[Jeff Chandler]

WWI was not the result of nationalism. That was the pretext for leaders eager for the “glory” of war.

[dirtboy]

WWI was a textbook example of the dangers of intertwined alliances.

[dp0622]

It seemed more like countries so worried that other countries were gonna strike first that they @#$$ed up big time and got in a war no one wanted.

[buwaya]

It was the result of nationalism, or a sort of it.
It would not have happened had there been no German empire. This was created as a result of a pan-German romantic ideal based on ethnic identity, which had not previously existed. Before then people owed loyalty to a ruler, on of the dozens of small principalities that made up Germany, and their own particular sort of German, a “little” nationalism not a great one. If it all had remained that way there would have been no Great War.

This applied to the other participants too. France had run a century or more of patriotic propaganda and language standardization to truly create France. Russia was drawn to the war at least partly as a result of its own public opinion, at the time besotted by pan-slavism. Italy was still half mad with the absurdity of irredentism.

Etc. The rule is little nationalisms=little wars. Great nationalisms=great wars.

[Ancesthntr]

“WWI was not the result of nationalism. That was the pretext for leaders eager for the “glory” of war.”

---

I disagree. It was about who controlled everything. The English and French were largely satisfied, having started colonization and industrialization far earlier than the Germans and, just as obviously, the Germans were dissatisfied. Germany was looking for an excuse, and had lined up allies in advance, and the Brits and Frogs had to prepare for the onslaught they knew was coming and get allies of their own. Russia, Austria, Italy and a host of others got dragged in by the more powerful nations.

It was really no more and no less a stick up of the existing order by the Germans. Glory had nothing to do with it at the highest levels.