19.4 Disintegration of Empires in the face of the emergence of nationalities across the world

Introduction

Empires have risen and fallen throughout history, but the post-18th century era witnessed an unprecedented phenomenon: the breakup of vast empires under pressure from emerging nationalist identities. From Europe to Asia to Africa, peoples who had long been subjects of multi-ethnic empires began to see themselves as members of distinct nations deserving of self-rule. This shift fundamentally altered the political map of the world.

This article examines the disintegration of empires in the face of rising nationalities, focusing on the period after the 18th century when the modern nation-state system took shape. We will explore how the ideas of nationalism and self-determination led to the collapse of major imperial powers – from the fragmentation of dynastic realms like the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, to the liberation of colonies in Asia and Africa from European rule. Covering events on a global scale (with special attention to Indian history where relevant), the discussion is organized into twelve sections, each delving into a specific region or theme. By tracing these developments, we gain insight into how the fervent cries of “nation” and “freedom” redefined borders and birthed the world of independent states we know today.

Empires and Nation-States: Theoretical Background and 18th Century Context

• Empires have historically been large political units composed of diverse peoples and territories under a single sovereign authority. These entities were held together by dynastic loyalty, military force, and administrative control rather than by a common national identity. Subjects of an empire often had little say in governance and were bound to the empire through tribute or coercion, not a shared nationality.
• Prior to the modern era, allegiance was typically to a ruler (king, emperor, sultan) or to a religion, rather than to a nation. Multi-ethnic empires such as the Ottoman, Habsburg, Mughal, or Qing realms ruled over dozens of ethnic and linguistic communities with differing cultures. These empires often allowed local customs to continue as long as order and tax collection were maintained, emphasizing loyalty to the crown or caliph rather than fostering any singular national identity among their subjects.
• Nation-state refers to a state largely defined by a common identity of its people – usually sharing language, culture, or history. In a nation-state, political legitimacy is thought to derive from representing a nation (a cultural/ethnic community) rather than from divine right or hereditary succession. This was a revolutionary shift: the idea that the people who share a common nationality are the rightful sovereigns of a territory.
• The rise of nation-states meant that governments would ideally be formed by and for a particular national community. In Europe, smaller states like Portugal or Sweden had early characteristics of nation-states (relatively homogeneous populations with their own monarchies), but the modern concept truly gained momentum in the late 18th and 19th centuries.
• The late 18th century ushered in new political ideas emphasizing the sovereignty of the people. Enlightenment philosophers (e.g., John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau) challenged the old order by arguing that governments require the consent of the governed. They introduced the principle that legitimate authority comes from a social contract with the people, not from God or birthright alone.
• The concept of nationalism – the belief that a people who share a common identity and culture should have their own independent country – began to take shape against this intellectual backdrop. Early nationalists argued that each nationality (ethnic or cultural group) deserved self-determination rather than subordination within multi-ethnic empires. This was a radical idea in an age when kings and emperors traded territories and subjects as property.
• Improvements in literacy and communication in the 18th and 19th centuries helped spread national consciousness. The advent of the printing press, proliferation of books and newspapers in vernacular languages, and mass education allowed language and cultural identity to solidify across large populations. People who spoke the same tongue or shared the same heritage could increasingly see themselves as part of one imagined community – the nation – even if they never met most of their compatriots.
  • National epics, folk tales, and histories were published and celebrated, strengthening the idea of a shared past. For example, scholars began to rediscover and promote vernacular literatures and national folklore (such as the German Grimm brothers’ fairy tales or collections of Serbian epic poetry), which fostered pride in national culture.
  • The spread of standardized languages (often through state schooling or print media) diminished local dialects and helped create a sense of unity among people who identified with a larger linguistic group (e.g., the spread of standard Italian or standard Hindi from many dialects).
• Economic and social changes also fostered nationalism. The Industrial Revolution created new urban centers and a middle class that were receptive to ideas of liberalism and self-rule. Economic integration over large areas made the idea of a unified national market appealing, while improved transportation (railways, steamships) physically connected far-flung regions, making a large nation-state seem more viable.
  • Administrative centralization under imperial regimes inadvertently standardized laws, currencies, and infrastructure across diverse regions. Ironically, these efforts at imperial efficiency often nurtured a shared identity among disparate peoples: subjects could travel, trade, or communicate over imperial domains more easily, which sometimes made them aware of their commonalities and potential strength as a collective group.
  • Military conscription in some empires (such as in Napoleonic France or later in Austria-Hungary) mixed recruits from different provinces and exposed common folk to the idea of serving a larger “nation” or state, planting seeds of national solidarity (although in multi-ethnic empires, conscripts often felt loyalty to their own ethnic group, leading to tensions).
• By the late 18th century, the traditional imperial order was increasingly under pressure. In various parts of the world, populations under imperial rule began to assert distinct group identities and question why a distant monarch or foreign power should rule over them. For instance, colonists in North America started to see themselves as “Americans” rather than British subjects, and intellectuals in Europe began to speak of Germans, Italians, or Slavs as peoples deserving unity and self-governance.
• Popular sovereignty – the notion that the authority of a state comes from the people it governs – became a rallying principle that directly threatened imperial structures. If government was to be based on the will of the people, then multi-ethnic empires faced an existential challenge: their citizens might decide their loyalties lay with their own nationality, not the empire as a whole.
• In summary, the late 18th century set the stage for a global political transformation. The world of empires, upheld by dynastic tradition and conquest, was on the verge of giving way to a world of nation-states justified by the will of the nation. As nationalist sentiments emerged and spread, they would soon challenge imperial boundaries and redefine the political map in the centuries to come.

The American and French Revolutions: Birth of Modern Nationalism

• The American Revolution (1775–1783) was a turning point that introduced nationalism into the political landscape. Thirteen British colonies in North America, inhabited by settlers who increasingly saw themselves as a distinct community, rose up against British rule. Citing grievances like “no taxation without representation,” they declared independence in 1776 and fought to establish a new nation, the United States of America.
  • Enlightenment ideals heavily influenced the American revolutionaries. The Declaration of Independence asserted the right of a people to choose their own government, a radical challenge to imperial authority. Americans began to identify not as subjects of the British Crown, but as citizens of an American nation with shared ideals of liberty and self-government.
  • The success of the United States (formalized by the Treaty of Paris in 1783) proved that colonial rule by a distant empire could be successfully overthrown. This was the first successful war of independence by overseas colonies against a European empire in the modern era, and it provided a powerful example to other peoples under imperial domination.
• The French Revolution (1789–1799) took the notion of popular sovereignty even further, igniting nationalism within Europe itself. Fed up with absolute monarchy and feudal privileges, the French Third Estate (commoners) revolted, proclaiming the rights of the nation and the citizen. In 1789 the revolutionaries issued the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, asserting that sovereignty resided in the nation (the people of France), not in the king.
  • The French nation was personified in symbols like “Marianne” and slogans such as “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity). For the first time, large numbers of people felt loyalty to the concept of a French fatherland united by common laws and ideals, rather than just to a crown or province.
  • The revolutionaries abolished the monarchy and eventually executed King Louis XVI, demonstrating that a nation could reclaim power from a dynastic ruler. France, now a republic, raised mass citizen armies (levée en masse) to defend the revolution, indicating a new paradigm: soldiers fighting as patriotic citizens of a nation, not mercenaries for a king.
  • Crucially, French revolutionary leaders believed their ideals were universal and should liberate other peoples. This missionary spirit meant that when French armies marched across Europe, they carried ideas of republicanism and national citizenship that undermined the legitimacy of aristocratic empires elsewhere.
• Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815): The rise of Napoleon Bonaparte both spread and tested emerging nationalist sentiments. Napoleon harnessed French nationalism to build a powerful army and a French Empire that conquered or dominated much of continental Europe. In doing so, he inadvertently stirred nationalist resistance among the peoples he subjugated:
  • In Spain, Napoleon’s deposition of the Spanish king and imposition of his brother Joseph Bonaparte as monarch (1808) provoked a fierce nationalist backlash. Spaniards across social classes rallied in guerrilla warfare (the “Peninsular War”) to expel the French, fighting for “España” and their Catholic heritage. This was one of the first modern examples of a populace rising in national resistance to an invader, and it succeeded in bogging down the mighty French army.
    • The crisis in Spain had global repercussions: with the Spanish king removed, colonists in Spanish America set up their own local juntas (councils) to govern in the king’s absence, refusing to accept Napoleon’s usurpation. These juntas became the launching points for independence movements in Latin America, as creole leaders took the opportunity to break away – a process discussed in the next section.
  • In the German states, intellectuals and reformers who resented the old feudal order initially welcomed some of Napoleon’s changes, but soon German patriots like Johann Fichte and others urged resistance to French domination. Napoleon dissolved the moribund Holy Roman Empire in 1806 and reorganized German territories into larger units (like the Confederation of the Rhine), which paradoxically made the idea of a unified German nation more concrete. Anti-French sentiment helped arouse a German national consciousness that would later contribute to German unification.
  • Italy likewise saw stirrings of nationalism under Napoleonic rule. Napoleon had unified large parts of Italy under his control (as the Kingdom of Italy and other client states), unintentionally planting the seed that the Italian peninsula could be one nation. Italian secret societies (like the Carbonari) later sprang up with the goal of expelling foreign rulers (whether French or Austrian) and achieving Italian independence and unity.
  • Napoleon’s conquests also spread the metric system, the Napoleonic legal code, and the idea of equality before law, undermining aristocratic privilege. While these changes were modernizing, the presence of foreign French rulers often sparked local pride and a yearning for self-rule among conquered peoples. By the time of Napoleon’s defeat in 1815, many Europeans had been exposed to the concepts of nationalism—either by embracing French revolutionary ideals or by forging their own national sentiments in opposition.
• Beyond Europe, the era’s revolutionary nationalism had global echoes. The Haitian Revolution (1791–1804), for example, was directly influenced by the French Revolution. Enslaved Africans and free people of color in the French colony of Saint-Domingue revolted against colonial rule and the brutal plantation system. Under leaders like Toussaint L’Ouverture, they not only sought personal liberty but also established Haiti as an independent nation in 1804 – the first modern nation-state led by former slaves. This dealt a severe blow to European colonial prestige and inspired enslaved and colonized peoples elsewhere by showing that anti-imperial rebellion could succeed.
• In summary, the American and French Revolutions marked the birth of modern nationalism. They proved that populations sharing a common identity or ideals could mobilize to throw off an imperial or monarchical yoke and establish a nation-state. After Napoleon’s downfall, conservative monarchies at the Congress of Vienna (1815) tried to restore the old imperial order in Europe, but the revolutionary genie could not be put back in the bottle. The ideas of national self-determination and popular sovereignty had taken root, setting the stage for a tumultuous 19th century in which the flames of nationalism would spread across Europe and beyond.

Latin American Independence and the Collapse of the Spanish and Portuguese American Empires

• The early 19th century witnessed the dramatic collapse of the Spanish Empire in the Americas, as colonies from Mexico to Argentina fought for and won independence. Influenced by Enlightenment ideas and inspired by the American and French examples, creole elites (American-born people of European ancestry) led uprisings to throw off Spanish colonial rule. This wave of wars (roughly 1810–1825) resulted in the liberation of most of Latin America from Spanish control.
  • In 1810, rebellions ignited across Spanish America. In Mexico, Father Miguel Hidalgo issued the “Grito de Dolores” in 1810, a call for Mexican independence and social reform. Though Hidalgo’s revolt was suppressed and he was executed, the insurgency continued under leaders like José Morelos. A protracted struggle ended with conservative creole leader Agustín de Iturbide switching sides to support independence; Mexico finally achieved formal independence from Spain in 1821.
  • In northern South America, Simón Bolívar – known as “El Libertador” – led a sweeping campaign against Spanish rule. Bolívar, a Venezuelan creole, raised armies that secured independence for Venezuela (1811 declaration, achieved by 1821 at the Battle of Carabobo), New Granada (present-day Colombia, independence solidified by 1819’s Battle of Boyacá), Quito (Ecuador, liberated by 1822), and later moved into Peru. He envisioned a large union of former Spanish colonies; indeed, he helped create Gran Colombia (a federation of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and later Panama) in the early 1820s, though this union would eventually fracture into separate nations.
  • In the south, José de San Martín, an Argentine general, led the fight for independence in the southern cone. Argentina had effectively broken from Spanish authority in the May Revolution of 1810 and formally declared independence in 1816. San Martín then marched his forces across the Andes into Chile, teaming with Chilean patriot Bernardo O’Higgins to defeat Spanish forces and free Chile by 1818. Next, San Martín sailed to Peru, capturing Lima in 1821 and declaring Peruvian independence. He eventually met with Bolívar in 1822 (at Guayaquil) and left the final stages of the Peruvian campaign to Bolívar’s forces, who achieved decisive victory over the remaining Spanish army at the Battle of Ayacucho in 1824.
  • By 1825, Spanish power in mainland Latin America had been effectively extinguished. A cascade of new sovereign states emerged: Mexico and the countries of Central America; the nations of Gran Colombia (which soon split into Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and Panama); Peru and Bolivia (named after Bolívar); the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata (which later became Argentina, with Uruguay separating in 1828); Paraguay (which had declared independence in 1811); Chile; and others. In total, around 18 new republics took shape in what had been Spanish America.
  • The only major Spanish colonies in the Americas that remained under Madrid’s control after this wave were Cuba and Puerto Rico in the Caribbean. These stayed Spanish until the Spanish–American War of 1898, when Spain’s defeat by the United States led to Cuba’s independence (under U.S. tutelage) and Puerto Rico’s cession to the U.S. (ending Spanish colonial presence in the Americas).
• The Portuguese Empire in the Americas also unraveled, albeit more peacefully. The vast Portuguese colony of Brazil took a unique path to independence. During the Napoleonic Wars, the Portuguese royal court fled to Brazil (Rio de Janeiro) in 1807 to escape Napoleon’s invasion of Portugal. King João VI even made Rio the de facto capital of the Portuguese Empire. In 1821, after Napoleon’s defeat, João VI returned to Lisbon, leaving his son Dom Pedro in charge of Brazil.
  • Rather than see Brazil reduced again to a mere colony, Dom Pedro (a Portuguese prince but raised in Brazil) aligned with Brazilian creole elites. On September 7, 1822, he proclaimed Brazil’s independence with the famous “Cry of Ipiranga” (shouting “Independência ou Morte!” – Independence or Death). He became Emperor Dom Pedro I of an independent Brazil, establishing a constitutional monarchy. This transition was relatively bloodless compared to Spanish America’s wars, though there were some skirmishes with Portuguese loyalist troops.
  • Brazil’s independence preserved the territorial unity of the former Portuguese colony (which covered nearly half of South America). Unlike Spanish South America, which splintered into many countries, Brazil remained one large nation-state (aside from the secession of Uruguay: the Cisplatine Province revolted and, with British mediation, became independent in 1828). The Portuguese Crown recognized Brazilian independence in 1825 in exchange for compensation. Portugal henceforth retained no colonies in the Americas.
• The independence movements in Latin America were fueled by a mix of influences: the spread of revolutionary liberal ideas, resentment of colonial trade restrictions and high taxes, and the power vacuum caused by Napoleon’s invasion of the Iberian Peninsula. Many leaders of Latin American revolutions were educated creoles who were aware of Enlightenment writings and the successful examples of the USA and France. Additionally, local grievances – such as the discrimination against creoles in high offices and heavy economic exploitation – drove the desire for self-rule.
• The collapse of Iberian empires in the New World had global repercussions. It ended the mercantilist colonial monopoly that Spain and Portugal had maintained for centuries. Newly independent Latin American countries opened to British and other foreign trade, shifting the balance of economic power in the region. Politically, the emergence of these new nations introduced the principle of republicanism (or constitutional monarchy in Brazil’s case) in lands long governed autocratically. Though many of the new states struggled with political instability, civil wars, and defining their national identities, the era firmly ended European colonial rule over the bulk of the Americas.
• The newly independent Latin American countries were quickly recognized by major powers. The United States, in its 1823 Monroe Doctrine, warned European nations against attempting to reclaim or recolonize independent American states. This stance tacitly supported Latin American independence and signaled that the era of European empires in the New World was irrevocably over.
• In sum, by the mid-1820s the once-mighty Spanish empire in the Americas had disintegrated under the force of nationalist revolutions, and the Portuguese domain had contracted to let Brazil go its own way. Latin America’s liberation was a significant early chapter in the worldwide shift from imperial domains to independent nation-states. This first wave of decolonization prefigured later independence movements in Asia and Africa, even as it unfolded a century or more earlier.

Nationalist and Liberal Revolts in Europe (1815–1848)

• After the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, conservative monarchies sought to restore the old order and contain the spread of nationalism. Led by Austrian Chancellor Klemens von Metternich, the Congress of Vienna (1814–1815) reshaped Europe’s borders to strengthen monarchies and created a Concert of Europe alliance to prevent revolution. Nationalist and liberal movements were seen as threats to stability and were suppressed via censorship and police action (e.g., the Carlsbad Decrees of 1819 in the German states banned nationalist fraternities and publications).
• Despite repression, nationalist aspirations smoldered. The first major crack in the post-Vienna order came with the Greek War of Independence (1821–1829). The Greeks, ruled by the Ottoman Empire for centuries, rose up seeking to revive a sovereign Greek nation. With widespread support from European philhellenes (admirers of Greek culture) and eventual military intervention by Britain, France, and Russia (who defeated the Ottoman navy at Navarino in 1827), Greece won its independence. In 1830, Greece was recognized as an independent kingdom – a triumph of ethnic nationalism over a multinational empire, and a sign that the Great Powers would sometimes support nationalist causes when it suited their interests or sympathies.
• The Revolutions of 1830 provided further examples of nationalist ferment:
  • In France, a July 1830 uprising (the “July Revolution”) overthrew the absolutist Bourbon King Charles X, who had tried to roll back liberal reforms. Although this revolution was more liberal than nationalist, it established a constitutional monarchy under Louis Philippe, dubbed the “Citizen King.” It also sent a signal across Europe that popular revolts could unseat reactionary rulers.
  • Inspired by events in France, the people of Belgium rebelled against their union with the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1830. Differences in language (French/Dutch) and religion (Catholic Belgium vs. Protestant Dutch king) fueled Belgian nationalism. The Belgian revolution succeeded, as the European powers agreed in 1831 to recognize Belgium as an independent neutral kingdom, sundered from the Netherlands. This created a new nation-state in Europe based on a distinct national identity.
  • In contrast, a nationalist uprising in Poland in 1830–31 (the November Uprising) was crushed. Polish nationalists attempted to end Russian domination and revive an independent Polish state (Poland had been partitioned out of existence by 1795). Despite initial successes, the Tsar’s armies brutally suppressed the revolt; Poland’s autonomy within the Russian Empire was further curtailed. The failure underscored the difficulties of challenging the great powers – in this case, Russia – without external support.
  • Elsewhere in 1830, smaller scale nationalist or liberal disturbances occurred in Italy and the German states, but these were swiftly put down by Metternich’s influence. For instance, Italian secret societies like the Carbonari staged uprisings in various Italian states in 1820–21 and again in 1831, aiming to expel foreign influence (Austria) and institute constitutional rule; these attempts were suppressed by Austrian intervention.
• The Revolutions of 1848 marked the most widespread European upheaval, with nationalist and liberal demands erupting almost simultaneously in multiple regions. 1848 was a watershed year often called the “Springtime of Nations” because of the flowering of national sentiment. Although most of these revolutions were ultimately defeated, they had long-term effects on nationalist movements.
  • In France, economic hardship and demands for wider suffrage led to revolution in February 1848. King Louis Philippe was overthrown and the Second Republic declared. While this was primarily a liberal revolution, its success in Paris acted as a catalyst for uprisings in other parts of Europe.
  • In the Austrian Empire, 1848 saw an eruption of nationalist revolts among the empire’s various subject peoples:
    • A revolt in Vienna in March 1848 forced Metternich to flee and the Austrian Emperor Ferdinand to promise reforms. This uprising inspired subject nationalities to press for autonomy or independence.
    • In Hungary, Magyar (ethnic Hungarian) leaders led by Lajos Kossuth declared an autonomous Hungarian government under the Habsburg crown, and soon sought full independence. The Hungarian revolution drafted liberal reforms (April Laws) and formed its own armies. Hungarian national forces battled the imperial Austrian army, and for a time won control over much of Hungary.
    • In Bohemia (modern Czech lands), Czech liberals and nationalists convened a Slavic Congress in Prague and demanded greater rights within the empire. An uprising in Prague in June 1848 was suppressed by Austrian troops, reflecting the empire’s determination to keep control.
    • In the northern Italian territories under Habsburg rule (Lombardy-Venetia), revolts broke out in cities like Milan and Venice (the Cinco de Marzo uprising in Milan, 1848). Venetians even proclaimed a revived Republic of Venice under Daniele Manin. Meanwhile, the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia (under King Charles Albert) declared war on Austria in support of Italian liberation, seeking to drive the Austrians out of Lombardy and Venetia. These Italian national efforts initially pushed Austrian troops out, but Austria’s seasoned general Radetzky later defeated the Piedmontese army, and by 1849 Austria reasserted control over the Italian territories (though Venice held out until August 1849 before capitulating).
    • The Habsburgs ultimately survived the 1848 storm by using military force and playing nationalities against each other. By 1849, with crucial help from the Russian Tsar (who sent troops to suppress the Hungarian rebellion in mid-1849), the Austrian monarchy crushed the Hungarian revolution and other revolts. Nonetheless, the upheaval forced the imperial government to realize the depth of nationalist discontent; serfdom was abolished in the empire in 1848 to placate peasants, and the Habsburgs later had to concede more autonomy to Hungary in 1867.
  • In the German states, 1848 brought a push for national unification and liberal constitutions. Uprisings occurred in Berlin, Vienna, and across the smaller states. Most notably, German liberals and nationalists gathered at the Frankfurt Parliament (May 1848) with the aim of creating a unified German nation-state under a constitutional framework. After long debates, the Parliament offered the crown of a “united Germany” (excluding Austria) to the King of Prussia in April 1849. King Frederick William IV, however, rejected what he called a “crown from the gutter,” unwilling to accept a crown granted by revolutionaries and also reluctant to antagonize Austria. The Frankfurt Assembly dissolved without achieving German unity. Prussian and other royal armies then moved to restore the old order, defeating republican militias (such as in the Baden uprising).
  • In Italy beyond the Austrian domains, 1848 also saw widespread revolutionary activity. Aside from Lombardy-Venetia’s struggle against Austria, upheavals hit the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the Papal States, and elsewhere. Sicily briefly won autonomy from Naples, and Rome itself saw a Roman Republic declared in 1849 under figures like Giuseppe Mazzini and Giuseppe Garibaldi after Pope Pius IX fled. However, French troops (allied with the Pope) intervened to crush the Roman Republic by mid-1849. Although Piedmont’s bid to expel Austria failed at that time, Piedmont-Sardinia emerged as a leading hope for Italian unification thereafter, having a constitution and an Italian nationalist stance.
• By 1849, reactionary forces had largely put down the revolutions across Europe. Yet the legacy of 1848 was significant. These events spread nationalist consciousness to even wider circles of society (including peasants and workers who participated in revolts), and demonstrated that multi-ethnic empires like Austria were vulnerable to internal ethnic strains. Many exiled revolutionaries (such as Kossuth from Hungary or Mazzini from Italy) continued to champion the nationalist cause from abroad, keeping the ideas alive.
• In the decade after 1848, European rulers became more cautious about completely ignoring nationalist demands. For example, Austria and Hungary would eventually strike a compromise to share power (two decades later) because Hungarian nationalism could not be permanently suppressed. Likewise, the unification movements in Germany and Italy would re-emerge in new forms under different leadership in the 1850s–1860s. In short, the period from 1815 to 1848 built the momentum of European nationalism: some early successes (like Greece, Belgium) showed that new nation-states could be carved out, and even the failed uprisings of 1848 set the stage for the eventual redrawing of Europe’s map along national lines.

Unification of Italy and Germany: Consolidation of Nation-States

• While nationalism was tearing some empires apart, it also had the power to unite people divided among many small states. Nowhere was this more evident than in Italy and Germany, where decades of efforts culminated in unified nation-states by 1871. These unifications realigned the European political map and demonstrated another face of nationalism – the creation of new empires or great powers out of fragmented nations.
• Italian Unification (Il Risorgimento, 1848–1870): After the failures of 1848, the leadership in the Italian states passed to the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia, the most liberal and modernized Italian state. Under King Victor Emmanuel II and his astute prime minister, Count Camillo di Cavour, Piedmont sought to unify Italy through diplomacy and war:
  • Cavour secured an alliance with France (Emperor Napoleon III) by a secret deal at Plombières (1858), aiming to oust Austria from northern Italy. This led to the Second Italian War of Independence in 1859. Piedmont and French forces fought Austria, resulting in a victory that gave Piedmont control of Lombardy (though Austria retained Venetia for the time being). The war sparked national enthusiasm across the peninsula.
  • In 1860, nationalist revolts in central and northern Italian duchies toppled their rulers. Through plebiscites (popular votes), states like Parma, Modena, Tuscany, and the Romagna region (formerly Papal States territory) chose to join Piedmont. This peaceful annexation greatly expanded the territory of the emergent Italian state.
  • Meanwhile in the south, the fiery nationalist Giuseppe Garibaldi led a volunteer force of about a thousand red-shirted patriots in the famous Expedition of the Thousand (1860). Garibaldi’s landing in Sicily ignited a revolt against the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. His forces swept through Sicily and then crossed to the Italian mainland, liberating Naples. Garibaldi, a follower of the exiled idealist Giuseppe Mazzini, sought to hand these gains to King Victor Emmanuel II in the name of Italian unity. In a memorable meeting at Teano in late 1860, Garibaldi greeted Victor Emmanuel as “King of Italy” and relinquished control of southern Italy to him.
  • In early 1861, the Kingdom of Italy was officially proclaimed, with Victor Emmanuel II as king and a parliament seated in Turin. This new nation initially included all of Italy except Venetia (still Austrian) and Rome (still under the Pope’s temporal control and protected by French troops).
  • Italian unification was completed in the next decade: during the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, Italy allied with Prussia; although Italian forces performed poorly in battles against Austria, Prussia’s victory forced Austria to cede Venetia to Italy. The final piece, Rome, fell into Italian hands in 1870 when the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War caused France to withdraw its garrison from Rome. Italian troops entered the city, and Rome was annexed to the kingdom (1870), becoming the capital of a united Italy. The Pope’s temporal rule was reduced to the Vatican precincts.
  • Thus, by 1870, Italy – fragmented for over a thousand years into city-states and foreign-controlled provinces – had achieved national unification. Key architects included Cavour (the statesman), Garibaldi (the soldier), and Mazzini (the ideological visionary who inspired Italian nationalism). The new Italian nation-state faced post-unification challenges (regional disparities between industrial north and rural south, and tensions with the Papacy), but it fulfilled the Risorgimento dream of resurrecting a free and united Italy.
• German Unification (1864–1871): German-speaking Central Europe had long been divided among many states, the largest being Austria and Prussia. After the failed liberal attempt at unification in 1848, the task was eventually accomplished by conservative Prussian leadership, under Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck, appointed Prime Minister of Prussia in 1862, famously declared that the great questions of the day would be settled “not by speeches and majority resolutions…but by blood and iron.” He pursued a realpolitik strategy to unify Germany by force and shrewd alliances:
  • The first step was the Danish War of 1864. Prussia and Austria jointly fought Denmark to wrest control of the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, which had German-majority populations. The quick victory resulted in Schleswig being governed by Prussia and Holstein by Austria, a joint administration that set the stage for friction.
  • Bismarck next engineered the Austro-Prussian War (Seven Weeks’ War) in 1866. Exploiting the Schleswig-Holstein dispute, he secured neutrality from France and Italy, then provoked Austria into war. Prussia’s modernized army decisively defeated Austria at the Battle of Königgrätz (Sadowa) in 1866. In the peace, Bismarck was lenient to Austria (no harsh territorial annexations from Austria itself) but achieved a crucial political objective: Austria was excluded from German affairs. The old German Confederation was dissolved, and Prussia created a new North German Confederation under its leadership, uniting all the northern German states (Prussia annexed some states that had sided with Austria and brought others into a federal alliance).
  • The southern German states (Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden, and Hesse-Darmstadt) were largely Catholic and initially wary of Prussian domination, remaining outside the North German Confederation. Bismarck understood that an external threat could rally these states into union with Prussia. He found the opportunity in his rivalry with France. Using a diplomatic slight (the edited Ems Dispatch) to aggravate Emperor Napoleon III, Bismarck maneuvered France into declaring war on Prussia, igniting the Franco-Prussian War in 1870.
  • The German states, feeling nationalist solidarity against a French invasion, united swiftly. Prussia and its German allies won stunning victories, most notably capturing Napoleon III himself at the Battle of Sedan (September 1870). Defeated and in chaos, France could no longer protect its interests in Europe.
  • Amid the euphoria of victory over France, the southern German states agreed to join with the North German Confederation to form a single German nation. On January 18, 1871, in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles (symbolically, on French soil), King Wilhelm I of Prussia was proclaimed Emperor of Germany (Kaiser) by the assembled German princes. The German Empire (Deutsches Reich) was thus born, uniting 25 German states under Prussian leadership.
  • Not only force but also cultural and economic unity paved the way for unification. Prussia had led the creation of the Zollverein (German Customs Union) in 1834, which linked many German states in a free trade area – fostering economic interdependence and a sense of common interest. Moreover, a flowering of German arts and philosophy (writers, poets, composers like Richard Wagner glorifying German myths) and the use of standard German language in education helped build a national consciousness even before political unification.
  • The newly unified Germany immediately became the preeminent power on the European continent, altering the balance of power established in 1815. The German Empire’s creation meant the end of centuries of German political fragmentation (aside from the exclusion of German-speaking Austria, which remained outside the Reich). It also marked the triumph of Prussian militaristic and authoritarian methods in achieving nationalist ends, as opposed to the liberal democratic nationalism that had failed in 1848.
  • As a result of unification, the map of Europe now featured two new major nation-states – Italy and Germany – in place of the old patchwork of minor states and imperial holdings. These successes of nationalism encouraged further nationalist sentiments among other peoples still under imperial rule. However, they also introduced new rivalries: for instance, a unified Germany’s rise contributed to future tensions with France (which resented the loss of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany in 1871) and posed a challenge to the older powers like Britain and Austria.
• The unifications of Italy and Germany completed the nation-state system in Western and Central Europe. They demonstrated that nationalism could consolidate as well as fragment. In their wake, Austria (now Austria-Hungary after 1867) and Russia remained as the major European empires with restive nationalities, and the Ottoman Empire still controlled diverse peoples in the Balkans. The stage was set for those empires to face their own reckoning with nationalism, which would intensify toward the end of the 19th century and into the 20th.

Decline of the Ottoman Empire and the Rise of Balkan Nationalism

• The Ottoman Empire, a vast multi-ethnic realm spanning Southeast Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, was by the 19th century in a prolonged period of decline. Often dubbed “the sick man of Europe,” it struggled to maintain control over its diverse subjects as nationalist sentiments spread. In the Balkans (Ottoman-controlled parts of Europe), Christian populations under Ottoman rule increasingly yearned for independence or union with their ethnic kin.
  • Ottoman sultans attempted reforms to reinvigorate the empire and stave off nationalist unrest. The Tanzimat era (1839–1876) introduced modernizing reforms – new laws, equality for all subjects regardless of religion, and bureaucratic modernization – aiming to create an inclusive Ottoman civic identity. While Tanzimat improved administration and granted Christians and Jews more civil rights, it could not fully quell the desire of many groups for self-rule along national lines.
  • The empire steadily lost territory through the 19th century as nationalism and great-power interference combined. Greece’s successful war of independence (1821–1829) had already carved out the first new nation-state from Ottoman lands. Next, the Serbians won autonomy after revolts (1804–1815) and Russian intervention; Serbia was granted self-governing status within the empire in 1830 and would later become fully independent. The Ottoman grip over its European provinces continued to weaken as the century progressed.
• A turning point came in the 1870s. Widespread uprisings broke out in the Balkans as local peoples tried to throw off Ottoman rule, leading to a major international crisis:
  • Peasant rebellions in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1875) against heavy taxation sparked a chain reaction. In Bulgaria, the April Uprising of 1876 saw Bulgarian nationalists rebel; Ottoman forces brutally suppressed it, massacring civilians – news of these atrocities (the “Bulgarian Horrors”) shocked European public opinion.
  • Russia, casting itself as the protector of Slavic and Orthodox Christian brethren, declared war on the Ottomans in 1877 (the Russo-Turkish War). Russian armies, alongside Bulgarian volunteers, defeated the Ottomans by 1878, even reaching the outskirts of Constantinople (Istanbul).
  • The initial peace, the Treaty of San Stefano (1878), imposed by Russia, created a large autonomous Bulgaria and recognized full independence for Serbia, Montenegro, and Romania (the latter two had also been Ottoman vassals with growing self-rule). Alarmed by the expansion of Russian influence via a “Greater Bulgaria,” other Great Powers intervened. At the Congress of Berlin (1878), led by Germany’s Bismarck, the San Stefano terms were revised: Bulgaria was scaled back – an autonomous Principality of Bulgaria under Ottoman suzerainty (in the north) and a separate Ottoman-administered province of Eastern Rumelia (in the south) were created. Serbia, Montenegro, and Romania were confirmed as fully independent states. Austria-Hungary was allowed to occupy and administer Bosnia and Herzegovina (though nominally these provinces remained Ottoman territory). The Ottomans also ceded some territory: Russia gained parts of Caucasus regions, and Britain took over administration of Cyprus.
  • The Congress of Berlin epitomized the “Eastern Question”: how to manage the decline of Ottoman power without destabilizing Europe. For the Ottoman Empire, the outcome was the loss of a huge chunk of its European lands. By 1878, the empire’s European footprint had shrunk dramatically, with only Macedonia, Thrace, and Albania still under Istanbul’s rule (besides the capital itself).
• In the following decades, the Ottoman state continued to weaken, and nationalist fervor in the Balkans only grew:
  • Bulgaria, though initially only autonomous, unilaterally unified with Eastern Rumelia in 1885, effectively enlarging itself. In 1908, taking advantage of turmoil in Turkey, Bulgaria declared full independence with a Tsar as its monarch.
  • Austria-Hungary, sensing Ottoman weakness, formally annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1908 (having administered it for 30 years). This move angered Serbia, which had hoped to unite with the South Slavic population of Bosnia – a tension that would later contribute to the spark of World War I.
  • The Young Turk Revolution in Constantinople (1908) was an internal Ottoman upheaval: reformist Turkish nationalists (the Young Turks) restored a constitutional government, hoping to modernize and save the empire. Paradoxically, their policies of centralization and “Ottomanism” (and later an increasing Turkification) further alienated many ethnic minorities. For instance, non-Turkish groups perceived the Young Turks as chauvinist, which stirred Arab and Albanian national sentiments.
  • The final roll of the dice for Ottoman Europe came with the Balkan Wars (1912–1913). A coalition of Balkan nations – Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, and Montenegro – formed the Balkan League and attacked the Ottoman Empire in late 1912 (First Balkan War). The Ottomans, by now militarily weak and called “the sick man” in Europe, were swiftly defeated. The Balkan allies overran nearly all remaining Ottoman territory in Europe within months. An armistice and the Treaty of London (1913) stripped the Ottoman Empire of all its European lands except a small area around Constantinople (the empire lost Macedonia, Albania, and Thrace west of the Çatalca line).
    • After the First Balkan War, the victors quarreled over the division of the spoils. Bulgaria, dissatisfied with its share of Macedonia, turned on its former allies in the Second Balkan War (1913). Serbia, Greece, Montenegro, and Romania fought Bulgaria and defeated it. The subsequent Treaty of Bucharest (1913) re-divided the lands: Serbia and Greece each gained portions of Macedonia, Romania took southern Dobruja from Bulgaria, and the newly independent state of Albania was recognized (carved mainly from territory that Serbia and Greece had also wanted). The Ottoman Empire, having sat out the Second Balkan War, even managed to regain a small piece of territory (the city of Edirne/Adrianople in Eastern Thrace) from a weakened Bulgaria.
    • The Balkan Wars proved disastrous for the Ottomans – in the span of a year, they lost nearly all of their centuries-old possessions in Europe. Tens of thousands of Muslim refugees fled those regions into Ottoman territory. The wars also emboldened Serbia, which doubled in size and saw itself as the champion of South Slav (Yugoslav) unity – directly threatening Austro-Hungarian interests and setting the stage for the confrontations of 1914.
• World War I (1914–1918) delivered the coup de grâce to the Ottoman Empire. The empire sided with the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary). During the war, Ottoman authorities, driven partly by paranoia about Armenian nationalism and alleged collusion with Russia, perpetrated mass deportations and killings of Armenians in 1915–1916 (the Armenian Genocide), underscoring the lethal extremes of ethnic conflict within the dying empire.
  • In the Arab provinces, Arab nationalism blossomed into revolt. Promised independence by the British, Sharif Husayn ibn Ali of Mecca led the Arab Revolt (1916) against Ottoman rule, with support from figures like T.E. Lawrence (“Lawrence of Arabia”). Arab forces helped the British drive the Ottomans from much of the Middle East.
  • Defeated by 1918, the Ottomans agreed to the harsh Treaty of Sèvres (1920), which would have partitioned the empire further: giving parts of Anatolia to Greece and Armenia, and placing Syria, Iraq, Palestine, and other regions under British or French control as mandates. The Sultan’s government in Constantinople signed this treaty, effectively dissolving the empire.
  • Turkish nationalists, however, rejected the dismemberment of their heartland. Led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, a War of Independence (1919–1922) was fought in Anatolia. Kemal’s forces expelled the Greek armies (which had occupied western Anatolia), suppressed Armenian territorial claims in the east, and ousted occupying Allied troops from Turkish soil. The Turkish nationalists abolished the Sultanate in 1922, and in 1923 the Treaty of Lausanne was signed, superseding Sèvres. This treaty recognized the boundaries of a new Republic of Turkey (essentially the Anatolian core and a small European portion around Istanbul). All other parts of the Ottoman Empire were lost, either becoming independent nations or (more often) placed under European mandates.
• The disintegration of the Ottoman Empire thus reached its culmination: centuries-old imperial structures gave way to a series of nation-states. In Southeast Europe, nations like Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, and others had emerged or expanded, asserting identities that often aligned with ethnicity and language. In the Middle East, the vacuum left by Ottoman collapse saw the emergence of modern states (Iraq, Syria, Transjordan, etc., albeit under European supervision initially) and a new Turkish republic grounded in Turkish nationalism. The process was tumultuous and often violent – marked by wars, population exchanges, and ethnic cleansings – as a multinational empire was replaced by the nation-state system in regions it once controlled.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Nationalities Problem

• The Austro-Hungarian Empire (Habsburg Monarchy) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a prime example of a multinational empire struggling to contain rising nationalism. This dual monarchy (established in 1867) governed a diverse population of around 50 million, including ethnic Germans, Magyar Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ukrainians (Ruthenians), Romanians, Croats, Serbs, Slovenes, and Italians. No single ethnic group held an absolute majority: roughly a quarter of the population were German-Austrians and a fifth were Magyars, with the rest belonging to various Slavic and Latin nationalities. Each nationality had its own language, culture, and aspirations, making the empire a patchwork held together mainly by loyalty to the Habsburg dynasty and the bureaucracy.
• After the 1848 revolutions (which had seen Hungarian and other uprisings), the Habsburg state realized it needed to compromise with at least some of its nationalities. The landmark Ausgleich (Compromise) of 1867 transformed the Austrian Empire into the “Austro-Hungarian” Dual Monarchy. Under this arrangement, the empire was split into two semi-autonomous halves: the Austrian (Cisleithanian) and the Hungarian (Transleithanian) realms, each with its own parliament and government, united under Emperor Franz Joseph who was simultaneously King of Hungary.
  • This appeased the Hungarian elite (Magyars), granting them near-complete control over Hungary (including other peoples within Hungary’s borders, like Slovaks, Transylvanian Romanians, and Croats). However, no similar power-sharing was offered to other ethnic groups. The Czechs in Bohemia, for instance, hoped for a “trialist” solution (a tripartite monarchy giving Slavs equal status), but Austria-Hungary’s leaders (and the Hungarians) balked at further dividing power.
  • In the Austrian half, the government alternated between German-dominated and Czech-inclusive policies, but never achieved a lasting solution to Czech demands. In the Hungarian half, the Magyars pursued policies of Magyarization – promoting the Hungarian language and culture – which bred resentment among Slovaks, Romanians, and Croats who saw their own identities suppressed.
  • Nonetheless, the empire did maintain a degree of stability for decades after 1867 by balancing interests and granting limited cultural freedoms. Universities taught in different languages, and ethnic groups formed political parties to press for reforms. But by the turn of the 20th century, nationalist movements within each community were growing bolder.
• The empire’s nationalities problem intensified in the early 1900s. For example:
  • In the Czech lands (Bohemia and Moravia), a prosperous and literate Czech middle class pushed for greater autonomy and recognition of Czech language rights. Tensions ran high between Germans and Czechs in Bohemia, leading to disputes over language use in administration and education.
  • South Slavs (Slovenes, Croats, Serbs) under Habsburg rule dreamed of unification, either within a South Slav kingdom or by joining the independent Kingdom of Serbia. Croatia had a modicum of self-government under Hungarian oversight, but Croatian and Serbian intellectuals in the empire increasingly embraced Yugoslav (“South Slav”) unity as a goal.
  • Poles in Galicia (Austrian partition of Poland) were relatively content under Habsburg rule (they enjoyed a large degree of local autonomy in Galicia, and Polish was used in schools and administration). However, the Polish aspiration was ultimately to reunite with their compatriots in Russian and Prussian Poland as an independent Poland.
  • Ukrainians (called Ruthenians) in Galicia, however, were dissatisfied, feeling dominated by the Poles; they began developing their own national consciousness, which led to friction with Polish authorities.
  • Romanians in Transylvania (part of the Kingdom of Hungary) faced heavy Magyarization and looked across the Carpathians to the independent Kingdom of Romania for inspiration. Romanian nationalists agitated for language rights and an end to Hungarian policies in their lands.
• The unresolved grievances of these groups meant that the empire was increasingly fragile. The flashpoint came in the Balkans. Austria-Hungary, having annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina outright in 1908 (lands with a mix of Bosniak Muslims, Serbs, and Croats), further enraged Serbian nationalists. Serbia – a Slavic kingdom just outside the empire – aspired to liberate and unite the South Slavs, including those under Habsburg rule. This rivalry turned deadly on June 28, 1914, when Bosnian Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip, associated with a Serb secret society (Black Hand), assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand (heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne) in Sarajevo.
  • The assassination triggered World War I, as Austria-Hungary, with Germany’s backing, issued an ultimatum to Serbia and then declared war, expecting a quick punitive campaign. Instead, the conflict escalated into a global war with the Great Powers aligning on either side.
  • Ironically, Archduke Franz Ferdinand – whose assassination in 1914 sparked World War I – had been one of the few Habsburg leaders open to granting Slavs more say (he reportedly contemplated a form of federalism or “Trialism” that would elevate the Slavic lands alongside Austria and Hungary). His death not only triggered a global war but also removed the last high-level advocate for major reform, leaving the empire ill-equipped to accommodate nationalist demands.
• World War I proved to be the undoing of Austria-Hungary. Fighting on multiple fronts (against Russia, Serbia, and later Italy and others) strained the empire’s resources and exposed its internal weaknesses. As the war dragged on, ethnic solidarity within the empire frayed:
  • Czech soldiers in the imperial army, for example, grew increasingly disaffected; many deserted or surrendered to the Russians and later formed the Czechoslovak Legion to fight for the Allied side, hoping to win independence for their nation.
  • In 1916, Emperor Franz Joseph died after a 68-year reign, and his grandnephew Karl I took the throne. Karl made belated attempts at reform – even considering federalizing the empire – but it was too late.
  • Nationalist leaders went into exile to lobby the Allied powers for support. Figures like Tomáš G. Masaryk and Edvard Beneš (Czech leaders) and Ante Trumbić (a Croat leader of the Yugoslav Committee) gained recognition from the Allies, who began to see the liberation of the subject peoples as part of their war aims.
  • By 1918, as Austria-Hungary’s military position crumbled, the empire splintered from within. Poles in Galicia declared union with a resurrected Poland; Czech and Slovak politicians proclaimed a joint independent Czechoslovakia (October 1918); South Slav deputies announced separation to join what would become the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia).
  • Hungary itself, under pressure from a growing liberal and nationalist movement, separated from Austria in October 1918, ending the dual monarchy. Ethnic Romanians in Transylvania convened to vote for union with Romania (achieved in December 1918).
  • In November 1918, Emperor Karl abdicated power (though he did not formally abdicate the throne, he “renounced participation” in state affairs) and soon went into exile. The Habsburg Empire effectively ceased to exist.
• The peace settlements that followed World War I – notably the Treaty of Saint-Germain (1919) for Austria and the Treaty of Trianon (1920) for Hungary – ratified the empire’s dismemberment. Out of Austria-Hungary’s territories emerged several nation-states: Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, an enlarged Romania, Poland (gaining Galicia), and Italy (gaining South Tyrol and Istria). The principle of national self-determination, endorsed by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, guided much of this reshaping (at least in Europe), granting statehood to peoples like the Czechs and Slovaks who had never had independent states before.
  • Not all aspirations were fully satisfied – for example, some Germans in the Sudetenland found themselves in Czechoslovakia, and Hungarians found large minorities of their people now living in Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia due to the new borders. Nonetheless, the Habsburg Empire’s disintegration was seen as the liberation of oppressed nationalities into their own nations.
• The collapse of Austria-Hungary in 1918 stands as a dramatic example of an empire destroyed by the force of nationalism. The centuries-old Habsburg dynastic state, which had survived myriad challenges, could not survive the age of the nation-state. When the opportunity arose, its constituent peoples overwhelmingly chose to break away and govern themselves. This transformation fundamentally altered Central Europe, replacing a single imperial polity with a mosaic of nation-states.

The Russian Empire: Revolution, Civil War, and the Creation of the Soviet Union

• The Russian Empire was another giant multi-ethnic empire that struggled with rising nationalism. By the late 19th century, it spanned Eastern Europe and Northern Asia, ruling over a vast array of peoples: Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Poles, Finns, Baltic peoples (Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians), Caucasians (Georgians, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Chechens, etc.), Central Asians (Kazakh, Uzbek, etc.), Jews, and many others. Ethnic Russians made up roughly 45% of the population, meaning more than half of the Tsar’s subjects were non-Russians. The Tsarist regime tried to maintain unity through the ideology of “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality,” often resorting to Russification – promoting Russian language, culture, and the Orthodox faith – to integrate or control minority groups.
  • Nationalist stirrings grew among several groups despite repression. The Poles, who had seen their state dissolved in the late 18th century partitions, never accepted Russian rule in their partition (Congress Poland); they rebelled in major uprisings (1830–31 and 1863) which were brutally crushed. After the 1863 revolt, Russian authorities banned the Polish language from administration and education in an effort to stamp out Polish identity, but only succeeded in fueling resentment.
  • The Finns enjoyed a degree of autonomy after being taken by Russia from Sweden in 1809 (they had their own legislature and maintained the Finnish language). However, a late 19th-century Russification campaign (starting in 1899 under Tsar Nicholas II) sought to integrate Finland fully, provoking Finnish passive resistance.
  • In the Baltic provinces (modern Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), Baltic German elites and local nationalists alike faced Russification policies such as the imposition of the Russian language in schools and bureaucracy. Lithuanian nationalism grew in opposition to bans on the Lithuanian press (which were evaded by smuggling books printed in East Prussia).
  • Other peoples like the Georgians, Armenians, and Azerbaijanis in the Caucasus, and Muslim Central Asians, began developing national consciousness in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, albeit unevenly. The empire’s policy varied: sometimes tolerating cultural expression, other times clamping down (as when it abolished the Ukrainian language publications and institutions in the Valuev Circular of 1863 and Ems Ukaz of 1876).
  • Russian rulers also promoted pan-Slavism selectively abroad (supporting fellow Slavs under Ottoman rule) while paradoxically suppressing Slavic national movements within their own borders (like the Ukrainians and Poles). This inconsistency highlighted the empire’s struggle to reconcile imperial control with nationalist aspirations.
• By the early 20th century, pressures were mounting. The 1905 Revolution (sparked by Russia’s defeat in the Russo-Japanese War) forced Tsar Nicholas II to concede a constitution and a parliament (Duma). In this moment of weakness, some national concessions were made: for instance, the Tsar rolled back certain Russification measures in Finland (restoring its autonomy briefly) and allowed minority languages some use. Yet these were temporary. Once the regime recovered, repression returned – and the fundamental national questions remained unresolved.
• World War I (1914–1918) was the breaking point for the Russian Empire. The war caused immense hardship and highlighted the incompetence of the imperial government. In 1917, amidst military defeats and economic collapse, revolution erupted:
  • The February Revolution of 1917 (March 1917 by Western calendar) toppled the Romanov Tsar. A Provisional Government of liberals and moderate socialists took charge. One of its challenges was addressing national minority demands. The Provisional Government granted Poland independence (knowing it was mostly occupied by German/Austrian armies anyway) and acknowledged Finland’s longstanding autonomy (though it initially hesitated to approve full Finnish independence). It also prepared plans for greater self-government in Ukraine and other regions. However, its commitment to continue the unpopular war made it lose support rapidly.
  • The Bolshevik (October) Revolution in late 1917 brought to power a communist government under Vladimir Lenin, who was more willing (at least rhetorically) to concede nationalist aspirations, in part to secure his regime. Lenin declared a policy of “national self-determination” for the peoples of the former empire, including the right to secede. In practice, this policy was a tactical move to undermine the Provisional Government’s support and later to justify making peace.
• In the chaos of revolution and civil war, several non-Russian regions broke away or attempted to:
  • Finland declared full independence in December 1917, which the Bolsheviks promptly recognized (Finland would go on to fight a civil war of its own but remained independent).
  • The Baltic states – Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania – declared independence in 1918. They had to defend it in battles against both German forces and Bolshevik armies, but by 1920 each achieved de facto independence (Soviet Russia recognized this in the treaties of 1920).
  • Poland re-emerged as a state. As soon as the Tsar fell, Polish leaders moved to recreate Poland. The Bolsheviks formally relinquished Russian claims to Poland in the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany, and after Germany’s defeat, Poland fought and won a war against Soviet Russia (1919–1921) to secure its eastern frontiers.
  • In the Caucasus, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan each declared independence in 1918 amid the Russian civil war. These Transcaucasian republics enjoyed a brief period of independence until Red Army invasions brought them under Bolshevik control by 1920–1921.
  • Ukraine was hotly contested: a Ukrainian National Republic proclaimed independence in January 1918 in Kyiv, but Ukraine became a battleground among multiple forces (Ukrainian nationalists, Bolsheviks, White Russian armies, and Polish forces in the west). Ultimately, the Bolsheviks took control of most of Ukraine by 1920, turning it into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, while Poland annexed western Ukrainian territories (e.g., around Lviv) in the aftermath of the Polish-Soviet War.
  • Other regions: Belarus similarly saw a short-lived independent republic that was soon absorbed into the Soviet framework; in Central Asia, indigenous elites and rebels (like the Basmachi movement) fought against Bolshevik takeover but were eventually subdued, and Soviet republics were established (e.g., Turkestan/Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, etc., in the 1920s).
• By 1922, the Bolsheviks (renamed the Communist Party) had largely reconquered the former imperial territories, except for the Baltics, Finland, Poland, and parts of the Caucasus that remained independent. To manage the empire’s diverse peoples under a new ideology, Lenin’s regime created the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in December 1922. The USSR was formally a federation of equal union republics representing major nationalities (Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Transcaucasian (split into Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia in 1936), etc.), each ostensibly sovereign and possessing the theoretical right to secede.
  • In practice, the Soviet Union was a highly centralized one-party state under communist rule. However, in its early years, the regime implemented “korenizatsiya” or indigenization policies: promoting local languages in administration and education, and training members of each nationality to serve as communist leaders in their own republics. This was meant to appease national sentiments and undercut support for independence movements.
  • Over time, especially under Joseph Stalin (himself a Georgian by birth), the Soviet approach shifted. By the 1930s and 1940s, the USSR increasingly promoted the Russian language as a unifying medium and suppressed any expressions of nationalism that threatened central control. During World War II and its aftermath, Stalin even deported entire ethnic groups (such as Crimean Tatars, Chechens, and others) accused of disloyalty. The Soviet state forcefully kept nationalist movements in check through repression.
  • Meanwhile, in East Asia, the centuries-old Chinese Empire was also succumbing to nationalist forces. The Xinhai Revolution of 1911, led by republican revolutionary Sun Yat-sen, toppled the Qing dynasty and ended imperial rule in China. This event established the Republic of China – a new nation-state replacing the Qing monarchy – and marked one of the first successful national revolutions in Asia.
• In summary, the Russian Empire’s collapse in 1917–1921 released numerous nationalist genies from the bottle, leading to a flurry of independent states on its fringes. Yet, the communist Red Army managed to reclaim much of the imperial space and reconstitute it in a new form – the USSR. The Soviet Union, for all its Marxist-Leninist ideology, essentially became an empire of a new kind, one that would endure until 1991. The ideals of national self-determination had momentarily flourished in Eastern Europe and Eurasia, but for many peoples (Ukrainians, Belarusians, Central Asians, Caucasians), true independence was deferred for several more decades under Soviet domination. (The eventual breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 – covered later – would finally realize those nations’ independence, illustrating the long-lived power of nationalist aspirations.)

The Indian National Movement and the End of the British Raj

• The anti-colonial struggle in India stands as one of the most significant nationalist movements against a European empire. British colonial rule in India (the British Raj) lasted from 1858 to 1947 (preceded by indirect control via the East India Company since the 18th century). During this time, a profound transformation occurred: Indians from diverse ethnic, linguistic, and religious backgrounds gradually forged a common national identity and mass movement to reclaim sovereignty. This movement not only achieved India’s independence but also dealt a deathblow to the British Empire, inspiring numerous other colonies across Asia and Africa.
  • Early resistance to British rule manifested in revolts like the Indian Rebellion of 1857 (also called the First War of Indian Independence). Though that uprising – a largely military and feudal revolt – was suppressed, it jolted the British and led to direct Crown rule. In its aftermath, a new class of Western-educated Indians emerged, influenced by liberal and nationalist ideas.
  • In 1885, the Indian National Congress (INC) was founded in Bombay. The INC began as a forum of educated Indian elites petitioning for greater rights and inclusion in governance. In its early decades, these “Moderate” leaders (like Dadabhai Naoroji, Pherozeshah Mehta, Gopal Krishna Gokhale) used petitions, speeches, and resolutions to demand incremental reforms (e.g., more Indians in civil service, legislative councils, etc.), all within the framework of British rule.
  • By the early 20th century, frustration with the slow pace of change led to a more radical nationalist stream. Leaders such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak proclaimed, “Swaraj (self-rule) is my birthright,” and mobilized popular protests. The first major upsurge came with the partition of Bengal in 1905 (a British decision to divide Bengal along communal lines). This sparked the Swadeshi Movement (1905–1908), a boycott of British goods coupled with promotion of indigenous industries. Masses of Indians, including students and women, joined in rallies, bonfires of foreign cloth, and revival of cottage industries – an early sign of broad nationalist fervor. Although the British revoked Bengal’s partition in 1911, they had galvanized a generation of Indians with the efficacy of organized national protest.
  • The period also saw the rise of the All-India Muslim League (founded 1906), reflecting the subcontinent’s complex social fabric. Initially, the Muslim League sought communal safeguards and a voice for Indian Muslims under colonial rule. For a time, the Congress and Muslim League cooperated (as in the Lucknow Pact of 1916) to press the British for self-governing institutions.
• World War I (1914–1918) was a catalyst for the Indian nationalist movement. India contributed over a million soldiers to Britain’s war effort, raising Indian expectations of political reward. However, British reforms fell short. The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (Government of India Act 1919) offered only limited devolution of power, and concurrently the draconian Rowlatt Act (1919) extended wartime repressive measures into peacetime. This betrayal sparked nationwide anger.
  • In April 1919, a peaceful protest in Amritsar against the Rowlatt Act was met with the infamous Jallianwala Bagh massacre – British troops under General Dyer fired on an unarmed crowd, killing hundreds. The massacre horrified the Indian public and irreversibly eroded Indian faith in British justice.
  • It was around this time that Mohandas K. Gandhi rose to prominence. Gandhi, returning from South Africa in 1915, brought a philosophy of nonviolent resistance (Satyagraha). Under Gandhi’s leadership, the Congress was transformed from an elite debating body into a mass movement. In 1920–22, Gandhi launched the Non-Cooperation Movement, urging Indians to boycott British schools, courts, titles, and goods, and instead rely on indigenous institutions (like spinning their own cloth – the khadi movement). Millions participated. Although Gandhi suspended the campaign in 1922 after it turned violent in one instance (the Chauri Chaura incident), the movement had already demonstrated unprecedented nationwide unity, involving peasants, students, merchants, and professionals in the cause of nationalism.
  • Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, Indian nationalism gathered momentum. An important milestone was the Salt Satyagraha of 1930: defying a British salt tax, Gandhi trekked 240 miles in the Dandi March to make salt from the sea, inspiring parallel civil disobedience across India. Tens of thousands, including Gandhi, were arrested, but the British were forced to negotiate. The slogan of “Purna Swaraj” (complete independence) was adopted by Congress in 1929, reflecting the now maximal goal of the movement.
  • The British made piecemeal concessions. The Government of India Act 1935 created provincial legislatures with Indian ministers, but key powers stayed with the British. Elections in 1937 saw the Congress form governments in several provinces, demonstrating Indians’ capacity for self-rule. However, the communal divide between Congress and the Muslim League was widening, with the League (led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah) now advocating for separate Muslim-majority nationhood (a concept that would become Pakistan).
• World War II (1939–1945) intensified the drive toward independence. Britain’s unilateral decision to involve India in the war without consulting Indian leaders led the Congress to resign from provincial governments in protest. Gandhi in 1942 launched the Quit India Movement, calling for the British to leave immediately. The British responded with mass detentions (imprisoning Gandhi and the entire Congress leadership) and suppressed the revolt, but it was clear that colonial rule had become untenable without Indian cooperation.
  • Meanwhile, the Muslim League grew in influence under Jinnah, who argued that the subcontinent’s Hindu-Muslim divide required two separate nations. Communal tensions were stoked during the war years. In 1940, the League passed the Lahore Resolution, formally demanding “independent states” for Muslims (implicitly Pakistan in the east and northwest).
  • During the war, Britain also faced the embarrassing reality of the Indian National Army (INA) – a force of Indian POWs raised by nationalist leader Subhas Chandra Bose with Japanese support – which fought against the British in 1944. Though the INA’s military impact was limited, its existence showed that Indian loyalty to the Raj was no longer guaranteed.
  • By 1945, exhausted by war, Britain saw violent signals (such as the naval mutiny in Bombay in 1946) and rising communal violence, and realized it could not hold India. The new Labour government in London was also philosophically inclined to let go of colonies. Lord Louis Mountbatten was sent as the last Viceroy to arrange transfer of power.
• In 1947, the British agreed to leave, but tragically the freedom came with a partition. The Mountbatten Plan carved British India into two states: a predominantly Hindu India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan (itself bifurcated into West and East Pakistan, the latter becoming Bangladesh in 1971). At midnight on August 15, 1947, India and Pakistan became independent dominions, ending nearly 200 years of British colonial rule.
  • Partition triggered one of the largest and most traumatic human migrations in history. Approximately 10–15 million people crossed borders to join their chosen nation, and communal massacres erupted; an estimated one million people lost their lives in sectarian violence during 1947–48. Gandhi himself fell victim to an assassin in January 1948, killed by a Hindu extremist angered by his appeals for Hindu-Muslim harmony.
  • Despite the trauma of partition, the independence of India was a seminal anti-colonial nationalist success. India emerged as the world’s largest democracy, while Pakistan (initially a dominion, later an Islamic republic) provided a homeland for South Asian Muslims. The British Empire’s dissolution accelerated after India’s departure – within the next decade, Britain released Burma (Myanmar) and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and began a rapid decolonization across Africa and the Caribbean. The end of the Raj was arguably the biggest blow to Western colonial empires, demonstrating the power of sustained mass nationalist movement.
• The Indian national movement’s impact extended far beyond its borders. India’s successful use of mass nonviolent resistance became a model for other colonial peoples and civil rights struggles worldwide. Leaders of various African and Asian independence movements (from Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana to Nelson Mandela in South Africa) drew inspiration from India’s achievement. The end of the British Raj underscored a fundamental shift in world order – the era of European empires was giving way to an age of nation-states, as one by one, subject peoples demanded and won the right to rule themselves.

Nationalism in East and Southeast Asia: Decolonization in East and Southeast Asia

• After World War II, a wave of decolonization swept through Asia as nationalist movements forced out European imperial powers and dismantled the Japanese empire. Within a few decades, nearly all of Asia transitioned from colonial rule to independent nation-states. This was driven by indigenous nationalist leaders and populations who had long chafed under foreign domination, and it was hastened by the weakening of colonial powers during the war.
  • Southeast Asia: World War II had undermined European prestige in Southeast Asia – Japanese conquests expelled the British, Dutch, and French from their colonies (1941–1942), and although Japan imposed its own brutal rule, it also fueled local nationalist hopes by touting “Asia for Asians.” When Japan was defeated in 1945, power vacuums emerged, and indigenous leaders moved to fill them rather than allow Europeans to simply return.
    • In the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), nationalist leaders Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta declared independence on August 17, 1945, just days after Japan’s surrender. The Dutch, attempting to reassert control, waged a colonial war for four years against the Indonesian republicans. Indonesian guerrillas and a determined populace resisted, while international pressure mounted on the Netherlands. Finally, in December 1949, the Dutch conceded Indonesia’s sovereignty (after a brief transfer through a Dutch-led interim state). Thus, the Republic of Indonesia emerged, uniting a vast archipelago under one nation after 350 years of colonial exploitation.
    • In French Indochina, nationalist and communist forces combined to fight French rule. In Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh and his Viet Minh movement proclaimed Vietnam’s independence (Democratic Republic of Vietnam) in September 1945, after having fought Japanese occupation. France, however, reoccupied southern Vietnam and attempted to restore its colony. This led to the First Indochina War (1946–1954) between French forces and Viet Minh insurgents. Despite French military aid from the US, the Viet Minh won a decisive victory at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The ensuing Geneva Accords (1954) forced France to withdraw. Vietnam was temporarily partitioned into a communist North and a non-communist South pending elections (which never occurred, setting the stage for the later Vietnam War). At the same time, France granted independence to Laos and Cambodia (1953–54) – both of which had indigenous monarchies that affirmed their nations’ sovereignty.
    • In British Malaya, nationalist sentiment grew during the war and afterward. The British faced a communist-led guerrilla insurgency (the Malayan Emergency, 1948–1960) but also negotiated with moderate nationalist leaders for a transition to self-rule. On August 31, 1957, the Federation of Malaya (peninsular Malaya) achieved peaceful independence under Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman. Later, in 1963, Malaya joined with British territories in Borneo and Singapore to form the new federation of Malaysia (although Singapore exited to become a separate nation in 1965). Malaya’s path exemplified a comparatively smooth decolonization through gradual political development, in contrast to violent struggles elsewhere.
    • Burma (Myanmar) saw a swift path to freedom. During the war, Burmese nationalists under Aung San initially allied with Japan to oust the British, but then turned against the Japanese as well. After 1945, Aung San negotiated with the returning British for independence. Tragically, he was assassinated in 1947, but his efforts bore fruit: Burma became an independent republic on January 4, 1948, one of the earliest post-war decolonizations. Burma’s independence was achieved without partition, but the young nation soon faced internal ethnic insurgencies – highlighting that national unity remained a challenge even after colonial rule ended.
    • Ceylon (Sri Lanka) achieved independence from Britain peacefully on February 4, 1948. Ceylon’s transition was smooth due to a long period of gradual political reform. (It later became a republic and adopted the name Sri Lanka in 1972.) Like Burma, Ceylon remained intact as a single polity, although ethnic tensions (between Sinhalese and Tamil communities) would later become a serious issue.
    • The Philippines in East Asia was a special case – a US colony since 1898 – but its road to independence was set before WWII. The Philippines was granted Commonwealth status in the 1930s, with a promise of full independence after a 10-year transition. World War II interrupted this timeline as Japan occupied the islands. After liberation, the United States honored its commitment: on July 4, 1946, the Republic of the Philippines became independent. The Philippines thus was among the first Asian colonies to gain independence post-war, albeit from a non-European power.
  • East Asia: The end of World War II also liberated territories held by the Japanese Empire:
    • Korea, annexed by Japan in 1910, was freed from Japanese rule in 1945. However, it was immediately divided into occupation zones – Soviet in the north, American in the south – as a Cold War reality. Efforts to create a single Korean state faltered as ideologies diverged. In 1948, two separate countries were established: communist North Korea (led by Kim Il-sung) and anti-communist South Korea (led by Syngman Rhee). This division soon erupted into the Korean War (1950–1953) when the North invaded the South – a war that ended in stalemate and confirmed the permanent partition of Korea. Korean nationalism thus achieved freedom from Japan, but the peninsula remains split into two rival nation-states to this day.
    • Taiwan (Formosa), a Chinese island seized by Japan in 1895, was returned to Chinese authority in 1945. However, by 1949 the Chinese mainland fell to the Chinese Communist Revolution led by Mao Zedong, while the ousted Nationalist government under Chiang Kai-shek retreated to Taiwan. This resulted in two Chinese governments (the People’s Republic of China on the mainland and the Republic of China on Taiwan), a complex outcome of civil war rather than anticolonial nationalism – but rooted in the same period of imperial collapse.
    • Other Japanese-held areas: Hong Kong and Singapore, major Asian port cities, had been British colonies, were occupied by Japan during WWII, and then returned to British control in 1945. Singapore eventually separated from British Malaya to become independent in 1965, as mentioned. Hong Kong, however, remained a British colony well beyond the initial decolonization wave. It was returned to Chinese sovereignty in 1997 under a special arrangement (“one country, two systems”) – symbolically closing the chapter on British colonial history in Asia.
    • Japan itself, after WWII, was occupied by the Allied powers (primarily the US) and stripped of its colonies. Under occupation, Japan renounced imperialism and underwent democratization. By 1952, Japan regained sovereignty as a pacifist nation. The dissolution of the Japanese empire thus created space for the resurgence or emergence of nation-states like Korea, China, and various Pacific islands.
• By the mid-1950s, a first wave of Asian decolonization was largely complete. Dozens of new nations – from Jordan and Israel in West Asia (Middle East) to Pakistan, India, and the plethora of states in Southeast/East Asia – had joined the world community. (West Asia/Middle Eastern developments are discussed separately.) These changes reflected both the agency of nationalist movements and the new geopolitical reality: the old colonial powers were war-weary and increasingly outmatched by indigenous resistance and international anti-imperialist sentiment.
  • The formation of the United Nations in 1945 also provided a platform where colonized peoples’ right to self-determination was affirmed. Asian and Middle Eastern newly independent countries became founding members and vocal advocates for ending colonialism everywhere.
  • In 1955, leaders of 29 newly independent Asian and African countries met at the Bandung Conference in Indonesia, forging Afro-Asian solidarity and laying groundwork for the Non-Aligned Movement. This underscored a key legacy of Asia’s decolonization: former colonies would no longer passively accept great-power dominance, but instead sought to chart independent foreign policies and cooperative relations, asserting the principle of equality among nations.
• The decolonization of East and Southeast Asia demonstrated a variety of paths to freedom: armed struggle (as in Vietnam and Indonesia), negotiated transitions (as in Ceylon and Malaya), and intermediate cases (as in India’s partition or Burma’s mix of negotiation and internal strife). By 1960, Asian nationalism had effectively dismantled every European empire in the region (with only small exceptions like Hong Kong and Macau remaining a little longer), heralding the start of the “Asian Century” where Asian nation-states would increasingly shape global affairs.

Nationalism in Africa and the Middle East: The End of Colonial Empires

• In the decades after World War II, nationalism surged in Africa and the Middle East, leading to the rapid disintegration of European colonial empires across these regions. Peoples long subjugated under foreign rule asserted their right to self-determination. By the mid-20th century, one territory after another achieved independence, fundamentally redrawing the world map.
• North Africa and the Middle East: Many nations in North Africa and West Asia gained independence around the mid-century, often building on early 20th-century stirrings:
  • Egypt had been formally independent since 1922, but British influence persisted. A nationalist revolution in 1952, led by the Free Officers (notably Gamal Abdel Nasser), ended the monarchy and expelled the British military. In 1956, Nasser’s bold nationalization of the Suez Canal prompted a failed invasion by Britain, France, and Israel (the Suez Crisis). Strong Egyptian nationalism and international pressure forced the invaders’ withdrawal, symbolizing the end of Britain’s imperial dominance in the region.
  • Iraq emerged from British mandate control and gained nominal independence in 1932, but the British retained bases and influence until a 1958 coup established a republican government and ended the monarchy. Similarly, Jordan (the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan) gained independence from Britain in 1946, and Syria and Lebanon were granted independence from French mandate rule by 1943–1946 (with French troops departing after WWII).
  • The fate of Palestine became a flashpoint of competing nationalisms. The British, who held Palestine as a mandate, decided to withdraw amid escalating conflict between Zionist Jews and Arab Palestinians. In 1947 the United Nations proposed partitioning Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. Jewish leaders accepted and declared the State of Israel in May 1948, while Arab states and Palestinian Arabs rejected partition as unjust. War broke out (the first Arab-Israeli War, 1948–49), resulting in Israel’s establishment on a larger territory than the UN plan, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (the Nakba or catastrophe). The remaining Palestinian territories were taken over by neighboring Arab countries (Egypt in Gaza, Jordan in the West Bank). Palestinian Arab aspirations for an independent state remained unfulfilled, sparking a continuing conflict that is essentially a struggle of two nationalisms over the same land.
  • In North Africa, France and Spain controlled large areas. Libya (formerly an Italian colony) became independent in 1951 under King Idris after a UN process – making it one of the first new nations in Africa post-WWII. Morocco and Tunisia achieved independence from French protectorates in 1956 through negotiated agreements (after pressure and some armed resistance by nationalists such as Morocco’s Istiqlal Party and Tunisia’s Neo-Destour led by Habib Bourguiba).
  • Algeria’s path was far more violent. As a French settler colony, Algeria was considered part of France, and over a million European settlers lived there. The indigenous Algerians, however, faced discrimination and had begun an armed struggle for independence under the National Liberation Front (FLN) in 1954. The Algerian War (1954–1962) was brutal, involving guerrilla warfare and harsh French counterinsurgency tactics; atrocities were committed on both sides and the conflict deeply polarized France itself. Ultimately, French President Charles de Gaulle conceded that France could not win; the Evian Accords were signed in 1962, granting Algeria independence. The war claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and prompted an exodus of Europeans and pro-French Algerians (pieds-noirs and Harkis) from Algeria. Algerian independence was a seminal moment, showing that even integral colonial possessions would succumb to determined nationalist revolt.
  • In the Arabian Peninsula and Persian Gulf, decolonization came as the British withdrew their protectorates: Yemen (the southern part around Aden) became independent in 1967 (as South Yemen, later merging with North Yemen in 1990). The sheikhdoms of the Gulf – Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and seven Trucial States – all gained full independence by 1971, with the Trucial States forming the federation of the United Arab Emirates. These transfers were largely peaceful, as Britain chose to relinquish its overstretched commitments east of Suez.
• Sub-Saharan Africa: Virtually the entire African continent was under European colonial rule in 1945, but by the mid-1960s most of it had been liberated. The process occurred in waves, often correlating with the colonial power in question:
  • The British Empire in Africa receded rapidly in the late 1950s and 1960s:
    • Ghana (the Gold Coast) led the way in sub-Saharan Africa, achieving independence in 1957 under Kwame Nkrumah. This was the first British colony in Black Africa to become independent, earning 1957 the nickname “the dawn of African independence.” Nkrumah’s pan-African vision and Ghana’s success energized nationalist movements across the continent.
    • Nigeria, the most populous British colony in Africa, gained independence peacefully in October 1960. A federation of regions, Nigeria’s freedom – under Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa – exemplified the British strategy of transferring power to moderate local leaders.
    • In East Africa, the road was sometimes rougher: Kenya endured the Mau Mau uprising (1952–56), a bloody rebellion by Kikuyu fighters against settler domination and land alienation. The British suppressed Mau Mau but realized the inevitability of change. Kenyan nationalist leader Jomo Kenyatta (imprisoned during the uprising) was later released to negotiate independence. Kenya became independent in 1963, with Kenyatta as its first prime minister. Similarly, Tanganyika (mainland Tanzania) gained independence in 1961 under Julius Nyerere, and merged with the newly independent island state of Zanzibar in 1964 to form Tanzania. Uganda also became independent in 1962 under Milton Obote.
    • In Central Africa, the British colonial federation that grouped Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), and Nyasaland (Malawi) fell apart due to African opposition. Nyasaland (Malawi) and Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) achieved independence in 1964 under leaders Hastings Banda and Kenneth Kaunda respectively. However, Southern Rhodesia, with its large white settler population, unilaterally declared independence under a white-minority regime in 1965 (Ian Smith’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence) rather than accept majority rule. This led to a protracted guerilla war by African nationalist groups (ZANU and ZAPU). Ultimately, Britain and international pressure forced negotiations, and in 1980 Rhodesia became independent Zimbabwe with Robert Mugabe as leader, marking the final collapse of British colonial rule in Africa.
    • South Africa was a special case: it had been a self-governing dominion since 1910, technically independent from Britain, but under a white minority government. The rise of apartheid (institutionalized racial segregation from 1948) made South Africa a pariah as African nationalism there focused on ending racial oppression rather than colonialism per se. Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress led the resistance (peaceful and armed). Majority rule came much later, in 1994, when apartheid was dismantled – a victory for the principle of multiracial national democracy in Africa, and often seen as the true end of the colonial era on the continent.
  • The French decolonization in Africa was swift around 1960. France initially hoped to integrate its colonies more tightly (offering them representation in the French Union). But inspired by events in Asia and Ghana’s independence, French West and Equatorial African leaders pushed for autonomy. In a 1958 referendum, France offered a choice: immediate independence or membership in a French Community. Only Guinea under Sékou Touré voted for immediate independence – which it achieved in 1958 (prompting the French to angrily withdraw all aid overnight). The other territories chose a looser association but within two years opted for full independence as well.
    • The year 1960 became known as the “Year of Africa” because no fewer than 17 African countries gained independence that year – 14 of them former French colonies (including Senegal, Mali, Ivory Coast, Benin (Dahomey), Niger, Burkina Faso (Upper Volta), Chad, Central African Republic, Gabon, Republic of Congo (Brazzaville), Cameroon (which was a French-administered UN trusteeship), and Madagascar). France largely negotiated an orderly transfer of power in these areas, often retaining economic and military ties (the “Françafrique” sphere).
    • The Belgian approach to decolonization was comparatively chaotic. Belgian Congo (the vast Congo colony) was abruptly granted independence on June 30, 1960, after barely five years of preparation. The transition was tumultuous: within days, the army mutinied, provinces like Katanga seceded, and the country (renamed the Republic of the Congo, later Zaire, now the D.R. Congo) spiraled into crisis. The UN had to intervene, and the charismatic Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba was eventually killed during the turmoil (1961), a victim of Cold War meddling. The Congo crisis highlighted the dangers of a hasty withdrawal without stable institutions in place.
    • Rwanda and Burundi, two small territories that Belgium had administered (after taking them from Germany in WWI), also received independence in 1962, each becoming separate republics. These states soon experienced ethnic power struggles that the colonial era had exacerbated.
    • Portuguese colonies were the last to be freed in Africa, due to Portugal’s authoritarian government refusing to decolonize. Protracted liberation wars raged in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau through the 1960s and early 1970s, led by groups like MPLA/FNLA/UNITA in Angola, FRELIMO in Mozambique, and PAIGC in Guinea-Bissau. The 1974 military coup in Portugal (the Carnation Revolution) toppled the regime in Lisbon and abruptly reversed colonial policy. Within about a year, Portugal hastily granted independence to all its African colonies: Guinea-Bissau (1974), Mozambique (1975), Cape Verde (1975), São Tomé and Príncipe (1975), and Angola (1975). Unfortunately, Angola and Mozambique were immediately engulfed in civil wars fueled by Cold War rivalries, as factions vied for power.
    • Spanish holdings in Africa were relatively small. Spanish Morocco had already merged with independent Morocco in 1956. Spain granted Equatorial Guinea independence in 1968. Western Sahara, a Spanish colony, was left unresolved: Spain withdrew in 1975, and the territory was claimed and occupied by Morocco (and partly by Mauritania initially), sparking a still-unresolved conflict with the Sahrawi independence movement (Polisario Front).
• By the late 1970s, the colonial era in Africa had effectively ended, with nearly all of Africa’s nations sovereign. From only four independent countries in 1945 (Egypt, Ethiopia, Liberia, South Africa), Africa now comprised over 50 independent states. The wave of decolonization was one of the 20th century’s most dramatic transformations, driven by African nationalists—figures like Kwame Nkrumah, Jomo Kenyatta, Julius Nyerere, Patrice Lumumba, Léopold Sédar Senghor, Ahmed Sékou Touré, Ahmed Ben Bella, and many others—who led their people to freedom.
  • These new African and Middle Eastern states faced significant post-colonial challenges: arbitrary borders drawn by former rulers encompassed diverse ethnic groups, leading to internal conflicts in some cases (e.g., Nigeria’s Biafra war in the 1960s, or ethnic strife in Sudan culminating in the secession of South Sudan). Economic dependence on former colonial powers remained an issue, and the Cold War often pulled new nations into proxy rivalries. Nonetheless, the collapse of colonial empires was irreversible – by the 1970s, it was broadly accepted that empire was an outdated mode of governance.
  • Pan-national movements also gained prominence: Pan-Arabism under leaders like Nasser sought to unite the Arab world politically (though with limited success, as seen in the short-lived United Arab Republic of Egypt and Syria), while Pan-Africanism fostered solidarity among African nations (culminating in the formation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1963). These reflected a desire to transcend colonial-era divides and solve problems collectively in the post-colonial era.
• The end of colonial rule in Africa and the Middle East completed the global shift to a world of nation-states. Empires that had dominated for centuries had crumbled, and in their place stood independent countries asserting their sovereignty and distinct national identities. This transformation, achieved through a mix of negotiation, political pressure, and armed struggle, represented the definitive triumph of nationalist self-determination over imperial subjugation.

Legacy of Empire Disintegration and the Triumph of the Nation-State System

• By the late 20th century, the process of imperial disintegration driven by nationalism had fundamentally reshaped global politics. The old empires of Europe and Asia had been replaced by a multitude of independent nation-states. The principle that each nation has the right to self-government became a cornerstone of international norms, enshrined in the United Nations charter and widely accepted as a basis for peace and cooperation.
  • The end of the Cold War marked the final chapter in this global transition. The Soviet Union, a multi-national superstate often seen as the last empire, collapsed in 1991. Its constituent republics, from the Baltic states to Central Asia, asserted their sovereignty and became 15 independent countries. Similarly, the communist federations in Eastern Europe fragmented: Yugoslavia broke apart in the early 1990s amid bitter ethnic conflicts, giving rise to a half-dozen new nations in the Balkans; Czechoslovakia peacefully split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993. These events reiterated that even in the late 20th century, suppressed national aspirations could re-emerge to redraw borders.
  • With these final upheavals, the world map had almost entirely transitioned to the nation-state paradigm. In 1900, there were fewer than 60 independent countries; by 2000, there were around 190. Virtually every inhabited territory was part of a sovereign state run by a native national government (or well on its way to self-rule). A few exceptions persist (small colonial dependencies or disputed territories), but classical empire – one nation dominating others across vast territories – has essentially vanished.
  • The triumph of nationalism and the nation-state brought greater self-determination and representation to former subject peoples, but it also introduced new challenges. In many regions, the colonial or imperial borders became the borders of the new states, often grouping diverse ethnicities within one country. This sometimes led to internal conflicts or secessionist movements (for example, the secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan in 1971, the long civil wars in post-colonial Sudan leading to South Sudan’s independence in 2011, etc.). The nation-state system also saw the rise of intense patriotism and, at times, xenophobia. Disputes between nation-states – whether rooted in historical grievances, ethnic disputes, or irredentist claims – have caused wars (from the India-Pakistan conflicts to the Balkan wars of the 1990s).
  • On the other hand, the removal of imperial rule allowed international relations to be reorganized on new principles. Former colonies and subject nations gained voices on the world stage. Institutions like the United Nations gave equal sovereignty (in principle) to big and small nations alike, fostering a more inclusive global dialogue. Many new states chose non-alignment during the Cold War, banding together to resist being drawn into great-power domination once again.
  • The legacy of empire’s disintegration is complex. Culturally and politically, the world has embraced plurality; it is recognized that humanity is composed of many distinct nations, each deserving respect. Yet the process has been anything but smooth – some transitions were peaceful, others violent. Nationalism proved to be a double-edged sword: liberating peoples from foreign subjugation, but also, in some cases, fueling chauvinism or conflicts with neighbors.
  • Overall, the era of 18th–20th century empire disintegrations has given birth to today’s nation-state system, a world order where the primary political entities are nations governing themselves. This system is still evolving. Even as global economic and environmental interdependence grows, the call of national identity remains powerful. Some nations have formed supra-national unions (e.g., the European Union) to pool sovereignty in certain areas, suggesting that the nation-state, too, may further adapt in the future. However, the fundamental rejection of imperial domination – the idea that people should not be ruled by distant, alien powers – is now a virtually universal value.
• The table below provides a brief comparative glance at major empires and how they disintegrated in the face of rising nationalisms across the world:

Conclusion

The disintegration of empires and the rise of nation-states from the late 18th through the 20th century has been one of the most consequential developments in world history. It transformed subject peoples into citizens of independent countries and ushered in a global order fundamentally different from the imperial hierarchies of previous eras. In place of sprawling empires ruled by distant monarchs, the world today is composed mostly of nation-states – political units that claim to represent a particular people with a shared identity.

This transformation was neither quick nor easy. It unfolded over two centuries and through countless struggles – from battles in the Latin American wars of independence to mass movements in India, from nationalist revolts that toppled European dynasties to liberation wars that expelled colonial regimes in Africa and Asia. The process was often violent, and the aftermath not always smooth, as new nations faced the task of building stable states and sometimes contended with internal divisions of their own. Yet, the overarching trend was clear and irreversible: empire as a form of governance gave way to the principle of national self-determination.

Today’s world of nearly 200 sovereign states stands as a legacy of those nationalist waves. International institutions, laws, and norms have come to enshrine the equality of nations and the right of peoples to govern themselves. While imperialism in its old form has virtually disappeared, the echoes of that era linger in modern conflicts and borders. The triumph of nationalism solved certain injustices – empowering communities to chart their own destiny – but it also introduced new challenges, including border disputes and minority rights issues within multi-ethnic states. History suggests, however, that any attempts to rebuild empires or deny national aspirations will meet the same resistance that doomed the old empires. The age of empire’s disintegration has firmly established that the desire for national freedom is one of the most potent forces in modern history, and it continues to shape our world.

1. Discuss how rising nationalism in 19th-century Europe undermined multi-ethnic empires such as Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. (Answer in 250 words)
2. Analyze the significance of the Indian national movement in the broader context of the collapse of colonial empires. (Answer in 250 words)
3. Examine how nationalist movements across Asia and Africa after World War II led to the end of European colonial empires. (Answer in 250 words)