Eastern Europe: National Minorities become nation states. Western Europe: Absorption. Why?

In Eastern Europe, the national minorities of the Russian, Austro-Hungarian and German Empires began to push for their rights in the 19th and early 20th centuries and this culminated in many new nation states being formed between 1815 and 1920. Ireland too did the same and became independent in 1922.

Yet in Western Europe, most minorities in the then multi-lingual states of France, Spain and the United Kingdom didn't flex their muscles in the same way, or to a lesser degree and for the most part ended up completely absorbed by the dominant group within their state.

For example, in France, just over 40% of citizens spoke a minority language (ie; non Langue d'oil) and these included Occitan, Breton, Corsican etc. As far as I know there have never been any highly successful movement for autonomy or language rights and instead these groups have been almost entirely absorbed into the French Nation.

In Spain and the British Isles (excluding Ireland), the national minorities (ie non-English and Non-Castilians) were not absorbed to the same extent as the minorities in France were but their languages are for the most part have declined in usage and they certainly didn't become independent nation states.

Thus, in Eastern Europe, the trend for national minorities was towards greater recognition and then independence while in Western Europe the opposite trend happened; they were for the most part absorbed.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
I think a great part of it is that Western Europe was ruled by relatively stable, vibrant, and liberal governments and thus those national minorities didn't feel nearly as oppressed as their eastern counterparts, nor did the really have much of an opportunity to revolt.
 
I think a great part of it is that Western Europe was ruled by relatively stable, vibrant, and liberal governments and thus those national minorities didn't feel nearly as oppressed as their eastern counterparts, nor did the really have much of an opportunity to revolt.

I agree. They generally treated minorities better than in the east. Another major reason I believe may have contributed to it may have been the lack of any major crises in the western nations. Most of the times when these minorities rose up the nations they were in were usually already falling apart by the time of there independence. That never really happened in any of the western countries so the minorities never got a chance to seize independence while the central government was distracted.

The only exception is of course Ireland. Although they weren't treated nearly as badly as some minorities in the east the still felt like second class citizens in the UK and the religion issue never helped matters.
 
With regards to Austria-Hungary & say the Austrian Empire. Hungary had always been a hot bed of revolt right from its acquisition during the reign of Ferdinand I, that plus it's religious plurality always provided tinder for the flames of revolt (agx the govt. trying to impose Catholicism, no different from its contemporaries and their own religions/faith systems only better timing/diplomatic situations).

Joseph II tried some more how do you say enlightened reforms (taxing the nobility, abolishing serfdom, more religious freedoms (like not super but better than it was before)), centralisation and that didn't work out well for him; after the Napoleonic wars I don't think the Hapsburg wanted to rock the boat, per se, this of course led to stagnation and how do you say less "liberal" govts. Hapsburg policies preceding the nationalism era were no different from their contemporaries, imposition of the state faith/religion, optimal taxation for the defence of the realms and power projection, centralisation of authority in the person of the monarch or elected representatives on behalf of the monarch & the realm.
For example, France before was ambivalent to local language but during the fervour of the revolution banned all languages apart from French as we know it today. It wasn't until the 1950s that local languages were allowed to be taught again. When Joseph II attempted the something similar during his reign that didn't end quite well and Leopold II had to rescind this when he took over. Maria Theresia introduced compulsory primary education to her realms before France did the same during the revolution. I think what Austria needed would've a longer reign of Leopold II or Joseph II avoiding the Turkish war toward the end of his reign and allow his reforms to firmly take hold. Maintain somewhat liberal/reforming monarchs afterwards (change Francis II's upbringing, and avoid his son Ferdinand) and avoid the mess that is the French Revolution you might have a different outlook, possibly more accommodating during the era of nationalism. Also maybe less targets on their back (Prussia, France, Spain, Sardinia-Piedmont, Ottomans at times) (You can tell I'm quite the austrophile :love:, I'm open to any honest criticism of my thought process :winkytongue:)
 
I think a great part of it is that Western Europe was ruled by relatively stable, vibrant, and liberal governments and thus those national minorities didn't feel nearly as oppressed as their eastern counterparts, nor did the really have much of an opportunity to revolt.
I don't think that's it, but actually that the Western European states tended towards more centralized government, and had both avenues for getting rid of potentially troublesome minorities (colonies) and ways to assimilate them (industrial migration). Austria-Hungary and Russia didn't exactly have the option of transportation to Australia like Great Britain did.
 
In many cases in Western Europe those minorities were in a very different position, due to their historic role in the formation of the states they belonged to. I mean, basques and catalans were key actors in the construction of Spain, with a say in national policies (not in vain they were the most developed territories of Spain) like welsh or scotish played an important role in the construction of the UK. Being spanish, when americans talk about basques or catalanas as "ethnically" different I feel stranged, since I've never been thaught not I have felt them as ethnically different, only that they have a different language. They were not "conquered" peoples, if we can say that, and levels of cultural repression in many cases were lowers (to have an idea, even under Francoism you had books, official documents and sometimes even TV in catalan in Catalonia). Probably the fact that western european countries had overseas empires where people from those cultures could go and thrive had an effect, also. On the other hand, Western European states were more powerful than eastern european states (probably they are still), since the proccess of political centralization of power begun before in the west.and finally, Eastern Europe cultural diversity is much more complex than western european cultural diversity, if only because at least in the west the frontiers between cultural groups had historically much more territorial coherence (For example, the frontiers of Wales or Catalonia were fixed in the Middle Ages and remain untouched since then). Of course not everything was rossy, and policies like the french "vergonha" in occitan speaking areas or the marginalization of catalan in Spain are regrettable. Probably those polciies had certain success (certainly in France) due to strenght of the states involved, which also explain different situations inthe different western countries.
 
Also, in the case of Spain, people tends to overstimate the dominance of Castile, mixing the Kigndom of Castille with the Crown of Castile.

Kingdom of Castille (or the Two Castilles):

casti5.jpg


Crown of Castille:

250px-Corona_de_Castilla_1400_es.svg.png


Not eve the Crown of Castille is a culturally homogenous entity.
 
Regarding France, there were policies of forceful assimilation with state schools where kids were forced to speak French.

Then, WWI is generally credited with being a crucible of assimilation, especially for the bretons.
 
In the 19th century, western Europe was dominant and forced separatism on the east. Reverse that and you have the contrary.
 
Regarding France, there were policies of forceful assimilation with state schools where kids were forced to speak French.

Then, WWI is generally credited with being a crucible of assimilation, especially for the bretons.

Cultural assimilation - understood here as disappearance of the minority language - is a consequence of the urban/rural shift of the french population after WWI. Even if the French was the official language in administration since the 16th c., the everyday language diverged in cities and countryside in the early modern area. The 19th c. saw the cities becoming more and more french-speaking, even in non-french regions, thanks to a number of reasons (official education policy, immigration, interconnexions). When the urban population went over the rural one, the cultural shift followed. But until there, the minority languages remained the majority everyday language.

For example, in Alsace-Moselle (annexed by Prussia 1870-1918, so not concerned by the french state education reforms of the 1880'), the Alsacian language has remained quite spoken, because Strasbourg and Mulhouse were alsacian-speaking cities before 1870, but the Mosellan has all but disappeared because Metz was, since the 18th c. at least, a french-speaking city.
 
Top