Ludwig von Mises: Review of Waldemar Mitscherlich’s Der Nationalismus Westeuropas (1923)

Mises’s short scholarly review combines a conceptual clarification of nationality with an economic critique of Mitscherlich’s historical account of Western European nationalism. Its opening establishes the distinction governing the assessment: national affiliation and nationalist political allegiance are different facts.

Man muß genau unterscheiden zwischen der Tatsache der Zugehörigkeit zum deutschen Volke und der Tatsache der Zugehörigkeit zur deutschnationalen Partei.

English translation: One must distinguish precisely between the fact of belonging to the German people and the fact of belonging to the German-national party.

For Mises, nationality concerns national differences among people; nationalism consists of ideologies assigning those differences significance for social conduct. Nationalist movements claim the allegiance of those they count as members of the nation, yet their boundaries of membership need not coincide with nationality. His examples range from Russian claims concerning Ukrainians and Belarusians to antisemitic exclusions. Conversely, he treats Croats and Serbs as sharing a nationality while pursuing antagonistic national-political ideologies. These cases show why political inclusion, exclusion, and conflict cannot themselves supply a reliable definition of the nation.

Mises argues that neglecting this distinction has encouraged scholars to seek the criterion of nationality outside a shared language. Invoking Arndt, Grimm, and Scherer, he identifies linguistic community as the basis of nationality and associates departures from that conception with the transformation of the liberal nationality principle into imperialism. He explicitly leaves a comprehensive defense of this definition beyond the review’s scope.

The review then turns to Mitscherlich’s explanation of the historical emergence of Western European nationalism, acknowledging its new perspectives while identifying its principal omission:

Der moderne Nationalismus ist mit dem Protektionismus so eng verbunden, daß man ihn nicht erschöpfend untersuchen kann, wenn man nicht zugleich die Grundgedanken der modernen Schutzzolltheorien überprüft.

English translation: Modern nationalism is so closely bound up with protectionism that one cannot investigate it exhaustively without at the same time examining the fundamental ideas of the modern theories of protective tariffs.

Economic theory is thus essential to the historical inquiry, not a supplementary topic. Mitscherlich’s insufficient examination of free trade and national autarky leads, in Mises’s reading, to the proposed compromise of Unionwirtschaft: an autarkic economic formation encompassing several peoples and states. Mises questions the political rationale of this enlarged economic unit.

Doch die Autarkiebestrebungen können nicht anders begründet werden als mit nationalpolitischen Erwägungen; Autarkie, die nationalpolitisch indifferent ist, findet keinen Verteidiger.

English translation: Yet the strivings for autarky cannot be grounded otherwise than upon considerations of national policy; an autarky that is indifferent in point of national policy finds no defender.

A supranational scale does not resolve the underlying issue: if national-political considerations alone motivate restrictions on free trade, an autarkic union cannot simply transcend them. Mises connects this objection to his earlier criticism of Naumann’s proposed customs union extending across state and national boundaries.

The concluding recommendation remains generous: Mitscherlich’s work offers substantial instruction and stimulus to students of nationalism and imperialism. The review’s distinctive contribution lies in its paired analytical demands—separate nationality from nationalist ideology, and examine the economic arguments through which that ideology becomes a program of protection and autarky.