Rav Kook  held with nationalism while the Rav of Satmer [Reb Yoel] did not. and neither held from radical nationalism. To me, nationalism has always seemed to be weak.  It had a slow start.  Somewhere in English history there came an idea- ''England for the English''. Much later, under Louis IVX, it became much stronger. But for most of history, whatever area was ruled by a king--that was the nation. The king mattered, not the area, nor language, nor any sense of identity what so ever. 

[To me personally, keeping Torah is what mattered and matters. I have never been able to see any case for nationalism. Berkley came up with an idea that makes a lot of sense to me-- a nation is not a good in itself. It has a purpose: creating conditions that make human flourishing possible. Thus when it does not serve that purpose, it ha no legitimacy.][This I noticed in Danny Frederick [a libertarian critic of Michael Huemer  who believes in anarchy]. ]

Hegel is known for his defense of the metaphysical state. Hobhouse wrote a critique on that.--

Hegel [and Howard Bloom] are advocates for the collective while Kant is an advocate for the individual.