Metternich, despite his effeminate appearance, was quite a chauvanist and an all-around bad apple.

Metternich was the perfect embodiment of the typical aristocratic male in Europe at that time. He was selfish, ethnocentric, conceited, and just an all-around bad apple. Wherever there was a rebellion to be crushed, he'd be crushing it. It didn't matter who the perpetrators were; artisans, students, peasants... They were all mowed down by the policemen's rifles.

However, Prince Metternich wasn't just a mindless ruffian. Oh no, he was also a skilled diplomat and politician. For the greater part of the early-mid-1800s, he essentially controlled Europe. Through the mostly useless Congress system, Metternich created a sense of importance around his role in European relations at the time. While the international meetings were superficially for the sake of "collective security" and cooperation, Metternich always found a way for the negotiations to swing over to his favour.

After years of this weaselly manipulation and bloodshed, even Metternich could no longer contain the raging fires of nationalism in the hearts of the Europeans, and he was ousted from power in 1848.

Metternich Fact List:

-born Klemons Wenzel Nepomuk Lothar von Metternich in Koblenz, which is now part of Germany, in 1773

-he attended the universities of Mainz and Strasbourg

-his family fled the encroaching French revolutionaries to Vienna in 1794

-he then married Countess Eleanor Kaunitz, a member of a prominent Austrain political family

-appointed minister of foreign affairs for the Habsburgs (rulers of Austria) in 1809 after a working as a diplomat for the past decade

-he arranged Napoleon's marriage to the Archduchess of Austria, Marie Louise

-however, this did not prevent him for arranging a coalition to take out the French emperor following Napoleon's disastrous Russian campaign

-after two years, the coalition finally defeated Napoleon, much pleasing Metternich

-at the Congress of Vienna, Metternich was at the height of his game; he blocked the Prussians attempted annexation of Saxony, and Russia's attempt to take Poland likewise

-also at Vienna, the Austrian foreign minister was able to organize the German states into a confederation under the control of Austria, but wasn't able to do the same for the Italian states

-another failure for Metternich was his idea for the Quadrupe Alliance (Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia) that would fight to keep down the revolutions

-Metternich was proclaimed Chancellor in 1821, and was the true ruler of the empire

-after a bloody reign filled with reactionary violence, Metternich finally was forced to flee Vienna during the major revolutions of 1848

Most monarchs were opposed to nationalism, especially those in charge of vast empires.

As nationalism gained popularity around Europe, it aided some absolute rulers, while proving detrimental to others. The Bourbons of France, for example, had no real problems with nationalism, as most of their subjects were French. There was no need for the French peasants to wish for a united French nation, as it already existed. No, the problems the Bourbons faced arose out of liberalism, a close compatriot of nationalism.

Nationalism itself, however, did indeed prove detrimental to the Habsburgs of Austria, and the czars of Russia. This was because both of those nations had vast empires, containing varied ethnic and cultural groups; the Austrians had the Hungarians, Italians, Serbs, and others to deal with, while the Russians faced discontent from the Ukrainians, the Fins, the Mongolians in the east, and many others.

Weaker, yet more thinly-spread nations, such as Portugal and Spain, faced nationalist threats in their colonies abroad, on the continents of Africa and South America. While Africa remained chiefly under European control until the 20th century, the South Americans, such as Jose Marti of Cuba, or Augusto Sandino of Nicaragua, were mainly successful in their attempts at independence, thanks largely to the American Monroe Doctrine.

As nationalism spread amongst the oppressed people of Italy, the Balkans, and other European hot-spots, it brought with it liberalism, which was already flourishing in such nationalism-immune nations as Prussia and France. As liberalism gained popularity, the ancient regimes of old were replaced by way of violent revolution in many areas, and the monarchs' fears were realised.

A more modern example of antinationalism is Stalin, who kept many nations under Russia's control.

Modern antinationalism has taken many forms, and has existed in various political and economic systems. The obvious one, dictatorships, have proved fertile ground for antinationalistic activity. Suprisingly, the governmental system that claims to treat everyone as equals has been one of the most frequent perpetrators of crimes against nationalism.

Take the Soviet Union, for example. Its various leaders, Stalin in particular, kept various European and Asian cultures in the firm grasp of the Iron Curtain for the greater part of the 20th century. The vast socialist regime stretched from the republics of the Baltics (Lithuania, Estonia) and Eastern Europe (Belarus, Ukraine) to the Caucasus (Georgia, Azerbaijan) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan). All of these republics signified its people's unique culture and values, but they were all forced to conform to the Soviet way of thought, regardless of where they came from. A strange fact to note is that Stalin himself was born in the Caucasus, yet he continued the U.S.S.R.'s rich tradition of oppressing the Georgian/Armenian/Azerbaijani people's wish for self-government.

Even democracies have gotten in on the action. The newly formed Russian Federation, for all its well-meaning electoral processes and free market economics, still forces its control over the republic of Chechnya, just north of the Caucasus countries (who happen to now be free to self-govern).

As for the aforementioned dictatorships, Chiang Kai-shek is a shining example of tyrannical disregard for nationalism. Chiang was the ruler of China after the fall of the Emperor, and then the provisional government, but before the reign of Mao Zedong's communists. Chiang the dictator and Mao the socialist, while enemies, had one thing in common: they both suppressed the nationalistic wishes of Tibet. Even in today's 'softer' China, the mainly Buddhist land of Tibet is still kept under strict military control.

As the 20th century progressed, antinationalist activities decreased in amount, somewhat, but they still surely exist, as evidenced by the Chechnyan problem, and the Tibetan crisis. However, the number of people and cultures kept under wraps by the dominant nation in the area seems to still be healthy, as evidenced by recent violence in Indonesia (East Timor), and even Spain, where the small but determined population of Basques continues to fight for its independence.

While there's certainly more hope for the success of nationalistic ideals in these moderate modern times, the power of the antinationalists is still formidable, and will continue to be so for some time.