National Identity and Mentalities of War in Three EC Countries

Abstract

It is a basic assumption of this article that the history, symbolism and mentality of war - e.g. in the form of heroism - constitute central elements in the make-up of national identities, also in the European Community, despite the fact that the EC is more commonly thought of as a peace movement. The contribution and significance of `war mentality' may differ from one country to the next, however. The article examines the link between national identity and the mentality of war in Great Britain, (West) Germany and Denmark, as three EC countries representing different national histories, structures and ambitions. The approach is comparative and intercultural. The author argues (1) that the mentality of war is radically different in the three countries: one of proud and unifying civic heroism in Britain, of traumatic negative presence in Germany and of symbolic moral strength based on historical defeats in Denmark; (2) that these differences are mainly rooted in (the outcome of) World War II and conform with general patterns of political culture in the three countries concerning the link between nationalism and internationalism; and (3) that this makes for very different attitudes to closer political cooperation in a `European Union', particularly as regards integration in the areas of common security and defence policies. Attitudes to the Gulf War are used as a concrete case to demonstrate some of the salient points. The article concludes by pointing out the difficulties in unifying European nationalisms so dissimilar in this decisive area of national identity, and in permanently keeping the military option out of intra-European national competition.

National identities in the age of globalisation: The case of Western Europe

“…Among the countries with the lowest attachment we find West Germany, East Germany, and Belgium. As it is well known, German national pride is negatively affected by memories of Nazism and 'war guilt' (Topf et al, 1989;Alter, 1993;Hedetoft, 1993), whereas Belgian pride is negatively affected by the existence in Belgium of two different 'nations' (Walloon and Flemish). Yet, it is interesting to observe, as mentioned above, that both East Germany and Belgium have shown over the years some of the highest increase in their sentiment of national pride.…”

Symbolism in European integration

“…Theiler brings a constructivist interpretation to the study of these policy areas, showing how the EU was unable to 'extend its reach into key areas of political symbolism' (Theiler, 2005, p. 6). Other examples of work sharing a focus on the representation of symbols include Ulf Hedetoft's studies of symbolic politics (Hedetoft, 1993(Hedetoft, , 1998, Thomas Christiansen's analyses of the 'reconstruction of European space' (Christiansen, 1997), Brigid Laffan's work on symbols and EU identity (1998,2001) and Matthias Kaelberer's study of symbols in the politics of EMU (Kaelberer, 2004). What these studies share is an understanding that symbols as representations are important when constructed as such by different individuals and groups, and that this practice can be studied on the basis of constructivist assumptions.…”

War and the Contest over National Identity

“…Nothing calls forth more compelling nationalist discourse and an intense need to define or defend national identity than international conflict or war (Bloom, 1990;Calhoun, 1997;McCrone et al, 1998). Indeed, under such a threat, assert Andersen (1991) and Hedetoft (1993), a strong national identity eventually moves its members to self-sacrifice, to a willingness to die for it.…”