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

Apr 2018
979
Upland, Sweden
I don't think the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, etc were good models for any new monarchies to emerge in Eastern Europe. The were constitutional monarchies with very weak kings and queens. For all intents and purposes they were all but republics. What is the point of a half measure like constitutional monarchy. Why not go all the way to republic? It's different for an established government like the UK to maintain a traditional form of government, but for a country starting from scratch - don't bother with constitutional monarchy.
I absolutely agree. I do not agree however, if we make the interesting (albeit really wild o_O)spin of letting France become a monarchy after 1870 and remaining one until and during WW1...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
True, but he appointed Mussolini because he, and his government(s) were impotent. And, after appointing Mussolini, he allowed him to create a dictatorship. How much power does this manifest?

The king could not form an effective government to rule and he feared a communist takeover, thus he deferred to Mussolini.

I don't think this is my quote. At least, I don't remember typing it. Then again, my mind is aging and confusion reigns at times.:) I will comment though by saying 1922 wasn't 1943. Nobody in Italy but Hitler's troops was backing Mussolini in 1943. Il Duce was impotente.
 
Last edited:

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
I very much doubt it in the case of countries like Poland, Hungary, Romania: Russia was the constant threat, the most "reliable enemy" for at least 2 centuries.

And BTW Poland: it was in fact the most prepared to become a republic, as "old" Poland was a republic, inspite being ruled by kings: monarchy wasn't hereditary, but elective.
Agreed. I don't think Poland in 1918 ever considered a return to a monarchy, which was elective monarchy when few, if any, were.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,827
SoCal
I very much doubt it in the case of countries like Poland, Hungary, Romania: Russia was the constant threat, the most "reliable enemy" for at least 2 centuries.

And BTW Poland: it was in fact the most prepared to become a republic, as "old" Poland was a republic, inspite being ruled by kings: monarchy wasn't hereditary, but elective.
Romania wasn't going to get a new monarchy since it already had a monarchy. Also, Yes, there would be a very real risk of Romanovs undermining the independence of these countries if they were made Kings there. Of course, what about installing a Romanov King in Czechoslovakia if the Russian Tsar remains in power?

Also, would the restoration of an elective republican monarchy have been a realistic option for Poland in the aftermath of WWI? What about if France itself was still a monarchy?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,827
SoCal
I absolutely agree. I do not agree however, if we make the interesting (albeit really wild o_O)spin of letting France become a monarchy after 1870 and remaining one until and during WW1...
It's really not that wild. Just have Henri, Count of Chambord choke to death on a croissant sometime before 1873 and thus make the Orleanists the undisputed heirs to the French throne at a time when monarchical restoration is still a viable option in France.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NordicDemosthenes

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
Romania wasn't going to get a new monarchy since it already had a monarchy. Also, Yes, there would be a very real risk of Romanovs undermining the independence of these countries if they were made Kings there. Of course, what about installing a Romanov King in Czechoslovakia if the Russian Tsar remains in power?

Also, would the restoration of an elective republican monarchy have been a realistic option for Poland in the aftermath of WWI? What about if France itself was still a monarchy?
Darn, here we go again with the ifs ...

I have difficulties to imagine Czechoslovakia a monarchy, to be honest. I also have difficulties seeing the other European great powers accepting a Romanov king in the core of Europe.

USA and BE leaved central/eastern Europe mostly on France, and France worked/interfered a lot with the main goal of creating a "block" between German space and Russian space: Poland and Romania were philo-French, and occupied the "blocking position" on the eastern side. Hungary, that occupied a key position in that "dam" was filo-German, thus "unreliable", so the position was to be occupied by the new Yougoslavia.

In my opinion, I don't think that France being a monarchy instead of a republic would have changed significantly it's policy in the after WWI. There's no reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Apr 2018
979
Upland, Sweden
It's really not that wild. Just have Henri, Count of Chambord choke to death on a croissant sometime before 1873 and thus make the Orleanists the undisputed heirs to the French throne at a time when monarchical restoration is still a viable option in France.
Hnmmm...
So many possibilities....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,827
SoCal
Hnmmm...
So many possibilities....
Or, alternatively, you could have Henri's father be assassinated a couple of months earlier so that Henri is never conceived. Of course, this would be back in 1819-1820--which could result in significant butterflies by the 1870s. Still, both the future Kaiser Wilhelm I and Otto von Bismarck were already born by 1819--as were the future Napoleon III and Adolphe Thiers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NordicDemosthenes
Apr 2018
979
Upland, Sweden
Or, alternatively, you could have Henri's father be assassinated a couple of months earlier so that Henri is never conceived. Of course, this would be back in 1819-1820--which could result in significant butterflies by the 1870s. Still, both the future Kaiser Wilhelm I and Otto von Bismarck were already born by 1819--as were the future Napoleon III and Adolphe Thiers.
Well. All I can say is... Interestig.

I believe you've provided a new addition to my list of "Most crucial (potential in this case) deaths". Another favourite of mine is if Wilhelm II:s father hadn't gotten throat cancer so early, or if Wilhelm I might have died just a couple of years earlier. Things could have been so different...

But this is a whole other diskussion haha
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist