Given that many of the most successful countries are small and self-contained (Singapore, Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, arguably the other Scandinavian countries), and also the disasters visited upon humanity by large unified nation-states, why are people so attached to the idea of large-scale national unity?
Maybe the countries you named also have something else in common, for example geography that makes them easier to defend (I am just guessing here), which allows them to use strategies that are not possible for most other countries.
The obvious answer to why some people like an idea of a big country, is that being a small country next to a big country may be very unfortunate if the big country decides to expand its territory in your direction. More soldiers, greater military budget, greater propaganda budget, more brainpower to develop strategy and tactics, etc. How do you survive this? Saying “because you are clearly superior e.g. technologically” does not quite explain how you survived to the point when you became superior.
Possible answer: your territory sucks; no natural resources, not even enough food. The big country never actually wanted your territory; or at least always had a more attractive alternative. No one was messing with you from the outside, and you succeeded to gradually develop a highly functional society inside.
But if your neighbors are repeatedly trying to take pieces of your territory, the idea of uniting with someone stronger seems attractive.
Given that many of the most successful countries are small and self-contained (Singapore, Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, arguably the other Scandinavian countries), and also the disasters visited upon humanity by large unified nation-states, why are people so attached to the idea of large-scale national unity?
Large nation-states have a lot of power and that power allows them to convince people that large-scale national unity is important.
It’s easier to lobby large states than to lobby a bunch of small states and that means the think tanks prefer centralization.
Maybe the countries you named also have something else in common, for example geography that makes them easier to defend (I am just guessing here), which allows them to use strategies that are not possible for most other countries.
The obvious answer to why some people like an idea of a big country, is that being a small country next to a big country may be very unfortunate if the big country decides to expand its territory in your direction. More soldiers, greater military budget, greater propaganda budget, more brainpower to develop strategy and tactics, etc. How do you survive this? Saying “because you are clearly superior e.g. technologically” does not quite explain how you survived to the point when you became superior.
Possible answer: your territory sucks; no natural resources, not even enough food. The big country never actually wanted your territory; or at least always had a more attractive alternative. No one was messing with you from the outside, and you succeeded to gradually develop a highly functional society inside.
But if your neighbors are repeatedly trying to take pieces of your territory, the idea of uniting with someone stronger seems attractive.
I’m not sure what idea you’re talking about. Are you talking about intranational unity or international unity? Can you give examples?