You obvousily didn't read the links in what RDak quoted.

Try reading the National delimitation in the Soviet Union one.

Planet Earth is a "nation."

It was a group of different nations.  Poland, east Germany, Romania, Ukraine, etc.

Poland and Germany can never be one nation because they have different people.

When you get rid of the Polish nation you are essentially getting rid of those people who compose it - the Polish.  Go ahead get rid of Polish people and call it Poland but it isn't.

That's the point.

Well that is true that they were most definitely for expansion and did expand into the USSR by absorbing territories they felt were their natural "holdings" but they were still very nationalistic once that was achieved IMHO.

Wasn't Hitler the same way for all intents and purposes.....?

I am a Southern nationalist, does necessarily mean secession but it is a Southern nation within the American Republic.  The United States is not a nation.

Pan- whatevarism is nationalist. Like Pan-Africanism.  Or Pan-Arabism. Any type of identityism basically. It's all a claim to exclusiveness.

He fought to keep the states together in a union.

You need to look up the root of nation.

And how do you explain the Indian Nation?

Pan-Germanism was a thing long before Hitler came into the picture. One of the driving elements of WW I.

Tribes didn't have casinos until the white man introduced the fire water and capitalism.

OP misspelled "nihilist".

A new purpose. But a purpose nonetheless. And proves out how well capitalism works.

Lenin’s major twist on Marxist theory was that Moscow, ruled by Russians, was to be the Vanguard for the world Communist movement and thus creating an excuse for a super Russian nationalism around what was ostensibly a movement to get society beyond such things. The counterpart to Americanism as a nation building model in the US was sovietization in the USSR, and the inculcation of a Soviet identity. Somehow, this always meant Russian speaking, Russian led, fealty to the Kremlin. Nothing pissed off our believed Communist “internationalists” more than when another country espousing Marx and claiming buy in to the Revolution refused to bend the knee to the Kremlin. See China. See Yugoslavia.

A more modern example of Communism being an excuse and enabler of a sort of hyper-nationalism is China. Even before their modern nationalist packaging, China’s behavior toward Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam echoed the USSR’s behavior toward their own Communist periphery.

Stalin, for a Georgian, became one of the better examples of the USSR becoming a tool for Russian nationalism. He reverse many of the nationalization (koronization, or “roots building”) policies of the 1920s and really pushed a pseudo-imperialist Russian domination strategy throughout the USSR. Within a generation, schools that had been built to teach carefully developed curriculum to teach a sense of Kazakh or Tuvu national identity, began strongly to focus on Russian language, literature, and history. It was under Stalin that the USSR became an imperial colonial power in all but name. It is impossible to sum up the identity formation and competing identity theories of the Soviet era in a few sentences, but if we are going to accept that Americanism is a form of nationalism, one has to accept that Sovietization under the rule of Moscow was just as nationalist as it wasn’t - a competing nationalism, of you will.

To date, many left-leaning anthropologists and other social scientists seem to have a hard time studying other ethnic groups in Russia or the former Soviet Union using the terms and models of colonialism and post colonialism.

I can’t help but wonder if Stalin’s answer to the “why” would be like so many here when caught in a bind between their expressed political values and actual policy support. “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

Regardless though, as made much earlier in this thread, the key question related to nationalism is how the espoused of such a view defines that nation. It says to reason that any serious nationalist movement, then, would have to have others joining in who see things the same way.

We're certainly the strongest country and the best place to live, especially if you love guns but are we doing enough to stay the best?  Tearing ourselves apart doesn't seem to work.  What I'm saying is Love thy reachable Liberal neighbor.  He/She is a recreational, home defense, CCW shooter just waiting to break out.

I'll do my part to Love my reachable Conservative, Conspiracy theorizing nutball neighbors.

Can't we all get along?

Nationalism isn't a bad word for most peoples around the world, especially non-Western people who are often baffled at our own self deprecation and desire to undermine our own history, accomplishments, ancestors, etc. Most non-Western communist movements were also nationalistic ironically enough.

"ni·hil·ist
/'ni?l?st,'ne?list,'nihilist/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: nihilist; plural noun: nihilists

a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles."

I don't see your point.

Worldwide, no form of nationalism can be divorced from the history of those who also espoused was he same. It’s not about good or bad, it’s about the disingenuousness or ignorance demonstrated by this who think they can just assert such, in America, without qualifying their meaning when it is otherwise vary ambiguous and loaded with a complex history. You can’t just blame any misunderstanding or association of the concept with the way others have used or understood it in the recent past is the fault of the media, the Left, the Colonel, or maybe the Reptilians.

this