Why did the newly independent European states after WWI become republics rather than monarchies?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,022
SoCal
#1
Why did the newly independent European states after WWI (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Czechoslovakia) become republics rather than monarchies? Was this because the Central Powers lost WWI and thus monarchy became less attractive of a proposition for these newly independent countries? Or was there another reason for this?

It's quite interesting. I mean, while the CPs were more monarchist than the Entente/Allies were, the latter also had some monarchies in their ranks--specifically Britain, Belgium, Italy, Serbia, Romania, Greece, and--until 1917--Russia. Thus, monarchists in the newly independent European states after WWI could have looked to inspiration from the Entente monarchies.

Also, weren't there plans to create Romanov Kingdoms in both Poland and Czechoslovakia before the February Revolution in Russia overthrew the Romanovs?
 
Dec 2017
297
Regnum Teutonicum
#2
Some of them briefly became monarchies.
For example Finland followed the german example, because Germany was the only great power who had supported Finland in its war of independence, including the training of volunteers (finish jaeger) and it sent troops during the war to the finish front to fight the soviets and finish communists. The finish parliament elected Friedrich Karl von Hessen on October 9th, 1918 to be their king. The legitimacy was based on the old constitution from 1792 when Finland was part of Sweden under Gustav III. During the 19th century the russian tsars had used those documents to get to be crowned finish grand duke. The finish congressman Gustaf Arrokallio proposed the following formal adress for the king of the Kingdom of Finland: Kaarle I, Suomen ja Karjalan kuningas, Ahvenanmaan herttua, Lapinmaan suuriruhtinas, Kalevan ja Pohjolan isäntä (Karl I, King of Finland and Karelia, Duke of Aland, Grand Duke of Lapland, Lord of Kalevala and the North). On November 9th, 1918 Germany became a republic and Finland followed the example (the monarchists were not the majority in the parliament in Finland at that point in time). The minister president Lauri Ingman, a monarchist, asked Friedrich to waive the crown, which he did on December 14th, 1918.

So in essence , some of those monarchies existed, but they switched to repubics.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,022
SoCal
#3
Yeah, I know that the Central Powers had plans for monarchies in Eastern Europe after they won WWI on the Eastern Front. However, the countries that were supposed to be monarchies quickly became republics afterwards--as you said. My question is this--why?
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,392
Republika Srpska
#4
Most of those countries were intensely nationalistic and since I don't really think they had any available native dynasties, would most likely not accept a foreign person as their ruler.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,022
SoCal
#5
Most of those countries were intensely nationalistic and since I don't really think they had any available native dynasties, would most likely not accept a foreign person as their ruler.
Didn't Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, and Albania previously accept German Kings, though?
 
Apr 2018
979
Upland, Sweden
#6
This is a very vague answer, but isn't it just a "sign of the times"?

I get the feeling that the entire pre-WW1 European model (this synthesis of Classical Liberalism in economics with the old conservative elites accomodating the bourgeoisie) was very discredited by the war.

Furthermore, large subsections of at least some of the newly formed states were socialist. Finland comes to mind. The Finnish Whites would hardly have gotten more legitimacy and brought about reconciliation with the beaten communist sympathisers by crowning a King, in a country with no established monarchical tradition.

This last part is pretty crucial I think. It is one thing to establish a monarchy in a pre-modern country, and/ or a country with an established dynasty. Quite another to do so after a war where the side that willfully portrayed itself as more conservative and monarchically inclined lost, and millions were dead for the dreams of the old ruling classes on all sides, with very little to show for it.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,392
Republika Srpska
#7
@Futurist
Circumstances were different back then. Europe was fully committed to keeping the old order alive by imposing new monarchies. After WW1, the old order was broken and European states had more pressing concerns.
 
Likes: Futurist
Dec 2017
297
Regnum Teutonicum
#9
My guess is that all important non-totalitarian countries who were players in the region had become republics: Germany, USA, Austria, France. The only important countries who were still monarchies were the UK, Japan and China. All countries who were not that interested in the region. Countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark who were neutral in the war were still monarchies and could have been used theoretically as example, but if you have the Soviets next door, who are trying to swallow old territories (which includes you), then you don't want some minor allies. You want to have strong partners. And those were the USA and France (and after a short time Germany would be there as well). All three were republics.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,022
SoCal
#10
This is a very vague answer, but isn't it just a "sign of the times"?

I get the feeling that the entire pre-WW1 European model (this synthesis of Classical Liberalism in economics with the old conservative elites accomodating the bourgeoisie) was very discredited by the war.

Furthermore, large subsections of at least some of the newly formed states were socialist. Finland comes to mind. The Finnish Whites would hardly have gotten more legitimacy and brought about reconciliation with the beaten communist sympathisers by crowning a King, in a country with no established monarchical tradition.

This last part is pretty crucial I think. It is one thing to establish a monarchy in a pre-modern country, and/ or a country with an established dynasty. Quite another to do so after a war where the side that willfully portrayed itself as more conservative and monarchically inclined lost, and millions were dead for the dreams of the old ruling classes on all sides, with very little to show for it.
Wasn't the Russian Tsar also King of Finland until the February Revolution, though? Thus, saying that Finland had no monarchical tradition is wrong. Also, wasn't the Swedish King also King of Finland back when Sweden ruled over Finland?

Of course, you could try dismissing this information by pointing out the fact that these royal dynasties--while ruling over Finland--weren't actually native to Finland.