucarest was ea g er to tre a t th e m g e ne rou sly (w ithin the
limits set by the c o m m u n is t p a rty d ic ta to rsh ip ), p r o v id ed th a t they
r e g a rd e d them selves as H u n g a r ia n -s p e a k in g R o m a n ia n s . T his they were
n o t willing to do. T h ey ac cepted the R o m a n i a n state as a fact, an d
recognised their duties as citizens, b u t th e y c o n s id ered them selves as p a rt of
the H u n g a r ia n n a tio n . T h e o nly lo n g -te rm s o lu tio n seem ed to be to
d im in ish th e im p o r ta n c e o f the fro n tie r by im p ro v in g relations b etw een the
tw o states, so th a t ultim ately a s itu a tio n c ould arise sim ilar to th a t which
p revailed betw een A u stria a n d G erm a n y : one in w hich H u n g a r ia n s from
R o m a n ia could m o v e freely to a n d fro m H u n g a ry , a n d m a in ta in any
perso n a l o r profe ssio na l rela tio n sh ip they m ight desire w ith a n y one in
H u n g a r y , while r e m a in in g citizens o f th e R o m a n ia n state. T his state of
affairs in 1970 seemed f a r aw ay, as a result o f in te r n a tio n a l circ u m sta nce s
b e y o n d the c o n tro l o f eith er g o v e rn m e n t.
As we have seen, the L atin m y th o lo g y (in w hich, as in all m ythologies,
t r u t h a n d im a g in a tio n were blended ) played a d o m i n a n t p a r t in the
R o m a n i a n n a tio n a l m o v e m e n t. In 1945 R o m a n i a c a m e u n d e r Soviet
R u s sia n d o m in a tio n , a n d it lo o k e d as if th e s itu a tio n h ad re tu r n e d to 1853:
as if the process o f a b s o r p ti o n o f R o m a n ia in th e R u ssian em pire,
p r ed ic tab le in the first h a lf o f the n in e te e n th c e n tu ry a n d reversed by the
C r im e a n W a r , w as b eing resum e d . P a rtic u la rly strik in g w as the a t t e m p t to
a t ta c k R o m a n i a n Latinity: to sever c u ltu r a l relations w ith F ra n ce an d
Italy, to tin k e r w ith th e R o m a n i a n lang u ag e by stressing the Slav w o rd s in
the v o c a b u la ry a t the ex p e n se o f the L atin , a n d to f a ls if y R o m a n ia n history
in o r d e r to sh o w th a t n o t th e L a tin peoples b u t th e S lav peoples (and
especially th e R ussians) h a d b ee n the best friends o f the R o m a n ia n s since
the d is ta n t past. This policy w as reinforced by th e policy a d o p t e d by the
Soviet g o v e r n m e n t to the p eople o f c o n q u e r e d B essarabia. Massive
d e p o r ta tio n s o f in d ig e n o u s R o m a n ia n s to d is ta n t p arts o f Russia, massive
im m ig ra tio n o f R u s sian s o r U k ra in ia n s , re im p o s itio n o f th e Cyrillic
a lp h a b e t a n d a con scio u s a t t e m p t to m a n u f a c tu r e a M o ld a v ia n lang u ag e
a n d a ‘M o ld a v ia n n a t io n ’ d istinct f r o m th e R o m a n i a n a p p e a r e d to have
achieved so m e success. In R o m a n ia , h ow eve r, R ussifying policies p r o ­
d u ce d rese n tm e n t a n d passive resistance, a n d failed in their object.
R o m a n ia n sc h o o lch ild re n sim ply failed to learn R ussian, while very large
n u m b e rs learned F rench from their pare n ts. W he n in 1962 the R o m a n ia n
 Europe: M ulti-N ational Empires and New Nations 185

g o v e r n m e n t decided, m ainly fo r e c o n o m ic reaso ns, to defy Soviet wishes,

th e re was a n a tio n -w id e o u tb u r s t of r e se n tm e n t aga in st the R u s sia n cu ltu re
w h ich h a d been th r u s t d o w n R o m a n ia n th r o a t s in the p rec ed in g years. T he
defence o f the R o m a n ia n lan guag e a n d o f R o m a n ia n Latinity, a n d the
r e su m p tio n o f cu ltu ra l c o o p e r a tio n w ith F ra n c e a n d Italy a n d o th e r
W e ste rn co u n tries, w ere officially en c o u ra g e d . It was a b u n d a n t l y clear th a t
th e re was to be n o reversion to 1853, a n d th a t R o m a n ia n s o f all levels of
society w ere intensely con scio u s o f th e ir n a tio n a l identity.

The Ukrainians
T h e differences betw een th e people o f s o u th e r n a n d ce n tral R ussia, w hich,
as has been sh o w n , ca n to s o m e e x te n t a t least be trac ed bac k to the twelfth
ce ntury, increased in th e years follow ing the U n io n o f L ublin (1569), by
w hich the low er D n ie p e r region was in c o r p o r a t e d in P o la n d . T hese years
were m a rk e d by a rap id increase in th e d e m a n d fo r g ra in on E u r o p e a n
m a rk e ts. Polish la n d o w n e rs, w h o a c q u ir e d new land s in the so u th -ea st,
s o u g h t to increase o u tp u t by im p o r tin g la b o u r, by tying p ea sa n ts effective­
ly to th e soil a n d by e x tra c tin g g re a te r efforts fro m them . N o t only did their
m a teria l c o n d itio n s get w orse, b u t th e y w ere subject to pressure to a b a n d o n
the O r t h o d o x for the U n iate c h u r c h .22 M a n y th o u s a n d s escaped s o c ia l a n d
religious perse cu tio n by m ig ra tin g in to the so u th - e a s te rn steppes, where
they becam e C o ssac k s or c o n tin u e d to fa r m land, in easier c o n d itio n s,
u n d e r the p ro te c tio n o f th e Cossacks.
T h e w o rd C o s sa c k {K azak) is o f T a t a r origin. It w as first used to d e n o te
a r m e d forces o f T a t a r s w h o served the C h ristia n rulers o f M u sc o v y a n d
L ith u a n ia in defence o f the b o r d e r la n d s o f th e ste p p es.23 In the sixtee nth
ce n tu ry the w o rd is increasingly used to describe C h ristia n s fro m the
b o rd e rla n d s , w h o te n d e d m o r e an d m o r e to o p e ra te on th eir ow n, c o o p e r ­
atin g w ith the official M u sc o v ite o r L ith u a n ia n forces b u t n o t p e rm a n e n tly
co n tro lled by th e m . As C o s sa c k n u m b e r s grew, being increased especially
by p ea sa n ts esca p in g f r o m se rfd o m in b o th the R u s sia n states, they
develop ed into a kin d o f m ilitary d e m o c ra c y , c o m b in in g w a rfa re w ith
ag ric u ltu re a n d electing th e ir leaders. T h e m o st im p o r t a n t centre was the
Z a p o r o z h i a n Sich, situate d a b o v e th e rap id s o f the D n ie p e r so m e tw o
h u n d r e d miles s o u th -e a st o f Kiev. T h is grew into a s u b sta n tia l m ilitary
pow er, ca p ab le o f n e g o tia tin g w ith o r figh ting a g a in st th e Poles, M u s c o ­
vites, C r im e a n T a t a r s a n d T u rk s . T h e r e were also o th e r C o s sac k centres: in
th e K h a r k o v region ( S lobodskaya Ukraina), o n the D o n , in the steppes
n o r th o f the C a u c a su s a n d in Siberia. T h e first o f these consisted m ainly of
p ersons o f Little R u s sia n speech, o rig in a tin g f r o m L ith u a n ia ; th e last tw o
w ere c o m p o s e d m a in ly o f G r e a t R u s sian s fro m M u sc o v y , a n d in fact were
186 Nations and States

to a large e x te n t c o n tro lle d by the g o v e r n m e n t in M osco w .

T h e D n ie p e r C o ssac k s rea ched th e height o f their p o w e r u n d e r the
hetm an ( o r elected leader) B o h d a n K h m elnitsky , w h o held this office from
1648 to 1657. H e d efe ate d P o lish arm ies, a n d fo r a tim e ruled a large
in d e p e n d e n t state, strategically placed ac ross th e D n ie p e r a n d e x te n d in g to
G alicia a n d to the n o r th -w e s te rn c o r n e r o f th e Black Sea. F o r a tim e the
C r im e a n T a t a r s were his allies, b u t w h en th e y a b a n d o n e d him he was
c om p elled, in 1654, to m a k e a n a g re e m e n t w ith T s a r Alexei o f M uscovy.
T his T re a ty o f P ereyaslavl was differently in te rp re te d by the tw o sides.
K h m eln itsk y in ten ded to m a k e the tsa r his ov erlo rd a n d p r o te c to r but
to m a in ta in the system o f self-gov ernm ent th a t had g r o w n u p in the
U k ra in e .24 T h e tsar a n d his advisers co n s id ered t h a t the U k ra in e h ad been
sim ply in c o rp o r a t e d in his d o m a in s , a n d sh o u ld be a d m in iste r e d by his
officials in the s a m e w ay as his o th e r d o m a in s , w ith only m in o r concessions
to local tr a d itio n s a n d sen tim ents. D u rin g the n ex t fifty years M uscovite
a u t h o r i ty w as n o t effectively enforced. T h e h e t m a n w h o succeeded K h m el­
nitsky c o lla b o r a te d in tu r n with M uscovy, P o la n d o r the O t t o m a n em pire.
As a result o f a series o f w ars betw een P o la n d a n d M uscovy, the b o r d e r
betw e en the P o lis h - L ith u a n ia n c o m m o n w e a lth a n d the R u ssian em p ire
b e c a m e established a l o n g th e D n ie p e r ,25 a n d the U k ra in e was th u s divided
in tw o p a r ts f o r m o re t h a n a century.
T h e s itu a tio n c h a n g ed w h e n H e tm a n Ivan M a z e p p a sided w ith C harles
X II o f S w e d e n aga in st P e te r th e G re at. A fter his victory a t P o lta v a ( 1709),
P e te r im p o s e d a h a r s h regim e o n the C o s sac k lands ea st o f the D nieper,
even insisting o n th e re p la c e m e n t o f Little R u s sia n by G re a t R u ssian as the
la n g u ag e o f a d m in is tra tio n . By the p a r titio n s o f P o la n d the rest o f the
U k ra in e w as carved up: in 1772 A u stria ac q u ire d e a ste rn Galicia, a n d in
1793 R u ssia t o o k V o lhynia a n d P o d o lia. Thus the g rea t m a jo rity o f the
p eop le o f the U k ra in e w ere placed u n d e r R u ssian rule a n d a su b sta n tia l
m in o rity u n d e r the H a b sb u rg s.
In th e eigh tee n th ce n tu ry th e R u s sia n ty p e o f a d m in is t r a tio n a n d the
R u s sia n ty pe o f s e rfd o m w ere im p o s e d o n the people o f the U kraine. T hey
w ere resented, a n d th e re w as m u c h ho stility t o the m oskaly (M uscovites)
a m o n g the p e a sa n ts a n d to w n s m e n . T h e u p p e r classes— the C o ssac k
officers a n d la n d o w n e r s — were well tr e a te d , a n d m o s t o f th e m becam e
m o r e o r less as sim ilated in to th e R u s sia n nobility. R u s s ia n was th e official
language, a n d U k ra in ia n w as at m o s t to le r a te d as the ‘Little R u ssian
dialect’ s p o k e n by the c o u n t r y yokels. H o w ev er, th e lang u ag e did not
d isa p p e a r. As in the case o f sm all p eoples in C e n tr a l E u ro p e , there
a p p e a r e d in th e U k ra in e p erso n s o f e d u c a t io n w h o w ished to use the
lan g u ag e o f the people as a vehicle for literature . T h e first im p o r ta n t w o rk
was a satirical po em a b o u t life in the U k ra in e entitled The A eneid , by Ivan
K otlarevsky, w hich a p p e a r e d in 1798. A fter the f o u n d a ti o n o f the Universi-
 Europe: M ulti-National Empires and New Nations 187

ty o f K h a r k o v (1804), th a t city b ec am e a ce n tre o f U k ra in ia n literary

activity, w hich included the p u b lic a tio n in 1819 of th e first U k ra in ia n
g r a m m a r . T h e m o st p ro d u c tiv e period was betw een 1830 a n d 1840. In these
years were pub lish ed w o rk s by T a r a s S h e v c h e n k o , the grea test p o et o f the
U k ra in ia n language. T h e fo rm a tio n o f a n acce p te d U k ra in ia n literary
language owes m o r e to h im t h a n to a n y o th e r individual. T he use o f this
lan g u ag e was the decisive stage in the f o r m a tio n o f a n U k ra in ia n n a tio n a l
consciousness. It was this w hich tr a n s f o r m e d m ere k n ow ledg e o f differen­
ces, pride in local tr a d itio n s a n d rese n tm e n t of d o m in a tio n by outsiders, iu-
into a co nviction th a t the U k ra in ia n s w ere a natio n . Those w h o had this
c o n v ictio n w ere n o t yet n u m e ro u s , for they were co n fin e d to a small
intellectual elite. H ow ever, they were to o n u m e ro u s , to o ta len ted a n d to o
stro ngly convinced to be destroyed. In the second h alf o f the n in eteenth
c e n tu ry the p eop le o f the U k ra in e suffered fro m th e sa m e e c o n o m ic
h a rd sh ip s as the R ussian s, s o m e w h a t a g g ra v a te d by the fact th a t it was in
the U k ra in e th a t the m etallurgical in d u stry m a d e the m o st rap id progress
f ro m the 1890s o n w a rd s. Increasingly, .the resulting p o p u la r disc o n te n ts
w ere canalised into n atio n alist ch a n n els, a n d the in tellectual elite o f
U k ra in ia n n atio n alists b egan to win m a ss su p p o rt.
It was a long a n d painful process. T h e first U k ra in ia n n atio n alist
o rg a n isa tio n , the So ciety o f S t Cyril a n d S t M e th o d iu s, f o u n d e d in Kiev in
1846 by the h isto ria n N. I. K o s to m a ro v , wished to see a fe d e ra tio n o f Slav
peoples, o n e un it in w hich w o u ld be the U k raine. It w as d iscovered by the
police, an d those a rrested included S h ev ch e n k o . T h e g re a t poet was sent to
O r e n b u r g in the U rals as a private soldier, a n d T s a r N ich olas personally
o rd e re d th a t he s h o u ld be p revented f ro m w riting o r d r a w in g (he w as a
talen ted p a in te r as well as a poet). He w as allow ed to re tu r n to St
P e te rsb u r g only in 1858, a n d died th ree years later, a b r o k e n m a n . In the
follow ing decades th e re were periods o f relative fre ed o m , w h e n literary a n d
historical w o rk s in U k ra in ia n could be p ublish ed, a n d o f relative severity
w h en they could not. In 1876 the so u th -w e ste rn section o f th e G e o g ra p h ic a l
Society, located in Kiev, w hich h ad bee n the m a in ce n tre o f U k ra in ia n
c u ltu r a l activity, w as closed d o w n , a n d a g o v e r n m e n t decree f o rb a d e the
use o f th e ‘Little R u s sia n d ialect’ fo r the p u b lic a tio n o f a n y th in g exc ep t
historical d o c u m e n ts , a n d the im p o r ta tio n fro m a b r o a d o f p u b lic a tio n s i n ,
th a t ‘d ialect’. In th e last d ec ad e of th e ce n tu r y U k ra in ia n s were a m o n g the
m a in victims o f the new policies o f R ussification. D u r i n g these years,
ho w ever, illegal political p arties o f a radical o r a socialist typ e w ere being o .
c re ate d in v ario u s p a r ts o f th e R u s s ia n em p ire. In 1901 was f o u n d e d the
R e v o lu tio n a r y U k r a in ia n P a r ty , w h ich s o o n split u p in to a radical liberal, a
social d e m o c r a tic a n d a m o r e c onservative n a tio n a list g ro u p .
M ean w h ile in G alicia, u n d e r A u s tr ia n rule, U k r a in ia n n a tio n a lism
develop ed freely a n d successfully. A lre a d y in 1848 a U k ra in ia n n atio n alist
188 Nations and States

m o v e m e n t a p p e a r e d , a n d w as to le ra te d by the A u s tr ia n s as a c o u n t e r ­
weight to the Poles. U n d e r the m u c h freer political system fro m the mid-
1860s o n w a r d s , U k ra in ia n political parties were able to organise, to publish
a n d to hold meetings. As a result o f th e ir ac tio n , virtually the w hole
p o p u la tio n was affected. T h e G alician U k ra in ia n s, still p o o r a n d little
e d u c a te d , u n d o u b te d ly f o rm e d a con scio u s natio n . O nly a sm all m in o rity
co nsidered them selves R u ssian s a n d h o p e d to be in c o rp o r a t e d in the
R u ssian em pire. S im ila r tre n d s were to be fo u n d a m o n g the U k ra in ia n
p o p u la tio n in A u str ia n B u kovina, s o u th o f G alicia .26 In n o r th -e a s te r n
H u n g a r y (o r R u th en ia ) lived a n ex c ep tio n ally b a c k w a r d p o p u la tio n whose
n a tio n a l identity was u n ce rtain: a few th o u g h t them selves U k ra in ia n s, a
few R u ssian s, th e rest ac ce p te d the H u n g a r ia n s ’ d e s ig n a tio n o f th e m as
‘R u th e n e s ’.
G alicia provid ed a n a s y lu m fo r the le aders o f U k ra in ia n n ationalism
persecuted w ithin the R u ssian em pire. O u ts ta n d in g were the h isto ria ns
M ic h ae l D r a h o m a n o v a n d M ichael H rush evsky: the first was active as a
socialist in the 1880s, th e latter held a C h a ir at the University o f l.w ow
(L e m b e rg ) a n d was the leading figure in th e S h e v c h e n k o Society w hich was
the e m b ry o n ic A c a d e m y o f Sciences o f th e G alician U k ra inia ns. In 1905
H ru s h e v sk y a n d o th e rs r e tu r n e d to Russia. In the first tw o D u m a s , there
were a b o u t forty U k ra in ia n n atio n alist m e m b ers o f v arious political
shades. F o r a few years U k ra in ia n literary a n d social o r g a n isa tio n s a n d
activities w ere p erm itted. T h e St P e te rsb u rg A c a d e m y o f Sciences officially
declared th a t U k ra in ia n w as a distinct lan g u ag e , n o t (as h ad been the
official view) a m ere ‘d ialect’. F r o m 1908 o n w a r d s h o w ev e r the a u th o ritie s
reverted to R ussification a n d repression.
T h e R u s sia n R e v o lu tio n o f M a r c h 1917 b r o u g h t a g rea t o u tb u r s t of
U k ra in ia n n a tio n a l feeling. In Kiev was set u p a N a tio n a l C o u n c il ( Rada)
o f well k n o w n U k r a in ia n political a n d cu ltu ra l figures. It negotiated
inconclusively w ith the successive p ro v isio n a l g o v e rn m e n ts. A fter the
Bolshevik R e v o lu tio n o f N o v e m b e r it d eclared th e -in d e p e n d e n c e o f the
U k ra in e . H a v in g very few m ilitary forces o f th e ir ow n, the U k ra in ia n
leaders saw th e ir c o u n try in v a d ed by Bolshevik forces f r o m the n o r th a n d
by th e G e r m a n a r m y f r o m th e west. T h e y c a m e to te rm s w ith the G e rm a n s,
w h o co m pelled the Bolsheviks, u n d e r the T re a t y o f B rest-L itovsk o f M a rc h
1918, to recognise a n in d e p e n d e n t U k r a in ia n state. W h e n the Rada
g o v e r n m e n t failed to p ro v id e th e occ u p y in g G e r m a n s w ith as m u c h g ra in as
they d e m a n d e d for their arm ies, th e G e r m a n general d e p o s e d the g o v e r n ­
m e n t a n d installed G e n e ra l P av el S k o r o p a d s k i as h e tm a n .
T h e d efeat o f G e r m a n y a t th e en d o f 1918 led to th e fall o f S k o ro p a d s k i,
w hich was follow ed by tw o years o f th re e -c o rn e re d civil w a r in the U k ra in e ,
betw een Bolsheviks, R u ssian m o n a rc h ists (W h ites) a n d U k ra in ia n n a t i o n ­
alists. T h e latter included no t only the political g r o u p s fro m the R ussian
 Europe: M ulti-N ational Empires and New Nations 189

U k ra in e (o f w h o m th e stro ngest were the U k ra in ia n Socialist R e v o lu tio n ­

aries led by S im o n P etlu ra ) b u t also the U k ra in ia n n atio n alists fro m
Galicia, w h o in 1919 were driven out of L w ow by the P olish forces o f J o s e f
Pilsudski, w h o claim ed all Galicia for P o la n d . P e tlu ra in 1920 m a d e an
a g re e m e n t w ith P ilsudski to fo rm a jo in t P o lis h - U k ra in ia n fed e ra tio n , to
include all th e U k ra in ia n lands. T h e P o lish a r m y , in v a d in g th e R ussian
U k ra in e w ith this aim , had so m e initial successes, but was th e n driv en back
into P o la n d by th e Red A rm y o f the Bolsheviks. T h e P olish-S oviet w ar
en d e d in 1921 w ith a p a r titio n of th e U k ra in e betw een P o la n d a n d the
Soviet U nion.
It is im possible to sh o w w ith c e rta in ty w h a t were the feelings o f the
U k ra in ia n s them selves d u r in g these c o n fu sin g a n d im m ensely tragic
events, w hich b r o u g h t d e a th to h u n d r e d s o f t h o u s a n d s a n d misery to
millions. A t d ifferent m o m e n ts, th e R ada , the U k ra in ia n S ocialist R e v o lu ­
tion aries, the Bolsheviks a n d the R u ssian m o n a rc h ists h ad su b stan tia l
s u p p o r t in the U k ra in e , b u t it was p e r h a p s the a n a r c h is t b a n d s led by the
U k ra in ia n p e a sa n t N e sto r M a k h n o w hich m o s t g enuinely reflected U k ra i­
nia n p e a sa n t feelings.27 It w as the Bolsheviks w h o w o n, because they had
the strongest m ilitary force.
Events had clearly s h o w n th a t U k ra in ia n n a tio n a l feeling was a force to
be reck oned with. T h e v ic torious Bolsheviks recognised this by setting u p a
U k ra in ia n Soviet R ep u b lic as a m e m b e r o f th e U n io n o f Soviet Socialist
Republics. Its rulers w ere p ersons w h o h ad n o t been ch o sen by the people
o f th e U k ra in e , b u t had been im posed by th e g o v e r n m e n t o f M oscow . T he
political d ic ta to rsh ip an d social policies o f the c o m m u n is t p a rty were
carried o u t in m u c h the sam e w ay as in th e rest o f the U nion. In the cultural
field, how ever, the U k ra in ia n s gained so m e a d v a n ta g e s. U k ra in ia n was
m a d e the language o f a d m in is tra tio n , n o m in a lly su p e rio r b u t in practice
a b o u t equ a l in sta tu s to Russian. L ite ra tu re in U k ra in ia n , pro v id ed th a t it
av o id ed political issues, w as genuinely e n c o u rag ed .
M y k o la S k ry p n ik , w h o was Soviet U k ra in ia n c o m m is s a r fo r e d u c a tio n
fro m 1927 to 1933, was a genuine c o m m u n is t a n d a gen u in e U k ra in ia n
p a trio t, a n d this c o m b in a t io n was ex p re ssed in his policies. H e was a victim
o f the g rea t e c o n o m ic crisis o f a g ric u ltu ra l collectivisation a n d forced
in d u stria lis a tio n w hich b eg a n in 1929. T h e U k raine, R u s sia ’s richest grain
land, suffered still m o r e t h a n ce ntral o r n o r th e r n Russia. M illions died of
sta rv a tio n , millions m o r e were d e p o r te d to la b o u r in c o n d itio n s which
rapidly sh o rte n e d th e ir lives. T h e c o n s e q u e n t p o p u la r d is c o n te n t inevitably
to o k n atio n alist fo rm : the rulers w h o im p o s e d these cruel policies were
h a te d n o t only as t y r a n t s b u t as m oskaly — M u sc o v ite foreigners. S k ry p n ik
a n d his friends w ere accu sed by th e M o s c o w a u th o ritie s o f ‘b ourgeois
n a tio n a lis m ’ a n d d is a p p e a re d fro m pub lic life.
F o u r years later a n o t h e r d isa ste r hit the U k ra in e w ith special severity—
190 Nations and States

the G re a t P urge. O n ce this police a c tio n h a d escalated to the p o in t a t w hich

people w ere being arrested in h u n d r e d s o f th o u s a n d s , n atio n alist h a tre d of
R u ssian s by U k ra in ia n s, a n d R u s sia n suspicion o f U k ra in ia n s as a hostile
n a tio n , p o te n tia lly friendly to R u s sia’s foreign enem ies, reached fantastic
p r o p o rtio n s . T h e w hole o f the Politburo o f the U k ra in ia n c o m m u n is t
p arty , all the m e m b ers o f the U k ra in ia n re p u b lic a n g o v e r n m e n t a n d four-
fifths o f the m e m b ers o f the ce n tral c o m m itte e o f the p a rty in the U krain e
were rem ov ed fro m their posts, an d nearly all of these perished eith er by
ex e c u tio n o r in la b o u r c a m p s. T h e p urge reached d o w n to the low er levels
o f th e p a rty a n d to the m asses outside th e party.
T h e fate o f th e U k ra in ia n s w h o b e c am e citizens o f P o la n d afte r 1921 was
s o m e w h a t better. N evertheless they were badly trea ted by the Polish
au th o ritie s , a n d did not in fact enjoy the rights w hich were g u a ra n te e d to
th e m u n d e r th e M ino rities T re a ty prescrib ed by the League o f N ations. In
1930 Pilsudski, w h o since 1926 h ad a s s u m e d d ic ta to ria l pow ers, sent
p u nitive ex p e d itio n s to ‘pacify’ the U k ra in ia n districts o f the south-east.
It w as n o t su rprising t h a t H itle r’s d e s tru c tio n o f P o la n d pleased U k ra in ­
ian n ationalists. W h e n in 1941 H itler a t ta c k e d R ussia, his forces were
w elcom ed by the U k ra in ia n s b o th in ea ste rn G alicia (which h ad been
tra n sfe rre d fro m P o la n d to the Soviet U nio n in 1939 by f a v o u r of Hitler),
a n d also f u rth e r east. H ow ever, H itler him self insisted o n tre a tin g the
U k ra in ia n s a n d R ussians alike as ‘s u b h u m a n ’ slave peoples. U k ra in ia n
resistance forces a p p e a r e d , so m e u n d e r the le ad e rsh ip o f the Soviet High
C o m m a n d , o th e rs in o p p o sitio n to b o th G e r m a n a n d Soviet forces. T he
la tte r c o n tin u e d th e fight fo r a t least tw o years afte r the Soviet A rm y had
driv en o u t th e G e rm a n s: they enjoyed c o n s id e ra b le s u p p o r t fro m the
p o p u la tio n in Galicia.
A s a result o f the So viet victory in th e S eco n d W o rld W a r all the
U k r a in ia n la n d s w ere u n ite d in a single state. N o t only ea ste rn Galicia, but
also n o r th e r n B u k o v in a ( R o m a n i a n b etw een 1918 a n d 1940) a n d R u th en ia
( H u n g a r i a n until 1918, in cluded in C z ec h o slo v a k ia fro m 1918 to 1939 an d
H u n g a r ia n ag a in until 1945) w ere a n n e x e d by the S oviet U nion. T he
n o r th e r n a n d so u th e rn e xtre m ities o f B e ssa ra b ia (o r ea ste rn M oldavia),
w hich c o n ta in e d su b s ta n tia l U k r a in ia n p o p u la tio n s , w ere also in c o r p o r a t­
ed in th e U k r a in ia n S S R . U n ity in itself was a source o f satisfaction to
U k ra in ia n s, b u t th e ir p le asure was m o difie d by th e fact t h a t they were
subjected to a fo rm of g o v e r n m e n t d e te r m in e d n o t by th e m b u t by the
g o v e r n m e n t in M o sc o w , a n d t h a t decisions in e c o n o m ic a n d c u ltu ra l policy
were ta k e n fro m the p o in t o f view o f th e interests o f the ce n tral regim e
ra th e r th a n o f th e U kraine. In the last years o f S ta lin ’s life political p ressure
a n d e c o n o m ic h a rd sh ip s w ere very severe. In th e years o f K h ru s h c h e v ’s
asc e n d a n c y things im prove d . T h e new boss, w h o had served for twelve
years as first secretary o f the U k ra in ia n c o m m u n is t p arty , b r o u g h t a
 Europe: M ulti-National Empires and New Nations 191

n u m b e r of his colleagues fro m tho se tim es to positions o f po w er in the

centre. T he te rc e n te n a ry o f the P ereyaslavl T re a ty in 1954 was celeb rated
w ith m u c h p o m p , a n d flattering speeches were m a d e a b o u t the U k rainian s.
H ow ever, the Soviet press c o n tin u e d f ro m tim e to tim e to d e n o u n c e
‘b ourgeois n a tio n a lis m ’ in the U k ra in e , a n d in the 1960s a n d 1970s leading
U k ra in ia n w riters w ere arrested for ‘a n ti- S o v ie t’ activities.
T he exten t o f U k ra in ia n n a tio n al feeling, an d the ex te n t o f o p p o sitio n to
the R ussians, o r even o f th e desire for a n in d e p e n d e n t U k ra in ia n state,
rem a in ed difficult to ju d g e . O n the o n e h a n d there was evidence th a t m a n y
U k ra in ia n s w ere being a b s o rb e d into R u ssian culture. F o re ig n travellers
re p o rte d th a t in th e cities o f Kiev a n d K h a r k o v only R u ssian was s p o k e n in
the streets a n d shops. A gainst this w as the evidence th a t the influx o f
p ea sa n ts fro m the c o u n try sid e was U k ra in ia n isin g the ind u stria l la b o u r
force, a n d th a t U k ra in ia n was s p o k e n in the h o m e circle. T h e r e is little
d o u b t th a t b o th these things were h a p p e n in g , th a t c o n t r a d ic t o r y trends
were o p e r a tin g side by side. Intellectual o p p o s itio n was clearly stro n g , an d
was not elim inated by periodic public d e n u n c ia tio n s o r arrests. E d u c a tio n
in U k ra in ia n history a n d U k ra in ia n literature , w hich c o n tin u e d in the
S oviet schools in the U kra in e , kept U k ra in ia n n a tio n a l con sciousn e ss alive,
a n d spread it m o re deeply in the p o p u la tio n as th e general e c o n o m ic an d
cu ltu ral level im p ro v e d . T h e m o st n a tio n a lly m ilitant intellectual elites
had, of course, less o p p o r tu n ity to p u t them selves at the head o f a p o p u la r
m o v e m en t, o r to canalise m ass social d isc o n te n ts in to n a tio n a list channels,
th a n had th o se o f th e 1890s. But it re m a in e d clear th a t a U k ra in ia n n a tio n
existed, an d th a t n o w ay had yet been f o u n d to e n a b le R ussians an d
U k ra in ia n s to live to g e th e r in m u tu a l trust a n d respect.
5 European Nations Overseas

The expansion of Europe

T h e g rea t voyages o f e x p l o ra tio n at the end o f the fifteenth ce ntury, r o u n d
th e co a st o f A frica a n d o u t in to the A tla n tic , were m a d e possible by new
m e th o d s of s h ip b u ild in g a n d o f n av ig ation, p io neered by the P o rtugu e se.
T h e A tlantic, no longe r the M e d ite rr a n e a n , bec am e the m a in ro u te for the
m o v e m e n t o f m en, c o m m e r c e an d political pow er. T he e x p lo re rs, a n d the
rulers w h o sp o n so re d their voyages, h ad v ario u s motives: to win individual
fam e, to g ra b w ealth, to glorify a p a r tic u la r m o n a rc h , to search fo r d istant
ea ste rn allies ag a in st the O t t o m a n th re a t, a n d to co n v e rt the h e a th e n to the
tr u e faith. T his tr e m e n d o u s o u tb u r s t of n avig atin g skill, c o m m e rc ia l greed
a n d m ilitary aggressio n also coincided w ith th e o u tb r e a k o f the R e f o r m a ­
tion. T h e e x p a n s io n o f E u r o p e a n C h ristia n po w er over the w o rld went
to g e th e r with the w a r rin g o f C h ristia n s ag a in st each o th e r, in the n a m e of
their faith. O n e o f the c o n seq u e n ces of the religious conflict was the
e m ig r a tio n o f d efeated religious c o m m u n itie s to the new w o rld o f N o r t h
A m eric a, to build th e re a new society.
T h e e x p a n sio n flowed in tw o directions, with very d ifferent results. T h e
P o rtu g u e se , follow ed by the D u tc h , the F re n c h a n d the English, discovered
th e g rea t civilisations o f th e F a r East, o f w h ich th e y h a d h e a r d d im r u m o u r s
fo r centuries past: a n d in tim e they im p o s ed th e ir rule o n large tra c ts of
Asia. T h ere were never, how ever, m a n y E u r o p e a n s settled in these lands;
a n d the civilisations o f India, C h in a , J a p a n a n d th e A rc h ip e lag o , th o u g h
m od ified by c o n ta c t w ith E u ro p e a n s , re m a in e d essentially u n ch a n g ed .
T h o s e w h o v e n tu re d ac ross the A tla n tic , a b o v e all the S p a n ia rd s ,
discovered c o n tin e n ts o f w hich n o th in g had ever been k n o w n , a n d c o m ­
m un ities ran g in g f r o m th e prim itive to th e highly so ph istica te d , all f a r m o re
different fro m th e ir o w n t h a n w ere th o se o f Asia. H a v in g s u b d u e d these
co m m u n itie s, th e E u r o p e a n inva ders set them selves to cre ate N ew S p ain,
N ew F ra n c e a n d N ew E n gla nd.
A n u m b e r o f se p a r a te cultu res existed, s o m e o f w h ich p ro d u c e d m a g n ifi­
ce n t sc u lpture a n d a r c h itec tu re, a n d p ossessed a d v a n c e d kn o w led g e of
194 Nations and States

m a th e m a tic s a n d a s tro n o m y . T h e finest artistic a c h ie v em e n ts w ere th o se of

th e M a y as, w h o flo urished a p p r o x im a te ly betw e en th e fifth a n d te n th
c e n tu ry A D in Y u c a ta n a n d G u a te m a la . T h e m o st p ow erfu l states o f which
th e re is d o c u m e n ta r y evidence, in the f o r m o f a c c o u n ts by S p a n ish eye­
witnesses, w ere th o se o f the A ztecs in the valley o f M e x ic o a n d o f the Incas
in P eru. In M e x ico irrig atio n w o rk s w ere o f g rea t im p o rta n c e . In P e ru a
highly regim ente d a n d efficient social a n d political system existed, with
c o m p le x pub lic w orks. U n fo r tu n a te ly the delib erate d e s tru c tio n of indi­
g en o u s d o c u m e n ts by th e S p a n is h c o n q u e r o rs , a n d the r u in ed c o n d itio n of
surviving buildings, hav e severely lim ited the ability o f h isto ria n s to
r e c o n str u c t th e n a tu re o f these societies.
T h e first la n d in g o f E u r o p e a n s in N o r t h A m eric a, by N o rs e m e n led by
Lief E ricsson a r o u n d 1000 A D , in the region later n a m e d the G u lf of St
L aw ren c e, left n o traces a n d b r o u g h t b a c k n o in f o rm a tio n . T h e G eno ese
sailor C h r is t o p h e r C o l u m b u s , in the service of the C a th o lic sovereigns of
S p a in , discovered in 1492 the tw o largest C a r i b b e a n islands, of w hich one
b e c am e k n o w n as C u b a a n d the o th e r as Little S p a in , a n d on later voyages
ex p lo re d the A tla n tic co a st o f C e n tra l A m e ric a a n d the m o u th o f the
O rin o c o . In 1519 H e r n â n C o rté s invaded the m a in la n d w ith 400 m en, 15
ho rses a n d 6 c a n n o n , a n d w ithin tw o years by d ip lo m ac y , deceit a n d fierce
fighting c o n q u e r e d the A ztec k in g d o m . In 1532 F ra n c isc o P iz a rro h ad led a
sm all e x p e d itio n to P e ru , a n d by c r u d e r m e th o d s o f fra u d a n d violence, an d
n o less b ra v e ry a n d e n d u ra n c e , d es tro y e d the g rea t k in g d o m of the Incas.
By the m id -six tee n th c e n tu ry the co a sts o f A m eric a, f r o m F lo rid a to the
O r in o c o a n d fro m the Pacific sh o re o f M e x ico r o u n d C a p e H o r n to the Rio
P la ta , h a d bee n e x p lo re d , a n d the sovereignty of the king o f S p a in asserted.
M e x ic o b e c am e the ca p ita l o f N ew S p a i n . 1
T h e n o rth -e a s te r n p a r t o f S o u th A m e ric a was e x p lo re d by the P o r t u ­
guese. A fleet u n d e r P e d r o A lvares C a b r a l reached the c o a st o f Brazil in
1500, a n d P o rtu g u e se se ttlem ents were m a d e in the fo llow ing 'yea rs, with
th e ir chief centre a t Bahia.
T h e first e x p e d itio n f r o m E u r o p e to N o r t h A m e ric a since Lief E ricsson
w as led by a G enoese, J o h n C a b o t, w h o sailed f r o m Bristol in 1497 in the
service o f th e king o f E n g la n d , a n d discovered N e w f o u n d la n d a n d C a p e
B reto n Island, b u t his E nglish p a t r o n t o o k little interest in these achieve­
m ents. B etw een 1534 a n d 1541 J a c q u e s C a rtie r, o f S t M a lo , in the service of
F ra n ç o is I, m a d e three jo u r n e y s to the S t L aw renc e, n o te d th e tw o n a tu ra l
stro n g h o ld s w hich later b e c am e the cities o f Q u eb e c a n d M o n tr e a l, an d
h ea rd fro m the In d ian s the n a m e C a n a d a . In 1608 Q u e b e c b e c am e the
ca p ita l o f N ew F rance.
In the seventeenth ce n tu ry English settlem ents, so m e by religious exiles
an d so m e by officially s p o n so r e d m e rc h a n t co m p a n ie s, w ere m a d e a lo ng
the ea ste rn co a st fro m M a s sa c h u se tts to C a ro lin a . T h e n o r th e r n p a rt was
k n o w n us New England.
 European Nations Overseas 195

T h e D u tc h , w hose m a in seafaring a c h ie v em e n ts were in the F a r E ast,

also fo u n d e d a co lo n y of N ew N e th e r la n d s a r o u n d th e m o u th o f the
H u d s o n River, w ith N ew A m s te r d a m as its centre. In t h e sam e y ea r they
established them selves in P e r n a m b u c o in Brazil. N eith er en terp rise p roved
lasting. In 1654 the P o rtu g u e s e colonists d r o v e the D u tc h out, a n d in 1664
the D u tc h g o v e r n m e n t ceded N ew A m s te r d a m to th e English, w h o
r e n a m e d it New Y ork.
D u rin g the eigh tee n th c e n tu ry N o r t h A m e ric a was a th e a tr e o f w ar
betw een the English a n d F re n c h , each o f w hich o b ta in e d allies a g a in st each
o th e r a m o n g the I n d ia n tribes. T h e F r e n c h w ere th e p io ne ers in e x p l o r a ­
tion. T h ey travelled u p the S t L aw renc e to the G re a t L akes, a n d d o w n the
O h io a n d the Mississippi, while English settle m en ts were confined betw een
the A p p a la c h ia n s a n d th e ocean. T h e F r e n c h c o lo n y o f L o u is ia n a seemed
likely to ex ten d u p the M ississippi valley a n d th e n f a r a w a y to th e west over
the G re a t P lains until it m ig ht conflict w ith the sh a d o w y a u t h o r i ty o f the
kings o f S pain, w h o se d o m in io n s n o m in a lly ex te n d e d up the co a st of
C a lifo rnia. H o w ev er, in the struggle b etw e en F ra n c e a n d E n g la n d it was
th e English w h o w on. W olfe c a p tu r e d Q u e b e c in 1759, a n d the P eac e of
P aris in 1763 put a n end to F re n c h A m erica.
T h e last E u r o p e a n sta te w hose citizens established them selves on the
m a in la n d o f N o r t h A m e r ic a was Russia. In th e 1730s C a p ta in Vitus
Behring, a D a n is h sailor in R u ssian service, e x p lo re d th e S tra its betw een
A sia an d A m eric a to w hich his n a m e w as la ter given. R u s sia n settlem ents
o n th e m a in la n d o f A la s k a w ere a d m in iste re d by a R u s so -A m e ric a n
C o m p a n y u n d e r a sta tu te g ra n te d by E m p e r o r P au l in 1797.2
T w o c o m p a r a tiv e ly e m p ty regions in the so u th e rn hem isph e re , outside
the A m e r ic a n c o n tin e n t, w ere also settled by E u r o p e a n s — a t the s o u th e rn
tip o f A frica a n d in th e S o u th Pacific.
T h e C a p e o f G o o d H o p e was first discovered in m o d e r n tim es by
B a rth o lo m e w D iaz in 1487. (It is possible th a t G re e k o r P h o e n ic ia n sailors
sailed r o u n d it in an c ie n t tim es, o r t h a t it was k n o w n to tr a d e rs fro m
so u th e rn India, b u t conclusive d o c u m e n ta r y o r a r c h aeo lo g ica l evidence is
n o t available.) T h e C a p e was used as a sta ging p o st f o r o b ta in in g fresh
w a te r a n d fo o d o n voyages to In d ia by P o rtu g u e s e , D u t c h a n d English,
w h o tr a d e d w ith the few in d ig e n o u s in h a b ita n ts . It was only in 1652 th a t the
D u t c h decided to m a k e a m o r e solid settlem ent. J a n v a n R e eb e ck w as the
first g o v e r n o r o f C a p e C o lo n y . In th e N a p o le o n ic w ars the British occupied
it, th e n re tu r n e d it to the D u tc h , b u t finally a c q u ire d it in the peace
se ttle m en t o f 1814.
In th e S o u th P acific t o o th e D u t c h w ere th e pioneers. T h e y first sighted
A u str a lia a n d n a m e d it N e w H o lla n d ia . T h e island lying s o u th o f the s o u th ­
east c o r n e r o f A u stra lia w as first called af te r V a n D ie m e n a n d th e n after
T a s m a n . N ew Z e a la n d t o o w as n a m e d a f te r a D u tc h island. It was,
how ever, the g rea t English n av ig ato r. C a p ta in J a m e s C o o k , w h o ex p lo re d
196 Nations and States

th e ea ste rn co a st of A u stra lia a n d circ u m n a v ig a te d the tw o islands o f New

Z e a la n d . T h e first su b s ta n tia l c o lo n is a tio n began in N ew S o u th W ales in
1788, in th e fo rm o f a pen a l settlem ent. F re e settlers b e g a n to o u tn u m b e r
th e orig inal convicts a f te r th e N a p o le o n ic wars. T a s m a n ia , S o u t h A u stra lia
a n d V icto ria also em erg ed as settled colonies by th e m id d le o f th e century.
It w as n o t until 1839 th a t the British g o v e r n m e n t decided to assum e
so vereign ty over N ew Z e a la n d , a n d British im m ig r a tio n develo ped in the
n e x t decades.

From settlement to independence

In th e la n d s o f E u r o p e a n se ttle m en t th e re grew up large c o m m u n itie s
w h o se origins w ere E u r o p e a n b u t w h o se c o n d itio n s of life a n d w o rk were
not. T hese c o m m u n itie s w ere b o u n d to se p a r a te them selves fro m the
m e tr o p o lis in E u ro p e . T h e f u n d a m e n ta l cause w as sim ply geographical:
clim ate, flora a n d f a u n a a n d h u m a n n e ig h b o u rs w ere d ifferent fro m th ose
in E u ro p e , a n d it was im possible in th e long te rm th a t m e n living th o u s a n d s
o f miles ac ross the oceans, preo c cu p ie d w ith o th e r a n d m o r e pressing
issues, c o u ld ta k e decisions o n the colo n ists’ behalf. G e o g r a p h ic a l distance
w as in fact responsible fo r th e m a n y conflicts o f e c o n o m ic interest w hich
a ro se b etw e en colony a n d m etro p o lis, a n d for the political contro versies
w hich b r o k e o u t w h en d o c trin e s first f o rm u la te d in E u ro p e w ere tr a n s ­
p la n te d overseas. T h e m o v e m e n t fro m co lo n y to in d e p e n d e n c e was m a d e
in prac tice by w a r in British a n d S p a n ish A m eric a a n d in S o u th Africa, but
by c o n s e n t in P o rtu g u e se A m eric a, A u stra lia a n d N ew Z ea lan d .

T h e p o p u l a t i o n o f British N o r t h A m e r ic a consisted o f v a rio u s elem ents

p r e se n t in B ritain itself b u t c o m b in e d in q u ite different p ro p o rtio n s.
A large p a r t con sisted o f religious dissenters. T h e m o st o b v io u s e x a m ­
ples a re th e P u r it a n s o f M a ssa c h u s e tts a n d the Q u a k e r s o f P ennsylvania.
T hese w ere follow ed in th e eigh tee n th c e n tu r y b y ‘S c o tc h -I r is h ’ f r o m Ulster
(P re s b y te r ia n s squeezed in th e ir h o m e la n d betw een a n A n glic an ruling
g r o u p a n d a C a th o lic m ajo rity ), G e r m a n secta rian s a n d F re n c h H u g u e ­
nots. It w as largely these la tte r im m ig r a tio n s w hich en a b le d th e p o p u la tio n
o f th e colonies to rise b etw e en 1713 a n d 1763 f r o m 360,000 to 1,400,000.1 n
the 1730s a n d 1740s a m ass m o v e m e n t o f religious revival (the G re a t
A w ak en in g ) to o k place, sim ilar to M e th o d is m in c o n t e m p o r a r y E n g la n d ,
led by J o n a t h a n E d w a r d s a n d G eo rg e W hitefield. R eligious dissent an d
M e th o d is m c a n n o t o f c o u rse be e q u a te d w ith political radicalism : indeed,
they m a y be regarded as o bstacles to radicalism in so f a r as they direct
a tte n t io n to the after-life. N evertheless, a society in w hich religious
 European Nations Overseas 197

dissenters play a n o u ts t a n d in g p a rt te n d s to be a society less disp o sed to

respect the political h ie ra rc h y th a n o n e in w hich a n estab lished c h u r c h is
d o m in a n t.
C o lo n ia l society was also m u c h influenced by the fact o f the o p e n land
frontier. T o say this is n o t to accept the claim s fo r the role o f the f ro n tie r in
A m e r ic a n history a n d n a tio n a l c h a r a c te r m a d e by F re d e ric k J a c k s o n
T u rn e r , w ho se ideas have been m u c h m odified by m o d e rn A m e ric a n
historians. But it re m a in s tru e t h a t the struggle a lo n g the f ro n tie r — against
H ood a n d forest as well as against In d ia n s — was a m a jo r fact o f early
A m e ric a n history. W h e n a region had been settled, a n d its in h a b ita n ts had
b e c o m e a c c u s to m e d to a m o r e stable life, o th e rs c a m e a f te r th e m an d
a d v a n c e d the frontier. T h e h a r d fro n tie r life re m a in e d a fact f o r a m ino rity,
a n d the m em ories o r th e m y th o lo g y o f th e f ro n tie r were still im p o r ta n t to
the se d e n ta ry d e s c e n d a n ts o f earlier fro ntiersm e n . Self-reliance, eg a litar­
ianism, help betw een n e ig h b o u rs a n d a h ea lth y c o n t e m p t for c h a ir -b o u n d
a u th o ritie s in the rea r b e c a m e p a r t o f a w ay o f th in k in g very w idespread
a m o n g A m ericans.
T h e 1n d ians o f th e n o rth -e a s t had n o g rea t m o n u m e n ts o f civilisation like
M a y as, Aztecs o r Incas in th e so u th . T o the E u r o p e a n s they a p p e a r e d at
best as likeable children, a t w orst as savages. T h e skills w hich they
possessed, in ag ric u ltu re a n d h u n tin g , w ere q uic kly a c q u ire d , w ith o u t any
feeling o f respect for the a u t o c h t h o n o u s I n d ia n cultu re w hich had given rise
to them . Ind ians w ere respected as fig h te rs— s o m e tim es as allies, m o re
often as enem ies— b u t w ere n o t reg a rd e d as equals. In te r m a rr ia g e was o n a
small scale. It was the m e tr o p o lita n g o v e r n m e n t, ra th e r th a n the colonists,
w hich m a d e s o m e — t h o u g h ineffectual— efforts to pro tec t I n d ia n interests.
T he o th e r n o n - E u r o p e a n elem ent present in th e colonies were the black
slaves, b r o u g h t fro m A frica in the i n h u m a n slave t r a d e afte r they h a d been
sold by their c o m p a tr io ts to E u r o p e a n trad e rs. T h e y w ere reg a rd e d w ith
c o n t e m p t by the colonists, a n d were to o defenceless to be able to m a k e their
needs recognised.
T h e u p p e r classes in the colonies consiste d o f bu sin e ssm e n , la n d o w n e r s
a n d profession al people. In N ew E n g la n d a n d the ce n tral states in the
eigh tee n th ce n tu ry s h ip b u ild in g a n d s e a -b o rn e tr a d e p ro sp e re d , a n d
m a n u fa c tu r in g in d u stry was growing. In the S o u th , large estates a n d
p la n ta tio n s w o rk e d by n egro slaves b r o u g h t great w ea lth to their ow ners.
O f th e professions, th e c h u r c h had lost so m e of its earlier p r e d o m in a n c e ,
while th e law was gro w ing, in resp o n se to the needs o f a m o r e co m p le x
e c o n o m y a n d as a result o f th e increased activity o f schools a n d colleges. It
w o u ld h ow eve r be w ro n g to suggest a b r e a c h betw e en the religious a n d the
secular elites: the G re a t A w a k e n in g s tim u la te d the f o u n d a ti o n of m o r e a n d
b e tte r schools, a n d th e ir g r a d u a te s s tr e n g th e n e d th e se cula r professions.
E d u c a te d A m e ric a n s w ere f am iliar w ith th e ideas o f th e E u r o p e a n E n lig h t­
198 Nations and States

e n m e n t, a n d especially w ith rad ic al a n d d e m o c r a tic ideas in E n gla nd. T h e

case o f J o h n W ilkes w as widely k n o w n . It w as n o t only th e intellectual elite
w h ich w as co n c e rn e d w ith political ideas: a r g u m e n ts a b o u t English
liberties, their alleged s u p p ress io n in c o r r u p t c o n t e m p o r a r y E n g la n d , an d
th e need fo r A m e ric a n s to d efend th e ir rights as E ng lish m en , e x te n d e d to
qu ite a w ide public, a n d th e re w as a c o n s id e ra b le p a m p h le t literature on
these th e m e s .3
T h e c o lo n ial e c o n o m y w as subject to the N a v ig a tio n A cts, a n d to the
‘e n u m e r a ti o n ’ of p r o d u c ts th a t could be e x p o r te d only to E n g la n d . These
m easures, in tro d u c e d in th e seven te en th c e n tu ry , w ere the English fo rm of
m e rc antilism , the e c o n o m ic d o c trin e th e n p re v a le n t in E u ro p e . T h ey were
m o r e o b je ctio n ab le in retro sp e ct, w h e n A m e r ic a n s w ere u n d e r s ta n d a b ly
inclined to b la m e all policies o f th e m e tr o p o lita n g o v e r n m e n t, t h a n they
w ere a t th e time: large sectors o f th e e c o n o m y thrived o n th e m , a n d they did
n o t p r o v o k e m u c h o p p o sitio n .
E c o n o m ic a n d political grievances b e c a m e serious afte r the c o nc lu sion
o f th e vic to rio u s peace w ith F ra n c e in 1763. T h e British g o v e r n m e n t needed
revenue to p a y for the expenses o f the f u tu re defence o f the colonies,
w h e th e r a g a in st the In d ian s o r the S p a n ia r d s in the W est, o r conceivably
a g a in st F ra n c e w hich still held firm bases in the W est Indies. T his was w hat
caused it to im p o s e a n u m b e r o f u n p o p u l a r taxes, c u lm in a tin g in the S ta m p
A ct o f 1765. It h a d also infuriated the p eople of the s o u th e r n states by its
P r o c la m a tio n o f 1763 w hich, designed to p ro te c t the I n d ia n s b e y o n d the
A p p a la c h ia n s , p ro h ib ite d f u rth e r w estw a rd e x p a n s io n by the colonists.
T h is was follow ed by th e Q u eb e c A ct o f 1774, w hich placed the lands n o rth
o f th e O h io u n d e r th e g o v e r n m e n t o f Q u e b e c a n d so cut o ff the states of
P en n sy lv a n ia a n d N ew Y o rk f r o m ex p a n sio n . T h ese a c tio n s b r o u g h t ou t
th e la te n t d istru st o f th e m e tr o p o lita n g o v e r n m e n t, a n d revealed h o w far
a p a r t was political th in k in g in the colonies a n d in E n g la n d . A m e ric a n
o p p o s itio n to the S ta m p A ct, th e vocal d e m a n d fo r ‘n o ta x a ti o n w ith o u t
r e p r e s e n ta tio n ’, led to its repeal; b u t o th e r o b je ctio n ab le laws re m a in e d in
force, a n d British officials w ere in stru c te d to enforce their exe cu tio n . In the
1770s th e radicals a g ita te d fo r a b re a c h w ith E ng land: th e ir o u ts ta n d in g
figure w as S a m u e l A d a m s , w h o t h r o u g h his n e tw o r k o f C o r r e s p o n d e n c e
C o m m itte e s in N ew E n g la n d a n d th e c e n tra l states so u g h t to a r o u s e his
c o m p a tr io ts to defend w h a t he claim ed w ere th e ir rights. M o r e m o d e ra te
m en h o p e d to reach a g r e e m e n t w ith L o n d o n , b u t as th e y m e t w ith no
u n d e r s ta n d in g they drifted to w a r d s the radicals.
T h e series o f violent in cidents a n d reprisals f r o m 1770 to 1773 did its
w o rk . In S e p te m b e r 1774 the first C o n t in e n t a l C o n g re s s m e t in P h ila d e l­
phia, w ith delegates extra-legally elected f r o m twelve colonies. It p rotested
ag a in st the British g o v e r n m e n t’s coercive acts, o rd e r e d b o y c o ttin g m e a ­
sures ag a in st British g o o d s a n d passed a D e c la r a tio n o f R ights an d
 European Nations Overseas 199

G rievances. D u rin g th e w in te r o f 1774-75 v a rio u s p ro p o s a ls w ere p u b ­

lished, by T h o m a s Je fferso n a n d o thers, w h ich a m o u n t e d to so m e th in g like
w h a t was e n a c te d in the tw en tieth c e n tu r y British em p ire u n d e r th e n a m e
‘d o m in i o n s ta tu s’. L o n d o n w o u ld n o t ho w ev e r co n s id e r them . In A pril
1775 the first clashes to o k place betw een British a n d A m e r ic a n tr o o p s , at
L e x in g to n a n d C o n c o rd . T h e second C o n t in e n t a l C ongress, m eetin g in
M a y 1775, a p p o in te d G e o rg e W a s h in g t o n as c o m m a n d e r- in - c h ie f o f the
c o n tin e n ta l forces. In A u g u st 1775 the British g o v e r n m e n t d eclared the
A m e r ic a n colonies to be in a state o f rebellion. T h e irre v o ca b le f o rm a l step
was ta k e n o n 4 J u ly 1776, w h en the C o n g re s s accepted T h o m a s Je ff e r s o n ’s
D e c la r a tio n o f In d ep e n d en ce .
T h e W a r o f In d e p e n d e n c e was as m u c h a civil w a r as a w ar betw een the
people o f tw o territories. In E n g la n d th e re w as w id es p re ad s y m p a th y for
the A m e r ic a n cause, a n d in A m e ric a a large m in o rity o f L o yalists s u p p o r t ­
ed the British. D u rin g th e w a r British forces held N ew Y o rk , P h ila d e lp h ia
a n d so u th e rn A tla n tic ports. B ut the w a r w as d ecided a g a in st the British in
th e s u m m e r o f 1781 w h e n a F re n c h fleet, based o n th e W est Indies,
o b ta in e d c o m m a n d o f the sea a r o u n d C h e s a p e a k e Bay, a n d c o m b in ed
F re n c h a n d A m e r ic a n land a n d sea forces w ere c o n c e n t ra te d a g a in st the
British G e n e ra l C o rn w a llis a t Y o rk to w n , V irginia. His s u r re n d e r b r o u g h t
the w a r to a n end, a n d the existence o f th e .U n ite d S tate s o f A m e ric a was
assured.

T h e S p a n is h e m p ire in A m e ric a w as c o m p o s e d o f te rritorie s varying

e n o r m o u s ly in clim ate, c o m p risin g m o u n ta in s a n d deserts, g rea t rivers,
o p e n u p la n d s a n d th ic k jungles; for the m o s t p a r t sparsely p o p u la te d b u t
c o n ta in in g peoples o f widely differing beliefs, social h ab its a n d languages;
p o o rly served by land c o m m u n ic a ti o n s a n d linked by sea a n d river.
E u ro p e a n s o f families established in A m e r ic a were k n o w n as creoles.
T h ey were d istinguishe d f r o m S p a n ia r d s recently arriv ed fro m E u r o p e
(peninsulares). In the c o u rse o f tim e th e la tte r m erg ed in to th e fo rm e r, b u t
th e re was always a fresh su p p ly of new arrivals.
O f the I n d ia n p o p u la tio n o f C e n tra l A m eric a, w hich m a y hav e n u m ­
b ere d betw een twelve a n d fifteen m illio n b efo re th e S p a n ia r d s arriv ed , it
seems th a t at the m id d le o f the se v enteenth c e n tu r y only a b o u t one-sev enth
survived. T h e Inca em pire, w h o se p o p u la tio n h a d been a b o u t six million,
lost h a lf its in h a b ita n ts in the first th irty years o f S p a n is h rule, partly
t h r o u g h m ass b u tc h e r y by th e c o n q u e r o rs , b u t still m o r e by epidem ics of
E u r o p e a n diseases h ith e r to u n k n o w n ac ro ss th e ocean. F r o m th e early
stage o f S p a n is h rule th e re w as a clear co nflict b etw e en th e a ttitu d e s o f the
c o n q u e r o rs , w h o r e g a rd e d th e I n d ia n s as a s e m i- h u m a n la b o u r supp ly fro m
w hich to enrich them selves; o f th e c h u r c h , w hich re g a rd e d th e m as
200 Nations and States

po ssessors o f souls ca p a b le o f r e d e m p tio n , a n d th e re fo re n o t only c o n d u c t­

ed cruel religious p erse c u tio n b u t also a t tim es c a m e f o rw a r d as th e ir active
c h a m p io n ; a n d o f the c r o w n o f S p a in w h ich e n d e a v o u r e d by legislation to
regu late th e relations b e tw e en all its subjects. In practice, it was m o r e often
the ex p lo ite rs on the sp o t th a n the p h ila n th r o p is ts in the h ie ra rc h y or in
d is ta n t S p a in w h o tr iu m p h e d . O p p re ssio n was, how ever, m itig ated by
in te rm arriag e . In the c o u rse of tim e t h r o u g h o u t a large p a r t o f S p an ish
A m e r ic a m estizos, p erso n s o f m ixed origin, c a m e to o u t n u m b e r b o th p u re
E u r o p e a n s a n d p u re Indians. T h e c h u r c h bec am e a genuinely p o p u la r
in stitu tio n , ac cepted by all as their ow n; a n d th e S p a n is h lan g u ag e was
widely diffused. It was in the viceroyalty o f P e ru th a t the largest c o m p a c t
m ass o f I n d ia n s rem a in ed , spe ak in g the Q u e c h u a la n g u ag e a n d living in
c o m m u n a l villages. It w as here th a t m e m o ries o f th e p ast w ere m o s t alive.
In 1780 a large-scale rebellion, caused by a c c u m u la te d social d isco ntents,
w as led by a d e s c e n d a n t o f th e Incas w h o to o k th e n a m e T u p a c A m a r u .
S u p p re sse d w ith merciless cruelty, it te rrified the E u r o p e a n u p p e r class.
S p a n is h statistics fro m th e late eig h tee n th ce n tu ry show ed Ind ian
m a jo ritie s in the p o p u la tio n s o f the vice royalties o f New S p a in (60 per
cent) a n d P e r u (57 p e r cent). M estizos in these tw o te rritorie s w ere 22 an d
29 p e r cent. In Chile a b o u t h alf the p o p u la tio n w ere m estizos a n d a b o u t a
th ir d were white.
T h e o th e r m a in c o m p o n e n t in the S p a n is h A m e r ic a n p o p u la tio n were
black slaves, im p o rte d d u r in g th ree centuries o f im perial rule into the
C a r i b b e a n islands a n d th e coa sta l regions o f Venezuela. S m a lle r but
co n s id e ra b le n u m b e rs w ere b r o u g h t to th e R io de la P la ta a n d to som e of
th e A tla n tic provinces o f C e n tr a l A m eric a. W ith negroes to o th e re was
large-scale in te rm a rria g e .4
S p a n is h rule w as b ased on a h ierarchy of officials, rising fro m the local
I n d ia n boss ( cacique) o r creole m a y o r (alcalde), th r o u g h the g o v ern o rs of
p rovinces o f v arying im p o r ta n c e , to the v ic eroy .5 T h e viceroys an d
g o v e r n o r s (so m etim e s called c a pta ins-gene ra l) h a d ad v iso ry councils
(audiencias), o f senior b u re a u c r a ts , w hich w ere p rim a rily jud ic ia l bodies
b u t h a d so m e po w ers o f supervision o v er th e a d m in is tra tio n , a n d were
s o m e tim es in conflict w ith th e gov ern o rs. T his m a c h in e ry o f g o v e rn m e n t,
r e p r o d u c e d in each o f the m a in regions, gave th e m d istinct fra m ew o rk s,
a n d to their creole in h a b ita n ts the sense o f fo rm in g distinct c o m m unities.
G r e a t e r distances, g r e a te r g eo g ra p h ic a l obstacles a n d m o r e rigid state
a p p a r a t u s th u s caused th e m a in S p a n is h regions to differ m o r e significantly
fro m each o th e r th a n th e colonies o f British N o r t h A m erica.
A special case was P a r a g u a y , w here in th e se v e n te e n th c e n tu r y the
Je su its estab lished a p a te rn a list d ic ta to rs h ip o v er th e G u a r a n i Indians.
T his was on b alanc e a b e ne vo le nt regim e, a n d these In d ian s fared better
th a n a n y o th e rs u n d e r S p a n is h rule. H ow ever, the general o d iu m a tta c h in g
 European Nations Overseas 201

itself to the Je su its in the E u ro p e of the E n lig h te n m e n t m a d e itself felt in

S p a in too. In 1767 they w ere expelled fro m S p a n is h A m eric a, an d
P a r a g u a y was tra n sfe rre d to the viceroyalty o f R io de la P lata.
T h e e c o n o m ic policy o f S p a in was strictly m ercantilist. T h is was of
benefit to som e regions a n d som e interests, harm fu l to others. M exico,
N ew G r a n a d a a n d P e ru h ad a privileged p o sitio n in relation to the o th e r
regions. L ocal ind ustries in the A n d e a n states benefited fro m p rotec tion.
O p p o s itio n to S p a n ish policy c a m e especially fro m la n d o w n e rs in V enezu­
ela a n d in the m a ritim e provinces o f R io de la P lata , w h o wished to sell the
p r o d u c e o f their estates o r p la n ta tio n s directly to E u ro p e . T h e r e was
co n sid erab le ill feeling betw een creole m e rc h a n ts a n d m e r c h a n ts from
S p ain , w h o enjoyed special privileges.
D isc o n ten ts w ere increased by the v ig o ro u s policy of r e fo rm a d o p t e d by
the B o u r b o n King C h a rles III of S p a in (1759-88), w h o set him self to
m o d e rn ise S p ain a n d her em pire. N ew se n io r officials ( in te n d a n ts) were
in tro d u c e d in 1786, a n d m ost o f th e m w ere sent fro m S pain . T h e ir task was
to c o n tro l the ex e cu tio n of policy m o r e efficiently, to im p ro v e collection of
taxes, a n d to som e e x te n t to protect the I n d ia n s fro m their exploiters. A n
aggressive policy of p r o m o tin g the i m p o r ta tio n of E u r o p e a n g o o d s via
S p a in d a m a g e d existing A m e ric a n industries. T h is trad e w as kept firm ly in
the h a n d s of S p a n ish m e rc h an ts. T h e key. p o sition o f S p a n ia r d s in high
executive posts was also reinforced. All these things increased rese n tm e n t
a m o n g creoles a g a in st Spain .
G ro w in g n u m b e rs o f creoles th u s b eg a n to th in k in te rm s o f self-
g o v e rn m e n t. D u rin g the late eig hteenth c e n tu ry the ideas o f the E n lig h te n ­
m e n t becam e k n o w n to e d u c ated creoles: indeed, the B o u r b o n regim e to
s o m e e x te n t e n c o u r a g e d the m . T h e A m e r ic a n R e v o lu tio n inevitably m a d e
its im pression. T h e F re n c h R e v o lu tio n a p p e a le d only to a sm aller n u m b e r,
especially as one o f its conseq u e n ces w as the r e v o lu tio n in the F re n c h
C a ri b b e a n island o f S a n t a D o m in g o in 1791. T h is n eg ro in su rrec tion, led
by the great T o u s s a in t l’O u v e rtu re , w hich c re ate d the first in d e p e n d e n t
A m e ric a n state so u th o f the U nited S ta te s — th e rep ublic of H a iti— filled
V enezuelan la n d o w n e rs, how ev er lib e ral-m in d e d in th e o ry , w ith te rror.
T h e m o st im p o r ta n t figure in th e S p a n is h A m e r ic a n E n lig h ten m e n t,
F ra n c isc o M ir a n d a , a native o f C a ra c a s, lo o k e d ra th e r to th e ideology of
Je fferso n a n d the m ilitary s u p p o r t o f Britain fo r his a t te m p ts (w hich were
unsuccessful) to liberate Venezuela.
T h e last occ asio n o n w hich S o u th A m e r ic a n s rallied beh in d S p a in in w ar
was in A u g u st 1806, w h e n a British force w hich h ad occupied Buenos Aires
was defeated by a creole arm y. H ow ever, the d isc o n te n ts w ere a c c u m u la t­
ing b e n e a th the surface, a n d a drastic ch a n g e in th e s itu a tio n o f S p ain
rapidly m a d e this clear.
In 1808 N a p o le o n in v a d ed S p a in a n d d e t h r o n e d th e B o u r b o n s . T h e
202 Nations and States

S p a n is h a u th o ritie s h a d to ch o o s e betw e en F e r d in a n d V II a n d Jo s e p h
B o n a p a r te , a n d th eir d ile m m a gave th e p o litica lly -m in de d creoles a n
o p p o r tu n ity to m a k e them selves felt, c o m b in in g p a trio tic rejection of the
F r e n c h w ith the as sertio n o f their o w n aims. T h e first o u tb r e a k s were in
C h u q u i s a c a in M a y 1809 a n d in Q u ito in A u g u st 1809. M o r e im p o r ta n t
m o v e m e n ts follow ed in 1810: in A pril in C a ra c a s , in M a y in B u enos Aires
a n d in B o g o ta, a n d in S e p te m b e r in S a n tia g o . A lso in S e p te m b e r 1810
b eg a n a rising in M e x ico , w hich unlik e the o th e rs had a m a rk e d social
re v o lu tio n a r y cha racter.
T h e e m a n c ip a tio n o f S p a n is h A m e ric a was f o u g h t over a n im m ensely
w ider a r e a t h a n th e w a r o f th e N o r t h A m e r ic a n colo nies a g a in st the British.
It w as also im m en sely m o r e pain fu l, w ith heavy casualties to civilians as
well as soldiers, a n d m ass acts o f reprisal cruelly p e rf o rm e d o n b o th sides. It
w as s p re a d ov er nearly tw e n ty years instead o f five.
A general p a t te r n m a y be noted. A t first th e new leaders p ro cla im e d their
loyalty to the k ing o f S p a in , b u t s o o n this ‘m a sk o f F e r d i n a n d ’ w ore thin,
a n d in d e p e n d e n c e was d ec la re d as th e aim. In M e x ico th e re w as a
re v o lu tio n a r y w ar, in w h ich the creole leaders w ere forced into alliance
w ith th e S p a n is h a u th o ritie s , w hich they w on. In P e ru the S p a n ish
a u th o ritie s w ere n o t at first seriously th re a te n e d . Elsew here the in d e p e n ­
d enc e m o v e m e n ts were fairly successful until N a p o le o n h ad been defeated
in E u ro p e . F e r d in a n d VII th e n m a d e renew ed efforts to su p p re ss the re b ­
els, b u t his arm ies w ere decisively defeated by 1824.
T h e d e c la ra tio n o f in d e p e n d e n c e o f 5 J u ly 1811 in C a r a c a s a n d o f 11
N o v e m b e r in C a r t a g e n a w ere follow ed by eight years o f fighting in which
th e S p a n ia r d s several tim es d efe ate d th e rebels. In 1817 a n d 1818 the
r e v o lu tio n a r y le ad e r S im o n B olivar built u p a n a r m y in the rem o te
s o u th e r n regions o f V enezuela, led it ac ro ss the A n d e s in the s u m m e r of
1819 a n d libe rate d m o s t o f N ew G r a n a d a . In 1821 his forces finally
d efe ate d th e S p a n ia rd s , a n d a single R e p u b lic of G r a n C o l o m b ia c a m e into
existence, co vering all th e lands o f the fo rm e r viceroyalty o f New G r a n a d a
a n d Venezuela.
In th e s o u th th e S p a n is h viceroy o f R io de la P la ta w as o v e r th r o w n in
M a y 1810, b u t this w as follo w ed by several years o f conflict betw een
ce n tralists a n d federalists, co nserv atives a n d radicals, th e city o f Buenos
Aires a n d the o u tlying provinces. S p a n ish rule ho w ev e r w as n o t restored,
a n d a m ilitary base w as establish ed fo r the lib e ratio n o f the Pacific
te rrito rie s by J o s e de S a n M a rtin , w h o in 1815 a n d 1816 c re ate d a n a r m y in
the w estern p rov ince o f M e n d o z a a n d in J a n u a r y 1817 crosse d the A ndes
into Chile. W ith the help o f th e forces o f th e C h ile a n re v o lu tio n a r y leader
B e rn a r d o O ’Higgins he d efe ate d the S p a n ia r d s a n d libe rate d Chile.
In P e ru S p a n ish p o w e r rem a in ed effectively u n ch a lle n g ed , n o t least
because the creoles, re m e m b e r in g the T u p a c A m a r u rebellion o f 1780,
 European Nations Overseas 203

feared I n d ian revenge if S p a n ish rule sh o u ld collapse. Risings by creoles

a n d by In d ian s were suppressed in turn. In th e end P e ru was liberated not
by its ow n people b u t by the forces o f S a n M a r ti n a n d o f Bolivar.6
In M exico the first rising was led by a priest, M iguel H id alg o y Costilla,
in S e p te m b e r 1810. T h is was as m u c h directed a g a in st the la n d o w n in g
class, in th e interest o f the p ea sa n ts a n d in the n am e o f tr u e religion, as
ag a in st S p a n is h rule. It was crushed afte r f o u r m o n th s , b u t a n o t h e r rising
b r o k e o u t in N o v e m b e r 1813 u n d e r th e le ade rship o f one o f his followers,
a n o t h e r priest, o f m estizo origin, n a m e d J o s é M a ria M o r e lo s y P av ô u . It
to o was suppressed.
F o r the n ex t five years S p a n is h rule in M e x ico n o t only survived, b u t was
s u p p o r te d by the creole u p p e r a n d m iddle classes, w h o m th e p e a s a n t rising
had greatly ala rm e d . T h e n ex t m o v e m e n t o f o p p o s itio n c a m e n o t so m u c h
fro m radicals as fro m conservatives. T h e M e x ic a n c h u r c h objected to the
anti-clerical legislation o f the 1820 r e v o lu tio n arie s in S p a in , a n d th e a r m y
officers to a tta c k s o n their privileges. In F e b r u a r y 1821 C o lo n e l A gustin de
ltu r b id e led a revolt, s u p p o r te d by the ch u rc h . A fter a n interval o f tw o
years, d u r in g w hich ltu r b id e declared him self A g ustin , e m p e r o r of M exico,
there was a n o t h e r revolt, of s o m e o f his s u b o r d in a t e officers. In O c to b e r
1824 the first r e p u b lican co n s titu tio n o f M e x ico was a d o p te d .
Events in M e x ico h ad repercussions in the so u th e rn p a r t o f C e n tra l
A m erica. S o m e f a v o u re d in d e p e n d e n c e fo r G u a te m a la , o th e rs u n io n of
G u a te m a la w ith M exico. In J u ly 1823 a c o n s titu e n t assem bly m e t an d
pro cla im e d th e republic o f the United P ro v in c es o f C e n tr a l A m e r ic a —
C o s ta Rica, G u a te m a la , H onduras* N ic a r a g u a a n d El S a lv a d o r. T h ese five
did n o t ho w ev e r re m a in to ge th er. T h e process o f s e p a r a tio n in to five
republics was c o m p le te d in 1838. By this tim e B olivar’s G r a n C o l o m b ia had
a lre ad y b r o k e n up: V enezuela’s f o rm a l s e p a r a tio n to o k place in A pril 1830,
a n d E c u a d o r seceded in A u g u s t o f the sa m e year. O f the S p a n is h e m p ire in
A m e ric a all th a t n o w re m a in e d was the islands o f C u b a , S a n to D o m in g o
a n d P u e r to Rico. In th e place o f the e m p ire w ere fifteen sovereign r e p u b ­
lics.7

D u r i n g th e six tee n th c e n tu r y a n u m b e r o f P o rtu g u e s e se ttlem ents w ere set

u p a lo n g the long n o r t h e r n a n d ea ste rn co a st o f S o u th A m eric a, betw een
th e m o u th s o f the A m a z o n a n d th e e s tu a ry o f th e R io P lata . It was only
to w a r d s th e end o f th e c e n tu r y th a t su g a r a n d c o t to n p la n ta tio n s , w o rk e d
by A fric a n slave l a b o u r b r o u g h t by th e s h o rte s t A tla n tic ro u te, b eg a n to be
profitable. In the seven te en th c e n tu r y the D u tc h established them selves in
P e r n a m b u c o province, a n d th e F re n c h a t R io de J a n e ir o , b u t these rivals
were driven o u t by th e P o rtu g u e s e A m e r ic a n s them selves w ith o u t help
fro m the h o m e lan d .
204 Nations and States

P o rtu g u e s e e c o n o m ic policy was based o n the sam e m e rc antilist p rinci­

ples as th a t o f o th e r c o lo n ial states. A t th e end o f th e sev en te en th ce n tu ry
discoveries o f gold a n d d ia m o n d s b r o u g h t s u b sta n tia l E u r o p e a n im m ig r a ­
tion, w hich f r o m th a t tim e b eg a n to c o u n t e r b a la n c e the overw helm ingly
n eg ro p o p u la tio n o f the n o r th . T h e ca p ita l w as m o v e d f ro m B a h ia to R io de
J a n e ir o a n d th e ce n tre o f political p o w e r was increasingly in the south.
W h e n N a p o le o n ’s arm ies occupied P o rtu g a l in 1807, the regency a n d the
c o u r t w ere tra n s f e rr e d u n d e r British naval p r o te c tio n to Brazil. F re e trad e
w ith th e rest o f the w o rld was p erm itted : this, to g e th e r w ith the presence of
th e c o u r t a n d th e P o rtu g u e s e u p p e r class, b r o u g h t b o th e c o n o m ic a n d
cu ltu ra l d e v e lo p m e n t a n d a g r o w th o f Brazilian n a tio n a l consciousness.
O n ce P o r tu g a l was lib erated fro m N a p o le o n th ere was a pressing d e m a n d
f ro m th e m e tr o p o lita n c o u n t r y f o r the re tu r n o f K ing J o h n VI. H e did not
leave until 1820, an d his son a n d heir D o m P e d r o r em a in ed as regent.
W h e n he to o was pressed to retu rn , he refused, a n d o n 7 S e p te m b e r 1822
d eclared Brazil in d e p e n d e n t. T h e o nly resistance c a m e fro m a P o rtu g u e se
g a r r is o n in Bahia, w hich w as o v e rc o m e by B razilian tr o o p s a n d foreign
volu nteers. P e d r o b e c a m e the c o n s titu tio n a l e m p e r o r o f Brazil. T h e new
situ a tio n w as recognised by the P o rtu g u e s e g o v e r n m e n t, a n d n o w a r of
in d e p e n d e n c e was needed.

A fter th e U n ite d S tate s h a d w o n their in d e p en d e n ce , th e British cro w n

c o n tin u e d to hold vast te rrito ria l possessions in N o r t h A m erica. T he
f o rm e r F r e n c h colony o f Q u ebe c, c o n q u e r e d by the British in 1759, was left
in th e ir possession by th e T re a t y o f P aris o f 1783. F u r t h e r west, in the
reg io n o f L a k e O n ta r io , w ere British settlem ents, w h o se p o p u la tio n was
greatly increased by U n ite d E m p ire L oyalists f r o m th e th irte en fo rm e r
co lonies w h o p referre d exile u n d e r th e British cro w n to citizenship o f the
new republic. F u r t h e r vast la n d s w ith sp a rse p o p u la tio n stretched to the
n o r th a n d w est.8
T h e C a n a d i a n C o n s titu tio n a l A ct o f 1791 es tablish ed the tw o provinces
o f L o w e r a n d U p p e r C a n a d a , ea ch w ith a lie u te n a n t-g o v e rn o r, a n a p p o i n t ­
ed legislative council a n d a n assem bly elected o n a n a r r o w franchise. In
L o w er C a n a d a (o r Q ueb e c) th e g rea t m a jo r ity o f th e p eople were F rench,
b u t th e re w as a g ro w in g m in o rity o f British, especially in the city of
M o n tre a l. M a n y o f the lead in g F re n c h c o m m e rc ia l families, w h o had
deve lope d th e fu r t r a d e in the p e r io d o f F r e n c h rule, left C a n a d a afte r 1759.
W h e th e r for this r ea so n o r fo r others, th e c o m m e r c ia l life o f M o n tr e a l
largely passed into British h ands. T he r e m a in in g F re n c h seigneurs a n d the
F re n c h ch u rc h h ierarchy a c c e p te d British rule. A s social conservativ es a n d
d ev o te d C a tholics, they disliked the A m e r ic a n republic, a n d afte r 1789 they
d etested the F re n c h republic: th e British cro w n was p referab le to either. A t
 European Nations Overseas 2Q5

the sa m e tim e th e re w as no cordiality betw e en F re n c h a n d English. T h e

F re n c h sullenly acquiesced, d e te rm in e d to preserve their tr a d i tio n a l w ay o f
life a n d th o u g h t u n c h a n g e d . T h e British rulers declared t h a t they h a d — a n d
indeed h a d — no in te n tio n o f infringing these values; b u t there were
E ng lish -sp e ak in g C a n a d i a n s in b o th p rovinces w h o did n o t tr o u b le to
conceal their hostility to all thing s F re n ch . D islike of C ath o licism , p r o p a ­
g a te d especially by th e O ra n g e O rd e r in U p p e r C a n a d a (o r O n ta r io ) , played
its p art. A t the sam e tim e U p p e r C a n a d a h a d g ro w in g political difficulties.
Im m ig r a tio n fro m Britain, especially fro m S c o tla n d a n d Ireland, grew
rap idly afte r the N a p o le o n ic wars. T h e im m ig r a n ts o u t n u m b e r e d the
U nited E m p ire Loyalists by the 1830s, b u t p o sitions o f a u t h o r i ty in the
pro v in ce w ere c o n c e n tra te d in the h a n d s o f a sm all n u m b e r o f families,
m o st b u t n o t all of w hich w ere Loyalists. T h is local oligarchy, which
b e c am e k n o w n as the F a m ily C o m p a c t, p ro v o k e d b itter o p p o s itio n from
the m o r e recently arriv ed colonists.
T h e tw o c u rre n ts o f d isc o n te n t d eve lop e d in d e p e n d e n tly to w a r d s a crisis
in the year 1837. A d e m o c r a tic p r o g r a m m e p u t f o rw a r d by th e F re n ch
C a n a d i a n leader, L o u is- Jo se p h P a p in e a u , in F e b r u a r y 1834 was rejected.
British c o u n t e r -p r o p o s a ls o f 1837 led to p r o te s t m eetings in F re n ch
districts, a b o y c o tt o f British g o o d s, a n d in N o v e m b e r a n d D e c e m b e r 1837
a series o f e n c o u n te rs betw een a r m e d F re n c h C a n a d i a n s a n d British
tro o p s. Also in D e c e m b e r 1837 W illiam L y o n M ack e n zie , the leader o f the
U p p e r C a n a d a radicals, m a d e a n unsuccessful a r m e d a t ta c k on T o r o n t o .
T h e British g o v e r n m e n t set u p a n e n q u iry in to C a n a d i a n affairs u n d e r
L ord D u rh a m . His m a in c o n s titu tio n a l p r o p o s a l, the e s ta b lish m e n t o f a
single p a rlia m e n t w ith a n equ a l n u m b e r o f seats allotted to each province,
w as carried o u t by th e U n io n A ct o f J u ly 1840. E q u a lity o f seats was
ob je ctio n ab le first to th e F re n c h C a n a d i a n s , w h o o u t n u m b e r e d the
E n g lish-spe akin g C a n a d i a n s by a b o u t th ree to tw o, a n d th e n to the
E nglish, w h o o b ta in e d a n overall m a jo rity o f th e p o p u la tio n in th e 1850s
ow ing to im m ig ratio n . H ow ever, th e system w o rk e d to le ra b ly well in
practice, an d the rival political parties c o u ld only o b ta in a m a jo r ity if they
recruited b o th s u p p o r te r s a n d le aders a m o n g people o f b o t h languages.
The ob je ctio n ab le p a r t o f the D u r h a m R e p o r t was the c o n t e m p t s h o w n for
the F re n c h -sp e a k in g people. W ritin g w ith the zeal of a m id -n in e tee n th
c e n tu ry centralising radical, D u r h a m dism issed th e F re n c h C a n a d i a n s as
a n inert a n d b a c k w a r d people. P h ila n t h r o p i c c o n c e r n fo r their interests
c ou ld only p o in t to speedy assim ilatio n to th e ir E n g lish -spe aking neigh­
b o u rs, either in C a n a d a o r in the U nited S tates. F o r tu n a te ly fo r C a n a d a ,
British g o v e r n m e n ts w ere t o o c a u tio u s a n d c o nservative to act o n these
lines.
T h e m a in p ro b le m , f o r th o u g h tf u l C a n a d i a n s afte r the m id -c en tu ry , was
th e p ro te c tio n o f th e s c attered N o r t h A m e r ic a n te rritorie s o f th e British
206 Nations and States

c r o w n a g a in st th e U n ite d S tates, w h ich w as viewed w ith a m ix tu re of

a d m i r a t i o n a n d dislike. T h e view em erged th a t a s tr o n g u n io n of all the
provinces, f r o m Pacific to A tla n tic , sh o u ld be b r o u g h t a b o u t . C a n a d i a n s
s h o u ld lo o k n o t s o u th — w h e th e r in h o p e o r in fe a r — b u t west, u p th e St
L aw renc e, ac ross th e G re a t L ak e s a n d prairies a n d R o c k y M o u n ta in s to
th e o th e r ocean. T h e f o r m u l a o f S ir J o h n M a c d o n a ld a n d G eo rg e-E tie n n e
C a r t ie r w as a C o n f e d e r a tio n o f British N o r t h A m eric a, n o t a loose
a s so c ia tio n w hich m ig h t brin g a b o u t th e d isin te g ra tio n w hich th re a te n e d
th e U n ite d S tate s f ro m 1861 t o 1865, b u t a s tr o n g cen tralised system. A fter
m u c h n e g o tia tio n a n d h e s ita tion, this a im was b r o u g h t a b o u t by the British
N o r t h A m e r ic a n A ct o f J u ly 1867.9 T h e n a m e o f C a n a d a w as e x te n d e d to
the w hole g rea t co u n try . Its unity, a lo n g th e w est-east axis, w as e n o r m o u s ly
stre n g th e n e d by th e c o m p le tio n o f the C a n a d i a n Pacific R a ilw a y in 1885.

F r o m th e begin n in g th e re w as a lack o f s y m p a th y b etw een the British

a d m in is t r a tio n o f the C a p e C o lo n y , installed in 1815, a n d the D u tc h
p o p u la tio n . T h e British g o v e r n m e n t w as a n x i o u s to a void e x p e n d itu re ,
a n d so to a void conflict w ith th e A fric a n tribes o n th e co lo n y ’s eastern
b o r d e r ; a n d the British m issionaries, w h o b e c am e a n im p o r ta n t pressure
g r o u p , d e m a n d e d m o r e h u m a n e t r e a tm e n t fo r the A fric ans, a n d m ore
serious efforts to sp rea d C h ristia n ity a m o n g th e m , th a n the D u tc h settlers
a n d th e ir D u tc h R e fo r m e d C h u r c h were willing to m ake. T h e c o n d itio n s
fo r th e e m a n c ip a t io n o f slaves, passed by the British p a r lia m e n t in M a y
1833 a n d c o m in g into force a t the end o f 1834, gave very u n f a v o u r a b le c o n ­
ditio n s o f c o m p e n s a tio n to slave-ow ners in th e C ape.
T h e d isc o n te n t o f th e D u t c h ( o r Boers , as th e y b e c am e generally k n o w n ,
f r o m the D u t c h w o rd f o r ‘f a r m e r ’) w as ex pressed in the m ass em ig ra tio n
k n o w n as th e G r e a t T re k , w hich b e g a n in 1835. T h ese pioneers, or
Voortrekkers, m ove d w ith th e ir families, se rva nts a n d m o b ile possessions
in ox -w a g g o n s. T h e y crosse d th e O ra n g e R iver, a n d th e n so m e m o ve d o n to
the V aa l a n d across it, while o th e rs crossed the D r a k e n s b e r g into the
c o a sta l region. H ere th e y c a m e into c o n t a c t w ith the Z u lu k in g d o m in
w h ich th e re w as a lre a d y a sm all E u r o p e a n c o m m u n ity o f tra d e rs an d
w h alers a t P o r t N a ta l (later r e n a m e d D u r b a n ) . T h e Z u lu kin g D in g a a n o n 6
F e b r u a r y 1838 invited th e V o o r t r e k k e r s ’ le a d e r P ie t R e tie f a n d seventy
c o m p a n io n s to d r in k w ith him , th e n h a d th e m c a p tu r e d a n d h o rrib ly d o n e
to d e a th o n his e x e c u tio n hill ou tside his tow n . A b o u t 500 o th e r V o o r­
tre k k e rs a n d se rva nts w ere killed ten d ay s later. T h e m a ssac re w as avenged
in a b attle on 16 N o v e m b e r a t th e Blood River, w h en the V o o r t r e k k e r a r m y
led by A n d ries P re to riu s d efeated the Z u lu s w ith heavy casualties. In the
first m o n th s o f 1839 P re to riu s finished the j o b o f d e s tro y in g Z u lu power.
D in g a a n ’s successor was m a d e a vassal o f th e N ata l republic established by
 European Nations Overseas 207

the V o o rtre k k e rs. M e a n w h ile in the in te rio r the V o o rtre k k e r s defeated the
k in g d o m of th e N deb e le in N o v e m b e r 1837, a n d established tw o republics,
o n e betw een the O ra n g e a n d the V aal w ith its capital a t W i n b u r g a n d the
o th e r bey o n d the V aal w ith its capital at P o tc h e fstro m .
T h e British g o v e r n m e n t o f th e C a p e h a d n o t p reven ted the V o o rtre k k e r s
fro m leaving, b u t once they had established them selves it b eg a n to ta k e an
interest in the m , urged o n b o th by th e m issionaries a n d by the English
c o m m u n ity in D u r b a n . In A u g u st 1843 N a ta l w as fo rm ally a n n e x e d by
Britain. S o m e o f the Boers re m a in e d , b u t th o se w h o w ere d e te r m in e d to get
a w a y fro m the British, a n d ru n th eir c o m m u n ity in their ow n way, m oved
ac ross the D ra k e n sb e rg . British policy to w a r d s the Boer republics o f the
interior vacillated for so m e years, b u t in 1852 th e British g o v e r n m e n t
recognised the T ra n s v a a l republic, a n d in 1854 the O r a n g e F re e S tate. In
the follow ing tw en ty years the tw o B oer republics set up their ow n
in stitutions, d e m o c r a tic fo r th e w hite in h a b ita n ts only. T h e black A frican s
w ere to have n o political rights a t all. A tte m p ts to u nite the republics
betw een I860 a n d 1864, w h en M a rtin P re to riu s w as p reside nt o f b o th , did
no t succeed.
In th e early 1870s th e D u tc h - s p e a k in g E u r o p e a n s o f S o u th A frica were
divided into three distinct co m m u n ities. T r a n s v a a l had a b o u t 30,000 white
in h a b ita n ts; O ra n g e F ree S tate a b o u t h alf as m a n y ; a n d C a p e C o lo n y over
230,000 o f w h o m a large m ajo rity were D u tc h -sp e a k in g . T h e g rea t m ajo rity
o f D u tc h - s p e a k in g p eople were pious Calvinists. This was especially tru e o f
the tw o inland republics, in w h o se p eo p le a p a s sio n a te c o n v ictio n was
im p la n te d th a t th ey h ad been called by G o d to a special mission, to spread
C h r is tia n civilisation in A frica, o v erc o m in g the hostility o f b o th savage
black p ag a n s a n d godless liberal m ateria list E n glishm en. T h e T r e k a n d
Blood River were c o m m e m o r a te d as g rea t acts o f G o d th r o u g h His faithful
servants. In the C a p e this convictio n w as also w id esp re ad , b u t sinful liberal
m ateria lism also m a d e in ro a d s into th e C a p e B oer c o m m u n ity . T h is was
s h o w n in the d ifferent a t titu d e o f the C a p e p a r lia m e n t (w hich was g ra n te d
respo nsible g o v e r n m e n t by L o n d o n in 1872) to w a r d s r e p r e s e n ta tio n of
non -w hites. T h e C a p e electoral franchise was b as ed o n p r o p e r ty q ualifica­
tion, b u t it specifically did n o t exclude A fric an s o r C o lo u re d s ( d esc en d a n ts
o f m ix e d m a rria g es betw een E u r o p e a n s a n d M a lays o r o th e r A sians or
H o tte n to ts ) if they possessed this q u alification. In N ata l, th e f o u rth S o u th
A fric an colony, w ere very few D u tc h -sp e a k e rs. H ere c o n s id e ra b le im m i­
g r a ti o n fro m Britain to o k place fro m 1847 o n w a rd s. In the 1870s N a ta l had
a b o u t 18,000 w hite in h a b ita n ts , overw h elm in g ly E nglish-speaking.
A new stage b eg a n in 1877 w h e n the British co lo n ial secretary, the E arl of
C a r n a r v o n , im pressed b y the results o f c o n f e d e r a tio n in C a n a d a , stro ngly
fa v o u red th e sa m e so lu tio n in S o u th Africa: th e f o u r territo ries, if united,
w o u ld be s tro n g e r a n d m o r e p ro sp e ro u s, he believed, as well as s tr e n g th e n ­
208 Nations and States

ing the British em p ire in a strategically i m p o r t a n t p a r t o f the w orld. In

A p ril 1877 the British declared T r a n s v a a l a n n e x e d . T h e T ra n sv a a le rs
acquiesced. In J a n u a r y 1875 the British w ent to w a r w ith the Z ulus, w hose
m ilita ry p o w e r h a d revived u n d e r a new king, C e tsh w ay o . A t the ou tse t the
British a r m y was defeated, t h o u g h Z u lu la n d was c o n q u e r e d a few m o n th s
later. E n c o u r a g e d by this evidence o f British m ilitary inc om petenc e, an d
h o p in g th a t the new G la d s to n e m inistry at W e stm in s te r w o u ld retrea t fro m
its pred e cesso rs’ im p e rial policy, th e le a d e r o f th e T ra n s v a a l intransigents,
P a u l K ru g e r, urged th e r e p u d ia tio n o f British a u t h o rity . T h e result was a
w a r in w hich the Boers defeated the British a t M a j u b a Hill in F e b r u a r y
1881. T h e British g o v e r n m e n t decided to yield, a n d T ra n s v a a l was again
recognised as a n in d e p e n d e n t state.
In 1867 d ia m o n d s w ere discovered in G r i q u a la n d on the no rth -e ast
b o rd e r s o f C a p e C o lo n y , a n d f r o m 1886 o n w a r d s gold m in in g developed on
a m assive scale in the W i tw a te rs ra n d in s o u th e rn T ra n sv a a l. Both discover­
ies b r o u g h t rap id e c o n o m ic p ro gress a n d a flood o f im m ig ran ts. J o h an n e s-
b u r g sta rted o n its h e a d lo n g g r o w th in to a vast m o d e r n city. V irtually n one
o f th e im m ig ra n ts w ere D u tc h - s p e a k e rs , a n d so the p eople o f the T ra n sv a a l
saw a h e a d the d a n g e r o f being o u t n u m b e r e d by foreigners in their ow n
lan d. P a u l K rug er, p resid e n t o f T ra n s v a a l fro m 1883 to 1900, bitterly
resented the foreign im m ig r a n ts o r uitlanders a n d refused to satisfy their
grievances, n o t all o f w hich were u n re a so n a b le . M o r e im p o r ta n t, the
f o rw a r d policy o f British im p erial e x p a n s io n , as sociated w ith Jo s e p h
C h a m b e r la in , could n o t to le ra te the s e p a ra te existence o f the B oer r e p u b ­
lics. Cecil R h o d e s, p r e m ie r o f the C a p e fro m 1890, w h o had his o w n vision
o f a n A fric a d o m in a te d by Britain fro m th e C a p e to C a ir o , becam e a
m ilita n t e x p o n e n t of im p e r ia lis m .10 T h e J a m e s o n R a id, a clum sy a tte m p t
to invade T ra n s v a a l in c o n ju n c tio n w ith a r e v o lu tio n by th e uitlanders
w h ich never t o o k place, discredited R h o d e s, p u t a n end to A frik a n er-
E nglish c o o p e r a tio n in th e C a p e, a n d e m b itte re d r e l a t i o n s ’bet ween the
C a p e a n d T ra n sv a a l. T h e a p p o i n tm e n t of S ir A lfred M iln er as high
c o m m is s io n e r in th e C a p e in 1898 did n o t im p ro v e the situatio n. M ilner
a n d K rug er, tw o h o n o u r a b l e a n d intelligent fanatics, c ou ld never com e to
te rm s. In O c to b e r 1899 B rita in a n d th e tw o B oer republics were at war.
T h e w a r b e g a n w ith a series o f British defeats, follow ed by a recovery
u n d e r the lead ersh ip o f F ie ld - M a rs h a l L o rd R o b e rts , w h o a t the end of
1900 h a d occup ied the m a in centres a n d p ro c la im e d the a n n e x a t io n of the
tw o republics. T his w as follow ed by m o r e th a n a y ea r o f guerrilla w arfare,
in w h ich B oer c o m m a n d o s received s u p p o r t f r o m th e A fr ik a n e r p o p u la tio n
o f the C a p e as well as f r o m th e p eople n o r t h o f the O ra n g e , a n d th e British
retaliated by in te rn in g th o u s a n d s o f A f r ik a n e r w o m e n a n d ch ild ren in
c o n c e n t r a tio n c a m p s — w h ere so m e 25,000 died in a y e a r a n d a h alf— a n d
by b u rn in g farm buildings a n d d es tro y in g livestock. P eac e was eventually
 European Nations Overseas 209

m a d e in V ereeniging a n d signed in P r e to r i a o n 31 M a y 1902.

F o r th e n e x t th ree years M ilner ruled all S o u th Africa. L ik e L ord
D u r h a m in C a n a d a sixty years earlier, he w ished to cre ate efficient a n d
progressive g o v e r n m e n t a n d to f u r th e r e c o n o m ic d e v e lo p m e n t. Like
D u r h a m , he believed th a t English la n g u a g e a n d cultu re were b o u n d to
prevail: th e survival o f a second cu lture, w ith a second E u r o p e a n language,
seem ed as a b s u rd to h im as h a d the survival o f F r e n c h c u ltu r e in Q u e b e c to
D u rh a m . Both were w rong.
T h e a d v e n t to p o w e r in Britain o f th e L ibe ra l P a r ty u n d e r S ir H en ry
C a m p b e ll- B a n n e r m a n b r o u g h t a radical ch a n g e of policy. R esponsible
g o v e r n m e n t was g ra n te d to th e tw o fo rm e r republics. F r o m O c to b e r 1908
to F e b r u a r y 1909 a N a tio n a l C o n v e n tio n of elected d elegates met to decide
a c o n s titu tio n for a U n io n o f S o u th Africa: the reluc tanc e o f the people of
N a ta l, m a n y o f w h o m still th o u g h t o f them selves as English r a th e r th a n as
S o u th A fricans, to jo in a U nion, w as o v erc o m e by th e p ro sp e c t of
e c o n o m ic ad v a n ta g e . T h e new c o n s titu tio n w as u n ita ry r a th e r t h a n federal,
b u t it preserved im p o r t a n t differences betw een the fra nchise laws in the
f o u r provinces. T h e C a p e franchise, w hich p e rm itted C o lo u re d s a n d
A fricans w ith p r o p e r ty a n d e d u c a tio n a l q ualifica tio n s to vote (b u t n o t to be
elected) was preserved, a n d could only be repealed by a tw o -th ird s m ajo rity
in b o th houses o f p a r lia m e n t of the U n io n . In practice this m e a n t th a t 77
per cent o f the p o p u la tio n o f the C a p e w ere entitled to 15 per cent o f the
se ats— n o t m u c h , b u t b e tte r t h a n n o th ing. T h e rights o f n o n - E u r o p e a n s in
N a ta l were in prac tice so m inim al as to be negligible: in T ra n s v a a l a n d
O r a n g e F ree S ta te n o such rights existed. T h e C o n v e n tio n also agreed, at
the insistence of G e n e ra l J. B. M. H e rtz o g f r o m th e O r a n g e F ree S tate, th a t
b o th E u r o p e a n lang uages sh o u ld enjoy c o m p le te eq ua lity in public busi­
ness, a n d this p rovision was also en tre n c h e d in th e c o n s titu tio n by m a k in g
it reversible only by a tw o -th ird s m a jo rity in b o th H ouses. R epresentatives
o f the C o lo u re d s a n d A fricans, led by th e f o rm e r C a p e p rim e m inister, W.
P. S chrein er, visited L o n d o n in 1909 to try to o b ta in b etter te rm s for n on -
E u ro p e a n s ; b u t th e British g o v e r n m e n t was n o t willing to ex e rt pressure,
a n d p a rlia m e n t passed th e S o u th A frica Bill in M a y 1910. This was widely
acclaim ed as a n act o f generosity by th e British to w a r d s a brav e defeated
enemy: it was only m a n y years la ter th a t it a p p e a r e d a n act o f betra y al of
the w e a k e r m a jo rity peoples, a b a n d o n e d to th e mercies of the stro n g er
m inority.
T h u s, after nea rly a ce n tu r y o f conflict, in c lu d in g tw o w ars fo r i n d e p e n ­
dence, th e E u r o p e a n c o m m u n ity h ad o b ta in e d sovereign ty in a large state,
w h ich had before it the p r o sp e c t of m o v in g to w a r d s in d e p e n d e n c e in the
sa m e w ay as the o th e r states o f the evolving British e m p ir e — C a n a d a ,
A u stra lia a n d N ew Z ea la n d .
H ow ever, the division betw een E ng lish -sp e ak in g a n d A fr ik a a n s ­
210 Nations and States

sp e a k in g people, n o less p r o f o u n d t h a n betw e en E n glish-speakers a n d

F re n c h -sp e a k e rs in C a n a d a , m a d e the f o r m a t i o n o f a single E u r o p e a n
S o u th A fric an n a tio n ex tre m ely difficult, while its s itu a tio n in th e m idst of
in d ige n ous bla ck A fric a n p o p u la tio n s , o u tn u m b e r in g it six to one, a d d e d a
f u rth e r tragic d im e nsion.

S ydn ey, th e first E u r o p e a n city in A u stralia, w as f o u n d e d by C a p ta in

A r t h u r P hilip as th e residence o f his sh ip lo ad o f 750 convicts. A fter
c o m p le tin g th e ir sentences, th e co nvicts c o u ld b e c o m e free settlers, a n d
their ch ild ren grew u p free. G ra d u a lly also th e n u m b e r o f free im m ig ran ts
increased, a n d sheep f a r m in g developed. D u r i n g the 1830s a n d 1840s
p ione ers e x p lo re d the in te rior, follow in g the rivers w estw a rd s in to the
M u r ra y , th e n into th e D a r lin g a n d south -w est to th e ocean. O th ers
travelled n o r th w a r d s as far as the G u lf o f C a rp e n ta ria . D u rin g these years
the tw o cities o f M e lb o u r n e a n d B risbane w ere fo u n d e d . T w o enterp rises of
sy stem atic co lo n isa tio n , pla n n ed in E n g la n d , were also carried out,
inspired by th e great e x p o n e n t of w hite overseas co lo n isa tio n , G ib b o n
W akefield. O n e was o n th e S w a n River in the far s o u th-w est, fro m which
dev e lo p e d th e colon y o f W est A ustralia. In 1840 t r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f p riso n ­
ers s to p p e d , e x c ep t fo r W e st A u stralia, w h o se settlers c o n tin u e d to d e m a n d
co nvict la b o u r until 1868.
As th e p o p u la tio n increased, th e d e m a n d fo r r ep rese n tativ e institution s
grew. In 1842 N ew S o u t h W ales was given a c ounc il w ith a n elected
m a jo rity o n a restricted franchise, a n d in 1850 sim ilar institu tio n s were
e x te n d e d to T a s m a n ia a n d S o u th A u stralia. In 1851 V icto ria becam e a
se p a r a te co lon y, its c a p ita l being M e lb o u rn e , a n d in 1859 Q u ee n sla n d
b e c a m e a n o t h e r , c o m p risin g th e la n d s fro m B risb ane to th e G u lf o f
C a r p e n ta r ia . In 1855 all th e colonies o b ta in e d c o n s titu tio n s w ith respon si­
ble p a r lia m e n ta r y g o v e r n m e n t a n d d e m o c r a tic franchises.
T h is result was n o t achieved w ith o u t violence. In 1851 discovery o f gold
at B alla ra t led to m assive im m ig ra tio n , w hich in five years increased the
p o p u la tio n o f V ictoria f r o m 70,000 to 333,000. T h e im m ig ra n ts objected to
the d u ty raised by the g o v e r n m e n t of V ictoria o n th e ir m in in g licence, an d
d e m a n d e d the right to be rep resented in the legislature. In 1854 there was
fighting betw e en m iners a n d tro o p s.
T h e A u s tr a lia n colonies d ev e lope d o n s e p a ra te b u t parallel lines for the
rest o f the century. T h e p o p u la tio n was m a in ly E ng lish a n d P ro te s ta n t, bu t
th e re w as a C a th o lic Irish elem ent especially in V ictoria. T h e indigenous
people, k n o w n in A u s tr a lia as aborigines, w ere sp a rse in n u m b e rs , p o o rly
org an ise d , a n d suffered f r o m th e c o n t e m p t u o u s a r r o g a n c e , th e diseases
a n d at tim es the m u r d e r o u s zeal o f th e E u ro p e a n s . T h e w hite p o p u la tio n
was divided into fo u r m a in sectors: th e coa sta l cities, the m in ing centres,
 European Nations Overseas 211

th e fa r m in g districts a n d the great are as used for sheep o r cattle grazing.

Conflicts on land o w n e rsh ip b etw een fa r m e r s a n d graziers w ere o n e o f the
m a in them es o f A u s tr a lia n politics. T h e pu b lic clim ate te n d e d to g rea ter
e q u a lita r ia n is m th a n in Britain, a n d la b o u r a n d school legislation were well
a d v a n ce d .
F e d e r a tio n o f the five colonies was discussed as early as the 1880s, b u t no
such pressing need was felt as had been the case in C a n a d a in th e 1860s.
T h e r e was also a n im p o r ta n t e c o n o m ic conflict betw een New S o u th W ales,
w hich f a v o u red free tra d e , a n d th e o th e r colonies, w h ich inclined to
pro tec tio n ism . It w as the g r o w th o f rivalry betw een th e E u r o p e a n great
p o w ers in the Pacific t h a t m a d e A u s tr a lia n politicians th in k m o r e urgently
a b o u t unity. P r o tr a c te d n eg o tiatio n s betw e en the leaders o f th e five
co lonies c u lm in a te d in the e s tab lish m e n t, fro m 1 J a n u a r y 1901, o f the
C o m m o n w e a lth o f A u stralia. T h e po w ers reserved to the states w ere m o re
n u m e r o u s th a n in the C a n a d i a n c o n fe d e ra tio n , b u t residual pow ers were
left— as in C a n a d a b u t n o t in the U nited S ta te s — to the ce n tral g o v e r n ­
m ent. A u stra lia w as n o w sovereign.
N ew Z e a la n d w as the scene o f th e m o s t successful o f G ib b o n W a k e fie ld ’s
co lo nising enterprises. F r o m the 1830s o n w a r d s the S o u th Island devel­
o ped as a w hite m a n ’s f a r m in g c o u n try , its t r a d e in m e a t w ith E n g la n d
flourish ing afte r the in tr o d u c tio n o f new cold sto rag e m e th o d s by the N ew
Z e a la n d S h ip p in g C o m p a n y in 1882. T h e tw o islands received re p r e s e n ta ­
tive g o v e r n m e n t in 1853 a n d resp onsib le g o v e r n m e n t in 1856.
T h e m o st serious p ro b le m was the series o f d isputes w ith the in digeno us
M a o ri in h a b ita n ts o f the N o r t h Island. T h e M a o ris saw th e ir lands
th r e a te n e d by the im m ig ra n ts, a n d th e re w ere fre q u e n t m in o r w a rs d u rin g
the 1860s. W h e n peace w as b r o u g h t a b o u t in 1870, th e M a o ris retained
a b o u t half the land o n the N o r t h Island, b u t re m a in e d m ateria lly w orse off
t h a n the w hite in h a b ita n ts. N evertheless, t h o u g h it m a y well be arg u e d th a t
w hite im m ig ra tio n was in itself a n act o f injustice to w a r d s th e M a o ris , it is
also tru e t h a t g re a t efforts w ere m a d e a n d su stain e d to o b ta in a n acce p ta b le
c o m p ro m ise , a n d t h a t relation s betw e en w h ite a n d M a o r i N ew Z e a la n d e rs
in the tw en tieth c e n tu ry w ere b etter t h a n betw een w hite a n d n o n -w h ite in
a n y o th e r overseas sta te f o u n d e d by E u r o p e a n co lonisa tion .

The United States

T h e th irte e n colonies h a d rid them selves o f th e ir British o v e rlo rd s by 1782:
th e c re a tio n o f a single state, a n d still m o r e th e c re a tio n o f a single n a tio n ,
w ere a r d u o u s ta sk s t h a t still lay ahe ad.
T h e Articles o f C o n f e d e r a tio n , agre ed by th e C o n t in e n t a l C ongress
d u r in g the W a r o f In d e p e n d e n c e , w ere little m o r e t h a n a n alliance betw een
212 Nations and States

sovereign states. In th e s u b se q u e n t years, as ind iv id u al states pulled in

different d irec tions a n d conflicted w ith each o th e r, it b e c am e clear th a t
th e re was a serious d a n g e r o f d isin te g ra tio n , a n d loss o f th e new -w on
liberty either to the British o r so m e o th e r E u r o p e a n pow er, unless a m o re
solid basis o f u n ity w ere created. T h is w as the task o f the s ta te sm en w ho
even tu a lly p r o d u c e d , w ith validity f r o m M a rc h 1789, th e C o n s titu ti o n of
the U nited States. T his g rea t w o rk was essentially a c o m p ro m is e between
th o se w h o wished for m a x i m u m diversity a n d m a x i m u m sovereignty for
ea ch state, a n d f u n d a m e n ta lly disliked th e very idea o f a cen tral g o v e rn ­
m ent; a n d th o se w h o believed it necessary to c o n c e n tra te im p o r t a n t pow ers
a t th e to p , to e n d o w th e U nited S ta te s w ith th e necessary executive
a p p a r a t u s o f a m o d e r n state, a n d to p u t firm restra in ts on centrifugal
forces. T h e second school o f th o u g h t, w hich b e c am e k n o w n as the
F ed eralists, a n d w h o se leading s p o k e s m a n w as A le x a n d e r H a m ilto n , on
the w h o le prevailed; b u t su b sta n tia l sa fe g u ard s w ere given to their o p p o ­
nents, w h o se m o st e lo q u e n t e x p o n e n t w as T h o m a s Je fferso n . T h o u g h the
c o n c e p t o f ‘p a r ty ’ was distasteful to th e fo u n d e r s o f th e republic, n o t least
to W a s h in g to n himself, th e re did so o n d ev e lo p a p a r ty system, in w hich for
several d ecades the follow ers o f Je fferso n , a n d later o f A n d re w J a c k s o n ,
first k n o w n as R e p u b lic a n s an d th e n as D e m o c r a ts , w ere the strongest
force. T h e prevalence in political life o f this d e m o c r a tic elem ent, whose
m a in stre n g th lay in V irginia a n d N ew Y ork, m odified b u t did n o t reverse
th e te n d e n c y to w a r d s the s tre n g th e n in g o f th e federal g o v e rn m e n t. A n
in s titu tio n w hich u n ex p e c te d ly o p e r a te d in the sa m e d irec tio n was the
S u p r e m e C o u r t, w hich in the period w h en J o h n M a rs h a ll w as chief justice
(1801-36) gave several decisive verdicts in fa v o u r o f the federal power.
N o t only th e fo rm o f g o v e r n m e n t b u t th e te rr ito r ia l e x te n t o f the republic
n ee d ed definition, a n d this to o k m a n y years. N a p o le o n co m pelled S p a in to
cede to h im L o u isia n a, the v ast an d largely u n m a p p e d tr a c t lying between
the M ississippi a n d the R ockies w hich was ceded by F ra n c e to S p a in in
1783. H ow ever, his p r e o c c u p a tio n s in E u r o p e prev e n ted him fro m ta k in g
possession, a n d the inability o f his tr o o p s to recover S a n t o D o m in g o from
the in surgent slaves11 f u r th e r d isc o u ra g e d him. H e th e re fo re offered the
te rr ito r y f o r sale to th e U n ite d S tate s in 1803; Je ff e r s o n ac cep ted im m e ­
diately, a n d ju stified him s elf to C o n g ress later. In 1819 th e U nited S tates
b o u g h t F lo ri d a fro m S p ain . T h e fro n tie r w ith C a n a d a in M a in e was settled
by th e A s h b u r to n - W e b s t e r tr e a ty o f 1842, a n d th e 4 9 th parallel w as m a d e
the b o u n d a r y w ith th e H u d s o n ’s Bay C o m p a n y te rr ito r y in M a n ito b a . T he
C o l u m b ia river valley, w hich w as e x p lo re d by travellers b o t h fro m Britain
a n d from the U nited S tate s, w as a n object o f d isp u te until 1846, w h en b o th
g o v e r n m e n ts agreed o n th e e x ten sio n o f th e 49 th parallel as far as P uget
S o u n d leaving V a n c o u v e r Island to Britain a n d the O ly m p ic P en in su la to
the U nited States. F u r th e r n o r th , R ussia retained A la s k a a n d its o u tlying
 European Nations Overseas 213

islands until 1867, w h en they were sold to the U nited S tate s f o r seven
m illion dollars. In th e S o u th , A m e ric a n sq u a tte rs in th e M e x ic a n p rovince
o f T e x a s declared them selves a s e p a ra te repub lic in 1836. T h e U nited S tates
a n n e x e d T e x a s in 1845, a n d in th e follo w ing y ea r w ent to w a r w ith M exico.
A m e ric a n tro o p s entered M e x ico C ity, a n d by th e peace se ttle m en t o f 1848
the vast region betw een the R ockies a n d the Pacific, th e n k n o w n by the
single n a m e o f C a lifo rn ia , b e c am e p a r t o f the U nited S tates. It re m a in e d to
drive m o st o f the I n d ian s fro m their h om e s, to d es tro y th e ir tr a d itio n a l way
o f life a n d to fill u p h a lf a c o n tin ent.
T e rrito ria l e x p a n s io n gave new c o n te n t to the disp utes b etw e en th e states
a n d the c e n tra l g o v e r n m e n t, which th e C o n s titu ti o n a n d the S u p re m e
C o u r t h ad by n o m e an s solved. A lrea d y in 1807, the N ew E n g la n d states
h ad jo in tly pro tested a g a in st Je ff e r s o n ’s e m b a r g o o n foreign trade. A
C o n n e c tic u t legislature re solution s p o k e o f th e d u ty o f sta te legislatures ‘to
inte rpose' their p r o te c tin g shield b etw een the right a n d liberty o f th e people
a n d the a ssu m ed p o w e r o f the G e n e ra l G o v e r n m e n t’. T h e p la ns fo r a
c o n v e n tio n o f the N ew E n g la n d states in 1809 to ‘nullify’ th e policy were
a b a n d o n e d w h en th e federal g o v e r n m e n t itself repealed the e m b a rg o . In
1828 J o h n C a lh o u n , the e m in e n t s p o k e s m a n of S o u th C a ro lin a , ad v a n c e d
the d o c trin e o f ‘n u llification’ to defend the interests o f the so u th e rn states
which were seriously d a m a g e d by the p ro te c tio n is t tr a d e policy in tro d u c e d
to the a d v a n ta g e o f the N ew E n g la n d states. A c o m p ro m is e policy was
p ro p o se d in the s u m m e r o f 1832, b u t in S o u t h C a r o l in a a special state
c o n v e n tio n was s u m m o n e d , w hich first fo rm a lly d ec la re d the federal tr a d e
bill null a n d void, a n d th e n solem nly rea ssem b led in M a r c h 1833 to repeal
its nullification.
T h e serious conflicts in e c o n o m ic interests betw een th e th ree g e o g r a p h i­
cal ‘sections’— n o r th e r n se a b o a rd , s o u th e r n se a b o a rd a n d e x p a n d in g
w est— w ere m a d e m u c h m o re bitter by th e p r o b le m of slavery. A p r o c e d u re
w as devised by w hich the p o p u la tio n o f a newly settled te rr ito r y o n th e
e x p a n d in g w estern b o r d e r c ould a p p ly fo r a d m issio n to th e U n io n as a new
state, with its ow n sta te c o n s titu tio n . T h e n u m b e r o f states th u s e x te n d e d
by 1820 fro m the original th irte en to tw en ty -fo u r. S o m e o f th e n ew states,
cre ate d by e x p a n s io n f r o m the S o u th , w ere based o n slavery: in th o se
co lonised fro m th e N o r t h , slavery w as p ro h ib ite d . In 1820, w h e n th e N o r t h
h a d a p o p u la tio n o f 5,152,000 a n d 105 federal c o n g re ssm e n , a n d th e S o u th
4,485,000 a n d 81, a n a g re e m e n t k n o w n as the M isso u ri C o m p r o m i s e was
m ade. T h e new sta te o f M is so u ri w as a d m itte d to th e U n io n as a slave-
o w n in g sta te a n d M a in e as a ‘free-soil’ state, b u t there w as to be n o slavery
n o r th o f la titud e 36° 3 0 ' . A new situ a tio n a r o s e in 1846, w h en a p r o p o sa l
w as p u t to C o n g ress t h a t slavery be fore v er p r o h ib ite d in a n y te rr ito r y to be
ac q u ired fro m w a r w ith M ex ico . T h is raised th e p r o sp e c t th a t, as the
c o n tin e n t filled u p by n a t u r a l increase a n d im m ig ra tio n , a n d as new states
214 Nations and States

w ere in c o n s e q u e n c e cre ate d, slave-holdin g states w ou ld be greatly o u t­

n u m b e re d , a n d the federal C o n g ress w ou ld be in a p o sitio n to im p ose
a b o litio n o n the S o u th by m a jo rity vote. T h is fear ca u se d C a lh o u n , in
p ro te s tin g a g a in st the 1846 p r o p o s a l, to ta lk ag a in o f ‘nullification’.
C a lifo rn ia, w h o se p o p u la tio n w as rap id ly increased f r o m all over the w orld
by th e G o ld R u s h o f 1849, declared itself for the p r o h ib itio n of slavery. In
S o u t h C a r o l in a a n d M ississippi th e re w as ta lk o f secession fro m the U nion.
T h e d e a th in 1850 o f C a l h o u n a n d o f th e a n ti- s o u th e r n P re sid e n t Z a c h a r y
T a y l o r m a d e possible a new c o m p ro m is e w hich p reserved th e U nion.
T h is tim e h ow eve r th e a n t a g o n is m s g rew very deep. In the N o r t h the
‘a b o litio n is t’ c a m p a ig n , to e n d slavery because it w as evil, b e c am e a mass
m o v e m e n t. N o r t h e r n o p in io n refused to ac ce pt th e fugitive slave law w hich
h a d bee n p a r t o f th e 1850 co m p ro m ise : th e ‘u n d e r g r o u n d railw ay’ was
org an ise d by w hite radicals a n d free bla ck s to help slaves escape ac ro ss the
O h io . In 1851 b eg a n th e serialisatio n o f Uncle Tom's Cabin, w hich depicted
s o u th e rn society as u tterly d e p ra v e d . W illiam Lloyd G a r r i s o n ’s rh e to ric in
c o n d e m n a tio n o f the s o u th e r n u p p e r classes12 was m a tc h e d by so u th e rn
rheto ric d e n o u n c in g pitiless e x p lo ita tio n o f la b o u r in n o r th e r n factories
a n d assertin g t h a t slavery w as n o t only n o t d e g r a d in g o r cruel but positively
h u m a n e , b e ne vole nt a n d m o rally uplifting. T h e people o f the S o u th
increasingly felt them selves a n object of aggression. S o u t h e r n culture, its
local tr a d itio n s a n d c u s to m s a n d liberties, had to be defended aga in st
merciless a n d h y p ocritica l enemies. T h e r e d eve lop e d s o m e th in g w hich
c o u ld seriously be called s o u th e r n n a tio n a l consciousness. In a n tic ip a tio n
o f secession, efforts w ere m a d e rap id ly to d ev e lo p s o u th e r n industries,
railw ays a n d shipping, a n d to r e m o d e l s cho ol in stru c tio n so as to inculcate
loyalty specifically to th e S o u t h r a th e r th a n to th e U n io n as a whole.
T h e slavery issue split th e d o m i n a n t D e m o c r a tic P a r ty , a n d a new party
a p p e a r e d in th e N o r t h , w hich t o o k its rivals’ earlier n a m e o f R e p u b lic an . In
th e 1856 p reside ntia l election th e D e m o c r a ts still h a d a m a jo rity , b u t in
1860, as a result o f f u r th e r splits in the vote, th e R e p u b lic a n c a n d id a te,
A b r a h a m L incoln, h a d a relative m a jo rity . R a th e r t h a n acce p t his leader­
ship, six s o u th e rn states, begin n in g w ith S o u th C a ro lin a , seceded in the
w in te r o f 1860-61. A c o n v e n tio n at M o n t g o m e r y ( A l a b a m a ) in F e b r u a r y
1861 f o u n d e d the C o n f e d e r a te S tate s o f A m e ric a , w ith its o w n president,
Je ff e r s o n D avis, a n d its o w n co n s titu tio n . L in c o ln refused to recognise the
secession, b u t bided his tim e. In J u ly 1861 th e C o n f e d e r a te a r ti lle r y ‘fired
o n th e flag’ a t F o r t S u m te r , g u a r d in g th e h a r b o u r o f C h a rl e s t o n ( S o u th
C a ro lin a ), a n d th e Civil W a r began.
T h is te rrible struggle, m obilising m illions a n d a r m i n g th e m w ith the
m ost d estruc tive w e a p o n s yet devised by h u m a n ingenuity, en d e d w ith the
victory o f th e indu strialised, capitalist N o r t h a n d the rea sse rtio n o f the
U nion. T h e existence in N o r t h A m e ric a o f tw o republics, w ith peoples for
 European Nations Overseas 215

the m o st p a r t o f sim ilar origin a n d o f th e sam e la n g u a g e b u t o f different

social s tru c tu re a n d n a t io n a l conscio usn ess, sim ilar to th e state o f affairs
in C e n tr a l a n d S o u th A m eric a, w as a v e rted. As th e spiritua l w o u n d s
healed, th e sense o f belon g in g to a single A m e r ic a n n a t io n revived a n d was
stren g th en e d ; b u t th e conflicts between whites a n d blacks ( n o w form ally
e m a n c ip a te d fro m slavery), a n d b etw e en w hite views as to the place o f the
blacks in A m eric a, w ere n o t rem oved.
T h e su b se q u e n t g r o w th a n d c o n s o lid a tio n o f th e A m e r ic a n n a tio n (as the
people o f the U nited S ta te s have b ec o m e k n o w n , to the m ild b u t ineffective
a n n o y a n c e o f the o th e r peoples o f the W e ste rn H em isp h ere) was p r o f o u n d ­
ly influenced by the e n try o f millions o f im m ig r a n ts f r o m E u ro p e . A lready
befo re 1775 c o n s id e ra b le n u m b e rs o f G e r m a n s h a d settled. These, to g e th er
w ith English, S co ts a n d ‘S co ts Irish’, c o n tin u e d to flood in to A m e ric a after
In d ep e n d en ce . T h e n c a m e S c a n d in a v ia n s, a n d afte r th e G re a t F a m in e , a
flood o f Irish. T h e c o m in g o f the ste a m sh ip in the 1850s p r o v id ed quicker,
hea lthier a n d less u n c o m fo r ta b le t r a n s p o r t, a n d th e n u m b e r o f im m ig ra n ts
c o n tin u e d to grow. A fter the Civil W a r th e influx increased still fu rth e r. In
the 1880s im m ig ra tio n fro m n o r th e r n E u r o p e co n tin u e d , b u t w as a c c o m ­
panied by a g ro w in g flood fro m s o u th e r n a n d e a ste rn E u ro p e , w hich
c o n tin u e d to g ro w w h en th e earlier str e a m b egan to d r y up. In the first
d e c a d e o f the tw e n tie th c e n tu ry m o re t h a n tw o million c a m e f ro m A u stria-
H u n g a ry , as m a n y fro m Italy, a n d fro m R ussia over a m illion a n d a half, in
the last case c o nsisting largely o f Jews. T h e re w as also im m ig r a tio n from
A sia to the W est C o a st. A b o u t 300,000 C h in ese settled in C a lifo rn ia
betw een 1850 a n d 1880. J a p a n e s e so u g h t e m p lo y m e n t in H aw aii, a n d w hen
this w as a n n e x e d by th e U nited S ta te s in 1898 these J a p a n e s e w ere ab le to
m o v e to th e A m e r ic a n co n tin en t.
M u c h has b een w ritte n o f the sufferings o f the u p r o o te d . D riv e n o u t of
their h o m e la n d s by p o verty , by loss o f a livelihood th r o u g h th e dislo ca tio n
o f ag ric u ltu re a n d o f th e o ld e r industries, a n d in s o m e cases by religious or
political perse cu tio n , often travelling in h o rrib le c o n d itio n s a n d ex ploite d
by m id d lem e n , they f o u n d them selves in new p o v e r ty a m o n g stran ge
people in a stra n g e land. Yet it is also tr u e t h a t the h o p es o f a new free life
w ith w hich they h ad set o u t were n o t in th e long te rm d isa p p o in te d . T h e
policy o f the U nited S ta te s g o v e r n m e n t was to w elcom e th e m , to give th e m
w o rk to d o , a n d m a k e th e m p a r t o f a g rea t new n a tio n in th e m aking.
T h is policy o n th e w hole prevailed f o r m o r e t h a n a h u n d r e d years,
th o u g h n o t w ith o u t b itte r o p p o sitio n . N o t only a m o n g th e original
A m e ric a n s, b u t also a m o n g each successive w ave o f im m ig r a n ts w hich
e s tablish ed itself, th e re w as a te n d en c y to resent a n d fear new com ers. T his
ten d en c y , k n o w n as ‘n a tiv ism ’, b u r s t o u t fiercely f r o m tim e to time.
A g ita tio n in C a lif o r n ia in the late 1870s led to the p as sin g o f a C hinese
E x clu sio n A ct in 1882, w hich p u t a n en d to C h in ese im m ig ra tio n . A t the
216 Nations and States

begin n in g o f the tw en tieth c e n tu ry th e re w as sim ilar a g ita tio n ag a in st

J a p a n e s e . A n ag re e m e n t o f 1907 betw een the U nited S tate s a n d J a p a n e s e
g o v e r n m e n ts s to p p e d f u rth e r m ig ra tio n o f la b o u re rs directly fro m J a p a n to
A m erica. A g ita tio n a g a in st E u r o p e a n n ew c o m ers w as led by the I m m ig r a ­
tio n R e stric tio n L eague, f o u n d e d in 1894, b u t it had sm all effect before the
F irst W o r ld W ar.
T h e m o o d cre ate d by the w a r itself, massive p a trio tic p r o p a g a n d a a n d
hostility to G e r m a n s a n d A u stria n s , cre ate d a clim ate o f o p in io n m u c h
m o r e fa v o u r a b le to nativism . In th e early 1920s a Red S care , a rea ctio n
p a rtly to la b o u r tro u b le s a t h o m e a n d p a rtly to the victo ry o f the Bolsheviks
in R ussia, increased public d istru st o f E ast E u ro p e a n s , a n d c o m b in e d with
r a th e r w id esp re ad anti-sem itic feeling a n d the an ti- C a th o lic is m o f the K u
K lu x K lan to s tren g th en nativism . E c o n o m ic c o n d itio n s h ad also c ha nged
since th e h e y d a y o f m ass im m ig ra tio n . A m e ric a n o w h ad the largest an d
m o s t skilled indu stria l la b o u r force in th e w orld, a n d la b o u r leaders were
m o r e th a n ever d e te rm in e d to p reve nt th e high A m e r ic a n wage level fro m
being u n d e r c u t by c h e ap foreign la bour.
All these forces c o n trib u te d to the p assing o f th e J o h n s o n - R e e d A ct of
1924, w hich placed a n u p p e r limit o f 150,000 on im m ig ra tio n in a n y one
year, a n d gave q u o ta s to g ro u p s fro m ea ch foreign c o u n try , based on the
p r o p o r t i o n w hich p erso n s b o r n in each sta te fo rm e d o f the to ta l p o p u la tio n
o f the U nited S tate s in 1924.l3T his law th u s d isc rim in a ted s trongly against
the peoples o f ea ste rn a n d ce n tral E u ro p e , a n d in fav o u r o f the people of
co u n trie s fro m w hich im m ig ra n ts h ad been c o m in g for longer periods,
especially G re a t Britain.
T h e effect o f th e J o h n s o n - R e e d A ct, a n d also o f e c o n o m ic a n d political
c o n d itio n s in p o st-w a r E u ro p e , was th a t E u r o p e a n im m ig r a tio n e n o r m o u s ­
ly d im in ish e d in the 1920s. T h e r e c o n tin u e d h o w ev e r to be fairly su b stan tia l
im m ig r a tio n fro m w ith in th e W e ste rn H em isp h ere. A b o u t a million
C a n a d i a n s entered th e U nited S tate s in the 1920s. M o st of these were
E nglish-speaking, b u t th e re was also a c o n s id erab le influx o f F re n ch -
sp eak ers into the mill to w n s o f N ew E n g la n d . T h e r e was also a grow ing
s tr e a m f r o m the W est Indies: betw e en the w ars m o stly f r o m British islands
b u t also som e f ro m F r e n c h islands a n d f r o m H aiti, a n d afte r 1945 a b o v e all
fro m P u e r to R ico, w hich m u s t hav e sent a t least a million by the late 1960s.
F in ally th e re w ere im m ig r a n ts fro m M e x ic o , largely se a so n a l la b o u re rs but
also inclu ding large n u m b e rs w h o settled p e r m a n e n tly . T h is m ass influx
d a te d fro m 1942, w h en th e U n ite d S tate s b e g a n to e n c o u r a g e e m p lo y m e n t
o f M e x ic a n s in c o n d itio n s o f w artim e la b o u r sh o rtag e . In 1945 there were
m o r e t h a n 2,500,000 M e x ic a n - b o r n p erso n s in th e U n ite d States.
F r o m these m a n y sources, in th e h u n d r e d years w hich follow ed the Civil
W a r, was fo rm e d the A m e ric a n n ation. P lentiful m a n p o w e r a n d plentiful
resources c o m b in e d to cre ate the P eo p le o f Plenty. G re a t achie v em e n ts in
 European Nations Overseas 217

a pp lied science a n d in dustry, a n d g re a t victories in w ar, created the

im m en se attra c tiv e force, felt all over th e w o rld , of th e U nited S tate s of
A m erica. T h e im m ig r a n ts w ere sw ept u p in to this g rea t process; they to o
felt pride in their g rea t new c o u n try , prid e in the c o n t r i b u tio n w hich they
had m a d e to its greatness. T h e g rea test e x c ep tio n (w hich is n o t by an y
m e a n s a c o m p lete excep tio n ) were th e negroes, d e s c e n d a n ts o f black
A fric an slaves b r o u g h t a g a in st their will to A m eric a, inc lu d in g th o s e w hose
a n c esto rs had been b r o u g h t to the C a r i b b e a n islands, a n d h ad m ove d in
later g en e ra tio n s to th e m a in la n d . Black A m e ric a n s will be briefly co n si­
dere d later. O th e r p artial e x c e p t io n s 14 a re th o se w h o r em a in ed fro m the
in d ige n ous A m e r ic a n peoples, inclu ding th o se desce nded fro m in te r m a r ­
riage w ith S p a n ia rd s w h o entered th e U nited S tate s f r o m M exico.
T h e im m ig ra n ts fro m E u ro p e bec am e A m eric an s, b u t they did not
entirely lose their loyalties to th e ir old h o m e la n d s . In g ene ral it is tru e th a t
ea ch g e n e ra tio n b e c am e m o r e A m e ric a n , b u t it is n o t q u ite so sim ple as
that. M a n y o f the East E u r o p e a n p e a sa n ts w h o arriv ed in the U nited S tates
h ad very little n a tio n a l c o n s c io u sn e ss— as o p p o se d to s tr o n g sim ple
feelings for the place o f th e ir birth a n d c h ild h o o d a n d for relatives an d
friends. T h e ir c hildren, w h o learned in A m e ric a n schools; a n d read
A m e ric a n n ew sp a p ers a n d b o o k s, d iscovered m o re a b o u t th e ir h o m e la n d
a n d their natio n ality th a n their p are n ts had k n ow n. T h u s , second g e n e ra ­
tio n L ith u a n ia n - A m e ric a n s a n d S lo v a k - A m e r ic a n s b ec am e m o r e inte rest­
ed in the fate o f th e L ith u a n ia n a n d S lo v a k n a tio n s b a c k in E u r o p e th a n
their p are n ts h a d been, a n d c o n trib u te d v alu ab le funds a n d advice to the
n a tio n a l m o v e m e n ts in th e h o m e lan d s . In th e case of im m ig r a n ts w h o had
a lre ad y arriv ed w ith s tr o n g n a tio n a l feelings, such as Irish o r Poles, the
n a tio n a l feeling often rem a ined s tro n g for g e n e r a tio n a f te r g ene ration .
T h e great A m eric an is in g forces w ere th e school a n d the factory. T h e
forces w hich k ep t the old loyalties alive w ere th e c h u r c h a n d th e foreign
lan g u ag e new spap er. N a tio n a l feeling w as also m o r e stro n g ly m a in ta in e d
a m o n g tho se w h o w ere c o n c e n tra te d in g re a t cities in c o m p a c t c o m m u n i ­
ties, p ro tec ted a n d also directed by politicians a n d priests, t h a n a m o n g
th o se w h o scattered them selves across th e co u n try , b o u g h t a n d develo ped
their o w n land a n d lived at so m e d istan c e fro m each o th e r o n M id w e ste rn
f arm s, a very d ifferent kind of g e o g ra p h ica l a n d social p a t te r n fro m
M e d ite rr a n e a n o r D a n u b i a n villages. T o th e second g r o u p belonged the
S ca n d in a v ia n s, m a n y o f the G e r m a n s a n d som e o f the C zechs a n d Serbs. In
the first g r o u p w ere th e Irish, w h o h a d had the bitterest experience of
fa r m in g life a n d preferre d to be in large c o m m u n itie s close to their ow n
c o u n t r y m e n a n d priests; a n d the Italians, P oles a n d sm a lle r E ast E u r o p e a n
g ro u p s, w h o h a d a rriv e d later a n d p o o r e r , at a tim e w h en to s ta rt a fa rm
r equired m o r e ca p ita l a n d kn ow led g e t h a n in earlier g e n e r a tio n s — m o r e in
an y case th a n they possessed.
218 Nations and States

Im m ig r a n t c o m m u n itie s w ere to a large e x te n t g r o u p e d r o u n d their

ch urches. T h e c h u rc h es in th e ir t u r n b e c a m e A m eric an is ed as English
b e g a n to prevail as th e ir language. T h e A m e r ic a n C a th o lic c o m m u n ity
sta rte d as E ng lish -sp e ak in g o w in g to the p r e d o m i n a n c e o f the Irish. Italian
a n d P o lish im m ig ra n ts h a d som e success in brin g in g th e ir lang u ag e s in to
c h u r c h affairs, b u t as g en e ra tio n s succeeded ea ch o th e r English began
ag a in to prevail, n o t as th e lan g u ag e o f I ris h m en b u t as th e la n g u ag e o f the
U nited S tate s a n d one o f the m a in C a th o lic lang u ag e s o f the w orld. T h e
case w as s o m e w h a t d ifferent w ith the O r t h o d o x im m ig ran ts. T h e r e w ere no
E n g lish-spe akin g O r t h o d o x c o m m u n itie s a n y w h e re in the w o rld outside
A m erica. H ow ever, by th e m id -tw e n tie th c e n tu ry the use o f English in
A m e r ic a n O r t h o d o x c h u rc h es h a d b ec o m e q uite c o m m o n .
T h e lo n g -te rm effects o f u r b a n is a tio n , e d u c a tio n a n d secu la risatio n are
u n m is ta k a b le . T h e v ario u s im m ig r a n t c o m m u n itie s w ere progressively
in te g rate d in to th e A m e r ic a n n a tio n , while a t the sa m e tim e they were
m od ify in g A m e ric a n c u ltu re a n d n a tio n a l identity itself. T h e c o m p lete
c o n tro l o f A m e r ic a n political le ad e rsh ip a n d social elites by W h ite A nglo -
S a x o n P ro te s ta n ts ( W A S P s ) b e g a n to be challenged. N o t only did th e m ore
recent im m ig r a n t g ro u p s b e c o m e i m p o r ta n t v o tin g blocks, o f which
politicians h a d to ta k e a c c o u n t, b u t in dividuals o f m o r e varied origins
b eg a n to re a c h to p positions. F irs t c a m e I ris h m en in the political parties
a n d Je w s in business life. T h e n g ra d u a lly Italian, P olish, Czech, Lebanese
o r o th e r nam es a p p e a r e d in p r o m in e n t p o sitions in ind u stria l le adership,
science, the press, the g o v e r n m e n t h ierarchy , m u n ic ip a l politics a n d C o n ­
g ress.15
T h is d o es n o t h o w ev e r m e a n t h a t the n o n - W A S P s — o r ‘w hite ethn ics’ as
th e y w ere n a m e d , to d ifferentiate th e m fro m blacks, A m e r in d ia n s or
M e x ica n s (ch ic an o s)— w ere c o n te n te d w ith this progress. O n the co n tra ry ,
it is a r g u a b le th a t, as h as so often b een th e case in h u m a n history, visible
im p r o v e m e n ts increased disc o n te n t, b ecau se they a r o u s e d m u c h g rea ter
e x p e c ta tio n s w h ich c ould n o t be satisfied quickly. In 1970 there were a b o u t
seventy m illion A m e ric a n s o f Irish or s o u th e r n o r e a ste rn E u r o p e a n origin,
a n d o f these a b o u t fifty m illion were C atholics. T h e old e r g en e ra tio n s had
h a d to face the collective c o n te m p t, o r at best th e cold c o n d e sc en sio n , o f the
W A S P s . T h e y o u n g e r g e n e r a tio n f o u n d them selves faced w ith a different
kind o f insult. T h e ‘liberal e s ta b lish m e n t’ o f th e 1970s— th e intellectual elite
o f th e n o rth -e a s t, w hich w as m a in ly W A S P a n d p a rtly Je w ish, a n d w hich
largely d o m in a te d the m ass m e d ia a n d the universities— in its en th u sia sm
for the rights o f the blacks, was only to o inclined to tr e a t the ‘w hite eth n ics’
as ‘r e a ctio n a ries’ o r ‘fascists’. T o ‘w hite eth n ic ’ f a c to ry w o rk e rs th e alliance
betw een black m ilitants, Je w is h intellectuals, n o r th - e a s t c o a st patricia ns
a n d their rich s tu d e n t c hildren w ith their f a s h io n a b le r e v o lu tio n ary
slogans, lo o k e d like a n ew version o f th e co n s p ira c y o f th e W A S P s to keep
 European Nations Overseas 219

th e m do w n . R e se n tm e n ts a m o n g n o n - W A S P w hite A m e ric a n s were

u n d o u b te d ly a n im p o r ta n t, a n d possibly a n increasing, elem ent on the
A m e ric a n political scene. T h e p arty politics o f the U nited S ta te s are not the
subject o f this b o o k , b u t th e ex te n t to w hich the 'eth n ics’ hav e or have not
been a b s o rb e d into o n e n a tio n is a very relevant m a tte r. T h e co n v e n tio n a l
w isd o m is th a t the m e ltin g -p o t has been effective, w ith the single a d m itte d
e x c ep tio n o f the Blacks. T h is w isd o m w as n o t h ow eve r ac cep ted by all
A m ericans. S o m e insisted th a t w h a t had h a p p e n e d w as n o t th a t the
im m ig ran ts had g r o w n into a new A m e r ic a n n atio n , m a k in g their ow n
c o n t r ib u tio n to it, b u t th a t the a t t e m p t had been m a d e to im pose on
millions o f C a th o lics, O r t h o d o x a n d Je w s a n alian W A S P ethos, a n d th a t
this had failed. T h e original languages h a d on th e w hole been replaced by
A m e r ic a n English, b u t the P ro te s ta n t e th o s h a d m a d e few converts. M a n y
'eth nics’ h a d lost th e ir old values w ith o u t g ain ing a n y th in g new exc ep t the
m ateria list h e d o n ism o f th e m ass m edia. O th e r s had reta in ed their old
loyalties, an d s t u b b o r n ly defe n d ed th e m aga in st the hostility o f th e
'e s ta b lis h m e n t’. In the w o rd s o f a recent writer, ‘T h e r e is n o such th in g as
hom o Americanus. T h e r e is n o single cu ltu re here. W e d o no t, in fact, have
a c u ltu re at all. . . ,’16
F ace d with these b itter co ntro ve rsies, in w hich all co n c e rn e d have
po w erfu l cases to m a k e, I ca n only sta te m y o w n o p in io n th a t the m y th of
o p p o r tu n ity for all to rise w ithin a new society a n d a new n a tio n c o n tain e d ,
like m o st m yths, a large elem ent o f tru th . T h e A m e ric a n n a tio n was the
first, a n d re m a in e d th e m o st pow erful, o f the new natio ns. It was a different
kind o f n a tio n fro m the n a tio n s o f E u ro p e , yet it was ju stifiab le to use the
sa m e w o rd ‘n a t io n ’ to describe it as to describe th o se c o m m u n itie s in
E u r o p e w hich are called nations.

The Spanish American nations

N o U nited S tate s o f S p a n is h A m e ric a c a m e into being. E ven Bolivar’s
G re a t C o lo m b ia , a n d the C e n tra l A m e r ic a n u n io n , could n o t be preserved.
D istances by sea w ere m u c h longer, a n d c o m m u n ic a ti o n s by land were far
fewer a n d m o r e difficult, th a n on th e ea ste rn se a b o a rd o f N o r t h A m erica.
T h e m o u n ta in s a n d ju ngle s, w hich th e p io neers e n c o u n te re d as they
p e n e tr a te d the interior, w ere m o r e in h ospitable. T h e in stitutions, set up by
the officials o f the S p a n is h m o n a rc h y , w ere m o r e solid a n d rigid t h a n those
o f the N o r t h (w ith the possible e x c e p tio n o f N ew F ra n c e o n th e St
Law rence). W ith in th e ir f ra m e w o rk , se p a r a te hierarchies o f interest a n d
a m b itio n arose, w h ich survived the severance o f links w ith the sovereign
overseas. A g ain st this, it m ig h t have b e e n ex p e cted t h a t th e g r e a t unity of
S p a n is h culture, ce m e n te d by the o n e rigidly en fo rce d faith, w o u ld have
220 Nations and States

g rip p e d m o r e firm ly t o g e th e r th e S p a n ish colonists t h a n th e people o f w h a t

b e c am e the U n ited S tates, w ith their w a r rin g P r o te s ta n t sects a n d their
diversity o f po litical ideas a n d even o f n a t io n a l origins. T h is m a y have been
c o u n t e r a c te d p a rtly by th e facts th a t in S p a n is h A m e ric a , to o , th e re were
differences deriving f r o m the h o m e l a n d — betw e en Basques, G alicians,
E s tr e m a d u r a n s a n d C astilians; th a t in the S p a n ish colonies the gen tlem an -
a d v e n tu r e r o f ex tre m e in div id u alism w as a m o re p r e d o m i n a n t figure t h a n
a m o n g the E nglish-speakin g; a n d th a t in the n o r th e r n colonies social
discipline, m u tu a l aid a n d c o m m u n ity spirit were m o r e developed.
W h a te v e r the rea so n, fifteen states aro se a n d m a in ta in e d th e ir s e p arate
sta te h o o d ; a n d to th o se w ere a d d e d S a n to D o m in g o in 1865, C u b a in 1898
a n d P a n a m a in 1903, the last tw o being d u e m o re to in te r n a tio n a l pressures
th a n to in te rn a l forces. W h e th e r the p eople o f these states develo ped into
natio n s, as fully conscious o f their difference f r o m o th e r n a tio n s as the
n atio n s o f E u r o p e — fo r ex a m p le , o f G e r m a n s fro m Italians, o r even of
S erbs fro m B u lg arian s— is h a r d to say. A ce rtain feeling of solidarity
betw een H isp a n ic n a tio n s persisted, b u t did n o t m u c h m itigate the o p e r a ­
tio n o f c o n tra d ic to ry interests. O n th e o th e r h a n d , w ars betw e en S p a n ish
A m e r ic a n states w ere c o m p a r a tiv e ly few. T h e w a r b etw een A rg e n tin a an d
Brazil a b o u t U ru g u a y involved a n o n - S p a n is h - s p e a k in g sta te ruled by a
m o n a rc h y . T h e r e w ere te rr ito r ia l conflicts in the 1830s a n d 1840s betw een
E c u a d o r a n d N ew G r a n a d a (w hich did n o t a d o p t the n a m e C o l o m b ia until
1886); a n d a n a t te m p t by a Bolivian d ic ta t o r to in c o rp o r a te P eru in a
c o n f e d e r a tio n u n d e r his rule was defeated w ith C h ile a n a r m e d help in 1839.
M o re serious was the w a r o f th e Pacific o f 1879-83, in w hich P e ru an d
Bolivia fo u g h t aga in st C hile fo r the possession o f co a sta l p ro vinces with
rich m ine ral resources, a n d w hich e n d e d w ith the cession to C hile o f all
Bolivia’s coa sta l strip a n d o f so m e P e r u v ia n te rr ito r y as well. T h e m ost
terrible S o u t h A m e r ic a n w a r w as t h a t p r o v o k e d by the P a r a g u a y a n
d ic ta t o r F ra n cisc o L o p e z in w h ich f o r f o u r years (1865-70)' P a r a g u a y
resisted th e c o m b in e d forces o f A rg e n tin a , Brazil a n d U ru g u a y , a n d in
w hich a b o u t half th e p o p u la tio n o f P a r a g u a y perished. P a r a g u a y also
f o u g h t Bolivia fro m 1932 to 1935 fo r the possessio n o f th e C h a c o province,
a jungle te rr ito r y w hich w as th o u g h t to possess g rea t u n e x p lo ite d m ineral
resources. T h e result o f th e w a r was m o r e f a v o u r a b le to P a r a g u a y th a n to
Bolivia.
A few o b se rv a tio n s o n th e S o u t h A m e r ic a n n a tio n s c a n best be based on
a division into f o u r regions. T h e first co m p rise s the th ree so u th e rn
republics o f A rg e n tin a , U ru g u a y a n d Chile, w h o se p o p u la tio n , as a result
o f m assive im m ig ra tio n , bec am e overw h elm in g ly o f E u r o p e a n stock; the
second, the A n d e a n states o f E c u a d o r, P e r u a n d Bolivia a n d the repu blic of
P a ra g u a y , in all o f which m estizo a n d p u re I n d ia n are p r e d o m in a n t; the
th ird , the C a r i b b e a n islands, Venezuela, a n d so m e o f the C e n tra l A m eric an
 European Nations Overseas 221

states, w ith a large elem en t of A fric an origin; a n d the f o u r th M e x ico , w hich

is a u n iq u e case. T h e r e are som e states w hich d o n o t fit into this regional
division: C o l o m b ia has elem ents o f th e second a n d th ir d categories, while
C o s ta Rica, t h o u g h located in C e n tra l A m eric a, in m a n y ways resembles
the so u th e rn republics. T h e re is also one o th e r q uite u n iq u e state, H aiti,
with a black p o p u la tio n w hose lang u ag e is F rench.
T h e th ree so u th e rn republics were f a v o u re d w ith g o o d n a tu ra l c o n d i­
tions for ag riculture, especially for stock-raising, fo r w h o se p r o d u c ts there
was a g row ing d e m a n d in E u ro p e . In all th ree there em erg ed a p ro sp e ro u s
oligarchy o f la n d o w n e rs a n d o f e x p o r ti n g m e rc h an ts. F o re ig n capital
b ec am e very pow erful, first in the f o r m of big tr a d in g firm s a n d th e n of
investm ents in in dustrial resources, o u ts t a n d in g a m o n g w hich w ere the
British ow ners of A rg e n tin e railways a n d later the N o r t h A m e r ic a n ow ners
o f C h ilea n mines. In the second h a lf o f th e c e n tu ry im m ig r a tio n fro m
E u ro p e grew rapidly, a n d was e n c o u r a g e d by the g o v ern m e n ts. A rg e n tin a
received the largest n u m b e r: a b o u t 3,500,000 u p to th e S e c o n d W o r ld W a r
a n d over 1,500,000 in the first tw o p o s t- w a r decades. O f these im m ig ran ts,
a b o u t half w ere Italians an d a third S p a n ia rd s ; th e rest included G erm a n s,
Yugoslavs a n d Lebanese. In Chile a n d U ru g u a y n u m b e rs w ere relatively
sm aller b u t still very large. T h e p o p u la tio n o f all th ree co u n trie s th u s
b e c am e o v erw helm ingly E u ro p e a n : th e n eg ro elem ent in the A rgentine,
w hich had been s u b sta n tia l at the tim e o f in d e p en d e n ce , was red u c ed to a
very small m inority, a n d the sam e was tru e o f the Indians, co nfined to a few
are as o f C hile a n d o f n o r th A rge n tin a .
T h e c o m b in a t io n o f te m p e r a te clim ate, n a tu ra l w ea lth a n d a large
E u r o p e a n la b o u r force rea dy to w o rk h a rd sh o u ld , it is som etim es
suggested, have p r o d u c e d th ree ‘m o d e rn is e d ’, ‘d e m o c r a ti c ’ n atio n s, ra th e r
like th e n a tio n of the U nited States; a n d su rp rise is expressed th a t this result
did n o t ensue. T h is is a r a th e r naive c o m m e n t. T h e t r u t h is n o t o nly th a t the
im m ig ra n ts w ere se ld o m p erso n s c o m in g f r o m m o d e r n d e m o c r a tic socie­
ties, b u t also th a t the societies into w hich th e y were prec ip ita ted h a d even
less o f this quality, a n d indeed lacked m a n y o f the elem ents o f th e rule of
law, as u n d e r s to o d in n in e te e n th ce n tu ry E u r o p e an d N o r t h A m erica.
F r o m this p o in t o f view, C hile w as th e m o r e ‘p rogressive’ cou ntry : fo r a
large p a r t o f its m o d e r n history, it w as ruled by m en w h o at least genuinely
set them selves to c o n s tru c t a n efficient a n d h o n e s t g o v e r n m e n t m achine,
a n d to keep soldiers in their b arra c k s. A rg e n tin a was to r n by conflicts
betw e en the e n o r m o u s city o f B uenos Aires, in w hich a bourgeoisie o f m o r e
o r less liberal o u tl o o k prevailed, a n d th e coun try sid e, the h o m e of the
a n a rch ic ally in d ividualist c a ttle -h a n d s ( gauchos) w h o readily follow ed
str o n g m e n versed in the a rts o f anti-city d e m agogy. A s a city p r o le ta r ia t of
im m ig ra n t w o rk e rs grew, it a d a p te d m u c h o f the gaucho o u tlo o k to its
u r b a n milieu, to g e th e r w ith doses o f m o r e d o c trin a ire E u r o p e a n a n a r c h is m
222 Nations and States

im p o r te d f r o m Italy. In b o th C hile a n d A rg e n tin a , a rich oligarchy

m a in ta in e d a t least political influence, even if it did n o t usually exercise
direc t political pow er. In U ru g u a y , w h o se po litical histo ry in the nine tee n th
c e n tu r y was still m o r e sto rm y , th e re c a m e to p o w e r in 1903 a le ader, J o s é
Batlle y O rd o n e z , w ho used his g rea t a u t h o r i ty to stre n g th e n civil liberties
a n d cre ate liberal social in stitutions. F o r fifty years U r u g u a y was s o m e ­
th in g like a E u r o p e a n d e m o c ra c y , t h o u g h this b eg a n to b re a k d o w n in the
1960s. T o su m up, one m a y say th a t, fo r all the in te rn a l w eaknesses a n d
c o n t r a d ic t o r y forces pulling society a p a r t, th ree n a tio n s h ad arisen, and
n a t io n a l consciousness e x te n d e d d o w n w a r d s to th e g rea t m a jo rity o f the
p o p u la tio n .
In the A n d e a n states a n d P a r a g u a y , p o w e r te n d e d to be seized by
soldiers, a n d w ea lth was c o n c e n tra te d in th e h a n d s o f th e richest o f the
la n d o w n e r s a n d capitalists, o f w h o m so m e w ere foreigners. M o st la n d ­
o w n ers a n d capitalists w ere n o t very rich, a n d it w o u ld be w ro n g to
identify th o se w h o were rich w ith the m ilitary d ic tato rs; b u t it is a t least
fairly tru e th a t the oligarchy a n d th e generals to le ra te d , a n d usually helped,
ea ch o th e r a t th e expen se o f th e p o p u la tio n a t large. T h e f u n d a m e n ta l
p r o b le m in all f o u r co u n trie s w ere the In dians. T h e im precise w o rd
‘I n d ia n ’, w hich c a n n o t be statistically defined, c o m p rise d b o th th o se w ho
still s p o k e a n I n d ia n la n g u ag e a n d th o se w h o , t h o u g h th e y h ad a d o p te d
S p a n is h as th e ir langu age, lived ‘the I n d ia n w a y ’, w h e th e r in villages o r in
the cities, a m o n g w hich th e sp raw lin g m e tro p o lis o f L im a w as o u tsta n d in g .
O f th e first ca tegory, the m o s t n u m e ro u s w ere th o s e o f Q u e c h u a speech,
n u m b e rin g p r o b a b ly m o r e t h a n six m illio n a n d divided b etw een three
sta te s— P e ru , E c u a d o r a n d Bolivia— follow ed by th e G u a r a n i-s p e a k e rs
w h o f o rm e d a m a jo rity o f P a r a g u a y ’s 2,500,000 in h a b ita n ts in the 1970s.
T h e I n d ia n p ro b le m , ine x trica b ly m ix e d w ith th e p ro b le m s o f land
d is trib u tio n a n d e c o n o m ic g ro w th , will be discussed later. T h e g rea t variety
o f cu ltu res, o f s ta n d a r d s o f living a n d o f levels o f e d u c a tio n , m a k e it
difficult to decide w h a t m e a n in g s h o u ld be given to the n o tio n s of
P eru v ian , E c u a d o ria n , B olivian a n d P a r a g u a y a n n ations.
T h is o b sc u rity is even g r e a te r in th e C a r i b b e a n region. T h e m o st
p r o s p e r o u s o f the states o f the region w as V enezuela, w ith so m e 11,000,000
in h a b ita n ts a n d a thriv in g oil industry. C o n s id e r a b le im m ig r a tio n fro m
E u r o p e red u c ed th e n egro p r e p o n d e r a n c e in its p o p u la tio n . Its w estern
n e ig h b o u r C o l o m b ia h a d tw ice as m a n y in h a b ita n ts , m estizos o f b o th
In d ian a n d A frican origin. C o l o m b ia n politics f o r m o s t o f th e n in e tee n th
c e n tu r y were fo u g h t b etw e en tw o fac tio n s o f th e oligarchy, while the
p o p u la tio n suffered n o t only fro m p o v e rty b u t fro m perio dical e x plosio ns
o f guerrilla. T hese rea ch ed a clim a x in th e m ass-scale violencia o f 1948-64,
in w hich p r o b a b ly a q u a r te r o f a million p eo ple lost their lives w ith o u t an y
very c o m p ellin g ju stifica tion. T h e small C e n tr a l A m e r ic a n republics were a
 European Nations Overseas 223

h a p p y h u n tin g - g r o u n d for foreign business interests a n d for b o th indig e n­

ou s a n d foreign m ilitary a d v e n tu re rs. C u b a was tr a n s f o r m e d in th e 1960s
f r o m sem i-colonial d ep e n d e n c e o n the U n ite d S ta te s to sem i-colonial
d e p e n d e n c e o n th e So viet U n io n . T h e c o n s eq u e n ce, a fu sio n o f th e S oviet-
ty p e m o n o lith ic p a r ty w ith strea m lined old-style caudillism o , p r o b a b ly
involved th e f o r m a tio n in C u b a o f a n a t io n a l consciou sne ss stro n g e r th a n
h a d ever previously existed in the C a r i b b e a n region.
M e xico , w ith 50,000,000 in h a b ita n ts in th e 1970s, h a d a u niq u e ly d r a m a tic
h isto rical d e v e lo p m e n t in m o d e rn times: tw enty-five years (1829-55) o f the
m ilita ry d ic ta to r S a n t a A n n a , w h o lost C a lifo rn ia to th e U n ited States; a
p erio d o f anti-clerical reform s, civil w a r a n d F r e n c h m ilita ry invasion
(1857-67) in w hich the refo rm in g p reside n t, Benito J u a r e z , prevailed
a g a in st the w o u ld -b e e m p e r o r, th e H a b s b u r g a r c h - d u k e M a x im ilian ; the
long d ic ta to rs h ip (1876-1910) o f J u a r e z ’s lie u te n a n t P o rfirio D iaz , w h o
o p e n e d the c o u n t r y to foreign investors; a p erio d o f r ev o lu tio n a n d civil
w a r (1910-20) in w hich p e rh a p s a m illion M e x ica n s lost th e ir lives; a n d the
em ergence o f a po litical system m o u ld e d by th e vic to rio u s generals o f the
r ev o lu tio n a n d h a n d e d o n by th e m to la te r g e n e ra tio n s in the fo rm of rule
by a b o d y w hich chose to call itself th e I n s titu tio n a l R e v o lu tio n a r y P arty .
T h e r e v o lu tio n w as a g rea t event, b ec au se it c h a n g e d n o t only the ruling
elite b u t also the n a t u r e o f th e n a t io n a l m y th o lo g y , a n d so o f th e n a tio n
itself. U ntil th e r e v o lu tio n p o w e r b elo n g ed to th o se a p p r o v e d by the
la n d o w n e r s a n d th e c h u rc h , w h ich s h a re d th e w ea lth w ith fo re ign business
interests. In th e J u a r e z e ra the ch u rc h t o o k so m e h a r d blow s b u t recovered;
a n d it m a y be arg u e d th a t the m a in effect o f J u a r e z ’s efforts w as th a t u n d e r
his pupil D iaz th e foreig n elem ent in the oligarchy g ain ed g r o u n d at the
ex p e n se o f the in d ig e n o u s elem ent. T h r o u g h o u t this perio d S p a n is h cu ltu re
prevailed a n d was glorified. T h e I n d ia n s w ho, as in th e A n d es, consisted of
the tw o categories o f sp e ak e rs o f I n d ia n lang u ag e s a n d o f S p a n ish -sp e a k e rs
w h o lived the ‘th e I n d ia n w ay’, w ere a despised mass. P e rso n s o f tru e
S p a n is h b lo o d w ere very few, even a t the a p e x o f the social p y ra m id ; b u t the
m estizos w h o occu p ie d th e u p p e r levels w ere p r o u d to belo n g to S p a n ish
culture. J u a re z , by b ir th a Z a p o t e c I n d ia n , h a d p r o f o u n d s y m p a th y f o r his
fello w -Indian s, b u t did n o t d o u b t th a t S p a n is h cu ltu re m u s t prevail. T h e
re v o lu tio n c h a n g ed this situation. It t o o k w ea lth a n d p o w e r fro m m a n y
g rea t lan d o w n e rs; a n d this process was c o n tin u e d u n d e r the presidency of
G e n e ra l C a r d e n a s (1934-40). T h e r e v o lu tio n also t o o k th e re m a in in g
w ea lth o f the ch u rc h , a n d fo rc ed the p r ie s th o o d itself in to a sta tu s o f sem i­
legality. F ew m e m b e r s o f th e elite o f P o rf ir io D ia z ’s tim e r eta in ed p o w e r or
w ealth: in th e ir place a ro se a new elite o f b u r e a u c r a ts , a r m y officers,
lawyers a n d business m a n a g e rs, rec ruited f r o m the v ictors o f th e rev o lu ­
tion.
224 Nations and States

As tim e passed, as th e e c o n o m y grew, a n d as th e links w ith N o rth

A m e r ic a n c a p ita l w ere s tr e n g th e n e d f r o m the 1950s o n w a r d s , th e new elite
b e c a m e a new bourgeoisie, m o r e etatiste a n d less c o m m itte d to free
e n terp rise d o c trin e th a n th e old, b u t n o t less co n c e rn e d to preserve an d
increase its w ea lth a n d pow er. H o w ev er, this elite legitim ised itself by the
rh e to ric o f revolutio n. T h e r e v o lu tio n h a d b e c o m e ‘in stitu tio n alis ed ’ in the
perso n s o f th e new rulers a n d th e new privileged. T h e y s p o k e n o t only in the
n a m e o f th e r e v o lu tio n b u t in th e n a m e o f th e In d ians. I n th e new official
m yth o lo g y , I n d ia n tr a d itio n s a n d I n d ia n cu ltu res w ere glorified, an d
S p a n ish cu ltu re w as d en ig ra ted . C o rte s was n o longe r a n a t io n a l h e ro b u t a
villain. T h e S p a n ish lang u ag e was the n a tio n a l la n g u ag e o f M ex ico, but
M e x ic a n s w ere heirs to the T oltecs, Z a p o te c s o r M a y as, n o t to the
C astilians. M e a n w h ile th e I n d ia n s occupied, as previously, the low er levels
o f th e social p y ram id . S o m e th in g , it is true, h a d been d o n e fo r the Indians
in la n d re f o rm a n d in social w elfare— f a r m o r e t h a n in a n y A n d e a n state.
A d m ir a b le w o rk h a d also been d o n e — so m e tim es by M e x ic a n s— in the
stu d y o f the n u m e ro u s , diverse a n d truly m agnificen t civilisations o f the
p r e - C o lu m b ia n peoples o f M ex ico. P e r h a p s m o st im p o r ta n t, social m o bili­
ty w as p r o b a b ly g rea ter th a n in a n y o th e r S p a n is h - A m e r ic a n country:
ta len ted I n d ia n s could m a k e g o o d careers, a n d the e d u c a tio n w ith o u t
w h ich careers c ould h a r d ly be s ta rte d w as m a d e increasingly available even
to the p o o r . Yet th e fact t h a t politicians a n d rich a n d distinguished citizens
loud ly p ro c la im e d th e ir prid e in th e ir I n d ia n an c es try a n d their d e v o tio n to
I n d ia n c u ltu re did n o t necessarily p rove t h a t ‘the I n d ia n p r o b le m ’ h ad been
‘solved’, o r a new M e x ic a n n a t io n h a d been created.

T h o u g h the new n atio n s o f S p a n is h A m e r ic a successfully rejected the

sovereignty o f th e ir f o rm e r E u r o p e a n rulers, th e ir e c o n o m ic progress
rem a in ed d e p e n d e n t o n foreign trad e , a n d their n a t u r a l resources were
deve lope d first by E u r o p e a n a n d th e n by N o r t h A m e r ic a n capital. C a ttle-
ranches, m e a t-p a c k in g p la n ts a n d railw ays in th e A rg e n tin e w ere largely
British-ow ned. British a n d o th e r fo re ign ca p ita l played a leading p a r t in
M e x ic a n oil, Bolivian tin a n d C h ilea n copper. B etw een the w orld w ars
N o rth A m e r ic a n inve stm e nts increased m o r e r ap id ly t h a n E u ro p e a n .
In so far as they o p e n e d u p n a t u r a l resources, these investm ents were
obv iously beneficial to th e peoples o f L a tin A m eric a, a n d w ere w elcom ed
by th e ir rulers. H ow ever, inevitably also th e y cre ate d je a lo u s y a n d resent­
ment. N o t only foreigners, b u t also th e ir local associates a n d em ployees
c re ate d islands o f w ea lth a m id s t local p o verty. T h e view b e c am e w ide­
sp read th a t th e w ealth o f the in d ige nous n a tio n s w as being d ra in e d a b r o a d ,
in the fo rm o f divid ends to ab sen te e fore igners a n d high salaries to foreign
specialists em p lo y ed o n th e spot. In M exico, P re sid e n t C&rdenas n a t io n a l­
 European Nations Overseas 225

ised foreign oil c o m p an ie s, b u t la ter p resid e n ts ag a in w elc o m e d foreign

investm ents. In the s m aller C a r i b b e a n repub lics N o r t h A m e r ic a n business
interests r em a in ed invulnerable: o u ts ta n d in g a m o n g th e m w as the U nited
F r u it C o m p a n y . As a direct result o f th e e c o n o m ic strains o f th e S e c o n d
W o r ld W a r, British a n d o th e r E u r o p e a n interests were g reatly reduced.
T h e B ritish-ow ned railways a n d m a n y o th e r en terprises passed to the
A rg e n tin e g o v e r n m e n t o n te rm s u n f a v o u r a b le fo r th e ow ners. U nited
S tate s inv estm ents ho w ev e r forged a h e a d . In 1968 they f o rm e d a b o u t 70
per cent o f all private foreign investm ents, 40 per cent being in p etro l an d
mining.
T h e d o m i n a n t p o sitio n of th e U nited S ta te s in L a tin A m e r ic a w as n o t
b ased solely o n e c o n o m ic pow er. In 1903 th e political in te rv e n tio n o f
P re sid e n t T h e o d o r e R oo sev elt in f a v o u r o f a s e p aratist m o v e m e n t a g a in st
the g o v e r n m e n t o f C o l o m b ia led to th e c r e a tio n o f the rep u b lic o f P a n a m a ,
w h ich th e n g ra n te d e x tra -te rrito ria l rights to the U nited S tate s o v er the
zo n e th r o u g h w hich the P a n a m a C a n al was later built. F o r sixty years after
the S p a n is h - A m e r ic a n w a r o f 1898 the U n ite d S ta te s exercised s o m e th in g
like a p r o te c to r a te over C u b a ; an d d u r in g the 1920s A m e r ic a n tr o o p s
intervened in Haiti, N ic a r a g u a an d S a n t o D o m in g o . A fte r the S eco nd
W o rld W ar, U nited S ta te s in te rv en tio n w as m ainly m o tiv a te d by the desire
to su ppress c o m m u n is t th re a ts to g o v e r n m e n t, a n d so to overall A m e ric a n
strategic interests. T w o ex a m p le s w ere G u a te m a la in 1954 a n d S a n to
D o m in g o in 1965. T h e relative role played in these even ts by different
agencies o f th e U nited S tate s g o v e rn m e n t, a n d by A m e r ic a n business
interests, is a m a tte r o f controversy: t h a t they increased a n t i - U n i t e d S tates
feeling t h r o u g h o u t th e su b c o n tin e n t is b e y o n d d o u b t.
T h e a d v e n t to p o w e r o f F idel C a s tr o , w hich reduced U n ite d S tates
in fluence in C u b a to the naval base o f G u a n t a n a m o , w as follow ed by a n
increase o f a n t i - U n i t e d S tate s n a tio n a lis m in m o st republics, especially
s tr o n g in the intelligentsia a n d f ro m tim e to tim e affecting the g o v ernm e nts.
T h e co u n tries least affected w ere M e x ico a n d V enezuela, w ho se g o v e r n ­
m e n ts w ere able to e x tra c t increasingly f a v o u r a b le te rm s f r o m th o se N o r t h
A m e r ic a n business interests w hich d ev e lo p e d their m in e ral resources o r (as
w as increasingly preferred ) to o k p a r t in th e e s ta b lish m e n t o f se co n d a ry
industries.

The Brazilians
W hile S p a n is h A m e r ic a b r o k e u p in to m a n y states, P o rtu g u e s e A m eric a
rem a in ed u nited. T h is m a y be p artly e x p la in e d by th e fact t h a t it consisted,
until the late n in e te e n th c e ntury, of a n u m b e r o f s e ttlem ents close to the
coast, a n d th a t its sea c o m m u n ic a ti o n s w ere p r o te c te d b ec au se P o rtu g a l,
226 Nations and States

a n d th e n in d e p e n d e n t Brazil, w ere allies o f B ritain, th e grea test sea po w er

d u r in g th e critical centuries. A n o th e r r e a so n is th a t, because in d e p e n d e n t
Brazil re m a in e d a m o n a r c h y u n d e r its o w n e m p e r o r, w h o was th e son o f a
k in g o f P o rtu g a l, th e re w as a c o n tin u ity o f p erso n n e l a n d o f loyalty in th e
civil a d m in is t r a tio n a n d a r m e d forces.
Brazil re m a in e d a single state, b u t it r eta in ed a basic division, b etw een its
n o r t h a n d so u th. T h e n o r t h w as b ased o n a p l a n ta t io n e c o n o m y a n d a black
la b o u r force, while in th e s o u th first m in in g a n d th e n livestock farm in g
w ere d eve lope d by a g ro w in g s tre a m o f im m ig r a n ts f r o m E u ro p e . T he
p r o b le m o f slavery (w hich survived until 1888) did n o t lead, as in N o rth
A m e ric a , to civil war: here to o the cause m u s t largely be so u g h t in the
existence o f a centralised m o n a rc h ic a l a d m in is tra tio n . N evertheless, the
division betw e en n o r th a n d so uth, w h ich resem b led p e r h a p s m o r e the
situ a tio n in Italy th a n in the U nited S tate s (w ith Brazil’s m ezzogiorno in the
n o r th ), co n tin u e d to be a grave source o f w ea kness to Brazil.
I m m ig r a t io n into Brazil b e g a n in the 1820s, grew fast in th e 1870s,
r e a c h e d its p e a k in the 1890s, a n d c o n tin u e d o n a sm aller scale betw e en the
w o rld w ars a n d afte r th e S eco n d W o r ld W a r. T h e r e were at first large
n u m b e r s o f P o rtu g u e se ; in th e 1870s G e r m a n s p r e d o m in a te d ; a n d afte r the
m id-1880s the m o st n u m e ro u s w ere Italians. J a p a n e s e c a m e in su b sta n tia l
n u m b e rs after 1908; a n d th e re w ere also im m ig r a n ts f r o m P o la n d a n d oth e r
E a s t E u r o p e a n countries. T h u s in the B razilian p o p u la tio n , exp e cted in the
m id-1970s to su rp ass 100,000,000, p e rso n s o f E u r o p e a n origin b alanced
th o se o f A fric a n o r m u la tto p r o v en a n ce. T h e r e was n o official race
d isc rim in a tio n , a n d n o t m u c h public ex p re ssio n o f racial prejudice, b u t the
rela tio n s betw een w hite a n d bla ck a n d m ix e d w ere m o r e c o m p le x th a n
a p p e a r e d o n the surface. T h is will be briefly discussed in c h a p te r 9.
Brazilian politics w ere n o t m o r e ‘d e m o c r a tic ’ th a n th o se o f Brazil’s
w estern n eig h b o u rs, b u t r a th e r less d isorderly. T h e h a b it of the rule of law
w as m o r e firm ly fo u n d e d . F r o m th e 1930s B razilian politics b o re som e
r e se m b la n ce to th o se o f the A rgen tine. A typ e -of m ass m o v e m e n t, led by
n a tio n a lis t d e m a g o g u e s w h o offered social refo rm s, em erged- These
m o v e m e n ts — u n d e r V arg as in Brazil f ro m 1930 to 1945 a n d f r o m 1951 to
1954, P e r o n in A rg e n tin a f r o m 1945 t o 1955, G o u l a r t in Brazil f r o m 1961 to
1964— c o u ld n o t easily be fitted in to c o n v e n tio n a l E u r o p e a n political
f ra m e w o r k s , b u t th e y w ere closer to fascist t h a n to socialist m odels. In 1964
m ilita ry rule was established in Brazil, a n d in te rn a l o r d e r a n d ec o n o m ic
progre ss w ere p u r su e d w ith so m e success, a t the price o f p e r p e tu a ti n g social
injustices a n d leaving th e u r b a n a n d r u ra l oligarchies u n to u c h e d . T h ere
was, how ever, little d o u b t o f the f o r m a tio n o f a B raz ilian n a tio n . I m m i­
g ra n ts h a d been a b s o rb e d into a n a t io n a l cultu re b ased o n the P o rtu g u e s e
langu age a n d th u s easily d istingu isha b le fro m t h a t o f S p a n ish - o r English-
spe ak in g neighbours.
 European Nations Overseas 227

The Canadians
T h e f o u n d e rs o f c o n f e d e r a tio n were b o th E nglish- a n d F re nch-spea king.
F r o m 1867 o n w a r d s F re n c h C a n a d i a n s had tw o sets o f leaders: in the
ce n tral g o v e r n m e n t a n d in the p rovince o f Q uebec. T h e fo rm e r were
inevitably co n c ern ed w ith th e affairs o f a vast new c o u n try , o f sm all b u t
g ro w in g p o p u la tio n b u t o f e n o r m o u s prom ise: the la tte r no less inevitably
w ere p reo ccu pied w ith th e p r e se rv a tio n o f F r e n c h cu ltu re in its peculiar
N o r t h A m eric an form . T his difference o f prio rities was b o u n d to lead to
differences o f political o u tlo o k ; a n d as th e p a rty system o f C a n a d a , like
th o se o f all d e m o c r a tic polities in the late n in e tee n th a n d tw entieth
centuries, becam e m o r e o rg anised, the voters o f Q u eb e c te n d ed to give their
allegiance to d ifferent parties at the ce n tral a n d the p rovincial levels.
T h e p o p u la tio n o f Q u eb e c p rov ince was p r e d o m in a n tly F re n ch -
sp eak ing, b u t the large business c o m m u n ity o f M o n tr e a l was m ainly
E nglish-speaking. T h o u g h tf u l Québécois resented the fact th a t th o u g h
political po w er in the p rovince was in th e ir h a n d s it was the A n g lo p h o n e s
w h o held the ec o n o m ic pow er. T h e r e se n tm e n t did not m a k e itself felt as
early as one m ight expect, largely because o f the a ttitu d e o f th e C a th o lic
ch urch. T h e h ie ra rc h y a n d the clergy basically disliked E nglish-speaking
rule, b u t urged loyalty to the British cro w n . In the 1830s a secular, liberal-
m in d e d leadership h a d em erged fro m th e p rofessional classes w hich, in
defiance o f the ch u rc h , h ad called for resistance. T h e fiasco o f the P a p in e u
rebellion h ad reinforced the c h u r c h ’s political s u p rem a cy . In th e 1870s
th e re was b itte r conflict betw e en the r a th e r liberal A r c h b is h o p T a s c h e r e a u
of Q u e b e c a n d the u l t r a - m o n t a n e B ishop B o u rg et o f M o n tr e a l, w hich led
to the f o u n d a ti o n o f the U niversity o f M o n tr e a l, in o p p o s itio n to Laval
U niversity in Q u eb e c city ( fo u n d e d 1852) w hich was accused o f liberal
dev iatio n fro m tr u e d octrine. P artly because o f these intra-clerical c o n t r o ­
versies, an d partly because o f the situ a tio n o f conflict arisin g fro m the
presence o f its large rich E nglish-speaking m in o rity , M o n tr e a l r a th e r th a n
Q u e b e c city b e c am e the centre o f m ilita n t québécois natio n alism .
F r o m tim e to tim e F r a n c o p h o n e hostility, to A n g lo p h o n e c o n tro l of
C a n a d a flared u p passionately. O n e o cc as io n w as th e e x e c u tio n in 1885 of
L ouis Riel, w h o h ad led a revolt in S a s k a tc h e w a n in w hich p eople were
killed. H e w as widely re g a rd e d as a m a rty r, a victim o f English o p pression
o f th e F re n ch . A n o t h e r occ asio n was th e decision of th e g o v e r n m e n t of
O n ta r io in 1913 to sto p c o m p u ls o r y te a c h in g o f F re n c h in the schools of
th a t province. Bitterness o n this issue h a d n o t died w h en w a r b r o k e o u t in
E u r o p e in 1914. O p p o s iti o n to c o n s c rip tio n , fo r a w a r in w h ich B ritain a n d
F ra n c e w ere fighting as allies, greatly in creased F r a n c o p h o n e natio n alism .
D u rin g the 1920s it re m a in e d clear th a t w ith in C a n a d a , w h ate v er th e views
o f th e E ng lish-speaking m ajority, there existed a distinct F re n c h -sp e a k in g
228 Nations and States

n atio n .
In 1935 tw o n atio n alist g ro u p s in Q u eb e c c a m e to g e th e r to fo rm a new
p a rty , Union Nationale, led by M a u ric e D uplessis, w h o was p rim e m inister
o f the p rovince fro m 1936 to 1939 a n d fro m 1944 to 1959. U n d e r the
D uplessis g o v e r n m e n t the p reva len t political a ttitu d e s w ere social c o n s er­
v atism a n d F re n c h n atio n alism . D esp ite his a n ti- A n g l o p h o n e rhetoric,
D uplessis h a d no ob je ctio n to c a pita list enterprise. A m e r ic a n capital
flo o d e d the p rovince a n d so m e o f the new w ea lth ov erflow ed into the eager
h a n d s o f D uplessis’s ruling te am . S u bservienc e to plu to c racy , even to the
p o in t o f large-scale c o r r u p tio n , w ent w ith repressive a ttitu d e s to lab our.
T h is was n o t un ifo rm ly successful. W ith in the Q u e b e c C a th o lic ch u rc h an
o p p o sitio n a l tren d a p p e a r e d , in f a v o u r o f w o rk in g class interests. M e a n ­
while th e social stru c tu re o f th e québécois p eople was rapidly changing:
th e y were being industrialised, u rb an ise d , e d u c ated a n d subjected to
m o d e r n secular ideas.
T h e d e a th o f D uplessis in 1959 caused the Union Nationale to brea k up.
A new provin cial g o v e r n m e n t p u rsu e d social refo rm s a n d cu ltu ral and
e d u c a tio n a l d ev e lo p m e n t. T hese new policies, k n o w n a s ‘the q uiet revolu ­
tio n ’, w ere n o t so quiet as th e n a m e im plied, fo r a g rea t deal o f radical
n a tio n a list rh e to ric was p u t f o rth in these years. S e p a r a tis m n o w becam e
a n im p o r t a n t political force. T h e ce n tral g o v e r n m e n t a n d the central
le ade rsh ip o f the L iberal P a rty , uneasily a w a re th a t fo r m a n y years the
F r e n c h - s p e a k in g p o p u la tio n h ad suffered b o th fro m neglect a n d from
e n c r o a c h m e n ts o n th e ir c u ltu ra l rights, b eg an to ta k e seriously a policy of
eq u a l sta tu s f o r b o th languages, as re c o m m e n d e d in 1965 in the rep o rt of
th e R o y a l C o m m is s io n o n Bilingualism a n d Biculturalism . T o the québé­
cois ex trem ists, this seem ed a w aste o f tim e. F re n c h culture, they arg ued,
w as a lre a d y d o o m e d o utside Q uebec: th e surviving islands w o uld be e n ­
gulfed before long by th e rising A n g lo p h o n e flood. T h e only rem e dy was to
create a s e p arate sovereign state of Q ueb ec. In this sta te c o u ld be in c o rp o ­
r a te d as m a n y as possible o f th e F re n c h - s p e a k in g c o m m u n itie s th a t lived
close to the existing pro v in cial b o rd e r, w hich sh o u ld be c o rresp o n d in g ly
e x ten d e d . T h e m o r e d is ta n t g ro u p s w o u ld have to ch o o s e b etw een A nglici­
sa tio n a n d e m ig r a tio n to Q uebec. As fo r the A n g lo p h o n e s in Q u eb e c, they
c o u ld acce p t a un ilin g u al F r e n c h cu ltu re, o r th e y c o u ld go o n living in
M o n tr e a l as citizens o f a foreig n state, o r they c o u ld get ou t. Q u eb e c itself
w o u ld th e n b ec om e a sovereign in d e p e n d e n t state, th e second state of
w holly F re n c h cultu re in the world.
In the mid-1960s m ilita n t F r a n c o p h o n e n a tio n a lis m grew. T h e separatist
ca u se was given a ce rtain in te r n a tio n a l cachet w h en P re sid e n t de G aulle o f
F ra n c e , invited by the p rim e m inister o f Q u e b e c to see the 1967 I n te r n a ­
tio n a l E x h ib itio n in M o n tr e a l, saw fit to ad d re ss a c ro w d w ith th e slogan
 European Nations Overseas 229

w o rd s, Vive le Québec libre! T h e fact th a t F ra n c e h ad a b a n d o n e d Q u eb e c

in 1763 a n d 1783, a n d th a t official F ra n c e h a d never since s h o w n m u c h
in terest in the fate o f the N o r t h A m e r ic a n F re n c h , did n o t p rev e nt the
sep aratists fro m m a k in g the m o st o f this episode. A se p aratist p arty , th e
Parti québécois , w as f o u n d e d in 1968, a n d o b ta in e d 24 p e r ce n t o f th e votes
in th e provincial election o f 29 A pril 1970. D isc o n te n t a n d pro sp erity
existed side by side. Q u eb e c w ith 6,000,000 in h a b ita n ts, a p p r o x im a te ly
on e -th ird o f th e p o p u la tio n of C a n a d a , h ad a d is p r o p o r tio n a te ly high rate
o f u n e m p lo y e d ; the s t a n d a r d o f living in Q u e b e c p ro vince w as low er th a n in
O n ta r io ; the b ir th -ra te in the province, on ce higher th a n in th e rest of
C a n a d a , was in 1970 5 per cent below the a ll- C a n a d ia n level. All these a n d
o th e r m isfortune s the sep aratists a ttr ib u te d to A n g lo p h o n e s . P a rtic u la rly
resented w as the refusal by the c e n tra l g o v e r n m e n t to p e rm it local
e d u c a tio n au th o ritie s to force all new im m ig r a n ts to Q u eb e c p rovince to go
to schools w ith F re n c h language o f instru ction: th a t new C a n a d i a n s fro m
Italy, H u n g a ry , G e r m a n y o r P o la n d sh o u ld be allow ed to live in M o n tr e a l
a n d yet choose English r a th e r th a n F r e n c h as the f u tu re language of their
children was felt to be a n a ff ro n t to F r e n c h civilisation.
In O c to b e r 1970 a secret sep aratist o r g a n is a tio n , Front de libération du
Québec ( F L Q ), w hich professed a m ix tu re o f n atio n alist, a n ti-C a th o lic ,
anti-cap italist an d r e v o lu tio n a ry d o ctrin es, k id n a p p e d a British d ip lo m a t,
a n d th e n a m iniste r in the Q u e b e c g o v e r n m e n t, P ierre L a p o rte . T h e tw o
m en w ere to be held as h ostages until a series o f political d e m a n d s h a d been
met. T h e Q uebe c prem ier, R o b e rt B o u rassa, h e s ita te d ;17 b u t the C a n a d i a n
prem ier, P ierre E lliott T r u d e a u , a m a n o f F r e n c h birth b u t tw o cultures,
w h o held ra th e r rad ical social views b u t also believed th a t g o v e rn m e n ts
sh o u ld rule, n o t s u rre n d e r, invo ked w a r tim e pow ers a n d sent tr o o p s into
the province.
T r u d e a u e a rn ed th e h a tre d o f the se p aratists, w h o reg a rd e d him as a
t r a i to r to the F re n c h C a n a d i a n people. M a n y F re n c h - sp e a k e r s c o n tin u e d
to vote fo r h im at federal elections, as s h o w n in 1972. N evertheless R ené
L évesque’s se p aratist Parti québécois steadily g ained g r o u n d . A t the
Q u eb e c pro vincial election in N o v e m b e r 1976 it w o n 41 p e r cent o f th e poll,
a relative m a jo rity , a n d received 69 o u t o f 110 seats in th e assembly.
T h o u g h c o m m e n t a to r s eagerly a t tr ib u te d L éve sque’s success to his e x p lo i­
ta tio n o f e c o n o m ic difficulties r a th e r th a n to a specific desire o f the
Québécois fo r sovereign in d e p e n d e n c e (w h ich was belied by som e o p in io n
polls), th e fact r e m a in e d t h a t he had w o n , a n d th a t he w as c o m m itte d to a
plebiscite o n in d e p e n d e n c e w ithin tw o years.
In the 1970s th e single state, stretche d a lo n g the S t L aw ren c e river a n d
th e n linked, across th e prairies a n d th e Rockies, w ith th e Pacific, still
existed, a n d indeed a p p e a r e d at first sight to be d o in g r a th e r well. Its
230 Nations and States

p o p u la tio n h a d su rp assed tw en ty million, a n d had on e o f the highest

s ta n d a r d s of living in th e w orld. Its m a te ria l resources w ere e n o r m o u s , an d
its industries flourishing. U n fo r tu n a te ly this o u tw a r d ly p r o s p e r o u s an d
successful po lity suffered f r o m tw o grave m aladies. T h e first was th a t the
sta te w as the h o m e n o t o f o n e n a tio n b u t of a n atio n -a n d -a -h a lf. T h e
secon d w as th a t the flo u rish in g e c o n o m y w as largely ow n ed by citizens of
the n e i g h b o u rin g state, w ith a p o p u la tio n te n tim es the size o f its ow n, from
w h o m it was se p arate d not, like A u stralia, by a n ocean, b u t by a long land
fro n tier, b e y o n d w hich ev erything was very m u c h the sa m e b u t ju s t a bit
bigger a n d p e r h a p s ju s t a bit better. C a n a d a lo o k e d like a se co n d -ra te
p rovincial versio n o f th e U nited S tates. T his seemed a t least to be true
e n o u g h to p u t m a n y o f th o se C a n a d i a n s w h o s to p p e d to th in k a b o u t their
c o u n t r y in a c o n d itio n o f u n ea sy irritatio n.
C a n a d a was n o t a sta te o f tw o n ations. If it h ad bee n so, if English-
s p e ak in g C a n a d i a n s h a d considered them selves one n a t io n a n d F rench-
s p e ak in g C a n a d i a n s a n o t h e r , it m ight have been easier to o rganise a fruitful
sym biosis a n d c o o p e r a tio n betw een the m . But E n g lish-spe akin g C a n a d i­
an s insisted th a t there w as on e C a n a d i a n n atio n , to w hich the F re n ch -
sp e ak e rs b elon ged b u t in w hich they m u s t accept a p ercep tibly low er status.
In fact, th e y sim ply identified th e alleged C a n a d i a n n a tio n w ith themselves.
T his th e F r e n c h - s p e a k in g C a n a d i a n s refused to accept. T h e y themselves
h a d first b ee n p a r t of th e F r e n c h n a tio n , a n d th e n , afte r the b rea ch with the
p as t w hich the m e tr o p o lita n F re n c h h a d m a d e f r o m 1789 o n w a r d s , they
h a d g ro w n , u n d e r the g u id a n ce o f their u ltr a - m o n t a n e , politically passive
b u t cultu rally v ig o ro u s ch u rc h , into a new natio n . T h is n a tio n in the
tw e n tie th c e n tu ry lost g r o u n d in all C a n a d a ex c ep t Q uebe c, a n d increasing­
ly rejected b o t h the cu ltu ra l leadership a n d the political passivity of the
c hu rch. Increasingly, its s p o k e sm e n u rged th a t it s h o u ld c o n c e n tra te on
Q ueb e c, a n d create a n in d e p e n d e n t state.
If this s h o u ld h a p p e n , th e re w o u ld be b itter te rrito ria l p ro b lem s. T here
w o u ld be d a n g e r o u s f ro n tie r d isputes w ith O n ta r io a n d N ew Brunsw ick,
a n d p a in fu l rese ttle m e n t p ro b lem s, affecting h u n d r e d s o f th o u s a n d s a n d
c a u sin g ir re p a ra b le e c o n o m ic d am ag e . In the event th a t this p r o g ra m m e
c o u ld be ca rrie d o u t, w ith o r w ith o u t large-scale b lo o d s h e d , w ith gre a te r or
lesser b itterness a n d h a tre d o n b o t h sides, w here w o u ld it leave the English-
s p e a k in g C a n a d ia n s? W o u l d a residual C a n a d a c o n tin u e to exist, a
n o m in a lly sovereign d e p e n d e n c y o f th e U n ite d S tates? W o u l d the U nited
S tate s wish to in c o rp o r a t e it in the f o r m o f a n o t h e r h alf-d o ze n o r m o re
states? A n d w h a t sort o f sovereignty w o u ld in d e p e n d e n t Q u e b e c possess,
u n d e r w h ose pro tec tio n ?
T h e th ree -c o rn e re d r ela tio n sh ip betw e en E n g lish -sp e ak in g C a n a d ia n s ,
F re n c h -sp e a k in g C a n a d i a n s a n d the U n ite d S tate s h a d lo n g bee n very
c o m p lex . In the nin e tee n th ce n tu ry th e re h ad been a f o u r th p a r tn e r in the
 European Nations Overseas 231

gam e, th e British em pire, b u t fro m 1918 o n w a r d s it h a d dw in d le d a w a y at

a n ever accelerating speed. E ng lish -sp e ak in g a n d F r e n c h - s p e a k in g C a n a d i ­
an s h a d n eeded each o th e r to b alan c e U n ite d S tate s pressure, t h o u g h each
h a d f r o m tim e to tim e used the U n ite d S ta te s presence to press th e other.
B ritain too h a d bee n used in the b a la n c in g act. T h e Québécois co nsidered
the British em pire th e lesser o f tw o evils, at first because the liberal heresies
o f the British w ere less p ern icious a n d less d a n g e r o u s to th e tru e fa ith th a n
th o se o f th e A m e ric a n s, a n d la ter b ec au se British ca p ita lism w as less
frighteningly po w erfu l t h a n A m e r ic a n ca p ita lism ( th o u g h D uplessis was
h ard ly a foe o f A m e r ic a n capitalism ). N everth eless th e mariage de conve­
nance o f the Québécois w ith th e British e m p ire se ld o m s to o d m u c h strain.
T h e la te n t h a tre d for the English welled u p in th e Riel affair, a n d in the
b itte r refusal to fight E n g la n d ’s w ars, n o t only aga in st th e Boers b u t also
a g a in st the G e r m a n s o f W illiam II o r o f A d o lf Hitler. It m ig h t hav e been
th o u g h t th a t the alliance o f Britain a n d F ra n c e in tw o w o rld w ars m ight
have c o n s o lid a te d C a n a d a ; t h a t the c o u n te r w e ig h t to the U nited S tates
m ig h t have been n o t Britain alone, b u t B ritain a n d F ra n c e ; t h a t the St
L aw ren c e b asin m ig h t have b een o rien ted to w a r d s W e ste rn E u r o p e as a
w hole. Yet this did n o t h a p p e n ; n o r did th e a d v e n t o f the E u r o p e a n
E c o n o m ic C o m m u n ity , w ith Britain a n d F ra n c e in it, seem likely to have
this effect.
In its new phase, in the 1960s, québécois A n g lo p h o b ia was directed
a g a in st b o th E ng lish -sp e ak in g C a n a d i a n s a n d A m eric an s. It w as h a r d to
say w hich was r e g a rd e d as the m a in enem y. R a tio n a l process m ig h t a p p e a r
to suggest th a t A m e r ic a rep rese n ted th e g re a te r d a n g e r, a n d th a t it was
g o o d sense to co m e to te rm s w ith A n g lo p h o n e C a n a d ia n s . Irra tio n a l
n a tio n a list passion, how ev er, w o u ld reject an y c o o p e r a tio n w ith an y
A n g lo p h o n e s even a g a in st S a ta n himself. S o m e sep aratists believed th a t
th e y c ou ld m a k e th eir o w n te rm s w ith the U n ite d States: th e ir a im w as a
s o rt o f p a r ti tio n o f C a n a d a b etw e en W a s h in g t o n a n d M o n tr e a l. O th ers
believed in a c o m p le te in d e p e n d e n c e f r o m all A n g lo - S a x o n s . H o w m u c h
help F ra n c e w o u ld be willing o r able to give to a sta te w hich m a d e a p o in t of
its hostility to the w hole A n g lo - S a x o n w o rld w as n o t easy to predict.
A n o t h e r fa v ourite a n s w e r was th a t Q u e b e c s h o u ld b e c o m e a secon d C u b a .
A t first sight this is j u s t silly slo g a n -m o n g erin g : the G u lf o f S t L aw ren c e
a n d the C a r i b b e a n a re w o rld s a p a rt. In a n o t h e r sense h o w ev e r it m ight
m a k e m o r e sense. C u b a in th e 1960s ex c h a n g e d on e g r e a t p o w e r for
a n o t h e r as its p r o te c to r . T h is sam e g re a t p o w e r was also th e only n o n -
A n g lo p h o n e sta te in th e w o rld fo r w h o m the A rc tic h a d vital strategic
im p o rta n c e . T his o r ie n t a tio n to w a r d s R u s s ia a n d S ib eria m ig h t also
b ec o m e m o r e pra c tic a l s h o u ld th e c o m m u n is t p a r ty o b ta in p o w e r in
F ra n c e a n d in Iceland.
T hese o p e n q u e s tio n s m u st arise f r o m a n y c o n s id e r a tio n o f Q u e b e c ’s
232 Nations and States

fu tu re , b u t they belo ng to a field th a t tra n sc e n d s th e subject of n atio n alism

w h ich is o u r c o n c e rn here. Yet m ere brief m e n tio n o f th e m suggests th a t the
p re se rv a tio n o f C a n a d a , the m a in te n a n c e o f the W e s t-E a st tr a n s c o n tin e n ­
ta l axis, th e se arch to m a k e b ilingualism a p ractical reality, an d the w o rk in g
o u t o f a rela tio n sh ip w ith the U nited S tate s w hich c o n f o r m e d m ore
g enuinely to equ a l friendship t h a n to satellite status, were objectives w o rth
p u r s u in g a n d ca p ab le o f a tta in m e n t. Possibly G r a n t ’s la m e n t for a n a t i o n 18
w as p re m a tu r e . Possibly th e belief in a better, h ea lthier a n d stro n g e r
C a n a d a fro m o ce an to o ce an, w h o se s u p p o r te r s o f b o th lan guag es still far
o u tn u m b e r e d th e d ie -h a rd s o f T o r o n t o or th e enrages o f M o n tr e a l, m ight
still prevail. P e r h a p s even on e d a y a C a n a d i a n n a tio n m ight b ec o m e a
reality.

White South Africans

A fte r tw o h u n d r e d years o f D u tc h settlem ent, the la n g u ag e o f th e m ajority
o f w hite S o u th A fr ic a n s 19 h a d b egun to diverge significantly fro m th a t of
the N eth e rlan d s. It w as in th e 1870s th a t a m o v e m e n t b eg a n to gain s u p p o r t
w h ich claim ed th a t a new lan g u ag e an d a new n a tio n had c o m e in to being,
w h ich sh o u ld be called A fr ik a a n s an d A frik a n er. T h e w idespre ad a d o p t io n
o f these n a m e s implied n o t only d istin ctio n fro m H o lla n d b u t also implicit
den ial t h a t the E nglish-spe ake rs w ere ‘A fric a n s’. T h e English-speakers
m a d e things easier fo r th e A fr ik a n e r n a tio n a list by clinging fanatically to
th e ir Englishness, sta n d in g , as it were, on the b ea ch at D u r b a n gazing
t h r o u g h telescopes b a c k w a r d s r o u n d th e C a p e of G o o d H o p e to w a r d s
‘h o m e ’ a n d th e v e n e rab le figure of Q u e e n Victoria. T h e E nglish-speakers
also m a d e it easier by c o n c e n tra tin g th e ir efforts o n business a n d ignoring
politics, in w hich A frik a n e rs bec am e p r e d o m i n a n t, h a r d ly less in the C a p e
t h a n in the republics.
T h e A fr ik a n e r literary revival w as pion e ered by S. J. d u T o i t , a predikant
of th e D u t c h Reform ed C h u rc h , of d is ta n t F rench H ugu enot descent, and
th e ce n tre o f th e m o v e m e n t was the sm all to w n o f P a a r l in C a p e C olony.
T h e efforts o f d u T o it a n d his friends to m a k e A fr ik a a n s a distinct literary
la n g u ag e w ere successful; b u t it t o o k s o m e tim e before th e co n c e p t of a
single A fr ik a n e r n a t io n d e v e lo p e d .20 A t first it w as in the O ra n g e F re e S ta te
t h a t n a t io n a l consciousne ss was strong est, while the p re v a le n t a ttitu d e in
T ra n s v a a l w as m o r e n a r r o w ly p aroc hial. T h e v ic tory o f M a j u b a increased
th e T r a n s v a a le rs ’ o w n consciousness, a n d th e prestige o f th e ir republic.
H o w ev er, in the C a p e in th e 1880s the p re v a le n t tr e n d a m o n g the
A frik a a n s-sp e a k e rs w as liberal r a th e r t h a n n atio n alist; a n d th e leading
A fr ik a n e r politician, J a n H o fm ey r, was able fo r a tim e to c o o p e r a te w ith
Cecil R hod e s. T h e J a m e s o n R aid a n d the B oer W a r en ded this, a n d
 European Nations Overseas 233

ce m e n ted the u n io n o f th e th ree b ran c h es in a single A fr ik a n e r n a tio n . T he

M iln e r years did n o t ch a n g e the essential situatio n. T h e E n g lish-spe aking
o r c o n tin e n ta l uitlanders in J o h a n n e s b u r g received th e ir civil rights, a n d
the p o p u la tio n o f T ra n s v a a l bec am e less p r e d o m i n a n tly A frik a n er; yet the
political a p a th y o f these n o n -A frik a n e rs , as o f the E nglish -sp e ak e rs in th e
C a p e a n d N ata l, left politics in the new U nio n o f S o u th A frica in A frik a n e r
hands. A m o n g these politicians three a ttitu d e s m a y be distinguished.
F irst were th o se w h o w elcom ed m e m b e r s h ip of the British e m p ire an d
in volvem ent in w o rld politics, while insisting o n the sovereign in d e p e n ­
denc e o f their co u n try . T hese m en believed in a w hite S o u th A fric an n a tio n
w hich should include tw o cu ltu ral c o m m u n itie s o f eq u a l sta tus, each w ith
its o w n language. T his was essentially the view o f G en e ra l L ouis B o th a, an d
still m o r e o f his successor G en e ra l J a n S m u ts , k n o w n as a w o rld sta te sm an .
It was the p r e d o m i n a n t view o f the S o u th A fric an P a rty , f o rm e d by a
fusion of A fr ik a n e r a n d E ng lish-sp eak ing g ro u p s, a n d led by S m u ts. It was
able to bring S o u th A frica in to b o th w o rld wars, th o u g h th e first decision
was follow ed by a n a r m e d rebellion of irreconcilable Boers, a n d the second
decision fatally split the party.
T h e second g r o u p wished to m a k e S o u th A frica c om pletely in d e p e n d e n t
o f Britain, a n d wished for n o role in w orld politics. A t the sam e tim e it, too ,
believed in a w hite S o u th A frican n a tio n o f ‘tw o str e a m s ’, o f w hich n either
sh ould seek to im p o se its d o m in a tio n o n the other. T h is was th e view of
G en e ra l J. B. M. H ertzo g, w h o b r o k e w ith B o th a in J a n u a r y 1914 a n d
fo u n d e d the N a tio n a l Party . H e rtz o g c a m e to p o w e r for a tim e in 1924, in
as so cia tio n w ith the E nglish-sp eak ing L a b o u r Party. D u r i n g th e 1930s he
bec am e m u c h m o r e friendly to w a r d s th e S m u ts g ro u p , in 1933 entered a
co a litio n g o v e r n m e n t w ith th e m , a n d in 1934 fused his p a r ty w ith theirs
u n d e r the n a m e U nited S o u th A fric an P arty . H e rtz o g was willing to
in clude E nglish-sp eak ers w ithin his co n c e p t of a n A fr ik a n e r n a tio n . F o r
him the decisive criterio n was n o t la n g u ag e b u t loyalty. H e co nsid ered
him self a S o u th A frican p a trio t a n d a n an ti-im perialist. H e req u ired o f
A frik a n ers th a t they sh o u ld put S o u th A fric a first, a n d n o t be d iv e rted by
an y se n tim e n tal feeling to w a r d s th e British em pire. T his a t titu d e set strict
limits to the possibility o f c o o p e r a tio n b etw e en h im a n d S m u ts. In 1939
S m u ts never d o u b te d t h a t S o u t h A frica m u s t e n te r the w a r beside Britain
a n d the o th e r d o m in io n s , b u t H e rtz o g was fo r neutrality. H e a n d his
follow ers th e re fo re left th e U n ite d P arty . F o r a s h o r t tim e he was reu nited
w ith th e e x tre m e N a tio n a lists, b u t se p a r a te d fro m th e m aga in in 1940.
T h e th ir d g r o u p sim ply identified th e S o u th A fric an n a tio n w ith the
A fr ik a n e r n a tio n , a n d b o t h w ith A frik a a n s-sp e a k e rs. P e r so n s o f English
speech m ight h av e a place in S o u th A fric a fo r th e tim e being, p r o v id ed th a t
th e y ac cepted A fr ik a n e r political le ad e rsh ip a n d A fr ik a n e r values; b u t in
the long te rm they w o u ld hav e to assim ilate to A fr ik a a n s culture, o r go.
234 Nations and States

T h is view w as held o n th e e x tre m e w ing o f th e N a ti o n a l P a r ty , w hich

rejected th e f u sio n o f 1934, a n d w h ich f a r o u tn u m b e r e d th e follow ers of
H e r tz o g f r o m 1939 o n w ard s. T h e reo rg an ised N a ti o n a l P a r ty , led by D r
D an ie l M a la n , was largely inspired by the elite o rg a n is a tio n Afrikaner
Broederbond, fo u n d e d in 1919, a n d m a k in g its m e m b e r s h ip secret fro m
1922, w hich set itself n o t only to d ev elop A fr ik a a n s c u ltu r e b u t also to place
reliable p erso n s in p o sitio n s o f p olitical a n d social pow er. In 1938,
follow in g t u m u l tu o u s cele b ra tio n s o f the c e n te n a ry o f the G r e a t T re k , was
fo u n d e d a n o t h e r secret o r g a n isa tio n , O ssewabrandwag (‘S en tinel o f the
O x -w a g g o n ’, a n allu sio n to th e Trek). It a p p e a le d to the tr a d itio n s of the
V o o rtre k k e r s , b u t up h eld the ideals o f H itle r’s G e r m a n y . D r M a la n
d isa p p ro v e d o f som e o f its ideas, b u t s h a re d its h a tre d o f Britain. W h e n the
w a r h a d been w o n by B ritain a n d its Allies, the N a tio n a lists c o n tin u e d to
gain s u p p o r t. In the 1948 election they, to g e th e r w ith a sm all r e m n a n t of
H ertzogites, had a n overall m a jo rity in p a rlia m e n t. F r o m th e n o n w a r d s the
N atio n alists were politically suprem e.
F r o m the 1950s o n w a r d s th e centre o f the political stage in S o u t h A frica
w as o cc upie d by th e conflict b etw een w hite a n d bla ck S o u th Africans.
H o w e v e r, th e conflict betw e en English- a n d A frik a a n s - s p e a k e r s w as latent
a n d unresolved. It c a n p e r h a p s be b e tte r seen in perspective if a brief
c o m p a r is o n is m a d e w ith the s itu a tio n in C a n a d a .
In b o t h c o untries a n E n g lish -spe aking c o m m u n ity coincided with
a n o t h e r c o m m u n ity o f E u r o p e a n origin w h o se la n g u ag e was n o t English.
I n C a n a d a th e E n g lish-spe ake rs f o rm e d a m a jo rity ; in S o u th A frica they
d id not. T h u s, w h en th e m e tr o p o lita n British g o v e r n m e n t w ithd rew , it left
the E nglish-sp eak ers d o m i n a n t over the F re n c h - sp e a k e r s in C a n a d a an d
th e A frik a a n s-sp e a k e rs d o m i n a n t o v er th e E nglish -sp e ak e rs in S o u th
Africa.
In b o th co u n tries th e E nglish -sp e ak e rs d o m in a te d business life. T h e tw o
la rgest centres o f E n g lish -sp e ak in g business, J o h a n n e s b u r g arid M o n tre a l,
w ere s itu ate d deep inside th e region o f p r e d o m i n a n tly n o n -E n g lish speech,
t h o u g h tw o o th e r large centres, T o r o n t o a n d D u r b a n , w ere in the English-
sp e a k in g region.
N e ith e r Québécois n o r A fr ik a n e r s h a d received m u c h s u p p o r t f r o m their
original h o m e la n d s . T h e s p o k e n langu ages d iverged in p r o n u n c ia tio n a n d
v o c a b u la ry fro m the m e tr o p o lita n languages; b u t w h erea s the claim s of
A fr ik a a n s to se p a r a te s ta tu s f r o m D u t c h w ere vigo ro u sly pressed, the
m ystique o f a single F r e n c h c u ltu r e k e p t a s tr o n g ho ld o v er th e Québécois.
By c o n tra s t, the English o f the C a n a d i a n E n g lish -sp e ak e rs was strongly
influenced by th a t o f th e U n ite d States.
In b o th cases the n o n -E n g lish -sp e a k in g c o m m u n itie s sh ow ed a relatively
g r e a te r ta len t for politics th a n th e E ng lish-sp eak ing. T h is sh o u ld n o t be
e x a g g erated in the C a n a d i a n case: M a c d o n a ld a n d M a ck e n zie K ing were
 European Nations Overseas 235

f o rm id a b le figures. In th e S o u th A fric an case it c a n n o t be exaggerated:

even the case fo r c o m m o n m e m b e r sh ip of a single w hite S o u th A frican
n a t io n was p u t n o t by E n g lish-spe ake rs b u t by A frik aners: B o th a , S m u ts
a n d th e tw o H o fm ey rs, uncle a n d nephew .
B oth C a n a d a a n d S o u th A frica w ere th r e a te n e d by a n e x te rn a l d an g e r,
w h ich m ight have been ex p e cted to u n ite the tw o c o m m u n ities, to acceler­
ate the process o f forging th e m into a single n a tio n . B o th d an g e rs w ere at
first d is ta n t a n d nebu lo u s, b u t to o k o n m o r e precise s h a p e as tim e passed.
T h e d a n g e r to C a n a d a was a b s o r p ti o n in to th e U nited S tates. I n th e early
n in e tee n th ce n tu ry the A m e r ic a n s were a hostile n eig h b o u r, b u t w ere to o
w eak to prevail a g a in st the British em pire. In th e tw en tieth th e y w ere no
lo n g e r enemies, b u t h ad b ec o m e ex tre m ely rich, extrem ely b e ne v ole nt an d
ex tre m ely pow erful friends. T h e d a n g e r was n o t o f invasion, b u t of
su ffo c atio n in a n o v er-affe ction ate e m b ra ce . C a n a d i a n business in the
1970s was largely o w ned by U.S. firms; th e c u ltu ra l f ash io n s a n d b e h a v io r
p a tte r n s o f the U nited S ta te s were forcing them selves o n C a n a d ia n s ; an d
th e rem a in in g in stitu tion s a n d h ab its o f m in d w hich still d istinguished the
C a n a d i a n w ay o f life seem ed th r e a te n e d w ith e xtinction. T h e d a n g e r was
n o t sm aller fo r the Québécois ; fo r if th e y felt it difficult to preserve th eir
c u ltu re in a p r e d o m i n a n tly A n g lo p h o n e C a n a d a , h o w m u c h m o re difficult
w o u ld it be to survive w ithin a single c o n tin e n ta l c o m m u n ity .
F o r S o u th A frica the m a in perceived d a n g e r w as f r o m the n o r th , the
d a n g e r o f being engulfed in a flood o f bla ck natio n alism . As long as the
c olon ial em pires sto o d firm, the d a n g e r w as m inim al; t h o u g h this did not
p rev e n t the obsession o f w hite S o u th A fric an s w ith th e th r e a t to their racial
p u r ity a n d racial d o m in a n c e . W ith th e em erg en c e o f A fric an n a tio n a l
states, the d a n g e r w as still m o r e verbal th a n real; b u t th e floods o f black
n a tio n a list rh eto ric w ere p e r h a p s a p o r te n t o f real th re a ts to com e.
T h e reactions to the d a n g e rs w ere different in th e tw o countries. In S o u th
A frica, A fric an d e n u n c ia tio n s a n d in te r n a tio n a l isolation te n d e d to d r a w
E nglish- a n d A fr ik a a n s- sp e a k e r s closer to g e th er; so th a t th e single w hite
S o u th A fric an n a tio n w as p a ra d o x ic a lly n e a re r to ac h ie v e m e n t u n d e r
V o rs te r th a n in the tim e o f S m u ts. In C a n a d a , the g ro w in g la m e n ts in b o th
lan guag es a b o u t th e ta k e - o v e r o f C a n a d a by U nited S ta te s ca pita lism
c oincided w ith strid e n t d e m a n d s for a se p a r a te republic o f Q u ebec.

The Australians
It w as on ly in the tw e n tie th c e n tu ry th a t a d istinct A u s tr a lia n n a tio n clearly
em erged. In A u str a lia the in d ige nous in h a b ita n ts w ere red u c ed to a n even
sm a lle r a n d m o r e insignificant p r o p o r t i o n o f th e p o p u la tio n th a n in N o r t h
A m erica. T h e o v e rw h e lm in g m a jo rity o f A u str a lia n s w ere E nglish ­
236 Nations and States

sp eak ing, b u t the larger p r o p o r t i o n t h a n in B ritain o f S co ttish P re sb y te ria n

a n d Irish C a th o lic helped to p r o d u c e a different, a n d also a m o r e varied,
c u ltu r a l climate. A u str a lia n s felt no s tro n g need to s e p a ra te themselves
f r o m Britain, a n d w ere c o n te n t to follow B ritain’s lead in foreign policy in
r e tu r n fo r B ritain’s m ilitary pro tec tio n . S u r r o u n d e d by the ocean, they
w ere n o t subject, like th e C a n a d ia n s , to the p ressures o r a t tr a c tio n s of a
n e i g h b o u r o n land. T h is m a d e it easier for th e m t h a n fo r the English-
s p e ak in g C a n a d ia n s to d evelop a lo n g th e ir o w n lines, in a u n iq u e , th o u g h
varied, n a t u r a l e n v iro n m e n t. T h e A u s tr a lia n w h o em erged fro m this slow
process w as a m o r e distinctive h u m a n typ e th a n the C a n a d i a n , and
possessed a m o re definite n a tio n a l identity.
F o r m o s t o f its h isto ry A u s tr a lia n society closely re p ro d u c e d British
society, w ith the difference th a t the t o p levels o f th e British social pyram id
w ere missing. It is tr u e t h a t s o m e big sheep fa rm e rs (graziers) im itated the
style o f British big la n d o w n e rs; a n d th a t successful b u sine ssm e n closely
resem b led their British equivalents. A u s tr a lia n universities, a n d a few
priv ate se c o n d a ry schools, were m odelled o n British universities an d
‘p u b lic ’ schools. U ntil the m id -tw e n tieth ce n tu ry a large n u m b e r o f the
m o s t able capitalists a n d m e m b ers o f the intellectual professions em ig rated
to E n g la n d a n d m a d e careers there. T h is steady ‘brain d r a in ’, w hich was of
g rea t benefit to E n g la n d b u t a serious loss to A u stralia, was drastically
redu c ed, th o u g h not c o m pletely elim inated, after the S e co n d W o rld W ar.
T h e m id d le a n d lower levels o f the social p y ram id were very sim ilar to their
British equivalents, a n d w ere steadily reinforced by im m ig ra tio n fro m
B ritain. T his is n o t the less tr u e because s p o k e n A u s tr a lia n English differed
in v o c a b u la ry a n d p r o n u n c ia tio n fro m British ( th o u g h ra th e r sim ilar to
C o c k n e y speech), a n d b ecause m a n y A u str a lia n s delighted in je erin g at
‘P o m m y s ’. It w ou ld be p o m p o u s to speak o f a love-hate relationship
b e tw e en British a n d A u stralian s: ra th e r, it w as a fairly friendly m u tu a l
tole rance , m a rk e d by m u tu a l m o c k e r y b u t se ld o m tu r n in g into bitter
rese n tm e n t.
It w as th e S econd W o r ld W a r a n d the d iss o lu tio n o f th e co lo nial em pires
w h ich accelerated the g r o w t h o f A u s tr a lia n n a tio n a l consciousness. Britain
was u n a b le to defend A u s tr a lia a g a in st J a p a n f r o m 1941 to 1945. A m eric a
t o o k its place, a n d A m e r ic a n political a n d c u ltu r a l influences grew
th e re afte r. In the 1950s im m ig r a tio n o f c o n tin e n ta l E u r o p e a n s , w hose
la n g u ag e was n o t English, greatly increased, while A m e r ic a n p r e d o m i­
n an c e in its t u r n p ro d u c e d a reaction. M o r e A u s tr a lia n s b eg a n to u n d e r ­
s ta n d th a t they m u s t w o rk o u t th e ir o w n r ela tio n sh ip w ith th e ir A sian
n eig h b o u rs, even if this m e a n t allow ing at least to k e n im m ig r a tio n fro m
A sia— w hich h ith e r to h a d bee n co m p letely refused. J a p a n bec am e A u s tr a ­
lia’s m a in tra d in g p a r tn e r, a n d afte r the fall of S u k a r n o it b e c am e possible
to d evelo p friendly relatio ns w ith In d o n esia , A u s tr a lia ’s im m e d ia te neigh­
 European Nations Overseas 237

b o u r w ith a p o p u la tio n o f m o r e th a n 100 million. A u s tr a lia ’s business an d

cu ltu ral elite stayed a t hom e, a n d dev o ted them selves to m a k in g careers in a
c o u n t r y of e n o r m o u s p rom ise. If A u str a lia n s c ould realise th a t they no
long e r needed to prove, either to them selves o r to others, th a t they were
different from , a n d ju s t as g o o d as, A m e ric a n s o r British; a n d if they could
u n d e r s ta n d th a t it is n o t e n o u g h to inh erit a ‘lucky c o u n t r y ’ b u t th a t it is
necessary to m a k e provision, a n d spend m oney, for its defence, th e n a
m a rve llous fu tu re aw aited t h e m —far h a p p ie r th a n seemed likely to be the
fate, in the late tw en tieth ce ntury, o f the land fro m w hich th eir fore fa thers
had come.
6 West Asia and North Africa:
Muslim Empires and Modern Nations

The rise and fall of Muslim empires

T h e m o st im p o r ta n t a n c ie n t civilisations, w ith developed social a n d politi­
cal o rg a n isa tio n , k n o w n to us in so m e detail fo r th e ir buildings, artefacts,
inscriptions a n d d o c u m e n ts , a ro se a r o u n d th e valleys of a few g rea t rivers.
T h re e o f these rivers— th e Nile, the E u p h ra te s a n d the T igris— lay w ithin
the region w hich in th e m id -tw e n tieth ce n tu ry b ec am e k n o w n as th e ‘M id ­
dle E a s t’. 1 T h e c o n n e c tio n betw een river-based civilisations, artificial irri­
g a tio n w o rk s a n d the em erg ence o f d e s p o tic g o v e r n m e n t systems h a s been
brilliantly e x p lo re d , if inevitably in a s o m e w h a t im pressionistic m a n n e r , in
the th e o ry o f ‘hy d rau lic societies’ d eve lo pe d by K arl A u g u st W ittfogel in
his great w o rk Oriental D espotism . T w o p a tte rn s o f g r o w th o f em p ire can
be distinguished. O n e was th a t the state e x p a n d e d its a u t h o r i ty over th e te r ­
r ito ry b e yond the c e n tra l river valley, a n d c a m e into conflict w ith a n o t h e r
state based o n a n o t h e r irrigation system. T h e second was th a t th e w hole
te rr ito r y was c o n q u e r e d , a n d its a d m in is t r a tio n ta k e n over, by p eo ple from
b e y o n d its b o rd ers, ‘b a r b a r ia n s ’, w ho th e n c o n s o lid a te d a n d e x p a n d e d still
further.
T h e M e d ite rr a n e a n - P e rs ia n G u lf region was for m illenn ia o n en d the
th e a tr e o f a struggle fo r s u p r e m a c y betw een E gypt a n d M e s o p o ta m ia . In
th e m id -six th ce n tu ry BC C yrus, king o f th e P ersian s, a p eople o f th e I r a n ­
ian p la tea u, to o k over M e s o p o ta m ia , a n d his successor C a m b y se s c o n ­
q u e re d Egypt. T h e P e rsia n A rc h a e m e n id e m p ire th e n e x te n d e d to T u r k e ­
s ta n a n d the b o rd e rs o f In d ia, a n d in clu ded A sia M in o r u p to th e C aucasus.
T h is w as th e g reatest e m p ire yet seen in th e E a ste rn M e d ite rr a n e a n , P ersian
G u lf a n d C a s p ia n are a. T h e r e aro se h o w e v e r a new rival centre o f pow er,
n o t based o n a river valley o r a n hy d rau lic society, in p e n in su la r Greece an d
th e A e g e a n islands. T h e H ellenes resisted P e rsia n in vasion a t th e beginn ing
o f th e fifth ce n tu ry BC; a n d a c e n tu ry a n d a h alf later the H ellenised M a c ­
e d o n i a n ru ler A le x a n d e r used the resources a n d m a n p o w e r o f G reece to
c o n q u e r P ersia a n d even to re a c h the b o u n d a r ie s o f In dia. T h e states into
w hich his em p ire b r o k e u p w ere la ter in c o r p o r a t e d in the R o m a n em p ire,
240 Nations and States

w h ich m a y be reg a rd e d as in so m e sense the heir to the P ersian a n d pre-

P ersian h y d ra u lic em pires as well as to th e city-states of Greece a n d Italy.
T h e R o m a n e m p ire ’s te rr ito r y was even m o r e extensive t h a n th a t o f its P e r ­
sian predecessors: it stretched w estw a rds to M o r o c c o a n d P o rtu g a l, n o r th
to the F ir t h o f T a y a n d n o rth -e a s t to th e ce n tral D a n u b e valley. H ow ever,
in th e east the R o m a n s never su b d u e d Iran. A s tr o n g state em erged u n d e r
the P a rth ia n s ; a n d fro m 226 A D to 642 the S assa n id e m p ire in Ira n proved
a fo rm id a b le n e ig h b o u r, pressing on R o m e fro m the so u th -e a st while the
G e r m a n ic tribes increased their pressure from th e n o r th a n d n o rth -e ast. In
th e early seventh c e n tu ry the S assanid king K h u sru P arv iz c o n q u e r e d p a rt
o f R o m e ’s E ast M e d ite rr a n e a n lands; b u t this P ersian success was very
so o n reversed by the ir r u p t io n of the M uslim A ra b s fro m the desert. This
led to the fo rm a tio n o f a n em p ire w hich, th o u g h it did n o t last so lo n g a s the
R o m a n , covered a te rr ito r y o f sim ilar d im ensions.
T h e peoples o f the river valleys w o rs h ip p e d n u m e ro u s gods, associated
w ith different aspects o f life in settled society; th e peoples o f m o u n ta in o u s
la nds im agined v ario u s g ods sitting a b o v e th e mist o n the high peaks; the
peoples o f forests f o u n d th e m b ehind trees or in sprin gs o r lakes. T h e vision
o f a single G o d c a m e fro m p as to ra l peoples, w h o spent m u c h o f their lives
lo o k in g u p to a clear sky.2 All three g rea t m o n o th e is tic religions o f m a n ­
kin d c a m e o u t of the edge o f the desert b etw een the N ile a n d the E uphrates:
first J u d a is m , th e n C h ristian ity m o re t h a n a th o u s a n d years later, an d six
h u n d r e d years later still Islam.
U nlike its tw o predecessors, Islam was a religion th a t e n c o u r a g e d holy
w a r a n d te rrito ria l e x p a n s io n . W h e th e r because they h ad m ilitary leaders
o f ex c e p tio n a l brilliance, o r new m e th o d s o f the use o f ca valry a n d camels
in w ar, o r b ecau se th e ru lin g elites o f the ea ste rn R o m a n em p ire were e x ­
h a u s te d (less t h a n a h u n d r e d years since the tr e m e n d o u s c a m p a ig n s o f Ju s -
tin ia n a n d less th a n tw o d ec ad e s afte r th e efforts o f H eraclius on tw o fronts,
ag a in st S lavs a n d P ersian s); o r b ecause in the th ree centu ries since C o n ­
sta n tin e m a d e it the official religion, C h ristia n ity h ad lost its hold over the
peoples o f the ea ste rn M e d ite rr a n e a n ; o r fo r all these rea sons a n d oth ers
to o , the M u slim s a d v a n c e d victoriously in all directions: across N o r t h A fri­
ca in to S p a in , in to A sia M in o r , a n d t h r o u g h I r a n to th e valleys o f C e ntral
A sia .3
T h is g rea t M u slim e m p ire w as to r n by d issension f r o m its first years. R i­
valry betw e en th e follow ers o f the U m a y y a d family, to w hich belonged the
f o u r th caliph, U th m a n , th e P r o p h e t ’s fath e r-in -la w , a n d the follow ers o f
th e P r o p h e t ’s son-in-law , Ali, the fifth caliph, led to a split in to the tw o
g rea t b ra n c h e s o f Sunna a n d Shia.AI n 750 a revolt, b ased o n M e s o p o ta m ia
a n d Ira n , o v e rth re w th e U m a y y a d d y n a s ty o f caliphs b as ed o n D am a sc u s.
T h e v ic torious d y n a s ty o f th e A b b a sid s, d e s c e n d a n ts o f the P r o p h e t ’s p a ­
te rn a l uncle, cam e to p o w e r largely th r o u g h th e s u p p o r t o f th e S h i’is o r fol­
 West Asia and North Africa 241

lowers o f th e d e s c e n d a n ts of Ali, b u t once in p o w e r they gave th e ir s u p p o r t

to the S unnis, w h o re m a in e d the o r t h o d o x m a jo r ity in the M u slim w orld
fro m th e n o n w ard s. T h e Shia split in t u r n into a n u m b e r of sects, w hich a t
d ifferent tim es w o n s u p p o r t in d ifferent p a r ts o f Persia, M e s o p o ta m ia a n d
N o r t h Africa. T hese sects expressed vary in g c o m b in a tio n s o f religious, so ­
cial a n d regional d isc o n te n t, a n d even es tab lished them selves for c o n s id e r ­
able period s o f tim e as s tro n g te rrito ria l pow ers.
N evertheless, fo r a b o u t three h u n d r e d years there was a m o r e or less u n i­
ted M u slim em pire a n d a caliph recognised as th e successor o f th e P r o p h e t
a n d s u p re m e ruler o f M uslim s, w ith a great new civilisation; a n d a t first
sight a plausible case ca n be m a d e fo r d es crib in g b o th the em p ire a n d the
civilisation as A ra b . T h e original M uslim c o n q u e r o rs were A ra b s, n o m a d s
fro m the desert a n d m e r c h a n ts fro m a re m o te p a r t o f the peninsula. T hey
established their rule over settled p o p u la tio n s w hich w ere heirs to t h o u ­
sa nds o f years o f civilisation, layer u p o n layer o f rich a n d diverse cultures.
T h e A ra b c o n q u e r o rs bec am e the lords o f these civilised peoples, a n d gave
to th e m their faith a n d their la nguage.
It was n o t their fixed in te n tio n to c o n v e r t th e ir subjects. C h ristia n s a n d
Je w s were allow ed to practise th eir o w n religion, in re tu r n fo r the p a y m e n t
o f taxes fro m w hich M uslim s were ex e m p t. As the M u slim rulers n eeded re­
venue, th ey even had a n interest in p reserving large n o n - M u s lim c o m m u n i ­
ties a m o n g their subjects. H o w ev er the new faith sp rea d rapidly, w heth e r
because M u slim prea ch ers c ould not restra in th e ir e n th u s ia s m o r because
C h ristian s were disillusioned w ith their spiritu a l leaders a n d longed fo r a
new tr u th , o r fo r o th e r reasons. T h e institu tio n s, laws a n d h a b its o f th o u g h t
w hich em erged were certainly derived in p a r t fro m earlier tim es, b u t the
c o n t r i b u tio n o f M uslim d o c trin e s a n d social p a tte r n s w as also p r o fo u n d
an d lasting.
T h e A ra b ic langu age was well d eve lope d fo r p o etry a n d rh e to r ic before
M u h a m m a d . W ith th e a d v e n t o f th e P r o p h e t it b e c am e a sacred langu age,
in w hich the K o ra n a n d o th e r sacred te x ts w ere expressed. All over the
M u slim w orld, religious learning was th e re a f te r a c q u ir e d th r o u g h the
A ra b ic la nguage. M o re t h a n this, s p o k e n A ra b ic g ra d u a lly b e c a m e th e la n ­
guage o f the people in th e c e n tra l a n d w estern lands. Syriac a n d A ram aic
d is a p p e a re d , C o p tic w as reduced to being the liturgical lan g u ag e o f the s u r ­
viving C h ristia n m in o rity in Egypt, a n d the B erber dialects o f n o r t h ­
w estern A frica w ere b a n ish ed fro m th e co a sta l plains in to th e m o u n ta in s .
O n ly P e r s ia n in th e east, a n d T u rk ish in th e n o r th survived as m a jo r la n ­
guages o f Islam , b u t b o th received a m assive injection o f A ra b ic w o rd s, n o t
only o f religious c o n c e p ts a n d p o litica l-ad m in istrativ e te rm s b u t also o f a b ­
strac t n o tio n s in general. A ra b ic lite ra tu re e x te n d e d f r o m p o e try a n d reli­
gious te ac h in g to n u m e r o u s highly s o p h is tic a te d w o rk s o f law, history, p h i­
lo so p h y , m a th e m a tic s a n d n a t u r a l science. T h u s th e new civilisation was
242 Nations and States

in e x trica b ly in te rw o v e n w ith th e A ra b ic language; a n d yet it is a historical

d is t o rtio n to s p e ak of a n A r a b em p ire created by a n A r a b n atio n . Families
desce nded fro m p u re A ra b s , w h o could trace th eir d esce nt b ack to A ra b ia ,
en joyed fo r the first p e r io d a s u p e rio r s ta tu s a n d prestige; b u t in the course
o f tim e they b e c am e m e rg e d in th e m u c h larger A ra b ic -sp e a k in g p o p u la ­
tio n , w h o se an c e s to rs h a d bee n C o p ts o r P h o e n ic ia n s o r Berbers o r G reeks
o r L a tin S p a n ia r d s o r V isigoths. T h e essence o f the civilisation was not
A r a b b u t M uslim ; a n d Islam tr a n s c e n d e d the b o u n d a r y betw een the reli­
gious a n d th e secular w hich is p a r t o f E u r o p e a n C h ristia n think in g.
T h e B a g h d a d c a lip h a te b eg a n to lose m o st o f its a u t h o r i ty in th e te n th
c e n tury. T h is process w as co n n e c te d w ith the rea sse rtio n o f P ersian cul­
tu re , w hich led to the loss o f c o n tro l fro m B a g h d a d over the Ira n ia n lands;
w ith th e increasing im p o r ta n c e o f T u r k i s h m ercenaries; a n d w ith the m o v e ­
m e n t w estw a rd s o f w hole tribes o f T u r k s , c o n v e rted to Islam . N ew centres
o f p o w er, a n d new states, em erg ed w ithin the M u slim w orld, b u t they c a n ­
n o t be c o m p a r e d to th e stable sovereign states w hich e m erg ed in C a th olic
C h r is te n d o m . E ach o f th e ir rulers claim ed to be the sole true ruler o f Islam
r a t h e r t h a n the ruler o f a specific territo ry ; a n d n o n e o f th ese states survived
fo r very lo n g in a stable form .
A lre a d y in the e ighth c e n tu r y M u slim S p a in seceded, a n d its ruler, w ho
c a m e o f the U m a y y a d family, claim ed to be the true successor to the cali­
p h a t e o f D a m a s c u s , u s u r p e d by the A bbasids. T h e S p a n is h c a lip h a te of
C o r d o b a later b ro k e u p into a series o f s m aller principalities. In Iran and
A sia M i n o r the S eljuk T u r k s estab lished a s tr o n g s tate in the eleventh cen­
tu ry , b u t th e y claim ed to be ac tin g in th e n a m e o f th e caliph, w h o still re­
sided in B a g h d a d w ith o u t a n y pow er. In N o r t h A frica a n o t h e r pow erful
sta te aro se a t th e en d o f the te n th c e n tu r y u n d e r the F a tim id s, w h o were
S h i’is, claim ed to be d esce n d ed f r o m th e P r o p h e t ’s so n-in-law Ali, a n d
so u g h t a u t h o r i ty over th e w hole M u slim w orld. T h e F a tim id s c o n q u e re d
E gypt, a n d set u p a p o w erfu l state based o n their new ca p ita l o f C a iro . A f­
te r F a tim id a n d Seljuk p o w e r h a d declined, a n d th e invasions o f the E u r o ­
p e a n c r u sa d e rs a n d of the M o n g o ls h a d been repulsed, a new state em erged
in E gypt, u n d e r the d y n a s ty o f M a m lu k s , soldiers o f slave birth, o rigina tin g
in C e n tr a l A sia o r th e C a u c a s u s o r s o u th e rn Russia. T h is w as the stro ngest
sta te in the M u slim w o rld in the late th ir te e n th a n d f o u rte e n th centuries,
a n d its a u t h o r i ty was legitim ised by th e presence in C a ir o o f a d e s c e n d a n t of
the calip h o f B a g h d a d , w h ich h a d fallen in 1258 to th e M o n g o ls. A n o th e r
M u slim sta te also em erged in th e V olga valley, w h ere the T a t a r successors
to the M o n g o l co n q u e r e r s a d o p t e d Islam , a n d flou rished in the f o u rte e n th
century.
M e an w h ile a small T u r k i s h tribe, th e O sm a n lis, settled in w estern Asia
M in o r o n the Byzantine b o r d e r , grew steadily stro n g e r, a c q u ir e d land on
the E u r o p e a n m a in la n d , c o n q u e r e d a large p a r t o f the B alk a n s a n d in 1453
 West Asia and North Africa 243

c a p tu r e d C o n s ta n tin o p le . Its su lta n Selim in 1517 c o n q u e r e d S yria a n d

E gypt, a n d in the six tee n th ce n tu ry th e O t t o m a n em p ire em e rg e d as a new
univ ersal em pire o f Islam , as extensive as th e early U m a y y a d a n d A b b asid
caliphates. Its su p r e m a c y rem a in ed until th e n in e tee n th c e ntury. It did n o t
h ow ever rule all M u slim lands. In the m id -six te e n th c e n tu r y th e R u ssian
ts a r o f M u sc o v y c o n q u e r e d th e T a t a r states o f the V olga valley. A t the end
o f th e fifteenth c e n tu r y a new S h ia em p ire e m erged in Ira n , u n d e r S h a h Is­
mail. In th e far west, a M o r o c c a n k in g d o m r em a in ed in d e p e n d e n t o f O t ­
t o m a n a u th o rity . Finally, the M o g h u l e m p ire was established over the
g r e a te r p a rt o f India by th e m iddle of the six tee n th ce ntury, a n d also had
tw o h u n d r e d years o f po w er, until it s u c c u m b e d to British co n q u e st.
T h e history o f th e M uslim lands, in te rm s o f sta te pow er, m a y be viewed
as th e d isin te g ra tio n o f the universal e m p ire o f B a g h d a d ; the rise a n d fall of
several dynasties, m o st o f w hich claim ed to be the only tr u e successor o f the
universal em pire; a n d th e r e s to ra tio n o f a second universal e m p ir e — the
O t t o m a n — even m o re p ow erful th a n the first. N o n e o f the states o f the peri­
od 1000-1500 resem bled the c o n s o lid a te d secular sovereign states o f early
m o d e r n E urope; n o t even E gypt, o f w hich it m a y be a rg u e d th a t a certain
c o n tin u ity o f g o v e r n m e n t was preserved fro m the P to lem ies to the M a m -
luks.

The revival of Iran

In this brief survey, the em p h a sis has inevitably been on th e la nds o f A ra b ic
sp e ec h — Syria, Egypt a n d N o rth Africa. H o w ev er, despite th e c o n q u e s t by
the M uslim s, the cu ltu re o f Iran m a in ta in e d a c o n tin u ity w ith the past, a n d
develop ed o n d ifferent lines, w hich m u s t n o w be co nsidered.
T h e I ra n ia n state is 2,500 years old, secon d in a n tiq u ity only to the C h i­
nese, yet its existence has been i n te r ru p te d for long periods. O n e c a n h a rd ly
a rg u e th a t a n Ira n ia n n a tio n c o n tin u o u s ly grew , to g e th e r w ith the process
o f f o r m a tio n o f th e state, as was the case w ith th e F re n c h , S co ts a n d E n g ­
lish, o r with th e R ussians a n d the Ja p a n e s e . P e r h a p s a b e tte r parallel w o u ld
be w ith th e G reeks, w h o se histo ry is a b o u t as old a n d also h a d perio d s o f
b rea ch in the tr a d itio n . Yet the histo ry o f Hellas is th a t o f a civilisation, n o t
o f a state. Classical G reece w as n o t e n c o m p a s s e d by one state; th e e m p ire of
M a c e d o n lasted b u t a few decades; a n d th e B yzantine state co n s id ered itself
to be th e R o m a n e m p ir e — its p eople s p o k e G reek, b u t th e y were Rom aioi,
n o t Hellenes. I n I r a n i a n history, to o , th e re w as a g r e a t civilisation (even if
the H ellenes called it ‘b a r b a r i a n ’), b u t it is the sta te t h a t is the d o m i n a n t fea­
ture. T h o u g h the s ta te ’s ex isten ce w as in te r ru p te d , first by A le x a n d e r a n d
th e n by Islam , th e idea o f th e sta te — th e P e r s ia n h istorical m y th o lo g y —
survived, a n d played its p a r t in th e em erg en c e o f th e m o d e r n n a tio n . In this
244 Nations and States

the Ira n ian s p erh a p s resem bled the Serbs, w h ose m edieval state was d e ­
stro y ed b u t left a m e m o r y in poetry: the narodne pesm e are the eq uivalent
o f th e Shahname. Both th e P a r th ia n a n d the S assa n id rulers claim ed des­
cent fro m the A ch e a m e n id s; a n d b o th consciously strove to m a in ta in the
religion a n d th e c u ltu re o f their d is ta n t predecessors, t h o u g h the c o n te n t of
th e cu ltu re a n d in p a r tic u la r its lang u ag e h ad c h a n g e d considerably.
T h e M uslim invasion a n d c o n q u e st o f Iran, w hich was c o m p le te d a p ­
p r o x im a te ly between 637 a n d 651 A D , was follow ed by the se ttle m ent of
co n sid erab le n u m b e rs o f A ra b s, especially in the pro v in ce o f K h u ra s a n , to
the so u th -ea st o f the C a s p ia n Sea. T h o s e w h o re m a in e d loyal to the Z o-
r o a s tr ia n religion w ere tr e a te d on th e w hole m o r e h arsh ly t h a n th e C h ris­
tian s o r Je w s , a n d m a n y o f th e m em ig rate d to G u ja r a t, in W e ste rn India.
D u r i n g th e follow ing ce n tu ry o r m ore, the g rea t m a jo rity o f I ra n ia n s be­
c a m e M uslim s. T h e m o v e m e n t w hich led to the o v e r th r o w o f the
U m a y y a d s by the A b b a sid s in 750 sta rted in K h u r a s a n , a n d b o th A ra b s a n d
Ira n ian s played active p a r ts in it. T h o u g h the A b b a sid victory was n o t a vic­
to r y o f Ira n ians over A ra b s, there is n o d o u b t th a t a n elem ent of P ersian
cu ltu re was injected into M u slim civilisation in the A b b a sid period: this
ch a n g e was sym bolised by th e m o v e m e n t o f the c a lip h ’s ca pital fro m D a ­
m a scu s to B a ghdad o n the Tigris, n ea r to the old S assanid Ira n ia n capital
o f C te sip h o n . It is also a r g u a b le th a t the stren g th , fro m this tim e o n w ard s,
o f S h i’ism in Iran, to g e th e r with the a d ja c e n t A ra b ic -sp e a k in g part o f
M e s o p o ta m ia (Iraq), h ad s o m e th in g to d o w ith the difference between Ira ­
nians a n d A ra b s, t h o u g h it is a n a n a c h r o n is m a n d a n oversim p lification to
r e g a rd S h i’ism, either th e n o r later, as a ‘n a tio n a l religion’ o f Iran.
A t th e tim e o f the A r a b invasion, several v a ria n ts o f I ra n ia n speech were
in use in I ra n , o f w hich th e m o s t i m p o r ta n t w ere P ah la v i, the official la n ­
guage o f the p r ie sth o o d a n d o f g o v e r n m e n t, a n d dari , the s p o k e n language
o f the region a r o u n d C te sip h o n , the capital. W ith th e tr iu m p h o f Islam,
P a h la v i fell into disuse, b u t the s p o k e n la n g u ag e e x te n d e d ea stw a rd s, in­
creasingly displacing the o th e r I ra n ia n la nguages as far as K h u ra s a n an d
C e n tr a l Asia, a n d a t th e sam e tim e c h a n g in g its n a tu re by the a b s o r p ti o n of
a very large n u m b e r o f A ra b ic w o rd s. In the n in th a n d early te n th centuries
A ra b ic w as th e lang u ag e o f c u ltu re in I ra n , a n d th e e d u c a te d class (w he th e r
indig enous o r A r a b ia n in origin) b e c a m e bilingual, w riting o r rea ding
A ra b ic a n d sp e ak in g P ersian . G r a d u a lly h o w ev e r a new literary Persian
lan g u ag e aro se, based o n P e r s ia n v e r n a c u la r a n d A ra b ic , r a th e r as English
a ro se fro m A n g lo - S a x o n a n d F re n ch . F irs t o ra l a n d th e n w ritte n p o e try
e m erg ed in this language. L yric p o e try h a d a very high p r o p o r t i o n o f A r a ­
bic w o rd s a n d closely follow ed A ra b ic literary m odels; b u t in epic n a rra tiv e
poetry, w hich was a n in d ig e n o u s P ersian genre, th e re w as a m a rk e d p refer­
ence fo r Persian w o rd s, even for a b s tr a c t n o tio n s , to so m e e x te n t c o n ­
sciously derived from the a n c ie n t language. P ersian epic p o etry reached its
 West Asia and North Africa 245

clim ax at the h a n d s o f the g rea t poet F ird a u s i, w h o was b o r n p r o b a b ly b e ­

tw een 932 a n d 942 a n d died betw een 1020 a n d 1026. His Shahnam e ( 'B o o k
o f K ings’) n o t only was a literary m asterpiece, b u t also f o rm e d the f o u n d a ­
tio n o f I ra n ia n historical m yth o lo g y , fo r it p u t to g e th e r all th a t was th e n
k n o w n o r believed a b o u t the h istory o f the past Persian em pires. Its im p o r ­
ta n c e in the f o r m a tio n o f a n Ira n ia n n a tio n a l consciou sne ss c a n n o t be o v e r­
estim ated.
The revival of P ersian literature a n d o f pride in P ersian c u ltu re was p r o ­
m o te d by the w e a k en in g o f th e A b b asid ca lip h a te . In Iran in d e p e n d e n t p r in ­
cipalities em erged. D u r i n g this p eriod th e p eople of I ra n c a m e in to close
co n ta c t with the T u rk is h people o f C e n tr a l Asia. W h o le T u r k i s h tribes
m ov e d so u th a n d west. S o m e were p ag a n , o th e rs h a d a lre a d y n o m in a lly a c ­
cepted Islam. T h ey g ra d u a lly bec am e a b s o r b e d in M u slim civilisation, an d
were interm ingled w ith the P ersians in Ira n a n d th e A ra b s in S yria a n d ea st­
ern A sia M in o r. T h e m o st successful w ere th e Seljuks, w h o in the eleventh
ce n tu ry cre ate d a n e m p ire e x te n d in g o v er Ira n , Ira q a n d m o st of Asia M i­
nor, w ith its tw o g rea t c u ltu r a l centres a t I.sfahan in ce n tral Iran a n d K o n y a
in A nato lia. T h e Seljuk sultans were S u n n i, a n d recognised the A b b a sid ca­
liph in B aghdad. T h e y a n d their soldiers were T u r k s by origin an d by
speech, b u t they a d m ir e d an d e n c o u r a g e d P ersian culture, a n d m a n y of
their a d m in is t ra to rs a n d advisers were Persians. P ersian bec am e the cul­
tu red lang uage o f the n o r th e r n half o f the M uslim w orld, the vehicle of
literature a n d science. T h e re developed a sym biosis o f P ersians a n d T u rk s
which recalls th a t betw een G reeks a n d L atins in the R o m a n em pire. It c o n ­
tinue d after th e fall o f Seljuk pow er, a n d r em a in ed after the great th irte e n th
c e n tu ry M o n g o l invasion, in the states c re ate d in Ira n by the Ilkhans, suc­
cessors to the M o n g o ls , a n d by th e successors o f the last g rea t C e n tra l
A sian c o n q u e r o r T i m u r in th e fifteenth century.
All this tim e th e re w ere states in Iran , b u t n o great P e rsia n state, yet the
n a tio n al identity o f the P ersian s was latent, a n d was n o u r is h e d by a c o n tin ­
uously vigo rou s literature w hich p r o d u c e d several tru ly g re a t poets, a n d by
a living historical m yth o lo g y . In the six tee n th c e n tu ry th e re ca m e into be­
ing a g rea t P ersian em pire. It was fo u n d e d by a n Azeri T u r k n a m e d Ismail,
leader o f a religious sect w hich d a te d fro m the early f o u rte e n th ce ntury, h ad
lon g b een confined to the A rd a b il district o f the n o rth -w e st, a n d m erged
w ith S h i’ism in the m id-fifteenth. Ismail in 1501 c o n q u e r e d all A z e rb a ïd ja n
a n d pro cla im e d h im self in T a b r iz as sh a h o f Iran. In th e n ex t ten years he
b r o u g h t m o s t o f th e I ra n ia n lands u n d e r his rule, fro m s o u th e r n M e s o p o ta ­
m ia to the O x us. T h is w as n o t only a m ilitary a n d political tr iu m p h , bu t
also a religious enterprise. S ocial d isc o n te n ts a n d I ra n ia n n a t io n a l feeling
played their p a r t in the m o v e m en t. Ism ail’s kizilbash (‘red h e a d ’) m ission­
aries p e n e tra te d A sia M in o r , a r o u s in g th e w r a th o f the O t t o m a n S u lta n Se-
lim I, w h o defeated Ismail at the battle o f C h a ld ir a n in 1515. H ow ever, the
246 Nations and States

new e m p ire preserved its I ra n ia n co n q u e sts, a n d Ism ail’s successors,

k n o w n as th e S afavid d y n a s ty , b e c a m e less zealous in religion a n d m o re
interested in the s tre n g th e n in g of secular pow er.
T h e S afavid em p ire w as m u lti- n a tio n a l a n d m ulti-religious. T h e r e were
tw o m a in languages, P e rsia n a n d T u rk ish : th e re w ere P ersia n -sp e a k in g cit­
ies a n d T u rk is h -s p e a k in g cities, P e r sia n - sp e a k in g p a s to ra l tribes a n d
T u rk is h -s p e a k in g p a s to ra l tribes. T h e subjects o f the S afavids also in­
cluded tw o distinct C h r istia n c o m m u n itie s, each w ith its ow n languages:
th e o r t h o d o x G e o rg ia n s a n d the m o n o p h y s ite A rm e n ia n s. In the s o u th ­
west there w ere A rabs. S h i’i Islam was p r e d o m i n a n t, b u t th ere were also
S u n n i, a n d these included p erso n s o f P ersian, T u rk i s h a n d A ra b ic speech.
T hese varied peoples w ere united by a po w erfu l d y n a s ty , a n d their educated
elites sh a re d a pride in P ersian c u ltu re a n d in th e P ersian past. T h e Safavid
e m p ire reached its clim ax in th e reign o f S h a h A b b a s 1 (1588-1629), w hose
efficient g o v e r n m e n t a n d justice, a n d m ag nificent buildings at Isfahan,
w o n th e a d m ir a tio n o f travellers fro m m o s t p arts o f the civilised w orld.

European domination
T h e c r u s a d e r states c re a te d in S yria by E u r o p e a n invaders in the twelfth
ce n tu r y w ere a n e p h e m e ra l episode, a n d the M uslim s placed u n d e r C h ris­
tia n rule by the Reconquista in S p a in w ere e ith e r a b s o r b e d o r expelled.
F r o m th e sixtee nth c e n tu r y o n w a r d s , how ever, su b sta n tia l M uslim p o p u la ­
tio n s b eg a n to be c o n q u e r e d by C h ristia n states, a n d to go o n living u n d e r
C h r is tia n rule while re m a in in g M uslim s.
T h e first e x a m p le is ce n tra l Russia. A fter Ivan the T errib le of M uscovy
h a d c a p tu r e d K a z a n (1552) a n d A s t r a k h a n (1555), large n u m b e rs o f T a ta r s
b e c a m e his subjects. T h e y w ere subje cted fro m tim e to tim e to incentives or
p e rse c u tio n to m a k e th e m C hristian. S o m e , especially in the u p p e r classes,
w ere c o n v e rted , b u t the g rea t m a jo r ity w ere not; a n d f r o m the tim e o f E m ­
press C a th e rin e II (1762-96) pressure w as g reatly red u c ed if n o t com pletely
elim inated. In th e n in e te e n th c e n tu ry th e R u s sia n s c o n q u e r e d m u c h larger
te rritorie s, in T r a n s c a u c a s ia a n d in C e n tr a l A sia, w ith c o m p a c t M uslim
p o p u la tio n s .
T h e m a jo r c o n q u e r o r s o f M u slim s w ere th e D u tc h in I n d o n e sia a n d the
British in n o r th e r n India: it is tr u e t h a t the la tte r was n o t a region o f pre­
d o m in a n tly M u slim p o p u la tio n , b u t m o s t o f it was subject to M u slim rul­
ers a n d m a n y millions o f M u slim p eople lived there. F re n c h c o n q u e s t o f
M u slim s began w ith N a p o l e o n ’s e p h e m e ra l seizure o f E gypt in 1798, b u t
was follow ed by th e c o n q u e s t o f A lgeria fro m 1830 o n w a r d s a n d by the
F re n c h p r o te c to r a te o v er T u n isia in 1881 a n d M o r o c c o in 1912. T h e British
set u p th e ir p ro te c to r a te in E gypt in 1882. In the c olonies ca rved o u t of
 West Asia and North Africa 247

A frica by the E u r o p e a n p o w ers w ere also m a n y M uslim s.

A t the sam e tim e the tw o m o st i m p o r ta n t M u slim em pires, the O t t o m a n
a n d the P ersian, t h o u g h n o t placed u n d e r direct C h r istia n rule, w ere o b ­
jects o f fre q u en t in te rv e n tio n by E u r o p e a n pow ers, as a result o f w hich they
lost n o t only som e te rrito rie s b u t also a large p a r t o f th e ir in te rn a l sover­
eignty. T h e ir c o n d itio n has been well d escribed as ‘se m i-colon ial’. S o m e ­
thing m u st be briefly said of the w ay in w h ich this c a m e a b o u t.
In th e n in e tee n th ce n tu ry , as n o t only W e ste rn g o o d s b u t W e ste rn ideas
p en e trate d M u slim lands, re se n tm e n t o f E u r o p e a n d o m in a tio n spread. It
to o k s o m e w h a t different fo rm s in th o se lands ruled by E u ro p e a n s a n d in
the still sovereign M uslim em pires.
As the n u m b e r o f E u r o p e a n m e rc h a n ts in o riental m a rk e ts increased,
fro m the sixtee nth c e n tu r y o n w a r d s , th e ir presence raised difficult legal
problem s. T h e O t t o m a n su ltan s a n d I ra n ia n sha h s at first w elcom ed th e m ,
since the tr a d e w hich they b r o u g h t was lucrative. T hey w ere the re fore will­
ing to offer th e m f a v o u r a b le w o rk in g c o n d itio n s. In 1535 S u le im a n the
M agn ificent, the m ost pow erfu l o f all th e .O tto m a n m o n a rc h s , m a d e a tr e a ­
ty w ith F ra n ç o is I, king of F ra n c e , u n d e r w hich civil a n d c rim inal cases af­
fecting F re n c h subjects w ere to be ju d g e d , a c c o r d in g to F re n c h law, by
F re n c h consuls. T h is w as the first o f the ‘c a p itu la tio n s ’ g r a n te d to E u r o ­
peans. In 1583 British subjects received sim ila r rights. In 1600 S h a h A b b a s
I, the m o st po w erfu l o f the m o n a rc h s o f the S afavid d y n a s ty , g ra n te d sim ­
ilar rights to British subjects in a n a g re e m e n t m a d e w ith S ir A n th o n y S her-
ley. D u rin g the eig hteenth c e n tu ry all th e m a in E u r o p e a n p ow ers o b ta in e d
c a p itu la tio n a g re em e n ts in T u rk ey.
T hese were originally ag re em e n ts m a d e betw een equals. H o w ev er, as the
b alanc e o f m ilitary a n d e c o n o m ic p o w e r c h a n g e d to th e overw h elm in g a d ­
v a n ta g e o f the W est, they bec am e in effect g u a ra n te e s o f foreign d o m i n a ­
tion, increasingly resented by the T u r k s a n d Iran ians. E u r o p e a n citizens
often, th o u g h n o t alw ays, tre a te d the p eop le o f th e h o st n a t io n ar ro g an tly .
O t t o m a n an d I ra n ia n rulers were keen t o in tro d u c e th o se E u r o p e a n in n o ­
v atio n s which they e xpected to stre n g th e n th e ir e c o n o m ie s a n d th e ir a r m e d
forces; a n d as these w ere expensive, they b o r r o w e d m o n e y f r o m W e ste rn
b a n k s . W e ste rn c a p ita l th u s b eg a n to o b ta in a stra n g le h o ld over som e of
th e ir resources. T h e I ra n ia n g o v e r n m e n t b e c a m e in d e b ted to British a n d
R u s sia n b an k s, a n d foreigners were placed in cha rg e o f th e C u s to m s , o r a p ­
p o in te d as advisers to the I ra n ia n M in istry o f F inan ce. T h e W e ste rn ec o ­
n o m ic stra n g le h o ld b e c am e especially tigh t in E gypt, w here K hedive Is­
mail, w h o was n o m o r e t h a n a n o m in a l vassal o f th e O t t o m a n sultan,
p u r su e d reckless financial policies, c o m b in in g useful w o rk s o f m o d e rn i s a ­
tio n w ith e x t r a v a g a n t e x p e n d itu r e s o n p e r so n a l luxuries, a n d being r u t h ­
lessly squeezed by his c re d ito rs in b o th types o f en te rp rise .5 In 1876 the
Caisse de la D ette was set up, en a b lin g th e rep rese n tativ es o f E u r o p e a n
248 Nations and States

cre d ito rs to c o n tro l a large p a r t o f E g y p tia n revenues; while in th e field of

justice, the old c o n s u la r c o u r ts were replaced by th e m ix ed trib u n a ls, u n d er
w hich E u r o p e a n ju d g e s were able to interfere widely in the w hole system of
E g y p tia n c o u r ts o f law. T h e ob v io u s d e p e n d e n c e o f E gypt on foreigners
p r o v o k e d the n a tio n a list rebellion o f A ra b i P a sh a , w hich led to the military
o c c u p a t io n o f E gypt by the British.

Islamic modernism and Panislamism

M uslim s disliked being directly ruled by infidels, but ac cepted the facts.
T h e g rea t m a jo r ity h ad alw ays been a c c u s to m e d to d es p o tic g o v ern m e n t.
T h e new E u r o p e a n rulers w ere in so m e ways b etter th a n the old. T h e inter­
ests o f the p ea sa n ts w ere directly d a m a g e d only w hen, as in the Bashkir
la n d s in the eig h tee n th ce n tu ry , in A lgeria fro m th e en d o f the nineteenth
a n d in T u r k e s ta n in the first years o f the tw entieth, R ussian o r F rench
settlers began to ta k e th e ir lands. As for the ruling classes, a g o o d deal of
w ea lth a n d po w er was left to th e m , a n d th e ir religion was n o t atta c k e d . T he
c o n q u e r o rs wished on the w hole to preserve th ings as they were, but in the
c o u rse o f tim e th e p e n e tr a tio n o f E u r o p e a n ind ustrial g o o d s a n d o f E u r o ­
p ean ideas m a d e this im possible.
T h e old intellectual elite, the M uslim ulem a , te n d ed at first sim ply to re­
j e c t the new ideas as im p io u s. But th ere grew up alo ngsid e it a new intellec­
tu a l elite, o f p erso n s w h o h a d received a E u ro p e a n - ty p e e d u c a tio n , at first
ju s t a few sons o f the u p p e r classes b u t g r a d u a lly also a s u b sta n tia l n u m b e r
f r o m h u m b le r origins. S o m e o f these sim ply re p u d ia te d th e M u slim w orld,
a n d a d o p t e d the m o st a d v a n c e d E u r o p e a n ideas o f th e ir tim e. M o st, h o w ­
ever, tried in som e degree to c o m b in e new ideas a n d old beliefs to m o d e r n ­
ise Islam ic society a n d doctrine. T h e ir a t titu d e to th e W est was a m b iv a ­
lent. T o so m e ex ten t, th e y a d m ir e d th e ideas a n d in stitu tio n s o f the West,
a n d w ished to w esternise th e ir o w n societies a n d to d ev e lo p frie n dship with
W e ste rn peoples. T o so m e e x te n t they wished to a c q u ire W e ste rn skills in
o r d e r to m a k e their p eop les stro n g , so t h a t they could fight a g a in st the E u­
r o p e a n C h ristia n s a n d drive th e m o u t o f th e ir countries.
A n early Islam ic w esterniser was S ayyid A h m a d K h a n (1817-98), a n In­
d ia n M u slim w h o a lre a d y as a y o u n g m a n f o u n d e d m o d e r n schools. A fter
the Indian M u tin y o f 1857,6 w hich w as a m o n g o th e r th in g s a c o n f r o n ta tio n
betw een the tr a d itio n a l Islam ic elite a n d the British, S ayy id A h m a d active­
ly p r o m o te d E u r o p e a n - ty p e e d u c a tio n t h r o u g h the m e d iu m o f th e U rd u
language. H e fo u n d e d in 1875 the A n g lo - O r ie n ta l College a t A ligarh,
w hich was m odelled o n a C a m b r id g e college. S ayyid A h m a d consid ered
him self a g o o d M uslim , b u t in the eyes o f the o r t h o d o x his d o ctrin es were
full o f heresy. He was co n c e rn e d with the fate o f all M uslim peoples but in
 West Asia and North Africa 249

the first place w ith th o se o f India. He w as a n I n d ia n p a trio t, b u t was also

co n c ern ed to d efend I n d ia n M u slim s a g a in st ev entual H in d u d o m in a tio n .
T h e second place in w hich Islam ic m o d e rn is m bec am e a force was the
R u s sia n em pire. T h e m o st active were th e T a t a r s o f the V olga valley. H ere
th e re existed a s u b sta n tia l m e rc h a n t class, w ho largely m a n a g e d the land-
b o r n e tr a d e betw een E u r o p e a n R ussia a n d C e n tra l Asia, a n d so m e of
w h o m built q uite large fo rtun e s. T hese rich T a t a r s spent so m e o f th e ir m o n ­
ey on f o u n d in g schools based on ‘new principles’: the A ra b ic w o rd jadid
(‘new ’) gave the m o d e rn schools m o v e m e n t the n a m e by w hich it becam e
k n o w n in Russia. T h e r e was a gen u in e d e m a n d a m o n g the T a t a r s for
k no w led g e such as could n o t be o b ta in e d fro m the tr a d itio n a l M uslim
schoo ls (medrese) w hich ta u g h t K o ra n ic law. T h ere a ro se in th e last d e ­
cades o f the n in e tee n th ce n tu ry a new intellectual elite o f sc hool teachers
w h o sp rea d E u r o p e a n learning, a n d also E u r o p e a n d e m o c r a tic ideas, in­
cludin g the m o st u n - M u s lim idea o f the e m a n c ip a tio n o f w o m en . T h e T a ­
ta rs c o n tin u e d h ow eve r to be faithful Muslims: they eng a g ed in a fierce,
a n d ra th e r successful, c o m p e titio n w ith the R u ssian O r t h o d o x c h u r c h for
the c o nve rsio n o f the sm aller p ag a n peoples w h o in h a b ite d p a rt o f the Volga
a n d Urals area. T h e m o v e m e n t in the R ussian em p ire fo r the m o d e rn isin g
o f Islam, a n d the interest a m o n g M u slim s in m o d e rn political a n d social
ideas, were n o t co n fin e d to the Volga T a ta r s . S im ilar tre n d s were to be
f o u n d in the C rim e a a n d A z e rb a id ja n , a n d in the first years o f the tw entieth
c e n tu ry the ja d id s c hools b egan to sp rea d even to the K a z a k h steppes an d
T u r k e s ta n , t h o u g h in b o th these regions they only affected a very small
n u m b e r. All this activity a la r m e d the R u ssian a u th o ritie s , w h o w ere m u c h
afraid o f P an islam ism . H ow ever, the e m p h a sis in the m o v e m e n t was now
beginning to cha n ge, f r o m the idea o f solid arity o f M uslim s in the w o rld to
th e n a r r o w e r co n c e p t o f solidarity o f peoples o f T u rk i s h speech.
P a n isla m ism b e c am e a m o r e serious force to w a r d s th e en d o f th e n in e ­
te e n th c e n tu ry in the O t t o m a n em pire, afte r S u lta n A b d u lh a m id h a d re­
pressed th e c o n s titu tio n a l m o v e m e n t a n d was lo o k in g fo r so m e w ay o f w in ­
n in g s u p p o r t fo r his in te rn al a n d foreign policies f r o m a w ider M u slim p u b ­
lic. In his efforts to spread a kind o f P a n isla m ism w hich w ou ld str e n g th ­
en his regim e, he received so m e help fro m a m y sterious p ersona ge, w ho
has been the subject o f a large literature, a n d w h o se tru e c h a r a c t e r still re­
m a in s o bscure. T his w as J a m a l a l-D in al-A fg h an i (1839-97), either a n
A fg h a n o r a P e r s ia n b y b irth , w h o spe nt his life travelling r o u n d th e M u s ­
lim w orld a n d E u ro p e , flu en t in m a n y lang u ag e s, possessing p erso n a l m a g ­
netism , a p p e a r in g to s o m e a p io u s M u s lim to o th e rs a n atheist, professing
a t tim es d e v o tio n to a u to c r a c y , a t o th e rs th e m o st radical d e m o c r a tic views,
ta k in g m o n e y f r o m th e su lta n a n d th e s h a h o f P ersia, th e g o v e r n m e n ts of
the F re n c h R epu b lic a n d th e R u s sia n tsa r, a s k in g b u t n o t gettin g funds
fro m the British E m b a ssy in C o n s ta n tin o p le ; a n inexplicable m ix tu re o f
250 Nations and States

m ystic, a d v e n tu r e r , p olitical a g i ta t o r a n d p r o p h e t. P e r h a p s all t h a t ca n be

said o f h im w ith ce rtain ty is th a t m o st o f the leaders o f resistance to E u r o ­
p e a n d o m in a t i o n in th e M u slim w orld in the first th ird o f th e tw e n tie th ce n ­
tu r y felt them selves to be d irect or in direct disciples o f J a m a l al-D in .
T his is especially tr u e o f E gypt, w here M u h a m m a d A b d u h ( 1849-1905)
ca m e u n d e r his influence while he was still stu d y in g at A l-A z h a r University
in C a ir o in 1869. A b d u h w as involved in th e resistance to the British in 1882
by A ra b i P a s h a , a n d was th e re a f te r exiled for six years. He was a llow ed to
r e tu r n to E g ypt in 1888, p a ra d o x ic a lly as a result o f British pressure o n his
behalf. H e m a d e a g o o d ca reer in M u slim law, a n d bec am e chief m ufti of
E gypt fro m 1899 until his d e a th . He was p r o m in e n t as a n a d a p te r o f Islam
to m o d e r n needs, t h o u g h th e re are g r o u n d s fo r th in k in g th a t he was h im ­
self, like J a m a l al-D in , a n atheist. T h e m a in idea w hich he left to his disci­
ples was n o t so m u c h P a n is la m is m as E g y p tia n n atio n alism . T h e first
p r o m in e n t natio n alist politician in E gypt was M u s ta f a K a m i l (1874-1908),
w h o f o u n d e d a N a tio n a l P a r ty in 1907. F r o m this begin n in g d eveloped, af­
te r th e F irst W o rld W a r, the Wafd , th e g rea t m ass n a tio n a list E gyptian
m o v e m e n t, led by S a a d Z a g h lu l P ash a . A b d u h also had influence in A lge­
ria, w here th ere em erged in the 1920s a p u r ita n ic a l n atio n alist m o v e m e n t of
so-called r e f o rm in g ulema, in o p p o s itio n to th e tr e n d w hich was alre ady
m a k in g itself felt for e d u c a te d A lgerians o f M u slim birth to f o rsa k e Islam
fo r th e a t tr a c tio n s o f F r e n c h civilisation.
By th e 1920s th e re w as n o t m u c h left o f the P a n isla m ic d r e a m which had
a t tim es so m u c h a la r m e d the R u ssian, British (In d ia n ) a n d F re n c h g o v e r n ­
m ents. In its place, h ow ev e r, o th e r forces h ad a p p e a r e d . O n e was n a t io n a l­
ism based o n a clearly identifiable territory: such w ere E gy p tia n , A lgerian
a n d T u n isia n . T h e second was the a t t e m p t to identify n a tio n a lity w ith lan­
guage, t h o u g h this m u st m e a n t h a t ex isting te rrito ria l b o u n d a r ie s w ould be
tra n sc e n d e d . T h e th ree lan g u ag e s w ere T u rk ish , P ersian a n d A rabic. T h e
c o n c e p t o f a T u rk is h n a t io n rev o lu tio n ise d th e w hole c o n c e p tio n o f the O t ­
t o m a n em p ire, a n d it also p o te n tia lly affected peoples o f related T u rk ic
speech w ith in the R u s s ia n e m pire, Ira n , A fg h a n is ta n a n d even C h in a. T he
id e n tifica tion o f th e I r a n i a n n a t io n w ith p erso n s o f P e r s ia n speech conflict­
ed to so m e e x te n t w ith th e n o tio n o f the u n ity o f all S h i’i M uslim s, a n d also
raised th e q u e s tio n o f th e loyalty o f T u rk ic - s p e a k e r s w ith in I r a n a n d o f
P ersian -sp e ak e rs o u tsid e Iran. T h e c o n c e p t o f a n A r a b n a t io n w as the m ost
difficult o f all, affecting th e largest n u m b e r o f peo ple, w h o sh a re d one
A ra b ic lan g u ag e b u t w ere s p re a d o u t over a v as t a r e a f r o m th e A tla n tic to
the P e rsia n Gulf.
As f a r as the active n atio n alists, a n d the politically co n scio u s p o p u la tio n
as a w hole, w ere c o n c e rn e d , it w as these th ree n a t io n a l c o n c ep ts w hich p r e ­
vailed in th e n e x t fifty years, a n d they will n o w be briefly con sid ered in tu rn .
H ow ever, it still r e m a in e d tr u e th a t in th e m in d o f the vast m a jo rity in all
 West Asia and North Africa 251

these lands th e m a in difference betw een th e m a n d th e ir foreig n rulers or

d o m in a to r s w as th a t they were M uslim s. Even afte r in d e p e n d e n c e h a d been
achieved, religion r e m a in e d , side by side w ith language, as the identifying
m ark .

The Iranians
T h e S afavid e m p ire b r o k e d o w n in the e ig h tee n th ce ntury, a n d Ira n was at
the m ercy of A fg h a n invaders. In 1796 A g a M u h a m m a d , like Ismail a m a n
o f Turkish speech, e stablished his rule ov er m o s t o f Ira n , a n d fo u n d e d the
Q a ja r dynasty. It was his m is fo rtu n e t h a t his rise to p o w e r co in cided with
th e em ergence in th e vicinity o f l r a n o f tw o g rea t E u r o p e a n pow ers: Russia,
w hich in 1801 a n n e x e d G e o rg ia a n d e m b a r k e d o n a ca re e r o f c o n q u e s t in
the C a u c a su s a n d C e n tra l Asia, an d B ritain, w hich in th e sam e years c o n ­
so lid ate d its I n d ian e m p ire a n d c a m e to d o m in a te the P ersian Gulf. In the
nin e tee n th ce n tu ry P ersia escaped c o n q u e s t o r physical p a r titio n o nly be­
cause British a n d R u ssian p o w e r a n d m u tu a l d istru st b a lan c ed ea ch other.
T h e ir rivalry en a b le d I ra n ia n rulers to so m e e x te n t to play th e m off aga in st
each o th e r, b u t this policy h ad n a r r o w limits: Britain was n o t p re p a re d to
fight Russia in o r d e r to restore T ra n s c a u c a s ia to Persia, n o r R ussia to fight
Britain in o r d e r to give H e r a t to the shah. T h e A n g lo - R u ssia n b alanc e of
p o w e r served chiefly to preserve Iran in a c o n d itio n o f social a n d cu ltu ral
s ta g n atio n .
H ow ever, to w a r d s th e en d o f the n in e te e n th c e n tu ry m o d e r n ideas began
to p en e trate , th r o u g h the influence o f Ira n ia n s o f the u p p e r classes w h o had
travelled a b r o a d , th r o u g h the C h ristian -in flu en c ed new religious sect o f the
Babis, a n d th r o u g h the activities o f th e versatile J a m a l a l-D in al-A fghani.
O p p o s itio n a l periodicals were p ublished in P ersian in L o n d o n , C a lc u tta
a n d Istanbul. A t th e en d o f the ce n tu ry also W e ste rn c a pita list enterp rise
b eg a n to p e n e tra te Iran o n a m o re serious scale, a n d this p r o v o k e d hostility
fro m b o th c on servative a n d m o d e rn ist o p inio n: fr o m th e first as a th r e a t by
infidels to Islam ic ways, f ro m the second as a t te m p ts to enslave th e people
o f I r a n to foreign business. T h e first effective p r o te s t was the a g ita tio n fro m
1890 to 1892 a g a in st N a s iru d d in S h a h ’s g r a n ti n g of a to b a c c o c uring a n d
sale m o n o p o ly to a British c o m p a n y . U n d e r pressure, th e s h a h w ithdrew
the concession.
T h is success for incipient n a tio n a lis m did n o t long h o ld u p W e ste rn ec o ­
n o m ic p e n e tra tio n . G o v e r n m e n t deb ts to foreigners caused the I ra n ia n cus­
to m s revenue to be pla ce d u n d e r foreign c o n tro l, a n d g ro w in g im p o r ts o f
W e ste rn g o o d s d a m a g e d I r a n ia n m e rc h a n ts . A t the t u r n o f th e c e n tu ry
th e re was a g r o w t h o f m o r e o r less secret a s so cia tio n s ( anjuman ). T hese had
long existed, b u t h a d been little m o r e t h a n local g r o u p in g s o f friend s o r
252 Nations and States

p rofe ssiona l associates to discuss things o f c o m m o n interest: n o w they to o k

o n a m o r e political ch a ra c te r, a n d persons influenced by m o d e rn political
ideas played a m o r e active p a r t in th e m . T a b riz , th e first capital o f the Sa-
favids, situated in T u rk is h -s p e a k in g A z e rb a ïd ja n o n old tr a d e ro u tes t o ­
w a rd s A sia M i n o r a n d th e C a u c a su s, w as a still m o r e im p o r ta n t cen tre th a n
T e h r a n , th e Q a ja r capital. T a b r iz lay n e a r the R u s sia n b o r d e r , a n d at least
its u p p e r social s tr a t u m were b o th a w a re o f the R u ssian th r e a t to Ira n ian
in d e p e n d e n c e a n d influenced by the radical political ideas w hich were then
stirring in R ussian T ra n sc a u c a sia .
T h e C o n s titu tio n a l M o v e m e n t (m ashrutiyat) first b u rst into public life
on 13 D e c e m b e r 1904, w h en tw o th o u s a n d p r o m in e n t persons, mainly
learned M uslim d o c to rs (ulema) a n d b a z a a r m e rc h a n ts , retired to a
m o s q u e in a T e h r a n s u b u r b to ‘ta k e refuge’ (bast), refusing to co m e o u t u n ­
til so m e p ro m ises o f eq u a l justice were m a d e a n d so m e u n p o p u l a r m inisters
dism issed. T h is th rea t, a strang e p r o c e d u re to n o n - I r a n i a n m inds, was at
first effective. H o w ev er, th e s h a h ’s pro m ise s o f r e fo rm w ere n o t kept, a n d in
Ju ly 1906 a second bast to o k place. It w as o n a larger scale, a n d affected
tw o d istinct t h o u g h allied groups: m e rc h a n ts a n d intellectual secular re­
fo rm e rs, w h o to o k refuge in the British E m b a ssy c o m p o u n d in T e h r a n
(w ith the co n s en t o f the chargé d ’affaires) a n d religious leaders, w h o went
in so le m n procession to the holy city o f Q u m nearly a h u n d r e d miles sou th
o f th e capital. T his tim e the p ro testers d e m a n d e d a C o n s titu ti o n a n d an
elected A ssem bly (majlis). T h e sh a h aga in yielded, a n d th e A ssem bly met in
O c to b e r 1906.
C o o p e r a t i o n betw een sh a h a n d majlis did n o t last long. O n 3 J u n e 1908
th e s h a h ’s elite a r m e d force, a C o s sac k b a tta lio n tra in e d a n d c o m m a n d e d
by a R u s sia n officer, b o m b a r d e d the majlis building. By this tim e the origi­
nal un ity betw e en the religious a n d secular o p p o s itio n , betw een the tr a d i­
tio n a l elite a n d the m o d e rn is t elite, h a d b r o k e n d o w n . O n e o f the M uslim
n o ta b les, S h a ik h F a z lu lla h N u ri, s u p p o r te d the s h a h ’s co u n te r-re v o lu tio n .
In T a b r iz h ow ever the radicals, org an ise d in a c o m m itte e o f political anju-
m ans a n d led by S ayyid H a ss a n T a q iz a d e h , held out. E vents a n d o pinions
in T a b r iz w ere m u c h influenced by th e events th e n in c o u rse in Russia, an d
th e re w as so m e c o n t a c t betw e en T a b r iz r e v o lu tio n arie s a n d the socialist
m o v e m e n ts in R u s sia n A z e rb a ïd ja n a n d th e city o f B aku. R u s sia n g o v e r n ­
m e n t tr o o p s, at the s h a h ’s req u e st, besieged T a b r iz in A p ril 1909 a n d c a p ­
tu r e d it, b u t there d ev e lo p e d in s o u th e r n I r a n a stran g e alliance betw een the
d e m o c r a ts a n d the chiefs o f th e B a htiya ri trib e o f the Z a g r o s m o u n ta in s . In
Ju ly 1909 the Bahtiyaris c a p tu r e d T e h r a n , e n a b lin g th e d e m o c r a ts to h a n g
S h a ik h F a z lu lla h Nuri.
A fter this the politics o f Ira n entered a c o n fu se d a n d s ta g n a n t period.
W ith help fro m the R u ssian g o v e r n m e n t a n d fro m R u s sia n -tra in e d P ersian
tro o p s, the sh a h to so m e e x te n t reasserted his a u t h o rity . H e was d e p e n d e n t
 West Asia and North Africa 253

o n th e g o o d will o f the tribes a n d o n th e b a la n c e betw een R u s sia n a n d Brit­

ish influence. T h e British had som e s y m p a th y fo r the refo rm ers, the R u s ­
sians for the reactionaries; b u t as each n eeded the o th e r ’s alliance in th e im ­
m in e n t struggle a g a in st G e r m a n y in E u ro p e , n eith er was p re p a re d to g o to o
far in a n ta g o n is in g the o th e r ’s protégés. W h e n w a r c a m e in E u ro p e , Ira n
was a h a p p y h u n tin g g r o u n d for em issaries o f all the belligerents, n o t least
o f the G e rm a n s, w h o had the a d v a n ta g e o f being enem ies o f b o th Britain
an d R ussia w hich Ira n ia n p a trio ts had c o m e to dislike p ro fo u n d ly . R e v o lu ­
tion in R ussia a n d d efeat o f G e r m a n y left Britain for a s h o r t tim e in the
strong est position; b u t desp ite the bo ld plans o f L o rd C u r z o n th e British
public was in no m o o d fo r f u rth e r im perial ventures, a n d so Ira n escaped
fro m fu rth er subjection. M e anw h ile the conflict between the old a n d the
new elite, betw een x e n o p h o b e M uslim th e o c ra c y a n d m o d e rn isin g secular
d e m o c r a tic n atio n a lism , r em a in ed unresolved.
In the end neith er the old n o r the new elite won: b o th were d efe ate d by a n
en terp risin g soldier, the R u ssian C o s sa c k -tra in e d Reza K h a n , w h o seized
p o w e r in F e b r u a r y 1921 a n d m a d e h im self sh a h in D e c e m b e r 1925, p r o ­
claim ing a new P ah la v i d ynasty. R eza m odelled him self to som e e x te n t on
K em al A ta tü rk . He m a d e great efforts to m o d e rn ise th e e c o n o m y a n d cu l­
tu re o f Iran. He did n o t replace the A ra b ic by the L atin a lp h a b e t, b u t he did
e n c o u ra g e the rep la c e m e n t o f m a n y A ra b ic w o rd s by neologism s a d a p te d
fro m P ersian ro ots. He saw him self as a p r o te c to r o f the people a g a in st the
u p p e r classes, b u t the d ic ta to ria l rule w hich he im p osed b o re m o r e heavily
o n the p o o r th a n the rich. H e f o u g h t th e religious e s ta b lish m e n t ( th o u g h
less bitterly th a n did A ta tü rk ) . A b o v e all, he set him self to dev e lo p a mil­
ita nt secular Ira n ia n n a tio n a l consciousness. Like A ta t ü r k , he stressed the
pre-Islam ic past. He did n o t a tta c k M uslim beliefs as such, b u t he insisted
th a t Ira n ia n cu ltu re was m u c h old e r t h a n Islam , an d th a t this g rea t culture,
a n d m e m o ry o f the g lo rio u s P ersian em p ires, m u st be the f o u n d a ti o n o f
I ra n ia n n a tio n a l consciousness. In this he h a d s u b sta n tia l success: he h ad
th e a d v a n ta g e th a t the g lo rio u s P ersian past was real, w hereas A t a t ü r k ’s
m u c h v au n te d T u rk is h past (with the e x c e p tio n o f the p r e - T u rk is h H ittites
an d the only p a r tly -T u r k is h Seljuk a n d O t t o m a n cultures) w as largely a n
inv ention. His versio n o f I ra n ia n n a t io n a l consciousne ss w as sp rea d by a
grow ing, th o u g h still r a th e r sparse, n e tw o r k o f schools. It was in p a r t a
m e asu re o f his success th a t a fairly large m o d e rn - m in d e d I ra n ia n intellectu­
al elite c a m e into existence, o f w h o m the g rea t m a jo rity lo a th e d h im a n d his
ways because he d en ied the political f re e d o m s w hich w estern -typ e e d u c a ­
tio n h a d ta u g h t th e m to desire.
R e z a S h a h h a d th e m is fo rtu n e to fall fo ul s im u lta n eo u sly o f C h u rc h ill’s
Britain a n d S ta lin ’s Russia: he m a d e th e m istak e o f believing th a t I r a n ’s
tw o tr a d itio n a l enem ies w ou ld be d efe ate d by H itle r’s G e r m a n y . In 1941
British a n d So viet forces occu p ie d Ira n , a n d R e za was d e p o r te d . T h e first
254 Nations and States

years o f the reign o f his son, M u h a m m a d R e z a S h a h , were u n c o m fo r ta b le .

F irst th e S o v iet forces e n c o u r a g e d the f o r m a t i o n o f se p aratist states a m o n g
the A ze ri T u r k s a n d th e K u rd s of the n o rth -w e st; a n d so o n after Soviet
tr o o p s h a d been w ith d r a w n (b y a c o m b in a t io n o f A m e r ic a n ato m ic d ip lo ­
m a c y a n d d ip lo m a tic s h a r p p ractice c o n d u c te d by his p rim e m inister, Q a-
v a m es-S u lta n eh ), M u h a m m a d R e za w as involved in a conflict w ith the
British g o v e r n m e n t a b o u t the natio n alist m ass m o v e m e n t w hich placed the
s h a h in th e p o sitio n o f being d e n o u n c e d as a n ag e n t o f foreign pow ers, an d
in A u g u s t 1953 led t o his flight a b r o a d fo r s o m e days. H ow ever, w hen the
crisis was over, he retu rn ed , a n d in the next tw en ty years show ed him self to
be a n o u tsta n d in g ly able ruler. In this he w as helped first by the m ilitary
s u p p o r t a n d e c o n o m ic assistance o f the U nited S tates, a n d second by the
a b u n d a n t oil resources o f I ra n ia n soil, b u t his success was also d u e to his
o w n skill a n d courage.
E ssentially he c o n tin u e d th e w o rk o f his fath e r. He set him self to destro y
all rival sou rces o f a u th o rity . T h e M u slim religion was firm ly s u p p o r te d ,
b u t th e ulema w ere allow ed no sh a re in se cula r pow er. T his a n ta g o n is e d not
o nly th e learned M u slim dig n itaries b u t also m a n y piou s b a z a a r m e rc h an ts,
b u t th e y were forced to yield. T h e tribes were b r o u g h t u n d e r ce n tral c o n ­
trol, a t the cost o f injustice to their leaders a n d h a r d s h ip to th e Q a sh g a i or
T u r c o m a n n o m a d s w h o were forced in to a s e d e n ta ry existence. M o re im ­
p o r t a n t still, th e g rea t la n d o w n e rs were forced to give up their lands. T his
h a d tw o im p o r t a n t c onsequences. It im p ro v e d the m a teria l c o n d itio n s o f a
large p a r t, t h o u g h by n o m e an s all, o f th e Ira n ia n p ea sa n ts, a n d w o n their
g ratitu d e. It also replaced th e p o w e r o f the la n d o w n e rs, until th e n a series
o f local d e s p o ts ru ling as they saw fit, by a centralised b u re a u c ra c y . M ore
im p o r ta n t even t h a n th e in d u stria l p ro g re ss achieved u n d e r M u h a m m a d
R e za S h a h w as his c re a tio n in I r a n of a m o d e r n a p p a r a t u s o f state. T h is was
b u ttre ssed b y a n efficient system o f co e rcio n , a very w ell-equipped a n d n u ­
m e ro u s a r m y ow ing allegiance to h im directly, a n d m o st efficient security
police ( Savak ). T h r o u g h the sta te a p p a r a t u s , t h r o u g h the m e a n s o f publici­
ty a n d t h r o u g h the sc h o o l system, he set h im self to m obilise the rural
m asses in to the n a tio n , a n d to d evelop a n I r a n ia n n a t io n a l consciousness,
in tend ed n o t to d e n y b u t to c o m p r e h e n d Islam , placin g Islam in the w ider
c o n t e x t o f I r a n ia n culture.
Several m illions o f I r a n ia n citizens w ere T u rk is h , n o t P ersian , by speech.
It did n o t ho w ev e r follow f ro m this th a t th e y did n o t co n s id e r them selves
Iranians. Azeri T u r k s w ere S h i’is, as w ere P ersian s, while th e T u r k s o f A sia
M in o r w ere S unn i. D u r i n g th e S o v ie t-sp o n so re d regim e in A z e rb a ïd ja n
there seemed to be m o r e inte rest in social re fo rm , p r o m is e d by th e ( c o m m u ­
nist) D e m o c r a tic P a rty , t h a n in Azeri n a tio n a lis m o r se p a r a tio n f r o m Iran.
T h e K u rd s c o n tin u e d to ch erish the h o p e o f in d e p e n d e n c e a n d unity, b u t
they were better trea ted ov er the years by th e I ra n ia n t h a n by the Iraqi or
 West Asia and North Africa 255

T u rk is h g o v ern m e n ts. T h e m o st p o te ntia lly disloyal n o n - P e r s i a n c o m m u ­

nity were p r o b a b ly th e A ra b s in K h u zis tan , living n ea r the Iraqi b o r d e r in
o il-p ro d u cin g lands a n d a n object o f d isp u te betw een th e tw o states.
A n o th e r elem ent o f p o te n tia l w ea kness was, by th e sam e p a r a d o x as o b ­
ta in ed in the reign o f R e za S h a h , the m o d e r n - e d u c a t e d intellectual elite.
C re a te d by the m o d e rn isin g policies o f th e tw o shahs, th e y were as disaf­
fected a n d alienated f r o m the regim e as th e intelligentsia o f R u ssia u n d e r
the last three tsars, a n d for sim ilar reasons. It is p erh a p s w o rth n o tin g th a t
m a n y Ira n ia n intellectuals o f the left were c hildren o f la n d o w n in g families
w hich h ad suffered fro m th e s h a h ’s land reform . In the early 1970s m a n y in­
tellectuals in Ira n ia n cities, a n d m a n y I ra n ia n stu d e n ts a b r o a d , were bitter
enem ies o f the sh a h , w h o a p p e a r e d n o t only to have Iran in his firm grip but
also to be h o ld in g o u t to his subjects a c o n c e p t o f a m o d e rn I ra n ia n n a tio n
which m a n y f o u n d acceptable.

The Turks
T h e w o r d s ‘T u r k ’ a n d ‘T u r k e y ’ in E u r o p e a n usage c o n ta in a certain in e ra d i­
cable am big u ity . E u ro p e a n s long u n d e r s to o d , by these nam es, the g rea t
M uslim em p ire o f the ea ste rn M e d ite rr a n e a n a n d th e M id d le East, a n d its
M uslim in h a b ita n ts, in p a r tic u la r its ruling elem ent. ‘T u r k s ’ h o w ev e r has
also, for a long tim e p ast, m e a n t persons w h o se language w as T u rk ish , a n d
w h o were descend ed fro m peoples w h ose o rig inal h o m e la n d had been C e n ­
tral Asia. H ow ever, it was n o t even right to spe ak o f a single T u rk ish lan­
guage; rath e r, there h ad been for c e nturies a g r o u p o f T u rk ic languages,
s p o k e n by peoples living betw een the V olga a n d th e b o rd e r s o f C h in a , be­
tw een S iberia a n d the A eg ean , differing fro m ea ch o th e r in a b o u t the sam e
degree as la nguages differ w ithin the L atin , S lav o r G e r m a n ic g roup s. T he
v a r ia n t o f T u rk is h w hich dev eloped in A sia M in o r fo rm e d the f o u n d a ti o n
o f the language o f th e g re a te r p a rt o f the e d u c a te d elite o f the O tt o m a n e m ­
pire, th o u g h it is also tru e th a t the h ighe r c u ltu r e o f this political class was
trilin g u al— in T u rk ish , P ersian a n d A rabic. In th e T u rk i s h lang uage there
existed a n an c ie nt w o r d — tiirk (in m o d e r n T u r k i s h spelling)— to d en o te
p erso n s o f T u rk i s h speech. T h e m e m b e r s o f the O t t o m a n e d u c ated elite,
how ever, did n o t use this w o rd to describe them selves, fo r it h ad until the
tw e n tie th c e n tu ry a p le b eia n a n d socially d is p a ra g in g flavour: ra th e r, they
sp o k e o f them selves as Osmanli ( O t to m a n s ). F o r th e m th e legitim acy o f
g o v e r n m e n t was religious a n d dynastic. T h e y w ere subjects o f th e sultan,
w h o was also the C o m m a n d e r o f the F aith fu l. T h e r e was n o su ggestion th a t
p ersons o f T u rk is h speech were a politically significant ca te gory, still less
th a t g o v e rn m e n t s h o u ld be carried o n in th e ir n am e. T his do es n o t o f course
m e a n th a t there was n o t a passive feeling o f identity betw een users o f the
256 Nations and States

sam e language, a n d a ce rtain c o n t e m p t fo r th o se w h o used oth e r

la n g u a g e s— fo r e x a m p le , K urds, Iraqis o r Persians.
T h e first im p a c t o f E u r o p e a n political ideas in the O t t o m a n e m p ir e —
w hich resulted fro m the series o f m ilitary d efeats d u r in g th e eigh teen th ce n ­
tu r y a n d fro m the a t te m p ts of the rulers, especially M a h m u d II (1808-39),
to stre n g th e n th e em p ire by e c o n o m ic a n d m ilitary re fo rm s— to o k th e fo rm
o f liberalism a n d c o n s titu tio n a lism .
T h e reform s o f M a h m u d II did m u c h to m o d e rn ise the a r m e d forces, e d ­
u c a tio n a n d the legal system. It was his m is fo rtu n e th a t th e need to resist
G reek a n d E gyp tia n rebels, s u p p o r te d in v ario u s degrees by the E u ro p e a n
great pow ers, a b s o r b e d m o s t o f th e resources of his declining em pire. A
f u rth e r period o f reform s, k n o w n in T u rk is h history as Tanzim at , a n d e x ­
te nding , w ith som e in te rru p tio n s, fro m N o v e m b e r 1839 until th e en d o f the
1860s, also b r o u g h t so m e solid achievem ents. H ow ever, the serious efforts
o f the refo rm ers were fru stra ted b o th by the o p p o s itio n o f th e beneficiaries
of the old o r d e r an d by the lack o f qualified a n d h onest s u b o r d in a te s. New
laws cre ate d con fu sio n , a n d ill-paid officials c ould se ld o m resist the te m p ­
ta tio n to eke o u t their ea rn in g s by bribes. It is even a r g u a b le th a t the re­
f o rm s actu a lly increased the incidence o f c o r r u p tio n , while c re atin g a m o n g
th e sm all b u t g row ing m o d e rn intellectual elite e x p e c ta tio n s th a t could not
be satisfied.7 In exile in F ra n c e , a g r o u p o f T u rk ish writers p la n n e d for a d e ­
m o c ra tic state, to be based on F re n c h o r English practices. This g r o u p be­
c a m e k n o w n as th e Y o u n g O tto m a n s , a n d th e ir m o st e m in e n t m e m b e r was
th e poet N a m ik K em al (1840-88). F o r a s h o r t tim e it lo o k e d as if their plans
m ight be fulfilled. O n 30 M a y 1876 S u lta n A b d u la z iz was d ep o s ed , an d
th ree m o n th s later his successor M u r a d V had the sam e fate. S u lta n A b d u l-
h a m id p ro c la im e d a n O t t o m a n c o n s titu tio n on 23 D e c e m b e r 1876.
T h e victory o f the refo rm ers was very brief. In F e b r u a r y 1877 A b d u l-
h a m id dism issed its m a in a u t h o r , M id h a t P a s h a (1822-83), while allow ing
the first O t t o m a n p a r lia m e n t, elected o n a n a r r o w fra n c h is e a n d u n d e r
pressure f r o m the a d m in is tra tio n , to meet. Even this cow ed assem bly
p ro v e d to o lively fo r th e s u lta n ’s ta ste, a n d he dissolved it in F e b r u a r y 1878.
M e a n w h ile a n o t h e r re f o rm m o v e m e n t h a d been dev e lo p in g a m o n g the
people o f T u rk ic speech in th e R u s sia n em p ire, especially a m o n g th e T a ta r s
o f K a z a n a n d the V olga valley. T h e T a t a r lead ers w ere a t first c onc erned
w ith social a n d e d u c a tio n a l reform s, a n d w ith e q u a lity betw e en M uslim
a n d C h r is tia n subjects o f the R u s s ia n em p ire; b u t th e y b e c am e increasingly
a w a re o f the specific u n ity o f la n g u ag e w h ich b o u n d to g e th e r th e peoples of
T u rk ic speech. P a n isla m ism b eg a n to give w ay to P a n tu r k is m . T h e chief
e x p o n e n t o f this new te n d en c y w as n o t a V olga T a t a r , b u t a C rim e a n , Is­
mail bey G aspira li (1851-1914), w h o p u b lis h ed f r o m 1883 o n w a r d s a t Bah-
<;esaray in C r im e a a bilingual jo u r n a l , Terciimen (‘T h e In te r p r e te r ’, the
R ussian editio n Perevodchik). G asp ira li s o u g h t to create a u n if o rm T u r k ­
 West Asia and North Africa 257

ish language, to be derived fro m O sm a n li, C r im e a n a n d V olga T a t a r . In

this he was n o t successful, b u t his c a m p a ig n for solidarity o f the T u rk ic
peoples, w ith its slogan o f ‘U n ity in lan g u ag e , in th o u g h t a n d in w o r k ’
(dilde, fikirde, i$te birlik), m a d e a c o n s id erab le im pact.
T h e O tt o m a n rulers of the late n in e tee n th c e n tu ry were n o t interested in
such things, b u t so m e y o u n g e r O tt o m a n intellectuals b egan to ta k e notice.
In 1897 the p o et M e h m e d E m in used the despised w o rd türk in a patrio tic
p o e m w hich declared: i a m a T u rk , m y faith a n d my race are m ig h ty ’. A
few years later a periodical entitled Türk was pu blished in C a ir o by som e
exiles from the O t t o m a n em pire, a n d in 1904 it p ublished a n article by a
R u ssian T a t a r n a m e d Y u su f A k c h u r a entitled ‘T h re e kinds o f policy’, in
w hich T u rk is h n a tio n a lism , based on language, was p u t fo rw a rd as a n al­
tern a tiv e to the resp ectable d o ctrin es o f O t t o m a n p a trio tism a n d o f P a n is­
lam ism . A fter the d is a p p o in tm e n t o f th e h op es raised in 1906 of a p a rlia ­
m e n ta r y fo rm o f g o v e r n m e n t in R ussia, A k c h u r a w ent into exile in
O t t o m a n territory. H ere in intellectual circles a n interest in T u rk ic lan­
guages a n d peoples w as beginn ing to a p p e a r , stim u la ted p artly by the p u b ­
lications o f W est E u r o p e a n scholars on the history an d c u ltu re o f C e n tral
Asia, a n d partly by the influence of P olish a n d H u n g a r ia n exiles, w h o be­
gan to m a k e k n o w n to their O tt o m a n friends the c o n n e c tio n betw een n a ­
tionality an d language, as sh o w n by C e n tr a l E u r o p e a n experience.
T h e years w hich follow ed the o v e r th r o w o f S u lta n A b d u lh a m id by the
Y o u n g T u r k s ’ rev o lu tio n o f 1908-09 b r o u g h t a sh a rp conflict betw een the
three policies o u tlined in A k c h u r a ’s 1904 essay. P a n isla m ism was in disfa­
v o u r ow ing to its a s so cia tio n w ith A b d u lh a m id . A ll- O tto m a n p a trio tism ,
o n a new basis o f eq u a l d e m o c r a tic rights fo r all O t t o m a n citizens w hate v er
th e ir faith or language, proved to be a mirage: the n e i g h b o u rin g B alkan
states were n o t d iss u ad ed by the c re a tio n o f a n O tt o m a n p a r lia m e n t fro m
their plans to ta k e th e O t t o m a n lands in h a b ite d by th e ir k insm en, n o r did
these k in sm en give u p their h opes o f su c h a result. A fter the lost w a r o f
1912-13 m a n y th o u s a n d s o f T u r k s arrived as penniless exiles on the new O t ­
t o m a n frontiers. O nly T u rk is h n a tio n a lism still seemed a s o u n d f o u n d a ti o n
o f policy. Several T a t a r exiles fro m R ussia, including A k c h u r a , jo in e d with
O t t o m a n intellectuals o f sim ilar views in o rg a n isin g f r o m 1911 th e p e r io d i­
cal Türk Yurdu (the T u r k i s h h o m e la n d ). A m o n g the O t t o m a n m e m b e rs of
this g r o u p was the p o et a n d sociologist Z ia G ö k a lp (1876-1924). T h e g ov ­
e r n m e n t did n o t c o m m it itself to a P a n t u r k i c policy, b u t it was q uite glad
to see the e x p re ssion o f such ideas. Inevitably, R ussia was reg a rd e d by n a ­
tion alists as th e m a in enem y, since it w as w ith in the R u ssian e m p ire th a t the
largest n u m b e r o f T u rk ic - s p e a k in g p e o p le w ere to be f o u n d . T h e o u tb r e a k
o f w a r w ith R ussia in 1914 stre n g th e n e d th e tren d . G ö k a lp used, in a f a m ­
ous p o e m o f 1914, th e n a m e Turan, originally p o p u la rise d by H u n g a r ia n
a n d o th e r e xp e rts on C e n tr a l A sia, to d e n o t e th e gre a te r T u r k i s h fa th e rla n d
258 Nations and States

w hich, e n th u sia sts claim ed, stretched f ro m the b o rd e r s o f C h in a to the Bos­

p h o r u s , o r even t o H u n g a ry .
In the F irst W o rld W a r the T u rk is h arm ies f o u g h t bravely, in the C a u c a ­
sus a g a in st the R ussians, a n d a t the D a rd a n e lle s u n d e r the c o m m a n d of the
brilliant general M u s ta f a K em al P a sh a ag a in st the A u stra lia n s a n d N ew
Z ea la n d e rs; b u t it was n o t until the collapse o f R u s sia a t th e en d o f 1917
th a t P a n t u r a n i a n ideas seemed c a p a b le o f b e c o m in g reality. In 1918 the
T u r k s e n tered A z e rb a ïd ja n a n d to o k B aku, b u t the victory o f the W estern
Allies over G e r m a n y caused th e m to w ith d r a w very soon. T h e last faint
h o p e was the a t te m p t o f E nver P a sh a , w h o had been the leading figure in
th e w a rtim e g o v e rn m e n t, to o rganise a T u rk ic state in R ussian C e n tral Asia
in th e first years o f the Soviet regim e. E n v e r perished, a n d R u s sia n rule was
resto re d in c o m m u n is t form .
M e a n w h ile the O t t o m a n em p ire h a d been reduced to A sia M in o r, a n d a
new state h a d co m e into being, based o n a T u rk is h n a tio n a lism w hich owed
so m e th in g to the ideas o f A k c h u r a a n d G ö k a lp , b u t m o r e to the fo rtu n e s of
w a r a n d the b rav e ry o f M u s ta f a K em al a n d his arm ies. R e volting against
th e residual g o v e r n m e n t o f the helpless su lta n in Istan b u l, w h o had a c c e p t­
ed the will o f th e victors, K em al organised in 1919 in A n a to lia a new politi­
cal a u th o rity , based on the c e ntrally placed city o f A n k a r a , a n d new armies.
T hese first held th e in v a d in g G reeks, a n d th e n in 1921 d ro v e th e m o u t of
A sia M in o r. T h ere w as also a w a r in th e east a g a in st the A rm e n ia n s, c o n ­
d u c te d w ith terrible savagery o n b o th sides a n d en d in g w ith the m assacre or
e x p u lsio n o f th e A rm e n ia n p o p u la tio n o f th a t region.*
T h e w a r o f 1919-21 h a d a threefold ch a ra c te r. It was a n a tio n a l w ar
a g a in st the G reeks. It was also, in the m in d s o f th e p e a s a n t soldiers if no t of
K em a l, a h o ly w a r o f Islam a g a in st infidels. It w as also, in the m in d o f K em ­
al if n o t in th o se o f his soldiers, a r e v o lu tio n a ry a n d civil w a r a g a in st the old
political a n d religious le ade rsh ip . T h e s u ltan -ca lip h , th e $eyh-ul-Islam a n d
th e ulema h a d s u rre n d e re d to the foreigners. T h e new sta te should r e p u ­
d ia te all i n te r n a tio n a l c o n n e c tio n s w ith Islam , give u p all p rete n tio n s t o the
loyalty o f M u slim s w h o were n o t T u rk s , a n d b e c o m e a se cula r state, th o u g h
T u r k s as in dividuals c o u ld c o n tin u e to be M uslim s. A series o f decrees in
1924 a n d 1925 p u t s e cu la risatio n into effect. T h e religious law o f Islam (^e-
riat ) ceased to have a u t h o rity , religious schools ( m edrese ) were abo lish e d
a n d replaced w ith state schools u n d e r th e m in istry o f e d u c a tio n , religious
p ro p e rtie s w ere ta k e n ov er by th e state, a n d the v a rio u s dervish o rd e rs an d
b r o t h e r h o o d s ( tarikat ) w ere sup p ressed , a n d th e ir p r o p e r ty confiscated.
T hese m e asures p r o v o k e d w id esp re ad o p p o s it io n a n d so m e a t te m p ts a t re­
bellion, w hich were repressed w ith e x e cu tio n s a n d im p riso n m e n t.
A f u rth e r b rea ch w ith the past was th e a b o litio n o f A ra b ic script a n d its
rep la c e m e n t w ith L atin, decreed in N o v e m b e r 1924. K em al was influenced
by the plans fo r the in tr o d u c tio n o f the L a tin script in Soviet A z e rb a ïd ja n
 West Asia and North Africa 259

in 1925. His aim s w ere n o t d issim ilar to those of th e Soviet leaders: like
th e m , he wished to cut off the new g e n e r a tio n fro m the literatu re a n d cul­
tu re o f the past, w hich w ere c o n ta in e d in th e A ra b ic script. His b r u ta l a c ­
tion m et with a need w hich h ad long been felt by specialists in language.
T u rk is h speech, w ith its great variety o f vow el so u n d s, is n o t well suited to
th e A ra b ic script. F r o m the beginning also the T u rk is h n a tio n a list m o v e ­
m e n t h ad sto o d fo r the refo rm o f the langu age. T h e c u m b e r s o m e official
v o c a b u la ry a n d style, full n o t only of w o rd s b u t o f w hole phrase s fro m
A ra b ic a n d P ersian , h a d to be replaced by a language close to c o m m o n
speech. A lrea d y fo r several d ecades th e press o f I sta n b u l h a d c o n trib u te d to
a process o f sim plification a n d m o d e rn is a tio n . U n d e r K em al th e process
was accelerated. T h e T u rk is h Linguistic Society, set u p in 1932, had the
task of rapidly e lim in a tin g A ra b ic a n d P ersian w ords, a n d m a n u fa c tu r in g
new w o rd s fro m T u rk i s h r o o ts to ta k e th e ir place. T his h asty a n d artificial
ac tio n p r o d u c e d m a n y ridiculo us results, a n d afte r a few years th e pace was
greatly red uced, a n d m a n y widely used w o rd s o f n o n - T u r k ic origin w ere al­
lowed to stay. H o w ev er, in the course o f tim e public p ractice ac hiev ed m o re
th a n d elib erate policy. T h e ch a n g es w hich t o o k place in s p o k e n a n d w ritten
T u rk is h betw een th e 1940s a n d the 1970s w ere as great as tho se w hich had
been achieved d u r in g the 1930s, a n d n eologism s m ultiplied a n d c a m e into
p o p u la r use.
K em al A ta ttir k ’s c o n c e p tio n o f the T u rk i s h n a tio n c o m p rised the people
o f T u rk ish speech living w ith in the state w h ose frontiers were settled by the
peace tr e a ty o f L a u s a n n e o f 1923. He re n o u n c e d an y claim s eith er to the
peoples o f o th e r fo rm e rly O tt o m a n te rrito rie s o r to peoples o f T u rk ic
speech living in th e Soviet U n io n , Ira n o r A fgha n ista n: P a n t u r a n i a n an d
P an islam ic aim s w ere equa lly rep u d ia ted . I'he sta te was officially described
by the w o rd Tiirkiye, w hich had only c o m e into use in the last years before
the w a r a n d h ad had n o official sta tu s until the L aw o f F u n d a m e n t a l O r ­
gan isatio n s o f 20 J a n u a r y 1921. F r o m this tim e the w o rd used by T u r k s a n d
by foreigners was the sam e. K em al e n c o u r a g e d th e c re a tio n o f historical
m y th s designed to link the T u r k s w ith the p as t in h a b ita n ts o f A sia M i n o r
a n d to glorify the pre-Islam ic history o f th e T u rk s . T h u s it was claim ed th a t
th e H ittites h ad been T u rk s : sym bolically, one o f the new sta te b a n k s was
n a m e d H ittite B a n k (E ti Banka). H ow ever, th e T u r k s h ad n o t alw ays lived
in A sia M in o r. T h e original T u r k s h a d lived in C e n tra l Asia, the cra d le of
the h u m a n race. T h en c e, th e n a tio n a list ideologues n o w claim ed, som e
T u r k s h a d p ro ce ed ed to the Nile valley, w here they had cre ate d P h a r a o n ic
civilisation, o th e rs to M e s o p o ta m ia , w here th e y f o u n d e d S u m e r ia n civili­
sa tio n ( A ta tiirk also set u p a S u m e r ia n Bank). In the c o u rse o f tim e the p e o ­
ples o f these a n d m o r e d is ta n t lands, w h o ow ed th e ir c u ltu re to d istan t
T u rk is h fo re bea rs, h a d lost th e ir T u rk i s h speech. O nly in A sia M in o r a n d
in som e o f th e lands to th e east had it survived.
260 Nations and States

A t a t ü r k died in 1938. F o r a tim e d u r in g th e S e c o n d W o r ld W a r P a n tu -

r a n ia n plan s were revived by individu als, but they w ere never a p p r o v e d by
the rulers. A fter the w a r gen u in e c o m p e titio n betw een political parties was
in tr o d u c e d into T u rk is h p ublic life. T u r k i s h d e m o c r a c y pro v ed fragile: it
was in te r ru p te d by m ilitary in te rv en tio n a n d em b itte re d by ac ts o f ven­
geance, a b o v e all the e x e c u tio n o f th e fo rm e r p rim e m iniste r A d n a n M en-
deres in 1961, w hich th r e a te n e d to replace th e earlier m o n o lith ic cohesive­
ness o f the T u rk is h n a tio n by th e m u tu a l hostility o f tw o ca m p s w hich the
ex e c u tio n s o f 1923 h ad p r o d u c e d in the G re ek b o d y politic.
K em a l left a legacy o f progressivist, anti-religio us, b la n d ly a u t h o r i ta r ia n
o r th o d o x y , designed to lead the c o m m o n people f o rw a r d into the glorious
heritag e o f the secularist w esternised tw e n tie th ce ntury, w hich it could
h a r d ly be expected to find for itself. Yet the desired m o d e rn is a tio n was only
p a rtly achieved. O ld-style b u r e a u c r a c y flo urished, while a m o n g th e c o m ­
m o n p eople the old religion r em a in ed strong. W h e n at last a n indigenous
T u rk i s h business class b e g a n to a p p e a r , it c o n t ri b u te d to a revival o f Islam:
th e c o n n e c tio n betw een th e m e rc h a n t class a n d th e M uslim piety, so s trik ­
ing a featu re o f the histo ry o f th e M u slim p eoples fro m M o r o c c o to In d o n e ­
sia, m anifested itself in p o st-A tatU rk T u rk e y . A n o t h e r tre n d o f the 1960s
w as th a t fro m the in te lle c tu a l-b u re a u c ra tic d o m in a n t class a m ino rity d e ­
ta ch e d itself to challenge, fro m a m o r e o r less M a rx is t po int of view, the
p rev a len t W e s te rn -d e m o c ra tic ideal, w hich w as sim u lta n e o u sly u n d er
a t ta c k fro m the M uslim trad itio n alists. Interest in the A ra b ic -sp e a k in g
M u slim w o rld a n d in th e T u rk ic peoples u n d e r Sov iet rule was latent but
n o t negligible; a n d the u n c e rta in p ro sp ec ts o f b o th m ight cause it to revive.
T h e quality o f T u rk is h n a tio n a lity re m a in e d elusive h alf a ce n tu ry after
K e m a l’s victory. T h e views w hich T u r k s m ight ta k e o f th e ir n a t io n ’s place
in the w o rld were confused. Yet th a t a T u rk is h n a tio n existed, o f w hich a
h u n d r e d years earlier th e re h ad h a r d ly been a sign, w as beyond d o u b t.

The Arab nation

U n d e r O t t o m a n rule th e ce n tre o f gravity, c u ltu r a l as well as political,
m o v e d to I sta n b u l a n d th e la n d s s u r r o u n d i n g it. T h o u g h a M u slim state, it
is a r g u a b le th a t the O t t o m a n em p ire w as th e successor r a th e r to th e B yzan­
tine e m p ire t h a n to th e c a lip h a te o f B a g h d a d . T h e A ra b ic -sp e a k in g lands
s a n k to a p ro vincial s ta tu s, even t h o u g h th e y w ere c o m p a r a tiv e ly rich a n d
p o p u lo u s , a n d p r o v id ed th e O t t o m a n a r m y w ith soldiers a n d the O t t o m a n
political elite w ith ab le m en. T h e A ra b ic -s p e a k in g subjects o f th e su lta n a c ­
ce pte d this sta te o f affairs w ith r esig n a tio n as lo n g as th e O t t o m a n em pire
rem a in ed a pow erful a n d respected state.
T h e m o d e rn m o v e m e n t to m a k e the A ra b ic lan g u ag e the basis o f n a t io n ­
 West Asia and North Africa 261

ality, a n d to c reate a n A r a b n a tio n w hose will sh o u ld f o r m the f o u n d a ti o n

o f th e legitimacy o f g o v e r n m e n t in the la nds o f A ra b ic -sp e a k in g p o p u la ­
tion, resulted fro m the g ro w in g d o m in a t i o n by E u ro p e a n pow ers ov er the
O t t o m a n em pire a n d n e ig h b o u rin g te rrito rie s d u r in g the n in e tee n th an d
early tw entieth centuries. H ow ever, a n im p o r t a n t d istin ction sh o u ld be
n o te d from the start.
In Algeria, T u n isia , E gypt, M o r o c c o a n d L ibya, w hich were a n n e x e d or
m a d e into p ro te c to r a te s by F ra n ce , B ritain, S p a in a n d Italy betw een 1830
a n d 1911, political o p p o s itio n to E u r o p e a n rule d eve lope d, b u t it w as a t
first based essentially on the identity o f the peoples as M uslims, a n d its aims
were so m e fo rm o r o th e r o f c o n s titu tio n a lism . As political parties em erged,
an d secular n a tio n a lism challenged specifically religious claim s, this n a ­
tionalism was at first te rrito ria l ra th e r th a n linguistic. C laim s w ere m ade
for the in d e p en d e n ce o f Egypt, T u n isia o r M o r o c c o ra th e r th a n fo r the
c re a tio n o f a single free A r a b h o m e la n d .
In th ose territories w hich re m a in e d u n d e r O t t o m a n rule until th e en d of
the F irst W o rld W a r — Syria, M e s o p o ta m ia a n d A r a b i a — d e m a n d s were
also m a d e for c o n s titu tio n a l liberties o r te rrito ria l a u t o n o m y . N ev e rth e­
less, increasingly the a im of the small o p p o s itio n a l elite w as a n in d e p e n d e n t
A r a b h o m e la n d . 1'he claim was a d v a n c e d on b e h a lf n o t o f a religion o r o f a
te rritory but o f th o se w h o s p o k e a single A ra b ic language.
A ra b n atio n a lism was n o t a n ti- M u s lim , b u t inevitably it d im inishe d the
im p o r ta n c e o f Islam while laying gre a te r stress o n language. It is n o t s u r ­
prising th a t its pioneers sh o u ld have inc luded a high p r o p o r ti o n o f C h ris­
tians a n d of unbelievers. A r a b C h ristia n s, especially the C a th o lic M a ro -
nites in th e L e b a n o n a n d the C o p ts in E gypt, were m o r e easily a n d quickly
accessible to E u r o p e a n ideas th a n were M uslim s. T h e r e w ere tw o C h ristian
universities in Beirut, th e A m eric an college f o u n d e d in 1866 a n d the Je su it
University of St J o s e p h establish ed in 1875. A m e ric a n P ro te s ta n tis m m a d e
few converts, b u t A m e r ic a n secular d e m o c r a ti c ideas m a d e a n increasing
a p p e al. F o r a n A ra b ic -sp e a k in g C h ristia n the idea o f n a tio n a lity based on
lan g u ag e was u n d e r s ta n d a b l y m o st a ttractiv e, fo r it m a d e it possible for
h im to claim inclusion, as a p a trio t, in th e c o m m u n ity f ro m w hich his reli­
gion h a d h ith e rto e x c lu d e d him . T h e tr e n d to w a r d s A r a b n atio n a lism , di­
rected ag a in st the T u rk s , n o w regarded n o t as fe llow -M uslim s b u t as f o r ­
eign rulers, was accelerated by the Y o u n g T u rk is h R e v o lu tio n , w hose
A ll- O tto m a n d e m o c r a tic principles in p ractice looked m o r e a n d m o re like
T u rk is h ce n tralism w ith a T u rk is h n a tio n a lis t flavo ur. S everal A ra b n a ­
tionalist secret societies c a m e in to existence. A t the s a m e tim e, in A ra b ia
p r o p e r , th e re was a g ro w in g desire a m o n g local n o ta b le s , q u ite unaffected
by liberal o r n a tio n a list ideas, to m a k e the m se lves in d e p e n d e n t o f th e O t t o ­
m a n em p ire a n d to set u p te rrito ria l rule o f th e ir ow n. O u ts ta n d in g a m o n g
th e m were the H a sh im ite family, d e s c e n d a n ts o f th e P r o p h e t a n d rulers of
262 Nations and States

the H ejaz a n d the holy cities; a n d the W a h h a b i religious c o m m u n ity , led by

A b d al-A ziz ibn S a u d , w h o ruled over N ajd. B oth rulers, while on bad
te rm s w ith ea ch o th e r, k e p t in c o n t a c t w ith th e British in Egypt.
D u r i n g the F irst W o r ld W a r the British m a d e p rom ise s to the H ash im -
ites w hich were n o t c o m p a tib le with th e p rom ise s m a d e in 1917 by B alfour
to th e Z ionists o f a Je w ish n a tio n a l h o m e ,9 o r w ith the S y k e s-P ic o t ag re e­
m e n t o f 1916 dividing th e A ra b ic -sp e a k in g O t t o m a n te rritorie s between
Britain a n d F ran ce. T h e revolt o f 1916-18 a g a in st the T u rk s by the A ra b s of
the H a sh im ite S h a r if H u sse in o f H ejaz m a d e som e c o n t r i b u tio n to British
victory, b u t th e c o n s e q u e n t se ttle m en t bitterly d is a p p o in te d the A ra b s, for
it did n o t cre ate a single A r a b state o v er th e w hole F ertile C rescent o f Syria
a n d M e s o p o ta m ia . Instead five states w ere set up, as ‘m a n d a te d te rrito rie s’,
o f w hich three were to be held by the British a n d tw o by the F rench. T he
tw o ‘m a n d a t o r y p o w e rs’ were to re p o r t regularly to the League o f N ations,
a n d were to p re p a re the te rrito rie s fo r u ltim a te sovereign in dependen ce.
Feisal, son o f H ussein, w as driven o u t o f D a m a s c u s in Ju ly 1920 by the
F re n c h . T h e British installed h im as king o f Iraq, a new sta te with e x tre m e ­
ly artificial frontiers, ca rved o u t o f the M e s o p o ta m ia n provinces o f the O t ­
t o m a n em pire. S h i’i A ra b s were twice as n u m e r o u s as S u n n i; a n d th e n o rth ,
in h a b ite d by K urds, w h o s p o k e a lang u ag e related to P ersian a n d had no
wish to be ruled by A ra b ic -sp e ak e rs, was in c o rp o r a te d because o f its p e tro ­
leu m resources, w hich th e British wished to c o n t r o l t h r o u g h th eir new vas­
sals. Feisal c o n tin u e d to cherish his P a n a r a b schemes. His S u n n i subjects,
o nly a q u a r te r o f the p o p u la tio n b u t p ro v id in g m o s t o f the elite, had a
s tr o n g vested interest in P a n a r a b is m , fo r m u c h th e sam e reasons as the
C h r istia n A ra b s o f E gypt a n d L e b a n o n discussed above. O nly if Iraq were
m e rg e d in a single A r a b state, w ith a large S u n n i m a jo rity , w ould th e y cease
to be a m in o rity in th e ir o w n co u n try . T h e new Iraqi m inistry o f e d u c a tio n
set itself to sp read P a n a r a b ideas t h r o u g h the schools, a n d had c o n s id e r a ­
ble success in th e follow ing years, at least in th e to w ns. S h i’i Iraqis had no
e n th u s ia s m fo r Feisal.
Still less did the se ttle m en t please th e K u rd s, w h o in h a b ite d th e high­
la n d s a r o u n d th e u p p e r E u p h r a te s a n d Tigris, stre tc h in g across to the
s o u th -e a st o f L ake U r m ia in Ira n . N u m b e r in g several m illions (b u t never
precisely c o u n te d by a n y reliable census), the K u rd s w ere divided by the
peace se ttle m ent betw e en f o u r states— T u rk e y , I ra n , I r a q a n d S y ria — all o f
w h o se rulers refused to recognise th e m as a d istinct n a tio n .
T h e F re n c h g o v e r n m e n t cre ate d tw o states, S y ria a n d L e b a n o n . It m ight
have been m o r e n a t u r a l if L e b a n o n h a d b e e n c o n fin e d to th e region o f p re­
d o m in a n tly C h ristia n p o p u la tio n , in w h ich t h e re h a d b ee n a s tro n g F re n c h
influence fo r centuries. T h e F re n c h h o w e v e r d ecid ed in f a v o u r o f a grand
L iban , a b o u t h alf o f w h o se p o p u la tio n consisted o f M uslim s.
In th e s o u th the British set u p a k in g d o m o f T r a n s j o r d a n u n d e r Feisal’s
 West Asia and North Africa 263

b r o th e r A b d u lla h , while Palestine, in w hich th e c o n t r a d ic t o r y claim s of

Je w s a n d A ra b s were s o m e h o w to be reconciled, was placed directly u n d e r
British a d m in is tra tio n . S h a r if H usse in fared less well t h a n this tw o sons. In
1925 he was d riven o u t o f H eja z by the W a h h a b i leader, w h o fo u n d e d the
k in g d o m o f S a u d i A ra b ia , covering the g r e a te r p a r t o f the A r a b ia n p e n in ­
sula. In the so u th -w e ste rn c o r n e r o f the p e n in su la the Y em en, w ith a c o m ­
paratively dense p o p u la tio n , re m a in e d in d e p en d e n t.
N a tio n a list m o v e m e n ts in the lands o f A ra b ic speech betw een the w orld
w ars were based o n each in d ividual te rrito ry . S elf-g o v e rn m en t fo r the indi­
vidual peoples a n d strategic g u a ra n te e s f o r the E u r o p e a n sovereign, p r o ­
te c to ra te o r m a n d a t o r y pow ers could in principle have been c o m p a tib le . In
reality the willingness o f the v ario u s British a n d F re n c h a u th o ritie s to m a k e
concessions, a n d the willingness o f the political leaders o f th e v ario u s A ra b
peoples to accept e ith e r direct foreign rule o r indirect d ep e n d e n c e o n a fo r­
eign p r o te c to r , varied greatly. As a new g e n e r a tio n o f b e tte r e d u c a te d p e r ­
sons o f h u m b le r social origin entered the A r a b elites, political d e m a n d s be­
c a m e m o r e radical, a n d hostile susp icion o f British a n d F re n c h policies
m o re p ro fo u n d .
I n E gypt a s tr o n g n a tio n a list party , the W afd , em erg ed u n d e r the leader­
ship o f S a ’ad Z a g h l u l. 10 A fter w id esp re ad anti-B ritish riots in 1919, Egypt
settled d o w n to a p a r li a m e n ta r y fo rm o f g o v e r n m e n t, based on a limited
suffrage. T reaties o f 1922 a n d 1936 a r r a n g e d for th e m a in te n a n c e o f large
British forces in the c o u n try , in o r d e r to e n s u re British c o n tro l o f the Suez
C a n a l, b u t in in te rn al politics Egypt was sovereign.
In Iraq, the British also h ad m a jo r strategic interests: the security o f the
P ersian G u lf a n d the w estern a p p r o a c h e s to India (p ro te c te d by a n airforce
base at H a b b a n iy a ), a n d the rapidly g ro w in g e x p lo ita tio n o f oil in the M o ­
sul area. T hese interests were g u a r a n te e d by tr e a ty w hen Ira q bec am e a n
in d e p e n d e n t state in 1930.
In Syria the F r e n c h had to p u t d o w n in 1926 a revolt o f the D ru s e reli­
g ious sect a n d large-scale riots in D a m a sc u s. In L e b a n o n th eir s itu atio n
was easier, since the p o p u la tio n was d ivided a l m o s t e q u a lly b etw e en M u s ­
lims a n d C h ristian s, a n d the C a th o lic ( o r M a r o n ite ) m a jo rity o f th e C h ris­
tia n h a lf was well dispo sed to F re n c h rule. In 1936 the P o p u l a r F r o n t go v ­
e r n m e n t o f L éo n B lu m signed treaties w ith b o th co u n tries, g ra n tin g
in d e p e n d e n c e o n c o n d itio n t h a t F re n c h m ilita ry bases rem a in ed ; b u t the
treaties w ere n o t ratified by the F r e n c h p a rlia m e n t.
T h e p olitical p r o b le m s o f th e F re n c h te rrito rie s in N o r t h A frica differed
substantially. T u n isia a n d M o r o c c o w ere p r o te c to r a te s , b u t A lgeria was le­
gally a n integral p a r t o f the F re n c h rep ublic. In A lgeria a n d T u n isia there
w ere large c o m m u n itie s o f E u r o p e a n settlers, o f I ta lia n a n d S p a n ish as well
as o f F re n c h origin, b u t increasingly a b s o r b e d in to F re n c h culture; in M o ­
rocco, se ttle m ent w as o n a sm a lle r scale, t h o u g h su b sta n tia l F r e n c h busi­
264 Nations and States

ness interests h a d g ro w n up. T h e p eople o f T u n isia , a n d o f the coastal re­

gions a n d cities o f th e o th e r tw o lands, w ere A ra b ic in speech a n d culture;
b u t in the m o u n ta in s o f Algeria, a n d still m o r e in M o r o c c o , a large p a r t of
th e p o p u la tio n w ere Berbers, w h o sh a re d little w ith the people o f the plains
b u t their M u slim religion. P o p u la ti o n pressu re in A lgeria h ad caused em i­
g r a tio n o f M u slim w o rk e rs to F ra n ce , w here they were e m p lo y ed in low-
g ra d e jo b s in industry.
T h e first active political m o v e m e n t in T unisia , the N eo-D estour f o u n d e d
in 1934 by H a b ib B o u r g u ib a , 11 d e m a n d e d sovereign in d e p e n d e n c e fo r T u ­
nisia, a n d in 1937 a n d 1938 w as respo nsible fo r riots w hich w ere m et with
m a rtia l law a n d arrests. In M o r o c c o th e F re n c h a r o u se d bitter o p p o sitio n
by the so-called dahir berb'ere o f 1934, w hich s e p a ra te d th e a d m in is tra tio n
o f the Berbers fro m t h a t o f the A ra b ic -sp e a k in g people, placing th e m u n d e r
F re n c h c rim inal law. T h is m e asu re was inspired p artly by g enuine p a t e r n a l­
ist c o n c e r n fo r the m o r e prim itive B erb er peoples, p artly p e rh a p s by a d e ­
sire to play off Berbers a g a in st A ra b s. Its o p p o n e n t s accused th e F rench
n o t only o f tryin g to de -a ra b ise the Berbers but o f p la n n in g forcibly to c o n ­
v ert th e m f ro m Islam to C h ristianity. O p p o s itio n to the dahir strengthen e d
n a tio n a lism , a n d led to th e f o rm a tio n o f th e first n a tio n a list party. In Alge­
ria tw o tre n d s em erged a m o n g the A ra b ic -sp e a k in g people. T h e first,
w h o se s p o k e s m a n was th e F re n c h -e d u c a te d F e r h a t A b b a s , was to w a r d s
closer in te g ratio n o f A lgeria w ith F ra n c e , p ro v id ed o nly th a t M uslim s were
placed on a level o f legal a n d social e q u a lity with C h ristia n s, a n d th a t there
w as n o a t te m p t to replace A ra b ic cu ltu re by F re n c h t h r o u g h c ru d e m e th o d s
o f as sim ilatio n. T h e obsta cle to this policy was the hostility o f the F rench
settlers, largely people o f plebeian o rigin w ith little interest in a n y c u ltu re of
a n y sort. T h e s e pieds noirs sim ply reg a rd e d the M uslims as a n inferior race,
d estine d to be their servants, a n d stro ngly objected to a n y p la n to give th e m
e q u a l status. T he second tren d was to w a r d s M u slim n atio n a lism , with a
s tr o n g socialist a n d p r o le t a r ia n c o n ten t. It derived a n im p o r ta n t p a r t o f its
s u p p o r t f r o m A lg eria n w o rk e rs in F rance.
T hese v ario u s m o v e m e n ts viewed ea ch o th e r ’s efforts w ith sy m p a th y ,
a n d th e ir le aders had so m e c o n ta c t w ith ea ch other. T h e n o tio n o f a wider
A r a b n a t io n a l struggle, f o r a single A r a b state, w as a t first co n fin e d to a few
intellectuals, b u t gained m o r e s u p p o r t, f r o m Ira q to M o ro cc o , as a result of
the conflict betw een A r a b s a n d Je w s in P a le s tin e .12 T h e a r g u m e n ts used by
Je w s to p e rs u a d e A ra b s th a t th e ir c o n d itio n s w o u ld be im p ro v e d by the
presence o f skilled a n d e n terp risin g Je w ish im m ig r a n ts did n o t convince
them . T his was partly d u e to the in fluence o f A r a b large la n d o w n e rs w ho
feared for th eir possessions, a n d o f fan a tica l M uslim s; b u t suspicions of
Jew ish im m ig ra tio n were also deeply r o o te d in the A r a b p o p u la tio n as a
whole. W h e n the n u m b e r o f im m ig r a n ts increased as a result o f th e an ti-
semitic policies o f H itler in G e r m a n y a n d the fear t h a t these policies would
 West Asia and North Africa 265

be im itated in o th e r C e n tr a l E u r o p e a n states, A r a b o p p o s itio n escalated

into a n a r m e d rising a g a in st the British in 1936.
T h e r e is no d o u b t th a t a m o n g the y o u n g e r g e n e ra tio n o f e d u c a te d p e o ­
ple, fro m Iraq to M o r o c c o , the co n c ep t of a single A ra b n a tio n h ad been
steadily gaining. It had its strongest s u p p o r t in Syria. In the 1930s it was
p opu larised, for th o se w hose first E u ro p e a n lan g u ag e was F re n c h , by the
periodical La nation arahe , d irected in G e n e v a by the L eb a n ese exile Che-
kib A rslan. T h e Palestine revolt caused th e idea to sp rea d to th o se w hose
first E u ro p e a n language was English. It was p r o p a g a te d in Iraqi schools,
an d also began to m a k e a n im p a ct o n E gypt, w here b o th W e ste rn lan­
guages were k n o w n to e d u c a te d people. T h e ev ents in Palestine were u n d e r ­
stood as a th re a t to the w hole A ra b n a tio n . Here, it was felt, was a m a tte r
not just of rule by a m o r e o r less b e ne vo le nt E u r o p e a n pow er, b u t o f A ra b
lan ds being seized fro m A r a b cu ltiv a to rs a n d given to foreign invaders.
P a n a r a b feeling w as e x p lo ite d by the Italian a n d G e r m a n g o v e r n m e n ts (al­
th o u g h in Libya th e Italians h a d s h o w n them selves ruthless o p p re sso rs o f
A rabs). Y o u n g A ra b n atio n alists increasingly looked to the tw o fascist
pow ers as fu tu re liberators.
T hese fascist sy m p a th ie s in fact p r o d u c e d sm all results d u r in g the S e­
co nd W o rld W ar. T h e British were able to d efen d th eir positio n in Egypt.
In this they h ad the sullen acquiescence o f King F a r o u k a n d the m o re ge­
n uine s u p p o r t o f th e W afd , w hose leaders to o k seriously the n o tio n th a t
Britain was fighting fo r d e m o c ra c y a g a in st H itlerian ty rann y. A p ro-
G e r m a n g o v e r n m e n t in Iraq, led by R a sh id Ali, a tte m p te d to c a p tu r e the
R A F base at H a b b a n iy a , but was d efeated in A pril 1941. I n J u n e 1941 Brit­
ish a n d F re e F re n c h forces invad ed Syria. In N o rth Africa, afte r their in va­
sion o f N o v e m b e r 1942 the A m eric an s sh o w ed a ce rta in benevolence t o ­
w ard s M o r o c c a n natio n alism . In 1943 F e r h a t A b b a s p ublish ed a n A lgerian
M a n ife sto with d e m a n d s for a u t o n o m y a n d d e m o c r a tic reform s, w hich the
F re n c h rejected. As th e tide o f w a r m ov e d into E u ro p e , F re n c h a u th o rity
was resto re d u n d e r G en e ra l de G au lle’s g o v e r n m e n t. A lgerian d isc o n te n t
a n d n atio n alist h o p es w ere n o t a p p e a s e d , a n d on 8 M a rc h 1945 violent riots
b r o k e o u t at Setif, F re n c h m e n were m u r d e r e d , a n d m a n y m o re M uslim s
were killed in reprisals. M e an w h ile the British s u p p o r te d S y ria n a n d L e b a ­
nese claim s aga in st the F re n ch , a n d w ere largely respon sible for the re­
m o v a l o f F re n c h p o w e r a n d fo r the a d m is s io n o f b o th co u n trie s as sov e r­
eign states to the U nited N a tio n s in 1945.
In th e first p o st-w a r years P a n a r a b n a tio n a lis m b ec am e stro n g er, a n d e x ­
te n d e d a t least to a large p a r t o f the e d u c a te d class in E gypt a n d across
N o r t h Africa. In th e ea ste rn lands, w h ich n o w enjoyed sovereign in d e p e n ­
dence, th e rulers a d o p t e d P a n a r a b rh e to ric even if th e ir d e v o tio n to th e cause
was half-hearted. T h e y w ere u n c o m f o r ta b ly placed betw e en th e p ressures
o f radical political m o v e m en ts, w hich d e m a n d e d the liq u id atio n o f British
266 Nations and States

m ilita ry bases, a n d the British g o v e r n m e n t, w hich a rg u e d unsuccessfully

t h a t the bases were n ee d ed to d efe n d th e c o m m o n ca u se o f d e m o c ra c y
ag a in st the th r e a t o f S oviet e x p a n sio n . British a n d A m e ric a n d e t e r m in a ­
tio n to keep the bases w as also m o tiv ate d by th e im m e n se increase in the
o u t p u t o f oil in A ra b states. T h e g rea test oil resources o f all were in S aud i
A ra b ia , w hich was th e re b y b r o u g h t o u t o f its m edieval b a c k w a rd n e ss into
active A r a b politics. T h is w as also tru e o f m in o r A r a b principalities a long
the P e rsia n G u lf in w hich oil was fo u n d . E ven th e isolated a n d prim itive
Y em en, w hich had n o oil, was influenced by A r a b politics. M o st im p o r ta n t
o f all was th e rap id increase o f the m o d e r n intellectual elite, w hich now
tu r n e d a w a y fro m fascism (w hich h ad been d iscredited by H itle r’s defeat)
a n d learned at least s o m e M a rx is t c a tc h w o r d s (n o w f a s h io n a b le because
Soviet R ussia h ad w o n the war). A few even w ent so f a r as seriously to
stu d y M a rx is m . T h e new intellectual elites w ere n o w p assio n ately o p p o se d
to the privileged classes in the A r a b lands, w hich b o th o b stru c te d their so­
cial a d v a n c e m e n t a n d offen ded their new ideological principles. T h e s tru g ­
gle fo r social r e v o lu tio n b e c am e closely in te rw o v e n w ith the struggle
a g a in st the British m ilitary presence in the ea ste rn lands a n d F re n ch rule in
the M a g h r e b . 13
British a tte m p ts to gain a c ce p ta n ce o f th e ir m ilitary interests by treaties
w hich m a d e fu rth e r concession s w ere rejected in b o th Egypt a n d Iraq. A
th r e e -c o rn e re d struggle d eve lo pe d in E gypt betw een Wafd, King F a r o u k
a n d the British, in volving guerrilla a tta c k s o n British forces in the C a n a l
Z o n e a n d riots in C a i r o . 14 T h e s itu a tio n c h a n g ed radically w hen in Ju ly
1952 a g r o u p o f E g y p tia n m ilitary c o n s p ira to r s led by C o lo n e l G a m a l A b ­
del N a ss e r o v e rth re w K ing F a r o u k . N a ss e r was the first ruler o f E g ypt to d e ­
clare him self a s u p p o r te r o f the P a n a r a b cause, b u t he did n o t sim ply identi­
fy E g y p tia n interests w ith it. As he saw it, E gypt w as involved in th ree loyal­
ties: w as a n A r a b state, a M u slim sta te a n d a n A fric an state. In practice,
events sho w ed th a t his aim s were E g y p tia n h e g e m o n y a m o n g A r a b states
(o f w h ich E g y p t was u n d o u b te d ly th e m o s t p o p u lo u s a n d m ost pow erful,
t h o u g h n o t th e richest, since it lacked oil); E g y p tia n im perialism in Africa
a n d o n b o th sides o f th e R ed Sea; a n d , if possible, a s tro n g E g yp tia n influ­
ence o n n o n - A r a b M u s lim states.
In N o r t h A frica in the early 1950s F r e n c h policy reverted to repression.
In 1951 n egotiatio n s w ith the T u n isia n N eo-D estour w ere a b a n d o n e d , an d
B o u rg u ib a was arrested. In 1953 th e su lta n o f M o r o c c o , w h o h a d sho w n
pub lic sy m p a th y fo r th e n atio n alists, w as dep o sed . T hese policies w ere re­
versed by th e g o v e r n m e n t o f P ie r re M e n d e s-F ra n c e , w h o released B ou rg u i­
ba in 1954. His successors gave T u n isia first a u t o n o m y a n d th e n , in M a rc h
1956, in d ependence. T h e su ltan o f M o r o c c o w as also allow ed to re tu r n in
N o v e m b e r 1955, a n d in M a y 1956 M o r o c c o t o o b e c am e in d e p en d e n t.
In A lgeria n o such progress could be achieved. T h e b itte r resistance o f a
 West Asia and North Africa 267

million E u r o p e a n settlers, a n d the insistence in P aris on the legal sta tu s of

A lgeria as p a r t o f F ra n c e , m a d e a g re e m e n t im possible even w ith th e m o d ­
erate F e r h a t A b b as. A g r o u p o f ex tre m e n atio n a lists set u p a secret m ilitary
o rg an isa tio n . Its leader, A h m e d Ben Bella, escaped to C a iro , w here N asser
helped him to enlist a n d train A lgerian vo lunteers. Ben Bella succeeded in
org an isin g o n A lgerian soil a Front de libération nationale ( F L N ), w hich in
N o v e m b e r 1954 b egan a n a r m e d insurrection. As the savage guerrilla c o n ­
flict drag g e d o n, the m a jo rity (fcfgerian M uslim s, o f A ra b ic o r Berber
speech alike, becam e either by cohvictio n o r by fear s u p p o r te r s o f the F L N .
F e r h a t A b b a s him self w ent to C a iro a n d p u t him self at its disposal.
S u p p o r t o f the F L N m a d e N asser the e n e m y of F rance. His relations
with Britain were at first ra th e r g o o d , a n d he m a d e a trea ty w ith th e m by
w hich the Suez C a n a l m ilitary base w as tr a n sfe rre d to him , while he recog­
nised the in d e p e n d e n c e of S u d a n . 15 L a te r in th e year, how ever, relations
d e te r io r a te d w hen Britain p ersu a d e d the g o v e r n m e n t o f Iraq to jo i n a n al­
liance (the B a g h d ad Pact) u n d e r British a n d A m e ric a n auspices, intended
as a defence o f th e ‘n o r th e r n tier’ o f the M id d le E ast ag ainst Soviet e x p a n ­
sion. This Nasser reg a rd e d as a m a n o e u v r e to split the unity of the A ra b
states. He so ught a r m s fro m C z ec h o slo v a k ia a n d the Soviet U n io n , an d
w h en the U nited S tate s g o v e r n m e n t refused to finance his p la n n e d A ssua n
H igh D a m , he a n n e x e d the S uez C a n a l C o m p a n y . T his led to the jo in t inva­
sion o f Egypt by Israelis, British a n d F re n c h in N o v e m b e r 1956. T h e Israeli
a r m y h ad rapid successes, b u t th e o u tc ry a t the U nited N a tio n s a n d the h o s­
tility o f the U nited S tate s as well as o f th e Sov iet U n io n caused the W estern
pow ers to a b a n d o n the enterprise. N asser was tr iu m p h a n t.
T his led to a rapid g r o w th o f P a n a r a b is m a n d to o n sla u g h ts o n the re­
m a in in g p r o -W e ste rn A r a b rulers. In J o r d a n K ing H ussein n a rro w ly es­
c a p e d being o v e r th r o w n in A p ril 1957.16 In F e b r u a r y 1958 th e S yrian g o v ­
e r n m e n t declared its u n io n w ith Egypt in the U nited A r a b R epublic. In
J u ly 1958 a m ilitary r e v o lu tio n in Ira q o v e r th r e w the regim e w hich h a d e x ­
isted for the last d e c a d e u n d e r the effective leadership o f N uri-es-S aid, a
v eteran A ra b n a tio n a list w h o h ad , how ever, believed in c o o p e r a tio n w ith
th e British. N uri, a social co n servative a n d s y m b o l o f the old regim e, was
d o n e to d e a th by the r e v o lu tio n a r y m o b , to g e th e r w ith the regent a n d th e
y o u n g king. In 1962 th e A lgerian w a r c a m e to a n en d w hen de G au lle’s go v ­
e r n m e n t conc ede d c o m p le te in d e p en d e n ce to a n A lgerian republic ruled
by th e F L N . N a ss e r also succeeded fo r a tim e in m a k in g him self m a s te r of
Y em en, to w hich he sent large n u m b e rs o f E g y p tia n t r o o p s to ta k e p a r t in a
civil w a r betw een 1962 a n d 1967. In 1967 the British a b a n d o n e d th e ir Red
S ea base a t A d en , a n d its A r a b ia n h in te r la n d , afte r futile a t te m p ts to o r g a ­
nise a fed e ra tio n o f th e rulers o f the S o u t h A r a b ia n p r o te c to ra te s. T h e new
state called itself the R e p u b lic o f S o u th Y em e n. O n N asser’s w estern b o r d e r
th e k in g d o m o f L ibya, estab lished in 1951 in place o f th e f o r m e r Italian col-
268 Nations and States

ony, b e c am e a repub lic a f te r a m ilitary coup d ’état led by C o lo n e l M u a m -

m a r G h a d a ffi in S e p te m b e r 1969. T his w as follow ed by th e clo sure o f Brit­
ish a n d A m e r ic a n bases a n d th e seizure o f the r ap id ly dev e lo p in g W estern-
o w n e d oil industry.
T h e lan ds o f A ra b ic speech w ere n o w freed o f all W est E u r o p e a n d o m i ­
n a tio n , b u t unity was still far off. T h e hostility betw een A r a b g o v ern m e n ts
a n d political factions w as as fierce as th e h a tre d o f A ra b n atio n alists for
th e ir f o rm e r E u r o p e a n m asters. T h e conflicts a p p e a r e d to be ideological,
t h o u g h te rrito ria l rivalries h ad by n o m e a n s d isa p p e a re d . M o n a rc h ie s re­
m a in ed in M o ro c c o , J o r d a n a n d S au d i A ra b ia , as well as in the small oil-
rich sh e ik d o m s o f the P ersian Gulf. T h e y were socially conserv ative, an d
still hesitated to a b a n d o n friendly relatio ns with W e ste rn pow ers. W hile in­
du lg in g f r o m tim e to tim e in P a n a r a b rhetoric, th e y were in n o h u r ry to unite
w ith the o th e r A ra b states. Elsewhere v ario u s f o rm s o f d ic ta to rs h ip ex ist­
ed, w ith v ario u s form s o f ‘socialist’ p r o g ra m m e . T h e Ba’ath p arty , which
em erged in S y ria a n d Iraq after the S e c o n d W o rld W a r, so u g h t to co m b in e
a g en uinely radical socialism , m o r e o r less M a rx is t, w ith the pu rsu it of
c o m p lete A r a b unity. P re sid e n t N asser o f E gypt a p p e a le d to the Ba’ath as a
hero o f th e A ra b cause, b u t they d istru sted his m ilita ry m e th o d s o f g o v e rn ­
m e n t a n d d o u b te d w h e th e r he was a g e n u in e social radical. T hese ideologi­
cal misgivings were n o t o v e rc o m e by th e c r e a tio n o f the U nited A ra b R e­
pub lic in 1958, a n d resulted in its d iss o lu tio n th ree years later. In F e b r u a r y
1963 the Iraqi b r a n c h o f Ba’ath seized p o w er, a n d a m o n th later th e S yrian
B a’ath re tu r n e d to p o w e r in D a m a sc u s. Iraqi a n d S y ria n Ba’ath leaders
co n fe rred w ith N asser in C a ir o w ith a view to re su sc ita ting plans for u n ion
o f all these states, b u t ag a in w ith o u t success. T h e Iraqi a n d S y ria n Ba'ath
then q u a rre lle d w ith ea ch o th e r, being divided on w h e th e r first priority
sh o u ld be given to P a n a r a b i s m o r to socialism , a n d th e re follow ed in bo th
co u n tries a bew ildering succession o f coups d ’état, repressions, p erse cu­
tions, a n d acts o f revenge, f ro m w hich it is difficult to e x tra c t a n y deeper
significance.
T h e m a in ce m e n tin g force o n the diverse a n d flu c tu a tin g A r a b scene was
hostility to Israel, w hich in J u n e 1967 a n d O c to b e r 1973 led to w ar. Ever
since 1948 the A r a b states h a d refused to recognise the existence o f Israel,
a n d a b o u t 600,000 P a le stin ia n A ra b s, w h o h a d fled o r h a d b een expelled at
t h a t tim e, a n d w ho se n u m b e r s h a d risen to a b o u t 1,500,000 t h r o u g h n a tu ra l
increase by the 1970s, r e m a in e d a s tr o n g p ressu re g r o u p w hich A r a b gov-
e r n e m e n ts could n o t ignore. W h e re a s the g o v e r n m e n ts o f G e r m a n y an d
F in la n d h ad m a d e tr e m e n d o u s efforts to a b s o r b h u n d r e d s o f th o u s a n d s of
expellees in their ec onom ie s, the g o v e r n m e n ts o f A ra b ic -sp e a k in g c o u n ­
tries, w ith the partial e x c e p tio n o f J o r d a n , h a d d o n e n o th in g . O n the c o n ­
trary , they h ad left the P ale stin ian refugees in m iserab le co n d itio n s, delib­
erately inciting th e m to h a tre d a n d revenge a g a in st Israel. F o r their p a rt the
 West Asia and North Africa 269

A ra b s could reply th a t, w hereas G e r m a n s a n d F in n s h ad been expelled as a

c o n s eq u e n ce o f G e r m a n o r F in n ish agg re ssio n aga in st th e ir n eig h b o u rs,
the P ale stinian A ra b s h a d been peaceful residents in th e ir o w n co u n try ,
w h o m foreign Israeli invad ers h ad d riv en fro m their hom es. T h e Israelis
c ould reply to this t h a t as m a n y Je w s h a d b een expelled, af te r being ro b b e d
o f th eir possessions, f r o m Iraq , M o r o c c o a n d o th e r land s o f A ra b ic speech,
as A ra b s had been expelled fro m P alestine. R ig h t a n d w ro n g w ere in fact to
be fo u n d on b o th sides, b u t to say so solved nothing.
F o r the first d e c a d e afte r the e x p u lsio n th e P ale stin ian s w ere essentially
in stru m e n ts o f the E gyp tia n , S y ria n a n d J o r d a n i a n g o v e r n m e n ts, from
whose territories fro m tim e to tim e raids w ere m a d e into Israel, resulting in
reprisal raids by Israelis ac ross th e b order. I n tim e how ever the P alestinians
b egan to create their ow n o rg an isa tio n s . In 1964 was fou n d ed the P alestini­
a n L ib e ra tio n O rg a n is a tio n ( P L O ), led by Y assir A ra fa t, w hich claim ed to
include fourte en different g ro u p s. A fter th e 1967 w a r between Israel a n d its
n e i g h b o u r s ,17 while the d efe ate d A r a b states recovered slowly f r o m d isas­
ter, the P alestinians develop ed new skills in ta k in g hostages fro m n ations
n o t involved in th eir q u a rre l. T h e ir ta rg e ts w ere n o t only Israelis b u t a n y
victims w h o m they c ould use to c om p el o th e r g o v e r n m e n ts into anti-Israeli
ac tio n . A t the sa m e tim e they d eclared t h a t th e ir a im was a d e m o c r a tic P a l­
estine, in w hich Je w s t o o could be citizens p ro v id ed th a t they ab ju re d
Z io nism . T h e ir aim s were n o t n a tio n a lis m a n d h a tre d b u t socialism a n d
love.
Possibly m o re effective th a n P ale stinian g u n m e n an d incendiaries were
the highly co nservativ e rulers o f oil-rich P ersian G u lf states, led by the king
o f S a u d i A ra b ia , w h o began in N o v e m b e r 1973 to use th e m a n ip u la tio n o f
oil prices an d th e w ith h o ld in g o f oil supplies to E u r o p e a n a n d A m eric an
states as a m e an s o f fo rc in g th e m to p u t pressure on Israel. T hese A ra b
sta te sm en were convinced th a t, ra th e r th a n sacrifice the c o m fo r ts exp ected
by th e ir voters, W e ste rn sta te sm en w o u ld h a n d ov er Israel to their te n d e r
mercies. It sh o u ld also be n o te d h ow eve r t h a t th e f o u n d a ti o n s o f S a u d i o r
G u lf C o a st sheikhly p o w e r were far f r o m firm. N o t only were sheikhs
v uln e ra b le to assassin s’ bullets, but the S a u d i policy o f cre atin g m o d e r n
industries, d e p e n d e n t o n im p o r te d engineers, te ac h ers a n d la b o u r force,
w as leading to m ass m a n u f a c tu r e o f hostile intelligentsia, fro m w h o m the
te ac hers o f assassins a n d the assassins them selves could best be recruited.
T h e oil sheikhs also e n d e a v o u r e d to use th e ir m o n e y p o w e r to influence
A r a b g o v e rn m e n ts to w a r d s m o r e m o d e r a te in te rn al policies. E c o n o m ic d e ­
v e lo p m en t, fin an c ed by S a u d i capital, was p o te n tia lly m o r e a ttractiv e to
S y ria n a n d Ira q i rulers t h a n s u p p o r t f o r P ale stin ian te rrorists. T he
m a rk e d ly m o r e m o d e r a te sta n ce o f b o t h g o v e r n m e n ts in 1976 m a y have
been d u e n o less to the in d u c e m e n ts o f A r a b i a n p lu to c r a ts t h a n to the m a g ­
ic o f D r Kissinger’s d ip lo m ac y .
270 Nations and States

T h e h isto ry o f th e peoples o f A ra b ic speech, th e ir states a n d th e ir politi­

cal a n d social m o v e m e n ts in the tw e n tie th ce n tu ry , is m o r e com p lic ate d
th a n t h a t o f a n y o th e r g r o u p o f p eople fro m w h o m a m o v e m e n t for n a t io n ­
al u n ity h a s been fo rm e d . In the mid-1970s the f u tu re o f the P a n a r a b idea
a p p e a r e d qu ite un p red ic tab le. O riginally it h ad bee n co n fin e d to th e e a st­
e rn A ra b ic -sp e a k in g lands. It th e n h a d th e s u p p o r t o f a sm all b u t grow in g
n u m b e r o f y o u n g e d u c ated people, in clu ding a r m y officers. It was also su p ­
p o rte d , fo r th e ir o w n rea sons, by the rulers o f A r a b states: first the H ashim -
ites tried to b ring the Fertile C resce n t u n d e r th eir rule; th e n King F a r o u k
p a tro n is e d P a n a r a b is m in rivalry with th e H ashim ites; th e n N asser played
the sam e g am e, while S a u d i A ra b ia m a n o e u v r e d betw een the m . G ra d u ally ,
h ow eve r, P a n a r a b is m was e x te n d e d first to E g ypt a n d th e n to all N o rth
Africa. In the early 1970s it was clear th a t this w ider P a n a r a b is m h ad a h o l d
o n tw o g en e ra tio n s o f u r b a n e d u c a te d people, th o se w h o had g r o w n to
m a n h o o d in the 1940s a n d th e ir children. Its im p a c t o n the millions of
w o rk e rs a n d p ea sa n ts was m o re difficult to ju dge. P a n a r a b is m is based es­
sentially o n language, yet the unity o f the la n g u ag e is n o t a sim ple m a tte r.
Classical A ra b ic was the sa m e for all w h o knew it well; a n d the m o d e rn
w ritte n A ra b ic o f th e n ew sp a p ers a n d o f secular literature was th e same
f ro m th e M a g h re b to th e P ersian Gulf. But the w ritte n langu age affected
m a in ly the secu lar a n d religious elite. T h e s p o k e n language, used by e d u ­
ca te d a n d u n e d u c a te d alike, differed very widely fro m M o r o c c o to Egypt,
I ra q a n d Yemen.
T h e sovereignties o f m o r e th a n a d o z e n states o f A ra b ic speech were still
a po w erfu l obstacle to unity. T h e states w ere sp rea d o u t o v er a far greater
distanc e th a n h a d been th e sovereign G e r m a n states o f th e n in e tee n th cen­
tu ry , a n d som e o f th e m h a d a histo ry as states o f m o re t h a n three th o u s a n d
y e a r s .18 T h e variety o f political a n d social in stitutions a n d habits was also
f a r g r e a te r t h a n it ever w as in G e r m a n y o r Italy. N evertheless, there existed
a g enuine solidarity a m o n g A ra b ic -sp e a k in g peoples, affecting the masses
as well as the elites a n d u n iting th e m a g a in st e x te r n a l th reats. T his so lid ari­
ty o p e r a te d a g a in st Israel, a g a in st W e ste rn g o v e r n m e n ts a n d a g a in st fo r­
eign business firm s in th e ir m idst. It m ig h t o p e r a te on e d a y a g a in st Soviet
interference; b u t the expe rien c e o f M u s lim peoples u n d e r Soviet rule did
n o t suggest th a t th e ty p e o f tactics use d by A ra b ic -s p e a k in g natio n alists
a g a in st F re n c h a n d British rulers w o u ld hav e m u c h scope if Soviet rule
w ere e x te n d e d to th o se lands.
It is especially h a r d t o d ise nta ngle, in this solidarity, th e elem ents o f A ra b -
ism a n d o f Islam. A d m itte d ly th e solid arity w as s tr o n g e r b e tw e en A ra b
M uslim s t h a n b etw een all M uslim s: a M o r o c c a n w o u ld feel him self closer
to a n Iraqi th a n to a T u r k o r a n I n d o n e sia n . Yet it m ight be arg u e d t h a t this
w as n o t so m u c h because A r a b n a tio n a list intellectuals h a d c onv ince d the
A r a b masses th a t the A ra b ic language w as a m o r e i m p o r ta n t link th a n the
 West Asia and North Africa 271

M u slim faith, as b ecause they h a d c on vince d them selves th a t Islam was a n

A ra b in v ention , a n d that all tr u e M u slim s o u g h t to be A rabs. T his convic­
tion c ould n o t o f co urse be im posed in A n a to lia , Bengal o r J a v a b ecau se in
th o se lands A ra b s h ad n o coercive p ow er; b u t a t te m p ts c ould be a n d were
m a d e to im p o se it on K urds, Berbers a n d S u d an ese. S o m e A r a b intellectu­
als o f C h ristia n origin were only to o willing to d e n ig ra te th e C h ristian ity in
w hich their p are n ts h a d believed, in o r d e r to be ac cepted in a n umma w hich
was n o w s u p p o se d to c o m p rise n o t tru e believers but m e m b ers o f a nation.
S o m e A r a b intellectuals o f M uslim origin were also willing to a rg u e th a t
the tru e m erit o f Islam lay n o t in its religious c o n te n t b u t in th e fact th a t it
had been created by A ra b s. In th e ir o p in io n all tru e A ra b s o u g h t to be M u s ­
lims. T h ey were h o w ev e r at best lu k e w a rm believers: essentially, w h a t they
were d o in g was to d e m o te Islam fro m a g rea t universal religion to a th e a tr i­
cal p r o p for P a n a r a b rhetoric.
T h e land in w hich the latent hostility b etw een M uslim s a n d C h ristian s of
A ra b ic speech placed the greatest strain o n A r a b unity was L e b a n o n , where
C h ristian s of A ra b ic speech lived in a c o m p a c t m ass in the ce n tral p a r t of
the highlands a n d p a r t o f the coastal area. W h e n L e b a n o n bec am e inde­
pen d e n t, a co m p le x system was devised to e n s u re eq u a l d is trib u tio n o f pol­
itical p o w e r between M uslim s a n d C h ristian s. T his system w as always fra g ­
ile, a n d in 1975 it b ro k e d o w n altog ether.
T h e overall im p re ssion in the mid-1970s was th a t a large p a rt o f the d r iv ­
ing force behind P a n a r a b is m c a m e fro m tr a d itio n a l M u slim fanaticism ;
th a t a m o d e rn A ra b n a tio n a l consciou sne ss had p e n e trate d the intellectual
elite in all A ra b lands, b u t h ad n o t reached d o w n very d ee p into the social
s tru c tu re o f the v ario u s a n d scattered A ra b ic -sp e a k in g peoples; a n d th a t
the fulfilment o f the vision o f a single A r a b s ta te still lay far b e y o n d the h o ­
rizon.
7 East Asia: Empires, Colonies
and Nations

Empires and cultures

T w o great are as o f cu ltu re existed fro m a n c ie n t tim es in the lands so u th an d
east o f the H im alayas: th e I n d ia n a n d th e Chinese. F r o m these tw o centres,
influences rad ia ted o u tw a r d s a n d c o n t ri b u te d to the f o rm a tio n o f o th e r
cultures: especially J a p a n , V ietn am , C a m b o d i a a n d J a v a . M u c h later,
M uslim s entered m a n y o f these regions, follow ed sh o rtly a f te rw a rd s by
e xp lo re rs, tra d e rs a n d c o n q u e r o rs fro m C h r istia n E u ro p e . F r o m their
activities em erged E u r o p e a n colonial em p ire s in som e lands a n d indirect
d o m in a tio n , m ain ly e c o n o m ic but p a rtly political, in others. E u r o p e a n
im p o r ts included E u r o p e a n con c ep ts o f n atio n a lism . T hese c o m b in e d with
inde g enous political tr a d itio n s to p ro d u c e n a tio n a l m o v e m e n ts a n d the
e m erg ence o f new states. T hese processes a re the subject o f this ch a p te r.
T h e earliest available evidence fro m th e I n d ia n region is arc h aeo lo g ica l
but n o t d o c u m e n ta r y , a n d in su perable u n c e rta in ty rem a in s a b o u t the
beginnings of I n d ian civilisation. It seem s possible th a t th e peoples o f the
M o h e n jo - D a r o a n d H a r a p p a c o m m u n itie s, in the Indus valley, were ak in
to the D ra v id ia n peoples w h o in h a b ite d s o u th e rn India in historic times.
W h e th e r there were societies a n d states o f a c o m p a r a b le degree o f civilisa­
tion in th e valleys o f the G an g e s a n d its g rea t trib u ta ries, m a y p e r h a p s be
s h o w n by f u tu re a r c h aeo lo g ica l discoveries. M o re m ay also p e r h a p s be
learned o f the A ry a n c o n q u e r o rs w h o en tered India fro m the n o r th . T he
m o st im p o r ta n t evidence co n c e rn in g th e m co m es fro m their anc ie n t
literatu re a n d the la n g u ag e in w hich it is w ritten. S a n s k r it is the basic I n d o -
E u r o p e a n language, a n d the fact th a t it is th e language o f th e early H in d u
scriptures suggests th a t th e a u t h o r s o f these sc riptu re s c a m e fro m peoples
related to th e p eople o f Ira n , t h o u g h th e y m u st have m o v e d into In d ia long
befo re the f o u n d a ti o n o f the P e rsia n e m p ire by C yrus. T h e epic p o e m s a n d
philosop hic-religiou s d o c trin e s c o n ta in e d in the literature d o u b tle ss derive
f ro m the A ry a n c o n q u e r o rs ; b u t to d ise n ta n g le the A ry a n a n d D ra v id ia n
c o m p o n e n ts o f the th e o g o n y a n d o f th e social a n d cu ltu ra l fabric w hich
em erg ed in the s u b c o n tin e n t o v er a p e rio d o f m a n y centuries, a n d w hich
274 Nations and States

b e c a m e generally k n o w n as H in d u ism , seems to be a difficult ta sk even for

the specialists. It suffices here to say t h a t fro m th e f o u r th c e n tu ry BC
o n w a r d s th e re is d o c u m e n ta r y evidence o n th e rise a n d fall w ith in the
s u b c o n tin e n t o f several p o w erfu l k in g d o m s w ith a H in d u culture, especial­
ly th e M a u r y a n em pire (c. 320-180 BC) a n d th e G u p t a e m p ir e o f th e f o u rth
a n d fifth centuries A D ; b u t th a t there was n o single H in d u em pire,
c o m p a r a b le w ith th e P ersian, R o m a n o r M u slim em pires. F r o m th e eighth,
a n d p a rtic u la rly f r o m th e eleventh c e n tu r y A D , M uslim states aro se on
I n d ia n soil, a n d by th e v ic tory o f P a n ip a t o f 1526 a g rea t M uslim em p ire
w as fo u n d e d by B a b ar, a d e s c e n d a n t o f the C e n tr a l A sian c o n q u e r o r
T im u r . K n o w n as the M o g h u l em pire, it e x te n d e d over m ost o f India.
Before a n d afte r this, M u s lim a n d H in d u c o m m u n itie s, a n d M u slim an d
H i n d u states, coexisted w ith in the su b c o n tin e n t; a n d even a t the height of
M o g h u l p o w e r there w ere still H in d u states in th e s o u t h . 1.
O f the o th e r region th e re is m o r e a b u n d a n t a n d old e r d o c u m e n ta r y
evidence. T h e first pow erfu l Chinese sta te o f S h a n g , w hich lasted a p p r o x i ­
m a tely f r o m 1766 to 1122 BC, was based o n the Yellow River basin. In
C h i n a — the classical case o f the h y d rau lic society, w hich p ro v id ed W ittfog-
el w ith th e m a in e x a m p le fo r his t h e o r y — publicly o rg an ise d irrigation
w o rk s w ere o f p r im a ry im p o r ta n c e . Between the e igh th a n d sixth centuries
BC a n u m b e r o f states aro se in C h in a, so m e o f w hich were c e n tred in the
Y an g tse basin. W h a t is n o t clear is w h e th e r the Y angtse basin h ad been the
th e a tr e o f a n earlier civilisation, significantly different fro m th a t o f the
Yellow R iver basin. I f so, th e n this civilisation bec am e fused w ith th a t of
th e n o r th , as D r a v id ia n civilisation in In d ia b e c am e fused with A ryan.
T h e re is n o t, ho w ever, in th e case o f the Y angtse a n d Yellow rivers, any
m o r e t h a n in th e case o f th e G an g e s a n d th e In d u s, evidence o f a c o n tin u o u s
rivalry betw e en s tro n g civilisations a n d states, c o m p a r a b le w ith th a t which
existed betw e en a n c ie n t M e s o p o ta m ia a n d the Nile basin.
It is necessary a t this p o in t to m a k e so m e reference, h ow eve r superficial,
to c e rta in features o f th e C h in ese civilisation; u n iq u e in its survival for
a lm o s t f o u r th o u s a n d years in the sam e land, w hich set it aside fro m any
o th e r in h u m a n h isto ry .2
F irs t is th e id e o g ra p h ic script, w hich w as in use a lre a d y in S h a n g times,
b u t was e la b o r a te d a n d perfected in the c o u rse o f the follow ing m illennium .
D e p ic tin g con cep ts, n o t so u n d s, it e n a b le d p erso n s w h o knew it to
c o m m u n ic a te w ith ea ch o th e r even t h o u g h th e ir s p o k e n langu ages were
different. It was o f c o u rse useful only to th o se w h o h a d u n d e r g o n e a
difficult process o f e d u c a tio n , a sm all m in o r ity o f th e p o p u l a t i o n — th o u g h
h o w sm all is a m a tte r o f c o n tro v e rs y b e tw e en h isto ria n s o f C hina.
T h e second m a in fea tu re is the b o d y o f ethical a n d political doctrin e,
derived fro m the te ac h in g o f C o n fu c iu s (551-479 BC), w hich, altern ately
a d o p t e d a n d d e n o u n c e d by rulers, m odified a n d r e in terp re ted by later
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 275

th inke rs, still d e te rm in e d for m o r e th a n tw o t h o u s a n d years the a ttitu d e s o f

C hinese to their families a n d to civil a u t h o rity . It is w o r t h n o tin g th a t
C o n fu ciu s lived in th e age o f the w a r rin g states, before th e c re a tio n o f the
unified empire.
T h e third fe a tu re is the centralised b u r e a u c r a c y , based o n th e system of
ex a m in a tio n s a t pro vincial a n d central level, w hich p r o d u c e d C h i n a ’s
political a n d cu ltu ra l elite, c o n v e n tio n a lly describ ed by E u r o p e a n h istori­
ans as the literati. T h o s e few w h o passed at the highest level h ad access to
the highest posts o f th e im perial g o v e rn m e n t. T h o s e w h o passed only at
low er levels, a n d m a n y w h o studied for e x a m in a tio n s b u t never passed,
filled the lower ra n k s o f the b u rea u cracy , a n d fo rm e d the la nd ed class or
‘g e n try ’: they did not o w n great la n d ed estates, b u t th e y were the m ost
influential people in their local co m m u n itie s. Clearly, ch ild ren o f rich an d
learned families h ad g rea t initial a d v a n ta g e s in th e c o m p e titio n . It w as even
so m e tim es possible for children o f th e very rich a n d pow erful to get to the
t o p w ith o u t ta k in g the e x a m in a tio n s. N evertheless e d u c a tio n r em a in ed the
m a in criterion fo r a d v a n c e m e n t, an d th e re was g re a te r social m o bility o n
g r o u n d s o f merit th a n in c o n t e m p o r a r y societies in o th e r lands.
T h e C hinese states were first b ro u g h t to g e th e r in a single g rea t e m p ire by
the ruthlessly c entralising a n d a u t o c r a tic F irst E m p e ro r (221 -205 BC). T h e
g reat s u b se q u e n t periods o f Chinese u n ity a n d p ow er, the H a n d y n a s ty (206
B C -2 2 0 A D), the T ’a n g ( 6 I 8 - 9 0 7 ) ,a n d the S u n g (960-1125), w ere se parated
from each o th e r by p eriod s o f disunity a n d w eakness, w ith several states in
rivalry with each o th e r, o r w ith b a r b a r ia n tribes from the n o r th a n d west
c o n q u e r in g C hinese te rrito ry . T h e grea test o f th e invaders were the
M o n g o ls o f K ublai K h a n (1260-94), w h o established a new dy n asty , the
Y u an, w hich ruled all C h in a until 1368. Its o v e r th r o w by a p e a sa n t-b o r n
leader, C h u Y u an -ch a n g , w h o m a d e him self e m p e r o r a n d fo u n d e d the
M ing dy n asty (1368-1644), was the result of a g rea t m o v e m e n t b o th o f
social revolt a n d of n a tio n a l rea ctio n a g a in st M o n g o l d o m in a tio n . T h e
M in g g o v e rn m e n t in its tu r n b ro k e up, a n d p o w e r fell to o th e r n o r th e r n
b a r b a ria n s , the M a n c h u s , w h o f o u n d ed the last o f C h i n a ’s dynasties, the
C h ’ing (1644-1912).
T h e fre q u en t b a r b a r ia n invasions, a n d p eriod s o f p artial o r co m p lete
c o n q u e s t o f the c o u n try , led to a co e xistence o f C hinese a n d o th e r a u ­
th o rities (T u rk s, M o n g o ls , T u n g u s, M a n c h u s ) o n C h inese soil. T h e ruling
g ro u p s o f c o n q u e r in g peoples, including m a n y th o u s a n d s o f soldiers,
preserved th eir distinct w ay o f life, in c lud ing th e ir languages. A t the sam e
tim e th e C hinese str u c tu re o f g o v e r n m e n t a n d society c o n tin u e d to
f u nction, w ith little m od ific atio n . T h e b a r b a r i a n rulers w ere obliged to
a d m in is te r the vast c o u n t r y th r o u g h its o w n tr a d itio n a l political a n d
cu ltu ra l system, b u t th e y k ep t their o w n in being alo n g sid e it, a n d reserved
m a n y positions o f p o w e r to th e ir c o m p a tr io ts , m a n y o f w h o m ho w ev e r in
276 Nations and States

th e co u rse o f tim e b e c am e a b s o r b e d into C hinese culture. T h is d u a l system

existed in th e n o r th C h in ese states o f L ia o (947-1125) a n d C h in (1115-1234)
as well as in th e all-C h in a em pires o f th e Y u a n (1275-1368) a n d the C h ’ing.
C h i n a resem bled the R o m a n em p ire in its vast ex ten t, the variety o f its
la n d s a n d peoples, a n d its to le ran ce o f m a n y religions, b u t it was m ore
closely u n ite d by a c o m m o n culture; it lasted fo r very m u c h longer; a n d it
sh o w ed a ce rtain g row ing ossification, a con firm e d habit o f c o n t e m p t for
all o u tsiders as b a r b a ria n s , w hich m a d e it ex c ep tio n ally difficult for the
C hinese to a d a p t them selves to th e new d isru p tiv e forces b r o u g h t by the
E u ro p e a n s .
N o r th -e a s t a n d so u th -w est o f C h in a were tw o lands in w hich states
em erged w hich a lte r n a te d betw een d irect su bjection to C h in a a n d a semi­
in d e p e n d e n t tr ib u ta r y status. T hese were K o re a a n d V ietnam . Both
a d o p t e d the C hin ese script, were p ro fo u n d ly influenced by C o n fu c ia n is m
a n d a d o p t e d a g o v e r n m e n t system sim ilar to the Chinese. B uddh ism
ac q u ire d a s tro n g influence in K orea, b u t not in V ietnam .
B eyond K o re a lay th e J a p a n e s e islands. H ere a sta te grew up a r o u n d the
In lan d S ea a n d ex te n d e d its po w er east a n d n o r th o n the ce n tral island of
H o n s h u a t the ex pense o f the a b o rig in a l people o f th e A inu. Its ruler was an
e m p e r o r, w h o was s u p p o se d to be desce nd ed fro m the su n goddess. U n d er
the regent fo r a n in fan t e m p e r o r. Prin ce S h o t o k a (572-622 A D ), the
in fluence o f T ’a n g C h i n a bec am e very strong. T h e J a p a n e s e a d o p t e d the
C hinese script, a n d B u d d h is m also s p re a d rapidly. T h e im p a ct o f C o n fu -
cian d o ctrin es a n d o f C hinese fo rm s o f g o v e r n m e n t were, how ever, less
p ro fo u n d . In J a p a n d u r in g centuries o f in te rn al struggles a certain balance
was established betw een the ce n tral p o w e r o f the shogun ( w h o ruled while
the e m p e r o r was little m o r e t h a n a sym bo l) a n d the regional po w er o f the
nobility. A lrea d y by th e t e n th ce n tu ry a u n if o rm J a p a n e s e lan g u ag e had
d ev e lope d , a n d J a p a n e s e literatu re flo urished. Successful resistance to sea­
b o r n e invasions fro m K o re a by th e arm ies o f K ublai K h a n , in 1274 an d
1281, s tren g th en e d the n a tio n a l coh e sio n o f the J a p a n e s e , t h o u g h civil wars
c o n tin u e d for a n o t h e r th ree h u n d r e d years, reaching a clim a x at th e end of
th e six tee n th century. T h e final victor, T o k u g a w a Ieyasu, m a d e the
s h o g u n a te h e re d ita ry in his family. His successors d elib erately isolated
J a p a n f r o m the rest o f th e w orld fo r tw o centuries. O n their islands the
J a p a n e s e w ere a h o m o g e n e o u s a n d fiercely p a trio tic people, w ith a refined
c u ltu re o f th e ir ow n, a large p o p u la tio n a n d p r o s p e r o u s e c o n o m y , a n d a
c o m p a r a tiv e ly large w a r r i o r class w h ich w as to so m e e x te n t involved in
political life. J a p a n was th u s m o r e sim ilar to a E u r o p e a n sovereign state
th a n was C h in a , a n d the J a p a n e s e h ad w h a t c a n r e a so n a b ly be called a
n a tio n a l con scio u sn e ss.3
It is w o rth noticing th e difference in a ttitu d e s o f the Chinese a n d
J a p a n e s e rulers to foreign religions. B u d d h ism sp rea d to C h in a , a n d thence
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 277

to K o re a a n d J a p a n . T h e C hinese e m p e r o r s t o o k r a th e r th e sa m e a t titu d e
to religions as h ad th e R o m a n e m p e ro rs . P ro v id e d th a t th e leaders o f the
religious c o m m u n ity ac ce p te d th e secular rulers a n d m a d e th e a p p r o p r ia t e
obeisances, a n d p ro v id e d th a t they w ere n o t associa te d w ith a m e n a c in g
foreign pow er, they w ere allow ed to o p e r a te in C h in a. B u d d h ist m o n k s
w ere n o t d a n g e r o u s em issaries o f a n aggressive I n d ia n em pire: th e re was no
a s so cia tio n betw een the new religion a n d m ilita ry th re a ts, as was th e case
betw een C h ristia n E u r o p e a n d Islam in the M id d le Ages. C o n s e q u e n tly ,
B u d d h ism se ld o m suffered p erse cu tio n in C h in a , b u t w as allo w ed to
flourish, a n d to influence a n d be influenced by the estab lish ed le arnin g o f
the C o n fu c ia n s a n d the d o c trin e s o f th e T aoists. All th ree m a d e a lasting
c o n t r i b u tio n to C h in ese civilisation. T h e C h in ese e m p e r o rs a d o p t e d a
sim ilarly to le r a n t a t titu d e to C h ristian ity , seeing n o r e a s o n to fear C h r is ­
tia n m ilitary pow er. T h is t o le r a n c e e n a b le d th e Je su its to a c q u ir e c o n s id e r ­
able influence a t the c o u r t o f P eking, until th e p o p e f o r b a d e th e m to
observ e C hinese rituals. T his, like the refusal by the early C h ristia n s o f
e m p e r o r w o rs h ip in th e R o m a n e m pire, c a u se d th e e m p e r o r t o fo rb id th e ir
activities— th o u g h th e re were n o t m ass-scale p erse cu tio n s o f th e R o m a n
type. Islam, to o , had little im p a c t o n C h in a . T h e p eop les o f ea ste rn
T u rk e s ta n , w h o c a m e f r o m tim e to tim e u n d e r C h in ese sovereignty,
accepted Islam , b u t they m a d e few co n v e rts a m o n g th e C hinese themselves.
T he J a p a n e s e a t titu d e to C h ristia n ity w as different. In th e late six tee n th
centuries P o rtu g u e s e a n d S p a n is h m issionaries, follow ing in th e steps o f S t
F ra n c is X avier, sp rea d th e G o spel in J a p a n w ith g rea t success, until the
sh o g u n s, fearing the c o m b in a t io n o f religious p r o p a g a n d a w ith S p a n ish
m ilitary pow er, a lre a d y installed in the n e ig h b o u rin g P h ilip pine s, p e rse c u t­
ed C h ristia n ity to the p o in t o f e x te r m in a tio n .

European domination
T h e co n c e p t o f ‘E u r o p e a n ’ invasions o f ‘A sia ’ is m isleading. W h a t h a p ­
p ened w as r a th e r th a t p e rso n s fro m E u r o p e a n C h r is tia n la n d s in v a d ed
la nds o f M uslim , H in d u o r B u d d h ist c u ltu re , s o m e tim es as m e rc h a n ts
d e m a n d in g a d v a n ta g e o u s tr a d i n g c o n d itio n s a n d s o m e tim es in arm ies
im pelled by religion a n d by greed to c o n q u e r w ho le k in g d o m s . T h e first
e ffort o f this s o r t left few tra c e s— the c o n q u e s t by th e c r u sa d e rs o f Palestine
a n d S yria in the tw elfth a n d th ir te e n th centuries. M o r e lasting w ere th e
effects o f the w ave o f c o n q u e s t w hich b e g a n in th e six te e n th c e n tury ,
s ta rtin g f r o m R u s sia by la n d a n d f r o m P o r t u g a l by sea. T his effort affected
th ree d istinct regions, w h ich m a y be d e s c rib e d as n o r t h e r n A sia, I n d ia an d
s o u th -e a st Asia. O f these th r e e only th e se co n d w as m o r e t h a n a g e o g r a p h i­
cal expression. T h o u g h th e re was n o single I n d ia n state, th e re was a n
278 Nations and States

I n d ia n cu ltu re, o f w h ic h its m e m b e r s w ere well a w a re , lo c ate d w ith in the

easily d efin a b le s u b c o n tin e n t. By ‘n o r t h e r n A sia’ we m e a n the vast e x p a n se
b e tw e en th e C a u c a su s a n d th e P acific w hich b e c a m e the R u s s ia n em pire.
By ‘s o u th -e a st A sia’ we m e a n n o t only th e so u th -w e st c o r n e r o f th e A sian
m a in la n d b u t th e g re a t semicircle o f island s e x te n d in g f r o m S u m a t r a to
L u z o n . I n this region f o u r g rea t c u ltu res m e t— th e H in d u , Chinese,
B u d d h is t a n d M u slim ; it w as the last tw o w h ich b e c a m e m o s t firmly
e stablish ed, w ith the d istin c tio n b etw e en th e m c o r r e s p o n d in g a p p r o x i ­
m a te ly to t h a t betw een M a la y islanders a n d T h a i o r M o n g o l m a in la n d ers.
T h e R u s s ia n e x p a n s io n in to M u s lim la nds b egan in th e valley o f the
V olga, w h o se p eople in th e six tee n th c e n tu r y w ere T a t a r s a n d o th e r sm aller
peoples, sp e a k in g la n g u ag e s o f th e T u rk i c o r F in n is h type. In 1555 T s a r
I v a n IV c a p tu r e d A s t r a k h a n a t th e m o u t h o f th e V olga. By th e e n d o f the
c e n tu r y R u s sian s h a d p e n e tr a te d f a r in to S ib e ria a n d h a d also e x p a n d e d
s o u th w a r d s to th e m o u n ta in b a r r ie r o f th e C a u c a su s. T h e c o n q u e s t o f
S ib e ria w as sim ilar to t h a t o f N o r t h A m eric a. S m a ll a n d r a th e r prim itive
p eo ples sparsely in h a b ite d a v ast la n d o f forests a n d g re a t rivers. R ussian
fu r tr a d e rs a n d gold p ro sp e c to r s e x p lo re d th e lands, a r m e d ac tio n s
s u b d u e d th e peo ple, a n d in d u e c o u rse th e ts a r ’s officials c a u g h t u p w ith the
colonists: th e a u t o c r a ti c g o v e r n m e n t o f R ussia, w h o se w rit r a n c o n t in u o u s ­
ly (even t h o u g h w ith lon g delays) o v e rla n d , w as ab le to keep its d ista n t
subjects u n d e r c o n tro l in a w ay th a t th e c o n s titu tio n a l g o v e r n m e n t o f
E n g la n d c o u ld n o t d o w ith its co n s titu tio n a lly -m in d e d A m e r ic a n subjects
s e p a r a te d by the ocean.
I n th e C a u c a su s th e R u s sia n s faced a g rea t variety o f peoples, sp e ak in g
la ngu age s widely differing f r o m ea ch o th e r. S o m e w ere C h ristia n , a n d
w elc o m e d th e R u s sia n s as p r o te c to r s a g a in st th e T u r k s o r P ersians; oth ers
w ere f a n a tic a l M u slim s, a n d f o u g h t th e R u s sia n s b rave ly a n d successfully.
T h e k in g d o m o f G eo rg ia , w h o se p eople w ere o f O r t h o d o x C h r is tia n faith,
freely u n ite d w ith R u s sia in 1801. O t h e r region s o f G e o r g ia n o r related
speech, as well as th e n o r t h e r n h a lf o f th e h o m e la n d o f th e Azeri T u rk s
a l o n g th e C a s p ia n S ea, w ere a n n e x e d in 1813. P e r s ia n A r m e n ia w as ceded
to R u s s ia in 1828. T h e A r m e n ia n s b e c a m e loyal subjects o f th e tsars,
b ec au se th e y h o p e d t h a t th e y w o u ld lib e rate th e m u c h la rg e r p o p u la tio n
a n d m o r e extensive la n d s o f th o se A r m e n ia n s w h o w ere subjects o f the
O t t o m a n em pire; b u t this neve r c a m e to pass. I n th e m a in C a u c a su s
m o u n t a i n ra n g e itself th e M u s l im C irc assian s in th e w est a n d C h e c h e n s in
th e ea st w ere n o t finally s u b d u e d u n til 1864 a n d 1859 respectively.
F u r t h e r east, in th e steppes so u th - e a s t o f th e U ra ls, th e T u rk ic - s p e a k in g
B a sh k irs a n d K a z a k h s b e c a m e loosely subject t o th e tsa rs in th e m id ­
e ig h te e n th ce n tu ry , b u t R u s s ia n a u t h o r i t y w as n o t m a d e effective u n til the
1840s. T o th e ir s o u th lived th e T u r k i c a n d I r a n ia n p eoples o f th e C e n tr a l
A sia n m o u n t a i n valleys, a region o f ex tre m e ly a n c ie n t civilisation; these
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 279

p eo ple were n o t n o m a d s like th e K a z a k h s b u t skilled a g r ic u ltu ra l peoples,

w ith such f a m o u s u r b a n centres o f c u ltu re as S a m a r k a n d a n d B o k h a ra .
T hese lands, g enerally k n o w n as T u r k e s ta n , w ere c o n q u e r e d by R u s sia n
arm ies in th e 1860s. T h e process o f R u s sia n e x p a n s io n in C e n tr a l A sia was
c o m p le te d w ith th e a n n e x a t io n o f th e la n d s o f th e T r a n s c a s p ia n T u r c o ­
m a n s betw een 1882 a n d 1885. T w e n ty years before this, R u ssia h a d forced
C h in a into ceding to her, by the T r e a t y o f P ekin g o f 1860, the Pacific
coastline between th e A m u r a n d U ssuri rivers, a t the s o u th e r n tip o f w hich
a R u ssian p o r t was f o u n d e d w ith the a r r o g a n t n a m e o f R u ler o f the E ast
(V ladivostok).
In India the first E u r o p e a n settlem ent w as th e P o rtu g u e se tr a d i n g centre
o f G o a , fo u n d e d in 1510. In th e seven te en th ce n tu ry the English established
them selves in three widely s e p a ra te d tr a d i n g settlem ents: B o m b a y (a gift
fro m their P o rtu g u e se allies), C a lc u tta ( g ra n te d by the Bengal vassal of the
M o g h u l e m p e ro r) a n d M a d ra s (in th e r e m n a n t o f the f o rm e r k in g d o m of
V ijayanagar). In the eig h tee n th c e n tu r y th e F re n c h t o o a p p e a r e d in India.
T h e British4 a n d F re n c h , b itter rivals in E u ro p e , in A m e ric a a n d in India,
s o u g h t to enlist the s u p p o r t o f Ind ian rulers aga in st ea ch other. It was this
w arfa re b etw een th e tw o E u r o p e a n po w ers w hich caused the British East
India C o m p a n y to e x te n d its po w er inland. By the en d o f the c e n tu r y the
th ree British presidencies included a large p a r t of the s u b c o n tin e n t. In the
first half of the n in e tee n th century, th e stro n g e s t r e m a in in g states, the
M a r a t h a C o n fe d e ra c y a n d the Sikh sta te in the P u n ja b , were su b d u e d . In
1858 the E ast In dia C o m p a n y was dissolved, a n d its possessions were ta k e n
o v er by the British cro w n. T h u s th e w h ole o f In dia was d o m in a te d by
Britain: the m ost im p o r ta n t regions w ere directly ruled, while a host of
larger a n d sm aller I n d ian principalities ac ce p te d a British p ro te c to ra te .
In so u th -e a st A sia E u ro p e a n s first a p p e a r e d o n the islands, a n d o n the
co a sts facing them . T h e p ioneering P o rtu g u e s e c a p tu r e d the pow erful
M a la y tr a d in g p rincip ality o f M a lac ca in 1511, a n d th e n e s tablished bases
in the M oluccas. T h e i r s e a-b o rn e em p ire e x te n d e d f r o m p o in ts o n the E ast
A fric an co a st across to C e y lo n a n d east to M a c a o o n th e c o a st o f C h in a,
a n d to th e island o f F o r m o s a . T h e island g r o u p lying s o u th o f F o rm o s a ,
first discovered by M a g e lla n in 1521, a n d n a m e d in 1542 Philip pines afte r
th e king o f S p ain, h a d been m a in ly c o n q u e r e d by the e n d o f th e sixtee nth
c e n tu r y ;5 its in h a b ita n ts w ere co n v e rte d to C h ristia n ity in the follow ing
decades.
T h e n e x t E u r o p e a n in tr u d e rs , the D u tc h , org an ise d in th e N e th e r la n d s
E a s t I n d ia C o m p a n y ( fo u n d e d in 1602), successfully resisted English
a t te m p ts to install them selves in th e islands, a n d forced th e P o rtu g u e s e o u t
o f M a la c c a in 1641 a n d m o s t o f C ey lo n b y 1658. T h e ce n tre o f D u t c h p o w e r
w as th e settlem ent o f B a ta v ia in w estern J a v a , c a p tu r e d by th e g rea t
c o n q u e r o r a n d a d m i n i s t r a t o r J a n P ie te r s z o o n C o e n in 1619. F r o m the m id ­
280 Nations and States

seven te en th ce n tu ry the D u tc h d o m in a te d the w hole arc h ip e la g o , b u t it was

n o t u n til th e second h alf o f th e e ig h tee n th ce n tu ry th a t d irect D u tc h rule
was im p o s ed over the in te r io r o f the islands.
A t th e en d o f th e N a p o le o n ic w ars th e D u tc h recovered th e ir possessions
in th e arch ip ela g o , b u t th e British k ep t C ey lo n a n d es tablished them selves
o n th e M a la y peninsula, w ith th e ir m a in base the city o f S in g a p o re , built on
a n island ceded in 1819 by the su lta n o f J o h o r e . 6
In the P hilippines, M a n ila bec am e a cen tre b o th of c o m m e r c e a n d of
S p a n is h culture, w ith its university fo u n d e d in the sev en te en th century. In
1898 d u r in g the S p a n is h - A m e r ic a n W a r , the island peoples, o r Filipinos,
revo lted u n d e r the le ad e rship of E m ilio A g u in a ld o , b u t the w a r en d e d with
the a n n e x a t io n o f the P h ilippines by the U nited States.
O n th e m a in la n d to the n o r th o f M a la y a the m a in historical line of
division was betw een the V ietnam ese in the east, long subject to C hinese
influence, including C o n f u c ia n is m a n d the C h in ese script ( th o u g h they had
n o t bee n directly ruled by th e C hinese since 939); a n d the peoples west of
the M e k o n g w h o were B udd h ists o f th e H in a y a n a school. T hese were the
K h m ers, w h o se an c e s to rs h ad m a d e th e ir land C a m b o d i a the ce n tre o f a
splendid civilisation, m ainly H in d u b u t partly M a h a y a n a B udd h ist, from
th e n in th to th e th ir te e n th centuries; the T h ais, w h o h ad been o rg an ise d in a
series o f states in the land k n o w n to E u r o p e a n s as S iam , since the late
th ir te e n th c e n tury ; a n d th e B urm ese, w h o had also been org an ise d in a
n u m b e r o f states b etw een A r a k a n a n d the d elta o f the I ra w a d d y since the
m id-e lev e nth century. S ia m a n d the V ietnam ese states h ad c o m p a ra tiv e ly
h o m o g e n e o u s p o p u la tio n s, but in B u r m a th e re were several su bstantia l
sm a lle r religious a n d la n g u ag e g ro u p s in a d d i tio n to the Burmese.
E u r o p e a n c o n ta c t w ith these co u n trie s b eg an in the sixtee nth century.
F re n c h C a th o lic m issionaries were active in s o u th e r n V ietn am o r C oc h in -
C h in a . T he British rulers o f Bengal b e c am e n e ig h b o u rs o f B u rm a . In the
n in e te e n th ce n tu ry b o th co u n tries fell victims to im perial e x p a n sio n .
British c o n q u e s t o f B u r m a was c o m p le te d in three w ars betw een 1826 an d
1886. F r e n c h e x p a n s io n o n the m a in la n d lasted fro m 1862 to the late 1880s,
a n d resulted in the esta b lish m e n t o f th e F re n c h co lo n y o f In d o -C h in a .
S ia m — o r T h a i la n d — r e m a in e d a n in d e p e n d e n t sta te betw een the British
a n d F re n c h zones.

China: decline and revival

C h i n a was never c o n q u e r e d by a E u r o p e a n pow er, t h o u g h p o r tio n s o f its
te rr ito r y were a n n e x e d , a n d indirect d o m i n a t i o n m a d e itself felt in the
e c o n o m ic field.
In the eig h tee n th ce n tu ry E u r o p e a n m e rc h a n ts were perm itted to trad e
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 281

with C h in a th r o u g h C a n to n , subject to n u m e ro u s restrictions a n d e x a c ­

tions by Chinese officials, to w hich th e y a d a p te d them selves w ith som e
success. T h a n k s to these lim ita tio n s o f c o n t a c t the C h in ese em p ire was
effectively insulated fro m th e overseas enterprises o f the E u ro p e a n s . T h ere
was no m eeting o f m inds. T o the C hinese, the E u ro p e a n s w ere im p u d e n t
b a r b a r ia n intruders. T h e E u ro p e a n s felt entitled to security in the p e r f o r ­
m a n ce o f their peaceful tasks, a n d believed th a t they were n o t ju s t m a k in g
m o n e y b u t b ring ing civilisation to th e Chinese. E ach side rem a ined
ig n o r a n t o f th e other. In p a rtic u la r th e C hinese g o v e r n m e n t w as u n a w a re
o f the g ro w ing d isp a rity b etw een its o w n m ilitary a n d e c o n o m ic resources
a n d th o se of the E u ro p e a n s .
In the 1830s the British g o v e rn m e n t b e c am e involved in a series of
q u arrels a b o u t tr a d e rs ’ rights. T h e m ost im p o r t a n t co n c ern ed the t r a d e in
o p iu m , highly p ro fitab le to British m e rc h a n ts , w hich th e C hinese g o v e r n ­
m e n t decided, n o t less fro m c o n c e rn fo r its o w n e c o n o m ic a d v a n ta g e th a n
f ro m m o ra l revulsion, to suppress. T h e result was a n A n g lo -C h in e se w ar
f ro m 1839 to 1842. T h e C h inese were u n a b le to d efend th e ir coasts ag a in st
British w arships, a n d had to m a k e peace b etw een 1842 an d 1844, tr a n sfe r­
ring the island o f H o n g k o n g to British sovereignty a n d o p e n in g five
C h in ese p o rts to British m e rc h an ts. O th e r E u r o p e a n g o v e rn m e n ts, as well
as th e U nited S tate s a n d J a p a n , o b ta in e d sim ilar rights. T h e great in te r n a ­
tio n a l settlem ents in S h a n g h a i bec am e sm all m o d e rn states inside the
C hinese em pire, a d m in iste r e d by foreigners b u t em p lo y in g th o u s a n d s of
Chinese. T r a d e in C hin ese co a sta l w aters a n d u p C hinese rivers passed
largely to foreigners. T h e Chinese g o v e r n m e n t b ec am e in d e b ted to foreign
b a n k s , a n d foreigners staffed th e Im perial M a ritim e C u s to m s S ervice.7
D u rin g the first h alf of the ce n tu ry E u r o p e a n C h ristia n m issionaries,
b o th P r o te s ta n t a n d C a th o lic , b eg an to o p e r a te in C h in a , a n d afte r the
O p iu m W a r they f o u n d th eir ta sk m u c h easier. A m o n g th o se influenced by
a C h in ese tra n s la tio n o f th e Bible was a fru s tra te d s c h o la r w h o h a d failed in
th e e x a m in a tio n s in H o n g k o n g . His n a m e w as H u n g H siu -ch ’u a n , a n d he
c a m e f ro m the H a k k a lan g u ag e g ro u p . H e b e c am e the leader o f the so-
called T ’aip in g R ebellion, w hich c o nvulsed all C h in a in the 1850s.
O n e cause o f the rebellion was the m isery b r o u g h t a b o u t by the shifting
o f the course o f th e Yellow River, w hich ca u se d m assive loss o f life th r o u g h
f lo ods a n d fam ine, a n d m a d e millions m o r e hom eless, se n d in g off a n influx
o f refugees into s o u th e r n C h in a. T h e rebellion sta rted by H u n g in K w angsi
p rovince in J u ly 1850 was in the tr a d i tio n o f the g rea t p o p u l a r revolts w hich
h a d b r o u g h t earlier C hinese d y nasties to a n end. It also h a d a n a tio n a l
c h a ra c te r, being directed a g a in st the M a n c h u rulers o f C h in a , m u c h as th e
revolt o f 1368 w hich es tablished th e M in g d y n a s ty h a d been directed
ag a in st th e M o n g o l rulers. It also h ad a religious c h a r a c te r , as H u n g t o o k
the title o f H eavenly King, p ro cla im in g th e G re a t Peace ( T'ai-ping). His
282 Nations and States

do ctrin es ow ed a g o o d d ea l to C h ristianity, a n d he p r o cla im e d him self the

H ea v en ly Y o u n g e r B r o th e r o f Christ. His policy o f social re v o lu tio n owed
so m e o f its ideas to th o se o f th e rad ic al r e fo rm e rs o f H a n a n d S u n g tim es,
W a n g M a n g (9-23 A D ) a n d W a n g A n -s h ih (1069-74). T h e rebellion was at
first very successful. In large p a r ts o f th e em p ire th e a p p a r a t u s o f g o v e rn ­
m e n t c r u m p le d up. T h e T ’aip ings fo r m o r e t h a n a d ec ad e held a vast a re a
o n b o t h sides o f the m id d le a n d low er Y angtse, a n d h a d their ca p ita l in
N an k in g .
In the end how ever th e C h ’ing d y n a s ty survived. T his w as largely d u e to
th e efforts o f tw o high officials w h o o rg an ise d efficient arm ies over a period
o f years: T sen g K u o -fa n (1811-72) in H u n a n p rovince a n d Li H u n g -c h a n g
(1823-1901) in A nhw ei. It w as also d u e to the help o f a force o f E u r o p e a n
m ercenaries, led first by th e A m e r ic a n F re d e ric k T o w n s e n d W a r d a n d th e n
by th e S c o ts m a n C h a rles G o r d o n f r o m 1862 to 1864. In J u ly 1864 the
c a p tu r e o f N a n k in g by C h in ese g o v e r n m e n t t r o o p s b r o u g h t the rebellion to
a n end. It h a d cost m a n y millions o f C h in ese dea d.
W hile th e T ’aiping s w ere still at the height o f th e ir pow er, fu rth e r
q u arrels betw een the C h in ese a n d E u r o p e a n g o v e r n m e n ts h a d led to a
f u r th e r w ar, o f Britain a n d F ra n c e jo in tly a g a in st C h in a , w ith in te rm itte n t
m ilita ry o p e r a tio n s f r o m 1856 to 1860. In O c to b e r 1860 the allied forces
e n tered P eking. In th e n e x t years eleven m o r e tr e a ty p o r ts w ere open e d to
E u r o p e a n traders. T h e R u s sia n g o v e r n m e n ts m a d e use o f C h i n a ’s w e a k ­
ness to o b ta in large te rrito rie s betw een the conflu e n ce o f th e Ussuri a n d
A m u r rivers a n d th e Pacific.
D u r i n g th e n e x t th ir ty years a n a t t e m p t w as m a d e , at first u n d e r the
le ad e rsh ip o f T sen g K u o -fa n , to rep a ir th e d a m a g e o f t h e T ’a ip in g rebellion
a n d to m a k e th e g o v e r n m e n t o f C h in a m o r e efficient a n d m o r e m o d e rn
w ith o u t a b a n d o n in g th e m a in principles o f C o n f u c ia n d o c trin e or b u r e a u ­
cratic stru ctu re , a n d w ith o u t a d o p t in g p ern icious E u r o p e a n ideas. It
lo o k e d as if p rogress h a d bee n m ad e; b u t the fightin g w hich b r o k e o u t in
K o r e a in 1894 aga in st th e J a p a n e s e b r o u g h t a b itter rea w a k en in g . T his
d isa stro u s w a r in tr o d u c e d the perio d w h e n C h i n a f o u n d itself a t th e m ercy
o f the E u r o p e a n p o w ers a n d th e ir J a p a n e s e pupil; w h e n railways w ere built
a n d policed f o r the a d v a n ta g e of R u s sia n e m p ire-b u ild e rs a n d th e ir F re n c h
b a n k e r s ;8 w h e n C h i n a ’s alliance w ith R u s sia b r o u g h t n o t p ro te c tio n but
e x p lo ita tio n ; w h e n R u s s ia n a n d J a p a n e s e arm ies f o u g h t ea ch o th e r o n
C hinese soil w ith o u t r e g a rd fo r the g o v e r n m e n t o f C h in a ; w h e n foreign
business c o m m u n itie s in S h a n g h a i lo r d e d it over Chinese; a n d w h en the
only r e a so n w hy C h in a w as n o t entirely o cc upie d by fo re ig n po w ers was
t h a t the o p e r a tio n w o u ld hav e cost t h e m t o o m uch.
T h e r e w ere a t te m p ts a t reform . T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t w as th a t o f K ’an g
Yu-wei, a C a n to n e s e w h o tried to in te rp re t C o n fu c iu s so as to ju stify the
in tr o d u c tio n o f w estern political in stitutions, in o r d e r to s tr e n g th e n C h in a
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 283

in the face o f its aggressors. T h o u g h he co n v in ce d th e y o u n g e m p e r o r, his

perio d o f r e fo rm lasted only ‘a h u n d r e d d a y s’ in 1898, a n d he was
o v e r th r o w n by the E m p ress D o w a g e r T zu-hsi. S he e n c o u r a g e d th e activi­
ties o f a secret society w hich bec am e widely k n o w n as the ‘B o x e rs’.
O riginally b o th a n t i - M a n c h u a n d a n ti-fo reign, it c o n c e n t ra te d its h a tre d
only aga in st the E u r o p e a n s , a n d w as ab le to win w ide p o p u la r s u p p o r t
a m o n g the p eople o f n o r th C h in a, w h ich in these years suffered heavily
f ro m b o th d r o u g h t a n d floods. In 1900 the Boxers beseiged th e E u r o p e a n
a n d J a p a n e s e em bassies a n d c o m m u n itie s in P eking a n d T ie ntsin, w hich
led to a j o in t punitive ex p e d itio n by a r m e d forces of the E u r o p e a n pow ers
a n d f u rth e r e c o n o m ic concessions by C h in a . T h e defeat o f R u ssia by J a p a n
in the w a r o f 1904-5 on C hinese soil merely s u b stitu te d J a p a n e s e for
R u ssian p r e d o m i n a n c e in n o r th C h in a.
F r o m the 1870s o n w a r d s y o u n g C h in ese began to go a b r o a d to stu dy, in
A m eric a a n d E u ro p e a n d increasingly in J a p a n . In 1906 there w ere over
13,000 C hinese stu d e n ts in J a p a n , o f w h o m only som e h u n d r e d s c o m p le te d
serious studies, b u t all o f w h o m were su bjected to new c u ltu ra l a n d political
influences. In C h in a in 1905 th e old e x a m in a tio n s system w as abo lish e d , as
being in c o m p atib le w ith a m o d e rn sy stem o f schools, th e need fo r w hich
was n o w officially a d m itte d . In practice th e c re a tio n of a m o d e rn e d u c a tio n
system, despite som e initial successes, was b o u n d to be a long process, a n d
in the s h o rt ru n th e effect o f a b o lish in g th e old system w as n o t so m u c h to
im p ro v e as to d islocate th e m e a n s o f social m obility. T h o s e w h o h ad
studied a b r o a d were the m ain source o f new ideas, a v arying m ix tu re of
w estern-style liberalism, n a tio n a lism a n d m a teria l progress. T h e m a n w h o
em erged as the leader o f a new d e m o c r a tic tre n d was S u n Y at-sen (1866-
1925), the son o f a p e a sa n t fro m the M a c a o are a, w h o sp e n t m a n y years in
the U nited S tates a n d J a p a n , a n d visited E u ro p e . S u n becam e a p ro fe ssio n ­
al rev o lu tio n ary , a n d org an ise d a n u m b e r o f unsuccessful risings in the
so u th , b acked by fin ancial help fro m overseas C hinese, m a in ly in H o n g ­
k o n g a n d S in g ap o re. O f the successive n a m e s given by h im to the political
g ro u p s w hich he f o u n d e d , th a t w hich b ec am e p e rm a n e n tly k n o w n in C h in a
a n d o utside was K u o m i n t a n g ( N a tio n a l P e o p le ’s P arty ). T h e f a m o u s ‘th ree
principles o f th e p e o p le ’, w hich S u n en u n c ia te d as th e essence o f his policy,
have bee n c o n v e n tio n a lly tr a n sla te d as N a tio n a lism , D e m o c r a c y a n d
P e o p le ’s Livelihood. E ssentially all C h in ese radicals h a d a d o u b le aim: to
free C h i n a fro m E u r o p e a n d o m in a tio n a n d to reo rg an ise C hinese public
life. S ocial re f o rm a n d n a tio n a l in d e p e n d e n c e were in se p arab le in th eir
m inds: the p h r a se ‘C hinese n a tio n a lis m ’ does n o t satisfactorily describe
th e m , b u t n o b e tte r n a m e h as been fo u n d .
A n ti- M a n c h u feeling grew, a n d w as b y n o m e a n s co n fin e d to the
s o u th e rn provinces. A n a r m y m u tin y in W u c h a n g o n 10 O c to b e r 1911 set
o ff revolts in th e so u th e rn , ce n tral a n d n o r th -w e s te rn provinces, a n d a
284 Nations and States

p ro v isio n a l rep u b lican g o v e r n m e n t was set u p in N a n king. S u n Yat-sen

re tu rn e d to C h in a in J a n u a r y 1912 to be elected president; b u t the real
po w e r was in the h a n d s o f the m o st e m in e n t Chinese general, Y u a n S hih-
kai. Y u a n failed to m a k e him self e m p e r o r, a n d died in 1916. D u rin g the
nex t d ec ad e th e m ain force in C h in a w ere a n u m b e r o f rival generals
(‘w a r lo r d s ’), each o f w h o m had his o w n a r m y a n d te rrito ria l base. T h ey
a ltern ately th r e a te n e d ea ch o th e r o r jo in e d to g e th e r in t e m p o r a r y c o m b in a ­
tions to direct the n o m in a l g o v e r n m e n t in Peking.
M e an w h ile r e f o rm in g a n d r e v o lu tio n a ry ideas w ere sp re a d in g in the
e d u c a te d class. T h e m a in intellectual centre was P e k in g N a tio n a l U niversi­
ty, w ho se c h a n c e llo r f r o m 1917 was T s ’ai Y u an-pei, a classical sc h o lar of
liberal in clinatio n w h o h a d been m inister of e d u c a tio n in 1912. U n d e r his
p r o te c tio n tw o o u ts t a n d in g sc ho lars m a d e them selves felt. O n e was H u
S hih, a fo rm e r pupil o f J o h n D ew ey at C o l u m b ia U niversity in N ew Y ork,
w h o was the chief s p o k e s m a n for the m o d e rn is a tio n o f the la nguage. He
w ished to replace th e classical style, with its artificially rigid use of the
script, very difficult to u n d e r s ta n d , by a freer syle, m o r e closely related to
the sp o k e n la nguage, k n o w n as pai-hua. T h e m o d e l was th e p o p u la r novels
o f th e late M in g a n d early C h ’ing eras, w hich the C o n f u c ia n sc ho lars had
affected to despise as being in vulgar taste. T h e c a m p a ig n was successful,
a n d a flourishin g new literatu re b egan to a p p e a r in periodicals using the
pai-hua. T his sustained a c tio n by H u S h ih b o re lasting fruit, a n d was felt
lon g afte r the m o d e ra te ly liberal ideas o f its c h a m p io n h ad been fo rg o tten
in C hina. T he second o u ts t a n d in g figure was the d e a n o f letters o f the
P ek ing U niversity, C h ’en I u-hsiu, w h o was m ainly interested in political
p h ilo s o p h y , a n d r e sp o n d e d w ith e n th u s ia s m to the ideas inspiring the
Bolshevik R e v o lu tio n in R u ssia as so o n as they filtered th r o u g h to C hina.
O n 4 M a y 1919 th e re w ere big s tu d e n t d e m o n s tr a ti o n s in P ek in g to
p r o te s t a g a in st the decision o f the P aris P eac e C o n fe re n c e to a p p r o v e o f the
o c c u p a tio n by th e J a p a n e s e o f p a r t o f S h a n t u n g province^ w hich had
fo rm e rly belonged to G e r m a n y . T his M a y F o u r t h Incident triggered off
n a tio n a list d e m o n s tr a tio n s , press c a m p a ig n s a n d a n ti- J a p a n e s e trad e
b o y c o tts in o th e r cities, a n d sta rted a stro n g e r n a tio n a list m o v e m en t, with
d e e p e r p o p u la r s u p p o r t, t h a n h a d yet bee n seen. S u n Y at-sen was able to
estab lish a g o v e r n m e n t in C a n to n . So viet R u s sia n m ilitary a n d political
advisers helped to m a k e the K u o m in ta n g a m o r e efficient political in stru ­
m e n t. S u n Y at-sen c o lla b o r a te d , u ntil his d e a th in 1925, w ith the newly
f o rm e d C h in ese C o m m u n is t P a rty , led by C h ’en T u-hsiu. A new arm y , led
by G en e ra l C h ia n g K ai-shek, m o v e d n o r th , a n d at first K u o m in ta n g an d
c o m m u n is ts , th o u g h th e y h ad previously clashed several tim es a n d basical­
ly d istru sted each o th e r, m a rc h e d to g e th er. T h is c o o p e r a tio n c a m e to a n
en d in 1927 w h en C h ia n g K ai-shek su p p ressed th e c o m m u n is ts in S h a n g ­
hai. W h a t was left of c o m m u n is t a r m e d forces retired to m o u n ta in o u s parts
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 285

o f K iangsi province.
F o r th e n ex t ten years the g re a te r p a rt o f C h in a was at least n o m in a lly
u n d e r the rule o f the K u o m in ta n g . C h i a n g ’s aim . like th a t o f K em a l in
T u r k e y a n d Reza in Iran, was to m o d e rn is e a n d stre n g th e n C h in a , to
d ev elop industries a n d schools, to im p r o v e the c o n d itio n s in w hich th e
p eo ple lived a n d to b rin g th e m into th e process o f g o v e rn m e n t. O n b alan ce
he failed. Firstly, the K u o m in ta n g never really to o k o v er C hina: c o n s id e r a ­
ble regions w ere left u n d e r the c o n tro l o f regional w a rlo rd s w ith w h o m
C h ia n g had to c o m p ro m ise . S econ dly, his a tte n t io n was largely c o n c e n t r a t­
ed o n im p ro v e m e n ts a t th e t o p o f th e g o v e r n m e n t m a chine , fo r w hich he
recruited bo th W e ste rn advisers a n d C hin ese tra in e d in the m o s t m o d e rn
W e ste rn skills. M a n y o f these m en h ad excellent aim s, b u t they h a d to o
little c o n ta c t w ith the m iddle levels o f th e b u rea u cracy , a n d even less w ith
the people at large, least o f all w ith the p easants. T h ird ly , C h ia n g ’s
preference was for m ilitary h ie ra rc h y a n d m ilitary m ethods: he w ou ld give
o rd e rs, a n d ex p e ct th e m to be carried o u t, but never m a ste re d th e skills o f
persu a sio n , a n d o f in v olvem ent o f large n u m h e r s as willing e x e c u ta n ts of
policy, essential to civil g o v e rn m e n t. C h i a n g was a co n serv ativ e at heart.
H e believed th a t C h i n a sh o u ld be ruled by the elite o f literati a n d gentry,
b u t he did wish to m a k e the elite u n d e r s ta n d a n d use m o d e r n m e th o d s of
g o v ern m e n t. In practice, m o st o f th e m learned little if a n y th in g , a n d little
ch anged. S o m e th in g like a m o d e rn C h in ese business class b egan to a p p e a r
in the cities, b u t it to o was n o t averse to using tr a d itio n a l m e th o d s to enrich
itself. Finally, C h i a n g h ad the m is fo rtu n e to have his c o u n t r y a t ta c k e d by
the J a p a n e s e , in M a n c h u r ia in 1931, in N o r t h C h in a a few years la ter, a n d
a n all-out invasion in 1937, w hich led to th e loss of all th e richest p a r ts o f
the c o u n try a n d th e retrea t o f the g o v e r n m e n t to C h u n g k in g , in the rem o te
p rovince o f S zechw an. Inevitably, a m u c h higher p r o p o r t i o n o f m u c h
redu ced reso urces h ad to be d ev o te d to m ilitary p u rp o ses, a n d isolation
f ro m the rest o f th e w orld, e x c ep t by in a d e q u a te air c o n t a c t th r o u g h
B u rm a , still f u rth e r h a m p e r e d e c o n o m ic o r social progress.
M e an w h ile the C h in ese c o m m u n is ts em erged as a s tr o n g rival. R e ­
g r o u p e d u n d e r M a o T se-tu n g , afte r th e ‘L o n g M a r c h ’ fro m 1934 to 1936
w hich led th e m fro m Kiangsi west a n d th e n n o r th o ver a six -th o u sa n d -m ile
jo u r n e y to Y e n a n in S hensi prov ince, th e y there set up a state o f th e ir own.
By a c o m b in a t io n o f co e rcio n a n d p ersu a sio n , by low ering land rents a n d
d e ve loping schools a n d p r o p a g a n d a , a n d by fighting the J a p a n e s e in
guerrilla actions, th e c o m m u n is ts w o n g ro w in g s u p p o r t f r o m th e peasants,
a n d d rew m o r e a n d m o r e people in to political life o n th e ir term s. T h e ir
a c tio n sp rea d f a r o u tsid e th e S hensi region. ‘L ib e ra te d a r e a s ’ w ere e s ta b ­
lished b etw e en th e m a in lines o f c o m m u n ic a ti o n , w h ich r e m a in e d in
J a p a n e s e hands. By 1945 th e c o m m u n is t s claim ed to h a v e nin e tee n bases
w ith a civil p o p u la tio n betw een 70,000,000 a n d 90,000,000, a n d to have
286 Nations and States

a r o u n d a m illion p ersons u n d e r arm s. T h e c o m m u n is ts f o u g h t m ore

actively a n d c o n tin u o u sly a g a in st the J a p a n e s e t h a n did th e C h u n g k in g
g o v e r n m e n t in the 1940s. T h is active resistance w o n w id esp re ad s u p p o r t
a m o n g th e p ea sa n ts a n d a m o n g intellectuals, especially p e r h a p s a m o n g the
stu d e n ts o f P ek in g U niversity, w hich was o p e r a tin g u n d e r the rule of a
J a p a n e s e - s p o n s o r e d C hinese g o v e r n m e n t, set up in rivalry to the C h u n g ­
k ing g o v e rn m e n t. Essentially, the c o m m u n is ts were m obilising to their
p u rp o se s th e C hinese n a tio n a l feeling w hich J a p a n e s e c o n q u e st had
p r o v o k e d , w ere claim ing a m o n o p o ly o f p a trio tism , a n d were co m p letin g
the process o f tr a n s f o r m a t io n o f the C hinese fro m a civilisation into a
n a tio n . T h e process in m a n y ways resem bled th a t w hich was going on,
p ara llel a n d w ith o u t significant m u tu a l influences, in o ccu pied Yugoslavia.
W h e n J a p a n was defeated in 1945 the rivalry betw een K u o m in ta n g an d
c o m m u n is ts grew into a large-scale civil w ar, w hich the c o m m u n is ts won.
T h e r e a fte r C h in a becam e a m a jo r m ilitary p o w e r (as was s h o w n in the
K o r e a n W a r in 1951) a n d a n ind ustrial pow er. In a w o rld united by
c o m m u n ic a tio n s as it had never previously been in C h in ese history, C h in a
was a g a in a great pow er. C h in a was also very vuln e ra b le, having on its vast
w estern a n d n o r th e r n frontiers the Sov iet em pire, ruled by ruthless d espots
o f im m e n se a r r o g a n c e a n d self-righteousness, an d to its east a n e c o n o m i­
cally resurgent J a p a n , a n d bey o n d it th e u n p re d ic ta b le but ex trem ely
p o w erfu l U nited States.
L o o k in g b ack at C hinese history, the te m p ta tio n to pay m o re a tte n tio n
to the c o n tin u ity th a n t o th e b rea ches in it is a lm o s t irresistible. T he
Chinese is th e only one o f the great em p ires w hich im p o sed a single culture
o n th e vast m a jo r ity o f its subjects a n d m a in ta in e d , w ith only a few short
intervals o f con fu sio n , its sovereignty Over the sam e te rr ito r y for three
t h o u s a n d years u p to th e prese nt time.
A t th e b e ginning o f th e tw e n tie th c e n tu ry it lo o k e d as if this great an d
d u r a b le civilisation h a d c o m e to a n end; th a t C h i n a w o u ld , like the
O t t o m a n em pire, be a d e p e n d e n c y o f the m o d e r n pow ers; th a t huge ch u n k s
o f its te rr ito r y w o u ld be lo p p e d off. F irst c a m e the E u r o p e a n sc ra m b le for
concessions, th e n J a p a n ’s G r e a te r E ast A sia C o - P r o s p e r i ty S p h ere, th e n
th e rh e to ric in th e 1950s a b o u t th e A m e r ic a n C e n tu r y , th e n th e m o n o lith ic
S ocialist C a m p led by S talin, the T e a c h e r o f G en iu s o f all P rogressive
H u m a n ity . In each o f these stages, g re a t benefits w ere p r o m ise d to the
C h in ese p eople by its a r r o g a n t self-con stituted p r o te c to rs. It m a y be arg u e d
t h a t the b rief p erio d o f A m e r ic a n a s c e n d a n c y differed f r o m th e o th e rs in so
far as F ra n k lin R oosevelt tru ly believed t h a t a r e n a sc e n t C h in a w o u ld
b e c o m e one o f th e Big F o u r (o r m o r e t h a n fo u r) albeit m a d e over in a n
A m e ric a n image.
N o n e o f these b lu e p rin ts was p u t into practice. L o o k in g b ac k f r o m the
1970s one m a y see the h u n d r e d years f r o m the O p iu m W a r to the tr iu m p h
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 287

o f M a o T se -tu n g as a n o t h e r o f th o se tr o u b le d in te rludes w hich have

b r o u g h t suffering a n d h u m ilia tio n to the C hinese people, yet c a n n o t
d es tro y C hinese civilisation. M a o m a d e C h i n a ag a in one o f th e m a in
centres o f p o w er in the w orld. H e f o u n d e d n o t a new h e re d ita ry d y n a s ty b u t
a new em pire, based o n a political elite, differing less rad ically th a n its
m e m b e rs a n d c o n t e m p o r a r y observers t h o u g h t f r o m t h a t o f p as t dynasties.
T h e fu tu re o f the elite a n d o f the em pire, how ever, w ere full o f u n c e rta in -

T h e c o n tin u ity sh o u ld n o t blind the o b se rv e r to the ch a nge. E u r o p e a n

ideologies— b o th n a tio n a lis m a n d c o m m u n i s m — had left th e ir m a rk .
E v e rything was n o w d o n e in the n a m e o f th e people, w hich u n d e r earlier
dynasties h ad been a passive factor. T h e K u o m in ta n g h alf-h ea rtedly, a n d
the c o m m u n is ts effectively, set them selves to m obilise h u n d r e d s o f millions
o f p ea sa n ts a n d w o rk e rs , to d r a w th e m into political life. T h u s it m a y be
arg u e d th a t th e E u r o p e a n E n lig h te n m e n t m a d e itself indirectly felt, a n d the
C hinese bec am e a n atio n . T h e social s tr u c tu re a n d the cultu re o f this n a tio n
was also tr a n s f o r m e d by th e rev o lu tio n s w hich th e c o m m u n is ts in tro d u c e d ,
a n d repeated in v a rio u s form s. T h e w ho le C o n f u c ia n heritage w as r e p u ­
d ia te d , m a n y historical d o c u m e n ts a n d w o rk s o f a r t were destro y e d , a n d
the p rinte d a n d b r o a d c a s t w o rd a n d the sc h ools were used to in d o c tr in a te
ev eryone with M a o ’s in te r p re ta tio n o f M a rx is m -L e n in ism . O nly the
id e o g ra p h ic script, t h o u g h m odified, re m a in e d , as a special b a r r ie r betw een
C h in a a n d the rest o f the w orld exc ept J a p a n a n d K orea.

The Japanese
U n d e r th e T o k u g a w a s h o g u n a te , fro m th e begin n in g of th e seventeenth
c e n tu ry until the m id -n in e tee n th , J a p a n was a lm o s t c om pletely isolated
fr o m the rest o f the w orld. H ow ever, o n these islands th e re ex isted a n
efficient system o f g o v e r n m e n t, a r a th e r p r o s p e r o u s e c o n o m y a n d a
flourishin g a n d h o m o g e n e o u s n a tio n a l culture. P olitical p o w e r was based
o n b alan c e b etw een th e s h o g u n , w ith his ca p ita l at E d o ( m o d e r n T o k y o )
a n d the ‘o u te r ’ daim yo, the big a ris to c r a tic families w h o co n tro lle d the
w estern, so u th e rn a n d n o r t h e r n regions. T h e daim yo h ad th e ir castle to w n s
a n d their p e a s a n t subjects. T h ey w ere served by th e lesser nobility or
w a r rio r class (samurai), w h o n u m b e re d p e r h a p s as m u c h as 6 per cent of
th e w ho le p o p u la tio n . T h e sam urai did n o t often have t o d o a n y fighting,
b u t th e y w ere b r o u g h t u p o n a co d e o f m ilita ry virtues, the w ay o f the
w a r rio r ( bushido ). T h e y w ere n o t la n d o w n e rs: th e y resided in th e castle
to w n , a n d received r eg u la r incom es, m e a s u r e d in a q u a n t ity o f rice
c o n trib u te d by the p ea sa n ts. T h e daim yo w ere obliged to send m e m b e r s of
their families to E d o , as h ostag es to th e ir g o o d b e h a v io u r , a n d to com e
288 Nations and States

th e re them selves for p a r t o f th e year. T h is system o f ‘a l te r n a te a t te n d a n c e ’

(sankin k o ta i ) involved th e m in large ex p e n d itu re s , w hich pro v id ed a
d e m a n d for the services o f m e rc h a n ts . N o m in a lly the m e rc h a n ts w ere the
lowest in social esteem o f the f o u r officially recognised classes o f J a p a n e s e
society, r a n k in g below p e a sa n ts a n d artisan s. In reality m a n y o f th e m were
ab le to a c q u ire g reat w ea lth a n d c o n s id erab le political influence. E do, a n d
to a lesser e x te n t the sm aller castle to w n s, were cen tres o f crafts, p a inting
a n d literatu re. T o k u g a w a J a p a n also h a d a n u n u su a lly developed system of
schools. It seems possible th a t by the early n in e te e n th c e n tu ry s o m e th in g
like 40 p e r cent o f male c hildren in J a p a n were literate, w hich was a higher
p r o p o r ti o n n o t only th a n in C h in a b u t also th a n in m o st E u ro p e a n
co u n tries at th e time.
F r o m th e begin n in g o f th e n in e tee n th c e n tu ry th e rulers o f J a p a n becam e
a w a re o f g ro w in g e x te rn a l pressu re to b r e a k d o w n th e ir isolation. T he
D u tc h , w h o h a d been the strongest E u r o p e a n p o w e r in th e F a r East in the
seven te en th c e ntury, a n d w h o h ad been allo w ed by the s h o g u n s to keep a
tr a d in g sta tio n in N a g a sa k i h a r b o u r — th e o nly a u th o ris e d presence of
foreigners in J a p a n — w ere n o w m u c h less im p o r ta n t. T h e g ro w in g pres­
sures c a m e f r o m Russia in th e n o r th a n d fro m Britain a n d A m eric a in the
east a n d so uth. T h e first E u r o p e a n a t te m p ts to o p e n r eg u la r relations were
rejected. T h e decisive effo rt w as m a d e by the g o v e r n m e n t o f th e U nited
S tate s, w h ich sent a fleet u n d e r C o m m o d o r e M a tth e w P erry to E d o Bay in
J u ly 1853. O n his r e tu r n in F e b r u a r y 1854 n e g o tia tio n s were resum e d, and
d u r in g the n e x t five years treaties were m a d e w ith Russia, Britain, F ra n ce
a n d th e N e th e r la n d s reg u la tin g f u tu re c o m m e rc ia l a n d d ip lo m a tic rela­
tions.
By a c c e p tin g th e fore igners’ d e m a n d s th e s h o g u n a n d his g o v e rn m e n t
(the Bakufu ) h a d in c u rre d o d iu m fro m the m o st p a trio tic elem ents, as
tr a i to rs to th e n a t io n a l cause. T h e r e w as a lre a d y c o n s id e ra b le internal
d isc o n te n t w ith th e Bakufu, f r o m th e daim yo w h o w a n te d to free th e m ­
selves f r o m th e shackles o f th e sankin kotai system , a n d fro m b o th samurai
a n d m e rc h a n ts w h o w ere socially f ru s tra te d in v ario u s ways. T hese
d ifferent form s o f d isc o n te n t b e c a m e increasingly fused in the 1850s. T he
Bakufu w as th e object o f h a tre d , a n d resistance to the foreigners was the
aim . A t the sa m e tim e, th e re w as a g ro w in g feeling o f n a t io n a l unity in the
face o f e x te rn a l d an g e r, a n d o f a need f o r a rallying p o in t for n a tio n a l
resistance, w hich the Bakufu c o u ld n o lo nge r p rovide. T h e a n s w e r was
fo u n d in the e x a lta tio n o f the e m p e r o r, w h o m it b e c a m e th e o bject o f the
e x tre m e p a trio ts to resto re to his rightful p o sition , u s u r p e d by th e T o k u g a -
wa. T h e e m p e r o r, d esce nded directly f r o m th e sun-goddess, was th e very
essence o f the special J a p a n e s e ‘n a tio n a l polity’, o r kokutai. T h is becam e
the k ey-w ord o f the n a tio n a list ideology, c o m p o u n d e d o f C o n fu c ia n is m
a n d S h in to religious beliefs, w hich in ch a n g in g f o rm s d o m in a te d the
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 289

J a p a n e s e scene fo r m o r e t h a n eighty years.

T h e p a trio ts ’ pla n o f a c tio n was s u m m e d u p in the slogan ' H o n o u r th e
E m p e ro r , expel the b a r b a r ia n s ’. T h e seco nd p a r t o f th e pla n p ro v e d h a r d e r
to p u t into effect th a n th e first. T he ce n tre o f resistance to the foreigners
was in th e tw o m a in ‘o u te r ’ daim yo d o m a in s o f C h o s h u (in w estern
H o n s h u ) a n d S a ts u m a (in s o u th e rn K yushu). In J u n e 1863 C h o s h u forts
fired on a n A m e r ic a n ship, a n d so m e days later F re n c h a n d D u tc h ships
were a ttac k ed . In S a ts u m a te rrito ry a British subject was killed in 1862, the
au th o ritie s failed to ta k e ac tio n aga in st his m u rd e re rs, a n d in A u g u st 1863
th e re was fighting betw een British ships a n d S a ts u m a ships a n d la n d
batteries, en d in g w ith th e d e s tru c tio n o f p a r t o f th e city o f K a g o s h im a by
the British. These incidents show ed the J a p a n e s e th a t they c ould n o t resist
the foreign pow ers. Instea d , th e tw o daim yo g o v e r n m e n ts built u p m ilitary
forces o f their ow n, so m e o f w hich w ere c o m m a n d e d by y o u n g J a p a n e s e
w h o h ad been sent to stu d y in the W est. In J a n u a r y 1868 S a ts u m a a n d
C h o s h u forces seized K y o to , the a n c ie n t ca p ital, a n d p ro c la im e d the
R e s to r a tio n o f the E m p e r o r (w hose reign w as given the n a m e o f Meiji) a n d
the d e p o s itio n o f the sh o g u n . T h e re follow ed a civil w ar, in w hich the last
T o k u g a w a forces su rre n d e r e d in M a y 1869.
T h e Meiji R e s to r a tio n in tr o d u c e d a radically new e ra in J a p a n e s e
history. T he rep la ce m en t o f s h o g u n by e m p e r o r was o f n o m o r e th a n
sym bolic significance. W h a t was essential w as th a t a m o d e r n state, based
o n E u r o p e a n m odels, was set up, a n d th a t all the old legal privileges were
ab olished. T h e daim yo d o m a in s a n d th e T o k u g a w a lands were split up in to
prefectures; sam urai stipends were a b o lish e d in re tu r n fo r a lu m p su m in
c o m p e n sa tio n ; a m o d e rn a r m y was based o n co n s crip tio n ; the m a in source
o f revenue was a new u n if o rm land ta x ; a n d a system o f schools a n d
universities o f a W e ste rn ty pe was r ap id ly erected. T hese g rea t changes
w ere en acted in th e early 1870s. T h ey p r o v o k e d so m e d isc o n te n t, w hich
was e xpressed in 1877 in a n a r m e d rising led by S aig o T a k a m o r i (1828-77),
o n e o f the leaders o f the R e sto ra tio n ; b u t by th e en d of the d ec ad e th e y were
w o rk in g , an d by the end o f th e ce n tu ry J a p a n h ad bec om e b o th a m ilitary
a n d a n industrial great pow er.
T h e c o n tra s t betw een J a p a n ’s q uick a d a p t a t i o n to the w orld o f m o d e rn
ca p ita lism an d the m o d e r n sovereign sta te a n d C h i n a ’s failure to d o this has
often b een discussed. Several rea son s have been suggested by m o d e r n
specialists. O n e is th e o b v io u s physical difference. T h e J a p a n e s e islands
f o rm e d a sm all a n d c o m p a c t te rrito ry , all p a r ts o f w hich w ere accessible to
fo re ign sea-pow er, a n d in w hich it w as im possible for o n e reg ion to be
affected w ith o u t the rest o f th e c o u n t r y b eing a w a re o f it: C h i n a was h alf a
c o n tin e n t, in w hich th e ce n tres o f p o w er, w e a lth a n d p o p u la tio n were not
m a in ly o n the coast. A se co n d is th a t J a p a n e s e c u ltu re h a d arise n f r o m a
c o m b in a t io n o f several influences, o f w hich th e political class w ere aw are,
290 Nations and States

so th a t the a d d itio n of new elem ents did n o t seem in prin ciple unacce p ta b le;
w h ereas to the C hinese elite th e ir cu ltu re seem ed h o m o g e n e o u s a n d
u n c h a n g e a b le ( a lth o u g h new influences h a d f r o m tim e to tim e been
b r o u g h t in d u r in g their history), a n d w as inde ed r e g a rd e d as the only tru e
cu lture, im m ensely su p e rio r to th a t o f a n y b a r b a r ia n s w h o were merely
clever or strong. T h e fact th a t w arrio rs a n d m e r c h a n ts were the tw o m o st
vig o ro u s elem ents in J a p a n e s e society was also im p o r ta n t, because it was
precisely in m ilitary a n d in e c o n o m ic skills th a t th e W e ste rn b a r b a ria n s had
sh o w n them selves m o s t efficient, a n d th e re fo re p e rh a p s w o r t h im itating.
Be this as it m ay, the rap id a d a p t a t i o n t o o k place, a n d it s tren g th en e d th e
coh e ren ce o f J a p a n e s e society. By th e en d of the c e n tu ry th e re c o u ld be no
d o u b t th a t the J a p a n e s e w ere a n a tio n , a n d th a t J a p a n was n o t only a
sovereign state b u t a n a t io n a l state.

Hindus, Muslims, and British in India

British rule in India, a n d th e g r o w th o f n a tio n a list m o v e m e n ts ag a in st it,
were c o m p lic ate d by the existence o f tw o g rea t religious c o m m u n itie s in the
su b c o n tin e n t. S o m e c o n s id e r a tio n m ust first be given to the h istory o f the
r ela tio n sh ip betw een them .
As a result o f th e rep e ate d invasions, a n d the rise a n d fall o f p rincip ali­
ties, a large p a r t o f the p o p u la tio n o f In d ia b e c am e M uslim . T h e largest
p r o p o r ti o n o f c o nve rsions w ere in th ree regions— th e n o rth -w e st, th e lands
n o r t h o f D elhi, a n d Bengal. O n e o f th e a ttr a c t io n s o f Islam was lib e ratio n
f r o m the fetters o f caste, t h o u g h it is d o u b tf u l w h e th e r h isto ria ns will ever
be able to estim ate w ith a n y precision th e relative im p o r ta n c e , in the
success o f Islam in ce rtain regions, o f fo rce a n d p ersecution , o f genuine
co n v e rsio n to a new faith a n d a new o r d e r , o f the se ttle m ent of im m ig ran ts
o f T u r k i o r I r a n ia n stock, a n d o f chance. In the g r e a te r p a r t o f n o r th e r n a n d
ce n tra l In d ia, the b u lk o f th e p o p u la tio n r e m a in e d H in d u , a n d M uslim s
lived a m o n g the m . T h e first in to le r a n t zeal o f th e M u slim in v a d ers ebbed
aw ay. T h e tw o c o m m u n itie s influenced each other. M u slim s a d o p te d
elem en ts o f the caste system in their social o rg a n isa tio n . B o th the d o ctrines
o f M u slim Sufis a n d o f H in d u S ik hs c o n t r i b u te d to th e m ystic bhakti
m o v e m e n ts o f th e fifteenth ce ntu ry, o f w h ich th e m o s t i m p o r t a n t was th a t
led by N a n a k (1469-1533), th e f o u n d e r o f th e S ik h religion.
U n d e r th e M o g h u l e m p e r o r A k b a r (reigned 1556-1605), the coexistence
o f H in d u s a n d M u slim s w as officially e n c o u r a g e d . A k b a r t o o k H in d u s into
his service b o th as m ilita ry c o m m a n d e r s a n d as civil officials. R a jp u t
nobles w ere eq u a l in his co nfid e n ce to the T u r k i s h o r A fg h a n soldiers o f his
o w n people. T h e la n g u ag e o f th e M o g h u l c o u r t w as P ersian , t h o u g h the
m o th e r to n g u e o f the elite w as T u r k i s h .9 T h e H in d u elite w hich A k b a r
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 291

p a tro n ise d also b eg a n to learn P ersian , w hich in the seven te en th ce n tu ry

b e c am e the lang uage o f cultu re in m o st o f India.
A t the tim e o f the M u slim invasions o f Ind ia, th e H in d u s ’ la n g u ag e of
cu ltu re h ad been S a n sk rit, w hich was sta n d a r d is e d as a w ritte n la n g u ag e by
the f o u rth c e n tu ry BC, in the g r a m m a r o f th e g rea t sc h o lar Panini. F r o m
S a n s k r it were derived a series of sim pler s p o k e n languages, varying
su b stan tia lly fro m S ind across to Bengal. T h ese s p o k e n to n g u e s were
p r o m o te d by the bhakti m o v e m en ts o f the fifteenth ce n tu ry , a n d they
b eg a n to ta k e th eir place as literary lan g u ag e s as well. T h e s itu a tio n in the
s o u th o f In d ia w as different. H ere the p rev a len t langu ages belo n g ed to the
D ra v id ia n g ro u p , of co m pletely different origin fro m the A ry a n o r Indo-
E u r o p e a n la nguages derived fro m S an sk rit. T a m il literatu re w ent b a c k to
a b o u t the tim e o f Christ. T w o o th e r D r a v id ia n languages, K a n n a d a a n d
T elugu , were widely s p o k e n at the end o f th e first C h r istia n m illen nium ,
a n d a fo u rth , M a la y a la m , s p o k e n on the M a la b a r coast, bec am e a w ritten
lang uage in th e fifteenth century.
T h e H in d u lang u ag e s p o k e n in the D elhi region at th e tim e w h en the
Delhi M uslim s u lta n a te was established was th a t w hich has bec om e k n o w n
as H indi. D u rin g the e ig h tee n th c e n tu ry th e re em erged a new language,
f o rm e d fro m b o th S a n s k r it a n d Persian origins. T h e basic s tru c tu re was
In dian, b u t a large p a r t o f the v o c a b u la ry w as P ersian ( th a t is, largely
A ra b ic , since so m a n y P ersian w o rd s d e n o tin g intellectual c o n c ep ts were
lo a n -w o rd s fro m A rab ic, the sacred la n g u ag e o f Islam). T h is new langu age
w as k n o w n as U rd u (derived fro m th e T u rk i s h w o rd fo r ‘a r m y ’). In the
e ig hteenth ce n tu ry it w as not only co n v e n ie n t as a lingua franca fo r s p o k e n
c o m m u n ic a ti o n betw een d ifferent p arts o f n o r th e r n India, b u t p r o d u c e d its
o w n im aginative literatu re. U n d e r British rule in the n in e tee n th c e n tu ry , it
bec am e k n o w n as H in d u sta n i. T h e I n d ia n in tellectual elite w hich em erged
u n d e r British rule was a t tr a c te d by the idea o f a single lan g u ag e fo r all
India, a n d later still M a h a t m a G a n d h i ac ce p te d the n a m e H in d u s ta n i, a n d
reg a rd e d it as th e fu tu re lan g u ag e of free India. It could be w ritte n in b o th
the A ra b ic script (w hich was used fo r U rd u u n d e r the M og h u ls) a n d the
D e v a n a g a ri H in d u script. A suggestive parallel is the use o f th e S erb o -
C r o a t ia n lan g u ag e in b o th th e L a tin a n d th e Cyrillic alp h a b e t.
T h e In d ian s w h o m the British fo u g h t, in o r d e r to establish th e ir em pire,
w ere b o th M uslim s a n d H in d u s in th e M a d ra s region; M u slim s in Bengal;
H in d u s in the M a r a t h a lands b ehind B o m b ay ; a n d S ikhs in the P u n jab .
A m o n g th o se rulers a n d th e ir d e s c e n d a n ts w h o m o st resented British
p r e d o m in a n c e , as well as a m o n g th o se w h o g ladly bec am e allies of the
British o r accepted their p r o te c tio n , th e re w ere b o t h M uslim s a n d H indu s.
T o w a r d s th e vast p e a s a n t m a jo rity o f the p o p u la tio n o f I n d ia th e British
g o v e r n m e n t a d o p t e d th e t r a d itio n a l f u n c tio n o f earlier rulers: it d e m a n d e d
tax es a n d soldiers, p e rf o rm e d certain c o m m u n a l services a n d pro v id ed
292 Nations and States

co u rts o f justice. In 1857 so m e o f the tr a d itio n a l rulers, b o th M u slim an d

H in d u , revolted ag a in st the British (the so-called I n d ia n M u tin y ), with
hero ic s u p p o r t f r o m s o m e o f th e ir subjects, a n d w ere d efeated. It was only
afte r this g rea t tra g e d y th a t new elites, influenced b o th positively an d
negatively by E u r o p e a n f o rm s o f e d u c a tio n , a p p e a r e d as cla im a n ts to
spe ak for the people o f India. T h e elites em erged a m o n g b o th H in d u s an d
M uslim s, a n d b o th were entitled to c o n s id e r them selves Indian.
In Bengal a n d B o m b a y H in d u s p roved m o r e c a p a b le th a n M uslim s of
a d a p tin g them selves to th e m o d e rn e c o n o m ic a n d social tre n d s which
prevailed w ith E u r o p e a n rule, m o r e willing to p u rsu e B ritish-type profes­
sions a n d to seek e m p lo y m e n t in the British a d m in istra tiv e a p p a r a tu s . It is
h o w ev e r a m istak e to generalise this su p e rio r H in d u ability to the w hole of
India: it was definitely n o t tr u e o f the ce n tral p a rt o f n o r th e r n I n d ia . 10
T h o s e H in d u s w h o did successfully a d a p t them selves fo u n d th a t their
efforts m et w ith little e n c o u r a g e m e n t fro m th e British au th o ritie s , a n d that
th e y w ere viewed w ith m is tru s t a n d c o n t e m p t by the non-official British
c o m m u n itie s. O n e o f these m e n was S u r e n d r a n a t h Banerjea, w h o was
rejected as a c a n d id a te fo r th e I n d ian civil service. In 1876 he fo u n d e d the
I n d ia n A ssociation, w hich pressed for g r e a te r o p p o r tu n itie s fo r Indians to
e n te r the g o v e r n m e n t service o f their co u n try . D u rin g these years there was
also som e g ro w th of political d isc o n te n t a m o n g o r t h o d o x H indus, w ho
resented British rule a n d wished to m a in ta in tr a d itio n a l values, while
realising th a t they also had to face the challenges o f the m o d e rn world. In
1875 A ry a S am a j was fo u n d e d by S w a m i D a y a n a n d a , a G u ja ra ti Brahm in.
It m a d e so m e h e a d w a y in the P u n ja b , w here it a la r m e d the M uslim
c o m m u n ity . In 1883 the h op es o f m o d e rn - m in d e d H in d u s aro u se d by
ju d ic ia l re fo rm s p r o p o s e d by a new viceroy, L o rd R ip o n , were bitterly
d is a p p o in te d w h en fierce o p p o s itio n by th e British c o m m u n ity in Bengal
c a u se d th e m to be a b a n d o n e d . W ith the help o f so m e liberal-m inded
British friends, they f o u n d e d in 1885 th e In dian N a tio n a l C ongress. T his
b e c am e the m a in I n d ia n political o r g a n isa tio n , a p p e a lin g at first only to a
sm all social elite b u t in c lu ding a m o n g its s u p p o r te r s b o th o r t h o d o x H in d u s
a n d w esternised In dians. T h e C o n g ress g ained f u r th e r s u p p o r t in 1905,
w h en L o rd C u r z o n d ivided Bengal in to tw o provinces. T h e effect o f the
division was to give a M u s lim m a jo r ity in the e a ste rn province, a n d to place
Bengalis in a slight m in o rity a m o n g Biharis a n d O riyas in the w estern
province: b o th results w ere o b je ctio n ab le to the e d u c a te d H in d u Bengali
elite. In th e next years, how ever, the o u ts t a n d in g leaders o f C o n g ress were
tw o m e n o f M a h r a t t a origin fro m B o m b a y presidency. G o p a l K rish n a
G o k h a le (1866-1915) was essentially a liberal w esterniser, willing to ta k e
p a r t in B ritish-m ad e in stitu tio n s in o r d e r th u s to e x t r a c t political a d v a n ­
tages for Indians. Bal G a h a n d h a r T ilak (1856-1920) lo o k e d bac k to the
g lo rious M a h r a tta past a n d upheld H in d u values ag a in st w estern. T h e tw o
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 293

m e n s to o d for conflicting tre n d s w ith in th e C o ngress, w hich led to a b rea ch

at its 1907 m eeting in S u r a t w hich was n o t healed until 1916. M e an w h ile the
n atio n alist m o v e m e n t was based n o t o nly o n the political a s p ira tio n s o f the
intellectual elite, w h e th e r w esternised or o r th o d o x , b u t also o n the g row ing
influence o f I n d ia n business g ro u p s w h o se interests h ad been h a r m e d in
v ario u s ways by British e c o n o m ic policies.
T h e M uslim s to o w ere divided betw een m o d e rn isers a n d o r th o d o x . T hey
were increasingly a w a re th a t they w ere a vuln e ra b le m in o rity in India,
th re a te n e d n o t only by th e ir new m asters th e infidel British but also by the
revival o f their old victims the n o less infidel H indus. M u slim political
leaders were co m pelled tactically to side w ith the H in d u s a g a in st th e British
or w ith the British a g a in st the H indus. A t first the m od e rnisers, w h o were
politically the m o r e effective g ro u p , c h o s e th e second alternative. T hey
w elcom ed the division o f Bengal. In 1906 it was a disciple o f S ayyid
A h m a d , " n a m e d M u h sin a l-M u lk , w h o fo u n d e d in 1906 th e M u slim
League. W h e n th e British in tro d u c e d in 1909 the India C ou n c ils Act
(usually k n o w n as th e M o r le y - M in to reform ), p ro v id in g for the election of
In d ian s to provincial assem blies a n d g o v e r n m e n ts, they placed H in d u s a n d
M uslim s in s e p a ra te electoral colleges. T h is a c co rd ed with M uslim wishes,
but was u n d e r s ta n d a b ly reg a rd e d by C o n g ress as a piece o f im perialist
‘d iv id e -an d -ru le’ tactics. In 1911 h o w ev e r the British g o v e r n m e n t decided
to restore a unified Bengal, w hich a n n o y e d the Muslims.
T h e F irst W o rld W a r b r o u g h t reg u la tio n s a n d e c o n o m ic h a rd sh ip s
w hich affected the civil p o p u la tio n , b o th H in d u a n d M uslim , b o th p ea sa nts
a n d businessm en. T h e w a r was, how ever, especially o b je c tio n a b le to the
M uslim s because one o f the enem ies o f B ritain, ag a in st w h o m Ind ian
soldiers were obliged to fight, was the largest M u slim sta te in the w orld, the
O t t o m a n em pire. W h e n the w a r was over, a n d it a p p e a r e d th a t T u rk e y was
to be p a rtitio n e d by her c o n q u e r o rs , a m o v e m e n t for the defence of the
calip h a te was sta rted.
Before this, a n a g re e m e n t h ad been m a d e at L u c k n o w in 1916 betw een
C o ngress a n d the M uslim L eague for c o m m o n action. T h e m o st im p o r ta n t
p o in t was th a t b o th sides agre ed th a t a n y f u tu re m e asures t h a t w o u ld affect
the po sition o f eith er religious c o m m u n ity as a w hole sh o u ld b ec o m e law
o nly if it had the s u p p o r t o f th r e e -q u a rte r s o f the m e m b e rs o f th a t
c o m m u n ity . Between 1919 a n d 1922 c o o p e r a tio n betw een M uslim s an d
H in d u s aga in st the British was effective. It was in these years th a t G a n d h i
rose to th e fro n t r a n k o n the H in d u side, a n d b eg a n to m obilise the H in d u
m asses in the political struggle. T h e civil d iso be die n ce c a m p a ig n s o f 1920 to
1922 involved b o th H in d u s a n d M uslim s.
G a n d h i was a m a n o f genius w h o defies all b rief e x p la n a tio n ; a n d even
th e m assive detailed rese arch w hich h a s bee n d e v o te d to his ca re e r has left
m u c h th a t is co n tro v e rs ia l o r even obscure. Even so, a n y stu d y o f n atio n s
294 Nations and States

a n d n a tio n a list m o v e m e n ts m u st re c o rd th e fact o f his p erso n a l im pact.

G a n d h i was b o th a religious p r o p h e t a n d a brilliant political o p e r a to r. He
c ou ld w e a r w ith equ a l ease the respe cta ble suit o f a L o n d o n b a r riste r o r the
dh oti of a H in d u sage. H e c ould b ea t politicians a n d b u r e a u c r a ts a t their
ow n g a m e ( th o u g h he suffered tactical political defeats f r o m tim e to time),
a n d he c o u ld m a k e in d u stria l m a g n a te s a n d p a r ty m a ch in e s w o rk fo r his
ends. H e w as a c o nvince d refo rm er, d e te r m in e d to b rea k d o w n the
injustices o f caste w hich n o prev ious H in d u politician h a d d a r e d to attack;
a n d he w as also able to enlist the m a n ip u la to r s of region al caste g ro u p s as
officers o f his political arm y. His c a m p a ig n s o f m ass civil d isobedience
w ere p la n n e d to a vo id violence, yet they let loose forces w hich w ere b o u n d
to p ro v o k e b lo o d sh e d . T h e m ass s h o o tin g s a t A m r its a r in A pril 1919 were a
d irect result o f G a n d h i ’s incitem en t, yet th e re is n o r ea so n to d o u b t his
h o r r o r a n d rep e n ta n c e a t the result; a n d afte r the C a lc u tta b lo o d - b a t h of
1946, G a n d h i ’s p erso n a l visit to C a lc u tta , a n d th e brave public p o stu re
w h ich he a n d the Bengal M u slim leader S u h r a w a r d y th e n assum ed ,
certainly p revented f u r th e r m assacres in the follow in g tense m o n th s .
G a n d h i was the first I n d ian n a tio n a list leader to a p p e a l fo r mass
s u p p o r t. T o w h a t ex te n t his ‘c h a r is m a tic ’ perso n a lity in fact ‘m o b ilise d ’ the
masses is argua ble. H e u n d o u b te d ly e x te n d e d the political struggle beyond
the u r b a n centres of the th ree presidencies to provinces w hose p o p u la tio n
h a d h ith e r to b ee n politically passive, such as Bihar, U nited P ro vinces a n d
P u n ja b . T h r o u g h o u t th e c o u n try he succeeded in enlisting new local elites,
o f low er social status t h a n the previous le adership o f C ongress. These
p ersons (‘s u b - c o n tr a c to r s ’, to q u o te the useful ex p re ssio n o f a recent
h is t o r ia n 12) w ere well q ualified to involve m u c h larger n u m b e rs, at least in
p eriods o f crisis or d ee p pub lic e m o tio n .
G a n d h i exercised im m e n se a u t h o r i ty o v er his c o m p a tr io ts until his
de a th . His w ell-d ram atised p ro te s t m a rc h es, civil diso b e d ie n ce ca m p a ig n s,
prison sentences a n d h u n g e r strikes c a p tu r e d the im a g in a tio n 'o f millions,
n o t o n ly in India. T he effective le ad e rsh ip o f C o n g ress was h ow eve r shared
by o th e rs, w h o revered G a n d h i as th e ir le ade r b u t d id n o t sh a re all his ideas.
T h e principle o f swadeshi, o r c o n s u m p tio n o f h o m e - p r o d u c e d articles, was
a ttra c tiv e to I n d ia n big busin e ssm e n , t h o u g h G a n d h i ’s o w n m a in a im was
to e n c o u ra g e small-scale crafts, sym bo lised by his p raise f o r the p e a s a n t’s
s p in n in g wheel. J a w a h a r l a l N e h r u , th e so n o f th e p r o m in e n t n atio n alist
M otilal, a K a sh m iri B r a h m in w h o was also a socialist a n d secular p h ilo ­
so p h e r, to o k b u t little interest in G a n d h i’s religious beliefs. G a n d h i ’s
insistence o n non-violence ( ahim sa ), a n d his d o c trin e o f passive resistance
by satyagraha (‘tr u th - fo r c e ’), u n d o u b te d ly w o n d e v o te d s u p p o r te r s a n d
influenced th e b e h a v io u r o f I n d ia n crow d s; b u t it is also tr u e th a t th e re was
plenty o f violence by I n d ian aga in st I n d ia n d u r in g his life-time, a n d th a t he
him self fell victim to a religious fanatic assassin. T h e lim ita tio n s o n the
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 295

a p p lic a tio n o f G a n d h i ’s m e th o d s (w hich G a n d h i him self recognised) did

n o t p reve n t his successors fro m a ttr ib u tin g th e ir tr iu m p h s to these m e th ­
ods, o r o th e r natio n alists in Asia a n d A frica fro m a s su m in g the m a n tle of
G a n d h i w h en it suited them .
T h e calip h a te c a m p a ig n died o u t w h en K em a l h im self abo lish e d the
c a lip h a te in T u rk e y . In 1928, a c o m m itte e o f C o n g ress led by M o tilal
N e h r u p ro d u c e d a d r a f t for a fu tu re co n s titu tio n . In reply, the M uslim
la wyer M u h a m m a d Ali J i n n a h (1876-1948), w h o fro m this tim e b e c am e the
o u ts ta n d in g leader o f the M uslim s, o u tlin ed M uslim re q u ire m e n ts in
F o u r te e n P o in ts, w hich included a federal system, f ar-rea ch in g p o w ers for
its c o m p o n e n t units, rese rv a tio n o f re sid u a ry pow ers to th e m , a n d v arious
sa fe g u ard s for all M u slim citizens o f the f u tu re I n d ia n state. W h e n these
w ere rejected by C ong ress, its relations w ith the L ea gue deterio rate d .
T h eo retica l a tte m p ts were n o w m a d e to identify a distinct M uslim n a tio n
w ithin India. T he m o st d isting uished s p o k e s m a n for a ‘tw o - n a ti o n th e o ry ’
was the poet a n d p h ilo s o p h e r M u h a m m a d Iq bal (1875-1938). A stu d e n t
b o th o f H in d u ism a n d o f c o n t e m p o r a r y E u r o p e a n ph ilo so p h y , influenced
by b o th a n d m u c h a d d ic te d to u n o r t h o d o x religious specu la tio n , Iqbal
m a in ta in e d , in his p residential addre ss to the M u slim L eague in 1930, th a t
I n d ia n M uslim s w ere one n a tio n , s e p a ra te fro m the o th e r people of the
su b c o n tin e n t. A lesser bu t im p o r ta n t figure, C h o u d h a r y R a h m a t Ali,
pub lished in 1935 a b o o k entitled Pakistan, the fath erlan d o f the Pak
nation. T his w o rd , w hich m e a n s ‘la n d o f th e p u r e ’, a n d w as c o m p o s e d o f
the first o r last letters o f th e nam es o f v a r io u s la n d s o f M u slim p o p u la tio n ,
g ra d u a lly w o n p o p u la rity a m o n g the I n d ia n M u slim intellectual elite.13
In 1937 a n election was held u n d e r a new B ritish-m ad e co n s titu tio n ,
w hich perm itted the f o r m a tio n of m inistries in the provinces by In d ian
political parties. C o n g ress a n d the M u slim L eague w ere electoral allies.
T h e result was a big success fo r C o n g ress b u t a d isa p p o in tin g ly sm all vote
fo r th e L eague. J i n n a h exp e cted th a t the new m inistries, in p rovinces w ith
large M uslim p o p u la tio n , w o u ld include represe n tativ es o f the League.
H ow ever, C o n g ress t o o k th e view th a t its v ic to ry entitled it to f o r m the
ministries alone. It w ou ld acce p t M u slim m inisters only if they resigned
fr o m the League. T h e y a rg u e d th a t th e L eague w as a ‘c o m m u n a l ’ o r g a n is a ­
tion represen ting one religious c o m m u n ity , w hereas C o ngress was a secular
a n d n a tio n -w id e o r g a n is a tio n , to w hich M u slim s c o uld b elon g on equal
te rm s w ith H indus.
T his decision o f 1937 w as a l a n d m a r k in H in d u - M u s lim relations. F r o m
this tim e J i n n a h b eg a n system atically to m o bilise M u slim m ass op in io n
beh in d th e L eagu e in o p p o s itio n to C ongress. O n 23 M a r c h 1940 the
L a h o r e m eeting o f th e M u s lim L eag ue p assed a r e so lu tio n d e m a n d in g th a t
th o se regions w hich h a d a M u slim m a jo r ity sh o u ld f o rm ‘in d e p e n d e n t
states’. A last a t te m p t a t a g re e m e n t w as m a d e by a British C a b in e t M ission
296 Nations and States

w hich visited India fro m M a rc h to M a y 1946. Its p ro p o sa ls w ould have

allo w ed th e p r e d o m i n a n tly M u slim pro v in ce s to f o r m M u slim states w ithin
the p ro jec ted in d e p e n d e n t I n d ia n U nion. F o r a s h o r t tim e it seem ed th a t a n
in terim g o v e r n m e n t w o u ld be f o rm e d , o n this u n d e r s ta n d in g , fro m repre­
sentatives o f b o th C o n g ress a n d th e League. T h is was, how ever, not
achieved, a n d J i n n a h called for a c a m p a ig n of ‘direct a c tio n ’ to create
P a k ista n . O n e o f th e first results was a m a ssac re in C a lc u tta in w hich 4,000
people lost th e ir lives.
T h e sta le m a te was resolved by th e British g o v e r n m e n t’s d e c la ra tio n o f 20
F e b r u a r y 1947 th a t in d e p e n d e n c e w o u ld be given n o t la ter t h a n J u n e 1948.
In J u n e 1947 the last viceroy, E arl M o u n tb a tte n , p r o d u c e d his p l a n f o r t h e
p a r titio n o f India. P a k is ta n was to be fo rm e d o f th e n o rth -w e ste rn lands,
p a r t o f P u n ja b a n d p a r t o f Bengal. C o m m issio n s o f e x p e rts w ere set u p to
define th e b o u n d a rie s, b u t m ean w h ile th ere were massive m o v e m e n ts of
refugees in b o th directions, a c c o m p a n ie d by m a ssac re, s ta r v a tio n an d
disease. M o r e th a n 500,000 p erso ns lost th e ir lives, a n d m o r e th a n
12,000,000 lost their hom es. T his w as the end o f the British em p ire in
I n d ia — peaceful in the sense th a t th e re w as n o fightin g betw een British a n d
Ind ian s; m a g n a n im o u s in the sense th a t the leading figures show ed
c o u rte sy a n d g ra titu d e to ea ch o ther; g e n e ro u s in the sense th a t M r A ttlee
a n d o th e r British socialists a n d liberals h a d long h a d sincerely benevolen t
in te n tio n s to w a r d s the Ind ian s; yet n o n e o f these thin g s for th o se w h o were
ro b b e d , killed or saw th e ir ch ild ren slau ghtered.
C o n tro v e rs y will lon g rage as to w h o was to b lam e, in th e s h o rt a n d long
te rm ; w h o se obstin ac y in th e last years o r w h o se f a n a tic ism o r M achiavelli­
a n designs in p recedin g d ecades did m o st to brin g a b o u t th e traged y. Yet
the t r u t h is p r o b a b ly th a t it was n o t the w ickedness of m e a n m en b u t the
d e v o tio n o f n oble m en th a t pro v ed d isa strous. N obility is a q u a lity th a t
c a n n o t be d enied to G a n d h i o r J i n n a h o r J a w a h a r l a l N e h ru , to W avell or
A ttlee o r M o u n tb a tte n . N e ith e r British p a te r n a lis m n o r British liberalism,
neith er th e p la n fo r a secular I n d ia n state n o r the d e t e r m in a tio n to preserve
I n d ia n M u s lim identity, w ere co n te m p tib le . T h e t r u t h is r a th e r th a t the
aim s co uld n o t be reconciled, a n d t h a t the passion s w h ich natio n alist
leaders a r o u s e d to p r o m o t e their aim s were b o u n d to claim millions of
victims f r o m th o se fo r w h o se welfare th e y w ere designed.

India: Multi-lingual nation or multi-national state?

T h e g o v e r n m e n t o f in d e p e n d e n t I n d ia in 1947, even a f te r th e a m p u t a t i o n of
the n o rth -w e st a n d o f m o s t o f Bengal, f o u n d itself respo nsible fo r m o st of a
su b c o n tin e n t. Ind ia was a historical a n d a religious co n c ep t, b u t th e re was
no Ind ian n ation. W h a t held the people o f India to g e th e r was a culture,
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 297

f o u n d e d o n religion; b u t th e rulers o f th e new state insisted, w ith passio n ate

sincerity, th a t it was to be secular, w ith a b s o lu te ly no preference fo r one
religion over a n o th e r . In place of the unifying force o f H in d u ism , they
offered th e vision o f a great m o d e rn ise d ind ustrialised d e m o c r a tic India,
a n d th e reality o f the unifying force o f th e C o n g re s s P arty , w ith its central
a n d regional b u rea u cracy . W h a t pulled In d ia a p a r t w as variety o f la n ­
guage, but p a ra d o x ic a lly this was c o u n te r a c te d not only by political pow er
b u t also by the unifying force of the lan g u ag e o f th e expelled foreign rulers,
w hich r em a in ed th e vehicle o f public a d m in is t r a tio n at the h ighe r levels.
T h e new g o v e rn m e n t was heir n o t o nly to the provinces w h ich h ad
f o rm e d British India, b u t also the princely states w hich h ad been subject to
v ario u s types o f British p ro te c to ra te . It p roce eded to deal w ith th e m
w ith o u t w o rry in g to o m u c h a b o u t d e m o c r a tic principles. In H y d e r a b a d the
people were H in d u a n d the ruler Muslim: d e m o c ra c y th e re fo re m e a n t
in c o rp o r a tio n in India, w hich duly o cc u rre d . In K a sh m ir the ruler was
H in d u b u t th e people w ere M uslim ; yet th e new g o v e r n m e n t o f In dia
insisted on ta k in g all K a sh m ir, a n d succeeded in a n n e x in g m o s t o f it after
so m e fighting a g a in st the new a r m y o f P a k ista n .
W h e n it cam e to d eciding w h a t s h o u ld be th e m a in te rritoria l units of
federal India, neither the old British p rovinces n o r the old princely states
necessarily h ad a s tr o n g claim to be preserved. In stead, a g a in st the
o p p o s itio n o f m a n y e m in e n t C ongress leaders, th e principle o f linguistic
units was accepted in successive stages. A n d h r a , w ith T elu g u s p o k e n by 86
per cent o f its people, w as f o rm e d as th e first linguistic state in O c to b e r
1953, o u t o f p a r ts o f M a d r a s p rovin ce a n d H y d e r a b a d . U n d e r a new
s e ttle m en t o f provinces, in N o v e m b e r 1956, ea ch o f th e o th e r three
D ra v id ia n languages p r e d o m i n a te d in on e state. In M a d ra s , w hich t o o k the
n a m e T a m iln a d in 1968, T a m il was th e lan g u ag e of 84 per cent o f the
people; in M y so re, r e n a m e d K a r n a t a k a in 1973, 65 per cent spo ke
K a n n a d a ; a n d in K erala 95 per cent s p o k e M a la y a la m . In 1960, a f te r som e
years o f n a tio n a list d iso rd ers, the large sta te o f B o m b a y was divided in to
G u ja r a t, w h ere 90 per cent s p o k e G u ja r a ti, a n d M a h a r a s h t r a , in w hich 76
per cent s p o k e M a ra th i. In W est Bengal 84 per cent were Bengali-speaking;
a n d in A ssa m th e m a jo r ity s p o k e A ssam ese, w ith a large m in o rity spe ak in g
Bengali. In 1966 th e I n d ia n p o r tio n o f P u n ja b w as f u rth e r divided, betw een
H in d i-sp e a k in g H a r y a n a p rovince a n d P u n ja b i- s p e a k in g P u n ja b . In the
rest o f I n d ia it could be a rg u e d th a t H in d i w as p r e d o m in a n t: th e e x te n t of
this p r e d o m in a n c e d e p e n d e d o n w h e th e r R a ja s th a n i, Bihari a n d O riya
w ere consid ered to be d istin ct lang u ag e s o r dialects o f H indi.
T h e I n d ia n c o n s titu tio n o f 1950 p ro v id e d t h a t H in d i in the D e v a n a g a ri
script sh o u ld be th e official lan g u ag e o f India. It w as es tim a te d th a t 30 per
cent o f the p o p u la tio n c ou ld speak this language, a n d a very m u c h larger
p r o p o r ti o n could learn to u n d e r s ta n d it w ith bu t little effort since it was
298 Nations and States

closely related to th e lang uages w hich they h a b itu a lly spoke. It was
ho w ev e r clearly n o t possible t o in tr o d u c e H indi into g o v e r n m e n t a t once.
T h e r e m u s t be a n interval, d u rin g w hich E nglish w ou ld re m a in the
la n g u ag e o f ce n tral g o v e r n m e n t an d o f th e h ighe r a d m in is t r a tio n t h r o u g h ­
o u t the co u n try . T h is h a d tw o a d v a n ta g es: m a n y m o d e r n technical,
scientific o r political te rm s h a d no H indi eq u iv ale n t, so th a t m a n y
i m p o r t a n t o p e r a tio n s sim ply could n o t be c o n d u c te d in H indi; a n d the
p eo ple o f so u th e rn I n d ia n could in fact only c o m m u n ic a te w ith n o rth e r n e r s
th r o u g h th e lingua franca o f English. T h e y ea r 1965 was set as th e tim e for
a d a p t a t i o n to Hindi.
It w as o bviously u n d e s ira b le t h a t in d e p e n d e n t In d ia sh o u ld c o n tin u e to
be ruled in the lan g u ag e o f the f o rm e r im perial pow er, n o t only fo r obvious
m o r a l a n d political rea son s b u t also b ecause only so m e 2 per cent o f the
p o p u la tio n knew English. H ow ever, the p r o p o s a l to replace it by H indi
p ro d u c e d m u c h th e sam e r ea ctio n a m o n g th e n o n - H i n d i-s p e a k in g peoples,
a n d especially in the s o u th e r n states, as the p r o p o s a l to replace the d ead
la n g u ag e L a tin by th e m o d e rn living lan g u ag e M a g y a r h ad p ro d u ce d
a m o n g th e n o n - M a g y a r - s p e a k in g people o f H u n g a r y in the first h alf o f the
n in e te e n th century.
T h e p r o p o r ti o n o f the p o p u la tio n w hich c ou ld be c o n s id ered to be
H in d i-sp e a k in g varied b etw een 30 a n d 43 p e r cent, d e p e n d in g on the
defin itio n o f H in d i. 14 D u r i n g th e cou rse o f the 1950s a n d 1960s f o u r states
a n d tw o sm a lle r te rritorie s o f the I n d ia n U n io n a d o p t e d H indi as their
official la n g u a g e .15 I n a d d itio n , k now led g e o f H indi was w id esp re ad , a n d it
w as in f act th e effective secon d language, in th e tw o large w estern states o f
M a h a r a s h t r a a n d G ujerat.
D u r i n g m o r e th a n tw en ty years of in d e p en d e n ce , H indi u n d e rw e n t
c o n s id e ra b le change. S ystem atic efforts w ere m a d e to e nric h a n d enlarge its
v o c a b u la ry , a n d to replace P e r s ia n / A ra b ic w o rd s by n eologism s based on
S a n s k r it ro ots. D u r i n g the sa m e years films, r a d io a n d press in H indi
increased their au dience, a n d tr a n s l a ti o n f r o m o th e r I n d ia n languages into
H in d i b ec am e financially r e m u n e ra tiv e fo r writers. All these things in­
cre ase d th e a t tr a c tio n s o f H in d i fo r a large p a r t o f the e d u c a te d elite, a n d
also fo r large n u m b e rs o f p eople of all social classes w h o w ere d r a w n , often
f ro m a great distance, in to the rapidly g ro w in g cities.
N evertheless there w ere tw o regions in w hich H in d i d id n o t m a k e m u c h
a pp e al.
O n e was W est Bengal. A r a th e r large Bengali intellectual elite h ad gro w n
u p in the tw o centuries o f British rule, a n d in th e la te r p e rio d th e re had
d ev e lope d a n o ta b le lite ra tu re in the Bengali language. Bengalis h a d also
b ec o m e q u ite p r o m in e n t in the professions in o th e r p a r ts o f India,
especially in I n d ian universities a n d as w riters a n d j o u r n a lis t s . T h e Bengali
elite knew E nglish, a n d w ere p re p a re d to recognise its m erits as a language
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 299

o f g o v e rn m e n t, h o w ev e r strong ly they m ig h t desire th e in d e p e n d e n c e of

India fro m British rule. H indi they te n d e d to reg a rd as a b a c k w a r d , u p s ta rt
a n d artificial to n g u e . A fter the p a r titio n o f 1947, H in d u Bengalis o f the
social elite (generally k n o w n as badh ralok , o r ‘respe cta ble p e o p le ’) were
forced into W est Bengal o r into m ore d is ta n t p arts o f India. T h e o v e r p o p u ­
lated West Bengal co u n try sid e was o n e o f the p o o re st regions o f India, a n d
the u r b a n a g g lo m e r a tio n o f C a lc u tta , steadily increased by the influx fro m
the villages, bec am e a h o tb e d o f all sorts o f discon tents. O p p o s iti o n to the
ce n tral g o v e rn m e n t grew steadily in W est Bengal d u r in g the 1950s a n d
1960s. Its ro o ts were in the d es p e ra te p o v e rty o f the u r b a n masses, b u t th ose
w h o expressed it w ere m ostly m e m b e rs o f th e badhralok , e d u c a te d m e n
a n d w o m e n w h o inherited a certain tr a d i tio n o f political radicalism , a n d
w h o fo u n d them selves in s o m e th in g like th e p re d ic a m e n t o f the R u ssian
intelligentsia o f the n in e tee n th ce n tury, driv en to ever m o re re v o lu tio n a ry
views.
It was th u s n o t su rprising th a t W est Bengal was on e o f the tw o
stro n g h o ld s o f the c o m m u n ists. W h e n th e c o m m u n is ts split in 1964, it was
the left faction, the C o m m u n is t P a rty o f In d ia ( M a rxist), o r C P I ( M ) , w hich
h ad its g reatest success in W est Bengal. In the 1971 election to th e state
legislative assem bly, it alo n e w o n 111 seats a g a in st th e 105 seats o f the
official C ongress. T h is situ atio n cha n g ed af te r the w a r b etw een In d ia an d
P a k is ta n in 1971: in the M a rc h 1972 election to the W est Bengal S tate
A ssem bly, In d ira G a n d h i’s party sw ept th e b o a r d , w in n in g 216 seats o u t of
280, while the C P I( M) retained only 14. T h is placed the C P I ( M ) f a r behind
the official C P I , w hich in effect s u p p o r te d C ongress, essentially b ecause of
In d ira G a n d h i ’s p ro -S o v ie t posture: it w o n 35 seats. N evertheless, it
rem a in ed d o u b tf u l h ow long this C o n g ress t r iu m p h w ould last, since the
m isery w hich p r o d u c e d re v o lu tio n a ry feeling in Bengal r e m a in e d u n ­
ch anged. O n e m a y arg u e th a t tw enty years o f s tr o n g o p p o s itio n f r o m W est
Bengal to D elhi g o v e r n m e n ts w as a b o v e all d u e to e c o n o m ic a n d social
causes; b u t it w as also tr u e th a t feelings o f Bengali cu ltu ra l superiority ,
re se n tm e n t at th e division o f Bengal, a n d a feeling th a t In d ia was being ru n
by politicians fro m the w ro n g regions, gave la tent n a tio n a list q u a lity even
to Bengali social re v o lu tio n a r y protest.
T h e region o f In d ia in w hich o p p o s itio n to H in di w as m o st clearly
related to n a tio n a l feeling w as the so u th .
In th o se p arts o f M y so re w hich h a d b elo n g ed to B o m b a y u n d e r the
British R aj, a n d in th o se p a r ts o f A n d h r a w hich h a d b elonged to M a d ra s ,
so m e k n ow ledg e o f H in d i h a d been fostere d in th e sc h o o l system before
in dep endence. T h o u g h th e official la n g u ag e s ch o s e n by these tw o states
w ere K a n n a d a a n d T elu g u , th e re was n o fierce feeling ag a in st learnin g
H in d i as a second language. In K erala, w here th e official lan g u ag e was
M a la y a la m , the state g o v e r n m e n t actively e n c o u r a g e d th e stu d y o f Hindi.
300 Nations and States

F o r this th e re w ere several reasons. O n e was t h a t K erala, w ith a large

C h r istia n m inority, h a d a h ighe r rate o f literacy t h a n a n y p a r t o f India, an d
it was th u s possible to te ac h m o r e c hildren q u ic k e r a n d m o re easily. A
second was th a t, as it was also a region o f e x c ep tio n ally dense p o p u la tio n , a
very large p r o p o r ti o n o f its in h a b ita n ts so u g h t e m p lo y m e n t in cities t o the
n o r th , w here a kno w led g e o f H indi helped th e m to get jo b s. A th ird was
t h a t the c o m m u n is t party, w hich was very s tro n g in K erala, f a v o u red the
sp rea d of H indi. H o w ev er, t h o u g h all th ree state g o v e r n m e n ts were willing
to have H in d i ta u g h t, the in tr o d u c tio n o f H indi as the official lang u ag e of
g o v e r n m e n t a r o u se d little e n th u s ia s m fro m th e m o r their peoples.
O p p o s itio n w as stro n g est in M a d ra s. T h e T a m il la n g u ag e h a d its long
tr a d i tio n o f literature, a n d T a m il cu ltu re h a d alw ays been s o m e w h a t
d ifferent f r o m th a t o f th e n o r th , even t h o u g h T am ils a n d n o r th e rn e rs
sh a re d a H in d u heritage. U n d e r British rule, a successful M a d r a s intellectu­
al elite h a d g r o w n u p, n o t less p r o u d o f its sta tus, a n d w ith n o t less reason,
t h a n th a t o f Bengal. T h e M a d r a s elite differed fro m the Bengali in th a t it
h a d b ee n especially p r o m in e n t in g o v e r n m e n t service. T h is c o n tin u e d after
in d e p en d e n ce , w ith a h ighe r p r o p o r ti o n o f M a d ra s is e n te rin g the Indian
ad m in istra tiv e service th a n o f e n t ra n ts f ro m o th e r states. T h e e x a m in a tio n s
h a d always been c o n d u c te d in English. S h o u ld this be c h a n g ed to Hindi,
M a d ra sis w o u ld find them selves a t a grav e d isa d v an tag e. M a d r a s therefore
s p e a r h e a d e d the a tta c k a g a in st m a k in g H indi the official lan g u ag e by 1965,
w hich had been the p ro c la im e d in te n tio n o f the m a k e r s o f th e co n s titu tio n
o f 1950.
A s early as 1921 th e re h a d bee n a n active political g r o u p w hich upheld
the distinct interests o f th e T am ils. T his was the Ju stic e P arty , w hich not
only sto o d f o r re giona l rights b u t w as especially directed a g a in st the
s u p r e m a c y o f the M a d r a s B rahm ins. In succession to it th e re em erged in
1949 a p a r ty w ith a b r o a d p r o g r a m m e o f social a n d political refo rm , w hich
t o o k the n a m e D ravida M unettra Kazagham ( D r a v i d ia n P rogressive
M o v e m en t). In the 1950s it w o n m o r e a n d m o r e follow ers, a n d in 1967 it
held a clear m a jo rity in the sta te legislature as well as m o s t M a d r a s seats in
the I n d ia n p a rlia m e n t. T h e D M K d eclared its in te n tio n to w o rk fo r a new
c o n s titu tio n f o r In d ia, w ith m o s t o f the po w ers tra n s f e rr e d to the states,
a n d a ‘com p o sitiv e g o v e r n m e n t’ at the ce n tre w ith the b are m in i m u m of
a u th o rity . In S e p te m b e r 1970 th e D M K p re m ie r o f M a d r a s , since 1968
re n a m e d T a m iln a d u , held a n A ll-In d ia S tate s A u t o n o m y C o n v e n tio n ,
w hich w as a tte n d e d b y s o m e m e m b e rs o f th e P u n ja b i S ik h p arty , A kali
D al , a n d o f a Bengal b r e a k a w a y f r o m C o n g ress, th e B ang la Congress.
T h e r e w as how ev er little p ractical p ro sp e c t o f suc h a c h a n g e o f c o n s titu ­
tion, a n d the D M K was n o t p re p a re d to press fo r s e p a r a ti o n fro m the In d i­
a n U nion. C o n tro llin g T a m iln a d u th r o u g h th e ir m a jo rity , they were will­
ing to c o o p e r a te at the A ll-In dia level w ith I n d ira G a n d h i.
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 301

T h e p r o p o s e d re p la c e m e n t o f English by H in d i w as in fact indefinitely

p o s tp o n e d , afte r years o f a r g u m e n t a b o u t the best verbal fo rm u la , by the
Official L anguages A m e n d m e n t Act o f 1968. English r em a in ed the la n ­
guage o f p a r lia m e n ta r y d eba te s, a n d h ad eq u a l sta tu s w ith H indi in official
c o m m u n ic a tio n s betw e en the ce n tral a n d sta te g o v e rn m e n ts, as well as in
the c o n d u c t o f g o v e r n m e n t business. It w as official policy to e n c o u r a g e the
te ac h in g o f three langu ages in se co n d a ry schools. T h e g o v e r n m e n t’s
in te n tio n was th a t in H in d i-sp e a k in g states the languages w o u ld be Hindi,
English (o r a n o t h e r m o d e r n E u r o p e a n language) a n d a second I n d ia n
language; a n d th a t in th e n o n - H i n d i-s p e a k in g states they w ou ld be the
regio nal language, H in di a n d English ( o r a n o t h e r E u r o p e a n language).
T his was refused by T a m iln a d u , w hich preferred only tw o lang uages, T am il
a n d English, th u s d eliberately e x c lu d in g H indi. M o re o v e r, even in H in d i­
s p e ak in g n o r th e r n India these g o o d in te n tio n s w ere n o t ca rrie d o u t, since
c hildren were e n c o u r a g e d to ta k e, as th e ir second I n d ia n language, n o t a
s o u th e rn lang uage b u t eith er S a n s k r it o r U rd u , b o th o f w hich w ere of
c o u rse very close to Hindi.
Linguistic n a tio n a lism in In d ia was also c o n n e cted w ith religion. T h e
f o u n d ers o f in d e p e n d e n t In dia were d e te r m in e d th a t it sh o u ld be secular,
a n d insisted th a t political parties sh o u ld n o t be based on religion. O ne
result was th a t the tw o m ain religious g r o u p s organ ised them selves
n o m in a lly on the basis o f language.
T h e M uslim s o f U tta r P ra d e sh rallied beh in d the defence o f U rdu. T h e
t r u th was th a t fo r the n o r th e r n p e a sa n ts U rd u a n d H ind i were v irtually the
sam e language, but th a t th e tw o elites, insisting respectively o n the
D e v a n a g a ri or A ra b ic script, o n m o r e S a n s k r it w o rd s o r m o r e A ra b ic / P e r ­
sian w ords, were in fact strugglin g fo r tw o c o m p e tin g cu ltu res derived fro m
religion. T h e rulers o f U tta r P ra d e s h claim ed to speak fo r secular d e m o ­
cracy while using a d m in is tra tiv e p o w e r to m inim ise the te ac h in g o f U rd u ,
a n d d e n o u n c e d th o se w h o p rotested as M u slim fanatics; b u t the M uslim s
w ere convinced th a t th eir o p p o n e n t s in reality sto o d n o t f o r secular
d e m o c r a c y b u t for H in d u d o m in a tio n .
M uslim s, th o u g h n u m b e rin g m a n y millions, were scattered t h r o u g h o u t
In d ia, a n d c o uld n o t h o p e to fo rm a sta te o f th e ir o w n w ith in th e I n d ia n
U n io n . T his was h o w e v e r a possible a im fo r th e secon d religious g r o u p , the
S ikhs. T hey rallied b eh in d the P u n ja b i lan g u ag e , w ritte n in th e G u r u m u k h i
script. In reality, a t the level o f p e a s a n t speech, the difference between
H in d i a n d P u n ja b i w as small: w h a t w as being defe n d ed was the S ikh
religion. P u n ja b i la n g u ag e a n d G u r u m u k h i script in P u n ja b w ere the
w e a p o n s o f Sikhism: a r a th e r different situ a tio n f ro m th a t in Bosnia, w here
Cyrillic script a n d O r t h o d o x y w ere th e w e a p o n s o f S e r b ia n n a tio n a lism . In
Bosnia, in term ingling o f p o p u la tio n m a d e te rrito ria l s e p a r a tio n im possi­
ble, b u t n atio n a lism was a reality. In P u n ja b , c o n c e n tra tio n o f Sikh
302 Nations and States

p o p u la tio n w as sufficient (as a result o f the m ass ex p u lsio n s a t the tim e of

P a r titi o n in 1947) to m a k e s e p a r a tio n possible, b u t P u n ja b i n atio n alism
w as n o t so m u c h a real force as a disguise fo r the o rg a n is a tio n o f Sikh
religious believers.16 T h e S ikhs w ere successful in th e ir struggle, a n d in 1965
I n d ia n P u n ja b was divided into tw o states, P u n ja b a n d H a ry a n a .
F u r t h e r sm aller regional n a tio n a lism s u n d o u b te d ly existed, such as the
M a r a t h a revivalist Shiv Sena (arm y of Shivaji) in th e city o f B om bay; an d
serious d istu rb a n c e s th r e a te n e d to b r e a k u p A n d h r a in 1973, w hen there
was a m o v e m e n t to se p a r a te the te rrito ry fo rm e rly u n d e r M a d ra s fro m the
T e le n g a n a region, fo rm e rly p a r t o f the princely sta te of H y d e r a b a d , w hose
citizens h a d been given privileged o p p o r tu n itie s in the sta te service w hen
the state o f A n d h r a h a d been set up.
H ith e rto , em p h a sis has been laid on th e forces o p e r a tin g aga in st Indian
unity, a n d ce rta in parallels have b een suggested w ith C e n tr a l E u ro p e .
H ow ever, th e re were also pow erful forces o p e r a tin g in f a v o u r o f unity.
F irs t o f all m u st be placed the religious a n d cu ltu ra l legacy o f H in d u ism ,
affecting in different ways a n d w ith differing intensity th e vast m a jo rity o f
the p eop le o f India. T his basic unity is certainly affected by changes in the
place o f caste in I n d ia n affairs, by the c o m p le x in te rc o n n e c tio n s between
castes, by the rise a n d fall, c o n s o lid a tio n o r tr a n s f o r m a t io n , o f individual
castes. A t a m o r e easily visible level, a second u nifying fa c to r has b een the
Congress. A n alliance o f d is p a ra te o rg a n is a tio n s b ased in the different
states, linked by flexible yet firm b o n d s, it survived the fac tio n al struggles
a n d splits o f th e 1950s a n d 1960s a n d c o n tin u e d to defy a n y a t te m p t to fit it
into d o c trin a ir e E u r o p e a n political categories.
T h e conflict a b o u t the use o f H indi o r o f English h ad lost som e o f its
intensity by the 1970s, b u t th e fu tu re d e v e lo p m e n t o f H indi seemed certain
to be a n im p o r ta n t m a tte r. T h e g r o w th o f a single sta n d a r d is e d language, in
press a n d o th e r m edia, intelligible to rap idly in creasing millions w ho
passed t h r o u g h I n d ia ’s g ro w in g school system, was likely to s tren g th en the
n a t io n a l consciousness o f th o se w h o a d o p t e d i t as th e ir language. In this
respect it m ig h t be c o m p a r e d w ith the g r o w t h o f a single w ritte n m o d e rn
A ra b ic language, the sa m e f r o m M o r o c c o to Ira q , w h o se use by the
ed u c a te d coexisted w ith th e c o n tin u e d use by the p eoples o f distinct form s
o f speech barely intelligible f r o m one m a jo r region to a n o th e r . A c o m p a r i­
son w ith th e role of R u s s ia n in th e Soviet U n io n also h a d so m e relevance,
t h o u g h it w as less ap t. R u s s ia n w as a lre a d y a s ta n d a r d is e d la n g u ag e early in
the n in e tee n th ce ntury, a n d differences o f dialect (as o p p o s e d to the tw o
d istin ct languages U k r a in ia n a n d B yelorussian) ceased to be im p o r ta n t.
R u ssian was th e vehicle fo r a g rea t literature, a n d w as s p o k e n as m o th e r
to n g u e by all Russians. H in d i in the 1970s was f a r f r o m o cc u pying a n
a n a lo g o u s p o sitio n in India. N eith er th e will n o r th e m e a n s existed in the
early 1970s f o r a policy o f H in d ific a tio n c o m p a r a b le to the R u ssification of
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 303

late tsarist o r Soviet tim es, a n d India possessed no in s tru m e n t a t all sim ilar
to the b u r e a u c r a c y o f th e tsars o r to the c o m m u n is t p a rty o f the Soviet
U n ion. Indira G a n d h i ’s choice of d ic ta to rs h ip in 1975, t h o u g h a p p r o v e d by
h e r Soviet friends a n d by the C P I , was r e p u d ia te d by the I n d ia n electorate
in M a rc h 1977.
Nevertheless there w as p erh a p s a n o t h e r tr e n d in I n d ia n political life
w hich h a d its R u s sia n analogy. T h e r e seem ed to be a m o v e m e n t o f the
ce n tre o f political gravity, f r o m the g rea t co a sta l cities to th e la n d -lo ck ed
n o r th e r n plain. N o t only was D elhi the ca p ita l b o th of the M o g h u l em p ire
a n d o f in d e p e n d e n t India, b u t it was in the n o r th a n d ce n tre th a t the vast
H in d i-sp ea k in g reserve o f m a n p o w e r lived. R ussia h ad h ad one St P ete rs­
burg, w hich after tw o brilliant cen turies yielded place once m o r e to
M osc ow . In d ia had h a d th ree w indow s to th e o u tsid e w o r l d — C a lc u tta ,
B o m b a y a n d M a d ra s . It w as the British rulers w h o b r o u g h t th e capital b ac k
to Delhi, in 1909: it m a y be th a t this will p ro v e as sym bolically i m p o r ta n t in
Ind ian history as w as L enin’s reversion to th e old cap ital in 1918. It is in an y
case interesting th a t the case for the su p r e m a c y o f H in di in In d ia was
viewed w ith s y m p a th y fro m the 1950s o n w a r d s by S oviet sp o k e sm e n , a n d
also by the M o sc o w -o rie n te d c o m m u n is t p a r ty o f India.
W h e th e r India w ou ld survive as a single g rea t state, o r w h e th e r bits
w o u ld splinter off to leave o n e great ce n tral heir to th e M o g h u l em p ire a n d
several perip h e ra l sm a lle r states, it w as q u ite im possible to predict. M u c h
w ould d e p e n d o n the unfore see able effects o f the flu ctu atin g rela tio nsh ip s
betw een the great foreign pow ers of the F a r East: A m eric a, Russia, C h in a
a n d J a p a n . T ende ncie s sim ilar to the f o r m a tio n o f n a tio n a l consciousne ss
in o th e r p arts o f the w o rld w ere at w o rk in different p arts o f India, b u t they
w o u ld n o t necessarily prevail. T h e m o r e o r less official d o c trin e , th a t Ind ia
was a n a tio n state, th a t th e re was a single I n d ian n a tio n , o f c o m p o site
culture, spe ak in g m a n y lang u ag e s b u t u n ite d by a secu lar d e m o c ra c y , or
socialism, o r som e o th e r te rm yet to be devised, m igh t in tim e o b ta in not
ju s t passive p o p u la r acquiescence b u t positive assent, a n d m ig h t be
tr a n s la te d in to practice, so th a t In d ia w o u ld b e c o m e a gigantic S w itzer­
land. O r it m ig ht b e c o m e clear th a t I n d ia w as a m u lti- n a tio n a l state; in
w hich case th e several n a tio n s m ight be held in c o m m o n b o n d a g e as in a
still m o r e p o p u lo u s v ersio n o f th e Soviet em pire; o r th e m u lti- n a tio n a l state
m ight, like th e H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y , b u r s t a s u n d e r. E u r o p e a n experience
co uld p r o b a b ly be en lig h te n in g a t tim es fo r I n d ia n sta te sm en , b u t th e re was
little p o in t in try in g to force I n d ia into intellectual categories derived fro m
E u r o p e a n history. G re a t states existed f o r c e nturies in In d ia w ith o u t an y
need fo r n a tio n a l consciousness, a n d new o r old types o f legitim acy a n d
allegiance m ight well p ro v e m o r e effective.
304 Nations and States

Pakistan
P a k is t a n faced the sam e tw o basic p ro b le m s as India, a n u n c e rta in n atio n al
identity a n d a variety of languages; b u t b o th were m a d e m o r e difficult by
the fact th a t the c o u n try was divided in to tw o p arts, s e p a ra te d fro m each
o th e r by a distanc e of a th o u s a n d miles.
T h e f o u n d a ti o n on w hich I n d ia n identity h ad to be built was religious
a n d cu ltu ra l, a n d the sam e was tru e of P a k ista n . H ow ever, w hereas India
included virtually all H in d u s in the w orld (the In d o n e sia n island o f Bali and
th e sm all I n d ia n d ia s p o r a a c ro ss th e oce an s f o r m b u t a slight exception), the
people o f P a k is ta n were o nly a p erip h e ra l section o f a m u c h w id er M uslim
w orld c o m m u n ity . H in d u is m was specific to India, but Islam was not
specific to P a k ista n . Before in de pen de nce , political rheto ric had
stressed th e M u slim c h a r a c te r ol the n a t io n w hich was being b r o u g h t into
being, t h o u g h its leaders w ere r a th e r s e cu la r-m in d e d politicians. T h e new
state w o u ld need a c o n s titu tio n , a n d this sh o u ld be e m p h atica lly Islamic.
B ut w h e n th e prac tica l w o rk o f c o n s titu t io n - m a k in g b egan , it w as f o u n d
t h a t th e ulema h ad few p ractical p ro p o s a ls to m a k e , a n d m o d e rn isin g
b u r e a u c r a ts a n d lawyers played th e m a in p art. T h e c o n s titu tio n was
a d o p t e d in 1956, b u t tw o years later Field M a rs h a l A y u b K h a n becam e
m ilitary d ic ta to r. A new c o n s titu tio n was devised in 1962, b u t it w as n o t of
m u c h im p o r ta n c e . M e a n w h ile civil se rva n ts ruled, while la n d o w n e rs
g r a d u a lly yielded place to b u sine ssm e n as the m o st influential social class.
M o r e t h a n h a lf the p o p u la tio n of P a k is t a n had Bengali for their
lang uage a n d lived in th e ea ste rn section, w here th e re was no o th e r
significant lan g u ag e g ro u p . I n W est P a k is t a n the la n g u ag e o f nearly tw o-
th ird s (29 p e r cent fo r th e w h o le state) was P u n jab i. T h e tw o next m ost
im p o r ta n t la nguages w ere S in d h i( 1 2 .6 p e r c e n t in th e W est a n d 5.5 p e r c e n t
in the w hole) a n d P u s h tu (8.5 p e r cent a n d 3.7 p e r cent). N o n e o f these was
m a d e the official language. In stea d w as ch o sen U rd u , w hich was the
m o th e r to n g u e o f less t h a n 4 p e r cent b u t h a d a g lo rio u s past as the
langu age o f th e a r m y o f th e M o g h u l em p ire, a n d w as u n d e r s to o d as a
second lan g u ag e by the e d u c a te d elite in th e w estern p art. As a result of
pressure f r o m the east, in 1954 Bengali w as given official s ta tu s eq u a l to
U rd u . English was also r e ta in e d as a la n g u ag e o f g o v e rn m e n t.
But by f a r th e greatest p r o b le m o f P a k is t a n was its physical division.
E ast P a k ista n , w ith a solid Bengali p o p u la tio n , h a d m o r e t h a n h alf the
p o p u la tio n o f the w hole state. In 1961 its p o p u la tio n w as a b o u t 51,000,000
a n d th a t o f th e W est a b o u t 43,000,000. E ast Bengal suffered especially fro m
the ec o n o m ic conseq u e n ces o f th e p a r titio n o f 1947. A very large p a r t o f the
fo rm e r Bengali elite r em a in ed in, o r m o v e d to, W e st Bengal, w h ich also had
the m a in in dustrial centres: the p o p u la tio n o f E ast Bengal th u s consisted,
to a q u ite e x c ep tio n al e x te n t even by s o u th A sian s ta n d a r d s , o f im p o v e r ­
 East A sia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 305

ished pea sa nts, cut off even fro m the slen der m e an s o f m a te ria l im p r o v e ­
m e n t w hich they h ad previously possessed, a n d a t the sam e tim e lacking
ex pe rienc ed political le adership.
In P a k is ta n it was th e w estern half w hich pro v id ed th e political a n d
e c o n o m ic elite. W est P a k is t a n h ad a c o n s id e ra b le business class, w hich
grew a n d p ro sp ered , t h o u g h there were o f c o u rse large regions o f W est
P a k is ta n w hich were ex tre m ely b a c k w a rd ; E ast P a k is t a n h ow ever largely
lost its earlier business class, w hich h ad been H in d u , a n d w h a t rem a ined
m a d e slow er progress. N ew in d u stria lis a tio n was m u c h m o r e successful in
the W est th a n in the East. T h e gap betw een the p er capita in c o m e o f the
W est a n d the E ast w idened strikingly in th e period fro m 1959-60 to 1968-69
to the d isa d v a n ta g e o f th e East. T his was th e m o r e bitterly resented in th e
E ast because the e x p o r ts o f East Bengal p r o v id ed the g r e a te r p a r t o f the
foreign cu rren c y w hich was essential to the W e st’s ind u stria l ex p a n sio n .
T h e highest posts in th e a d m in is t ra tio n were also o v erw h elm ingly held by
westerners. In the Civil Service o f P a k is t a n ( C S P ) , th e successor to the
Ind ian Civil Service o f British rule, the p r o p o r t i o n of e a ste rn e rs in the
yearly intake increased n o ta b ly d u r in g th e te n y ea rs’ rule o f A y u b K h a n , as
a result o f conscious g o v e r n m e n t policy, b u t it still rem a in ed well below the
p r o p o r ti o n o f ea ste rne rs in the total p o p u l a t i o n . 17
T h e new political system o f A y u b , f o u n d e d o n locally elected ‘basic
d e m o c ra c ie s’ a n d designed to ex clu de political parties o f th e ea rlier type,
did n o t satisfy easterners. T h e A w am i L eague, fo u n d e d in 1949 as the m a in
o p p o sitio n a l p a rty in E ast Bengal, a n d c ripp led by A y u b ’s Elective Bodies
D isq ua lifica tion O rd i n a n c e o f 1958, c o n tin u e d to c o m m a n d massive
s u p p o r t. In 1966 its leader, M ujib u r - R a h m a n , p u t f o rw a r d his S ix - P o in t
P ro g r a m m e . T his d e m a n d e d th a t the c e n tra l g o v e r n m e n t s h o u ld confine
itself to defence a n d foreign affairs; th a t th e tw o p arts o f the c o u n t r y (or
‘w ings’) sh o u ld have a lm o s t c o m p lete in d e p e n d e n c e to m a k e e c o n o m ic
policy; a n d th a t E ast P a k is t a n sh o u ld be allo w ed to fo rm a militia o f its
own. T h e g o v e r n m e n t replied by a rre stin g th e A w a m i L eague leaders.
H ow ever, p o p u la r d is c o n te n t r em a in ed , a n d in 1968 o p p o s itio n grew in
b o th ‘w ings’, being direc ted in th e W est essentially ag a in st A y u b ’s rule b u t
in the East essentially fo r Bengali ind ep en d e n ce . A y u b resigned in M a r c h
1969, after h av in g released M u jib u r - R a h m a n f r o m prison. M u jib publicly
reiterate d his earlier d e m a n d s , a n d a d d e d f u r th e r m e asures o f a socialist
type, w h ich h a d been p a r t o f a n E le v e n -P o in t P r o g r a m m e a d o p t e d by the
rad ic al E ast Bengal s tu d e n ts a t th e en d o f 1968. A y u b ’s successor, G en e ra l
A g a M u h a m m a d Y a h y a K h a n , resto re d political liberties, a n d allow ed a n
election to a N a ti o n a l A ssem b ly, w hich t o o k place in D e c e m b e r 1970. This
gave th e A w a m i L eag ue all b u t tw o o f th e seats in th e E ast, a n d a n overall
m a jo r ity in the w hole o f P a k is t a n (160 seats o u t o f 300).
F r o m this m o m e n t th e d isin te g ra tio n o f P a k is t a n w ent rapidly ah e ad.
306 Nations and States

T h e m eeting o f the N a ti o n a l A ssem bly was p o stp o n e d ; M u jib m a d e still

m o r e rad ic al d e m a n d s; a n d Y a h y a K h a n o rd e r e d t r o o p s in to suppress
w h a t he reg a rd e d as sedition. T h e re was b rief a r m e d resistance, follow ed by
m a ssacres o f civilians, especially o f university stu d e n ts a n d teachers, a n d
by a su stain e d g uerrilla c a m p a ig n . In D e c e m b e r 1971 the I n d ia n g o v e r n ­
m e n t sent its a r m y in to Bengal, a n d also w aged full-scale w a r against
P a k is t a n in th e W est. T h e result was th a t a new sovereign sta te c a m e into
existence, B a ngla desh , u n d e r the le adership of M u jib u r - R a h m a n .
T w o d ecad es o f effort to cre ate a P a k is t a n n a tio n h a d clearly failed, a n d
it was clear th a t the P a k is ta n sta te w o u ld n o t be rec o n stitu ted . T h e p ro b lem
re m a in e d w h e th e r o r n o t new n a tio n s seem ed likely to a p p e a r in its place.
In th e m id-1970s th e re w ere over a h u n d r e d m illion Bengalis in the
w o rld , a b o u t th re e -q u a rte r s o f th e m in B a n g la d esh a n d o n e - q u a rte r in
W est Bengal in In dia. T h e y w ere u n ite d by a c o m m o n lan g u ag e a n d
cu lture, divided by religion. In 1947 th e religious division h ad pro ved
stro n g e r t h a n th e cu ltu ra l unity: was it possible t h a t af te r a q u a r te r o f a
c e n tu ry these fac to rs w ou ld be reversed? Bengal c o u ld theoretically be
u n ite d eith er as a n in d e p e n d e n t state o r w ith in th e I n d ia n U nion . N either
a ltern ativ e lo o k e d very p ro m ising . A single h u n d r e d - m illio n Bengali state
w o u ld sta rt its life as th e grea test ce n tre o f po v erty in the w orld, the m ost
p e r m a n e n tly th r e a te n e d by s ta rv a tio n , a n d w ith the m o s t h ideously squalid
u r b a n a g g lo m e r a tio n o f th e w hole h u m a n race, G r e a te r C a lc u tta . If India
in c o rp o r a te d E ast Bengal, it w ou ld be in c o rp o r a tin g m ass misery; an d
t h o u g h E ast Bengalis in 1972 reg a rd e d M rs I n d ira G a n d h i a n d h e r a r m y a s
liberato rs, only a few years la ter sen tim e n ts h a d s o u r e d o n b o th sides.
T h e r e seem ed little d o u b t t h a t g ro w in g m isery w o u ld create grow ing
political d isc o n te n t, especially a m o n g the y o u n g e r g e n e r a tio n o f the
e d u c a te d elite. L eft-w ing fo rm s o f c o m m u n is m h a d been s tr o n g in West
Bengal since th e 1950s, a n d c ould very q uic kly sp rea d a m o n g the ea st­
erners, w h o se less intellectually so p h is tica te d political clim ate had been an
obsta cle in earlier years. M u c h w ou ld also d e p e n d o n e n c o u r a g e m e n t or
d irect help f r o m C h in a. T h e a r g u m e n t th a t, if M a o ’s ty pe o f political a n d
social o r g a n is a tio n h a d revitalised six h u n d r e d m illion C hinese, the sam e
co uld be d o n e fo r one h u n d r e d m illio n Bengalis, h a d a c e rta in persuasive­
ness. T h e Bengalis were desp erate ly p o o r a n d th e ir e c o n o m y w as in a
prim itive c o n d itio n , b u t the sa m e h a d been tr u e o f C h i n a before M a o . T he
C h in ese h ad a n anc ie nt a n d splendid c u ltu re t h a t f o rm e d a n indestru ctible
n a tio n a l cem ent; b u t the Bengalis h a d th e ir a n c ie n t c u ltu re too.
T h e rulers a n d th e a r m y o f W e st P a k is t a n w ere a b le t o lead th e ir people
aga in st th e ea ste rn e rs u n til I n d ia n s u p e rio r force d efe ate d th e m ; b u t this
did n o t m e an th a t a single P a k is ta n i n a tio n had bee n cre ate d in th e West.
I his was u n f o rtu n a te ly f a r f r o m true. T h e Baluchis in the south -w est were
restive, a n d m a n y P a th a n s in th e n o rth -w e st w ere a ttr a c t e d by the idea o f a
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 307

c o m m o n h o m e la n d o f P a k h to o n is ta n , to be linked in som e w ay w ith

A fg h a n ista n . In th e la tte r c o u n t r y b o th I n d ia n a n d Soviet R u s sia n influ­
ence was stro n g , a n d these tw o countries, allied since 1971, h a d a c o m m o n
interest in using A fg h a n is ta n ag a in st P a k is ta n . E ven in the m o r e ce ntral
co re o f th e c o u n try , P u n ja b is a n d S indhis w ere se ld o m o n very g o o d term s.
It w o u ld seem t h a t th e re was in fact n o th in g th a t co uld be called a
P a k ista n i n atio n , th o u g h it was also q u ite possible th a t th e sta te o f W est
P a k is ta n m ight survive, u n d e r a g o v e r n m e n t w h o se real basis o f legitim acy
w o uld n o t in fact be n a tio n a l identity ( th o u g h its sp o k e s m e n m ig ht
c o n tin u e to talk as if it were), b u t m o r e a n c ie n t trad itio n s.
T h e r e existed in fact a v ast te rrito ry , e x te n d in g f r o m M e s o p o ta m ia to the
P a m ir s a n d fro m the C a s p ia n to K a sh m ir, w hich s h a re d a c o m m o n
tr a d i tio n o f M uslim religion a n d P ersian culture. T h is region w as divided
in th e 1970s b etw een Ira n , P a k is ta n , A fg h a n is ta n a n d the C e n tr a l A sian
republics o f th e Soviet U n io n . S tates h a d risen a n d fallen in this region for
centuries, a n d w ou ld d o u b tle ss rise a n d fall in the future. T h e only state o f
the f o u r w hich could be said to be based, in th e 1970s, o n a s tr o n g sense of
n a tio n a l identity, shared by a large p a r t b u t certainly n o t by all o f its
people, was Iran. T h e fate o f the region was, how ever, likely to d e p e n d n o t
only on th e n a tio n al consciou sness (o r lack o f such) of its people,· b u t also
o n the im perial a m b itio n s or defensive needs o f the rulers o f th ree m u c h
g r e a te r powers: Russia, In d ia a n d C hina.

South-east Asia
O f n atio n alist m o v e m e n ts in the h e te ro g e n e o u s region k n o w n as ‘s o u t h ­
east A sia’ a brief outlin e m u s t suffice.
In B u r m a political parties a p p e a r e d in th e 1920s, a n d a new c o n s titu tio n
perm itted the beginnings o f p a r lia m e n ta r y politics in 1937. In these years a
political g r o u p o f y o u n g e r m en m a d e itself felt, the so-called Thakin
p a r t y , 18 m a n y o f w ho se leaders h ad s tu d ied in J a p a n . W h e n th e J a p a n e s e
o ccupied B u r m a in the S e c o n d W o rld W a r , th e Thakins a p p e a r e d as their
allies, organ isin g a B urm e se N a tio n a l A rm y to fight the British. T h e ir aim
w as n o t so m u c h the g r e a te r glory o f J a p a n as the in d e p e n d e n c e o f B u rm a
u n d e r their o w n rule. T h e y f o rm e d them selves into a secret A n ti-F a scist
P eo p le’s F r e e d o m L eague, a n d in 1945, w h en the Allies were clearly
w inning, b r o u g h t th e B u rm e se N a tio n a l A rm y over to the Allied side. A fter
som e h e sita tion by th e British a u th o ritie s in R a n g o o n a n d by the British
g o v e r n m e n t in L o n d o n , B u r m a was g r a n te d in d e p e n d e n c e in 1948. S h o rtly
afte rw a rd s the A F P F L le a d e r A u n g S a n a n d so m e of his closest helpers
w ere assassin ate d by political enemies. T h e new state w as faced w ith
o p p o sitio n fro m th e n o n - B u r m e s e peoples w ith in its fro n tie rs a n d fro m
308 Nations and States

several b r a n d s of c o m m u n is t guerrillas, b u t it survived.

In th e D u tc h E ast Indies the first n a tio n a list o r g a n is a tio n , w hich in 1911
to o k the n a m e Sarekat Islam, was in te n d e d to p r o te c t b o th the M uslim
faith a n d the interests o f J a v a n e s e m e rc h a n ts a g a in st the C hinese m in o r i­
t y . 19 It also a c q u ire d befo re lo n g a n a n t i - D u t c h c h a ra c te r. In the years after
the F irs t W o r ld W a r, o n th e initiative o f a D u tc h left socialist g ro u p
e m a n a tin g f ro m H o lla n d , a c o m m u n is t p a rty was cre ate d w hich m a d e an
unsuccessful a r m e d rebellion in 1926. S everal sm all n a tio n a list gro u p s
a p p e a r e d , led by v a rio u s D u tc h - e d u c a te d Ja v a n e s e , w h o h a d learned
E u r o p e a n ideas, especially fo rm s o f socialism, d u r in g th e ir studies in the
h o m e la n d o r in E u ro p e . O u ts ta n d in g a m o n g th e m was A h m e d S u k a r n o ,
w h o studied also in Berlin, w here he c a m e u n d e r the influence o f the
c o m m u n ist-le d A n ti-Im p e ria list League. Im p riso n e d by the D u tc h , he
re a p p e a r e d in p ublic life u n d e r J a p a n e s e p ro te c tio n in the S e co n d W o rld
W ar. Like A u n g S an , S u k a r n o was co n c e rn e d m o r e for his o w n people a n d
his o w n ca reer th a n for his J a p a n e s e pro tec to rs. U nlike A u n g S an , he never
f o u g h t a g a in st th e Ja p a n e se .
T h e efforts o f the D u tc h to restore th e ir rule were vigorously resisted. In
J a v a , S u k a r n o , s u p p o r te d by v ario u s n a tio n a list parties, was n o t c o n te n t
w ith effective c o n tro l ov er J a v a , b u t insisted th a t the new state m ust
c o m p rise all the D u tc h islands; it was given the n a m e , a lre ad y in use before
th e w a r w ith J a p a n , o f Ind o n esia . T h e D u tc h tried at first to limit their
reco g n itio n o f n atio n alist p o w e r to J a v a , to u n ite all the islands in a loose
fe d e ra tio n , a n d to keep th e m in so m e so rt o f a s so cia tio n w ith the N e th e r ­
lands. T h e y failed in all these objectives. S u k a r n o dec la re d a u n ita ry state
in In d o n esia , b r o k e the last c o n s titu tio n a l links w ith H o lla n d in 1954, an d
a c q u ir e d w estern N ew G u in e a (W e ste rn Irian) in 1957. T h e last o f these
successes, w h ich e x te n d e d his rule o v er p eople o f u tterly d ifferent cu ltu re
fro m th a t o f th e m a in islands, c ould be vario u sly in te rp re te d as a tr iu m p h
for I n d o n e s ia n u n ity o r f o r J a v a n e s e im perialism .
T h e c o m p le x situ a tio n in British M a la y a a n d S in g a p o re , a n d in the
B ritish-ruled p o r tio n s of B o rn eo , resu ltin g fro m th e im m ig r a tio n fo r m a n y
d ecades o f C hinese a n d In d ia n s, will be briefly discussed in a later c h a pte r.
A m e r ic a n a n n e x a t io n o f th e P hilip p in e s in 1898 w as bitterly resisted by
A g u in a ld o ’s n atio n alists u ntil M a r c h 1901. In th e s u b d u e d islands the
A m eric an s set u p rep rese n tativ e in stitu tio n s, a n d en larg ed th e ir p o w ers by
successive acts. In 1934 th e U n ite d S tates g o v e r n m e n t u n d e r t o o k to m a k e
the Philipp ines a n in d e p e n d e n t repub lic by 1946. T h is w as d u e p a rtly to the
generosity o f the A m e r ic a n public, ex p re ssed in C ong ress, a n d p a rtly to the
desire o f the A m e ric a n su g a r in d u stry t o p u t P h ilip p in e su g a r o u tsid e the
A m e ric a n ta riff barrier. D u r i n g fifty years o f A m e r ic a n rule a m o d e rn
school system was cre ate d, a n d English replaced S p a n ish as the m a in
lang uage o f culture, while th e p o p u la tio n c o n tin u e d to spe ak its ow n
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 309

languages, of w hich the m o st w idespre ad w as T ag alog. J a p a n e s e o c c u p a ­

tio n fro m 1942 to 1944 in te r ru p te d the p ro g re ss to w a r d s in d e p en d e n ce , but
the P h ilippine R epu b lic was in fact p ro c la im e d on the p ro m ise d d ate, 4
J u ly 1946.
T h e s o u th - e a ste rn te rrito rie s ruled by th e F re n c h were collectively
k n o w n as In d o c h in a . T h ey included C a m b o d ia , L aos ( a n n e x e d fro m S iam
in 1893) a n d V ie tn a m (w hich was in tu r n divided into C o c h in - C h in a ,
A n n a m a n d T o n k in ). N a tio n a list activities dev eloped a m o n g V ietnam ese
intellectuals betw een the w o rld wars. S o m e h a d stu died in F ra n c e , som e in
J a p a n . F re n ch influences, ran g in g fro m s o m e sort of liberalism to c o m m u ­
nism , w ere the stro ngest, b u t the K u o m in ta n g in C h in a also h a d its
a d m irers. W h e n the J a p a n e s e occupied In d o c h in a in 1940, with the co n sen t
o f the F re n c h g o v e r n m e n t in Vichy, resistance m o v e m e n ts began. In the
resistance th e re was a C hinese K u o m in ta n g tre n d a n d a c o m m u n is t trend.
T h e second , represen ted by the brilliant H o Chi M in h ( w h o had lived in
F ra n c e a n d o th e r E u r o p e a n co u n tries as well as in c o m m u n is t-c o n tro lle d
te rr ito r y in C hina), was the m o re effective. W h e n the J a p a n e s e s u r re n ­
d ere d , the V ietm inh , a political m o v e m e n t led by c o m m u n ists, w ere in a
s tr o n g position, especially in the n o rth . F r e n c h tr o o p s r e tu r n e d in 1945, but
the F re n c h g o v e r n m e n t s o u g h t a n e g o tiated settlem ent. Like the D u tc h in
Ind o n esia , they a im e d a t a fed e ra tio n , to be united w ith F ra n ce . T h ey
h o p e d to limit the a u t h o r i ty o f the repub lic o f V ietnam , c o n tro lle d by
V ietm inh, to th e fo rm e r p rovinces o f T o n k i n a n d A n n a m . T h e so u th e rn
p rovince o f C o c h in - C h in a , a n d the states o f L ao s a n d C a m b o d ia , s h o u ld be
c o m b in e d w ith V ie tn a m in a n Indoch ine se fede ra tion. A g re e m e n t was
a lm o st reached, but was rejected at th e last m o m e n t by th e F rench. In
D e c e m b e r 1946 the V ietm in h laun ched a n a t ta c k o n the F re n c h forces.
A n in te r n a tio n a l con fe re n ce in G en e v a in th e s p ring of 1954, afte r seven
years o f w ar, estab lished C a m b o d ia a n d L a o s as in d e p e n d e n t states, while
V ie tn a m was d ivided o n the 26th parallel o f latitude. In th e n o r th w as a
c o m m u n ist-r u le d repu blic, a n d in the s o u th a rival V ietn am e se g o v e r n m e n t
su p p o r te d by A m e ric a n e c o n o m ic aid. Lip service was paid o n b o th sides to
th e u ltim ate reu n ific atio n o f V ietnam . H ow ever, to H o C h i M in h a n d his
p r o te c to rs in M o sc o w these w o rd s m e a n t forcible im p o s itio n o f c o m m u n is t
rule in the s o u th , while the so u th e rn rulers in practice o p p o s e d reunifica­
tion. In 1958 th e V ietcong guerrilla m o v e m e n t sta rted w a r in the south: it
w as led by c o m m u n ists, a n d aided w ith w e a p o n s a n d skilled c o m m a n d e r s
fro m the n o r th . T h e s o u th e r n arm y , t h o u g h lavishly eq u ip p e d f ro m the
U n ite d S tates a n d s u p p o r te d f r o m 1964 o n w a r d s by A m e r ic a n a r m e d
forces w hich grew to several h u n d r e d s o f t h o u s a n d s , was u n a b le to cru sh its
enem y. Soviet R ussia did n o t send tr o o p s , b u t delivered e n o r m o u s
q u a n titie s o f m ilitary suppies to the n o r th e r n g o v e r n m e n t, w h ich also
received so m e aid fro m C h in a . T h e p r o tra c te d w ar b r o u g h t terrible
310 Nations and States

sufferings a n d m assive loss o f life to the p eople o f V ietnam . W ar-w eariness

a n d p ro -V ie tc o n g a g ita tio n in th e U nited S tate s th o r o u g h ly discredited the
w a r in a large p a r t o f A m e r ic a n pu blic o p in io n as well as c re atin g o d iu m all
ov er th e w orld aga in st A m e ric a , to w h o se leaders— a n d n o t to the im p la c a ­
ble c o m m u n is t le aders o f N o r t h V ie tn a m — sole respon sibility fo r the
p r o tr a c t e d m isery was a ttr ib u te d . In 1973 P re sid en t N ix o n w ith d rew
A m e r ic a n forces. By th e sp ring o f 1975 th e n o r th e r n c o m m u n is ts , w ith their
s o u th e rn s u p p o r te r s, h a d c o n q u e r e d the w hole co u n try . T h e successes of
th e c o m m u n ists, achieved by years o f heroic effort a n d m ass suffering, were
successes in civil w ar; b u t the v ic to rio us V ietn am e se c o m m u n is ts u n d e r ­
s ta n d a b ly identified their cause w ith t h a t o f th e V ietn am e se nation.

From the empire of the tsars to the Soviet empire

In c o n t r a s t to the British, F re n c h a n d D u tc h em pires, th e R u ssian em p ire
d id n o t b r e a k u p , b u t c h a n g e d th e n a t u r e o f its im p e ria l rule. N o new
states a p p e a r e d in its place, b u t this was n o t f o r a n y lack o f n a tio n a l
m o v e m en ts.
T h e first m o d e r n n a tio n a list m o v e m e n ts aga in st R u ssian im perial rule in
A sia a p p e a r e d in T ra n s c a u c a s ia , at th e en d o f the n in e tee n th century.
A m o n g b o t h A rm e n ia n s a n d G e o rg ia n s political activity was d o m in a te d
f r o m the b e ginning by s o m e f o r m of socialism. T h e A r m e n ia n re v o lu tio n ­
a ry m o v e m e n t, directed a b o v e all a g a in st T u rk i s h rule b u t largely b ased on
R u s sia n te rrito ry , w as b o t h socialist a n d n atio n alist. In G eorgia, where
a g r a r ia n d isc o n te n t was very stro ng, a n d w here th e re w as n o t m u c h g r o u n d
f o r a n t i- R u s s ia n feeling, th e stron gest political m o v e m e n t to em erge was
the M e n sh ev ik b r a n c h o f S ocial D e m o c r a c y , w h o se a im was to replace
t s a r d o m by a socialist republic, in w h ich th e G e o r g ia n w o rk e rs a n d
p ea sa n ts sh o u ld have th e ir place.
T h e m o d e rn is t a n d d e m o c r a tic m o v e m e n t a m o n g th e V olga T a ta r s , a n d
th e rise o f P a n tu r k is m , h a v e bee n m e n tio n e d in a n ea rlier c h a p te r. S im ila r
m o d e rn isin g ideas sp rea d a m o n g the T a t a r s o f the C r im e a n p enin sula, a n d
a m o n g th e A zeri T u r k s o f th e w est C a s p ia n co a st a n d in te rior. M o d e r n is ­
ing a n d P a n t u r k i c ideas also h a d a fa in t echo a m o n g th e K a z a k h s o f the
so u th S ib e ria n steppes a n d in s o m e cities o f T u r k e s ta n , th o u g h in th e la tte r
region tr a d itio n a l religious a n d social hie ra rc hie s o n the w hole prevailed,
a n d were respected by th e R ussians. T h e r e w as h o w e v e r o n e violent
o u tb r e a k , in T u r k e s ta n in 1916, w h o se im m e d ia te ca u se w as m o b ilisa tio n
o f the M uslim s fo r la b o u r service in the w ar, b u t w h ich w as also d u e to
la tent rese n tm e n t at the g ro w in g se ttle m en t o f M u s lim la n d s by R u ssian
a n d U k r a in ia n p easants.
T h e re v o lu tio n a ry years 1917-21 b r o u g h t a rap id g r o w th o f n atio n alist
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 311

d e m a n d s , b u t they were n o t satisfied. G e o rg ia n s a n d A rm e n ia n s w ished to

re m a in w ith in Russia, but w hen the g o v e r n m e n t o f L enin, by th e peace
tr e a ty w ith G e r m a n y a n d its allies at B rest-L itovsk in M a rc h 1918, signed
a w a y large p arts of th e ir h o m e la n d s to T u rk e y w ith o u t c o n s u ltin g the m ,
they decided to secede f r o m Russia. F o r a m o n th a T r a n s c a u c a s ia n
repu blic was fo rm e d , b u t it th e n b r o k e u p into th r e e — G eo rg ia , A z e rb a ïd ­
j a n a n d A rm en ia . W hile civil w a r raged in R ussia, these were able to exist as
p rec ario u s sovereign states. In 1920 th e R u ssian Bolsheviks, w h o h ad
s tr o n g s u p p o r t f ro m the w o rk e rs o f th e big in d u stria l city o f B aku, invaded
A ze rb a ïd ja n . T his placed A rm e n ia in a n im possible position. R a th e r t h a n
be subjected to th e T u r k s , w h o u n d e r K em al h ad su p p ressed the a tte m p ts
o f th e A rm e n ia n s o f ea ste rn T u rk e y to jo i n th e ir k in sm en in a large
A rm e n ia n state, they preferred inclusion in Soviet Russia. M e an w h ile the
T a t a r s fared n o better. T h e ir lands were inv a d ed a n d d e v a sta te d in tu r n by
R u s sia n W hites a n d Reds, a n d huge n u m b e rs perished in the 1921 fam ine
in the V olga valley. T h e i r plans for a V o lg a-U ra l ( Idel-U ral ) a u t o n o m o u s
sta te collapsed: they w ere given n o m in a lly a u t o n o m o u s status, b u t in fact
c a m e u n d e r a new fo rm o f R u ssian d o m in a tio n . G e o rg ia rem a ined
i n d e p e n d e n t until 1921, w hen Soviet R u s sia n forces sim ply m a rc h e d in a n d
to o k over the g o v ern m e n t.
In C e n tra l A sia n atio n alist m o v e m e n ts a p p e a r e d , led in som e cases by
tr a d itio n a l elites a n d in oth e rs by m o d e rn is in g d em o crats . All were
suppressed. T h e city o f T a s h k e n t, a d m in is tra tiv e ca p ital o f T u rk e s ta n , had
a su b sta n tia l R u ssian p o p u la tio n , in clud ing a r m y officers, civilian b u r e a u ­
crats, tra d e s m e n a n d railw ay w orkers. All d eclared them selves loyal
s u p p o r te r s o f th e Bolshevik g o v e r n m e n t, t h o u g h few h ad m u c h u n d e r ­
s ta n d in g of w h a t the Bolsheviks sto o d for. T h e p o in t w as th a t it was a
Russian g o v e rn m e n t, a n d in its nam e th e y sallied f o rth to suppress the
T u rk i c M uslim s, w h o tried to organise th e ir o w n state based on the city of
K o k a n d . T h e h a tre d s h o w n by R u s sia n railw ay w o rk e rs to M uslim
p ea sa n ts was essentially th e s a m e as th a t o f S o u th A fric an ‘p o o r w hites’ to
‘K affirs’, or o f British w o rk e rs in the R h o d e s ia n c o p p e r belt to w a r d s the
Z a m b i a n ‘natives’. R esistance by the T u rk e s ta n is to R u s sia n rule co n tin u e d
in to the 1920s, led by th e guerrilla forces k n o w n as Basmachi, in w hose
ra n k s E nver P a sh a , the f o rm e r ruler o f T u rk e y , m et his death.
T h e B olsheviks ac tu a lly e x te n d e d th e b o r d e r s o f th e R u s sia n em pire, by
a n n e x in g B o k h a r a a n d K hiva, w hich befo re 1917 h a d been p ro te c to r a te s
o u tsid e th e im pe rial b o rd e rs. In the F a r E ast they significantly tig h ten e d
R u s sia n c o n tro l ov er O u te r M o n g o lia . T his, a fo rm e rly C hin ese province,
w h ose people genuinely disliked C hinese rule, h a d c o m e u n d e r R u ssian
p r o te c tio n in 1914, by a g re e m e n t w ith th e J a p a n e s e g o v e rn m e n t.
T h e new R u ssian sta te bore, fro m 1923, th e n a m e U n io n o f Soviet
S ocialist R epublics. T h e n u m b e r of c o n s titu e n t Soviet socialist republics
312 Nations and States

increased over the years, rea ch in g sixteen in 1940, afte r the a n n e x a t io n of

three Baltic republics, p a r t o f R o m a n ia a n d p a r t o f F in la n d , a n d falling to
fifteen w h en th e last o f these was in c o rp o r a t e d in the R u ssian republic
( R S F S R ) . S o m e S S R s c o n ta in e d s u b o r d in a t e te rrito ria l units w ith a lesser
degree o f d e v o lu tio n — ‘a u t o n o m o u s repu blics’ ( A S S R ) , o r ‘a u t o n o m o u s ’
‘reg io n s’, ‘provinces’ o r ‘d istricts’.
T h e v a rio u s Soviet co n s titu tio n s, in cluding t h a t o f 1936, have been
describ ed as ‘fed e ra l’, b u t the Soviet U n io n was not a federal b u t a u n ita ry
state. T h e essential fe a tu re o f federal g o v e r n m e n t— t h a t th e territories
sh o u ld be sovereign in c e rta in fields, th a t they sh ould be n o t s u b o r d in a te to
the c e n tra l a u th o rity b u t ‘c o o r d in a te ’ w ith it— did n o t apply. A p a r t from
this, the a p p a r a t u s o f sta te was in reality d o m in a te d by th e c o m m u n is t
party , w h o se o r g a n is a tio n w as strictly centralist.
T h e Soviet U n io n has often been declared to be a v o lu n ta r y as socia tion
o f b r o th e r ly peoples. In reality, the c o n s titu e n t n a tio n s were never given an
o p p o r tu n ity to decide w h e th e r they w ished to re m a in w ith in the sam e state
as the R ussians; w hen s u b sta n tia l g ro u p s in these n a tio n s show ed th a t they
wished to secede, they w ere k ep t in it by force; a n d m o st o f the te rrito ry
w hose p eople succeeded in seceding b etw e en 1917 a n d 1921 was re c o n ­
qu e re d by force in 1939 o r 1944. T h e r e was a p ro v isio n in th e 1936
co n s titu tio n w hich p e rm itted a republic to secede; b u t perso ns w ho
ad v o c a te d secession w o u ld be p u n ish a b le fo r ‘a n ti- S o v ie t’ o r ‘c o u n t e r ­
r e v o lu tio n a r y ’ crim es u n d e r the c rim inal code.
T h e practice o f Soviet im p erial rule was essentially the sa m e t h r o u g h o u t
its territories, a n d m u s t be consid ered as a w hole. T h u s , t h o u g h this c h a p te r
is c o n c e rn e d w ith Asia, it is best, in o r d e r to a v o id needless rep e titio n , to
c o n s id e r also so m e E u r o p e a n te rr ito rie s.20 T h is section will also end with
som e discussion o f indirect Soviet rule over the n a tio n s o f E astern E u ro p e
w h ose earlier d e v e lo p m e n t has been discussed in prec ed in g chap ters.
L enin laid d o w n th a t c o m m u n is ts m u st fight w ith eq u a l energy ag ainst
tw o ‘d e v ia tio n s’— ‘G re a t R u s sia n c h a u v in is m ’ a n d ‘local b o u rg eo is n a t io n ­
alism ’. R ussians m u s t fiercely o p p o se a n y te n d e n c y to w a r d s d o m in a tio n by
R ussians, while n o n - R u s s ia n s m u s t resist all a n t i- R u s s ia n n atio n a lism
a m o n g th e ir c o m p a tr io ts . I n p ractice in th e 1920s th e first o f the tw o
dev iatio n s w as re g a rd e d as th e m o re h a rm fu l, a n d w ith in th e limits of
c o m m u n is t p a r ty d ic ta to rs h ip th e benefit o f th e d o u b t w as given to the n o n-
Russians. F o r som e years these n a tio n s m a d e real gains, in te rm s o f public
use o f their languages, e m p lo y m e n t o f th e ir c o m p a tr io ts a n d d ev e lo p m e n t
o f their n a tio n a l culture. T h is was especially tr u e o f the U k ra in ia n s a n d
T a ta rs.
All this c h a n g ed a t th e e n d o f the 1920s, w ith the a d v e n t o f forced
collectivisation of a g r ic u ltu re a n d bre a k n e c k -sp e e d ind u stria lisatio n . T he
w orst fam in e c o n d itio n s were created in the U k ra in e a n d in the K az ak h
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 313

steppes: th e f o rm e r had the best grain la nds a n d the la tte r the largest
p a s to ra l a n d n o m a d p o p u la tio n s. Bad cro p s, con fisc atio n o f stock s an d
sla u g h te r of livestock caused millions o f d e a th s by sta rv a tio n . Inevitably
these sufferings, w hich resulted fro m policies w hose m o tiv a tio n was not
natio n alist, b u t ec o n o m ic , created b itte r n a tio n a l hatred. W h e re a s R u ssian
pea sa nts, w h en subjected to co nfiscation s o r to d e p o r ta tio n to la b o u r in
i n h u m a n c o n d itio n s in mines o r on c o n s tru c tio n sites, a t tr ib u te d their woes
to the g o v e rn m e n t, n o n - R u s s ia n s in a sim ilar p r e d ic a m e n t felt th a t their
n a tio n s were being o p p resse d as such by Russians; a n d R u s sia n c o m m u n is t
ag ents o f these b r u ta l policies eagerly a t tr ib u te d p o p u la r hostility to anti-
R u s s ia n 'b o u r g e o is n a tio n a lis m ’. F r o m 1934 to 1937 c o n d itio n s im p ro v e d ,
b u t the G re a t P urge o f 1937-39, w hich b r o u g h t h u n d r e d s of th o u s a n d s of
ex ecu tio n s a n d millions o f d e p o r ta tio n s to forced la b o u r, frequ ently
leading to p r e m a tu r e d e a th s th r o u g h u n d e r n o u r is h m e n t a n d e x h a u s tio n ,
hit th e n o n - R u s s ia n n a tio n s even h a r d e r th a n th e R ussians. T h e leadership
o f the c o m m u n is t parties o f the U k ra in e , th e C a u c a su s a n d C e n tra l Asia
was a lm o st c om pletely d estro y e d , a n d th e re w ere very severe losses a m o n g
the m o st e d u c ated a n d m o st skilled.
T h e end o f the P u rg e was followed by tw o b etter years, b u t th e n c a m e the
G e r m a n invasion. T his n o t only b r o u g h t a p p a llin g m ilitary casualties a n d
d e s tru c tio n , b u t also led to excesses o f R u ssian natio n alism . N atio n s
suspected of sy m p a th y w ith the G e r m a n s suffered special repression. S o m e
small n a t io n s — the C r im e a n T a ta rs, th e K alm yks, the C h e c h e n s a n d
several o th e r C a u c a s ia n peoples, a n d the G e r m a n m in o rity f r o m the V olga
valley— were d e p o r te d fro m their h o m e s to d is ta n t p a r ts o f S ib eria or
C e n tr a l A sia o n the g r o u n d s th a t som e o f th e ir n u m b e r had c o lla b o ra te d
with the ene m y a n d th a t the m ajo rity h a d n o t prev e n ted th e m fro m d o in g
so .21 W h e n the w estern p a r t o f the Soviet U n io n was recovered fro m the
invaders, large n u m b e rs o f U k ra in ia n s a n d oth e rs were a rre ste d as co llab ­
o r a to r s ; a n d a m o n g S o viet p risoners o f w a r r e p a tria te d f r o m G e r m a n y
n o n - R u s s ia n s w ere especially liable to be sent to forced la b o u r fo r having
helped the enemy.
A fter the d e a th o f S talin things a g a in im prove d . T he c o n te n d e rs for the
succession so u g h t to w in the s u p p o r t o f the n o n - R u ssia n s. K hru sh ch ev ,
w h o fo r m a n y years h a d been the c o m m u n is t p a rty boss o f th e U k ra in e ,
s h o w ed so m e s y m p a th y fo r U k ra in ia n n a tio n a l feelings, t h o u g h this did
n o t get m u c h b e y o n d polite phrases. As m a te ria l c o n d itio n s im p ro v e d fo r
all S oviet citizens, so did th o se o f the n o n - R u s s ia n s , b u t R u s sia n s u p r e m ­
ac y re m a in e d a fact o f th e So viet em pire. In 1934, a t the S even tee nth
C o ngress o f the C o m m u n is t P a rty , S ta lin h ad dec la re d th a t ‘b ou rg eo is
n a tio n a lis m ’ was the m o r e h a r m f u l o f the tw o d ev iation s, a n d this d o c trin e
was never rev e rse d . In the 1960s an d 1970s th e re were rep e ate d p r o p a g a n d a
c a m p a ig n s against ‘b o u rg eo is n a tio n a lis m ’ in th e republics, but d e n u n c ia ­
314 Nations and States

tio n o f ‘G re a t R u s sia n c h a u v in is m ’ w as se ld o m heard.

T h e e c o n o m y was n o t only sta te -o w n e d , b u t also highly centralised.
D ecisions were ta k e n a t th e centre, in the s u p p o s e d interests o f the w hole
e c o n o m y . T his w o u ld seem to be, a n d n o d o u b t often w as, in a c c o rd a n c e
w ith e c o n o m ic ration ality; b u t it did n o t alw ays agree w ith th e preferences
o f th e n o n -R u ssia n s. It w as to the interest o f th e e c o n o m y as a w h ole th a t
C e n tr a l A sia sh o u ld specialise in p r o d u c ti o n o f c o t to n , a t th e ex p e n se of
food grains, w hich c o uld be supplied f r o m o th e r regions. T h e a r g u m e n t
was th e s a m e as th a t used by th e British in Egypt. C e n tr a l A sians, how ever,
like E g yp tia n s, wished to cultivate their o w n f o o d cro p s r a th e r th a n place
them selves at the m ercy o f th e im pe rial g o v e r n m e n t. T his a r g u m e n t a b o u t
c o t to n or w h ea t, a n d in later years m o r e c o m p le x a r g u m e n ts a b o u t
specialisation or diversification o f p r o d u c tio n , lay a t th e h e a r t o f C e n tral
A sian n a tio n a list o p p o s itio n to M o s c o w ’s policies. Soviet policies in fact
b r o u g h t g rea t e c o n o m ic pro gress to C e n tr a l Asia, inc lu d in g g rea t new
industries; b u t it was n o t the so rt o f e c o n o m ic progress w h ich the C e n tral
A sians them selves w o u ld have chosen. P ossibly, M o sc o w did k n o w best;
b u t C e n tr a l A sians w ere inclined to as su m e th a t M o s c o w ’s interests were
being p u t b efo re their o w n a n d th a t th e y were being exploited .
R u s sia n w as b o u n d to be th e first official lang uage o f th e So viet U nion,
a n d th e re fo re all n o n - R u s s ia n s h o p in g to m a k e a successful ca reer in
a d m in is tra tio n , in d u stry o r c u ltu r a l life w ou ld have to learn Russian.
Lenin, ho w ev er, strongly rejected c u ltu r a l R ussification: o th e r languages
a n d cultu res m u s t be tre a te d w ith eq u a l respect. Yet over the years this is
n o t w h a t h a p p e n e d . Inevitably, R u s sian s held m o st o f th e leading posts in
the a d m in is tra tio n . Inevitably, the m e th o d s o f g o v e r n m e n t a n d the a tti­
tudes o f b u r e a u c r a ts to th e p o p u la tio n rese m b le d th o se o f the old R u ssian
regim e, in clud ing the c o n t e m p t (at tim es m erely c o n d e sc en d in g , a t tim es
h arsh ly a r r o g a n t) h a b itu a lly felt to w a r d s n o n - R u s s ia n s . T h e use o f R u ssian
as th e la n g u ag e o f in stru c tio n in h ighe r e d u c a t io n could be ju stified o n the
g r o u n d s t h a t th e o th e r la n g u ag e s lacked the specialised v o c a b u la ry , a n d
even th e necessary flexibility, f o r a d v a n c e d m o d e r n th o u g h t. Yet little
a t t e m p t was m a d e to a d a p t these la n guage s ( R u s s ia n itself h a d n eeded such
a d a p t a t i o n a t th e b eg in n in g o f th e n in e te e n th ce n tu ry , a n d th a n k s t o such
m e n as P u s h k in a n d K a r a m z in it h a d achieved it).22 O n the c o n tra ry ,
T u rk ic languages w ere f o rc ed to use th e R u s s ia n Cyrillic a l p h a b e t, a n d
were system atically stuffed w ith R u s s ia n lo a n -w o rd s, w hile th e use of
R u ssian in public business in n o n - R u s s i a n republics increased.
N a tio n a l literatures a n d h isto ry w ere c e n so red in o r d e r t o elim in a te anti-
R u ssian o pinions. E ven m ed ieval epic p oem s, widely k n o w n a n d loved,
were m u tila te d o r su ppressed if they w ere th o u g h t likely to en c o u ra g e
‘b ou rg eo is n a tio n a lis m ’. T h e histo ry o f th e n o n - R u s s i a n n a tio n s was
rew ritten, n o t only in M a rx is t te rm s (w hich m ig h t indeed be e xpected in a
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 315

state ruled in th e n a m e o f r e v o lu tio n a r y c o m m u n is m ), b u t also in o r d e r to

satisfy R u ssian n a t io n a l pride. T h u s, U k ra in ia n s were ta u g h t t h a t only the
Poles h ad been their enemies, while the R u ssian people h a d alw ays been
th e ir friend. T h e heroic resistance o f the n o r th C a u c a s ia n C h echen s, u n d e r
Im a m S h am il, fro m 1836 to 1859, to th e inv a d in g R u s sia n arm ies o f T s a r
N icholas I, was rep rese n ted in the 1950s as a r e a c tio n a r y effort s u p p o r te d
by British a n d O t t o m a n im perialism . T h e c o n q u e s t by R u s sia n tsa rs of vast
tra c ts of Asia was a n ‘objectively progressive p h e n o m e n o n ’, because it
saved the people o f these lands fro m th e m u c h w orse fate o f falling u n d e r
British rule, a n d because it b r o u g h t th e m into c o n ta c t w ith the su p e rio r
cu ltu re o f the R u ssian people. In the c o u rse o f tim e, they to o benefited,
w h en the last tsar was o v e r th r o w n by th e progressive v a n g u a r d o f the
R u ssian w o rk in g class led by the g rea t Lenin. T hese a r g u m e n ts have a close
family resem blance to th o se used by V ic to ria n English c h a m p io n s of
im perial e x p a n sio n , w h o justified c o n q u e s ts in term s o f th e s p r e a d in g o f
h ighe r civilisation a n d m orality.
Political c e n tralisatio n , ‘m o n o lith ic ’ c o m m u n is t p a rty rule, s u b o r d i n a ­
tion o f local to ce n tral e c o n o m ic interests, a n d a new f o r m o f cultural
Russification, w ere general ch aracteristics o f Soviet rule in n o n - R u s s ia n
lands fro m the 1930s o n w a rd s. T his ca n best be s h o w n by lo o k in g a t som e
in dividual cases.

T h e tw o republics in w hich the in d ig e n o u s n a tio n enjo yed the largest

m e asu re o f p ractical a u t o n o m y ; in w h ich posts o f c o m m a n d in state a n d
p a rty a d m in is tra tio n , the e c o n o m y a n d c u ltu r a l life were a lm o s t entirely in
in d ige n ous h ands; a n d in w hich it was m o s t easy publicly t o ta k e pride in
n a tio n a l history a n d tra d itio n s, were G e o rg ia a n d A rm e n ia . B o th n ations
h a d a very large p r o p o r ti o n o f highly e d u c a te d a n d skilled people. T h e
ta len ts s h o w n by A r m e n ia n s before 1917 as capitalists a n d tr a d e rs w ere to a
large ex ten t em p lo y ed in the Soviet e ra in th e m a n a g e m e n t o f state
indu stry. G e o rg ia n s h a d so m e ( th o u g h less) ta len t in th e sa m e direction.
T h e y also revealed a n u n u s u a l c a p ac ity as security p olic em en d u r in g the
p e rio d w h en th e ir c o m p a t r i o t L. P. Beria w as in ch a rg e o f sta te security
(1938-53). B o th G e o rg ia n s a n d A r m e n ia n s re g a rd e d them selves as c u ltu r a l­
ly su p e rio r to R ussians, a n d f r o m th e 1960s o n w a r d s m a d e little effort to
co n ceal this belief.
Less f o rtu n a te w ere th e E sto n ia n s, L a tv ia n s a n d L ith u a n ia n s , w hose
th r e e small repub lics w ere a n n e x e d , w ith H itle r’s c o n sen t, in 1940; lost to
the G e r m a n invaders in 1941; a n d rec o v ered af te r H itle r’s defe at in 1945.
E d u c a te d p erso n s f r o m these three n a tio n s w ere d e p o r te d in h u n d r e d s o f
th o u s a n d s , a n d R u ssian s w ere settled in th e ir place. A fte r S ta lin ’s d e a th
c o n d itio n s im p ro v e d . T h e f u tu re o f th e tw o P r o te s ta n t n atio n s, E sto n ia n s
316 Nations and States

a n d L atvians, a p p e a r e d ble ak in th e 1970s, as th eir p o p u la tio n s were static

o r declining, b u t they clun g w ith p as sio n to th e ir n a tio n a l cultures a n d
resisted R ussification. T h e L ith u a n ia n s reta in ed a high rate o f n a tu ra l
increase, p r o b a b ly a t tr ib u ta b l e t o th e stren g th o f th e ir C a th o lic religion
a n d th e h ighe r p r o p o r t i o n o f rural to u r b a n p o p u la tio n .
As h as been sh o w n , the cultu rally a n d politically m o st a d v a n c e d o f the
M u slim peoples of R ussia w ere the T a ta rs. T h e first a t te m p ts to create an
A ll-R u ss ian M u slim political p arty , in 1905 a n d in 1917, w ere chiefly th eir
w o rk . T h e T a t a r people suffered very heavily b o th f r o m the d e s tru c tio n of
the civil w ar, w hich raged to a n d fro ac ro ss th e ir h o m e la n d in 1918 a n d
1919, a n d f r o m a massive fa m in e in the V olga valley in 1921. T h ey did
h ow ever at first m a k e so m e gains as a n a tio n u n d e r the So viet regim e. A
T a t a r A S S R w as set up w ith K a z a n as its capital; a n d because th e T a ta r s
had a m o r e developed m o d e r n intellectual elite t h a n a n y o th e r M uslim
people in th e R u ssian em pire, it was n a t u r a l th a t th e y sh o u ld have p rovided
a high p r o p o r t i o n o f th o se co m m u n is ts c h a rg e d w ith p r o p a g a tin g the faith
a m o n g th e M uslim s. O u ts ta n d in g a m o n g th e m was M ir Sajit S u ltan -
Galiev, fo r s o m e years a close c o l la b o r a t o r w ith Stalin. H ow ever, in 1923 it
was discov ered t h a t S u lta n -G a lie v had been in c o n ta c t w ith a n ti-R u ssia n
M u slim leaders in C e n tra l Asia, a n d he w as dism issed f r o m his office: he
was p r o b a b ly executed in 1929. S u lta n -G a lie v has been d escribed, not
in a p p ro p ria te ly , as a ‘M u slim T ito ist’.23
T h e T a t a r s n u m b e re d n ea rly six m illion people in 1970, b u t only a b o u t a
q u a r te r o f these lived in the T a t a r A S S R , in w hich they fo rm e d less th a n
half th e p o p u la tio n . T h r e e - q u a r te rs o f th e T a t a r s were scattered across a
n u m b e r o f c e n tra l R u s sia n provinces, the B ashkir A S S R , the K a z a k h
repu blic a n d the C e n tr a l A sia n republics. T h e T a t a r s were m u c h m o re
u rb a n ise d t h a n o th e r M u s lim peoples o f the Soviet U n io n , but they had, in
p r o p o r ti o n to their n u m b e rs, a c o m p a r a tiv e ly low p r o p o r t i o n o f stu d e n ts
in h ig he r e d u c a tio n .24 T h ese figures give the im p re ssio n th a t the S oviet
leaders, r eg a rd in g the T a t a r s (in view o f th e ir past rec ord) as a potentially
d a n g e r o u s elite a m o n g Soviet M uslim s, w ere d eliberately d isc rim in a tin g
a g a in st th e m ; b u t this is a d m itte d ly only indirect evidence.
In C e n tra l A sia d u r in g the civil w a r th e re em erg ed f o r a tim e a n a tio n a l
m o v e m e n t, led by a small intellectual elite tr a in e d in th e ‘n e w ’ schools o f the
V olga T a t a r m o d e rn is ts ,25 w h ich a im e d to create a T u r k e s ta n i natio n ,
based o n the C h a g a t a y b r a n c h o f the T u rk i c languages. T h is w as resisted by
b o th ‘w hite’ a n d ‘re d ’ R u ssians, n o t least, as a lre a d y n o te d , by th e R u s sia n
railw ay w o rk e rs o f T a s h k e n t.
In the view o f th e S oviet leaders, the m a in d a n g e rs in C e n tr a l A sia were
P an islam ism , P a n tu r k is m a n d th e idea o f a single T u r k e s t a n i n atio n . T he
best w ay o f rem o v in g these d an g e rs ( a p a r t f r o m forcible repression) seemed
to be th e e n c o u r a g e m e n t o f distinct a n d rival n a t io n a l consciousnesses.
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 317

Soviet d o c trin e on C e n tr a l A sia was clearly influenced by nin e tee n th -

ce n tu ry A u s tr ia n th in k in g .26 T h e w o rd ‘n a t io n ’ ( natsia ) was, as far as
possible, av oided; the a m b ig u o u s w o rd ‘p e o p le ’ ( narod ) was used for the
w hole S oviet p eo p le— w hich, it was h o p e d , w ou ld o n e d a y g ro w in to a
single Soviet socialist n a tio n ; while th e g ro u p s to be e n c o u r a g e d in C e n tral
A sia were to be called ‘natio n alitie s’ ( natsionalnosti ). T h ese g ro u p s were to
be based o n language: th e ir s p o k e n dialects, w hich differed su bstantia lly
fro m each o th e r, were to be m a d e into literary languages, as divergent fro m
each o th e r as possible; a n d th o se w h o sp o k e each dialect were to be
p rovided w ith c o m m u n is t political a n d e d u c a tio n a l m a tte r in the new
languages, w ere to be o rganised in se p a r a te a d m in istra tiv e units, a n d were
to be en c o u ra g e d to co n s id e r them selves distinct ‘nation alitie s’. T h u s, the
local dialect o f P ersian k n o w n as T a d jik w as to be elevated in to a T a d jik
la nguage, sp o k e n by a T a d jik ‘n a tio n a lity ’, q u ite distinct f r o m the P ersian
language a n d th e I ra n ia n n a tio n ;27 while the T u rk ic p o p u la tio n w ere split
into Uzbeks, K a z ak h s, Kirgiz, T u r k m e n , K a r a - K a lp a k a n d s o m e sm aller
‘nation alitie s’. T h e new languages w ere a t first w ritte n in L a tin a lp h a b e t, in
o r d e r to dim in ish the cu ltu ra l unity previously sym bo lised by th e A ra bic
a lp h a b e t used for C h a g a t a y T u rk i; a n d th e L atin was rep laced by the
Cyrillic in the 1930s in o r d e r to p r o m o te R u ssian influence.
D espite initial resistance, this policy pro v ed ra th e r successful; but its
result was n o t w h a t the Soviet specialist's in lang uage m a n ip u la tio n had
expected. T h e policy b o o m e ra n g e d . N ew U zbek, K a z a k h , Kirgiz an d
T u r k m e n n atio n s indeed em erged, b u t th e ir n atio n alist feelings were
directed n o t so m u c h a g a in st each o th e r as a g a in st Russians.
In the 1970s the m a in posts in s ta te a n d p a rty hierarchies in C e n tr a l Asia
a p p e a r e d to be in A sia n hands; b u t o n closer e x a m in a tio n th in g s lo oked
different. Usually first secretaries of provincial p a rty co m m itte e s were
Asians; b u t second secretaries were R u ssians, a n d th e re w ere well-placed
R ussians a m o n g h ea d s o f d e p a r tm e n t s in the c o m m itte e s’ p e r m a n e n t
secretariats. M inisters in r e p u b lican g o v e r n m e n ts w ere usually A sians; but
a m o n g dep u ty -m in iste rs, heads of d e p a r tm e n t s w ithin ministries, a n d
especially in th e police a p p a r a tu s , R u ssian s (so m etim e s also A rm e n ia n s,
G eo rg ia n s o r U k ra in ia n s) were stro ngly en tre n ch e d . P r o b a b ly the sam e
w as tr u e o f m a jo r e c o n o m ic enterprises, b u t evidence w as n o t a b u n d a n t . In
places of w o rk , A sians a n d R ussians m et, a n d did th e ir jo b s fairly sm o o th ly
together; b u t w h e n w o rk in g h o u rs w ere over, they w ent h o m e to different
p a r ts o f to w n a n d sp e nt th e ir leisure in d ifferent ways. Islam , n o t so m u c h a
b o d y o f d o g m a o r a set o f ritu a l obse rva nce s as a w ay o f living a n d th inking,
a m o r a lity a n d a cu lture, re m a in e d d ee ply r o o te d in spite o f sustained
hostile c a m p a ig n s by th e Soviet m ass m edia. I n te r m a r r ia g e o f M u s lim m e n
w ith R u ssian girls w as rare, b u t in te r m a r ria g e o f M u slim girls w ith R u s sia n
m en was virtually u n k n o w n , if they w ere to live in C e n tr a l Asia. T h o se
318 Nations and States

C e n tr a l A sians w h o w ent to live, th o u s a n d s o f miles a w a y , in M o s c o w or

a n o t h e r g rea t R u s sia n city, m ig h t in deed in te r m a r ry , a n d th e ir d e s ce n d an ts
lose all link w ith A sia b u t th e ir n am e; b u t th e re w ere few o f these. A very
im p o r t a n t ob stacle to the a b s o r p ti o n o f the C e n tra l A sians in a new S oviet
cu ltu re was th e difference b etw e en the rates o f increase o f the p o p u la tio n s.
A sia n b irth rates w ere m u c h higher t h a n R ussian; a n d betw een 1959 a n d
1970 th e p r o p o r t i o n o f R u ssian s in th e p o p u la tio n o f all f o u r C e n tra l A sian
republics a n d o f K a z a k h s t a n d im in ish e d .28 T h is tre n d was b o u n d to
co n tin u e , as th e age c o m p o s itio n o f the M u s lim republics was very m u c h
y o u n g e r t h a n t h a t o f the E u r o p e a n . 29
T h e S oviet theorists o f ‘th e n a tio n a l p r o b le m ’ liked to distinguish
b etw een ‘bou rg eo is n a t io n s ’ a n d ‘socialist n a t io n s ’. T h e y h o p e d to p ro d u c e
the second ty pe o f n a tio n in th e Soviet U n io n , a n d h o p e d th a t in the co urse
o f tim e th e several socialist n a tio n s w o u ld b e c o m e fused in to a single S oviet
natio n . T h e y w ere o f c o u rse right to p o in t o u t th a t the social s tru c tu re of
the ‘natio n alitie s’ o f the S ov iet U n io n w as d ifferen t f r o m th a t o f E u r o p e a n
‘b o u rg e o is’ n a tio n s o r o f th e p re-capitalist peoples o f o th e r co ntinents.
H ow ever, the ‘socialist n a t io n s ’ th a t d eve lope d d u r in g fifty years o f Soviet
rule p ro v e d to be less d ifferent fro m th e ea rlier n a tio n s t h a n had been
expected.
T w o m a in sets o f causes a c c o u n t fo r th e g r o w th o f n a tio n a l c o n s cio u s­
ness a m o n g the n o n - R u ssia n s. O n e was th e em ergence o f new elites, the
result o f in d u stria lis atio n , u r b a n is a tio n a n d ed u c a tio n . T hese elites were
n o t bourgeoisies o f the tr a d itio n a l type, since they did n o t o w n the m e an s of
p r o d u c tio n , a n d since the industries or in stitu tio n s in w hich they w o rk e d
were f o u n d e d n o t by priv ate profit-seeking en terp rise b u t by state action.
Yet these elites w ere very sim ilar in fu n c tio n a n d in m en tality (n o t least in a
ce rtain philistine, self-glorifying taste in the arts, literatu re an d arc h ite c ­
ture) to th e elites o f ind ustrialised V icto rian E n g la n d , W ilh elm inia n
G e r m a n y o r the U nited S tate s of T h e o d o r e Roosevelt. T h e d o m in a n t
R u s sia n elite (o n e is te m p te d to call it a ‘state b o u rg eo isie’ as o p p o s e d to a
‘priv ate bourg eo isie’) revealed these traits f r o m th e 1930s to th e 1950s. In
the 1960s s u b sta n tia l elites o f a sim ilar ty p e h a d e m erg ed in the n on -
R u s sia n n ations. T h ey w ere very p r o u d o f th e ir ach ie v em e n ts, p r o u d of
their ‘socialism ’ a n d resentful o f the fact t h a t they c o u ld n o t dispo se o f its
results th e w ay they w ished b ecause th e y h a d R u s sian s sitting o n their
necks.
T h e second set o f causes w as th e c re atio n , t h r o u g h th e s a m e processes o f
in d u stria lisation , u r b a n is a tio n a n d e d u c a tio n , o f m o d e r n - m in d e d w o rk e rs
a n d p ea sa n ts equally a w a re o f their n a t io n a l identity a n d e qua lly p r o u d of
their achievem en ts. T h e U zb e k p ea sa n ts o f the old R u s sia n em p ire were
passive subjects, d o m in a te d by their tr a d itio n a l elites o f triba l chiefs or
la n d o w n e rs, w ith th e g reat w hite tsa r far a w a y a b o v e them . T h e U zbeks of
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 319

th e 1970s were citizens o f a m o d e rn state, th e ir n a t io n a l consciousness

stren g th en e d by in d u stria lis atio n , u r b a n is a tio n a n d e d u c atio n .
It was u n d o u b te d ly true, as Soviet p r o p a g a n d is ts un ceasing ly arg u e d ,
th a t th e A sian n a tio n s o f th e S oviet U n io n h a d m a d e im m en se e c o n o m ic
a n d cu ltu ral progress since 1917. It do es n o t follow fro m this th a t these
n a tio n s were g rateful to the Soviet leaders o r the R u s sia n n atio n . T h e
histo ry o f all o th e r em pires show s th a t elites cre ate d by progressive colonial
policies tu r n e d a g a in st those em pires; a n d th a t m o re p r o s p e r o u s a n d m o re
skilled subject n a tio n s (the Czechs in 1910 o r th e Québécois in 1970) were
m o r e m ilitant th a n ex p lo ite d a n d ig n o r a n t subject nations. It w as the g o o d
things w hich im perial rulers did, r a th e r t h a n their cruelties a n d injustices,
th a t t u r n e d th e subject peoples a g a in st th e m . It is tru e t h a t n o d e m a n d s for
in d e p e n d e n c e w ere h e a rd in the 1970s f r o m th e Soviet C e n tr a l A sian
republics. T h e r e a so n is clear en o u g h : such d e m a n d s w ou ld lead to
im m e d ia te arrest. It w o u ld , how ever, be p r e m a tu r e to reg a rd this as p r o o f
th a t the Soviet U nion, alo n e a m o n g em pires, was e x e m p t fro m the
o p e r a tio n o f w h a t m a y p e r h a p s be called th e Law o f C o lo n ia l In gra titude .
It is difficult to believe th a t it never o cc u rre d to U zbeks, le arn in g th a t
R w a n d a o r M o z a m b i q u e w ere receiving in d e p en d e n ce , t h a t their co u n try ,
to o , on e o f the earliest centres o f h u m a n civilisation, m ight also be
in d e p en d e n t. ‘S ocialism w ith o u t R u s sia n s’ was a n a i m w hich h a d its
a t tr a c tio n s in A s h k h a b a d a n d caused fear in M o scow . M ean w h ile the
Soviet U n io n rem a in ed in the m id-1970s the only one o f the g rea t E u r o p e a n
c olon ial em p ires o f th e nin e tee n th ce n tu ry th a t was still territo ria lly a lm o st
intact.
It w ou ld be w ro n g to a s su m e t h a t S oviet-style neo -ru ssific atio n b enefit­
ed the R u ssian n atio n . O n the c o n tra ry , a s tr o n g case m a y be m a d e fo r the
view th a t the R u ssian s suffered, as a n a tio n , n o less t h a n th e o th e r n atio n s
o f th e Soviet em pire. T h e Soviet rulers co nsiste ntly show ed c o n t e m p t for
R u s sia n tra d itio n s, falsified R u s sia n histo ry a n d m u tila te d R u s sia n cul­
ture, especially its religious elem ents. T h e elem ents in the tr a d itio n w hich
they preserved, praised a n d so u g h t to dev e lo p still f u r th e r — uncritical
su b m issio n to a u to c r a c y , m ilitary prow ess, love o f m ilitary glory, suspicion
a n d h a tre d o f fo re ig n ers— were only a p a r t o f th e w hole, a n d obsessive
official em p h a sis o n th e m d isto rte d R u s sia n n a tio n a l identity. A m o n g the
dissidents o f th e 1970s several varieties o f R u s sia n n a tio n a lis m could be
detected, ra n g in g f r o m a x e n o p h o b i a w ith anti-sem itic u n d e r to n e s , not
very different fro m official policy, to a belief in th e solidarity o f th e R ussian
n a t io n w ith the o th e r n a tio n s as victims o f a n o n - n a ti o n a l M o lo c h state
w h o se leaders denied all sp iritu a l values a n d all historical tra d itio n s. This
d oes n o t necessarily m e a n th a t, if the Soviet a u to c r a c y w ere replaced by a
regim e o f p olitical fre e d o m , R u s sian s a n d n o n - R u s s i a n s w o u ld p rov e
c a p a b le o f solid arity in practice.
320 Nations and States

T h e Soviet R u s sia n im pe rial rulers n o t only directly ruled a b o u t 120

m illion n o n - R u ssia n s, co n s titu tin g a lm o st h a lf the p o p u la tio n of th e Soviet
U n io n , b u t also exercised indirect but m o st effective d o m in a tio n over
a n o t h e r 100 m illion E u ro p e a n s in lan ds lying west o f the Soviet frontier.
T his m a y be re g a rd e d as th e m o d e r n R u s sia n im perialist version o f ‘n e o ­
co lo n ialism ’.30
It w as m a d e clear b etw e en 1945 a n d 1948 th a t th e re was only one state in
this reg io n to w hich the Soviet rulers were willing to co n c ed e full internal
sovereignty in r e tu r n fo r a g u a r a n te e th a t its foreign policy w ould be
c o o r d in a te d w ith th a t o f th e Soviet U nion: th a t is, to trea t it in the
tr a d i tio n a l m a n n e r o f region al great po w ers to w a r d s regional d e p e n d e n ­
cies. T h is state was F in la n d . E lsew here they insisted o n im p o sin g political
in stitution s a n d social policies closely co pied fro m th o se o f the Soviet
U n ion. I n on e case, in Y ugoslavia, th e c o m m u n is t leaders were m e n w ho
had w o n p o w e r by th e ir ow n efforts, a n d they p roce eded to ca rry out
c o m m u n is t policies in th e ir o w n way, th r o u g h p erso n s ch o sen by the m . F o r
this r e a so n S talin viewed th e m w ith g ro w in g suspicion , a n d in 1948
e x c o m m u n ic a te d th e m as heretics. T h e y survived this a n a th e m a , retained
their h old o n p ow er, a n d built a political a n d social system su bstantia lly
d ifferent f ro m the Soviet m odel. In a secon d case, A lb a n ia , t h e c o m m u n is t
leaders also w o n th e ir o w n w ar, w ith so m e Y ugoslav help, b u t were hostile
to Y ugoslavia, a b o v e all b ec au se m o r e t h a n a th ir d o f the A lb a n ia n n a tio n
r e m a in e d w ith in Y ugoslav ia r a th e r t h a n being in c o rp o r a t e d in the A lb a n ­
ian sta te .31 T h erefo re, w h e n S talin qu arrelled w ith T ito , they were able to
retain in d e p e n d e n c e o f either Y ugo slavia or the Soviet em pire. In six o th e r
c o u n tries ( E a s te rn G e r m a n y , P o la n d , C z ec h o slo v a k ia , H u n g a ry , R o m a n ia
a n d Bulgaria) p o w e r was held by p erso n s ch o sen a n d installed by the Soviet
leaders, a n d these states b e c am e vassals o f th e Soviet em pire. W he n
Y u goslavia w as e x c o m m u n i c a te d , the c o m m u n is t p arties w ere subjected to
m ass purges o f vary in g intensity, designed still f u r th e r to increase their
su b o r d in a tio n .
Soviet n e o -c o lo n ialism w as directed n o t only a g a in st th e effective
sovereignty o f th e states, b u t also a g a in st th e c u ltu re a n d identity o f the
n atio ns. In p a rtic u la r, h isto ria n s w ere c o m p elled to falsify th e histo ry of
their o w n n a tio n s in a sense f a v o u r a b le n o t only to the ca u se o f c o m m u n is m
since 1917 b u t also to th e n a t io n a l a n d im p e rial prid e o f R ussians, going
back into the d ista n t past. T he n a tio n w hich suffered m o s t f r o m this
process was th e R o m a n ia n . N o t only n a t io n a l history, b u t the n a tio n a l
language, was a ttac k ed . E fforts were m a d e to give g r e a te r em p h a sis to the
s u b sta n tia l S lav elem ent in R o m a n ia n v o c a b u la ry a t the ex p e n se o f the
I .atin elem ent. C u ltu ra l relations w ith F ra n c e a n d Italy were severed. It was
 East Asia: Empires, Colonies and Nations 321

suggested th a t the R o m a n ia n s were n o t a ‘L a tin n a t io n ’ b u t a ‘Slav n a t io n ’.

T h e m y th o f the benevolence t h r o u g h o u t history o f ‘th e great R u ssian
n a t io n ’ (despite a d m itte d o ccasion al a b e r r a tio n s by som e tsars), w hich h ad
lon g been forced o n U k ra in ia n s, G e o rg ia n s, T a ta r s , E sto n ia n s a n d o th e r
n o n - R u s s ia n n ations o f the Soviet em p ire, was forced o n R o m a n ia n s ,
Poles, H u n g a ria n s, C zechs a n d others.
T his intense political, e c o n o m ic a n d c u ltu ra l p ressure was relaxed after
the d e a th o f Stalin. T h e m ilder regim e w hich follow ed e n c o u r a g e d g rea ter
e x p e ctatio n s, w hich led to a series o f insurrections: w o rk e rs ’ risings in
Plzeri (C ze ch o slo v ak ia ) a n d in Berlin a n d o th e r cities o f E ast G e r m a n y in
1953 a n d in P o z n a n ( P o la n d ) in J u ly 1956, follow ed by m u c h larger
m o v e m e n ts in P o la n d a n d H u n g a r y in O c to b e r 1956. In all these cases the
initial d e m a n d s were fo r social justice a n d political liberty: it was only after
the Soviet leaders h ad p rocla im e d their hostility th a t the m o v e m e n ts to o k
on a n ationalist, anti-S o v ie t ch a racter. In P o la n d the Soviet leaders agreed
to a last m in u te c o m p ro m ise ; b u t in H u n g a r y the o b s tin a te refusal o f the
c o m m u n is t leader E r n o G e r o a n d his Soviet adv isers to m a k e concessions
to the people led to hostilities between H u n g a r ia n police a n d H u n g a r ia n
w o rk ers, th e n to a rev o lu tio n w hich en d e d the c o m m u n is t p a r ty ’s m o n o p o ­
ly o f po w er, a n d finally to a sh o rt w ar b etw een the H u n g a r ia n a n d Soviet
armies.
F orc ible s u p p re ss io n of the H u n g a r ia n R e v o lu tio n restored Soviet
s u p r e m a c y for six years. It was next ch allenged by the R o m a n i a n c o m m u ­
nist leaders, w h o objected to Soviet d e m a n d s fo r a degree o f e c o n o m ic
c o o r d in a tio n b etw een c o m m u n is t states w hich w o u ld have reversed their
ow n industrial plans. T h ey follow ed u p their e c o n o m ic resistance by
p e rm ittin g a s tr o n g revival o f R o m a n ia n cu ltu ra l n a tio n a lis m w ith s tro n g
a n ti- R u ssia n o vertones. T h e a t te m p ts at ‘S lav is atio n ’ w ere c om pletely
a b a n d o n e d , a n d the old L atin historical m y th o lo g y was resto re d in its
entirety. T h e Soviet le aders accepted th e ir defeat.
In 1968 a new crisis develo ped in C zec h o slo v a k ia. H ere, to o , the
m o v e m e n t was originally c onc ern ed w ith e c o n o m ic a n d social re fo rm s a n d
with political liberties. N a tio n a lism was p rese nt only in the f o r m o f conflict
betw een S lov aks a n d Czechs. H ow ever, th e refo rm s acce p te d by th e p a rty
leaders hea d ed by A le x a n d e r DubCek, s u m m a r is e d in his slogan of
‘c o m m u n is m w ith a h u m a n face’, w ere rejected by the S ov iet leaders, w h o
f o u n d it necessary to inva d e C z ec h o slo v a k ia w ith several h u n d r e d t h o u ­
sa nd tr o o p s , inclu ding co n tin g e n ts fro m P o la n d , E ast G e r m a n y , H u n g a r y
a n d Bulgaria. A t this p o in t there d ev e lope d a s tr o n g a n ti-S o v ie t a n d anti-
R u s s ia n n atio n a lism , especially s tr o n g a m o n g the Czechs w ho, f o r reasons
m e n tio n e d in a n earlier c h a p te r ,32 h a d alw ays liked to co n sid er the
R ussians as a b en e v o le n t b ro th e rly n a tio n . A n im p o r t a n t co n se q u e n c e of
th e Sov iet invasion w as a system atic policy o f refalsification o f th e history
322 Nations and States

o f th e C zechs a n d S lo v ak s (w hich in the 1950s h a d been falsified a c co rd in g

to the p a t te r n a lre a d y m e n tio n e d , b u t in th e late 1960s h ad been allow ed to
m o v e b a c k to w a r d s the tru th ).
T h e invasion o f C z ec h o slo v a k ia resulted in the e la b o r a ti o n o f a n official
fo rm u la fo r Soviet neo-colonialism : th e so-called ‘B rezhnev d o ctrin e of
lim ited sovereignty’. It w as declared to be the d u ty o f the le aders of the
‘Socialist states’ to give j o in t help w hereve r ‘socialism ’ was en d a n g e re d in
one o f them . It was n o t fo r the leaders o f the ‘e n d a n g e r e d ’ state to decide
w h e th e r th e re was a d a n g e r o r not; n o r s h o u ld ‘help’ be delayed until it was
requested. T h e collective w isd o m o f all th e socialist states, w hich m e a n t the
collective w isd o m o f the C e n tra l C o m m itte e o f the C o m m u n is t P a r ty of the
Soviet U n io n , w hich m e a n t th e w isd o m o f w h o e v e r s p o k e for the C C o f the
C P S U , w o u ld decide w h e th e r th e re was a d a n g e r o r not, a n d w o u ld o rd e r
in te rv en tio n if necessary.
T h e essence o f Soviet policy afte r 1945 in E a ste rn E u ro p e was n o t only
n a tio n a l d o m in a tio n , b u t n a tio n a l h u m iliatio n : th e n a tio n s of the vassal
states m u st n o t only obey o rd e rs f r o m the foreign o verlo rd s, bu t m u st be
d epriv ed o f their n a tio n a l identities. T h is d e m a n d was in practice a b a n ­
d o n e d in the case o f R o m a n i a after 1963, bu t was up h eld in the oth e r
co u n tries w ith v arying inte n sity — m o st severely in C z echoslovakia.
Yet th e a t te m p t to d es tro y n a tio n a l identities w as singularly unsuccess­
ful. T h e t r u th is r a th e r t h a t the processes o f in d u stria lis atio n , u rb a n is a tio n
a n d m ass ed u c a tio n , w hich in the last tw o centuries in o n e c o u n t r y after
a n o t h e r h a d th e effect o f e x te n d in g th e n a tio n a l con scio u sn e ss o f the elite
d o w n w a r d s in to the m ass o f th e p o p u la tio n , o r (w hich is the sam e thing) of
d ra w in g the masses u p w a r d s in to the politically con scio u s n a tio n , were
co m p le te d in E a ste rn E u r o p e u n d e r c o m m u n is t p a rty g o v e rn m e n ts. T he
public etho s, diffused t h r o u g h the schools a n d the m ass m edia, was an
a m a lg a m o f residual M a r x is m a n d n atio n a lism ; b u t of the tw o ingredients
the second was by far th e m o r e im p o r ta n t, a n d th e a c tio n s o f the Soviet
leaders them selves k e p t n a t io n a l rese n tm e n t' vig oro us. W here, despite
official indifference or hostility, religion re m a in e d s tr o n g ( C ath o lic ism in
P o la n d a n d O r t h o d o x y in R o m a n ia ), it b e c am e fused w ith natio n alism ,
giving it gre a te r strength; w here religious beliefs declined, n atio n a lism
increasingly filled the v a c a n t place in m e n ’s m in d s, b e c o m in g a n ersatz
religion. T h e tr u th was th a t, as long as m o r e t h a n a h u n d r e d million
E u ro p e a n s w ere k ep t in unw illing vassalage to th e S ov iet em pire, n a tio n a l
rese n tm e n t w o u ld re m a in a d a n g e r o u s explosive m a teria l. It was in the
po w er o f the Soviet leaders alo n e to r e m o v e this d anger.
8 Africa: Colonial Empires,
New States and New Nations

Early African states

In A frica so u th o f E gypt one civilised sta te m a in ta in e d itself, w ith c h a n g in g
f o rtu n e s a n d frontiers, fo r tw o t h o u s a n d years: E th iopia. T h e f o u n d e rs of
the E th io p ia n m o n a rc h y were p r o b a b ly im m ig r a n ts fro m A ra b ia , crossing
the n a r r o w e n tra n c e to the Red S e a . 1 In th e fifth c e n tu r y A D the rulers of
E th io p ia accepted C h ristian ity . T h e la n g u ag e o f th e E th io p ia n scriptures,
G e’ez, belong ed to th e Sem itic g ro u p . F r o m G e ’ez were d esce n d ed the
m o d e r n languages A m h a r ic ( s p o k e n in ce n tral E th io p ia) a n d T ig riny a
( s p o k e n in the n o r th e r n pro v in ce Tigre a n d a l o n g the coast). T h e E th io p ia n
ch u rc h followed the E gyp tia n in ac ce p tin g the m o n o p h y s ite d o c trin e , an d
r em a in ed linked to E g y p t’s C o p tic c h u r c h 2 a f te r th e co n q u e s t o f E gypt by
the M uslim s. T h e b o u n d a r ie s o f E th io p ia flu c tu a te d d u r in g the centuries.
As M u slim influence bec am e established a lo n g the coast, the ce n tre o f
grav ity o f E th io p ia was displaced so u th w a rd s . In the fifteenth c e n tu ry a
m a jo r M uslim invasion nearly d es tro y e d th e E th io p ia n state: it w as saved
with the help o f P o rtu g u e s e forces. In the n in e te e n th ce n tu ry the E m p e ro r
M enelik II ex te n d e d E th io p ia n rule to the so u th , at the e x p e n se o f peoples
o f G alla o r S o m ali speech.
O th e r A frican states lasted fo r briefer p erio d s a n d h a d a less splendid
cu ltu r a l achievem ent. T h e m o st i m p o r ta n t w ere in W est Africa: G h a n a , the
h o m e o f the S o n in k e people, lying betw een the u p p e r Senegal a n d Niger
rivers, fro m the n in th to elev enth centuries; M ali, in h a b ite d by the
M a n d in k a people, lying b etw een the A tla n tic c o a st a n d the N iger river,
fro m the th ir te e n th to fifteenth centuries; a n d Benin, the la n d o f th e E do
people, to th e w est o f the N iger d elta, in th e fifteenth c e n tury . In b o th
G h a n a a n d M ali, M u slim s w ere influen tial t h o u g h n o t co m p letely d o m i ­
n a n t. A n o th e r reg io n o f d ev e lo p e d civilisation w as th e east c o a st, fr o m the
straits o f the R e d S ea d o w n to the M o z a m b i q u e C h a n n e l. H e re several
tr a d i n g principalities flourish ed fro m th e th ir te e n th to the fifteenth c e n tu r ­
ies, their peoples M u s lim by religion a n d S w a h ili3 b y lan g u ag e , d e p e n d e n t
o n the sea ro u tes to A r a b ia a n d India. T h e a rriv al o f the P o rtu g u e s e in the
324 Nations and States

six te e n th ce n tu ry b r o u g h t a b o u t their decline, in te r ru p te d by b rief periods

o f p a rtia l revival. In th e A fric an interior, k in g d o m s rose a n d fell as p asto ra l
peoples c o n q u e r e d a g r ic u ltu ra l peoples, established th e ir rule over w ider
areas, a n d w ere c o n q u e r e d in their tu r n . T he m o s t im p o r ta n t was the
k in g d o m o f K o n g o , w hose ruler accepted C h ristia n ity in 1506 a n d entered
into alliance w ith th e k ing o f P o rtu g a l. It b r o k e u p afte r 1665, w hen a
P o rtu g u e se a r m y d efe ate d the K o n g o forces. Yet a n o t h e r w as M w a n a m u t-
a p a , w h ich flourished in the late fifteenth a n d sixtee nth centuries between
the Z a m b e z i a n d S abi rivers a n d the I n d ia n O c e a n coast.

European colonisation
It w as the s e a-b o rn e e x p l o r a tio n in search o f A sia w hich b r o u g h t E u r o ­
peans in significant n u m b e rs to Africa. Its pioneers were the P o rtu gue se,
w h o es tablished them selves o n b o th th e west a n d the east co a sts o f the
s o u th e rn th ir d o f the c o n tin e n t, a n d in the seven te en th ce n tu ry asserted
their a u t h o r i ty over A frican states in th e interior. As tr a d e w ith the East
a r o u n d th e C a p e of G o o d H o p e d eve lo pe d, sm all E u r o p e a n settlem ents
were f o u n d e d o n the w est c o a st o f A frica betw een C a p e Verde a n d the
C o n g o : th e English, F re n c h , D u tc h , D a n e s a n d even P ru ssian s h ad their
tr a d i n g posts.
T h e m o s t lucrative E u r o p e a n activity in these p arts fo r three h u n d re d
years w as th e slave trad e . In 1807 the British g o v e r n m e n t dec la re d it illegal,
a n d t o o k it u p o n itself fo rcibly to p re v e n t o th e r s — A r a b s a n d black
A fricans as well as E u r o p e a n s — f r o m enga g in g in it. In the first h alf o f the
n in e tee n th c e n tu ry the slave tra d e , in fact, was reduced to a trickle, an d
E u r o p e a n m e rc h a n ts b o u g h t a n d sold o th e r g o o d s, especially p alm oil
a lo n g the west co a st a n d in th e N iger delta. D u r i n g the c e n tu ry also
E u r o p e a n e x p lo re rs , inspire d in v a ry in g degrees by scientific curiosity,
religious e n th u s ia s m a n d love o f a d v e n tu r e , p e n e tr a te d the interior.
F ollo w in g the ex p lo re rs c a m e th e m issionaries, to c o n v e r t p a g a n s a n d to
c o m p e te fo r conve rts w ith the M u slim s a n d w ith ea ch other.
T h u s, by th e en d o f th e th ir d q u a r te r o f th e ce n tu ry , th e co m m ercial,
religious a n d strategic interests o f several E u r o p e a n states w ere involved in
Africa. E u r o p e a n g o v e r n m e n ts did n o t, h ow eve r, give a very high p riority
to A frican affairs. T h ere were v ario u s p ressu re g ro u p s a m o n g th e ir subjects
c o n c e rn e d w ith Africa, b u t th e y w ere n o t very influential. G o v e rn m e n ts
were p re p a re d to so m e e x te n t to give p r o te c tio n to th e ir tra d e rs an d
m issionaries, a n d to ta k e reprisals a g a in st A fric an rulers w h o m a ltr e a te d
them ; but tried to restrict th e ir c o m m itm e n ts g eo g ra p h ica lly to a m in im u m .
T h e F re n c h were installed since 1783 in S enegal, th e British since 1787 in
S ierra Leone, w here f o rm e r n egro slaves fro m A m eric a, w h o had s u p p o r t ­
 Africa 325

ed the E m pire Loyalists in th e W a r o f A m e ric a n I n d ep e n d en ce , h a d been

settled. In th e n ex t h u n d r e d years f u r th e r sm all British a n d F re n c h
se ttlem ents were m a d e o n the west coast, while the P o rtu g u e se k ep t their
po sitions o n the so u th e rn p a r t o f the ea st coast.
It w as th e British g o v e r n m e n t, w ith its I n d ian em p ire a n d its w orld-w id e
sea po w er, w hich was p o te n tia lly m o st c o n c e rn e d w ith Africa. V icto rian
s ta te sm en were se ld o m keen to a c q u ire new te rrito ry. T h ey them selves
disliked, a n d they knew t h a t b o th p a r lia m e n t a n d its electors disliked, an y
increase o f public e x p e n d itu r e re quiring f u r th e r taxes. T h ey were, how ever,
d e te rm in e d to m a in ta in their rule over India, w hich gave Britain its w orld
p o w e r status a n d was a g rea t source o f w ea lth a n d , if necessary, o f m ilitary
m a n p o w e r . T h e ro u te s to India m ust be defe n d ed . T h re a ts to India by sea
could be m et by British naval po w er pro v id ed t h a t the C a p e o f G o o d H o p e
was securely held a n d th e re were no d a n g e r o u s rival bases o n either th e west
o r the east coasts o f Africa. T h ere w ere only tw o places w here British
c o m m u n ic a ti o n s m ight be th re a te n e d by eith er o{ the tw o pow ers w hich
were B ritain’s p o te n tia l rivals, F ra n c e a n d Russiai^These were the S tra its of
C o n s ta n tin o p le a n d Egypt.
T h e rulers o f Egypt h ad m a d e them selves effectively in d e p e n d e n t o f the
O t t o m a n su ltan since the 1830s. Instead, they h ad fallen in to a new slavery,
to the n u m e ro u s W e ste rn b a n k e r s a n d m e rc h a n ts , chiefly F re n c h o r British
o r associates o f one o r the o th e r, w h o flocked to despoil this p o te ntia lly rich
c o u n try . In 1869 the S uez C a nel was o p e n e d , a n d w ith it a new sh o r te r
ro u te to India. K hedive Ismail, w ho h a d e n c o u r a g e d this a n d m a n y o th e r
enterprises, becam e finally b a n k r u p t. This gave D israeli the ch a n c e to buy
Ism ail’s a llo tm e n t o f C a n a l shares a n d so establish a s tr o n g British position
in Egypt. C o n tin u e d A n g lo - F r e n c h pressure p r o d u c e d fierce resistance
fro m the religious a n d political classes, ex p re ssed by the a r m y u n d e r A rabi
P ash a , w h o seized p o w e r in S e p te m b e r 1881. A tte m p ts a t jo in t A nglo -
F re n ch ac tio n were unsuccessful. G la d s to n e ’s g o v e r n m e n t to o k m ilitary
a c tio n a n d the British f o u n d them selves in sole o c c u p a tio n o f Egypt.
G la d s to n e h ad in te n d ed to get o u t ag a in as so o n as possible, b u t it proved
im possible either to estab lish a sa tisfac tory regim e in E gyp t o r to c o m e to
te rm s w ith F ra nce . T h in g s bec am e still m o r e difficult w h en a revolt, led by
a religious leader w h o claim ed to be the M ahdi , the new M essiah a n d
successor to M u h a m m a d , sw ept the E g yptia ns o u t o f the S u d a n . G eneral
G o r d o n was sent to K h a r t o u m , b u t th e city w as c a p tu r e d , afte r a long siege,
in J a n u a r y 1885.
T h e d isaster in the S u d a n m a d e the British a w a re th a t th e ir p o sitio n in
E gypt could be th r e a te n e d fro m the s o u th . It was this w hich set off the
sc ra m b le fo r Africa, in w hich Britain a n d F r a n c e w ere th e le ading acto rs,
b u t G e r m a n y also t o o k its p a rt, follow ed by Italy a n d Belgium, while th e
e x te n t o f P o rtu g u e se possessions also h a d to be fixed.
326 Nations and States

D u r i n g the 1880s a n d 1890s E astern A frica, betw e en th e R e d Sea S tra its

a n d the n o r th e r n b o u n d a r y o f P o rtu g u e s e M o z a m b i q u e , was divided
betw e en B ritain, Italy a n d G erm a n y . In th e n o r t h e r n se cto r (which c a m e to
be k n o w n as S o m a lila n d ) Britain to o k th e p a r t facing n o r th to A ra b ia ,
while Italy t o o k the long cu rv e o f coastlin e f r o m C a p e G u a r d a f u i s o u th -
w estw ards. Italy also a n n e x e d a co a sta l strip, c o n q u e r e d fro m E th io p ia,
w hich becam e k n o w n as E ritrea. T h e F re n c h a c q u ire d a sm all Red Sea
co a sta l te rr ito r y a t D jibo uti. T he coastlin e b etw een Italian S o m a lila n d and
th e P o rtu g u e s e te rritorie s was divided in tw o, the so u th e rn half (which
c a m e to be k n o w n as T a n g a n y ik a ) g o ing to G e r m a n y a n d th e n o r th e r n half
(w hich c a m e to be k n o w n as K enya) to Britain. Z a n z ib a r first w ent to
G e r m a n y , b u t tr a n sfe rre d to Britain in 1890. U g a n d a , a strategically
im p o r t a n t te rr ito r y lying betw een th e G re a t L akes a n d the S u d a n , was
occupied by th e British w ith G e r m a n co nsent. B oth th e British a n d the
G e r m a n s p u sh e d in la nd to the G re a t L akes, a n d the frontiers o f th e tw o
te rrito rie s w ere m u tu a lly agreed. T o th e ir w est lay a vast region which
b e c am e k n o w n as the C o n g o Free S tate , a n d was m a n a g e d as a private
c o m m e rc ia l en terp rise by K in g L eo p o ld II o f the Belgians, ex p lo itin g
fo rc ed A fric an la b o u r on a scale a n d by m e th o d s w hich by E u ro p e a n
s ta n d a r d s o f th e tim e w ere ex c ep tio n ally ruthless. In 1908 th e te rrito ry was
ta k e n over by th e Belgian sta te as a colony. T o the n o r th o f the lower C o n g o
a n o t h e r g rea t te rrito ry w as e x p lo re d by Pierre de Brazza, arid was placed
u n d e r F re n c h sovereignty.
In all these activities th e m a in m o tiv a tio n s o f the g o v e r n m e n ts were
strategic. T h e British w ere co n c ern ed to p r o te c t their p o sitio n in E gypt and
th e sea ro u te s to India. As the O t t o m a n em p ire steadily lost te rrito ry in
E u ro p e a n d bec am e m a te ria lly w e a k en e d , a n d as British influence in
C o n s ta n ti n o p le d im inishe d, E gypt replaced the S tra its as the m a in object
o f British strategic co n c ern . E g y p t’s vu ln e ra b ility t h r o u g h the U p p e r Nile
valley bec am e a n i m p o r t a n t issue in g re a t p o w e r politics. T h e successors of
th e vic to rio u s M a h d i still held the S u d a n , b u t th e re w as a grow in g
possibility t h a t F ra n c e m ig h t a d v a n c e fro m her possessions on the lower
C o n g o a n d in the n o r th -e a s te r n c o r n e r o f W est A frica, to th r e a te n the Nile
fro m the west. F o r th e ir p a r t th e Italians, estab lish ed n o t only in S o m a li­
lan d b u t in E ritrea, tried to e x p a n d in to th e h e a r tla n d o f E thiopia. T he
a r m y o f E m p e r o r M e n elik p u t a n en d to th e I ta lia n a d v a n c e a t the b attle of
A d u a o n 1 M a r c h 1896. M e n e lik ’s v ic to ry w as m a d e possible p artly by
supplies o f F re n c h w e a p o n s. A c o m b in e d F r a n c o - E th io p ia n th r e a t to th e
S u d a n , s u p p o r te d also by F r a n c e ’s ally R ussia, greatly a la r m e d the British
g o v e rn m e n t. It was decided to u n d e r ta k e a n A n g lo - E g y p tia n ex p e d itio n to
r e c o n q u e r the S u d a n f o r E gypt. T his c u lm in a te d in G e n e ra l K itc h en e r’s
victory at O m d u r m a n o n 2 S e p te m b e r 1898. M e a n w h ile a F re n c h e x p e d i­
tion, u n d e r C a p ta in J. B. M a rc h a n t, h ad set o u t fro m the west a n d reached
 Africa 327

the Nile 300 miles so u th o f K h a r to u m . K itc h en e r a n d M a r c h a n t m et at

F a s h o d a fo r a d a y o n 19 S e p te m b e r. A m a jo r A n g lo - F r e n c h crisis
d ev e lope d in E u ro p e , b u t it en d e d w ith a F re n c h retreat. T h e S u d a n was re­
united w ith E gypt, a n d placed u n d e r n o m in a l A n g lo - E g y p tia n c o n d o m i n ­
ium a n d effective British con trol.
W est A frica was o f little interest to British g o v e r n m e n ts u n til th e end of
the century. P ressures fro m co m m e rc ia l interests a n d m issionaries, to take
over large p arts o f the in te rio r to the a d v a n ta g e o f peaceful t r a d e an d
religious e n lig h te n m e n t, m e t with little sy m p a th y . R elu c tan tly , W hiteh all
e x te n d e d its West A fric an te rrito rie s inla n d . T hese new b o u n d a r ie s were
ac cep ted by the F re n ch , w h o were, ho w ev er, d e te r m in e d to bypass th e m in
the n o r th as well as o n th e co ast, a n d to estab lish a large em p ire fro m the
A tla n tic to the C o n g o , linked across the S a h a r a w ith A lgeria a n d M o ro c c o .
T h e British g o v e r n m e n t was willing to recognise F re n c h claim s in th e hope,
c o nsiste ntly d is a p p o in te d , th a t the F r e n c h w o u ld recognise British su ­
p r e m a c y in Egypt a n d th e U p p e r Nile.
T h e e x c ep tio n to this sta te m e n t was th e te rr ito r y w hich bec am e k n o w n
as Nigeria, a n d e x te n d e d fro m L agos a n d the d elta o f the N iger n o r th w a r d s
to th e principalities o f th e F u la n i em irs o f S o k o t o a n d K an o . T he
p io n e erin g activity o f Sir G eo rg e G o ld ie a n d his c h a r te r e d R o y a l Niger
C o m p a n y , fro m the 1880s o n w a r d s , h a d its effect. T r a d in g interests in this
r eg io n — m o re p o p u lo u s a n d ec o n o m ic ally p r o m isin g th a n th e la n d s lying
to the west u n d e r F re n c h rule— m a d e them selves felt in W hitehall. A
c o m b in a t io n o f c o m m e rc ia l enterp rise, m ilita ry a m b itio n , p a te rn a lism an d
m issionary zeal was effective. T he British g o v e r n m e n t u p h e ld British
s u p r e m a c y in N igeria in the face o f F re n c h pressure; F re d e ric k L u g ard
c o n q u e r e d S o k o t o a n d K a n o in 1903; a n d in 1914 a single C o lo n y a n d
P ro te c to ra te o f N igeria c a m e in to being.
The o th e r m a in British co n c e rn o n th e c o n tin e n t was S o u th Africa.
G la d s to n e accepted th e in d e p e n d e n c e o f T r a n s v a a l in 1881, h o p in g th a t the
repu blic w ould bec om e d e p e n d e n t o n Britain a n d c o n fid e n t th a t as long as
it had no c o n ta c t w ith p o te ntia lly hostile po w ers it c ould n o t d a m a g e
British interests. M e an w h ile re p u b lic a n te rr ito r y was b y passed o n the west
by the e x ten sio n o f British sovereignty o v er B e c h u a n a la n d in 1884 a n d by
e x p a n s io n into M a ta b e le la n d in the 1890s. T his last was th e w o rk o f the
British S o u th A frica C o m p a n y , c h a r te r e d in O c to b e r 1889 a n d o rgan ised
by Cecil R hode s. F r o m its co n q u e sts e m erg ed th e tw o colonies o f N o r t h e r n
a n d S o u th e r n R h o d e sia . All this e x p a n s io n w as acce p te d by British
g o v e r n m e n ts as a m e a n s o f s tre n g th e n in g British security a t the C a pe;
w hich does n o t o f c o u rse m e a n th a t it w as n o t also e x p e cted by m a n y o f its
p r o m o te rs to be ec o n o m ic ally p ro fita b le t o th e m . T h e S o u th A frican
s itu a tio n was drastica lly c h a n g ed w ith the d isco very o f gold reso urces o n
the R a n d . This m a d e the T ra n s v a a l th e object o f c o v e to u s feelings by
328 Nations and States

British b u sin e ssm e n b o t h in th e C a p e P ro v in c e a n d f u r th e r afield. It also

m a d e it possible for th e T r a n s v a a l to a s p ire to full political in d epend ence;
to seek th e p r o te c tio n o f foreign p o w e r s— especially G e r m a n y ; to a t tr a c t
th e A frik a a n s - s p e a k in g p eo p le o f the C a p e to it instead of, as h ith e rto ,
being a t tr a c t e d to w a r d s th e m ; a n d th u s to th r e a te n th e f u tu re security o f
the British r o u te to I n d ia b y th e C a p e. T h u s th e e c o n o m ic a m b itio n s o f
capitalists a n d th e strategic anxieties o f British s ta te s m e n c o m b in e d to
p ro d u c e th e B oer W a r o f 1899.
In this b rief survey I h a v e stressed th e strateg ic f a c to r b ecause I believe
th a t it w as th e m o st i m p o r t a n t in brin g in g a b o u t British, F re n c h an d
G e r m a n actions. O nly in th e case o f K ing L e o p o l d ’s C o n g o e n terp rise was
c r u d e e c o n o m ic p ro fit th e decisive aim . T h e w ell-k n o w n H o b s o n -
H ilferd in g -L en in th e o ry o f e c o n o m ic im p e rialism do es n o t fit m o r e th a n a
p a r t o f th e h istoric al facts. A t the sa m e tim e o n e s h o u ld n o t fo rg et th a t
ec o n o m ic , a n d also religious m is sio n ary , p ressu re g r o u p s , as well as
p e r so n a l overw ee n in g a m b itio n s , played th e ir p a rt. It is still m o r e evident
th a t , once E u r o p e a n im p e rial rule h a d been e s tab lish ed ov er all A frica
e x c e p t E th io p ia , e c o n o m ic e x p l o ita tio n o f A fric a n resources a n d A frican
m a n p o w e r grew rapidly.
C h a n g e s in E u r o p e a n rule in the last p e r io d o f co lo n ialism in A frica m ust
be briefly m e n tio n e d . In 1918 th e G e r m a n colonies w ere t a k e n a w a y by the
v icto rs a n d d istrib u te d a m o n g th e m u n d e r th e system o f m a n d a te s r e s p o n ­
sible t o th e L e a g u e o f N a tio n s: T a n g a n y ik a to B ritain, S o u th -W e s t A frica
to th e U n io n o f S o u th A frica, T o g o la n d to F ra n c e , K a m e r u n divided
betw een B rita in a n d F ra n c e , a n d R u a n d a a n d U ru n d i to Belgium. T h e nex t
i m p o r t a n t ch a n g e w as th e c o n q u e s t o f E th io p i a by the Italians in 1936.
Italian rule e n d e d in 1941, w h en British forces c o n q u e r e d the Italian p o s­
sessions E ritr e a a n d S o m a lila n d , a n d th e n r e sto re d E th io p i a n in d e p e n ­
dence.

Imperial policies and attitudes

In A fric a n as in A sia n la n d s occu p ie d b y E u r o p e a n rulers, th e tr a d itio n a l
political a n d religious elites co m p lie d w ith th e policies o f th e ir new m asters,
while basically rese nting th e m . As in A sia also, th e new m a s te rs ’ policies
s o o n cre ate d incentives a n d m e c h a n ism s f o r th e f o r m a tio n , f r o m a m o n g
th e ir subjects, o f new c u ltu r a l elites, t h r o u g h th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f E u r o p e a n
types o f tr a in in g a n d e d u c a tio n . In ev itably these new elites b e c a m e fam iliar
w ith E u r o p e a n ideas, a n d b e g a n to ju d g e E u r o p e a n rule by E u r o p e a n
s ta n d a r d s a n d fo u n d it w an tin g . T h u s in A fric a as in A sia tw o types of
o p p o s itio n to E u r o p e a n rule a p p e a r e d . T h e old a n d n ew elites c o m b in e d in
vary in g degrees in th e a n ti-c o lo n ia l n a tio n a lis m o f th e tw e n tie th century.
 Africa 329

C o m m o n o p p o sitio n to E u r o p e a n rule, greatly v aryin g in intensity,

c oexisted with m u tu a l d istru st betw een th e old a n d new elites, w hich also
varied greatly betw een regions a n d betw een periods. In general it s h o u ld be
noted th a t A frican n atio n alism a p p e a r e d later, met w ith less resistance
fro m E u ro p e a n rulers, a n d achieved its im m e d ia te aim of ind ep en d e n ce
m ore rapidly, th a n A sian.
All E u r o p e a n colonial policies had so m e p o in ts in c o m m o n . All sought
to spend as little as possible o n either the m ilitary defence o r the ec o n o m ic
d e v e lo p m e n t o f their colonies. All gave so m e degree o f s u p p o r t to E u r o ­
pean enterprises seeking to gain profits fro m th e c olonies’ n a tu ra l re so u r­
ces. All in tro d u c e d so m e elem ent o f E u r o p e a n is a tio n , affecting th e social
stru ctu re s a n d cu ltu ra l life o f their c o lo n ial subjects, while seeking to
m inim ise the co n s e q u e n t political disc o n te n ts. All used m e th o d s o f politi­
cal repression m o re severe th a n they w o u ld have used in th e ir E u ro p e a n
h o m e lan d s . Nevertheless th e re were g rea t v a r ia tio n s betw een them.
T h e F re n c h consciously set them selves to sp rea d F re n ch cu ltu re, h o p in g
in the long te rm to m a k e black F re n c h m e n o f their A fricans. In practice
their efforts were c o n c e n tra te d o n a su b sta n tia l but c o m p a r a tiv e ly small
section, w h o were subjected to e d u c a tio n o f high quality , w ith relatively
g rea ter e m p h asis o n the highest level. Black g r a d u a te s o f F re n ch se c o n d a ry
schools a n d universities were w elcom ed as F re n c h m e n , at least w h en they
were in F rance. T h ere were, how ever, n u m e ro u s F re n c h m e n living in the
colonies w ho did n o t regard black F re n c h m e n as their eq u a ls, least of all
w hen they saw th a t they were their cu ltu ra l superiors.
T h e P o rtu g u e se rulers p rocla im e d a r a th e r sim ilar cu ltu ra l attitu d e . In
practice the o p p o r tu n itie s for A fricans in P o rtu g u e s e colonies to o b ta in a
g o o d P o rtu g u e se e d u c a tio n were m u c h sm aller, a n d the q u a lity o f P o r t u ­
guese e d u c a tio n at all levels was m a rk e d ly in ferio r to th a t o f F rench.
P o rtu g u e se living in the colonies also te n d ed to tr e a t e d u c a te d A fricans
with c o n te m p t, th o u g h possibly in p ractice this was less w id es p re ad th a n
a m o n g the F rench.
T he British did n o t have so gen e ro u s a n a t titu d e in principle as the
F rench. It m a y be a rg u e d th a t, in the social p a tte r n o f E ngla n d ( th o u g h
p erh a p s n o t o f S c o tla n d ), cultu re a n d le arning have alw ays enjoyed less
prestige th a n in F rance. Be th a t as it m ay, it is fair to say t h a t British
co lo nial rulers did n o t set themselves the a im o f m a k in g black E nglishm en
o u t o f th e ir A fricans. Nevertheless the British rulers did n o t neglect
e d u c a tio n . In the British colonies in W e st A frica b o th p r im a ry an d
s e c o n d a ry e d u c a tio n w ere e x te n d e d to a larger section o f the p o p u la tio n
t h a n in the F rench . Access to British universities, a n d d e v e lo p m e n t of
university-level colleges in British colonies, lagged beh in d sim ilar in stitu ­
tions in F re n ch , b u t they w ere co n sid erab le, a n d increased rap id ly in the
1940s. A frican subjects o f British colon ies also had access— a d m itte d ly on
330 Nations and States

a r a th e r sm all scale— to u n ive rsity e d u c a tio n in th e U nited States. Plenty of

a rr o g a n c e w as also displayed by British subjects in the co lo nies to w a r d s the
blacks. T h e belief bec am e w idespre ad th a t, w hereas the F re n c h co nsidered
it a c o m p lim e n t w h en a n A fric an t h o r o u g h ly a b s o rb e d F re n c h cu ltu re and
F re n c h social habits, th e British reg a rd e d c o r r e s p o n d in g b e h a v io u r by
B ritish-ruled A fric an s as im p u d e n c e a n d d eserving rebuke. T h e p r o p o r ti o n
o f e n ligh te ned F re n c h m e n a n d o f n a r r o w - m in d e d E n g lish m en was p erh a p s
n o t so high in reality as th e cliché w ould have us believe.
T h e f o u rth m a in colo n ial regim e, the Belgian, inclined r a th e r to the
British t h a n to th e F re n c h m odel. T h e Belgians d eve lope d practical
e d u c a tio n a t a low er level, seeking w ith so m e success to tra in a skilled
A fric an la b o u r force, b u t until the very eve o f in d e p e n d e n c e they d is c o u r ­
aged h igher e d u c atio n . In practice it was p r o b a b ly h a r d e r fo r a Belgian
A fric an to o b ta in a full m o d e r n e d u c a tio n even th a n fo r a P o rtu g u e se
A frican.
T h e p ro c la im e d political a im s o f the f o u r colo n ial regim es also differed
widely. T h e F re n c h aim , o f m a k in g black F r e n c h m e n , implied the sprea d
a m o n g A fricans o f F re n c h d e m o c r a tic ideas a n d the f o r m a tio n o f political
p arties o f th e F re n c h type, b u t at the sa m e tim e s tro n g o b je ction to an y
political m o v e m e n t w hose a im was n a t io n a l in d e p e n d e n c e — w hich was
b o u n d to im ply rejection o f F re n c h c u ltu re a n d o f th e F re n c h political
heritage. T h e British did n o t object to th e goal of in d ependence: if they
p referre d th e ir A fricans t o be A frican s r a th e r th a n bla ck E ng lish m en , they
c ou ld h a r d ly refuse the right to indepen dence. H ow ever, they consid ered it
their d u ty to en su re t h a t w h en in d e p e n d e n c e c a m e , there sh o u ld be
g o v e r n m e n t institu tio ns, a n d a political elite o f A fricans, ca p a b le o f ruling
in w h a t British officials a n d intellectuals c o u ld recognise as a n o rderly an d
d e m o c r a tic way. T hey disliked the f o r m a tio n o f political parties o f radical
o u tlo o k . T h e P o rtu g u e s e rulers were n o t p re p a re d to co n s id e r in d e p e n ­
dence, as it w o u ld im ply rejection o f P o rtu g u e s e culture; a n d m eanw hile
th e y did n o t in te nd to m a k e m u c h effort to e n a b le A fric an s to a c q u ire these
c u ltu ra l blessings. As fo r d em o c ra c y , being o p p o se d to in tro d u c in g it in
P o rtu g a l itself, th e rulers c o uld h ard ly be interested in offering it to
A fricans. Finally, the Belgians were n o t p re p a re d to co n s id e r either
d e m o c r a c y o r in d e p en d e n ce until a very late stage, a n d th e n they sim ply
a b a n d o n e d co lo n ial rule.
It is necessary to p o in t o u t several influences w h ich m a d e them selves felt
in the policies o f Britain a n d F ra n c e to w a r d s th e ir A fric a n colonies.
F irst was p a te rn a lism in the civil service. T h e c o lo n ia l officials f o r the
m ost p a r t sincerely re g a rd e d them selves as p r o te c to r s o f their black
subjects. T h e ir lives were dev o ted to their welfare, even t h o u g h they m ight
often act as stern p a re n ts to w a r d s w a y w a rd children: the idea th a t children
g ro w u p, a n d n o longer acce p t their p a r e n ts ’ g u id a n ce , was a b h o r r e n t to
 Africa 331

them .
S eco n d w as th e conflict betw een E u r o p e a n m issionaries a n d business­
m e n in the colonies. M issionaries to o felt them selves to be th e p r o te c to rs of
th e ir flock, a n d te n d ed (often quite rightly) to see the b usin essm en as
wolves th r e a te n in g th e ir sheep. M ission aries were also p io ne ers in the
c r e a tio n o f schools a n d hospitals. T h e ir a im w as to save souls a n d lives. It
was n o t th e ir in te n tio n , by low ering the d e a th rate, to increase p o p u la tio n
pressure o n existing m a la d ju ste d resources, a n d so s tre n g th e n the d e m a n d
for social reform s or the v o lu m e of p o p u la r m isery a n d d isc o n te n t; n o r to
create political o p p o s itio n by the p r o p a g a tio n o f c o n t e m p o r a r y political
ideas th r o u g h th e ir schools. Both these results ensued. M issionaries did not
necessarily f a v o u r in d epen dence: on th e w hole C a th o lic m issionaries in
F re n c h , Belgian a n d P o rtu g u e s e colonies f a v o u re d the sprea d o f their
m e tr o p o lita n culture, while P ro te s ta n t m issio naries in British colonies
t h o u g h t m o r e in te rm s o f British ideas o f self-g o v e rn m e n t leading very
slowly to indep endence. H ow ever, it is clear th a t th e to ta l effect of
m issio n ary activity was to p r o m o te political consciou sne ss a n d activity
a m o n g A fricans. T his did n o t m e a n th a t the new e m erg en t g r o u p o f A frican
politicians necessarily felt g ra titu d e to th e m issionaries: on th e c o n tra ry ,
th e y often resented w h a t they co n s id ered to be a ttitu d e s o f cu ltu ra l an d
m o r a l su p e riority, arisin g o u t o f the< m issio n arie s’ d e t e r m in a tio n to inter­
pret C h ristian ity in n a rro w ly E u r o p e a n term s.
A th ird influence was the conflict in m e tr o p o lita n politics. In g eneral, the
co nserv ative parties to o k a p atern alist a ttitu d e , c o m p o u n d e d o f the
officials’ eth o s o f service to th e co lo n ial peoples a n d of th e b u sin e ssm e n ’s
desire to m a in ta in v alu ab le e c o n o m ic privileges. T h e p arties o f th e left
pressed fo r m o re rap id d e v e lo p m e n t o f d e m o c r a tic in stitu tio n s in the
colonies, o r for m o r e rap id m o v e m e n t to w a r d s in d ependence. In parlia­
m e n ta r y politics, the p atern alist tre n d was s tr o n g e r for a longer perio d in
Britain, the radical te n d e n c y in F rance. In reality the political b alan c e was
m o r e even. In F ra n ce , th a t p o r tio n o f th e e d u c a te d elite w hich was
ex cluded fro m overt political life afte r the years o f th e D reyfus c ontrove rsy,
e n tre n c h e d itself in th e a r m y a n d the civil a d m in is t r a tio n in th e colonies;
w hereas in B ritain, w here p erso n a l a n d social c o n t a c t betw een right a n d left
in the political elite was closer th a n in F ra n c e , liberal a n d even radical
influences deeply p e n e tr a te d th e colonial a d m in is tra tio n . In b o th cases also
the passive effect o f the indifferent m a jo r ity sh o u ld n o t be u n d e rra te d .
P ate rn a lists a n d radicals ( L o r d M iln er a n d C le m e n t A ttlee, M a rsh a l
L y au tey a n d L é o n B lum ) had this in c o m m o n ; they g enuinely ca re d a b o u t
th e peoples o f the colonies. This was n o t tr u e o f th e large n u m b e r s in b o th
co u n tries w h o oscillated betw e en c h a u v in is m a n d indifference, between
‘keep the m a p red ’ a n d ‘let th e d a m n e d natives go to hell th e ir o w n w ay ’.
332 Nations and States

African nationalism
In the b e ginning o f A fric an a n ti-co lo n ia l n a tio n a lism , influences fro m
A m e ric a w ere im p o r ta n t. T h e P a n a f r ic a n is m o f th e W est I n d ian M a rc u s
G arv ey 4 f o u n d disciples a m o n g m o d e rn - e d u c a te d A fricans. N n a m d i Azi-
kiwe fro m N igeria, H astings B a n d a fro m N y a s a la n d a n d K w a m e N k r u m a h
fr o m the G old C o a st all stu died at colleges in the U nited S tate s a n d cam e
u n d e r P a n a f r ic a n influence. A t the sixth P a n a f r ic a n C ong ress, held in
M a n c h e s te r (E n g la n d ) in O c to b e r 1945, besides the black A m eric an
p io n e er W. E. B. D u Bois a n d th e W est I n d ia n G eo rg e P a d m o r e , m a n y
n atio n alists fro m A frica were present w h o later bec am e p r o m in e n t in
a n g l o p h o n e A frican states: th e y included n o t only K w am e N k r u m a h , but
also J o m o K e n y a tta fro m Kenya. A m o n g f r a n c o p h o n e A fricans th e re was
a n e q u iv ale n t influence fro m the F re n c h W est Indies. A poet fro m
M a rtin iq u e , A im é Césaire, was o n e o f the c r e a to rs o f the co n c e p t of
négritude, a r o u n d w hich develo ped a n im pressive literature in French:
a m o n g its leading w riters was L éo p o ld S é d a r S e n g h o r f r o m Senegal, w ho
a p a r t f r o m w riting p o e m s in F re n c h also t a u g h t classical G re ek to F re n ch
s c h o o lc h ild re n in F ra n ce . T h e m o v e m e n t for négritude enjoyed so m e
s y m p a th y fro m F re n c h intellectuals.
T h e first effective A fric an n a tio n a list m o v e m e n t was in the G old C oa st.
H ere th e re w as a c o m p a r a tiv e ly large e d u c a te d class; a n d a co n sid erab le
n u m b e r o f A fricans had served in the British a r m y in the S eco n d W o rld
W a r, seen s o m e th in g o f th e w orld a n d b ec o m e politically conscious. T h ere
was also w idespre ad e c o n o m ic h a r d s h ip ow ing to th e sp rea d o f th e ‘swollen
s h o o t’ disease o f the c o c o a tree. In F e b r u a r y 1948 th e re were food riots in
A ccra. In th e follow ing y ea r th e m a in political p arty , U nited G old C o a st
C o n v e n tio n , split: th e y o u n g radical le ad e r K w a m e N k r u m a h b r o k e aw ay
to f o r m the C o n v e n tio n P e o p le ’s P a rty , w hich he p ro c e e d e d to o rganise on
a n efficient m ass basis, especially in the tow ns. In 1950 N k r u m a h p r o ­
claim ed a p r o g r a m m e o f civil d iso b e d ie n ce a n d ‘positive a c tio n ’, m odelled
to so m e e x te n t on G a n d h i ’s m e th o d s in In d ia. T his led to his im p riso n m e n t;
b u t w h e n a n election was held in 1951, u n d e r the re fo rm s p r o p o s e d by the
c o n s titu tio n a l c o m m issio n w h ich the g o v e r n m e n t h a d a p p o i n te d in 1949,
the C P P w o n a n o v erw h elm in g victory. N k r u m a h w as released to bec om e
prim e minister. His cen tralisin g policy was resisted by th e tr a d itio n a l
A frican elite, b u t he w o n the struggle, a n d was s u p p o r te d by the British
g o v e r n m e n t in L o n d o n . In M a rc h 1957 th e c o lo n y o f G o ld C o a s t was
replaced by th e sovereign sta te o f G h a n a , a n d N k r u m a h establish ed a
v ig o ro u s o n e - p a rty d ic tato rsh ip .
In N igeria the first active political g r o u p was th e N a tio n a l C ou n c il of
N igeria a n d C a m e r o o n s fo u n d e d in 1944 by D r N n a m d i Azikiwe, generally
k n o w n as Zik. Its m ain s u p p o r t c a m e fro m th e g ro w in g e d u c a te d class
 Africa 333

a m o n g the Ibos, w hose h o m e la n d w as in the east o f th e co lo ny, b u t w ho

were also to be f o u n d as skilled em ployees o r in the pro fessions in the west
a n d n o rth . T h e N C N C was n o t co n c e rn e d o nly with Ibo interests, bu t
a im e d at a n in d e p e n d e n t N igeria, to be the c o m m o n h o m e la n d o f the m a n y
different peoples w h o in h a b ite d it. In 1951 a second p a rty , the A ction
G r o u p , led by C hief O b a fe m i A w o lo w o , w as f o u n d ed in the Y o r u b a lands
in the west; a n d in the sa m e y ea r the le aders o f th e F u lani oligarchy, w ho
had ruled the n o r th u n d e r British ‘indirect rule’, o rg anised a N o rth e r n
P e o p le ’s C ongress, to be based o n w ider p o p u l a r s u p p o r t. T hese th ree p a r ­
ties d istru sted each o ther; b u t since all th ree had h opes o f d o m in a tin g the
w ho le o f Nigeria, they h a d to ta k e p a rt in the m a n o e u v re s for p r e p a rin g a
new co n s titu tio n . A fter six years o f n eg o tia tio n s a c o m p ro m is e w as agreed
by all, a n d Nigeria becam e a n in d e p e n d e n t federal state in O c to b e r 1960.
F re n c h W est A frica ( A O F ) was d ivided in to eight territories. A fter the
S e co n d W orld W a r th e F re n c h g o v e r n m e n t co n fe rred F re n c h citizenship
on all its subjects; set up elected assem blies in all eight te rritorie s a n d an
indirectly elected assem bly fo r all A O F ; a n d a r r a n g e d for the direct election
by the people o f A O F o f d ep uties to the N a tio n a l A ssem bly in Paris.
D u rin g the late 1940s the influence o f m e tr o p o lita n political parties was felt
in A O F . T h e socialists were m o st successful in S enegal, but the strongest
p a r ty in the region was the Rassem blem ent dem ocratique africain ( R D A ) ,
fo u n d e d a t a conference a t B a m a k o in 1946. It c o o p e r a te d in P aris w ith the
F re n c h C o m m u n is t P a r ty until 1950, w h en the p a rty split. In the 1957 elec­
tions to the te rrito ria l assem blies, R D A w o n m ajo rities in Ivory C o a st,
S u d a n , G u in e a a n d U p p e r V olta, a n d a po w erfu l m in o rity in Niger. H o w ­
ever, differences betw een personalities a n d policies were to o g rea t to allow
the R D A to rem a in a single p a rty unifying th e w hole o f A O F . In 1958 G e n ­
eral de G au lle’s new F re n c h c o n s titu tio n offered the territories o f A O F the
choice betw een im m e d ia te c o m p lete in d e p en d e n ce o r m e m b e r sh ip in a new
F re n c h C o m m u n ity . A t first only G u in e a rejected m e m b e r sh ip , b u t by the
en d o f 1960 six m o re te rritorie s chose in d e p en d e n ce . T h e eig hth te rrito ry,
M a u rita n ia , had F re n ch co n s en t for its in d e p en d e n ce , but the claim by the
M o r o c c a n g o v e r n m e n t th a t it was p a r t o f M o r o c c o cau sed several years’
delay in its f o rm a l a d m issio n to the U nited N atio n s. T he fo rm e rly F re n ch
m a n d a te d te rr ito r y o f T o g o bec am e in d e p e n d e n t in 1960. T h e island of
M a d a g a s c a r, a n d th e f o u r territories o f F re n c h E q u a to ria l A frica ( A E F )
bec am e first m e m b ers o f the C o m m u n ity a n d th e n in d e p e n d e n t states.
T h e Belgian rulers o f the C o n g o in fifty years m a d e g o o d progre ss in
in d u stria l d e v e lo p m e n t, in the tra in in g o f skilled m a n p o w e r a n d in prim a ry
e d u c a tio n , b u t th e y n e ith e r co n s id ered political in d e p e n d e n c e likely n o r
did m u c h to p r e p a re a n A fric an elite. T h e n u m b e r o f C o n g o lese w ith a
m o d e r n e d u c a tio n at th e en d o f the 1950s was ex tre m ely small. N ew
universities at L eopoldville a n d E lisabethville h a d h a d little tim e to
334 Nations and States

p r o d u c e results. In J a n u a r y 1959 there were v iolent riots in Leopoldville,

org an ise d by a p a rty based o n the B a k o n g o p eople w h o in h a b ite d the
e x tre m e w estern p a r t o f th e c o u n try , a r o u n d the m o u th o f the C o n g o river,
a n d s p re a d also into n e i g h b o u rin g F re n c h a n d P o rtu g u e s e te rritory. T he
riots caused th e Belgian g o v e r n m e n t to hold a series o f elections, fro m to w n
a n d ru ra l councils u p w a r d s , a n d to p re p a re the c o u n t r y rapidly for
in d e p en d e n ce . D u rin g this process there em erged a n u m b e r o f politicians
a n d parties, so m e o f w h o m h ad plans for C o n g o lese n a tio n a lism designed
to tra n s c e n d local or trib a l loyalties. In the s u m m e r o f 1960 C o n g o becam e
in d e p e n d e n t, but w ithin a few weeks had disin teg rated , as different
region a l g o v e rn m e n ts, b a c k e d by rival g rea t po w ers a n d rival g ro u p s of
A fric a n states, f o u g h t ea ch o th e r, a n d U nited N a tio n s officials did their
best to so rt o u t the mess.
In British E ast A frica th e struggle f o r in d e p e n d e n c e w as c o m p lic ate d by
the presence o f large n u m b e rs o f British la n d o w n e r s a n d large British
u r b a n p o p u la tio n s. T his was especially difficult in the W hite H ig h la n d s of
K enya, o n the C o p p e r Belt o f N o r t h e r n R h o d e sia a n d in a large p a rt of
S o u th e r n R hodesia.
T h e m o s t n u m e r o u s o f the peoples o f K enya, the K ik uyu, suffered fro m
o v e r - p o p u la tio n a n d soil e x h a u s tio n , a n d believed th a t the w ell-farmed
W h ite H ig h la n d s o f the E u r o p e a n settlers sh o u ld be theirs. T h e re w as also a
sm all politically con scio u s elite o f e d u c a te d K ik u y u w h o fo u n d e d a small
political p a r ty as early as 1922. O u ts ta n d in g a m o n g th e m was the so c iolo­
gist J o m o K e n y a tta , w h o h a d studied in L o n d o n a n d p ublish ed a bo ok
entitled Facing M ount K enya , w hich c o m b in e d social analysis a n d n a t io n ­
alist asp ira tio n s. In 1952 a guerrilla w ar b eg a n in the K ik u y u lands which
b e c am e k n o w n as M a u M a u . In this m o v e m e n t p e a sa n t d isc o nte nt,
religious fan a ticism a n d n a tio n a lism c o m b in e d ; its leaders included prim i­
tive m a g ician s a n d sophistica te d p r o d u c ts o f m o d e r n schools. T h e M a u
M a u m ilita nts reg a rd e d K e n y a tta as th e ir leader. W h e th e r he was or was
n o t resp onsib le for s ta rtin g th e a r m e d struggle, he w as fo u n d guilty an d
sent to p riso n , b u t his follow ers held d o w n British t r o o p s fo r f o u r years.
M e a n w h ile successive stages o f c o n s titu tio n a l refo rm were h urrie d
th r o u g h . K e n y a tta was released in 1959, a n d b e c a m e p resid e n t o f inde­
p e n d e n t K en y a in 1962. A single p a r ty regim e em erg ed , w hich mobilised
s u p p o r t n o t only fr o m th e K ik u y u fifth o f th e p o p u la tio n b u t also fro m the
m a n y sm a lle r peoples w h o m a k e u p th e re m a in in g four-fifths. T h e tw o
o th e r East A fric an states o b ta in e d th e ir in d e p e n d e n c e a t a b o u t th e same
tim e. U g a n d a , w hich h a d n o E u r o p e a n settler p ro b le m , w as faced w ith
serious conflicts betw een its peoples. In T a n g a n y ik a th e re w ere E u r o p e a n
settlers, b u t fewer; a n d n o n e o f the large n u m b e r o f d ifferent peoples sto o d
ou t as clearly stro n g e r th a n the o th e rs, or possessed a n y fo rm id ab le
tr a d itio n a l o r institu tio n al f ra m e w o rk . It was th u s possible for a talented
 Africa 335

sc hool-tea che r, Ju liu s N yerere, to build u p a c o u n try -w id e p a r ty with

massive s u p p o r t — th e T a n g a n y ik a A fric an N a tio n a l U n io n — to w hich
p o w e r was h a n d e d over.
F u r th e r s o u th , th e th ree territories o f N o r t h e r n R h o d e sia , S o u th e r n
R h o d e sia a n d N y a sa la n d were c o m b in e d in 1953 in the C e n tr a l A frican
F e d e ra tio n . This w as th e pla n o f Sir G o d fre y H uggins, p rim e m iniste r of
S o u th e r n R ho de sia , w hich h ad had a f o rm o f p a r lia m e n ta r y g o v e r n m e n t
based o n a E u r o p e a n elec to ra te since 1923, a n d w hich in the mid-1950s had
a p o p u la tio n o f a b o u t 2,200,000 A fricans, 170,000 E u ro p e a n s a n d 13,000
A sians. H uggins believed th a t a fe d e ra tio n w o u ld be e c o n o m ic a lly m o re
successful th a n three territories, a n d he h o p e d to w o rk o u t a fo rm of
‘p a r tn e r s h ip ’ betw een A fricans a n d E u ro p e a n s w hich w o u ld a void the
e x tre m es b o th o f w hite S o u th A frican apartheid a n d of u nlim ited rule by
A fricans. He a n d his successor, Sir R o y W elensky, were o p p o se d by all
politically con scious A frican s a n d by a g ro w in g p r o p o r ti o n o f the E u r o ­
p e a n settlers. In N y asa la n d , w ith a n a lm o s t co m p letely A fric an p o p u la tio n ,
the n atio n alist m o v e m e n t led by D r H astin g s B a n d a s o o n w o n massive
s u p p o r t. In N o rth e r n R h o d e sia the E u r o p e a n p o p u la tio n , co nsisting
m ain ly of highly paid w o rk e rs in the m in in g in dustry, bitterly o p p o se d
A frican claim s, but the A frican n atio n alists were to o s tr o n g fo r the m . In
b o th cases the British g o v e r n m e n t in L o n d o n yielded to the A fricans.
N y a sa la n d a n d N o r t h e r n R h o d e s ia b e c am e sovereign republics, c h a n g in g
their n am es respectively to M alaw i a n d Z a m b ia .
W hite s u p rem a cy was n o w confined to R h o d e sia (fro m w hose n a m e the
w o rd ‘s o u th e r n ’ was d r o p p e d ) , the P o rtu g u e s e colonies o f A n g o la an d
M o z a m b iq u e , S o u th -W e s t A fric a,5 a n d the U n io n o f S o u th A frica.6 As
P o rtu g a l itself was ruled by a d ic ta to rs h ip w hich f o rb a d e political parties,
th e re c ou ld be no legally a u th o ris e d n a tio n a list m o v e m en ts. In R h o d e sia
such m o v e m en ts were p e rm itted in principle, b u t the n a r r o w limits placed
on vo tin g rights for blacks c o n d e m n e d the natio n alists to increasing
f ru s tra tio n , a n d to ineffectual e x tre m ism . In 1962 the leader o f the
Z im b a b w e A fric an P e o p le ’s U n io n ( Z A P U ) , J o s h u a N k o m o , was interned;
a n d in 1964 the Z im b a b w e A fric an N a tio n a l U n io n ( Z A N U ), w hich h ad
b ro k e n a w a y fro m Z A P U , was banned .
T h e inevitable co n se q u e n c e was to drive n atio n alists into exile, c o n s p ir ­
acy a n d violence. G u e rrilla o rg a n isa tio n s m a d e th e ir a p p e a r a n c e . T hese
needed a safe base in a n e ig h b o u rin g state, a n d tra in in g facilities a n d arm s.
T he first was p r o v id ed fo r A n g o la by C o n g o (Zaire) a n d Z a m b ia , for
M o z a m b i q u e b y T a n z a n ia , a n d fo r R h o d e s ia by Z a m b ia ; the second by the
Soviet, C hinese a n d E ast E u r o p e a n g o v e rn m e n ts. R ecruits w ere a ttr a c te d
f o r tra in in g fro m inside the territories, a n d in d u e c o u rse guerrilla o p e r a ­
tio n s b eg a n o n their soil.
T h e inevitable result o f this w as th a t th e guerrilla m o v e m e n ts claim ed,
336 Nations and States

a n d w ere co nsid ered by a g row ing n u m b e r o f foreign g o v e rn m e n ts, to

rep rese n t the peoples o f these lands, a n d to have the sole right to speak in
th e ir n am e. T h e R h o d e s ia n a n d P o rtu g u e s e g o v e r n m e n ts replied th a t the
g uerrillas represented only a tiny m in o rity ; yet even if this w ere true, these
g o v e r n m e n ts prev e n ted them selves f r o m p r o v in g it by their refusal to
in tr o d u c e institu tio n s w hich w ou ld e n a b le their black subjects to express
th e ir op in io n s. T h o se non-elected bla ck trib a l chiefs w h o m they put
f o rw a r d as altern ativ es were dism issed by the n a tio n a lists a n d their foreign
p ro te c to r s a n d sy m p a th ise rs as ‘sto o g e s’.
H ow ever, it still r em a in ed tru e th a t all these te rrito rie s were in h a b ite d by
several peoples, w hich differed fro m a n d d istru ste d ea ch other. T ribal
loyalties played their p a r t in th e fre q u e n t splits w hich o c c u rre d in the illegal
n a tio n a list m o v e m e n ts a n d guerrilla forces. T he exiled n atio n alist leaders,
inevitably influenced increasingly by M a rx is t th in k in g as they found
prac tica l s u p p o r t to th e ir m o v e m e n ts c o m in g f r o m co u n trie s ruled by
c o m m u n is t parties, aim ed to create, w ithin th e ir libe rate d states, single new
n atio n s, c o m m a n d i n g a loyalty w hich w o u ld tr a n s c e n d all tribal divisions.
T h is w as a n u n d e r s ta n d a b l e a n d la u d ab le aim for a m e m b e r o f a E u ro p e a n -
e d u c a te d intelligentsia; b u t the fact th a t the leaders held these views could
n o t cancel o u t th e fact t h a t trib a l a n d linguistic divisions rem a ined strong
a m o n g th e ir peoples.
T h e m a jo r ity of w hite R h o d e sia n s re m a in e d d e te r m in e d n o t only to keep
pow er, b u t to see to it th a t neith er the school system n o r the political
in stitu tio n s sh o u ld e n a b le A fricans ever to achieve t h a t sta tu s o f ‘civilised
m e n ’ w h ich Cecil R h o d e s h a d once laid d o w n as the qualifica tio n for
citizenship. A s the British g o v e r n m e n t insisted o n a series o f c o n d itio n s
w hich ( th o u g h far f r o m acce p ta b le to th e A frican natio n alist leaders)
w o u ld hav e m a d e r a p id a d v a n c e fo r A fricans possible, the R h o d e sia n
p rim e m inister, I a n S m ith , m a d e a ‘u n ila te ra l d e c la ra tio n o f in d e p e n d e n c e ’
in N o v e m b e r 1965. It was felt by som e a t this tim e t h a t if a to k e n force of
British tr o o p s h a d b een sent to b a c k the g o v e r n o r w h o re m a in e d loyal to
L o n d o n , S m ith a n d his colleagues w o u ld have c a p itu la te d . T h e British
g o v e r n m e n t, how ever, believed th a t such a c tio n w o u ld have led to civil
w ar, a n d was n o t willing to cause b lo o d sh e d . It th e re fo re limited its
resistance to s u p p o r t o f e c o n o m ic sa n ctio n s, w h ich w ere d eclared by the
U nited N a tio n s, a n d w hich w ere largely ig n o re d by m e m b e r states.
R h o d e s ia survived for eleven years, b u t w h en bla ck n atio n alists o b ta in e d
po w er in A n g o la a n d M o z a m b i q u e in 1975-76, the o p p o r tu n itie s of
R h o d e s ia n black guerrillas r ap id ly increased. P ressed by th e U nited S tates
a n d S o u th A frican g o v e rn m e n ts, S m ith agre ed, in S e p te m b e r 1976, to
e m b a r k o n a d rastic c o n s titu tio n a l revision designed to give R h o d e s ia a
black m a jo rity g o v e r n m e n t w ithin tw o years.
U n m o v e d by the British, F re n c h a n d Belgium ex a m p le s, the P o rtu g u e se
 Africa 337

leaders m a in ta in e d fo r tw o decades m o r e th e ir official d o c trin e th a t all the

colonies were a n integral p a r t o f P o rtu g a l, a n d th a t all e d u c a te d persons,
black no less th a n white, were full citizens. T h e m ost impressive exiled
n atio n alist m o v e m e n t w as the Frente de Liberta^ao de M ozam bique
(Frelimo), based on T a n z a n ia , w hich began guerrilla a c tio n in n o r th e r n
M o z a m b i q u e in 1964. Its efforts kept c o n s id e ra b le n u m b e rs o f P o rtu g u e se
tr o o p s engag ed, a n d th e as sa ss in a tio n o f its le ader, the highly cu ltu red
E d u a r d o M o n d la n e , in F e b r u a r y 1969, did n o t d es tro y it. G u errilla fighting
also grew in P o rtu g u e s e G uinea. T h e situ a tio n w as tr a n s f o r m e d by the
P o rtu g u e se revolution o f A pril 1974, w hich was a direct result o f d isc o n te n t
in the P o rtu g u e se a r m y w ith the p ro tra c te d unsuccessful w ars in Africa.
T h e new P o rtu g u e se rulers gave full in d e p e n d e n c e to G u in e a , a n d accepted
the claim o f Frelimo to represent the A fric an p o p u la tio n o f M o z a m b iq u e ,
w hich becam e officially in d e p e n d e n t o n 25 J u n e 1975.
In A n g o la several resistance m o v e m e n ts a ro se in the 1960s, divided by
id eology a n d by trib a l c o m p o sitio n . In 1975 th e re w ere three, each
recruiting its m a in s u p p o r t from different sources. T h e P e o p le ’s M o v e m e n t
for L ib e ra tio n o f A n g o la ( M P L A ) a p p e a r e d the m ost p o p u la r a m o n g the
intelligentsia, o f w hich p a r t was in the ca p ita l L u a n d a , a n d p a rt in exile. It
also drew mass s u p p o r t f r o m the second m o st n u m e ro u s people of the
c o u n t r y — the M b u n d u , w h o n u m b e re d 700,000 o u t of a to ta l p o p u la tio n of
so m e 6,000,000. Its p ro cla im e d id eology was M a rx ist, its a im the cre atio n
o f a single A n g o la n n a tio n , a n d it was s u p p o r te d by th e Soviet U nion. T h e
N a tio n a l F ro n t fo r L ib e ra tio n o f A n g o la ( F N L A ) was based chiefly o n the
B a k o n g o people w h o lived on b o th sides o f the b o r d e r w ith Z aire: it was
stro ngly su p p o r te d by its ruler, G en e ra l M o b u tu . T h e third m o v e m e n t, the
N a tio n a l U nio n for th e T o ta l I n d ep e n d en ce o f A n g o la (U N IT A), a p p e a r e d
to have s u p p o r t a m o n g the m ost n u m e ro u s people o f A n g o la , the O vim -
b u n d u (n u m b e r in g a b o u t 1,700,000).
Indep e n d en ce was declared by P o rtu g a l in N o v e m b e r 1975 while civil
w a r was raging, w ith F N L A a n d U N I T A to g e th e r a g a in st M P L A , w hich
w as in possession o f L u a n d a . U N I T A ’s forces were s tren g th en e d by som e
S o u th A frican fighting units, bu t S o v iet s u p p o r t to M P L A rapidly
increased, including a n airlift in S oviet a irc ra ft ac ro ss the once British- or
A m e r ic a n - d o m in a te d A tla n tic O cean, o f s o m e 12,000 t r o o p s fro m C u b a ,
possessing soph istica te d m o d e rn w e a p o n s. T h e C u b a n inv asion was
decisive a n d M P L A w o n the civil war. T h e A n g o la n n a tio n was still to be
created.

H ostility to th e W e ste rn ind u stria l states was n o t co n fin e d to those

c o u n trie s in w hich in d ig e n o u s w hite hostility to black a d v a n c e m e n t had
p r o m o te d re v o lu tio n a ry d o c trin e s a n d g uerrilla a ction. T h e rulers o f those
338 Nations and States

A fric a n states w hich still m a in ta in e d g o o d relations w ith the W est were

u n d e r c o n s ta n t a tta c k f r o m th e radicals in th e ir o w n co u n trie s a n d a b r o a d .
T he essence o f the a c c u s a tio n w as th a t these rulers were ‘sto o g e s’ o f foreign
ca pitalism , a n d th a t th e y h a d n o t achieved in d e p en d e n ce , b u t h a d merely
passed fro m colonial sta tu s to ‘n e o -c o lo n ialism ’.
It was indeed tru e t h a t in m ost o f these co u n trie s large sectors o f the
e c o n o m y c o n tin u e d , afte r sovereign in d e p e n d e n c e h a d b een declared , to be
d o m in a te d by E u r o p e a n o r N o r t h A m e ric a n capital. Cities like L agos or
A b id ja n h a d large resid ent E u r o p e a n business c o m m u n itie s. In som e
A fric an states (especially in so m e o f the f o rm e r F re n c h colonies) E u r o ­
peans r e m a in e d also as civil servants, o r as m ilitary o r a d m in istra tiv e
advisers. In K en y a a n d T a n z a n ia so m e British la n d o w n e rs accepted the
new citizenship, a n d c o n tin u e d to fa rm th e ir estates. In m a n y A fric an states
th e re w ere E u r o p e a n d o c to rs in h ospitals, E u r o p e a n lecturers in u niversi­
ties, E u r o p e a n engineers in cha rge o f c o n s tru c tio n sites. A p a r t fro m this,
b o th th e f o rm e r im perial g o v e r n m e n ts a n d g o v e r n m e n ts o f o th e r ad v a n c e d
ind u stria l co u n tries m a d e gifts o r loans o n a c o n s id e ra b le scale, a n d som e
ec o n o m ic aid was ch ann elled th r o u g h in te r n a tio n a l o rganisation s.
T hese v ario u s fo rm s o f c o n tin u e d E u r o p e a n o r N o r t h A m e r ic a n influ­
ence co uld be seen in tw o d ia m etric ally o p p o s e d ways. F r o m one point of
view, all this a d d e d u p to ‘aid to dev e lo p in g c o u n trie s ’, useful as far as it
w ent b u t m u c h t o o little in the recipients’ o p in io n . W h ite-skinne d advisers
were w elcom ed as e xperts; a n d indeed m a n y o f th e m gave th e ir first loyalty
to their A fric an e m p lo y e rs a n d served th e m well. F r o m th e o p p o site point
o f view, it was ‘n eo -c o lo n ialism ’, a fo rm o f e x p l o ita tio n ju s t as ruthless, an d
in the long te r m at least as d a n g e r o u s , as the old e x p l o ita tio n th r o u g h direct
c olon ial rule. T h e w hite -sk in n ed advisers w ere spies for W e ste rn g o v e rn ­
m ents, sym bols o f w h i t e j a c e su p rem a cy ; a n d indeed so m e o f these advisers
did tr e a t th e ir A fric an em p lo y ers a n d colleagues in a n a r r o g a n t m a n n er.
T he first view was u p h e ld by som e g o v e r n m e n ts w hose in d e p e n d e n c e did
indeed a p p e a r to be little m o r e th a n fiction, b u t also by o th e rs w hich had
achieved co n sid erab le progress u n d e r the le ad e rsh ip o f co nsiderable
sta te sm en , w h o h a d w o n respect a n d prestige on a n in te r n a tio n a l scale:
such w ere Iv o ry C o a st u n d e r P re sid e n t F élix H o u p h o u e t- B o ig n y , an d
Senegal u n d e r P re sid e n t L é o p o ld S é d a r S engho r. T h e first p r o m in e n t e x ­
p o n e n t o f the second view w as P re sid e n t K w am e N k r u m a h o f G h a n a , w ho
did his best to evolve a w hole th e o ry o f n eo -c olonialism . It was ta k e n up by
S oviet sp o k e sm en , w h o s to u tly m a in ta in e d th a t political in d e p e n d e n c e was
insecure unless a c c o m p a n ie d by e c o n o m ic in d e p en d e n ce ; a n d t h a t ec o ­
n o m ic indep en d e n ce c ou ld n o t be ac hieved u ntil n o t only all foreign p ri­
vate ca p ita l was e x p r o p r ia te d , b u t ‘a id ’ f r o m a n d tr a d e w ith ‘ca p ita list’
co u n tries was replaced by ‘a id ’ fro m a n d t r a d e w ith the ‘socialist’
c o u n trie s — w hich was by definition w holly d isin terested a n d c o m ra dely.
T h e tr u th varied f r o m c o u n t r y to c o u n try ; b u t it is ce rtain th a t the
 Africa 339

presence o f E u ro p e a n s in th e ir m idst, a n d the kno w led g e o f th e ir e c o n o m ic

a n d cu ltu ra l d ep e n d e n c e o n th e a d v a n c e d in d u stria l n a tio n s, c a u se d m u c h
re se n tm e n t a m o n g the new intellectual a n d political elites in the new
A fric an states. H ere there is som e sim ilarity w ith the situ a tio n in the
in d e p e n d e n t states o f the B a lk a n s earlier in th e cen tury. In R o m a n i a in the
1920s b o th Je w s (a reco gnisably d istin ct g r o u p ) a n d foreigners o w n ed a
large p a r t o f the in fa n t industries. T h is u n d o u b te d fact w as resented by
nationalists; a n d the rese ntm e n t was eagerly m a n ip u la te d by g o v e rn m e n ts,
w hich m a d e these ‘a lien ’ g ro u p s sc ap e g o ats, to divert pub lic d isc o n te n t
a w a y fro m their o w n misdeeds.

African states and nations

T h e frontiers d r a w n by E u ro p e a n colo n ial g o v e r n m e n ts in th e nin e tee n th
c e n tury, b o th betw een their territories a n d those o f a n o t h e r c olonial p ow er,
a n d w ith in their vast d o m a in s , were often q u ite artificial— m e re lines on the
m a p , so m etim es ta k in g a c c o u n t o f river valleys, so m e tim es n o t even that.
T h ey cut across regions w hich m igh t have fo rm e d n a t u r a l units, a n d they
div ided peoples a n d lan g u ag e g ro u p s. T h is w as m o re tr u e o f p as to ra l
peoples, a c c u s to m e d to drive th eir h e rd s o v er e n o r m o u s distances, t h a n of
se d e n ta ry peoples occupied w ith ag ric u ltu re. As e x a m p le s o f divided
peoples, we m a y m e n tio n the Y o ru b a , Ewe, B a k o n g o a n d Luo.
T h e early A fric an natio n alists knew w h o was their enem y: the colonial
g o v e r n m e n t o f E u r o p e a n foreigners. W h a t was n o t clear was th e unit for
w hich they were d e m a n d in g loyalty. T h o s e w h o h ad been influenced by
A m e ric a n P a n a fric a n ism replied: ‘A fric a’. T h e o u ts t a n d in g e x p o n e n t of
this d o c trin e was K w am e N k ru m a h . H e a n d his disciples believed in th e
essential unity o f A frica a n d its peoples. T h e d o c trin e inevitably led to
c o n tra d ic tio n s. In their legitim ate desire to e x p lo re the pre-co lo n ial history
o f A frica (which h a d ind e ed been neglected b y E u r o p e a n histo ria n s), som e
A fric an n ationalists m a d e e x t r a v a g a n t claim s for A fric a n s’ h isto ric c o n tri­
b u tio n s to h u m a n civilisation. O th e rs arg u e d th a t the relative lack of
a u th e n tic histo ry m e a n t th a t A fricans w ere free f ro m a s o r t o f original sin
possessed by E u ro p e a n s ( a n d a rg u a b ly by A sians to o ), f r o m th e ir long
heritage o f crimes, follies a n d m is fortu ne s. S ta r tin g w ith a s o rt o f virginal
pu rity , the A fricans c ou ld p o in t the tru e w ay f o rw a rd . S o m e th in g o f the
sa m e th in g was to be f o u n d in the c o n c e p t o f négritude, f o rm u la te d by
f r a n c o p h o n e W est In d ia n s a n d ta k e n u p by f r a n c o p h o n e W est A fricans.
W h e n N k r u m a h b e c a m e p rim e m in iste r o f th e first ex-c o lo n ial A frican
te rr ito r y to b e c o m e in d e p e n d e n t, he r e n a m e d th e G o ld C o a s t as G h a n a ,
afte r the m edieval k in g d o m w ho se te rrito rie s h a d in fact lain n o r th a n d
west o f his; b u t he also p u r s u e d the c o n c e p t o f a u n ite d A frica, a n d d ev oted
a large p a r t o f his efforts, d u r in g fifteen years o f p o w er, to enlisting the
340 Nations and States

s u p p o r t o f the rulers of the o th e r new A fric an states w hich c a m e into being.

H o w ev er, as in S o u th A m e r ic a in the n in e tee n th ce n tu ry , g eogra ph ica l
distances a n d diverse g r o u p interests p ro v e d to o s tr o n g a n obstacle. It is
tr u e t h a t in the late tw e n tie th ce n tu ry m ere d istan c e was a less serious
im p e d im e n t t h a n in th e tim e o f Bolivar: it is also tru e t h a t th e diversity of
cu ltu res betw een the d ifferent p arts o f A frica was far g re a te r t h a n was the
case betw een the different S p a n ish -sp e a k in g c o m m u n itie s in S p an ish
A m eric a, t h o u g h p e rh a p s n o t betw een A m e r in d ia n co m m u n ities.
In m o s t o f in d e p e n d e n t A frica the lan guag e o f the f o rm e r co lo n ial pow er
b e c am e the official lan g u ag e o f the new in d e p e n d e n t state. T h e exceptions
were S u d a n (with A rabic), S o m a lia (w ith S o m a li fro m 1972), a n d o f co urse
E th io p ia , w hich was far fro m being a new state, a n d w hich h ad A m h a r ic as
its official language. P artia l excep tio n s were K en ya a n d T a n g a n y ik a , in
w hich the status o f S w ahili was n o m in a lly su p e rio r to th a t o f English. It
c o u ld be arg u e d th a t a n elem e n t o f English o r o f F re n c h cultu re p ro v id ed a
m in im u m cu ltu ra l u n if o rm ity on w hich a n A fric an unity could be built.
H o w ev er, these were the la nguages o f the expelled a n d ex e crated foreigner,
a n d th e degree o f p e n e tr a tio n of English o r F re n c h cu ltu re into A frican
society c ould h a rd ly be c o m p a r e d with the degree o f p e n e tr a tio n of S panish
o r P o rtu g u e s e into C e n tr a l o r S o u th A m eric an .
N k r u m a h ’s d r e a m o f A fric an unity re m a in e d far fro m reality at the tim e
o f his dea th . Even his m o r e limited en terp rise o f a u n io n between G h a n a
a n d G u in e a rem a ined a fiction, a n d was a b a n d o n e d afte r his o v e r th r o w in
1966. T h e federal repub lic o f M ali, c o m p o s e d o f S enegal a n d S u d a n , was
p r o cla im e d in A pril 1959, b u t b ro k e up aga in in A u g u st 1960, w ith S u d a n
r eta in in g the n a m e Mali. T he a t te m p t at a n e c o n o m ic u n io n o f th e three
E ast A fric an states of K enya, T a n g a n y ik a a n d U g a n d a also r a n into
in su p e ra b le difficulties. T a n g a n y ik a united with Z a n z ib a r to fo rm T a n z a ­
n ia in 1964, b u t the tw o p a r ts in effect r em a in ed separate.
P a n a f r ic a n is m rem a in ed a n in sp ira tio n to y o u n g e d u c a te d radicals in all
A fric a n lands. T h e O rg a n iz a tio n for A f r ic a n 'U n ity ( O A U ) m a in ta in e d a
ce rta in solidarity o f A fric an states in foreign policy, publicly expressed at
its p erio d ical conferences a n d in its hostile p o s tu r e at the U nited N atio n s
to w a r d s P o rtu g a l, R h o d e s ia a n d S o u th A frica, a n d to a lesser ex ten t
t o w a r d s the fo rm e r c o lo n ial pow ers. W h e n conflicts a ro se betw een A frican
states, a n d ac tio n r a th e r t h a n rh e to r ic w as req u ired , O A U p ro v ed less
effective. C e rta in principles w ere generally a d o p t e d a m o n g its m em bers.
E xisting frontiers, t h o u g h cre ate d by th e c o lo n ial rulers o f th e past, were
recognised, since it was felt by all th a t a t te m p ts to im p r o v e th e m w ere likely
to raise m o r e difficulties t h a n th e y solved. It w as also generally agre ed th a t
secession was to be d isc o u ra g ed . T his d o c trin e w as a p p lied in the case o f the
C o n g o , b u t was a b a n d o n e d by som e m e m b e r g o v e r n m e n ts d u r in g the
N igerian civil war. It was also agreed t h a t ‘tr ib a lis m ’ was to be d isc o ura ged ,
 Africa 341

t h o u g h n o satisfactory d efinition of this p h e n o m e n o n c ould be found .

R ulers o f in d e p e n d e n t states did th e ir best to u nite their subjects in
loyalty to a single n a t io n w hich they set o u t to create; a n d t o p u rsu e
political ce n tralisatio n , e c o n o m ic m o d e rn is a tio n a n d m ass e d u c atio n . In
practice th ere were fo rm id a b le obstacles. C e n tr a lis a tio n a n d m o d e rn i s a ­
tio n often, th o u g h n o t always, involved hostility to tr a d itio n a l hierarchies.
W h e reas in H u n g a r y u n d e r D u alism the c h a m p io n s o f c e n tra lisa tio n an d
m o d e rn is a tio n h ad been m e m b ers o f the tr a d itio n a l nobility, in m ost
A frican new states they ca m e fro m the m o d e r n E uro p e -in flu en c ed intellec­
tu a l elite, which included c hildren o f tr a d itio n a l chiefs, b u t te n d ed , like
E u r o p e a n liberals a n d r ep u b lican s o f the nine tee n th ce ntury, to regard
a u t o n o m ie s a n d local loyalties as r e a c tio n a r y obstacles to progress. A
possible p artial e x c e p tio n was the Ivory C o a st, w h ere P resident
H o u p h o u e t- B o ig n y o w ed his su p re m a c y n o t only to his earlier esp o u sa l of
progressive ideas b u t to th e loyalty w hich the tr a d itio n a l social h ierarchy
e n a b le d him to c o m m a n d .
In G h a n a , N k r u m a h enlisted s u p p o r t fro m all p arts o f the c o u n try , but
especially fro m the cities o f the co a sta l region. He was o p p o se d by th e old e r
elite o f the A k a n - s p e a k in g regions, especially o f the f o rm e r k in g d o m of
A shanti. T h e ir o p p o sitio n , w hich was also based o n the d is c o n te n t o f
c o c o a - f a r m e r s w h o believed them selves to be exp lo ite d by th e ce n tral
g o v e rn m e n t, was expressed by the N a tio n a l L ib e ra tio n F r o n t, f o u n d e d in
1954. N k r u m a h h ow ever defeated the N L F an d its n o r th e r n M u slim allies
in the election of 1956. T h e regional assem blies, which he h ad accepted as a
c o n d itio n for o b ta in in g British co n s e n t to c o m p le te in d e p en d e n ce , were
s o o n d estro yed. W h e n N k r u m a h ’s d ic ta to rs h ip was o v e r th r o w n , his
successors in v ary ing degrees m a in ta in e d the s u p r e m a c y o f c e n tra l g o v e r n ­
m ent over an y cen trifugal forces. T h e Ewe people, w h o w ould have
preferred to jo in their c o m p a tr io ts in the n e ig h b o u rin g T o g o state, were
denied this right by N k r u m a h , a n d even the d e m o c r a tic g o v e r n m e n t of
K ofio Busia, w h o held p o w e r fro m 1969 to 1972, did n o t act otherw ise.
T h e f o rm a tio n o f the in d e p e n d e n t sta te o f U g a n d a w as long delayed by
the wish o f the s e p a ra te k in g d o m s , o f w hich the m o st i m p o r ta n t was
B u g a n d a , to preserve th e ir a u t o n o m y . W h e n in d e p e n d e n c e c a m e in 1962,
D r M ilto n O b o te , leader o f the U g a n d a P e o p le ’s C o n g re s s a n d a c h a m p io n
o f ce n tra lisa tio n a n d rad ical policies, m a d e a n alliance, a g a in st o th e r
c e n trifugal g ro u p s, w ith the king (K abaka) a n d p a r lia m e n t (L ukiko) of
B u g a n d a. A fter f o u r years, how ever, O b o te q u a rre lle d w ith the K a b a k a ,
a n d in M a y 1966 w as able forcibly t o su p p ress a n a t t e m p t a t secession by
the B a g an d a . In S e p te m b e r 1967 he in tr o d u c e d a new c o n s titu tio n , w hich
sim ply divided B u g a n d a u p in to f o u r provinces. T h e K a b a k a escaped
a b r o a d , the a r m y w as p u rg e d a n d a r m s w ere received f r o m th e Soviet
U n ion. H ow ever, O b o te b egan to q u a r r e l w ith his new a r m y c o m m a n d .
342 Nations and States

a n d in J a n u a r y 1971 G e n e ra l ldi A m in seized p o w e r d u r in g O b o t e ’s

ab s e n c e a b r o a d . U n d e r the su b se q u e n t d ic ta to rs h ip th e h opes o f the
v ario u s f o rm e r k in g d o m s fo r a u t o n o m y w ere n o t satisfied.
T h e C o n g o sta te in 1960 seem ed likely t o d isintegrate. F o r so m e tim e
th e re w ere th ree g o v e rn m e n ts: the official g o v e r n m e n t a t L eopoldville; a
seco nd, w hich professed itself socialist, in th e n o r t h a t Stanleyville; a n d a
th ir d , av o w e d ly secessionist, u n d e r Moi'se T s h o m b e in th e K a ta n g a
prov ince, s u p p o r te d by th e Belgian m in in g interests o f th a t rich region.
A fter so m e years o f w arfa re, in volving m u lti- n a tio n a l U nited N a tio n s
forces a n d m u lti- n a tio n a l forces o f E u r o p e a n m e rc ena ries serving v ariou s
p rete n d ers, a ce n tral g o v e r n m e n t b eg a n to establish its a u th o rity . In
N o v e m b e r 1965 G e n e ra l J o s e p h M o b u t u m a d e him self d ic ta to r. With
A m e r ic a n financial s u p p o r t a n d political advice he g ra d u a lly im po sed his
au th o rity . T rib a l diversity re m a in e d , b u t the m ilita ry regime w as obeyed.
M o b u t u to o k pain s t o A fricanise n a m e s o f p eople a n d places: the state was
n a m e d Z aire , its ca p ital K insh asa. T h e a im w as to in culcate a Z a ire a n
p a trio tism , a n d in the c o u rse o f tim e a new n a t io n a l consciousness. T h e
regim e a n ta g o n is e d th e y o u n g intellectual elite, a n d th e a r m y sup pressed
stu d e n t riots w ith heavy casualties. H o w ev er, th e first stage o f M o b u t u ’s
aim s, th e c re a tio n of a single political a u t h o r i ty , h ad fo r th e tim e b eing been
achieved.
T h e f o rm e rly G e r m a n te rritorie s o f R u a n d a a n d U ru n d i, held by
Belgium as ‘m a n d a te s ’ a f te r th e F irs t W o r ld W a r, bec am e s e p arate
in d e p e n d e n t states u n d e r th e n a m e s o f R w a n d a a n d B u ru n d i. Both were
in h a b ite d by tw o peoples: th e H u t u w h o f o rm e d the m a jo r ity a n d the T utsi
w ho were a m in o rity a n d held p o w e r a n d w ealth. In R w a n d a in 1959 the
H u tu successfully o v e r th r e w T u tsi rule, killing large n u m b e r s o f their
enem ies, before in d e p e n d e n c e w as g r a n te d by the Belgians. In B u ru n d i the
T u tsi re m a in e d in c o n tro l u n til 1972, w h en th e H u tu revolted,. T h e revolt
was cru sh e d , a n d b o th sides c o m m itte d m assacres: the T u tsi, as victors,
m a ssac red m ore. T h e n u m b e r o f victims w as v ariously es tim a te d between
80,000 a n d 300,000, a n d h a lf a m illion p eople w ere m a d e homeless.

A p a t te r n m o r e sim ilar to E u r o p e a n exp e rien c e is f o u n d in the H o r n of

Africa, the region w hich e x te n d s fro m the u p p e r Nile to th e sh ores facing
A ra b ia , a n d includes th e g rea t curve o f coastlin e t h a t sweeps 1,000 miles to
the so uth-w est. T he m o s t i m p o r t a n t sta te in this reg io n w as E th io p ia.
T h e E th io p ia n C h ristia n state was d o m in a te d f o r c e nturies by p erso n s o f
A m h a r ic o r T ig rin y a n speech. T h e e x p a n s io n o f its fro n tiers by M en elik
b r o u g h t g rea t n u m b e rs o f M uslim s, o f v a rio u s lang uages, u n d e r E th io p ia n
rule. T h e A m h a r a were re d u c e d to less t h a n h a lf th e p o p u la tio n . 7 In the
tw en tieth c e n tury , E th io p ia n policy con sciously p u r su e d A m h a r ic d o m i n a ­
 Africa 343

tion. N o t only w ere th e E th io p i a n lead ers unw illing to s u r re n d e r the

provinces o f H a u d a n d O g a d e n to a S o m a li state: E th io p ia n natio n alists
aim ed to create a single e m p ire in the H o rn , w ith the A m h a r a the official
n a tio n in th e sam e sense in w hich th e M a g y a rs w ere th e official n a t io n in
H u n g a r y u n d e r D u alism .
T his was resisted n o t only by the S o m alis b u t by the M u slim p o r tio n o f
the T ig rin y a -sp e a k in g p o p u la tio n o f E ritrea. O f a total (in the 1950s)8 o f
s o m e 1,500,000 p e rso n s s p e ak in g langu ages o f the T ig rin y a n type, a b o u t
524,000 lived in E ritre a a n d th e rest in E thiopia. O f the latter, 329,000 were
M uslim s a n d the rest C h ristians. T h e C h r istia n T ig rin y a n s te n d ed to
f a v o u r u n io n w ith E th io p ia ,9 the M u slim s to o p p o s e it. W h e n u n io n to o k
place in 1952, it was stated to be on a federal basis. H ow ever, th e E th io p ia n
g o v e r n m e n t paid little a t te n t io n to the federal c o n s titu tio n , a n d in 1962 the
E ritrean s were p ersu a d e d o r coerced into a c c e p tin g th e sta tu s o f a single
province in a u n ita r y E th io p ia n state. O p p o s itio n grew , su p p o r te d by
p r o p a g a n d a , m o n e y a n d w ea p o n s f r o m S u d a n , S yria a n d Iraq, w ith m o re
indirect e n c o u r a g e m e n t f r o m the Soviet U nion. In th e early 1960s a n
E ritrean L ib e ra tio n F ro n t, s u p p o r te d m ain ly b u t n o t exclusively by
M uslim s, began guerrilla a c tio n a g a in st E thiopia.
A m o n g th e G alla to o there were stirrings o f o p p o sitio n . T h e G alla
p ea sa n ts were less willing th a n in the p as t to acce p t the d o m in a t i o n o f the
la n d o w n e rs, w h o w ere for the m o st p a r t A m h a r a o r A m h a r is e d G alla. T he
ability of the E th io p ia n regim e to c o m m a n d the loyalty o f the G a lla elite
was also in d o u b t. U niversity stu d e n ts o f G alla orig in b eg a n to s p e ak of
G alla rights. In 1967 a political g r o u p a p p e a r e d , p u ttin g fo rw a r d d e m a n d s
o n b e h a lf o f the G alla p eople a n d led by a G alla fro m th e ce n tral province
o f S h o a n a m e d T a d a s a Biru, w h o h ad risen to the r a n k o f general in the
E th io p ia n arm y . It was su ppressed, a n d a rre sts were m ade.
T h e E th io p ia n regim e c a m e u n d e r in creasing a t ta c k f r o m m o d e rn isers
a n d radicals. A n a b o r tiv e revolution in 1960 was follow ed by a r m y
m utinies in 1974. In S e p te m b e r th e e m p e r o r w as d e p o s e d , a n d in N o ­
v e m b e r the m ilitary r e v o lu tio n a r y leaders e x e cu ted m o r e t h a n fifty fo rm e r
politicians a n d high officials. M e a n w h ile the E ritr e a n L ib e ra tio n F r o n t
c o n tin u e d to fight for s e p a r a tio n , b u t th e E th io p ia n r e v o lu tio n arie s were
u n c o m p ro m is in g in th e ir insistence o n unity. T h e f u r th e r d a n g e r t h a t G alla
a n d S o m a li s e p a ra tism m ig h t lead to large loss o f te rr ito r y c o u ld also n o t be
ignored.

T h e n a m e S o m a li is f o u n d in E th io p i a n te x ts o f th e early fifteenth ce n tu ry
a n d in a n A ra b ic ch ro n ic le o f the 1540s. T h e peoples w hich b o re this n am e,
w h o m a y be physically desce n ded f r o m the a n c ie n t in h a b ita n ts o f S o u th
A ra b ia , sp rea d s o u th w a r d s fro m the Red S ea c o a st, m a in ly betw e en the
344 Nations and States

six tee n th a n d nin e tee n th centuries. T h ey w ere m a in ly n o m a d ic a n d p a s to r ­

al, org an ise d in v ario us tribes w hose dialects differed from each o th e r but
were basically related. In th e th ir d q u a r te r o f th e n in e te e n th ce ntu ry , after
a t te m p ts by rulers o f b o th E gypt a n d E th io p ia to ta k e o v er all th e S om ali
lan ds h a d failed, those p o r tio n s w hich h ad n o t a lre a d y been a n n e x e d by
E th io p ia w ere placed u n d e r th e p r o te c to r a te o f th r e e E u r o p e a n p o w e rs—
the n o rth -w e ste rn p a r t u n d e r Britain from 1887, the region o f D jibuti u n d e r
F ra n c e fro m 1885, a n d th e largest p o r tio n , co nsisting o f the I n d ia n O cean
sector, u n d e r Italy fro m 1889. T he s o u th e r n m o s t p o r tio n o f the S om ali
lands was included in British East A frica (later Kenya).
E u r o p e a n o c c u p a tio n m e t w ith resistance, especially the revolts u n d e r
the religious leader M u lla h M o h a m m e d ibn A b d u lla h in the British
p r o te c to r a te in 1898-1904, 1913 a n d 1920. S o m a li resistance was d o m i n a t ­
ed by the tr a d itio n a l elite, a n d to o k the f o r m o f hostility to foreigners an d
infidels r a th e r th a n a n y E u ro p e a n -sty le d e m o c r a tic natio n alism : the
E u r o p e a n - e d u c a te d elite o f th e S o m alis w as ex tre m e ly small.
T h e Italians a tte m p te d to e x p lo it S o m a li hostility to E th io p ia n s w hen
they invaded E th io p ia in 1936. D u rin g the S eco n d W o rld W a r th e Italians
occupied the w hole o f the H o rn o f A frica (ex c ep t F re n c h D jibuti) in 1940,
b u t in 1941 the w hole was rec o n q u e re d by the British. A t th e en d o f the w ar
the S o m a li territories were a n o bject o f d isp u te betw een the great pow ers,
w hich en d e d in the d e c la ra tio n o f the f o rm e r Italian te rr ito r y (S o m a lia ) as a
U nited N a tio n s T ru s t T e r r ito r y u n d e r Italian a d m in is tra tio n . In 1954 the
British, w h o h a d kep t c o n t r o l o f the f o rm e rly E th io p ia n , b u t S om ali-
in h a b ite d , p rovince o f H a u d , resto re d this to E th io p ia. A t the en d o f J u n e
1960 th e British S om ali p r o te c to r a te c a m e to a n en d; o n 1 J u ly th e T ru s t
T e r r ito r y o f S o m a lia b e c am e a n in d e p e n d e n t state; a n d o n the sam e d a y the
unity o f the tw o territories in a rep ublic o f S o m a lia w as p rocla im e d . In
F re n c h D jib u ti h ow ever a re fe re n d u m , held in S e p te m b e r 1958, had sh ow n
a m a jo r ity f o r m e m b e r s h ip o f the F re n c h C o m m u n ity . T h e re was n o d o u b t
th a t the s u b sta n tia l elem e n t in the p o p u la tio n w h o w ere n o t Som alis
f a v o u re d this so lution , b u t it w as d o u b tf u l w h e th e r this w as the wish o f the
S om alis.
D u rin g th e 1950s p olitical p arties h a d c o m e in to existence in the S om ali
territories w h ich bec am e increasingly c o n c e rn e d , n o t only w ith in d e p e n ­
d enc e f r o m E u r o p e a n rule, b u t w ith the u n ity o f all S o m alis in a single state.
I n the early 1960s it was e s tim a te d th a t in a d d i tio n to so m e 2,000,000 in the
new united repu blic th e re w ere also a b o u t 850,000 S o m alis in E th io p ia (in
the tw o f o rm e r provinces o f H a u d a n d O g ad e n ), a n d n ea rly 100,000 in
K enya. T h e m a in object o f S o m a li hostility was th e re fo re E th io p ia , in
w hich n o S o m a li political activity was p e rm itte d , a n d th e m o v e m e n ts o f
S o m a li p a s to ra l tribes ac ross fro n tiers w ere im pe d ed. In d e p e n d e n t Kenya,
in w hich political o p p o s itio n was suppressed s h o rtly afte r in d ependence,
 Africa 345

was a n a tu ra l ally o f E thio pia.

T o th e n o r th o f E th io p ia , the vast te rr ito r y k n o w n as the R e p u b lic o f S u d a n

had long been a region o f c o n ta c t an d o f conflict betw een Islam a n d o th e r
religions, a n d betw een n o r th e r n fair-sk inned peoples a n d black Africans.
In the m o d e rn trag e d y o f the so u th S u d a n , linguistic, religious a n d racial
factors have played th e ir parts.
T h e lands a r o u n d the u p p e r Nile are the h o m e o f a c o n s id e ra b le n u m b e r
o f ra th e r small peoples, differing greatly in langu age a n d in cu s to m s. T hey
m a in ta in e d their p a g a n beliefs, an d effectively resisted Islam , w hich was
b r o u g h t b oth by m e rc h a n ts a n d by a r m e d invaders. T h e so u th e rn peoples
had g o o d reasons to h ate M uslim s a n d A ra b ic -sp e ak e rs, w h o m they had
k n o w n th r o u g h o u t th eir histo ry as o rg an ise rs o f slave-seizing o p era tio n s.
E th io p ian C h ristian ity , how ever, had barely to u c h e d them .
A fter th e British c o n q u e s t o f the S u d a n u n d e r K itch ener ( u n d e r ta k e n
n o m in a lly on b e h a lf o f the g o v e rn m e n t o f Egypt), the so u th was a d m in is ­
tered fro m 1902 to 1946 as a s e p arate unit. T his consisted o f th e three
provinces o f Bahr al-G a zal, E q u a t o ria a n d U p p e r Nile. In the early 1950s
a b o u t 40 per cent o f th e p o p u la tio n o f the so-called A n g lo -E g y p tia n S u d a n
consisted o f A ra b ic -sp e a k in g M uslim s, living in the n o r th e r n p a r t o f the
co u n try . In the west a n d south -w est regions lived v ariou s black peoples,
m ostly M uslim , a m o n g w h o m were so m e A ra b ic -sp e ak e rs. T h e three
provinces o f the so u th c o n ta in e d a b o u t 30 p e r cen t o f the w h ole p o p u la tio n .
T hey belonged to v ario u s Nilotic peoples, o f w h o m the m o st im p o r ta n t, the
D in k a , n u m b e re d m o r e th a n a million.
U n d e r British rule co n sid erab le n u m b e rs o f s o u th e rn e r s bec am e C h r is ­
tians. T he British a d m in is t r a to r s saw them selves as p ro te c to r s o f these
defenceless tribes a g a in st M uslim fanaticism a n d A ra b c o m m e rc ia l greed.
F o r their p a rt th e A ra b ic -sp e ak e rs claim ed th a t British p ate rn a lism was
n o th in g but im perialist hypocrisy. The British alon e, they claim ed , were
responsible fo r a n y h a tre d o f A ra b s w hich m ight exist in the so u th . T he
British sim ply wished to keep the u p p e r Nile for them selves in o r d e r to be
ab le to p u t pressu re o n the n o r th e r n S u d a n a n d Egypt, w hose livelihood
d e p e n d e d o n the river. O nce S u d a n b e c am e in d e p e n d e n t, M u slim an d
C h ristian , black a n d b r o w n , A ra b a n d Nilotic w o u ld be b rothers. A ny
suggestion th a t the n o r th S u d an ese, o r the E g yptia ns t h r o u g h th e m , had
im perialistic designs o n th e N ilotic peoples, was dism issed as ab surd:
im perialism is s o m e th in g o f w hich only w hite C h ristia n s fro m overseas can
be guilty.
In 1946 the British g o v e r n m e n t’s policy c h a n g e d , a n d it w as decided to
p re p a re S u d a n fo r in d e p e n d e n c e (largely, it m a y be arg u e d , in o r d e r to
deprive in d e p e n d e n t E gypt o f the S u d a n ); a n d w ith this end in view the
346 Nations and States

British rulers b e g a n efforts to brin g n o r th e r n e r s a n d so u th e rn e r s to gether.

A con fe re n ce was held a t J u b a in J u n e 1947 at w hich fair p rom ises were
m a d e by S u d a n e s e fro m b o t h n o r th a n d so u th . H ow ever, the evidence does
n o t sh o w t h a t the s o u th e rn e rs at the con fe re n ce ag re ed to acce p t a u n ita ry
state o f S u d a n ; n o r th a t these s o u th e rn e r s w ere en titled to s p e ak fo r the
peoples o f the so u th , w h o h ad n o t elected the m .
As th e p r e p a r a tio n s fo r in d e p e n d e n c e rea ch ed th e ir final stage, it bec am e
clear t h a t th e new state w o u ld be d o m in a te d by n o r th e rn e rs. O f eight
h u n d r e d im p o r ta n t p osts in the a d m in is tra tio n , to be tra n sfe rre d fro m
British officials u n d e r a ‘S u d a n is a tio n ’ p r o g ra m m e , only f o u r were to go to
so u th e rn e rs. T h o se A r a b officials w h o genuinely tried to be fair to their
N ilotic subjects were u n d e r heavy pressure f ro m po w erfu l n o r th e r n tr a d e rs ’
interests, w hich show ed them selves c o n t e m p t u o u s a n d hostile to the
s o u th e rn e rs. In Ju ly 1955 the K h a r to u m g o v e r n m e n t o f A l-A z h ari arrested
fo u r s o u th e r n m e m b e rs o f p a r lia m e n t, a n d dism issed three h u n d re d
s o u th e r n w o rk e rs f r o m a c o t to n factory. T h is a c tio n p r o v o k e d d e m o n s t r a ­
tions, a n d these in tu r n triggered off a m u tin y . T h e rebels m a d e themselves
m asters o f th e three p rovinces, e x c ep t th e city o f J u b a , b u t e n d e d their
resistance w h e n British tr o o p s in tervened a n d new pro m ise s w ere m a d e to
c o n sid er s o u th e rn d e m a n d s. T h e few so u th e rn e r s elected to the n atio n al
p a r li a m e n ta r y c o m m itte e w hich p re p a re d th e S u d a n e s e c o n s titu tio n asked
for a federal state, b u t they w ere overrid d en . In the first elected C o n s titu e n t
A ssem bly th e re w ere 46 so u th e rn seats, a n d 40 o f these w ere held by the
F edera l P arty . T h e g o v e rn m e n t, rep rese n tin g th e d o m i n a n t political group
in the n o r th , a n d the A ssem bly , in w hich n o r th e r n e r s h a d a large m ajority,
d ecided sim ply to igno re s o u th e r n as p ira tio n s . In M a y 1958 the s o u th e rn
m e m b ers w alk e d o u t o f the A ssem bly. T h e conflict betw een n o r th e r n and
s o u th e r n politicians was on e o f th e m a in r ea so n s for the seizure o f p o w e r in
K h a r to u m by G en e ra l A b b o u d o n 17 N o v e m b e r . T h e new regime treated
the s o u th as a c o n q u e r e d c o u n try . T h ere was so m e lip service in K h a r to u m
to solidarity o f all S u d a n e s e , a n d a h a n d f u l o f so u th e rn e r s w ere given jo b s
w hich b r o u g h t n o real pow er; b u t in the so u th the A r a b a r m y officer an d
m e rc h a n t reg a rd e d the s o u th e rn e r s as a n in ferio r race o f n a t u r a l slaves, an d
set a b o u t g r a b b in g th e ir la n d , th e ir sh o p s a n d th e ir w o m e n , while m o r e an d
m o re s o u th e rn e rs to o k to the ju n g le a n d o rg a n ise d a gu errilla, in w hich
they tre a te d n o r th e r n e r s w ith no less cruelty t h a n w as m e ted o u t to them .
M a n y th o u s a n d s fled to n e ig h b o u rin g co u n tries, a n d m ilitary supplies were
sent to the g uerrilla fighters, m a in ly f r o m E th io p ia a n d Israel.
In 1963 refugees in U g a n d a f o rm e d a S u d a n e s e A fric an N a ti o n a l U n io n
to s p e ak fo r s o u th e rn interests, a n d in the sa m e y e a r large supplies o f
w ea p o n s, sent th r o u g h th e S u d a n to rebels a g a in st the g o v e r n m e n t of
C o n g o , fell into so u th S u d a n e s e hand s. T h u s stre n g th e n e d , th e s o u th e rn
resisters were ab le to fo rm a s u b sta n tia l forc e,w hich they called A n y a -N y a
 Africa 347

(a Nilotic n a m e for th e p o iso n o f the G a b o n viper). W ith p e r h a p s 12,000

men u n d e r his c o m m a n d , a n d w id esp re ad s u p p o r t fro m the p eo ple o f the
region, A n y a - N y a ’s leader J o s e p h L agu was able to o rg an ise a guerrilla in
the south.
T he fall of the A b b o u d g o v e re n m e n t in K h a r t o u m in O c to b e r 1964 m a d e
little difference. Its successor a d o p t e d a stro n g ly ‘an ti-im p e ria list’ stance,
s p o k e of re storing liberties afte r m ilitary d ic ta to rsh ip , gave so m e g o v e r n ­
m ent posts to som e s o u th e rn e rs, a n d tried to p u t pressure on the s o u t h ­
e rn e rs ’ A frican friends by sending a r m s to C o n g o lese a n d E ritre a n rebels.
T he p rom ises so o n proved unreal. In D e c e m b e r 1964 th e re w ere a r m e d
clashes in K h a r to u m between s u p p o r te r s o f n o r th e r n a n d s o u th e r n fac­
tions. In M a rc h 1965 there was a R o u n d T a b le C o n fere n ce in K h a r to u m , at
which the s o u th e rn e rs asked for a plebiscite in th e so u th b u t th e g o v e r n ­
m ent w ould go no f u r th e r th a n offer so m e m o r e posts to so u th e rn e r s an d
so m e m o r e schools. In J u ly 1965 n o r th e r n tr o o p s , infuriated by the m u r d e r
o f tw o of their c o m ra d e s by so u th e rn guerrilla fighters in J u b a , w ent on a
r a m p a g e o f m u r d e r a n d b u r n in g for tw o days. R esistance, rep ression an d
atrocities con tin u ed .
In M a y 1969 G en e ra l G a a fe r M u h a m m a d N im eiry seized po w er in
K h a r to u m , a n d ruled in c o lla b o r a t io n w ith the c o m m u n ists, w h o had a
policy for the so u th b ased o n Soviet ‘n a tio n a lity ’ do ctrine. T his m a d e som e
a p p e a l to so m e y o u n g e r so u th e rn e d u c a te d persons, b u t the w a r did no t
c o m e to a n end. In J u ly 1976 the c o m m u n is ts tried to o v e r th r o w Nimeiry,
but were beaten, a n d their leaders, in c lu d in g the s o u th e r n e r Jo s e p h
G a r a n g , were ex ecuted . N im eiry n o w a t last m a d e a serious a t te m p t to
c o m e to te rm s w ith th e so u th . His envoys m et rep rese ntatives of A n y a -N y a
in A ddis A b a b a in F e b r u a r y 1971, a n d a n a g re e m e n t, a m o u n t i n g to a n
arm istice a n d p rom ises o f fair t r e a tm e n t for so u th e rn e rs, was m ade. In the
follow ing year it a p p e a r e d th a t c o n d itio n s in the so u th h ad genuinely
im p ro v e d , fighting h a d sto p p e d , a n d officials were tre a tin g s o u th e rn e rs as
e q u a l citizens. N evertheless the pressures o f A ra b is a tio n , co n v e rsio n to
Islam a n d ec o n o m ic e x p lo ita tio n by th e n o r th rem ained.
T h e s o u th e rn e rs suffered fro m the basic w eakness o f linguistic a n d tribal
diversity. C h ristian ity a n d the English lan g u ag e were the o nly unifying
factors; b u t m o st w ere n o t C h ristian s, a n d only a sm all intellectual elite
c ou ld speak English. In a s e p a ra te state the Nilotic peoples m ig ht have
cre ate d a n a tio n a l unity, t h o u g h the e x a m p le s o f U g a n d a , R w a n d a a n d
B u ru n d i were n o t e n c o u rag in g . T h e n o r th e r n e r s w ere d e te r m in e d th a t
A ra b ic sh o u ld be th e basis o f S u d a n e s e c u ltu re a n d n a tio n a lity ; b u t to
e d u c a te d so u th e rn e rs, the ac c e p ta n c e o f A ra b ic m e a n t acquiescence in
Islam isation.
A b o v e all, racial c o n t e m p t by A ra b s f o r bla ck s w h o m th e y saw as th e ir
inferiors was as deeply r o o te d as a n y th in g to be f o u n d in the A m eric an
348 Nations and States

S o u th o r in S o u th Africa. It was going to be a long a n d difficult task for

even the m o s t en lightened K h a r to u m politicians to rem o v e this m entality.

Nigeria was a n artificial c re a tio n of British co lonial rule. T h is large c o u n try

c o n ta in e d m a n y people, languages a n d religions. In the n o r th Islam
p r e d o m in a te d , while in th e so u th C h ristia n m issio naries had m a d e m a n y
co nve rts fro m the late n in e te e n th c e n tu ry o n w a r d s , but m a n y people still
retained a variety o f p a g a n faiths. T h ere w ere three m a in languages. In the
n o r th H a u s a was widely s p o k e n (by 18 per cent o f the p o p u la tio n o f all
Nigeria). It w as a lingua franca, s p o k e n also in the F re n c h territo ries to the
n o r th a n d n orth-w est. T he second im p o r ta n t lang uage was Y o ru b a , spo k e n
(by 17 per cent o f the to ta l p o p u la tio n ) in the so uth-w est, a n d also a large
part o f the n e ig h b o u rin g F re n c h state o f D a h o m e y . T h e third was lbo,
p e r h a p s m o r e a g r o u p o f dialects th a n a u n if o rm language, s p o k e n (by
a b o u t 18 per cen t o f the to ta l p o p u la tio n ) to the east o f th e lower course of
the river Niger.
British a d m in is t r a to r s n o rm a lly described the peoples o f their A frican
colonies as ‘tr ib e s’. T h ey s p o k e o f ‘trib a l conflicts’, ‘triba l differences’, and
‘tr ib a lis m ’. H ow ever, it is a r g u a b le th a t three peoples in Nigeria w ere m o re
th a n tribes, th a t they were n a tio n s in the m a king . In th e n o r th there were
the F u la n i, ruled by em irs w h o were successors of the nin e tee n th ce n tu ry
M uslim religious re f o rm e r O t h m a n d a n F o d io . In the so u th -w est were
Y o ru b a s, w ith their long succession o f rulers a n d th e ir en terprising
m e rc h a n t class. In the east were the lb os, w hose s itu a tio n was ra th e r
different. T h ere had never been a single large lb o state, a n d th ere was
n o th in g t h a t could well be d escribed as a tr a d itio n a l lb o u p p e r class. T h e
I bos, ho w ev er, pro v ed a p t pupils o f the m issio n ary schools, did well in
British offices as clerks, a n d b eg a n to m a k e th e ir w ay in the professions in
the g ro w in g cities— as lawyers, d o c to rs o r jo u r n a lis ts as well as in business.
T h ey w ere a ra th e r eg a lita ria n people, w ith m o r e respect fo r personal
ac h ie v e m e n t t h a n for status. L arge n u m b e rs m a d e careers in Lagos a n d in
the n o r t h e r n cities. It w as a m o n g the lb o s t h a t Z ik's N C N C 10 had its m ain
s u p p o r t, b u t this p a rty f r o m the b e ginning c o n s id ered its field o f a c tio n to
be all Nigeria, n o t ju s t the l b o lands. T h e lb o s, just because they were so
successful o utside their o w n h o m e la n d , w ere the m o s t ‘P a n - N i g e r ia n ’ o f the
N igerian peoples.
I n d e p e n d e n t N igeria b e g a n w ith a federal c o n s titu tio n , w ith a n o r th e r n ,
a w estern a n d a n ea ste rn state. E ach had its ow n g o v e r n m e n t, a n d was also
represented in the ce n tral p a rlia m e n t. It m ig h t hav e b een exp e cted t h a t the
West a n d E ast w o u ld line u p a g a in st the N o rth . B o th h ad a m u c h higher
level o f e d u c a tio n a n d m o d e rn skills th a n the N o rth , a n d b o th w ere largely
C h ristia n while the N o r t h was m ostly M uslim . H o w ev er, Y o ru b a s a n d lbos
 Africa 349

so o n qu arrelled a b o u t the b o u n d a r ie s o f a fo u rth (m id -w e ste rn ) state,

w hich it was p r o p o s e d to a d d to the original th ree states o f the federation.
T his state was to be based on Benin, a city o f ancient culture, a n d was also
to include people o f several languages, in cludin g som e lbos. T h e n o r th e r n
leaders h ad at first o p p o se d this m o ve, b u t they so o n m a d e use o f the
o p p o r tu n ity which its c r e a tio n gave th e m o f playing o ff W est ag a in st East.
T he n o r th e r n em irs h a d the a d v a n ta g e o ver the so u th e rn e r s th a t they had a
docile p o p u la tio n : th e c o m b in a tio n o f religious a n d political a u t h o r i ty was
ov erw helm ing, a n d the a t te m p t to create a d e m o c r a tic o p p o s itio n to the
em irs had little success. T he S a r d a u n a o f S o k o to pro v ed to be a skilful
m a n ip u la to r o f political pow er, a n d a n o t h e r n o r th e r n e r . Sir A b u b a k a r
T afew a Balewa, was prim e m inister o f the fede ra tion . D espite m u tu a l
d istru st the eastern a n d n o r th e r n politician s c o m b in e d at the expense o f the
West. T he m ost e m in e n t Y o ru b a le ader, C hief O b a fe m i A w o lo w o , was
o v e r th r o w n afte r his A ctio n G r o u p h ad been split, th a n k s to the s u p p o r t
given by the n o r th e r n e r s to his rival C h ief S a m u e l A k in to la in a n extrem ely
violent election in the w estern state in O c to b e r 1965. A fter five years of
in dependen ce, N igerian politics seemed to be full o f fra u d , co e rcio n an d
c o r r u p tio n . T here was g row ing bitterness an d hostility to all the established
politicians, especially a m o n g the y o u n g e r g ene ration.
T his period c a m e to a blo o d y end on 15 J a n u a r y 1966, w hen a g r o u p of
y o u n g officers seized pow er. T h ey m u r d e r e d Sir A b u b a k a r an d his finance
m inister in Lagos, the S a r d a u n a in the n o r th e r n capital K a d u n a , a n d C hief
A k in to la in the w estern ca p ital Ib ad a n . In E nugu, the ea ste rn capital, there
were no m u rders. A fter so m e h o u rs o f co n fu sio n the se n io r officer of the
N igerian arm y , M a jo r- G e n e ra l Aguiyi Ironsi, accepted po w er fro m the
rebels a n d was recognised as ruler o f all Nigeria. All the rebel officers were
lbos, an d there were no lb o victims. T h is n a tu ra lly inclined n o n - Ib o s to
th in k the actio n had been an lb o plot to ta k e over the co u n try . Ironsi was
him self a n lbo, a n d so was C olo n el E m e k a O ju k w u , g o v e r n o r o f the East,
w h o em erged u n sc a th e d from the ac tio n . Yet the tr u th seems to have been
ra th e r different. T he a c tio n was o n e o f m id d le -ra n k officers w h o were
d e term in e d to p u t a n end to th e c o r r u p tio n a n d the se p aratist tre n d s in
N igerian politics, a n d to rebuild a u nited N igeria on different lines. T hey
were a g ro u p o f m ilitary radicals, a r r o g a ti n g to them selves a m o n o p o ly of
p a trio tism , a n d believing th a t political p ro b le m s ca n be solved sim ply by
sh o o tin g th e politicians. T his is a fairly c o m m o n p h e n o m e n o n o f tw entieth
c e n tu ry history, in th e B alk ans, M iddle E ast a n d Latin A m e ric a as well as
in Africa. A very high p r o p o r t i o n o f officers of the r a n k o f m a jo r and
c a p ta in in the new N ig eria n a r m y w ere lb o s, n o t t h r o u g h c o n s p ira to ria l
ac tio n by sinister cliques b u t because m o r e lb o s t h a n o th e rs possessed the
e d u c a tio n a l q ualifications needed in a n officer, a n d b ec au se the a r m y was
the m o st pro m isin g c a re e r in N igeria fo r a m b itio u s y o u n g men.
350 Nations and States

Ironsi’s policy was to unify Nigeria, usin g the a r m y as th e m o st reliable

a n d g enuinely all-N ig erian in s tru m e n t to this end. T h e clim a x o f his policy
was a decree o f M a y 1966, w hich a b o lish e d the fe d e ra tio n a n d th e three
regio nal g o v e rn m e n ts, a n d dissolved all political parties a n d regional
associations. T his was viewed in the N o r t h as a n a t t e m p t by lb o s to ta k e
over the w h o le co u n try . A ce rtain parallel m a y be suggested with
Y u gosla via— w ith centralised N ig eria as a G r e a te r I b o la n d , as centralised
Y ugoslavia h ad been a G r e a te r S erbia. T h ere was also a n o t h e r reason why
lbos w ere u n p o p u l a r in th e N o r t h , r a th e r sim ilar to the r ea so n why Je w s
were u n p o p u l a r in E a ste rn E u r o p e o r Chinese in so u th - e a s te rn Asia: all
three a p p e a r e d as a n alien c o m m u n ity , c o m m ercially o r professionally
gifted a n d c o n c e n tra te d in c o m p a c t c o m m u n itie s in th e m idst o f o th e r
peoples. A n ti- Ib o p o g r o m s b r o k e o u t in several n o r th e r n cities, w hich cost
s o m e six h u n d r e d lives.
O n 29 J u ly 1966 n o r th e r n soldiers m u tin ied in A b e o k u ta an d Ib ad a n ,
c a p tu r e d Iro n si a n d to r tu r e d h im to dea th . The ch ief o f staff, L ie u ten a n t-
C o lo n el J a c k G o w o n , was ta k e n p rison er, but th e n agreed to assum e
pow er. It do es n o t seem th a t G o w o n w as in fact a n ac co m plic e o f the
n o r th e r n m ilita ry m u r d e r e r s (he was him self a C h r istia n n o r th e r n e r ) any
m o r e t h a n Ironsi h ad been a n ac co m p lic e o f th e lb o m ilitary m u r d e r e r s in
May; b u t his actio n s u n d e r s ta n d a b l y in fu riate d a n d a la r m e d the lbos,
w ho se ch ief s p o k e s m a n w as n o w the ea ste rn m ilitary g o v e rn o r, O ju k w u .
T h e ir fears w ere so o n justified. At the en d o f S e p te m b e r th e re were mass-
scale p o g r o m s a g a in st lb o s in the N o r t h , in w hich there m a y have been as
m a n y as 10,000 d e a d , a n d h u n d r e d s o f th o u s a n d s o f lb o s b egan to p o u r
into the E ast f r o m all p a r ts o f th e co u n try . T h ere follow ed s o m e m o n th s of
c o m m u n ic a ti o n by le tter o r te le p h o n e betw een G o w o n a n d O ju k w u ,
c u lm in a tin g in a p erso n a l m eetin g o f G o w o n a n d th e f o u r m ilitary
g o v e rn o rs a t A b u ri, in th e te rrito ry of G h a n a , o n 4 a n d 5 J a n u a r y 1967.
I his m eetin g (detailed m in u te s o f w hich hav e been pu blished) e n d e d in
a p p a r e n t a g re e m e n t o n a f o r m o f loose c o n fe d e ra tio n : th e colonels, as
h onest soldiers a n d old p e r so n a l friends, believed th a t th e y c ou ld agree
w here m e re self-seeking p oliticians h a d failed. W h e n th e y g o t b ack to their
office desks, they f o u n d th in g s w ere less simple: their b u r e a u c r a ts a n d
specialist advisers to ld th e m th e schem e w o u ld n o t w o rk , a n d a c cu s atio n s
o f bad faith w ere ex c h a n g e d all r o u n d . T h e conflict could n o long er be
bridged. O n 30 M a y 1967 O ju k w u p r o c la im e d a n in d e p e n d e n t sovereign
R ep u b lic o f Biafra; G o w o n refused to recog nise the secession; a n d o n 6
Ju ly the first sh o ts were e x c h a n g e d in a civil w a r w h ich lasted tw o a n d a half
years a n d in w hich a r m e d c o m b a t, m assacre, s ta r v a tio n a n d disease to o k
m o re th a n a million lives.
T he w a r was n o t caused by a n o r th e r n o r a B iafra n p lo t to seize all pow er.
I he essence was th a t the lb o s did n o t believe th a t they could a n y longer live
 Africa 351

w ithin o n e state w ith th o se w h o h a d m a ssa c re d , o r to le ra te d the m assacre

of, their c o m p a tr io ts ; while G o w o n a n d his s u p p o r te r s refused to ac ce pt the
disso lu tio n o f the N igerian state, w hich w ith its 60,000,000 in h a b ita n ts was
the largest in A frica a n d c ould, they h o p e d , lo o k f o rw a r d to a glorious
future. O ju k w u a n d his colleagues did n o t co n sid er them selves to be
fighting exclusively fo r a n lb o cause: they to o k the w hole ea ste rn state as
their h o m e la n d , a n d gave it a new n a m e , Biafra. T h e ea ste rn state was an
artificial region, ow ing its origin to a p as t c o lo n ial power: but so also was
Nigeria. Biafra c o n ta in e d m a n y w h o w ere n o t lbos: the n o r th c o n ta in e d
even m o re n o n - F u la n i, a n d the m id -w estern state was a p a tc h w o r k of
peoples, la nguages a n d faiths.
T h e g o v e rn m e n ts o f A frica a n d o f th e w orld as a w hole f a v o u red the
federal side. T h e c o n v e n tio n a l w isd o m o f bien pensant liberalism c o n ­
d e m n e d secessionists, fro m Je fferso n D avis a n d E d w a rd C a r s o n to
T s h o m b e . M o st en th u sia stic in this sense w ere the British politicians an d
civil servants, w ho c ou ld n o t b e a r to th in k th a t the p r o u d e s t c r e a tio n o f the
British em p ire in Africa, a g rea t u n ite d N igeria, was to b r e a k up. T h e y were
rivalled, as p a t r o n s o f G o w o n , by th e Sov iet leaders, w h o saw a n unrivalled
o p p o r tu n ity to establish a s tr o n g base in Africa. O n the o th e r h a n d , the
F re n ch g o v e rn m e n t, n o t indifferent to the p ro sp ec ts o f th e ir oil c o m p an ie s
in the oil-bearing lands w hich were in Biafra, s u p p o r te d Biafra. In the later
p a r t o f the w a r th e w o rld press was m o r e f a v o u r a b le to Biafra, as stories of
m ass s ta rv a tio n sp re a d , a n d h u m a n ita r ia n g ro u p s org an ise d relief, often
p erfo rm in g deeds o f h e ro ism by flying in supplies. F o u r A fric an c ountries
also decided to recognise Biafra while m a in ta in in g rela tio n s w ith N ig eria—
Ivory C o a st, G a b o n , T a n z a n ia a n d Z a m b ia . All this f a v o u r a b le publicity
a n d aid served only to foster illusions in O ju k w u , to p r o lo n g the w a r a n d to
increase the d e a th toll.
Biafra, with a p o p u la tio n o f a b o u t 13,000,000, w as clearly w e a k e r th a n a
c o m b in a tio n o f N o r t h (30,000,000), W est (11,000,000) a n d M id-w est
(2,500,000). Its a im was to p u t u p so s tr o n g a resistance th a t its o p p o n e n ts
w o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t th e e ffo rt o f fo rc ing it in to s u b m issio n was n o t w o rth
while. T h e best h o p e was th a t there m ig h t be s y m p a th y in the W est, a
revival o f Y o r u b a - I b o solidarity a g a in st th e N o rth . T h is h o p e was d is a p ­
p o inte d. T h e fo rm e r Y o r u b a leader A w o lo w o , released fro m p rison by
G o w o n , afte r som e m o n th s o f vacillation c a m e d o w n o n the federal side. A
brief Biafran invasion o f th e M id -w est tu r n e d Y o ru b a s a g a in st Biafra.
F airly s o o n in th e w a r B iafra lost its coastlin e a n d its n o r th e r n districts; an d
th e fiercest fighting, lasting over a year, w as for the c e n tra l lb o h e a rtla n d .
In the p eriphery, G o w o n ’s m e n successfully incited the n o n - I b o s ag ainst
the lbos. G o w o n a n n o u n c e d the division o f N ig eria in to twelve states (the
N o r t h into five a n d the E ast into three). T his w as designed b o th to
centralise th e g o v e r n m e n t o f the w hole c o u n t r y a n d to give m o r e self­
352 Nations and States

g o v e r n m e n t to th o se w h o did n o t belong to the H a u s a - F u la n i, Y o r u b a or

lb o peoples. G o w o n was certainly no n o r th e r n im perialist. He h a d no wish
to see a n Islam ic jih a d a g a in st the lbo s. H e insisted in his general orders
th a t Biafrans sho uld be reg a rd e d n o t as enem ies b u t as c o m p a tr io ts ,
te m p o r a r ily misled by rebel leaders, b u t w ith w h o m in peace they w ould all
have to live to ge ther. H e saw him self in fact as a n A fric an L incoln, a n d was
so p o r tra y e d by sy m p a th e tic A m e ric a n a n d E u r o p e a n writers. H o w far
these s ta te sm an lik e in ju n c tio n s were ca rrie d o u t is a n o t h e r m a tte r. T errible
m assacres o f lb o s o cc u rre d in m a n y places; b u t it is o f c o u rse a rg u a b le th a t
these w o u ld hav e been m o r e n u m e ro u s a n d m o re savage w ith o u t G o w o n ’s
orders.
T h e federal g o v e r n m e n t w o n the w ar, a n d the lb o lands were r e in c o rp o ­
rated in Nigeria. T h ere was no system atic p erse cu tio n o f lbos, th o u g h
e le m e n ta ry p ru d e n c e d ic tated th a t they sh o u ld n o t h u rry to resum e their
fo rm e r careers in cities o utside their h o m e la n d . O p tim ists h o p ed th a t the
w ar w o u ld have forged a new N igerian n atio n . A nalogies w ith the A m e r i­
can civil w a r w ere irrelevant: the differences betw een lb o s a n d o th e rs in
1967 w ere o f a different o r d e r th a n differences betw een A m e ric a n s o f the
tw o c a m p s in 1861. T h e q u e s tio n was n o t w h e th e r G o w o n was a noble
figure, b u t w h e th e r the lb o s were a n atio n . This q u e s tio n could not be
a n sw e re d by ritua l in c a n ta tio n s a b o u t the evils o f ‘tr ib a lis m ’. T h e lbos
survived, a n d th e y w ent o n living in the N ig eria n sta te o f th e early 1970s.
This was n o p r o o f th a t they felt themselves to be N igerians first; th a t they
had p u t their ‘tr ib a l’ cu ltu re b eh in d th em ; th a t they w ou ld rem a in within
Nigeria a m in u te longer th a n th e y had to. N o r was it p r o o f th a t the
Y o ru ba s, o r the F u lan i, felt this way, or w ou ld feel this w ay m u c h longer.
Bloody d efeats did n o t cause Poles to p u t loyalty to the R u s sia n o r G e r m a n
em p ires o r to the H a b s b u r g M o n a r c h y before th e ir Polish n atio n al
identity. In N igeria a w a r was w on, b u t n o n a t io n ’s fate was decided.

T he A fric an scene in the 1970s th u s c e rtainly h a d m a n y features which

recalled th e E u r o p e a n n a tio n a list struggles o f th e n in te e n th a n d early
tw en tieth centuries. T h e c o n t e m p t u o u s references by A fric an politicians to
‘B a lk a n isa tio n ’ seemed r a th e r m isplaced: one felt te m p te d to say t h a t if the
Af rican le aders did as well in th e c o m in g dec ad e s as th e B a lk a n leaders of
the past, they w ould hav e g r o u n d s to c o n g r a tu la te them selves. T he
sim ilarity o f A m h a r is a tio n in E th io p ia to M a g y a r is a tio n in O ld H u n g a ry ,
a n d o f S o m a li irrid entism to pre-1914 Y ugoslav o r P olish m o v e m e n ts for
unity, cast a sh a d o w a h e a d . T h e a s s u m p tio n t h a t th e federal v ic tory in
Nigeria w ould have m u c h the sam e h a p p y c o n s e q u e n c e s as th e U nio n
victory in A m eric a in 1865 seemed r a th e r facile: w ere th e c o n seq u e n ces o f
U n ion victory so h a p p y as all th a t, a n d w as th e re a n y parallel in Nigeria to
 Africa 353

the basic unity betw een A m e ric a n s w hich existed even while th e Civil W a r
was raging? F a r fro m having o v erc o m e o r bypassed the e r r o rs a n d h o r ro r s
o f old E u ro p e , th e A fricans h ad barely yet e n c o u n te re d the m . T h e y had n o t
em erged from the d a r k tunnel: they h a d n o t yet e n tered it.
Yet d a r k fo re b o d in g s m igh t be as m isplac ed as self-righteous o p tim ism .
It m ight be th a t the f u tu re o f A frica w o u ld lie n e ith e r in em p ires based on
official n atio n alism such as old H u n g a r y n o r in sm all h o m o g e n e o u s
n a tio n a l states o f th e B alkan type, b u t in m u lti-ling ual em p ires ruled by
centralising d es p o ts, p erh a p s nea rer to th e a n c ie nt I ra n ia n o r Ind ian
m odels th a n to a n y m o d e r n E u r o p e a n ex a m p le . O n e o b v io u s difficulty was
to see an institu tio n w hich c ould ensure c o n tin u ity . If n a t io n a l c o n s c io u s­
ness, based on religion, lan g u ag e an d deeply ro o te d historical m ythologies,
were not available, th e n the age n t o f c o n tin u ity c ould only be th e central
pow er. In past em pires this m e a n t d y n as tic rule, with at least so m e long
perio ds o f peaceful succession. In th e tw e n tie th c e n tu ry the f o u n d in g of
new h ere ditary d yn asties in A frica seemed im p r o b a b le , a n d th e o n e ancient
d y n a s ty — the E th io p i a n — was at last o v e r th r o w n . O n e possible an s w e r was
the m o n o lith ic all-wise political party. T he fall o f N k r u m a h b r o u g h t the
collapse o f this institu tio n in G h a n a : w h e th e r o th e r d o m i n a n t single parties
w ould survive the d e a th o f K a u n d a , K e n y a tta , Nyerere, S e k o u T o u re ,
H o u p h o u e t o r others also rem a in ed d o u b tfu l.
T hese q u estions, th e n , w hich a d d u p to the single q u e s tio n , w h eth e r
n a t io n h o o d o f the E u r o p e a n - M e d ite r r a n e a n - A m e r ic a n type has a n y rele­
vance to the future o f Africa, m ust be a s k ed w ith o u t a n y fo rm e r E u ro p e a n
sense o f ‘s u p e rio rity ’, b u t also w ith o u t a n y o p tim istic self-deception.
9 Race and Nation: White Racialism
and Anti-White Nationalism

Racialism
As E u r o p e a n tra d e rs a n d c o n q u e r o rs s p re a d a r o u n d a n d ac ro ss o th e r
c o n tin e n ts, they were b r o u g h t into r eg u la r social c o n t a c t w ith settled
c o m m u n itie s o f p eop le w h o se o u tw a r d physical a p p e a r a n c e s greatly
differed fro m their ow n. Black A frican slaves w ere k n o w n a lre a d y in the
R o m a n a n d P ersian em pires, a n d in m edieval C h ristia n a n d M u slim states.
E u ro p e a n s m et C hinese tr a d e rs in o th e r la n d s long before r eg u la r direct
c o n t a c t was established w ith C hina. C h in ese a n d I n d ian s w ere in c o n ta c t
fro m a t least the fifth ce n tu ry , b o th t h r o u g h se a -b o rn e t r a d e an d th r o u g h
the jo u r n e y s o f B uddh ist pilgrims. S o m e o f the In d o n e s ia n islands were
well k n o w n to the C hinese, a n d in th e fifteenth c e n tu r y C h in ese fleets
visited the east co a st o f Africa. C o m m u n ic a tio n s ac ross the I n d ia n O cean,
between s o u th e rn India a n d E ast A frica, w ere m u c h o ld e r th a n this. T h e
people o f M a d a g a s c a r w ere partly o f M a la y sia n origin. It was n o t until the
six tee nth ce n tu ry th a t co n sid erab le n u m b e rs o f E u ro p e a n s got to kn o w
s u b - S a h a r a n A frican a n d F a r E astern coun tries; a n d it was in the sam e
period th a t o th e r E u ro p e a n s fo u n d a n d c o n q u e r e d the civilisations o f the
A m ericans. T h ere grew u p in the follow ing c e nturies the idea th a t h u m a n
beings were divided in to ‘w hite’, ‘b la c k ’, ‘yellow ’, ‘b r o w n ’ a n d ‘r e d ’ races.
T h e a r r o g a n t belief th a t so m e h u m a n subspecies were biologically an d
cultu rally inferior was n o m o d e r n inven tion. T h e a n c ie n t A ry a n c o n q u e r ­
ors o f India co n s id ered the D ra v id ia n peoples o f the s o u th as their
inferiors, especially b ec au se of the d a r k n e s s o f th e ir skins; c o l o u r d isc rim i­
n a tio n was a n im p o r ta n t elem en t in th e g r o w th o f the c o m p le x hie ra rc h y of
castes. As f o r c u ltu r a l su p e riority, the belief o f the C h in ese t h a t theirs was
the ce n tral k in g d o m o f the w orld, s u r r o u n d e d by ‘b a r b a r i a n s ’ w h o se d u ty
was to pay trib u te to the H a n e m p e r o r a n d H a n civilisation, is n o t unlike
the a ttitu d e o f th e H ellenes o r R o m a n s t o ‘b a r b a r i a n s ’. I n all these cases,
c o n t e m p t for th e physical ch aracteristics o f th e b a r b a r ia n s h a d a n i m p o r ­
ta n t p art. In the n in e te e n th c e ntury, d o c trin e s a b o u t the h e re d ita ry
ch aracteristics o f races, based o n in te r p re ta tio n s o f the scientific k n o w l­
356 Nations and States

edge o f th a t tim e, b e c am e p o p u la r, especially in n o r th e r n E u ro p e an d

N o r t h A m eric a. T h e c o n t e n t o f these the o ries need n o t d e ta in us here: it
suffices to n o te th a t they insisted th a t the w hite race was m orally an d
cu ltu rally ‘su p e rio r ’ to the others; th a t th e black race was the lowest o n the
scale; a n d th a t this h ie ra rc h y was ineluctably d e te r m in e d fo r all tim e by the
laws o f biology. A t the e n d o f the c e n tu ry these principles w ere also applied
by so m e racial theorists, especially in G e r m a n y a n d A u stria, to the case of
the Jew s, w h o in physical a p p e a r a n c e d id n o t differ very strikingly fro m
o th e r ‘w hites’.
It b e c am e c u s to m a ry in th e n ine tee n th c e n tu r y to use the w ords ‘race’ an d
‘racial’ to describe these physical or biological divisions a m o n g h u m a n
beings. It is ad m itte d ly u n sa tisfac to ry , b ecause the w o rd ‘rac e’ h ad earlier
m e anings w h o se c o n tin u e d use has cre ate d con fu sio n . N evertheless, a
special type o f g r o u p identity a n d o f g r o u p conflict, to w hich the nam e
‘racial’ has b e c o m e a tta c h e d , were a n im p o r ta n t fea tu re of tw entieth
c e n tu ry politics; a n d these identities a n d conflicts were often related to
th o se o f a n d betw een n atio n s.
T h is b o o k is n o t in te n d e d to include a c o m p re h e n siv e survey o f ‘race
r ela tio n s’. It is co n c e rn e d w ith the effect o f racial conflicts o n the f o rm a tio n
o f natio n s; w ith the possibility o f the tr a n s f o r m a t io n o f racial g ro u p s into
n atio n s, eith er as fra g m en ts o f a larger existing n a tio n o r as new nations;
a n d w ith th e em ergence, f ro m situ atio n s o f race conflict, o f c o m m u n ities
w hich a re n o t natio n s, b u t w hich rem a in asso cia te d , ho w ev e r uneasily,
w ithin c o m m o n states.
T h e m o s t im p o r ta n t racial conflicts o f m o d e rn tim es have resulted from
the tr a n s p l a n ta tio n o f large n u m b e rs o f people fro m far d ista n t h o m e lan d s
into lands in h a b ite d by o th e r peoples w h o differ f u n d a m e n ta lly fro m th em
in religion, culture, physical a p p e a r a n c e a n d social habits. In so m e cases
the new arrivals have bee n c o n q u e r o rs , in o th e rs th e y have been captives.
T h u s, E u r o p e a n c o n q u e r o rs irru p te d into N o r t h a n d S o u th A m eric a and
S o u th e r n Africa; while A fric ans were forcib ly rem o v e d to N orth a n d S o u th
A m eric a, a n d C hinese a n d I n d ia n s w ere b r o u g h t, in c o n d itio n s o f sem i­
slavery, to live a m o n g M a lay s, B urm ese a n d Fijians. S lo w er e x p a n s io n by
land also so m e tim es p ro d u c e d this result, w h en th e n ew c o m ers strikingly
differed b o th physically a n d cultu rally f r o m th e in d ig e n o u s people. T h e
c o n f r o n ta t io n betw een A r a b s a n d N ilotic p eoples in S u d a n is such an
e x a m p le ; the in te r p e n e tra tio n betw e en R u s sian s , T a t a r s a n d C en tral
A sians w as m o re g ra d u a l, b u t h a rd ly less painful.
T h u s all the m ost p r o m in e n t ex a m p le s o f racial conflict hav e a n elem ent
o f historical artificiality, o f w hich th o se in volved a re a t least dimly
conscious. O n e p a rty to the conflict, a n d so m e tim es b o th parties, are felt
n o t to ‘b elo n g ’: the place o f conflict is n o t ‘th e ir ’ h o m e la n d . Racialists
usually also insist m o re veh e m e n tly th a n d o n atio n a lists o n the d e p th o f the
 Race and Nation 357

g u lf betw een th e m a n d th e ir o p p o n e n ts. T he sam e is tr u e o f m a n y alleged

o p p o n e n t s o f racialism (w ho in m a n y cases are them selves racialists o f a
different b rand). By such persons ‘rac ialism ’ is felt to be a n e x c eptionally
o d io u s do ctrin e, a n d use o f the w o rd a n ex c ep tio n ally vile fo rm o f abuse.
As a m a tte r o f historical record, n atio n alists a n d socialists are no less
c a p a b le o f fanaticism , cruelty a n d m a ssac res th a n are racialists.
O ften racial conflicts c o m b in e a sense o f p r o fo u n d c u ltu ra l differences
(‘civilisation’ a g a in st ‘b a r b a r is m ’) with religious (‘faith fu l’ a g a in st ‘infidel’)
a n d physical (sexual rep ulsion o r a t tr a c tio n , o r p e rh a p s b o th at once). It is
seldom th a t m ere n a tio n a l conflicts s im u lta n e o u sly involve all three of
these dim ensions.
It is possible to distinguish situ atio n s in w hich p erson s o f o n e racial type
are settled in huge n u m b e r s — by choice o r by c o e r c io n — in large c o m p a c t
territories inha bite d by peoples of a n o t h e r racial type; a n d situ atio n s in
which alien c o m m u n itie s are scattered in small n u m b e rs over m a n y
different lands. I shall co n sid er in this c h a p te r the m ain ex a m p le s o f the
first type: the coexistence o r conflict b etw e en blacks a n d whites in the
A m ericas a n d S o u th A frica an d between A m e r in d ia n s a n d whites in N o rth
A m erica, M exico a n d the A n d e a n republics. E x am p les o f the seco nd type,
which I shall call ‘d ia s p o r a c o m m u n itie s ’, will be discussed in the next
ch apter.
T his distinction is o f c o u rse o p en to o b v io u s objections. Both black an d
white A m eric an s descend fro m c o m m u n itie s tr a n s p la n te d fro m th e ir ow n
h o m e lan d s . Both th e original D u tc h settlers at the C a p e a n d the B antu
peoples o f ea ste rn C a p e p ro vince were in tr u d e rs into the h o m e la n d o f the
H o tte n to ts. O n the o th e r h a n d , the C hinese in M a la y a — discussed in the
next c h a p te r as a d ia s p o ra c o m m u n ity — were im m ig ran ts into the anc estra l
h o m e la n d o f a n o t h e r race. H ow ever, logical consisten cy so m e tim es m ust
be sacrificed. T his b o o k is c o n c ern ed w ith the f o r m a tio n o f n a tio n a l
c onsciousness a n d n a tio n a l m o v e m en ts, a n d th e re fo re w ith the e x te n t to
w hich these are affected by race conflicts. If o n e ex a m in e s racial p ro b lem s
from this po in t o f view, th e n the difference between the p re d ic a m e n t of
sm all scattered c o m m u n itie s a n d the c o n f r o n ta t io n between great blocks of
p o p u la tio n of different race does m a k e sense. These are d ifferent realities.

Black and white in the Americas

T h e an c es to rs o f the b la ck people o f A m e r ic a w ere slaves tr a n s p o r te d in
E u r o p e a n ships fro m A frica tw o to f o u r h u n d r e d years ago. T h e slave tr a d e
w as a n e n o r m o u s crim e p e r p e tra te d by E u r o p e a n s a g a in st A fric ans, fro m
w hich m a n y E u ro p e a n s settled in A m e ric a p ro fited . S o m e hav e a rg u e d th a t
the flow ering o f ca p ita lism a n d the in d u stria l r ev o lu tio n , w hich gave the
358 Nations and States

E u r o p e a n s a n d N o r t h A m e ric a n s their lead in the w o rld e c o n o m y , was

p rincipally derived f r o m these profits. It is also tr u e th a t A fric an chiefs
eagerly m a d e profits f r o m selling their subjects or their captives to
E u r o p e a n tra d e rs , even if the la tte r usually fixed th e term s o f tr a d e to their
ad v a n ta g e . It is also tr u e th a t a n older, a n d no less in h u m a n , slave trad e
existed in ea ste rn A frica betw e en A fric an chiefs a n d A r a b tra d e rs , th o u g h
the n u m b e rs o f slaves w ere sm aller th a n in the tr a d e w ith E u ro p e a n s .
A s a result o f this g re a t m a ss crim e a g a in st A fric a n peoples by the
E u r o p e a n A tla n tic n atio n s, th e re were in the 1970s in th e A m eric as p e rh a p s
80,000,000 people o f p a rtly o r w holly A fric an descent, including the
varieties o f persons o f m ix e d descent for w hich n u m e ro u s specific term s
existed in th e f o u r E u r o p e a n languages. T his a p p r o x im a te d ro u g h ly to a
q u a r te r o f the to ta l p o p u la tio n o f black A frica s o u th of the S a h a r a . In the
co urse o f successive g en e ra tio n s , the black people lost th e ir original
lan guag es a n d learned to sp eak the languages o f th e ir m asters, t h o u g h with
m a n y v a ria tio n s of acce n t a n d v o c a b u la ry . O f th e ir original social and
religious c u s to m s a n d beliefs ra th e r m o r e survived, especially in Haiti
(w he re indep en d e n ce was w o n by a r e v o lu tio n a n d lon g w ar) a n d in p a r ts of
Brazil w hich, despite th e a b o l itio n o f the slave tra d e , c o n tin u e d to receive
new slaves u n til well into the n in e te e n th ce n tu ry . T h u s th e black people
b elon ged a n d yet did n o t b elong to the E u r o p e a n - f o u n d e d A m eric an
n a tio n s a m o n g w h o m they lived.
T h e p olitical revolt o f the blacks in th e U n ited S ta te s in the 1960s led to
m assive r e c o n sid e ra tio n o f the histo ry o f slaves in A m eric a, to w hich black
h istoria n s richly c o n trib u te d . S o m e o f the ‘black stu d ies’ initiated in
A m e ric a n universities w ere no m o re th a n political in d o c tr in a tio n courses,
but the a l m o s t universally a d m itte d need to loo k at the period anew
certainly led to th e im p r o v e m e n t o f historical u n d e r s ta n d in g . W h ite liberal,
black n a tio n a list a n d b o th black a n d w hite M a r x is t schools o f th o u g h t
c o n te n d e d w ith ea ch o th e r. O ld a r g u m e n ts f r o m the a n te -b e llu m period
were re o p e n e d in th e light o f new evidence a n d new prejudices. W hite
liberals h a d insisted o n th e cru elty o f slavery, while s o u th e r n p r o p a g a n d is ts
had a rg u e d t h a t w o rk in g c o n d itio n s w ere w orse in n o r th e r n factories
e m p lo y in g slave la bour. T o g e t h e r w ith th e c h a rg e o f cru e lty c a m e th a t o f
inefficiency, a n d o f d e m o r a lis a tio n o f the slaves in to lazy a n d in c o m p e te n t
w orkers. M assive evidence collected by th e ‘clio m e tric’ h isto ria n s Fogel
a n d E n g e lm a n in th e ir Time on the Cross: The Econom ics o f American
Negro Slavery suggested t h a t slavery w as e c o n o m ic a lly efficient, a n d th a t
c o n d itio n s o f w o rk w ere indeed n o t w orse fo r th e m o s t p a r t t h a n in the
N o rth . T h e ir c onc lusion was v igorously r e b u tte d by o th e r historian s. T h e
d e m o r a lis a tio n o f the slave has also bee n rejected by so m e m o d e rn
historians. Laziness was, it is arg u e d , largely a m a tte r o f passive resistance
to ex p lo ita tio n . T h e re were also n u m e ro u s slave in su rrec tio n s, som e
 Race and Nation 359

serious. W h a t is m u c h m o r e im p o r ta n t, m o d e r n h isto rians have insisted on

the e n o r m o u s ach ie v em e n t, b o th before a n d afte r e m a n c ip a tio n , o f black
w o rk e rs in A m erica. T he A m e r ic a n e c o n o m y was partly built by blacks,
an d blacks have b een a m o n g the m ost pro d u ctiv e, as well as longest
estab lished, A m ericans. A m eric an histo ry is partly black history.
C o m p a r is o n s have also been m a d e betw een th e s itu a tio n o f slaves in the
E nglish-speaking a n d the S p a n ish - or P o rtu g u e s e - s p e a k in g lands. It has
been arg u e d th a t the C a th o lic C h u r c h h a d a m o r e universal h u m a n
perspective th a n the P r o te s ta n t ch u rc h es, was m o r e insistent on the fact
t h a t blacks had h u m a n souls a n d th a t souls were eq u a l in th e sight o f G od.
It was also claim ed, a b o v e all in the w o rk s o f the B razilian w riter G ilb e rto
Freyre, th a t the P o rtu g u e se, long a c c u s to m e d to racial in te r m ix tu r e with
M o o r s before they reached A m eric a, lacked the sexual a n t ip a t h y to blacks
s h o w n by the English colonists. F re yre depicted the great Brazilian
p la n ta tio n s as p a tria rc h a l in stitutions w ith in w hich w hite a n d black
belonged to a single g re a t family. T his d istin c tio n was a t first ac cepted by
N o rth A m e ric a n h istoria ns, firm ly a d d ic te d to the sense o f su p e rio r guilt so
cha racteristic o f the tw e n tie th ce n tu ry A n g lo - S a x o n s. C lo ser e x a m in a tio n
m odified the picture. P e r h a p s the C a th o lic C h u r c h was in principle m o re
h u m a n e , but it is q u e s tio n a b le w h e th e r C a th o lic slave-ow ners as a g r o u p
were b etter th a n P ro te s ta n t slave-ow ners. T h e d istin ctio n betw een the
p a tria r c h a l type o f p la n ta t io n a n d th e c a pita list, ruthlessly e x ploita tive
type h ad m u c h validity, b u t b o th types w ere to be fo u n d in b o th countries:
the p a tria r c h a l in the A m e ric a n S o u th in the earlier states a n d in the B ra­
zilian n o rth -e a s t, the exp lo ita tiv e in the c o t to n k in g d o m in M ississippi and
in the coffee p la n ta tio n s o f the P a r a ib a valley.

T h e R e c o n s tru c tio n p erio d w hich follow ed the A m e r ic a n Civil W a r, fro m

1865 to 1877, has been largely rein terp re ted . T he personalities a n d policies
o f the F r e e d m e n ’s B u rea u s a n d o f th e p o s t- w a r a d m in is tra tio n s in the
d efe ate d states, h a d a m u c h b etter rec ord t h a n the h isto ria n s’ c o n s en su s o f
the earlier tw entieth c e n tu r y allow ed. Yet it rem a in s tr u e th a t they were
u n a b le to p u t t h r o u g h such reform s as w ou ld have given the e m a n c ip a te d
blacks a solid e c o n o m ic fo u n d a tio n , a n d the o p p o r tu n ity o f q uick social
a n d e d u c a tio n a l progress. A fter P re sid e n t H ayes in 1877 h a d in fact given
po w e r in the S o u th b a c k to the w hite elite, the p a t te r n o f d isc rim in a tio n
em erg ed w hich was to be th e fate o f the A m e r ic a n n egro for the n ex t eighty
years o r m ore.
In the S o u th , negroes w ere d epriv ed o f a vote, either in pub lic elections
o r in the m o r e im p o r t a n t processes o f electio n a t D e m o c r a tic P a rty
prim a rie s w hich, g ra n te d th e p e r m a n e n t su p r e m a c y o f th e D e m o c r a ts in
the S o u th , decided all o th e r elections. T his v io la tio n o f th e fifteenth
360 Nations and States

a m e n d m e n t to the c o n s titu tio n o f th e U nited S ta te s w as m a sk e d by the

m a n ip u la tio n o f literacy tests a n d a poll ta x , a n d o th e r f o rm s of in tim id a ­
tio n a n d chican ery by electo ral officials. T h e school system was divided,
ostensibly o n the basis o f the U S S u p re m e C o u r t decision of 1896 in the
case o f Plessy v. Ferguson , to the effect th a t school facilities m ust be
‘s e p arate b u t e q u a l’. In practice they were s e p a ra te a n d u n eq u a l: w re tc h e d ­
ly small sum s were sp e n t o n schools for negroes, a n d w ith som e n ota ble
e x c e p tio n s th e q uality was w retched ly low. S e g reg a tio n was enforced in
pub lic— in r e sta u ra n ts, hotels, lavatories, tr a m s, buses, railw ay carriages,
sw im m in g pools a n d the like. N egroes were e x p e cted to observe a ritual of
deference to w a r d s all w hite p erson s w ith w h o m th e y had a n y c o m m u n ic a ­
tion. T h is was p a rtic u la rly painful for th o se negroes w h o succeeded in
o v e rc o m in g the huge obstacles a n d a c q u ir in g a high level o f e d u c a tio n a n d
pro fe ssio n a l skill. By achie v in g success a c c o r d in g to th e w hite m a n ’s
criteria, the n egro a c q u ir e d n o m erit in m o s t w hite so u th e rn e r s ’ eyes:
r a th e r, he w as guilty o f im p u d e n c e in try in g to rise a b o v e his sta tio n . T h e
p r e d o m i n a n t w hite so u th e rn view o f th e n egro w as o f a cru d e a n d ra th e r
co m ic c re a tu re , at his best useful a n d loyal, at his w o rs t lazy an d sullen,
p e r h a p s d a n g e ro u s. U n d erly in g this c o n t e m p t was fear; a hysterical fear
th a t negroes w ere a sex u al m e n ac e to w hite w o m e n — n o t only by violent
rape b u t also by physical a t t r a c t i o n — a n d th a t black masses w o uld sw am p
w hite civilisation. N ot all so u th e rn w hites o f c o u rse felt like this, but the
m o re liberal m in o rity was to be f o u n d in the social elite, while the m ajority
o f the w hite ‘p o p u la r m asses’, f a r fro m being c o m ra d e s o f the black masses
in the class struggle, were c o n firm e d ‘n ig g e r-h aters’.
F r o m the late n in e tee n th ce n tu ry o n w a r d s , negroes b egan to m ove to the
n o r th e r n a n d w estern states, w h ere th e clim a te o f o p in io n a n d the chances
o f j o b s w ere m o r e fa v o u ra b le to th e m . N evertheless, w hite n o r th e r n e r s to o
h ad a s tr o n g d o se o f race prejudice, w h ich w as reinforced by th e n u m e ro u s
white so u th e rn e r s w h o also m o v e d to in d u stria l jo b s in such n o r th e r n cities
as C h ic a g o a n d D etro it. In th e N o rth , n eg ro w o rk e rs w ere th e last to be
hired a n d the first to be fired. N o r t h e r n t r a d e u n io n s w ere less co n c ern ed to
help n egro w o rk e rs t h a n to p r o te c t w hite w o rk e rs a g a in st h av in g th e ir wage
rates u n d e r m in e d by c h e a p n egro la b o u r. S e g re g a tio n o f schools and
residential districts was a b o u t the sam e as in th e S o u th . N egroes, being the
p o o rest, drifted m o st easily into crim e, a n d this in t u r n gave n o r th e r n
negroes a bad public r e p u ta tio n . O cc asio n al h o r rib le race riots to o k place
in n o r th e r n cities.
In the first d ecade o f th e tw e n tie th c e n tu r y tw o tr e n d s a p p e a r e d a m o n g
politically conscio us e d u c a te d negroes. O n e was asso cia te d w ith B o o k e r T.
W a sh in g to n , principal o f T uskege e College, A la b a m a , w h o urged negroes
to acce p t social s e p a r a tio n as a fact, a n d to w o rk to im p r o v e them selves
within the capitalist e c o n o m y , e a r n in g a n d saving a n d e d u c a tin g their
 Race and Nation 361

children, a n d th e re b y achieving in d u e c o u r se respect a n d b e tte r tr e a tm e n t

fro m th e whites. H e h im self e a rn ed the respect a n d c o o p e r a tio n o f som e
leading white b usin essm en , a n d of P re sid e n t T h e o d o r e Roosevelt. His
m o d e ra tio n , how ever, a n ta g o n is e d m o r e radical spirits w h o wished not
only fo r m a teria l im p ro v e m e n ts b u t the rem o va l o f d isc rim in a tio n . T h eir
chief sp o k e s m a n was the n egro H a r v a r d g r a d u a te W .E .B . D u Bois, the
chief f o u n d e r in 1909 o f the N a tio n a l A sso c iatio n fo r the A d v a n c e m e n t of
C o lo u re d P eople ( N A A C P ) . T h e N A A C P h ad white as well as black
m e m b e rs, especially Jew s. It specialised in legal actio n s to defen d in d iv id u ­
al n egro victims o f injustice a n d to enlarge the legal a n d c o n s titu tio n a l
rights o f negroes as a whole.
N egro soldiers played th e ir p a r t in the F irst W o rld W a r , a n d this both
increased self-confidence a n d im pa tie n ce a m o n g y o u n g e r negroes an d
revived race hatre d a m o n g w hite so u th e rn e rs. In th e first years o f peace
there w ere race riots in the N o r t h , the w orst being in J u ly a n d A u g u st 1919
in C h ica g o with 38 dea d . T h e r e were also n u m e ro u s ly nchings in the
S o u t h — a p p a llin g rituals o f b a r b a ris m w h ere a n eg ro accused o f a crim e,
sexual or o th e r, w ould be forcibly rem o v e d f r o m the local gaol an d hanged
o r b u r n t alive in th e presence o f a frenzied w hite m o b. In this b itter tim e
there a p p e a r e d a new n eg ro le ader, the W est I n d ian M a rc u s G arv ey , w ho
p r o p o u n d e d a f la m b o y a n t fo rm of black n a tio n a lism , a p p e a lin g to th e past
glories o f E th io p ia a n d prea ch in g the un ity o f negroes w ith A frica in a
g lo rious future. His U niversal N egro I m p r o v e m e n t A sso c iation, fo u n d e d
in J a m a i c a in 1914, claim ed 4,000,000 m e m b e rs in th e U nited S tate s in 1920
a n d certainly had h u n d r e d s o f th o u s a n d s . G a rv e y ’s ideas survived him,
influencing the later P a n a f r ic a n m o v e m e n t on b o th sides o f the A tlantic.
D u rin g th e 1930s n o r th e r n negroes suffered especially f r o m th e e c o n o m ic
depression, b u t there were also gains for th e m . P re sid en t F r a n k lin R o o s e ­
velt, a n d his wife E le an o r, con su lte d n eg ro advisers a n d did a g o o d deal to
secure jo b s for negroes in g o v e r n m e n t service. P artly as a result o f the
R oosevelts’ influence the tr a d e u n io n s paid m o re a t te n t io n to the needs of
black w orkers.
In the 1950s negroes fo rm e d a b o u t o n e - te n th o f th e p o p u la tio n o f the
U n ited S tates, a n d were f o u n d in three m a in regions. In a b r o a d strip of
te rr ito r y stretch in g a lo n g b o th sides o f th e Mississippi t h r o u g h the states o f
Mississippi, L ou isia n a a n d A rk a n s a s a n d fro m ce n tral A la b a m a east to
S o u th C a ro lin a (the so-called ‘bla ck belts’), th e y f o rm e d a m a jo r ity o f the
p o p u la tio n , in so m e c o u n ties as m u c h as 80 p e r cent. T o th e s o u th o f th e
bla ck belts negroes w ere a m in o rity , t h o u g h su b sta n tia l. F inally , in the
N o r t h a n d increasingly in th e W est large c o n c e n t r a tio n s o f negroes h ad
g ro w n u p in great cities, especially in N e w Y o rk , C h ica g o , W a s h in g t o n an d
D e tro it, b u t also s p r e a d in g to o th e r n ew e r cities suc h as L o s A ngeles an d
O a k la n d in C a lifo rnia. In 1930 there were 8.4 million negroes in th e e le v e n
362 Nations and States

so u th e rn states a n d 3.4 m illion in the rest o f th e co u n try . In 1971 the

c o r r e s p o n d in g figures h ad c h a n g ed to 10.3 m illion a n d 12.2 million. T he
s o u th e r n negroes in the 1930s included a large elem e n t o f sm all farm ers or
f a r m la b o u re rs , b u t this c h a n g ed drastically in the 1940s a n d 1950s: the
n u m b e r o f n o n -w h ite f a r m in g h o u se h o ld s in the S o u th decreased between
1940 a n d 1954 fro m 680,000 to 463,000 a n d this process acce le ra ted later.
S o u th e r n cities like A tla n ta a n d B irm in g h a m grew rapid ly w ith a n influx of
b o th black a n d white w orkers.
U r b a n negroes c o uld exercise m o r e political pressure th a n rural, a n d the
p o s t - S e c o n d W orld W a r clim a te o f o pinion a m o n g the A m e ric a n people as
a w hole f a v o u re d reform . T h e U S S u p r e m e C o u r t o n 17 M a y 1954 gave a
u n a n i m o u s verdict, reversing the decision o f 1896 a n d d ec la ring that
‘s e p a ra te e d u c a tio n a l facilities a re inhe re ntly u n e q u a l’. H o w ev er, resis­
tan ce in th e S o u th to the ‘d e s e g re g a tio n ’ n o t only o f sc h ools but o f o th e r
public services was s tr e n u o u s a n d bitter, a n d p r o v o k e d mass a c tio n by
negroes a n d th e ir w hite sy m p a th ise rs, b o th so u th e rn a n d n o rth e rn . A
l a n d m a r k was the successful negro b o y c o tt of the M o n tg o m e r y ( A la b a m a )
bus service in 1956, a p r o te s t ag a in st th e c o l o u r b a r in seating in public
t r a n s p o r t. F r o m this a c tio n em erged th e S o u th e r n C h r is tia n L eadership
C o n fere n ce, w hich h a d in Rev. M a r ti n L u th e r K ing a le ad e r w h o becam e
k n o w n th e w hole w o rld over. In 1960 c a m e a second sym b olic mass action,
th e sit-in by negro stu d e n ts at th e lu n c h -c o u n te r o f a store in G re e n s b o r o
( N o r t h C a ro lin a ) w h ich refused to serve negroes. T h e n ex t stage
w ere th e m ass m a rc h es, d e m a n d in g civil rights, in w hich negroes were
jo in e d by w hites, inc lu d in g m a n y college students. T hese p ro v o k e d violent
o p p o s itio n f r o m w hite citizens councils a n d c onserv ative w hite s o u t h ­
erners. T h e y did n o t sto p a t m u r d e r , a n d the w o rld press duly rep o rted
the a c q u itta ls o f k n o w n m u r d e r e r s in so u th e rn courts.
T h e r e c u rr e n t sc anda ls a n d crises f r o m 1954 o n w a r d s forced the US
federal g o v e r n m e n t into ac tio n . P re sid en t E ise n h o w e r g o t th r o u g h C o n ­
gress in 1957 a Civil R ig h ts A ct, w h ich e m p o w e r e d th e federal au th o ritie s
to brin g civil law a c tio n s in states w here p erso n s h a d b een d ep rived o f their
right to vote, a n d cre ate d so m e m a c h in e ry to e n fo rce it. It w as follow ed by a
s tr o n g e r act in 1960. W h ite o p p o s itio n d eprived th e m o f th e ir effect, an d
the re so u n d in g p rom ise s o f J. F. K e n n e d y in his 1960 electoral c a m p a ig n
r em a in ed b u t w ords. It w as left to P re s id e n t L y n d o n B. J o h n s o n to ta k e
effective m easures. In J a n u a r y 1964 a c o n s titu t io n a l a m e n d m e n t fo rb a d e
poll taxes as a c o n d itio n fo r th e vote; in J u n e 1964 a Civil R ights A ct with
real sa n ctio n s passed th e U S Senate; a n d in 1965 a law o n th e rig ht to vote
put a n en d to literacy tests, a n d p ro v id e d th a t if local registrars failed in
their duties, th e federal a tto rn e y -g e n e ra l w o u ld have the p o w e r to register
voters. T hese acts e n d e d th e political d isf r a n c h ise m e n t o f the A m e ric a n
negro.
 Race and Nation 363

H ow ever, the mass m o v e m e n ts h ad a c q u ire d th e ir o w n m o m e n tu m . J u s t

as the N A A C P h ad d isc o u n te d B o o k e r T. W a s h in g t o n as a m o d e ra te , so
the N A A C P was d isc o u n te d by the follo w ers o f M a r ti n L u th e r King; an d
before long K ing was su rp assed by m o re radical g ro u p s, t h o u g h his m u r d e r
in M e m p h is in A pril 1968 ensured his m e m o r y as a m a r t y r to his p eo p le’s
cause. T w o m a in radical tre n d s n o w a p p e a r e d .
O n e was the Black M uslim s, f o u n d e d by a m y ste rio u s c h a r a c te r w ho
called him self W. D. F a r d a n d o p e ra te d in D e tro it fro m 1930. He was
succeeded in 1934 by Elijah M u h a m m a d ( b o r n Elijah P o o le in G eorgia),
w h o ex h ib ite d g rea t talents as a n org an ise r, a p r o p a g a n d is t a n d a b usiness­
m an. In the 1950s he w o n a brilliant help er in the p erso n o f M a lco lm X
( b o r n M a lco lm Little in O m a h a , N e b r a s k a ) , the so n o f a Baptist m inister,
intellectually gifted a n d a victim o f w hite a r r o g a n c e , w h o led th e M uslim s
in a politically m o re radical direction. T h is b r o u g h t a b rea ch w ith Elijah
M u h a m m a d in 1964, a n d M a lco lm was m u r d e r e d o n 21 F e b r u a r y 1965.
T h e M uslim s recruited th e ir mass s u p p o r t fro m n eg ro w o rk e rs in n o r th e r n
cities. T h e y h a d so m e s u p p o r t from bla ck bu sin e ssm e n , b u t w ere o n the
w hole disliked by black intellectuals. O n e o f their m erits w as their
insistence on b o th self-discipline an d collective discipline, on a re tu r n to
p erso n a l p u r ita n m o ra lity a n d a rejection o f th e w hite m a n ’s lu x u ry as a
source of c o r r u p tio n a n d u n d e r m in in g o f the n eg ro race. T h ey d e n o u n c e d
C h ristian ity as a religion o f c o r r u p tio n , a n d p ro cla im e d th e ir d e v o tio n to
Islam , th o u g h their Islam ic the o lo g y h a r d ly satisfied o r t h o d o x M uslim s
outside A m erica. T h ey also hated Jew s, as a n o t h e r c o r r u p tin g w hite force.
Black anti-sem itism , w hich grew especially in N ew Y o rk ’s H a a rle m district,
c a n be partly a ttr ib u te d to th e Black M u slim s, t h o u g h it w as also m o re
generally d u e to h a tre d by th e p o o r a n d th e u n e m p lo y e d o f local capitalists,
w h o were largely J e w s . 1 T h e Black M u slim s aim ed to w ith d r a w fro m all
c o n ta c ts w ith white m en, a n d to build u p a se p a r a te e c o n o m ic str u c tu re of
farm s, business a n d professions. T h e y d e n o u n c e d th e N A A C P for its
c o o p e r a tio n w ith w hite C h ristia n s a n d Jew s, a n d the m o r e radical g ro u p s
because they professed in te rn a tio n a lis t views. T h e ir final a im was a
sovereign territo ry o f th e ir ow n, to consist o f ' t w o o r th r e e ’, o r o f ‘f o u r or
five’, states o f the U nion.
T h e second tre n d , w hich included a large n u m b e r o f sm aller g ro u p s,
often fiercely fighting ea ch o th e r, lo o k e d to a socialist r e v o lu tio n for the
r e d e m p tio n n o t only o f bla ck b u t o f w hite A m eric an s. S to k e ly C a rm ich a el,
w h o h a d b een c h a ir m a n o f th e S tu d e n t N o n -v io le n t C o o r d in a tin g C o m ­
m ittee ( S N C C ) w hich follow ed K in g’s G h a n d i- ty p e resistance tactics,
a b ju re d these m e th o d s in f a v o u r o f u n lim ite d struggle, a n d la u n ch e d in
1966 th e sloga n o f Black P o w e r. In the s a m e y ea r th e g r o u p k n o w n as Black
P a n th e rs was fo u n d e d in C alifornia.
In th e n ex t years th e re p o u re d f o rth a flood o f rh e to ric fro m black
364 Nations and States

sp o k e sm e n , inciting to h a tre d o f the w hites, glorifying a l m o s t a n y kind of

violent ac tio n , in cluding sim ple c rim inal acts, re p u d ia tin g all bou rg eo is
m o ra lity a n d c l a m o u r in g for the d e s tru c tio n o f th e w hole ‘sy stem ’. This
rh e to ric p r o d u c e d w id esp re ad fear a n d in d ig n a tio n f r o m whites. In ju d g in g
the p h e n o m e n o n , several po in ts shou ld be b o r n e in m ind. Firstly, rhetoric
g rea tly exceeded action . C r im in a l assau lts by negroes, p a rtic u la rly by the
yo u n g , grew to te rrifying p r o p o r ti o n s in great cities; b u t these have their
e x p l a n a tio n in features o f A m e r ic a ’s social stru ctu re , sch ool system, mass
m edia values a n d b o th public a n d private m orality w hich c a n n o t be
discussed here. M ass violence by negroes was usually directed a t o th e r
negroes, especially in the g h astly riots in W a tts district o f Los A ngeles in
1965. S econdly, the to ta l v o lu m e o f h a tre d , c o n t e m p t a n d b ru tality
d irected by blacks a g a in st whites was still im m ensely sm aller th a n the total
v o lu m e th a t h ad been directed by whites a g a in st blacks. T h e negro p ro blem
by the 1970s h ad been largely tr a n sfe rre d from th e S o u th to the N o rth ,
since the m a jo r ity o f A m e r ic a n blacks n o w lived in th e N o rth . Less was
h e a r d o f s o u th e rn m a ltr e a tm e n t o f negroes, a n d the civil rights reform s had
in deed b r o u g h t great changes. N onetheless, the negro in the S o u th
r em a in ed the u n d e r d o g , while in the N o r t h he still suffered m o r e th a n the
w hite m a n fro m poverty , b ad ly paid jo b s , u n e m p lo y m e n t, b a d h o u sin g and
b ad schools. It was still u p to the w hite m a n to reach into his p ocke t, a n d to
force him self into im aginativ e a n d g en e ro u s th in k in g , to p u t things right.
T h e m isery o f n egro g h e tto schools was u n d o u b te d ly p artly d u e to negro
fam ily w ays a n d to th e n eg ro te n d en c y to live only in the prese nt a n d to give
no th o u g h t to th e f u tu r e — a n a ttitu d e w hich was o f co u rse n o t u n k n o w n ,
but for historical rea son s was less w id es p re ad , a m o n g whites. But the
misery o f n egro schools was still m o re d u e to lack of fu n d s, to the ex tre m e
unw illingness o f u r b a n a u th o ritie s a n d o f w hite u r b a n ta x -p a y e r s to pay the
bill for a p r o p e r e d u c a tio n system. T in k e rin g a b o u t w ith th e h a d system in
existence, by bussing w hite a n d bla ck sc h o o lc h ild re n to a n d fro across
m e tr o p o lita n areas in o r d e r to m a k e all schools c o n f o r m w ith a race-
statistical n o r m , t h o u g h d efe nded by p la n n in g b u r e a u c r a ts a n d various
c h a m p io n s o f ‘liberal’ intellectual o r th o d o x y , could be n o solu tio n. C h il­
d re n a re n o t statistical objects; neither w hite c h ild ren forced to fo rm a
despised m in o rity in b la c k m a jo r ity schools n o r b la ck ch ild ren d o o m e d to
h u m ilia tio n in w hite m a jo r ity schools seem ed likely to get a g o o d e d u c a ­
tion. A b o v e all, the bu ssing p la n was m a in ly a device to save ta x -p a y e r s the
necessity o f p ay ing the bill f o r g o o d schools a n d w ell-trained te ac hers for
the h ith e rto d eprived bla ck co m m u n itie s. It was this t h a t the black
sp o k e sm e n w a n te d , n o t a n a b s tra c t d es eg reg a tio n they never a s k ed for.
I he radicals o f Black P o w e r h ad a n a m b ig u o u s a ttitu d e , th e result o f the
c o n tra d ic tio n s in w hich th e y w ere placed th r o u g h n o fault o f th e ir own.
I hey rejected the m o ral a n d political values o f the Black M u slim s, th o u g h
 Race and Nation 365

influenced by their n atio n alist pride as well as by the achie v em e n ts o f new

A frican states a n d by the d o c trin e o f négritude. ‘Black is b ea u tifu l’, they
p rocla im e d. T h ey disc ard ed the w o rd ‘n e g r o ’, originally a d o p t e d as a
respectable n a m e in place o f th e insulting ‘n igger’. In its place they accepted
the nam e ‘b la c k ’, previously reg a rd e d as c o n te m p tu o u s . T h ey were Black
A m eric an s, or A fro -A m e ric a n s. T h ey did n o t reject A m e ric a altogeth er;
they rejected only ‘the system ’ (social, cu ltu ra l, m o ral), w hich they
a ttr ib u te d to ca pita lism , a n d wished to replace by socialism, to be b ro u g h t
a b o u t by a blo ody a n d purifying rev olution. Socialist A m eric a w ould have
to be built also by white A m eric ans; yet th e black radicals f o u n d it difficult
to c o o p e r a te w ith an y b u t a lunatic fringe o f w hites, r o m an tica lly e n a ­
m o u r e d o f heroic violent exploits. O th e r w hites seemed to be enem ies, not
only conservative businessm en o r old-style w hite s u p r e m a c y m en but also
m a n y whites w h o con sidered them selves socialists, even rev o lutionaries,
but w h o m they w ould describe as ‘liberals’, a w o rd w hich had becom e a
te rm o f abuse. R e a so n w ould po in t to a political alliance with all radical
refo rm ers in the A m eric an n a tio n , but p assio n counselled ac ts— o r at least
gestures o f c o n t e m p t a n d h a tre d a g a in st a lm o s t all whites w h o cam e their
way.
T h e c re atio n o f a black Israel o n th e te rr ito r y o f the U nited S tates, as
desired by the Black M uslim s, seemed unlikely. N o elected presid ent could
agree to such ac tio n , a n d the c h a n ce t h a t the U nited S tate s w o u ld be at the
mercy o f a c o n q u e r in g p o w e r w h o w o u ld im po se it still seemed sm all in the
mid-1970s. M u c h the sa m e could be said o f a g reat social revolution , either
w on from w ithin o r im po sed fro m outside, to d e s tro y capitalism , capitalists
a n d all th e ir h an g e rs-o n in a flood o f ritually cleansin g b lood.
M e anw hile th ere re m a in e d the N A A C P a n d lesser o rg a n isa tio n s , m u c h
less publicised by A m e r ic a n mass m e d ia th a n extre m ists, yet still d o ing
their w o rk of persu a sio n , e d u c a tio n , p r o p a g a n d a an d refo rm th r o u g h
C ongress a n d the law cou rts. S u c h w o rk achieved g rea t results in the 1950s
a n d 1960s, a n d had the confid e n ce a n d s u p p o r t of m a n y millions of blacks,
w h o con sid ered them selves A m eric an s a n d w ished to re m a in A m ericans. It
was easy to d e n o u n c e these m en a n d w o m e n as a ‘black b o u rg eo isie’; yet
persons o f this o u tlo o k a m o u n t e d to m a n y m illions, a lm o st certainly to an
a b s o lu te m a jo rity o f all blacks; a n d o f the m in o rity only small active
factions su p p o r te d eith er th e n atio n alists o r th e rev olutionarie s. Yet it
could also be plausib ly arg u e d aga in st the N A A C P th a t it tacitly assum ed
th a t blacks w ou ld be c o n te n t to have a social p y ra m id o f th e ir ow n, placed
at a low er level th a n th e w hite p y ra m id , p r o v id ed th a t its s h a p e b ro a d e n e d
o u t a n d th a t its b o t t o m level steadily rose ( th o u g h m o r e slowly th a n th e b o t ­
t o m o f the w hite py ram id ). In the age o f rising e x p e c ta tio n s , televised p a ­
r a d in g o f the ‘g o o d ’ life o f lu xury, a n d c o n s u m in g guilt c o m p le x on the p a rt
o f highly artic u la te w hite intellectuals, this pro sp ec t seemed unrealistic.
366 Nations and States

W e co m e in co n c lu sio n to the question: W e re th e blacks p a r t o f the

A m e ric a n n a tio n , o r w ere th e y a n a t io n o n its ow n, u n ite d by a distinct
physical a p p e a r a n c e o f w hich th e y w ere perforce a w a re , by a past of
op p re ssio n a n d a p rese nt o f relative d ep riv a tio n ? M a n y an sw e rs hav e been
offered, b u t n o n e could be proved. Possib ly a c o m p r o m is e m ig h t in tim e
emerge: blacks w o u ld c o m e to be ac ce p te d , a n d to rega rd them selves, as
A m eric an s, a n d at th e sam e tim e w o u ld b elong to a system of cultural
in stitutions o f th e ir o w n , fully p r o v id ed w ith f u n d s b o th fro m the central
a u th o ritie s a n d fro m th e ir o w n m e m b e r s h ip a n d e x te n d in g all th e ir benefits
to all bla ck s w herever they m ight live, w h e th e r in black a g g lo m e ra tio n s or
a m o n g whites. In this c o n n e c tio n bla ck leaders m ig h t be well advised to
stu d y the ideas once p r o p o s e d by B au er a n d R e n n e r for the H a b s b u r g
M o n a rc h y . A n alternative a p o c a ly p tic pro sp ec t also existed. T h e black
p ro b le m m ight prove insoluble in a n A m e ric a n society obsessed with bo th
lu xury a n d guilt. It m ight c o n tin u e to p o iso n the b o d y politic a n d social,
while w hite ‘liberal’ self-haters gleefully diffused the poison. T h e historic
revenge fo r th e slave tr a d e a n d slavery w o u ld be th e collapse o f an
u n d e r m in e d A m eric a in the face o f a n e x te rn a l enem y. If so, then a great
evil w o u ld have b r o u g h t a b o u t a still gre a te r evil.

T h e p r o b le m o f a black n a t io n o r n a tio n s also existed in the C a rib b e a n

islands, w ith a p o p u la tio n o f a b o u t 25,000,000 people, o f w h o m the great
m a jo r ity w ere w holly o r partly d esce nd ed fro m A frican slaves. H ere fo u r
E u r o p e a n la nguages w ere spok en: English, F re n c h , S p a n ish a n d D utch.
Haiti was a n in d e p e n d e n t republic fro m 1804, S a n to D o m in g o fro m 1865,
a n d C u b a fro m 1898, a n d the p eople o f ea ch u n d o u b te d ly ac q u ired
n a tio n a l peculiarities o f th e ir ow n. T h e F re n c h colonies o f G u a d e lo u p e and
M a rtin iq u e v oted to re m a in départem ents o f F ra n ce ; the D u tc h islands
were m o r e loosely linked w ith the N e th e rla n d s; a n d P u e r to Rico ( an n e x ed
from S p a in in 1898) b e c a m e a F ree A ssoc iate d S ta te b u t n o t a m e m b e r state
o f th e U nited S tates. T h e British g o v e r n m e n t in 1958 b r o u g h t into being a
f e d e ra tio n o f the W est In dies c o m p risin g th e British C a r i b b e a n islands, but
this fell a p a r t in 1962. T h e r e a fte r J a m a i c a a n d T rin id a d bec am e in d e p e n ­
d e n t states, follow ed by B a rb a d o s (1962), B a h a m a s (1973) a n d G r e n a d a
(1974). T h e re m a in in g island s agreed to a f o r m o f as sociated s ta te h o o d
with B ritain, u n d e r w h ich th e ir in te rn a l affairs w ere m a n a g e d by their
g o v e rn m e n ts b u t foreign affairs a n d defence by th e British g o v ern m e n t.
Both the English- a n d th e F re n c h - s p e a k in g islands have p r o d u c e d
intellectuals w ho have m a d e , as we have seen, i m p o r t a n t c o n trib u tio n s to
P a n a f r ic a n ism a n d to th e con c ep ts o f négritude a n d Black P o w e r. These
ideas also had their follow ers in the islands, a n d in th e fo rm e r British,
1 Tench a n d D u tc h co lo nies o n the m a in la n d o f S o u th A m eric a (G u y a n a ,
 Race and Nation 367

G u y a n e a n d S u rin a m ). H o w ev er, the p r o b le m is n o t on e o f foreign

sovereignty since the people o f the islands rule themselves. R a th e r, it is a
p r o b le m of n a tio n a l identity a n d o f its diffu sio n to all levels o f th e social
p y ram id .
In th e islands a p h e n o m e n o n could be obse rv e d w hich w as also f o u n d
a m o n g N o r t h A m e r ic a n blacks a n d in Brazil, b u t w hich is even m o r e
dev e lo p e d in th e W est Indies. T his w as social stratifica tio n b ased on
relative ‘lightness’ o r ‘d a r k n e s s ’ o f skin, w ith th e palest p erso n s (th o se
p r e su m a b ly w ith the sm allest elem ent o f A fric an an cestry) a im in g to ‘p ass’
into th e w hite category. T h e islands w ere g o v e rn e d by de m o c ra tic a lly
elected rulers, b u t the light-skinned h a d th e social prestige, a n d m a n y
m e an s o f in fluencing the d irect political rulers, while p r o p e r ty a n d e c o n o m ­
ic p o w e r w as largely left in the h a n d s o f w hites, to w h o m the pale-sk inned
were d r a w n by social sn o b b e ry . T h e d a r k - s k in n e d m asses lived in poverty ,
w hich increased as a result o f p o p u la tio n pressure. O v e r p o p u la tio n led to
m assive e m ig ratio n . T h e e m ig ra n ts swelled th e black g h e tto s in the U nited
S tates, o r intensified the new ‘race r e la tio n s’ p r o b le m in B ritain, w hose
people, it m u st be n o te d , d e ve lo pe d, w ith less objective cause, a racial
in to leran c e scarcely inferior to th a t o f w hite A m eric an s. In th e islands
c o n d itio n s were only p a rtly im p ro v e d by the g r o w th o f the to u r is t in dustry,
w hich b r o u g h t flo ods o f rich, noisy a n d a r r o g a n t N o r t h A m e ric a n s o r
British into c o n ta c t w ith p o v erty -stric k en blacks. It was n o t su rp risin g th a t
Black P o w e r slogans h a d s o m e success, o r t h a t black rad icals so u g h t to
unite black m asses a g a in st th e w hite-pale privileged in w h a t was a peculiar
m ix tu re o f class h a tre d , n a tio n a lis m a n d plain x e n o p h o b ia . In th e case of
T rin id a d a n d o f the c o n t in e n ta l f o rm e r co lo n y o f G u y a n a a large c o m m u n i ­
ty o f fo rm e r im m ig r a n ts f r o m In d ia fo rm e d a f u rth e r c o m p lic a ti o n .2

T h e m o d e rn Brazilian n a tio n h ad been f o rm e d fro m f o u r so u rc e s— the

original P o rtu g u e se colonists a n d su b se q u e n t im m ig r a n ts fro m P o rtu g a l;
the d e s c e n d a n ts o f A fric a n slaves; im m ig r a n ts f r o m foreig n c ou ntries
( Italians, G e r m a n s , Poles, J a p a n e s e a n d m a n y o thers); a n d th e d e s ce n d an ts
o f the in d ig e n o u s A m e r in d i a n peoples. T h e first g r o u p in te rb re d w ith the
o th e r three, b u t the largest ca te g o ry o f inte rb re ed in g , c o n tin u e d fo r the
longest tim e, was betw e en P o rtu g u e s e a n d A fricans. A t the tim e o f the
s e p a r a tio n o f Brazil f r o m P o rtu g a l, a large m a jo r ity of the p o p u la tio n had
at least so m e A fric an b lo o d . A t th e tim e o f th e a b o litio n o f slavery, in 1888,
this w as still so, b u t th e influx o f E u r o p e a n im m ig r a n ts h a d a lre a d y bec om e
su b stan tia l. In the m id -tw e n tie th c e n tu r y th e A fric a n elem ent was relative­
ly red u c ed b y tw o causes: the flo o d in g o f s o u th e r n Brazil by E u r o p e a n
im m ig ran ts, a n d th e d ilu tio n o f the A fric a n ele m e n t b y m o r e a n d m o r e
interbreeding . T h is m e a n s t h a t m o r e a n d m o r e bla cks h a d pale children,
368 Nations and States

a n d t h a t m o r e a n d m o r e c hildren o f pale p a re n ts bec am e so pale as to

d is a p p e a r in the ‘w hite’ p o p u la tio n . In 1890 th o se o f A frican o r m ixed
origin were stated to be 56 per cent o f the p o p u la tio n , in 1950 only 37 per
cent.
T h e Brazilians were p e r h a p s even m o r e ad d ic te d t h a n the W est Indians
o r A m e r ic a n so u th e rn e r s to subtle d istinction s betw e en degrees o f light or
d a r k skin c o lo u r, crinkliness o f hair, thic kn ess o f lips a n d the like: now h ere
was th e s n o b b e ry o f c o lo u r m o r e developed. T h e d a r k e r the skin the lower
the social prestige. H o w ev er, c o lo u r s n o b b e ry was m o re easily c o u n t e r a c t­
ed by e c o n o m ic sn o b b e ry in Brazil th a n in the U nited States: the Brazilians
loved to claim th a t ‘m o n e y w h ite n s’. It was also alw ays possible to ‘w h ite n ’
oneself by in te rm arriag e , w hich was o f c o u rse n o t the case in the so u th e rn
U n ite d States.
T h e largest p r o p o r t i o n o f A fro-B raz ilia ns lived in the n o rth -e a s te rn
states, th e land o f the great p la n ta tio n s a n d also the land in w hich poverty
re m a in e d m o st serious up to presen t times. Brazil’s n o r th e r n p ro b lem was
n o t unlike the s o u th e rn p ro b le m of o th e r co u n trie s (the U nited S tates and
Italy). P o v e r ty in these p rovinces was to be f o u n d n o t only a m o n g
ag ric u ltu ra l w o rk e rs a n d sm all farm ers, heirs to the a g r a r ia n slaves, but
also in th e s h a n ty slum s o f the g rea t cities w hich grew u p in the n o rth -e a s t in
the second h alf of the tw en tieth c e n tu ry ( Recife w ith 1,700,000 in h a b ita n ts
in 1970 a n d S a lv a d o r w ith o v er a million). In 1970 the to ta l p o p u la tio n of
the n o r th -e a s t was a b o u t 29,000,000 o r nearly a third o f the p o p u la tio n of
Brazil. T h e im p overished ag ric u ltu ra l p o p u la tio n w ere very largely black
o r m u la tto . T h o u g h the oligarchic system o f politics in so u th e rn Brazil was
m odified by th e ‘p o p u lis t’, quasi-fascist d ic ta t o r G e tu lio V argas, w h o cam e
to p o w e r in 1930 a n d cre ate d his estado novo in 1937, it was little affected in
the north-east: here the la n d o w n e r s a n d p la n ta tio n elite co n tin u e d to
m a n a g e , a n d deliver to th e g o v e rn m e n t, the rural vote. T h is s itu a tio n began
to ch a n g e af te r 1945, a n d p a rtic u la rly in th e late 1950s. M eanw hile
p o p u la tio n g ro w th , s h o o tin g a h e a d o f e c o n o m ic im p r o v e m e n t, increased
the p o v erty o f the people. T h e r e was a severe d r o u g h t in th e n o rth -e a s t in
1958. In 1959 radical p e a s a n t m o v e m e n ts a p p e a r e d . T h e P e a s a n t Leagues,
fo u n d e d by F ra n c isc o J u lia o , a t tr a c te d w o rld-w ide a tte n tio n . T h e C a t h ­
olic c h u r c h also gave s u p p o r t to p e a s a n t ac tio n , especially to the N a tio n a l
C o n f e d e r a tio n o f A g ric u ltu ra l W o r k e rs, in w h ich c o m m u n is ts to o had
som e influence. In the early 1960s th e re w ere n u m e r o u s a r m e d clashes
w hen p ea sa n ts forcibly occupied estate lands, o r refused to be dislodged
from their o w n land by s p e cu la to rs w h o h a d b o u g h t it u p f r o m the la n d ­
ow ners. T h ese were n o t racial b u t social m o v e m e n ts. T h e y w ere n o t felt to
be clashes between w hite a n d c o lo u re d , t h o u g h the av e rag e s k in -c o lo u r o f
rebels was certainly d a r k e r th a n th e ir o p p o n e n t s ’. A fte r th e m ilitary seizure
o f p o w e r in A pril 1964, incidents o f this so rt c a m e to a n end.
 Race and Nation 369

In the industrial s o u th -e a st a n d s o u th (n ea rly 57,000,000 in h a b ita n ts in

1970) A fr o - A m e r ic a n s were p r o p o r ti o n a te ly m u c h fewer, t h o u g h their
n u m b e rs were increased by the strea m o f ru ra l im m ig ran ts, largely f ro m the
n o rth -e ast. Racial prejudice was s tr o n g e r a m o n g the w hites o f th e city o f
S a o P a u lo th a n in the n o rth -e a s t. A b u n d a n t sociological evidence sh ow ed
th a t white a ttitu d e s to blacks a n d m u la tto s , reg a rd in g b o th p e rso n a l a n d
public relatio nsh ips, differed little fro m th o se in N o r t h A m e r ic a n cities.
T h ere was very little in te rm arriag e . In S a o P a u lo as in D e tro it, the blacks
had the least skilled a n d w orst paid jo b s , fo rm in g a kind o f ‘low er w o rk in g
class’ o n w h ose b ac ks th e w hite w o rk in g class could rise to a b etter s ta n d a r d
o f living. T his served to co n f ir m the racial ste re o ty p e in w hite m in d s th a t
blacks are only ca p a b le o f the w orst jo b s , a n d so to c o n f ir m th e reluctance
o f w hite em p lo y ers to give th e m b etter jo b s. T h e black p re d ic a m e n t then
was m u c h the sam e as in th e U nited S tate s, w ith the very im p o r ta n t
difference th a t th e reality was concealed by polite evasion r a th e r th a n
p ro cla im e d with o p e n c o n te m p t. E ndless rep e titio n o f th e fiction th a t
Brazil was a h a r m o n i o u s m u ltiracial society helped to s m o o t h in d ig n a tio n
on o n e side a n d q uie ten conscience o n the other.
F r o m 1931 to 1937 th e re existed a Frente negra brasileira, p u rsu in g
m u c h the sam e aim s as th e N A A C P in the U nited States. It tu r n e d itself
into a political p arty; was dissolved w ith o th e r parties u n d e r V argas; an d
did n o t re a p p e a r in th e p o st-w a r years. T h e r e was n o sign o f resp o n se in
Brazil to the co n c e p t o f Black P o w e r, t h o u g h p e rh a p s if th e re h ad been no
m ilitary d ic ta to rs h ip th e re m ig ht have been. T h e r e seem ed little d o u b t th a t
bo th blacks a n d whites felt them selves to b elo n g to one Brazilian n a tio n ,
but it also seemed likely th a t th e self-satisfied claim o f Brazilians to have
‘solved’ racial p ro b le m s was p re m a tu re .

Black and white in South Africa

O n ce the A fr ik a n e r N atio n alists had d efe ate d th e ir w hite o p p o n e n t s in the
electoral victory o f 1948, th e y began to p u t in to effect th e ir plans fo r
d ea lin g w ith the non-w hites: th e black m a jo rity , divided into a n u m b e r of
diverse tribes; the c o lo u re d m in o rity , d esce n d ed fro m m ixed m a rria g es o f
D u tc h w ith M a lay s o r H o tte n to ts ; a n d the A sian m in o rity , c o nsisting of
im m ig ran ts f r o m India.
T h e g rea t m a jo r ity o f th e w hites h a d lo n g co n s id ered th e blacks as a n
inferior race, in c a p a b le o f rea c h in g th e w h ite level o f civilisation. T he
blacks m u s t be d en ied a n y sh a re in political life, a n d m u s t be p revented
f r o m in te r m a r ria g e w ith w hites. T h e y w ere usefu l as a source o f che ap
la b o u r, to p e r f o rm m e n ia l ta sk s a t low pay; b u t w hite w o rk e rs m u s t be
pro tec ted fro m th e d a n g e r o f bla ck c o m p e ti tio n in the la b o u r m a rk e t.
370 Nations and States

T hese a ttitu d e s w ere c o m m o n to the m a jo rity o f w hites o f b o th la n ­

guages, t h o u g h there w ere in b o th g r o u p s som e ind iv id u als o f m o r e liberal
o u tlo o k , a n d som e w hite legislation h a d been design ed to defend black
interests. N evertheless, th e re were i m p o r t a n t differences betw een m ajo rity
E n g lish -sp e ak in g a n d m a jo r ity A fr ik a n e r p o in ts o f view.
T h e le aders o f the E ng lish -sp e ak in g c o m m u n ity te n d e d to be m ainly
interested in business. T h e y ca red n e ith e r fo r political th e o ry n o r fo r
gen e ral principles o f social o rg an isa tio n : th e y te n d e d to tr e a t the blacks
sim ply as th e ir ow n interests suggested at a n y given m o m e n t (w hich usually
m e a n t badly). T h e A fr ik a n e r le aders w ere pro fe ssio n a l politicians an d
C alvinist predikants, w h o reg a rd e d social o r g a n is a tio n largely fro m a
th e olo gic al p o in t o f view, a n d believed t h a t political a n d social o r d e r m u st
be based o n G o d ’s W o r d , as th e y u n d e r s to o d it. T h ey believed th a t the
Bible had clearly laid d o w n a p o sitio n o f p e r m a n e n t inferiority a n d helotry
fo r th e c hild ren o f H a m . T h is also suited th e interests o f B oer fa rm e rs w ho
e m p lo y e d a black la b o u r force, tre a te d th e ir se rva nts w ith ro u g h ju stice an d
even a ce rtain benevolence, b u t had no d o u b t t h a t the black m a n should
keep his place, w hich h a d been d e te r m in e d fo r all tim e. T h e right re la tio n ­
ship o f w hite to black w as d o m in a tio n ( baasskap ).
F r o m th e c o m b in a t io n o f Boer will to rule a n d the search fo r theological
t r u t h em erged the d o c trin e o f aparth eid , w hich was acce p te d as the
p r o g r a m m e o f the N a tio n a l P a r ty g o v e r n m e n t o f D r D anie l M a la n in 1948.
T his w o rd is rendered in English as ‘se p a r a te d e v e lo p m e n t’. W hite an d
b la c k civilisations, it was arg u e d , a re different, a n d each m u s t d evelo p side
by side. T h e black p eople should have th e ir ow n h o m e la n d s , consistin g of
th e te rrito ry reserved to th e m by prev io u s g o v e r n m e n ts , w ith su b stan tia l
f u r th e r ad d itio n s. Blacks f r o m these h o m e la n d s sh o u ld be perm itted to
w o rk in th e rest o f S o u th A frica, w hich w as to be w hite m a n ’s land; b u t here
th e y w o u ld be only te m p o r a r y so jo u rn e rs, w ith o u t political s ta tu s an d
w ith o u t th e p r o sp e c t o f p e r m a n e n t hom es. As fo r the c o lo u re d s an d
A sians, th e y w o u ld hav e n o h o m e la n d s , b u t w o u ld be allow ed to live a n d
w o r k in w hite S o u th A fric a subject to precise d efin itio n o f th e ir sta tu s an d
lim ita tio n o f th e ir rights.
S e p a r a te d e v e lo p m e n t w as h a r d ly a new idea in history. T h e essence o f
th e caste system in I n d ia w as the co e xistence o f m u tu a lly exclusive
c o m m u n ities. T h e m illet system o f th e O t t o m a n e m p ire h a d se p arate d
religious c o m m u n itie s a n d defined th e ir sta tu s in re la tio n to o th e r c o m ­
m unities. T h e co n c e p t o f ‘c o m m u n a l ’ o r g a n is a tio n was also t o be fo u n d
u n d e r British rule in s o u th e r n Asia. M o s t o f these c o m m u n itie s, t h o u g h
p e r h a p s d isc o n te n te d w ith th e p a r tic u la r sta tu s allo tte d t o th e m , did n o t
object to the principle o f separateness.
T h e r e were, how ever, so m e aspects o f apartheid in S o u t h A frica, b o th in
th e o ry a n d in practice, w hich w ere especially o b jectionable.
 Race and Nation 371

T h e first was the a r r o g a n t d o g m a tis m w ith w hich the policy was

e x p o u n d e d . T h e racial categories w ere to be p e r m a n e n tly s e p a ra te d by
in su p e ra b le b arriers, a n d the inferior categories, o f w hich th e blacks were
the lowest, w ere to be inferior for all tim e. T h u s the b la c k p eo p le were
c o n d e m n e d to etern al h elotry in th e ir o w n co u n try . It is tr u e th a t the
th e o rists o f apartheid in cluded som e h u m a n e a n d sensitive m e n w h o did
n o t th in k o f blacks in this way, b u t theirs was n o t the m a in influence. T he
policy was o f co u rse consciously direc ted a g a in st th e sm all A frican
e d u c ated elite w hich h a d b een b r o u g h t u p a c c o r d in g to E u r o p e a n liberal
values. A partheid was bitterly resented by these m en as well as by white
S o u th A fricans o f liberal o u tlo o k . It w as also bitterly resented by all
politically con scious A fricans o utsid e S o u t h Africa, as a n insult to their
w ho le race, a n d by b o th the m o d e ra te a n d th e e x tre m e Left t h r o u g h o u t the
w orld. Rejectio n o f th e d o g m a tic p r o c la m a t io n o f race s u p e rio rity largely
a c c o u n ts fo r the special o d iu m in w hich S o u th A frica c a m e to be held in
s u b se q u e n t years by the politicians a n d press o f E u ro p e a n d A m erica.
T h e second o b je c tio n a b le fea tu re was th e m anifestly u n ju st division o f
land a n d resources betw een the p r o p o s e d w hite are as a n d A fric an areas.
T h e A fricans, w h o f o rm e d th r e e -q u a rte r s o f the p o p u la tio n , w ou ld be
entitled to only 13 per cen t o f the land even afte r th e land, p ro m ise d earlier
to th e m b u t n o t yet h a n d e d over, w as jn their possession. T h e g rea t
industries of S o u th A frica a n d its g rea t m in in g w ea lth w ere to re m a in in the
w hite areas. T h e r e w o u ld c o n tin u e to be a n A frican la b o u r force in these
areas, b u t these w o rk e rs were to be reg a rd e d as te m p o r a r ily e a r n in g th eir
living ou tside their h o m e la n d . Yet it w as o b v io u s th a t the h o m e la n d s , som e
o f w hich were o v e r p o p u la te d a n d som e o f w hich h a d ex tre m e ly p o o r land,
could s u p p o r t less th a n h alf the A fric an people, a n d th a t S o u th A frican
in d u stry could n o t o p e r a te w ith o u t A fric an w o rk e rs. M e a n w h ile the
s itu a tio n o f A fric an w ag e -e arn ers in th e w hite are as was m a d e m iserable by
pass laws w hich subjected th e m to tim e-w astin g a n d d e g r a d in g form alities
a n d w ere a d m in iste re d in a g ra tu ito u sly b r u ta l m a n n e r , as well as by
s e p a r a tio n of families a n d c o n s ta n t interference in private lives.
D u r i n g the 1950s a p r o g r a m m e o f d isfra n c h ise m e n t, s e p a r a tio n a n d
rep ressio n w as e n a c te d by th e S o u th A fric a n p a rlia m e n t. A fricans h ad
never h a d a vote in T ra n s v a a l, O ra n g e F ree S ta te o r N ata l; b u t in C a p e
P ro v in c e th o se w h o p assed a p r o p e r ty a n d e d u c a t io n a l q u alifica tio n were
en titled to vote, o n th e c o m m o n electoral roll, until 1936. In t h a t y ea r they
w ere re m o v e d f r o m th e c o m m o n roll, b u t w ere allow ed to elect tw o
E u r o p e a n s to re p re se n t t h e m in th e C a p e legislature a n d th ree E u ro p e a n s
to rep rese n t th e m in th e S o u t h A fric a n p a r lia m e n t. T h e y w ere d eprived o f
this residual right in 1959. T h e c o lo u re d s w ere re m o v e d .f ro m th e c o m m o n
roll in 1956, afte r a five-year struggle b etw e en th e S o u th A fric a n g o v e r n ­
m en t a n d the S u p re m e C o u r t. T h ey w ere th e n allow ed to elect E u ro p e a n s
372 Nations and States

specially to represe nt th e m (as th e A fricans h a d p reviously been allow ed),

b u t were d eprived o f this right in 1968.
S e g reg a tio n o f residence was ca rrie d o u t u n d e r the G r o u p A re as Act of
1950. It affected c o lo u re d s a n d I n d ia n s relatively m o r e t h a n A fricans, w ho
had in p ractice a lre a d y b e e n co n fin e d to se p a r a te districts, t h o u g h A fricans
to o w ere the objects o f m ass rese ttle m e n t in the follo w ing years. T h e new
q u a r te r s to w hich the n o n -w h ite s w ere tr a n sfe rre d w ere in m o s t cases fairly
c o m f o r ta b le — so m e tim es m u c h b e tte r t h a n th o se a b a n d o n e d — b u t this did
n o t m a k e the process o f sh u n tin g h u m a n beings a r o u n d like cattle a n y less
repulsive. T h e B a n tu E d u c a tio n A ct o f 1953 also led to a series of
a d m in istra tiv e actions, d esign ed to give the A fricans the sort o f e d u c a tio n
w hich their m asters th o u g h t w o u ld be g o o d for th e m , r a th e r t h a n the sort
w hich th e y them selves desired. G o v e r n m e n t policy was resisted by p a r t o f
w hite S o u th A fric an pu blic o p in io n , in c lu d in g so m e o f the press a n d som e
universities, b u t it was forc ed rem orselessly th r o u g h . S eg reg a tio n o f the
races w as e x te n d e d in all sphe re s o f pu b lic a n d social life: th e re is n o ro o m
here to e n u m e r a te the details. Finally th e w ho le process w as facilitated by
an a ll-p u rp o se repressive c h a r te r entitled the S u p p re ssio n o f C o m m u n is m
A ct, passed in 1950. T h e hostility o f the N a tio n a l P a r ty to c o m m u n is m is
n o t in d o u b t, b u t the object a n d the effect o f this law were far less to crush
the insignificant c o m m u n is t g ro u p s in the c o u n t r y th a n to ena b le the
au th o ritie s to sto p a n y p olitical activity th a t they disliked by a r b itra rily
assertin g th a t it was ‘c o m m u n is t’. T h e system o f rep ressio n was used b o th
ruthlessly a n d ec on om ic ally , to isolate p erso n s reg a rd e d as d a n g e r o u s
t h r o u g h the system o f p a rtia l h o u se arrest k n o w n as ‘b a n n i n g ’, as well as by
im p r is o n m e n t fo r th e n u m e r o u s offences cre ate d by the new laws, a n d by
the occ asio n al use o f a r m e d force.
A fric an political resistance was at first led by th e A fric an N atio n al
Congress. F o u n d e d in 1912 by f o u r A fric an law yers ( o n e o f w h o m was a
g r a d u a te o f C o l u m b ia U niversity), this was a t first a c a u tio u s a n d c o n s e r v a ­
tive b o d y , s u p p o r te d by s o m e tr a d i tio n a l chiefs a n d disliked by m o re
radical e d u c a te d A fricans. It w as th e a b o l itio n o f th e A fric a n c o m m o n roll
franchise in 1936 w hich co n v in ce d the intelligentsia t h a t m ass political
o r g a n is a tio n o f A fricans w as essential, a n d t h a t the A N C w as th e only
in s tru m e n t available. In 1952 the A N C , in alliance w ith th e S o u th A frican
I n d ia n C ong ress, th e n led by a c o m m u n is t, D r D a d o o , a s k ed th e prim e
m inister, D r M a la n , to rep e al a n u m b e r o f d is c rim in a to ry laws. His refusal
was m e t w ith a c a m p a ig n o f civil d isobedience. T h is led to so m e clashes
betw een c ro w d s a n d police, b u t co uld n o t be lo n g s ustaine d. A second big
effort w as m a d e in 1955. T h e A N C , to g e th e r w ith th e I n d ia n a n d co lo u re d
o rg a n isa tio n s , a n A fric an t r a d e u n io n g r o u p a n d the w hite c o m m u n is t-
influenced C o n g ress o f D e m o c r a ts , a d o p t e d a F r e e d o m C h a rte r . Its aim
was a m u ltiracial d e m o c r a tic S o u th A frica, rejecting the d o m in a tio n o f any
 Race and Nation 373

race over others. Its p r o g r a m m e also included n a tio n a lisa tio n o f m ine ral
w ea lth a n d b a n k s . T h e g o v e r n m e n t r e s p o n d e d by a rre stin g m o r e th a n a
h u n d r e d p erson s on charges o f treason.
D u rin g these years c o m m u n is ts h ad gained c o n s id e ra b le influence
w ithin the A N C a n d the I n d ia n a n d c o lo u re d m o v e m en ts. T h e c o m m u n is ts
were indeed largely respo nsib le for the em p h a sis on m ultiracialism . In their
view, all conflicts betw een the races w ere a h a r m f u l d istra c tio n fro m the
struggle a g a in st S o u th A fric an ca p ita lism a n d ag a in st th e W e ste rn I m p e ­
rialists w h o sto o d b ehind it. T h e ir ideas u n d e r s ta n d a b l y a t tr a c te d m a n y
intellectuals in all the racial g ro u p s, fo r they alo n e offered the h o p e o f a
fu tu re o f fra te rn ity r a th e r th a n race w ar. T h e i r ideas also u n d e r s ta n d a b ly
did n o t a p p e a l to th o se A fricans w h o w ere n o w c onvince d th a t the white
m a n was a n incorrigible o p p resso r, a n d th a t the only w ay f o rw a r d was by
u n iting all the blacks a g a in st w hite su p re m a c y . T h ese p eople w ere p r o u d of
their black race as such, a n d were e n c o u r a g e d by th e successes o f A frican
natio n alists in W est Africa. A g r o u p o f th e m in 1958 seceded fro m the A N C
becau se they rejected its m ultiracialism , a n d in 1959 fo u n d e d th e P a n -
A fricanist Congress.
T h e P A C was responsible for a new c a m p a ig n o f civil diso b e d ie n ce in
I960. It reached a clim a x in the police sh o o tin g o f d e m o n s tr a to r s at
S h arpeville on 21 M a rc h a n d in the im pressively disciplined m a rc h of
30,000 A fricans to the ce n tre o f C a p e to w n on 30 M a rc h . T h is effort to o was
suppressed by the police, a n d P a n -A fric a n ist le aders were arrested . M e a n ­
while th e re w ere also d iso rd e rs in ru ra l regions, c a u se d largely by ec o n o m ic
grievances but m a rk e d also by political d isc o nte nts. T h e m o st serious was a
rising in P o n d o la n d , w hich caused the g o v e r n m e n t to b ring in co n s id e r­
ab le a r m e d forces. F o r a s h o r t tim e also a g r o u p called S p e a r o f the N atio n ,
c o n n e cted with the A N C a n d led by N elson M a n d e la , org an ise d acts of
sa b o tag e . H ow ever, the g o v e r n m e n t dec la re d b o th A N C a n d P A C to be
unlaw ful o r g a n isa tio n s , a n d the security forces succeeded in cru sh in g
resistance. W ith the m o s t able lead ers— in clu ding M a n d e la — in prison,
an d m a n y o f th e ir sy m p a th ise rs isolated by b a n n in g o rd ers, A frican
o p p o s itio n to official policies was q u ite ineffective, a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t
proce eded w ith its policies.
In 1970 th e re were in S o u th A frica 3,726,540 whites; 2,021,430 col­
oureds; 618,140 A sians; a n d 15,036,360 B antus (o r blacks, o r A fricans).
T he last g r o u p consiste d o f a n u m b e r o f tribes a n d languages. T h e m ost
n u m e r o u s w ere th e Z u lu a n d th e X h o s a , ea ch a m o u n t i n g to a r o u n d
4,000,000 people. T h e y w ere follow ed by the T s w a n a , P edi a n d S h o e sh o e
( o r s o u th e rn S o th o ), e a c h n u m b e r i n g b etw e en a m illion a n d a h alf a n d tw o
million. O f th e fifteen m illion blacks, a b o u t seven m illion lived in the
h o m e la n d s a n d a b o u t eigh t m illion in th e w hite areas. T h e r e w ere o v er a
million Z u lu s in u r b a n w hite are as a n d nearly a m illion in ru ra l w hite areas.
374 Nations and States

T h e n u m b e r o f X h o s a in u r b a n w hite a re a s was also ov er a m illion, b u t in

white ru ra l are as there were less t h a n 700,000.
D u rin g th e 1960s the g o v e r n m e n t p ro ce ed ed w ith its plans fo r m akin g,
o u t o f the reserved lands o f th e A fricans, nine h o m e la n d s ( o r ‘B a n tu s ta n s ’).
T h e process o f c o n s o lid a tin g their te rr ito r y by tr a n s f e r o f p o p u la tio n , so as
to elim inate w hite o r black islands in the m iddle o f larger units, a n d also by
a d d i n g so m e m o r e la n d fo r A fric an use, was n o t c o m p le te by the early
1970s. T h e m o s t c o m p a c t h o m e la n d w as T ra n sk e i, w ith a p o p u la tio n of
o v er 1,700,000 a lm o st entirely X h o s a , o c c u p y in g a b o u t 150 miles o f In dian
O c e a n c o a st a n d stretch in g u p to 100 miles inland. K w azu lu , w ith 2,106,040
in h a b ita n ts a l m o s t w holly Z u lu , lay f u rth e r n o r th b u t was less c o m p ac t.
Ciskei, w ith h a lf a million X h o s a , was se p a r a te d fro m T ra n sk e i by the
w hite-settled c o r r id o r o f E ast L o n d o n . O th e r h o m e la n d s w ere G a z a n k u lu
(m ain ly S h a n g a a n ) , L e b o w a (Pedi), B o p h u t h a ts w a n a (T s w a n a ), B asoth o
Q w a q w a ( S h o e sh o e) a n d V en d a a n d S w azi ( in h a b ite d by peoples o f those
tw o nam es).
T h e first h o m e la n d to receive a n a p p r o v e d c o n s titu tio n , with its legisla­
tive assem b ly elected p a rtly by chiefs a n d p a rtly by a d u lt suffrage, was
T ra n sk e i in 1963. It w as follow ed by K w azu lu , Ciskei, B o p h u t h a ts w a n a
a n d L e b o w a in 1972. G o v e r n m e n t s p o k e sm e n in th e 1960s m ore a n d m o re
a b a n d o n e d their p rev io u s c o n t e m p t u o u s to n e w h e n s p e a k in g o f A fricans.
T h ey b e g a n to hold o u t a fu tu re p r o sp e c t o f so m e so rt o f c o m m o n w e a lth of
largely in d e p e n d e n t A fric an states asso cia te d w ith ea ch o th e r a n d with
w hite S o u th A frica in a friendly u n io n . It was clear h o w ev e r th a t they
in te n d ed to keep th e political, m ilitary a n d e c o n o m ic p o w e r in their ow n
h ands.
M e an w h ile in th e w hite are as to o th e s itu a tio n of the A fricans was
ch anging . Even w ithin th e fra m e w o r k o f the B a n tu e d u c a t io n system the
e d u c a te d elite was grow ing. A fric an b u sin e ssm e n a n d pro fessional men
were m o r e n u m e ro u s . T h e g r o w th o f the S o u th A fric an ind u stria l e c o n o m y
increased its d ep e n d e n c e o n th e A fric a n la b o u r force. T h o u g h a w hole
a r m o u r y o f rules existed to g u a r a n te e the su p r e m a c y o f w hite w o rk e rs an d
to keep A fric an s o u t o f skilled a n d w ell-paid jo b s, these were in fact
increasingly evaded. O n ly tr a d e u n io n s o f w hite, c o lo u re d a n d I n d ia n
w o rk e rs c ould be officially registered. F o r b la c k w o rk e rs , a system o f p artly
elected liaison c o m m itte e s was enacted. It w as n o t illegal for blacks to fo rm
tr a d e u n io n s b u t th e ir ability to a c t o n b e h a lf o f th e ir m e m b e r s was lim ited,
since th e y c ould n o t be registered, a n d strikes by b la c k w o rk e rs were
fo rb id d e n . H o w ev er, in prac tice in the early 1970s A fr ic a n w o rk e rs b egan
to o rganise them selves, a n d even carried o u t so m e r a th e r successful strikes
in th e D u r b a n a r e a in 1974. F o llo w in g these, if o n ly in o r d e r to a d a p t law to
reality, the a b s o lu te b a n o n strikes by A fric an s was relaxed, by ce rtain
specified e x e m p tio n s.
 Race and Nation 375

In the prevailing official view, S o u th A fric a w as to be a c o u n t r y o f m a n y

n a tio n s placed in a h ie ra rc hic al r ela tio n sh ip to each oth er. T h e A frik a n ers
were to be the to p n a tio n , b u t there w as so m e r o o m fo r a r g u m e n t a m o n g
N atio nalists as to the e x te n t to w hich th e E nglish-speakers c ould be
included w ithin th e w hite S o u th A fric an n a tio n . The A fric an s consisted of
a large n u m b e r o f tribes, so m e o f w hich m ig h t p e r h a p s even be c onsidered
to be n atio n s. T w o con cep ts, how ever, the A fr ik a n e r leaders rejected:
either a m u ltiracial S o u th A fric an n a t io n o r a single black S o u th A frican
n a tio n as a p a r tn e r o f the w hite n a tio n . C o lo u re d s a n d I n d ia n s c o u ld h ardly
be co nsid ered as n atio n s, b u t it was recognised th a t they f o rm e d distinct
c o m m u n ities; a n d th e re was a g ro w in g te n d e n c y a m o n g A fr ik a n e r s p o k e s ­
m en to stress c o m m o n interests w hich b o u n d th e m to the w h ites— in the
case o f the co lo u re d s, cu ltu ra l links, a n d in the case at least o f middle-class
Indians, econom ic.
A fr ik a n e r hostility to a m ultiracial n a t io n was based partly o n religious
co nvictio n , a n d partly on the deeply r o o te d av e rsio n (sh ared also by
English -speakers) to in te rb re e d in g betw een races, o r ‘m is c e g e n a tio n ’. O nce
all A fricans were given the vote, this c o u ld no longer be a v o id e d , so they
believed; a n d this was sufficient rea so n to d e n y political d e m o c r a c y ou tside
the w hite c o m m u n ity . T h e r e was a f u r th e r r ea so n w hy the A frik a n ers
o p p o s e d a m ultiracial d em o c ra c y . Even if th e im agined h o r r o r s o f miscege­
n a tio n c ould be av o id ed , even if one w ere o p tim istic a b o u t som e agreed
political a n d social c o m p ro m is e , it w as clear th a t the specific A fr ik a n e r
cu ltu re w o u ld be s u b m e rg e d . A m ultiracial S o u th A frica w ould have closer
links with the A fric an states, a n d p r o b a b ly also w ith the A m ericas. English
w ould be the p r e d o m i n a n t la nguage, a n d s o m e sort o f A fr o - A n g lo -S a x o n
cu ltu re w ou ld em erge, in w hich the old A fr ik a n e r values w ould be
sw a m p e d . As th e A frik a n e rs saw it, they w ere a sm all n a tio n , forged o u t o f
a long hero ic struggle a g a in st heavy o d ds, n o t im perialists b u t victims of
im perialism . T h ey had n o o th e r c o u n t r y to go to. H o lla n d h a d lo n g ceased
to be in a n y sense ‘h o m e ’ for them . T h e y w ere n o t ‘w hite settlers’ b u t the
people o f th e c o u n try . D efence o f apartheid seem ed to th e m to be defence
o f their n a tio n a l identity. T r e m e n d o u s u n d e r s ta n d in g , ingenuity a n d
persuasiveness w o u ld be req uired o f th e o th e r c o m m u n itie s in o r d e r to
reconcile th e m to a new o r d e r in S o u t h Africa.
M ultira cialism was also u n a ttr a c tiv e to m a n y th in k in g A fricans. A frican
hostility to In d ian s in N a ta l (w hose situ a tio n h ad s o m e th in g o f the
c h a r a c te r o f a ‘Je w ish p r o b l e m ’)3 led to b lo o d y riots in 1949; a n d th e sincere
p r o te s ta tio n s o f d e m o c r a tic o r left-inclined leaders o f th e A N C a n d the
I n d ia n N a tio n a l C o n g re s s in the 1950s c e rtainly did n o t elim inate the
un d e rly in g e c o n o m ic a n d n a t io n a l m u tu a l a n t ip a t h y a n d fear. A fricans
also regarded c o lo u re d s w ith so m e suspicion. It was tr u e t h a t the colo u re d s
were victims o f d is c rim in a tio n u n d e r apartheid', th a t th e ir g ro w in g e d u c a t­
376 Nations and States

ed elite was ex c ep tio n ally fru s tra te d a n d alien ated; a n d th a t in co nseq u e n ce

fro m th e ir ra n k s a r a th e r large p r o p o r t i o n o f left-oriented persons a p ­
peared. Yet it is also tr u e t h a t c o lo u re d s w ere a t tr a c t e d to w a r d s E u r o p e a n
ways, w h e th e r o f English o r o f A frik a a n s e x p re ssio n , a n d th a t this m ade
th e m u nreliab le in A fric a n eyes.
T h e A fricans them selves re m a in e d divided into n u m e r o u s triba l and
lan g u ag e groups. T h e fact t h a t this was stressed by a p o lo g ists of apartheid
did n o t m a k e it un tru e. It was fairly clear th a t e d u c a te d A fric ans in the
1970s te n d ed to think in te rm s o f A fric an solidarity, a n d to aim at a single
A fric an n a tio n a l conscio usne ss tra n s c e n d in g the divisions; b u t it is d o u b t ­
ful w h e th e r such a consciousne ss existed in the early 1970s at grass ro ots
level. O n the o th e r h a n d , if it was true th a t as s o o n as A fricans becam e
highly e d u c ated they b egan to th in k in all-A frican te rm s, th e n this w ould
suggest th a t A frican n a tio n a lism w o u ld prevail in the long e r te rm over
Z u lu , X h o s a or o th e r n a tio n a l consciou sness; fo r all c o m m u n itie s tend to
follow th eir o w n e d u c ated elites r a th e r th a n their politically u n con scio us
m ajorities, or the elites o f foreign d o m i n a n t g ro u p s. T his tren d m ight be
re ta rd e d by the insistence on giving all A fric an children ( w h e th e r living in
B a n tu sta n s o r in white areas) school te a c h in g in their tribal language as
well as in the E u r o p e a n languages; b u t it was n o t likely to be p revented over
a p eriod o f several decades. M e an w h ile b o th the recognised leaders in the
B a n tu sta n s a n d the black b ourgeoisie in the w hite are as w ere placed in a
pain fu l p re d ic a m e n t; they h ad to find a b alan c e betw een the c o n tra d ic to ry
roles of ca rry in g o u t o r e x p o u n d i n g g o v e r n m e n t policy to th e ir less
e d u c a te d c o m p a tr io ts , a n d o f d efe n d in g their p eo p le’s interests against
g o v e r n m e n t policies. T h e e m o tio n a l strains w hich this d o u b le role placed
on th e m were n o t likely to increase their loyalty to the regim e u n d e r which
they lived, o r m a k e th e m love its leaders.
T h e g o v e r n m e n t’s desire to w o o th e h o m e la n d leaders w as,d ra m a tic ally
ex pressed by P rim e M in iste r J o h n V o rs te r ’s first p e rso n a l m eeting with
th e m o n 8 N o v e m b e r 1973. H ow ever, even if such in te n tio n existed on bo th
sides, it w o u ld n o t be possible for n e g o tia tio n s betw e en g o v e r n m e n t and
h o m e la n d leaders to be lim ited to the affairs o f th e h o m e la n d s themselves.
If th e eight m illion bla ck s w o rk in g in w hite a re a s w ere considered officially
to be citizens o f the h o m e la n d s , te m p o r a r ily a b s e n t, th e n the h o m e la n d
a u th o ritie s were b o u n d to ta k e a n inte rest in th e ir living c o n d itio n s an d
legal sta tu s, to press fo r m a teria l im p r o v e m e n ts a n d m o r e h u m a n e tr e a t­
ment. T h e g o v e r n m e n t did in fact in 1974 urge a n easing o f ‘petty a p a r th e id ’
measures: h o w far this d irective was ca rrie d o u t by s u b o r d in a t e au th o ritie s
was u n ce rtain . In 1975 blacks w ere p e rm itte d to a c q u ire leases o f th irty
years fo r th e ir dwellings in white areas. But all historical experience
suggests th a t it is precisely w h en a long d o w n - t r o d d e n c o m m u n ity begins to
live better, a n d w hen c o n s id erab le n u m b e rs o f suc h a c o m m u n ity o b ta in
 Race and Nation 377

w ider h orizon s t h r o u g h ed u c a tio n , th a t th e ir d isc o n te n t increases m ost

rapidly. L eaders of the h o m e la n d s , a n d the p erso n s elected to a d m in is t r a ­
tive positions of limited po w er in S o w e to 4 a n d o th e r black u r b a n areas,
w ould inevitably be pu sh e d by this g ro w in g radicalism into d e m a n d in g
m o re fro m the g o v e rn m e n t. A lrea d y in the first m o n th s o f 1976 these
pressures were revealed in different w ays in the relu ctan ce o f C hief
M a ta n z im a o f T ra n s k e i to accept responsibility fo r X h o s a living in white
areas, a n d in the speech in S o w e to by C h ie f Buthelezi o f K w azulu in fav o u r
o f a c o m m o n political struggle by all black peoples.
M u c h m o re serious were the riots in S o w e to in A u g u st 1976. S p a r k e d off
by p rotests by sch o o lch ild re n w ho objected to increased te ac h in g of
A frik a a n s in th eir schools, they soon involved th o u s a n d s o f persons. In the
follow ing weeks th ere were large-scale d iso rd e rs in m a n y o th e r black u rb an
areas in T ransvaal, N atal a n d C a p e P ro v in c e, as well as d e m o n s tr a ti o n s by
c o lo u re d s in C a p e to w n . Very v ario u s elem ents to o k part in these disorders.
T h ere were g angs o f black crim inals ( to tsi ) w ho se aim was sim ply to sm ash
p r o p e r ty o r to rob. T h e r e were battles betw een Z u lu a n d X h o sa , so m e of
w hich m ay have been deliberately instigated by police. But there was no
d o u b t th a t the riots as a Whole were a n e x p lo sio n o f black political rage, the
biggest yet seen in S o u th A frican history. O bservers n ote d especially the
im placab le hatred o f m a n y y o u n g bla cks aga in st w hites, an d their c o n ­
te m p t for their p a r e n ts ’ g e n e ra tio n w hich still s o u g h t rec o nciliation. T hese
y o u n g blacks had no d o u b t that the age o f Black P o w e r was at h an d , and
th a t this w ould m e an the com plete d e s tru c tio n of their enem y. As an
estim a te o f the relative p o w e r of th e g o v e r n m e n t an d o f their o w n g ro u p ,
this was no d o u b t wildly unrealistic; but th a t such a m en tality sh ould be
w idespre ad was a grim c o m m e n t on th irty years o f S o u th A fric an policy.
It m ight well be th a t the in d ig e nous Z u lu , T sw a n a o r o th e r tr a d itio n a l
cu ltures had a stro n g e r hold on their peoples, a n d were m o re ca p a b le of
h ea lthy d e v e lo p m e n t w ithin the m o d e rn w orld, th a n eith er black or white
intellectuals th o u g h t. Yet a n y o u tsid e r w h o expressed such a n o p in io n was
b o u n d to be co n s id ered by e d u c a te d A fric ans a p a tro n isin g rea ctiona ry.
W e ste rn culture, w ith all its m a teria l a n d intellectual pleasures p a r a d e d by
the m ass m edia, was clearly a ttractiv e b o th to the a m b itio n s a n d to the
idealism o f the A fric an intelligentsia. Yet they, too, w ere guilty of a
p a tro n isin g a t titu d e to th e ir o w n peoples w h en they insisted t h a t t r a d i tio n ­
al c u ltu re s h o u ld be s c ra p p ed , a n d th a t its m a in te n a n c e was only a
M a ch ia v ellian schem e devised by th e ir enemies.
T h e s itu a tio n o f th e bla ck s o f S o u th A fric a w as th u s q uite d ifferent fro m
th a t o f the black s o f th e A m eric as, th o u g h m a n y of the h u m ilia tio n s an d
d e p riv a tio n s fro m w hich they suffered w ere th e same. It p a r tly resem bled
th a t o f the A frican blacks in colo n ial tim es, fo r they were living in th e ir ow n
c o u n try , ruled by foreigners. T h e ir p r e d ic a m e n t also resem bled th a t o f the
378 Nations and States

blacks o f th e in d e p e n d e n t A fric a n states, in th a t they were divided (like, for

e x a m p le , the blacks o f G h a n a a n d K enya) into m a n y peoples a n d la n ­
guages, a n d c ould only be m obilised as a single political force by use of a
E u r o p e a n language.
T h e sim ilarities an d differences were clear, b u t the n a tu re o f the S o u th
A frican s itu a tio n re m a in e d u n ique. It w as n o t clear w h a t kind o f n a tio n al
co nsciousn e ss was em erg ing, a n d w o u ld prevail, a m o n g S o u th A frican
blacks; o r w h e th e r sufficient s tro n g m en o f g o o d will c ould be f o u n d to
build a n interracial c o m p r o m is e before the fanatics to o k over, a n d S o u th
A frica bec am e a p aw n in the struggle o f d is ta n t em p ires for m a ste ry o f the
S o u th A tla n tic a n d I n d ia n oceans.

The American Indians

T h e invasions fro m E u ro p e had a m o r e d e v a sta tin g effect o n the indige­
n o u s people o f A m eric a t h a n o n th o se o f Africa. T h e h o r r o r s o f A fric a’s
tr ib u te in slaves were su rp ass ed by the suffering o f the A m e rin d ia n s. T heir
lands w ere ta k e n fro m th e m , their way o f life was d es tro y e d across the
gre a te r p a r t o f b o th s u b c o n tin e n ts , a n d th e ir n u m b e rs were reduc ed, by
m assacre, by d e p riv a tio n of their livelihood a n d by new diseases, to a
fra c tio n o f w h a t they had been. N evertheless, so m e survived with la nguage
a n d cu ltu re recog nisably th e sam e, a n d larger n u m b e r s c o n trib u te d an
in gredient o f v arying stre n g th to th e m estizo n a tio n s o f S p a n ish and
P o rtu g u e se A m erica.
In th e U nited S tate s it is e s tim a ted t h a t th e I n d ia n p o p u la tio n was less
th a n a m illion w hen the E u ro p e a n s arrived. By the m iddle o f the nine tee n th
c e n tu r y it h a d fallen below 300,000 b u t in the m id-1970s it was a p p r o a c h in g
the original fig ure.5 In colonial tim es, a n d in the first depades of the
republic, so m e p r o te c tio n w as given by th e g o v e r n m e n t to the I n d ian tribes;
b u t th e a d v e n t o f the a p o s tle o f m ass d e m o c ra c y , A n d re w J a c k s o n , a n d the
g ro w in g sc ra m b le o f w hite im m ig r a n ts fo r resources, p u t a n end to this.
T h e n e x t h u n d r e d years a re a m e la n c h o ly sto ry o f b r o k e n prom ises,
ro b b e ry , e x p lo ita tio n a n d aggression, w hich were m et o n th e I n d ia n side
with savage b u t unsuccessfu l resistance.6 A new policy w as in tr o d u c e d by
P re sid en t F r a n k lin D. R o o s e v e lt’s I n d ia n R e o rg a n iz a tio n A ct o f 1934,
which gave firm legal sta tu s to I n d ia n fo rm s o f se lf-g o v e rn m e n t a n d land
te n u re . T h o s e w h o were best able to p r o fit f r o m these o p p o r tu n itie s were
som e o f th e tribes o f th e so u th -w est (especially the N av a jo s, w hose
n u m b e rs w ere in fact f a r g r e a te r by the m id - tw e n tie th ce n tu ry t h a n th e y h ad
been a t the tim e o f the co n q u e st), a n d to a lesser e x te n t th o se o f th e n o r t h ­
w estern states o f W a s h in g t o n a n d O re go n.
H ow ever, this im p r o v e m e n t did n o t solve the I n d ia n s’ problem s. As
 Race and Nation 379

p o p u la tio n once m o r e increased, the rese rv a tio n s could n o t p rov ide a living
for all their people, a n d In d ian s had to find e m p lo y m e n t in th e A m eric an
e c o n o m y . In th e 1950s a policy o f ‘te r m i n a t i o n ’ o f federal tu te la g e was
a n n o u n c e d . Its m otiv es w ere m ixed. O n th e o n e h a n d was a gen u in e belief,
by liberal-m inded officials, th a t I n d ia n s sh o u ld no longer be trea ted as
b a c k w a rd children b u t m u st be p re p a re d fo r full p a r tic ip a tio n in A m eric an
life as eq u a l citizens. O n the o th e r h a n d was th e desire o f b u sin e ssm e n to get
their h an d s on valuable n a tu ra l resources in the I n d ian reservations.
T h e v ario u s po litical m o v e m en ts a m o n g black A m e r ic a n s f r o m the
1960s o n w a r d s h ad their effect also o n the Indians. P ride in the Ind ian past,
rejection o f white claim s o f su p e rio r civilisation, a n d a general desire for
In d ian libe ratio n m a d e them selves felt. T h e re were acts o f d efiance o f
a u th o rity , a n d there was sy m p a th y a m o n g liberal w hites. H ow ever, the
pro sp ec t o f an y un ity a m o n g the n u m e r o u s Ind ian tribes, spe ak in g
languages vastly different fro m each o th e r, seemed rem o te; while the
ch ances o f a n y I n d ia n sovereign state were even sm aller th a n o f a black
A m e r ic a n republic.
S p a n ish rule in M ex ico , a n d M e x ic a n in d e p en d e n ce , as related earlier,
had created a n overw h elm in g ly S p a n is h - s p e a k in g m estizo people, the great
m ajo rity o f w h o m w ere small p easan ts o r a g r ic u ltu ra l la b o u re rs , w h o in
their way o f life were closer to the tru e Indian s o f pre-co lo n ial tim es th a n to
the la n d o w n e rs o r to w n s m e n o f S p a n ish origin w h o ruled th e c o u n try . This
ch a n g ed after the M e x ic a n R e v o lu tio n , a n d still m o r e afte r the land
refo rm s o f C a rd e n a s . N o t only did m illions o f m estizos o f p r e d o m in a n tly
In d ia n origin get the use o f the land th e y cu ltiv a ted , b u t the w hole
a p p a r a t u s o f p r o p a g a n d a p u t f o rw a r d a n ideology o f ln d ia n ism . C o rte s
a n d th e C astilian heritage w ere d iso w n e d , a n d the a n c ie n t I n d ia n civilisa­
tions were extolled as ever m o re tre a su re s o f p r e - C o lu m b ia n a r t a n d
a rc h ite c tu re were discovered by arch aeo lo g ists. P raise o f all th a t was
Ind ian w en t to g e th e r w ith a s u b sta n tia l (even if officially e x a g g erated )
increase o f social m obility. T h e r e r em a in ed a b o u t th ree million p erso ns, in
a p o p u la tio n o f nea rly fifty m illion, w h o still s p o k e I n d ia n lang u ag e s, an d
only a th ird o f these k new n o S p a n is h .7 M e x ico in th e 1970s was n o t the
re v o lu tio n a ry p a ra d ise w hich rh e to ric suggested, b u t it w as a c o u n try
w h ich In d ian s (w h e th e r th e y w ere In d ia n - s p e a k in g o r only I n d ia n in
m a n n e r o f life) c o u ld feel was th e ir ow n. In G u a te m a la , w here Ind ian
la ngu age s were p r o p o r ti o n a te ly m u c h m o r e im p o r ta n t, o p p o r tu n itie s were
less g o o d , as the c o u n t r y was m o r e b a c k w a r d a n d d ic ta to rs h ip s an d
guerrilla a c tio n s im p e d e d progress.
In S o u th A m e ric a th e re w ere prim itive I n d ia n tribes, th r e a te n e d by w hite
e c o n o m ic activities a n d p o p u la tio n p ressure, in V enezuela, Brazil, A rg e n ti­
na a n d Chile.
In P a r a g u a y th e I n d ian elem en t was p r e d o m i n a n t. T h e G u a r a n i were
380 Nations and States

p ro te c te d by the Je su it regim e o f the seven te en th a n d early eigh teen th

centuries, a n d held their o w n in spite o f the ra th e r limited E u ro p e a n
im m ig r a tio n in the n in e te e n th ce n tu ry , a n d in spite o f the app a llin g
casualties o f the w a r o f the 1860s. P a r a g u a y in the tw en tieth ce n tu ry was in
effect a c o u n t r y of tw o languages, S p a n ish a n d G u a r a n i. P a r a g u a y a n s were
p r o u d o f th e ir I n d ia n ancestry, a n d th ere did not seem to be serious racial
tension. It w as, how ever, possible th a t the ca lm was d u e to the forced
stability m a in ta in e d since 1954 by the d ic ta t o r G e n e ra l A lfre d o S troessner,
a n d th a t it w ould be b ro k e n w hen he ceased to rule.
T h e m ain p ro b lem s c o n c e r n in g A m e ric a n In d ian s a ro se in the central
A n d e a n region o f S o u th A m eric a. T h re e A n d e a n states h ad in the 1960s a
high p r o p o r ti o n o f In d ia n s — E c u a d o r a b o u t 40 per cent o f its p o p u la tio n ,
P e r u a b o u t 45 a n d Bolivia a b o u t 50 per cent. T h e m o st recent figures o f
re a so n a b le ac cu rac y , th e 1961 census o f Peru, show ed th a t 2,647,674
p ersons sp o k e Q u e c h u a ; o f w h o m 886,082 were also literate in S p a n ish , a
f u r th e r 407,240 also s p o k e S p a n ish bu t w ere illiterate, a n d 1,354,352 knew
no S p a n ish a t all. In E c u a d o r in 1950 a b o u t 340,000 were Q u e c h u a -
spe ake rs, o f w h o m a b o u t half also knew S p an ish . In Bolivia in the 1960s
m o r e th a n a million s p o k e Q u e c h u a a n d ra th e r less th a n a million spoke
A y m a ra .
T h e inability o r reluc tanc e o f S o u th A m e ric a n states to p rovide regular
an d a c c u r a te in f o rm a tio n o n Indian p o p u la tio n s m a k es it extrem ely
difficult to ju d g e either the d im e n sio n s o r the n a tu re o f the p roblem . It
w ould seem likely t h a t in th e 1970s there w ere s o m e th in g between five an d
six m illion Q u e c h u a in these th ree states; b u t th e re was no in dic ation of the
f o r m a tio n o f a Q u e c h u a n a t io n a l conscio u sn e ss tr a n s c e n d in g state f r o n ­
tiers. H u n d r e d s o f th o u s a n d s o f I n d ia n s h ad been m o ving , fo r dec ad e s past,
to seek e m p lo y m e n t in the c o n u r b a tio n o f G r e a te r L im a, o r in th e smaller
th o u g h co n sid erab le cities o f G u a y a q u il, La P az an d Q u ito , or in the
m in in g cen tres o f Bolivia. H ere they lived in g rea t s q u a lo r, picked up at
least so m e k now led g e o f S p a n ish , a n d b ec am e superficially assim ilated in a
S p a n ish - sp e a k in g society. T h e In d ian s w h o stayed b ehind, the least
en te rp risin g a n d m o st b a c k w a r d , o r the m o s t s tu b b o r n ly dev o ted to their
a nc ie nt tr a d itio n s ( d e p e n d in g on the p o in t o f view o f the observer),
re m a in e d excluded fro m public affairs, a n d fo u n d no politically effective
leaders o f th e ir ow n. T h e y lived in p o v erty , as a g ric u ltu r a l la b o u re rs or
m e m b e rs o f tr a d itio n a l ru ra l com unidades, forced to fight a n u n e n d in g an d
losing b attle ag a in st the e n c r o a c h m e n ts o f larger la n d o w n e rs. T he possess­
ing classes a n d co n serv ativ e p arties reg a rd e d th e m w ith a m ix tu re of
c o n t e m p t a n d vaguely b e ne vole nt c o n d e sc en sio n , a n d m a d e no a p p r e c ia ­
ble effort eith er to u n d e r s ta n d o r to satisfy th e m . T h e politicians o f the ex ­
trem e left co n te n te d them selves w ith the belief th a t social re v o lu tio n w ould
solve all their problem s, a n d a ssu m ed th a t the rev o lu tio n w ou ld be c o n ­
 Race and Nation 381

d u cted in Spanish.
T h ere were a few ex ceptions. T he f o u n d e r o f A cciôn Popular Revolucio-
naria Americana ( AP R A), the P e ru v ian V ictor R a ul H a y a d e la T o rr e , had
a c o n c e p tio n o f a n I n d o -A m e ric a , c a p a b le o f dev e lo p in g politically,
socially a n d cu ltu rally in its ow n way, q u ite d istinct fro m eith er E u ro p e or
N o rth A m erica. T h e idea o f /« (/« -A m erica (joint c re a tio n o f I n d ian an d
S p a n ish peoples), as o p p o se d to Latin A m eric a, was attractiv e; but it
rem a in ed little m o re th a n a slogan. A P R A never bec am e a n effective
co n tin en t-w id e m o v e m en t, th o u g h its ideas h ad intellectual sy m p a th ise rs
in several countries. In P eru, w here A P R A was strong est, it was repeatedly
repressed by d ic ta to ria l g o v e rn m e n ts, a n d proved in c apab le, in th o se years
w h en it o b ta in e d the se m b la nce o f pow er, o f p u ttin g its pro m ise s into
effect. A n o th e r P e ru v ian w h o sh ow ed s y m p a th e tic insight into the p red ic a­
m en t o f the In d ian s was J o s é C a rlo s M a riâ te g u i. He saw the so lu tio n in
social rev olution, especially in land reform . He was a f o u n d e r o f the
P e ru v ian c o m m u n is t p arty , a n d died y o u n g in 1930. Both the c o m m u n is ts
a n d A P R A claim ed to be his political heirs, but his ideas r em a in ed no m ore
th a n a n asp ira tio n . H ow ever, the m ilitary regime installed in 1968 by
G en e ra l Velasco A lv a r a d o no t only in tr o d u c e d s o m e real land refo rm s, but
a d o p t e d a n Indianist ideology, extollin g the Ind ian past at the e x p e n se of
the Castilian, m u c h as had been d o n e for d ec ad e s in M exico.
T h e real feelings o f the Ind ians them selves r em a in ed u n ce rtain. Plenty of
‘progressive’ S p a n ish - sp e a k in g intellectuals were ready to s p e ak on their
behalf, a n d to try to o rganise guerrilla b a n d s in the Andes: F idel C a s t r o ’s
friend, the r o m a n tic hero C he G u e v a ra , m et his d e a th in a n unsuccessful
guerrilla enterprise in Bolivia. Several ta len ted im aginativ e w riters, o f a
‘p o p u list’ school w hich in so m e ways recalled th e R ussian narodnik writers
o f th e n ine tee n th ce n tury , did m u c h to brin g the sufferings a n d a s p ira tio n s
o f the Ind ian s before a w ider public. C iro A legria’s novel El m undo es
ancho y ajeno d epicte d the miseries o f th e Ind ian s in the 1940s in te rm s of
wicked o p p ressio n a n d hopeless resistance, w hich m ight seem c ru d e to
foreign readers, yet was not unlike real ev ents as they were r e p o r te d in the
press at the time. M o r e p e n e tr a tin g were the novels o f J o s é M a ria
A rg u e d as, Los rios profundos a n d Todas las sangres. T heir a u t h o r was
him self bilingual in S p a n is h a n d Q u e c h u a , a n d gave a m o r e subtle an d
c o nv in cing picture o f I n d ia n society a n d I n d ia n th inking. In the absence of
system atic statistical in f o rm a tio n a n d th o r o u g h social studies, this im agi­
native literature h a d to be reg a rd e d as evidence, p o in tin g to the persistence
o f a n I n d ia n cultu re greatly different fro m , a n d deeply suspiciou s of, the
S p an ish -w esf/z o official culture.
It seemed, how ever, fairly clear t h a t there was in th e mid-1970s no
Q u e c h u a n atio n a lism , t h o u g h this d o es n o t m e a n t h a t n o n e m ig h t ever
develop.
10 Diaspora Nations

Types of diaspora
T h e subject o f this c h a p te r is a type o f c o m m u n ity w hose essential fe a tu re is
t h a t it is scattered ov er a w ide p a r t o f the e a r t h ’s surface: hence the use o f
th e G re ek w o rd diaspora. In one o u ts t a n d in g case a w hole c o m m u n ity ,
a lre a d y united by anc ie nt religious c u ltu r e a n d a p r o fo u n d solid arity for
w hich the m o d e rn p h ra se ‘n a tio n a l c o n s c io u sn e ss’ is p e rh a p s a p p r o p r ia t e ,
w as twice forcibly u p r o o te d an d t r a n s p o r te d a b r o a d . T h is c o m m u n ity are
the Jew s, w h o w ere rem oved first by the B aby lo n ia n s a n d th e n by the
R o m a n s. The Je w s are th e only people beside th e C h inese w h o possess a
c u ltu ra l identity u n b r o k e n for m o re t h a n th ree t h o u s a n d years. W h e re a s
th e C hinese suffered m a n y foreign inva sions w hich their c u ltu re a b s o rb e d ,
the Je w s h ad fo r over 1,800 years n o h o m e l a n d ; 1 b u t at the en d o f th a t
perio d their d ia s p o ra was itself split w h en a large m in o rity o f th e Je w s in the
w o rld re tu rn e d to Palestine a n d cre ate d the state o f Israel, a n d in it a new
Israeli nation.
A second p a tte r n is th a t c o n s id e ra b le n u m b e r s o f a vast c o n tin e n ta l
p o p u la tio n , a t tr a c te d by business p ro sp ec ts o r recruited as unskilled
la b o u re rs , w ere t r a n s p o r te d to d ista n t lands, w here th e new c o m m u n itie s
w hich they fo rm e d rep rese n ted a large p r o p o r t i o n of the p o p u la tio n o f the
la nds in w hich th ey settled, t h o u g h only a tiny f ra c tio n o f th a t o f their
o riginal hom es. T o this ca te g o ry b elong the overseas I n d ia n s a n d Chinese,
a m o n g w h o m in th e o n e case T am ils, a n d in the o th e r case C a n to n e s e a n d
F ukienese, te n d e d to p red o m in a te .
A th ir d p a t te r n is th a t the resources o f th e h o m e la n d were n o t sufficient
to s u p p o r t all its peo ple, a n d th a t a large p r o p o r t i o n o f its in h a b ita n ts
s o u g h t a living by t r a d e a b r o a d , a n d settled in su b sta n tia l d is ta n t c o m m u ­
nities, w hose ag g re g ate p o p u la tio n w as r a th e r n u m e r o u s in re la tio n to the
p o p u la tio n r e m a in in g a t h o m e . In these cases th e d ia s p o r a a n d the
h o m e la n d e rs w ere fairly evenly b a lan c ed , a n d in te racted u p o n ea ch other.
E x a m p le s are th e G reeks, A rm e n ia n s, L e b a n e se a n d V o lg a T a ta r s . E a c h o f
these cases is s o m e w h a t different. T h e G re e k s living in the O t t o m a n em p ire
384 Nations and States

outside p en in su la r G reece a n d its islands w ere isolated c o m m u n itie s in a

M u slim w orld; yet they w ere in h a b itin g lands in w hich th e ir an c e s to rs had
lived fo r centuries before the M u slim s arrived. O th e r G re ek s established
c o m m u n itie s in m o re d is ta n t places— in s o u th e r n R ussia a n d the C aucasus.
T he A r m e n ia n s ’ s itu a tio n was ra th e r sim ilar, b u t th e re w ere also large
A r m e n ia n c o m m u n ities living w ithin th e R ussian, O t t o m a n o r Ira n ia n
em pires, far b e y o n d the lands w hich h a d once fo rm e d the A rm e n ia n
h o m e la n d . C h ristia n L eb a n ese were to be fo u n d in c o m m u n itie s in
O t t o m a n provinces far b e y o n d the L e b a n o n ; b u t th e re w ere also Lebanese
a n d S y ria n c o m m u n itie s, b o th C h ristia n a n d M uslim , far fro m O tt o m a n
te rrito ry , in W est A frica, to w hich they c a m e w h en it w as b r o u g h t u n d er
E u r o p e a n C h ristia n im perial rule. Volga T a t a r s also lived in c o m m u n itie s
in C e n tr a l Asia, far fro m the Volga.
A c o m m o n cha racteristic o f m ost o f these c o m m u n itie s is th a t their
social str u c tu re was d isto rte d , a n d th a t they bec am e c o n c e n tra te d in certain
types o f activity— a b o v e all in c o m m erce , later in the m o d e r n intellectual
pro fe ssio n s— as well as brin g in g with th e m to th e ir new lands a significant
n u m b e r o f persons e x p o u n d i n g the religion w hich was essential to their
c u ltu r e — priests, rab b is o r ulema. In the case o f the overseas Indians an d
C h in ese th e re were also large n u m b e rs o f la b o u re rs em p lo y ed in p a rtic u la r
kin d s o f en terp rise, chiefly large-scale E u r o p e a n - o w n e d p la n ta tio n s or
mines. T h e c o n c e n tra tio n in ce rtain types o f activity, w hich to the indige­
n o u s peoples inevitably te n d ed to look like a sinister m o n o p o ly o f such
o c c u p a tio n s, was a source o f la ten t hostility betw een them ; a n d this grew as
the in d ig e n o u s peoples a c q u ire d m o d e rn e d u c a tio n a n d political c o n ­
sciousness.
S o m e o f these d ia s p o ra co m m e rc ia l elites o p e r a te d by sea a n d som e by
land: o u ts t a n d in g a m o n g the f o rm e r w ere the G re ek s a n d C hin ese ,2 while
the la tte r c o m p rise d the Je w s a n d A rm en ia n s.
A f o u r th p a t te r n o f d ia s p o r a a re the m e rc h a n ts f r o m E u r o p e a n countries
w h o m a d e a living in A sia o r Africa. S o m e E u r o p e a n c o m m u n itie s o f this
ty p e ex isted for as lon g as tw o h u n d r e d years. H ow ever, th o u g h the
c o m m u n itie s co n tin u e d , the individu als for the m o s t p a r t did not. T hey
w ere free citizens of in d e p e n d e n t states, w h o c o u ld a n d did m ov e freely
betw een their h o m e la n d s a n d their overseas c o m m u n itie s. F ew o f th e m
str u c k dee p r o o ts overseas.3 T h e G reeks, A r m e n ia n s a n d L ebanese, o n the
o th e r h a n d , were citizens— o f second-class r a n k — o f states ruled essentially
by fore igners— O tto m a n s , R u ssian s o r I r a n ia n s — a n d w ere glad to m a k e
new h o m e s w ith new loyalties, while never a lto g e th e r losing the links with
th e ir old hom es.
T h e r e is a n o t h e r ca te g o ry w hich m ig ht be co n s id ered to fall u n d e r the
h e a d in g o f a d ia sp o ra : the n u m e r o u s M u slim tr a d i n g c o m m u n itie s w hich
were to be f o u n d a r o u n d the east co a st o f A frica a n d the so u th e rn co a sts of
Asia. T h ey includc the A ra b s fro m A ra b ia , a n d th e P ersian s o r ‘S hirazis’
 Diaspora Nations 385

fro m the P ersian G ulf, w ho settled in such places as Z a n z ib a r an d

M o m b a s a ; a n d the M u slim G u ja ra ti m e rc h a n ts fro m w estern India w ho
established them selves in the M a la y a n p en in su la a n d the M a lay sian
archip elag o. T hese people played a n im p o r ta n t p a rt in s p r e a d in g Islam:
o n e m ight indeed arg u e th a t the V icto rian im perialist slog an th a t ‘tr a d e
follows the flag’, used to justify E u r o p e a n a n n e x a t io n s in Asia a n d Africa,
has less t r u t h in it th a n there w ould be in a slogan ‘the faith follow s the
t r a d e ’ applied to M u slim p e n e tr a tio n in the east. H ow ever, these M uslim
tra d e rs did n o t in m ost cases keep them selves a p a r t in distinct c o m m u n i ­
ties: rath e r, in the course o f tim e th e y b e c am e A fricans o r M alaysian s,
c o n trib u tin g greatly to the e m erg en t A fric an or M a laysian cultu res an d
n a tio n a l consciousness.
O th e r m a rg in al ex a m p le s also o c c u r to one. O n e such a re the Baltic
G erm a n s. T hese w ere essentially the d e s c e n d a n ts o f c o n q u e r o rs o r c o lo ­
nists planted, fro m the th irte en th c e n tu ry o n w a rd s, a m o n g the L atvian an d
E sto n ia n p o p u la tio n o f the so u th -ea st Baltic lands. U p to the tw entieth
ce n tu ry they included noble lan d o w n e rs (so m e o f d is ta n t S w edish o r even
S cottish origin, but un ited essentially by a G e r m a n culture), b u t also city
m e rc h a n ts , teachers, m inisters o f religion, cra fts m en , s h o p k e e p e rs an d
w orkers. A n o th e r e x a m p le are the S co ts w h o settled in E n g la nd, fro m early
m o d e rn tim es o n w a rd s. T hese have p e r h a p s been especially p r o m in e n t in
business, g o v e r n m e n t service a n d the intellectual professions, b u t also
include all classes. A r a th e r large p r o p o r ti o n , b u t by no m e an s all, becam e
assim ilated to the English c u ltu re in w hich they lived. In the 1970s there
m a y well have been m o r e p erso ns of S co ttish origin living in E n gla nd th a n
in Scotland.
A recent original essay o n these p r o b le m s4 disting uish ed between
‘m obilised’ d ia sp o ra s, w hich ‘enjoy m a n y m a teria l a n d cu ltu ra l a d v a n ta g e s
c o m p a r e d to o th e r g ro u p s in the m ulti-eth n ic polity’, a n d ‘p r o le t a r ia n ’
d ia sp o ra s, w hich consist essentially o f w o rk e rs seeking e m p lo y m e n t
a b r o a d in large n u m b e rs. Jew s, A rm e n ia n s , G reeks, Baltic G e r m a n s an d
V olga T a ta r s w o uld clearly fit J o h n A r m s tr o n g ’s first category. His second
c a te g o ry does n o t ho w ev e r fit my o w n classification in this b o o k — w hich
d o es not o f course m e a n t h a t it is n o t valid in the c o n te x t o f his analysis. It
w o u ld include overseas In d ian s a n d C hinese, b u t it w o u ld also cover
im m ig r a n t w o rk e rs in the New W o rld (w h o m 1 prefer to discuss in
c o n n e c tio n w ith the f o r m a tio n o f new overseas n atio n s o f E u r o p e a n
origin), a n d the so u th E u r o p e a n Gastarbeiler in c o n t e m p o r a r y industrial
E u r o p e (Y ugoslavs, T u r k s a n d S p a n ia rd s in G e r m a n y ; Italians in Sw itzer­
land; P o rtu g u e se , A lgerians a n d Italian s in F ra n c e ), o f w h o m th e great
m a jo rity d o n o t re m a in fo r m o r e t h a n a few years. T h e Gastarbeiter
c o n s titu te a m a jo r E u r o p e a n social p r o b le m , w h o se fu tu re is un ce rtain ; b u t
they d o not seem to me to belong to the th e m e o f my book .
S o m e th in g has a lre a d y been said o f th e G re ek s o f the d ia s p o r a a n d o f the
386 Nations and States

V o lga T a ta r s . I shall confine m yself in this c h a p te r to a d iscussio n at som e

length o f th e case o f the Je w s w hich, q u ite a p a r t f ro m its o w n intrinsic
im p o r ta n c e , is also, as has b ee n n o te d in e a rlier ch a p te rs, in te rtw in ed w ith
the g r o w th o f n a tio n a l m o v e m e n ts in C e n tr a l a n d E a s te r n E u ro p e ; an d ,
m o r e briefly, to the overseas C hinese a n d In d ian s, w h o se s to ry raises
p r o b le m s b o th o f n a tio n a l consciou sness a n d o f racial conflict.
First, how ever, a few w o rd s m a y be dev o ted to th e A rm e n ia n s , w hose
case has so m e parallels w ith th a t o f th e Jews.
T h e rec o rd e d history o f the A rm e n ia n state, based o n th e ea ste rn p a r t of
A sia M in o r , goes b a c k a t least to the se co n d c e n tu r y BC. Its ruler T igranes
(95-66), w h o ex te n d e d his p o w e r in to S y ria a n d M e s o p o ta m ia , b e c am e a
client o f R o m e. T h e A rm e n ia n s b e c am e C h ristia n s at the t u r n o f the third
a n d fo u rth centuries A D , a n d w ere later s e p a ra te d f r o m the m a in b o d y of
C h r is t e n d o m by th eir a d o p t i o n o f the M o n o p h y s i te heresy. In the follow ­
ing cen turies A rm e n ia w as a b uffe r sta te betw een R o m e a n d P ersia, an d
la te r betw e en B y z an tiu m a n d th e A ra b s. T h e re w ere p erio d s o f relative
in d e p en d e n ce , a n d the A r m e n ia n religion a n d c u ltu re w ere preserved. In
th e six tee n th c e n tu ry all th e A r m e n ia n la n d s c a m e u n d e r O t t o m a n rule, b u t
in the early seven te en th the ea ste rn region o f E riv an was a n n e x e d to
S afavid Iran. D u rin g this perio d A r m e n ia n s played a n im p o r t a n t p a rt
o u tsid e their h o m e la n d as tra d e rs , estab lish in g c o m m u n itie s in C o n s ta n ti n ­
ople, Isfa h a n , A le p p o a n d C a ir o , a n d even in C h r is tia n c o m m e r c ia l centres
such as K r o n s ta d t (B rasov) in T ra n s y lv a n ia a n d L w o w (L e m b e rg ) in Polish
Galicia. All this tim e h o w e v e r th e A r m e n ia n s r eta in ed so m e th in g w hich the
Je w s h a d lo st— th e ir o w n h o m e la n d o f c o m p a c t p o p u la tio n .
In 1828 E riv an region w as a n n e x e d to the R u s sia n em pire. T h e A r m e n ­
ians p ro v e d very loyal subjects to th e tsars, b ecau se th e y h o p e d th a t they
w o u ld liberate th e ir k in s m e n in O t t o m a n A rm e n ia . A n a tio n a list m o v e ­
m e n t, w ith a p a rtly socialist ideology a n d a te n d e n c y to w a r d s te rro rism ,
grew u p in the late n in e te e n th ce n tu ry , directed p rim a rily ag a in st the
O t t o m a n g o v e rn m e n t, b u t a t tim es also a g a in st th e tsars. T h e h opes of
lib e ra tio n by R u s sia n a r m s fro m T u r k i s h rule w ere n o t fulfilled, th o u g h
so m e sm all districts were ceded to R u s sia a n d s o m e t h o u s a n d s o f A r m e n ­
ians fled to R u s sia n te rrito ry . In A pril 1915 th e O t t o m a n g o v e r n m e n t gave
o r d e r for the d e p o r ta tio n o f th e A r m e n ia n s fro m th e six vilayets (p ro v in ­
ces) in the east in w hich th e y h a d a c o m p a c t p o p u la tio n . T his o r d e r in fact
led to a m a ssac re o f h u n d r e d s o f t h o u s a n d s , a n d by th e e n d o f 1916,300,000
h ad fled to Russia.
T h e A rm e n ia n s o f R u s sia n A rm e n ia h a d th e ir sh a re o f suffering in the
R u ssian R e v o lu tio n a n d Civil W a r, b u t th e ir existence as a n a tio n was not
in d a n g e r. T h ey m a in ta in e d th e ir cu ltu re a n d religion u n d e r th e Soviet re­
gim e, a n d by the 1970s they, to g e th e r w ith th e ir n e ig h b o u rs the G eorg ia ns,
possessed a grea ter degree o f a u t o n o m y t h a n a n y o th e r n o n - R u s s i a n n a tio n
 Diaspora Nations 387

o f th e S oviet em pire.
A lrea d y u n d e r im p erial R u ssian rule large A rm e n ia n c o m m u n itie s —
professional, business a n d skilled w o rk e rs — h a d g r o w n u p o utside the
A rm e n ia n h o m e la n d , in the T r a n s c a u c a s ia n cities o f B aku a n d T if lis a n d in
s o u th e rn Russia. T h is d ia s p o r a c o n tin u e d to grow. In 1970 th e re were
2,208,000 A rm e n ia n s in th e A rm e n ia n S S R a n d 1,235,000 in o th e r p a r ts of
the Soviet U nion. T h ere were also s u b sta n tia l A rm e n ia n c o m m u n itie s in
Iran, Syria, o th e r A ra b states a n d b o th N o r t h an d S o u th A m erica,
a m o u n t i n g in all to over 1,700,000.

The Jews
T h e Je w s were twice forcibly u p r o o te d . D e p o r te d to B abylon in the seventh
c e n tu ry BC, they were allow ed by C y ru s the P ersian to re tu r n in th e sixth.
D e p o r te d ag a in by th e R o m a n s afte r rebellions in th e first a n d second
centuries A D , th e y re tu rn e d in the tw en tieth to im p o se th e ir rule o n the
peoples w ho had lived th ere in the interval.
In the centuries o f d i a s p o r a som e Je w s c a m e to R o m e , a n d m o v e d to the
E u r o p e a n provinces o f the em p ire, especially S p a in an d th e R h in e valley.
O th e rs spread o v er N o rth A frica, A ra b ia a n d M e s o p o ta m ia . A n o m a d ic
people in h a b itin g th e Black Sea steppes, th e K h az ars, a d o p t e d J u d a is m
a n d b e c am e a te rrito ria l p o w e r in the eig h th ce n tu ry A D . In C h r is tia n lands
Je w s received r elu c tan t to le ran ce , in te r ru p te d by o u tb u r s ts o f persecution.
In M u slim land s in the early M id d le Ages, especially in S p ain , they fared
better. C r u s a d in g arm ies m a rc h in g t h r o u g h G e r m a n y m a ssa c re d Je w s an d
d es tro y e d houses a n d p ro p e rty . Je w s w ere persecuted in E n g la n d in the
th ir te e n th c e ntury, a n d expelled in 1290.
T h e c o u n try m o s t h o sp ita b le to Je w s in th e late M id d le Ages was
P o la n d . T h e c h a r te r o f K ing Boleslaw the P io u s o f G re a t P o la n d o f 1264
gave th e m b etter c o n d itio n s th a n elsew here in E u ro p e ; a n d this was
co n firm e d by C a sim ir the G re a t (1333-70), king o f all P o la n d , w ho
w elcom ed th o u s a n d s a n d a ssu re d th e m a m e a n s o f livelihood. A t th e o th e r
e n d o f E u ro p e th e g rea t c o n t ri b u tio n s o f Je w s to S p a n is h a n d P o rtu g u e se
c u ltu re en d e d w ith the new religious in to le ra n c e o f the late fifteenth
century. T h o se Je w s w h o re m a in e d loyal to th e ir faith w ere expelled fro m
S p a in in 1492, th e y ea r o f th e c o n q u e s t o f M u s lim G r a n a d a . Jew ish
co n v e rts to C h ristia n ity ( m arranos ) were allow ed to rem a in , b u t even these
co n v e rts w ere objects o f d istru st a n d d isc rim in a tio n . P o rtu g u e s e policy was
so m e w h a t less b r u ta l t h a n S p a n ish , b u t n o t less ruthless in its aims.
N o w th e ir k ind e st h o sts w ere the M o r o c c a n s a n d the O t t o m a n T u rk s ,
u n d e r w ho se rule J e w ish colonies were es tablish ed f r o m T u n isia to Bosnia.
T hese Jew s, w h o c o n tin u e d to s p e ak a f o r m o f S p a n is h , w ere k n o w n as
388 Nations and States

Sephardim . T h ey were o u tn u m b e r e d by th e Je w s o f P o la n d , k n o w n as
A shkenazy. W ith the p a r titio n s o f P o la n d in th e late eig h tee n th century,
m ost o f the la tte r bec am e subjects of R ussia, b u t su b s ta n tia l n u m b e rs cam e
u n d e r A u s tr ia n a n d P ru s s ia n rule. T h e re w ere also old e r b u t sm aller
colonies in H o lla n d , W e st G e r m a n y (especially in F r a n k f u r t- o n - M a in ) an d
B o h e m ia (especially in P rague).
T h e J e w ish c o m m u n itie s lived in cities. T h ey consisted overw helm ingly
o f m e rc h a n ts , sm all tra d e rs , c r a fts m e n a n d p e rso n s involved in the
m a in te n a n c e o f the J u d a i c faith, d o c trin e a n d law. In c o m p a r is o n w ith the
peoples a m o n g w h o m they lived, they were e x c ep tio n ally gifted for
c o m m e rc ia l enterprise. It is w o rth n o tin g th a t, like the A rm e n ia n s but
un lik e the G re ek s a n d the Italians, th e y c o n c e rn e d them selves alm o st
entirely w ith la n d -b o r n e trade: they a c q u ir e d n o a p t itu d e fo r seafaring.
T h e ir skills as m e rc h a n ts , a n d especially as b a n k e r s, m a d e th e m useful to
reigning sovereigns a n d to large te rrito ria l m a g n a te s. T h e y w ere also
ex c ep tio n ally gifted fo r intellectual activities. In this field they had to
r ec k o n w ith th e b itter hostility of the C a th o lic C h u r c h , w hich in the M id ­
dle Ages virtually m o n o p o lis e d in tellectual life, a n d r e g a rd e d th e Je w s as
p u rvey ors o f pern ic io u s doctrin es. T h e ir c o m m e rc ia l activities w o n them
the rese n tm e n t o f p ea sa n ts, w h o saw th e ir few h a r d - e a rn e d pence d is a p p e a r
into the J e w ’s pockets, a n d o f a s p ira n t sh o p k e e p e rs a n d sm all businessm en
f r o m th e in d ig e n o u s p o p u la tio n , w h o saw in th e m h a te d rivals. T h u s the
p o sitio n o f th e Je w s was alw ays p rec ario u s, a n d re m a in e d d e p e n d e n t o n the
f a v o u r o f th e u p p e r classes, o n th e very p r o b le m a tic c o u r a g e o f princes to
d efen d th e m aga in st p o p u l a r w ra th . It w as so m e w h a t, b u t n o t m u c h , b etter
in P ro te s ta n t co u n tries, especially in H olla n d .
C o n d i tio n s im p ro v e d generally in th e E n lig h te n m e n t o f th e eig hteenth
c e n tury . A s th e prestige o f learnin g, a n d th e o p p o r tu n itie s o f critical
th in k in g a n d w riting, increased, Je w s c ould ta k e a d v a n ta g e o f them .
W ith in the Je w ish c o m m u n itie s them selves, a n E n lig h te n m e n t o f th e ir ow n
a p p e a r e d , the Haskalah. T h e q u a lity o f Je w ish religious sc h o la rsh ip an d of
the stu d y o f H e b r e w — th e sa cred la n g u ag e w h ich h a d survived centuries of
dispersal b u t h a d inevitably b e c o m e c o r r u p t e d — im p ro v e d . C o n tro v e rsies
a b o u t religious refo rm c onvulsed the Je w is h c o m m u n itie s. A t th e sam e
tim e C h ristia n s o f liberal o u tlo o k b eg a n to urge t h a t legal d isc rim in a tio n s
a g a in st Je w s sh o u ld be rem ove d; a n d Je w s b e c a m e m o r e willing to a d a p t
them selves to the s u r r o u n d i n g c u ltu ra l w orld. L ib e ra lism w ent to g e th e r
with g ro w in g ca pita lism a n d the c o n s e q u e n t in d u stria l rev o lu tio n . C h ris­
tian a n d Je w ish bourgeoisies grew n u m e r o u s a n d pow erfu l, a n d regarded
ea ch o th e r as allies in the struggle a g a in st th e old m o n a rc h ic a l a n d
a risto cratic o rd er. Instead o f being d e p e n d e n t o n th e c a p ric io u s p ro te c tio n
o f rulers, Je w s began to be fighters fo r p o litical fre e d o m a n d for legal an d
social equality. M a n y Je w s played a n h o n o u r a b le p a r t in the r e v o lu tio n ary
 Diaspora Nations 389

struggles o f 1848. E m a n c ip a tio n o f Je w s b e c am e a m a jo r claim o f E u r o ­

p e a n de m o c ra ts .
G e r m a n n in e te e n th -c e n tu ry cultu re pro v ed very a ttra c tiv e to Jew s, and
th e y m a d e a n im p o r ta n t c o n t r i b u tio n to it. T h e old Je w ish colonies in the
R h in e la n d flourished, a n d the Je w s fro m th e east, in c o rp o r a te d in P russia
a n d A u stria by the p a r titio n s o f P o la n d , m a d e their w ay to the cu ltu ra l an d
e c o n o m ic centres o f b o th coun tries. Berlin, w hich d u r in g th e ce n tu ry
evolved from a se c o n d -ra te a d m in istra tiv e ca p ita l into one o f th e few really
g rea t cities o f the w orld (in the fullest sense o f this expression), h a d a Jew ish
p o p u la tio n o f m o r e t h a n 50,000 a t m id -c e n tu ry a n d o f 144,000 in 1910. N o t
only in business b u t in m ost intellectual a n d artistic activities Je w s bec am e
e x tre m ely p ro m in e n t. T his was still m o r e th e case in V ienna, w hich o n the
eve o f the F irst W o rld W a r had a r o u n d 200,000 Jews. In b o th co u n tries
there were v o lu n ta r y con version s, to the L u th e r a n o r C a th o lic faiths, b u t
these were n o t very n u m e ro u s . M o r e im p o r t a n t was a falling a w a y fro m
J e w ish religious o r t h o d o x y a n d social habits, c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the secular­
ising tre n d s visible in C h r istia n society. In the 1850s a n d 1860s Jew s
a c q u ire d full civil rights in the G e r m a n lands. Increasingly, they felt
them selves to be G e rm a n s: heirs to the Je w ish past, believers o r at least
respecters o f the J u d a i c faith, b u t G e r m a n o r A u s tr ia n p a trio ts an d
m e m b e rs o f the G e r m a n cu ltu ra l c o m m u n ity .
A sim ilar process to o k place in H u n g a ry . T h e re w ere old b u t small
Je w ish c o m m u n itie s in s o m e H u n g a r ia n cities, especially in the eig hteenth
ce n tu ry capital, P re ssb u r g ( P o z so n y , Bratislava). T h e m a in influx o f Jew s
into H u n g a r y h ow ever follow ed the p a r titio n s o f P o la n d . O p p o rtu n itie s
w ere b etter in the H u n g a r ia n lands th a n in G alicia, a n d Je w s p o u r e d over
the C a rp a th ia n s . M o st settled in the n o r t h e r n a n d ea ste rn p rovinces, where
the m a jo rity o f the p o p u la tio n were n o t H u n g a r ia n s (M a g y a rs ) b u t
S lo v ak s, R u th e n e s o r R o m a n ia n s . A large n u m b e r, how ever, m ove d to the
new capital, B udapest. T h e gro w th o f this city, in the last half-century
before the F irst W o rld W a r, into a great c u ltu ra l a n d e c o n o m ic centre, was
a c c o m p a n ie d by a r a p id g r o w th o f its J e w ish p o p u la tio n . E arly in the
tw e n tie th c e n tury , o f its 1,000,000 in h a b ita n ts m o r e t h a n a fifth w ere Jews.
A s in G e r m a n y a n d A u stria , so in H u n g a r y Je w s w ere especially successful
in b a n k in g , in v ario u s b ra n c h e s o f in d u s try a n d in th e free professions. In
b o th V ienna a n d B u d a p e st the m o st i m p o r ta n t n e w sp a p ers w ere staffed by
Jew s. In H u n g a r y nea rly h alf th e d o c to rs a n d tw o-fifths o f the lawyers were
Jews. All this was m a d e possible by a liberal policy o n the p a r t o f the
H u n g a r ia n g o v e r n m e n ts, w hich en a c te d full e m a n ic ip a tio n in 1867, an d
th e re a fte r e n c o u r a g e d Je w s to engage in business, a fo rm o f activity for
w hich M a g y a rs, w h e th e r n o b le m e n o r p ea sa n ts, h a d h ith e r to s h o w n little
in c lina tion o r a p titu d e . T h e H u n g a r ia n rulers also e n c o u r a g e d Je w s to
regard them selves as M a g yars. T h is m o s t Je w s w ere willing to d o . T hey
390 Nations and States

gladly accepted, a n d p la yed a g rea t p a r t in developing, the M a g y a r

language, literatu re a n d cu ltu re. T h ey also played th e ir p a r t in p r o p a g a tin g
M a g y a r n a tio n a lis m a m o n g th e n o n - M a g y a r S lo v a k s a n d R o m a n ia n s in
w h ose m id s t th e y lived, in c u rrin g th e re b y th e re se n tm e n t o f these peoples.
R o m a n ia , w hich fo r th ree h u n d r e d years w as a vassal state o f the
O t t o m a n em p ire a n d w hich bec am e in d e p e n d e n t af te r the C r im e a n W ar,
received a large influx o f Jew ish im m ig r a n ts as a n in d ire ct result o f the
p a r titio n s o f P o la n d a n d m o r e directly as a c o n s e q u e n c e o f th e T re a ty o f
A d ria n o p le o f 1829, w hich o p e n e d th e c o u n try to in te r n a tio n a l trade.
R o m a n i a was a t this tim e a m u c h m o r e b a c k w a r d c o u n t r y t h a n H u n g a ry .
S u ch c o m m e r c e a n d in d u s try as existed w as largely in the h a n d s o f Greeks.
In th e capitals o f M o ld a v ia (Ia$i) a n d of W a lla c h ia (B u ch a rest) a n e d u c ated
elite, stro n g ly influenced by F re n c h cu ltu re, a lre a d y existed, b u t the
intellectual professions h a d only ju s t b eg u n to develop. T h e u p p e r s tr a ta of
R o m a n i a n society co nsisted o f la n d o w n e r s a n d b u re a u c ra ts. In this society
the Je w ish im m ig ra n ts so o n sup plied the business class req u ired by m o d e rn
capitalism . M o s t bec am e s h o p k e e p e rs o r dealers in w ine a n d spirits in small
tow n s. T h e m o r e successful bec am e ban k e rs; o r leased land fro m big
la n d o w n e rs to sublet it to p ea sa n ts, th e re b y m a k in g s u b sta n tia l profits. As
the intellectual professions grew, Je w s e n tered th e m . T h e y were especially
n u m e r o u s in m edicine a n d in th e press. R o m a n i a n g o v e r n m e n ts, even w hen
led by p erso n s o f p ro c la im e d liberal o u tlo o k , w ere e x tre m ely r e lu c ta n t to
give Je w s full civil rights a n d o p p o r tu n itie s o f e m p lo y m e n t. P re ssu re to this
effect b y th e g o v e r n m e n ts o f the E u r o p e a n g re a t po w ers resulted in definite
u n d e r ta k in g s by the R o m a n i a n g o v e r n m e n t at th e C o n g ress o f Berlin
(1878), b u t these were by n o m e an s fully o r q uic kly carried out.
T h e Je w s o f the R u s sia n em p ire were c o n c e n tra te d in the fo rm e rly Polish
p rovinces, o f w hich th e ‘congress k in g d o m ’ o f P o la n d sh o u ld be d istin­
guished f ro m th e g rea t b o r d e r la n d region e x te n d in g f r o m L ith u a n ia to the
Black S ea co a sta l a r e a .5 F o r a s h o r t tim e u n d e r E m p re ss C a th e rin e II the
Je w s received r a th e r liberal tr e a tm e n t, t h o u g h th e ir m o v e m e n ts were
restricted by a decree o f 23 D e c e m b e r 1791, w hich con fin e d th e m (with the
e x c e p tio n o f a sm all w ea lth y a n d e d u c a te d m in o rity ) to fo u rte e n p ro v in ­
ces.6 U n d e r T s a r N ich o las I (1825-55) th e y w ere h a rsh ly tr e a te d , an d
subjected to pressure w ith th e a im o f c o n v e r tin g th e m to C h r istia n ity —
w ith little success. A new p erio d o f p r o m ise o p e n e d w ith the reign of
A le x a n d e r II (1855-81). D u r i n g this p e r io d m u c h g r e a te r o p p o r tu n itie s o f
e d u c a t io n a n d o f e m p lo y m e n t b e c am e available. In th e business progress
w hich follow ed th e e m a n ic ip a tio n o f th e R u s s ia n serfs (1861) Je w s played
their p a rt, a n d som e a c q u ire d fortun es. O n the J e w ish side there w as a new
willingness to accept the cultu re o f the h o s t n a tio n . In th e b o r d e r la n d s ,
w hose m a in city a n d c u ltu r a l centre w as V ilna, this m e a n t a te n d en c y to
acce p t R ussian culture. In the ‘congress k in g d o m ’ as sim ilatio n w as ra th e r
 D iaspora Nations 391

to w a r d s P olish cu ltu re, a n d Je w s te n d ed to identify them selves w ith P olish

n a tio n a l asp ira tio n s. A ssim ilatio n was h o w e v e r strongly o p p o s e d by th e
m o st o r t h o d o x leaders o f the Jew s, w h o in this respect s p o k e fo r the
majority. C o n d itio n s o f life a n d w o rk fo r m o s t Je w s in R ussia a n d P o la n d
were even w orse t h a n in R o m a n ia . T h e m a jo r ity consisted o f p o o rly paid
c ra fts m en , m a n u a l w o rk e rs a n d sm all sh o p k e e p e rs. As th e ir n u m b e rs grew,
p o v erty grew also, a n d the o u tlo o k r e m a in e d d a rk .

Anti-semitism and Zionism

T h o u g h th e n in e tee n th c e n tu r y was o n th e w h o le a p e rio d o f p ro g re ss a n d
h o p e for Jew s, the basic hostility o f the h o s t p o p u la tio n s to th e m was no t
removed: rathe r, it w as ag g ra v a te d by e c o n o m ic a n d ideological factors
w hich bec am e clearly visible by th e en d o f th e cen tury .
T h e C h ristia n p r ie sth o o d a n d h ie ra rc h y viewed the Je w s at best with
d istru st a n d a t w orst w ith passio n ate hostility, consid in g th e m a d a n g e r o u s
e lem ent likely to c o r r u p t th e faith a n d m o r a ls o f th e ir flock. T h is is
especially tru e o f the O r t h o d o x C h u r c h , n o t because there is a n y special
elem en t o f hostility to Je w s in O r t h o d o x d o g m a th a t is n o t present in
C a th o lic, but because the O r t h o d o x C h u r c h h a d n o t been subject to the
influences o f the E n lig h ten m e n t, as h a d the C a th o lic (at least n o r th o f the
Pyrenees a n d the Po) a n d th e P ro te s ta n t. T h e O r t h o d o x a t titu d e to Jew s
resem bled the C a th o lic a ttitu d e o f 1400 r a th e r t h a n o f 1900.
In th e ag ric u ltu ra l co u n tries, th e p e a sa n ts h a d e c o n o m ic g r o u n d s for
h a tin g Jew s, since these rep rese n ted ca p ita lism a n d the p o w e r o f m oney.
P olish o r R o m a n ia n p e a sa n ts were o fte n w ro n g to reg a rd Je w ish in n ­
keepers o r tr a d e s m e n as rich e r t h a n them selves, a n d a lm o s t alw ay s w ro n g
to see in th e m m a lev o len t e xploite rs o f C hristians. But it was a fact t h a t a
large p a r t o f the small cash incom es, left to the p e a sa n ts f r o m the sale o f
their p r o d u c ts a n d afte r the p a y m e n t o f th e ir taxes, f o u n d its w ay into the
h a n d s o f Jew s. T h e sa m e applies to the g ro w in g a n d floatin g p o p u la tio n
e m p lo y ed in s o m e m a n n e r in the g ro w in g cities. W h e n politicians a p p e a r e d
w h o a ttr ib u te d their suffering to the Jew s, these p e a sa n ts a n d w o rk e rs were
easily convinced. F o r th e m , a nti-sem itism w as, to use a p h r a se a ttr ib u te d to
th e G e r m a n S ocial D e m o c r a tic leader A u g u st Bebel, ‘th e socialism o f the
im becile’.
In the in d u stria l co u n tries, these tre n d s existed b u t w ere less im p o r ta n t
th a n a n o t h e r e c o n o m ic cause o f hostility to Jew s. T his w as th e a p p e a r a n c e
a m o n g th e h o s t peoples, as a result o f e c o n o m ic d e v e lo p m e n t a n d of
m o d e r n e d u c a tio n , o f large n u m b e r s o f p e rso n s seeking e m p lo y m e n t in
business a n d in th e professions. C h ild re n o f p ea sa n ts o r o f sm all officials
aim ed a t a ca reer in in d u stria l m a n a g e m e n t, b a n k in g , m edicine o r j o u r n a l ­
392 N ations and States

ism , a n d f o u n d the best j o b s held by Jew s. F o r th e m o s t p a r t, these Jews

h a d g o t th e ir j o b s b ecau se th e y w ere th e b est p e rso n s a va ila ble at th e tim e —
t h o u g h it c a n n o t be d en ied th a t th e re w as a te n d e n c y fo r Jew s in key
p o sitio n s in en terp rise to give j o b s to o th e r Jew s. F o r th e unsu ccessful
a s p ira n ts f r o m th e pro v in ce s it w as easy to believe in a m o n s t r o u s ‘Jew ish
p l o t ’. T h is belief g ain ed g r o u n d in G e r m a n y , especially in Berlin. It was
m u c h m o r e w id es p re ad in A u s tr ia , w here talk o f the ‘s tr o n g h o l d ’ o f the
Je w s in V ien n a f o u n d r e a d y listeners.
A n ti-sem itis m as a d o c trin e em erged in the last d ec ad e s o f the ce n tu ry
all ov er W e s te rn a n d C e n tr a l E u ro p e . It derived its p o p u la rity f r o m the
religious a n d e c o n o m ic fa c to rs su m m a r is e d a b o v e . It w as f o rm u l a te d by
intellectuals o f nostalgic c onservative o u tlo o k , o f w h o m the m o s t o u t ­
sta n d in g w as the F r e n c h m a n C h a rle s M a u r r a s . T o m e n o f this o u tlo o k ‘the
J e w ’ sy m bolised all th a t w as m o s t h a te f u l a b o u t the E u r o p e w hich h ad
em e rg e d since th e F re n c h R e v o lu tio n : the a s c e n d a n c y o f r e a so n over faith,
o f city over co u n try sid e , o f m o n e y over physical la b o u r , o f c o m p e titio n
o v er h ie ra rc h y , o f a b s tr a c t radicalism o v er sim ple tr u th s , o f in te r n a tio n a l­
ism o v er sta te loyalty. T h e r e w ere Jew s in all E u r o p e a n co u n trie s, a n d they
m a in ta in e d c o n ta c t w ith each o th e r: th e re fo r e they w ere a sinister inter­
n a t io n a l co n s p ira cy , a p o is o n u n d e r m in in g societies, d e s tin e d — unless
ch e c k e d — to d es tro y all n a t io n a l c u ltu r e a n d identities.
T h e a ttitu d e s o f g o v e r n m e n ts to instinctive a n d to a r tic u la te a n ti­
se m itism v a r ie d . In G e r m a n y th e u p p e r classes se ld o m asso cia te d w ith Jews
( th o u g h B ism a rc k h im s e lf w as a n exception); b u t they d id n o t en c o u ra g e
an ti-sem itic d em a g o g y , still less id entified them selves w ith it. In A u stria
to o social exclusiveness existed, b u t the g o v e r n m e n t w as in n o sense anti-
semitic. T h e fiercest a nti-sem ites, th e G e r m a n n atio n a lists, w ere also bitter
enem ies o f th e w hole H a b s b u r g system . T h e y w ished A u s tr ia to be a
‘G e r m a n s ta te ’, w h erea s E m p e r o r F r a n z J o s e f a n d his m inisters, th o u g h
G e r m a n w as their m o th e r to n g u e , c o n s id ered them selves a b o v e n a t io n a l­
ism. T h e y r e q u ir e d only t h a t their subje cts sh o u ld be kaisertreu, loyal to
their dy n asty : o n this basis th e y w ished to acce p t eq u a lly the loyalty o f all,
w h a te v e r th e ir speech o r f a ith o r h o m e la n d . In A u s t r i a th e p r e d o m i n a n t
la n g u ag e a n d c u ltu re w ere G e r m a n , b u t to th e rag e o f the G e r m a n
n a tio n a lists th e m a in e x p o n e n ts o f this cu ltu re w ere Jew ish jo u r n a lis ts an d
w riters. T h ese Jew s c o n s id e re d them selves to b e lo n g to the G e r m a n
c u ltu r a l c o m m u n ity , b u t th e G e r m a n n atio n alists, fa n a tic a lly anti-sem itic,
d en ied th e m this q uality . T h e G e r m a n n atio n a lists w ere alw ays a c o m p a r a ­
tively sm all m in o rity . H o w e v e r , in th e m u c h la rg e r C h r is tia n Social
m o v e m e n t anti-sem itic rh e to r ic was p a r t o f th e e v e ry d ay c u rren c y o f
politics. Its leader, M a y o r K arl L u eg e r o f V ien n a , w as especially ad d ic te d
to it, a n d was fo r this a n d o th e r rea so n s cord ia lly disliked b y th e e m p e ro r.
T h e tr u th was that the A u s tr ia n Jew s, to g e th e r w ith the H u n g a r ia n Jews,
 D iaspora N ations 393

w ere o n e o f the m a in c e m e n tin g fa c to rs in the H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y .

In R o m a n ia , th e p olitical class w as basically hostile to th e Jew s, b u t in
the co u rse o f tim e c a m e to term s w ith th e m . Jew s w ere excluded f r o m the
m ilita ry a n d civil g o v e r n m e n t service, b u t in business life a n d th e p r o fe s ­
sions a ce rtain unw illing p a r tn e rs h ip develop ed.
P re ssu re by the E u r o p e a n pow ers c o n tin u e d to limit the ab ility o f
R o m a n ia n g o v e r n m e n ts to c o u rt m ass p o p u la rity by disc rim in a tin g
ag a in st Jew s. In R ussia, b o th g o v e r n m e n ts a n d p eo ple w ere hostile. T his
fact is s o m e w h a t conc ea le d , in the historical lite ra tu re o f th e p erio d
w ritte n by Russians a n d by foreigners, by th e fact th a t the sm all b u t vocal
intellectual elite, being p r e d o m i n a n tly radical o r socialist in o u tlo o k , was
n o t anti-sem itic. H o w e v e r, the m u c h m o r e n u m e ro u s a d h e r e n ts o f the
O r t h o d o x ch u rc h , a n d th e ru ra l a n d u r b a n p o o r , h a d the m otives for
hostility to Jew s w hich hav e been s u m m a r is e d earlier. R u ssian capitalists,
o r a s p ir a n t capitalists, w ere few, a n d d id n o t fo r the m o s t p a r t feel th e m ­
selves b lo c k e d in their careers by Jews. T h e rulers o f R ussia, how ever,
especially a f te r the a s sa ss in a tio n o f A le x a n d e r II in 1881, w ere m ostly
hostile. T his is tru e o f the last tw o tsars a n d o f m o st o f their a dvisers— the
o u ts t a n d in g ex ception being the f in an c e m in ister C o u n t Sergius W itte
(1894-1903). M ost leading R ussian officials w ere c onserv ative p a t e r n a l­
ists, d istru stfu l o f ca pita lism a n d o f m o d e r n civilisation, nostalgically
idealising a h a p p y R u ssian p a s t w hich never was. T h ey g enuinely believed
th a t the Jew s, w ith their sinister in te r n a tio n a l c o n n e c tio n s, w ere u n d e r ­
m in in g a n d p o iso n in g R u ssian society, a n d th a t the R ussian p eople m ust
be p ro te c te d fro m th e m . T his was the m o tiv e b e h in d the series o f g e o g r a ­
phical, p ro fe ssio n a l a n d e d u c a tio n a l restrictions placed u p o n the Jews
a f te r 1881 a n d m a in ta in e d , in spite o f p ressure f ro m liberal o p in io n within
a n d o u tsid e Russia, until the end o f the im perial regim e.
T h e R ussian r u le rs’ fear o f th e Jew s as a r e v o lu tio n a ry fo rc e was by no
m e an s u n ju stifie d . Living in g row ing s q u a lo r a n d p o v erty , su ffe rin g all the
miseries a n d injustices w hich were the c o m m o n lot o f all the subje cts o f
th e tsars, b u t w ith the a d d i tio n o f specific restrictio ns a n d d isc rim in a tio n
a p p lic a b le only to th e m , it w as n a tu ra l th a t th e re sh o u ld be even m o r e
d is c o n te n te d p erso n s a m o n g the Jew s th a n a m o n g o th e r R u ssian citizens.
M o r e o v e r, th e w h o le em p h a sis, in tr a d itio n a l J u d a ic c u ltu re , o n th e value
o f le arning a n d the i m p o r ta n c e o f m o r a l ideas, m a d e y o u n g Jew s s u b s t a n ­
tially m o r e likely to ta k e a n interest in m o d e r n po litical a n d social ideas
th a n y o u n g R ussians; t h a t is to say, m a d e th e m m o r e accessible to r e v o lu ­
tio n a r y ideas th a n o th e r c o m m u n itie s in R ussia. T h e t r u t h is th a t, th o u g h
th e g r e a t m a jo r ity o f R u s s ia n Je w s w ere n o t re v o lu tio n a rie s, a d is p r o ­
p o r tio n a te sh a re o f th o s e R u ssian subje cts w h o w ere rev o lu tio n arie s
w ere Jews. T h e process th u s escalated: bec au se th e R u s sia n g o v e r n m e n t
fea re d Jew s as rev o lu tio n arie s, it p ersecuted th e m , a n d b ec au se Je w s were
394 N ations and States

p erse c u te d they sy m p a th is e d w ith rev o lu tio n arie s o r b e c o m e r e v o lu tio n ­

aries. It is also tru e th a t c e r ta in high officials a n d police chiefs deliberately
e n c o u r a g e d p o g r o m s (riots in w hich Je w s w ere b e a te n or killed, a n d
Je w ish p r o p e r ty was d es tro y e d ) as a m e a n s o f d ive rting m ass d isc o n te n t
a g a in st a co n v e n ie n t s c ap e g o at: it w as h o p e d t h a t th e socialism o f the
im becile m ig h t replace th e m o r e d a n g e r o u s variety. E v e n so, it is a m istak e
to exa g g erate o fficial com p licity or leadership: m a n y p o g r o m s w ere r a th e r
p o p u la r en terprises, s u p p o r te d by th e u r b a n p o o r o f U k r a in ia n or
L ith u a n i a n cities, led by q u ite u n o ffic ia l local d e m a g o g e s . 7
T h e a t titu d e o f H u n g a r i a n g o v e r n m e n ts a f te r 1867 d iffe re d s h a rp ly fro m
th a t o f the R ussian. T h e H u n g a r i a n rulers, t h o u g h them selves no b le m en
a n d social conservatives, w ere m e n o f liberal o rig in ( m a n y h a d ta k e n p a r t in
th e r e v o lu tio n o f 1848-49). T h e y w elc o m e d c a p ita lism , w hich they expected
w o u ld m a k e H u n g a r y s tr o n g e r , a n d they a p p r e c ia te d the ability o f the Jews
to p r o m o t e it. T h ey also f a v o u r e d th e g r o w th o f th e p ro fe ssio n s a n d o f
M a g y a r literatu re a n d c u ltu re , in w hich also th e y w ere glad to see the
Je w ish ac h ievem ent. T h e y h a d n o r e a so n to fear re v o lu tio n a r y activity by
th e Jew s. It is tru e th a t s o m e Je w s w ere lead ing social d e m o c r a ts , leaders o f
th e B u d a p e s t w o rk in g class; b u t this class they did n o t co n s id e r d a n g e ro u s.
T h e r e w ere tw o p o te n tia lly r e v o lu tio n a ry d an g e rs in H u n g a r y : the landless
o r d w a r f- h o ld in g p ea sa n ts a n d the n o n - M a g y a r n a tio n s. W ith the first o f
these th e Je w s h a d n o c o n ta c t, w ith th e second n o s y m p a th y . H u n g a r ia n
Je w s in the n o r t h e r n a n d e a ste rn p rovinces w ere ferv en t M a g y a r p a trio ts,
h a t e f u l t o S lovaks a n d R o m a n ia n s b u t m o s t a c c e p ta b le to the H u n g a r ia n
g o v e r n m e n t. T h e re w as a nti-sem itic feeling in H u n g a r y , d u e to the causes
m e n tio n e d earlier, b u t H u n g a r i a n g o v e rn m e n ts gave it n o e n c o u r a g e m e n t.
T h u s o n th e eve o f th e F irs t W o r ld W a r it was in R ussia, a n d to a m u c h
lesser ex ten t in R o m a n ia , th a t p ro sp ec ts w ere d a r k fo r Jew s, a n d th a t the
r o a d to assim ilatio n a n d a d v a n c e m e n t seem ed closed. In G e r m a n y ,
A u s tr ia a n d H u n g a r y it w o u ld hav e r e q u ir e d u n u s u a l p r o p h e tic gifts to
foresee t h a t w ith in a few d ecades all Jew s w o u ld be in m o r ta l peril.

T h e id e a t h a t J e r u s a le m is th e h o m e o f th e Jew s, a n d t h a t th e y sh o u ld o n e
d a y r e tu r n there, was d ee ply im p la n te d in th e w h o le J u d a ic religious a n d
c u ltu r a l tr a d itio n , w h ich h a d b e e n m a in ta in e d f o r cen turies in the
d ia s p o ra . T h e idea t h a t Je w s sh o u ld hav e th e ir o w n sta te h a d b e e n sug­
gested in recen t tim es b y individuals, b o t h G entile a n d Je w ish ; a m o n g the
latter, by R a b b i H ir sh K alish er (1795-1874) a n d b y M o se s H ess (1812-75),
w h o se b o o k R om e and Jerusalem a p p e a r e d in 1862.
G r e a t e r urg en c y was given t o the idea b y th e a n ti- Je w ish policies o f the
R u ssian g o v e r n m e n t fo llo w in g th e a s sa ss in a tio n o f A le x a n d e r II. D u rin g
1881 a n d 1882 was f o r m e d a n a s so c ia tio n o f L overs o f Z io n (H ovevei
 D iaspora N ations 395

Zion), w ith b ra n c h e s in v a rio u s Jew ish c o m m u n itie s in L ith u a n ia , P o la n d ,

U k r a in e a n d R o m a n ia . Its leading figure w as R a b b i S a m u e l M o hilever
(1824-98) o f R a d o m . S o m e o f its m e m b e r s w ere able to establish agric u l­
tu r a l settlem ents in P ale stin e , th e first o f w h ich was n a m e d R ish o n -le-Z io n
( ‘F irst to Z i o n ’) a n d loc ate d so u th o f J a f f a . In 1882 also w as p u b lis h ed in
Berlin a p a m p h le t entitled A uto-E m an zipation , by L eo P in s k e r , a Jew ish
d o c t o r in O d essa. P i n k i e r co n s id e re d t h a t a n ti- Je w ish feelings w ere
in e ra d ica b le a m o n g th e h o st n a tio n s; th a t Je w s c o u ld never w in their
esteem o r frie n d sh ip by acts o r a r g u m e n ts ; a n d th a t th e o n ly so lu tio n was
f o r Jew s to m a k e them selves m a ste rs o f their o w n destin y instea d o f
d e p e n d in g o n the goodw ill o f o th e rs. T h e Je w s m u s t find a h o m e la n d o f
their o w n — n o t necessarily P a le s tin e — a n d o rg a n ise th e ir o w n life there.
N eith er th e a r g u m e n ts o f P in sk e r n o r the e x a m p le o f H ovevei Zion m a d e
m u c h im p a ct o n th e Jew s, even in Russia. Betw een 1882 a n d 1903 a b o u t
25,000 Jew s w ent to P alestine: this first w av e o f e m ig r a tio n b e c a m e k n o w n
to la ter Jew ish h isto ria n s as th e first ‘a s c e n t’ ( aliah ) to Z io n . T h ey m e t w ith
g re a t difficulties, b u t m a n a g e d to m a in ta in them selves, largely ow in g to
financial assistance f r o m th e F ren ch Jew ish b a r o n , E d m o n d de R othschild.
F o r m o st Jew s in R ussia tw o o th e r o u tle ts seem ed p r e fe ra b le to Z io n ism .
O n e was socialism , w hich in its v arious f o rm s a ttr a c t e d m a n y intellectuals,
w o rk e rs a n d p o o r middle-class Jews in P o l a n d , L i t h u a n i a a n d U k ra in e . T h e
o th e r w as e m ig r a tio n to th e N ew W o r l d : b e tw e en 1881 a n d 1914 a b o u t tw o
m illion Je w s e n te re d the U n ite d S tate s, w h e re they m a d e their w ay in
th a t m e ltin g -p o t o f peoples, d o in g r a th e r b e tte r f o r them selves t h a n m o st
o th e r im m ig r a n t g r o u p s , th a n k s to their in h e re n t abilities a n d m u tu a l help.
T h e m a n w h o la u n c h e d Z io n ism as a n in te r n a tio n a l political fo rce
was T h e o d o r H erzl (1860-1904). H is f a m o u s b o o k D er Judenstaat, w hich
a p p e a r e d in 1896, said little th a t h a d n o t b een said earlier b y H ess o r P in sk er.
M o r e im p o r ta n t w as the p erso n a lity o f th e m a n . B o rn in B u d a p e st, he
m a d e a ca reer in V ie n n a as a jo u r n a l is t a n d w riter. H e w ro te fo r th e Neue
Freie P ress? th e o u ts t a n d in g V iennese n e w sp a p e r, a n d th e o r g a n o f
successful, a ssim ilationist, c u ltu re d fcaisertreu Jew ish o p in io n . H e spent
se veral years in P a r is in th e early 1890s a n d w itn essed th e a nti-sem itism o f
M a u r r a s a n d his s c hool, reflected in th e D re y fu s A ff a ir. It w as this w hich
c o n v in c e d H e rz l o f th e in e ra d ica b le a n d d a n g e r o u s c h a r a c te r o f a n t i­
sem itism . I f even in F ra n c e , th e m o s t civilised c o u n t r y in th e w o rld , h ate
ca m p a ig n s a g a in st Je w s o n a m ass scale w ere possible, th e n Je w s c o u ld n o t
be secure in a n y c o u n t r y in w h ich th e y w ere o n ly guests. T h e r e m u s t be a
Je w ish state. H e rz l n o t on ly p r o c la im e d this idea, b u t w o r k e d tirelessly to
p u t it in to p ractice. H e h a d a m a g n etic p e r so n a lity a n d im m e n s e energy.
H e travelled th r o u g h E u r o p e , interview in g princes a n d m iniste rs, th e
G e r m a n e m p e r o r a n d th e O t t o m a n g r a n d vizier. H e c r e a te d th e W o r ld
Z io n ist O r g a n is a tio n , w hich held its first congress in Basel in 1897, an d
396 N ations and States

m e t th e r e a f te r every y ea r u p to th e First W o r ld W a r . H e inspire d loyalty

a n d e n th u sia sm , a n d w h e n he died o th e rs c o n tin u e d his w o rk .
T h e results w ere n o t a t first v ery impressive. T h e best o f fe r received
f r o m a g o v e r n m e n t was f r o m the British: a p o r tio n o f U g a n d a fo r Jewish
se ttle m en t. T h is was discussed by the 8th Z ion ist C o n g re s s in 1904 a n d
t u r n e d d o w n . I m m ig r a tio n in to P ale stine inc re ase d , b u t w as still small: it
n o w in c lu d ed co nvince d socialists, w h o decided th a t m e m b e r s h ip o f a
E u r o p e a n socialist p a r ty ( G e r m a n o r A u s tr ia n so c ial-d e m o crac y , R ussian
M e n sh e v is m o r B olshevism ), o r activity in a specifically Jew ish socialist
m o v e m e n t in a E u r o p e a n c o u n t r y (the Bund in R ussia a n d P o la n d ) , did
n o t m e e t their needs; a n d w h o th e re fo r e p r e f e r re d t o set u p Jew ish socialist
c o m m u n itie s o n P a le stin ia n soil. T h u s w ere f o r m e d the first kvu tzo t, fro m
w h ich later em erged th e specific fo rm o f th e kibbutz.
V ery im p o r ta n t also f o r th e f u tu r e was the d e v e lo p m e n t o f H e b r e w as a
m o d e r n s p o k e n la n g u ag e . F o r centuries p as t th e effective la n g u ag e o f the
Jew s o f E a s te r n E u r o p e h a d bee n Y iddish, basically G e r m a n w ith a large
a d m ix tu r e o f Slav a n d H e b r e w w o rd s. A c o n s id e ra b le lite ra tu re a n d
d r a m a existed in Y iddish. T h e p ioneers in P ale stine b e c a m e c onv ince d th a t
th e n a t io n a l lan g u ag e o f th e Je w s m u s t be n o t Y iddish b u t H e b re w . In the
lon g w o rk o f d e v e loping a n d p o p u la risin g H e b r e w , ov er m a n y years, the
c h ie f figure was Eliezer P e r lm a n , k n o w n as Ben Y e h u d a . H e, m o r e th a n
a n y o th e r single m a n , is resp onsible fo r the v ig o ro u s g r o w t h o f H eb rew
a n d its a d o p t io n by successive g e n e ra tio n s o f Je w s in Palestine.
A t th e tim e, all this m a d e little im p re ssio n o n Jew ish o p in io n . In p a r ti­
c u lar, th e W o r ld Z io n ist O rg a n is a tio n received little financial help fro m
rich Je w s in E u r o p e o r A m e r ia . O cc asio n al o u tra g e s, like th e p o g r o m s in
R u s sia b etw e en 1903 a n d 1906, o r th e Beilis T rial o f 1 9 1 3 / a r o u s e d the
s y m p a th y o f Jew s all o v er th e w orld; b u t fo r the m o s t p a r t, Jew s w ere to o
b u sy w ith th e ir daily lives in th e co u n tries o f w hich th e y w ere citizens to
m a k e m u c h e f f o rt to s u p p o r t a lo n g -te rm political e f f o r t o n b e h a lf o f
Z io n ism . T h e in te r n a tio n a l Je w ish co n s p ira cy d e v o te d to d a r k Z ion ist
p u rp o s e s , d e a r to an ti-sem itic p olem ists, d id n o t exist. M o r e th a n this, the
b u lk o f Je w s in G e r m a n y , A u s tr ia , H u n g a r y , F r a n c e a n d B ritain were
c o n t e n t to be as sim ilated to th e cu ltu re o f th e h o s t n a t io n . T h e y m a in ­
ta in e d th e ir c o m m u n a l a n d religious loyalties ( th o u g h o f m a n y , even this
w as n o t tru e), b u t th e y felt as G e r m a n s , M a g y a r s , F r e n c h m e n o r E n g lish ­
m e n . T h e y h a d n o wish to cre ate a new Jew ish n a t io n o r a Jew ish state:
th o se w h o h a d this wish a p p e a r e d t o th e m a m e re n u isance.
T h e o u t b r e a k o f th e E u r o p e a n w a r in 1914 set th e Je w s o f E u r o p e
a g a in st ea ch o th e r, w hile th e sy m p a th ie s o f A m e r ic a n Je w s w ere also
d ivide d. M o st Jew s w ere h o stile to im pe rial R ussia, especially a f te r the
a nti-sem itic b rutalities o f R u s sia n arm ies in o cc u p ie d G alicia in 1914-15.
M ost Jew s also w elc om e d th e R ussian R e v o lu tio n . T h e r e were, how ever,
 D iaspora N ations 397

influ e n tial Jew s o n th e A n g lo - F r e n c h side. T h e o r ie n t a tio n o f Z io n is m was

in fact decided by o n e m a n , o f a p e rso n a lity n o less r e m a r k a b le th a n
H e r z l’s: C h a im W e iz m a n n . B o rn in L ith u a n ia in 1874, W e iz m a n n lived
fo r ten years in E n g la n d , a n d b e c am e a n a d m ir e r o f British in stitu tio n s a n d
people. In 1914 he d ecid ed to stay in E n g la n d a n d set h im s e lf to w in British
political leaders to th e Z io n ist cause. His w o rk as a chem ist f o r the m inistry
o f m u n itio n s in creased his presitge. T h e d esire o f d if fe r e n t political g ro u p s
to e n s u re a s tro n g British p o sitio n in the M id d le E a s t a f te r th e w a r gave
h im his o p p o r tu n ity . It is in de ed a r g u a b le th a t th e B a lf o u r D e c la r a tio n o f
N o v e m b e r 1917 was designed to f u rth e r th e aim s b o th o f Jew ish n a t io n a l­
ism a n d o f British im pe rialism , w hich a t th a t m o m e n t co in cided w ith each
o th e r. H o w ev er, this is n o t to say very m u c h . T h e re w ere o th e r British
im perialists w h o believed t h a t th eir aim s c o u ld be b e tte r secured by
s u p p o r tin g A r a b n atio n alists, a n d inde ed at this sa m e tim e n eg o tia tio n s
w ere p ro ce ed in g w ith th e m , a n d vag ue b u t essentially in c o m p a tib le
p ro m ise s w ere given to b o t h sides. T h is co m p le x sto ry , w hich h a s o fte n
been to ld w ith v aryin g degrees o f p a rtia lity , has m a n y aspects; b u t an
essential p a r t o f it is the p erso n a l r e la tio n sh ip o f C h a im W e iz m a n n a n d
A r t h u r B a lfo u r. W e iz m a n n ’s belief in B ritain, a n d B a lf o u r ’s co n v e rsio n
t o th e Z io n ist cause, w ere n o t sim ply b as ed o n m a te ria l interests. In the
w o rd s o f a recent h isto ria n o f Z io n ism , ‘B a l f o u r . . . h a d th e feeling th a t he
was in s tru m e n ta l in rig hting a w ro n g o f w o rld -h isto rica l d im e n sio n s, q uite
irrespective o f th e ch a n g in g w orld s it u a ti o n ’. 9

T h e M a n d a t e 10 over P ale stine , c o n f ir m e d to Britain by th e L ea g u e o f

N a tio n s in 1922, w as ex pected to p r o m o t e b o th British in terests a n d Jew ish
a s p ira tio n s . But b o th w ere c o n f r o n te d w ith a m a j o r p r o b le m to w hich little
a t te n t io n h a d been given.
P ale stin e w as a lre ad y in h a b ite d by a b o u t a m illion A r a b s , w hose
an c e s to rs h a d lived th e re fo r longer th a n th e w ho le p erio d o f O ld T e s t a ­
m e n t Jew ish history. A few Jew ish colon ists w ere a c c e p ta b le to t h e m , b u t
th e p ro sp e c t o f large-scale Jew ish se ttle m en t was n o t. T h e A r a b s feared
th a t they w o u ld be d e p riv e d o f this la n d , a n d th a t the e n d o f th e O t t o m a n
regim e w o u ld th u s b rin g th e m n o t fre e d o m b u t a n o t h e r f o r m o f foreign
r u l e . 11 T h e Jew ish leaders dism issed these fears. T h e y a rg u e d th a t there
w o u ld be r o o m f o r all in P ale stine , a n d Jew ish en terp rise a n d la b o u r
w o u ld so enrich a neglected b u t n a tu ra lly rich la n d t h a t th e s t a n d a r d o f
living o f th e A r a b s to o c o u ld im p ro v e . H o w e v e r , such im p r o v e m e n ts , if
th e y t o o k p lace, w o u ld involve a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f th e e c o n o m y a n d o f
social rela tio n sh ip s w h ich w o u ld th r e a te n n o t o n ly th e inte rests o f th e
A r a b u p p e r class b u t th e w h o le w ay o f life o f th e A r a b p eo p le. T h is A r a b
m is tru s t w as never allayed, b u t grew w ith every year w h ich passed.
398 Nations and States

T h e British g o v e r n m e n t w as chiefly c o n c e rn e d w ith th e security o f the

E a s te r n M e d ite r r a n e a n a n d th e S uez C a n a l area. It did n o t wish its A ra b
subjects to be in a state o f sm o u ld e r in g d isc o n te n t. It h a d long been the view
o f p o w erfu l British im p e rial interests, a n d especially o f the g o v e r n m e n t of
India, t h a t the M uslim w o rld m u st n o t be a n ta g o n is e d . A m o r e recent, an d
increasingly im p o r ta n t, a r g u m e n t w as t h a t the e x p lo ita tio n o f oil— so vital
n o t o nly to m ilitary, nav a l a n d a ir p o w e r b u t also to th e civilian e c o n o m y —
r eq u ired g o o d relations w ith the peoples in w h o se co u n trie s the oil lay,
especially w ith Ira q , w hich h a d also b een placed by th e L eague o f N a tio n s
u n d e r British M a n d a te . British officials te n d e d t o find A r a b n o ta b le s m ore
co ngenial c o m p a n io n s t h a n J e w ish intellectuals o f E ast E u r o p e a n origin.
T hese A r a b s c o m b in e d a ce rta in d eference to British a t titu d e s o f m in d with
a M u slim tr a d itio n a lis m w hich w as a ttra c tiv e to r o m a n tic a lly m in de d
E nglish m en; while th e J e w s h a d been b r o u g h t u p in a G e r m a n or R u ssian
cu ltu ral clim ate q uite unlike th e British, a n d sh o w ed a d istressing a d d ic tio n
to a b s tr a c t political a n d social ideas. All these thin g s inclined British
officials o n the s p o t to f a v o u r the A ra b s a n d to m inim ise Je w ish im m ig ra ­
tion. T h e Je w ish cause h a d th e s u p p o r t o f the first high co m m issio n er, Sir
H e r b e r t S am u e l, a n d o f influential g r o u p s in E n gla n d ; b u t th e views o f the
E n g lish m en o n the sp o t p ro v e d m o re im p o r t a n t th a n th o se held in L o n d o n .
In the first p o st-w a r years so m e 35,000 Je w s c a m e to P alestine, devoted
Z ionists d e te rm in e d to build a new society. In 1920 H istadrut, the trad e
u n io n o r g a n isa tio n , w as set up, a n d in th e follow ing years it created
b a n k in g , in su ran c e a n d in d u s tria l enterprises, b e c o m in g a m a jo r ec o n o m ic
force. U n d e r th e M a n d a te , b o t h A ra b s a n d Je w s h a d th e ir o w n institutions,
w h ich d ea lt w ith the British a u th o ritie s o n b e h a lf o f th e ir co m m u n ities. O n
th e Je w ish side th e m o s t i m p o r t a n t w ere th e Knesset, o r elected assembly,
a n d th e Je w is h A gency, w h ich c o n tro lle d w h a t w ere in effect g o v e rn m e n t
d e p a r tm e n t s for the Je w ish p o p u la tio n . In 1929 w as fo rm e d the first
kib b u tz, a t D eg a n ia. T h is w as a new f o r m o f large-scale v o lu n ta r y col­
lective fa rm . T h e kibbutzim achieved g re a t successes in a g r ic u ltu re in the
c o a sta l plain a n d th e G alilee area.
T h e B alfour D e c la r a tio n h a d p ro m ise d a ‘n a t io n a l h o m e ’ fo r the Je w s in
P alestine, n o t a Je w ish state. T his lim ited a n d u n d e fin a b le aim was
acce p te d by the Je w ish leaders. S o m e a t te m p ts w ere m a d e to reach
a g re e m e n t betw een Je w ish a n d A r a b leaders, b u t o n n e ith e r side did the
m ost influential p erso n s ta k e m u c h tr o u b le to u n d e r s ta n d th e feelings of
the oth er. C o o p e r a tio n a n d civilised disc u ssio n b etw e en Je w s a n d A ra b s
were con fin e d to a sm all n u m b e r o f intellectuals w ith little follow ing. Haj
A m in al-H u ssa in i, w h o b e c am e g r a n d m u fti o f J e r u s a le m in 1921, was a n
im plac ab le e n e m y o f th e Jew s. T h ere w ere a n ti- J e w is h riots in 1922. M o r e
serious w as a wave o f a tta c k s by A r a b s o n J e w ish settle m en ts in A ug u st
1929, in w hich m o r e th a n 100 Je w s w ere killed.
 Diaspora Nations 399

M e an w h ile in E a ste rn E u r o p e the s itu a tio n o f Je w s was w orse t h a n it had

been before 1914. In P o la n d (w here th e re w ere m o re t h a n th ree million
Jew s) g o v e rn m e n ts w ere n o t actively anti-sem itic, but th e y did n o th in g
effective to p r o te c t Je w s f r o m p o p u la r hostility, in c luding acts o f violence.
P ilsudski, w h o b e c am e d ic ta t o r in 1926, w as c o m p a r a tiv e ly friendly to the
Polish Jew s, b u t this w as n o t tru e o f th e officials w h o carried o u t his
policies. In H u n g a r y the s itu a tio n o f Je w s was tra n s f o r m e d by the
r e v o lu tio n o f 1918 a n d the c o m m u n is t regim e o f 1919. T h e H u n g a r ia n
co nservative politicians, w h o re tu rn e d to p o w e r in the c o u n te r -r e v o lu tio n
led by A d m ira l H o r t h y , were now te rrified o f socialism a n d c o m m u n is m ,
w hich, as e x p lain e d a b o v e , h a d n o t a la r m e d th e m before 1914. M a n y o f the
c o m m u n is t a n d socialist le aders had been Jew s. T h e identification o f ‘the
J e w s ’ w ith ‘godless re v o lu tio n ’ a n d ‘ath eistic socialism ’, ch a racteristic o f
the R u ssian political class fro m 1881 to 1917, was n o w also largely ac cepted
by th e c o rre s p o n d in g class in H u n g a ry . U n d e r th e regim e o f C o u n t S tep h e n
Bethlen, a c onservative o f the old school, f r o m 1921 to 1931 H u n g a r ia n
Je w s once m o r e enjoyed the old o p p o r tu n itie s in e c o n o m ic a n d cu ltu ral
life, b u t their p o sitio n w as n o w p rec ario u s. In R o m a n ia the s itu a tio n was
n o t unlike th at o f P o la n d . T h e ruling R o m a n i a n politicians ac cepted an
u neasy p a r tn e rs h ip w ith J e w ish business, a n d to le rate d J e w ish influence in
the professions, b u t below th e surface a n tirsem itism w as strong.
T h e w o rld d ep re ssio n o f the early 1930s w as a tu r n in g - p o in t. In all three
o f these co u n trie s m ass p o verty , p e a sa n t misery a n d u n e m p lo y m e n t in the
professions p rov ided o p p o r tu n itie s fo r a nti-sem itic m o v e m en ts. T h e m ost
im p o r ta n t o f these w as the R o m a n i a n Iro n G u a r d , w hich ac q u ire d
so m e th in g o f the c h a r a c te r o f a m ass re v o lu tio n a r y m o v e m e n t, firmly
based o n the ‘socialism o f the im becile’. In b o th H u n g a r y a n d P o la n d , a n ti­
sem itism was to be f o u n d b o th w ithin th e g o v e r n m e n t c a m p a n d in the
radical right o p p o sitio n . M o s t d is a stro u s o f all, how ever, w as the a d v e n t to
p o w e r in G e r m a n y o f A d o lf H itler, w ith his p ro cla im e d policy o f ‘ridd ing
G e r m a n y o f th e Je w ish p o is o n ’.
Between 1922 a n d 1926, so m e 60,000 Je w s c a m e to P alestine, m ostly
fro m P o la n d . A fter H itle r to o k over in G e r m a n y , th e d e m a n d f o r Jew ish
im m ig r a tio n rapidly increased. T h e n u m b e r betw een 1934 a n d 1939
r eached a b o u t 225,000. B oth these w aves consisted far less o f d evoted
Z io n ist pio neers t h a n o f refugees try in g to esca pe p ersecution. A rg u m e n ts
fo r increased J e w ish se ttle m en t in P ale stin e w ere n o w m a in ly h u m a n i t a r ­
ian. T h e A ra b s, h ow eve r, q uite ju stly p o in te d o u t th a t th e y w ere n o t to
b la m e for the cruelties o f E u r o p e a n g o v e r n m e n ts, a n d t h a t th e y sh o u ld n o t
b e a r th e cost. Je w ish o p in io n grew m o r e ra d ic a l a n d im p a tie n t. A lre a d y in
th e 1920s th e brilliant Z io n ist le a d e r V la d im ir J a b o t i n s k y h a d been
insisting th a t th e re m u s t be a Je w ish sovereign sta te in P alestine, a n d th a t
there m ust be a J e w ish arm y . T h e Havana, th e defence force s u p p o r te d by
400 Nations and States

the H istadrut, was felt to be to o passive. In 1925 J a b o t i n s k y s e t u p his ow n

I n te r n a tio n a l U n io n o f Revisionist Z io nists, a n d in 1931 his followers
c re ate d a s e p arate n a t io n a l m ilitary o r g a n is a tio n (Irgun Zvai Leumi).
T h e British a u th o ritie s c o n tin u e d , inevitably, to vacillate betw een the
Je w ish a n d A r a b cam ps. T h ey p e rm itte d a su b s ta n tia l increase in im m ig r a ­
tion, a n d the A ra b s replied b y a large-scale a r m e d in su rre c tio n in 1936.
T his was follow ed by th e a p p o i n t m e n t o f a royal c o m m issio n u n d e r L ord
Peel, w hich re p o rte d in J u ly 1937. It recognised th a t there was an
irrepressible conflict betw een the tw o c o m m u n itie s, a n d p ro p o se d a
p a r titio n o f Palestine in to a Je w ish a n d a n A r a b state. T h e p ro p o sals did
n o t please th e Jew s, fo r th e ir state was to be very small, a n d they were
rejected o u trig h t by th e A ra b s. T h e British g o v e r n m e n t ev e ntually rejected
the Peel R e p o rt. Its W h ite P a p e r o f 1939 p ro h ib ite d sales o f land to Je w s in
m o s t o f th e c o u n try ; set a m a x i m u m figure for f u tu re Je w ish im m ig ratio n
o f 75,000 in the n ex t five years, after w hich it was to en d a ltogeth er; a n d
p r o p o s e d th a t at th a t tim e a single Palestine state sh o u ld be established
w ith a p o p u la tio n th r e e -q u a rte r s A r a b a n d o n e - q u a r te r Jew ish. T o the
Je w s this was a bitter blow. T h e ir feelings were well ex p re ssed by the slogan
th a t they s h o u ld ‘fight the British as if the Nazis did n o t exist, a n d fight the
N azis as if the W hite P a p e r did n o t e x ist’.
D u r i n g the S e c o n d W o r ld W a r the British were able to m a in ta in c o n tro l
ov er th e M id d le E a ste rn lands o f A ra b ic speech, in clu ding P alestine. T hey
ac cepted Je w ish m ilitary c o n trib u tio n s to the w a r effort, b u t resisted
Je w ish political d e m a n d s in o r d e r n o t to a n ta g o n is e A r a b o p in io n fro m
Ira q to E gypt. T h e J e w ish p o sitio n w as truly tragic. T h e y h a d to su p p o r t
Britain a g a in st their m o r ta l en e m y H itler, yet th e British g o v e r n m e n t to o
sh ow ed itself by its policies to be their en em y. Even the sm all n u m b e rs of
Je w s w h o succeeded in esca p in g fro m H itle r’s E u r o p e in the 1940s were
refused e n try in to P alestine.
M e a n w h ile H itle r passed fro m the stag e o f cruel p erse cu tio n a n d denial
o f a livelihood to Je w s to th e stage o f ‘final s o lu tio n ’— physical e x t e r m in a ­
tion. Je w s f r o m th e te rrito rie s directly c o n tro lle d by H itler w ere co n c e n ­
tr a te d in c a m p s in o cc up ie d P o la n d ; a n d the g o v e r n m e n ts allied to H itler
w ere pressed to d e p o r t th e ir Je w s to th e sam e d e s tin a tio n . T h e r e they were
d e s tro y e d in gas c h a m b e r s w ith gases specially designed to d o the jo b
e c o n o m ic a lly a n d efficiently. A b o u t six m illio n p e rso n s w ere e x te r m in a te d
betw een 1942 a n d 1944. A n eye-witness d escrib ed in a w ritte n re p o r t how,
in one o f these centres, m en , w o m e n a n d ch ild ren w ere p a c k e d n a k e d into
the c h a m b e rs , o f a v o lu m e o f 45 cubic m e tres a n d e a c h c o n ta in in g 750
persons; h o w they w ere k ep t w aiting in th is sta te fo r 2 h o u r s a n d 49 m in u tes
until the gas c ould be tu r n e d on; a n d h o w 32 m in u te s la ter the last victim
was d e a d . 12 T h e R o m a n i a n g o v e r n m e n t o f M a r s h a l Io n A n to n e s c u refused
to d e p o r t its Je w s to th e d e a th cam ps. S o did th e H u n g a r ia n regent A d m ira l
 Diaspora Nations 401

H o r t h y until M a rc h 1944, afte r w hich th e H u n g a r ia n g o v e r n m e n t led by

G e n e ra l D o m e S zto ja y c om plie d w ith H itle r’s wishes. T h e ex c e p tio n were
the Je w s o f the city o f B udapest. H o r t h y p erso n a lly p ro te c te d th e m , an d
th o u s a n d s o f individu al H u n g a r ia n families helped to give Je w s r efu g e.13
S o m e o f these thin gs b e c am e k n o w n in Palestine, a n d the m o o d o f the
Je w ish leaders grew m o r e frantic. As th e d a n g e r to the M id d le East
receded, the need to d efend British interests d im inishe d. In the in te r n a tio n ­
al Z io n ist m o v e m e n t, W e iz m a n n , w h o re m a in e d d e v o te d to B ritain, had
lost m u c h o f his influence. D avid Ben G u ri o n , w h o n o w bec am e the
o u ts ta n d in g leader, d e m a n d e d , a t a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y Z io n ist co n fe re n ce held
in the B iltm ore H otel in N ew Y ork fro m 9 to 11 M a y 1942, th a t u nrestricted
Je w ish im m ig ratio n into Palestine s h o u ld be allow ed, a n d th a t a Jew ish
state be established afte r th e w ar. As the British refused these d e m a n d s , the
Jew ish c o m m u n ity in P alestine was in effect in a sta te of hostilities w ith the
British. T h e lrgun Zvai Leumi resorted to a r m e d te r r o r a g a in st British
soldiers a n d civilians. L o rd M o y n e , th e British m inister residen t in the
M id d le East, was assassinated in C a ir o o n 6 N o v e m b e r 1944. T h ere
followed f o u r years o f guerrilla w arfa re in P alestine, o f in te rn a tio n a l
d ip lo m a c y a n d o f a r g u m e n t in the U nited N atio n s. Both the U nited S tates
a n d the Soviet U n io n su p p o r te d the c r e a tio n o f the state o f Israel. T he
British g o v e r n m e n t stated th a t, w hen the M a n d a te e n d e d in M a y 1948,
British forces w o u ld be w ith d raw n .
T h e o p e r a tio n o f British rule in the last years in effect fa v o u r e d the
A rabs: the Jew s, w h o were a n u m e rical m in o rity , could o nly a r m an d
organise them selves in spite o f British repression. They faced n o t only
resistance fro m the P ale stin ian A ra b s b u t invasion by the a rm ie s of the
n eig h b o u rin g states. O n 14 M a y 1948 th e p ro v isio n a l p a r lia m e n t, the
Z io n ist N a tio n a l C o u n c il, pro cla im e d the state o f Israel in Tel Aviv. T h e
w idespread e x p e c ta tio n th a t Israel w o u ld be cru sh e d was belied by events.
T h e kibbutzim a n d o th e r local c o m m u n itie s d efe n d ed themselves, a regular
a r m y was fo rm e d , a n d o n 24 F e b r u a r y 1949 a n arm istic e was signed w ith
Egypt, follow ed in the n ex t five m o n th s by arm istices w ith T r a n s jo r d a n ,
L e b a n o n a n d S yria. A t th e cost o f 14,000 casualties in a Je w ish p o p u la tio n
o f 650,000, a Je w ish state was es tablished in m o re th a n h a lf o f Palestine.

Israel
T he new state w as sm all a n d u n d e r p o p u la te d , since the g r e a te r p a r t o f the
A r a b population h a d fled o r bee n expelled. T h e Israeli leaders w ere d e te r ­
m ined to a t tr a c t as m a n y Jew ish im m ig r a n ts as possible. A n y p e r s o n o f J e w ­
ish origin was given by Israeli law the right to becom e a n Israeli citizen. T h e
first flood o f im m ig ra n ts c a m e m ainly f r o m E u ro p e , c o n sistin g o f p ersons
402 Nations and States

w h o h a d g o o d r ea so n to believe t h a t th ere was n o fu tu re fo r Je w s in the

c o u n trie s o f th e ir birth. In th e 1950s th e E u r o p e a n influx d im inishe d , but
im m ig r a n ts fr o m A sian a n d A fric an co u n trie s increased , as renew ed crises
in the rela tio n s betw een Israel a n d c o u n trie s o f A ra b ic speech led to the
d e s tru c tio n o f Je w ish c o m m u n itie s in those la n d s (in p a rtic u la r, in Iraq,
M o r o c c o a n d Egypt). By 1970 m o re t h a n 1,300,000 im m ig r a n ts had com e
to Israel, o f w h o m 604,451 were fro m E u r o p e a n d A m e r ic a a n d 711,582
f ro m A sia a n d Africa. T h e im m ig r a n ts in th e co u rse o f tim e p ro d u c e d
children a n d g ran d c h ild re n . O f a to ta l Je w ish p o p u la tio n in Israel of
2.561.000 in 1970, 1,182,000 (46 per cent) h a d been b o r n th e re (o f w h o m
234.000 were c hildren o f p a re n ts b o r n in Israel); 704,100 h a d been b o r n in
E u r o p e o r A m erica; a n d 674,400 had been b o r n in A sia o r A fr ic a .14
T h e n o n - Je w ish p o p u la tio n r e m a in in g in Israel in 1950-51 n u m b e re d
173,400; by 1968 it h a d g r o w n to 406,000.15 T h e m a jo r ity h a d fled; som e of
the conseq u e n ces o f th e flight a n d ex p u lsio n s have been discussed a b o v e . 16
T h e to ta l Je w ish p o p u la tio n o f Israel w as o f c o u rse on ly a m in o rity o f the
n u m b e r o f Je w s in the w orld. In 1948 it w as nearly 6 p e r c e n t, a n d in 1972 it
was a b o u t 20 per cent. T h e largest Je w ish c o m m u n ity in the w orld was in
th e U nited S tate s (5,800,000). In the Soviet U n io n in 1970 the n u m b e r of
Je w s w as estim a ted as 2,151,000.17 T h u s the Je w s have been since 1948, like
th e A rm e n ia n s a n d th e G re ek s b u t u nlike the Je w s befo re the c re a tio n of
Israel, a p eople w ith b o th a h o m e la n d a n d a d ia s p o ra . T h e d ia s p o ra is
h ow eve r m o r e n u m e r o u s th a n th e p o p u la tio n o f the h o m e la n d .
Israel h a d to face fro m the b e ginning the im p lac ab le hostility o f all the
states o f A ra b ic speech, a n d especially o f E gypt, J o r d a n a n d Syria. This
hostility p ro v e d to be th e single m o s t im p o r t a n t f a c to r in w elding the
Je w is h p eople o f Israel, o f such diverse origins, into a single n a tio n . 1'he
A r a b states refused to a d m it the existence o f Israel, a n d refused to establish
regula r d ip lo m a tic o r c o m m e r c ia l rela tio n s w ith it. In practice, c o n tac ts
across th e frontiers w ere sp o ra d ic a n d o n a very sm all scale. T h re e tim es
afte r 1949 Israel f o u g h t a w a r a g a in st its n eig h b o u rs: in N o v e m b e r 1956, at
th e tim e o f th e in te r n a tio n a l ‘S uez’ crisis; in J u n e 1967, afte r the E g yptian
a t t e m p t to b lo c k a d e the G u lf o f A q a b a ; a n d in O c to b e r 1973, w hen
E g yptia ns a n d S yrians a tta c k e d Israeli-held te rr ito r y w h ich had form erly
been theirs. O n th e first tw o occasions th e Israeli a r m y w o n a t once
o v e rw h e lm in g victories; a n d o n th e th ir d , a f te r s o m e reverses d u e to
surprise, they d ro v e th e ir assailan ts bac k . A r a b hostility ho w ev e r r em a in ed
u n ch a n g ed .
T h e second fa c to r w h ich w elded the Israelis to g e th e r w as th e use of
H eb rew as th e language o f private a n d public in te rco u rse. T h e p ion e erin g
w o rk o f Ben Y e h u d a has a lre a d y been m e n tio n e d . A m o d e r n im aginative
literature in H eb rew a p p e a r e d , a n d th e H e b re w press a n d b ro a d c a s tin g
flourished. A t first th e re were difficulties a b o u t the f o rm s o f H ebrew
 Diaspora Nations 403

( A sh k en az y , S e p h a r d ic a n d Yem enite), a n d still m o re a b o u t th e p r o n u n c ia ­

tion. T he o ld e r g e n e r a tio n o f Je w s f r o m E a ste rn E u r o p e c o n tin u e d to
ex pre ss themselves m o r e easily in th e lan g u ag e o f th e ir land o f birth
( G e rm a n , Polish, R u s sia n , R o m a n ia n , H u n g a r ia n a n d m o st o f all Y id­
dish), but they le arned to sp e a k H e b re w as a new language. T h e ir children
grew up spe ak in g H ebrew . T h e p r o n u n c ia tio n f a v o u red in public life (an d
especially p r o m o te d by b ro a d c a stin g ) was closer to the A sia n , Yemeni
form ; indeed closer to A ra b ic th a n to E u r o p e a n languages. T h e c om plete
a c ce p ta n ce by y o u n g Israelis o f H e b re w , a n d th e ir d e v e lo p m e n t o f it as a
vigo rou s Semitic lang u ag e , w as of the grea test p sychological im p o rta n c e . It
helped all Israelis to th in k o f them selves as the people o f the c o u n try , a
people o f the M iddle East, n o t as a n a p p e n d ix to E urope.
T h e third fac to r, o f great bu t barely m e a su ra b le im p o r ta n c e , in the
c re atio n o f Israeli n a tio n a l consciousness was th e J u d a i c religion. Israel
was in tend ed to be a secular state, a n d m a n y o f the political le aders after
1948 w ere n o t believers. T h e p a rty system , how ever, m a d e it necessary for
g o v e r n m e n ts to enlist the s u p p o r t o f the religious p arties a n d , in re tu rn for
this, concessions h a d to be m a d e — in p a rtic u la r, th e refusal o f civil
m a rria g e a n d restrictions to ensure respect for the S a b b a t h . H ow ever, the
influence o f J u d a is m o n the life o f Israelis, a n d on the f o r m a tio n o f Israeli
n a tio n a l consciousness, can certainly n o t. b e e x p lain e d in te rm s o f party
m a n o e u v re s, or lim ited to professed believers. T h e m o r a l a n d cu ltu ral
heritage o f J u d a i s m is m u c h wider, a n d is c e rtainly n o t less th a n the
influence o f the C h r istia n heritage o n th e secularised societies o f E u ro p e
an d A m erica. T h e im p o r ta n t difference is o f course th a t J u d a i s m is limited
to Jew s, a n d the religious heritage th u s directly reinforces n a tio n a l c o n ­
sciousness.
T h u s all three m a in factors, identified in th e first c h a p te r as im p o r t a n t to
th e f o rm a tio n o f n a tio n a l c o n s cio u sn e ss— state, la n g u ag e a n d religion—
o p e r a te d in the case o f Israel. A n Israeli n a t io n em erged. It is also very
im p o r ta n t th a t the artificial social stru c tu re , ch a racteristic o f Jew ish
c o m m u n itie s in the d ia s p o ra , ceased to exist. Je w ish ta len ts in business an d
in the intellectual profe ssion s were o f c o u rse richly av aila b le in Israel, but
all the o th e r social g ro u p s required in a n a d v a n c e d u r b a n is e d a n d industrial
society— w o rk e rs in in dustry, t r a n s p o r t a n d a g ric u lture, clerical em ployees
a n d civil a n d m ilitary g o v e r n m e n t se rv a n ts — were also p ro v id e d by Jews.
T h e in te r n a tio n a l d a n g e r inevitably s tr e n g th e n e d n a t io n a l unity; b u t this
do es n o t m e a n th a t th e Israeli n a t io n w as n o t, like o th e r n a tio n s , d ivided by
conflicts o f interests a n d ideas. T h e r e w as a wide ra n g e o f political parties,
fro m left-wing socialists t h r o u g h th e d o m i n a n t M apai to co nserv ative
religious g ro u p s. A n o t h e r basic division, p e r h a p s m o r e i m p o r ta n t, was
between Je w s o f E u r o p e a n a n d o f O rie n ta l origin. T h e c o m m a n d i n g p osts
were overw helm in gly in the h a n d s o f E u r o p e a n s , w h o had been c o m m itte d
404 Nations and States

fo r long e r to the Z io n ist cause, a n d w h o were b e tte r e d u c a te d , th a n their

fello w -im m ig ra n ts f r o m A sia a n d Africa. D isc o n te n t grew a m o n g the
O rien ta l Je w s in the early 1970s: a m in o rity o f the la tte r half-seriously
described them selves as ‘Black P o w e r ’. C o n n e c te d w ith this was the
division betw een gene ratio n s. Y o u n g e r Israelis were g ro w in g im p a tie nt
with the political o r t h o d o x y a n d p a trio tic p u r ita n is m o f the kibbu tz elite
a n d f o u n d in g fath e rs of the state. T h ey w ould have liked less em phasis on
defence, w ider ho rizo n s o f ideas a n d reco n ciliatio n w ith the A rabs. Yet to
like so m e th in g is n o t to o b ta in it, a n d A r a b hostility r em a in ed im placable.
T h e Israeli n a tio n rem a ined only a p a r t o f the w orld Je w ish c o m m u n ity ,
yet was in e x trica bly co n n e c te d w ith it. Je w s in A m eric a, o f w h o m som e
w ere Z ionists a n d so m e were not, p r o v id ed e c o n o m ic aid; a n d the West
G e r m a n g o v e rn m e n t, sincerely m ove d by a desire, s h a re d p ro b a b ly by m ost
G e r m a n s , to m a k e som e a m e n d s for G e r m a n cruelty to Jew s, provided a
s u m of r e p a ra tio n s to the Israeli g o v e r n m e n t a n d a n o t h e r sum twice as
large in the fo rm o f p a y m e n ts to individual victims of N azism . A m eric an
a n d G e r m a n e c o n o m ic resources pro v ed essential to m a in ta in the Israeli
ec o n o m y .
In d e p e n d e n c e had been s u p p o r te d by the Soviet U n io n in 1948. H o w ev ­
er, the Soviet leaders h ad inherited the R u ssian left-wing socialists’ dislike
of Z io n ism , a n d ruthlessly d isc o u ra g ed an y interest s h o w n by their Jewish
subjects in Israel. T h e official Soviet view was th a t th e old ‘Jew ish q u e s tio n ’
o f the tim es o f the tsa rs had been ‘solved’ as a result of the Bolshevik
R e v o lu tio n . It is tru e t h a t in the first years o f the regim e the relative
s itu a tio n o f Je w s in R ussia greatly im p ro v e d , a n d th a t th e re w ere m an y
Je w s in leading positions in th e c o m m u n is t p arty , in g o v e r n m e n t service
a n d in n atio n alised in d ustry. T h e v ic tory o f S talin over T ro t s k y and
Z inoviev w as to som e e x te n t a victory o f R u ssian over Je w ish c o m m u n ists
( th o u g h S talin him self was n o t a Russian). In the G re a t P u rg e o f 1936-39
Je w ish victims were very n u m e ro u s . Je w s b e c am e increasingly suspect to
S talin by r e a so n o f the fact th a t J e w r y as suc h was a n in te rn a tio n a l
c o m m u n ity , a n d th a t th o u s a n d s o f R u s sia n Je w s h ad relatives a b r o a d . In
the last m o n th s o f S ta lin ’s life a n u n m is ta k a b le anti-sem itic tren d a p p e a re d
in the S oviet press a n d pub lic life. T his d im in ish e d in the late 1950s, but
r e a p p e a r e d as Soviet foreig n policy b e c am e increasingly c o m m itte d to
s u p p o r tin g the A r a b states. A t the en d o f the 1960s, a nti-sem itism , which
Soviet s p o k e sm e n insisted was only ‘a n t i- Z io n is m ’, led in p ractice to m u c h
d isc rim in a tio n a g a in st Soviet subjects w h o w ere Jew s. In the face of
w orldw ide criticism, th e S ov iet g o v e r n m e n t b e g a n to allow Soviet Je w s to
em ig rate to Israel. T o d o so, these Je w s h a d to exp e rien c e e c o n o m ic an d
physical persecution, yet m a n y th o u s a n d s m a d e this choice.
C o n s id e r a b le Je w ish c o m m u n itie s re m a in e d in R o m a n i a a n d H u n g a ry ,
while in P o la n d a small n u m b e r re tu rn e d fro m exile in th e Soviet U nion. In
 Diaspora Nations 405

all three cou ntries, Je w s were p r o m in e n t in th e leadership o f th e c o m m u n is t

parties in the early 1950s. T h e R o m a n i a n g o v e r n m e n t allow ed R o m a n ia n
Je w s to leave for Israel, a n d m ost in fact did so. R o m a n i a established good
relations w ith Israel, a n d m a in ta in e d th e m despite S ov iet d isa p p ro v a l.
M o st o f th o se H u n g a r ia n Je w s w ho had escaped the d e p o r ta tio n s o f 1944
rem ained in H u n g a ry . It seemed th a t an ti-sem itism was greatly reduced. In
the H u n g a r ia n R ev o lu tio n of 1956 there w ere Je w s a m o n g the le aders b oth
o f the old regim e a n d o f th e revolution aries. T h e evidence does n o t s u p p o r t
the view th a t the re v o lu tio n a ry m o v e m e n t, w hich for a tim e sw ept the
w hole co u n try , was anti-sem itic. It w as in P o la n d , w ith its tiny re m n a n t,
th a t anti-sem itism was m ost evident. It w as en c o u ra g e d by th e g o v e rn m e n t
o f W ladyslaw G o m u lk a for the sam e r e a so n as by s o m e o f the m inisters of
the ts a rs — th a t it pro vided a scap e g o at for p o p u la r d isc o n te n t. P olish Jews
were subjected to p ersecution, an d th e n in effect expelled to Israel in a
hum iliatin g m a nn er.
T h e Israelis o f 1970 had m u c h of w hich t o be p ro u d . T h ey had m a d e the
desert to flower, they h ad built excellent m o d e r n industries, schools an d
universities, a n d they h ad one o f the best arm ies in the w orld. A b o v e all,
they had becom e a n a tio n , with an h o n o u r a b le place a m o n g the n atio n s of
the w orld.
The Zionists had been p ro v ed right. T he h opes o f civilised a n d h u m a n e
Je w s like O s z k a r J&szi, th a t w ithin a socially refo rm ed H u n g a ry , g ra n tin g
n a tio n a l a n d cu ltu ral eq u a lity to all its citizens, the H u n g a r ia n Je w s could
find th eir fulfilm ent, a n d the ‘Jew ish q u e s tio n ’ w ould cease to exist, had
been d is a p p o in te d — n o t only in H u n g a r y but in all the E u r o p e a n c ou ntries
which had large Jew ish co m m u n ities. T h e a r g u m e n ts o f the assim ilation-
ists, derived from n in eteenth ce n tu ry liberal a n d socialist ideas, had been
refuted by the realities o f the b a r b a r o u s tw en tieth century. S ix million Jew s
were e x te r m in a te d , a n d the Z ionist survivors had to fight desperately.
S o m e o f them had n o t d isdain ed in th e ir tu r n to m u r d e r British officials
an d soldiers, to m a ssac re the p o p u la tio n o f an A ra b village a n d to drive
h u n d r e d s o f th o u s a n d s o f A ra b s fro m their hom es.
T he Z io n ist t r iu m p h was w on by inflicting b ru ta l injustice o n h u n d re d s
o f th o u s a n d s w h o w ere guilty only o f w ishing to keep their h o m e la n d . T he
Jew s, w h o h ad suffered the g reatest o p p re s s io n in h u m a n history, th e m ­
selves bec am e invaders a n d c o n q u e r o rs . T h e y had no choice. T h ey had to
build th e ir ow n state, assu re a refuge to th e ir people, an d r e m o v e th e m fro m
d ep e n d e n c e o n the g oo dw ill o f h o st n a tio n s , n o n e of w h o m c ould ever be
tru ste d again. T he A ra b s w ere in th e ir w ay, a n d they suffered. T h ey replied
w ith ineffective b u t fa n a tic a l hatre d.
Israel was stro n g e r in th e early 1970s t h a n w ere the A r a b states, a n d the
help given by Israel’s friends was m o r e effective, a n d w as inspired by m o re
g en uine sy m p a th y , th a n was th e help received by the A r a b states from those
406 Nations and States

w ho professed to be th eir friends. Israel was n o m ere tra n s ie n t cru sa d er

state, a c re atio n o f feuda l lords d e p e n d e n t o n lu k e w a r m k in sm e n far aw ay,
aw a itin g a S a la d in to d e s tro y it. T h e c o m p a c t Israeli n a tio n was m ore
f o rm id a b le th a n that. Yet h u m a n r ea so n could n o t acce p t th a t th e re could
be n o e n d to th e merciless h a tre d , to th e legacy o f u n n u m b e r e d cruelties an d
co unter-cruelties, w r o u g h t b y C h ristia n s a n d Je w s a n d M u slim s against
each o th e r. T h e en d c o uld certainly be b r o u g h t n o n e a r e r by th e b rash
c o n t e m p t o f shallow m in d s for the th ree g rea t religions w h ich a ro se o n the
b o r d e r s o f the d esert b e y o n d the ea ste rn sh o re o f the M e d ite rr a n e a n , or by
a n y a t te m p t to replace th e m by the ritual i n c a n ta tio n s of secular ideologies.
T h e guilt for the cruelties was n o t co n fin e d to the M id d le East; it was
s h a re d in varying degrees by the p eo ples o f all E u ro p e a n d m o st of
A m erica. T h e r e was little sign in the early 1970s o f the effort o f im a g in a ­
tion, c o m p a s s io n a n d la b o u r req u ired fo r reco nciliatio n.
M e a n w h ile the Israelis saw n o sa lv atio n b u t to m a n th e walls of the
citadel; a n d the P ale stin ian A ra b s saw n o w ay b u t to rail a g a in st all w ho
c o u ld n o t o r w ould n o t give th e m bac k their h o m e s a n d to kill any , J e w or
G entile, w h ose d e a th m ight be o f use to them .

Overseas Indians
T h e a b o litio n o f slavery in British te rrito rie s in 1833 d ep riv ed British
ow n ers o f sug a r p la n ta tio n s o f c h e a p la b o u r. T h e g ap was filled by
recru itin g w o rk e rs o n c o n t r a c t (in d e n tu re ) f ro m British I n d ia . 1* T he
c o n d itio n s in w hich these m e n w ere tr a n s p o r te d , h o u se d a n d em p lo y ed
w ere little b e tte r th a n th o s e fo rm e rly e n d u r e d by A fric an slaves. P ro te sts in
Britain, s u p p o r te d by g o v e r n m e n t officials in Ind ia, ca u se d th e traffic to be
s to p p e d in 1837; b u t it was renew ed, w ith so m e a t t e m p t to m a k e rules for
better p ro te c tio n o f th e w o rk e rs , in 1843. T h e m a in recipient was a t first the
I n d ia n O c e a n island o f M a u ritiu s, follow ed by T r in id a d , J a m a i c a and
G u y a n a in the C a rib b e a n , a n d the British co lo n y o f N a ta l in S o u th Africa.
T h e first in d e n tu re d e m ig ra n ts c a m e f r o m th e hill tribes o n the b o rd e r s o f
Bengal a n d Bihar, th e n fro m the heavily p o p u la te d G a n g e s valley. In the
1870s this ou tflo w fro m th e n o r th -e a s t w as f a r su rp a ss e d b y t h a t fro m the
s o u th , co n sisting o f T a m ils o r T elugus. T h e m a in objective w as C eylon,
follow ed by B urm a . In th e 1890s in d e n tu r e d I n d ia n la b o u re rs built the
railw ay fro m the ea st c o a st o f A frica in to U g a n d a . In the first years o f the
tw en tieth c e n tu ry the r u b b e r p la n ta tio n s in Fiji b e c a m e im p o r ta n t. T here
was also a genuinely v o lu n ta r y e m ig r a tio n , o n q u ite a large scale, o f
p erso n s seeking a living in c o m m erce . T hese w ere especially to be f o u n d on
the ea st c o a st o f A frica, a n d in la n d to U g a n d a .
S o m e o f the in d e n tu re d la b o u re rs m a d e th e ir w ay bac k to th e ir h o m e s in
 Diaspora Nations 407

India, b u t m o st stayed in the lands to w h ich th e y had been b ro u g h t. S o m e

im p ro v e d their lot, b e c o m in g in d e p e n d e n t farm ers o r businessm en, or
rising th r o u g h the im perial e d u c a tio n system into the m o d e r n professions.
T h e g rea t m a jo r ity re m a in e d a g r ic u ltu ra l la b o u re rs , d w a r f h olde rs o r
w o rk e rs in in d u s try o r m in es. T h e I n d ia n s r e m a in e d alien b o th to their
im perial rulers a n d to the ind igenou s p o p u la tio n s w h o se la nds th e y shared.
P o o r Indians te n d e d to be seen by th e in d ig e n o u s p o o r as rivals u n d e r c u t­
ting their m e an s o f livelihood a n d as follow ers o f religions u n k n o w n to
the m ; while p ro sp e r o u s I n d ian s a p p e a r e d as e c o n o m ic exploiters. T h e
im perial rulers f o u n d th e m conv enien t, n o t only as c h e a p la b o u re rs but
also as tra d e rs , clerks o r professionals; b u t t h o u g h in d iv id u al British
officials m ight sh o w s y m p a th y or u n d e r s ta n d in g for th e ir p re d ic a m e n t an d
for their culture, m o st resident w hite m e n viewed th e m w ith a c o n t e m p t
b o r n o f ignorance. In all these respects th e p o sitio n o f th e overseas Indian s
resem bled th a t o f the Je w s in p re - m o d e r n W e ste rn a n d in m o d e r n E astern
E urope.
In th e 1970s there w ere three m ain types o f situ a tio n in w hich overseas
Indian s f o u n d themselves.
In C eylon a n d B u r m a they lived a m o n g peoples w h o h ad been in c o n ta c t
for centuries w ith I n d ia n culture, w h o had received B u d d h ism fro m India,
a n d w h o h ad cu ltu res o f th e ir ow n in n o w ay inferior to th a t o f India. In
C e y lo n in the early 1970s there w ere m o r e th a n th ree m illion Ind ians. In
B u rm a there w ere o v er a million before the S eco n d W o r ld W a r , m o st of
w h o m were co m pelled to leave w h en B u r m a bec am e in d e p e n d e n t. In
M a lay a in 1972 th e re were 1,230,000 In d ians, a sm aller c o m m u n ity th a n
the o th e r tw o co existing cultures, the M u slim (M a la y ) a n d the Chinese.
T h e second type o f s itu atio n was in A frica, w here th e In d ia n s lived
a m o n g peoples o f a low er level o f cu ltu re. T h e parallel w ith the Jew ish
p re d ic a m e n t in E u ro p e was striking.
T h e Indian s o f N a ta l h ad a s u b sta n tia l a n d talen ted pro fe ssio n a l elite,
w ho se m e m b ers w ere all th e m o r e disliked by th e ir w hite E n g lish-spe ak ing
S o u th A fric an n e ig h b o u rs because th e y h a d sh o w n them selves ca p a b le o f
o p e r a tin g by E u r o p e a n political a n d p ro fe ssio n a l s ta n d a r d s . It was the
a c tio n o f the L o n d o n - t r a in e d lawyer G a n d h i in defence o f I n d ia n s in S o u th
A fric a w hich led to th e decision o f th e g o v e r n m e n t o f I n d ia finally to
a b o lish in d e n tu r e d la b o u r t h r o u g h o u t the e m p ire in 1917. T h e I n d ia n s o f
N a ta l w ere a n ti-co lo n ia l radicals, a n d as suc h h a d th e o re tic a l s y m p a th y for
th e rights o f th e A fricans, b u t relation s b etw e en th e m w ere n o t g o o d except
at the to p level o f the tw o political elites. I n d ia n s n o less t h a n A fricans
suffered fro m apartheid policies in S o u t h A frica afte r 1948, b u t m u tu a l
a n tip a th y , based o n racial, e c o n o m ic a n d religious g r o u n d s , re m a in e d
stro n g . It was violently expressed in the a n t i- I n d ia n riots in D u r b a n in
1949. In the 1970s a ce rtain tren d w as h o w e v e r o b se rv a b le o n b o th the
408 Nations and States

white a n d the I n d ia n side to recognise a c o m m o n interest in the face of

rising A fric an natio n alism .
In th e British colonies in E ast Africa, I n d ia n politicians, a n d still m ore
th e g o v e r n m e n ts o f in d e p e n d e n t Ind ia, h ad s u p p o r te d A frican a n ti­
co lo n ial m o v e m en ts, a n d expressed pleasure at th e in d e p e n d e n c e o f Kenya,
T a n g a n y ik a (later T a n z a n ia ) a n d U g an d a . T h e new g o v e rn m e n ts, how ever,
were ea g e r (like the g o v e r n m e n ts o f East E u r o p e a n states fifty to a hun d red
years earlier) to develo p co m m e rc ia l a n d profe ssiona l classes fro m their
o w n peoples, a n d a d o p t e d policies o f A fric an is atio n , designed to replace
I n d ia n s by A fricans (as earlier in E astern E u ro p e to replace Je w s o r G reeks
by R o m a n ia n s , H u n g a r ia n s o r T urks). M e asu res w ere d irected in the first
instance aga in st th o se w h o h ad n o t o p ted fo r A fric an c itiz enship.19
P re ssure in K eny a a n d T a n z a n ia was c o m p a r a tiv e ly mild, b u t in U g an d a
G e n e ra l Idi A m in in A u g u st 1972 o rd e re d a m ass e x p u lsio n o f Indian
h o ld e rs o f British p assports. A large n u m b e r o f these u n f o r tu n a te people
w ere allow ed to en ter B ritain, b u t th e re w ere in n u m e r a b le legal quibb les
w hich helped to swell political passions a n d racial prejudices. T h e o u tlo o k
fo r Indians in East Africa, even for th o se w ho had ac cepted local citizen­
ship, rem a ined bleak. T h e ir situ atio n seemed m u c h closer to th a t of the
defenceless Je w ish c o m m u n itie s in E u ro p e in the late 1930s th a n o f the
C hinese in so u th -ea st A sia in th e 1970s. T h e C hin ese were p rotec ted b oth
by th e ir ow n efforts a n d by the great prestige possessed by C h in a in world
affairs. T h e I n d ia n g o v e r n m e n t possessed no such prestige, a n d show ed
r e m a rk a b ly little interest in the fate o f In d ian s a b r o a d , e x c ep t as o n e m ore
excuse to indulge in selective a n ti-im peria list rhetoric.
T h e th ir d type of s itu a tio n was in th e fo rm e r p la n ta t io n colonies in the
C a rib b e a n , a n d in the I n d ia n a n d Pacific oceans. H ere th e Indian im m i­
g ra n ts sh ared the c o u n try , in s o m e th in g like eq u a l n u m b e rs, with im m i­
g r a n t A fricans d esce n d ed f r o m slaves o r (in the case o f Fiji) with an
in d ige n ous people o f c o m p a r a tiv e ly prim itive c u ltu r e .20 H ere the Indian s
were n o t, as in the first tw o s ituations described a b o v e , m inorities b u t were,
as m u c h as an y o th e r c o m m u n ity , the p eople o f th e co u n try . These
territories, w hich h a d a t ta in e d sovereign in d e p e n d e n c e by the 1970s, had
the ta s k o f cre atin g new n a t io n s f r o m d is p a ra te elem ents, a m o n g w hich the
I n d ia n w as th e m o s t gifted.
O f these f o u r territories, M a u ritiu s seem ed to have th e best prospects.
T h e In d ia n s were sufficiently p r e d o m i n a n t to be able to divide into political
g ro u p s ra th e r th a n cling to a m o n o lith ic unity. O p tim ists c o uld h o p e t h a t
f r o m the variety o f F re n c h , E nglish, H in d u a n d M u s lim cu ltu res a p lural
society m ig h t develop a c c e p ta b le to all.
In Fiji, before in d e p e n d e n c e c a m e in to effect in 1972, th e F ijians secured
 Diaspora Nations 409

v ario u s fo rm s o f p ro te c tio n , in e d u c a tio n , in g o v e r n m e n t e m p lo y m e n t an d

in th e electoral system , aga in st the d a n g e r s o f I n d ian political or ec o n o m ic
d o m in a n ce : the s itu a tio n was n o t un like th a t o f M alays in M a la y a in regard
to Chinese. Fiji sta rte d its in d e p en d e n ce n o less divided th a n had M alaya.
In T rin id a d the Ind ian s were m ainly a g r ic u ltu ra l la bo ure rs. Indians
w o rk e d in the suga r p la n ta tio n s, blacks in c o c o a p la n ta tio n s a n d in the
m o re recently dev eloped p e tro le u m in dustry . A m u c h higher p r o p o r ti o n o f
blacks th a n o f In d ian s were u r b a n . T h e electoral victory in 1956 o f the
P eo p le’s N a tio n a l M o v e m e n t led by D r Eric W illiam s was a victory fo r
black n ationalism . O n ce in pow er, how ever, D r W illiam s f o u n d himself
forced to ca rry o u t policies w hich conflicted w ith his earlier social radical­
ism. O n his left a p p e a r e d Black P o w e r g ro u p s, ag a in st w hich he was
com pelled to use m ilitary force in 1970. T h e In d ian s were u n h a p p y w ith the
W illiams regim e, b u t Black P o w e r th r e a te n e d th e m still more.
T h e m ost difficult s itu a tio n was in G u y a n a . Here, as in T rin id a d , the
u r b a n p o p u la tio n were blacks, a n d th e ru ra l w ere In d ian s (except in the
sparsely inh a b ite d so u th , w here A m e r in d ia n peoples still survived). T he
willingness o f Indian s to w o rk h a rd fo r low wages u n d e r c u t the black s’
s ta n d a r d o f living. In th e last years o f British rule the Indian s w ere u n d e r ­
represented in te ac h in g a n d in clerical jo b s in the a d m in is tra tio n , b u t ra th e r
successful in the professions, a n d to a lesser e x te n t in business. In 1951 an
Ind ian dentist n a m e d C h e d d i J a g a n fo u n d e d the P e o p le ’s Progressive
P arty , pledged to unite blacks a n d I n d ian s on a socialist p r o g ra m m e . T he
p a r ty ’s c o m m u n is t o r ie n ta tio n was a n a d v a n ta g e in prov id in g a certain
clarity of vision a n d ce m e n t of discipline, b u t a d isa d v a n ta g e in th a t it
a la rm e d the British au th o ritie s , an d still m o r e the U nited S tate s g o v e r n ­
ment. In 1953, w hen P P P w o n a m a jo rity o f the elected seats in the colonial
legislature, the g o v e r n o r su sp e n d ed the c o n s titu tio n . In 1955 the p a rty split
on racial lines: m ost o f its black su p p o r te r s follow ed F o rb e s B u r n h a m into
a rival P eo p le’s N a tio n a l C ongress. A fter ten years o f rivalry b etw e en P P P
a n d P N C , a n d a ch a n g e o f electoral law beneficial to the latter, P P P was at
last redu ced to a m inority, a n d in 1966 G u a y a n a bec am e ind e p en d e n t. As
J a g a n ’s follow ers saw it, a radical a t te m p t at a m ultiracial socialist policy
had been fru s tra te d first by British rep ressio n a n d th e n by A m eric an
intrigues, a n d a n t a g o n is m betw een I n d ia n a n d black had been en c o u ra g e d
in o r d e r to preserve capitalism .
I n n o n e o f these cases w as th e re m u c h sign o f a n e m e rg e n t n a tio n al
consciousness. In the tw o C a ri b b e a n cases, the I n d ia n c o m m u n itie s, living
h a lf a w o rld a w a y f r o m In d ia, w ere th r e a te n e d b o th by in te rn a l Black
P o w e r forces a n d by the possibility o f te rr ito r ia l e x p a n s io n fro m either
V enezuela o r Brazil.21
410 Nations and States

Chinese and Malaysians

T h e links betw een C h i n a a n d so u th e rn A sia go b a c k to a n c ie n t times. T h e
C hinese w o rd Nanyang m e a n s the ‘s o u th e rn o c e a n ’, a n d th e N a n y a n g
te rrito rie s a r e th o se w hich C hinese h a v e reached by sea, a n d in w hich
C hinese c o m m u n itie s hav e g r o w n up. S trictly sp eak ing, th e exp re ssio n
covers only th e islands, fro m th e P hilip p in e s to S u m a tr a , a n d the M a lay
Peninsula.
T h a i la n d only partly belongs, since the earliest C hinese c o m m u n ities
th e re resulted f r o m c o n t a c t o verland. H o w ev er, in the n in e te e n th ce ntury
Chinese im m ig ra n ts also c a m e by sea, w h en B a n g k o k b e c am e a centre of
E u r o p e a n tr a d in g interests. T h ere is a n o t h e r i m p o r t a n t difference betw een
T h a i la n d ’s relation to C h i n a a n d t h a t o f the islands a n d peninsula. T he
T h ais bec am e a n d re m a in e d B udd h ists, a n d this was a p ow erful link
betw e en th e tw o cultures. T h a is a n d C h in ese in te r m a r rie d o n a large scale,
a n d as th e tw o physical types are n o t very d ifferent it w as q u ite impossible
to ju d g e , in th e tw en tieth ce n tury , w h a t p r o p o r t i o n o f the p o p u la tio n of
T h a ila n d was o f p artly C hinese descent.
T h e p eoples o f th e islands were fo r a long p erio d u n d e r H in d u or
B u d d h ist influence, b u t as we have n o te d earlier, Islam steadily gained
g r o u n d , a n d prevailed in m o st of the islands a n d th e pen in su la before the
arriv al o f th e E u ro p e a n s , w h o in th e ir tu r n m a d e C h r is tia n converts,
especially in the P hilippines. T h e gulf se p a r a tin g C hinese f ro m M uslim or
C h ristia n cultu re was o f a different o r d e r fro m the differences betw een T h ai
a n d C hinese B u d d h ism ; a n d th e physical differences betw een the Chinese
a n d th e peoples w h o m a y be loosely c o m p re h e n d e d u n d e r th e nam e
M a la y s ia n w ere also far g r e a te r a n d far m o r e con scio usly perceived, th a n
betw e en C hinese a n d T h a is o r K h m ers. I n te r m a rr ia g e was m u c h less
frequent.
As early as the fifth ce n tu ry C hinese B u d d h ist pilgrim s m a d e sea voyages
to th e s o u th , a n d tr a d e b e g a n to develop. U n d e r th e S u n g d y n a s ty there
were a lre a d y C hinese tr a d i n g c o m m u n itie s in the P h ilip p in e s a n d Ja v a . T he
e n c o u r a g e m e n t given by th e S u n g rulers to C hinese en terp rise in the
N a n y a n g was c o n tin u e d by th e Y uan. In 1293 a large C h in ese fleet was sent
to c o n q u e r J a v a b u t failed. T h e early M in g ru lers d isc o u ra g ed private
tra d e , b u t s o u g h t to p r o m o t e tr a d e t h r o u g h official m issions only. Between
1405 a n d 1433 th e Chinese a d m ir a l C h e n g H o r e p e ate d ly visited th e islands
a n d the pen in su la , a n d even crossed th e I n d ia n O c e a n to th e east c o a st of
Africa. L inks betw een C h i n a a n d th e n o w s u b s ta n tia l overseas Chinese
c o m m u n itie s increased in th e second h a lf o f th e seven te en th century.
D u rin g this perio d the M a n c h u rulers h a d es tab lished th e ir a u t h o r i ty in
m ost o f C h in a , b u t s u p p o r te r s o f the d efeated M in g w ere h o ld in g o u t in the
so u th e rn provinces, b a c k e d by the w ea lth a n d nav a l p o w e r o f overseas
 Diaspora Nations 411

Chinese. A fter the final M a n c h u victory, th o u s a n d s o f s o u th e rn C hinese

e m ig rate d to th e N an y a n g .
W h e n the M a la y sia n w orld c a m e u n d e r E u r o p e a n c o m m e r c ia l d o m i n a ­
tion, a n d th e n d irect rule, betw een th e en d o f th e six tee n th a n d the end o f
th e eig h tee n th centuries, th e Chinese, t h o u g h d istru sted by b o th E u ro p e a n s
a n d M alaysians, bec am e useful to b o th ow ing to th e ir e c o n o m ic skills.
W h e n C h in a to o ex pe rienc ed indirect E u r o p e a n d o m in a tio n , C hinese
subjects could no longe r be prev e n ted f r o m seeking jo b s in the so u th . F r o m
the 1830s C hinese w o rk e rs m ined tin in M a la y a , a n d the d e v e lo p m e n t o f
r u b b e r o n a big scale in M a la y a fro m th e begin n in g o f th e tw e n tie th ce n tu ry
b r o u g h t th o u s a n d s m ore. T h e r e w as also a c o n s id e ra b le influx o f refugees
fro m the T a ip in g rebellion in the 1860s. M a n y C hinese r e tu r n e d h o m e after
so m e years, b u t m a n y also rem ained. M o d e r n E u r o p e a n ca p ita lism offered
tr a d i n g a n d b a n k i n g o p p o r tu n itie s to C hinese m e rc h a n ts (in clu d in g self-
m a d e m en w h o h a d s ta rte d as la b o u re rs ), a n d careers to C hinese e n tra n ts
into the m o d e rn intellectual professio ns w hich ca p ita lism b r o u g h t w ith it.
T h e island o f S in g a p o re , ac q u ired by Britain in 1819, d ev e lo p e d into the
m a in e c o n o m ic ce n tre o f th e w hole A sian so u th -e a st, a n d its p o p u la tio n
becam e overw helm in gly Chinese, a b o u t 1,500,000 o u t o f 2,000,000 a t the
end o f the 1960s. In M a la y a e x c lu d in g S in g a p o r e the C h in ese in the early
1960s fo rm e d a b o u t 36 per cent o f the to ta l p o p u la tio n , being chiefly
c o n c e n tra te d in th e w estern coa sta l regions. It was es tim a te d t h a t there
were s o m e th in g like tw o a n d a h alf m illion C hinese ea ch in T h a i la n d a n d
I n d o n esia a n d th r e e -q u a rte r s o f a m illion in the Philippines, b u t these are
n o t precise figures. T h e r e was a clear difference b etw een th e last three
co untries, w here the C h inese were m inorities w ith in m u c h la rg e r p o p u la ­
tions, a n d M a la y a (with o r w ith o u t S in g a p o re ), w here they w ere one o f the
c o n s titu e n t co m m u n ities.
T he p re d ic a m e n t o f th e C hinese in these la nds recalls th e p re d ic a m e n t of
the Je w s in m edieval a n d m o d e rn E u ro p e . T h e C h in ese c o m m u n itie s were
easily d istingu isha ble fro m th e p eoples a m o n g w h o m they lived. T h e ir
s u p e rio r co m m e rc ia l a n d intellectual ta lents, a n d th e ir p ro p e n sity to
r a tio n a l r a th e r t h a n e m o tio n a l b e h a v io u r , gave th e m th e sa m e c a p ac ity for
successful careers, f o r th e sam e so rts o f rea sons, a n d p ro v o k e d th e sam e
type o f je a lo u s y a n d o f b u re a u c r a tic restrictions. T h e rulers, like m edieval
E u r o p e a n kings o r g rea t la n d o w n e rs, f o u n d th e m useful, p ro te c te d th e m as
long as th a t w as c o n v e n ie n t, a n d m a d e s c ap e g o ats of th e m w h e n it was not:
the p o g r o m s o f C hin ese in th e P h ilip p in e s u n d e r S p a n is h rule in 1602 a n d
1639 a n d u n d e r D u t c h rule in J a v a in 1740 hav e th e ir E u r o p e a n precedents.
T h e difference is t h a t the rulers, u nlike th e in d ig e n o u s kings a n d a risto c ra ts
in E u ro p e , were as foreign to their P h ilip p in e o r J a v a n e s e subjects as w ere
the Chinese. A t the sa m e tim e the C hinese in c u rred the hostility o f the
F ilipinos a n d In d o n esia n s not only because they were richer th a n they, a n d
412 Nations and States

ex p lo ite d th e m ec o nom ically, bu t because they a p p e a r e d to th e m (th o u g h

for the m o st p a r t w rongly) to be in stru m e n ts of the foreign rulers. T his is
also tru e o f the a t titu d e o f th e M a la y a n p o p u la tio n to the Chinese; b u t the
British rulers o f M a la y a did n o t use the C hinese as scapego ats, n o t because
they were m o re noble th a n the S p a n ia rd s o r D u tc h b u t because they knew
th a t the C hinese were a b s o lu te ly indisp ensable to the e c o n o m ic welfare of
their colony.
T h e overseas C hinese h a d one ch a racteristic w hich the Je w s h ad never
had: they belong ed to a civilisation w ho se ce n tre was a vast a n d p otentially
s tro n g em pire. T h e overseas C hinese gave g e ne rously to the Chinese
patrio tic a n d refo rm in g exiles o f the late n in e tee n th ce n tu ry , especially to
S u n Yat-sen. W h e n the K u o m in ta n g c a m e to p o w e r in C h in a , it expected
the N a n y a n g C hinese to bring up th e ir ch ild ren as n a tio n a lly conscious
Chinese. C u ltu ra l con sciousn e ss h ad always been s tr o n g a m o n g the
overseas Chinese: n o w a prio rity o f political loyalty was being d e m a n d e d
w hich was b o u n d to create difficulties b o th for th e m a n d fo r the rulers of
the lands in w hich they lived, first for the colo n ial po w ers a n d th e n for the
in d e p e n d e n t g o v e rn m e n ts o f the 1940s a n d 1950s. T h in g s b ec am e still m ore
co m p le x w h en the K u o m in ta n g was ch allenged by the c o m m u n is ts in
C h in a , a n d w h en the M a la y a n C hinese follow ers o f the c o m m u n is ts
organised first a successful resistance m o v e m en t, c o o r d in a te d w ith the
British m ilita ry h e a d q u a r te r s in C o lo m b o , a g a in st the J a p a n e s e o c c u p a ­
tion, a n d th e n fro m 1948 o n w a r d s a n efficient b u t u ltim ately unsuccessful
guerrilla a g a in st th e restore d British a u t h o r i ty in M a laya .
T h a ila n d , w hich had tre a te d C hinese m o r e liberally th a n the colonial
po w ers, p e r h a p s because th e T h a i kings exercised m o r e a b s o lu te p o w e r and
were th e re fo re able to p ro te c t a c o m m u n ity w hich was useful to them ,
tig h ten e d the pressure afte r the coup d ’état by a n atio n alist general in 1932,
a n d still m o r e so in the years o f satellite r ela tio n sh ip to J a p a n fro m 1940 to
1945. A s in I n d o n esia a n d the P h ilippine s, the m a in p ro b le m s were
citizenship a n d schools. S o m e Chinese w ere willing to be assim ilated, to
reg a rd them selves as citizens o f th e c o u n t r y in w hich th e y lived, a n d to be
e d u c ated in its schools, o r in E u r o p e a n schools a u th o ris e d by its g o v e rn ­
m ent. O th ers insisted t h a t they were citizens o f C h in a , req uired their
children to be ta u g h t in a C h in ese lan g u ag e in schools designed to p r o m o te
C hinese culture, a n d at th e sam e tim e exp e cted to enjoy the sam e o p p o r t u ­
nities a n d p ro te c tio n as citizens o f th e co u n try . T h e re w ere o f course
varia tio n s betw een these tw o extrem es. C itizensh ip laws varied in th e o ry
a n d in practice, b u t the tre n d in the 1950s was to squeeze o u t the C hinese
schools. Chinese c o m m u n itie s fared b e tte r in T h a i la n d t h a n in the P hilip ­
pines o r Indonesia.
A ttitu d e s o f g o v e r n m e n ts also d e p e n d e d o n th e g o v e r n m e n ts ’ a t titu d e to
the c o m m u n is t rulers o f C h in a . T h e T h ai leaders w ere hostile, an d so feared
c o m m u n is t subversion fro m the C hinese c o m m u n ity , a n d this te n d ed also
 Diaspora Nations 413

to be the case in the P hilippines. In I n d o n e sia u n d e r S u k a r n o , public

a ttitu d e s to M a o T se - tu n g ’s C h in a were friendly, a n d a m u tu a lly satisfac­
to r y D u a l N a tio n a lity A g re em en t was signed in 1955. In practice this was
n o t always g e ne rously a pplied , a n d it was alw ays possible to ju stify hostile
actio n s to w a r d s C hinese on the g r o u n d s th a t the p erso n s affected were
capitalistic, p r o - K u o m in t a n g Chinese. W h e n S u k a r n o was o v e r th r o w n in
1965, the ensuing m a ssacres of I n d o n e sia n c o m m u n is ts were c o m b in ed
with p o g r o m s a g a in st C hinese in w hich th o u s a n d s perished, a n d still m ore
th o u s a n d s lost th e ir possessions an d were expelled fro m th e c o u n t r y or
d riv en fro m rural districts in to a few o v e rc ro w d e d cities.
In M a la y a g rea t efforts were m a d e n o t only by the British rulers b u t also
by the leaders o f b o th c o m m u n itie s to prev e n t the c o m m u n is t in surrec tion
fro m bringing a b o u t a racial conflict b etw een all C h in ese a n d all Malays.
T w o political parties em erged . T h e U nited M a lay N a tio n a l O rg a n isa tio n
( U M N O ) was led by n atio n alist intellectuals fro m th e M a lay c o m m u n ity ,
a n d steadily increased its p o p u la r s u p p o r t. T h e M a la y a n C hinese A ssocia­
tion ( M C A ) represented the n o n - c o m m u n is t Chinese. T h e tw o parties
f o rm e d a n alliance in 1953, a n d g r a d u a lly th e negative co nv ictio n th a t they
m ust co m b in e o r perish b egan to dev e lo p into so m e th in g like m u tu a l trust.
In 1957 M a lay a bec am e a n in d e p e n d e n t state, with the A lliance in power. It
h ad been in tended to include S in g a p o re , a n d such was the wish o f the
le ading S in g a p o r e politicians; b u t the p ro sp e c t o f increasing the p r o p o r ­
tion o f C hinese in the p o p u la tio n to little s h o rt o f half, a n d to m o re th a n
th a t o f M alays, was u n a c c e p ta b le to th e M a lay leaders. A fter six years of
d ip lo m a c y by th e British a n d o th e r g o v e r n m e n ts co n c e rn e d , a so lu tio n was
f o u n d . A new a n d larger state was c re ate d , with the n a m e o f M alaysia. T he
increase in the n u m b e r o f C hinese by the inclusion o f S in g a p o r e was to be
balanced by a n increase in the n u m b e r o f M a lay-rela ted people th r o u g h th e
inclusion o f tw o British territories in B orneo. T his so lu tio n how ever
cre ate d a new p ro b lem . T h e I n d o n e sia n g o v e r n m e n t o f S u k a r n o , w hose
te rrito ria l claim s had h ith e rto been limited to lands w hich h ad once been
D u tc h , d ec la re d th a t British B o rn eo sh o u ld be p a r t o f a single island of
K a lim a n ta n w ithin In d o n esia . T h e hostilities w hich th e n dev eloped o n the
island c a m e to a n en d w h en S u k a r n o was o v e r th r o w n in 1965.
H ow ever, before this S in g a p o r e h ad seceded. T h e e x p e c ta tio n o f the
M a la y leader T u n g k u A b d - u l - R a h m a n th a t th e C hinese w ould be c o n te n t
to ru n e c o n o m ic life while leaving c o n tro l o f the g o v e r n m e n t m a c h in e ry to
M a lay s, was n o t fulfilled. T h e v ig o ro u s p a r ty o f Lee K u a n Yew, th e
S in g a p o r e p rem ier, b eg a n to c o m p e te for C hinese m a in la n d votes, a n d the
U M N O leaders pressed the T u n g k u to ex pel S in g a p o r e f ro m th e fed e ra­
tion. T his in fact h a p p e n e d . T h e r e a fte r S in g a p o re survived as a n in d e p e n ­
d e n t republic, a n d the s itu a tio n o f the C hinese o n th e m a in la n d bec am e
m o r e insecure.
T h e u n d e r s ta n d in g o n w hich g o v e r n m e n t by the Alliance, on the
414 Nations and States

M a la y a n m a in la n d , h a d b een b a s e d — t h a t M a la y sh o u ld be th e official
langu age, th a t M a la y s sh o u ld be privileged in the a llo c a tio n o f posts in the
political a d m in is tra tio n , a n d th a t the e m p lo y m e n t o f C hinese in business
a n d in th e professions (in reality, C h in ese d o m in a tio n o f those sectors)
sh o u ld be accepted by th e M a la y s — b e g a n to b re a k d o w n in 1969. T h e
election c a m p a ig n o f th a t year show ed th a t th e re was large-scale defection
fro m th e Alliance by b o th M alays a n d C h in e se — by M a lay s in th e direction
o f P a n m a la y s ia n o r m ilita n t M u slim policies, by C hinese in th e direc tio n of
m ilita n t as sertio n o f C hinese eq u a l o p p o r tu n itie s in g o v e rn m e n t. This
tr e n d reached a clim ax in violent riots betw een M a lay s a n d C hinese in
K u a la L u m p u r o n 13 M a y 1969, tw o d a y s afte r th e election.
In th e mid-1970s the C hinese in M a la y a were less v u ln e ra b le th a n the
Chinese in In d o n esia , b u t it was far f r o m sure th a t in the long te rm this
w ould c on tin ue. T h e ir situ atio n , a n d th a t o f S in g a p o re , w ould so on
d e te r io r a te if th e new te n d e n c y to w a r d s c o o p e r a tio n betw een M alaysia a n d
I n d o n e sia (in itself a d m ir a b le as a step to w a r d s peace) sh o u ld lead to
c o o r d in a te d policies designed to cru sh the N a n y a n g C hinese. It is tru e th a t
In d o n e s ia was n o t a very a ttra c tiv e m o d e l fo r M a la y s in th e mid-1970s. Its
m a teria l pro sp erity a n d e d u c a tio n a l o p p o r tu n itie s were far inferior to
th o se o f M alay a. M o re o v e r, it was a c o u n t r y o f over 100 million people,
w ith m a n y la nguages a n d a variety o f ra th e r impressive tra d itio n a l
cultures: if su b m e rg e d in it, M a lay identity m igh t d is a p p e a r altog ether.
H o w ev er, it w o u ld be unw ise to as su m e th a t this relative un attractiv en e ss
w o u ld be p e rm a n e n t. T h e idea o f solid arity betw een the island an d
p e n in su la r peoples o f M a la y sia n culture, fo rm e rly ex p re ssed by S u k a r n o in
the slogan M aphilindo ,22 was far fro m realisa tio n in the mid-1970s, bu t
sh o u ld n o t be lightly dism issed as a n a s p ira tio n . T h e n o tio n o f som e
h u n d r e d a n d fifty million M a lay sian s as a w o rld force h ad potential
a t tr a c t io n fo r the rising g e n e r a tio n all ov er the M a la y sia n w orld.
T h e policies o f th e g o v e r n m e n t o f M a la y sia rejected such a d re a m . T hey
a im e d instead to create a single M a la y sia n n a t i o n — n o t in the b r o a d
cu ltu ra l sense o f the w o rd , b u t in th e n a r r o w e r political a n d legal sense of
th o se in h a b itin g the sovereign state o f M alay sia. W ith in this state persons
o f M a la y a n d C hinese origin w ere to e njoy c o m p le te eq u a lity as citizens.
T h e M a la y s ia n g o v e r n m e n t was certainly d e te r m in e d to p reve nt any
repe titio n o f the events o f 1969, a n d d id n o t h esitate to p u rsu e m o re
a u t h o r i ta r ia n policies to this end. Yet it w as n o t inaccessible to pressure
fro m the M a la y p o p u la tio n , a n d the p o p u la tio n w as c e rtainly less enligh t­
ened in its a ttitu d e to th e C hinese t h a n w as the g o v e rn m e n t. It r em a in ed
g o v e r n m e n t policy t h a t M a la y s w ere to be politically ‘m o r e eq u a l’ th a n th e
C hinese, a n d it was th e re fo re re a so n a b le to w o n d e r fo r h o w long in to the
fu tu re th e M a la y s w h o held political p o w e r w ere g o in g to g o o n allow ing
the C h in ese to be e c o n o m ic a lly ‘m o r e e q u a l’ t h a n the M alays. T his q uestio n
 D iaspora Nations 415

was m a d e m o re a c u te by the g ro w in g u n e m p lo y m e n t a m o n g M alays, a n d

the grow ing inability o f the state m a c h in e to e m p lo y the g ro w in g o u tp u t by
the se c o n d a ry schools o f y o u n g M a la y s w h o had been e n c o u r a g e d to
ex p e ct clerical o r executive jo b s. T h e nee d f o r y o u n g M a la y s to seek j o b s in
business, a C hinese preserve, was b o u n d to grow.
T h u s it seemed likely th a t the a u th o ritie s h o p ed th a t, w ith the d ev e lo p ­
m ent o f M a la y as th e official lang uage, a n d w ith the rise o f a new
g e n e ratio n w hich had been ta u g h t in M a la y -la n g u a g e schools, th e C hinese
w o uld be g ra d u a lly n o t only ‘M a lay sian is ed ’, in the sense o f p u ttin g th eir
loyalty to a bilingual M a lay sian n a tio n before their loyalty to C hinese
cu ltu re, b u t also ‘M a la y a n is e d ’, in the sense o f being a b s o rb e d in a M a lay
cu ltu re based o n th e M a la y language. T h e sim ilarities to the co n c e p t of
eq u a l political rights cherished by th e M a gyarise rs in p r e - 1918 H u n g a r y
were r a th e r striking. H ow ever, the C hinese were being asked to r e n o u n c e
m e m b e rsh ip o f one o f the greatest w orld civilisations— a g o o d deal m o re
th a n the M a gyarise rs h ad ask ed o f th e Slovaks.
In S in g ap o re, the Chinese were in a n o v erw h elm in g m a jority, b u t their
identity was in d o u b t. H o n g k o n g was a C hinese land, ruled by a foreign
g o v e rn m e n t but destined w ithin a few dec ad e s to be reunited w ith C h ina;
an d T a iw a n was a p a r t o f C h in a w hich for the tim e being h a d a C hinese
g o v e rn m e n t different from th a t w hich ruled the m a in la n d . S in g a p o r e was
neith er of these things. It was a n island o f p eople o f C h in ese origin,
im p re g n a te d in v ary in g degrees w ith C hinese cu ltu re, b u t o p e n to all the
e c o n o m ic a n d intellectual influences o f th e w orld, one o f the g rea t m a r k e t­
places o f h u m a n ity . T h ere were disa g re e m e n ts b etw een th o se S in g a p o r e
C hinese w ho stressed the w orld-w ide role, a n d te n d ed to f a v o u r use o f the
w o rld -w ide language English on eq u a l te rm s w ith C hinese, a n d th o se w h o
insisted o n th e prio rity o f Chinese culture: the c o n tro v e rs y w as visible in
school policies a n d in e c o n o m ic life. S o m e believed th a t a S in g a p o r e a n
n a tio n could be fo rm e d , bea rin g the m a r k o f its C h inese c u ltu r a l origin yet
differing fro m the C h in ese n a tio n as the A u s tr a lia n n a tio n differed fro m
the English. Yet even if no definite S i n g a p o r e a n n a tio n a l consciousness
developed, there m ig h t yet be a place in th a t p a r t o f the w orld for s o m e th in g
m o r e like the tr a d i n g republics o f the p ast in the M e d ite r r a n e a n a n d Baltic
a n d o n th e coasts o f E ast A frica a n d A ra b ia ; a n d p e rh a p s this fo rm of
polity m ig ht even a p p e a r in o th e r p arts o f the arc h ip e la g o , in which
a t te m p ts to in tro d u c e the E u r o p e a n type o f centralised sovereign state a n d
u n if o rm n a tio n a l consciou sness h a d n o t been co n s p ic u o u sly successful.
 11 Class and Nation

T o define class is as difficult as to define n a tio n ; yet b o th have long existed

a n d been k n o w n to exist. 1 have arg u e d th a t n o n e o f the m a n y a t te m p ts to
define n a tio n have been fully successful, a n d I have been u n a b le to provide
a defin ition which b o th covers all n a tio n s a n d excludes all c o m m u n itie s
t h a t are n o t nations. Instead 1 have tried o nly to n a r r o w the lim its w ithin
w hich discussion of the n a tu re o f the n a tio n m a k es sense. 1 sh o u ld like to
try to d o th e sam e fo r the class. Division o f societies in to classes clearly has
so m e th in g to d o w ith w ealth, with e c o n o m ic fu n ctio n , with professional
o u tlo o k a n d w ith social prestige. T h e classical M a rx is t linking o f classes
with a specific fu n ctio n in the process o f p r o d u c ti o n has m u c h to c o m m e n d
it. If we use the w o rd ‘class’ solely in this sense, th e n we ca n at least m inim ise
c o n fu sio n o f th o u g h t. It m e a n s how ever th a t classes are in effect reduced to
four: la n d o w n e rs, p ea sa n ts, capitalists a n d w ag e -e arn in g w o rk ers.
T hese M a rx ia n categ ories seem to me i n a d e q u a te in regard to the m iddle
str a ta o f the social p y ram id. H ere there a re several i m p o r ta n t social g ro u p s
w hich d o n o t have a specific relatio n to the process o f p ro d u c tio n : for
e x a m p le , a r m y officers, civil b u r e a u c r a ts , priests a n d m e m b e rs o f intellec­
tual professions. Soviet M arxists, while recognising th a t these gro u p s
so m e tim es play a n im p o r ta n t role in social a n d political struggles, tend to
regard th e m as satellites o f the d o m in a n t class, w hich consists o f la n d ­
o w n ers (in the ‘fe u d a l’ era), o f b usinessm en (in the ‘c a p ita list’ era) o r of
w o rk e rs (in the ‘socialist’ era). T hus, Soviet writers will refer fro m tim e to
tim e to ‘feud al intelligentsia’, ‘bou rg eo is intelligentsia’ o r ‘toiling intelli­
g e n tsia ’. In m y o p in io n , th o u g h these d istin c tio n s are n o t w ith o u t value
th e y a re n o t a d e q u a te . M o r e o v e r, the w o rd s ‘fe u d a l’ a n d ‘b o u r g e o is ’ are to o
a m b ig u o u s to help analysis. T hese p o in ts will be discussed later. It must
suffice n o w to say t h a t th e social categories, w hose relation s w ith n a tio n a l
m o v e m e n ts I shall discuss, will be m o r e n u m e r o u s th a n th e f o u r principal
M a rx is t categories. W h e th e r all the ca te gorie s w hich I shall discuss are
‘classes’ o r no t, seems to m e a r a th e r o b sc u re se m an tic q u estion. E ssential­
ly, I a m co n c ern ed w ith all social g ro u p s w h ich exercise, as g ro u p s, a
significant influence on political power.
418 Nations and States

T h e discussion in this c h a p te r is co n c e rn e d w ith th e role o f different

social g ro u p s in the f o r m a tio n o f n a tio n s a n d in b o th the le adership a n d the
m e m b e r s h ip o f n a t io n a l m o v e m en ts. It will be m o s t c o n v e n ie n t to co nsider
this r ela tio n sh ip betw e en class a n d n a tio n a lity in the follow ing historical
situ atio n s, w hich will be f am iliar to th o se w h o h av e rea d th e preceding
chapters: old n a tio n s o f E u r o p e w ith a c o n t in u o u s h istory as n atio n s; old
c o n t in u o u s n a tio n s o u tsid e E u ro p e ; new n atio n s o f A m eric a; new n atio n s
o f lands recently e m a n c ip a te d fro m colo n ial rule in A sia a n d Africa; an d
n a tio n s o f the Soviet em pire. A fte r this survey som e b rief co n c lu d in g
r e m a rk s will discuss the e x te n t to w hich class a n t a g o n is m s hav e p r o m o te d
o r inhibited n a tio n a l m o v e m e n ts, h av e reinforced ea ch o th e r o r pulled
a g a in st ea ch other; t h a t is, h o w far ( d e p e n d in g o n o n e ’s p o in t o f view) class
struggles have d a m a g e d n a tio n a l unity, o r n a tio n a l struggles have been an
obstacle to class solidarity.

‘Feudalism' and ‘bourgeoisie’

I have a rg u e d in a n e a rlier c h a p te r th a t th e f o r m a tio n o f the old n atio n s o f
E u r o p e resulted fro m th e rise o f the centralised m o n a rc h ic a l state. Clearly,
this process was n o t achieved solely by the wish o f in dividual m o n a rc h s,
h ow ever ta len ted a n d strong-w illed, b u t was p r o m o te d also by p ersons a n d
g ro u p s a m o n g the m o n a r c h ’s subjects. T h e g r o u p w hich was m ost o b v io u s­
ly im p o r t a n t fo r this process was the feu d a l nobility. H ow ever, th e often-
used sim ple g en eralisatio n s o n this subject m u s t be tre a te d w ith great care.
‘F e u d a l’ a n d ‘f e u d a lism ’ sh o u ld be used in the specialised sense in which
m edieval h istoria ns use th e m . F e u d a lis m w as a c o m p le x system o f social
a n d political rela tio n sh ip s betw een n o b le m e n a n d m o n a rc h s , a n d between
different levels o f vassals, f ro m p o w erfu l la n d o w n e r s d o w n to serfs.
‘N o b ility ’ is also a w o rd w hich c o m p r e h e n d e d p e rso n s o f vary in g w ealth
a n d social function, w h o h a d in c o m m o n a legal status: as p ersons w ho had
inherited nobility f r o m th e ir a n c esto rs, o r o n w h o m nob ility h ad been
c o n fe rred by their social s u pe riors, th e y h a d c e rta in legal rights, privileges
a n d obligations. Yet n o b le m e n m ig h t be im m en se ly w e a lth y la n ded
m a g n a te s, o r gen try o f m o d e r a te m e a n s, o r p o o r p e a sa n ts, o r city dwellers
w ith few o r n o la n d e d possessions. T h e w o rd ‘a r is to c r a c y ’ is also often used
vaguely. It is best to c on fine this w o rd to a sm all n u m b e r o f th e richest,
m ost po w erfu l a n d prestigious families.
S o m e M a rx is t historian s, especially Soviet R u ssian , a n d also a large
n u m b e r o f writers w h o a re n e ith e r M a r x is t n o r Sov iet b u t have been
influenced by their te rm in o lo g y , use th e w o rd ‘f eu d a lism ’ sim ply to
describe an y society w hich is p re-in d u stria l a n d a g r a r ia n a n d in w hich a
large p a rt o f the land is co n tro lle d by a sm all n u m b e r o f large landow ners.
T h is use o f the w o rd ca n o nly con fuse th o u g h t, fo r it ignores im p o r ta n t
 Class and Nation 419

differences in types o f o w n e rsh ip a n d te n u re o f land, as well as in political

sta tu s a n d influence. I p r o p o s e to use th e w o rd ‘f e u d a lism ’ only in relation
to the m edieval political a n d social system in W e ste rn a n d C e n tr a l E u ro p e ;
a n d w h en I a m co n c ern ed w ith la n d o w n e r s as a social o r e c o n o m ic
categ ory, I shall call th e m ‘la n d o w n e r s ’, p reced ed by th e a p p r o p r ia t e
adjective.
R everting to the f o r m a tio n of th e centralised m o n a rc h y in W e ste rn
E u ro p e , one c a n n o t say th a t "the n o b ility’ o r ‘the la n d o w n e r s ’ eith er
p r o m o te d or o p p o se d this process. S o m e n o b le m en , so m e of w h o m were
g rea t aristo crats, were o n the kings’ side, a n d o th e rs were against. M a n y o f
the kings’ ablest advisers a n d generals w ere e m in e n t n oble m en: so were
m a n y o f the le aders o f rebellions— o f th e P ilgrim a ge o f G ra c e in E ngland,
the Comuneros in Castile a n d the Fronde in F ra nce . A n o th e r large an d
pow erful body o f m en o f w hich so m e th in g m u st be said is the C a th o lic
C h u rc h . M a n y o u ts ta n d in g kings o f E n g la n d a n d F ra n c e , a n d m a n y
G e r m a n - R o m a n e m p e ro rs , were locked in b itter conflict w ith the ch u rc h ,
w h e th e r with their o w n prelates o r directly w ith R o m e; b u t in these
conflicts they also h a d the active s u p p o r t o f m a n y c h u r c h m e n a m o n g their
subjects. T h e c h u r c h p rov ided m edieval E u r o p e n o t only w ith o r t h o d o x
spiritual guidan ce, b u t also w ith its intellectual elite a n d w ith the begin­
nings o f a civil g o v e rn m e n t. S o m e o f th e kings’ first m inisters were
ca rd in als o f aristo cratic origin, o th e rs w ere p ersons w h o h ad s ta rte d their
career as h u m b le priests. Indeed, the in stitu tio n w hich offered the highest
degree o f social m obility in m edieval E u ro p e , the nearest a p p r o a c h to ‘the
ca reer o pen to ta len ts’, was precisely the ch u rc h . T h e kings, how ever
sincerely they felt them selves to be pious C h ristian s, were usu ally je a lo u s o f
the c h u r c h ’s in d e p e n d e n c e a n d w ealth; a n d c o n fisc atio n o f m o n a s te ry a n d
ch u rc h lands in the six tee n th c e n tu ry en a b le d th e m a t th e sa m e tim e to
increase their revenues, to rew ard th e ir su p p o r te r s , a n d to p a r a d e as
patrio ts.
It is a w ell-w orn cliché th a t the c e ntralising m o n a rc h s m a d e use o f ‘the
m iddle class’ o r ‘the b o u rg eo isie’. T h e r e is o f c o u rse m u c h t r u th in this, b u t
these w ords, like ‘n o b ility ’ a n d ‘feu d a lism ’, need fu rth e r e x a m in a tio n .
In a lm o s t a n y society a t an y period o f tim e a n d in a n y p a r t o f the w orld,
there have been m id d le g ro u p s, placed in te rm s o f p o w e r a n d w ealth
betw een th e rulers a n d th e m ass o f th e ir subjects. T h e re a r e th ree essential
fu n ctio n s w hich have h a d to be p e rfo rm e d , even in r u d im e n ta r y fo rm , by
these m id dle g roups: th e b u y in g a n d selling o f g o o d s, th e tr a n sm issio n a n d
ex e c u tio n o f the ru ler’s o rd ers, a n d th e p r o p a g a t i o n o f th e o r t h o d o x ideas.
W e m a y say th a t even a prim itive society c o n ta in s e m b ry o n ic capitalists,
b u re a u c r a ts a n d intellectuals. In m edieval E u r o p e the last tw o fu n ctio n s
were p erfo rm ed by t h e c h u r c h , the first by th e u r b a n m e rc h a n ts . T h e cities
som etim es gave v alu ab le aid to kings in their struggle a g a in st refra cto ry
no b le m en ; som etim es they sho w ed them selves s t u b b o r n a n d successful
420 Nations and States

o p p o n e n t s o f royal pow er. T a k i n g the w hole process o f the g r o w th o f the

centralised m o n a rc h y , o n e m a y p e r h a p s say t h a t kings a n d b u rg h e rs were
m o r e often allies t h a n enemies.
T h e g r o w t h o f tr a d e a n d o f le arning in the late M id d le Ages led to the
em erg ence o f s o m e th in g w hich c a n usefully be d escrib ed as th e W est
E u r o p e a n bourgeoisie, o r ‘m iddle class’ in the sin g u lar (M ittelstand in
G e rm a n ). T o a n increasing ex te n t, a new eth o s c a m e to be acce p te d by the
m id d le g ro u p , a n ethos w hose essence w as the su p r e m a c y o f individual
j u d g m e n t a n d a preference fo r civil o v er m ilitary values. T h e spread o f this
eth o s was c o n n e cted w ith th e m o v e m e n t fo r r e fo rm o f the ch u rc h . T o argue
w h e th e r th e bourgeoisie cre ate d the R e fo r m a tio n , o r th e R e f o r m a tio n the
bourg eoisie, is to a rg u e w h e th e r the hen o r th e egg c a m e first. T h e great
valu e o f the w o rk o f M a x W e b er a n d R ic h a rd T a w n e y in this field is th a t
they show ed the co n n e ctio n : they them selves did n o t claim to have
established a scientifically ce rtain ca usa l sequence, a n d a t te m p ts o f later
w riters to d o so c a n n o t achieve w h a t is clearly a p ointless aim . U n d o u b t e d ­
ly th e successes o f in d ividu alism in e c o n o m ic en te rp rise s tim u la ted individ­
u alism in religious belief, a n d b o th c o n trib u te d to the g r o w th o f ind iv id u al­
ism in political th o u g h t. In the c o u rse o f the R e f o r m a tio n the old
intellectual elite o f o r t h o d o x C a th o lics were replaced by new intellectual
elites which, th o u g h m ostly still C h ristia n believers, recognised a m uch
w ider sphere for secular th o u g h t th a n had the m edieval church. T his
secu la risatio n o f intellectual life w as n o t con fin e d to th e la n d s in w hich the
R e f o r m a tio n t r iu m p h e d ; the cu ltu re o f seven te en th a n d e ig h tee n th ce n tu ry
F r a n c e w as a rg u a b ly m o r e secular th a n th a t o f E n g la n d , h o w ev e r m uch
L o uis X IV , by repealing the Edict o f N an te s in 1685, s o u g h t to up h o ld
C a th o lic a u t h o r i ty a n d to penalise dissenters. It w as in F ra n c e th a t the gulf
b etw een the secular intellectual elite a n d th e political po w er becam e
deepest: neith er c o uld d es tro y the o th e r, a n d indeed th e re was, since they
s h a re d prid e in F re n c h p o w e r a n d F r e n c h cu ltu re, a n elem e n t o f love as well
as o f h a tre d in their m u tu a l relations.
T h e individualist b o u r g e o is eth o s m a d e so m e im pre ssion also on civil
g o v ern m e n t: it h a d its disciples in the b u r e a u c r a c y o f L ouis XV a n d Louis
X V I, even if it was n o t p r e d o m i n a n t. I n th e P r o te s ta n t co u n trie s this was
m u c h m o r e th e case, especially in H o lla n d a n d E n g la n d , b u t to a large
e x te n t also in S c o tla n d , in S w e d en a n d even in P russia. In these co u n tries it
is a ju stifiab le o v ersim plification, w hich e x p lain s m o r e t h a n it d istorts, to
spe ak, in the singular, o f the m idd le class. In F ra n c e before 1789 this is
m o r e d o u b tfu l. A large p a r t o f the F re n c h intellectual elite was com p letely
a lien a te d fro m the regime; a n d this was tru e also o f a p a r t o f the business
class. T h u s there was n o t a single h o m o g e n e o u s m id d le class: rath e r, the
values o f tw o o f the m id dle g ro u p s (g o v e r n m e n t officials a n d intellectual
professions) were m u tu a lly o p p o se d , while the third m iddle g r o u p (b u si­
 Class and Nation 421

ness class) was divided betw een them . T h e a lie n a tio n o f the intellectual elite
certainly c o n t ri b u te d to the o u tb r e a k , a n d influenced the course, o f the
R e volution; b u t it is a r g u a b le th a t it was only u n d e r the regim e o f N a p o le o n
th a t a c o m m o n e th o s prevailed in all th ree m iddle g ro u p s, a n d th a t a single
h o m o g e n e o u s bourgeoisie c a m e into being.
In the m id -n in e tee n th ce n tu ry in all E u ro p e n o r th o f the Pyrenees a n d
A p en n in e s, a n d west o f the A u str ia n a n d R u s sia n b o rd ers, there w as a
fairly h o m o g e n e o u s social a n d cu ltu ra l ca te g ory, w hich e m b ra c e d all three
m idd le group s. W h e n 1 use the w o rd ‘b o u r g e o is ’ in the follow ing pages, 1
shall be referring to this category; w h en I w a n t to refer to capitalists or
businessm en, I shall call th e m ‘ca pita lists’ o r ‘b u sin e ssm e n ’, n o t ‘b o u rg e o is’.
U n fo r tu n a te ly the w o rd b ourgeo isie is f a r to o often used am b ig u o u sly ,
even by perceptive a n d learn ed historians. T h e w ider ca te g o ry is n o t the
sa m e as the n a r r o w e r , even if, as M a rx is t w riters w ou ld arg u e (in my
op in io n , convincingly in ce rtain precise cases, a n d u nconvincingly in
others), the capitalists a re th e m ost significant c o m p o n e n t in the w ider
categ ory. C ertainly, it is necessary to n o te the use by S oviet w riters of such
e x pre ssio ns as ‘b o u rg eo is b u r e a u c r a ts ’ o r ‘b o u rg e o is intellectuals’, co rre s­
p o n d in g to th e ‘feudal officials’ a n d ‘feu d a l intellectuals’ o f the medieval, or
sim ply o f the p re -industria l, era. T his use is perfectly intelligible, b u t in my
m ind misleading. J u s t as th e e c o n o m ic d o m in a n c e o f large la n d o w n e r s in a
p re-industria l society do es n o t co n s titu te ‘f eu d a lism ’, e qua lly e c o n o m ic
d o m in a n c e o f p rofit-seek in g private capitalists d o es n o t c o n s titu te a
‘b o u rg eo is o r d e r ’.
T h e essential po in t a b o u t a b o u rg eo is o r d e r is the existence o f a c o m m o n
etho s u n iting the th ree m id dle g ro u p s in a single social a n d cu ltu ral
category. It w ould o f course be w ro n g to ex a g g e ra te the ho m o g e n eity , or to
fail to see th a t the relative sta tu s o f the th ree c o m p o n e n ts varied between
different W est E u r o p e a n societies: th a t in E n g la n d it was the capitalists
w h o were the m o st prestigious elem ent in the bourgeoisie, in F ra n c e the
intellectuals, a n d in P ru ssia the b u re a u c ra ts. N evertheless the increasing
h o m o g e n eity , fro m the R e fo r m a tio n o n w a r d s a n d especially in the nin e­
teen th ce ntury, is u ndeniable .
T h e g r o w th o f this h o m o g e n e o u s b ourgeoisie was specific to th e history
o f th e p a r t o f E u ro p e m e n tio n e d a b o v e (w ith ce rtain islands o f bou rgeois
cu ltu re b e y o n d its b o r d e r s , o f w hich the m o st i m p o r ta n t were in C a ta lo n ia ,
B o h e m ia a n d G e r m a n -s p e a k in g A u stria), a n d to th o se p a r ts o f A m eric a
w hich w ere colonised f r o m th a t p a r t o f E u ro p e . E lsew here in the w orld the
three m iddle g ro u p s re m a in e d sh a rp ly d istinct f ro m , t h o u g h n o t o f course
u n influe n ced by, each other.
If m o n a rc h s , n o b le m e n , c h u r c h m e n a n d b o u rg eo is played a lead ing p a rt
in the process o f f o r m a t i o n o f th e ce n tralised m o n a rc h ic a l state, w ithin
w hich the old n atio n s were fo rm e d , this d o es n o t m e an th a t persons of
422 Nations and States

h u m b le r social sta tu s p la yed n o p art. T h e diffusion o f n a tio n a l c o n s cio u s­

ness d o w n w a r d s was a lo n g process, acce le ra ted in p erio ds o f religious
strife o r o f e x te rn a l d a n g e r to the n a tio n . In such periods, c ra fts m e n a n d
la b o u re rs a n d p e a s a n t sm a ll-h o ld e rs c onsciously identified them selves with
the nation . E x am p les o f such periods are the E liz a b e th a n era a n d the Civil
W a r in E n gla nd, the w ars o f the C o v e n a n te r s in S c o tla n d , the F re n ch
R e v o lu tio n a n d th e struggle o f th e S p a n ia r d s a g a in st N ap o le o n .

Bureaucracies and intelligentsias

In the case o f tho se old c o n t in u o u s n a tio n s in w hose h istory n eith er a feudal
social a n d political o r d e r n o r a h o m o g e n e o u s b o urgeoisie (as described
ab o v e ) existed, the p a t te r n is su b stan tia lly different.
T o this ca te g o ry b elo n g the R ussians, a l th o u g h they bec am e C h ristia n in
the te n th c e ntury, a n d a l th o u g h fro m th e e ig h tee n th c e n tu ry o n w a r d s
R u ssia b e c am e a E u r o p e a n g rea t p ow er. Both C h i n a a n d Ira n belong to the
sam e catego ry . T h e case o f J a p a n is m o r e q u e s tio n a b le , since u n d o u b te d
sim ilarities to the feu d a l o r d e r o f W e ste rn E u ro p e m a y be n o te d; a n d at
least since the eighteenth c e n tu ry capitalists played a n im p o r t a n t p a rt in
n a tio n a l cu ltu re, t h o u g h it can hard ly be said th a t there, was m u c h sign o f a
E u r o p e a n - ty p e b o u rg e o is ethos.
In R ussia, fro m the tim e o f the rise o f M u sc o v y a n d the o v e r th r o w o f the
T a t a r yoke, th a t is, fro m the six tee nth ce n tu ry , the d o m in a n c e o f the
centralised m o n a rc h ic a l p o w e r was overw h elm in g . T his, as ex p lained
e a rlie r,1 was d u e largely to th e s u p p o r t o f th e c h u r c h , the heir to Byzantine
trad itio n s; a n d largely to th e e x p o s u re to invasion o f a land w ith o u t
po w erfu l n a t u r a l defensive b arriers, w hich m a d e necessary a p e r m a n e n t
m ilita ris atio n o f th e w h o le society. T h e successive m o n a r c h s w h o built up
th e centralised M u sc o v ite sta te m a d e use o f a la n d o w n in g class, but
su b o r d in a t e d it strictly to th e ir o w n needs. T h is was a ‘service nob ility ’,
w ith n o rights aga in st the m o n a rc h . O b lig a tio n s did no t, as in feudal
W e ste rn E u ro p e , w o r k b o th ways: the n o b le m e n received land only in
o r d e r to ena ble th e m to pro v id e the m ilita ry forces w hich the m o n a rc h
needed fro m them . T h e m e rc h a n ts t o o w ere s u b o r d in a t e d to the m o n a rc h :
the b u tc h e r M in in o f N izhnii N o v g o r o d was a s y m b o l o f the patrio tic
m e rc h a n t class, rallying r o u n d th e ts a r in tim es o f d a n g e r to the th r o n e a n d
the tr u e faith. It w as only f r o m the late e ig h te e n th c e n tu r y th a t th e nobility,
with e n c o u r a g e m e n t fro m E m p ress C a th e rin e II, h e s ita n tly b e g a n to play a
slightly m o r e a u t o n o m o u s p art. In th e early n in e te e n th c e n tu r y it m u st also
be n oted th a t language refo rm ers a n d poets, by m a k in g u n if o r m literary
R u ssian into a g rea t a n d beautiful lang u ag e , did m u c h to s tren g th en
R u ssian n a tio n a l consciousne ss an d to e x te n d it to low er levels o f society.
 Class and Nation 423

H ow ever, lo o k in g b a c k over the histo ry o f R ussia, one has the im pression

th a t the em ergence o f a n a t io n w as n o less overw h elm in g ly d u e to the
g r o w th a n d m a in te n a n c e o f the m o n a rc h ic a l p o w e r t h a n w as th e case in
China.
In C h in a the unite d m o n a r c h y was b r o u g h t a b o u t by the victory o f the
F irst E m p e r o r over the several sm all states o f th e previous period. In the
C hinese civilisation w hich c o n tin u e d to exist for the follow ing tw o t h o u ­
sa nd years, the m o n a r c h y a n d its c o m p a r a tiv e ly centralised b u re a u c ra tic
s tru c tu re played a m a jo r role, th o u g h th e re were periods w hen the em p ire
b r o k e u p into several units, a n d t h o u g h the d ynastie s ruling the united
em p ire were several tim es replaced by rivals afte r p ro lo n g e d civil war. T he
m o n a rc h y was based on its b u re a u c ra c y , staffed by p erso n s recruited
th r o u g h the e x a m in a tio n system, d esigned to rew ard th o se w h o had
m a ste re d the tr a d itio n a l C hinese literary a n d p h ilo soph ica l cu ltu re based
on the ideog raphic script. T h e m e m b ers o f this political a n d cu ltu ra l elite
are c u s to m a rily d escribed by W e ste rn w riters as the literati. E d u c a tio n ,
h ierarchical s u b o r d in a t io n a n d ca pac ity to g o v ern , ra th e r th a n n ob le social
origin, were their first priorities. T he literati were h o w ev e r largely recruited
fro m families w hich possessed c o n s id erab le land a n d w ealth, w hich gave
their child ren the leisure necessary to a c q u ire cu lture; a n d literati w h o rose
fro m p o o r origins o b ta in e d in th e ir careers o p p o r tu n itie s to a c q u ire land,
a n d to give their o w n ch ild ren such leisure. T h u s there was a c o n n e c tio n
betw een la nd ed w ea lth a n d b u re a u c r a tic em inence. T h e as sertio n th a t ‘the
la n d o w n e r s ’ ‘c o n t ro l le d ’ the g o v e r n m e n t does n o t a p p e a r justified; n o r is
‘f e u d a lism ’ a suitable label for the C hinese political a n d social system either
before o r afte r the F irst E m p e ro r, fo r n o th in g sim ila r to the co m p lex itie s of
feudalism in m edieval E u ro p e existed.
T h e d ev e lo p m e n t o f n atio n a lism in C h i n a in m o d e rn tim es was in
o p p o sitio n to the w hole tr a d itio n a l stru ctu re . A new elite o f E u ro p e a n -
influenced refo rm in g o r r e v o lu tio n a ry in tellectuals a p p e a r e d , w h o c h a l­
lenged, a n d so u g h t to replace, th e tr a d i tio n a l elite o f C h ’ing C h in a. T he
first reform ers h o p e d to c o m b in e C o n f u c ia n values w ith W e ste rn d e m o ­
cratic ideas, a n d to graft represe n tativ e in stitu tio n s o n to th e Chinese
system o f g o v e rn m e n t. T h e ir successors were rev olu tio n arie s, w h o believed
th a t the w hole system m u st be sw ept aw a y a n d replaced w ith s o m e th in g
new. T h e K u o m in ta n g m o v e m e n t, initiated by th e r e v o lu tio n a ry S u n Yat-
sen, enlisted the s u p p o r t o f m o r e co n serv ativ e forces. In the years of
K u o m in ta n g g o v e r n m e n t the business class, w h ich in tr a d i tio n a l C h i n a was
viewed w ith c o n t e m p t a c c o r d in g to C o n f u c i a n d o c trin e ( th o u g h a t certain
p eriods it included n o t only rich b u t influential m en), b e c a m e o n e o f the
pillars o f the regim e. K u o m in ta n g n a t io n a l is m in its g r e a t days h a d the
s u p p o r t o f b u r e a u c r a ts , capitalists, la n d o w n e r s , intellectuals a n d a large
p a r t o f the pea sa n try . O n e m ay even p e r h a p s a rg u e th a t th e re was a
424 Nations and States

te n d en c y to w a r d s the f o r m a tio n o f a bou rgeoisie, as defined earlier; th a t is

to say, to w a r d s the fusion w ith each o th e r of the m iddle g ro u p s o f society.
D efea t a n d o c c u p a tio n by the J a p a n e s e a rrested this process, a n d in the
follow ing years a large p a r t o f the intellectual elite was alienated from the
K u o m in ta n g , a n d cam e to prefer its rivals, th e new r e v o lu tio n a r ie s — th a t
is, the co m m u n ists. C o m m u n is t victory was achieved by a new m ilitary an d
political elite, enjoying massive p e a s a n t a n d w o rk e rs ’ s u p p o r t. W ith the
c o m m u n is ts in p ow er, a new b u re a u c r a tic s tru c tu re to o k sha pe, w hich was
th e n deliberately c o m b a te d by the leaders th r o u g h the C u ltu ra l R e v o lu ­
tion. T his w as designed precisely to p reve nt a crystallisation o f social forces
a n d also to rep u d ia te th e w hole tr a d itio n as sociated w ith C o n fu cian ism .
T h e results o f this r e m a rk a b le struggle, c o n tin u in g in the 1970s, could not
be predicted.
In J a p a n the g r o w th o f sta te a n d o f n a tio n were m a rk e d by a prolonged
struggle betw een rulers (at first em p e ro rs , th e n s h o g u n s ac tin g in the nam e
o f em p e ro rs ) a n d nobility. T h is struggle a p p e a r s r e m a rk a b ly sim ilar to the
struggle in m edieval E u ro p e , especially p e r h a p s in E ngland. T h e a p p lic a ­
tio n to J a p a n e s e histo ry o f the w o rd ‘fe u d a lism ’ seems to have consid erable
justifica tio n , th o u g h it is a m a tte r o f c o n tro v e rs y a m o n g h istorians. T he
system w hich becam e stabilised u n d e r th e T o k u g a w a s h o g u n s in the early
s eventeenth ce n tu ry rep rese n ted a b alance betw een the m o n a rc h ic a l pow er
a n d the nobility. D u rin g the p recedin g centuries, m a rk e d by fre q u en t civil
wars, th e social g r o u p w hich h a d given its essential c h a r a c t e r to J a p a n e s e
n a t io n a l identity was the w a r rio r class, o r samurai. T h e y fo rm e d the cadres
o f the system of g o v e r n m e n t, while at the highest level th e b alanc e o f pow er
betw een daim yo, o r g re a t lord, a n d shogun, o r ruler, was d e term in e d by a
c o m p le x system o f o b lig a tio n s a n d a u t o n o m ie s w hich w o rk e d ra th e r well.
In J a p a n as in C h in a , a n d no d o u b t largely as a result of C o n fu c ia n
influence, m e rc h a n ts a n d capitalists had a n extre m ely low social status; yet
in p ractice th e y flourished, a n d so m e o f th e m b e c am e so essential to the
political elite th a t th e y w ere able to exercise a g o o d deal o f influence in the
la ter T o k u g a w a p e riod. In the o v e r th r o w o f th e T o k u g a w a in 1868, a n d in
the es ta b lish m e n t o f the new regim e in th e 1870s, th e leading figures were
sa m u ra i. T his is n o t to say th a t ‘the s a m u r a i’ m a d e the Meiji R e s to r a tio n , or
built the new order; ind e ed m a n y s a m u r a i f o u g h t f o r th e T o k u g a w a , a n d
m a n y m o r e followed T a k a m o r i S aigo in his revolt a g a in st th e new regime
in 1879. T h e new o r d e r was also stro n g ly s u p p o r te d by busin e ssm e n , a n d
the new rulers strongly e n c o u r a g e d the d e v e lo p m e n t o f capitalism . T he
intellectual elite was divided. T h ere w ere som e w h o b itterly resented the
W esternising tendencies o f th e new regim e, a n d resolved to reassert
tr a d itio n a l J a p a n e s e values, using to this en d the new m a te ria l streng th
w hich W e ste rn isatio n h ad b r o u g h t. O th e r s felt th a t the new rulers h ad not
g one nearly far eno ugh: they wished to r e p u d ia te the past a n d to accept
 Class and Nation 425

W e ste rn isatio n w ith o u t reserve— w h e th e r in the fo rm o f lib eralisation or,

so m e decades later, o f M a rx is m . M o st acce p te d the m ix tu re of tra d itio n
a n d W e ste rn isatio n offered by the Meiji era rulers, a n d served th e m w ith
the d e v o tio n a n d n a tio n a l pride w hich th e ir an c e s to rs h ad given to earlier
rulers.
In Iran, fro m the M u slim c o n q u e st until the em erg en c e o f the Safavid
d y n asty , the c o n tin u ity o f rulers a n d o f sta te b o u n d a r ie s w as lost: all th a t
survived was the idea o f Ira n , its la n g u ag e (greatly m odified) a n d its
historical m yth o lo g y . T h e Safavid state w as cre ate d by m ilitary p o w e r a n d
religious zeal, a n d ruled by a balance betw een regional m a g n a te s, tribal
chiefs, large la n d o w n e rs a n d th e officials o f the shah. T h is was tru e o f the
successors of the S afavids up to the tw e n tie th ce ntury. In the m o d e rn
n atio n alist m o v e m e n t in Iran, at the b e g in ning o f the tw e n tie th ce n tu ry , the
tr a d itio n a l intellectual elite o f d e v o u t M uslim s a n d the new intellectual
elite o f E u ro p e a n -in flu e n c e d d e m o c r a ts fo u g h t for a tim e side by side. T he
trad itio n alists objected to the s h a h ’s subservience to foreigners; a n d the
b a z a a r m e rc h a n ts w h o were (as in o th e r M u slim lands) d e v o u t s u p p o r te r s
o f M uslim o r th o d o x y , objected to the c o m p e titio n of W e ste rn capitalists
w h o were fav o u red by th e shah. T h e new intellectual elite objected to the
s h a h ’s d es p o tism a n d to his choice o f ministers. T h ey w on vary in g degrees
o f s u p p o r t a m o n g cra fts m en a n d w o rk e rs in n o r th e r n cities, a n d had their
friends a m o n g triba l chiefs o r la n d o w n e rs. M illions o f I ra n ia n s were
passive sp e c ta to rs o f the struggle. N eith er the tr a d itio n a l n o r the new
intellectual elite w on; a n d their defeat by the s h a h led to b itter d isa g re em en t
betw een them . S o m e o f the aim s o f b o th were a d o p t e d by the new dy n asty
o f Reza S h a h a n d his son. In their p u rsu it o f m o d e rn m a teria l progress an d
their struggle to m a k e Iran a s tro n g state, they fo u g h t a n in te r m itte n t but
increasingly successful struggle ag a in st ulem a , b a z a a r m e rc h a n ts an d
la n d o w n e rs, while a t the sam e tim e p erse cu tin g re v o lu tio n a r y intellectuals.
Essentially, they replaced the po w er o f local m a g n a te s by th e p o w e r o f a
centralised b u r e a u c r a c y a n d a m o d e rn a r m y . T h e social g r o u p o n w hose
s u p p o r t their p o w e r rested was this new b u r e a u c r a c y , recruited fro m m o st
social str a ta b u t very largely fro m the p e a s a n try , w hich S h a h M o h a m m e d
R e za u n d o u b te d ly b enefited by his land reform s. T h e regim e also had
s u p p o r te r s in the business class a n d in the p e a s a n try a t large; but it
aliena te d a large p a r t o f the E u ro p e a n - e d u c a t e d elite, while the g row ing
in d u stria l w o rk in g class w as p r o b a b ly f o r the m o st p a r t indifferent or
hostile.

The Polish and Hungarian cases

T w o old E u r o p e a n n atio n s, w hose n a t io n a l conscio u sn e ss had a c o n t in u ­
426 Nations and States

ous histo ry fo r centuries b u t w ho se existence in a sovereign state was

in te r ru p te d f o r a lon g p e riod, are th e P oles a n d th e H u n g a r ia n s . In bo th
cases, th e original n a tio n , b o th in th e legal sense o f the w o rd natio a n d in
th e em pirical sense o f th e p a r t o f the people in w hich n a tio n a l co n s c io u s­
ness was well develop ed, was con fin ed to the nobility, a su b stan tia lly larger
s t r a t u m o f th e w hole p o p u la tio n t h a n in W est E u r o p e a n m edieval states
b u t still a sm all m ino rity. It was in this social g r o u p th a t n a tio n al
co nsciousness was preserved d u r in g the centuries o f p artition.
T h e P olish a n d H u n g a r ia n n a t io n a l m o v e m e n ts o f th e n in eteenth
c e n tu r y d eve lop e d in a n age w h en the d o c trin e o f n a tio n a lism , derived from
th e E n lig h te n m e n t a n d th e F re n c h R e v o lu tio n , had s p re a d th r o u g h o u t
E u ro p e , a n d w hen th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f ca p ita lism w as tr a n s f o r m in g social
structu re s. Inevitably, new social g ro u p s were d r a w n into b o th the Polish
a n d th e H u n g a r ia n n a t io n a l m o v e m e n t. T h e lead ing figures in the H u n g a r ­
ian p a r lia m e n t before 1848 w ere n o b le m e n , in the legal sense, a n d m a n y o f
th e m were la n d o w n e rs. In the r e v o lu tio n a ry regime o f 1848-49— in its
a r m e d forces, deliberative a n d a d m in istra tiv e b o d ie s— la n d o w n in g n o b le ­
m e n w ere p ro m in e n t. T h e sam e is tru e o f the P olish Sejm o f 1815-30, o f the
m ilita ry a n d political leaders o f th e re v o lu tio n a r y regim e o f 1830-31, a n d of
th e le ade rship o f the 1863 rising. H ow ever, th in g s were n o t so simple.
N o b ility is a legal ca te g o ry , la n d o w n e r s h ip a n ec o n o m ic . M a n y n o b le m en
h a d very little to d o w ith la n d ed estates, a n d so m e did n o t even possess an y
land. I n b o th Polish a n d H u n g a r ia n political life a very im p o r ta n t figure
w as th e n o b le -b o r n m e m b e r of a n intellectual profession, especially the
lawyer, th e jo u r n a lis t a n d the university s tu d e n t o r teacher. T h e o u t s t a n d ­
ing e x a m p le is L ouis K ossu th . O th e rs ar e th e leaders o f the c o n s p ira to ria l
societies in V ilna a n d W a r s a w in the late 1820s, a n d the P olish re v o lu tio n ­
a r y exiles betw een 1831 a n d 1863, a n d afte r 1863. In a later perio d, J o z e f
P ilsud ski belongs to this category. O n e m a y say t h a t in b o th c o untries
betw e en 1815 a n d 1867 th e ce n tre o f grav ity o f n a tio n a list le adership was
steadily p assing fro m la n d o w n in g n o b le m e n to n o b le -b o r n intellectuals,
a n d t h a t th e politically con scio u s sections of the intellectual professions
w ere being steadily reinforced fro m n o n - n o b le strata.
In b o t h co u n tries th e re develop ed d u r in g th e n in e te e n th ce n tu ry a
su b sta n tia l business class, a n d in b o th c o u n trie s the b u sin e ssm e n consisted
m a in ly o f Jew s. B o th n a tio n a list m o v e m e n ts received so m e s y m p a th y a n d
m a te r ia l help f r o m Jew s. H u n g a r ia n Je w s in 1848-49 su p p o r te d the
R e v o lu tio n ; th e rulers o f s e m i-in d e p e n d e n t H u n g a r y afte r 1867 e m a n c ip a t­
ed the Jews; a n d Je w ish business was e n c o u r a g e d t h r o u g h o u t th e D ualist
period. T h e r e w ere also Je w s a m o n g th e s u p p o r te r s o f the P o lish risings o f
1830 a n d 1863.
It m a y p erh a p s be said th a t, at the tim e w h en the H u n g a r ia n n ationalists
 Class and Nation 427

o b ta in e d m ost o f the s u b stan ce o f in d e p e n d e n c e , a n d b e c am e able to put

f o rw a r d the claim t h a t H u n g a r y was a n a t io n a l state, th e la n d o w n in g
n obility were still politically p r e d o m i n a n t, t h o u g h o th e r social g ro u p s h ad
played a n im p o r ta n t p a r t in achieving t h a t relative in d e p en d e n ce . D ualist
H u n g a r y was ruled by la n d o w n in g n o b le m e n in its g o v e r n m e n t, p a r lia m e n t
a n d bu rea u cracy , a n d the regim e c o u n t e d o n the active s u p p o r t o f the
intellectual professions a n d the business class, b o th o f w hich w ere largely
c o m p o s e d o f Jews. T h u s the ruling s t r a t u m was a c o m b in a t io n o f la n d ­
ow n ers a n d b u re a u c r a ts , while the re m a in in g tw o o f w h a t we have called
the ‘m iddle g r o u p s ’ (intellectuals a n d capitalists) f o rm e d the m iddle
position. T h ere was in D u alist H u n g a r y a n u n d o u b te d d e v e lo p m e n t o f a
bou rg eo is ethos a n d a bourg eo is c u ltu re , b u t it w as c o n fin e d to the
intellectual a n d business professions, a n d did no t, as in W e ste rn E u ro p e ,
c om p rise the b u rea u cracy .
In P o la n d the n a t io n a l struggle c o n tin u e d fo r a n o t h e r f o rty years: the
relative a u t o n o m y g ra n te d to Galicia u n d e r H a b s b u r g rule fro m 1865 can
h ardly be c o m p a r e d w ith D u alism in H u n g a r y , fo r it affected only a b o u t a
q u a r te r o f the Polish natio n . D u rin g these fo rty years th e social c o m p o s i­
tion o f the Polish n a tio n a l m o v e m e n t c h a n g e d . T h e e c o n o m ic p o sitio n of
the w hole landed nobility in R u ssian P o la n d (the largest p o r tio n o f th e old
Polish c o m m o n w e a lth ) h ad been greatly w e a k e n e d by the land re fo rm s of
1864, in w hich the R u s sia n g o v e r n m e n t h a d given P olish p ea sa n ts land, o n
ex tre m ely fa v o u ra b le te rm s, a t the e x p e n se o f the f o rm e r la n d o w n e rs, in
o rd e r to win th e m o v er to R ussian rule a n d to cru sh the nobility w hich they
rightly reg arded as th e m a in sta y o f rebellion. Still m o re t h a n in th e first half
o f the c e ntury, the le adersh ip o f n a tio n a lism h a d passed to m e m b e rs o f the
intellectual professions, f r o m w h o m , as in R ussia itself, th e re em erg ed a
new social ca te g o ry — th e profe ssio na l rev olu tio n arie s, w ho se political
a ttitu d e s increasingly tr a n s c e n d e d the limits o f th e class into w hich they
had been born. D u rin g the sam e perio d also there a p p e a r e d , especially in
the P russian p o r tio n o f P o la n d , a P olish business class. T h ese rising Polish
capitalists c o m p e te d b o th w ith G e r m a n a n d with Je w ish ( G e r m a n ­
speaking) capitalists, a n d this c o m p e titio n s tren g th en e d th e ir n atio n a lism
a n d also their anti-sem itism . In th e A u s tr ia n a n d R u ssian p o rtio n s,
business rem a ined o v erw helm in gly in J e w is h h an d s, w h ich preserved the
old type o f an ti-sem itism ( a m o n g p e a sa n ts a n d in the C a th o lic c h u r c h ) but
did n o t give rise to m u c h o f the new ty p e o f anti-sem itism o f rival business
classes.
In P o la n d a t the en d o f the n in e te e n th c e n tu r y th e r a p id g r o w th of
indu stry, a n d c o n s e q u e n t g r o w th o f th e in d u s tria l la b o u r force, b r o u g h t the
w o rk in g class into politics. T h e P o lish S ocialist P a r ty ( P P S ) , f o u n d e d in
1892, had the usual aim s o f E u r o p e a n socialist parties, b u t its leaders also
428 Nations and States

aim ed at Polish in d e p e n d e n c e a n d unity: only a sm all faction led by R oza

L u k s e m b u rg rejected these a im s.2 In the P P S th e re w as a long struggle
betw een those w h o gave first p rio rity to social r e v o lu tio n o r to natio n al
in d ep endence. T he la tte r view w as expressed a b o v e all by P ilsudski, w ho
eventu ally ceased, to g e th e r w ith his closest c o m ra d e s , to be a socialist a t all,
b u t co n tin u e d to enjoy m u c h sy m p a th y in the P olish socialist m o v e m e n t
until the late 1920s. In H u n g a r y the role o f the w o rk in g class in the n a tio n a l
m o v e m e n t was m inim al. B u d a p est w o rk e rs s u p p o r te d the 1848 R e v o lu ­
tion, an d a few socialist intellectuals, especially J o z s e f T ancsics a n d the
po et Petoffi, played p r o m in e n t parts; b u t at th a t tim e indu stria l w orkers
were very few. A t the en d o f the nin e tee n th c e n tu ry the H u n g a r ia n social-
d e m o c r a tic p a rty was m o r e im p o r ta n t, b u t it was stro n g ly o p p o se d to the
D u alist regim e, a n d was forced to d evote itself to a t te m p ts to reconcile or
elim inate the n a tio n a l conflicts w ithin its o w n ra n k s d u e to the m e m b e rsh ip
o f m a n y n o n - M a g y a rs . O n e m u st th u s c o n c lu d e th a t the w o rk in g class was
a n im p o r ta n t elem ent in the Polish n a tio n a l struggle b u t negligible in the
H u n g a r ia n .
T h e Polish p ea sa n try was also d r a w n into th e struggle. In 1863 Polish
p ea sa n ts h ad m a d e little resp onse to the Rising: m a n y were inclined to see
the P olish la n d o w n e rs as g re a te r enem ies th a n the R u s sia n gov ern m e n t.
H o w ev er, the ca lc u latio n o f the R u ssian g o v e r n m e n t th a t by giving Polish
p ea sa n ts the lands o f P olish la n d o w n e rs they w ould win p e a sa n t g ratitu d e
p ro v ed to be quite m isplaced. O nce the p o w e r o v er th e m o f the Polish
la n d o w n e rs h a d been re m o v e d , the p e a sa n ts saw very clearly th a t it was the
R u s sia n g o v e r n m e n t w hich was ex p lo itin g a n d m isruling them . W h e n the
R u ssian g o v e r n m e n t sta rte d to try Russifying th e m th r o u g h th e schools,
they bec am e m o re hostile. In P ru ssia n P o la n d sim ilar results followed the
policy o f B ism arck a n d Btilow, designed to tr a n s f e r land fro m Polish to
G e r m a n h a n d s in P o m e r a n i a a n d P o z n a n ia , w hich affected p e a sa n t sm a ll­
hold e rs as well as larger la n d o w n e rs. T h e p e a s a n t parties w hich developed
in b o th R u s sia n a n d A u s tr ia n P o la n d h a d , it is true, e c o n o m ic a n d social
aim s, b u t their leaders a n d m e m b ers w ere also resolved to defend Polish
n a t io n a l culture a n d , sh o u ld th e o p p o r tu n ity ever arise, they h o p e d fo r an
in d e p e n d e n t u n ite d P o la n d . In H u n g a r y th e role o f p e a sa n ts was small. It is
tru e th a t H u n g a r ia n p e a sa n ts su p p o r te d the R e v o lu tio n in 1848, th a t they
p r o v id ed th e soldiers o f K o s s u th ’s arm y , a n d th a t th e re v o lu tio n a r y regime
ab o lish e d the rem a in in g feudal dues. H o w ev er, th e D u a lis t regim e p re ­
served large landed estates, a n d refused eith er th e v o te o r a land r e fo rm for
the peasants. T h e y c o u ld rely to so m e e x te n t o n p e a s a n t s u p p o r t for
policies directed, w ith suitab le d em ag o g y , a g a in st the n o n - M a g y a r n atio n s
o f H u n g a ry ; b u t this w as a d w in d lin g asset, increasingly c o u n te r a c te d by
the p e a sa n ts’ im p a tie n ce for social reform .
T h u s the social c o m p o s itio n o f the n a t io n a l m o v e m e n ts in P o la n d an d
 Class and Nation 429

H u n g a r y , sta rtin g fro m very sim ilar co n d itio n s, r em a in ed very sim ilar until
a b o u t the 1870s; afte r w hich, while H u n g a r y o b ta in e d a m e asu re of
n a tio n a l in d e p en d e n ce u n d e r a n oligarchic regim e, the P o lish m o v e m e n t
c o n tin u e d to be repressed, a n d in the process a ttr a c te d s u p p o r t fro m the
great m ajo rity o f the p o p u la tio n .

The language manipulators

If we co n sid er the n a tio n a l m o v e m e n ts o f the sm aller peoples o f C e n tral
an d E astern E u ro p e , we find in tw o cases so m e rese m b la nce to the Polish
a n d H u n g a r ia n cases, but in the o th e rs a s u b stan tia lly different pattern.
In C r o a tia a la nded nobility existed, fro m w hich in the n ine tee n th
c e n tu ry em erg ed a n intellectual elite w hich pro v id ed the first n atio n alist
leadership. T h e p a tte r n was very sim ilar to the H u n g a r ia n , a n d was indeed
d o u b tle ss influenced by it. H ow ever, in the late n in e tee n th ce n tu ry changes
to o k place w hich b e a r so m e rese m b la n ce to th o se in P o la n d . In D a lm a tia
em erged a bourgeoisie, in the W estern sense, consisting o f businessm en,
m e m b ers o f intellectual professions a n d a few officials. It was f r o m th e m
th a t the leadership o f the Y ugoslav m o v e m e n t d eveloped. In the rest of
C r o a tia the p ea sa n ts bec am e involved in politics, u n d e r the le adership of
intellectuals o f n o n -n o b le origin, the able o rganisers A n te a n d S te p a n
Radic. T h e ir p e a sa n t m o v e m e n t pu rsu ed radical social reform s, b u t it also
s u p p o r te d th e Y ugoslav idea. D u rin g these years the C r o a t ia n nobility lost
m ost o f its political influence, a n d te n d ed to re m a in loyal to the H a b s b u r g
M o n a rc h y , w h eth e r u n d e r the existing D u alist system or on the a s s u m p ­
tion o f its rep la ce m en t by a T rialist policy w hich was never achieved.
In M o ld a v ia a n d W alla ch ia, w hich bec am e united as the k in g d o m of
R o m a n ia , a nobility also existed. T h e a ris to c r a tic families were G reeks,
w h o had g ro w n rich by ta x -f a r m in g on b e h a lf o f the O t t o m a n g o v e rn m e n t;
b u t after 1821 the nobility, including th o se o f G reek descent, m ostly
a d o p te d R o m a n ia n speech a n d h abits, a n d consciou sly played th e role of
leaders o f a R o m a n ia n n a tio n , fu rn ish ed w ith the necessary historical
m y th o lo g y by the R o m a n ia n - s p e a k i n g intellectual elite o f T ra n sy lv a n ia ,
subjects o f the H a b sb u rg s. T h e brief n a tio n a l r ev o lu tio n in B ucharest in
1848 was led by F r e n c h - e d u c a te d intellectuals o f nob le la n d o w n in g
b a c k g r o u n d . W h e n a R o m a n i a n state e m erg ed , in the a f te r m a th o f the
C r im e a n W a r, th e leaders in th e process o f m a k in g the new n a tio n w ere a
c o m b in a tio n o f la n d o w n e rs, b u r e a u c r a ts a n d m e m b e rs o f the intellectual
professions. It is w o r t h n o tin g th a t sons o f th e R o m a n i a n n obility, in their
a d m ir a tio n for W est E u ro p e a n , especially F re n c h , b o u r g e o is society,
ov e rc a m e th e av ersion to co m m e rc ia l activities c h a racteristic o f la nded
nobilities. M a n y o f th e m s o u g h t a ca reer in business, a n d c a m e u p against
430 Nations and States

the e n tre n c h e d p o sitio n s o f Jew ish capitalists, w h o had p o u r e d into

M o ld a v ia , a n d to so m e e x te n t into W alla ch ia, since th e R u s so -T u rk ish
tr e a ty o f 1829 h ad open e d th o se lan ds to trade. T h u s R o m a n ia n a n ti­
sem itism f ro m a r a th e r early d a te a c q u ir e d a n elem e n t o f business rivalry.
M e a n w h ile th e R o m a n i a n p ea sa n ts, living in g rea t p o v e rty a t the m ercy of
the la n d o w n e rs, were v irtually e x c lu d e d fro m the n a tio n ; while a w o rking
class barely yet existed.
In the lands o f R o m a n i a n speech in the H a b s b u r g M o n a r c h y —
T ra n sy lv a n ia , B a n at a n d B u k o v in a — the s itu a tio n was different. H ere only
a h a n d f u l o f R o m a n ia n s belonged to th e H u n g a r ia n nobility, a n d none
were large la n d o w n e rs; th e g o v e r n m e n t officials w ere H u n g a ria n s; an d
m o s t m e rc h a n ts o r sm all b u sine ssm e n were Jew s. L ea d ership o f the
R o m a n i a n n a tio n a l m o v e m e n t th e re fo re c a m e fro m the intellectual p rofes­
sions: lawyers, sc hoolte ache rs, jo u rn a lists, writers a n d priests, b o th O r ­
t h o d o x a n d U niate. T o these m u st also be a d d e d a g ro w ing, t h o u g h small-
scale, R o m a n ia n business class. T h e m ass o f th e p o p u la tio n were peasants,
m o s t o f w h o m co nsciously a n d stro ngly s u p p o r te d th e n a tio n a l m o v e m e n t
a g a in st H u n g a ry , at first h o p in g fo r p ro te c tio n fro m th e H a b s b u r g
d y n asty , a n d then, as these h opes receded, increasingly lo o k in g for u nion
w ith the k in g d o m o f R o m a n ia , w hich was b r o u g h t a b o u t by w a r in 1918.
T his social c o m p o s itio n was fairly typical o f th e n a tio n a l m o v e m en ts of
C e n tr a l a n d E a ste rn E u ro p e . T h e p a t te r n ca n be briefly sta te d , a n d variant
c o m b in a tio n s o f social g ro u p s can th e n be noted.
In these sm all peoples, the m o st im p o r ta n t single fa c to r d e term in in g
th e ir n a tio n a l consciousness was, I h ave a r g u e d , language. It is n a t u r a l th a t
the leaders o f the incipient n a tio n a l m o v e m e n ts should have been those
w h ose exp ertise was th e m a n ip u la tio n o f language: m e m b e rs o f the
intellectual professions, a n d especially g r a m m a r ia n s , w riters a n d j o u r n a l ­
ists. Czechs, T ra n s y lv a n ia n R o m a n ia n s , S lo v a k s, Serbs, Bulgarians,
G re ek s, Slovenes, U k ra in ia n s , L ith u a n ia n s , L atvians, E sto n ia n s, Finns,
T a ta r s , a n d A r m e n ia n s eith er h ad no la nded no bility o f their o w n or the
nob ility o f th e ir c o u n t r y h a d b ec o m e assim ilate d to the cu ltu re an d
n a tio n a lity o f th e ru lin g n a tio n . L e a d e r s h ip c a m e f r o m th o se w h o —
inspired by intellectual curiosity resultin g fro m th e ir access to the official
system o f e d u c atio n ; by s y m p a th y f o r th e h u m b le p eople w h o sha re d their
la n g u ag e b u t k n ew n o other; a n d by e n t h u s ia s m fo r th e ideas o f the
E n lig h te n m e n t, w hich reached th e m directly o r indirectly fro m Vienna,
P aris o r even St P e te r s b u r g — studied the s tr u c tu re o f th e v e r n a c u la r
to n g u e s, a n d w o rk e d to dev e lo p th e m in to m o d e r n literary languages. T hey
n eeded m a teria l s u p p o r t, w hich th e y s o u g h t f r o m richer c o m p a tr io ts , or
fro m benevolen t p a t r o n s a m o n g the ruling n a tio n ; a n d w here neith er o f
th ese existed, there e m erg ed in tim e, in resp o n se to the need, a class o f small
businessm en ca p a b le o f giving financial help. T h is a s so cia tio n between
intellectuals a n d sm all capitalists varied fro m case to case.
 Class and Nation 431

-intellectuals a n d sm all ca pita lists varied fro m case to case.

In the first stages o f the C zech ‘n a tio n a l revival’ g r a m m a r ia n s an d
professors played a n o u ts ta n d in g role, b u t as the n in e tee n th c e n tu ry
ad v a n c e d the capitalist elem ent grew in im p o r ta n c e . A lrea d y before 1848
m a n y C zech p e a sa n ts were p ro sp e r o u s , a n d e c o n o m ic p rog re ss in Bohem ia
m a d e it possible to c o n c e n tra te the savings o f th o u s a n d s o f sm all p r o p rie ­
tors in banks, w hich grew bigger an d w ealthier. S m all in d u stria l enterprises
in C zech o w n e rsh ip grew into big enterp rises, small C zech capitalists into
big capitalists. T h e re w ere also large n u m b e r s o f Czechs in the H a b s b u r g
b ureaucracy. All th ree m iddle g ro u p s h a d large C zech c o m p o n e n ts , a n d all
three were welded to g e th e r by a b o u rg eo is ethos. T h e w ell-w orn ph rase
‘bourgeois n a tio n a lis m ’ ac curately describes th e C zech n a tio n a l m o v e ­
m ent, b u t it is im p o r ta n t to a d d th a t in the early tw entieth c e n tu ry a large
part o f th e n u m e r o u s Czech industrial w o rk in g class also s u p p o r te d
v arying degrees o f natio n alism .
T h e d ev e lo p m e n t o f the Slovenes was r a th e r sim ilar. T h e role of
lan guag e ex p e rts was even m o r e p r o n o u n c e d . T h e struggle for S lovene
natio n ality in the s o u th -e a ste rn Alps w as essentially a struggle fo r the
S lovene aga in st the G e r m a n o r Italian lan g u ag e in th e schools an d
ch u rc h es o f h u n d r e d s o f villages. Priests, s c h o o lm a ste r s a n d local j o u r n a l ­
ists were the leaders, a n d the h a r d - w o n savings o f a n in d u strio u s but
increasingly p ro s p e r o u s p e a sa n try pro v id ed the financial m eans, an d
created small S lovene capitalists. S lo v en e n atio n a lism , like Czech, was
bourgeois, but followed p e r h a p s h alf a ce n tu ry behind.
T h e S lo v ak n a tio n a l m o v e m e n t sta rted fro m a tiny g r o u p o f intellectu­
als, C a th o lic priests a n d L u th e ra n p a s to rs w h o at first ac te d o n parallel
lines ra th e r th a n in d irect c o o p e r a tio n . F r o m these sm all beginnings
em erg ed a r a th e r larger intellectual elite, in c luding secular w riters, j o u r n a l ­
ists a n d lawyers, a n d th e rea d in g p ublic ex te n d e d to at least som e
th o u s a n d s of people including peasants. In the second h alf o f the nine­
te e n th ce n tu ry S lo v a k sm all b u sin e ssm e n m a d e th e ir a p p e a r a n c e , ag a in as
p ro p rie to rs o f savings ban ks. A sim ila r tren d ca n be seen with the
R o m a n ia n n a tio n a l m o v e m e n t in T ra n sy lv a n ia . T h e p ioneers o f R o m a n ia n
natio n alist d o c trin e (w hich also m a d e itself felt ac ross the m o u n ta in s in the
cu lturally a n d e c o n o m ic a lly m o re b a c k w a r d M o ld a v ia a n d W a lla ch ia o f
the eigh tee n th ce n tu ry ) w ere priests o f th e U n ia te C h u r c h . N a tio n a list aim s
were th e n ta k e n u p by th e O r t h o d o x p rie s th o o d , a n d by the secular
professions w hich develop ed w ith in D u alist H u n g a ry . R o m a n i a n savings
b a n k s a n d R o m a n i a n sm all capitalists arose. E nem ies o f S lo v a k an d
R o m a n ia n n a tio n a lism a rg u e d th a t th e y w ere cre ate d by c a pita list cliques
w hich did well o u t o f th e m ; yet it is e q u a lly tru e th a t if S lo v ak a n d
R o m a n ia n p easants were to escape d e p e n d e n c e o n Je w ish m o n e y len d e rs
w h o were e x p o n e n ts o f M a g y a risa tio n , they had to have th e ir o w n b anks,
432 Nations and States

even if these b a n k e rs did m a k e m o n e y o u t o f the m . A r g u m e n ts as to

w h e th e r ca pita lism cre ate d n atio n alism , o r n a tio n a lis m c re ate d capitalism ,
in these con d itio n s, d o n o t get us m u c h further.
In the O tt o m a n e m p ire the le aders o f th e G re ek n a tio n a l m o v e m e n t cam e
f r o m a r a th e r wide ran g e o f social g ro u p s. Intellectuals a n d la nguage
r efo rm ers were o f g r e a t im p o r ta n c e , first a m o n g th e m being A d a m a n tio s
Korai's, b u t th e m o st e m in e n t o p e r a te d fro m a d ista n c e — in P aris or
V ienna. T h e richest m e rc h a n ts a n d the O r t h o d o x h ie ra rc h y in C o n s t a n t i n ­
ople w ere u n d e r s ta n d a b l y ca u tious. M o r e active w ere sm all G re ek busi­
n essm en fro m b o th the I o n ia n a n d the A eg e an islands, w h ose seafaring
b r o u g h t th e m b o th p rofit a n d c o n ta g io n with m o d e r n political ideas. T he
th ird elem en t o f im p o r ta n c e w ere th e local n o ta b les, especially in the
P elo p o n n e se, w h o belonged to neith er o f the categories o f ‘la n d o w n e r s ’ or
‘officials’, b u t h ad so m e e lem ents o f b o th roles. In S erb ia the original rising
w as th e w o rk o f sim ilar n ota bles, s u p p o r te d by the local p rie sth o o d a n d the
local incipient capitalists in the form o f pig -m e rc h an ts. It w as only after
in d e p e n d e n c e th a t intellectuals, c o m in g fro m H a b s b u r g land s o f S erb ian
speech, especially fr o m so u th e rn H u n g a r y (V o jv o d in a), becam e im p o r ta n t
in sh a p in g n a tio n a l consciousness.
In Bulgaria, w hich r em a in ed u n d e r O t t o m a n rule until the 1870s,
intellectuals w ho h ad learned the latest E u r o p e a n socialist d o ctrin es were a
leading elem ent, b u t the n a tio n a l cause was p r o m o te d also by m e rc h a n ts ,
f o r e x a m p le fro m the textile centre o f G a b r o v o , w h o h ad c onsiderab le
fu n d s av aila b le to help e d u c a tio n a n d p r o p a g a n d a in a n atio n alist spirit.
In all these lands th e m ass s u p p o r t c a m e fro m peasants. In all also the
b u r e a u c r a c y was in e n e m y — th a t is, O t t o m a n M u s l im — h an d s . It was only
afte r lib e ratio n th a t these n a tio n s ac q u ire d th e ir ow n b u r e a u c ra c y , a n d it
w as largely recruited f r o m th e intellectuals w h o h ad led th e struggle. In
p o w er, these m en s o o n f o u n d them selves repressing th e ir unsatisfied
c o m p a tr io ts . T h e rev o lu tio n arie s h ad tu r n e d into pash as, a n d a new
g e n e ra tio n o f intellectuals was forced into a struggle a g a in st th e m not
un lik e th e struggle w h ich th e y them selves h ad w ag ed a g a in st the O tto m a n s .
T h e careers o f such m e n as PaSic a n d S ta m b u l o v , a n d the h isto ry o f the
socialist a n d c o m m u n is t p arties o f S erb ia, B u lgaria a n d G reece, well
illustrate this point.
In th e R u s sia n e m p ire lan g u ag e e x p e rts were very p r o m in e n t in the
n a tio n a l m o v e m e n ts o f th e n o n - R u s s i a n n ations. T h e c r e a tio n o f a
s ta n d a r d is e d U k ra in ia n language, w ith som e literary w o rk s o f really
o u ts t a n d in g merit, tr a n s f o r m e d regional d isc o n te n ts, a n d legal a n d social
diversity f r o m M usc o v y , in to a positive U k r a in ia n n a t io n a l consciousness.
T h e U k ra in ia n m o v e m e n t w as b ased a l m o s t w holly o n intellectual le ade r­
ship a n d pea sa nt follow ing. T h ere were o f c o u rse la n d o w n e rs, b u re a u c r a ts
a n d capitalists o f U k ra in ia n origin, bu t v irtually all co n s id ered themselves
 Class and Nation 433

Russians. In the w o rk in g class U k ra in ia n n a tio n a lism m a d e so m e progress

before 1917, b u t it was a m in o rity trend .
In the Baltic region, to o , lan guag e reform ers w ere o u ts ta n d in g . T his is
especially true o f th e c r e a tio n o f a L ith u a n ia n n a tio n a l conscio usne ss based
on the L ith u a n ia n language. Until the f o u rth q u a r te r of the n in eteenth
c e n tu ry ‘L ith u a n ia n ’ was a g e o g ra p h ica l co n c ep t, w ith o f c o u rse a long
historical trad itio n . ‘L ith u a n ia n s ’ included persons w hose lan guag e was
P o lish — a m o n g th e m the poet A d a m M ickiew icz a n d th e n a tio n a list J o z e f
Pitsudski. T h e id entification o f the L ith u a n ia n n a tio n with L ith u a n ia n -
s peakers was largely th e result o f ideas s p re a d by new sp a p ers published in
the city o f Tilsit in P ru ssia a n d in the U nited S tates. L ith u a n ia n n ationalists
had tw o enemies: th e P oles w h o fo rm e d a large p a r t of the e d u c a te d classes
in their co u n try , a n d th e R ussians w h o were th e ir political m asters. T he
L atvian n a tio n al m o v e m e n t h ad a sim ilar p red ic am e n t: the class enemies
were G e r m a n s a n d the political enem ies were R ussians. A n im p o r ta n t
difference between the L ith u a n ia n a n d L atv ian situ atio n s was th a t the
L atvian s had, by 1917, a large ind u stria l w o rk in g class, w hich was m uch
influenced by R ussian socialism, an d conflicted w ith the p e a sa n ts an d the
rural intelligentsia o f sch o o lte ach e rs a n d L u th e r a n p a s to rs w h o aim ed at
n a tio n a l indepen dence; w h ereas th e low er social s tr a ta o f L ith u a n ia n -
s peakers consisted a lm o s t exclusively o f p ea sa n ts, w h o follow ed the
natio n alist intellectuals.
In E stonia also n a tio n a lism derived fro m the revival o f the la n g u a g e —
the w o rk o f p asto rs, te ac hers a n d w rite rs— a n d the enem ies w ere th e sam e
as in L a tv ia — G e r m a n la n d o w n e rs a n d R u ssian b u r e a u c ra ts. In the social
basis o f th e m o v e m e n t, p ea sa n ts were th e m ain elem ent: the u r b a n w o rk in g
class was less im p o r ta n t th a n )·„ Latvia.
T h e T a t a r s o f the V olga valley p ro v id e a n interesting e x a m p le of
co o p e r a tio n betw een a new intellectual elite a n d a business class. T he
efforts o f G aspirali to e la b o r a te a m o d e rn c o m m o n lan g u ag e for the T u rk ic
peoples have been m e n tio n e d abov e . T h ey failed, but the m o d e r n schools,
created in c o m p e titio n w ith the medrese by the T a t a r d e m o c r a ts an d
M uslim nationalists, p r o d u c e d a new T a t a r intellectual elite w hich was the
b e a re r o f T a t a r n a tio n a l co nsciousness. T h ese schools w ere m a d e possible,
in the face o f the hostile indifference o f the R u s sia n a u th o ritie s , by the
f u n d s c o n trib u te d by a s u b sta n tia l T a t a r business class.

Immigrant societies
T h e new n a tio n s o f th e A m ericas, a n d o f th e E u r o p e a n settlem ents in the
s o u th e rn hem isph e re , w ere entirely new as n a tio n s, b u t w ere derived fro m
old a n d develop ed societies. T h e social stru c tu re s o f the peoples of
434 Nations and States

E u r o p e a n sto c k in the A m eric an , A u s tr a la s ia n a n d S o u th A frican colonies

were sim ilar to th o se o f E n g la n d , F ra n c e , H o lla n d , S p a in a n d P o rtu g a l of
th e period w h en the colonists left, t h o u g h they afte rw a rd s develo ped on
different lines. O n e difference was th a t there was in m a n y o f the new
te rritorie s a la b o u r force o f slaves o r helo ts— negroes in th e s o u th e r n states
o f British N o r t h A m eric a, th e C a rib b e a n , V enezuela a n d Brazil; A m e r in d i­
an s in N ew S pain, the A n d e a n regions a n d P a ra g u a y . A n o th e r difference
was th a t the overseas social s tru c tu re a l m o s t c om p letely lacked the
E u r o p e a n u p p e r s tr a t u m o f nob le la n d o w n e rs. H ow ever, in the co urse of
tw o to th ree centuries new classes o f g rea t la n d o w n e rs, d esce n d ed fro m
m ilitary a d v e n tu r e r s o r successful farm ers, e m erg ed , a n d gave them selves
aristo cratic airs. T he a risto c ra c y o f V irginia o r the hacenderos o f Chile
w ere o f course parvenus: the nea rest th in g to a g en u in e E u r o p e a n nobility,
p artly o f n ob le origin, were the seigneurs o f the St L aw ren c e valley. In
th o se overseas E u r o p e a n societies w hich had a m o r e eg a litarian eth o s, the
a p in g o f social graces w as less frequen t: A u s tr a lia n graziers a n d Boer big
f a rm e rs w ere nevertheless a so rt o f la n d o w n in g elite.
In th e political m o v e m e n ts w hich led th e w ay to in d e p en d e n ce , a n d in the
struggle itself, social classes were divided. T h e re were la n d o w n e r s an d
m e r c h a n ts w h o f o u g h t fo r the king o f E n g la n d o r the king o f S p ain , a n d
o th e rs w h o follow ed B olivar o r W a sh in g to n . B oth G eo rg e W a s h in g to n an d
T h o m a s Je fferso n were slave-ow ning la n d o w n e rs. S o m e creole m e rc h a n ts
bitterly resented S p a n is h co m m e rc ia l policies, a n d o th e rs did well o u t of
the m : m u c h the sam e m a y be said o f M a ssa c h u se tts a n d New Y ork with
reg a rd to British co m m e rc ia l policies. M e m b e r s o f intellectual professions
w ere certainly p r o m in e n t in A m e ric a n resistance, a n d sm all farm ers an d
w o rk in g m e n f o u g h t a g a in st th e redc oats; yet there were also such people
a m o n g the Loyalists. I n th e B oer republics th e struggle fo r in d e p en d e n ce
w as th e w o rk o f a n alliance o f intellectual elite (C alvinist pasto rs, then
secu lar pro fe ssions to o ) w ith a p eop le o f f a r m e r s — a c o m b in a t io n not
unlike t h a t in S c o tla n d in the se v en te en th c e ntury. A fr ik a n e r n atio n a lism
w ith in the U n io n o f S o u t h A fric a w as also led by m e m b e r s o f the
professions: it is striking h o w m a n y lead in g A frik a n e rs w ere lawyers and
b e c am e p oliticians, a n d h o w m a n y le ading E n g lish -sp e ak e rs w ere business­
m e n a n d ig n ored politics. S o m e th in g o f th e sam e is to be f o u n d in C a n a d a .
A new stage in m id -tw e n tie th c e n tu r y Q u e b e c politics b eg a n w ith th e
e n r o llm e n t o f the g ro w in g w o rk in g class in n a tio n a lism .
T h e A m e ric a n n a t io n w as new in o n e o th e r i m p o r t a n t respect: in its
a b s o r p ti o n o f a flood o f im m ig r a n ts o f d iffe ren t lan g u ag e s a n d trad itio n s.
T o a lesser e x te n t this is tr u e o f A rg e n tin a , C hile a n d Brazil. A u stra lia a n d
C a n a d a o f co urse also h a d large n u m b e r s o f im m ig r a n ts, b u t these were,
until very recent tim es, overw h elm in g ly o f o n e langu age. English, Scots
a n d Irish cre ate d in b o th co u n trie s g rea t diversity, b u t it was n o t on the
 Class and Nation 435

scale o f th e diversity b etw een Poles, Italians, G e r m a n s , Irish, Lebanese,

A rm e n ia n s a n d o th e rs in C h ica g o a n d N ew Y ork. Q u eb e c received very few
im m ig ran ts, since F ra n c e was the only g rea t E u r o p e a n n a tio n w hich sent
no great flood o f e m ig ra n ts overseas in the n in e tee n th century: this partly
a c c o u n ts for the to u g h n e ss a n d n a tio n a l solidarity o f th e Québécois.

Anti-colonialist elites
O f the states w hich em erged fro m c o lo n ial rule in Asia, so m e (V ietna m ,
C a m b o d ia a n d B u rm a ) ca n h a r d ly be called new , since they c o rr e s p o n d e d
a p p r o x im a te ly to states w hich h a d existed before E u r o p e a n c o n q u e st.
India a n d I n d o n e sia were new states, e m b ra c in g g r e a te r te rritorie s th a n
had ever previously f o rm e d a single unit in th o se lands; a n d a single state of
the Philippines was a c re a tio n o f the S p a n is h c o n q u e r o r s a n d their
A m e ric a n successors. It is difficult to d escrib e their peoples as ‘new
n a tio n s ’, fo r they had existed as religious a n d c u ltu r a l c o m m u n itie s longer
th a n a n y E u r o p e a n n a tio n ; yet n a t io n a l m o v e m e n ts a n d n a tio n a lis m in the
m o d e rn sense w ere b o r ro w e d fro m E u ro p e .
It is im possible to d o b etter th a n m a k e im precise s ta te m e n ts a b o u t the
class c o m p o s itio n o f the I n d ia n n a tio n a lis t m o v e m e n t, fo r th e class
s tru c tu re o f India w as a n d r em a in ed infinitely co m p lic a te d by caste.
U n d o u b te d ly , p erson s influenced by British e d u c a tio n played a leading
part. Even the m e m b ers o f this c o m p a r a tiv e ly small m in o rity varied in
social origin an d status: N e h ru was a rich K a shm iri B ra h m in w ith financial
m e an s o f his ow n; G a n d h i train ed as a b a r riste r in L o n d o n a n d practised in
S o u th A frica before e m b a r k in g o n his political career; a n d fro m the
beginning o f th e I n d ia n N a tio n a l C ongress, Bengalis, o f v a rio u s castes an d
so m e tim es of h u m b le origin, em p lo y ed in v ario u s n o n - m a n u a l o c c u p a tio n s
fro m office clerks to highly e d u c a te d pro fe ssio n a l m en, p r o v id ed a large
p a r t o f th e ca d res o f I n d ia n n atio n alism . T hese were also increasingly
s u p p o r te d by capitalists sm all a n d great, fro m G u ja r a t a n d Bengal a n d
o th e r provinces, e x te n d in g fro m small b u sin e ssm e n to th e g rea t in d u stria l­
ists T a t a an d Birla. O f the r a th e r small n u m b e r o f In d ian s in th e h igh e r civil
service, m o st w ere r a th e r deeply p e r m e a te d by the eth o s o f loyalty to the
British Raj, a n d this was still m o r e tr u e o f I n d ian serving officers in the
I n d ia n A rm y ; yet, as o rg an ise d I n d ia n n a tio n a lis m grew stro n g er, a certain
am biv alen c e inevitably d eve lope d in th o se w h ose d u ty was t o serve an d
d efe n d India, a n d th e re w ere som e w h o s u p p o r te d the C o ngress. T h u s, all
three m iddle g ro u p s w ere involved, b u t th e intellectual ele m e n t was the
m o s t i m p o r ta n t o f the three. M a ss s u p p o r t c a m e first in th e cities, a n d grew
slowly. It was G a n d h i w ho, w ith his brilliant c o m b in a t io n o f religious
a p p e a l a n d political tactical sense, b r o u g h t the u r b a n a n d ru ra l classes into
436 Nations and States

politics a n d m a d e C o n g ress a m ass m o v e m e n t.

In I n d o n e sia n a tio n a list leaders c a m e fro m b o th the Ja v a n e s e nobility
a n d the u r b a n business class, w h o se ideas derived b o th fro m Islamic
m o d e rn is m a n d from E u r o p e a n socialism. In the first n atio n alist o r g a n is a ­
tion, Sarekat Islam , in the early 1920s, the M uslim m e rc h a n t elem ent was
p r e d o m in a n t; the m o v e m e n t in fact derived f r o m rivalry w ith Chinese
m e rc h a n ts ra th e r th a n fro m hostility to the D u tc h rulers. L ater, n a t io n a l­
ism split into a n u m b e r o f groups. T h e m ost m ilita nt le aders were, like
A h m e d S u k a r n o , E u ro p e a n - e d u c a te d in tellectuals o f noble origin, w ho
had learned th eir socialism in E u ro p e ( S u k a r n o , like N e h ru , had been
influenced by the c o m m u n is t-c o n tro lle d L eague ag a in st Imperialism).
E ac h o f th e n a tio n a list m o v e m e n ts had its follow ing a m o n g p easan ts an d
u r b a n p o o r , t h o u g h — as in In d ia— th e re re m a in e d m illions w h o were
u n to u c h e d by politics. In in d e p e n d e n t I n d o n esia J a v a n e s e n atio n alism
so o n split betw een the m o d e ra te M u slim d e m o c r a ts , the M asju m i party , in
w hich M u slim businessm en were influential, a n d the N atio n alists of
S u k a r n o , based o n a n alliance betw een intellectuals a n d officials, which
p ro cla im e d socialist principles b u t also lo o k e d b ac k to a p aternalist
co n c e p t o f g o v ern m e n t: pre-cap italist elitism a n d p o st-cap italist socialism
c ou ld be m a d e to look easily co m p atib le.
In B u rm a n atio n alist leadership c a m e fro m the small E u ro p e a n -
e d u c ated g ro u p , while the n o n - E u r o p e a n businessm en w ere not Burmese
b u t I n d ia n . In M a la y a b o th the intellectual a n d th e business elite were
Chinese. In F re n c h I n d o c h in a a small, b u t m o r e th o r o u g h ly E u ro p e a n -
e d u c a te d g r o u p f o rm e d th e leadership. S o m e o f th ese accepted F rench
c u ltu re w h o le-he artedly, a n d s o u g h t to asso ciate th e ir people with it.
O th e r s learn ed f r o m F r e n c h cultu re the radical d o ctrin es w hich m oved
th e m to fight ag a in st F ra n c e . T h e m o st radical o f these in the 1920s an d
1930s was c o m m u n is m , w h o se e x p o n e n ts were m o r e successful th a n any
p reviou s radicals in freeing them selves fro m E u r o p e a n , a n d th u s fro m
co lonial, associations. O n e c ould be a c o m m u n is t a n d a V ietnam ese, in the
fullest sense, a t th e sam e tim e. H o C h i M in h was o f c o u rse the o u ts ta n d in g
figure, b u t there w ere countless lesser exam ples.
T h e A fric an states t h a t em erged af te r th e S e c o n d W o r ld W a r were
c ertainly new , a n d th e ir peoples w ere new n a tio n s , t h o u g h they were not
new as in h a b ita n ts o f th e ir h o m e la n d s , a n d th e y w ere by n o m e a n s ‘w ith o u t
h isto ry ’. N a tio n a lism w as a n idea le arned f r o m the foreign rulers, an d its
first bearers were th o se w h o h ad received a E u r o p e a n ty p e o f e d u c atio n .
T h e essential p o in t is n o t the ab s o lu te level o f W e s te rn e r u d itio n ac q u ire d
by the individual, b u t the relative level in re g a rd to his p eo ple as a whole.
T h e Senegalese le ade r S e n g h o r , a classical s c h o la r a n d a fine p o et in
F re n ch , w ould sta n d o u t in a n y c u ltu re d society in the w o rld; th e se co n d a ry
 Class and Nation 437

sc hool g r a d u a te clerk P atric e L u m u m b a w as a n intellectual giant a m o n g

the Congolese. A frican tr a d e rs also played th e ir p a rt in th e n a tio n a l
m o v e m e n t. S o m e A frican peoples, p reviou sly b a c k w a r d a n d held in low
esteem , a d a p te d them selves well to the needs o f the c o lo n ial pow er, a n d
fro m their m idst em erged d is p r o p o r tio n a te ly large n u m b e rs o f persons
with the right kind s o f business a n d intellectual skills. S u c h w ere the Ibos o f
Nigeria, w h o m ight be called th e Bengalis o f W est Africa. O th e rs, like the
Y o ru b a s, h ad a long tr a d itio n o f c o m m e rc ia l skill. T h o se w h o rose in the
new professions were so m e tim es fro m A fric an u p p e r classes, such as
H o u p h o u e t-B o ig n y ; o th e rs were o f h u m b le origin.
In general the n atio n alist m o v e m e n ts fo u g h t n o t only the c o lo n ial rulers
b u t also the in d ige n ous privileged classes, o r chiefs, on w h o m th e rulers
relied, d e n o u n c in g th e m as ‘sto o g e s’. In so m e regions, h ow eve r, the
princely families m a n a g e d to keep p o w e r in th e ir h an d s, first s ta n d in g aside
f ro m natio n alist activity, a n d th e n jo in i n g in w hen they saw th a t the
n atio n alists were w inning. In G h a n a , th e A s h a n ti ruler pro v ed n o m a tc h
for N k r u m a h . But th e tr a d itio n a l rulers o f n o r th e r n N igeria m o re th a n
held their o w n for the first years o f N ig erian in de p ende nce . It is a stran g e
irony o f history th a t th e tw o political p ro ta g o n is ts o f th o se first y ea rs— the
n o r th e r n em irs a n d the I bo intelligentsia— were the tw o m a in casualties of
the N igerian civil war,
In the in d e p e n d e n t states, there was a n in a d e q u a te g o v e r n m e n t m a ch in e
fro m colonial tim es, sufficiently staffed a t the low er levels b u t w ith gaps
higher up. T hese were filled by the n a tio n a list politicians a n d intellectuals,
w h o s o o n show ed th a t the w idespre ad belief th a t they were a W esternised
intelligentsia, belonging to a n alien c u ltu re a n d cut off fro m th e ir ow n
peoples, was only h alf true. T h ey so o n sh o w e d them selves c a p a b le o f ruling
in tr a d itio n a l A fric an style, o r if they were n o t so c a p a b le th e y were
replaced by o th e rs w h o were. In this the d e v e lo p m e n t o f politics a n d o f
social classes in the new states o f A frica recalled th a t in the new states o f the
B alkans in the late n in e te e n th a n d early tw e n tie th centuries. Intellectuals
tu r n e d d es p o ts bec am e th e targets o f a new g e n e r a tio n o f intellectuals; bu t
N k r u m a h a n d O b o te h a d a to u g h w ay o f d ea ling with stu d e n ts, n o t to
m e n tio n the E u ro p e a n - tr a i n e d N C O s, p r o m o te d g en e rals— M o b u t u an d
A m in.
As for m ass s u p p o r t, this was c e rtainly fo rth c o m in g fro m the p ea sa n ts
a n d th e u r b a n w o rk e rs. It is tru e t h a t th o se w h o gave th e ir s u p p o r t to
n a tio n a list leaders m a y h av e been m o v e d by trib a l o r religious loyalties, by
e c o n o m ic o r regionalist motives, r a th e r th a n by an y firm n a tio n a l c o n ­
sciousness. N evertheless, even if the n atio n a lists c a m e to p o w e r w ith the
s u p p o r t o nly o f m ino rities, these w ere bigger th a n rival m inorities, an d
certainly bigger t h a n th o s e w h o consciously p referre d the c o lo n ia l rulers.
438 Nations and States

Nationalist elites under communist rule

S o viet-typ e M a rx is t w riters d istin guish betw e en ‘fe u d a l n a t io n s ’, ‘b o u r ­
geois n a tio n s ’ a n d ‘socialist n a tio n s ’. T h e la tte r a re f o rm e d in countries
ruled by socialist g o v e r n m e n ts (th a t is, by c o m m u n is t p arties a p p r o v e d as
such by th e keepers o f the Soviet ideological conscience). T h ey m ay be
c re ate d f r o m u n sh a p e d h u m a n raw m a teria l, like th e U zbek, T ad jik an d
o th e r C e n tral A sian n a tio n s w hich did n o t exist before 1917; o r they m ay be
m a d e by th e social tr a n s f o r m a t io n o f existing b o u rg eo is n atio n s, like the
n a tio n s o f th e ‘lib e rate d ’ Baltic states, o r those o f the S ocialist o r P e o p le ’s
r epublics o f E a ste rn E u ro p e . F e u d a l a n d b o u rg eo is n a tio n s, ruled by o th e r
n a tio n s, have to fight for th e ir n a tio n a l in d e p en d e n ce ; b u t socialist n ations
have n o such need, since th e y belo n g to the fra tern al c o m m u n ity o f socialist
n a tio n s w hich is the U S S R .
T h is picture c o r r e s p o n d s in p a r t to reality. M a n y n a tio n a l m ov e m en ts
have been led, as we hav e seen, by social g ro u p s w hich a re described in
Soviet te rm in o lo g y ( th o u g h this is im precise) as ‘f e u d a l’ o r ‘b o u rg e o is’; an d
b o th th e new C e n tra l A sian n a tio n s a n d th e old e r n a tio n s o f E astern
E u r o p e have h ad th e ir social stru c tu re s tr a n s f o r m e d by Sov iet rule. W h a t
has n o t p ro v e d tru e is th a t these ‘socialist’ n a tio n s hav e been c o n te n te d to
live w ithin th e Soviet c o m m u n ity o f n ations. In C z e c h o slo v a k ia , P o la n d ,
H u n g a r y a n d E a ste rn G e r m a n y th e re have been p o p u la r insurrections
a g a in st Soviet rule; in R o m a n ia th e c o m m u n is t le adership has o penly a n d
successfully resisted Soviet policies; a n d in th e U k ra in e , the Baltic,
C a u c a s ia n a n d C e n tra l A sia n republics th e re hav e bee n fre q u e n t indiv idual
o r collective e x p re ssio n s o f resistance, w h ich S ov iet official s p o k e sm e n
have r a th e r in d iscrim ina te ly c o n d e m n e d as ‘b o u rg e o is n a tio n a lis m ’.
In reality, it is d o u b tf u l w h e th e r a n y th in g w h ich c o u ld be called a
b o urgeoisie (in the sense defin ed abo ve) existed in C e n tr a l Asia, while the
bourg eoisies w hich did exist in the Baltic republics, A rm e n ia a n d the East
E u r o p e a n co u n tries w ere dep riv e d o f a n y possibility o f in fluence by m a n y
years o f c o m m u n is t p a r ty rule. T h e n a tio n a l m o v e m e n ts a g a in st Soviet
R u s sia n d o m in a tio n c a m e in reality f r o m tw o m a in social groups.
T h e first was f ro m th e intellectual professions. T hese c o u ld r ea so n ab ly
be d escribed b y th e S ov iet p h r a s e ‘toiling intelligentsia’, f o r they consisted
largely o f y o u n g p eople o f p e a s a n t o r w o r k i n g class origin w h o h ad
o b ta in e d their e d u c a tio n u n d e r the c o m m u n is t p a r ty regim e, to g e th e r w ith
a c e rta in n u m b e r o f o ld e r p erso n s w h o se social orig in a n d p as t e d u c a tio n
m ig h t r a th e r cause th e m to be reg a rd e d as a ‘b o u rg e o is intelligentsia’,
t h o u g h m o s t o f th e m w ere m e m b e rs o r s u p p o r te r s o f the c o m m u n is t party.
(O bviously, this la tte r g r o u p w ere less n u m e r o u s in C z e c h o slo v a k ia in
1968, tw en ty years afte r the c o m m u n is ts h a d ta k e n th e w hole c o u n t r y ’s
e d u c a tio n system into th e ir h an d s , th a n in H u n g a r y in 1956, only nine years
 Class and Nation 439

after this h ad h a p p e n e d .) It is w o rth stressing th a t the y o u n g plebeian

intellectuals, w ho ow ed their career o p p o r tu n itie s to the c o m m u n ists, led
the m o v e m e n t a g a in st th e m . T hey felt them selves to be the heirs o f Peto/fi
a n d Tancsics, b u t saw in R a k o si the heir to the H a b s b u r g s ’ G en e ra l
H ay n a u .
T h e second g r o u p w hich was m ost active was the w o rk in g class, in th e o ry
the d a rlin g o f the c o m m u n is t regimes. In H u n g a r y in O c to b e r 1956 the
w o rk e rs o f the C sepel factories arrived w ith th e ir a r m s to fight first G e r o ’s
police a n d th e n the S oviet a r m y in B u d a p est, a n d w o rk e rs ’ militias
defe n d ed their factories bitterly fo r d a y s o n en d afte r the massive Soviet
in vasion o f 4 N o v em b e r. In E ast G e r m a n y in J u n e 1953 it was th e w o rk e rs
w h o rebelled. In P o la n d in O c to b e r 1956 it w as the W a r s a w w o rk e rs w hose
d e t e r m in a tio n to fight a g a in st S oviet c o u n te r -r e v o lu tio n d ecid ed K h r u s h ­
chev to accept a c o m p ro m is e with G o m u lk a . A b o v e all in C z ec h o slo v a k ia
the w o rk e rs w ere united in defence o f ‘c o m m u n is m w ith a h u m a n face’; they
elected th eir ow n delegates to the c o m m u n is t p a rty congress; a n d held the
congress illegally in a P r a g u e fa c to ry u n d e r the sh a d o w o f th e Soviet
m ilitary o c c u p a tio n . In all these cases the w o rk e rs ’ class struggle ag a in st a
S o v iet-sp o n so red e x p lo itin g class o f p a r ty b u r e a u c r a ts w as inextricably
fused w ith the n a t io n a l struggle a g a in st Soviet R u ssian im pe rial rule.
It is tru e th a t in all these cases the p e a sa n ts a p p e a r e d to be passive. Yet to
con c lu d e th at the p ea sa n ts were indifferent to the n a tio n a l struggle w ould
be a mistake. T he very sm all p ea sa n t p a rtic ip a tio n proves only th a t there
was no tim e— so swift, b r u ta l an d effective was the Soviet r e a c tio n — to
organise them . It alw ays ta k es longer for r e v o lu tio n a ry leaders to involve
the scattered ru ral p o p u la tio n th a n to m obilise the people o f the cities.

National and class struggles

A lm o st all struggles fo r n a tio n a l in d e p e n d e n c e have been inextricably
c o n n e cted w ith class struggles.
N a tio n a l m o v e m e n ts have n o t been successful unless th e y have m o b i­
lised a significant section o f th e c o m m o n p eo p le— p ea sa n ts a n d w orkers;
a n d this has usually been possible only w h e n th e ir direct p erso n a l feelings
a n d m a te ria l interests w ere c o n c ern ed . T w o p artial rese rv a tions m a y be
m ade. O n e is th a t d ee ply felt religious beliefs have often m ove d h u n d r e d s of
th o u s a n d s into s u p p o r t o f a n a t io n a l m o v e m e n t; yet in these cases to o it is
u su a lly a r g u a b le t h a t the interests o f social classes w ere also involved. T he
second rese rv a tio n is t h a t in so m e A fric a n colonies o f b o th Britain a n d
F ra n c e , in d e p e n d e n c e w as g ra n te d befo re th e re h a d b een a n y m ass
m o v e m e n t, a n d indeed befo re there w as m u c h sign th a t a n a tio n existed at
all.
T h e leadership o f n a tio n a l m o v e m e n ts has also co m e p r e d o m in a n tly
440 Nations and States

fro m certain social classes w hich, in a d d i tio n to their co nv ictio n o f the

im p o r ta n c e o f their identity as religious o r linguistic o r c u ltu ra l c o m m u n i­
ties, were also impelled by class hostility to th e ir existin g rulers. O f this
there are m a n y c o m b in a tio n s: for e x a m p le , n oble la n d o w n e rs aga in st a
foreign m ilitary a n d b u r e a u c r a tic p o w e r ( P o la n d 1863); nob le la n d o w n e rs
a n d intellectuals aga in st a sim ilar o p p o n e n t ( H u n g a r y 1848); intellectuals
o f n o n -n o b le origin a g a in st foreign la n d o w n e rs ( S lo v a k ia 1848); in tellectu­
als o f plebeian a n d o f local n o ta b le origin a g a in st a colonial foreign
g o v e r n m e n t (m o st o f W e st A frica in the 1950s); intellectuals a n d capitalists
ag a in st foreign b u r e a u c r a ts a n d la n d o w n e rs (C zechs in the early nineteenth
c e n tury, V olga T a t a r s in the late nineteenth); intellectuals, w ith so m e local
capitalists a n d n o ta b les, a g a in st a colonial rule ( Y o r u b a l a n d in the 1950s);
intellectuals a n d w o rk in g class aga in st a g o v e r n m e n t d o m in a te d by
politicians, capitalists a n d officials o f different speech ( Q u e b ec in the 1960s
a n d 1970s); intellectuals a n d w o rk e rs a g a in st a foreign colonial regime
o p e r a tin g in the n a m e o f socialist b r o th e r h o o d ( H u n g a r y in 1956, C z e c h o ­
slovak ia in 1968).
S itu a tio n s have inevitably arisen in w hich class interests a n d n atio n al
interests have pulled in different directions. S o m e tim e s the m ost p ro sp e r­
ous o r pow erful class has felt a gre a te r c o m m o n interest with the foreign
g o v e rn m e n t th a n with th e n a tio n a l m o v e m en t. T h e B o h e m ia n nobility was
f o r the m o st p a r t kaisertreu, a n d s u p p o r te d neith er the G e r m a n n ationalist
n o r the C zech n atio n alist o p p o s itio n to th e H a b s b u r g M o n a r c h y ( th o u g h
so m e families, a n d som e individuals, were to be f o u n d in each o f these
m ove m ents). I n d ia n zam indars. N o r t h N igerian emirs a n d o th e r A frican
chiefs m a y have disliked th e British rulers as u su rp e rs o f th e ir p o w ers an d
alien to their tr a d itio n , yet feared th e m less th a n the new nationalist
m o v e m e n ts led by p erso n s w hose social sta tu s they despised. T he reform s
o f G e n e ra l K a u f m a n in R u ssian T u r k e s ta n benefited the A sian peasants
a n d d a m a g e d the A sian u p p e r class, yet in th e longe r te rm they did not
cause the p ea sa n ts to love R u s sia n rule. C zech a n d G e r m a n w o rk e rs m ight
have a c o m m o n inte rest in fighting the c a p ita list class of the First
C z ec h o slo v a k R e public; yet such c o m ra d e ly c o o p e r a tio n as existed be­
tw een th e m in th e p r o s p e r o u s 1920s b r o k e d o w n in th e e c o n o m ic d ep re s­
sion o f th e 1930s a n d m a d e o f m a n y G e r m a n w o rk e rs m ilita n t white-
stocking-w earing, H eil-H itler - sh o u tin g devotees o f the T h ir d Reich. In
L atvia in 1918-19 the w o rk e rs o f R iga follow ed th e socialist leaders, w ho
were close in o u tlo o k to th e R u s sia n Bolsheviks, a n d w ished to keep their
c o u n t r y inside the R u s sia n socialist republic; while m o st L atv ia n -sp e a k in g
( th o u g h n o t G e r m a n -sp e a k in g ) m e m b e r s o f the m idd le g ro u p s, a n d m ost
L atv ian pea sa nts, preferred a n in d e p e n d e n t L atv ia. In C h in a in the mid-
1920s w o rk e rs f o u g h t fo r th e ir class interests, a n d p ea sa n ts were interested
in land reform , which placed the c o m m u n is t p a rty in a difficult dilem m a:
 Class and Nation 441

should it go all o u t for revo lution, a n d th u s b rea k the u n ite d front against
foreign exploiters o f C h in a , o r d evo te all its energies to th e n a tio n a l
struggle a n d th e re b y s tren g th en the class enem ies inside C hina?
T o n atio n alist leaders, o b stin ate social re v olu tio narie s a p p e a r as traito rs
to th e n a tio n a l cause: to Sov iet-type M a rx is ts, n ationalists w h o persist in
their n atio n alism , afte r they them selves believe th a t the stage o f social
rev o lu tio n has begun, a p p e a r as pern ic io u s a n d re a c tio n a ry diversionists,
either misled by their inability to u n d e r s ta n d the ‘scientific’ laws of
‘h isto ry ’, o r conscious ag ents o f ‘th e b o u rg eo isie’ o r ‘the im perialists’.
M a rx is ts co nsole them selves with the reflection th a t the n a tio n a l struggle is
b u t a passing phase, to be followed so o n e r o r later by the p r o le ta ria n
rev olution. Yet recent history suggests th a t the p ro b le m is n o t so sim ple as
that: v ic to riou s socialist (o r self-styled socialist) d ic ta to rsh ip s seem always
themselves to becom e ‘n a tio n a lise d ’, a n d s o o n sh o w this in their dealings
b o th with persons o f o th e r natio n ality a m o n g th eir ow n subjects a n d with
o th e r states, w h eth e r these are ‘socialist’ or not.
12 Nationalism and Ideological
Movements

Nationalism and liberalism

In the first half of the n in eteenth ce n tu ry , it was generally a ssu m ed th a t
indiv idual liberty an d n a tio n a l in d e p e n d e n c e o r unity w o u ld go together:
b o th were regarded as equally desirable by nation alists, e qua lly o b je c tio n a ­
ble by ab s o lu tist g o v e rn m e n ts. N a tio n a lism a n d liberalism w ere a single
cause. T h e ir c h a m p io n s w ere for the m o st p a rt m e m b e rs o f the e d u c ated
elite, w h e th e r ‘u p p e r ’ o r ‘m id d le’ class. T h e y desired political f re e d o m for
them selves, a n d a s su m e d th a t in d e m a n d in g it they s p o k e for the w hole
n a tio n exc ept for re a c tio n a ry rulers, in d ig e n o u s o r foreign. It m a y be
arg u e d th a t ‘the liberal b o urg eoisie’ was p u rsu in g its ow n aim s, canalising
p o p u la r ^discontent into channels w h ich w ould f u rth e r its o w n n a r r o w
interests! T his is less th a n fair.
\ The~eighteenth c e n tu ry co n c e p t o f p o p u l a r sovereignty was d esigned for
the w hole ‘p eo p le’, even th o u g h in th e first instance it was as su m e d t h a t the
m o s t edu c ated a n d en lig htened citizens w o u ld have to guide the people,
a n d brin g it g r a d u a lly in to political life. H ow ever, it is certainly tru e th a t
the driving force c a m e fro m th e e d u c a te d elite, a n d th a t first p rio rity was
given to issues w hich m ost directly interested th a t elite. In W e ste rn a n d
C e n tr a l E u ro p e in the m id -n in e tee n th c e n tu r y th a t elite, I have arg u e d , was
a bourgeoisie; but w h en the process reached E a ste rn E u ro p e , the M uslim
la nds, so u th e rn A sia a n d Africa, th e re was no b ourgeoisie at h a n d — only
intelligentsia a n d a few m e r c h a n ts — while th e m o st po w erfu l forces w hich
o p p o s e d the new elite w ere often n o t so m u c h a la n d o w n in g class or
capitalists, as a b u re a u c r a c y , in d ig e n o u s o r foreign.)
T h e liberal p h a s e o f n a tio n a lis m rea ch ed its clim a x in 1848, in the
A sse m b ly in th e P a u ls k irc h e in F r a n k f u r t a n d in th e rev o lu tio n s in Italy. In
1848 conflicts a p p e a r e d betw e en m o d e r a te s a n d radicals, a n d these devel­
o p e d f u rth e r in th e se co n d h alf o f th e c e ntury. G ro w in g n u m b e rs of
m o d e r a te liberals in G e r m a n y a n d Italy b e c am e c o n t e n t w ith suc h c o n s titu ­
tio n a l gains as h a d bee n m a d e, a n d w ith th e n a t io n a l u n ity w h ich h a d been
achieved by g o v e rn m e n ts. Both they a n d th e m o d e r a te rep u b lican s in
444 Nations and States

F r a n c e b e c am e indifferent o r hostile to d e m a n d s on b e h a lf of the masses of

the people; while on th e ir left a p p e a r e d n o t only radical but also socialist
m o v e m en ts. T h e b ourgeoisie h ad got rid o f foreign rule, a n d had its sh a re in
political pow er; it was n o w challenged f r o m below by th e rising w o rk in g
class.
A m o n g th ose E u r o p e a n n a tio n s w hich, unlike the G e r m a n s a n d Italians,
h ad not yet achieved in d e p e n d e n c e o r unity, this d iffe ren tia tio n was
delayed, partly because the n a t io n a l ca u se r eta in ed first p riority, a n d partly
because, since these n a tio n s consisted in th eir m a jo rity o f pea sa nts, there
was n o t yet m u c h f o u n d a ti o n for a s tr o n g socialist w o rk in g class m o v e­
m ent. N evertheless, b o th the need to m obilise th e m asses in the n a tio n al
cause a n d the sp read o f socialist ideas influenced the n atio n alist leaders.
K n o w led g e th a t they m ight so o n face s tr o n g c o m p e titio n fro m incipient
socialist m o v e m en ts on th e ir left obliged th e m b o th to d ev o te m o r e th o u g h t
to social p ro b lem s a n d to p r o p o u n d po litical aim s m o r e im m ed ia te ly a n d
generally attractive. N a tio n a list parties th u s bec am e m o r e ‘p o p u lis t’, a n d at
the sam e tim e fo u n d them selves com pelled to indulge in increasingly bitter
polem ics aga in st socialist ideas. A n o u ts t a n d in g e x a m p le is the N atio n al
D e m o c r a tic P a r ty in P o la n d , w hich certainly w as socially rad ical in its
early days, b u t w h o se b itte r hostility to all n a tio n s b o r d e r in g on th e P o les—
n o t only to P ru ssia n a n d R u ssian c o n q u e r o r s b u t also to U k ra in ia n ,
L ith u a n ia n , B yelorussian a n d R o m a n ia n fellow-victims, as well as to the
large Jew ish elem ent in th e ir m id s t— led it in to violent hostility to all
in te rn a tio n a lly m inde d g ro u p s, especially to socialists.
A fte r th e F irst W o r ld W a r th e socialist m o v e m e n t split, o n a w o rld scale,
in to th e tw o hostile c a m p s o f social d e m o c r a c y a n d c o m m u n is m . In Italy
the fascist m o v e m e n t a n d regim e a p p e a r e d as a reply to the th re a t, real or
im agined, f r o m th e socialists. F asc ism was to so m e e x te n t a m o d e l for
H itle r’s N a tio n a l Socialism , w hich in th e 1930s n o t only bec am e a m ighty
force in G e r m a n y , b u t exercised a p o w erfu l a t tr a c t io n in m a n y E u r o p e a n
c o u n tries, as well as in L atin A m eric a, th e M u slim w o rld a n d the F a r East.
P a r tie s a ro se w h ich c a n loosely be te rm e d ‘fascist’, a n d fascist ideas
strong ly influenced the lead ers of m a n y n a t io n a l in d e p e n d e n c e m o v e m en ts
in v a rio u s p a r ts o f th e w orld. T h e m ilita ry successes of G e r m a n y in the first
th ree years o f the S e c o n d W o r ld W a r in creased this influence. A fter the
collapse o f th e T h ir d R e ic h fascism ce ased to be fash ionab le: instead the
victories o f th e Soviet U n io n m a d e ‘so cialism ’, as u n d e r s to o d by th e S oviet
leaders, ex tre m ely attractiv e, especially to n a t io n a l m o v e m e n ts in colonies
o f E u r o p e a n powers.
1 shall n o w briefly c o n s id e r in t u r n th e a ttitu d e s to n a tio n a lis m o f pre-
1914 socialist leaders a n d m o v e m e n ts, a n d the re la tio n sh ip o f n ation alists
to b o th fascists a n d c o m m u n ists. I n this c h a p te r the em p h a sis is on political
m o v e m e n ts a n d political actions, n o t o n d o c trin e s ( th o u g h po in ts o f
 Nationalism and Ideological M ovem ents 445

d o c trin e will fro m tim e to tim e be m e ntione d). It is as su m e d th a t readers

hav e so m e idea o f w h a t is m e a n t by ‘soc ialism ’, ‘fascism ’, a n d ‘c o m m u n is m ’:
if they have not, th e re is a vast a na lytica l literatu re at their disposal, which I
d o n o t p r o p o se to try to su m m a rise here. I also see little p o in t in trying to
analyse n atio n a lism itself as a n ideology. It m ay even be d o u b te d w heth e r
natio n a lism deserves to be called a n ideology. Its essence, I have suggested,
is very sim p le :[it is the a p p lic a tio n to n a tio n a l c o m m u n itie s o f the
E n lig h te n m e n t d o c trin e o f p o p u la r sovereignty. As to w h a t c o nstitutes, or
is th o u g h t by its m e m b e r s to co nstitu te, a n a tio n a l c o m m u n ity , it is h o p ed
th a t the readers w h o have read this f a r will have be^n able to fo rm their ow n
ideas. T h e rest o f n atio n alist ideology is rhetoric

Socialism
E u ro p e a n socialists inherited the tra d itio n , deriving fro m Louis XIV but
reinforced by the F re n ch R e v o lu tio n a n d N a p o le o n , th a t large centralised
states w ere progressive a n d small regio nal a u t o n o m ie s rea ctionary. T h u s,
w here a n u m b e r of small te rritorie s w ere in h a b ite d by people w h o wished to
unite w ith each o th e r, their aim s w ere usually a c c e p ta b le to socialists, b u t
w here small g ro u p s wished to secede fro m large states a n d fo rm states o f
their ow n, they w ere viewed with suspicion: G e r m a n , Italian a n d Polish
n atio n a lism in general a p p e a r e d to the early socialists as respectable
causes, but the n a tio n a lism o f C zechs o r S erbs or o th e r small C e n tral
E u r o p e a n peoples did not.
It is also i m p o r ta n t th a t so m e n a tio n s h a d a long tr a d i tio n o f liberal
n atio n alism , in w hich the d e m a n d s for political liberty a n d social justice
were asso ciated w ith the d e m a n d fo r n a tio n a l unity. T h is was especially
tru e o f th e Poles, w h o had tried to im p le m e n t a ‘J a c o b i n ’ c o n s titu tio n an d
h ad been crushed by foreign invasion; a n d w h o se legions had th e n fo u g h t
fo r liberty all over E u ro p e . It w as also true, to a sm a lle r ex te n t, of b o th
G e r m a n s a n d Italians, a m o n g w h o m th e E n lig h te n m e n t a n d th e F re n c h
R e v o lu tio n had w o n m u c h su p p o rt.
T h e c o n tra st, in radical a n d socialist eyes, betw een progressive a n d
r e a c tio n a r y n a tio n s w as sh a rp e n e d by th e events of 1848-49. Socialists, no
less t h a n radicals a n d liberals, w elc om e d the G e r m a n a n d Italian m o v e ­
m e n ts fo r u n ity a n d th e P o lish n a tio n a l m o v e m e n t in P russia, th o u g h they
n a tu ra lly fa v o u red th e m o s t ex tre m ist tr e n d s w ithin these m o v e m en ts. F o r
E u r o p e a n socialists, radicals a n d liberals th e m a in enem ies w ere the
A u s tr ia n a n d R u s sia n autocracies. T h e y th e re fo r e also stro n g ly s u p p o r te d
th e H u n g a r ia n n a tio n a l struggle, w ith in w hich rad ic al elem ents were
co n sp icu o u s. T h e o th e r n a tio n a l m o v e m e n ts h ow eve r did n o t enjoy their
a p p ro v a l. C zech n atio n alists d isru p te d pla n s for a d e m o c r a tic G re a te r
446 Nations and States

G e r m a n y , a n d w ere also suspect b ec au se o f th e ir P a n s la v sym pathies,

w hich caused th e m to be re g a rd e d as tools o f the R u s sia n tsar. It is tru e th a t
M ic h ae l B a k u n in was a n ex c ep tio n , as he f a v o u r e d s o m e so rt o f re v o lu tio n ­
a r y S lav solidarity w ith a s tr o n g a n t i- G e r m a n flavour. T h is was one o f the
issues o n w hich K arl M a r x quarrelled w ith B a kun in, a n d in later years the
in te r n a tio n a l socialist a n d a n a r c h is t m o v e m e n ts drifted even f u r th e r a p a rt.
As fo r the sm all n a tio n s w hich resisted H u n g a r ia n n a tio n a lism , they were
tr e a te d w ith c o n t e m p t by M a r x a n d Engels. S lo v ak s, C r o a ts , S erbs an d
T ra n s y lv a n ia n R o m a n ia n s w ere m e re f r a g m e n ta r y lang u ag e g ro u p s
d o o m e d to ex tin ctio n , destined to be a b s o r b e d in to G e r m a n o r H u n g a r ia n
o r Italian culture. D u rin g the 1848 R e v o lu tio n their leaders had ch osen to
s u p p o r t th e H a b sb u rg s, usin g th e ir peoples as m e re m e rc en a ries o f d e s p o t­
ism.
T h e m o s t f o rm id a b le r e a c tio n a r y force in E u r o p e n o w a p p e a r e d to M a rx
a n d Engels to be R u s sia n tsarism . T h e r e f o r e n a t io n a l m o v e m e n ts which
w ere in a n y sense allied to R u s sia m u s t be enem ies o f progress, while those
w h ich o p p o s e d the t s a r ’s aim s m u s t deserve sy m p a th y . T o this la tte r g r o u p
b elo nged n o t only the Poles b u t the R o m a n ia n s o f B essarab ia ( th o u g h the
R o m a n ia n s o f T ra n s y lv a n ia h ad been d e n o u n c e d fo r helping the H a b s ­
b urgs a g a in st th e H u n g a r ia n revolutionaries). M a r x him self later e x ­
pressed his s y m p a th y f o r th e B e ssa ra b ian R o m a n ia n s .
H ith e r t o socialist a t titu d e s to the p ro b le m s o f n a tio n a l in de p ende nce
a n d un ity had b een essentially negative a n d o p p o r tu n is t. O p p re ssio n o f one
n a t io n by a n o t h e r m u s t be c o n d e m n e d . H o w ev er, n a tio n a lis m was a
p h e n o m e n o n of th e b o u rg e o is stage o f social e v o lu tio n , a n d w o u ld be
o v e rc o m e in th e socialist stage. C lass struggles w ere m o r e f u n d a m e n ta l
t h a n n a t io n a l struggles. I n th e socialist repub lics o f the fu tu re , solidarity of
the w o rk e rs w o u ld o v erc o m e all n a tio n a l conflicts. M ean w h ile , tho se
n a t io n a l m o v e m e n ts w h ich f u rth e r e d th e m o v e m e n t to w a r d s socialism
m u st be su p p o r te d , a n d th o se w hich w ere useful to th e cause o f d es p o tism
m u s t be o p pose d.
T h e c o u n t r y in w h ich a m o r e c o n s tru c tiv e a n d im agin a tiv e a t titu d e to
n a tio n a lis m w as devised b y socialists w as A u s tr ia - H u n g a r y . T h e o u t s t a n d ­
ing th e o rists w ere K a rl R e n n e r a n d O t t o B auer, w h o se b o o k s c a m e o u t in
th e first d e c a d e o f th e c e n tu r y . 1 T h e essence o f th e policy w as th a t, w hereas
the sta te a d m in is t r a tio n a n d legislature sh o u ld be cen tralised, culture
sh o u ld be decentralised a n d left to each c o m p o n e n t ‘n a tio n a lity ’. E ach
sh o u ld have its o w n c u ltu r a l o r g a n isa tio n , resp o n sib le especially for
e d u c a tio n , m a in ta in e d by ta x e s levied o n the m e m b e r s o f th e ‘n a tio n a lity ’,
a c c o r d in g to their o w n d e c la ra tio n o f n a tio n a l a d h e ren ce . T h u s, for
e x a m p le , not only w o u ld cu ltu ra l life in regio ns o f c o m p a c t S lo vak
p o p u la tio n be in the h a n d s o f S lo v ak c u ltu ra l a u th o ritie s , b u t a S lo vak
living far fro m the S lo v a k h o m e la n d — say, in D a lm a ti a o r B u k o v in a —
 Nationalism and Ideological M ovem ents 447

w o u ld be able to have his child ren e d u c a te d in S lo v a k schools.

In the R u s sia n em p ire a sim ilar, t h o u g h m o r e lim ited, idea was p u t
fo rw a r d by th e Bund, th e o rg a n is a tio n o f Je w is h S ocial D e m o c r a ts . 2 It
c laim ed to represe nt all Je w ish w o rk e rs, in w h a te v e r p a r t o f R ussia they
m ight live. A c c e p ta n c e o f this claim by the R u ssian S ocial D e m o c r a ts
( R S D R P ) w o u ld have m e a n t th a t a Je w ish w o rk e r m ig h t have a d u al
loyalty, to the Bund a n d to th e R S D R P . T h is was o p p o se d by the R ussian
leaders, especially by th e Bolshevik g r o u p led by L enin, a n d the Bund
th e re fo re seceded f r o m R S D R P at its seco nd congress in 1903. M a n y
R ussian Je w ish socialists rem a in ed m e m b e rs o f R S D R P , b o th o f its
M enshevik a n d o f its Bolshevik fa c tio n , a n d accepted th e ir cen tralist
discipline; oth e rs follow ed the Bund ; a n d still oth ers c o m b in e d socialism
w ith form s o f Z ionism .
A n im p o r ta n t conflict o n the n a tio n a l p ro b le m e m erg ed w ithin the
Polish socialist m o v e m en t. T h e P olish S ocialist P a r ty ( P P S ) , fo u n d e d in
1892, desired the in d e p e n d e n c e a n d reu n ific atio n o f P o lan d : the class
struggle a n d the n a tio n a l struggle sh o u ld g o to g e th e r .3 T h e r e w ere how ever
disa g re em en ts on relative priorities; a n d o n e g r o u p , led by R o z a L u k se m -
bu rg , b ro k e aw a y a lto g e th e r in 1900, to fo rm th e S ocial D e m o c r a c y o f th e
K in g d o m o f P o la n d a n d L ith u a n ia ( S D K P L ) . L u k s e m b u rg m a in ta in e d
n o t only th a t a n i n d e p e n d e n t P o la n d c o u ld ,n o t be cre ate d in the foreseeable
future, b u t th a t it was positively undesirable: the tru e interest o f th e Polish
w o rk e rs was th a t they sh o u ld rem ain w ithin th e th ree g rea t states in w hich
th e y h ad been in c o rp o r a te d by the p a rtitio n s, a n d w hich w o u ld in due
c o u rse be tr a n s f o r m e d by r e v o lu tio n in to th e G e r m a n , A u s tr ia n a n d
R u ssian socialist republics. W ith in these republics P olish w o rk e rs w ou ld
live a n d w o rk in p r o le ta r ia n solidarity beside G e r m a n , R u s sia n a n d o th e r
w o rk e rs .4
Lenin strong ly o p p o s e d the a u t o n o m o u s a s p ira tio n s o f th e Bund, the
e x tre m e in te rn a tio n a lis m o f L u k s e m b u rg a n d the p r o p o s e d so lutions o f
R e n n e r a n d Bauer. It was L enin w h o inspired S ta lin ’s essay o f 1913: th o u g h
clearly w ritten, it c o n ta in s n o original id e as.5 Its essential p o in t is th e
insistence th a t n a tio n a lity is in se p arab le fro m territory: it th e re fo re rejects
a n y policy o f perso n a l n a tio n a l a u t o n o m y w ith in a m u ltin a tio n a l state.
L enin, fo r w h o m S ta lin w as the m o u th p ie c e , insisted t h a t every n a tio n
s h o u ld have th e right, if it wished, to se p a r a te fro m a m u ltin a tio n a l socialist
republic; b u t th a t if a n a t io n decided t o r e m a in w ith in the sa m e state as
a n o t h e r o r several others, th e n its m e m b e r s m u st ac c e p t th e centralised
institu tio ns o f the republic. C e n tr a lis a tio n a p p lie d even m o r e strictly to the
o r g a n is a tio n o f the p arty , w hich c o u ld n o t ac c e p t a n y s o r t o f federalism or
regional a u to n o m y : the p a r ty o r g a n is a tio n a t e a c h a d m in is tra tiv e level
m u st be fully s u b o r d in a te d to the n e x t level a b o v e it.
T h e d o c trin e o f the R u ssian Bolsheviks, w h o finally fo rm e d them selves
448 Nations and States

into a s e p a ra te p a r ty in 1912, was n a t io n a l se lf-d e te rm in a tio n to the po in t

o f secession. T his did n o t m e a n th a t a n a tio n must secede, only th a t it was
en titled to d o so if it wished. T h e re re m a in e d ho w ev e r a difficult p roblem .
H o w was it to be decided w h a t th e n a t io n wished? If a ‘b ou rg eo is
n a tio n a lis t’ p a r ty o b ta in e d a n electoral m a jo r ity a n d w ished to secede, bu t
the w o rk in g class, t h o u g h a m in o rity o f the p o p u la tio n , w ished to rem ain
w ithin the m u ltin a tio n a l socialist republic, th e n w hich o f these conflicting
g r o u p s sh o u ld be entitled to exercise o r to r e n o u n c e the right of self-
d e te r m in a tio n ? Precisely this s itu a tio n a ro se in R iga a n d in B aku in 1918.
T h e q u e s tio n never received a th e o re tic al answ er. In practice the issue was
d ecided by force. W h e re v e r th e Bolsheviks w ere s tr o n g e n o u g h to m a in ta in
th e ir rule over n o n - R u s s ia n s by force, they did so: w h erev e r o th e r forces
pro v e d to o s tr o n g for th e m , they failed, a n d for a tim e at least recognised
the in d e p e n d e n c e o f th e seceding natio n s. T h u s the Poles, L atvians,
L ith u a n ia n s , E sto n ia n s, F in n s a n d B e ssa ra bian R o m a n ia n s seceded from
R u s sia fo r tw en ty years; th e G e o rg ia n s, A z e rb a id ja n is a n d A r m e n ia n s for
tw o o r three; while th e U k ra in ia n s , T a t a r s a n d C e n tr a l A sian peoples were
retained by force w ithin the R u ssian em pire, r e n a m e d U n io n o f Soviet
S ocialist Republics.

Fascism
In the first h alf o f th e n in e te e n th c e n tu ry , the d e m a n d fo r the involvem ent
o f the w hole n a tio n in politics was voiced by the liberals a n d m en o f ‘the
left’. It w as as su m ed th a t if the masses played a p a r t in politics, they would
s u p p o r t the refo rm s p r o p o s e d by the radicals, a n d w o u ld drive the old
ruling elem ents o u t o f politics. F o r this r e a so n d e m o c r a c y — th a t is,
g o v e r n m e n t by the people, o r a t least by a m u c h larger p r o p o r ti o n o f the
p e o p le t h a n h ith e r to — w as p r ea ch ed by th e left a n d o p p o s e d by the right.
A fte r 1848 h o w ev e r it b e g a n to d a w n o n leading politicians of the u p p e r
social s tr a ta th a t the m asses m ig h t act q u ite otherw ise, m ight s u p p o r t
tr a d i tio n a l p a trio tis m a n d tr a d itio n a l leaders, especially if these disguised
th e ir aim s in a new style o f rhetoric. T h e first large-scale e x a m p le was
B o n a p a r tis m in France: N a p o le o n III sh o w ed h im self a skilful m a n ip u la to r
o f the new ly en fran c h ised p o o r e r social g ro u p s. D israeli in E n g la n d
believed t h a t e x ten sio n o f th e suffrage w ou ld give th e C o n s erv ativ es new
o p p o rtu n itie s: the im m e d ia te result o f th e 1867 R e f o r m Bill d id n o t co n firm
this view, b u t it w as a m p ly justified so m e years later. B ism a rc k m a d e good
use o f universal suffrage in th e R e ic h sta g afte r 1871, a n d w o n s u p p o r t by a
p r o g r a m m e o f social w elfare in the 1880s, while k eepin g the suffrage in
P ru ssia restricted. His success w as largely d u e to his ability to exploit
n a tio n a l pride in the new G e r m a n e m p ire o f w hich he w as the principal

I
 Nationalism and Ideological M ovem ents 449

architect
It was in F ra n c e afte r 1871 th a t n a tio n a lis m was m o st strikingly used as a
m e an s o f m obilising th e m asses beh in d the tr a d itio n a l ruling strata. T h e
h u m ilia tio n o f d efeat by P russia w as widely a n d bitterly felt. T h e C o m ­
m u n e o f 1871 was n o t only a social rev o lu tio n b u t also to so m e e x te n t a
p a trio tic m o v e m en t. In the early stages o f F re n c h socialism, n atio n alism
a n d in te rn a tio n a lis m coexisted a n d conflicted w ith each other. T h e n a t io n ­
alist w riter M a u ric e Barrés long co n s id ered him self to be a socialist. By the
tu r n o f the c e ntu ry , how ever, the in te r n a tio n a lis t tre n d h ad prevailed
w ithin F re n c h socialism, a n d its enem ies increasingly em p h asised , in their
polem ics aga in st it, its tr e a so n a b le d is r u p tio n of n a tio n a l un ity in the face
o f the tr iu m p h a n t G e r m a n enem y. O n the e x tre m e right th e re develop ed
the d o c trin e o f nationalism e intégral , w hose chief p r o p h e t w as C h arles
M a u rra s. T he n a tio n w as held up as the s u p re m e value, side by side with
G o d , an d increasingly as a su b stitu te for G o d . T h e m ain political task m ust
be to rem ov e fro m the n a tio n all th o se forces w hich w ere c o r r u p tin g it fro m
w ith in — the P ro te sta n ts, the m étèques (offsp rin g of m ixed m arriages
betw een F re n c h m e n a n d foreign im m ig ran ts) a n d , a b o v e all, th e Jews.
I have arg u e d th a t F ra n c e an d E n gla nd had no need for, a n d did not
historically develop, n a tio n a lism in the sense in w hich we u n d e r s ta n d
‘n a tio n a lism ’ in this b o o k — th a t is, a m o v e m e n t for n a tio n a l in de p ende nce
o r n a tio n a l unity o r a policy o f cre atin g n a tio n a l consciousne ss w ithin a
politically u n co n s cio u s p o p u la tio n . T h e r e w as how ever, fro m the 1890s to
the 1930s, s o m e th in g w hich is h ab itu ally d escribed as ‘F r e n c h n a tio n a lis m ’.
T h is was in fact so m e th in g different f r o m n a tio n a lism as h ith e r to discussed
in this b o o k , yet u n d o u b te d ly relevant to it. It was a political doctrine,
w h o se aim was p o w e r w ithin the n atio n . Its clearest f o r m u l a ti o n was the
nationalism e intégral o f M a u rr a s , but it e x ten d e d far b ey o n d th e limits o f
the ra th e r small political g r o u p o f A ction française, the periodical an d
m o v e m e n t of w hich M a u r r a s was th e le ader. In p a rtic u la r, this n atio n alism
affected th e syndicalist section o f the la b o u r m o v e m e n t, r a th e r s tr o n g in the
last years before 1914, w hich, partly u n d e r the influence o f a n o t h e r
p r o p h e t, G eorges Sorel, a d v o c a te d hero ic a n d violent ac tio n , d e n o u n c in g
intellectualism , ratio n alis m , p a r lia m e n ta r y in stitu tio n s a n d peaceful legal
p ro c e d u re s as degenerate.
S im ila r tendencies w ere to be f o u n d in o th e r co untries. G e r m a n s can
h a r d ly be said to h av e suffered, like F r e n c h m e n , n a tio n a l h u m ilia tio n in
1870. N evertheless, th e m o st p a s sio n a te G e r m a n n atio n alists in A u stria,
especially th o se w h o lived in the B o h e m ia n a n d C a r i n th ia n b o r d e r la n d s in
p r o x im ity w ith C zechs a n d Slovenes, felt h u m ilia te d by being d ep riv e d o f
m e m b e r sh ip o f a single G e r m a n Reich, a n d e n d a n g e r e d by the g row ing
n u m b e rs a n d cu ltu ra l prete n sio n s o f th e ir ‘s u b - h u m a n ’ S lav neighbours.
T h ey to o increasingly extolled violence, a n d hated r a tio n a l a n d legal
p roce dure s. T h ey to o hated all form s o f in te r n a tio n a lis m , an d identified
450 Nations and States

these w ith the Je w s in th e ir midst. F o r th e m to o , the G e r m a n Volk was

gro w in g in to a su b stitu te f o r G od.
In Italy so m e th in g of the sort was also to be seen. N early all Italians were
u n ite d in o n e state; b u t th e re w ere still so m e u n r e d e e m e d w h o w ere being
t h r e a te n e d , while still subjected to the in d o le n t a n d a n t iq u a t e d g o v e rn m e n t
o f V ienna, by th e rising flo od o f Slav Slovenes a n d C ro a ts. Italy also
suffered fro m being a la te c o m e r to the c o m p a n y o f E u r o p e a n im perial
pow ers. S he m u st claim f o r herself a sh a re o f the c o lo n ial spoils w hich the
old e r n a tio n s h ad divided a m o n g themselves. Irre d e n tism k ep t n atio n alism
a living force in Italy, a n d it h a d its s u p p o r t also in th e la b o u r m o v e m en t, in
w hich, as in F ra n c e , syndicalism a n d the r o m a n tic cult o f violence were a
s tro n g force. N atio n alists w elcom ed the w a r for L ibya in 1911. T h e poet
U g o F o sc o lo , in a f a m o u s speech, used the p h rase 7 a grande proletaria s ’e
mossa'. A s he saw it, Italy w as a p r o le ta r ia n a m o n g the n atio n s, now
claim ing her due. S im ila r sen tim e n ts em erged still m o r e strong ly in the
F irst W o r ld W ar. T h e Italian socialist m o v e m e n t w as split by the L iby an
w ar, a n d f u rth e r defections o cc u rre d in 1915. A socialist w h o h ad ta k e n the
in te rn a tio n a lis t view in 1911, Benito M ussolini, n ow c a m e o u t as a m ilitant
p a trio t. T h e peace se ttle m ent of 1918-20 bitterly d isa p p o in te d Italian
natio n alists, w h o saw m o s t o f the la n d s they h ad claim ed go to the new
Y ugoslavia. M ussolini em erged as th e leader o f the m ilita n t nationalists,
a n d th e ene m y o f socialists, c o m m u n ists, liberals a n d in ternation alists. It
was he w h o chose the w o rd ‘fascist’ for his m o v e m e n t.6
T h is w o rd , a n d th e rh e to ric associated w ith it, gave its n a m e to a period
o f ten to tw en ty years in E u r o p e a n a n d w orld history. T h o u g h it is a m a tte r
fo r a r g u m e n t w h e th e r th e re w as ever a single p h e n o m e n o n o f fascism, there
was certain ly a n Age o f Fascism; a n d it is m o re en lig h te n in g th a n confusing
to s p e ak o f certain g o v e r n m e n ts a n d ce rtain political m o v e m e n ts o f th a t
ag e as ‘fascist’.
A fte r M u sso lin i’s t r iu m p h in 1922 th e Italian n a tio n w as extolled as a
su b stitu te fo r G o d , b u t as tim e passed it b e c am e m o r e tru e to say th a t
M usso lin i, as the s y m b o l o f th e n a tio n , w as h im self raised a lm o s t to divine
status. II Duce ha sem pre ragione (the leader is alw ays right) was p r o ­
claim ed in inscriptions all ov er Italy. T h e effectiveness o f this ap o th e o sis in
Italy w as, how ever, lim ited by th e p r o f o u n d in n a te political scepticism of
m o st Italians (including, it is fair to say, M ussolini himself) a n d by the
necessity of c o m in g to te rm s w ith the very po w erfu l C a th o lic ch u rc h , w hose
s ta tu s was legalised by th e c o n c o r d a t o f 1929.
In G e r m a n y the n a t io n a l h u m ilia tio n o f 1918 w as im m ensely d ee p er th a n
th a t o f F ra n c e in 1871, let alo n e t h a t o f Italy in 1918. D e te r m in a t io n to
reverse th e peace s e ttle m ent o f Versailles, a n d to reassert G e r m a n n a tio n a l
greatness, was w idesp read. It ca n be divided into tw o m a in trend s. O n e was
conservativ e, based on the old u p p e r classes a n d industrialists, distrustful
 Nationalism and Ideological M ovem ents 451

o f th e c o m m o n people. T h e o th e r w as po p u lis t, hostile to th e old rulers,

socially radical an d co nvinced th a t p o w e r c o uld be achieved o nly by
m obilising the m asses in a vast m o v e m e n t. T h e second tren d prevailed
u n d e r the leadership o f a politician o f genius, A d o lf Hitler. H a tr e d of
in te rn a tio n a lis m , o f socialism a n d a b o v e all o f Je w s were the m a in p oin ts of
his p r o g ra m m e , a n d , aid ed by the d is a stro u s e c o n o m ic d ep re ssio n which
began in 1929, they proved very p o p u la r. O n ce in pow er, the process of
d eification first o f the Volk a n d th e n o f its le ad e r Hitler, k n ew n o b o u n d s. It
is no ex a g g e ra tio n th a t fo r the m o st active m e m b e rs o f th e N a tio n a l
S ocialist P a r ty H itler w as indeed a s u b stitu te fo r G o d.
IT H a tre d o f in te rn a tio n a lis m , socialism a n d liberalism, c o m b in e d also to a
vary in g e x te n t w ith r o m a n tic idealisation o f p re-in d u stria l society a n d of
th e virtues o f the no b le p e a s a n try (which w as a fea tu re o f G e r m a n N a tio n a l
Socialism , th o u g h not o f F re n c h nationalism e intégra! o r o f Italian
fascism) are, to g e th e r w ith anti-sem itism , the m a in ch aracteristics o f the
m ost successful fascist m o v e m e n ts in sm aller E u r o p e a n co u n trie s d u r in g
the 1930s, especially in R o m a n ia , H u n g a r y , Belgium a n d S pain. In all f o u r
co u n tries the cult o f the su p r e m e leader was also im p o r ta n t, but there were
so m e significant differences. T h e R o m a n i a n a n d H u n g a r ia n m o v e m en ts
had s tro n g s u p p o r t fro m a large p a r t o f th e m o st genuinely religious section
o f the p o p u la tio n . It is th e re fo re d o u b tf u l w h e th e r o n e s h o u ld speak o f the
deification o f the n atio n , o r of the leader. C o d r e a n u a n d Szâlassi were
pious believers: they p e r h a p s consid ered them selves, a n d were consid ered
by their followers, as p ro p h e ts. Degrelle, the Belgian leader, w as p ro b a b ly ,
like M ussolini, a sceptical m a n ip u la to r r a th e r th a n a p r o p h e t. A s for the
S p a n ish leader, J o s é A n to n io P rim o de R ivera, he was killed at a very early
stage o f the m ove m ent. He, like C o d r e a n u (w h o led the m o v e m e n t fo r m o re
th a n a d ec ad e before being m u rd e re d ) a n d the victims o f the D u b lin E aster
R ebellion o f 1916, b ec am e the object o f a cult o f the m a rty re d c o m ra d e s
w hich gave a peculiar c h a r a c te r to the I ro n G u a r d , th e S p a n is h Falange
a n d the I R A . y
T h e w orsh ip o f the N a tio n required t h a t all m o ra lity sh o u ld be s u b o r d i­
n a te d to the interests o f th e N a tio n , as in te rp re ted by the L eader. Recht ist,
was dem Volke nützt was the g u id ing principle o f the N a tio n a l Socialists.
D u r i n g the ‘night o f the long knives’ o f 30 J u n e 1934, w h e n the le aders of
the S A a n d o th e r p r o m in e n t G e r m a n s w ere m u r d e r e d by his orders, H itler
was, he claim ed, the perso n ific atio n o f th e Ju s tic e o f the G e r m a n Volk.
A g ain st th e enem ies o f th e n a tio n , a n d th e t r a i to r s in its m idst, all f o rm s of
repressio n were p e r m itte d , ra n g in g f r o m s h o r t te rm s o f i m p r is o n m e n t or
physical assau lt o n in d ividuals in th e first years o f the regim e to m ass
e x t e r m in a tio n o f w h o le categories o f h u m a n beings in the years o f clim a x in
w orld war. Indeed, to ta k e p a r t in m ass e x t e r m in a tio n w as glorified as the
heroic p e rf o rm a n c e o f a h ighe r d u ty to th e N ation. In a f a m o u s speech at
452 Nations and States

P o z n a n , in o ccu pied P o la n d on 4 O c to b e r 1943, H einrich H im m ler,

H itler’s security police chief, said: ‘M ost o f y ou will k n o w w h a t it m e an s to
have 100, 500 o r 1,000 corpse s lying there beside you. T o have e n d u re d this,
a n d a t the sa m e tim e — w ith a few ex c e p tio n s d u e to h u m a n w ea k n ess— to
have re m a in e d h onest men, t h a t is w h a t h as m a d e us to u g h . T his is a page of
glory fro m o u r history such as has never been w ritten , a n d will never be
w ritte n a g a in ’.
In the rh eto ric o f n a tio n -w o rsh ip , M ussolini was the p ac e-m a k er. It was
he w h o invented the re so u n d in g p h r a se lo stato totalitario. In reality, the
grip o f M u sso lin i’s g o v e r n m e n t over Italians w as far less th a n total. It was
in H itle r’s T h ir d Reich th a t reality c a m e closest to th e ideal o f n atio n -
w o rs h ip p in g to ta lita ria n ism . M a n y a t te m p ts have been m a d e to define
to ta lita r ia n ism , n o n e o f w hich has been successful, not even the well-
k n o w n six poin ts o f F rie d ric h a n d Brzezinski.8 In so far as these a tte m p ts
w ere asso ciated, especially in the U nited S tate s in the 1950s, w ith a n anti-
S ov iet political a t titu d e , the rea ctio n a g a in st w h a t w as labelled ‘cold w ar
m e n tality ’ led to a w idespre ad d e m a n d by ac a d e m ic political th e o rists th a t
the w hole co n c ep t sh o u ld be discarded. T his seems to me to be going to o
far, fo r in fact there w as, a n d still in the mid-1970s c o n tin u e d to be, a
significant political p h e n o m e n o n , o f w hich the w o rd was in tended to be a
d e scription. O n the o th e r h a n d , I d o n o t believe th a t to ta lita r ia n ism , any
m o r e th a n n a tio n , class, d e m o c r a c y o r socialism, can be precisely defined. 1
suggest th a t the p h e n o m e n o n w ith w hich we are c o n c e rn e d is the tendency
to c o n c e n tra te all political, e c o n o m ic a n d spiritual p o w e r in th e h a n d s of a n
infallible leader w ith access to m o d e rn m e an s o f mass c o m m u n ic a ti o n and
m ass m o b ilisa tion; a n d th e tendency to d en y an y a u t o n o m y to the private
life o f th e citizen, w h o m u s t a t all tim es a n d in all m a tte rs place th e leader’s
wishes befo re a n y th in g else at all. In the case o f n a tio n - w o r sh ip p in g
to ta lita r ia n ism , th e su p r e m e value w hich the le ade r personified o r s y m b o ­
lised was the N a tio n . In the th ree co u n trie s in w hich a fo rm o f n atio n -
w o rs h ip p in g to ta lita r ia n is m prevailed d u r in g th e A ge o f F a sc ism — Italy,
G e r m a n y a n d J a p a n — w o rs h ip was d irected to w a r d s a single p erson, n o t a
g ro u p . In Italy a n d G e r m a n y , M u sso lin i a n d H itle r w ere the real h o lders of
p o w e r (th o u g h , like all rulers in history, partly d e p e n d e n t o n their advisers
a n d s u b o rd in ates); in J a p a n , n o single in d ividual held all the p o w e r at the
to p , b u t th e e m p e r o r w as m a d e , a g a in st his will, in to a semi-divine sym bol,
th e essence o f the n a t io n a l polity ( K oku tai ) to w hich all individuals a n d all
values m u s t be subjected.
In reality, the p o w e r o f th e le ader, o r o f th o se w h o co n tro lle d th e semi­
divine e m p e r o r, was less t h a n total. In Italy, M u sso lin i’s o rd e rs were
o beyed until m ilitary d isa ste r o v e r to o k him ; b u t the b u re a u c ra c y , the
a r m e d forces, the ch u rc h a n d the indu stria l elite o p e r a te d a c c o r d in g to their
prc-fascist h abits a n d values. T h ere w as in fact a b alan c e o f p o w e r a n d o f
 Nationalism and Ideological M ovem ents 453

m a teria l a d v a n ta g e s betw een the old elites a n d the new regim e. M ussolini
did n o t try to im pose th e ideology o f his fanatics on th ose w h o se skills a n d
w h o se organised hierarchies he needed. F o rc e d n a tio n a l unity a n d n a tio n a l
ex p a n s io n w ere ac cepted as a c o m m o n aim . A p p r o x i m a t e ly th e s a m e was
tru e in J a p a n . H ere the b alan c e was seriously m odified in the 1930s: the
industrial m a g n a te s bec am e less pow erful, the m ilitary chiefs m o r e p o w e r ­
ful. T h e m ilitary chiefs w ere pushed to w a r d s a m o r e a d v e n tu r o u s policy of
foreign e x p a n s io n by th e fanatics w ithin th e a r m e d forces w h o assassinate d
a n u m b e r o f politicians, generals a n d ad m ira ls; b u t the fanatics w ere n o t
able to ta k e over the g o v e rn m e n t. W ith in the ruling elite, rivalries b etween
a r m y a n d navy chiefs, a n d betw een civilian politicians, w ere n o t e lim in a t­
ed. C u ltu ra l life a n d family life w ere n o t m u c h affected. In G e r m a n y the
regim e m a d e itself m o r e p r o fo u n d ly felt in all fields th a n w as th e case in
Italy o r J a p a n . T h e a r m e d forces w ere pu rg ed before w a r was started;
industrialists were placed u n d e r very strict sta te c o n tro l, t h o u g h perm itted
to m a k e vast profits fo r themselves; a n d the c h u rc h es were subjected to far-
reaching interference, w hich led to so m e c o m p lia n c e b u t also to som e
resistance, perse cu tio n a n d m a rty rd o m . A fte r th e unsuccessful a t t e m p t to
o v e r th r o w H itler in J u ly 1944, the d e t e r m in a tio n to im p o se N a tio n a l
Socialist d o ctrin es a n d m orality on every ind ividual, a n d to d e s tro y every
a u t o n o m o u s o r g a n is m in G e r m a n society, was greatly intensified. But the
needs o f a w ar th a t was being lost p rev e n ted these plans fro m being carried
out. T h o u g h the N a tio n a l Socialists m a in ta in e d th e ir grip over the G e r m a n
n a tio n until the end, fighting on until only a tiny piece o f te rrito ry was left
in their han ds, they w ere ultim ately crushed.
T h e d efeat o f the T h ir d Reich b r o u g h t to a n en d the A ge o f F ascism , a n d
discredited the w o rd ‘fascism ’, p erh a p s fo r ever. It seemed likely th a t the
precise c o m b in a t io n o f d o ctrin es a n d style, ch a racteristic o f the fascist
m o v e m e n ts a n d regim es o f th e 1930s, w o u ld never be repeated. T h is did n o t
how ever m e an th a t there w ou ld n o t be new varieties o f n a tio n - w o r sh ip p in g
to ta lita ria n ism . T h e c o n d itio n s for its revival rem a in ed , especially in
c o u n trie s w hose p eople had recently escap ed fro m foreign rule, o r were
h u m iliated by c o n tin u in g indirect d o m in a tio n by foreigners. T h ese c o n d i­
tions were seen in several co u n tries o f L a tin A m eric a, A sia a n d Africa, after
the S e c o n d W o rld W a r. T h e regim es o f P e r o n in A rg e n tin a fro m 1945 to
1955 a n d o f N k r u m a h in G h a n a s h o w ed a fam ily re la tio n sh ip to the
regim es o f th e A ge o f Fascism : in b o th cases th e te n d en c y to n atio n alist
to ta lita r ia n is m a n d to le ad e r-w o rsh ip increased in th e last p eriod before the
d ic ta t o r ’s ov erth ro w . Sim ilarities o f style r a th e r th a n o f c o n t e n t c ould be
seen in th e last p e r io d o f th e rule o f S u k a r n o in I n d o n esia ; a n d n a tio n -
w o rship, t h o u g h w ith o u t w o rs h ip of a single infallible leader, c h a racterise d
at tim es th e regim es o f th e Ba’ath in S y ria a n d Iraq.
454 Nations and States

C o m m u n is m

T h e w o rd ‘c o m m u n is m ’ c a n be m a d e to c over a m u ltitu d e o f d o ctrin es a n d

o f m o v e m e n ts, aim in g a t the s h a rin g o f e a r th ly g o o d s b etw een the m e m b ers
o f a c o m m u n ity ; a n d e x a m p le s ca n be tra c e d b a c k to very d is ta n t p eriods of
history. In m o d e rn tim es h ow ever the w o rd ca n be c o n fin e d to doctrines
a n d m o v e m e n ts w hich claim to be derived f r o m th e te achings a n d the
political e x a m p le o f M a r x a n d Lenin.
All L eninists r e p u d ia te d n atio n alism . T h e y claim ed to be p ro le ta r ia n
in te rn atio n a lis ts, a n d m a in ta in e d th a t th e w o rk e rs h ad n o f a th e rla n d but
th e w h o le w orld. E very Leninist m o v e m e n t h ad the d u ty to w o rk fo r a
p r o le t a r ia n socialist r e v o lu tio n in its o w n c o u n try . W h e n a Leninist
m o v e m e n t o b ta in e d p o w e r in an y c o u n try , it sh o u ld regard itself as a
v a n g u a r d o f the w o rld socialist rev olution . F r o m 7 N o v e m b e r 1917 for
nea rly th irty years, only o n e L eninist m o v e m e n t in fact held power: the
Bolshevik p a r ty in the g r e a te r p a r t o f the f o rm e r la n d s o f the R ussian
e m p ir e .9 T h e basis o f legitim acy of Bolshevik rule w as n o t the s u p p o r t of
the p eo p le o f the f o r m e r em p ire, o r o f the R u s s ia n n a tio n ; in fact, in the
election to the C o n s titu e n t A ssem bly in N o v e m b e r 1917 a large m ajority
b o th o f the w hole p o p u la tio n a n d o f the R u s sia n n a t io n v o te d a g a in st the
Bolsheviks. T h e basis o f legitim acy was the claim th a t the Bolshevik party
sto o d fo r the im m a n e n t interest o f the w o rk in g class o f the w ho le w orld.
T h is claim was based o n L en in ’s p r o f o u n d co n v ic tio n t h a t the Bolshevik
le ad e rsh ip — w hich he, a m a n w ith o u t p etty p erso n a l vanity, identified with
him self— w ere the only p erso n s w h o h ad a c o m p le te a n d ‘c o r r e c t’ u n d e r ­
sta n d in g o f M a rx is t th e ory. A fter L e n in ’s d e a th , th e re c a m e in to use the
e x p re ssio n s ‘M a rx is m -L e n in is m ’ a n d ‘M a rx is t-L e n in is t science’. Official
d o c trin e c o n tin u e d to be t h a t his w isd o m was exclusively e m b o d ie d in the
le adersh ip o f the C P S U , w hich in the 1930s c a m e to m e a n in on e m a n ,
Stalin.
T h e ‘cult o f p e rso n a lity ’, 10 o f w hich S talin w as th e object, raised him to
the level o f a s u b stitu te go d . T h e a p o th e o sis o f S talin b e g a n a b o u t the sam e
tim e as th e ap o th e o sis o f H itler, a n d th e y d eve lope d o n r a th e r sim ilar lines.
A t first ho w ev e r th e re w as o n e clear difference betw e en them : the ersatz-
g o d H itle r sy m bolised th e G e r m a n n a tio n , w hile th e ersatz-g od S talin
sym bolised th e in te r n a tio n a l w o rk in g class. T h e G e r m a n s were invited to
w o rs h ip th e G e r m a n n a t io n in th e f o rm o f th e F ü h r e r , b u t th e R ussians
w ere n o t invited to w o rs h ip the R u s s ia n n a t io n ( a n d still less, the n o n -
R u s sian s to w orsh ip th e ir n ations). H o w ev er, th e difference b e c a m e less
sh a rp as the years passed. S ta lin was held u p to all c o m m u n is t s as a n object
o f w o rsh ip , to g e th e r w ith the So viet socialist state. ‘S o cia lism ’ was, by
d efinition , w h a t existed in th e Soviet U n io n . T h e interests o f th e w o rk e rs of
 Nationalism and Ideological M ovem ents 455

the w orld w ere w h a te v e r S talin said th e y were. C o m m u n is ts all over the

w orld m u st always serve a b o v e all th e interests o f the Sov iet state. L éo n
B lu m ’s r e m a rk th a t the F re n c h C o m m u n is t P a r ty was un p a rti nationaliste
étranger was n o t far f r o m th e tr u th , t h o u g h it w as n o t entirely accurate: the
o bject o f d e v o tio n o f the leaders o f the P C F was n o t a foreign n a t io n b u t a
foreign state. Yet as the process o f n eo -R u s sific a tio n (briefly discussed in
a n earlier c h a p te r, pp. 313-319) m a d e itself felt; a n d as a new fo rm o f G re a t
R u s sia n ch a u v in is m (so sincerely a n d fiercely h a te d by L enin in his
lifetime) increasingly p erv a d ed Soviet po litical a n d social life, the differ­
ence between the av o w e d ly n atio n alist legitim acy o f H itlerism a n d the
allegedly in te rn a tio n a lis t legitimacy o f S talin ism dw indled. D u r i n g the
sam e y ea r also th e c o m m o n to ta lita r ia n fea tu re s o f the tw o regim es becam e
m o r e p ro m in e n t. In Sov iet R ussia n o less th a n in th e T h ir d R eich was
visible th e tendency to c o n c e n tra te all political, e c o n o m ic a n d spiritual
p o w e r in the h a n d s o f a n infallible leader, a n d to d eny a n y a u t o n o m y to the
private life o f th e citizen. In reality, the po w er o f the Soviet regim e
a p p r o x im a te d m u c h m o r e closely to the to ta lita r ia n aim th a n did th a t of
the T h ir d Reich. T h e r e w ere n o in stitu tio n a l islands p ro te c te d fro m the
p a rty in Russia, as th e re w ere in G e r m a n y ; b u t in Russia, n o less th a n in
G e r m a n y , the a t t e m p t to a b o lish fam ily loyalties a n d religious beliefs
failed.
E n o u g h has been said in earlier c h a p te rs o f the reim p o sitio n o f im perial
rule in c o m m u n is t fo rm o n the n o n - R u s s ia n n a tio n s o f the Soviet U nion, of
the new typ e o f n eo -R u s sifica tio n w hich em erged u n d e r S talin, a n d o f the
e v o lu tio n o f Soviet n eo-c o lo n ialism in E a ste rn E u ro p e a f te r 1945, c u lm i­
n a tin g in the B rezhn ev d o c trin e o f lim ited sovereignty. W e need now to
co n s id e r the t r e a tm e n t by the So viet leaders o f conflicting n a tio n a lism s in
co u n trie s not ruled by c o m m u n ists, a n d th e rela tio n sh ip betw een c o m m u ­
nist a n d n atio n alist m o v e m e n ts stru ggling aga in st c a pita list g o v e rn m e n ts
o r a g a in st n o n - c o m m u n is t im perial o r colo n ial regimes.
T h e Soviet leaders a t te m p te d , t h r o u g h th e local c o m m u n is t parties, to
ex plo it th e n a tio n a l conflicts w hich k ep t C e n tr a l a n d E a ste rn E u r o p e in a
c o n d itio n o f p e r m a n e n t u n re st b etw e en the w orld wars: fo r e x a m p le ,
conflicts b etw een P o les a n d U k ra in ia n s, C zechs a n d G e r m a n s , H u n g a r ia n s
a n d R o m a n ia n s o r S e rb s a n d B ulgarians. T h e y h ad little success: in the
1930s, w h en b o th n a t io n a l a n d social d is c o n te n t rapidly grew t h r o u g h o u t
the w hole region, it w as th e fascists r a th e r th a n the c o m m u n is ts w h o
benefited fro m them .
T h e first m a jo r o p p o r t u n i t y fo r th e e x p l o ita tio n by c o m m u n is ts o f an
a n ti-im peria list m o v e m e n t o u tsid e E u r o p e c a m e in C h in a. T h e Bolshevik
R e v o lu tio n was so o n seen by s o m e C h in ese intellectuals as the w o rk o f one
o f the g rea t E u r o p e a n n atio n s, d irec ted a g a in st E u r o p e a n im p erialism , in
the n a m e of the m ost a d v a n c e d social d o c trin e s yet devised by E u r o p e a n
456 Nations and States

think ers. H ith e rto the best C h in ese m in d s had been f ru s tra te d by this cruel
c o n tra d ic tio n : the ideas w h ich held o u t h o p e fo r the peoples o f th e w orld,
including the C hinese people, c a m e fro m E u r o p e a n d N o r t h A m erica, yet
the m ight o f E u r o p e a n a n d N o r t h A m e r ic a n g o v e r n m e n t a n d business was
being used to explo it C hina. A C h inese w h o p r o m o te d progressive W estern
ideas fo u n d him self w o rk in g for W e ste rn d o m in a tio n o f C h in a; a Chinese
w h o o p p o s e d W e ste rn ideas fo u n d him self h o ld in g C h i n a bac k in a n
a n t iq u a t e d w o rld, u n d e r the sway o f values a n d in stitu tio n s d o o m e d to
perish. T h e Bolshevik R e v o lu tio n c h a n g e d this. Li T a - c h a o a n d C h e n T u -
hsiu w elcom ed c o m m u n is m because it en a b le d th e m to use W e ste rn ideas
to fight W e ste rn pow er. In the 1920s n u m b e r s o f y o u n g C hinese intellectu­
als jo in e d the c o m m u n is t p arty. In 1926-27 the c o m m u n is t s played a p a rt in
the n o r th w a r d m a rc h o f th e nationalists, b u t were th e n crush ed, w ith great
losses a m o n g their best m en, by C h ia n g Kai-shek.
T h is disa ste r for the c o m m u n is ts w as a direct result o f Soviet policy.
S talin, w h o co n tro lled th e C o m m u n is t I n te r n a tio n a l ( C o m in te r n ) which
gave the directives to c o m m u n is t p arties, was u n a b le to resolve the
c o n tra d ic tio n betw een th e interests o f th e Sov iet sta te a n d th e interests of
th e C hinese revolu tion. If he w ere to e n c o u r a g e the c o m m u n ists, w h o h ad a
large follow ing a m o n g C h in ese w o rk e rs a n d pea sa nts, to fight it o u t with
C h i a n g K ai-shek, this w o u ld b re a k th e p re c a rio u s un ity o f the Chinese
n a tio n a list fro n t, w hich was directed a g a in st the E u r o p e a n po w er w hich
w as th e n co nsid ered to be S oviet R u s sia’s m a in e n e m y — th e British em pire.
S talin th e re fo re forced the C h in ese c o m m u n is ts to hold back the forces of
social rev olution, to refrain fro m a tta c k in g C h in ese business a n d la n d ­
ow ners, a n d to m a in ta in c o o p e r a tio n , first w ith C h i a n g K ai-shek an d then
w ith th e left w ing o f the K u o m in ta n g . T h e result was th a t C h ia n g was able
to ch o o s e his ow n tim e to a tta c k , a n d d es tro y e d all b u t a r e m n a n t o f the
co m m u n ists.
In the 1920s a n d 1930s the C o m in te r n p r o d u c e d n u m e ro u s directives a n d
m u c h rheto ric o n the su bject o f a n ti-im peria list ac tio n , a n d m a d e efforts to
win s u p p o r t in A sia n colonies. S o m e I n d ia n a n d In d o n e s ia n leaders—
n o ta b ly N e h r u a n d S u k a r n o — le arn t m u c h f r o m c o m m u n is t a n t i­
im perialist specialists d u r in g th e ir visits to E u ro p e . T h e relation s o f the
I n d ia n N a tio n a l C o n g ress a n d o f the I n d o n e s ia n n a tio n a list m o v e m en ts
w ith th e I n d ia n a n d I n d o n e s ia n c o m m u n is t p arties w ere n o t, h ow ever, very
friendly. T h e F re n c h c o m m u n is ts w ere r a th e r m o r e successful in In do-
C h in a. In H o C h i M in h , w h o w o rk e d f o r so m e tim e in P aris, the c o m m u ­
nist ca u se w o n a n o u ts t a n d in g person ality. H o w ev er, in th e 1930s a n t i­
colonial n ationalists, like d isc o n te n te d E u r o p e a n natio n alists, looked
ra th e r to the Axis P o w e rs, G e r m a n y a n d Italy, o r to J a p a n . P ro - A x is A ra b
natio n alists included S h a k ib A rslan, th e m u fti o f J e r u s a le m a n d vario u s
E gyp tia n a n d Iraqi a r m y officers. In India, S u b h a s C h a n d r a Bose m a d e
 Nationalism and Ideological M ovem ents 457

c o n t a c t w ith the J a p a n e s e a n d visited N az i G e r m a n y . A u n g S a n becam e

c o m m a n d e r o f a Burm ese N a tio n a l A rm y , a n d S u k a r n o o f a n I n d o n e sia n
political a d m in is tra tio n , b o th u n d e r J a p a n e s e control. In L atin A m erica,
n a tio n a lism directed aga in st fo re ig n — first British an d th e n A m e r ic a n —
capitalists was ex ploited m o re effectively by N azi ag e n ts th a n by c o m m u ­
nist.
If c o m m u n ists had little success in c a p tu r in g n a tio n a l d isc o n te n ts for
their p u rp o ses in peace-tim e, the s itu a tio n c h a n g ed with foreign invasion
a n d o c c u p a tio n . In 1937 a n d 1938 th e J a p a n e s e defeated the r eg u la r arm ies
o f C h ia n g Kai-shek, a n d occupied th e m a in cities a n d lines o f c o m m u n ic a ­
tion. It w as th e c o m m u n ists, f a r m o re th a n C h ia n g , w h o m obilised the civil
p o p u la tio n , with p a trio tic a n ti- J a p a n e s e slogans, to resist the Ja p a n e s e .
T h e ir successes w ere due, n o t to wise advice f ro m the d is ta n t S talin (w h o in
fact m a d e a trea ty w ith J a p a n in 1941 a t th e e x p e n se o f C h in a to p ro te c t his
o w n ea ste rn frontier), b u t to the skill o f the C h in ese c o m m u n is t leader M a o
T se-tu n g a n d his colleagues. A second c o u n t r y in w hich c o m m u n is ts
successfully p u t them selves a t th e hea d o f resistance to foreign o c c u p a tio n
was Y ugoslavia. Here, as we have seen, th e y eventually w o n s u p p o r t by
their policy o f n a tio n a l e qua lity a n d c o m m o n resistance o f Serbs, C ro a ts,
Slovenes a n d M a c e d o n ia n s aga in st th e G e r m a n s a n d the rival natio n alists
w hose q u a rre ls the G e r m a n s were exploiting. A c o m b in a t io n o f ap p e a ls to
p a trio tism a n d p rom ises of social a n d political refo rm also w o n s tro n g
s u p p o r t for the c o m m u n is ts in A lb a n ia a n d in Greece; a n d sim ilar a ttitu d e s
a c c o u n t fo r the success o f b o th the In d o ch in e se a n d the M a la y a n C hinese
c o m m u n is ts in resistance to the J a p a n e s e . T h e m ilitary o r g a n is a tio n an d
m ass s u p p o r t created by th e c o m m u n is ts in n o r th e r n V ie tn a m en abled
th e m after 1945 to resist the retu rn in g F re n c h , a n d later to e x te n d guerrilla
ac tio n to the so u th . T h ir ty years later th e y achieved their aim s t h r o u g h o u t
the w hole o f V ietnam . In M a la y a the C h in e se c o m m u n is t guerrilla was
d irected fro m 1948 a g a in st the re tu r n in g British, b u t it w as defeated after
m a n y years o f effort.
In E astern E u ro p e afte r 1945 the c o m m u n is ts in som e cases so u g h t to
solve n atio n al conflicts by conciliatio n, in o th e rs to m a n ip u la te th e m for
the a d v a n ta g e o f the S oviet state. T h e m o s t im p o r t a n t e x a m p le o f the first
is Y ugoslavia, discussed in a n earlier c h a p te r; o f the second, th e re la tio n ­
ship o f the Poles w ith G e r m a n y .
P o la n d ac q u ire d te rrito rie s fo rm e rly inh a b ite d by so m e nine m illion
G erm a n s; a n d the C z e c h o slo v a k g o v e r n m e n t in 1945 (w h e n c o m m u n is ts
were the m a in p a r ty in p o w e r b u t did n o t yet possess a c o m p le te m o n o p o ly )
expelled th ree m illion G e r m a n s fro m th e b o r d e r la n d s o f G e r m a n y . It was
the con scio us a im o f th e Soviet leaders to create a d e e p g u lf o f h a tre d
between the G e r m a n s a n d their ea ste rn n e ig h b o u rs, a n d so to m a k e Poles
a n d C zechs ab so lu te ly d e p e n d e n t on S ov iet R ussian help aga in st any
458 Nations and States

revival of G e r m a n p ow er. F o r m a n y years this was successful, an d

rese n tm e n ts r em a in ed b itte r o n b o th sides. H o w ev er, in th e 1960s a m a rk e d
c h a n g e a p p e a r e d in b o t h pu b lic o p in io n a n d g o v e r n m e n t a t titu d e s in
W e ste rn G e r m a n y , 11 a d esire for recon ciliatio n w ith the P oles bec am e very
w id esp re ad , a n d m a n y G e r m a n s even b eg a n to a c ce p t th e new eastern
fro n tiers o f G e r m a n y as p e r m a n e n t. T h e new g e n e r a tio n o f G e r m a n s fro m
te rritorie s in c o rp o r a te d in P o la n d f o u n d new h o m e s a n d j o b s in the
R h in e la n d , Bavaria o r Hesse, a n d the elder exiles w h o c la m o u r e d for
r e tu r n to their old h o m e la n d s were d yin g off.
T his new con c iliato ry m o o d in G e r m a n y was viewed w ith a la r m by the
P o lish c o m m u n ists. D u r i n g these years P oles w ere g ro w in g m o r e a n d m o re
e x a s p e ra te d by So viet R u s sia n d o m i n a t i o n — w hich th e ev ents o f 1956 had
m itigated b u t n o t re m o v e d — a n d the only m e a n s w hich the P olish leaders
still h ad , if n o t to m a k e them selves p o p u la r th e n a t least to reta rd the
g r o w th o f o p p o sitio n , w as to m a x im ise fear a n d h a tre d o f G e r m a n y . T hey
needed the bogey o f aggressive W e ste rn G e r m a n y to keep them selves in
po w e r, a n d their S ov iet p ro te c to r s h a d th e sam e interest, if only to
p e r s u a d e the Poles th a t ‘th e G e r m a n s a re even w orse th a n the R u ssian s’.
T h u s a n t i- G e r m a n p r o p a g a n d a c o n tin u e d in P o la n d long afte r G e r m a n
hostility to P o la n d had d im inish ed.
T h e n s u d d e n ly So viet policy ch a n g ed . T h e So viet g o v e r n m e n t decided
th a t e c o n o m ic c o o p e r a tio n w ith W e ste rn G e r m a n y w ou ld be useful to
th e m , a n d th a t this re q u ire d the te r m in a ti o n o f a n t i- G e r m a n p r o p a g a n d a .
I m m e d ia te ly th e P o lish c o m m u n is ts h a d to d o likewise. T h e a g re em e n ts of
1970, w hich included W est G e r m a n rec o g n itio n o f th e P olish w estern
b o r d e r a lo n g the O d e r a n d w estern Neisse rivers, w ere follow ed by
re a s o n a b ly polite official relations b e tw e en the states. T h e w hole story is
o n e o f m a n ip u la tio n o f n a tio n a list p assions by the c o m m u n is ts , in a c c o r ­
d a n c e w ith th e state interests o f the S ov iet U nion.
In the newly in d e p e n d e n t states o f the M u slim w orld a n d Africa,
c o m m u n is ts w ere few, a n d w ere d istru sted by the n a tio n a list g o v e rn m e n ts
in pow er; b u t these g o v e r n m e n ts so ug ht, a n d increasingly received, Soviet
political a n d e c o n o m ic s u p p o r t w h en e v er th e y w ere in conflict with
W e s te rn g o v e rn m e n ts, o r w ith o th e r A sia n o r A fr ic a n states w h o had g o o d
relatio ns w ith W e ste rn g o v ern m e n ts. E g y p t was th e o u ts t a n d in g case:
N a ss e r disliked, a n d f r o m tim e to tim e p ersecuted , E g y p tia n co m m u n ists,
yet this did n o t p rev e n t th e Soviet U n io n f r o m giving h im v alu ab le a n d
c o n t in u o u s aid. In Syria a n d Ira q th e fo rtu n e s o f the local c o m m u n is ts
varied f r o m fierce p erse c u tio n to s tr o n g influence, b u t these flu ctu atio n s
c o u ld n o t be sim ply c o rre la te d w ith the rise a n d fall o f Soviet aid to the
g o v e r n m e n ts o f th o se c oun tries. In I n d ia th e c o m m u n is t m o v e m e n t was
disunited: the m ost p ro -S o v ie t factio n s u p p o r te d the C o n g re s s g o v e rn ­
m ents, especially th a t o f M rs I n d ira G a n d h i, w h o was glad to have their
 Nationalism and Ideological M ovem ents 459

s u p p o r t a n d m a d e full use o f it w h en she d ecided to m a k e herself d ic ta to r in

J u n e 1975. H ow ever, th e influence a n d p o w e r of the I n d ia n p ro -S o v iet
c o m m u n is ts r em a in ed lim ited. G e n u in e I n d ian r e v o lu tio n arie s were
unwilling to act as a g e n ts o f a new E u r o p e a n im perial pow er, a n d , as has
been show n, factions b r o k e a w a y on the left wing o f the c o m m u n is t party.
In 1960 the Soviet ideological specialists p r o p o u n d e d a new d o c trin e o f
‘n a tio n al d e m o c r a c y ’. T h is flattering d e s c rip tio n was given to a n u m b e r of
new states w hich show ed them selves hostile to W e ste rn g o v e r n m e n t a n d to
W estern ca pital, m a in ta in e d d ic ta to rs h ip s w ith social policies bro ad ly
acce p ta b le to c o m m u n is t aim s (land refo rm was especially stressed), and
te nded to m ove fro m a foreign policy o f n e u tra lity to w a r d s o n e o f regular
c o o p e r a tio n w ith the Soviet U nion. T h e o u ts t a n d in g e x a m p le s praised by
Soviet sp o k e sm e n at this tim e were th e regim es o f Ben Bella in A lgeria, o f
N k r u m a h in G h a n a , o f S u k a r n o in I n d o n e sia a n d o f S e k o u T o u r e in
G u inea. In the follow ing years, h ow ever, all b u t the last o f these regimes
were o v e rth ro w n .
D u rin g the late 1960s the p h r a se ‘n a tio n a l d e m o c r a c y ’ fell in to disuse in
the Soviet political v o c a b u la r y . 12 H ow ever, n o n - c o m m u n is t n atio n alist
d ic ta to rsh ip s fa v o u r a b le to the Soviet U n io n , o r influenceable o r e x p lo it­
ab le by Soviet policy, increased. T h o u g h S e k o u T o u r e at o n e point
q uarrelled with his Soviet advisers, the tw o g o v e r n m e n ts w ere reconciled,
a n d G u in e a re m a in e d to s o m e e x te n t a n o u tp o s t o f Soviet influence on the
west co a st o f Africa. S o m a lia o n the east co a st also offered fa v o u ra b le
o p p o rtu n itie s; b u t th e rev o lu tio n in E th io p ia placed the Soviet g o v e rn m e n t
in a d ile m m a n o t unlik e th o se w hich had faced earlier im perial powers.
Both the S o m a li a n d the E th io p ia n r e v o lu tio n arie s m o u th e d q u a s i-M a r x is t
slogans, b u t they w ere hostile to each oth e r; a n d this hostility could hardly
be reconciled as long as the E ritreans, w hose le aders m o u th e d sim ilar
slogans, were in revolt aga in st E th io p ia o n the b o rd e rs o f S o m alia. T he
victory o f the M o z a m b iq u e g uerrilla m o v e m e n t a n d the A n g o la n M P L A
f u rth e r s tren gth ene d the Soviet p o sitio n in A frica a n d increased th e o u tp u t
o f q u a s i-M a r x is t rhetoric. A fric an r e v o lu tio n arie s a n d Soviet le aders
j o in e d in u rging black R h o d e sia n s to reject a n y se ttle m en t by negotiatio n
betw een w hite a n d black R h o d e s ia n politicians.
T h e m o s t p r o m isin g o f the original ‘n a t io n a l d e m o c ra c ie s’ so o n tu rn ed
into s o m e th in g else. F idel C a s tr o was n o t originally a c o m m u n is t. His
ideology was a n ind iv id u al c o m b in a t io n o f so m e sort of socialism with
a n t i - N o r t h A m e r ic a n n atio n alism . H o w ev er, afte r he had b een in po w er for
s o m e tim e he d eclared h im self a M a rx is t-L e n in is t, p ro c e e d e d to ta k e over
the leadership o f the existing c o m m u n is t p a r ty in C u b a , a n d — to the
a s to n is h m e n t a n d e x a s p e ra tio n o f th e r e g u la r p a r ty le ad e rs— received
M o s c o w ’s a p p r o v a l f o r such action. C u b a th e re b y g r a d u a te d to th e statu s
o f ‘p eo p le’s d e m o c r a c y ’. As such, it pro v ed expensive as a recipient o f
460 Nations and States

S oviet aid, b u t also p r o v e d v alu ab le as a n e x a m p le o f a successful a m a lg a m

o f a n ti-A m e ric a n ism a n d locally f lav o u red M a rx is m .
In 1976 C a s tr o h a n d s o m e ly repaid his d e b t by tr a n s p o r ti n g 12,000
C u b a n tro o p s, eq u ip p e d a n d tra in e d w ith Soviet bloc w ea p o n s, in Soviet
a irc ra ft, ac ro ss th e S o u t h e r n A tla n tic to A n g o la, w h ere th e y en su re d the
victory o f the M P L A over its internal rivals, while th e A m e ric a n f o rm e r
m a ste rs o f the A tla n tic lo o k e d o n u n m o v e d . 13
H ith e rt o 1 have b een as su m in g th a t all c o m m u n is ts follow ed Soviet
directives, a n d th a t the w orld c o m m u n is t m o v e m e n t was ‘m o n o lith ic ’.
Strictly speaking, this w as n o t so even in the mid-1930s, since follow ers o f
S ta lin ’s exiled ene m y T r o t s k y existed in several countries. A m o r e im p o r ­
ta n t b rea ch c a m e in 1948, w hen the Y ug oslav c o m m u n is ts were e x c o m ­
m u n ic a te d by the So viet leaders; afte r w hich they p ro ce ed ed to develop
b o th th e o ry an d practice o n th eir ow n lines. But a still m o re im p o r ta n t
schism c a m e in the 1960s, w h en C h in a b r o k e a w a y fro m the Sov iet cam p.
T h e C h in ese c o m m u n ists, like the Y ugoslav, had m a d e th e ir o w n rev o lu ­
tio n a n d w on their o w n w ar of n a tio n a l liberation; b o th , for essentially
sim ilar reasons, resented the p a tro n isin g a t titu d e o f S talin, a n d b o th were
f o r essentially sim ilar rea son s d istru sted by him. But the b rea ch between
Soviet R ussia a n d C h i n a w as m o r e im p o r t a n t th a n the b rea ch with
Y ugoslavia, because C h i n a w as a p o te n tia l w orld p ow er.
In the 1960s C h in e se -sp o n s o re d c o m m u n is t parties a p p e a r e d in various
co untries; a n d one c o m m u n is t-r u le d s ta te — A lb a n i a — un reservedly su p ­
p o r te d C h i n a a g a in st the Soviet U nio n. A p a r t f r o m this, c o m m u n is t
fac tio n s in several co u n trie s declared them selves to be T rotskyists. In
E u r o p e a n d N o r t h A m e r ic a m a n y intellectuals o f the e x tre m e left p r o ­
fo u n d ly d istru sted the S ov iet U n io n , w hich seem ed to th e m a b u re a u c ra tic
sta te w ith im perialist am b itio n s . T h ese people, o f w h o m the stu d e n t age-
g r o u p f o rm e d a high p r o p o r ti o n , s u p p o r te d n u m e ro u s T ro tsk y ist or
‘M a o is t’ sects (n o t all th e la tte r being a p p r o v e d by responsible Chinese
spokesm en). T heir c u m u la tiv e influence o n public o p in io n in W estern
E u ro p e , N o r t h A m e ric a a n d J a p a n was n o t negligible.14
In th e mid-1970s in th e Sov iet U n io n c o m m u n is m m e a n t a semi-
to ta lit a r ia n b u r e a u c r a tic state, tre a tin g its subjects m o r e mildly th a n in
S ta lin ’s tim e, p u rsu in g a w o rld-w ide e x p a n s io n in w h ich t r a d itio n a l G re a t
R u s sia n n atio n a lism a n d im pe rialism w ere reinforced by the self-
righteousn ess o f residual re v o lu tio n a r y rh eto ric , while th e n a t io n a l a s p ir a ­
tions o f so m e 120 million n o n - R u s s ia n s w ere d enied expression. In its E ast
E u r o p e a n d ep endencies it m e a n t a variety o f m o r e o r less to lerable
c o m p ro m is e s between irre m o v a b le n a t io n a l consciou snesses a n d irresist­
ible d e m a n d s o f the im perial pow er. In Y u g o slav ia the b a la n c e was internal,
a n d very com plex: no a t t e m p t was m a d e to c ru sh a n y n a tio n by a n y o th e r
n atio n , yet the ability o f a t least six n a tio n s to coe x ist w ith each o th e r
 Nationalism and Ideological M ovem ents 461

rem a in ed precarious. In A lb a n ia c o m m u n is m m e a n t a u n iq u e m ix tu re of
re v o lu tio n a ry fanaticism a n d x e n o p h o b ia , m a d e possible by iso latio n an d
by prim itive needs a n d low e x p e ctatio n s. In C h in a c o m m u n is m m e a n t a
t r e m e n d o u s revival o f the m o st n u m e ro u s p eople a n d the oldest c o n tin u o u s
civilisation in the w orld, inspired by a re v o lu tio n a r y zeal w hich seemed
d e te rm in e d to d eny th e essence o f th a t civilisation. It was difficult for a
W e ste rn m ind to c o m p re h e n d the m o tiv a tio n o f th e rulers o f a n y o f these
polities (except th e Y ugoslav) an d still m o r e difficult to ju d g e h ow stable or
prec ario u s they m ight be. T h e difficulty did n o t h ow ever inhibit W estern
m e d ia-sta rs from m a k in g co n fid e n t as sertio n s o r prophecies.
In th e rest o f the w o rld in the 1970s a n epid em ic o f violent rheto ric and
sm all violent a c tio n s — k id n a p p in g s, piracy, u r b a n an d rural g u e rrilla —
m a d e it difficult to distinguish ‘c o m m u n is m ’ from ‘n a tio n a lis m ’, o r either
o f these from ‘fascism ’, o r indeed to give a precise m e a n in g to a n y o f tho se
three w ords. T h e re was a n a tio n a lisa tio n o f c o m m u n is m , a M a rx is a ti o n of
n atio n alism , a n d a predilection by the a d e p ts of b o th to a p e th e style of
Mussolini. T h o u g h the to p ca d res o f establish ed c o m m u n is t parties
rem a in ed disciplined e x p o n e n ts o f o r t h o d o x S o v iet-ty p e M a rx is m -
Leninism ; a n d t h o u g h the leaders o f n a tio n a list p arties o r n atio n alist
regim es neither con sid ered them selves to be c o m m u n is ts n o r were ac cepted
by tru e believers as being c o m m u n ists; yet below the highest level in both
types o f p a rty it was increasingly difficult to say w h e th e r a n activist was
prim a rily a n atio n alist, a M a rx is t, o r a p s e u d o - M a r x i s t revolu tionary.
 13 Nations, States, and the Human
Community

Patterns of n a tio n a l movement

In the record o f the f o rm a tio n o f n atio n s, o f w hich n u m e r o u s cases have
been m e n tio n e d in the p reced ing pages, gen e ro sity a n d hubris, self-sacrifice
a n d denial o f o th e rs ’ rights, flow ering a n d w ith e rin g of c u ltu re are woven
ine x trica b ly together.
T h e English a n d F re n c h n a tio n s c a m e slowly to m a tu rity . F o r a h u n d r e d
years o r so they d isplayed tw o v a ria n ts o f a c o m b in a t io n o f liberty, p ow er,
civility a n d vigour p e r h a p s m o r e a d m ir a b le th a n a n y yet a t ta in e d in h u m a n
history. T his age o f g rea tn ess was preceded by m a n y c e nturies o f savagery
a n d sq u a lo r. T h e ro ad to glory was strew n w ith th e b ones o f slau g h te re d
serfs a n d rebels, a n d o f the v ain g lo rio u s ty r a n ts w h o had o nce tr a m p le d on
them . In the 1970s, h alf a ce n tu ry or so a f te r th e ir age o f greatness w as over,
the English a n d F re n c h n a tio n s seemed to prefer th e p o stu re s o f tw o elderly
au n ts, q u arrellin g w ith ea c h o th e r a b o u t trivialities, a n d u n ite d only in the
firm belief th a t their families, a n d e ve ryone else’s to o , ow ed th e m a
c o m fo r ta b le living fo r all time.
T h ere were o th e r n a tio n s w hich had c o m e to the th re sh o ld o f greatness;
h a d fallen o r h a d been p u sh e d b a c k into d isu n ity o r s u b je ctio n to others;
h a d reem erged to a new sense of a n a t io n a l m ission, briefly achieved un ity
w ithin vast territories, giving th e m d o m in i o n over others; o v errea ch ed
them selves, a n d been th r u s t b a c k a g a in in to division o r d e p e n d e n c y or
f ru stra tio n . S u c h has been th e m o d e r n fate o f b o th G e r m a n s a n d Poles.
A n o t h e r p a tte r n is th e g re a t c o m m u n ity held to g e th e r by a splendid
civilisation e x te n d in g o v er a vast te rr ito r y , w hich suffers eclipse (fro m
social o r cu ltu ra l decay, in te rn a l d isc o rd , fo re ign invasion o r several o f
these to ge ther), a n d th e n seeks to r e a p p e a r in a new guise as a m o d e rn
n atio n .
H ellas was tr a n s f o r m e d into A le x a n d e r ’s em pire; r e in c a r n a te d in the
Byzantine; engulfed by the T u rk s ; resusc ita ted by a new n atio n alism ;
inebriated w ith a G r e a t Idea w hich p ro v e d to be but a n o t h e r fo rm o f
classical hubris', a n d plun ged bac k into a frenzy o f self-destruction , from
464 Nations and States

w hich its friends c o n tin u e d to h o p e t h a t it w o u ld save itself a n d brin g new

gifts to h u m a n ity .
T h e Islam ic em p ire b r o u g h t n o t only d e s tru c tio n b u t sp iritua l a n d
intellectual e n r ic h m e n t to the M e d ite rr a n e a n w orld; to r e itself to pieces by
its factions; sta g n a te d for centuries; a n d gave b ir th to th e idea o f a n A ra b
n a tio n , w h o se p ione ers sta rted o u t w ith high h opes, b u t w hose successors,
m eeting w ith closed d o o r s a n d closed m in d s w herev e r they tu r n e d , seemed
red u c ed to m ass p r o d u c ti o n o f rh e to ric a n d civil strife.
Iran, th e first o f the g rea t te rrito ria l em pires o f the W est, lost its
c o n q u e sts to o th e r em p ires b u t preserved its basic h o m e la n d a n d its
religion for nearly a th o u s a n d years; lost b o th o f these b u t preserved its
lang uage, even t h o u g h greatly m o dified, a n d the m e m o r y o f its culture,
even th o u g h greatly d isto rte d ; a n d ree m erged as a m o d e r n n a tio n w ith aim s
a t first m o r e m o d e st t h a n th o se o f G re ek s o r A ra b s , b u t increasing with
a s to n ish in g speed as the first m o d e st successes were achieved.
A lo n e o f th e g rea t c o m m u n itie s o f civilisation, th e C h in ese survived for
m o r e th a n three th o u s a n d years; n o t alw ays in th e sa m e territo ry ; suffering
fo r c e nturies a t a tim e fro m alien c o n q u e r o r s w ielding p o w e r th r o u g h their
o w n cha in s o f c o m m a n d o n Chinese soil, coe x istin g w ith C hinese civilisa­
tion; alw ays to le ra tin g variety o f religions a n d languages w ithin their
rea lm ; yet preserving in u n b r o k e n c o n tin u ity their o w n essential an d
u n iq u e c h a r a c te r ( w h e th e r o n e calls it ‘c u l tu r a l’ o r ‘social’ o r ‘n a t io n a l’ or all
th ree); a n d r e a p p e a rin g , in the age o f m o d e r n gian t pow ers, as o n e o f the
giants.
D ifferent ag a in w ere th e em p ires w h ich e x p a n d e d by m ilitary p o w e r far
b e y o n d th e ir h o m e la n d s , brin g in g p eoples o f u tterly d ifferent cu ltu re u n d e r
th e ir d o m in io n . S u c h w ere the P o rtu g u e se , S p a n ish , British, F re n ch a n d
R u s sia n , variously es tablished ac ro ss A m e ric a , A sia a n d Africa. T he first
fo u r, built by sea p o w er, even tually a b d ic a te d , afte r v arying processes in
w h ich decay, defeat a n d co n s e n t w ere v ariously c o m b in e d . T h e first to be
f o u n d e d , the P o rtu g u e s e , was also th e last to be s u rre n d e re d . T h e fifth o f
th e em pires sho w ed n o sign, in the mid-1970s, o f im m in e n t su rre n d er. T w o
special features o f th e R u s s ia n em p ire m a y be n o te d . F irst, it w as built by
e x p a n s io n ov erla n d , n o t by sea; a n d as la n d c o m m u n ic a ti o n s a n d inter­
loc kin g tr a d e m ultiplied, th e links betw e en m e tr o p o lis a n d perip h e ry were
stren g th en e d . S econ dly, th e ruling elite, w hich was d esce n d ed fro m those
w h o h a d built, a n d w h ich itself h a d a d d e d to th e em p ire, was o v e r th r o w n
by a g re a t c o n v u lsio n , a n d replaced by a c o m p le te ly new elite w ith a
c o n s u m in g lust for pow er; w hereas th e elites o f th e o th e r f o u r im perial
n atio n s, t h o u g h m odified by s o m e degree o f social m ob ility d u r in g th e last
dec ad e s o f their rule, rem a in ed basically the sam e, a n d w ere subject to a
ste ady process o f e ro sio n o f will to pow er. T h e will to p o w e r o f the R ussian
elite, in its Soviet form , was reinforced by its claim to possess a m o n o p o ly
 Nations, States, and the Human Com m unity 465

o f th e sole c om pletely scientific d o c trin e o f the past, presen t a n d f u tu re of

h u m a n society. H o w long the d o c trin e w o u ld survive, h o w long the will to
p o w e r w o u ld resist e ro sio n , a n d w h e th e r co n tig u ity o n land w o u ld always
e n s u re m o r e effective c o n t r o l th a n c o m m u n ic a ti o n by sea, r em a in ed
u ncertain.

The nation as object of worship

T h e n a tio n a lism o f th e tw en tieth c e n tu ry has usu ally been m o r e b itter th a n
the n a tio n a lism o f the n ine tee nth. N a tio n a lis m has often inspired the
fan aticism w hich in earlier periods was reserved for religious conflicts.
T h e r e is indeed m u c h to be said for the view th a t th e increased fanaticism of
natio n alists is causally c o n n e cted w ith the decline o f religious belief.
N a tio n a lis m has b ec o m e a n ersa tz religion. T h e n a tio n , as u n d e r s to o d by
the n atio n alist, is a su b stitu te god; n a tio n a lis m o f this s o rt m ig h t be called
ethnolatry. M u c h the sam e m a y be said, incidentally, o f the a t titu d e o f
m a n y M a rx is t o r q u a s i- M a r x is t social r e v o lu tio n arie s to w a r d s th e idea of
class. T h e W o r k in g Class, as in te rp re te d by the C e n tra l C o m m itt e e o f the
C o m m u n is t P a r ty o f th e Soviet U n io n , is also a s u b stitu te god; official
Soviet c o m m u n is m m ight be called taxolatry. (W h e th e r e th n o la t r y or
ta x o la try was th e d o m i n a n t elem e n t in the o u tlo o k o f the leaders o f the
Soviet R u ssian e m p ir e in the 1970s w as o p e n to a r g u m e n t .\
S o m e tim e s n a tio n a l a n d religious a im s have been co nsciously identified.
T h e D u tc h in the six te e n th c e n tu ry w ere figh ting fo r b o th th e f re e d o m o f
the N e th e rla n d s a n d th e ir P r o te s ta n t faith; the Ikhwan al-M uslim in were
b o th E g yptian n atio n alists a n d M uslim f u n d a m e n ta lists; the R o m a n ia n
Iro n G u a r d believed them selves to be d e fe n d in g b o th the R o m a n i a n people
a n d the O r t h o d o x C h u r c h a g a in st F r a n c o - A n g l o - J u d a ic ex p lo ita tio n .
H itler a n d the elite o f th e N a tio n a l Socialist P a r ty believed in n o god b u t
the G e r m a n Volk, as sym bolised by th e F ü h r e r , t h o u g h it is p r o b a b ly true
th a t large n u m b e rs o f N a tio n a l Socialists still held to the slo g a n o f G ott mit
uns\ a n d it is k n o w n th a t at the end o f his life H itler bitterly confessed th a t
the real G e r m a n Volk h a d p ro v e d to be u n w o r t h y o f his c o n c e p tio n o f it.
T h e perv e rsio n o f n a tio n a list d o c trin e , a n d the follies a n d crim es
c o m m itte d by n atio n alists, m u st a p p a l a n y o n e w h o tries ho n estly to stu d y
h u m a n history. U n f o r tu n a te l y th e re a re tw o tr a p s fo r th e intellectually
u n w ary , into w h ich it is all to o easy to fall.
O n e is the belief t h a t a l th o u g h p as t n a tio n a lis t m o v e m e n ts have sullied
th em selves w ith crim es, a n d o th e r n a t io n s a r e b u r d e n e d w ith sin, o n e ’s ow n
n a tio n is different. It is pure, noble, g en e ro u s, in c ap a b le o f injustice
to w a r d s others. T his fo rm o f n a tio n a list u to p ia n is m has its c o u n t e r p a r t in
the social u to p ia n is m o f th o se r e v o lu tio n a r y intellectuals w h o are u n sh a k -
466 Nations and States

ably co nvince d th a t, t h o u g h p as t rev o lu tio n s have d r e n c h e d h u m a n ity with

b lo o d a n d have been follow ed by merciless tyran nies, th e ir o w n rev o lution
will bring only universal benevolence a n d h app iness. S u c h a ttitu d e s may
seem ridicu lous to a r e a d e r n u r tu re d in th e sheltered political clim ate o f a
W e ste rn d e m o c ra tic polity: to him , self-righteous c o m p la c e n c y a n d P h a r i­
saical profession s o f exclusive virtue a p p e a r com ic. U n f o rtu n a te ly this to o
is a n erro r. T h e p erso n s o f w h o m 1 a m th in k i n g are n o t co m ic b u t m ortally
d a n g e r o u s , n o t P harisees b u t dev o ted fanatics. N o re a so n in g will deflect
the m . It is useless to a rg u e w ith th e m th a t u to p ia n is m itself is th e cause of
s u b se q u e n t b lo o d sh e d a n d ty ran n y . It is no g o o d discussing the facts o f a
s itu a tio n o r the m erits o f a m o v e m e n t, because tr u th is, by definition,
w h ate v er th e n a tio n al o r social re v o lu tio n a r y leader says it is; an d the
c o m m o n g o o d is, by definition, w h a te v e r th e le ad e r declares to be his aim at
a n y p a r tic u la r m o m e n t. N o a g re e m e n t is possible w ith n a tio n a list or
L enin ist o r T ro tsk y ist r e v o lu tio n a ry fan a tics ex c e p t by to ta l ac c e p ta n c e o f
their assertions a n d to ta l s u b o r d in a t io n to th e ir will.
T h e o th e r intellectual t r a p is to dism iss all n a tio n a list m o v e m e n ts as
u tterly foolish a n d to d e n o u n c e all n a tio n a lis m as a n u n m itig a te d evil.
T h e r e are p e r h a p s so m e p erso ns w h o have genuinely risen a b o v e all
n a t io n a l prejudices, a n d w hose loyalty is given solely to the h u m a n race as a
w hole. P e r h a p s the late D a g H a m m e r s k jo ld w as such a m an. P e r h a p s there
a re o th e rs a m o n g the p e r m a n e n t officials o f th e U nited N a tio n s, or the
e x a lte d O ly m p ia n s o f so m e g rea t scientific la b o ra to r ie s, o r o n th e heights
o f a b s tra c t a r t a n d avant-garde music. S u c h p eo ple a re scarce, a n d their
c a p ac ity for le adersh ip o f real m en a n d w o m e n is d o u b tf u l. If they refuse to
lo o k m o r e closely a t the n a tio n a list p assio ns a n d prejudices w hich a n im a te
so large a p o r tio n o f h u m a n ity , if they will m a k e no e ffort to d istingu ish the
c o m p o n e n t elem ents o f n a tio n a lis m f r o m ea ch o th e r, the tr u th fro m the
fiction, th e positive f r o m th e d estructive, they cut them selves off fro m the
real w orld. M u c h m o r e n u m e r o u s th a n th e s e u n w o rld ly h u m a n ita r ia n s are
th o se w h o th in k them selves to be a b o v e n a tio n a lis m b u t a re in fact full o f
u n c o n s c io u s n a tio n a list prejudice. T h e y are especially n u m e r o u s a m o n g
successful ‘satisfied’ n a t io n s w hich h a v e en jo y ed in d e p en d e n ce , unity,
p r o sp e rity a n d greatness fo r m a n y g e n e r a tio n s p a s t— th e ‘s u p e r-p o w e r’
A m e ric a n s a n d R u s sia n s a n d th e old a n d still c o m f o r ta b le ( th o u g h
m a te ria lly declining) n a t io n s like th e E nglish, F r e n c h a n d Swedes. T he
u n co n s cio u s, t h o u g h o b v io u s a n d u n m is ta k a b le , a rr o g a n c e w ith w hich
th e y view th o se n a tio n s w h ich th e y r e g a rd as tire so m e u p s ta rts , leaves a n
u n p le a s a n t Pecksniffian ta ste.
N ew er sm aller n a tio n s b eh a v e w ith less dignity, a n d often a b u s e t e m p o ­
r ary successes. Yet m e m b e r s o f o ld e r n a tio n s a re u n im a g in a tiv e a n d
u n g e n e ro u s if they c a n n o t recognise the creative energies a n d the spiritually
a n d m a teria lly p ro d u c tiv e forces w hich have been released by th e in d e­
 Nations, States, and the Human Com m unity 467

pend e n ce o f new n ation s. T h e d is a p p e a ra n c e o f th e H a b s b u r g M o n a r c h y in

1918 m e a n t cu ltu ra l im p o v e r is h m e n t for E u ro p e ; b u t it is also tr u e th a t the
u p su rg e o f c u ltu r a l energies o f the newly in d e p e n d e n t peoples w h o se states
replaced th e M o n a r c h y en ric h ed the cu ltu re o f E u ro p e . P o ets a n d novelists
a n d d r a m a tis ts m u ltiplied in the le ss-know n languages, m o r e rapidly t h a n
w h en these languages h ad been painfully em e rg in g from the c o n d itio n o f
pe a sa n t dialects in a n e m p ire with o n e g rea t E u r o p e a n la n g u ag e as the
m e d iu m o f high cu ltu re. T hese lan guag es grew m o re c o m p le x a n d m o re
beautiful, th eir literatu re s to o k th eir place in w o rld literature, a n d the ideas
w hich they expressed fo u n d th eir w ay t h r o u g h tra n s la tio n in to o th e r
literatures. This infusio n o f new ta len ts a n d energies e x te n d e d fro m
literature to th e th e a tr e a n d the cinem a: the ac h ievem ents o f Czechs,
H u n g a r ia n s , P oles a n d R o m a n ia n s in these fields need n o c o m m e n t. In the
visual a rts a n d m usic, a n d in all b ra n c h e s o f n a t u r a l science a n d learning,
th e sam e w as to be seen.
It is o f co u rse a r g u a b le th a t these ac h ie v e m e n ts could have occ u rre d
w ithin the f r a m e w o r k o f large m u ltin a tio n a l states; th a t creative energies
d o n o t require in d e p e n d e n t sovereign states fo r their expression. It is easy
for ‘satisfied’ n atio n s to a rg u e thus. T h e y ac hieved their in d epend ence, an d
th e ir creative energies b u rst fo rth , a lo n g tim e earlier.
T h e re is a n o t h e r side to th e q u estio n . T h e refusal of n a tio n a l d e m a n d s
creates g ro w in g re se n tm e n t, a n d this leads to a n a c c u m u la tio n o f explosive
m aterial. In sh o rt, excessive n a tio n a lis m is d a n g e r o u s because it ca n tu rn
into agg ression a g a in st o th e r states, a n d rep ressio n of u p su rg in g n a t io n a l­
ism is d a n g e r o u s because it c a n p ro d u c e e x p lo sio n s, or fears o f exp lo sio n s,
w ithin a state, w hich in t u r n m a y th r e a te n o th e r states.

Nationalism as a cause of war

It is often said th a t n a tio n a lis m has been a m a jo r cause o f w ar. O fte n those
w h o assert this m e a n n o m o r e th a n t h a t so vereign states, p u r s u in g their
o w n aim s regardless o f o th e rs, clash w ith e a c h other. T his is tru e, b u t
h a rd ly w o rth saying.
It m a k es m o r e sense to ask w h e th e r n a tio n a list activities, in the senses
use d in this w o r k — m o v e m e n ts fo r in d e p e n d e n c e , m o v e m e n ts fo r u n ity a n d
efforts to c reate n a t io n a l consciousne ss by g o v e r n m e n t a c tio n — have been
fre q u e n t causes o f war.
T h e F r a n c o - A u s tr i a n w a r o f 1859, th e P r u s s o - A u s tr ia n w a r o f 1866, the
F r a n c o - P r u s s ia n w a r o f 1870 a n d the R u s s o -T u r k is h w a r o f 1877 were not
prim a rily w ars for Italian , G e r m a n a n d B u lg a ria n n atio n al unity: ra th e r
they were w ars by th ree rulers— N a p o le o n III, Bism arck a n d A le x a n d e r
II— w h o so u g h t to m a k e th eir states d o m i n a n t o n th e E u r o p e a n co n tin en t.
468 Nations and States

H ow ever, these three n a t io n a l causes p r o v id ed a g o o d deal of th e public

e n th u s ia s m f o r the fo u r w ars, a n d th e w ars resulted in the u n ific ation of
m o s t of Italy a n d m o s t o f G e r m a n y , a n d in the in d e p e n d e n c e o f m ost of
Bulgaria.
T h e F irst W o r ld W a r was also a w a r betw e en g re a t em pires. N e v e rth e ­
less, it was sta rte d by a conflict betw een A u s tr ia - H u n g a r y a n d S erbia,
w h ich was directly caused by the unsatisfied m o v e m e n t o f th e S o u th Slavs
fo r n a tio n a l unity. T h e re w ere also o th e r unsatisfied n a tio n a lism s w ithin
th e H a b s b u r g M o n a r c h y w hich th r e a te n e d its survival. T hese n atio n alism s
h a d been largely p ro v o k e d by the policy o f th e H u n g a r ia n g o v e r n m e n t
w hich so u g h t to create a single M a g y a r n a t io n o u t o f several o th e r n atio ns
b y a policy d ictated f r o m abo ve. In R ussia, the ch ief a n ta g o n is t o f A u stria-
H u n g a r y , a sim ilar policy o f c re ating a R u s sia n n a t io n o u t o f several
n a tio n s, by a policy d ic tated from a b o v e , h ad p r o v o k e d sim ilar n a t io n a l­
isms w hich th r e a te n e d the integrity o f the R u s sia n em pire. S o m e o f the
A u s tr ia n generals w ere convinced t h a t th e only w ay to preserve the
H a b s b u r g M o n a r c h y was to cru sh S erb ia, w hich they saw as th e source of
u n re st w ithin the H a b s b u r g d o m in io n s. S o m e o f the G e r m a n generals to o k
the sam e view, a n d to g e th e r they co n v in ce d the A u s tr ia n a n d G e r m a n
civilian politicians. In R u ssia it was felt th a t if S e rb ia w ere n o t s u p p o r te d ,
G e r m a n y a n d A u stria w o u ld d o m in a te all E a ste rn E u ro p e , a n d this w ould
f u r th e r stre n g th e n d isru p tiv e n a tio n a lis m w ith in the R u s sia n em pire.
T h e re fo re R ussia t o o h a d to go to w ar. T o su m up, the c o m p le x in te rplay of
n a t io n a l conflicts w ith in the H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y , th e B alkan states an d
the R u s sia n em pire f o rm e d th e largest single g r o u p o f causes which
b r o u g h t a b o u t th e F irst W o r ld W ar.
In the case o f the S e c o n d W o rld W a r these sa m e forces o p e ra te d . It m ay
be a rg u e d th a t H itle r w as him self a n a tio n a list, resolved to perfect the
u n io n o f all G e r m a n s w hich h a d bee n left in c o m p le te in 1870. He succeeded
in a n n e x in g th e g re a t m a jo r ity o f ‘u n r e d e e m e d ’ G e r m a n s in 1938 w ith o u t
w a r ( A u s tria a n d th e B o h e m ia n b o r d e r la n d s o f C z ec h o slo v a k ia), b u t he
was u n a b le to a n n e x th e m illion a n d a h a lf G e r m a n s o f P o la n d a n d the city
o f D a n z ig w ith o u t g o in g to w a r w ith the P oles, a n d this let loose a
E u r o p e a n w a r which in t u r n b ec am e a w o rld w ar. It ca n also be arg u e d th a t
a series o f conflicts, c o n c e rn e d w ith th e s ta tu s o f unsatisfied n a tio n s
( C r o a ts a n d S lovaks) o r o f divided n a t io n s ( H u n g a r i a n s in C z e c h o slo v a ­
kia, Y ugo slavia a n d R o m a n ia ; B ulg arian s in Y ugosla via, R o m a n i a a n d
G reece), cre ate d in C e n tra l E u r o p e a n a t m o s p h e r e o f m u tu a l hatre d
betw een states w hich caused ea ch in t u r n to su c c u m b eith er to the
b la n d ish m e n ts o r to th e agg ression o f Hitler. T h u s n a tio n a lis m played an
im p o r ta n t p art. N evertheless, it is e q u a lly clear t h a t H itler’s aim s were not
limited to a n y th in g w hich, even if the p h r a se be stretch e d to the u tm o s t, can
be described as G e r m a n n atio n alism . H is a im was to c o n q u e r all E u ro p e
 Nations, States, and the Human Com m unity 469

a n d a g o o d deal m o r e besides. M ussolini aim ed to create a new R o m a n

em p ire in the M e d ite rr a n e a n , the J a p a n e s e a G r e a te r E ast Asia Co-
P ro sp e rity S p h ere e m b ra c in g h u n d r e d s o f m illions w h o w ere n o t J a p a n e se .
In sh o rt, th e role o f n a tio n a lis m in th e origins o f th e S e c o n d W o rld W a r
was sm aller th a n in th e origins o f th e First.
T h e tw o m ost im p o r t a n t w ars since 1945, the K o re a n a n d the V ie tn a m ­
ese, m ay be th o u g h t to have been m o tiv a te d by m o v e m e n ts for n ational
unity. A t the sam e tim e the K o re a n a n d V ietnam ese c o m m u n is ts also had
ideological aim s ( w h e th e r o n e th in k s in term s o f the perceived ju stice of
their ideological cause, o r o f the im p o s itio n on o th e rs o f a n elite which
co nsidered itself to represe nt an ideology). It is difficult to d ise nta n gle the
elem ents o f n a tio n a lis m a n d ideology. In the case o f their m a in a n ta g o n is t,
the U nited S tates, n a tio n a lism played n o part: A m e ric a n m o tiv a tio n was
partly ideological (to resist c o m m u n is m ) a n d partly strategic: to prevent
the victory o f political leaderships w hich w ere expected to be satellites of
the m ain strategic rival o f the U nited S ta te s — the Soviet R u s sia n em pire.
T h u s, not only has n a tio n a lism u n d o u b te d ly been a n im p o r ta n t cause of
w ars in the tw e n tie th ce n tu ry , b u t forcible rep ression o f n a tio n a l a s p ir a ­
tions has also been, a n d has still rem a in ed , a p o te n tia l cause o f regional an d
p e rh a p s even global w ars in the mid-1970s.
W a rs h o w ev er are sta rted by g o v e r n m e n ts, a n d a re w aged between
states. N a tio n a l m o v e m e n ts th r e a te n to d is r u p t states; a n d states p r o m o te
n a tio n a l m o v e m en ts in o r d e r to d isr u p t o th e r states.
It has bec om e a d o g m a o f natio n alists t h a t the n a tio n c a n n o t be free, an d
c a n n o t freely d evelo p its culture, unless it is in possession o f the a p p a r a tu s
o f a sovereign state o f its ow n. R ulers o f sovereign states in w hich th e re is a
n a tio n a l m o v e m e n t d e m a n d in g in d e p e n d e n c e usually reg a rd such a m o v e ­
m e n t as a th r e a t to th e ir security, a n d use v arying m e th o d s , mild o r harsh,
to repress it.
It is only p artly tru e th a t ‘n a tio n a lism causes w a r s ’, o r th a t ‘th e sovereign
state is a n obstacle to pea ce’. T h e t r u t h is r a th e r th a t conflicts between
n a tio n a l m o v e m en ts a n d sovereign states are o n e o f the m a in sources o f
w ars. Peace w ould be best served if n a tio n a l m o v e m e n ts c ould aim at
s o m e th in g o th e r th a n state sovereignty, a n d if rulers of sovereign states th a t
are m u ltin a tio n a l w o u ld acce p t the reality o f diverse n a t io n a l cultures.

Sovereignty and national cultures

S o m e h o w the aim s o f n a t io n a l m o v e m e n ts hav e to be s e p a ra te d fro m the
d o g m a s o f state sovereignty; yet the need fo r a ty p e o f closer in te r n a tio n a l
c o o p e r a tio n ov errid in g state b o u n d a r ie s m u s t n o t be m a d e a n excuse for
cru sh in g n a tio n al cultu res o r h u m ilia tin g n a tio n a l consciousness. T h e last
470 Nations and States

tw o h u n d r e d years have s h o w n th a t, t h o u g h states m a y be f o rm e d with

e n th u sia sm , collapse w ith ig nom in y, a n d d is a p p e a r alto g e th e r; yet n a tio n al
cu ltu res a re a lm o st indestructib le, a n d n a t io n a l con scio u sn e ss denied or
h u m ilia te d bec om e s a n explosive force o f d e a d ly pow er.
A pla n for the s e p a r a tio n o f n a tio n a l c u ltu re a n d state sovereignty was
p u t fo rw a r d , as we have seen, before 1914 by th e S ocial D e m o c r a ts of
A u s tr ia - H u n g a r y . Its essence was t h a t m e m b e r s o f ea ch n a tio n should
e njoy c u ltu ra l a u t o n o m y ; a n d th a t th e n a tio n a l cu ltu ra l a d m in is tra tio n s
s h o u ld coexist w ith th e centralised political a n d e c o n o m ic a d m in is tra tio n
o f th e state.
N e ith e r o f the tw o r a th e r d ifferen t schem es, o f O tto B auer a n d o f Karl
R e n n er, was ever a t te m p te d in practice, because the H a b s b u r g M o n a rc h y
r em a in ed u n d e r the c o n tro l o f u n s y m p a th e tic political classes in V ienna
a n d B u d a p e st until it d isin tegrated. U n fo r tu n a te ly also, as we have seen,
b ecau se the ideas o f B a u e r a n d R e n n e r h a p p e n e d to incur th e w ra th of
L enin, the w hole co n c e p t o f cu ltu ra l a u t o n o m y has b een rejected ever since,
as a m a tte r o f d o g m a , by all c o m m u n is ts . H ostility to the ideas o f the
A u s tr ia n s becam e p a r t o f the h o tc h p o tc h of c o n v e n tio n a l w isd o m m o u th e d
by m arxisants in all five co ntinents.
O f co u rse the p a r tic u la r p r o p o sa ls o f B a u er a n d R e n n e r were o u t o f d ate
m o r e th a n fifty years af te r the em p ire w hich th e y s o u g h t to in vigorate had
ceased to exist. Yet they p o in te d in a d irec tio n w hich m a n y c o n t e m p o r a r y
political le aders m ig h t d o w orse th a n explore . T h ey seem ed especially
relevant to th o se m a n y states in A sia a n d A fric a in w hich th e re were
n u m e r o u s c o m m u n itie s differing in language, social c u s to m s o r religion
f ro m each other, b u t in w hich a definite n a t io n a l con scio u sn e ss h ad not yet
crystallised, or p e r h a p s even was n o t likely to crystallise. If s o m e th in g
sim ilar to the B auer o r R e n n e r schem es h a d b een es tablished in N igeria, for
ex a m p le , o n e w o n d e rs w h e th e r th e Ib o c o m m u n itie s in the N o r t h a n d West
w o u ld n o t have been b e tte r able to co exist w ith the m a jo r ity p eoples a m o n g
w h o m th e y lived, a n d th e Ibos in th e E ast have b ec o m e less desp erately
c on vince d o f the need to b r e a k aw ay. In cities like A d d is A b a b a , Ib a d a n ,
K h a r t o u m a n d K in sh a sa, sw ollen by th e in flu x o f t h o u s a n d s u p o n t h o u ­
sa n d s o f p ersons f r o m d iffe ren t peoples w ith d ifferen t cu ltu res, th e re w ould
seem t o be a case fo r c o n s id e rin g these ideas. A lm o s t all A fric an states were
bedevilled by the c o n t r a d ic t io n b e tw e en c u ltu ra l d iversity a n d sta te unity.
R itu a l d e n u n c ia tio n s o f ‘trib a lis m ’ w ere b u t a p o o r s u b stitu te fo r c o n s tr u c ­
tive policies. T h e N ilotic peoples, E ritr e a n s a n d S o m alis w ere n o t likely to
give u p their struggles f o r u n ity o r fo r in d e p e n d e n c e ju s t b ecause different
d ic ta to rs in S u d a n o r E th io p ia m o u th e d ‘pro g re ssiv e’ slogans. It did n o t
a p p e a r in 1976 in A n g o la , either t h a t ‘p ro g re ssiv e’ sloga ns w ou ld create a n
A n g o la n n a tio n , o r th a t repression o f hostile peoples, even w ith the help of
‘socialist’ allies, w ould p u t a n e n d to their different c u ltu r a l needs. O th e r
 Nations, States, and the Human Com m unity 471

E ritreas a n d A n g o las m ight well a p p e a r a lm o st an y w h e re in western,

ce n tral a n d so u th e rn n o less th a n e a ste rn Africa. R igh t across s o u th e rn
Asia, a b o v e all in In d ia, sim ilar p r o b le m s th re a te n e d .
T h e policy o f c u ltu r a l a u t o n o m y seem s less well suited to d eal with
m o v e m en ts o f n a tio n a l d isc o n te n t in c o m m u n itie s w here n a tio n a l c o n ­
sciousness has been crystallised, a n d w here sovereign states exist w hich are
allegedly based o n n a tio n a lity — t h a t is, in E u ro p e a n d in the M uslim
M id d le East. A case m igh t be m a d e f o r K u rd ish cu ltu ral a u t o n o m y in
T u rk e y , Iran, S y ria a n d Iraq; but th e first three g o v e r n m e n ts were
unw illing to co n sid er it, while the p ro m ise s m a d e in B a g h d a d had been
repeatedly violated. Israelis w ere u n d e r s ta n d a b l y u n a t tr a c t e d by a n y type
o f cu ltu ra l a u t o n o m y w ith in a w ider A r a b political system, w hose p ractical
o p e r a tio n w o uld d e p e n d o n the g o odw ill o f persons w h o asserted their
im plac ab le d e t e r m in a tio n to d e s tro y ‘Z io n is m ’, a n a im w hich c ou ld no t
very easily be d isting uish e d fro m th a t o f e x t e r m in a tio n o f Je w s as such. In
the S oviet em pire, the existence o f political units d escribed as ‘S oviet
repu blics’, ‘a u t o n o m o u s reg io n s’ o r ‘a u t o n o m o u s p ro v in ce s’ h ad n o t in fact
g u a ra n te e d respect fo r n a tio n a l cultures. In the East E u r o p e a n are a of
Soviet neo-co lonialism , the existence o f n o m in a lly sovereign states, each
based on one o r tw o n a t i o n s , 1 had n o t p r ev e n ted Soviet policies designed to
falsify the histo ry o f these n a tio n s a n d to d eprive th e m o f th e ir n a tio n al
cultures. T h e o nly r em e d y fo r this sta te o f affairs was a ch a n g e o f policy in
M osc ow , o f w hich in th e mid-1970s th e re was n o sign. O n ly in Y ugoslavia
w ere sincere efforts m a d e to c o m b in e n a t io n a l c u ltu r a l diversity w ith a state
system th a t was in o n e sense highly d ec en tra lise d , yet in a n o t h e r sense held
to g e th e r by a single p a rty th a t was inten ded to be ( th o u g h it was n o t always
in reality) highly centralised. In Y u goslavia b o th the conflict betw een Serbs
a n d C r o a ts an d the d isc o n te n ts o f a n A lb a n i a n c o m m u n ity n u m b e rin g
a b o u t a million a n d a h alf p e rso n s h ad re m a in e d d a n g e ro u s.
In the W est E u r o p e a n regions o f dissatisfied n a tio n a lis m , cu ltu ra l a n d
e c o n o m ic a n d ideological-political d isc o n te n ts w ere v ariously m ixed; yet in
all cases the essential claim was r ec o g n itio n o f the n a tio n as such. T his was
tru e o f the C a ta la n s, w h o certainly derived e c o n o m ic a d v a n ta g e s from
living w ithin a single S p a n is h state, a n d also h ad e c o n o m ic grievances
a g a in st th e g o v e r n m e n t a n d privileged classes; yet w o u ld n o t be c o n te n t
w ith ec o n o m ic concessions unless M a d r id w ou ld recognise th e existence o f
a C a t a l a n n a tio n a n d create in stitu tio n s for it w ith in a federal o r co n fe d eral
Spain.
T h e Scots, it m a y be arg u e d , a lre a d y possessed th e essence o f cu ltu ral
a u t o n o m y in the fo rm o f th e ir o w n c h u r c h , law a n d scho ols, t h o u g h it is
also tr u e th a t n o t m u c h m o n e y was a v a ila b le for e n c o u r a g in g literatu re in
L allans o r Gaelic. S co ts had derived e c o n o m ic a d v a n ta g e from the U nion;
their c o u n try had th e n b ec o m e a ‘distressed a r e a ' w hich received little aid
472 Nations and States

fro m p ro sp e r o u s s o u th -e a st E n g la n d ; a n d th e n they h ad seen the prosp ect

o f w ea lth f r o m N o r t h Sea oil w hich they felt sho uld be theirs. Yet the Scots
w ere n o t j u s t as k in g fo r financial aid to th e ir in d u stry o r their literature:
th e y were a s k in g fo r institu tio n s th a t w o u ld recognise th e ir s ta tu s as a
n a tio n . T his need was p r o b a b ly felt to s o m e e x te n t by a m a jo r ity o f Scots,
m o s t o f w h o m ho w ev e r did n o t w ish to b rea k the U n io n o r to set u p the
rid ic u lo u s p a r a p h e r n a li a o f a s e p a r a te republic. Yet th e o b tu se inability of
th e English politicians o f b o th m a in political parties to u n d e r s ta n d th a t
n a t io n a l feeling c a n n o t be q u a n tifie d in p o u n d s a n d pence, d r o v e great
n u m b e rs o f S cots into s u p p o r t o f c r a c k p o t fanatics.
In the case o f b o th S co ts a n d C a ta la n s , the B a u e r - R e n n e r types of
s o lu tio n did n o t seem a p p r o p r ia t e . A m o r e p r o m isin g d irec tio n w o u ld seem
to be a c o n fe d eral S p a in o r a co n fe d eral Britain; yet it a p p e a r e d d o u b tf u l
w h e th e r th e rulers in eith er M a d r id o r L o n d o n h ad sufficient political
im a g in a tio n to p u rsu e such ideas fu rth e r.
T h e g r o w th o f la n g u a g e g ro u p s in to n atio n s, a n d the co n s e q u e n t
d isin te g ra tio n o f m u ltin a tio n a l states, as it has been described in this b ook,
especially in C e n tra l a n d E a ste rn E u ro p e , is a p a t te r n w hich c o u ld , but
need n ot, be rep e ate d in A sia a n d Africa. O n e essential aspect o f w hat
h a p p e n e d in C e n tr a l a n d E astern E u r o p e is th a t, w ith the d e v e lo p m e n t of
schools a n d in d u stry a n d w ith th e sp rea d of E n lig h te n m e n t ideas, there
a ro se new elites o f lan g u ag e m a n ip u la to r s w h o identified the language-
g r o u p as th e unit o n b e h a lf o f w hich d e m o c r a tic rights m u s t be claimed.
T his p h e n o m e n o n w as n o t u n k n o w n in Asia: Bengali a n d T a m il n a t io n a l­
ism based o n lan g u ag e w ere im p o r t a n t forces w ith in in d e p e n d e n t India.
H ow ever, the p r e d o m i n a n t tr e n d a m o n g A sia n intelligentsias, a p p ly in g
b o th to ideological ‘left’ a n d ‘r ig h t’, was in fav o u r o f sta te unity. T his was
still m o r e tru e in m o s t o f Africa. T h e new elites s o u g h t to cre ate a new
n a tio n , based on th e fro n tiers o f th e state, a n d d e n o u n c e d th e trend
to w a r d s th e c re a tio n o f n a t io n a l c o nsciousne sse s b as ed o n lan g u ag e as
‘trib a lis m ’. T h ey h o p e d to dev e lo p m ass loyalties n o t to in d ividual indige­
n ous cultu res b u t to a new social o r d e r f o u n d e d o n g ro w in g m aterial
w elfare fo r the m asses a n d o n g ro w in g p rid e o f th e m asses in th e ir state.
P a ra d o x ic a lly , in m o st o f the new states th e e s ta b lis h m e n t o f a n o n - ‘trib a l’
h igher loyalty, b in d in g o n all th e la n g u ag e g ro u p s a n d religious g ro u p s,
r eq u ired the re te n tio n a t the higher a d m in is tra tiv e a n d e d u c a tio n a l level of
the language o f the f o rm e r E u r o p e a n im p e rial n a tio n . T h e c o u n t r y in w hich
a higher A frican loyalty w as m o st p assio n a te ly p u r s u e d by a black
intelligentsia, at the ac c e p te d cost o f a d o p t i n g o n e o r tw o w hite m e n ’s
languages, was S o u th Africa. T h e w hite S o u t h A fric a n g o v e r n m e n t by
c o n tra s t e n c o u r a g e d the d e v e lo p m e n t o f in d ividual A frican languages an d
cu ltures, with th e u n d o u b te d aim o f d ivid in g the A fricans in o r d e r b etter to
rule them .
 Nations, States, and the Human Com m unity 473

T o som e ex te n t one m a y say th a t in A sia a n d Africa, as in C e n tr a l an d

E a ste rn E u ro p e in a n earlier period, la n g u ag e m a n ip u la to r s p r e d o m in a te d
in the rising elites befo re independence. H ow ever, there is a difference. In
b o th cases writers, jo u r n a lis ts a n d lawyers w ere p r o m in e n t, b u t one key
elem ent in the C e n tra l a n d E ast E u r o p e a n case w as lacking in th e A frican
case: the g r a m m a r ia n s a n d philologists. T h e re were no A frican c o u n t e r ­
parts o f D o b ro v s k y a n d V uk K arad z ic, no a t te m p ts to m a k e W o l o f or
K im b u n d u o r a n y o th e r local A fric an lang u ag e the basis o f n a tio n a l
identity. T h e A frican intelligentsia identified the n a tio n w ith the w hole
p o p u la tio n o f the state, o r (in the case o f N k r u m a h a n d o th e r P a n a fric a n -
ists) with the w hole n o n -w h ite p o p u la tio n o f A fric a.2
Yet it w o uld be rash to a s su m e th a t th e re was no f u tu re in A frica for
linguistic n a tio n a lism o f th e C e n tral o r E ast E u r o p e a n type. T h is was
b o u n d to d e p e n d very largely o n the d e v e lo p m e n t o f the social stru c tu re s of
th e A fric an states. T h e re a re o th e r p o te n tia l elites beside lan g u ag e m a n i p u ­
lators; a n d in new states fo rm e r language m a n ip u la to r s b e c o m e p ro fe ssio n ­
al soldiers, b u r e a u c r a ts a n d politicians, a n d their o u tlo o k s cha n ge. M ass
d isc o n te n ts ca n arise o n the basis o f a n in d ige nous regionally defined
culture, a n d these ca n create th eir intelligentsias. E ritre a n a n d S om ali
natio n a lism seem a lre a d y to have so m e o f the features o f ea rlier D a n u b ia n
n atio n a lism , a n d E th io p ia som e o f the fea tu re s o f the H a b s b u r g M o n ­
archy. It is unw ise to p ro p h esy , but p r u d e n t to be a w a re o f possibilities,
even if so m e o f these a re unple asa n t.

The sovereign state and the international order

In the tw entieth c e n tu ry the n u m b e r o f sovereign states, w ho se relations
m a k e up w orld politics, has steadily increased, especially in the 1960s an d
1970s. Yet it is obv io u s th a t som e sovereign states are in reality m o re
sovereign th a n others. T h e re a r e a n u m b e r o f w ell-k n o w n d e v e lo p m e n ts of
th e last decades w hich have limited the reality o f state sovereignty.
O n e is th e im m en se d isc re p an c y betw e en th e m ilitary a n d industrial
stren g th s o f states. In the mid-1970s the tw o su p e r pow ers, the U nited
S tate s a n d the S oviet U n io n , sto o d f a r a b o v e all o th e r states in the w orld.
A t least o n e o th e r state, C h in a , a p p e a r e d ca p a b le o f g ro w in g into a supe r
p o w e r w ithin a fairly s h o r t tim e sp a n . J a p a n was a f o u rth p o te ntia l
c a n d id a te fo r supe r p o w e r statu s, t h o u g h g eo g ra p h ic a l v uln e ra b ility an d
lack o f m a n y vital ra w m a teria ls w ere r a th e r i m p o r t a n t obstacles. By
c o n tra s t, three o f the fo rm e r E u r o p e a n g r e a t p o w e r s— B ritain, F r a n c e a n d
G e r m a n y — seem ed d estin e d p e r m a n e n tly t o o c c u p y a second r a n k p osi­
tio n , even t h o u g h th e first tw o possessed n u clea r w ea p o n s. A genuinely
united W estern E u ro p e c ould be a s u p e r pow er, but the degree o f unity
474 Nations and States

necessary fo r this p u r p o s e was n o t even r e m o tely in sight in th e m i d - 1970s.

A secon d lim iting f a c to r was the g r o w th o f so-called m u ltin a tio n a l
c o r p o r a tio n s . T hese in d u stria l giants, w h o se ca p ita l was p r o v id ed fro m
several countries, b u t in m o st o f w hich U n ite d S tate s ca p ita l p r e d o m in a te d ,
possessed g rea t p o w e r w ithin a n u m b e r o f states, large a n d small; a n d the
g r o u p o f individuals w h o t o o k decisions o n th e ir o p e r a tio n were no t
responsible to th e g o v e r n m e n t o f a n y single sovereign state. T h e p o w e r o f
th e m u ltin a tio n a ls c a u se d g enuine fears for the in d e p e n d e n c e o f states;
while x e n o p h o b ic d e m a g o g y by p o liticians in ind iv id u al states h a m p ered
activities by th e m u ltin a tio n a ls w hich w ere p o te n tia lly o f c o m m o n ec o ­
n o m ic a d v a n ta g e to all c onc erned.
D e c o lo n is a tio n f r o m 1947 o n w a r d s caused a p ro lif e r a tio n o f new states,
m o s t o f w hich were very sm all a n d m a n y o f w hich h ad fro ntiers which
c o r r e s p o n d e d to n o significant g e o g ra p h ic a l o r e c o n o m ic o r cu ltu ral units.
E ac h o f these states claim ed full sovereignty, a n d had a n equ a l vote in the
G e n e ra l A ssem bly of th e U nited N atio n s. E q u ality betw een the United
S tate s a n d K uw ait a p p e a r e d a b s u rd . Yet th e sovereig nty o f th e sm all states
w as n o t entirely fictitious. T h o s e a t least w hich possessed so m e special
asset— w ea lth in raw m a teria ls, o r a n i m p o r t a n t strategic p o sitio n — were
w o o e d by larger states, o r by the su p e r pow ers. T h e ir g o v e r n m e n ts had
e n o u g h f re e d o m o f m a n o e u v r e to be ab le to play o ff the su p e r pow ers
a g a in st e a c h o th e r, a n d th e y w ere th u s a n a u t o n o m o u s f a c to r in th e balance
o f re g iona l o r w o rld-w ide p ow er. Excessive stu p id ity o r greed on the p a rt of
g o v e r n m e n ts o f small states, n o less t h a n o f large, o r o f su p e r pow ers, could
c reate d a n g e r o u s in te r n a tio n a l crises, a n d m ig h t even b rin g a b o u t large-
scale w ars.
T h is w as tru e in the n in e te e n th a n d early tw e n tie th ce n tury , w hen the
new states in th e B a lk a n s p la y ed this p a r t, n o less t h a n in th e 1930s, w h en it
was th e t u r n o f the new states in C e n tr a l E u ro p e , o r in the 1960s, w hen this
p h e n o m e n o n was visible m ainly in th e M u s lim w o rld a n d tro p ic a l Africa.
T h e idea th a t the sovereign state is a n a n a c h r o n is m , a n d th a t a n excessive
n u m b e r o f sovereignties co n s titu te s a m a jo r ca u se o f w ar, h a d been
w id esp re ad since the 1920s. T h e L ea g u e o f N a ti o n s w as cre ate d largely
because it was felt t h a t there sh o u ld be a h ig h e r a u t h o r i ty , raised ab ove
sovereign states, w hich s h o u ld p re v e n t conflicts betw e en states fro m
leading to w ar. T h e L ea g u e did n o t fulfil this task, essentially because no
g o v e r n m e n t o f a sovereign sta te — even less o f a large state t h a n o f a small -
w ould s u b m it its interests to L eag ue decision. A fter 1945 th e U nited
N a tio n s failed to fulfil th e sam e role, fo r essentially sim ilar reasons.
Less a m b itio u s a t te m p ts o n the basis o f large regions, o r o f asso cia tions
co vering a large n u m b e r o f states a n d n a tio n s, s o m e tim es achieved a
m e asu re o f success.
T h e British C o m m o n w e a lth , conceived as a free a s so cia tio n o f states
 Nations, States, and the Human Com m unity 475

w hich h ad em erged f r o m the British em p ire, w as at first b ased o n som e

g en uine c o m m o n interests; b u t these grew w e a k e r as the years passed, while
b itter conflicts a ro se betw een m em bers. S y m p a th y betw een the peoples o f
th e ‘O ld D o m in io n s ’ re m a in e d a fact even in th e 1970s, b u t e c o n o m ic a n d
strategic priorities pulled th e m in d ifferent directions.
A ce rtain sy m p a th y existed fro m th e b eg in n in g b e tw e en the E u ro p e -
derived n a tio n s o f the A m ericas, a n d w as first f o rm u l a te d in P re sid en t
M o n r o e ’s message to C on gress o f 2 D e c e m b e r 1823. H o w ev er, latent
m u tu a l d istru st betw e en peoples w h o se cu ltu res were m a in ly o f English or
o f S p a n ish origin, a n d the g ro w in g d isc re p an c y betw een th e m a te ria l p o w e r
o f th e U nited S tate s a n d o f its s o u th e r n n e ig h b o u rs, lim ited th e sense o f
s olid arity between them . In the tw e n tie th c e n tu r y the M o n r o e D o c trin e
c a m e to m e an U nited S tate s hegem ony. In b o th w orld w ars several L atin
A m e r ic a n states in terven ed o n th e sa m e side as the U nited S tate s, bu t
w ith o u t m u c h e n th u s ia s m o r m ilitary effect; while the sy m p a th ie s o f m a n y
L a tin A m e ric a n s were o n th e o th e r side. A fter 1945 a n O rg a n iz a tio n o f
A m e r ic a n S tates w as set u p w ithin th e U nited N atio n s. A c e rta in genuine
c o m m u n ity o f strategic interests was largely c o u n te r a c te d by rese n tm e n ts
o f b o th ec o n o m ic a n d cu ltu ra l origin, w h ich increased as e d u c a t io n spread
a n d e x p e c ta tio n s grew. R e luc tan c e in th e 1930s to be c o m m itte d to a n a n t i ­
fascist stance (an d w id esp re ad a d m ir a tio n , w h e th e r av o w e d o r n o t, for
fascism) h a d a p ara llel in th e relu c tan c e to d e n o u n c e c o m m u n is m in the
1960s ( a n d sim ilar a d m ir a tio n fo r the c o m m u n is t g o v e r n m e n t o f Fidel
C a s tr o in C u b a ). S p a n is h - A m e r ic a n , a n d to a lesser e x te n t Brazilian, a t ti­
tu d e s w ere a m b iv a le n t. T h e U n ited S ta te s was a d m ir e d , a n d its cu ltu ral
influence was im m ense even o n th o se w h o th o u g h t them selves im p e rv io u s
to it; b u t few L a tin A m e ric a n politicians c o uld refrain f r o m p eriodical
d e fia n t gestures o r b o u ts o f insulting rh e to r ic direc ted a t the U nited States.
Yet the a t t e m p t to replace in te r -A m e ric a n by L atin A m e ric a n , o r specifi­
cally S p a n is h - A m e r ic a n , solidarity h a d n o m o r e success. A r a th e r a b s tra c t
s y m p a th y existed, a n d gave rise to flo o d s o f o r a to ry ; b u t in practice no
large b o d y o f citizens o f a n y S p a n is h - A m e r ic a n n a tio n genuinely placed
th e interests o f all S p a n is h A m e ric a (w h ich were in a n y case h a r d to
identify) a b o v e th e interests o f its o w n natio n .
T h e r e w as so m e talk o f A sia n ism af te r 1945, b u t th e bitterness o f the
conflicts betw een P a k is t a n a n d In d ia a n d C h i n a sh ow ed it to be unreal.
A sia has never b een m o r e th a n a g eo g ra p h ic a l expression: the realities have
bee n th e g rea t cu ltu res o f Islam , H i n d u In d ia, C h in a a n d th e B ud dhist
w orld, w ith in ea ch o f w h ic h f lu c tu a tio n s o f diversity o r un ity c o u ld be
discerned. A fr o - A s ia n is m also p r o v e d to be a m irage. T h e o n ly reality to
w h ich A sia n a n d A fr o - A s ia n slogans rela ted , w as the sense o f so lid arity
betw een a n ti-co lo n ia l n atio n alists in b o th c o n tin e n ts, w hich rapidly d im in ­
ished af te r in d e p e n d e n c e w as achieved.
476 Nations and States

P a n a f r ic a n is m was a m o r e serious p h e n o m e n o n . It is tr u e th a t solidarity

betw een n o r th e r n A ra b s a n d s u b - S a h a r a n blacks was a pious fiction,
co ncea lin g the reality o f th e p a r tn e rs h ip betw e en slave-driver a n d slave, as
th e case o f s o u th S u d a n , discussed a b o v e , clearly show s; yet a m o n g the
b la c k A fricans themselves, it m u st be recognised t h a t th e belief so strong ly
u p h e ld by K w a m e N k r u m a h — t h a t the first loyalty could a n d sh o u ld be
given to Africa, a n d th a t loyalty to each specific A fric an people m u st com e
afte r t h a t — survived N k r u m a h ’s o v e r th r o w a n d d e a th , a n d r em a in ed
s tro n g a m o n g th e intelligentsias o f bla ck A fric an states. It was easy to
derid e this belief by p o in tin g to th e h isto ry o f N igeria, S u d a n , B u ru n d i or
C o n g o . Yet A frican solid arity was m o r e t h a n rhetoric. It was largely d u e to
th e O r g a n is a tio n for A fric a n U nity, f o u n d e d in M a y 1963, t h a t the supplies
a n d tra in in g were m a d e available to th e n a tio n a list a r m e d forces in the
P o rtu g u e se colonies, w hich en a b le d th e m to place so long a n d severe a
strain on the m ilita ry a n d e c o n o m ic resources o f P o rtu g a l th a t the
P o rtu g u e s e g o v e r n m e n t was o v e r th r o w n in L isbon , a n d in d e p e n d e n c e was
co nc ede d to the colonies. T h e co n s e q u e n c e s w ere n o t so impressive: the
O A U was first divided betw e en the c o m p e tin g g ro u p s in A n g o la, b u t then
decided to recognise M P L A , w ith a flou rish o f d e n u n c ia tio n o f S o u th
A fric an in te rv en tio n b u t n o t a m u r m u r a b o u t the C u b a n invasion. Even so,
there re m a in e d A fricans o f all co lo u rs o f skins w h o se g o al was th a t one day
there m ig h t arise an all-A frica n o r g a n is a tio n w ith in w hich black a n d white
A fric an n a tio n s w o u ld c o o p e rate .
T h e idea o f a u n ite d E u r o p e ca n be tra c e d f a r bac k in the past. In the
tw en tieth ce n tu ry it h a d its m o s t e lo q u e n t c h a m p io n s in F ra n c e a n d in
G e r m a n y , the tw o co u n trie s w hose g o v e r n m e n ts p e r h a p s did m o st to
d e s tro y such un ity as (despite the series o f w ars betw e en 1854 a n d 1870) was
g ro w in g steadily betw een 1815 a n d 1914. A ristid e B riand a n d G u sta v
S tre s e m a n n believed in th e un ity o f E u ro p e , th o u g h ea ch w as also m u c h
c o n c e rn e d to p u rsu e th e specific interests o f his o w n n a tio n . E u r o p e a n
solid arity h a d , in the first h alf o f th e ce n tu ry , o v e rto n e s o f racial su pe riority
to w a r d s A sia a n d A frica, a n d o f cu ltu ra l s u p e rio rity to w a r d s A m eric a; but
w hen H itler a n d S talin h a d d o n e th e ir w o rs t fo r E u ro p e ; w h en in d e p e n ­
d enc e h a d been w o n by m a n y peoples o f A sia a n d Africa; a n d w h en N o r t h
A m eric a h a d clearly em erg ed n o t only as th e reg io n o f highest m a teria l
civilisation b u t also as a ce n tre o f v ig o ro u s social t h o u g h t a n d cu ltu re, the
ch a r a c te r o f E u ro p e a n is m radically cha n g ed .
Both th e F re n c h a n d the G e r m a n s suffered d efeat, c o n q u e s t a n d foreign
o c c u p a tio n ; an d b o th , w ith the help o f th e ir A m e r ic a n p r o te c to r s b u t also
by their ow n persevering efforts, clim bed painfully o u t o f the abyss of d e s­
titu tio n a n d h u m ilia tio n in to a new w orld, w ith new d a n g e rs a n d new
o p p o r tu n itie s , in w hich old q u a rre ls a n d old vanities h a r d ly seemed w o rth
p ursu ing. T o som e o f the m ost im ag inative a n d a rtic u la te o f their leaders
 Nations, States, and the Human Com m unity 477

the un ity o f E u ro p e seem ed to be the first aim . T h e sam e idea quickly

ap p e aled to Belgians, D u tc h m e n a n d Italians. It a p p e a le d also to o th e r
E u r o p e a n n a t io n s — to Castilians a n d C a ta la n s in the W est a n d to Czechs,
Poles, H u n g a r ia n s , R o m a n ia n s , S o u th Slavs a n d G reeks in the East; but
the fo rm e r were c u t o ff n o t so m u c h by th e P yrenees as by th e d e t e r m in a ­
tio n of W est E u ro p e a n s to isolate G e n e ra l F r a n c o a n d o f G e n e ra l F r a n c o
to isolate himself; while n a tio n s o f the D a n u b e valley a n d C a r p a th ia n s were
drag g e d b a c k w a rd s into th e Soviet R u s sia n em pire. T h e idea also h a d its
follow ers a m o n g th in k in g p eo p le ac ro ss th e C h a n n el; b u t the le aders of
British political parties, a w a re of th e ir n a t io n ’s prow ess in the w a r th a t they
had w on, h avin g no need to c la m b e r o u t of a n abyss w hich they had
escaped, believing them selves still to have a m ission as a g rea t p o w e r in the
w orld at large, a n d especially in th e C o m m o n w e a lth to w hich they a tta c h e d
a n a lm o s t mystic q u ality, tu r n e d th e ir b a c k s o n the en terp rise o f uniting
E urope.
S o th ere c a m e into being a c o m m u n ity in w hich th e e c o n o m ic ra th e r
th a n the c u ltu ra l asp ec t was stressed, a n d in w hich F re n c h a n d G e r m a n s
s h a re d the leading parts. It achieved g rea t e c o n o m ic successes, a n d
pressure grew fro m b u sin e ssm e n in Britain ( n o t h ith e rto a g r o u p c o n s p ic u ­
o u s fo r its d e v o tio n to, o r even aw a re n e ss of, E u r o p e a n culture) for British
e n try into this p ro fitab le C o m m o n M a rk e t. British en try was long resisted
by G e n e ra l de G aulle, o f w h o m it m ight be said, slightly a m e n d in g his o w n
f a m o u s w ords, th a t il s’était fait une certaine idée de l’Europe. N o t for him
to a b a n d o n old q u a rre ls o r old glories, or to forego satisfac tio n fo r old
w rongs. A fter he was gone, Britain w as a d m itte d ; b u t by this tim e, on b oth
e x tre m e flanks o f the British political b o d y b itte r o p p o s itio n to m e m b e r ­
ship h ad arisen. T h e stran g e antics o f th e British L a b o u r P a rty , in p o w er
a n d in o p p o sitio n betw een 1964 a n d 1975, need not be r ec o u n ted here. T h e
re fe re n d u m of J u n e 1975 ensu red British m e m b e r sh ip o f the E E C ; b u t it
w o u ld be p r e m a tu r e to a s su m e t h a t ‘E u r o p e a n i s m ’ h a d prevailed o ver all its
foes o n either side o f the C h a n n el.
T h e E u r o p e a n Idea was s o m e th in g b r o a d e r a n d d ee p er th a n s u p p o r t for
th e E E C . It was a po w erfu l force t h r o u g h o u t the c o n tin e n t. If it h a d been
possible to a r r a n g e free e x pre ssion a n d careful analysis o f public o p in io n , it
is likely th a t this w o u ld have revealed s tr o n g e r s u p p o r t fo r E u r o p e a n unity
a n d d ee p er c o n c e rn for E u r o p e a n c u ltu re betw een th e Baltic a n d the
A ege an th a n in th e m e m b e r states o f th e E E C . Yet th e E u r o p e a n Idea also
ev o k e d po w erfu l co u n ter-fo rces, ra n g in g fro m d o u b t to o u tr ig h t hostility,
n o t only fro m th e c h a m p io n s in partibus infidelium o f the Soviet R ussian
em pire, b u t also a m o n g p erson s o f m o d e r a te views a n d lim ited im a g in a ­
tions. In a n y case, it was clear th a t th o u g h th e E u r o p e a n Id ea f o rm e d a
challenge to c o n v e n tio n a l n a tio n a l loyalties, it c ou ld n o t be exp e cted to re­
place th e m , but m u st ra th e r be a d a p te d to conciliate a n d in c o rp o r a te them .
478 Nations and States

Dissolution of national cultures

i C o n t e m p o r a r y co ntroversies a b o u t the d a n g e rs o f sovereignty, a n d the
‘obsolescence’ o f the ‘n a tio n sta te ’, are usu ally based o n the a s s u m p tio n
th a t if n a tio n a l loyalties a re to bec om e w ea k er, th e y will be replaced by
larger loyalties based o n gre a te r regional units o r o n ideas w hich claim to be
universal. O n e sh o u ld h ow eve r also c o n s id e r th e o p p o site p h e n o m e n o n —
re p la c e m e n t by n a r r o w e r loyalties.
A m o d e r n p h e n o m e n o n t h a t deserves a tte n t io n is th e b r e a k -u p o f a
fo rm e rly h o m o g e n e o u s n a t io n by se p aratist forces w hich a re n o t te rr ito ­
rial. I f we im agin e the n a t io n as a p y ra m id , th e n this, like so m e fo rm s of
stratified rock, ca n be sp lin tered eith er h o rizo n tally or vertically.
H o riz o n ta l fra ctu re h a s long been fam iliar n o t only to h istoria ns but to
n e w s p a p e r rea ders o f av e rag e intelligence. T his is the class struggle:
p e a sa n ts a g a in st la n d o w n e rs, city m e rc h a n ts a g a in st a g r ic u ltu ra l m a g ­
nates, f a c to ry w o rk e rs a g a in st bosses. T h a t these struggles have existed,
a n d still exist, only the politically blin d c a n deny. D isa g re em e n t a m o n g
intelligent p eo ple begins w h en they a rg u e w h e th e r th e conflicts should an d
ca n be m itig ated , o r even elim in a te d , by m u tu a l concessions in the interest
o f n a tio n a l unity; o r w h e th e r th e y sh o u ld be p ushed to ex tre m es, in o r d e r to
sm a sh the illusion o f a n a t io n a n d the reality o f a n in c u ra b ly ro tte n society.
T h o s e w h o ta k e th e la tte r view are in tu r n divided into m a n y group s.
E ach has its ow n vision o f th e ideal fu tu re . H o w ev er, th e m o s t n u m e ro u s
a n d p o w erfu l g ro u p s are th o se w h o claim th a t th e im m u ta b le laws of
history, d iscerned by M a rx is t-L e n in is t science as in te rp re te d by th e c u rre n t
e x p o n e n ts o f the infallible C e n tr a l C o m m itte e o f the C o m m u n is t P a r ty of
the So viet U n io n , p rove th a t class conflicts are irrecon cilable, a n d should
be consciously a n d system atically e x a c e rb a te d until re v o lu tio n d estroys the
old o r d e r a n d in tro d u c e s th e new a n d p e r m a n e n t social o rd er; g u a ra n te e d
fo r all tim e by the collective w is d o m o f th e C P S U , ex p re ssed by its leaders
w h o p erso nify this infallibility— u n til suc h tim e as these p erso n s are
‘u n m a s k e d ’ as agents o f fo re ig n secret services, o r objects o f a n all-
d e v o u r in g ‘c u lt o f p e rso n a lity ’ alien to M a r x is m , o r sim ply in c o m p e te n t
dem a g o g u e s e n a m o u r e d o f ‘h a r e -b r a in e d schem es’. T h o s e n o t gifted with
th is infallible w isd o m , a n d n o t dispo sed to believe t h a t a n y o n e really
possesses it, are red u c ed to th e m o r e m o d e s t view t h a t class struggles exist,
b u t th a t the causes w h ich intensify o r d im in ish th e m re m a in ra th e r
m ysterious, a n d th a t it sim ply is n o t possible to say a prio ri w h e th e r any
given class conflict ca n o r c a n n o t be reconciled o r m itigated by m u tu a lly
to le rab le co m p ro m ises. In the m o st p o w erfu l ca p ita list state in th e w orld,
with the greatest c o n tra s t betw een w ea lth a n d p o v e rty in th e w orld, m a n y
f o rm s o f disc o n te n t existed a n d exist in the tw e n tie th ce n tu ry , bu t o f a
massive class conscio usne ss a n d class conflict betw een ‘w o rk in g class’ an d
 Nations, States, and the Human Com m unity 479

‘b o u rg e o isie ’ th e re w as very little sign: ra th e r, a n increasin g n u m b e r o f

w o rk e rs, as their m a te ria l c o n d itio n s im p ro v e d , consid ered them selves
‘m id d le class’, a n d o th e rs aim ed, by th e ir o w n efforts a n d a bit o f luck, to
achieve th a t status. In B ritain, by c o n tra s t, class h a tre d a n d obsessive envy
o f all w h o fared b etter t h a n oneself, a p p e a r e d m u c h m o re w id es p re ad in the
p r o s p e r o u s 1970s t h a n in the de s p e ra te 1930s.
V ertical stratifica tio n h as been m u c h less stud ied, b u t it a p p e a r e d in the
1970s to be increasin g in the ad v a n c e d industrial cou ntries. Essentially it
consists in the g r o w th o f a fo rm o f loyalty con fined to o n e ’s o w n o c c u p a ­
tio n a l g roup: C o v e n tr y a u to m o b ile w o rk e rs , o r N ew Y o rk d u s tm e n , or
Breton farm ers contra mundum . T h e m o s t ob v io u s e x a m p le s involved
tr a d e u n ions, b u t this was by no m e an s a solely ‘w o rk in g class’ p h e n o m e ­
n o n , fo r em plo yers a n d p rofession al m e n w ou ld be a t least as likely to take
the side o f the w o rk e rs in th e ir section o f the p y ra m id as to p refer a w ider
n a tio n a l interest. It was arg u a b le th a t vertical sectionalism w as p r o m o te d
by the sprea d o f television, w hich e n c o u r a g e d families to sta y at h o m e an d
w a tc h th e b o x , w here they h a d few er c o n ta c ts w ith th e rest o f the
p o p u la tio n . It c ould also be a rg u e d t h a t the built-in p rofession al d e f o r m a ­
tio n o f m ass m e d ia c o m m u n ic a to r s , to seek always so m e th in g new an d
exciting, led to the flo o d in g o f h o m e s w ith a ra p id succession o f fa s h io n ­
ab le a n d e p h e m e ra l ideas w hich h ad in c o m m o n only a n intense dislike of
estab lished values, o f w hich one o f the m o s t obv io u s w as the n o tio n of
n a tio n a l solidarity, so often describ ed by a n a m e w hich b e c am e v irtu ally a
sm e ar-w o rd : ‘p a t r i o tis m ’. T hese tw o a r g u m e n ts m u s t be m e n tio n e d ,
because a certain p rim a fa cie case c a n be m a d e for th e m ; b u t neith er of
th e m ca n be co n s id ered p ro v en , n o r is indeed ca p ab le o f proof.
V ertical stratifica tio n a n d splintering m u s t be d istin guish e d fro m local
co m m u n ity solidarity. T h e idea th a t less sh o u ld be d o n e by th e central
g o v e r n m e n t o f large n a tio n s, a n d th a t m o r e sh o u ld be left to local
a u th o ritie s w ith in the n a tio n , was so m e th in g different. S u c h local solidari­
ty still existed in the 1970s in N ew E n g la n d to w n sh ip s, o n H e b rid e a n
islands, a n d no d o u b t in m a n y o th e r places re m o te fro m g rea t cities. It was
p e r h a p s still m o st successfully in stitutionalised in Swiss c a n to n s . W h e th e r
such local solidarity, initiative a n d p a r tic ip a tio n was likely to grow , o r was
d o o m e d to perish as vast centralised units a b s o r b e d everything, w as a
subject for a g rea t d ea l o f d o c trin a ir e rheto ric; b u t by its very n a tu re this
qu e s tio n p r o b a b ly c o u ld n o t a d m it a n y single answ er.
T h e vertical sp linterin g w hich I a m n o w co n sid erin g was s o m e th in g
different a n d so m e th in g w h ich c o u ld only be h a rm fu l. T h e sectional
interests for th e m o st p a r t w ere n o t c o n c e n t ra te d in sm all identifiable units,
b u t w ere scattered ov er a w hole c o u n try , being con fin e d to a n o c c u p a tio n
a n d n o t to a h o m e area. T h e c o n c essio n o f big m a teria l gains to one
po w erfu l sectional interest w o u ld inevitably b ring p o verty , u n e m p lo y m e n t
480 Nations and States

a n d w astage o f resources to o th e r sectional interests. T h e victorious

sectionalists were q u ite indifferent to the price paid by others: no old-
f ash io n e d class solidarity w o u ld hold th e m b a c k fro m g r a b b in g w h a t they
could get. O bvio usly every society a n d every n a tio n has c o n ta in e d conflicts
o f sectional interest; b u t if they c a n n o t be c o n tro lle d , the society m u st slide
into a n a rc h y . T h e po w ers o f the g reat sectional g r o u p s w ith in tw en tieth
c e n tu ry indu stria l n a tio n s recall the ste re o ty p e o f the conflicts between
feuda l b a r o n s in the E n g la n d of K ing S te p h e n ( 1 135-54) o r in fifteenth
c e n tu ry S co tla n d . H o w ev er, j u s t because th e ir p o w ers w ere n o t, like those
o f ind iv id u al b a r o n s , lim ited to specific regions, th e y w ere po te n tia lly m ore
d a n g e ro u s.

National cultures and human civilisation

T o m o c k the loyalty o f m e m b e r s of a foo tb all club or t r a d e u n io n to each
o th e r is as foolish as it is unjust. T h e u n io n deals w ith thing s th a t to u c h its
m e m b e r s ’ lives o n every w o rk in g day o f th e ir lives, th e club a t least once a
week for m o s t o f the year. W h a t they read, in th e rest o f th e ir new spap ers
b e y o n d the sp o rtin g pages, o f w h a t are called n a tio n a l affairs, co ncern s
th e m m u c h less often, a n d p e r h a p s — t h o u g h n o t c e rta in ly — less deeply. But
m e m b e r sh ip o f a n a t io n is so m e th in g d ifferent f r o m m e m b e r s h ip o f a club
o r a u n io n , a n d so m e th in g w hich, despite p o p u la r fallacies, c a n n o t be
sloughed o ff a t will.
S o m e w o u ld reply t h a t n a tio n a l consciou sne ss is a su p e rstitio n , derived
f ro m the o u tw o r n a n d d isc re d ite d past, a n d th a t it n o t only c a n but should
be a b a n d o n e d as quickly as possible. If it be tr u e th a t in m o st p arts o f the
w o rld m e n still re m a in victims to n a tio n a list passions, t h a t is all the m ore
r ea so n w hy the peoples w h o se societies a n d cu ltu res have progressed the
farth est, sh o u ld a b ju re th eir n atio n a lity , sh o u ld reject ‘p a t r i o tis m ’, an d
sh o u ld th r o w into ‘th e d u s tb i n o f h isto ry ’ the w h ole costly a p p a r a t u s of
‘n a t io n a l defence’, w h ose m a n y ram ific a tio n s p e n e tr a te a n d p o iso n society.
T h o se w h o d o this, these en th u sia sts arg u e , will set a n e x a m p le o f civilised
b e h a v io u r w hich o th e rs will th e n em u la te , until a peaceful a n d a b etter
w orld is m ade.
U n fo r tu n a te ly , the in c o m p le te evidence, b o t h f r o m p a s t history an d
f ro m the o b se rv a tio n o f the c o n t e m p o r a r y w o rld , suggests th a t an y
g o v e r n m e n t w hich did this w o u ld n o t in fact help to b r in g a peaceful a n d a
b etter w orld to birth, b u t w o u ld only cause its o w n n a t io n to be tra m p le d
u p o n by the rulers o f o th e r states, w h o c o u ld c o m p e l the obedienc e o f their
o w n n atio n s for the task o f g r a b b in g the resources o f th o se n o t willing to
d efend themselves.
Indifference to the n a tio n a l heritage, a n d refusal to d efend th e natio n .
 Nations, States, and the Human Com m unity 481

are signs n o t o f pro gre ss b u t o f decay, n o t o f the health o f a b o d y politic but

o f critical sickness. T h e disease a tta c k s b o th the head a n d th e lim bs, b o th
the le aders a n d the cro w d . U n su re o f th e ir o w n right to lead, c o n s u m e d by a
sense o f social-political guilt, to o tired to exercise th e ir im a g in a tio n s, a n d
at the sam e tim e cynically d e te rm in e d to enjoy th e fruits o f pow er, the
le aders have n o th in g to offer b u t a c r u d e h e d o n ism , no o th e r a im fo r their
follow ers th a n im m e d ia te m a teria l g ratification. S uch leaders ca n inspire in
the m e m b ers o f the cro w d n o th in g b u t c o n te m p t. U n ab le to respect their
rulers, they d e m a n d m o r e a n d m o r e fo r them selves. U n a b le to identify
them selves with the g o v e r n m e n t o f the n a tio n , en c o u ra g e d to believe th a t
the n a tio n is a fiction, men cling the m o r e p assio n ately to the sectional
loyalties w hich have precise m e a n in g to th e m . T h e fissures in the society
m ultiply a n d grow deeper. If the process goes to o far, it ca n be reversed
only w hen a p o w e r -h u n g r y new elite, in d ig e n o u s o r foreign, im p o ses itself
by force. N o ‘scientific’ m e a s u r e m e n t has yet been, o r is likely to be,
devised, th a t will p in p o in t th e m o m e n t o f no re tu rn for in d iv id ual societies.
It is alw ays possible to try to avert disaster, u p to the m o m e n t w h en d isaster
has o ccurred; th o u g h clu m sy a t te m p ts m a y t h r o u g h failure accelerate the
d isa ste r itself.
N o t o nly is rejection o f n a tio n a l co n scio u sn e ss a n d n a tio n a l heritage a
sign o f political sickness r a th e r th a n health: it is in itself a n a c t aga in st
civilisation. H u m a n beings have m u c h in c o m m o n w ith beasts; a n d
tw entieth ce n tu ry th in k in g , b o th o f the ‘rig h t’ a n d o f the ‘left’, has largely
f a v o u red the ‘lib e ra tio n ’ o f m a n k in d by the reassertion o f its sim ple
beastlike loyalties a n d the rem ov al o f artificial co n s tra in ts . Yet h u m a n s
differ from beasts in tw o things: they r e a so n a n d they r em e m b er. By reason
a n d by m e m o r y n u m e ro u s h u m a n c o m m u n itie s have slowly built the
trea su re -h o u se o f varied n atio n al cultu res to w hich m a n k in d is heir.
N a tio n a l cultures were cre ate d th r o u g h th e h isto ry o f natio n s. H istory is
the collective m e m o r y o f h u m a n c o m m u n itie s. Beasts d o n o t have history;
prim itive m e n hav e only oral tr a d itio n s ; civilised m e n h av e reco rd ed
history. R e co rd ed h istory is full o f un ce rtain ties, o f u n a n s w e re d qu estio n s
a n d o f qu estio n s w hich have n o t yet even been put. It includes the teaching s
o f p r o p h e ts a n d saints, w hich th e y believed w ere revealed to th e m by G o d ,
w hich millions still a c ce p t as such (even t h o u g h they o ften d isre g a rd th e m
in th eir ow n lives); while o th e r millions reject their divine origin b u t still
accept th e ir g u id a n ce in diluted form . H isto ry includes the ac hie v em e n ts,
crim es a n d sufferings o f kings, soldiers a n d politicians; a n d the ac hie ve­
m ents, crim es a n d sufferings o f u n n a m e d m illions w h o m th e y led or
sacrificed. It h as b e c o m e fash io n a b le to p a y m o r e a t te n t io n to th e u n n a m e d
millions th a n to the leaders, w hich is m o r e difficult b ecau se th e re is less
evidence, b u t is entirely a d m ir a b le as a n aim ; yet this s h o u ld a n d need n o t
cause th e leaders to be ig nored, o r the m y th s to be f o rg o tte n (even in the
482 Nations and States

rare cases w here the tr u th in the m y th c a n be surgically s e p a ra te d fro m the

fiction).
In s o m e co u n trie s it h as b ec o m e a d o g m a t h a t ‘th e p eo p le’ w ere always
v ir tu o u s a n d oppressed, th e ruling classes alw ays e x p lo itin g a n d wicked.
F o r e x a m p le , it is a rg u e d th a t C o rte s a n d his m e n w ere n o m o r e th a n
m u r d e r o u s aggressors, a n d all th a t was co n s tru c tiv e in th e f o r m a tio n o f the
m o d e r n M e x ic a n n a tio n c a m e fro m th e in d ige nou s peoples. O r again,
t h o u g h R u ssian tsars in v a d ed a n d c o n q u e r e d n e ig h b o u rin g lands, the
R u s sia n people, it is claim ed by the tsa rs’ successors, were alw ays the best
friend o f n e i g h b o u rin g p eoples (Poles, R o m a n ia n s , T a t a r s a n d th e rest).
S u c h d o g m a s are legends fit for u n b a la n c e d adolescents.
N a tio n s c a n n o t escape their history, a n d in d ividu als c a n n o t o p t o u t of
th e ir n a tio n s ( th o u g h th e y ca n o f course b e tra y th e m to their enemies).
Y o u n g G e r m a n s , a p p a lle d by th e crim es o f H itler, w ished to rep u d ia te
G e r m a n y ’s h isto ry — n o t only the N azi era, b u t the P ru ssia n p ast w hich was
said to have been the s o u rce o f H itlerism . Yet this th e y could not do.
t h o u g h they w ere them selves in n o c e n t o f the crim es. T h is was u n d e r s to o d
by a n in n o c e n t G e r m a n w h o by a g rea t act show ed him self a g rea t man:
Willy B r a n d t w ho, as G e r m a n cha nce llor, knelt in pub lic at the m o n u m e n t
in A u sc h w itz 3 where H itle r’s m en h ad gassed Je w s a n d P oles by the
h u n d r e d th o u s a n d . Since B r a n d t’s act th e air has b ec o m e p u re r in all
C e n tr a l E u ro p e .
T h e re a r e th o se w h o believe th a t h isto ry can be defused o f all explosive
c o n ten t; t h a t it sh o u ld be re w ritte n so t h a t n o o n e m a y be offended; th a t all
peoples c a n be vested w ith v irtu o u s u n ifo rm ity , a m is h -m a sh o f benevolent
h u m a n ita r ia n verbiage. T his m ercifully is still o nly a n igh tm are.
M e a n w h ile we are still faced w ith tw o sets o f t r u th , equa lly valid. T he
first is t h a t n atio n alists, fanatically d e te r m in e d to set u p th e ir ow n
in d e p e n d e n t state, u sua lly w ith th e aid o f a g o v ern m e n t, hostile to the
g o v e r n m e n t w hich th e y are fighting; a n d n a tio n a lists in possession o f a
sovereign in d e p e n d e n t state d e te r m in e d to im p o s e th e ir n a tio n a lity on
p eoples w ith in th eir ju risd ic tio n w h o d o n o t o w n it, o r to seize territo ries
u n d e r a n o t h e r g o v e r n m e n t’s rule w hich they claim s h o u ld be theirs; are
c a p a b le o f terrible civil w ars a n d in te rstate w ars w hich, in the age o f nuclear
w ea p o n s, m a y th r e a te n th e w hole h u m a n race w ith ex tin ctio n . T h e second
is t h a t n atio n s, cre ate d o v er longer o r s h o r te r p e rio d s o f tim e, w ith their
o w n speech a n d cu ltu re a n d beliefs a n d institu tio n s, a re virtually in de­
structible; p erse cution a n d m a ssac re m o r e often intensify t h a n elim inate
their n a tio n a l feeling; a n d c o n tin u o u s rep ressio n serves to keep th e m in a n
explosive c o n d itio n w hich also t h r e a te n s w ars w h ich tr e a te n all h u m a n ity .
T h e survival o f h u m a n civilisation d e p e n d s o n the r ec o g n itio n o f b o th
sets o f truth: th a t neith er ab s o lu te state sovereig nty n o r the a b o litio n of
n atio n al identities is possible; th a t there m u st be a b alance between
 Nations, States, and the Human Com m unity 483

n a tio n a l cultures a n d in te rstate c o o p e r a tio n , no less th a n a b alanc e

betw een class interests a n d interclass c o o p e r a tio n w ith in n a tio n s, if
destructive civil w ars a n d n u clear h o lo c a u sts a r e to be av o id ed . It m a y be
th a t the v ast bu lk o f the h u m a n race care n o t fo r a n y of these things. T h a t
does n o t a bsolve those w h o d o k n o w a n d d o care f r o m m a k in g a n effort to
e x p lain them.
Notes

C h a p te r 1

1. F o r ex a m p le , Sylvia H a im , Arab N ationalism (U niversity o f C a lifo r­

nia, 1962) a n d Elie K ed ourie, Nationalism in Asia an d A frica (1970).
2. See pp. 447-448.
X 3. Nationalism by Elie K edourie (I960).
4. A t P aris were nationes o f F ra n ce , P ica rdy, N o r m a n d y a n d G erm a n y :
the N o r m a n included p ersons from v ario u s n o r th e r n lands, the G e r m a n at
one tim e E nglishm en. A t P ra g u e in the late f o u rte e n th ce n tu ry were
B o h e m ia n , B avarian, S a x o n a n d Polish nationes , but their c o m p o s itio n
to o was ra th e r mixed.
5. T h e Szekely w ere a people from the steppes, originally distinct from
the H u n g a r ia n s (o r M agyars), b u t c u ltu rally as sim ilated to w a r d s th e m in
the course o f time. T h e S a x o n s were G e r m a n s established by the kings o f
H u n g a r y in the th ir te e n th century.
6. A n e x c e p tio n w as H u n g a r ia n , in w hich th e distinct w o rd s nem zet a n d
nep were a s sid uously preserved: this w as a result o f the long c o n tin u e d
m a in te n a n c e o f political po w er of the nobility. A sy stem atic c o m p a r a tiv e
stu d y o f the e v o lu tio n o f the use a n d m e a n in g o f these w o rd s in E u ro p e has
yet to be done: it w ould be inv aluable to h istoria n s a n d even to social
scientists.

Chapter 2
1. In 1204 the F o u r t h C ru sa d e , at V enetian instigation, c a p tu r e d
C o n s ta n tin o p le instea d o f fighting the M uslim s, a n d installed F r a n k is h
d ukes, w h o se d e s c e n d a n ts were o u ste d by the G reek d y n a s ty o f the
P aleo logi in 1261.
2. T h e choice o f title fo r this section ca u se d m e a g o o d deal o f difficulty.
‘N a tio n s o f Britain’ w o u ld ex c lu d e the Irish. ‘N a tio n s o f th e British Isles’
w o uld im ply t h a t Ire lan d is a British island, w hich sa v o u rs o f im perialism .
T h e title cho sen is, I believe, satisfactory: E nglish, S cots a n d W elsh a re all
486 Notes

British n a t io n s — th a t is, n a tio n s living w ith in the island o f Britain. T h e use

o f th e p lu ra l afte r ‘British a n d Irish’ leaves o p e n the q u e s tio n w h e th e r there
is o r is n o t a British n a tio n , a n d w h e th e r th e re a re on e o r tw o Irish nations.
T h o s e w h o hold these d ifferent views c a n acce p t my title, t h o u g h they m a y
reject m y opinions.
3. T h e old e r n a m e s used fo r the tw o fo rm s a re G oidelic (‘P ’) a n d
B ry th o n ic (‘Q ’). F r o m the second is derived th e L a tin n a m e B ritannia. In
te rm s o f language, th e only ‘B rito n s’ surviv ing to d a y a re th e Welsh.
G allo w a y , the so u th -w estern c o r n e r o f S c o tla n d , h ad a d istin ct p o p u la tio n ,
p r o b a b ly orig in a tin g f r o m Ireland, a n d s p e ak in g ‘Q - ’ r a th e r th a n ‘P -
C eltic’.
4. T h e Celtic la n g u ag e s p o k e n th e re a f te r in th e S cottish W estern
H ig h la n d s a n d Islands, long k n o w n as Gaelic, d eve lope d differently fro m
literary Irish. In m o d e r n tim es the w o rd ‘G aelic’ is often used for th e Irish as
well as fo r th e S cottish v ariant: the c o n t e x t in w hich th e w o rd is used
usually m a k es its m e a n in g clear.
5. If m o d e r n d o c trin e s o f linguistic n a tio n a lity h ad been c u r r e n t in those
tim es, the b o r d e r betw een E n g la n d a n d S c o tla n d w o u ld have been n o t the
T w ee d b u t p e r h a p s the P e n tla n d s a n d th e A n n a n .
6. See pp. 67-68.
7. T h e lowest level ( ri tuaithe) w as a trib a l ch ief ruling a sm all n u m b e r;
th e n ex t (ruiri) was a n o v erlo rd o f these; the highest ( ruirech ), a king of
overkings, was the ru ler o f a large pro v in ce ( M u n s te r , Ulster, C o n n a u g h t,
Leinster). E ven the low est level chief h a d a sa cred c h a r a c te r , w hich m a k es
the use o f th e w o rd ‘kin g ’ a p p r o p r ia te . Rivalries betw e en provincial kings
w ere f re q u e n t a n d b lo o d y . T h e tr a d itio n a l view o f the e v o lu tio n o f a ‘high
k in g sh ip ’ o v er all I re la n d is critically e x a m in e d by a recent scholar,
D o n n c h a O ’C o r r a in , in Ireland before the N orm ans (D u b lin , 1972), 28-42.
8. T h e use by h isto ria n s a n d o th e r w riters o f th e w o rd s ‘A ngle’, ‘S a x o n ’
a n d ‘A n g lo - S a x o n ’ is c o n fu sin g a n d in consistent. W e s p e ak o f Angles in
so u th -e a st S c o tla n d ; o f P o p e G re g o ry ’s alleged r e m a r k a b o u t s o m e Angle
slaves as ‘n o n A ngli sed A ngeli’; o f th e A nglo-Saxon Chronicle a n d S a x o n
ch u r c h arch itec tu re. S h o u ld a n y specialist o n th ese subjects c h a n ce to read
these pages, I tr u s t th a t he will p a r d o n m y u n ce rtain ties.
9. W illiam I, in fu riate d by K ing M a lc o l m ’s rep e a te d raid s in to N o r t h ­
u m b e r l a n d , in vaded S c o tla n d in 1072, a n d M a lc o lm m e t h im a t A ber-
n ethy a n d ‘was his m a n ’. T h e te rm s o f this h o m a g e a re n o t e xa ctly k n ow n.
In 1174 K ing W illiam (‘th e L io n ’) o f S c o tla n d , c a p tu r e d a t A lnw ick a n d
ta k e n p riso n e r to K ing H e n r y II in N o r m a n d y , d id h im h o m a g e for
S c o tla n d as well as fo r his lands in E n g la n d , by th e T r e a t y o f Falaise.
H ow ever, R ic h a rd I o n his accession released W illiam f ro m this o b liga tio n
in N o v e m b e r 1189. T h e w hole q u e s tio n o f h o m a g e , a n d also the history of
the a t te m p ts by the kings o f S c o tla n d to o b ta in N o r t h u m b e r la n d , C u m b e r ­
land a n d W e s tm o rla n d , a re e x p lain e d in th e m o st im p o r ta n t recent w o rk
 N otes 487

on m edieval S c o tla n d — A. A. M . D u n c a n , Scotland: The M aking o f the

K ingdom ( E d in b u rg h , 1975), c h a p te r 9.
10. G. W. S. B arrow , Feudal Britain (1956), 410. See also the sam e
a u t h o r ’s R obert Bruce an d the C om m unity o f the Realm o f Scotland
(1965).
11. See B arrow , Feudal Britain , p. 350ff.
12. See pp. 175-178.
13. It is a r g u a b le th a t sim ilar p h e n o m e n a to o k place in the M uslim
w orld, w here A ra b ic w o rd s c a m e to d o m in a te th e intellectual v o c a b u la ry ,
while the g r a m m a tic a l str u c tu re a n d m a te ria l v o c a b u la ry re m a in e d T u r k ­
ish, M a la y , o r p o st-S a n sk rit. But the English a n d R o m a n i a n fu sion s were
n o t m a rk e d by a clear-cut division betw een inte lle ctu al/re lig io u s or
m a te r ia l/s o c ia l vocab u la ry : th e o v e r la p p in g o f the tw o w o rd - f u n d s was
w ider a n d richer. P e r h a p s th e P ersian case is so m e w h a t n e a r e r the English,
as intellectual w o rd s of pre-Islam ic P ersian origin survived. See pp. 244-
245.
14. F r o m 1303 th e p opes were p riso n ers o f the king o f F ra n c e in
A v ign on, a n d fro m 1378 to 1415 there w ere rival popes in A v ig n o n an d
R o m e , a n d for p a rt o f this tim e also a th ird c la im a n t living in S pain.
15. 1 refer to my earlier ar g u m e n t th a t the English n a tio n only c a m e into
existence in the f o u rte e n th century: the' struggles o f Britons ag a in st
R o m a n s , o f R o m a n is e d Celts a g a in st S a x o n s , a n d o f S a x o n s ag a in st
N o r m a n s sh ould n o t be reg arded as ‘E nglish’ n a tio n a l indep en d e n ce
m ove m ents.
16. 1 find it very h a rd to m a k e up m y m ind as to w h e th e r a ‘British
n a t io n ’ is a valid concept. ‘Britain’ is o f c o u rse a m u c h o ld e r w o rd th a n
‘E n g la n d ’ or ‘S c o tla n d ’; b u t if the w o rd is used in its strictest historical
sense, the only p eop le entitled to call them selves ‘British’ a re the Welsh.
T h e r e has been a t tim es a tendency fo r th e English to in te rp re t ‘British’ as
English writ large, a n d to exp e ct S co ts a n d W elsh to b ec om e English if they
are to be truly British. Yet it is also tru e th a t until recently the sense of
b elo n g in g to g e th er to a British c o m m u n ity , a n d pride in this c o m m u n ity ,
have been extrem ely s tr o n g a m o n g th e Scots a n d Welsh: indeed, o n e m ight
arg u e t h a t S cots a n d W elsh have been ‘m o r e British’ th e n th e English. D oes
this a d d u p to a British n a tio n a l consciousne ss, o r sh o u ld so m e o th e r w ord
be found?
17. See pp. 147, 163.
18. F. S. L. L yo ns, Ireland Since the Famine ( 1971), 632-633, q u o tin g B.
O. Cuiv, Irish D ialects an d Irish-Speaking D istricts (D u b lin , 1951).
19. A t this p o in t the a u t h o r m u s t a d m it t h a t there a re lim its to the
d e t a c h m e n t w hich is his usual aim. D e sc en d e d fro m g e n e ra tio n s o f S cots
a n d Irish, but with a w o rk in g life lived, like th a t o f m y p are n ts, m ostly in
E n gla nd, I c a n n o t th in k th a t the b r e a k -u p o f Britain could be a n y th in g but
a disaster.
488 Notes

20. See first page o f In tro d u c tio n .

21. T h e n a m e is derived fro m L o th a rin g ia , the sh a re allotted by the
T re a ty o f V e rd u n to L o th a ir, o n e o f the th ree d is p u t a n t g ra n d s o n s of
C h a rlem a g n e.
22. T hese te rm s refer to th e w o rd used fo r ‘yes’ a t the tim e — oil being
later m odified to oui. T h e w o rd O c c ita n ia w as in use in m edieval texts,
being derived fro m oc ( n o t fro m O ccident or West). Both ‘L a n g u e d o c ’ an d
‘O c c ita n ia ’ w ere at tim es used to cove r a lm o s t all F ra n c e betw een the Loire,
th e R h o n e a n d th e A tlantic. O th e r w o rd s o f varia b le g e o g ra p h ica l m e an in g
are G a sc o g n e (n o rm a lly , the land betw een the P yrenees a n d the G a r o n n e ,
b u t s o m e tim es larger o r sm aller regions) a n d A q u ita in e (d e n o tin g varying
ex ten ts o f te rr ito r y betw een the L oire a n d the G a r o n n e ) . ‘L a n g u e d o c ’ in
m o r e recent tim es has been co nfin ed to the region a r o u n d T o u lo u s e an d
Albi. O th e r regions w hich have at tim es been co n s id ered to belong to
O cc ita n ia a re the L im o u sin (region o f L im oges) a n d A uvergne. T here
c o n tin u e d to be co n sid erab le differences o f dialect betw een these m a n y
regions, b u t th e re was certainly a fam ily re la tio n sh ip betw een them ,
e x te n d in g also to the language o f Pro vence, bey o n d the R h o n e , a n d to a
lesser e x te n t to C a ta la n , s p o k e n n o r th o f the Pyrenees in Roussillon. It is
n o t fanciful to th in k o f a n O c c ita n ia n g r o u p o f d ialects, sim ilar to each
o th e r a n d distinct fro m F rench. T h e histo ry o f these dialects is also
c o m p lic a te d by th e fact th a t different regions were u n d e r d ifferent sove r­
eignties until the late M id d le A ges— m o s t o f A q u ita in e u n d e r th e king of
E n g la n d , a n d P ro v e n c e w ith th e city o f Arles u n d e r the H oly R o m a n
E m pire.
23. O c c ita n ia n n atio n a lists w ou ld a rg u e th a t it p assed fro m th e rule o f
o n e alien m o n a r c h , th e k ing o f E n g la n d , to th a t o f a n o t h e r alien m o n a rc h ,
the king o f F rance.
24. T o be m o r e precise, th e d u c h y o f B u rg u n d y , w ith its F re n ch -
s p e ak in g p o p u la tio n , c a m e u n d e r the F re n c h m o n a rc h y ; w hereas the
D u tc h - s p e a k in g L o w C o u n trie s passed to the B u r g u n d ia n heiress a n d her
h u s b a n d , A r c h - D u k e M a x im ilia n o f A u stria. See p. 61.
25. See below, p. 49.
26. In 1967, follow ing G en e ra l de G au lle’s m e lo d r a m a tic gesture in
M o n tr e a l (see p. 228), a n in sc rip tio n c ou ld be seen in th e small P y re n ea n
to w n o f St J e a n P ied de P o rt: Vive le Québec libre! Vive le p a y s basque
libre! In the sam e su m m e r, belo w th e ruins o f M o n ts é g u r, th e re were
leaflets p ro cla im in g Vive l'Occitanie libre! A bas l’im périalism e français / I n
the s u m m e r o f 1975 B reto n ex tre m ists ca rrie d o u t s a b o ta g e , a n d C o rsic an
ex tre m ists killed three F re n c h g e n d a r m e s in a pitched battle.
27. T h e m o n k A rius p r o p o u n d e d a d o c trin e w hich denied the divinity of
C hrist. T h e m issionary w h o c o n v e rted th e ea ste rn G e r m a n ic tribes (often
generally described as G o th s ) in the f o u rth ce n tury , Ulfilas, was a follower
 Notes- 489

o f A rius, a n d th e re fo re Visigoths, O str o g o th s , V an d a ls a n d Suevians

bec am e A rians.
28. See pp. 240-241.
29. See pp. 62-63.
30. F o r this interesting detail, I a m obliged to my colleague D r Isabel de
M a d a r ia g a .
31. F ifth of his n a m e as e m p e r o r, b u t first as king o f S pain.
32. See the discu ssion o f the w ell-k n o w n thesis o f th e g rea t D u tc h
h isto ria n P e te r Geyl by C h a rles W ilson in his Queen Elizabeth and the
R evolt o f the Netherlands (1970).
33. It is c u rio u s th a t the Celtic peoples o f S co tla n d a n d Ireland , w ho
possessed the sam e so rt o f in d e n ted w estern coastline, with splendid
n a t u r a l h a r b o u r s a n d a n c h o r a g e s , as N o rw a y , a n d a n e q u a lly b a r r e n
in te rio r te rrain , show ed little a p t itu d e fo r o ce an travel. Is this because fish
w ere m o r e a b u n d a n t in the in n e r H e b r id e a n w aters a n d m a in la n d sea-lochs
th a n in N o rw e g ian , th u s p ro v id in g a n e x p a n d i n g a n d reliable fo o d sup ply
close a t h an d ? O r b ecause there was n o p o p u la tio n pressure in S co tla n d
a n d Irelan d, a lth o u g h b o th co u n tries w ere n a tu ra lly as p o o r as N o rw a y ? O r
is the e x p la n a tio n to be f o u n d in so m e in n a te lack o f enterprise in Celtic
peoples? O n e recalls the w ell-know n H e b r id e a n ’s prayer:

Oh that the peats w ou ld cut themselves,

The fish leap on the shore,
A n d I could lie upon m y b ed
A n d sleep f o r evermore.

W e m a y also n o te at this p o in t th a t the second A tlantic-dw elling people

w hich later b e c am e a p io n e e r o f ship design a n d of o ce an travel, the
P o rtu g u e se , had a coastline singularly deficient in n a tu ra l h a r b o u r s (the
rios o f G alicia were n eve r u n d e r P o rtu g u e s e sovereignty, t h o u g h the
lan g u ag e o f the G alicians w as closer to P o rtu g u e s e th a n to Castilian). It is
also n o te w o r th y th a t the th ree o th e r g rea t ‘A tla n tic ’ n atio n s o f later tim e s—
th e English, F r e n c h a n d C a stilian s— only establish ed them selves on the
A tla n tic littoral in r a th e r recent tim es ( n o r t h D e v o n an d the c o a st between
N a n te s a n d B o r d e a u x being exceptions). S cots, Irish a n d W elsh served
b rilliantly in the E nglish navy, B retons in th e F re n c h , a n d B asques a n d
G alicians in the S p a n ish , b u t n o n e o f these original A tla n tic litto ral n atio n s
h ad been n o ta b le seafarers before th e y b e c am e p a r t o f th e m u c h larger
n e i g h b o u rin g states f o u n d e d by th e ir n o n - A t la n t ic n e ighb ours.
34. T h e capital city o f N o rw a y w as n a m e d C h ristia n ia in 1624, in
h o n o u r o f K ing C h r is tia n IV o f D e n m a r k . It w as r e n a m e d O slo in 1929.
35. T h e e x c ep tio n is D e n m a r k ’s d isp u te a b o u t the duchies o f Schleswig
a n d H olstein with P ru ssia in 1848 a n d w ith P ru ssia a n d A u stria in 1864,
490 Notes

w hich led to w a r o n b o th occasions.

36. See p. 44 a n d f o o tn o te 22, pp. 487-488.
37. See C h r is t o p h e r H ug h es, S w itzerland ( 1975), 148-153. T h is b o o k is
a n u p - to -d a te a d m ir a b le survey o f the e x tre m e ly c o m p lic ate d p ro b lem s of
the Swiss past a n d present, by a n a u t h o r w h o is n o t o nly fam iliar with the
sources b u t has long a n d in tim ate perso n a l exp e rien c e o f S w itze rlan d an d
the Swiss.
38. T his p h rase was invented by th e c o n t e m p o r a r y B yzantinist D im itri
O b o le n s k y , w h o m a d e it the title o f his c o m p re h e n siv e historical stu d y The
Byzantine C om m onw ealth (1970).
39. T h e p h rase ‘Little R u s sia’ is f o u n d in B yzantine a c c o u n ts o f the
f o u rte e n th c e ntury, b u t c a m e into gen eral use in the seventeenth. At first it
w as used o f them selves by th e people o f th e so u th , b u t in the nine tee n th
c e n tu ry it w as used only by th o se w h o arg u e d t h a t these people fo rm e d p a r t
o f a single R u ssian n a tio n . T h o se w h o believed th a t th e re were tw o distinct
n a tio n s rejected the n a m e ‘Little R u s sia n s’ a n d called them selves ‘U k ra in ­
ia n s’. See pp. 186-187.
40. A t one tim e several lang uages o f this ‘Baltic’ g r o u p were s p o k e n , but
in m o d e r n tim es only tw o survived: L ith u a n ia n a n d L atvian.
41. T h e s itu a tio n o f p ersons o f Byelorussian a n d U k ra in ia n speech in
the G r a n d D u c h y o f L ith u a n ia , a n d the relation s betw een L ith u a n ia a n d
P o la n d , are discussed in th e n ex t c h a p te r, pp. 120-122.
42. A s e p arate m e tr o p o lita n o f Kiev w as a p p o i n te d in Kiev u n d e r
L ith u a n ia n rule in 1458. Its first h o ld e r w as G re g o ry the B ulgarian. Its
a u t h o r i ty was n o t recognised by th e M e tr o p o l ita n Io n a o f M o sc o w or his
successors, w h o claim ed a u t h o r i ty o v er all the O r t h o d o x o f Russia. It was
how ever upheld by the rulers o f L ith u a n ia a n d P o la n d until the U nion of
B rest-L itovsk o f 1596 (see p. 122), a n d w as respected by the O r t h o d o x o f
L ith u a n ia.
43. A t the C o u n c il o f F lo re n c e in t h a t y e a r the p a tr i a r c h o f C o n s ta n ti n o ­
ple h a d agreed to a r e u n io n o f th e c h u rc h es, o n te rm s w hich signified a
v ic tory fo r the C h u r c h o f R om e.
44. See pp. 112, 114.
45. T his w o rd c a n n o t be exa ctly tr a n sla te d . It d o e s n o t, in this c ontex t,
m e a n the a b s tra c t q u a lity o f n atio n ality : r a th e r, it suggests the possession
o f a sta te o f m in d , a d h e s io n to th e n a tio n , n o t so m u c h ‘n a tio n a lis m ’ as
‘n a tio n a l-m in d e d n e s s ’.
46. See pp. 121-122.
47. T h e n o r th e r n m o s t o f th e th ree provinces (E s tla n d ) w as in h a b ite d by
E sto n ia n s, the s o u th e r n m o s t ( K u r la n d ) by L atvians; while the third
(L ieflan d, o r Livonia) had a m ainly L atv ian p o p u la tio n , w ith E sto n ia n s in
its n o r th e r n districts. Both L atv ian s a n d E sto n ia n s w ere P ro te sta n ts. T heir
languages are far a p a r t: E sto n ia n is closely related to F innish , while
 N otes■ 491

L a tv ia n an d L ith u a n ia n a re closely related m e m b ers o f a d istinct Baltic

su bdivision o f the I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages. W hile L ith u a n ia n s w ere close
to L atv ian s in la n g u ag e they differed in religion, being, like the Poles,
C a tholics.
48. See pp. 71-72.

Chapter 3
1. S even if one considers it c o m p le te d by the a n n e x a t io n o f the S u d e te n ­
land after the M u n ic h c a p itu la tio n o f 1938, five if the a n n e x a t io n of
W e ste rn P o la n d a n d Alsace be th o u g h t decisive.
2. In 1806 F ra n cis II gave u p th e title o f H oly R o m a n E m p e ro r. He had
previously a ssu m ed a new title as A u s tr ia n e m p e ro r. As such he was
F ra n cis I.
3. H a n o v e r bec am e s e p a ra te d fro m E n g la n d with the accession o f
V ictoria in 1837. T h e conflict betw een D a n is h a n d G e r m a n claim s in
Schleswig did n o t b e c o m e a c u te until th e late 1840s. T h e re were m u r m u r -
ings o f a n t i- G e r m a n feeling by R u ssian b u r e a u c r a ts in the Baltic provinces
in th e 1840s, b u t these did n o t b e c o m e serious until la ter in th e cen tury .
4. See p. 153.
5. T h e events o f 1848 in Italy, B o h e m ia , H u n g a ry , R o m a n i a a n d the
Y ugoslav lands a r e m e n tio n e d elsew here, pp. 104-106, 133, 153, 162-163,
178-179.
6. T h e Italian w o rd s com prom esso storico w ere first used in this c o n te x t
in a n article by the c o m m u n is t le ader, E n rico Berlinguer, in Rinascita in
O c to b e r 1973.
7. T h e o rg a n is a tio n o f C h ristia n peoples u n d e r O t t o m a n rule is briefly
discussed in th e follow ing c h a p te r.
8. T h e revolt o f the R o m a n ia n T u d o r V ladim irescu, a n d his relations
with th e G reeks, a re discussed in the n ex t c h a p te r. Y p sila nti’s force
included a few B ulgarians a n d A lb an ian s.
9. J a n K ollar, Über die literarische W echselseitigkeit (Leipzig, 1842).
10. O n th e L ith u a n ia n language, a n d its affinity to L atv ian , see ab ove
c h a p te r 2, n o te s 40 a n d 47, a n d p. 86.
11. T h e O r d e r was fo u n d e d by the p o p e in th e th ir te e n th c e n tu r y fo r the
forcible co n v e rsio n o f th e p a g a n s in th e n o r th -e a s te r n b o r d e r la n d s o f
C h r is te n d o m , a n d es tablished itself in the la n d w hich bec am e k n o w n as
E ast P russia.
12. R u s sia a n d P ru s s ia t o o k p a r t in all th r e e p a r titio n s, A u s tr ia only in
the first a n d third.
13. Byelorussian is th e S lav la n g u ag e s p o k e n by m o s t o f th e p o p u la tio n
in the ce n tral p a r t o f the old L ith u a n ia n state. It differs fro m R ussian
492 Notes

( G r e a t R u ssian ) a n d U k r a in ia n (Little Ru ssian). It w as used in official

business a n d d o c u m e n ts in earlier centuries, a n d in the n ineteenth a
m o d e r n literary la n g u ag e d eve lope d, follow ed by a n a t io n a l m o v e m en t.
T h is is n o t discussed in this b o o k . T h e interested r e a d e r sh o u ld co n s u lt N.
P. V a k a r, Byelorussia: The M aking o f a Nation (C a m b rid g e , Mass:, 1966).
14. A brief a c c o u n t o f th e fluctuatin g relation s o f A le x a n d e r with the
P oles betw een 1804a n d 1 8 1 5 c a n b e f o u n d i n m y b o o k The Russian Empire
1801-1917 (1967), w hich also c o n ta in s a b ib lio g ra p h y w ith f u rth e r referen­
ces.
15. It is often referred to as the fo u rth ; b u t as I see it, th e f o u rth p a rtitio n
t o o k place in 1815.
16. J o in i n g th e Sov iet invasion a r m y sent to su p p ress the C z ec ho slova k
a t t e m p t a t 'socialism w ith a h u m a n face’. See pp. 130-131.
17. A u s tr ia only p a rtly fits the p a tte r n . N evertheless, it is basically true
t h a t the rulers o f the G e r m a n a n d o f the R u ssian n a tio n s between th e m held
the P oles a t their mercy. T h e single m a jo r ex c e p tio n , as reg a rd s generosity,
was A le x a n d e r I; A le x a n d e r II’s efforts were b rie f a n d half-hearted .
18. See pp. 162-163.
19. T h e C r o a t ia n p ra vo , like G e r m a n Recht, a n d F re n c h d ro it , m e an s
b o th ‘rig h t’ a n d ‘law’.
20. F o r the rise o f Bulgarian a n d A lb a n ia n n a tio n a lism see pp. 14 5 - 146.

Chapter 4
1. T h e A r a b ic -T u r k is h w o rd m illet d esig n ated c o m m u n itie s o f this sort.
In la ter T u rk i s h usage, it was used to m e a n ‘n a t i o n ’, being th o u g h t to be the
n earest equ iv ale n t to t h a t E u r o p e a n concept.
2. T h e re w as o n e p a r tia l exception: in 1557, p r o b a b ly a s a result o f the
influence o f the B o s n ia n - b o rn Vizier M e h m e t S o k o llu , the S e rb ia n p a tri­
a r c h a te o f P ec (set u p as a n a u t o c e p h a lo u s c h u r c h by the S e rb ia n ts a r D u -
sh a n in 1346) was r e sto re d to its f o r m e r title, a n d survived until 1755.
3. It is widely believed, t h o u g h it c a n n o t be definitely estab lished, th a t
this was d u e to th e presence o f a large n u m b e r o f B ogom ils, m e m b e r s o f a
d u a list heresy sim ilar to t h a t o f th e A lb ige nsia ns in so u th -w e st F ra n ce . T he
B ogom ils w ere perse cu te d by b o th th e C a th o lic a n d the O r t h o d o x
c hu rches, a n d it is t h o u g h t t h a t they w elc o m e d the a d v e n t o f Islam as a
liberation.
4. T h e d isputes betw een th e g o v e r n m e n ts o f R ussia, B ritain a n d A ustria
as to th e size o f this sta te in 1878, a n d as to the e x te n t o f its in d e p en d e n ce in
1885, well k n o w n to all stu d e n ts o f E u r o p e a n d ip lo m a tic history, c a n n o t be
s u m m a r is e d here.
5. In the C zech lan g u ag e the sam e w o rd (fesky) s ta n d s for bo th
 Notes . 493

B o h e m ia n a n d Czech. H ow ever, the la n d s o f Czech speech include also

M o ra v ia , w hich was long a p a rt o f th e sam e k in g d o m b u t rem a ined
geo g ra p h ica lly a n d a d m in istra tiv e ly distinct; while until the n in e tee n th
c e n tu r y th e adjective B o h e m ia n included p erso n s o f G e r m a n as well as of
Czech speech. In the G e r m a n lan g u ag e th e re are tw o w ords: B o h e m ia n is
böhm isch a n d C zech is tschechisch. T h is use of tw o distinct w o rd s has been
generally a d o p t e d in English usage.
6. T h e original periodicals were M onatschrift der Gesellschaft des
Vaterländischen M useum s von Böhmen a n d Casopis vlasteneckeho muzea
v Cechach.
7. T h ese w o rd s are q u o te d in H a n s K o h n , Panslavism: Its H istory and
Ideology ( N o tre D a m e , I n d ia n a , 1953), 27. F o r a recent a p p r a is a l o f the
w o rk o f HavliCek, see article by T. I. V. T h o m a s , ‘Karel HavliCek a n d the
C o n s titu tio n a l Q u e s tio n 1849-51’ in The Slavonic and East European
R eview , 1974, no. 129.
8. See also p. 98.
9. In the H u n g a r ia n lan g u ag e the sam e w o rd M agyarorszäg m e a n s b o th
H u n g a r y a n d the la n d o f the M a g y ars (th o se w ho se la n g u ag e is H u n g a r ­
ian). In G e r m a n a d istin ctio n ca n be m a d e b etw een ungarisch ( H u n g a ria n )
an d ungarländisch ( fr o m the te rrito ry o f H u n g a ry ). In English historical
usage the H u n g a r ia n w o rd ‘M a g y a r ’ is s o m e tim es used to describe the
language, a n d th e p eople w h o speak it, as o p p o s e d to ‘H u n g a r ia n ’, w hich is
reserved fo r the te rr ito r y o f the H u n g a r ia n state. H ow ever, the tw o w o rd s
often get confused. In the follow ing pages I shall n o rm a lly use the w ord
‘H u n g a r i a n ’ to d e n o te the language a n d the people w h o s p e ak it, an d
‘H u n g a r y ’ to d e n o te the w hole te rrito ry o f the H u n g a r ia n sta te at the
relevant period. W h e n a m b ig u ity arises I shall s o m e tim es use ‘M a g y a r ’ if it
ca n m a k e my m e a n in g clearer.
10. See article by G. F. C u s h in g , ‘T h e birth o f n a tio n a l literature in
H u n g a r y ’, in Slavonic and East European R eview , vol. xxxviii, no. 91
( J u n e 1960).
11. In G e r m a n K a s c h a u , in S lo v ak Koäice. This city h a d a m ainly
H u n g a r ia n -s p e a k in g p o p u la tio n , but was set on the edge o f a S lo v a k ­
sp e ak in g countrysid e.
12. See pp. 94-96, 104-106, 153.
13. T h e C r o a t s h a d a special p o sitio n w ith in H u n g a r y , recognised by the
H u n g a r ia n - C r o a tia n C o m p r o m i s e ( nagodba ) o f 1868. See a b o v e , pp. 132,
137, 160.
14. T h e first h a lf o f this exp re ssio n refers to the D ac ian s , th e original
in h a b ita n ts o f T ra n sy lv a n ia , c o n q u e r e d by the R o m a n e m p e r o r T ra ja n at
th e b e g in ning o f th e second c e n tu r y A D .
15. H u n g aria n t r e a tm e n t o f J e w s is f u r th e r d i s c u s s e d below, pp. 389-390.
16. F ra n z J o s e f was A u stria n e m p e r o r , but also king o f H u n g a ry , an d
494 Notes

w ithin H u n g a r y afte r 1867 o nly the seco nd title was recognised.

17. T h e co n c e p t o f ‘Y u g o sla v n a t io n ’ in force betw e en the w ars, w hich in
essence w as a f o rm o f Official N a tio n a lis m , has bee n discussed in the
previous c h a p te r; the c o n c e p t o f ‘C z e c h o slo v a k n a t i o n ’, w hich is a n o t h e r
e x a m p le , is discussed in the n e x t section o f this c h a p te r; a n d relations
b etw een H u n g a r ia n s a n d R o m a n ia n s in T ra n s y lv a n ia in th e su b se q u e n t
section. S im ilarities o f p re d ic a m e n t a n d policy in In d ia a n d in E th io p ia are
m e n tio n e d below, pp. 298, 343.
18. See p. 119.
19. See a b o v e , p. 144.
20. F o r th e original U n iate C h u r c h see p. 122.
21. See p. 113.
22. See abo ve, p. 122.
23. T h e origins o f the C ossac ks a r e well discussed, o n the basis o f the
original sources, by G ü n te r S tö k l, D ie Entstehung des Kosakentum s
( M ü n c h e n , 1953).
24. T h e w o rd Ukraina m e an s ‘b o r d e r l a n d ’. It w as used fo r a n u m b e r of
f ro n tie r regions, b u t ev e n tually c a m e to m e a n the D n ie p e r are a, the s o u t h ­
ea ste rn p a r t o f P o la n d a n d s o u th -w e ste rn p a r t o f Russia. G ra d u a lly also
th e p h r a se ‘U k ra in ia n la n g u a g e ’ c a m e in to use, a n d later still ‘U k ra in ia n
n a t io n ’.
25. Kiev itself, a n d the a r e a im m ed ia te ly b eh in d it o n the w estern b a n k
o f the D n iep e r, were ceded by P o la n d to R ussia in 1667.
26. T h e n o r th e r n p a r t o f M o ld a v ia , a n n e x e d f ro m O t t o m a n sovereignty
by A u s tr ia in 1775. T h e p o p u la tio n o f B u k o v in a w as divided betw een
U k ra in ia n s in the n o r th a n d R o m a n ia n s in the so u th .
27. See th e lon g essay o n M a k h n o by D. J. F o o t m a n in Saint A n to n y’s
Papers, no. 6 (1959).

Chapter 5
1. T h e te rr ito r y o f N e w S p a in c o r r e s p o n d e d a p p r o x im a te ly to w h a t has
b ec o m e k n o w n as M ex ico . T h e n a m e M e x ic o strictly s p e a k in g applied only
to th e A ztec k in g d o m c e n tre d o n T e n o c h titla n , o n w h o se site th e S p a n ia rd s
built th e city o f M ex ico, d o m in a te d by its vast six te e n th c e n tu ry b a r o q u e
c a th e d ra l.
2. T h e s o u th e r n m o s t R u s sia n se ttle m ent, F o r t R ossiya, w as set u p in
1812 only on e h u n d r e d miles n o r th o f S a n F ra n c is c o Bay.
3. T hese m a tte rs are discussed a t len g th in B e rn a rd Bailyn, The Ideolog­
ical Origins o f the Am erican R evolution (C a m b rid g e , M ass., 1967).
4. Statistics fro m a r o u n d 1800 s h o w th a t in V enezuela negroes of
v ario u s legal categories fo rm e d 60 per cen t o f the p o p u la tio n , th e most
 N otes 495

n u m e ro u s being free c o lo u re d (pardos ), a m o u n t i n g to 45 p e r cent. W hites

w ere a b o u t 20 per cent, a n d the In dians a b o u t the sam e. In N ew G r a n a d a
w hites fo rm e d a b o u t 35 p e r c e n t, a n d m estizos o f eith er E u r o p e a n - n e g r o o r
E u r o p e a n - I n d ia n origin a b o u t 45 p e r c e n t. In R io de la P lata whites w ere 38
per cent o f the p o p u la tio n a n d c o lo u re d o f E u ro p e a n - n e g r o origin to g e th e r
w ith pu re negroes 32. T hese statistics c a n n o t o f course be reg a rd e d as m o re
th a n a p p ro x im a tiv e . See J o h n Lynch, The Spanish-Am erican Revolution
1808-1826 (1973), 38, 193, 227-228.
5. F o r the first tw o cen tu ries th e re w ere only tw o viceroys, in N ew S p ain
(M e x ic o ) a n d in P e ru . In 1717 N ew G r a n a d a (C o lo m b ia ) also b e c am e a
vice royalty, w ith its ca p ita l a t S a n ta Fe de B og ota; a n d in 1776 Rio de la
P la ta (A rg e n tin a ) was p r o m o te d to th e sa m e dignity, a n d a p o r tio n of
U p p e r P e ru was tra n s f e rr e d to it fro m th e viceroyalty o f P eru.
6. S a n M a r ti n ’s forces la n d e d in P e r u in S e p te m b e r 1820, a n d entered
L im a in J u ly 1821. S a n M a r ti n m et Bolivar a t G u a y a q u il o n 26 J u ly 1822 to
p la n th e last stages o f liberation. T h e tw o m e n c o u ld n o t agree. S a n M a rtin
re tu rn e d to Chile, a n d th e n to v o lu n ta r y exile in E u ro p e ; while the
lib e ratio n o f P e r u a n d Bolivia was co m p le te d by Bolivar a n d his co m ra d e -
in-arm s, A n to n io J o s é de Sucre, in 1823 a n d 1824. T he last S p a n is h force
s u rre n d e re d , a t the p o r t o f C a lla o, in J a n u a r y 1826.
7. T h ese were: M exico; th e five C e n tra l A m e r ic a n republics; C o lo m b ia ;
V enezuela; E c u a d o r; Peru; Chile; Bolivia (se p a ra te d fro m P e ru 1825); the
U nited P rovinces o f R io P la ta ( k n o w n f r o m 1830 as th e A rgentine
republic); P a r a g u a y ( s e p a ra te d fro m Rio P la ta in 1811); a n d U ru g u a y
(established by a g r e e m e n t betw een R io P la ta a n d Brazil in 1828).
8. N o r t h o f the m o u th o f the S t L aw ren c e w as th e g re a t island o f
N e w f o u n d la n d . S o u t h o f the G u lf w ere th e co lo n y o f N o v a S c o tia a n d tw o
o th e rs w hich h a d s e p a ra te d fro m it— P rin c e E d w a r d Island in 1768 an d
N ew Brunsw ick in 1784. T o the n o rth -w e st vast tra c ts o f largely u n e x p lo re d
land w ere u n d e r th e a u t h o r i ty o f the H u d s o n ’s Bay C o m p a n y , established
by roy al c h a r te r at the en d o f th e se v en te en th c e ntury. O n th e n o rth -w e st
Pacific coast, first e x p lo re d by C a p ta in C o o k in 1788 a n d C a p ta in G eorge
V a n c o u v e r in 1793, th e re w ere also som e British settlem ents. T hese were
placed u n d e r the H u d s o n ’s Bay C o m p a n y in 1848, bu t were f o rm e d in to the
C r o w n C o lo n y o f British C o l u m b ia in 1858. V a n c o u v e r Islan d was jo in e d
to British C o l u m b ia in 1866. T h e n o r th e r n limit o f the British C o lu m b ia
c o a st was fixed a t 54° 40’ by a trea ty o f 1825 w ith R ussia, w hich held
sovereignty o v er A laska.
9. A p a r t f r o m Q u eb e c a n d O n ta r io (as L o w e r a n d U p p e r C a n a d a were
n o w called), N o v a S c o tia a n d N ew B runsw ick jo in e d the C o n f e d e r a tio n in
1867. O th e r provinces b e c am e m e m b e rs in the follow ing o rd er. T he
te rritorie s ruled by the H u d s o n ’s Bay C o m p a n y in the n o r th a n d west
en tered as the P ro vince o f M a n ito b a in 1870. In 1871 they were followed by
496 Notes

British C o lu m b ia , w hich h a d included V a n c o u v e r Island since 1868. Prince

E d w a r d Island jo in e d in 1873. In 1905 tw o f u rth e r provinces, A lb erta an d
S a s k a tc h e w a n , w ere d e ta c h e d fro m M a n ito b a . N e w f o u n d la n d r em a in ed a
se p a r a te te rr ito r y u n til 1949, w h en it t o o w as in c o rp o r a te d .
10. F o r a m o r e gen e ral discussion o f E u r o p e a n c o lo n isa tio n o f Africa in
the late n in e tee n th ce n tu ry , see pp. 324-331.
11. See a b o v e , p. 201.
12. T h e ir ‘ca reer f r o m th e cradle to th e g ra v e ’ w as one o f ‘u n b rid le d lust,
o f filthy a m a lg a m a tio n , o f sw aggering b ra g g a d o c io , o f h a u g h ty d o m i n a ­
tion, o f co w a rd ly ruffianism , o f b o u n d le ss dissip atio n , o f m atchless
insolence, o f infinite self-conceit, of u n eq u a lle d o p p re ssio n , o f m o re th a n
savage cru e lty ’.
13. I have av o id ed using the e x p re ssio n ‘n a t io n a l g r o u p s ’, because the
q u o ta s w ere based n o t o n n a tio n a lity b u t o n sta te citizenship. T h e
d iss o lu tio n o f old, a n d the f o r m a tio n o f new, states in E u ro p e in 1919 of
c o u rse m a d e necessary so m e recalculations.
14. P a r tia l because it w o u ld certainly be w ro n g to d e n y th a t in these
g r o u p s th e re are m a n y w h o c o n s id e r them selves to be tru e A m e ric a n s a n d
w h o are p r o u d to be A m ericans.
15. S o m e ex a m p le s are J. C e rm a k , m a y o r o f C h ic a g o 1930; Fiorello La
G u a r d ia , m a y o r o f N ew Y o rk d u r in g th e S e c o n d W o rld W ar; A b r a h a m
Ribicoff, g o v e r n o r o f C o n n e c tic u t in the 1950s; a n d th e rise to fam e o f
R a lp h N a d e r, the c o n s u m e r s ’ c h a m p io n , in the late 1960s. M o re s e n sa tio n ­
al were the first election o f a n Irish C a th o lic as p r e s id e n t— J . F. K en nedy in
1960— a n d th e a p p o i n t m e n t o f a G e r m a n - b o r n J e w as secretary o f sta te —
H e n r y Kissinger in 1973.
16. M ic h ae l N o v a k , The Rise o f the Unmeltable Ethnics (N ew Y ork,
1973), Preface, xv. T h is b o o k is b o th brilliant a n d perverse, b o th clinically
a na lytica l a n d passionate.
17. S ix tee n e m in e n t québécois intellectuals signed a s ta te m e n t urging
c a p itu la tio n . A m o n g th e m w ere R e n é L êvesque, le ade r o f the Parti
québécois, a n d the d istinguished sociologist M a rc el R io u x . T h e latter, in
his b o o k Quebec in Question ( T o r o n to , 1971), c o n c lu d e s a brilliant
analysis o f the Q u e b e c p r o b le m w ith a wild o u tb u r s t o f e m o tio n a b o u t the
events o f O c to b e r 1970. His rage a g a in st T r u d e a u ’s a c tio n causes h im not
even to m e n tio n the fact th a t the F L Q k id n a p p e r s h a d t o r tu r e d L ap o rte
before m u r d e r in g him. T h e c o n t r a d ic tio n s in M. R i o u x ’s m in d are a
revealing e x a m p le o f the clim ate o f o p in io n a m o n g québécois intellectuals.
18. G eo rg e G r a n t, Lament f o r a Nation: The Defeat o f Canadian
Nationalism ( T o r o n t o / M o n t r e a l , 1965).
19. A co n sid erab le p r o p o r ti o n o f these w ere n o t o riginally o f D u tc h , but
o f F re n ch H u g u e n o t o r G e r m a n stock.
20. T h e g r o w th o f n a tio n a l con scio usn e ss in the 1870s is sensitively and
 Notes 497

clearly explain e d in F. A. v on J a a rsv e ld , The A wakening o f Afrikaner

Nationalism ( C a p e to w n , 1961).

Chapter 6
1. Before th e F irst W o rld W a r the m o re usual, a n d m o r e a c cu rate,
e x p re ssio n was ‘N e a r E a s t’. T h e m o d e r n n a m e ‘M iddle E a s t’ is used
e x tre m ely vaguely, e x te n d in g so m e tim es to th e w hole o f N o r t h Africa,
w hich is n o t ‘E ast’ a t all, a n d som etim es to P a k is ta n , w hich is n o t ‘M id d le ’.
I m igh t have used it in the title o f this c h a p te r; but it seemed to be b etter to
give a m o r e precise, even il clum sy, d e scription .
2. T h is c o m p a r is o n 1 owe to the e m in e n t R u ssian h isto ria n o f religion,
A. P. F e d o to v , in his Russian Religious M in d (C a m b rid g e , M ass., 1966),
vol. 1: 11. H e is th e re c o n c e rn e d w ith the c o n tra s t betw een the forest-
dw elling prim itive S lavs a n d the p a s to ra l peoples. He did not e x te n d his
c o m p a r is o n to the G re e k s lo o k in g up to M o u n t O ly m p u s o r th e E gyptians
obsessed w ith the cats, kestrels, h ip p o p o ta m i a n d o th e r beasts o f the field
a n d fowls o f the air. T h e Z o r o a s tr ia n religion o f Iran, w hich was essentially
d ualist, with a god o f g o o d a n d a god of evil, do es n o t fit the pattern : there
were m o u n ta in s a n d forests a n d deserts in Iran.
3. M u slim e x p a n s io n into In dia (ex cep t fo r S in d , c o n q u e r e d in the
e ighth century), a n d in to the I n d o n e sia n a r c h ip e la g o a n d s u b - S a h a r a n
A frica, c a m e later. T hese a re briefly m e n tio n e d pp. 250-251.
4. Both the details o f these q u arrels w ithin the inner circle o f the
P ro p h e t, a n d the la ter d o c trin a l divisions betw een Shia a n d Sunna , a n d
w ithin th e Shia , are co m p lic a te d . Suffice it to say th a t they b o re virtually no
r ese m bla nce to the d isp u tes betw een the R o m a n a n d C o n s ta n ti n o p o lita n
c h u rc h es, o r later betw een C a th o lic s a n d P ro te sta n ts; yet th a t their effect
o n th e Islam ic w orld was a n a lo g o u s to the effect o f S chism a n d R e f o r m a ­
tio n o n C h r is te n d o m . As reg a rd s the w o rd s used, a n y o n e w h o does not
read A ra b ic m ust a p p r o a c h th e m with diffidence; but it seems th a t in
sc holarly usage S h i’i d e n o te s the p erso n s w h o follow the v ario u s b ranches
o f disciples o f Ali, a n d th a t Shia is th e c o m m u n ity . It is in these senses th a t I
shall use th e w o rd s, a d d i n g a t tim es the English p lu ral ‘s’ to the A ra b ic w o rd
Shi’i.
5. A fasc inating stu d y o f this process, based on the d o c u m e n ts o f F re n ch
b a n k e rs, is Bankers and Pashas: International Finance and Economic
Imperialism in Egypt, by D a v id L a n d e s (N e w Y o rk , 1958).
6. See p. 292.
7. F o r a n a c u te a n d m e la n c h o ly analysis o f th e im p a c t o f these reform s
in the O t t o m a n e m p ire, b o th in T u rk e y a n d in E gypt, see ‘Islam T o d a y ’, the
t h ir te e n th c h a p te r, by Elie K edourie , o f The C ivilization o f Islam , edited by
498 Notes

B e rn a rd Lewis (1976).
8. N ot all A rm e n ia n s in T u r k e y d isa p p e a re d : th ere r em a in ed A rm e n ia n
m e rc h a n ts in I stan b u l a n d o th e r cities. See also pp. 315, 386-387.
9. See pp. 397-398.
10. W afd m e a n s ‘d e le g a tio n ’, a n d refers to the request, refused by the
British g o v e r n m e n t, th a t E gyp t be a llow ed to send a d e leg a tio n to the Paris
P eac e C o n fere n ce in 1919 to plead for E g y p tia n indep en d e n ce . F o r a
p e n e tr a tin g stu d y o f Z ag h lu l, see the essay by Elie K e do urie in his
collection o f essays, The Chatham House Version (1970).
11. B o u rg u ib a led a rad ical secession fro m the C o n s titu tio n a l P arty
( D estour ) fo u n d e d a lre a d y in 1920.
12. T h e Jew ish side o f the Palestine p ro b le m is discussed in a n o t h e r
c h a p te r. T h e r e a d e r ’s indulgence is a s k ed fo r th e in c o nven ie nce w hich this
u n a v o id a b le division m a y cause. If the tw o sections ar e read in succession,
it is h o p e d th a t co n fu sio n m a y be avoided.
13. A ra b ic fo r ‘th e W e st’, c o m m o n ly used for th e lands fro m T u n is
w estw ards.
14. In o n e o f these, th e n atio n a lists secured a g rea t tr iu m p h by b u r n in g
d o w n th e T u r f C lu b in 1952, b u r n in g alive several elderly British civilian
residents.
15. T h e British had effectively ruled S u d a n since 1898. In the 1950s the
British g o v e r n m e n t was p r e p a rin g to yield to the p ressures o f S u d a n e s e
in d e p e n d e n c e m o v e m en ts; b u t E g y p tia n g o v e r n m e n ts h ad lo n g insisted
th a t S u d a n w as legally p a r t o f Egypt: it h a d been c o n q u e r e d by the
E g y p tia n ruler M u h a m m a d Ali early in the n in e te e n th ce n tu ry , a n d since
1898 its g o v e rn m e n t was officially k n o w n as a n A n g lo - E g y p tia n c o n d o ­
m in iu m . F o r f u r th e r discussio n o f the S u d a n , see pp. 325-327.
16. H u sse in ’s fa th e r A b d u lla h , the b r o th e r o f Feisal I o f Iraq, had been
m u r d e r e d in 1950: this w as widely r e g a rd e d as p u n is h m e n t o f one w h o h ad
b etra y ed th e P a n a r a b ca u se by his frie n d sh ip w ith the British. T h e k in g d o m
o f J o r d a n h a d been c re ate d by the c o m b in a t io n o f the old ‘m a n d a t e ’ o f
T r a n s j o r d a n w ith th o se p o r tio n s o f th e ‘m a n d a t e ’ o f Palestine w hich were
n o t in c o rp o r a te d in Israel. See also pp. 397-410 a n d f o o tn o te 10, p. 503.
17. See p. 402.
18. T his is b r o a d ly tru e , t h o u g h o f c o u rse th e b o u n d a r ie s o f m o d e r n Ira q
d o n o t coincide exactly w ith th o se o f the a n c ie n t C h a ld a e a n o r S u m e r ­
ian states, a n d even th o se o f E gyp t have c h a n g e d a little since P h a r a o n ic
times.

Chapter 7
I. O f the p o st-M u slim s o u th e rn states the m o st im p o r ta n t were tho se of
 Notes 499

the C h o la s in th e t e n th a n d eleventh cen tu ries A D a n d V ija y a n a g a ra fro m

1336 to 1564.
2. It m a y be arg u e d th a t Jew ish civilisation is a lm o st as old, being
d o c u m e n te d for at least three th o u s a n d years. H ow ever, th e re is the g reat
difference th a t it was physically u p r o o te d a n d forced to survive in small
c o m m u n itie s in diverse lands. This is th e ce n tral trage dy of Jew ish history.
F o r discussion o f th e J e w ish fate, a n d the Je w s as a n a tio n , see pp. 387-406.
3. T he sim ilarity b etw e en the b alan c e o f ru ler a n d nobility in J a p a n to
the feud al o r d e r in m edieval E u ro p e (see pp. 276, 287-288, 424) has often
been n ote d a n d ana ly se d by b o th E u r o p e a n a n d J a p a n e s e h istoria ns, with
differing conclusions. T h e parallels w ith the history o f a n o t h e r island
k in g d o m , E n g la n d , a re also interesting: the obv io u s difference is t h a t in the
J a p a n e s e case the e q u iv ale n t o f th e S p a n is h A r m a d a preceded the é q u iv a ­
lant o f the W a rs o f the Roses.
4. T he w o rd ‘British’ is used for the years afte r the U nion o f E n gla nd a n d
S c o tla n d in 1707. Indeed th e re afte r m a n y S co ts played a n im p o r ta n t p art
in I n d ia n affairs.
5. T h e s o u th e r n m o s t islands resisted S p a n is h pressure until the late
n in e tee n th ce n tu ry , a n d their people re m a in e d M uslim .
6. In 1826 fu rth e r British settlem ents on the m a in la n d were reg ro u p e d as
the S tra its S ettlem ents, a n d o th e r m a in la n d M a la y rulers ac cepted a British
p ro te c to r a te . In 1841 a British subject, J a m e s B rooke, m a d e him self ruler
o f S a r a w a k , a n d in 1888 a British p r o te c to r a te was cre ate d in N o rth
B orneo. T h e island was thu s divided betw een British a n d D u tc h rule.
7. It is only fair to n o te th a t som e such officials— fo r e x a m p le Sir R o b e rt
H a r t, in sp e cto r gen eral o f c u s to m s fro m 1863 to 1908— con sid ered t h e m ­
selves servants o f C h in a a n d gave g en e ro u sly o f their talents.
8. T h e Chinese E astern Railw ay, ac ro ss M a n c h u r ia fro m west to east,
b eginning in 1896; a n d th e S o u th M a n c h u r ia n Railw ay, fro m H a r b in so u th
to the sea, beginning in 1898. B oth railw ay concessions in volved cession o f
sovereignty over strips o f land o n b o th sides o f the lines.
9. B a b a r ’s m e m o ir s w ere originally w ritte n in C h a g a t a y T u rk .
10. F o r a discussio n o f this w id es p re ad fallacy, see P au l Brass, Lan­
guage, Religion an d Politics in North India ( C a m b rid g e , M ass., 1974), 119-
182.
11. See pp. 248-249.
12. J u d i t h M. B row n, G andhi’s Rise to Power: Indian Politics 1915-
1922 (C a m b rid g e , 1972).
13. T h e la n d s m e n tio n e d in th e b o o k are: P u n ja b , A fg h a n ia , K ash m ir,
Ira n , S in d , T u k h a r is t a n , A fg h a n is ta n a n d B aluchistan. T h e w o rd is m a d e
u p o f the first letter o f the first seven n am es, a n d the last le tter o f the eighth.
‘A fg h a n ia ’ m e an s the N o rth -W e s t P ro v in c e o f In d ia as it th e n was. A m o re
w id espread version was th a t the n a m e was m a d e up only o f P u n jab ,
500 Notes

A fg h a n ista n , K a s h m ir a n d S ind to g e th e r w ith the last syllable o f B aluchi­

stan. T h e w o rd p ak in P e rsia n m e a n s ‘p u r e ’.
14. T h e census o f 1951 sh o w ed a H in d i- sp e a k in g to ta l o f o v er 150
million. T his includ ed U rd u a n d P u n ja b i u n d e r the h e a d in g o f H indi. T he
1961 census show ed, fo r the s a m e categories, a to ta l o f nearly 157 million,
f o rm in g 35.7 per cent o f the to ta l p o p u la tio n . H ow ever, in th e 1961 census
U r d u a n d P u n ja b i w ere listed separately, a n d the official to ta l s h o w n for
H in d i-sp ea k ers was 133,436,360 or 30.4 p e r c e n t. S o m e people w ou ld arg u e
th a t Bihari a n d R a ja s th a n i are n o t s e p a ra te languages, b u t a re dialects o f
H indi. If th o se w h o sta te d these to be their lang u ag e , to g e th e r with
sp eak ers o f U rd u a n d P u n ja b i, were a d d e d , th e n the g r a n d to ta l for H indi-
sp e ak e rs w ou ld be 188,621,866, o r 42.9 p e r cent.
15. T h ese were the states o f U tta r P ra d e s h , M a d h y a P ra d e s h a n d Bihar;
the sta te o f H a r y a n a , created in 1966 by d iv iding the state of P u n ja b on
linguistic lines; the federal ca p ita l te rr ito r y o f Delhi; a n d the te rr ito r y o f
H im a c h a l P ra d esh . All these territories to g e th e r c o n ta in e d in 1961 42.4 per
cent o f the p o p u la tio n o f India.
16. T h is is convincingly a rg u e d in the detailed stu d y by P a u l Brass,
Language, Religion and Politics in N orth India (1974).
17. F o r details, see R o u n a q J a h a n , Pakistan: Failure in National
Integration (N ew Y o rk , 1972), c h a p te rs 4 a n d 5.
18. T h e w o rd is the equ iv ale n t o f the U rd u sahib (‘lo r d ’ o r ‘m a s te r ’), used
by British officials o f themselves. Its a d o p t i o n was in te n d ed to indicate th a t
the B urm ese were e q u a ls o f any o n e .
19. See pp. 410-413.
20. T h e U k ra in ia n p r o b le m has been discussed se p a ra te ly in a n earlier
c ha pte r.
21. In the case of the V olga G e r m a n s , t o w h o se te rr ito r y H itler’s arm ies
never p e n e tr a te d , th e ju stific a tio n w as t h a t th e re w as a d a n g e r th a t they
m ig h t c o llab o rate. T h e r e is p e r h a p s a sim ilarity b e tw e en this case a n d the
J a p a n e s e - A m e r ic a n s (Nisei) d e p o r te d f r o m the Pacific c o a st o f the United
S tate s in 1941, t h o u g h th e la tte r were tre a te d m o r e h u m a n e ly . It is p erh a p s
w o rth n o tin g th a t, t h o u g h th o u s a n d s o f B u rm ese jo in e d a Ja p a n e se -le d
a r m y to fight th e British, a n d the B urm e se p eople did n o t p rev e n t th e m
fro m d o in g so, the British g o v e r n m e n t did n o t d e p o r t the p o p u la tio n of
B u rm a to A rc tic C a n a d a . As f a r as I k n o w , n o British deleg ate to the
U nited N a tio n s has claim ed credit fo r his c o u n t r y fo r this fo rb e aran c e.
22. See a b o v e , pp. 83-84.
23. His case, a n d the historical a n d cu ltu ra l b a c k g r o u n d to it, are
a d m ir a b ly described in A le x a n d r e B e n n ig s e n a n d C h a n ta l Q uelqu e ja y, Les
m ouvem ents nationaux chez les musulmans de Russie: le 'Sultangalievisme
au Tataristan' ( P a ris a n d T h e H ague , 1960).
24. The p r o p o r ti o n o f u r b a n to to ta l p o p u la tio n o f the m ain M uslim
 Notes 501

n a tio n s o f the Sov iet U n io n in 1970 was 55 per cent fo r T a ta r s , 40 per cent
f o r A z e r b a i j a n i s , 31 fo r T u r k m e n , 27 fo r K a z a k h s, 26 for T a d jik s, 25 for
U zbeks a n d 15 fo r Kirgiz. T a ta rs, w h o w ere 2.4 per cent o f th e to ta l
p o p u la tio n o f th e So viet U n io n , had only 1.9 p er cent o f th e stu d e n ts in
h ighe r e d u c a tio n ; A ze rb a id ja n is, w ith 1.8 per cent, h a d 1.9. T h e o th e r
M uslim peoples h ad a p p r o x im a te ly th e sa m e p ercentage o f stu d e n ts in
h igher e d u c a tio n as o f to ta l p o p u la tio n .
25. See p. 249.
26. See pp. 147, 446.
27. A fter the a n n e x a t io n o f B essarabia in 1940, a n d its t r a n s f o r m a t io n
into the M o ld a v ia n S S R , a sim ilar policy was in tr o d u c e d o f c re atin g a
‘M o ld a v ia n ’ ‘p eo ple’ ( norod) distinct f r o m the R o m a n ia n people (popor).
28. It also dim in ish e d in A z e rb a ïd ja n , as well as in G e o rg ia a n d
A rm en ia . In all th e E u r o p e a n rep ublics th e perc en ta g e o f R ussians
increased, while th e p erc en ta g e o f all the r e p u b lican n a tio n s exc ept the
L ith u a n ia n s dim inished.
29. P erso n s u n d e r tw en ty years old f o rm e d between 52 a n d 56 per cent
o f th e p o p u la tio n o f th e six M u slim republics, a n d betw een 29 a n d 38 per
cent o f th a t o f the E u r o p e a n republics. T h e d isc re p an c y betw een the
M uslim n atio n s a n d the o th e rs m u st o f c o u rse be m u c h gre a te r th a n this,
since th e re are m a n y R u s sian s living in M u slim republics a n d co n sid erab le
n u m b e rs o f n o n - R u s s ia n s in the R u ssian rep ublic ( R S F S R ) .
30. F o r f u rth e r d iscussion o f this te rm , see pp. 338-339.
31. See a b o v e , pp. 141-142.
32. See abov e , pp. 119, 151.

C h a p te r 8

1. T h e legend t h a t E th io p i a n d yn asties were d e s c e n d a n ts o f King

S o lo m o n by the Q u ee n o f S h e b a m a y be b ased o n reality.
2. T h e C h ristia n c h u r c h in A le x a n d r ia w as divided f r o m the m id-fifth
c e n tu ry A D by th e c o n tro v e rs y c o n c e rn in g th e single o r tw o fo ld n a tu re of
C h rist ( h u m a n a n d divine). A t th e tim e o f the A ra b c o n q u e s t o f E gypt in
641 th e believers in th e single n a tu re ( m o n o p h y site s) were in the a s ce n d an t.
U n d e r M u slim rule th e E g y p tia n c h u r c h d eve lop e d o n its se p a r a te lines,
a n d th e c h u r c h o f E th io p i a was linked w ith it. T h e C o p tic lang u ag e was
derived f ro m the la n g u ag e o f an c ie n t E gypt, a n d c o n tin u e d to be used in
religious ritual, t h o u g h it fell into c o m p le te disuse as a s p o k e n to n g u e by
the eigh tee n th century.
3. T h e w o rd S w ahili is o f A ra b ic origin, m e a n in g ‘o f th e c o a s t’. T h e
A frican peoples o f this co a st were largely c o n v e rted to Islam , a n d their
lan g u ag e (belonging to the B antu g r o u p ) received, like the languages of
502 Notes

m a n y o th e r peoples co n v e rte d to Islam , a large infusion o f A ra b ic w ords. It

b e c a m e a lingua franca b etw een the co a st a n d th e G r e a t Lakes, a n d its
literature w as w ritte n in the A ra b ic a lp h a b e t. T h e lang u ag e is m ore
co rrectly called Ki-Swahili.
4. See below, p. 361.
5. T h is f o rm e r G e r m a n co lo n y w as a d m in iste r e d by th e g o v e r n m e n t of
S o u th A frica as a m a n d a te d te rr ito r y betw een the w o rld wars. In 1945 the
S o u th A fric a n g o v e r n m e n t refused to h av e its s ta tu s c h a n g e d to a trust
te rrito ry u n d e r the U nited N atio ns.
6. R e la tion s betw een whites a n d blacks in S o u th A frica a r e discussed in
c h a p te r nine.
7. T h is is a n estim ate. N o precise statistics on lan g u ag e o r religious
d e n o m in a t io n have been published.
8. T hese figures c o m e fro m G. N. T revaskis, Eritrea: a colony in
transition 1941-52.
9. A fter th e defeat o f Italy, b o th E th io p ia a n d E ritrea were u n d e r British
o c c u p a tio n . T h e British g o v e r n m e n t agre ed to th e wish o f its E th io p ia n ally
to recover E ritrea, w hich had been p a r t o f its te rr ito r y until the 1880s.
10. See a b o v e , pp. 332-333.

Chapter 9
1. T his a t titu d e o f th e p o o r to Je w s essentially resem bled th a t o f East
E u ro p e a n s in the n in e te e n th c e ntu ry , discussed in c h a p te r 10.
2. See c h a p te r 10, pp. 406-409.
3. See c h a p te r 10, pp. 383-384.
4. T h e a b b r e v ia tio n c o m m o n ly used fo r S o u th -W e s te r n T o w n sh ip , the
a g g lo m e r a tio n o f nearly a million black in h a b ita n ts lying to the south-w est
of Johannesburg.
5. T h e 1970 census sh o w ed 792,000 I n d ia n s o f w h o m nearly h a lf were in
f o u r states ( O k l a h o m a 98,468; A riz o n a 95,812; C a lifo rn ia 91,018; New
M e x ico 72,788).
6. In th e 1960s re w ritin g o f h isto ry in f a v o u r o f the I n d ia n s becam e
f a sh io n a b le in the U n ite d S tates. A n o u t s t a n d in g e x a m p le is the best­
selling Bury M y Heart at W ounded Knee by D ee B row n (1971). T he
w ro n g s suffered by th e I n d ia n s a r e m ov ingly to ld , th o u g h it is p e rh a p s
w o rth n o tin g th a t the I n d ia n raiders a n d to r tu r e r s w h o figure so p r o m i­
nently in th e tr a d itio n a l A m e r ic a n m y th o lo g y o f the I n d ia n w ars, a n d w ho
a r e sim ply left o u t o f this b o o k , d id exist in history. T h e In d ian s were
victims, but they w ere n o t p a r a g o n s o f unsullied virtue.
7. T h e census o f 1950 gave figures for p ersons over the age o f five w ho
sp o k e Indian languages. The provinces w hich had the highest p r o p o r ti o n
 Notes 503

w ere Y u c a ta n (63.8 p e r cent, sp e ak in g M a y a ), O a x a c a (48 p e r cent,

s p e ak in g M ix tec a n d Z a p o te c ) a n d Q u i n t a n a R o o (43.7 per cent, M aya).

Chapter 10
1. T his s ta te m e n t is tr u e fo r the o v e rw h e lm in g m a jo rity o f Je w s d u r in g
this period; b u t it m ust be qualified by the fact th a t a r e m n a n t o f Jew s
r em a ined in Palestine, a n d in Je ru s a le m , th r o u g h o u t the successive ce n ­
turies.
2. 1 refer to th o se C hinese w h o tra d e d in ships ow ned by individual
Chinese, fro m M in g tim es o n w a rd s, a n d indeed earlier. T h e r e w ere also
I n d ia n tra d e rs w h o crossed the I n d ia n O c e a n to A frica fro m early tim es
(see K. M. P a n ik k a r , India and the Indian Ocean [1945]). T h o se C hinese
an d Ind ians w h o were tr a n s p o r te d in E u r o p e a n ships, in semi-slave
c o n d itio n s, c a n n o t o f course be reg a rd e d as seafarers.
3. T h e E u r o p e a n colonies of se ttle m ent, in w hich new n atio n s o f
E u r o p e a n origin arose, a re o f c o u rse a q u ite d ifferent p h e n o m e n o n , a lre ad y
discussed in c h a p te r 5. A possible m a rg in al case were the D u tc h in
In d o n esia , w here families b o th o f pu re D u tc h a n d o f m ixed D u tc h -
Ja v a n e s e origin c o n tin u e d to live for g e n e ra tio n s on end a n d in su b sta n tia l
num be rs.
4. ‘M obilised a n d p ro le ta r ia n d ia s p o r a s ’, by J o h n A rm s tr o n g , in The
American Political Science Review, vol. 70, 393-408.
5. See ab ove, pp. 121-122.
6. T h e d a t e is ‘O ld S tyle’— th a t is, twelve day s earlier th a n the d ate in
usage in n o n - O r t h o d o x E u ro p e . A fifteenth p rovince was a d d e d afte r 1812,
in the f o r m o f B essarabia (o r ea ste rn M o ld a v ia ), th e n a n n e x e d to Russia
(see p. 177).
7. It sh o u ld be n o te d th a t mass a n ti-sem itism was m u c h m o re w ide­
sp rea d in th e U k ra in ia n , P olish, L ith u a n ia n , L atvian a n d R o m a n ia n
b o r d e r la n d s t h a n in the provinces o f R u s sia n p o p u la tio n ; the reason is th a t
the Je w ish p o p u la tio n s in the em p ire lived a m o n g the f o r m e r peoples a n d
n o t a m o n g the R ussians.
8. A Je w ish w o r k m a n , M e n d el Beilis, w as accused of ritua l m u r d e r , a n d
p roce edings w ere d ra g g e d on by the R u s sia n a u th o ritie s in Kiev, t h o u g h it
w as o b v io u s t h a t th e re w as n o serious case a g a in st the accused.
9. W a lte r L a q u e u r, A H istory o f Zionism (1972), 203.
10. T h e ‘M a n d a t e ’ w as a n in stitu tio n c re ate d by the peace treaties o f
1919. V a rio u s fo rm e rly G e r m a n te rrito rie s in A frica a n d f o rm e rly O t t o m a n
te rritorie s in the M id d le E ast were placed u n d e r the a d m in is t r a tio n o f
v ic torious p ow ers (B ritain, F ra n ce , Belgium, A u stralia, N ew Z ea lan d ). T he
‘m a n d a t o r y ’ p o w er held th e m on tru st for th e L eague o f N ation s, to which
504 Notes

it su b m itte d r eg u la r re p o rts, a n d was expected to p re p a re th e ir peoples for

u ltim a te independen ce.
11. A r a b m o v e m e n ts f o r in d e p en d e n ce f r o m T u rk e y , a n d A r a b n a t io n ­
alism, are discussed in c h a p te r 7, pp. 261-262.
12. R e p o rt by the a n ti-N a z i m in in g engineer K u rt G erstein, p ublished in
Vierteljahreshefte fü r Zeitgeschichte , vol. I, no. 2 ( S tu t tg a r t, 1953).
13. T h e g rea t m a jo rity o f th e Je w s o f H u n g a r y in 1944 lived in the
n o r th e r n a n d ea ste rn p erip h e ry , in la nds w hich until 1938 o r 1940 had
belonged to C z ec h o slo v a k ia o r R o m a n ia . T h e r e is a w id esp re ad , but
inco rrect, belief th a t th e losses o f Je w s were g re a te r in R o m a n ia th a n in
H u n g a r y . T h e rea so n is th a t the Je w s o f n o r th e r n T ra n sy lv a n ia were
e x te r m in a te d . T his was R o m a n i a n fro m 1918 to 1940, a n d afte r 1945; but
in 1944, w h en its Je w s w ere d e p o r te d to the d e a th ca m p s, it w as p a rt o f
H u n g a r y , a n d the o rd e rs were given by H u n g a ria n s.
14. Statistical A bstract o f Israel (Je r u s a le m , 1971), 21-23, 45-46, 126.
15. T h e flu ctu atio n s in p o p u la tio n a re d u e n o t only to n a tu ra l increase,
b u t also to th e re tu r n o f s o m e o f th o se w h o fled, a n d to the a n n e x a t io n of
territo ry in 1967 in J e r u s a le m a n d in th e G o la n H eights. T h e g rea t m a jority
o f the p o p u la tio n o f th e lands occupied by th e Israeli a r m y in 1967 (the
‘ad m in iste re d te rrito rie s’) is not inclu ded in these figures.
16. See c h a p te r 6, pp. 269-270.
17. N arodnoe khozyaistvo S S S R v 1970 g. (M o s c o w , 1971), 15.
18. T h is section is p re d o m in a n tly , b u t n o t wholly, based o n the stu d y by
H u g h T in k e r, A New System o f Slavery (1974).
19. In 1970 there w ere 182,000^J>ersons o f I n d ia n origin in Kenya,
105.000 in T a n z a n ia a n d 80,000 in U g a n d a . O f these a b o u t a third becam e
citizens o f th e new states.
20. In G u y a n a in 1970 it w as e s tim a te d th a t In d ian s fo rm e d 51 per cent
o f a p o p u la tio n o f m o r e th a n 700,000 while 42 per cent w ere o f A frican or
m ix e d origin a n d 4 p e r cent w ere A m e r in d ia n s. In T r in id a d , in a p o p u la tio n
o f slightly u n d e r o n e m illion, 36 per cent w ere I n d ia n s a n d 60 per cent were
A fric an o r m ixed. In M a u ritiu s In d ia n s f o rm e d tw o - th ir d s o f the p o p u la ­
tion (531,000 in 1967— o f w h o m a b o u t a q u a r te r were M u s l im — to a b o u t
200.000 A frican o r m ix e d descent, w ith m u c h sm aller m inorities o f Chinese
a n d o f F r e n c h - s p e a k in g E u ro p e a n s ). In Fiji a t th e en d o f 1971 In d ian s were
slightly m o r e th a n half, w ith 272,000 to th e 231,000 in d ig e n o u s Fijians a n d
w ith so m e fu rth e r sm all E u r o p e a n a n d o th e r m inorities.
21. A n o th e r v a ria n t, n o t discussed here, is British H o n d u r a s , w ith a
m ixed black a n d A m e r in d i a n p o p u la tio n , th r e a te n e d by te rrito ria l claim s
fro m G u a te m a la .
22. A n a c r o n y m fo r M a la y a , Philip pines, In donesia.
 Notes 505

Chapter 11
1. See a b o v e , p. 80.
2. See p. 447.

Chapter 12
1. K arl R e n n e r ( p s e u d o n y m R u d o l f S pringe r), Grundlagen und Ent­
wicklungsziele der österreichisch-ungarischen M onarchie {'Vienna, 1906);
a n d O tto Bauer, Die Nationalitätenfrage und die Sozialdem okratie (V ien­
na, 1907).
2. Its full n a m e w as A ll-Jew ish W o r k e r s ’ U nio n in Russia a n d P o la n d . It
was f o u n d ed in 1897, a n d was a c o n s titu e n t g r o u p at th e f o u n d in g first
congress o f the R u ssian S ocial D e m o c r a tic W o r k e rs ’ P a r ty ( R S D R P ) in
1898.
3. See a b o v e , p. 129.
4. See her s h o r t w o rk , Die industrielle Entwicklung Polens (Berlin,
1898).
5. T h e title o f th e official tr a n s l a ti o n in to English is M arxism and the
N ational and C olonial Question.
6. T h e w o rd fa scio , derived fro m the R o m a n fasces o f the lictors, had
b een first used in m o d e rn Italy by a m o v e m e n t o f the left, the socialist
Fascio della D em ocrazia in 1883. See C. S e to n - W a ts o n , Italy fro m
Liberalism to Fascism ( L o n d o n , 1967), 96.
7. T h e I R A retained th e ir cult w hen they m o ve d fro m the fascist into the
p s e u d o -m a r x ist ca m p .
8. T h e six po in ts a re stated in C arl F rie d rich a n d Z bign ie w Brzezinski,
Totalitarian D ictatorship and D em ocracy ( H a r v a r d University Press, 2nd
rev. ed., 1965), 22. T h e y m a y be s u m m a r is e d as follows, using as far as
possible the a u t h o r s ’ o w n w o rd s (in q u o t a t i o n m arks): (1) ‘a n e la b o r a te
ideology, consisting o f a n official b ody o f d o c trin e co vering all vital aspects
o f m a n ’s e x i s te n c e . . . ’; (2) ‘a single m ass p a r ty typically led by one m a n ’; (3)
‘a system o f te r r o r . . . t h r o u g h p a r ty a n d secret-police c o n tro l . . .’; a
‘te chnologically c o n d itio n e d . . . m o n o p o ly ’ o f (4) m e an s o f m ass c o m m u n i ­
cation; a n d (5) a r m e d forces; (6) ‘cen tral c o n tro l a n d d irec tio n o f the entire
e c o n o m y . . . . ’ O nly th e fea tu re s covered in th e first tw o p o in ts seem to m e to
be specific to to ta lita r ia n g o v e rn m e n ts. T h e fea tu re s covered in the o th e r
f o u r p o in ts are certainly p rese nt a n d necessary to to ta lita r ia n g o v e rn m e n t,
b u t th e y a re n o t specific; th e y ca n be f o u n d in n o n - to ta lita r i a n d ic tato ria l
regimes, a n d even in n o n - d ic ta to r ia l g o v e r n m e n t o f m o d e r n states. O n the
o th e r h a n d the a u t h o r s have left o u t tw o specific features o f to ta lita r ia n
g o v ern m e n t: (I) the claim to c o n tro l the w h o le private as well as public life
506 Notes

o f its citizens; (2) the claim to direct th e ir spiritual life a n d to be th e sole

source of m orality.
9. In 1917 the Bolshevik p a rty was r e n a m e d R u ssian C o m m u n is t P arty
(Bolshevik); after the sta te itself was ren a m ed U n io n of Soviet Socialist
Republics (in 1923), the party becam e the A ll-U n ion C o m m u n is t P arty
(Bolshevik); at its nin e tee n th C ong ress in 1952 it to o k the nam e C o m m u ­
nist P a r ty o f the S oviet U n io n (initials in English C P S U , in R ussian
K P S S ).
10. T his p h r a se was used, in a p ejorative sense, in the Soviet U nion in the
years w hen K h ru s h c h e v had discredited Stalin: it was not used in S talin ’s
life-time.
11. T h e rulers of E astern G e r m a n y fro m the begin ning accepted the new
f ro n tie r w ith P o la n d ; but they did this only because their Soviet m asters
o rd e re d th e m to d o so, a n d few Poles either th a n k e d o r tru sted them .
12. T h e ev o lu tio n o f Soviet d o c trin e a n d political tactics in this field
d u r in g th e 1960s a n d early 1970s is brilliantly analysed in R ichard
L o w e n th a l, M ode! or A lly ? The Com m unist Powers and the Developing
Countries (N ew Y ork, 1977).
13. It seemed possible th a t the M P L A leader A g o stin h o N eto might
follow C a s t r o ’s e x a m p le , a n d th a t A n g o la w ould bec om e a Soviet satellite,
a d m in iste re d by C u b a n s in the Soviet interest, strategically as useful as
C u b a a n d eco no m ic ally still m o re expensive.
14. T his b o o k is no place to discuss these sects in detail. T h e best survey
o f th e m all th a t is k n o w n to me is K laus M e h n e rt, Jugend in Zeithruch
( S tu ttg a r t, 1976).

Chapter 13
1. In C z ec hoslova kia, C zechs a n d S lovaks; in the five o th e r states one
n a tio n only.
2. ‘N o n -w h ite’ r a th e r th a n ‘b la c k ’, because m a n y P an africa n ists were
willing to reg a rd the p eople o f the so u th e rn M e d ite rr e a n littoral, beyon d
the S a h a r a , as A fricans.
3. T h e p r o p e r P olish n a m e fo r this place is Oswigcim, b u t I use the n am e
the G e r m a n s used, because it was as such t h a t it e a rn ed w orld-w ide
noto riety.
Bibliography

T o p re p a re a system atic b ib lio g ra p h y o f this vast subject w o u ld be the w ork

o f a lifetime: even to list all the w o rk s w h ich 1 have read w hich b e a r o n the
subject, w ou ld require n o t m u c h less effort th a n it has ta k e n to write the
b o o k . In a n y case, as e x p lain e d in the I n tr o d u c tio n , the p rin te d w o rd has
n o t been m y only source.
Instead , I have p rep a re d a list o f m o st o f th o se b o o k s w hich have been
m ost useful to me, a n d m ainly o f such as I have used w ith in the last few
years. 1 have n o t listed in dividual articles, n o r nam es o f periodicals. T he
la tte r have certainly been a n im p o r ta n t sou rce, a n d fall in to th ree c a te g o ­
ries: specialised learned jo u r n a ls , intellectual reviews of b r o a d e r scope, and
daily new spapers. O f the latter the m o s t im p o r ta n t have been those
a p p e a r in g in E n g la nd, a b o v e all The Times a n d The Econom ist , which
have been a regular p a r t o f my intellectual f o d d e r for m ost o f m y a d u lt life;
but they include also p ap ers in o th e r languages, a n d in o th e r co u n tries, read
m ostly in th o se perio d s w h en I have been living in their lands b u t also quite
often fro m afar.
T his list includes very few d o c u m e n ta r y collections. I have read a g o o d
m a n y ‘p r im a ry source s’ o v er the years, chiefly fro m C e n tra l E u ro p e an d
Russia; b u t it has seemed to me m ost useful to give readers a selection of
general in te rp re tativ e studies a n d m o n o g r a p h s . I tried a t first to pla n the
b ib lio g ra p h y so as to fit the sub divisions o f m y c h a pte rs, b u t this proved
unsa tisfac to ry ; a n d I have cho sen the m o r e c o n v e n tio n a l m e th o d of
g r o u p in g th e m by regions a n d by c o u n tries, w hich I believe will m a k e it
easier for the r e a d e r to find w h a t he o r she w ants.
T h e place of p u b lic a tio n fo r the b o o k s listed below is given only w hen the
b o o k s w ere published o utside L o n d o n .

The European historical background

T h e follo w ing are a few w o rk s w hich, read a t d ifferent tim es o f m y life but
m ostly a g o o d m a n y years ag o , have b r o u g h t me illu m in a tio n , intellectual
508 Bibliography

p le asu re a n d in som e cases rea l jo y . N o n e is c o n c e rn e d p rim a rily o r

im m ed ia te ly w ith th e sub ject o f th is b o o k , b u t it is largely to th e ir a u th o rs
th a t I ow e w h ate v er u n d e rs ta n d in g 1 m ay have a c q u ire d o f th e E u ro p e a n
h eritag e. T h e fact th a t so m e a re now o u t o f d a te , o r th a t th e re a re new , an d
m o re co n v in cin g , in te rp re ta tio n s o f th e ir su b je cts by o th e rs, in n o w ay
d im in ish es m y g ra titu d e . All b u t one a re co n c ern ed m ain ly w ith th e M id d le
A ges. T h e ex c e p tio n , P a u l H a z a rd ’s stu d y o f th e b eg in n in g s o f th e
E n lig h ten m e n t, is placed in th is section b ecau se it d o es n o t fit in to an y o f
th e reg io n al su b -d iv isio n s w hich follow .

B loch, M arc, La société fé o d a le — I: la form ation des

liens de dépendance; II: les classes et le
gouvernem ent des hom m es , 2 vols (P a ris
1939 a n d 1940).

C o h n , N o rm a n , The Pursuit o f the Millennium (1957).

D a w so n , C h risto p h e r, The M aking o f Europe 400-1000 A .D .
(1932).

D ieh l, C h a rles, Figures byzantines , 2 vols (P a ris 1906-08).

D ieh l, C h a rles, Byzance: grandeur et décadance (P a ris
1919).

F liehe, A u g u stin , H istoire du m oyen age: l'Europe occiden­

G a n sh o f, F ra n ç o is L ou is,
H a z a rd , P a u l,
H u izin g a, J .,
M oss, H . S t L. B.,
O b o len sk y , D im itri,
tale de 888 à 1125 (P a ris 1930).
Feudalism (1964).
La crise de la conscience européenne 1680-
1715 (P a ris 1935).
The Waning o f the M iddle Ages (1924).
The Birth o f the M iddle A ges (1935).
The B yzantine Com m onw ealth (1971).

P ire n n e, H en ri, H istory o f Europe fro m the Invasions to

the Sixteenth Century (1948).

P ire n n e , H en ri, Les villes du m oyen âge (B russels 1927).

R u n c im a n , S teven, Byzantine Civilisation (1933).
V olpe, S tev en , Il m edio evo italiano (F lo re n c e 1923).

G eneral

A work which does not fit the pattern of this bibliography, must be inserted
 Bibliography 509

W ittfo g el, K arl A u g u st, Oriental D espotism (N ew H av en , C o n n .

1957).

T h is is a g re a t p io n e e rin g ac h ie v em e n t, o p e n in g new persp ectiv es to th e

m in d o f a n y h isto ria n o r social scien tist w h o is w illing to le arn , to w erin g
ab o v e m o st c o n te m p o ra ry w o rk s, h o w ev er d isp u ta b le it m ay be o n m an y
m a jo r a n d m in o r specific p o in ts.

Nationalism—general and theoretical

T h e fo llo w in g d eal w ith n a tio n a list th e o ry o r n a tio n a list m o v e m en ts o n a
b ro a d c o m p a ra tiv e basis, th o u g h in e v ita b ly each te n d s to pay m o re
a tte n tio n to a p a rtic u la r p a rt o f the w o rld th a n to th e o th e rs. T h e w o rk s o f
B au er an d o f ‘S p rin g e r’-R e n n e r w ere d esig n ed fo r th e sp ecial n eed s o f
A u s tria -H u n g a ry a t th e b eg in n in g o f th is c e n tu ry , b u t b o th h av e a n a lm o st
u n iv e rsa l p o te n tia l a p p lic a tio n . T he w o rk by H ro c h is a n in tellig en t an d
illu m in a tin g an aly sis, fro m a M a rx ist p o in t o f view , o f th e n a tio n a list elites
o f a n u m b e r o f sm all E u ro p e a n n a tio n s. L em b erg ’s tw o v o lu m es a re th e
m o st en lig h te n in g w o rk I k n o w fro m th e p ersp ectiv e o f C e n tra l E u ro p e .

B au er, O tto , D ie N ationalitätenfrage u n d die Sozialde­

m o kra tie (V ien n a 1907).
D eu tsch , K arl, N ationalism a n d Social C om m unication
(C a m b rid g e , M ass. 1953).

E m erso n , R u p e rt, From E m pire to Nation: The Rise to Self-

assertion o f A sian a n d A frican Peoples
(C a m b rid g e , M ass. 1960).

H ayes, C a rlto n , The H istorical E volution o f M odern Na­

tionalism (1948).
H ro c h , M iro sla v , V orkäm pfer der nationalen Bewegungen
beidden kleinen Völkern Europas (P ra g u e
1968).

K ed o u rie , E lie, N ationalism (1960).

K ed o u rie , E lie, N ationalism in A sia a n d A frica (1970).

K o h n , H an s, The Idea o f N ationalism : A S tu d y in its

Origins a n d B a ckground (N ew Y o rk 1946).
L em b erg , E ugen, Der N a tio n a lism u s , 2 vols (M u n ic h 1967
and 1968).
Smith, Antony, Theories o f N ationalism (1971).
510 Bibliography

S p rin g e r, R u d o lf Grundlagen und Entwicklungsziele der

(K a rl R e n n e r), österreichisch-ungarischen M onarchie (V i­
e n n a 1906).

S ta lin , J o s e p h , M arxism and the N ational and Colonial

Question (n u m e ro u s ed itio n s in E nglish
a n d in n u m e ro u s o th e r lan g u ag es).

The nations of Britain

T h ese are on ly a few w orks w hich illu m in a te som e o f th e stag es o f
d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e E nglish lan g u ag e a n d E nglish n a tio n a l co n scio u sn ess,
as w ell as th e h isto ry o f th e S c o ttish a n d W elsh n a tio n s. I w o u ld single o u t
fo r sp ecial g ra titu d e th e b o o k s o f M ay M cK isac k , G eo ffrey D ick en s,
G eo ffrey B a rro w , T . C. S m o u t a n d D o u g las Y o ung.

B arro w , G eoffrey, Feudal Britain (1956).

B arrow , G eoffrey,
B augh, A lb e rt C .,
D ick en s, G eoffrey,
D u n c a n , A. A. M .,
R obert Bruce and the C om m unity o f the
Realm o f Scotland (1965).
A H istory o f the English Language ( 1935).
The English R eform ation (1964).
Scotland: The M aking o f the Kingdom
(E d in b u rg h 1975).

J a c o b , E. F ., The Fifteenth Century 1399-1485 , being

vol. 6 o f th e O xford H istory o f England
(O x fo rd 1961).

L loyd, J. E ., Owen G lendower (O x fo rd 1931).

M c K isack , M ay , The Fourteenth Century 1307-1399 , b eing
vol. 5 o f th e O xford H istory o f England
(O x fo rd 1959).

M ack ie, J. D ., A H istory o f S cotlan d (1964).

M a d g w ick , P. J ., The Politics o f M odern Wales: A S tu dy o f
Cardiganshire (1973).
S m o u t, T . C ., A H istory o f the Scottish People 1560-1830
(1969).

S tru n g , B a rb a ra , A H istory o f English (1970).

W illiam s, D avid, A H istory o f M odern Wales ( 1969).
V nuno. D ouoln s. Scotland (1971).
 Bib Iiograp hy 511

Ireland
O u ts ta n d in g in m y m e m o r y is L yo ns’s fine survey. T he classic s h o rt w o rk
by C u rtis re m a in s a valuable guide.

C urtis, E d m u n d , A H istory o f Ireland ( 1936).

E d w a rd s, O w en D ud ley , ‘Ire la n d ’ in Celtic N ationalism (1968).

H a m m o n d , J. L., G ladstone an d the Irish Nation (1938).

Lyons, F. S. L., Ireland since the Famine (1971).
M a n se rg h , N. S., The G overnm ent o f Northern Ireland
(1936).

O ’C o r r a n , D o n n c h a , Ireland before the Norm ans ( D u b l in 1972).

Pakenham , Frank, Peace by Ordeal (1935).

France
T his to o is b u t a p u n y list o f a few b o o k s fro m w hich 1 have learnt m uch,
chiefly in very recent years. S uch u n d e r s ta n d in g as 1 have o f F re n c h history
a n d c u ltu re goes b ac k m u c h further, a n d I c o uld n o t possibly e n u m e r a te the
b o o k s w hich have c o n trib u te d to it. O f the follow ing, I w ou ld stress those
o f B elp erron ( th o u g h I d o not s h a re his basic a ttitu d e ) a n d Perroy.
Y a r d é m i’s recent stu d y has, fro m m y p o in t o f view, the m e rit o f dealing
w ith the qu estio n s w hich interest m e — w h ich are n o t necessarily th o se of
specialists o f th e period.

B elperron, Pierre, La Croisade contre les albigeois (P a ris

1942).

C o h e n , M a rc el, H istoire d'une langue: le français (P a ris

1950).

D u p u y , A n d ré , H istorique de l’Occitanie ( R o d e z 1974).

F aw tie r, R o b e rt, The Capetian Kings o f France (1964).
F ow ler, K e n n e th (éd.), The H undred Years' War (1971).
K endall, P a u l M ., Louis X I (1971).

P e rro y , Ja c q u e s , La guerre de cent ans ( P a ris 1945).

S a g n a c , Philippe, La fo rm a tio n de la société française m o­
derne , 2 vols ( P a ris 1945, 1946).
512 Bibliography

W a lla c e -H a d rill, J . M ., The Barbarian West 400-1000 (1964).

Y ard ém i, M iria m , La conscience nationale en France pendant
les guerres de religion ( P a ris /L o u v a in
1971).

T he L ow C o u n trie s

G eyl, H u izin g a a n d P ire n n e w ere g re a t m a ste rs, w h o se fam e n o w o rd o f

m ine c o u ld increase. I m u st also rec o rd th e in te lle ctu al p le asu re w hich 1 had
fro m re a d in g th e lectures o f C h a rles W ilson, as w ell as a n y b o o k s by B oxer
w h ich h av e com e m y w ay.

B oxer, C. R ., The Dutch Seaborne Empire 1600-1800

(1965).

D estré e, Ju le s, Wallons et flam an ds (P a ris 1923).

G eyl, P ie te r, The R evolt o f the Netherlands 1555-1609
(1932).

G eyl, P ie te r, The Netherlands in the 17th century , 2 vols

(1964).

G eyl, P iete r, H istory o f the Low Countries — T re v ely an

le ctu res 1963 (1964).

H u izin g a, J . H ., ‘A us d e r V o rg e sch ich te des n ie d e rlä n d i­

schen N atio n a lb e w u sstse in s’, in co llectio n
o f essays e n title d Im Bann der Geschichte
(B asel 1943).

H u izin g a, J . H ., Dutch Civilisation in the 17th Century

(1968).

P ire n n e, H en ri, H istoire de Belgique (B russels 1926).

W ed g w o o d , C. V., William the Silent (1944).
W ilson, C h a rles, Queen Elizabeth and the R evolt o f the
Netherlands (1970).

S w itze rlan d

A most erudite and fascinating modern study of this unique country is:
Hughes, Christopher, Sw itzerland (1975).
 Bibliography 513

Scandinavia
T h e fo llo w in g are u seful so u rces o f in fo rm a tio n . T h e tw o w o rk s w hich rise
ab o v e th e g en e ral c o m p e te n t level, by th e ir p o w er to evo k e e x c ite m e n t a t
least in th is re a d e r, a re b o th by w om en: th e a rtic le by a h e ro in e o f th e
B olshevik R e v o lu tio n w ho m a rv e llo u sly survived to a rip e o ld age,
A le x a n d ra K o llo n ta y , a n d th e fine m o d e rn b io g ra p h y by R a g n h ild H a tto n
o f C h a rles X II.

A n d e rso n , In g v ar, A H istory o f Sweden (1956).

B ain, N isb et, Scandinavia (1905).

B ro n ste d , J o h a n n e s , The Vikings (1960).

D erry , Т. K., A Short H istory o f N orway (1957).
H a tto n , R a g n h ild , Charles X II o f Sweden (1968).

K o llo n ta y , A le x a n d ra , sectio n o n F in la n d in vol. 4 o f Obshchest-

vennoe dvizhenie v Rossii v пае hale X X
veka , a sy m p o siu m by S ocial D e m o c ra tic
w riters (S t P e te rsb u rg 1908-1911).

S c h y b erg so n , M. G ., Politische Geschichte Finnlands 1809-1919

(G o th a 1926).

v o n T o rn e , P. O ., Finland under etthundra trettio dr 1809-

1939 (S to c k h o lm 1943).

W u o rin e n , J o h n , A H istory o f Finland (N ew Y o rk 1965).

Germany
T h e fo llo w ing co v e r v ario u s asp ec ts o f th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f G e rm a n
n a tio n a l co n scio u sn ess a n d o f th e m o v e m en t fo r u n ity , in its lib eral a n d its
n a tio n a l-so c ia list ph ases. C a rs te n co v ers m u c h o f th e m e d iev a l a n d early
m o d e rn , B a rra c lo u g h the m edieval em p ire a n d D ick en s th e R e fo rm a tio n .
T h e b o o k by M o lisch a n d th e first o f th o se listed by W isk em an n a re useful
fo r th e tr a n s fo rm a tio n o f ‘g re a te r G e rm a n ’ th in k in g a m o n g A u stria n
G e rm a n s fro m a lib eral to a n a tio n a l-so c ia list d irec tio n .

B a rra c lo u g h , G eoffrey, The Origins o f M odern Germany (1946).

B rach er, K a rl-D ie tric h , Die deutsche D iktatur (C o lo g n e a n d B erlin
1969).
514 Bibliography

B ullock, A llen, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (1952).

C a rs te n , F. L ., The Origins o f Prussia (1954).
D ick en s, G eoffrey, The German Nation and M artin Luther
(1974).

F rie d ju n g , H ein ric h , The Struggle fo r Suprem acy in Germany

(1935).

G lu m , F rie d ric h , Der N ational-Sozialism us: Werden und

Vergehen (M u n ic h 1962).

H o lb o rn , H ajo , A H istory o f M odern Germ any— 1640-

1840 (1965); 1840-1945 (1969).
M a n n , G o lo , D eutsche Geschichte des 19. und 20. Jahr­
hunderts ( F r a n k f u rt 1961).
M o lisch , P ., Geschichte der deutsch-nationalen Bewe­
gung in Österreich (J e n a 1926).

S ch ie d er, T h e o d o r, Das deutsche Kaiserreich von 1871 als

N ationalstaat (C o lo g n e 1960).

S ch w eitzer, A rth u r, Big Business in the Third Reich (B lo o m ­

in g to n , In d . 1964).

W isk em an n , E liz ab e th , Czechs an d Germans (1938).

W isk em an n , E liz ab e th , Germany's Eastern Neighbours (1956).
W isk em an n , E liz a b e th (ed.), The A n a to m y of'the S S State (1968).
Z ie k u rsc h , J o h a n n , Politische Geschichte des neuen deutschen
Kaiserreiches, 3 vols ( F r a n k f u rt 1925-30).

Italy
E x ce p t p e rh a p s fo r C a n d e lo ro ’s e x tre m ely u sefu l sy n o p tic w o rk , these
w o rk s a re n o t p rim a rily co n c ern ed w ith th e a tta in m e n t o f Ita lia n unity,
th o u g h all b ea r on th e fo rm a tio n o r d e v e lo p m e n t o f Ita lia n n a tio n a l
co n scio u sn ess. V en tu ri’s b o o k covers a large p o rtio n o f th e Ita lia n E n lig h t­
e n m e n t w hich w as th e b a c k g ro u n d to th e m o v e m e n t fo r u n ity . S eto n -
W a tso n ’s survey o f th e p o st-u n ity k in g d o m , a n d th e w o rk s o n fascism , are
all relev an t to sections in c h a p te rs th ree , eleven a n d tw elve o f th is b o o k .

C a n d e lo ro , G io rg io , Storia dell'ltalia moderna, 4 vols (M ila n o

1956-64).
 Bibliography 515

M ack S m ith , D enis, Cavour an d G aribaldi (C a m b rid g e 1954).

M ack S m ith , D enis, Italy: A M odern H istory (A n n A rb o r,
M ich. 1959).

R o b e rts, J. M ., ‘Italy 1793-1830’, c h a p te r XV in vol. IX o f

The New Cam bridge M odern H istory
(1965).

R ossi, A. (A n g elo T asc a), The Rise o f Italian Fascism (1938).

S a la m o n e , A. W ., Italian D em ocracy in the M aking (P h ila ­

d elp h ia, P a. 1945).

S a lv a to re lli, L. a n d M ira, G ., Storia d el fa scism o (R o m e 1952).

S alv em in i, G ., The Fascist D ictatorship in Italy (1928).

S e to n -W a tso n , C h risto p h e r, Italy fro m Liberalism to Fascism (1967).

V aleri, N in o , La lotta p olitico in Italia dall’unita al 1925

(F lo re n c e 1946).

V aliani, L eo, D ali’antifaseism o alia resistenza (M ila n o

1959).

V en tu ri, F ra n c o , Settecento riform atore: da M uratori a

Beccaria (T o rin o 1969).
V ivarelli, R o b e rto , II dopoguerra in Italia e I’avvento del
fa scism o (1918-1922) (N a p o li 1967).

The Iberian nations

T h e solid w o rk o f A lta m ira is a rich m ine o f in fo rm a tio n . T h e tw o sh o rt
b o o k s by G an iv e t a n d O rte g a a re tw o fa m o u s in te rp re ta tiv e essays.
A m eric o C a s tro ’s is a m u c h lo n g er, p ro v o c a tiv e a n d stim u la tin g in te rp re ta ­
tio n . L ev i-P ro v en ?al a n d M en en d e z P id a l a re fa sc in a tin g stu d ies o f asp ects
o f m edieval S p ain . E llio tt’s b o o k o n th e C a ta la n rev o lt is a n im pressive
ac h ie v em e n t o f recent sc h o la rsh ip . O f th e th ree titles q u o te d by V icens
V ives, th e first tw o are ex c itin g in te rp re ta tiv e essays, th e th ird a m o re
d etailed stu d y w ith th e e m p h asis o n e c o n o m ic a n d social asp ects. B ren ­
n a n ’s b o o k o n th e early tw e n tie th c e n tu ry is a m aste rp ie ce o f sy m p a th e tic
u n d e rsta n d in g by a re sid e n t fo re ig n er, a lre a d y a classic. C a rr ’s b o o k is th e
o n ly large-scale m o d e rn survey o f n in e te e n th -c e n tu ry S p ain .

A lta m ira y C rev ea, R a fa el, H istoria de Espana, 4 vols (B arc elo n a
1928-29).
516 Bibliography

Biografies catalanes , vol. 2: Panorama de! pensam ent català

contem porani (B a rc e lo n a 1963).
B oxer, C . R ., The Portuguese Sea-borne Empire 1415-
1825 (1969).

B ren n a n , G erald , The Spanish Labyrinth (C a m b rid g e 1943).

C a rr, R a y m o n d , Spain 1808-1939 (O x fo rd 1966).

C a stro , A m erico , The Spaniards: A n Introduction to their

H istory (B erkeley , C alif. 1971).
C ro zier, B rian, Franco { 1967).
E llio tt, J. H ., Im perial Spain 1469-1716 (1963).
E llio tt, J. H ., The R evolt o f the Catalans (C a m b rid g e
1963).

G an iv e t, A ngel, Idearium espanol (M a d rid 1896).

J a c k s o n , G ab rie l, The M aking o f M edieval Spain (1972).
L év i-P ro v e n ça l, E. Histoire de l’Espagne m usulm ane , 3 vols
( P a r i s / L eyden 1953).

L iv erm o re, H. V., A New H istory o f Portugal (C a m b rid g e

1966).

L ynch, J ., Spain under the H absburgs— Y. Empire

an d A bsolutism 1516-1598 (1964).

M a d a ria g a , S a lv a d o r de, Spain (1942).

M en en d e z P id al, R a m ö n , La Espana del C id (B u en o s A ires 1943).
O rte g a y G asset, J ., Espana in vertebrada( 4 th e d .,r e p r . M a d rid
1948).

T h o m a s, H u g h , The Spanish Civil War (1961).

V ives, J. V icens, A pproaches to Spanish H istory (B erkeley
a n d L os A ngeles, C alif. 1970).

V ives, J. V icens, N oticia de Cataluna (B a rc e lo n a 1954).

V ives, J. V icens, ‘Els c a ta la n s en el segle X IX ’ (B arcelo n a
1950), being th e la rg e r p a r t o f vol. X I o f
Biografies Catalanes.
 Bibliography 517

Poland
T he best single survey in English o f P o lish histo ry u n d e r the p a r titio n s is
W a ndycz . T h e collective h istory edited by Kieniewicz is useful, th o u g h
there are som e cu rio u s om issions. D m o w s k i’s reflections a n d P erl’s history
a re classics. S o are R o z a L u x e m b u r g ’s essay a n d F e ld m a n ’s survey of
political op in io n s in the nin e tee n th ce ntury. L ednick i’s w o rk consists of
so m e brilliant a n d sensitive essays on P o lish -R u ssia n intellectual relations.
Leslie’s m o n o g r a p h s on the tw o n in e tee n th ce n tu ry risings a re useful
ex a m p le s o f th e a n t i- r o m a n tic sch ool o f th o u g h t. P o lo n s k y ’s b o o k is a
m ost useful survey o f the tw o decades o f P olish independ ence. R o o s an d
R h o d e are tw o very fair-m in d ed surveys by G e r m a n writers.

D m o w sk i, R o m a n , M ysli now oczesnego Polaka ( L w ö w 1904).

F e ld m a n , J., Geschichte der politischen Ideen in Polen
seit dessen Teilungen ( M u n ic h 1917).
Kieniewicz, Stefan H istory o f P oland {W a r sa w 1968).
(editor-in-chief),

L ednicki, W ., Russia, P oland a n d the lie st: Essays in

Literary a n d C ultural H istory (1954).
Leslie, R. F., Polish Politics a n d the R evolution o f N o ­
vem ber 1830 (1956).

Leslie, R. F., R eform a n d Insurrection in Russian Po­

land (1963).
L ord, R. H., The S ec o n d Partition o f Poland ( C a m ­
bridge, M ass. 1915).

L u x e m b u rg , R o z a, Die industrielle E ntw icklung Polens (B er­

lin 1898).

Perl, Feliks, D zieje ruchu socjalistycznego w zaborze

rosyskim ( W a r s a w 1910).
P o lo n sk y , A n to n y , Politics in In dependent Poland 1921-1939
(1972).

R h o d e , G o tth o ld , Geschichte Polens ( D a r m s t a d t 1966).

R o o s , H a n s, A H istory o f M o d ern P oland (1966).
W a n d y cz , P io tr, The L ands o f P artitioned P oland 1795-
1918 (S eattle, W a sh . 1974).
518 Bibliography

The Habsburg Monarchy

In this section I have listed w o rk s relating to th e ‘N ationalitie s Q u e s tio n ’ in
the H a b s b u r g lan ds in the nine tee n th ce n tu ry , w hich are discussed in
n u m e ro u s sections o f this b o o k , especially in ch a p te rs six, seven a n d eight. I
have s e p a r a te d into subse ctio ns th o se w hich cove r the w ho le M o n a rc h y , or
its n o r th e r n a n d w estern provinces (conveniently k n o w n as ‘A u s tr ia ’), a n d
th o se w hich c o n c e n tra te o n the lands o f the k in g d o m o f H u n g a ry . In the
first subse ctio n th e classical w o rk s o f E is e n m a n n , Jä szi, P op ovici an d
Steed w ere very influential in their day. T h e m o re recent studies o f K an n ,
M a c a rtn e y , Valiani a n d Z w itte r are also m a jo r c o n trib u tio n s . N a m ie r ’s
essay o n 1848 is a small m asterpiece. T h e A ustrian H istory Year Book has
pub lish ed m a n y excellent articles. In the second subsection, S eto n -
W a ts o n ’s b o o k also h ad som e influence in its day. Jä s z i’s b o o k was a fine
a c h ie v em e n t, m o re v alu ab le p erh a p s th a n his la ter Dissolution. . . . T he
essays by Szekfti a re a selection fro m the w o rk of a great historian.
B a ra n y i’s b o o k is a fine recent w o rk o f sc h o larsh ip . K em eny did a g o o d jo b
in collecting d o c u m e n ts o f ‘N a tio n a litie s’ p r o b le m s in several languages.

(a) General

A ustrian H istory Year p ublished by Rice U niversity, T ex a s

B ook, ' (1964-72).

E ise n m a n n , L ouis, Le com prom is austro-hongrois (P aris

1904).

H a n ts c h , H u g o , D ie N ationalitätenfrage im alten Öster­

reich (V ien n a 1953).
Jäszi, O sk a r, The D issolution o f the H absburg M o n ­
archy (C h ic ag o , 111. 1929).

K an n , R o b e r t A., The M ulti-n ational E m pire , 2 vols (New

Y o rk 1950).

M a c a rtn e y , C. A., The H absburg E m pire 1790-1918 (1968).

N am ier, Sir Lewis, The R evo lt o f the Intellectuals (1946).
P opovici, A urel, D ie vereinigten Staaten von G ross-Öster­
reich (Leipzig 1906).

Steed, H. W ic k h a m , The H absburg M onarchy (1913).

Valiani, Leo, La dissoluzione dell’Austria-U ngheria
( M ila n o 1966).
 Bibliography 519

Z ö lln e r, E rich, Geschichte Österreichs (V ien n a 1966).

Z w itte r, F ra n , Les p roblèm es nationaux dans la m onar­
chie des H absbourg (B elg rad e 1960).

(b) Kingdom o f Hungary

B aran y i, G eorge, Stephen Széchényi and the A wakening

o f Hungarian Nationalism 1791-1841
(P rin c e to n , N .J. 1968).

E ö tv ö s, B aron J o se p h , Die Nationalitätenfrage (P e st 1865).

Jâs/.i, O szk â r,
K em ény, G â b o r (ed.),
A nem zeti âllam ok kialakulàsa èsan em ze-
tiségi kérdés (B u d ap e st 1912).
Iratok a nem zetiségi kérdés tôrténetéhez
M agyar orszàgon a Dualizmus korâban
vol. I 1867-92 (B u d ap e st 1952).

K o sâry, D o m o k o s, Kossuth Lajos a R eform korban ( B u d ap est

1946).

M a c a rtn e y , C. A ., Hungary (19-34).

M a c a rtn e y , C. A ., Hungary and her Successors (1935).

M o ln a r, E. (ed.), M agyarorszâg Tôrténete, 2 vols (B u d ap e st

1967).

S e to n -W a tso n , R. W ., Racial Problem s in Hungary (1908).

S zek fü , Ju le s, Etat et Nation (P a ris 1946).

Czechs and Slovaks

T h e w o rk s by S e to n -W a tso n a n d H a rriso n T h o m so n a re still th e best
g en e ral surveys in E nglish. M a sa ry k ’s w ar m em o irs a re an im p o rta n t
so u rce. T h e w o rk by P ich lik is a n a d m ira b le re c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e process
o f th e fo rm a tio n o f C z ec h o slo v a k ia, a fine ac h ie v em e n t o f C zech s c h o la r­
sh ip o f th e late 1960s, w hen sc h o la rsh ip w as possible. T h e w o rk o f th e
S lo v ak h isto ria n B utvin, o n a less c o n tro v e rs ia l su b je ct, is also o f high
q u ality . B ro ck ’s v a lu a b le stu d y o f th e in te lle c tu a l o rig in s o f th e S lo v ak
n a tio n a l m o v e m en t d id n o t a p p e a r u n til m y sectio n h ad b een w ritte n .

B ro ck , P ete r, The Slovak N ational Awakening (T o ro n to

1976).
520 Bibliography

B utvin, Jo z ef, Slovenské nârodno-zjednocovacie hnutie

(1780-1848) (B ratislav a 1965).
D ëjiny Ceskoslovenska, vol. 3, co v e rin g th e p erio d 1781-1918, ed.
B utvin, J ., a n d H a v ra n e k , J . (P ra g u e
1968).

Dëjiny Slovenska, vol. 2 (1848-1900), ed. L’u d o v it H o lo tik

a n d Ju liu s M ésâroS (B ratislav a 1968).

Ja n S a k , S te fa n , 2 iv o i Dr. Pavla Blahu, 2 vols (T rn a v a

1947).

L ip ta k , L’u b o m ir, Slovensko v 20. storoëi (B ra tisla v a 1968).

M a sa ry k , T. G ., The M aking o f a State (1927).
P ich lik , K arel, Zahranicni odh oj 1914-1918 bëz legend
(P ra g u e 1968).

S e to n -W a tso n , R. W ., A H istory o f the Czechs and Slovaks

(1944).

T h o m so n , S. H a rriso n , Czechoslovakia in European H istory

(P rin c e to n , N .J. 1944).

Eastern Europe—general
T h e fo llo w in g w o rk s co v e r several c o u n trie s o f th e w hole reg io n . O u ts ta n d ­
ing is th e classical w o rk b y S ir C h a rles E lio t o n th e B a lk a n s in th e la st stages
o f O tto m a n rule. S u g a r’s w o rk a p p e a re d a fte r I h ad fin ish ed w riting.

D jo rd jev ic, D im itrije, R évolutions nationales des peuples balka­

niques 1804-1914 (B elg rad e 1965).

E lio t, S ir C h a rles (‘O d y sseu s’), Turkey in Europe (1900).

K o larz , W a lte r, M yths an d Realities in Eastern Europe

(1946).

R o th sc h ild , Jo se p h , East Central Europe between the Two

W orld Wars (S e a ttle , W ash . 1975).

S e to n -W a tso n , H u g h , Eastern Europe between the Wars (C a m ­

b rid g e 1945).

S u g a r, P e te r, Southeastern Europe under O ttom an Rule

1354-1804 (S e a ttle , W ash . 1977).

W eber, E ugen, Varieties o f Fascism (P rin c e to n , N .J.

1964).
 Bibliography 521

Romania
R ik er’s stu d y o f th e b a c k g ro u n d , in g re a t p o w er d ip lo m ac y , to th e
fo rm a tio n o f th e R o m a n ia n sta te rem a in s in v a lu a b le , an d S e to n -W a ts o n ’s
gen eral survey h as n o t yet been rep laced in E nglish. H en ry R o b e rts ’s b o o k
covers a b ro a d a re a o f p o litica l a n d social d e v e lo p m e n t b etw een th e w o rld
w ars. All th e recent R o m a n ia n w o rk s cited here are useful c o n trib u tio n s:
o u ts ta n d in g a m o n g th e m is th e b o o k by P ro d a n . T h e c u rio u sly en title d
w o rk o f N ag y -T ala v era c o n ta in s in te re stin g in fo rm a tio n o n fascist m o v e­
m en ts in b o th R o m a n ia a n d H u n g ary .

B odea, C o rn e lia , The Rom anian Struggle f o r Unification

C o n s ta n tin e sc u , M iro n (ed.),
D ra g o m ir, S ilviu,
H itc h in s, K eith,
1834-1849 ( B ucarest 1970).
Desdvirsirea unificdrii statului national
roman (B u ca rest 1968).
Avram Iancu (B u ca rest 1965).
The Rumanian N ational M ovem ent in
Transylvania, /7 < W -/#4 9 (C am b rid g e,M ass.
1969).

Istoria Rom aniei, vol. 3, fro m sev en te en th c e n tu ry to 1848,

ed. A. O je te a (B u ca rest 1964).

Istoria Rom aniei, vol. 4, fro m 1848 to 1878, ed. P. C o n -

sta n tin e scu -la $ i (B u ca rest 1964).

N ag y -T ala v era, N. M ., The Green Shirts and the Others (S ta n fo rd ,

C alif. 1970).

N etea, V asile, Lupta R om anilor din Transilvania pentru

libertatea nafionala 1848-1881 (B u ca rest
1974).

O jetea , A n d re i, Tudor Vladimirescu (rev. ed ., B u carest

1971).

P ro d a n , D ., S upplex libellus valachorum (B u carest

1967).

R ik er, T . W ., The M aking o f Roum ania (O x fo rd 1931).

R o b e rts, H en ry , L .,
S av u , G .,
S e to n -W a tso n , R. W .,
Roumania: Political Problem s o f an
Agrarian S tate (N ew H av en , C o n n . 1951).
D ictatura regala (B u ca rest 1970).
A H istory o f the Roum anians (C a m b rid g e
1934).
522 Bibliography

Greece
D im a r a s ’s histo ry of m o d e r n G re ek lite ra tu re (o f w hich there is also a n
e d itio n in F re n c h ) is also a histo ry o f social a n d political ideas o f G reeks,
fro m th e tim e o f O t t o m a n d o m in a tio n u p to th e tw e n tie th century. His
se co n d w o rk listed here is a b rief b rilliant essay o n the eig h tee n th century.
T he j o in t b o o k by C a m p b e ll a n d S h e r r a r d is a c o m p re h e n siv e an d
perceptive survey. W o o d h o u s e ’s tw o b o o k s a re essential read ing, the
secon d being a b io g r a p h y o f o n e w h o was n o t only a G re ek n a tio n a l leader
b u t a n in te r n a tio n a l sta te sm an .

C a m p b e ll, J o h n , a n d M odern Greece (1968).

S h e r ra rd , Philip,

D im a ra s , K o n s ta n tin o s , Istoria tis neoellinikis logotekhnias ( A t h ­

ens 1948).

D im a ra s , K o n s ta n tin o s , La Grece au tem ps dea lumieres (G en eva

1969).

S kalieri, G. K., Laoi kai ph ylai tis M ikras Asias (A thens

1920).

W o o d h o u s e , C. M ., The Greek War o f Independence: Its His­

torical Setting (1952).
W o o d h o u s e , C. M ., Capodistria: The Founder o f Greek Inde­
pendence (1973).

Albania
T h e r e is one p io n e e rin g w o rk in English w h ich th r o w s light o n the
f o r m a tio n o f A lb a n ia n n a t io n a l consciousness:

S k en d i, S ta v r o , The Albanian N ational A wakening 1878-

1912 ( P r in c e to n , N .J. 1967).

Yugoslav problems
T h is list m ain ly com prises w o rk s co n c e rn e d w ith the tw e n tie th ce ntury
d ea lin g with the S o u th S lav p ro b le m u n d e r the H a b s b u r g s a n d the creation
o f Y ugoslavia. A n e x c ep tio n is C u b rilo v ic ’s survey o f ideas in Serbia
th r o u g h o u t the n ine tee n th c e n tury , a n d a n o t h e r is D u n c a n W ilso n ’s study
o f the p ion e er la nguage reform er. T h e collection o f S lo b o d a n Jovanovifc’n
 Bibliography 523

p o s th u m o u s essays includes tw o brillian t pieces relating to th e F irst W o rld

W a r (o n PaSic a n d o n Dim itrijevic-Apis). F o r the m o d e r n Y ugoslavia since
1945 I have included only tw o views by A m e r ic a n w riters— S h o u p a n d
R u s in o w , o f w h o m b o th are a c u te o bservers b u t the second is the better.
E lizabeth B a rk e r’s sm all b o o k is still u n s u rp a ss e d as a brief survey o f the
M a c e d o n ia n p ro b lem , t h o u g h a vast specialised literature exists.

B arker, E lizabeth, M acedonia: Its Place in Balkan Politics

(1950).

B oban , L jubo, Macek i p o litik a H SS 1928-1941, 2 vols

(Z a g re b 1974).

B o ba n, L jubo, Sporazum C vetkovic-M acek (Belgrade

1965).

Clissold, S tep h e n (ed.), A Short H istory o f Yugoslavia ( C a m b rid g e

1966).

C ubrilovic, Vasa, P o litiika m isao u Srbiji X IX veka (Bel­

gra d e 1958).

D jordjevic, D imitrije, M ilovan M iloyanovic (Belgrade 1962).

G ross, M irja n a , Vladavina hrvatsko-srpske koalicije 1906-

G ross, M irja n a,
H adzijahic, M u h a m e d ,
J a n k o v ic , D.,
1907 (B elgrade 1960).
Povijest p ra v a ik e id eo logije ( Z a g r e b 1973).
O d tradicije do identiteta (S a ra jev o 1974).
Jugoslovensko pitanje i Krfska deklaracija
(B elgrade 1967).

J a n k o v ic , D., Srbija i jugosloven sko pitanje 1914-1915

(B elgrade 1973).

J a n k o v ic , D., a n d Gradje o stvaranju jugoslovenske d rta ve,

K rizm a n , B. (ed.), 2 vols (B elgrade 1964).

Jo v a n o v ic , S lo b o d a n , M oji savrem enici (W in d s o r , O n ta r io

1962).

M a rk o v ic , S v eto z ar, Srbija na istoku (first published in 1872)

(Z a g r e b 1946).

P u riv a tr a , Atif, Nacionalni i p o litick i razvitak M uslimana

(S a ra je v o 1969).

R u s in o w , D en is o n , Titoism 1948-1974: The Yugoslav Experi­

m ent (1977).
524 Bibliography

Sepie, D ra g o v a n , Pisma i m em orandum i Frana Supila

(1914-1917) ( Belgrade 1967).

Sepic, D ra g o v a n , Supilo Diploma! ( Z a g r e b 1961).

Sepic, D ra g o v a n ,
S e to n - W a ts o n , H. a n d C.,
B o b a n , L., G ross, M .,
K riz m a n , B., an d SSpic, D.,
Italija, Saveznici i jugoslavensko pitanje
1914-1918 ( Z a g r e b 1970).
R. W. Seton-W atson and the Yugoslavs:
Correspondence 1906-1941, 2 vols (Za-
greb a n d L o n d o n 1976).

S e to n - W a ts o n , R. W., The South Slav Question (1911).

S h o u p , Paul, Com m unism and the Yugoslav National
Question (N ew Y o rk 1968).

S id ak , J., G ross, M ., Povijest hrvatskog naroda g. 1860-1914

K a r a m a n , I., a n d Sepic, D., (Z a g re b 1968).

W ilson, Sir D u n c a n , The Life and Times o f Vuk Stefanovic

Karadzic 1787-1864 (O x f o r d 1970).
Zeöevic, MomCilo, Slovenska ljudska stranka ijugoslovensko
ujedinjenje (B elgrade 1973).
Z w itte r, F ra n , ‘Sloven ski politiöni p r e r o d X IX stoletja v
o k v iru e v ro p sk e n a c io n a ln e p ro b le m a tik e ’,
in Z godovinski casopis (L jub ljana), vol.
X V III (1964), 75-153.

R ussia

M o st o f the follow ing w o rk s are eith er solely or o v erw helm ingly concerned
w ith th e p erio d in w hich, in m y view, R u s sia n n a t io n a l consciousness was
being f o rm e d , t h a t is, u p to the en d o f the e ig h tee n th ce ntury. I have not
a t te m p te d to m a k e even a s h o rt list o f w o rk s o n n in e te e n th a n d tw entieth
c e n tu ry Russia.

C h e re p n in , L. V., O brazovanie russkovo tsentralizovannovo

gosudarstva v 14-15 vekakh (M oscow
1960).

Fennell, J. L. I., Ivan the Great o f M oscow (1961).

F lo rin sk y , M ichael T., Russia: A H istory and an Interpretation,!
vols (N ew York 1953).

Keep, J. L. H.,
K ly uchevsky, V. O.,
K ly uchevsky, V. O.,
P h ilipp, W e rner,
Philipp, W e rner,
Pipes, R ic h a rd (ed.),
Pipes, R ic h a rd ,
Raeff, M a rc ,
Raeff, M a rc ,
R iasa n o v sk y , N icholas,
R ogger, H an s,
S puler, Bertold,
S u m n e r , B. H.,
V ern ad sk y , G eorge,
V ern ad sk y , G eorge,
V ernadsky, G eorge,
Bibliography 525
‘R ussia 1613-1645’, c h a p te r X IX (2) o f The
New Cam bridge M odern H istory, vol. IV
(1970).
K urs ru ssk o y istorii, 5 vols (1904-1921,
rep rin te d M o s c o w 1937).
vol. 4, tr a n sla te d by Lilian A rch ib a ld
(1958).
‘Russia: T he Beginning o f W e ste rn isa ­
tio n ’, c h a p te r X X V o f The New Cam bridge
M odern H istory, vol. V (1969).
‘Die g ed a n k lic h e B e g rü n d u n g d e r M o s k a u ­
er A u to k r a ti e bei ihrer E n ts te h u n g 1458-
1522’ in Forschungen zur osteuropäischen
Geschichte, vol. 15 (Berlin 1970).
K aram zin’s M em öire on Ancient and
M odern Russia (R u ssian te x t a n d English
tra n s la tio n , H a r v a r d 1954).
Russia under the O ld Regim e (1974).
M ichael Speransky: Statesm an o f Im pe­
rial Russia 1772-1839 ( H a g u e 1961).
Origins o f the Russian Intelligentsia (New
Y o rk 1966).
A H istory o f Russia (N ew Y ork 1963).
N ational Consciousness in Eighteenth
Century Russia ( C a m b rid g e , M ass. I960).
Die goldene H orde (Leipzig 1943).
Survey o f Russian H istory (1944).
The M ongols and Russia (N ew H aven ,
C o n n . 1953).
Russia at the D awn o f the M odern Age
(N ew H av e n , C o n n . 1959).
The Tsardom o f M oscow 1547-1682, 2 vols
(N ew H av e n , C o n n . 1969).
526 Bibliography

U k ra in e

T h e fo llow ing b o o k s refer to v ario u s p erio ds in the histo ry o f th e U kraine,

f ro m a U k r a in ia n r a th e r t h a n a R u s sia n s ta n d p o in t. S o m e o f the w orks
listed below u n d e r European Empires also tr e a t U k ra in ia n p r o b le m s at
so m e length. T h ere is also m a teria l o n G alician U k ra in ia n s in volu m es of
the Austrian H istory Year Book (see Habsburg M onarchy).

A rm s tr o n g , J o h n A., Ukrainian Nationalism 1939-1945 (New

Y ork 1955).

D z y u b a , Ivan, Internationalism or Russification? (1968).

H ru sh ev sk y , M ichael, A H istory o f Ukraine (N ew H av e n , C onn.
1941).

H ru s h ev sk y , M ichael, Abrégé de l ’histoire de l'Ukraine (Paris

1920).

L uckyj, G eorge S. N., Literary Politics in the S oviet Ukraine

(New Y ork 1956).

M a z e p a , I., Ukraina v vogni i buri revolyutsii, 3 vols,

‘P r o m e th e u s ’ (?A u g sb u rg 1950).

R e sh e ta r, J o h n S., The Ukrainian Revolution (P rinceton,

N .J. 1952).

S tö k l, G ü n th e r , Die Entstehung des K osakentum s (M unich

1953).

U n ite d S tate s

All th e follow in g have bee n sources o f e n lig h te n m e n t to me; b u t I will si i es*

in p a r tic u la r the w o rk s o f R ic h a rd H o fs ta d te r an d D avid P o tte r , w ho w e re
n o t only a d m ir e d colleagues b u t p e r so n a l friends. R e tu r n in g to th eir
w ritings f r o m tim e to tim e I d o n o t fail to find fresh w isd o m , a n d to feel the
bitter loss o f the m e n w h o w ro te them .

Bailyn, B e rn a rd , The Ideological Origins o f the American

R evolution (C a m b rid g e , M a ss. 1967).

Bailyn, B ernard, The Ordeal o f Thomas H utchinson (Cum

bridge, Mass. 1974).

Brow n, Dee,
C a sh , W. J.,
C o u lte r, E. M e rto n ,
C rav e n , A very,
D o lla rd , J.,
D u b o is, W. E. B.,
Elkins, S tanle y M .,
F ra n k lin , J o h n H o p e ,
F razier, F ra n k lin ,
G enovese, E u gene D.,
H an d lin , O scar,
H o fs ta d te r, R ic h a rd ,
H o fs tad te r, R ic h a rd ,
H o fs ta d te r , R ic h a rd ,
H o fs ta d te r, R ic h a rd ,
J o n e s, M a ld w y n Allen,
Key, V. O.,
K o h n , H a n s,
L incoln, G. Eric,
M o r is o n , S. E., a n d
C o m m a g e r , H. S.,
Bibliography 527
Bury M y Heart at W ounded Knee ( \ 91\ ).
The M in d o f the South (N ew Y o rk 1956).
The South during R econstruction 1865-
1877 ( L o u isia n a S tate U niversity 1947).
The G rowth o f Southern Nationalism
1848-1861 (L o u is ia n a S tate University
1953).
Caste an d Class in a Southern Town (New
Y ork 1957).
The Souls o f Black Folk (C h ic ag o , 111.
1903).
Slavery (N ew Y ork 1959).
Reconstruction after the Civil IL'ar(C hica­
go, 111. 1961).
From Slavery to Freedom: A H istory o f
Negro Am ericans (3rd ed., New Y ork
1969).
The W orld the Slaveholders M ade (N ew
Y ork 1971).
The U prooted (N ew Y ork 1951).
The A ge o f Reform: From Brvan to F. D. R.
(N ew Y o rk 1955).
The Progressive Historians: Turner,
Beard, Parrington (N ew Y ork 1968).
The Idea o f a Party System (Berkeley an d
L os A ngeles, Calif. 1970).
Am erica at 1750: A Social Portrait (1972).
American Im m igration (N ew Y o rk 1950).
Southern Politics (N e w Y o rk 1957).
American Nationalism (N ew Y o rk 1957).
The Black M uslim s in Am erica (N ew Y ork
1971).
The Growth o f the American R epublic , 2
vols (1942).
528 Bibliography

M o riso n , S. E., The O xford H istory o f Am erica, vols 1 an d

2 (N ew Y o rk 1965).

M y rd a l, G u n n a r, An Am erican Dilem m a: The Negro

Problem an d M odern D em ocracy (N ew
Y o rk 1944).

N o v a k , M ichael, The Rise o f the Unmeltable Ethnics (N ew

Y o rk 1971).

P o le, J. R ., Foundations o f American Independence

1763-1815 (1972).
P o tte r, D av id , People o f Plenty (C h ic ag o , 111. 1954).
P o tte r, D av id , The South and the Sectional Conflict
(L o u isia n a S ta te U n iv ersity 1968).

P o tte r , D av id , H istory an d Am erican Society (N ew Y ork

1973).

P o tte r, D av id , The Im pending Crisis (N ew Y o rk 1976).

S ta m p p , K en n eth M .,
S ta m p p , K en n eth M .,
W a sh in g to n , B o o k e r T .,
W o o d w a rd , C. V an,
The Peculiar Institution (1964).
The Era o f R econstruction (1965).
Up fro m Slavery (N ew Y o rk 1900).
Origins o f the New South 1877-1913 (L o u i­
sia n a S ta te U n iv ersity 1951).

Spanish America
T h e w o rk s o n th is list a re o f u neven q u ality . O u ts ta n d in g a re th e b o o k by
L ynch, a n excellent p ic tu re o f th e in d e p en d e n ce stru g g le , b ased o n sources
o ld a n d new , an d th e tw o by S te p h e n C lissold, w hose a d m ira b le clarity of
style a n d w ea lth o f k n o w led g e offer th e in te reste d n o n -sp ec ialist so m u ch o f
w h a t he w ishes to kn o w . A n d re sk i’s b o o k is a b rillia n tly p ro v o cativ e
an a ly sis, w hich u n fo rtu n a te ly seem ed to a ro u s e a m o n g sp ecialists m ore
rig h te o u s in d ig n a tio n th a n w illingness to discuss se rio u s issues. V ictor
A lb a ’s surv ey o f M e x ica n social ideas is also a fine piece o f h isto ric al an d
p o litica l e x p la n a tio n . H av in g b een e n c o u ra g e d , by frie n d s w h o a re L atin
A m e ric a n specialists, to su p p le m e n t th e u n ev e n h isto ric a l seco n d ary
lite ra tu re by so m e w o rk s o f im a g in a tiv e lite ra tu re , 1 n o t o n ly fo u n d this
w o rth w h ile b u t feel th a t I sh o u ld in clu d e so m e o f th ese. O u tsta n d in g from
th e p o in t o f view o f th e su b je ct o f th is b o o k is Los rios profundos.

(a) History, political and social studies
A lba, V ictor,
A le x a n d e r, R o b e rt J .,
A le x a n d e r, R o b e rt J .,
A n d re sk i, S tanislav,
B o u rrica u d , F ra n ço is,
C h a n g -R o d rig u e z , E ug enio,
Cline, H o w a r d F.,
C lissold, S tep h e n ,
Clissold, S tep h e n ,
De Avila, F. B.,
Di T elia, T o r c u a t o ,
G e rm a n i, G in o ,
G ra c ia re n a , Jorge,
H ay a de la T o rre ,
V ictor R aul,
H u m p h r e y s , R. A.,
K a n to r , H .,
Linke, Lilo,
L ynch, J o h n ,
M a rià te g u i, J o s é C a rlos,
Bibliography 529
Las ideas sociales contem poraneas en
M exico (M e x ic o C ity 1960).
The Perôn Era (N ew Y o rk 1951).
The Bolivian N ational R evolution ( W a s h ­
ingto n, D .C . 1965).
Parasitism a n d Subversion (1966).
Pouvoir et société dans le Pérou contem po­
rain ( P a ris 1967).
La literatura p olitico de G onzalez Prado,
M ariàtegui y Haya de la Torre (M ex ic o
C ity 1957).
M exico: R evolution to Evolution 1940-
1960 (1962).
Latin America: A Cultural Outline (1965).
Latin Am erica: New World, Third W orld
(1972).
Im m igration into Latin Am erica (Secre­
ta ria t G en e ra l, O .A . S., W a sh in g to n , D .C .
1964).
Argentina, sociedad de masas (B uenos
Aires 1965).
Treinta anos de A prism o (M e x ic o City
1956).
The E volution o f M odem Latin Am erica
(1946).
The Ideology a n d Program o f the Peruvian
A P R A M ovem ent (Berkeley an d Los A n ­
geles, Calif. 1953).
Ecuador, C ountry o f Conquests (I960).
The Spanish Am erican R evolutions 1808-
1826 ( 1973).
Siete ensayos de interpretaciôn de la reali-
d a d Peruana ( L im a 1952).
530 Bibliography

P en d le, G eorge, Argentina (3rd ed. 1963).

R o b e rtso n , W illiam
S p en ce,
S a la z a r B ondy, S e b a stia n ,
S an ch e z, L u is-A lb e rto ,
The Rise o f the Spanish-Am erican Repub-
lies (N ew Y o rk 1918).
Lima, la horrible (M ex ic o C ity 1964).
El Peru: retrato de un pais adolescente
(B u en o s A ires 1958).

S ilva H erzog, Je su s, Breve historia de la revolut ion m exicana , 2

vols (M ex ic o C ity 1960).

W olff, E ric R ., Sons o f the Shaking Earth (C h ic ag o , 111.

1954).

(b) Literature or literary history, relevant to national, racial and social

problem s

A leg ria, C iro , El m undo es ancho y ajeno (M ex ic o City

1957).

A rg u e d a s, A lcides, Raza de bronce (B u en o s A ires 1945).

A rg u e d as, Jo sé M a ria , Los rios profundos (B u en o s A ires 1958).
A rg u e d as, Jo s é M a ria , Todas las sangres, 2 vols (B u en o s A ires
1970).

F ra n c o , J e a n , Introduction to Latin Am erican Culture

(C a m b rid g e 1969).

F u en te s, C a rlo s, La m uerte de A rtem io Cruz (M ex ico City

1962).

G a rc ia M a rq u e z , G ab rie l, Cien anos de soledad (B u en o s A ires 1971).

S p o ta , L uis, Casi un paraiso (M e x ic o C ity 1956).
V argas L lo sa, M a rio , La ciudad y los perros (B a rc e lo n a 1965).

Canada
A p p ro x im a te ly h a lf o f th e fo llo w in g w o rk s a re h isto ric a l stu d ies a n d hall
p o litica l polem ics. In th e first c a te g o ry o n e m ay m o st stro n g ly recom m cnil
th e w o rk s o f C re ig h to n a n d W ade; in th e seco n d , th o se o f C o o k , G ra n t and
R io u x .
 Bibliography 531

B a rb e au , R a y m o n d , J ’ai choisi l’indépendance ( O t ta w a 1961).

C h a p u t, M a rc el, Pourquoi je suis séparatiste ( M o n tr e a l
1961).

C o o k , R a m sa y , The M aple L eaf f o r Ever: Essays on Na­

tionalism an d Politics in Canada ( T o r o n to
1971).

C re ig h to n , D o n a ld , John A. M acdonald, 2 vols ( T o r o n t o 1952

a n d 1955).

C re ig h to n , D o n a ld , Canada’s First Century 1867-1967 ( T o r o n ­

to 1970).

G r a n t, G eorg e, Lament f o r a Nation: The Defeat o f Ca­

nadian Nationalism ( T o r o n t o / M o n t r e a l
1970).

H arvey, J e a n Charles, Pourquoi j e suis anti-séparatiste ( M o n tr e a l

1962).

Q u in n , H e rb e rt F., The Union Nationale: A S tu dy in Quebec

N ationalism ( T o r o n t o 1963).

R io u x , M arcel, a n d French Canadian Society, vol. 1( T o r o n -

M a rtin , Yves (eds.) t o / M o n t r e a l 1971).

R io u x , M arcel, Quebec in Question (1971).

W a d e, M a so n , The French Canadians 1760-1967, 2 vols
( T o r o n to 1968).

W ro n g , G. M., Canada an d the Am erican Revolution

( T o r o n to a n d New Y ork 1935).

Australia
O f this s h o r t list, the o u ts t a n d in g histo rical w o rk s a re th e classic by
H a n c o c k a n d the later one o f M a n n in g C la r k , w h o has since published
m o r e detailed volum es. As ex a m p le s o f intelligent c o n t e m p o r a r y j o u r n a l ­
ism o f th e ir tim e, th e b o o k s by H o r n e a n d Pringle are o f high quality.

C o le m a n , P e te r (ed.), Australian Civilisation ( M e lb o u r n e 1962).

C la rk , C. M a n n in g H ., A Short H istory o f A ustralia (1964).
H a n c o c k , W. K., Australia (3rd ed.) (B risban e 1961).
H o rn e , D o n a ld , The Lucky Country: Australia in the Six­
ties (1964).
532 Bibliography

P rin g le, J o h n D o u g las Australian A ccent (1958).

W a rd , R ussell, The Australian L egen d {M e lb o u rn e 1958).

The Jews, anti-semitism and Israel

T h ese have been useful to me. T w o a re o u ts ta n d in g — th e essay by Bibo an d
th e m e m o irs o f W e izm an n . L a q u e u r’s h isto ry is an a c c o m p lish e d su rv ey of
a large su b ject, an d C h ris to p h e r S ykes’s s tu d y is sen sitiv e a n d fair-m in d ed .
T h e o th e rs c o n ta in p le n ty o f in fo rm a tio n , in c lu d in g th e tw o an ti-sem itic
w o rk s o f S c h ic k e rt a n d S ch u ste r. A very larg e p a rt o f m y so u rces has
c o n siste d o f article s, w h e th e r in fo rm a tiv e o r p o le m ic a l, o v er th e years,
w hich c a n n o t be listed here.

B ibo, Istv an , ‘A z sid ö k erd es M a g y a ro rs z a g o n ’, w ritten

in 1948, p u b lis h e d in Harmadik ut (I960).

E lo n , A m o s, The Israelis: Founders an d Sons (1971).

F ru m k in , Ya. G . (ed.), Russian Jew ry 1860-1917 (N ew Y ork
1966).

G re e n b e rg , L ouis, The Jews in Russia , 2 v o ls (N ew H aven,

C o n n . 1951-53).

L a q u e u r, W a lte r, A H istory o f Zionism (1972).

P u lz e r, P e te r, The Rise o f Political A nti-Sem itism in

Germany and A ustria (1964).
S c h ic k e rt, K ., Die Judenfrage in Ungarn (B erlin 1937).
S c h u ste r, H a n s, Die Judenfrage in Rum änien (L eipzig
1939).

S egre, V. D ., Israel: A S ociety in Transition (1971).

S ykes, C h risto p h e r, Crossroads to Israel (1965).

W e iz m an n , C h a im , Trial and Error (1949).

The Muslim world

(a) General history

I remember with gratitude the two books of Brockelmann and Hitti, from
which I obtained my first elementary knowledge of Islamic history when
wur took me for the first time to Muslim lands They muy now both be
 Bibliography 533

o u td a te d , b u t they were ex citing a n d stim u la tin g to a beginner. T h e tw o

v olum e s o f the C a m b r id g e H isto ry e m b o d y m o r e recent a n d d ee per
sc h o larsh ip , th o u g h no t all c o n trib u tio n s are o f eq u a l quality.

B ro c k e lm a n n , Karl, Geschichte der islamischen Volker und

Staaten (Leipzig 1939).
Cam bridge H istory o f Islam , 2 vols ( C a m b rid g e 1970).
H itti, Philip, The Arabs: A Short H istory (1948).

(b) M odern Arab nationalism

A n to n iu s ’s b o o k is a classic a p o lo g y fo r A r a b n a tio n a lism in its early,

c o m p a ra tiv e ly liberal phase. H o u r a n i ’s b o o k is a m o re recent a n d m ore
scholarly w o rk covering s o m e of the sam e g r o u n d b u t also e x p lo rin g m ore
th o r o u g h ly th e historical origins. T h e first b o o k by K e do urie here listed is
a n original a n d irreverent stu d y o f tw o idols o f M u slim an ti-W es tern ism ,
the second a collection o f brilliant essays, o f w hich th e m o st im p o r ta n t
f ro m the po in t o f view o f m y subject is th e c h a p te r o n Z aghlul. B ernard
Lewis’s s h o r t b o o k rem a in s a brilliantly relev ant in te rp re ta tio n . Sylvia
H a im ’s a n t h o lo g y c o n ta in s a fine selection o f rheto ric w ith a p e n e tra tin g
in tro d u c tio n .

A n to n iu s, G eorge, The Arab A w akening (1939).

C o lo m b e , J., L ’évolution de / ’Egypte ( P a ris 1951).

H aim , Sylvia G. (ed.), Arab Nationalism: An A nthology (YlerY.z-
ley a n d Los Angeles, Calif. 1964).

H o u ra n i, A lbert, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age 1789-

1939 ( 1962).

H usaini, Ishak M usa, The M oslem Brotherhood (B eirut 1956).

Issawi, Charles, Egypt at M id-century (1954).

Ju lien, C h arles, L'Afrique du n ord en marche ( P a ris 1952).

K edourie, Elie,
K ed ourie , Elie,
K h a d d u r i, M ajid,
K h a d d u r i, M ajid,
K h a d d u r i, M ajid,
Afghani and A bduh (1966).
The Chatham House Version (1970).
Independent Iraq (1951).
Republican Iraq (1969).
P olitical Trends in the A rab W orld(B alti-
m o re, M d. 1970).
534 Bibliography

Lew is, B e rn a rd , The A rabs in H istory (1950).

N asser, G a m a l A b d el, E g yp t’s Liberation (W a sh in g to n , D .C .
1955).

Iran
T h e tw o volu m es so fa r p u b lish ed o f th e Cam bridge H istory c o n ta in th e
resu lts o f m o d e rn sc h o la rsh ip on th e first c e n tu ries o f Islam ic Ira n . A v ery ’s
b o o k is a useful th o u g h slightly d iso rd e rly co llec tio n o f in fo rm a tio n .
B ro w n e’s s tu d y is a n in d isp en sib le classic. L a m b to n ’s b o o k is n o t d irectly
co n c ern ed w ith n a tio n a lism , b u t th ro w s light o n th e so cial realities fro m
w hich it em erged. K a sra v i’s e n o rm o u s w o rk on th e c o n s titu tio n a l m o v e­
m e n t, o f w hich I h av e read a large p a rt b u t n o t all, has been very
illu m in a tin g .

A very, P e te r, M odern Iran (1965).

B row ne, E. G ., The Persian Revolution (C a m b rid g e 1910).
Cam bridge H istory o f Iran, vol. 4: The p e rio d fro m the Arab invasion
to the Saljuqs, ed. R. N. F ry e (1975).

Cam bridge H istory o f Iran, vol. 5: The Saljuq and M ongol periods, ed.
J. A. Boyle (1968).

K asrav i, A ., Tarikh-i-m ashrutiyat dar Iran (T e h ra n

1961-62).

L a m b to n , A n n K. S ., L andlord and Peasant in Persia (1953).

The Turks
T h e m o st useful single b o o k o n th is list is B e rn a rd L ew is’s h isto ry , cov erin g
th e n in e te e n th a n d tw e n tie th ce n tu ries. In a lc ik ’s w o rk o n th e g o ld en age of
th e O tto m a n s is a fine p ro d u c t o f m o d e rn T u rk ish sc h o la rsh ip . T h e b o o k s
by B ennigsen a n d Q u elq u e ja y a n d by Z e n k o v sk y m ig h t h av e b een p laced in
th e section o n E u ro p e a n em p ires, b u t seem to m e ra th e r to b elo n g here,
since th ey a re rele v an t to th e h isto ry o f T u rk ish n a tio n a l co n scio u sn ess:
b o th a re o f high q u a lity , th e first th e b e tte r o f th e tw o . T h e m e m o irs of
A y d em ir are a tru ly fa sc in a tin g a c c o u n t o f th e h o p es, su fferin g s, p o litical
e d u c a tio n an d ev o lu tio n o f a y o u n g P a n tu r a n ia n w h o b ecam e a K em alist.

A yd em ir, $ cv k e t S llrey y a, Suyu arayan adam (A n k a ra 1959).

 Bibliography 535

Bennigsen, A le x a n d re , a n d Les m ouvem ents nationaux chez les

Q uelque ja y, C h a n ta i, m usulm ans de Russie (T he H a g u e 1960).

G ô k a lp , Ziya Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilisa-

(ed. Niyazi Berkes), tion (1959).

H eyd, Uriel, Foundations of Turkish Nationalism

(1950).

Inalcik, Halil, The O ttom an Empire: The Classical age:

1300-1600 (1972).
K a r p a t, Kem al, Turkey's Politics (P r in c e to n , N .J. 1959).

K inross, L ord, A tatiirk: The Rebirth o f a Nation (1964).

Lewis, B ernard, The Emergence o f M odern Turkey (1961)
M a n g o , A n d re w , Turkey, A D elicately Poised A lly ( W a s h ­
in g ton, D .C . 1975),

Z en k o v sk y , S. A., Pan-Turkism and Islam in Russia ( C a m ­

bridge, M ass. 1960).

European empires
O f the follow ing w o rk s, L enin’s has u n d o u b te d ly been the m o s t influential,
t h o u g h as a d iag nosis o f the p h e n o m e n o n it can h a rd ly be reg a rd e d as
sufficient in the f o u rth q u a r te r o f th e tw entieth century. It is p e r h a p s w o rth
singling o u t th ree of the o th e rs — L a n d e s ’s fasc inating case stu d y o f Egypt,
the r e c o n sid e ra tio n o f e m p ire in A frica by G a n n a n d D u ig n a n , a n d Philip
M a s o n ’s pion e erin g a t te m p t to an a lyse the d o m in a n c e o f n a tio n over
n a tio n o n th e b r o a d e s t scale.

Bennigsen, A le x a n d r e , a n d Islam in the Soviet Union (1967).

L em ercier-Q uelquejay,
C h a n ta i,

B runschw ig, H enri, La colonisation française ( P a ris 1949).

C o n q u e s t, R o b e rt, The Nation-killers (1970).
D uffy, Ja m e s , Portugal in Africa (1962).

G a n n , L. H ., a n d The Burden o f Empire: A n A ppraisal of

D u ig n a n , P eter, Western Colonisation in Africa South of
the Sahara ( S ta n fo r d , Calif. 1971).
K olarz , W alter, Russia an d Her Colonies (1952).
536 Bibliography

L an d es, D av id S ., Bankers and Pashas: International Fi­

nance and Economic Imperialism in Egypt
(N ew Y o rk 1958).

L enin, V. I., Imperialism (w ritten 1917, n u m e ro u s ed i­

tio n s in E nglish).

M a so n , P h ilip , Patterns o f D om inance (1970).

M iller, J . D. B., The C om m onwealth in the W orld (1958).
P e rh a m , M arg ery , Lugard , 2 vols (1956 a n d 1960).
P ipes, R ic h a rd E., The Form ation o f the Soviet Union (C a m ­
bridge, M ass. 1954).

R o b in so n , R o n a ld , an d Africa an d the Victorians: The Official

G allag h e r, J o h n , M ind o f Imperialism (1961).
S e to n -W a tso n , H u g h , ‘N a tio n a lism an d Im p e ria lism ’ in The Im­
p a ct o f the Russian R evolution , ed. A rn o ld
J . T o y n b e e (1967).

T h o rn to n , A. P ., The Im perial Idea and its Enemies (1959).

W heeler, G eoffrey, The M odern H istory o f Soviet Central
Asia (1964).
W illia m so n , Ja m e s A ., A Short H istory o f British Expansion
(1934).

South-east Asia
T h e fo llo w in g c o n ta in p le n ty o f in fo rm a tio n o n th e v a rio u s, very d ifferen t,
c o u n trie s o f so u th -e a st A sia, to w hich 1 have d e v o te d very little sp ace in th is
b o o k . I have fo u n d p a rtic u la rly illu m in a tin g W a n g G u n g -w u ’s sh o rt b u t
a d m ira b ly clea r essay o n th e C hinese overseas, H u n te r ’s su rv ey o f the
w hole reg io n , a n d B o u sq u e t’s stu d y o f th e e a rliest stag es o f M u slim
n a tio n a lism in Ja v a . D evillers’s b o o k gives a g o o d a c c o u n t o f th e d ev e lo p ­
m en t o f a n ti-c o lo n ia l n a tio n a lism in In d o c h in a a n d th e rise o f V ietm in h
a n d V ietnam ese c o m m u n ism . N o n e o f th e vast lite ra tu re o n th e rig h ts an d
w ro n g s o f th e V ietn am w ar, a n d o f its echo es in U n ite d S ta te s politics
(som e o f w hich in b o o k fo rm a n d in n e w sp a p e r article s h as, in ev itab ly ,
co m e m y w ay), h as an y place in th is b ib lio g ra p h y .

B o u sq u et, G ., La politiq u e m usulmane et coloniale des

Pays-Bas (P a ris 1939).
 Bibliography 537

C a rlso n , Sevinc, Malaysia: The Search f o r N ational Unity

and E conom ic Growth ( W a s h in g to n , D .C .
1975).

C o u g h lin , R ic h a rd J., D ouble Identity: The Chinese in M odern

Thailand ( H o n g k o n g 1960).
Devillers, P., H istoire du Vietnam de 1940 ä 1952 (P a ris
1952).

Feith, H e rb e rt, The Decline o f C onstitutional D em ocracy

in Indonesia (Ith a c a , N.Y. 1962).
G ulick, J. M., M alaya (1963).
Hall, D. G. E., A H istory o f South-East Asia (3rd ed.
1968).

H u n te r , G uy, South-East Asia: Race, Culture and Na­

tion (1966).

K ahin, G. M cT. Nationalism and Revolution in Indonesia

(N ew Y o rk 1952).

T in k e r, H u g h , The Union o f Burma (1957).

W a n g G u n g -w u , A Short H istory o f The Nanyang Chinese
(S in g a p o re 1959).

W ilson, Dick, The Future o f Singapore (1972).

India and Pakistan

F r o m this list 1 w o u ld stress the w o rk s o f R o m ila T h a p a r (a s u m m a r y of
p r e - m o d e r n I n d ia n history); Seal a n d J u d i t h B ro w n o n the n a tio n a l
m o v e m e n t before in d ependence; N a g a r on lan g u ag e policy a f te r i n d e p e n ­
dence; a n d Brass o n n a tio n a lism in the 1960s, especially in the P u n ja b .
K a u ts k y ’s b o o k w as a pion e erin g stu d y n o t o nly o f I n d ia n c o m m u n is m bu t
o f th e p ro b le m s o f c o m m u n is ts in a n y c o u n t r y o f ‘u n d e r d e v e lo p e d ’ social
stru c tu re a n d m ultilingual p o p u la tio n . T in k e r ’s is th e first v o lu m e o f a
detailed stu d y o f overseas Indians.

Aziz, A h m a d , Islamic M odernism in India an d Pakistan

(1967).

Brass, P aul, Language, Religion and Politics in North

India (1975).
538 Bibliography

Brown, Judith M., Gandhi's Rise to Power: Indian Politics

1915-1922 (Cambridge 1972).

Fickett, Lewis P., ‘The politics of regionalism in India’ in

Pacific Affairs XLIV/2 (Summer 1971).
Franda, Marcus F., R adical Politics in West Bengal (Cam­
bridge, Mass. 1971).
Kautsky, John H., M oscow an d the Com m unist Party o f
India (New York 1956).
Misra, B. B., The Indian M iddle Classes: Their Growth
in M odern Times (1961).

Nagar, Balder Raj, N ational C om m unication an d Language

Policy in India (New York 1969).

Rawlinson, H. G., India: A Short Cultural H istory (1943).

Rounaq, Jahan, Pakistan: Failure in N ational Integration
(New York 1972).
Seal, Anil, The Emergence o f Indian Nationalism
(Cambridge 1968).
Spear, Sir Percival, A H istory o f India (vol. 2—since 1526)
(1966).
Thapar, Romila, A H istory o f India (v ol.1—to 1526) (1966).
Tinker, Hugh, A New System o f Slavery (1974).
Watson, J. H. Adam, The War o f the G oldsm ith’s Daughter
(1964).
Weiner, Myron T., The Politics o f Scarcity: Public Pressure
and Political Response in India (Chicago,
111. 1962).
Weiner, Myron T., P arty-building in a New Nation: The Indi­
an N ational Congress (Chicago, 111. 1967).

Zinkin, Taya, India Changes (1958).

China
The joint work of Fairbank, Reischauer and Craig seems to an interested
non-specialist to be an admirable combination of factual exposition and
interpretation. Wittfogcl has a place among the great Western scholars
 Bibliography 539

o f C h in ese civ ilisatio n . T he b o o k s by G rie d e r, H u an g , a n d M eisn er place

th ree lead in g C h in ese th in k e rs o f m o d e rn tim es in th e ir h isto ric a l setting.
M a ry W rig h t is a n illu m in a tin g guide to p o st-T a ip in g c o n s e rv a tism , C h o w
T se-tu n g to th e y o u n g n a tio n a list ra d ic a ls o f 1919, a n d B en jam in S ch w artz
to a decisive p erio d in th e em ergence o f C h in ese co m m u n ism . O n e c a n n o t
read th e th re e sh o rt reflective volu m es o f L ev en so n w ith o u t b itterly feeling
th e trag ically p re m a tu re loss o f so p ro m isin g a sch o lar.

B alazs, E tie n n e, Chinese Civilisation an d Bureaucracy

(N ew H av en , C o n n . 1964).

C h ’en, Je ro m e , Yuan Shih-kai 1859-1916 (S ta n fo rd , C alif.

1961).

C h o w T se-tu n g , The M ay Fourth M ovem ent: Intellectual

R evolution in M odern China (C am b rid g e,
M ass. 1960).

C h u n g L i-chang, The Chinese G entry (S e a ttle , W ash . 1955).

F a irb a n k , J. K., East Asia: Tradition and Transformation
R e isc h au e r, E dw in O ., (1973).
an d C raig , A lb ert M .,

F itz g e ra ld , C. P ., China: A Short Cultural H istory (1942).

G ried e r, Je ro m e B., Hu Shih an d the Chinese Renaissance
(C a m b rid g e , M ass. 1970).

H e rrm a n n , A lb ert, A n H istorical A tlas o f China (C h ic ag o , 111.

1966).

H o , P en g -ti, The L adder o f Success in Im perial China:

A spects o f Social M obility 1368-1911 (N ew
Y o rk 1962).

H u an g , P h ilip C ., Liang C h’i-ch'ao an d M odern Chinese

Liberalism (S e a ttle , W ash . 1972).

H u S h ih , The Chinese Renaissance (C h ic ag o , 111.

1934).

L ev en son, Jo s e p h R ., Confucian China and its M o d em Fate, 3

vols (1958, 1963 a n d 1964).

M eisn er, M a u rice, Li Ta-Chao and the Origins o f Chinese

M arxism (C a m b rid g e , M ass. 1967).

M ich ael, F ra n z , The Taiping Rebellion, Volume One: His­

tory (S e a ttle , W ash. 1966).
540 Bibliography

S ch w artz , B enjam in I., Chinese Com m unism and the Rise o f Mao
(C a m b rid g e , M ass. 1951).

W ittfo g el, K arl A u g u st, The H istory o f Chinese Society: Liao

(T ra n sa c tio n s o f th e A m eric an P h ilo so p h i­
cal S o ciety X X X V I, P h ila d e lp h ia , Pa.
1949).

W rig h t, M a ry C la b a u g h , The Last S tan d o f Chinese Conservatism:

The T ’ung-Chih Restoration 1862-1874
(S ta n fo rd , C alif. 1957).

Japan
S ir G eo rg e S a n so m ’s w o rk s place in th e ir d e b t n o t o n ly all o u tsid ers
in te reste d in J a p a n , b u t even sp ecialists o n th e su b ject. T h e rem a in in g
b o o k s listed here are c o n c e rn e d w ith th e last p erio d o f th e T o k u g a w a
regim e a n d th e M eiji p erio d . I w ould especially single o u t Beasley’s recent
co m p re h en siv e survey a n d D o re ’s illu m in a tin g s tu d y o f th e p re­
re v o lu tio n a ry e d u c a tio n system .

Beasley, W . G ., The M eiji R estoration (1973).

C raig , A lb e rt M ., Choshu in the M eiji Restoration (C a m ­
brid g e, M ass. 1961).

D o re , R. P ., Education in Tokugawa Japan (1965).

H a m a d a , K engi, Prince Ito (T o k y o 1936).

Iw a ta , M a sa z a k u , O kubo Toshimichi: the Bismarck o f Ja­
p an (B erkeley a n d L o s A ngeles, Calif.
1964).

Ja n s e n , M a riu s B., Sakam oto R yom a and the M eiji Restora­

tion (P rin c e to n , N .J. 1961).
S a n so m , S ir G eorge, Japan: A Short Cultural H istory (1931).

S a n so m , S ir G eorge, The Western W orld and Japan (1950).

S a n so m , S ir G eorge, A H istory o f Japan, in th re e volum es: to
1334 (1958); 1334-1615 (1961); a n d 1615-
1867 (1963).

S h e ld o n , C. D ., The Rise o f the M erchant Class in Tokuga­

wa Japan (N ew Y o rk 1958).
 Bibliography 541

S m ith , T h o m a s C., Political Change and Industrial D evelop­

ment in Japan: G overnm ent Enterprise
1868-1880 ( S ta n fo r d , Calif. 1955).
S m ith , T h o m a s C., The Agrarian Origins o f M odern Japan
( S ta n fo r d , Calif, 1959).

S to rry , R ic h a rd , The D ouble Patriots: A S tu dy o f Japanese

N ationalism (1967).

Sub-Saharan Africa
All the follow ing c o n ta in useful in f o rm a tio n . T h e w o rk s by Oliver a n d
F age a n d by D a v id s o n p rov ide clear a n d re a d a b le in tr o d u c tio n s to the
subject. K irk -G ree n e’s collection o f d o c u m e n ts o n the N igerian civil w ar
a n d its origins is a n in dispensa ble source. A u stin o n G h a n a , a n d Levine a n d
M a rk a k is on E th io p ia show not only detailed k no w led ge b u t a n impressive
p o w e r o f analysis. A n d re sk i is b o th p ro v o c a tiv e a n d p en e tratin g , facing the
w ra th of specialists w h o insist on c o n t e m p la tin g their v ario u s e m p e r o rs ’
c lo th in g with ritual reverence. L o w e n th a l’s stu d y o f Soviet a n d C hinese
d o c trin e a n d practice is included here because it is very largely co n c e rn e d
w ith Africa.

A lbin o, Oliver, The Sudan: A Southern Viewpoint (1970).

A n d re sk i, Stanislav,
A ustin , D ennis,
Beshir, M o h a m m e d ,
Blanchet, A.,
C l a p h a m , C h r isto p h e r ,
The African Predicament (1968).
Politics in Ghana 1946-1960 (1964).
The Southern Sudan: From Conflict to
Peace (1975).
L ’itinéraire des partis africains depuis Ba­
m ako ( P a ris 1958).
Haile Selassie’s Governm ent (1969).

C o le m a n , J a m e s S., Nigeria: Background to Nationalism

(Berkeley, Calif. 1958).

D a v id s o n , Basil, A H istory o f East and Central Africa

(1969).

D a v id s o n , Basil, A H istory o f West Africa to the 19th

Century (1966).
H o d g k in , T. L., N ationalism in Colonial Africa (1956).
542 Bibliography

K irk -G ree n e, A. H. M ., Crisis an d Conflict in Nigeria, 2 vols

(1971).

L egum , C o lin , Pan-Africanism: A Short Political Guide

(1962).

L evine, D o n a ld N ., Wax and Gold: Tradition and Innovation

in Ethiopian Culture (C h ic ag o , 111. 1965).

L o w e n th a l, R ic h a rd , M odel or Ally? The Com m unist Powers

and the D eveloping Countries (N ew Y o rk ,
1977).

M a rk a k is, J o h n , Ethiopia: A n atom y o f a Traditional Polity

(1974).

O d u h o , J o se p h , The Problem o f the Southern Sudan

a n d D eng, W illiam , (1963).

O liver, R o la n d , an d A Short H istory o f Africa (1962).

F ag e, J . D .,

S t J o r re , J o h n de, The Nigerian Civil War (1972).

T o u v a l, S a a d ia , Som ali Nationalism (C a m b rid g e , M ass.
1963).

T re v ask is, G. K. N ., Eritrea: A Colony in Transition 1941-1952

(1960).

U lle n d o rff, E d w ard , The Ethiopians: A n Introduction to Coun­

try and People (1960).

South Africa
T h is e n c h a n tin g b u t d istressfu l c o u n try d oes n o t lack w riters w o rth y o f it.
B esides th e classical surveys by M a rq u a rd a n d de K iew iet, a n d H a n c o c k ’s
b io g ra p h y o f S m u ts, m u st be p laced th e m o re rec en t O x fo rd H isto ry ,
K u p e r’s sociological stu d y , v an J a a rs v e ld ’s tw o rev e alin g w o rk s o n A fri­
k a n e r n a tio n a lism a n d th e still m o re rec en t b o o k by M o o d ie . T h e p u b lic a ­
tio n s o f th e S o u th A fric an In stitu te o n R a ce R e la tio n s a re a m ine o f
in fo rm a tio n m eticu lo u sly assem b led . O ne o f th e se a u th o rs , M . L. Edel-
stein , perish ed a t th e h a n d s o f a b la c k m o b in S o w eto : his sy m p a th e tic
stu d y o f y o u n g A fric a n s’ a ttitu d e s re m a in s illu m in a tin g .

A d am , H erib e rt, M odernising Racial Dom ination: South

A frica’s Political Dynam ics ( B erkeley, C a l­
if. 1971).
 Bibliography 543

Edelstein, M. L., What D o Young Africans Think? ( J o h a n ­

n e s b u rg 1972).

H a n c o c k , W. K., Sm uts — vol. 1: The Sanguine Years 1870-

/ 9 / 9 ; vol. II: The Fields o f Force 1919-1950
( C a m b rid g e 1962 a n d 1968).

H e llm a n n , Ellen, Sow eto, Johnnesburg's African City ( J o ­

h a n n e s b u r g 1971).

H o rrell, M uriel, The African H om elands o f South Africa

(1973).

J a a rsv e ld , F. A. van, The Afrikaner's Interpretation o f South

African H istory ( C a p e to w n 1963).
J a a rsv e ld , F. A. van, The A w akening o f Afrikaner Nationalism
( C a p e to w n 1961).

Kiewiet, C. W. de, A H istory o f South Africa, Social and

Econom ic (1941).
K u per, Leo, An African Bourgeoisie: Race, Class and
Politics in· South Africa (N e w H av e n ,
C o n n . 1965).

M a r q u a r d , Leo, The Peoples an d Politics o f South Africa

(1952).

M a yer, P hilip, Urban Africans and the Bantustans ( J o ­

h a n n e s b u r g 1972).

M o o d ie , T. D u n b a r , The Rise o f A frikanerdom (B erkeley a n d

Los Angeles, Calif. 1974).

O xford H istory o f (ed. L e o n a r d T h o m p s o n a n d M o n ic a Wil-

South Africa son), 2 vols ( O x f o r d 1969 a n d 1971).

Survey o f Race Relations ( J o h a n n e s b u r g 1975). (T his w as the latest

in South Africa 1974 available to m e o f th e series p ublish ed year
by th e S o u t h A frican In stitute o f Race
Relations.)

W ilson, F ran cis, Labour in the South African G old Mines

1911-1969 ( C a m b rid g e 1972).
544 Bibliography

Brazil
O f th e follow ing, W agley’s s h o rt b o o k is o u ts ta n d in g in its clarity a n d
objective a p p r o a c h .

Bello, J o s é M a ria , Historia da Republica ( R io de J a n e ir o

1940).

F e r n a n d e s , F lo re stâ n , The Negro in Brazilian Society (N ew Y ork

1969).

F reyre, G ilberto, The M asters and the Slaves: a Study in the

D evelopm ent o f Brazilian Civilization
(N ew Y o rk 1946).

S k id m o r e , T. E., Politics in Brazil 1930-64 (N ew Y ork 1967).

W agley, Ch arles, An Introduction to Brazil (New Y ork
1963).
Name Index
A a se n , Iv a r, N o rw e g ia n la n g u a g e re­
fo rm e r 73
A b b a s I, sh a h o f Ira n 246, 247
A b b a sid d y n a sty 240, 244, 245
A b b o u d , G e n e ra l, p rim e m in iste r o f
S u d a n 346, 347
A b d u h , M u h a m m a d , Islam ic m o d ­
e rn is e r in E g y p t 250
A b d u lh a m id II, O tto m a n s u lta n 249,
256, 257
A b d u lla h , k in g o f T ra n s jo rd a n , la te r
H a sh e m ite k in g d o m o f J o r d a n 263
A d a m s, S a m u e l, A m e ric a n in d e p e n ­
d e n ce p ro p a g a n d is t 198
A fo n s o H e n riq u e s, k in g o f P o rtu g a l
51
A ga M u h a m m a d , s h a h o f P e rsia 251
A g u in a ld o , E m ilio, P h ilip p in e n a tio n ­
alist lea d er 280
A k b a r, M o g h u l e m p e ro r 290
A k c h u ra , Y usuf, T u rk is h n a tio n a list
w rite r 257, 258
A k in to la , S a m u e l, Y o ru b a p o litica l
le a d e r in N ig eria 349
A le x a n d e r, k in g o f Y u g o sla v ia 139
A le x a n d e r I, e m p e ro r o f R u ssia 71,
113, 122, 125
A le x a n d e r II, e m p e ro r o f R u ssia 72,
120, 127, 390, 467
A le x a n d e r III, e m p e ro r o f R u ss ia 85,
87, 148
A le x ei, ts a r o f M u sco v y , 82, 118, 186
A lfo n so X II, k in g o f S p a in 56
A lfre d , k in g o f W essex 23
A li, C a lip h , so n -in -la w o f th e P ro p h e t
M u h a m m a d 240
A lv a ra d o , G e n e ra l V elasco , P e ru v ia n
p re sid e n t 381
A m in , Id i, p re sid e n t o f U g a n d a 342,
408, 437
A n n a , e m p re ss o f R u ssia 83
A ra b i P a sh a , E g y p tia n n a tio n a lis t
le a d e r 248, 250, 325
A ra fa t, Y assir, P a le s tin ia n A ra b n a ­
tio n a lis t le a d e r 269
A rg u e d a s , J o s é M a ria , P e ru v ia n w rit­
e r 381
A rgyll, 8 th E arl o f 32
A rs la n , S h a k ib , S y ria n A ra b n a tio n a l­
ist w rite r 456
A s q u ith , H e rb e rt, B ritish p rim e m in is­
te r 38, 39
A ta ttirk , M u s ta fa K e m al, O tto m a n
g e n e ra l, la te r T u rk is h n a tio n a lis t
le a d e r a n d p re sid e n t o f T u rk is h
R e p u b lic 115, 253, 259, 260
A ttle e , C le m e n t, B ritish p rim e m in is­
te r 296, 331
A u n g S a n , B urm ese n a tio n a lis t lea d e r
457
A w o lo w o , C h ie f O b a fe m i, Y o ru b a
p o litic a l lea d er in N ig eria 333, 349,
351
A y u b K h a n , F ield M a rs h a l, p re sid e n t
o f P a k is ta n 304
A zikiw e, N n a m d i, Ib o p o litic a l le a d e r
in N ig eria 332, 348
B a b a r, fo u n d e r o f M o g h u l e m p ire in
In d ia 274
B a k u n in , M ic h ae l, R u ss ia n a n a rc h is t
96, 153, 446
B älcescu, N ic o la e, R o m a n ia n n a tio n ­
a list a n d d e m o c ra tic le a d e r 179
B a lfo u r, A rth u r, B ritish p rim e m in is­
te r, s u p p o rte r o f Z io n ism 262, 397
546 Name Index
B alliol, J o h n , k in g o f S c o tla n d 26
B a n d a , D r H a stin g s, p re sid e n t o f M a ­
law i 332, 335
B a rrés, M a u ric e , F re n c h n a tio n a list
w rite r 449
B atlle y O rd o n e z , Jo s e , p re sid e n t o f
U ru g u a y 222
B a u er, O tto , A u s tria n so c ial d e m o ­
c ra tic le a d e r 98, 446, 447, 470
B ebel, A u g u s t, G e rm a n so c ial d e m o ­
c ra tic le a d e r 391
B eh rin g , C a p ta in V itu s, D a n is h e x ­
p lo re r in R u ss ia n service 195
Ben B ella, A h m e d , A lg e ria n n a tio n a l­
ist le a d e r 267, 459
BeneS, E d u a rd , fo re ig n m in iste r, la te r
p re sid e n t, o f C z e c h o slo v a k ia 155,
156
B en G u rio n , D a v id , Z io n ist lea d er,
la te r p rim e m in iste r o f Isra el 401
B e ria , L. P ., S o v ie t se c u rity police
c h ie f 315
B e rn o lâ k , F a th e r A n to n , S lo v a k la n ­
gu a g e re fo rm e r 170, 171
B e th le n , C o u n t S te p h e n , p rim e m in is­
te r o f H u n g a ry 399
B ism arc k , O tto v o n , p rim e m in iste r o f
P ru s s ia , la te r c h a n c e llo r o f G e rm a n
E m p ire 96, 98, 128, 154, 392, 428,
449, 467
B isso la ti, L e o n id a , Ita lia n m o d e ra te
so c ia list le a d e r 108
B lum , L é o n , p rim e m in iste r o f F ra n c e ,
263, 331, 455
B o liv a r, S im o n , lib e r a to r o f V e n ez u ­
ela a n d C o lo m b ia 202, 203
B o n ifac e III, P o p e 16
B ose, S u b h a s C h a n d ra , In d ia n N a ­
tio n a l C o n g re ss le a d e r 456
B o th a , G e n e ra l L o u is, p rim e m in iste r
o f S o u th A fric a 233, 235
B o u ra ssa , R o b e rt, p rim e m in iste r o f
Q u e b e c 229
B o u rg u ib a , H a b ib , T u n is ia n n a tio n a l­
ist lea d er, la te r p re sid e n t 264, 266
B ra n d t, W illy, c h a n c e llo r o f F e d e ra l
R e p u b lic o f G e rm a n y 482
B razza, P ie rre de, F re n c h e x p lo re r in
C o n g o re g io n 326
B rezh n ev , L e o n id , g e n era l se c re ta ry o f
C o m m u n is t P a rty o f S o v ie t U n io n
455
B ria n B o ru , h ig h k in g o f Ire la n d 25
B ruce, R o b e rt, k in g o f S c o tla n d 26
B u rn h a m , F o rb e s , p rim e m in iste r o f
G u y a n a 409
B usia, K o fio , p rim e m in iste r o f G h a n a
341
B uthelezi, C h ief, o f K w az u lu 377
C a b o t, J o h n , d isc o v e re r o f N ew ­
fo u n d la n d 194
C a b ra l, P e d ro  lv a res, d isc o v e re r o f
B razil 194
C a lh o u n , J o h n , S o u th C a ro lin a p o liti­
cal le a d e r 213, 214
C a m b ô , F ra n c is c o , C a ta la n n a tio n a l­
ist le a d e r 56
C a m p b e ll-B a n n e rm a n , S ir H e n ry ,
B ritish p rim e m in iste r 209
C a n te m ir, D im itrie , P rin c e o f M o ld a ­
v ia 145
C a n u te , k in g o f D e n m a rk a n d E ng­
la n d 23, 67
C a p e t, H u g h , k in g o f F ra n c e 43
C â rd e n a s , L â z a ro , p re sid e n t o f M ex i­
c o 223, 224, 379
C a rlo A lb e rto , k in g o f S a rd in ia 104-
106
C a rtie r, J a c q u e s , F re n c h e x p lo re r in
C a n a d a 194
C a rtie r, G e o rg e -E tie n n e 206
C a sim ir th e G re a t, k in g o f P o la n d 387
C a s tro , F id e l, C u b a n c o m m u n is t lea d ­
e r 225, 459-460, 475
C a th e rin e II, e m p re ss o f R u ssia 83,
123, 145, 246, 390, 422
C a v o u r, C o u n t C a m illo , p rim e m in is­
te r o f P ie d m o n t 104, 106-107
C é sa ire , A im é, W est In d ia n w rite r a n d
e x p o n e n t o f négritude 332
C e ts h w a y o , Z u lu k in g 208

C h a a d a e v , P . A ., R u ssia n w rite r 84
C h a m b e rla in , J o s e p h , B ritish c o lo n ia l
se c re ta ry 208
C h a m b e rla in , N eville, B ritish p rim e
m in iste r 40
C h a rle m a g n e , H o ly R o m a n E m p e ro r
15, 43, 55, 91
C h a rle s th e B old, d u k e o f B u rg u n d y
46, 61
C h a rle s 1, k in g o f E n g la n d a n d S c o t­
la n d 31, 32
C h a rle s I, k in g o f R o m a n ia 180
C h a rle s I, k in g o f S p a in (see C h a rle s
V , H o ly R o m a n E m p e ro r)
C h a rle s II, k ing o f E n g la n d a n d S c o t­
lan d 31, 32
C h a rle s III, k in g o f S p a in 55, 201
C h a rle s V , H o ly R o m a n E m p e ro r
(C h a rle s I, k ing o f S p a in ) 53, 61, 62
C h a rle s V I, k in g o f F ra n c e 45, 46
C h a rle s V II, k in g o f F ra n c e 46
C h a rle s V III, k in g o f F ra n c e 46
C h a rle s X , k in g o f S w ed e n 71
C h a rle s X II, k in g o f S w ed e n 186
C h a rle s X IV , k in g o f S w e d e n , fo rm e r­
ly B e rn a d o tte , m a rs h a l o f F ra n c e 73
C h e n g H o , C h in ese a d m ira l 410
C h e n T u -h siu , C h in ese c o m m u n ist
le a d e r 284, 456
C h ia n g K a i-sh e k , C h in e se K u o m in ­
ta n g le a d e r a n d g e n e ra lissim o 284-
285, 456, 457
C h ris tia n II, k in g o f D e n m a rk 69, 70
C h ris tia n III, k in g o f D e n m a rk 70
C iro A le g ria , P e ru v ia n w rite r 381
C o d re a n u , C o rn e liu , R o m a n ia n fa s­
cist lea d e r 451
C o e n , J a n P ie te rsz o o n , D u tc h g o v e r­
n o r o f E ast In d ies 279
C o llin s, M ic h ae l, Irish n a tio n a lis t
g u e rrilla le a d e r 39, 40
C o m p a n y s , L uis, C a ta la n n a tio n a lis t
le a d e r 56, 58
C o n fu c iu s , C h in ese p h ilo s o p h e r 274,
275
C o n n o lly , Ja m e s , Irish n a tio n a lis t a n d
Name Index 547
tra d e u n io n le a d e r 38, 39
C o n s ta n tin e I, k in g o f G reece 115
C o o k , C a p ta in Ja m e s , B ritish n a v ig a ­
to r a n d e x p lo re r 195
C o rté s , H e rn â n , c o n q u e r o r o f M e x ico
194, 482
C ro m w e ll, O liv er 31, 32, 64
C u rz o n , L o rd , B ritish fo reig n m in iste r
253, 292
C u z a , A le x a n d e r, ru le r o f M o ld a v ia
a n d W a lla c h ia 180
C y ril, S t, O rth o d o x e v an g e list o f th e
S lavs 78, 118
C z a rto ry s k i, P rin c e A d a m , P o lish a n d
R u ssia n s ta te s m a n 119, 124, 125
D ^ b ro w sk i, H e n ry k , P o lish g e n era l,
lea d er o f leg io n s fig h tin g u n d e r
F re n c h c o m m a n d 123
D a v is, Je ffe rs o n , p re sid e n t o f C o n fe d ­
e ra te S ta te s o f A m e ric a 214
d ’A zeglio, M a ss im o , Ita lia n R iso rg i-
m e n to le a d e r 107
D eg relle, L éo n , B elgian fa scist le a d e r
451
D e V a lera , E a m o n , Irish R e p u b lic a n
lea d e r, la te r p re sid e n t 39, 40
D e v o y , J o h n , Irish R e p u b lic a n c o n ­
s p ir a to r 37, 39
D ew ey, J o h n , A m e ric a n e d u c a tio n is t
284
D ia z, B a rth o lo m e w , P o rtu g u e se e x ­
p lo re r 195
D ia z , P o rfirio , M e x ic a n d ic ta to r 223
D in g a a n , Z u lu k in g 206
D isra eli, B e n ja m in , L o rd B eacons-
field, B ritish p rim e m in iste r 325
D m o w s k i, R o m a n , P o lish n a tio n a l
d e m o c ra tic le a d e r 129
D o b ro v s k y ,Jo s e f, C zech la n g u a g e
re fo rm e r 151, 152
D r a h o m a n o v , M ic h ae l, U k ra in ia n s o ­
cia list 188
D u b ô e k , A le x a n d e r, C z e c h o slo v a k
c o m m u n ist le a d e r 157, 321
D u Bois, W . E. B., A m e ric a n n e g ro
548 Name Index
w rite r a n d p o litic a l le a d e r 332, 361
D u n b a r, W illia m , S c o ttish p o e t 3 1 ,3 5
D u p le ssis, M a u ric e , p rim e m in iste r o f
Q u e b e c 228
D u rh a m , E a rl o f, g o v e rn o r-g e n e ra l o f
C a n a d a 205
D u s h a n , S te p h e n , e m p e ro r o f S e rb ia
16
E d w a rd th e C o n fe sso r, k in g o f E n g ­
lan d 23
E d w a rd 1, k in g o f E n g la n d 23, 28
E d w a rd II, k in g o f E n g la n d 26
E d w a rd III, k in g o f E n g la n d 45
E d w a rd s, J o n a th a n , A m e ric a n
p re a c h e r 196
E ise n h o w e r, D w ig h t, p re sid e n t o f the
U n ite d S ta te s 362
E le a n o r o f A q u ita in e , q u e en o f E n g ­
la n d 44
E liz a b e th 1, q u e e n o f E n g la n d 20, 31
E m m e t, R o b e rt, Irish re b el 36
E ngels, F rie d ric h , so c ialist w rite r a n d
p o litic a l le a d e r 446
E n v e r P a s h a , Y o u n g T u r k le a d e r 258,
311
E o tv o s, B a ro n Jo s e f, H u n g a ria n m in ­
iste r o f e d u c a tio n 164, 165
E ric sso n , L ief, S c a n d in a v ia n d isc o v ­
e re r o f A m e ric a 194
F& ndly, J u r a j, S lo v a k n a tio n a lis t w rit­
e r 170
F a rd , W . D ., fo u n d e r o f A m e ric a n
B lack M u slim s 363
F a rn e se , A le ssa n d ro , d u k e o f P a rm a
62, 63
F a r o u k , k in g o f E g y p t 265, 270
F a z lu lla h N u ri, S h a ik h , I ra n ia n M u s­
lim lea d er 252
F e isa l, k in g o f Ira q 262
F e rd in a n d II, H oly R o m a n E m p e ro r
150
Ferdinand II, king o f Castile 51
Ferdinand II, king o f Naples 104, 105
Ferdinand VII, king o f Spain 202
Ic r h a l Abba», Algerian nationalist
le a d e r 264, 265, 267
F ila re t, p a tria rc h o f M o sc o w 82
F ird a u s i, P e rsia n p o e t 245
F lo ttw e ll, P ru s sia n g o v e rn o r o f P o sen
126
F o s c o lo , U go, Ita lia n p o e t 450
F ra n c o , G e n e ra l F ra n c is c o , d ic ta to r
o f S p a in 58, 59, 477
F ra n ç o is I, k in g o f F ra n c e 48, 247
F ra n z F e r d in a n d , a rc h d u k e o f A u s tria
181
F ra n z J o s e f, e m p e ro r o f A u s tria 163,
172, 179, 180, 183, 392
F re d e ric k II, k in g o f P ru s sia 158
F re d e ric k V I, k in g o f D e n m a rk 73
F re d e ric k W illia m III, k in g o f P ru s sia
126
F re d e ric k W illia m IV , k in g o f P ru ssia
94, 96
F re y re , G ilb e rto , B ra zilia n so c io lo g ist
359
G a j, L ju d e v it, C r o a tia n le a d e r o f
‘Illy ria n m o v e m e n t’ 133, 136
G a n d h i, I n d ira , p rim e m in iste r o f
In d ia 303, 306, 459
G a n d h i, M a h a tm a , H in d u p ro p h e t
a n d le a d e r o f I n d ia n N a tio n a l C o n ­
g ress 291, 293-296, 407, 435
G a ra n g , J o s e p h , S o u th S u d a n e se
c o m m u n is t le a d e r 347
G a ra S a n in , Ilija , S e rb ia n sta te sm a n
133
G a rib a ld i, G iu se p p e , Ita lia n lea d er o f
R iso rg im e n to 106, 107
G a rris o n , W illia m L lo y d , A m e ric a n
a b o litio n is t w rite r 214
G a rv e y , M a rc u s , W est In d ia n P a n a f-
ric a n id eo lo g ist 332, 361
G a sp ira li, Ism a il, C rim e a n T a ta r w rit­
e r a n d P a n tu r k is t 316, 433
G a u lle , G e n e ra l C h a rle s d e 265, 267,
477
Gerô, Ernô, Hungarian çom munist
leader 32
Qhadaffi, Colonel M uam m ar, Arab
nationalist and ruler o f Libya 268

G io b e rti, V icenzo, Ita lia n p o e t 104
G io litti, G io v a n n i, p rim e m in iste r o f
Ita ly 108
G la d s to n e , W illia m E w a rt, B ritish
p rim e m in iste r 37, 325, 327
G le n d o w e r, O w en , le a d e r o f W elsh
re v o lt a g a in st k in g o f E n g la n d 30
G o e th e , J o h a n n W o lfg a n g 92
G o g a , O c ta v ia n , R o m a n ia n p o e t a n d
n a tio n a lis t le a d e r 181
G o k a lp , Z ia , T u rk is h w rite r a n d id eo l­
o g ist o f P a n tu rk is m 257, 258
G o k h a le , G o p a l K rish n a , In d ia n N a ­
tio n a l C o n g re ss le a d e r 292
G o m u lk a , W la d y slaw , P o lish c o m m u ­
n ist le a d e r 405, 439
G o rd o n , G e n e ra l C h a rle s 282, 325
G o u la r t, J o a o , p re sid e n t o f B razil 226
G o w o n , G e n e ra l J a c k , p rim e m in iste r
o f N ig eria 350-352
G riffith , A r th u r, Irish n a tio n a list
le a d e r 38
H aile S elassie, e m p e ro r o f E th io p ia
343
H aj A m in al H u sse in i, m u fti o f J e r u ­
sa lem 398
H a m ilto n , A le x a n d e r, A m e ric an
s ta te s m a n 212
H a m m a rsk jö ld , D ag , se c re ta ry g e n e r­
al o f U n ited N a tio n s 466
H a n k a , V aclav, C zech p a n sla v ist 119,
152
H a ra ld B lu e to o th , k in g o f D e n m a rk
67
H avliC ek, K a rel, C zech w rite r a n d
d e m o c ra t 152
H a y a d e la T o rre , V ic to r, P e ru v ia n
c h a m p io n o f ‘In d o a m e ric a ’ a n d
fo u n d e r o f A P R A 381
H e n ri I, k in g o f F ra n c e 45
H e n ri IV , k in g o f F ra n c e 2 0 ,4 7 ,4 8 ,6 3
H e n ry II, k in g o f E n g la n d 27, 29, 44
H e n ry III, k in g o f E n g la n d 28, 44
H e n ry IV , k in g o f C a stile 53
H e n ry V, k ing o f E n g la n d 46
H e n ry V II, k in g o f E n g la n d 27, 30
Name Index 549
H e n ry V III, k in g o f E n g la n d 19, 31
H e n ry so n , R o b e rt, S c o ttis h p o e t 31,
35
H e rd e r, G e rm a n p h ilo s o p h e r 6, 118
H e rtz o g , G e n e ra l J . В. М ., p rim e
m in iste r o f S o u th A frica 209, 233
H erzl, T h e o d o r, f o u n d e r o f Z io n ism
395
H im m le r, H e in ric h , h e a d o f se c u rity
police in G e rm a n T h ird R e ic h 452
H itle r, A d o lf 99, 109, 156, 182, 190,
451-455, 465, 468
H lin k a , A n d re w , S lo v a k n a tio n a list
le a d e r 173, 174
H o C h i M in h , V ie tn a m ese c o m m u n ist
le a d e r 309, 436, 456
H o fm e y r, J a n , S o u th A fric a n s ta te s ­
m a n 232, 235
H o ria , T ra n s y lv a n ia n R o m a n ia n
p e a s a n t re v o lu tio n a ry 177
H o rth y , A d m ira l N ic h o la s, re g en t o f
H u n g a ry 399, 401
H o u p h o u e t-B o ig n y , F é lix , p re sid e n t
o f Iv o ry C o a st 338, 341, 437
H ru sh e v sk y , M ic h ae l, U k ra in ia n h is­
to ria n a n d n a tio n a lis t le a d e r 158
H u g g in s, S ir G o d fre y , p rim e m in iste r
o f S o u th e rn R h o d e sia 335
H u S h ih , C h in ese lan g u a g e re fo rm e r
284
H u s, J a n , B o h e m ia n re lig io u s re ­
fo rm e r a n d m a rty r 19, 150
H u sse in , k in g o f J o r d a n 267
H y d e, D o u g la s, Irish n a tio n a lis t w rit­
e r 38
Ia n c u , A v ra m , T ra n s y lv a n ia n R o ­
m a n ia n n a tio n a lis t le a d e r 179
Ib n S a u d , A b d a l-A ziz, fo u n d e r a n d
k in g o f S a u d i A ra b ia 262
Io rg a , N ic o la e , R o m a n ia n h is to ria n
a n d n a tio n a lis t le a d e r 181
Iq b a l, M u h a m m a d , I n d ia n M u slim
p o e t 295
Iro n si, M a jo r-G e n e ra l A g u iy i, p rim e
m in iste r o f N ig e ria 349, 350
Isa b ella, q u e en o f C a stile , la te r o f
550 Name Index
S p a in 53
Ism a il, k h e d iv e o f E g y p t 325
Ism a il, s h a h o f Ira n 243, 245, 246
Itu rb id e , A g u s tin d e, e m p e ro r o f M e x ­
ico 203
Iv a n III (th e G re a t), ts a r o f M u sco v y
79, 80
Iv a n IV (th e T e rrib le ), ts a r o f M u s­
c o v y 86, 246, 278
J a b o tin s k y , V la d im ir, Z io n ist lea d er
399, 400
J a c k s o n , A n d re w , p re sid e n t o f th e
U n ite d S ta te s 378
J a g a n , C h e d d i, G u y a n a n n a tio n a lis t
le a d e r 409
J a m a l a l-D in a l-A fg h a n i, M u slim
m o d e rn ise r a n d re v o lu tio n a ry 249,
250
J a m e s V I o f S c o tla n d a n d I o f E n g ­
la n d , k in g 31
J a m e s V II o f S c o tla n d a n d II o f E n g ­
la n d , k in g 32, 33
J ä sz i, O s z k ä r, H u n g a ria n so c io lo g ist
a n d s ta te s m a n 166, 167, 168, 181
J e a n , k in g o f F ra n c e 18, 45
J e a n n e d ’A rc 46
J e ffe rs o n , T h o m a s , p re sid e n t o f th e
U n ite d S ta te s 199, 212, 213, 434
J in n a h , M u h a m m a d A li, le a d e r o f
In d ia n M u slim L eag u e a n d f o u n d e r
o f P a k is ta n 295, 296
J o h n o f A vis, k in g o f P o r tu g a l 53
J o h n s o n , L y n d o n B., p re sid e n t o f th e
U n ite d S ta te s 362
J o s e p h II, H o ly R o m a n E m p e ro r 64,
147, 150, 158, 170, 177
J u a n C a rlo s , k in g o f S p a in 59
J u ä re z , B e n ito , p re sid e n t o f M e x ico
223
J u liä o , F ra n c is c o , B ra zilia n re v o lu ­
t io n a ry 368
J u n g m a n n , J o s e p h , C zech la n g u a g e
re fo rm e r 119, 151, 171
K a b a k a o f B u g a n d a 341
K’a n g Y u-w ei, C h in ese re fo rm e r 282
K a ra d z ic , V u k , S e rb ia n la n g u a g e re­
fo rm e r 132, 473
K a ra m z in , N . M ., R u ss ia n h is to ria n
a n d la n g u a g e re fo rm e r, 112, 113
K a u fm a n , G e n e ra l, R u ss ia n g o v e r­
n o r-g e n e ra l o f T u rk e s ta n 440
K azin czy , F ra n c is , H u n g a ria n la n ­
gu a g e re fo rm e r 158, 159
K e n y a tta , J o m o , p re sid e n t o f K en y a
332, 334
K h m e ln itsk y , B o h d a n , h e tm a n o f th e
U k ra in e 186
K h ru sh c h e v , N ik ita , first se c re ta ry o f
C o m m u n ist P a rty o f S o v ie t U n io n
190, 313, 439
K h uen-H ederv& ry, C o u n t, g o v e rn o r
o f C ro a tia 137
K ing, R ev. M a rtin L u th e r, A m e ric a n
n e g ro le a d e r 362, 363
K itc h e n e r, F ie ld M a rs h a l L o rd 326,
327
K o llar, J a n , S lo v a k w rite r 119, 171,
172
K o p ita r, J e rn e j, S lo v e n e la n g u a g e re ­
fo rm e r 132
K o ra is, A d a m a n tio s , G re e k lan g u ag e
re fo rm e r, w rite r a n d p o litic a l lea d er
112, 114, 432
K o s su th , L o u is, H u n g a ria n n a tio n a l­
ist le a d e r 161, 162, 163, 179, 426,
428
K o s to m a ro v , N . I., U k ra in ia n h is to ri­
a n 187
K o tla re v sk y , Iv a n , U k ra in ia n w riter
186
K ra m a r, K a re l, C zech n a tio n a list
le a d e r 155
K riz an ic, J u r a j, C ro a tia n sev e n te en th
c e n tu ry p a n sla v ist 118
K ru g e r, P a u l, p re sid e n t o f T ra n s v a a l
R e p u b lic 208
K u b la i K h a n , M o n g o l c o n q u e ro r of
C h in a 275, 276
L ag u , Jo sep h , S o u th S u d a n e se

g u e rrilla le a d e r 347
L ee K w an Y ew , p rim e m in iste r o f
S in g a p o re 413
L en in , V. I., R u ss ia n B o lsh ev ik le a d e r
311, 312, 447, 454, 455
L e o p o ld I, H o ly R o m a n E m p e ro r 176
L e o p o ld II, H o ly R o m a n E m p e ro r
158, 177
L e o p o ld II, k ing o f th e B elgians 326
L év esq u e, R e n é, Q u e b e c n a tio n a lis t
le a d e r 229
Li H u n g -c h a n g , C h in ese c o n se rv a tiv e
re fo rm e r 282
L in c o ln , A b ra h a m , p re sid e n t o f the
U n ite d S ta te s 214
Li T a -c h a o , C h in ese c o m m u n ist
th in k e r 456
L ittle , M a lc o lm (see M a lc o lm X )
L lyw ellyn II, W elsh p rin c e a n d n a ­
tio n a l lea d er 28
L o p ez , F ra n c is c o , P a ra g u a y a n d ic ta ­
t o r 220
L o u is IX , k in g o f F ra n c e 44, 45
L o u is X I, k in g o f F ra n c e 46, 61
L o u is X IV , k ing o f F ra n c e 4 7 ,6 4 ,4 2 0 ,
445
l’O u v e rtu re , T o u s s a in t, lib e ra to r o f
H a iti 201
L u eg er, K a rl, A u s tria n C h ris tia n S o ­
cia l le a d e r a n d m a y o r o f V ie n n a 392
L u g a rd , F re d e ric k , fo u n d e r o f B ritish
c o lo n y o f N ig eria 327
L u k se m b u rg , R o z a , P o lish a n d G e r­
m an c o m m u n ist le a d e r a n d w rite r
428, 447
L ull, R a m o n , C a ta la n m ed ie v al w rite r
52
L u m u m b a , P a tric e , C o n g o (Z aire)
n a tio n a lis t le a d e r 437
L u th e r, M a rtin , G e rm a n re lig io u s re ­
fo rm e r 61, 92
L y au tey , M a rs h a l, f o u n d e r o f F re n c h
p r o te c to r a te in M o ro c c o 331
M a c b e th , k in g o f S c o tla n d 25
M a c d o n a ld , S ir J o h n , p rim e m in iste r
Name Index 551
o f C a n a d a 206, 234
M a c ia , C o lo n e l F ra n c is c o , C a ta la n
n a tio n a lis t lea d er 56, 57
M a c k en z ie , W illia m L y o n , C a n a d ia n
ra d ic a l, le a d e r o f a rm e d risin g 205
M a c N eill, E o a n , Irish n a tio n a lis t
le a d e r 38
M a e rla n t, J a n , F le m ish m ed ie v al p o e t
61
M a h m u d II, O tto m a n s u lta n 256
M a k a rio s , A rc h b ish o p , le a d e r o f C y p ­
rio t G re ek s, la te r p re sid e n t o f re ­
p u b lic o f C y p ru s 116
M a k h n o , N e sto r, U k ra in ia n a n a rc h is t
le a d e r 189
M a la n , D r D a n ie l, A frik a n e r N a tio n ­
a list lea d e r, p rim e m in iste r o f S o u th
A frica 370, 372
M a lco lm X , A m e ric an B lack M u slim
le a d e r 363
M a n d e la , N e lso n , S o u th A fric a n
b la c k re v o lu tio n a ry le a d e r 373
M a n in , D a n iele, le a d e r o f V e n etian
risin g a g a in st A u s tria 104, 106
M a o T se -T u n g , c h a irm a n o f C h in ese
C o m m u n is t P a rty 285, 287
M a rc h a n t, C a p ta in J . B., F re n c h c o ­
lo n ia l e x p lo re r 326, 327
M a rg a re t, q u e en o f D e n m a rk , N o r ­
w ay a n d S w ed en 68, 69
M a rid te g u i, J o s e C a rlo s , P e ru v ia n
c o m m u n ist w rite r 381
M a ria T h e re sa , e m p re ss a n d q u e e n o f
H u n g a ry 150, 158
M a rk o v ic , S v e to z a r, S e rb ia n so c ialist
w rite r 135
M a rsh a ll, J o h n , c h ie f ju s tic e o f U n ited
S ta te s S u p re m e C o u r t 212
M a rx , K a rl, G e rm a n re v o lu tio n a ry
a n d w rite r, fo u n d e r o f ‘scien tific
so c ialism ’ 446, 454
M a ry , q u e e n o f S c o tla n d 31
M a sa ry k , T h o m a s G a rrig u e , p re s­
id e n t o f C z e c h o slo v a k ia 155, 157,
172, 173
M a ta n z im a , c h ie f o f T ra n s k e i 377
552 Name Index
M a u ric e o f N a ssa u , s ta tth a lte r o f the
N e th e rla n d s 63
M a u rra s , C h a rle s, F re n c h n a tio n a lis t
a n d p ro to -fa sc ist w rite r 48, 392,
395, 449
M a x im ilia n I, H o ly R o m a n E m p e ro r
61
M a z a rin , C a rd in a l, F re n c h sta te sm a n
47
M a z e p p a , Iv a n , h e tm a n o f U k ra in e
186
M a z z in i, G iu se p p e , Ita lia n n a tio n a list
w rite r a n d re v o lu tio n a ry 104, 107,
179
M c A lp in , K e n n e th , k in g o f S c o tla n d
24
M e n d e re s, A d n a n , p rim e m in iste r o f
T u rk e y 260
M e n e lik II, e m p e ro r o f E th io p ia 323,
326
M e th o d iu s , S a in t, O rth o d o x e v an g e ­
list o f th e S lavs 78, 118
M e tte rn ic h , P rin c e C lem e n s v o n , A u s­
tria n sta te sm a n 93, 94, 133, 147
M ic h a e l th e B rave, p rin c e o f W a lla ­
c h ia , u n ifie r fo r tw o y e a rs o f th e
R o m a n ia n la n d s 176
M ick iew icz, A d a m , P o lis h p o e t 119,
124, 433
M ic u , I n o c e n tiu , R o m a n ia n U n ia te
b ish o p 176
M id h a t P a s h a , O tto m a n re fo rm e r 256
M ie ro sla w sk i, G e n e ra l L u d w ik 96,
106, 126
M iletic, S v e to z a r, S e rb ia n n a tio n a lis t
a n d d e m o c ra t in H u n g a ry 135
M iln e r, A lfred V isc o u n t, g o v e rn o r o f
C a p e C o lo n y , la te r o f T ra n s v a a l
a n d O ra n g e R iv e r C o lo n y 208, 209,
331
M ira n d a , F ra n c is c o , V en ez u e la n
d e m o c ra tic le a d e r 201
M o b u tu , G e n e ra l J o s e p h , p re sid e n t o f
C o n g o (Z a ire ) 337, 342, 437
M o n d la n e , E d u a rd o , M o z a m b iq u e
n a tio n a lis t lea d er 337
M o n ro e , James, p re sid e n t o f th e U n it-
ed S ta te s 475
M o n tf o rt, S im o n de, c o n q u e ro r o f th e
A lb ig en sia n s 44
M o re lo s, J o s é M a ria , M e x ic a n p riest
a n d le a d e r o f re v o lt 203
M o u n tb a tte n , E a rl, last v icero y o f
In d ia 296
M u h a m m a d , p ro p h e t o f Isla m 241
M u h a m m a d , E lijah , A m e ric a n B lack
M u slim le a d e r 363
M u h a m m a d R e za h , sh a h o f Ira n 254,
255
M u jib u r -R a h m a n , fo u n d e r o f sta te o f
B a n g la d esh 305, 306
M u r a d V, O tto m a n s u lta n 256
M u sso lin i, B e n ito , le a d e r o f Ita lia n
fascist p a rty a n d p rim e m in iste r o f
Italy 109, 450, 451, 452, 453, 469
M u s ta fa K am il, E g y p tia n n a tio n a list
p o litic ia n 250
N a m ik K e m al, T u rk is h p o e t a n d re ­
fo rm e r 256
N a p o le o n I, e m p e ro r o f th e F re n c h 65,
71, 84, 92, 93, 122, 123, 201, 204,
212, 246, 422, 445
N a p o le o n III, e m p e r o r o f th e F re n c h
127, 448. 467
N a s iru d d in , sh a h o f Ira n 251, 252
N a sse r, G a m a l A b d e l, E g y p tia n n a ­
tio n a lis t lea d er a n d p re sid e n t 266,
267, 268, 270, 458
N e h ru , J a w a h a r la l, p rim e m in iste r o f
in d e p e n d e n t In d ia 294, 296, 435,
456
N e h ru , M o tila l, In d ia n re fo rm e r and
n a tio n a lis t 294, 295
N ic h o la s I, e m p e ro r o f R u ssia , 84, 85,
96, 120, 125, 127, 147, 1 8 7 ,3 1 5 ,3 9 0
N ic h o la s II, e m p e ro r o f R u ssia , 87,
148
N ik o n , p a tria rc h o f M o sco w 82
N im eiry , G e n e ra l G a a fe r M u h a m ­
m a d , p re sid e n t o f S u d a n 347
N ix o n , R ic h a rd , p re sid e n t o f th e U n it­
ed S ta te s 310
N k o m o , J o s h u a , R h o d e sia n (Z im -

b a b w e) n a tio n a lis t le a d e r 335
N k ru m a h , K w am e, n a tio n a lis t lea d er
in G h a n a (G o ld C o a st) a n d la te r
p re sid e n t 332, 338-341, 437, 453,
459, 473, 476
N u ri-e s-S a id , A ra b n a tio n a lis t, late r
p rim e m in iste r o f Ira q 267
N y e rere , J u liu s , p re sid e n t o f T a n z a n ia
335
O b o te , D r M ilto n , n a tio n a lis t lea d er
in U g a n d a , la te r p rim e m in iste r 341,
342, 437
O b re n o v ic , M ich ael, p rin ce o f S e rb ia
135
O b re n o v ic , M iloS, p rin ce o f S e rb ia
133
O ’C o n n e ll, D a n iel, Irish n a tio n a list
le a d e r 36, 38
O ffa , k ing o f M ercia 23
O ’H iggins, B e rn a rd o , lib e ra to r o f
C h ile 202
O ju k w u , C o lo n e l E m e k a , fo u n d e r o f
s e p a ra tis t re p u b lic o f B iafra 349,
350, 351
O liv a re s, C o n d e -D u q u e de, S p a n ish
sta te sm a n 54
O tto I, H o ly R o m a n E m p e ro r 15,91
P a d m o re , G e o rg e, P a n a fric a n w riter
a n d th e o ris t 332
P aisii, F a th e r, B u lg a ria n h is to ria n 145
P a la c k y , F ra n tiS ek , C zech h isto ria n
95, 151, 152, 153, 154, 171
P a p in e a u , L o u is -Jo se p h , F re n c h C a n ­
a d ia n d e m o c ra tic le a d e r 205
P a rn e ll, C h a rle s S te w a rt, Irish n a tio n ­
a list le a d e r 37
PaSic, N ik o la , p rim e m in iste r o f S e r­
b ia 139, 432
P av elic, A n te , C ro a tia n fa scist lea d e r
140
P e a rse , P a tric k , Irish n a tio n a lis t m a r­
ty r 39
P e d ro , e m p e ro r o f B razil 204, 226
P e n d a , k in g o f M e rc ia 23
P e rlm a n , E liezer (B en Y e h u d a ) 396,
Name Index 553
402
P e rô n , G e n e ra l J u a n , A rg e n tin e d ic ta ­
to r 226, 453
P e te r th e G re a t, e m p e ro r o f R u ssia 82,
83, 186
P e te r II, k ing o f A ra g o n 44
P e te r III, e m p e ro r o f R u ssia 83
P e tlu ra , S im o n , U k ra in ia n n a tio n a lis t
le a d e r 189
P e tö ffi, S â n d o r, H u n g a ria n p o e t 162,
428
P h ilip p e II, A u g u ste , k in g o f F ra n c e
44
P h ilip th e G o o d , D u k e o f B u rg u n d y
45, 61
P h ilip II, k ing o f S p a in 53, 62
P h ilip III, k ing o f S p a in 54
P h ilip IV, king o f S p a in 16, 54, 55
P h ilip V, k ing o f S p a in 55
P h ilo th e u s o f P s k o v , R u ss ia n O r th o ­
d o x th e o lo g ia n 81
P ilsu d s k i, Jo s e f, P o lish n a tio n a list
le a d e r, la te r d ic ta to r o f P o la n d 129,
189, 399, 426, 428, 433
P in sk e r, L eo, R u ss ia n Je w ish w riter
395
P iu s IX , P o p e 104, 105
P iz a rro , F ra n c is c o , c o n q u e ro r o f P e ru
194
P o g o d in , M ic h ae l, R u ss ia n p ro fe s so r
a n d p a n sla v w rite r 119
P o z h a rsk y , D m itri, le a d e r o f M u s c o ­
vite re sistan c e to P o lish in v a sio n 81
P re to riu s , A n d rie s, V o o rtre k k e r le a d ­
e r 206
P re to riu s , M a rtin , p re sid e n t o f T ra n s ­
v a a l a n d O ra n g e F re e S ta te 207
P rim o d e R iv era , J o s é A n to n io , S p a n ­
ish fascist th e o ris t 4 5 1
P u s h k in , A le x a n d e r, R u ss ia n p o e t 85
Q a v a m e s -S u lta n e h , p rim e m in iste r o f
Ira n 254
R a d e tz k y , F ield M a rs h a l J o s e p h v o n
105, 106
R a d ie , A n te , C ro a tia n p e a s a n t w riter
554 Name Index
429
R a d ic , S te p a n , fo u n d e r o f C ro a tia n
P e a sa n t P a rty 139, 429
R a y m o n d , C o u n t o f T o u lo u s e 44, 45
R e d m o n d , J o h n , Irish H o m e R ule
lea d e r 38, 39
R e eb e ck , J a n v a n , fo u n d e r o f se ttle ­
m e n t o f C a p e o f G o o d H o p e 195
R e n n e r, D r K a rl, A u s tria n so c ialist
w rite r, la te r p re sid e n t o f A u s tria n
R e p u b lic 98, 446, 447, 470
R e tie f, P ie t, V o o rtre k k e r le a d e r 206
R e v ai, N ic h o la s, H u n g a ria n e n c y c lo ­
p a e d ist 158
R eza K h a n , s h a h o f Ira n , 253 -2 5 5 ,4 2 5
R h ig a s o f V elestin o , G re e k n a tio n a list
w rite r 113
R h o d e s, C ecil, p re m ie r o f C a p e C o l­
o n y 208, 232, 327
R ib a , P ra t de la, C a ta la n p o litica l
le a d e r 56
R ic h a rd ‘S tro n g b o w ’, E arl o f P e m ­
b ro k e 28
R ic h a rd II, k in g o f E n g la n d 27
R ich e lie u , C a rd in a l, F re n c h s ta te s ­
m a n 47, 48
R iel, L o u is, F re n c h C a n a d ia n reb el
227
R o o se v e lt, E le a n o r, w ife o f P re sid e n t
F . D . R o o se v e lt 361
R o o se v e lt, F ra n k lin D ., p re sid e n t o f
th e U n ite d S ta te s 286, 361, 378
R o o se v e lt, T h e o d o re , p re sid e n t o f th e
U n ite d S ta te s 225, 361
R o th sc h ild , B a ro n E d m o n d d e , b e n e ­
fa c to r o f Je w ish s e ttle m e n ts in P a le ­
stin e 395
S a fa rik , P a v e l Jo s e f, S lo v a k la n g u a g e
re fo rm e r 119
$ a g u n a , A n d re i, R o m a n ia n O rth o d o x
b ish o p in T ra n s y lv a n ia 178, 179
S a ig o , T a k a m o ri, J a p a n e s e M eiji E ra
re fo rm e r, la te r le a d e r o f re b ellio n
283, 284, 412, 424
S a lv e m in i, G a e ta n o , Ita lia n a n ti­
fascist w rite r 108
S a n M a rtin , J o s e d e , lib e ra to r o f A r­
g e n tin a a n d C h ile 202, 203
S a y y id A h m a d K h a n , In d ia n M uslim
m o d e rn ise r 248, 249, 293
S c h re in e r, W . P ., S o u th A fric a n lib e r­
a l s ta te s m a n 209
S c h w a rz e n b e rg , P rin c e F e lix , A u s tri­
a n c o n se rv a tiv e s ta te s m a n 95, 96,
98, 99
S e k o u T o u re , p re sid e n t o f (fo rm erly
F re n c h ) G u in e a 459
S elim I, O tto m a n s u lta n 243, 245
S e n g h o r, P re sid e n t L e o p o ld S e d a r
332, 338, 436
S h a m il, Im a m , C a u c a s ia n le a d e r o f
re sista n c e to R u ss ia n tsa rs 315
S h e rley , S ir A n th o n y , E n g lish e m is­
sa ry to Ira n 247
S h e v c h e n k o , T a ra s , U k ra in ia n p o e t
187
S h ish k o v , A d m ira l A. S ., R u ssia n
la n g u a g e re fo rm e r 83
S h o to k a , P rin c e , e x p o n e n t o f C hinese
T ’a n g c u ltu re in J a p a n 276
S ig ism u n d III, k in g o f P o la n d 121
S im e o n , k in g o f B u lg aria 16
S k o r o p a d s k i, G e n e ra l P a v e l, h e tm a n
o f U k ra in e u n d e r G e rm a n o c c u p a ­
tio n 188
S k ry p n ik , M y k o la , U k ra in ia n c o m ­
m u n is t le a d e r 189
S m ith , Ia n , p rim e m in iste r o f R h o d e ­
sia 336
S m u ts, G e n e ra l J a n , p rim e m in iste r o f
S o u th A fric a 233, 235
S o k o to , S a r d a u n a of, N o rth N ig e ria n
p o litic a l le a d e r 349
S o n n in o , B a ro n S id n e y , Ita lia n m in is­
te r o f fo re ig n a ffa irs 108
S o re l, G e o rg es, F re n c h re v o lu tio n a ry
w rite r 449
S ta lin , J o s e p h , g e n e ra l se c re ta ry o f
R u ss ia n C o m m u n is t P a rty 3 , 4 , 182,
190, 313, 316, 320, 321, 404, 447,
454, 455, 456, 460
S ta rie v ic , A n te , C r o a tia n n a tio n a list
w rite r 134

S te p h e n , k in g o f E n g la n d 480
S te p h e n s , J a m e s , Irish n a tio n a list
w rite r 37
S to ly p in , P . A ., p rim e m in iste r o f
R u ss ia n e m p ire , a g ric u ltu ra l re ­
fo rm e r 168
S tro e ssn e r, G e n e ra l A lfre d o , d ic ta to r
o f P a ra g u a y 380
S tro s m a je r, Iv a n J u r a j, b ish o p o f D ja -
k o v o , c h a m p io n o f Y u g o sla v idea
134, 135, 145
S tru v e , P . B., R u ss ia n lib e ral sta te s ­
m a n 168
S tu r, L u d o v it, S lo v a k la n g u a g e re ­
fo rm e r 171, 172
S u k a r n o , D r A h m e d , In d o n e s ia n n a ­
tio n a lis t le a d e r, p re sid e n t o f In ­
d o n e s ia n R e p u b lic 236, 308, 413,
436, 453, 456, 457, 459
S u le im a n th e M a g n ific e n t, O tto m a n
s u lta n 247
S u lta n -G a lie v , M ir S a jit, T atar c o m ­
m u n is t le a d e r 316
S u n Y a t-sen , C h in ese n a tio n a lis t le a d ­
e r 283, 284, 412, 423
S z a la ssi, F e re n c , H u n g a ria n fascist
le a d e r 451
S z e ch e n y i, C o u n t S te p h e n , H u n g a r­
ian lib e ra l s ta te s m a n 161, 162
S z to ja y , D o m e , p rim e m in iste r o f
H u n g a ry im p o se d by G e rm a n a rm y
401
T a d a sii B iru, E th io p ia n g e n e ra l o f
G a lla o rig in 343
T an c sics, Jo z se f, H u n g a ria n so cialist
p io n e e r 429
T a y lo r, Z a c h a ry , p re sid e n t o f th e
U n ited S ta te s 214
T ila k , Bal G a h a n d h a r, In d ia n N a tio n ­
a l C o n g re ss le a d e r 292, 293
T im u r K h a n , M o n g o l c o n q u e r o r o f
C e n tra l A sia 245
T isza , C o u n t Istv a n , p rim e m in iste r o f
H u n g a ry 166
T isz a , K a lm a n , p rim e m in iste r o f
H u n g a ry 165
Name Index 555
T ito , J o s ip B roz, Y u g o sla v c o m m u ­
n ist lea d er a n d p re sid e n t o f re p u b lic
140, 320
T o it, S. J . d u , A frik a a n s w rite r a n d
la n g u a g e re fo rm e r 232
T o n e , W olfe, Irish re v o lu tio n a ry 36
T ro lle , G u sta v , S w ed ish a rc h b is h o p
69, 70
T ro ts k y , L eo n , R u ss ia n c o m m u n ist
a n d r e v o lu tio n a ry le a d e r 404, 460
T ru d e a u , P ie rre E llio tt, p rim e m in is­
te r o f C a n a d a 229
T se n g K u o -fa n , C h in ese c o n se rv a tiv e
s ta te s m a n 282
T sh o m b e , M oi'se, C o n g o lese p o litica l
lea d e r, p rim e m in iste r o f K a ta n g a ,
la te r o f all C o n g o 342
T u rn e r, F re d e ric k J a c k s o n , A m e ric a n
h is to ria n 197
T z u -h si, d o w a g e r e m p re ss o f C h in a
283
U v a ro v , C o u n t S e rg e i, R u ss ia n m in is­
te r o f e d u c a tio n 85, 119
V a rg as, G e tu lio , p re sid e n t o f B razil
226, 368, 369
V a sa , G u sta v , k in g o f S w ed e n 69
V enelin, Y urii, R u ss ia n sp e c ia list in
B u lg a ria n la n g u a g e 145
V enizelos, E le u th e ro s, p rim e m in iste r
o f G reece 114, 115
V itto rio E m a n u e le II, k in g o f Italy
106, 107
V la d im ir, g re a t p rin c e o f K iev 78
V la d im ire sc u , T u d o r, le a d e r o f R o ­
m a n ia n risin g a g a in st O tto m a n rule
177, 178
V o rs te r, J o h n , p rim e m in iste r o f
S o u th A frica 235, 376
W allac e, S ir W illia m , le a d e r o f S c o t­
tish re sistan c e to E n g lish in v asio n
26
W a s h in g to n , B o o k e r T ., A m e ric a n
n e g ro le a d e r 360, 361
W a s h in g to n , G e o rg e, first p re sid e n t o f
556 Name Index
th e U n ite d S ta te s 199, 212, 434
W av ell, F ield M a rs h a l, v ice ro y o f
In d ia 296
W e iz m a n n , C h a im , p io n e e r o f Z io n ist
m o v e m e n t 397, 401
W elen sk y , S ir R o y , p rim e m in iste r o f
C e n tra l A fric a n F e d e ra tio n 335
W esselenyi, B a ro n N ic h o la s, H u n g a r­
ia n n a tio n a lis t le a d e r 179
W h ite fie ld , G e o rg e, A m e ric a n reli­
g io u s re fo rm e r 196
W ie lo p o lsk i, M a rq u e s s A le x a n d e r,
P o lish re fo rm e r u n d e r R u ssia n rule
127
W illiam th e S ile n t, P rin c e o f O ra n g e
62, 64
W illia m I, k in g o f E n g la n d 23
W illia m 111, k in g o f E n g la n d 32, 33
W illia m s, D r E ric, p rim e m in iste r o f
T rin id a d 409
W ilso n , W o o d ro w , p re sid e n t o f the
U n ited S ta te s 108
W itte, C o u n t S e rg iu s, R u ssia n finance
m in iste r, la te r p rim e m in iste r 393
W ittfo g el, K a rl A u g u st, o rie n ta list
a n d h is to ria n 239, 274
X a v ier, S t F ra n c is , C a th o lic m issio n ­
a ry in F a r E ast 277
Y eats, W illiam B u tler, Irish p o e t 38
Y o u n g , D o u g la s, S c o ttis h p o e t a n d
n a tio n a lis t w rite r 35
Y p sila n ti, P rin c e A le x a n d e r, le a d e r o f
G re ek re b ellio n 113, 177
Y u a n S h ih -k a i, C h in ese m ilita ry d ic ­
ta t o r 284
Z a g h lu l P a s h a , S a a d , E g y p tia n n a ­
tio n a lis t le a d e r 250
Z in o v ie v , G rig o rii, R u ssia n c o m m u ­
nist a n d lea d er o f C o m in te rn 404
Subject Index
A fg h a n ista n 259, 307
A lb a n ia n s 141-142, 145, 3 2 0 ,4 5 7 ,4 6 0 ,
461, 471
A lg eria 250, 261, 263-267, 459
A n g o la 335-337, 459, 460, 470, 476
A ra b s: A ra b ic c iv ilisa tio n a n d M u slim
e m p ires 240-243, 464; W este rn
d o m in a tio n o v e r A ra b ic -sp e a k in g
la n d s 246-248, 261-263; re p la c e ­
m en t o f Islam by A ra b ic lan g u a g e
a s m a rk o f id e n tity 260-262; a p p e a l
o f P a n a ra b is m to n o n -M u s lim
A ra b s in F e rtile C re sc en t 261-262,
265, in N o rth A fric a 265, in E gypt
266-268; a p p e a l o f P a n a ra b is m to
a ll A ra b ic -sp e a k in g e d u c a te d elites
265-266; Ba’ath p a rtie s 268; P a les­
tin e p ro b le m a s u n ify in g fa c to r 264,
268-270; o b sta cles to A ra b u n ity 270-
271; la te n t c o n tra d ic tio n b etw een
P a n a ra b is m a n d Isla m 270-271
A rg e n tin a 220-222, 379, 434, 453
A rm e n ia n s 85, 86, 278, 310, 311, 315,
383-387, 438, 448
A u s tra lia 210, 211, 235-237, 258, 439
A u s tria : H a b s b u rg M o n a rc h y 93-97,
102-108, 126, 131-139, 147, 149-188
passim·, A u s tr o - H u n g a ria n C o m ­
p ro m is e (1867) 38, 133, 163; G e r­
m a n n a tio n a lis m in A u s tria 98-99;
A u s tria n R e p u b lic 99-101; A u s tria n
so c ialists 98, 4 4 6 ^ 4 7 , 470-472
B altic G e rm a n s 85-86, 385
B asq u es 53, 55, 56, 59
B elgium : k in g d o m o f 64-66, 99; as
c o lo n ia l p o w e r in C o n g o 326, 328,
330-331, 333-334, 342; fascism in
451 (see also N e th e rla n d s )
B engal 296-299, 304-306
B oh em ia: k in g d o m o f 149; te n d e n c y
to fo rm a tio n o f a B o h e m ia n n a tio n
149-150; rev ersal o f th is a f te r 1620
150-152; e m e rg en c e o f riv al C zech
a n d G e rm a n n a tio n s 153-155
B olivia 220, 222, 224, 380, 381
Brazil: d isc o v ery o f by P o rtu g u e se
194; P o rtu g u e se ru le in 203-204;
in d e p e n d e n t B razil 204, 225-226;
im m ig ra tio n in to 226; slav ery in
359; race re la tio n s in 367-369
B u d d h ism 276-278, 280, 410
B u lg aria n s i 6, 113, 114, 116, 118, 136,
138, 140-141, 145, 146, 320-321,
432, 455, 468
B u rm a 280, 307, 406, 407, 435, 436
B u ru n d i 342, 476
C a m b o d ia 273, 309, 435
C a n a d a : d isc o v e ry o f 194-195; c o n ­
q u e st by B ritish fro m F re n c h 195; in
n in e te e n th c e n tu ry 204-206; fe d e ra ­
tio n o f 206; C a n a d ia n im m ig ra tio n
to U n ited S ta te s 216; Q u e b e c n a ­
tio n a lis m 227-232
558 Subject Index
C a stilia n s 17, 51-55, 477
C a ta la n s 52-60, 421, 471, 472, 477
C e y lo n 279, 280, 406, 407
C h e c h e n s 278, 313, 315
C h ile 220-222, 379, 434
C h in a : a n c ie n t e m p ire a n d c iv ilisatio n
274-276, 277; E u ro p e a n in te rv e n ­
tio n in 280-283; T ’a ip in g R e b ellio n
281-282; R e v o lu tio n o f 1911 283-
284; la n g u a g e re fo rm in 284; K u o ­
m in ta n g 284-285; C h in ese c o m m u ­
n ists 284-287; ov e rsea s C h in ese 383,
384, 410-415
C h ’ing d y n a sty in C h in a 2 7 5 ,2 7 6 ,2 8 2 ,
423
C h ris tia n ity , c o n v e rsio n to o f B ritish
23, 29, o f s o u th e rn S lav s 118, o f
R u ss ia n s 78, o f E th io p ia n s 323;
C h ris tia n ity a n d Isla m 240-243,
248, 261-262, 271, 345-346; C h ris ­
tia n ity in C h in a 277, in J a p a n 277,
in I n d o c h in a 280, in c o lo n ia l A frica
331, 345-346
C o lo n ia l e m p ires: P o rtu g u e se 193,
194, 277, 279, 329-331, 335-337;
S p a n ish 193, 199-203, 280; R u ssia n
195, 277-280, 310; D u tc h 193, 194,
195, 279-280, 308; B ritish 193, 195-
199, 2 0 4 -2 1 1 ,2 8 0 ,2 9 0 -2 9 6 ,3 0 7 -3 0 8 ,
325-328, 329-331, 332-336, 344-346,
348; F re n c h 193, 1 9 5 ,2 0 4 , 280, 309-
310, 324, 326, 329-331; B elgian 326,
328, 333-334; G e rm a n 326, 328;
I ta lia n 3 2 6 ,3 2 8 ; A m e ric a n 3 0 8 ,3 0 9 ;
S o v ie t 310-319
C o m m o n w e a lth (fo rm e rly B ritish )
4 74, 475
C o n fu c ia n ism 276-278, 280-283, 287,
288, 423, 424
C o n g o (Z a ïre ) 326, 333-335, 341, 342
C ro a ts : h isto ric a l tr a d itio n o f 131-132;
Illy ria n m o v e m e n t 133-134; C ro a ts
a n d S e rb s 134, 137, 139-141, 471;
C ro a ts a n d Ita lia n s 108, 450; so cial
classes 429
C u b a 223, 225, 3 3 7 ,3 6 6 ,4 5 9 ,4 6 0 ,4 7 3 ,
476
C y p ru s 116, 117
C z e c h o slo v a k ia : first re p u b lic 155-
156; se c o n d re p u b lic 156-157; e x ­
p u lsio n o f G e rm a n s 100, 156; c o m ­
m u n is t se izu re o f p o w e r 156;
‘so c ialism w ith a h u m a n fa ce ’ 157,
321, 322
C zechs: la n g u a g e a s b a sis o f n a tio n a l
id e n tity 150; revival o f lan g u a g e
151, 152, 431, 473; C zech p a n sla v ­
ism 119, 120, 152, 153, 157; C zech
n a tio n a l m o v e m e n t b e fo re 1918
153-155; C z e c h -G e rm a n c o n flicts
155-156; C zech s a n d R u ssia n s 153,
157; C zech s a n d S lo v a k s 170-174
D a n e s 67-71, 73-75, 93-95
E c u a d o r 220, 222, 380
E gypt: a n c ie n t e m p ire o f 239; in R o ­
m a n e m p ire 240; in M u slim A ra b
e m p ire 240; u n d e r F a tim id s 242;
u n d e r M a m lu k s 242; u n d e r O tto ­
m a n s 243; u n d e r B ritish ru le 246-
248; E g y p tia n n a tio n a lis m 2 5 0 ,2 6 3 ,
266; P a n a ra b is m in 262, 265-270;
E g y p t a n d Israel 267, 268-269, 401
E n g la n d : A n g lo -S a x o n p rin c ip a litie s
in 23, 24; f o rm a tio n o f k in g d o m 23;
fo rm a tio n o f E n g lish la n g u a g e 29-
31; f o rm a tio n o f E n g lish n a tio n 30,
33; A n g lo -F re n c h w a rs a n d n a tio n ­
a l c o n sc io u sn e ss 44, 45-46 (see also
C o lo n ia l e m p ires)
E ritre a 326, 473
E s to n ia n s 86, 312, 315, 321, 433, 438,
448
E th io p ia 32, 326, 340, 342, 343, 345,
459, 473
F a tim id s , S h i’i d y n a s ty ru lin g in
E g y p t 242
Fiji 406, 408, 409
F in n s 22, 68, 71-75, 86, 87, 268-269.
312, 320, 448
F re n c h 42-49; fo rm a tio n o f French
n a tio n 46-48; F re n c h a n d S axon

e le m en ts in E n g lish la n g u a g e 29-30;
A n g lo -F re n c h w a rs a n d F re n c h n a ­
tio n a l c o n sc io u sn e ss 45-46; O c cita-
n ia 44-45, 47; F re n c h la n g u a g e as
in s tru m e n t o f sta te 48; o th e r la n ­
g u a g es sp o k e n in m o d e rn F ra n c e 49
(see also C o lo n ia l e m p ire s)
G a lic ian s (S p a n ish ) 57, 60
G e o rg ia n s 246, 3 1 0 ,3 1 1 ,3 1 5 ,3 2 1 ,3 8 6 ,
448
G e rm a n s: in m ed ie v al H o ly R o m a n
E m p ire 91-92; in R e fo rm a tio n 92;
n a tio n a l c o n sc io u sn e ss o f 92-93;
m o v e m e n t fo r n a tio n a l u n ity 93-
101; G re a te r G e rm a n a n d L ittle
G e rm a n id eas 94-96; P a n g e rm a n -
ism 98-99; c re a tio n o f G e rm a n e m ­
p ire 97; p a rtitio n o f G e rm a n y 100-
101; G e rm a n s a n d P o le s 99, 100,
126-128, 129-130; G e rm a n s a n d
C z ec h s 99, 149-156; G e rm a n s a n d
Je w s 98, 154, 3 8 9 -3 9 1, 399, 400, 404
G h a n a (fo rm e r G o ld C o a st) 323, 340,
341
G re ek s 7, 16, 110-117, 177, 178; re ­
fo rm o f la n g u a g e 114; Ellinismos
113, 117; th e ‘G re a t Id e a ’ 114, 473;
G re ek s a n d T u rk s in C y p ru s 116;
G re ek d ia s p o ra 383, 384; social
s tru c tu re 432
G u y a n a 366, 406, 409
H a iti 358, 366
H a n d y n a sty in C h in a 275
H in d u ism 274, 277-278, 280, 290-301,
410
H u n g a ria n s: c o n c e p t o f m ed iev al
H u n g a ria n natio 8, 17, 157, 159;
rev iv al o f lan g u a g e a n d lite ra tu re
158-160; stru g g le a g a in s t V ie n n a
160-161, 445, 446; re v o lu tio n o f
1848 162-163; c o m p ro m ise o f 1867
133, 163-165; official n a tio n a lism
a n d M a g y a ris a tio n 148, 163-169,
343, 468; te rrito ria l losses o f 1920
168-169; re v o lu tio n o f 1956 321,
Subject Index 559
438, 440; T ra n s y lv a n ia n p ro b le m
175-178, 180-181, 182-184; social
s tru c tu re 159, 426-428, 438-440
Ic elan d 68, 74
In d ia: a n c ie n t e m p ire s in 273-274;
M u slim c o n q u e s ts in 274, 290; B rit­
ish c o n q u e s t o f 279; H in d u s a n d
M u slim s 290-297; In d ia n N a tio n a l
C o n g re ss 292, 293-296, 435; n a tio n ­
a l m o v e m e n t a g a in s t B ritish ru le
292-296; in d e p e n d e n c e a n d p a r ti­
tio n 296; la n g u a g e a n d n a tio n a l
id en tity 291, 297-302; so c ial classes,
c aste a n d n a tio n a l m o v e m e n t 435;
o v e rse a s In d ia n s 373, 375, 385, 386,
406-409
In d o c h in a 436, 437
In d o n e sia 308-309, 411-414, 435, 436,
453, 456, 457, 459
Iran : a n c ie n t e m p ire s in 239-240;
sp re a d o f Islam 240-241; Shia in
241, 245; su rv iv a l a n d re n ew a l o f
P e rsia n lan g u a g e 244-246; S a fa v id
e m p ire 245-246; E u ro p e a n d o m in a ­
tio n in 247, 278; m o d e rn Ira n ia n
n a tio n a lis m 251, 254, 307; so cial
s tru c tu re 422, 425
Ira q 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268-270,
398, 402, 458, 471
Irela n d 7, 10, 19, 21; m ed ie v al c u ltu re
o f 24-28; c o n q u e s t by E n g lish 27;
E nglish ru le in 27, 32-33, 35-36;
m o d e rn Irish n a tio n a lis m 35-42;
re lig io u s d iv isio n in 32, 33, 36, 37,
39-42; Irish R e p u b lic a n A rm y
(IR A ) 40, 41, 451
Israel 267, 268, 269, 270, 401-406, 471
Italy: m o v e m e n t fo r u n ity 102-110;
a n n e x a tio n o f D o d e c a n n e se 114,
116; c la im s o n Y u g o sla v la n d s 139,
140; a n n e x a tio n o f A lb a n ia 146;
Ita lia n ru le in L ib y a 265; in v a s io n o f
E th io p ia (1896) 326, (1936) 328, 344
Iv o ry C o a st 333, 338, 341, 351
Japan: curly history o f 276, 277, 283-
560 Subject Index
285; m o d e rn sta te a n d n a tio n 287-
290, 307, 309; class s tru c tu re 422,
424, 425; fascism in 4 52, 453
Jew s: in d ia s p o ra 12, 383-384, 387;
A shkenazy a n d Sephardim 387-
388; o rig in s a n d ty p e s o f a n ti­
se m itism 391-392; J e w s a n d G e r­
m a n c u ltu re 98, 389, 392; Je w s a n d
H u n g a ria n c u ltu re 389, 390; Je w s in
S p a in 51-52; in P o la n d 122, 388,
399, 444; in H u n g a ry 389, 394, 399;
in R o m a n ia 339, 390, 393, 394; in
R u ssia 393, 394, 404; in S lo v a k ia
174, 399, 400, 404-405; Je w ish se t­
tle m e n ts in P a le stin e 394-395; Z io n ­
ist m o v em e n t 394-397, 398, 400-
401; th e Bund (Je w ish so c ialists in
R u ssia ) 4, 447-448; th e H o lo c a u s t
400-401; in sta te o f Isra el 268-269,
401-406; Is ra e l-A ra b c o n flic t 264,
268-269, 3 9 7 -3 9 8 ,4 0 2 ,4 0 5 -4 0 6 ; B al­
f o u r D e c la ra tio n (1917) 262, 397-
398; so c ial s tru c tu re o f Je w ish c o m ­
m u n itie s 388, 403, 426, 427, 430
K a z a k h s 278, 279, 310, 312, 313, 316-
318
K e n y a 326, 334, 338, 340, 408
K o n g o , k in g d o m o f 324
K o re a 276-277
K u o m in ta n g , C h in ese n a tio n a lis t p a r ­
ty 283-287, 412, 423, 424
K u rd s 262, 271, 471
L a tv ia n s 85, 86, 312, 315, 433, 438,
440, 448
L e b a n o n 261-263, 265, 271; d ia s p o ra
in W est A frica 383, 401
L ith u a n ia n s 79, 85, 120-121; u n io n o f
L ith u a n ia w ith P o la n d (1386 a n d
1569) 121; L ith u a n ia as o b je c t o f
c o n te n tio n b e tw ee n P o la n d a n d
M u s c o v y /R u s s ia 122, 124, 127;
R u ss ific a tio n in 85, 128; in d e p e n ­
d e n t L ith u a n ia 448; a s S o v ie t re ­
p u b lic 3 1 5 ,3 1 6 ; so c ial s tru c tu re 433,
438
M a la y sia n s 280, 308, 407, 410-415,
436
M ali (fo rm e rly S u d a n ) 323, 333, 340
M a n c h u d y n a sty in C h in a 275, 281,
283, 410
M eiji R e s to ra tio n in J a p a n 298, 424-
425
M ex ico : p re -C o lu m b ia n 194; u n d e r
S p a n ish ru le 197, 201; in d e p e n d e n t
203; re v o lu tio n a n d civil w a r 223;
c u ltu ra l c h an g e s since re v o lu tio n
223-224, 225; A m e rin d ia n s in 379
M in g d y n a sty o f C h in a 410
M o g h u l e m p ire 243, 274, 290, 291
M o ro c c o 261, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269,
270, 333, 387, 402
M o z a m b iq u e 335-337, 459
M u slim s: A ra b e m p ire o f 240-242;
Sunna a n d Shia 240-241, 242, 246,
254, 262, 497 (n. 4); M u slim s as
tra d e rs 384, 385; m o d e rn isin g
tre n d s 248-251; P a n isla m ism 249-
251; T u rk s as M u slim s 257-259,
260; P a n a ra b is ts a n d M u slim s 261-
262, 270-271; M u slim s a s a d istin c t
n a tio n in Y u g o sla v ia 131,141 ; M u s­
lim s o f In d ia a n d P a k is ta n 248-249,
291-293, 295-296, 301, 304-307;
B lack M u slim s in U n ited S ta te s 363
N a tio n a l A sso c ia tio n fo r th e A d ­
v a n c e m e n t o f C o lo re d P eo p le
( N A A C P ) 361-363, 365
N égritude 339
N e o c o lo n ia lism : c a p ita lis t ty p e 247-
248, 281-282, 338-339, 474; S oviet
ty p e 320-322
N e th e rla n d s : m e d ie v a l c u ltu re o f 60-
61; R e fo rm a tio n in 62-63; w a r o f
in d e p e n d e n c e 62-63; p a r titio n o f 63-
64; re c re a te d u n ite d N e th e rla n d s
(1815) 65; secessio n o f B elgium 65;
F le m ish n a tio n a lis m 65-66; D u tc h
n a tio n a l c o n sc io u sn e ss 63-66;
D u tc h o v e rse a s e x p a n s io n 279-280,
288-289, 308, 324, 366 (sec a l #
B elgium , C o lo n ia l e m p ires)

N ew Z e a la n d 211, 258
N ig e ria 327, 332, 333, 341, 348-352,
437, 476; civil w a r in 350-352
N o rw e g ia n s 7, 21, 22, 66-70, 73-75;
N o rw e g ia n ru le in W e s te rn Isles o f
S c o tla n d 24-26
O fficial n a tio n a lism ; a s ba sis o f g o v ­
e rn m e n t leg itim a cy 147-148; in
H u n g a ry 161-167, 167-168; in R u s ­
sia n e m p ire 85-87, 167-168; in k in g ­
d o m o f Y u g o sla v ia 140; in In d ia
297-298, 299-303; in E th io p ia 343
O rg a n iz a tio n fo r A fric a n U n ity 340,
476
O rg a n iz a tio n o f A m e ric a n S ta te s 475
O tto m a n e m p ire: c o n q u e s t o f C o n ­
sta n tin o p le b y O tto m a n s 16-17; O t­
to m a n ru le rs a n d C h r is tia n su b je cts
110-111, 1 3 2 ,1 3 4 ,1 3 6 -1 3 7 , 143-146,
176, 177-178, 179-180, 432; a s fo re ­
m o st M u slim sta te 243, 247, 249-
250, 260-261 (see also T u rk s )
P a h la v i d y n a sty in Ir a n 253-255
P a k is ta n 295, 296, 304-307, 475
P a n a fric a n is m 332, 339, 340, 3 6 1 ,3 6 6 ,
476
P a n g e rm a n s 98, 99, 100
P a n isla m ism 248-251, 259, 316
P a n sla v is m 117-120, 133, 151, 152,
171, 446
P a n tu ra n ia n is m 259, 260
P a n tu rk is m 256-258, 310, 316
P a r a g u a y 379-380
P a rth ia n d y n a sty in Ir a n 240, 244
P e ru 194, 200, 202, 203, 222, 380-381
P h ilip p in e s 277, 279-280, 308, 410,
411, 412, 435
P o la n d : fo u n d a tio n o f k in g d o m 17;
u n io n w ith L ith u a n ia 121; C a th o ­
lics, U n ia te s a n d O r th o d o x in 121-
123, 185; p a rtitio n s o f 122; policies
o f th e p a rtitio n in g p o w e rs 125-128;
P o lish re v o lts (1830, 1863) 125,126,
127, 440; P o lish n a tio n a l m o v e m e n t
123-125, 321-322; P o la n d u n d e r
Subject Index 561
S o v ie t d o m in a tio n 130-131; so c ial
s tru c tu re 426-429, 439
P o rtu g a l 51, 53-55 (see also B razil,
C o lo n ia l empirfes)
Q a ja r d y n a sty in Ira n 251-253
R h o d e sia 327, 334, 335, 336
R o m a n ia n s: L a tin la n g u a g e o f 175,
176, 177-178, 320-321; m y th o lo g y
o f o rig in fro m L a tin -s p e a k in g p e o ­
ple 175-176, 184-185, 321; T ra n s y l­
v a n ia n R o m a n ia n s 159, 160, 164,
167, 176-184; M o ld a v ia n a n d W al-
la c h ia n R o m a n ia n s 176, 179, 180;
loss a n d re co v e ry o f B e ssa rab ia
(1812, 1878, 1940) 177, 180-182,
446; loss o f B u k o v in a (1775, 1940)
177; R o m a n ia n s a n d G re e k s 177-
178; R o m a n ia n s a n d H u n g a ria n s
181-184; fascism in R o m a n ia 451,
465; R o m a n ia n a n d S o v ie t c o m m u ­
nists 184-185, 320-322, 438; social
s tru c tu re 429-431
R u ssia n s: fo rm a tio n o f s ta te a n d n a ­
tio n 77-87; K iev R u s 78-80; M u s c o ­
v ite a u to c ra c y 80-82; P e te r th e
G re a t 82-83; la n g u a g e re fo rm 83-84;
W este rn isers a n d S la v o p h ils 84-85;
R u ss ific a tio n 85-87, 167-168 (see
also C o lo n ia l e m p ires)
S a fa v id d y n a sty in Ira n 246, 247, 251,
425
S a ss a n id e m p ire in Ira n 240, 244
S a u d i A ra b ia 263, 268-270
S c o tla n d : k in g d o m o f 7 ,1 7 ,1 9 ,2 1 , 25-
27, 30-32; fo rm a tio n o f S c o ttish n a ­
tio n 25-26, 422; la n g u a g e s o f S c o t­
la n d 23-24, 30-31, 35; A c t o f U n io n
w ith E n g la n d 33, 34; S c o ttis h n a ­
tio n a lis m 35, 42, 471-472; S c o ttish
d ia s p o r a 385
S e n e g al 324, 333, 338
S e rb ia: m ed iev al k in g d o m o f 7, 16;
re v o lt a g a in st O tto m a n s (1804) 132-
133; S e rb ia n sta te a n d fo rm a tio n o f
562 Subject Index
Y u g o sla v ia 139-140; S e rb s in th e
k in g d o m 133, 135; S e rb s in A u s tria -
H u n g a ry 133, 135, 137-138; S e rb s
a n d C ro a ts 134, 137, 139-140, 142,
4 7 1; S e rb s a n d B u lg a ria n s 136, 138;
S e rb s a n d M a c e d o n ia n s 136, 138,
140, 141
S h a n g , C h in e se sta te o f 274
S in g a p o re 411, 413-415
S lo v a k s: C a th o lic s a n d P ro te s ta n ts
a m o n g 169-170; fo r m a tio n o f lite r­
a ry la n g u a g e 170-171 ; c o n flic ts w ith
H u n g a ria n s 171-173; u n io n w ith
C z ec h s in C z e c h o slo v a k ia 172-174;
c o n flic ts w ith C zech s 173-174, 468;
p a n s la v te n d e n c ie s a m o n g 119, 160;
so c ial s tru c tu re 431
S lo v en es: n a tio n a l c o n sc io u s n e s s o f
b a se d o n la n g u a g e 118, 132, 133;
c o n flic t w ith G e rm a n s 95, 98; c o n ­
flic t w ith Ita lia n s 108; in Y u g o slav
s ta te 139; in c o m m u n ist-le d re sis­
ta n c e 140; in Y u g o sla v fe d e ra tio n
140; so c ial s tru c tu re 431
S o m a lis 326, 340, 344, 345, 459, 473
S o u th A frica : C a p e C o lo n y e s ta b ­
lish ed 195; a c q u ire d b y B ritish fro m
D u tc h 195; G re a t T re k 206; T r a n s ­
v a a l, O ra n g e F re e S ta te a n d th e
B ritish g o v e rn m e n t 207-209; B oer
W a r 208; c re a tio n o f U n io n o f
S o u th A fric a 209; fo r m a tio n o f a n
A fr ik a n e r n a tio n 232-235; c o m p a ri­
s o n o f A frik a n e rs a n d Québécois
234-235; apartheid a n d b la c k n a ­
tio n a lis m 369-378, 472; In d ia n s in
S o u th A frica 406-408; A frik a n e r
so c ial s tru c tu re 434
S o v e re ig n sta te : rise o f 16, 17; d istin c ­
tio n b e tw ee n so v e re ig n s ta te a n d
n a tio n a l s ta te 1-2,16-17; as th r e a t to
pe ac e 469; p o ssib le re p la c e m e n t by
la rg e r u n its 474-477; p o ssib le d isin ­
te g ra tio n in to se c tio n a l u n its 478-
480
S o v ie t U nion: n o n -R u s s ia n n a tio n s o f
311-319; n co-coloniiilm m in E a s te rn
E u ro p e 320-322; Je w s in 404; su p ­
p o rt to A ra b n a tio n a lis m 267, to
A fric a n g u e rrilla s 3 3 5 ,3 3 7 ; as w o rld
su p e r p o w e r 473-474
S p a in 49-60; M u slim s in 49-52; m ed ie ­
v al C h r is tia n k in g d o m s 50-52; u n ­
io n o f C a stile a n d A ra g o n 53; C a ta ­
la n n a tio n a lis m 54-58; B a sq u e
n a tio n a lis m 56-57, 59; S p a n ia rd s
a n d C a stilia n s 60 (see also C o lo n ia l
e m p ires)
S p a n is h A m e ric a: c o n q u e s t o f 193-
194; g o v e rn m e n t o f 199-201; w a rs o f
in d e p e n d e n c e 202-203
S p a n ish A m e ric a n n a tio n s 219-225;
te r rito ria l c o n flic ts 220; im m ig ra ­
tio n 220-222; a ttitu d e s to fo reig n
b u sin e ss 224-225, 475; so c ial s tru c ­
tu re s 434
S u d a n 267, 271, 325-327, 340, 345-
348, 476
S u n g d y n a sty in C h in a 275, 410
S w ed e n 68-75, 81, 83, 420
S w itz e rla n d 22, 75-77, 95
S y ria 261-267, 268-269, 277, 401-402,
458, 471
T a i p i n g re b e llio n in C h in a 282
T ’a n g d y n a s ty in C h in a 275, 276
T a n z a n ia (fo rm e rly T a n g a n y ik a a n d
Z a n z ib a r) 327, 328, 334, 335, 338,
340, 351, 408
T a ta rs : G o ld e n H o rd e 242; V olga
T a ta r s 278, 310-312, 316, 383-386,
433, 440, 448; C rim e a n T a ta rs 313
T h a ila n d (fo rm e rly S ia m ) 280; C h i­
nese im m ig ra n ts in 410-412
T o k u g a w a sh o g u n a te in J a p a n 276,
287, 288-289, 424
T rin id a d 366, 367, 406, 409
T u n is ia 250, 261, 263-264, 266
T u rk s: a s m e rc e n a rie s o f A ra b calip h s
242; S e lju k s 242, 245; O tto m a n s
242, 243; T u rk s a n d I ra n ia n s 245,
246, 251, 254-255; T u rk s a n d
G re e k s in A sia M in o r 115; in C y­
p ru s 1 16-1 ! 7 ;T u r k s tm d A rm e n ia n s

386, 387; A zeri T u rk s 254, 278, 310,
311; T u rk is h n a tio n a lis m 250, 256,
259; T u rk ic p e o p le s o f C e n tra l A sia
279, 311-314; T u rk is h n a tio n a lism
and Islam 259-260 (see also O tto ­
m an e m p ire )
U g a n d a 326, 334, 340-342, 406, 408
U k ra in ia n s 185-191; riv al U k ra in ia n
a n d M u sco v ite in te r p r e ta tio n s o f
R u ss ia n h isto ry 79, 83, 186; C o s­
sa c k sta te in U k ra in e 185-186; U ni-
a te s a n d O rth o d o x 122; la n g u a g e as
ba sis fo r U k ra in ia n n a tio n a l c o n ­
sc io u sn e ss 10, 186-187; U k ra in ia n s
u n d e r A u s tria n ru le 127,187-188; in
R u ss ia n R e v o lu tio n 188-189; u n d e r
S o v ie t ru le 188-191, 312, 313, 315,
321, 448; U k ra in ia n s a n d R u ssia n s
87, 128, 186-187, 191; U k ra in ia n s
a n d P o les 122-124, 127, 129-130,
315, 321
U m a y y a d d y n a sty , A r a b c a lip h s in
D a m a s c u s 240, 244
U n ite d S ta te s o f A m e ric a: w a r o f
in d e p e n d e n c e 198-199; fo rm a tio n
o f a n A m e ric a n n a tio n 211-219;
c o n flic t b etw ee n N o r th a n d S o u th
213-215; im m ig ra tio n 215-216;
b la c k A m e ric a n s 213-214, 217, 218,
219, 357-366; A m e rin d ia n s 378-379;
Subject Index 563
A m e ric a n Je w s 218, 395, 401, 404;
e th n ic g ro u p s a n d A m e ric a n n a ­
tio n a l id e n tity 217-219; U n ite d
S ta te s a s w o rld s u p e r p o w e r 308-
310, 473-474; U n ited S ta te s a n d
P a n a m e ric a n is m 475; U n ite d S ta te s
as im p e ria l p o w e r in P h ilip p in e s
308-309
U ru g u a y 220-222
U zb ek s 317, 318
V en ezu ela 201-203, 222, 225, 379, 409
V ie tn a m 273, 276, 280, 309, 435
W ales 28, 30, 34; W elsh n a tio n a lism
35
Y em en' 263, 267, 270
Y u a n d y n a sty in C h in a 275, 410
Y ugoslavs: th e s o u th S la v p e o p le s
131-132; th e Y u g o sla v Id e a 134-136;
a s a lte rn a tiv e to C ro a tia n a n d S e r­
b ia n n a tio n a lis m 134, 137-138;
f o u n d a tio n o f Y u g o sla v s ta te (1918)
139; Y u g o slav o fficial n a tio n a lis m
140; d e s tru c tio n o f Y u g o sla v ia
(1941) 140; c o m m u n ist policies fo r
n a tio n s o f Y u g o sla v ia 140-142,471
Z a m b ia (fo rm e rly N o rth e rn R h o d e ­
sia) 335, 351