Militant Nationalism vs. Imperialism

Is Heinrich von Treitshke’s ideological belief of militant nationalism a product or a cause of imperialism? In a sense, while they occupy separate spheres, they also have numerous commonalities. From the language used in Treitshke’s thoughts on the state and war, it seems as if the motivations behind militant nationalism are much more extreme than the (still not noble) motivations of imperialism.
Treitshke places a much larger emphasis on the role of Germany as an imperialist power, and glorifies the German form of imperialism whilst condemning all other similar global actions. However, unlike most intellectuals at the time, Treitshke does not scramble for a justification or reason why imperialism exists. Instead, he lays it out in a very plain and blunt way: Germans are the greatest race on the earth and in order to become the most powerful nation, they must look out for their own interests even if by questionable means.
No part of Treitshke’s ideology is sugar-coated and it fails to see shades of grey in a world in which it believes nations must attack or be attacked. To Treitshke, “peace is an illusion supported only by those of weak character” and a nation’s only concern is maintaining power. A Treitshke-esque style of imperialism wouldn’t cite religion or money as a justification. In fact, Treitshke denounces the “hypocriticall Englishmen,” calling them “an ancient robber-kight” and sharply criticizing their economic reasons for imperialism. Militant nationalism would have a much greater negative effect on the nations being colonized, though it is hard to say I prefer imperialism.