The decline of Nationalism post World War Two

After the horrors of WWII, Europe strove to recover. The nationalism of the early part of the twentieth century was replaced by an optimistic approach to national collaboration for economic recovery and growth, and a desire for a lasting peace.

Europe appeared to settle into an era of economic stasis. Politically and socially, however, a fundamental change had occurred. Large parts of Europe were dominated by communism, and many of the non-communist countries were becoming more Liberal politically; the post-war era was defined by “embedded liberalism” [Ruggie, John G., 1982] – combining capitalist market efficiency with the introduction of strong social ‘safety nets’.

The desire within Europe for national cooperation led to the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and later the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom), which merged into the European Communities in 1967. In 1993, the European Communities evolved into the European Union (EU).

Before continuing we need to be clear in our thoughts as to the definition of some words ‘Nation’ and ‘Nationalism’.

How do we define Nation?

The concept of ‘Nation’ and ‘Nationalism’ is complex and they often have different meanings for people; I think we must pause here to define ‘Nation’.

The Cambridge dictionary defines a ‘Nation' as:

A country, especially when thought of as a large group of people living in one area with their own government, language, traditions, etc.

Having defined what is meant by Nation, what is defined as Nationalism?

The Stanford University dictionary of philosophy says about 'Nationalism':

Although the term "nationalism" has a variety of meanings, it centrally encompasses two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their identity as members of that nation and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take in seeking to achieve (or sustain) some form of political sovereignty.

Is Patriotism and Nationalism the same thing?

We've looked at a definition of Nationalism, so let's have a look at defining 'Patriotism'.

The Miriam-Webster dictionary says that the use of the word Patriotism is older than nationalism, with 'published written evidence dating back to the middle of the 17th century'.

Miriam-Webster goes on to say:

These two words may have shared a distinct sense in the 19th century, but they appear to have grown apart since. Or rather, it would be more accurate to say that only nationalism has grown apart, since the meaning of patriotism has remained largely unchanged. There are still obvious areas of overlap: we define patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country” and nationalism in part as “loyalty and devotion to a nation”. But the definition of nationalism also includes “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups”. This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism.

Miriam-Webster state that the relationship between the two words, Patriotism and Nationalism is problematic; it seems there is no definitive concensus about the meanings of the words.

However a quote by the American Journalist Sydney J. Harris sums up nicely, I believe, the difference:

“The difference between Patriotism and Nationalism is that the Patriot is proud of his Country for what it does, and the Nationalist is proud of his Country no matter what it does”.

Populism

Many people, when talking about nationalism, use the word ‘nationalist’ and the term ‘populist’ interchangeably, however the word is more frquently allied to the right-wing ideologies i.e. “nationalist-populist”, a term often used to describe U.S. President Donald J. Trump.

“Populism” is an cover-all term, covering both right-wing and left-wing varieties;

According to Cas Mudde, author of Populism: A Very Short Introduction, in political science, populism is the idea that society is separated into two groups at odds with one another &endash; “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite”.

Many populist leaders and politicians will use current trends in order to maintain the two-group separation, for example the rise in popular antagonism over the huge increase in migration of peoples from war-torn and/or impoverished nations to the more affluent nations.

This approach provides Nationalist leaders with a flexible basis on which to “give the people what they want”, allowing them to almost perpetually maintain a state of internal flux that allows them to appear to have the answers that ‘the people’ want to their real or perceived concerns or problems.

Nationalism

Since the Second World War, Nationalism has become a dirty word. But is it?

Most people are proud of the Country where they were born; they are proud to be a citizen of that Country and strive to uphold its laws and values. So does that mean that they are a Nationalist?

Label a person a ‘Nationalist’ and the image of a segregationist, right-wing, racist, violent thug who fervently believes that their country and its people is better than others, and is prepared to use violent means to back up their views, is conjured up in the minds of many.

The spectre of Nazi Fascism at it's worst, and the past horrors of fascist regimes, is then used to stigmatise and marginalise them.

But is this view of Nationalism the whole truth? Of course not. To perjoratively label a Nationalist, a Fascist, or Neo-Nazi is a huge over-simplification; to coin a phrase, ‘One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter’. However, the emergence of groups such as the National Socialist Movement (NSM) in the U.S. and the Svoboda ‘Azov Batallion’ in the Ukraine – now formally integrated in the Ukraine National Guard, is a cause for more than mere concern for some.

The storming of the U.S. Capitol Building, 6 January, 2021, by the supporters of President Donald Trump, who were variously described as ‘domestic terrorists’, far-right militia, or just plain thugs, sent shock waves through the U.S. and western democracies.

Up to that point in time, much was made by security experts in the U.S. of threats from external groups usually linked to Islamic extremism.
However, according to a 2017 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death [in the U.S.] since September 12, 2001, right-wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73%)”.

Many European and former Communist bloc countries, have seen a dramatic rise in pro-nationalist groups and political parties.
These pro-nationalist political parties are seeing a rise in popularity and making significant headway into mainstream politics, reaching popular status and winning - or predicted to win - positions in national parliaments, for example the right wing National Rally in France that has elected members in both chambers of the French Parliament, including the National Assembly and the Senate, or the German AfD party that currently AfD holds seats in parliaments, including the Bundestag, but it does not govern and has no elected members in any German government.

So, can we find an explanation for the renewed rise of Nationalism in the arena of mainstream National politics?

Psychologist Nigel Barber in an article for Psychology Today writes:

Xi-Jinping of China and Vladimir Putin of Russia, two openly Nationalist leaders

Barber says in his conclusion:

Novelist Elif Shafak writing for Quartz states, “Much has been said about how today’s political environment bears a resemblance to the interwar years of 1918 to 1939. But comparisons of this kind, while they have some degree of validity, can be misleading insofar as they prevent us from seeing what is completely new and different.”

Shafak goes on to say, “Today’s nationalistic movements, despite all their flag-waving rhetoric, benefit critically from international financial support and corporate structures, from online networks and digital partnerships to handshake alliances.
One of the biggest ironies of our time is that in the 21st century, nationalism has become a true benefactor of globalization.”

The real problem with Nationalism

The real problem with Nationalism, as proposed by some, is not the relatively small in number extreme far-left or far-right groups in themselves, because they generally do not have the backing of the State that will allow them to gain prominence; it is the growing number of main-stream Political leaders and heads of Governments who embrace populist-nationalism who shape their laws and state apparatus to suit the Nationalist ideology – as happened in Germany, Italy and Japan prior to WWII; leaders such as:

Recep Erdogan of Turkey – widely condemned for promoting religious intolerance, electoral rigging, human rights violations, anti-feminist views, and corruption;

Vladimir Putin of Russia – who has a record of jailing political opponents, purges and curtailed press freedom, lack of free and fair elections, accusations of persecution, torture and assassination of political critics and activists;

Kim Jong-un of North Korea – accused of murdering his uncle and all his uncles's close relatives, purges and executions of Party members and human rights violations.

Xi Jinping – the People's Republic of China;

Alexander Lukashenko – President of Belarus.

And the list goes on with leaders such as Jair Bolsonaro – former President of Brazil (2019 to 2023); Rodrigo Duterte – former Phillipines President (2016 to 2022);

So what makes these Nationalist leaders, and others like them, so dangerous for the world as a whole?

Lisa Wade, writing for Pacific Standard, Jun 14, 2017, writes the following:

Nationalism – a passionate investment in one’s country over and above others – is neither good nor neutral. Here are some reasons why it’s dangerous:

• Nationalism is a form of In-Group/Out-Group thinking:
  It encourages the kind of “us” vs. “them” attitude that drives sports fandom, making people irrationally committed to one team. When the team wins, they feel victorious (even though they just watched), and they feel pleasure in others' defeat. As George Orwell put it: “A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige … his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations”.

• Committed to winning at all costs, with power-seeking and superiority as the only real goal, Nationalists feel justified in hurting the people of other countries:
  Selfishness and a will to power — instead of morality, mutual benefit, or long-term stability — becomes the driving force of foreign policy. Broken agreements, violence, indifference to suffering, and other harms to countries and their peoples destabilize global politics. As the Washington Post wrote in its unprecedented editorial board opinion on Trump: "The consequences to global security could be disastrous".

• Nationalism contributes to internal fragmentation and instability:
  It requires that we decide who is and isn’t truly part of the nation, encouraging exclusionary, prejudiced attitudes and policies toward anyone within our borders who is identified as part of "them". Trump has been clearly marking the boundaries of the real America for his entire campaign, excluding Mexican Americans, Muslims, African Americans, immigrants, and possibly even women.

• A leader with a Nationalist mandate will feel entitled to breaking the laws of his or her own country:
  If the Constitution interferes with nationalist ambition, then the Constitution can be set aside. Trump has discussed controlling the media, interfering with the judiciary, unlawful torture, and extrajudicial murder. Some of his supporters want to imprison his political rivals. None of this is legal, but he doesn’t care.

• A Nationalist leader wWill have to lie and distort history in order to maintain the illusion of superiority:
  A nationalist regime requires a post-truth politics, one that makes facts irrelevant in favor of emotional appeals. As Dr. Ali Mohammed Naqvi explained: “To glorify itself, nationalism generally resorts to suppositions, exaggerations, fallacious reasonings, scorn and inadmissible self-praise, and worst of all, it engages in the distortion of history, model-making and fable-writing. Historical facts are twisted to imaginary myths as it fears historical and social realism”.

• Thoughtful and responsive governance interferes with self-glorification; internal reflection and external criticism must be squashed:
  Nationalist leaders attack and disempower anyone who questions the nationalist program and aim to destroy social movements. After Trump’s acceptance speech, Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullers responded: “He … threaten[ed] the vast majority of this country with imprisonment, deportation and a culture of abject fear”. Anyone who isn't on board, especially if they are designated as a “them”, must be silenced.

Wade concludes the article by writing: ‘And that’s dangerous. It's committing to one's country's preeminence and doing whatever it takes, however immoral, unlawful, or destructive, to further that goal’.

Globalisation and the re-emergence of Nationalism

Kenichi Ohmae's book, The Borderless World, was published in 1990, the year after the fall of the Berlin Wall and quickly became a classic text of globalisation proponants. The book details the 'melting away' of national economic borders and how the digitally interconnected world would benefit.

But, driven and fuelled by the coronavirus pandemic, national borders, both economic and physical, are returning with a vengeance. When the pandemic passes, the most severe barriers to travel and trade will be lifted. Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that a full restoration of the globalised world, as it existed before Covid-19, will emerge. The nation-state is making a comeback, driven by this unparalled and devastating crisis.

There are three main reasons for this. First, the pandemic is highlighting that in times of crisis people fall back on the nation-state that, generally, has power and strengths, in financial and organisational areas for its citizens, that global institutions are lacking.

Second, the Covid-19 crisis starkly revealed the ultimately fragile nature of global supply chains. This became immediately apparent in the scramble by Governments to obtain medical supplies and protective equipment for its health workers.

It is hard to believe that the major economies and other large, developed countries will continue to accept a situation where they are forced to import most if not all of their vital medical supplies.

Finally, the pandemic reinforc political trends that were already starkly apparent before the crisis broke - in particular, the growing popular demand for more protectionism, localisation of production, and tougher frontier controls.
During a crisis such as a pandemic, the tightening border controls makes sense; and if a reversion to the nation-state is kept within bounds, it need not be a bad thing; It could be seen simply as a political 'course correction' that takes place in democracies, in response to events and changes in the public mood.

This was demonstrated in the UK referendum held to decide if the UK should remain in or leave the European Union. The ‘leave’ side played heavily on the EU open border policy that allowed, what was seen by many, as uncontrolled mass immigration to the UK of peoples from Africa and the middle-east. The ‘leavers’ called for the UK to ‘regain control of its borders’, a message that fell on receptive ears with many, but deaf ears within the political elites and governing parties.

Although the ‘leave’ result – with just over fifty per cent of the UK population as a whole voting to leave – came as a sizemic shock to many politicians in the UK, the ‘will of the electorate’ was upheld. Many observers in the UK and around the world have, since the referendum labelled the ‘leave’ voters as xenophobic, something that is a simplistic view of a complex situation, and most likely very far from the truth for the majority.

However, the danger is that the revival of the nation-state will cause a slide into uncontrolled nationalism leading to slumps in global trade and the near abandonment of international co-operation. The worst-case scenarios could include the collapse of the European Union and a complete breakdown in relations between the US and China that could, conceivably, result in war.

The return to nation-state and nationalist thinking is particularly striking in Europe where the EU, seen as the organisation that has gone furthest to transcend the nationalistic ideology, has struggled to stop member states imposing unilateral national decisions. For example, when Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, gave an emergency address to the nation over the pandemic crisis, she did not mention the EU once.

Frontier controls that had all but disappeared - for example between France and Germany - were suddenly restored; and with financial aid for businesses and unemployed workers largely coming from the European nations, not the EU.

Prominent politicians in Poland, Italy, and Spain openly criticised the EU for failing to deliver on its promise of solidarity. Given the relative sizes of the budgets of the EU and European nations, it is inevitable that Governments will pick up most of the cost, as they struggle to ward off economic depression. But as a crisis intensifies - and financial and other resources become ever scarcer - the pressures on solidarity will grow. This was demonstrated by one EU member state purchasing the Russian &lsquol;Sputnik’ vaccine in defiance of EU rules.

The ongoing antagonisms that the pandemic has stirred up between the US and China are more visible. Donald Trump's decision to label Covid-19 the “China virus” is typical of the US president's name-calling, blame-evading, populist political style. But it is also a reaction to efforts by Chinese officials to suggest that the virus might have originated in America.

One experienced observer in the U.S. commented: “I cannot think of a more dangerous time in the US-China relationship in the last 40 years.” The pandemic also strengthened the hand of those in the Trump administration who had long wanted to dismantle international supply chains and repatriate production to the U.S.

Peter Navarro, an ardent protectionist in the Trump Presidency, argued the pandemic crisis demonstrated that, “in a global public health emergency, the U.S. is alone”. It is certainly true that a situation where 97 per cent of all antibiotics in the U.S. are imported from China will be seen as acceptable again.

These kinds of considerations extend well beyond medicines and the strained US-China relationship. It was possible for a British government adviser to suggest (in the context of Brexit) that there was no real need for the UK to produce its own food. But with entire nations, as well as individuals, having to endure self-isolation, nobody can or should blithely assume that essential goods can always be imported from overseas.

The pandemic-driven backlash against globalisation will come initially from protectionists and national-security hawks. But it will gather force as it merges with other political currents that were gaining strength before Covid-19 came onto the world stage.

On the left, the environmental movement was already stigmatising air travel and demanding that localisation should roll-back globalisation. On the right, the clamour for walls to keep out refugees and illegal immigrants was growing ever louder.

But while the anti-globalists are likely to have the political winds behind them in the aftermath of the pandemic, they do not have the best solutions. On the contrary, a pandemic is very much a global problem that ultimately demands some form of international governance.

Resuscitating the world's economies will also be much harder if countries move towards economic independence and self-sufficiency. On a national level, everybody disapproves of hoarders who grab the last toilet roll and pint of milk off the supermarket shelves, but, what happens when entire Countries and Nations behave like that?

As Nigel Barber pointed out we have already seen the past, so the citizens of the World should have no desire to see a re-run of the tragedies that were the two World Wars.

Migration and the rise of nationalism

The relationship between migration, particularly mass migration into Europe from the Middle-east and Africa, and the rise of nationalism is a central topic of debate among political scientists, sociologists, and policymakers globally, with various sources attributing different roles to how large-scale or irregular migration influences nationalist movements.

Key Arguments Linking Migration to the Rise of Nationalism

Many political analysts and academic studies argue that large influxes of migrants can accelerate nationalist sentiments through several distinct mechanisms:

• Cultural and National Identity Concerns:
  Academic sources often highlight that rapid changes in demographic composition can trigger “cultural anxiety” among native populations. Nationalist parties frequently leverage these anxieties, presenting themselves as defenders of traditional national identity, language, and cultural values against what they portray as rapid external dilution.
• Economic Competition and Welfare Concerns:
  Some economic and political reports indicate that immigration is often framed by nationalist movements as a strain on public resources. The argument presented is that large-scale migration increases competition for low-skilled jobs, depresses wages, and overburdens state infrastructure, such as healthcare, housing, and social welfare systems.
• Security and Sovereignty Rhetoric:
  Following periods of high irregular migration (such as the European migrant crisis), many right-wing and nationalist political parties shifted their platforms to focus heavily on border security and national sovereignty. According to political science literature, these parties argue that a nation-state's primary duty is to protect its borders, framing uncontrolled migration as a failure of establishment politics and globalist institutions.

Alternative and Compounding Factors

Conversely, many researchers and political commentators argue that focusing solely on migration oversimplifies the rise of nationalism. They suggest migration often acts as a catalyst or a scapegoat for deeper, pre-existing structural issues:

• Economic Deindustrialization and Inequality:
  Many economists argue that the root cause of nationalist support lies in long-term economic shifts, such as globalization, automation, and the decline of manufacturing jobs. From this perspective, voters who feel left behind by the modern economy turn to nationalist parties, and migration serves as a highly visible target for broader economic frustrations.
• Distrust in Political Institutions:
  Sociological studies frequently point to a growing disconnect between mainstream political elites and working-class populations. Nationalist movements often capitalize on a perception that traditional governments are ineffective or indifferent to the concerns of ordinary citizens, using migration policy as a primary example of government failure.
• Media and Political Framing:
  Some Media analysts and Left-wing Political groups propose that the perception of migration often outstrips reality. The rise of nationalist sentiment is sometimes attributed to the highly visible framing of migration crises in news coverage and social media algorithms, which can amplify fear and polarization regardless of actual local immigration rates.

Right-wing and conservative political movements generally express several core concerns regarding mass immigration, spanning cultural, economic, security, and social welfare dimensions.

Cultural and National Identity

• Social Cohesion:
  Right-wing groups argue that rapid and high-volume immigration strains traditional values, shared languages, and local customs, potentially creating fragmented or “parallel societies” rather than a unified national identity.
• Preservation of Heritage:
  Many nationalist and right-of-center parties voice concern that native populations may eventually become cultural minorities or lose their historical heritage in their own homelands.

Economic and Welfare Pressures

• Public Services:
  Critics argue that rapid population growth driven by immigration places a heavy burden on public infrastructure, including healthcare systems, public schools, and affordable housing.
• Welfare Costs:
  Concerns are frequently raised about the fiscal impact of supporting large numbers of asylum seekers or non-contributing arrivals, with arguments that native citizens should be prioritized in welfare provisions and public assistance distribution.
• Wage and Labor Competition:
  Some economic-focused right-wing factions contend that a large influx of low-skilled labor can depress wages or reduce employment opportunities for domestic low-income workers.

National Security and Border Control

• Rule of Law:
  A central tenet of right-wing platforms is that uncontrolled or illegal immigration undermines national sovereignty and bypasses legal, regulated pathways for entry.
• Crime and Safety:
  Critics frequently link unvetted or porous borders to heightened security risks, potential increases in localized crime, and difficulties in tracking individuals with criminal records or those ordered for deportation.

Governance and Integration Challenges

• Failed Assimilation:
  Right-wing commentators often point to perceived failures in integrating migrant communities into the broader civic, legal, and economic fabric of host nations.
• Strained Enforcement:
  Concerns focus on the administrative and financial backlogs involved in processing asylum claims, detaining rejected applicants, and executing deportations.

Conclusion

To quote the dahlai Lama:

“Whether we like it or not, we have all been born on this earth as part of one great human family. Rich or poor, educated or uneducated, belonging to one nation or another, to one religion or another, adhering to this ideology or that, ultimately each of us is just a human being like everyone else: we all desire happiness and do not want suffering. Furthermore, each of us has an equal right to pursue these goals.”

Liberal Nationalism, where everyone has respect and tolerance – for their Country, and for other Countries and it's citizens, and their culture, values and ideals – can be a good thing. We often hear in the West about embracing diversity, believing that everyone has a place and role in their society, so this philosophy applied to a global scale is only a small step away from truly making us a Human Global Family ... if we are only willing to make it happen.

References

Nigel Barber Ph.D., psychologytoday.com, Apr 04, 2018, The Resurgence of Nationalism

Elif Shafak, Novelist, Quartz, August 6, 2019, What makes nationalism so successful

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: nationalism

Lisa Wade, Pacific Standard 2017, Why Nationalism is so dangerous

Cas Mudde, Author, Populism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2017.

Miriam Webster Dictionary: Patriotism v Nationalism

Atlas Institute for Foreign Affairs: The Rise of Far-Right Parties in Europe: Causes, Trends, and Implications, Max Mumford, March 1, 2025

ModernDiplomacy.eu, The Right on the Rise: Nationalism and the Changing Face of Europe, Ramin Babayev, June 7, 2025

Sage Journals, The rise of populist radical right parties in Europe, Murat Aktas, Volume 39, Issue 6, First published online November 16, 2024

EduBirdie, The Rise of Nationalism in Europe and Its Global Repercussions, Updated: 08.01.2026

Ruggie, John Gerard (1982). "International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order". International Organization. 36 (2): 379–415. doi:10.1017/S0020818300018993. ISSN 0020-8183.

Back to top