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

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,590
SoCal
#61
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
You might as well also have Wilhelm II not be a breech baby and thus not having a crippled arm as a result of being pulled out of the womb with forceps. Or, alternatively, you could have Wilhelm II die young and have his younger brother Heinrich become the new German Kaiser in 1888.

Another interesting scenario is if Austro-Hungarian Crown Prince Rudolf has a son instead of a daughter back in 1883. That would mean that Franz Ferdinand never becomes heir to the Austro-Hungarian thrones.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,590
SoCal
#62
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.
Makes sense.

BTW, do you agree with Maki's assessment that Europeans were less fond of republicanism before WWI than they were after WWI and that this is why Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, and Albania all imported foreign princes to be their Kings in the pre-WWI era?
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,342
Republika Srpska
#63
I'm not sure I agree with you. Wasn't one of the conditions for the German armistice in 1918 by Wilson that the Kaiser abdicate?
Yes, because the German monarchy was identified as one of the main factors that led to the war.

I would also say that with a monarchy in France, it is likely the French would be at least somewhat less punitive toward the Germans.
I disagree. France had a big ultranationalistic element that wanted to punish Germany even harder than Versailles. Had the French government attempted to be lenient towards the Germans, those elements would rise and perhaps even attempt a coup.

Provided the Russian revolution still happens, a monarch is a monarch is a monarch - all the Royal houses in Europe were intermarried with each other (and I see no reason why France would be different), and in practice had somewhat transnational interests and self-conceptions. If the French remain a monarchy there is a chance that the order of those two points you made might be if not reversed, than at least somewhat close to each other.
And yet George V did nothing to keep the Kaiser or at least the Hohenzollerns in power, while the Kaiser was responsible for the overthrow and murder of Nicholas II.
 
Likes: Futurist

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,835
Sydney
#64
all this seems to forget the very strong republican feeling in France
kings were seen as the spans of Satan by a sizable section of the French
furthermore those who held this view were in power
a monarchy would undermine their own legitimacy
many in Europe shared this view , the republic of free men wasn't dead yet
 
Apr 2018
726
Upland, Sweden
#65
Yes, because the German monarchy was identified as one of the main factors that led to the war.
Yes, I agree. But as I said in my last post, a more conservatively oriented France might draw somewhat different post-war conclusions than they did in the real world, seeing the big "threat" as political extremism generally, with the German monarchy being one such example, and the Soviet Union another.

I disagree. France had a big ultranationalistic element that wanted to punish Germany even harder than Versailles. Had the French government attempted to be lenient towards the Germans, those elements would rise and perhaps even attempt a coup.
I'm not saying the French would be lenient, I am saying their greater fear of the communists (compared with the OTL) might offset their impulse to punish Germany, not much, but somewhat. You can be harsh in other ways as well... Perhaps they would support making the Wittelsbachs King's and Queen's ...

But I generally agree. It is a hard sell to make the Hohenzollern's stay in power.

And yet George V did nothing to keep the Kaiser or at least the Hohenzollerns in power, while the Kaiser was responsible for the overthrow and murder of Nicholas II.
Well, Wilhelm - who is crucial to both of your examples was, to quote Nicholas II "raving mad", though, wasn't he?

Also, the whole landscape was different in the real world, as France... Wasn't a monarchy. @sparky 's point that France might feel too internally threatened by the large republican prescence (even if, France becomes a monarchy again in 1870, there will no doubt be more than a few republicans around) after the war for anything to be meaningfully different is a good point.

Perhaps everything would just turn out more or less the same...
 
Oct 2013
13,513
Europix
#66
...BTW, do you agree with Maki's assessment that Europeans were less fond of republicanism before WWI than they were after WWI and that this is why Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, and Albania all imported foreign princes to be their Kings in the pre-WWI era?
I disagree, at least partially.

I already mentioned the reason why foreign princes were "imported": neutrality of the Monarch.

And, IMHO, countries You mentioned weren't really "less fond" of monarchy or "more" republican than before WWI: we are talking about countries that had a much more conservative society than the Western part of the Europe.

Urban population, working class had a much smaller proportion, and republicanism comes mostly from there, not from the rural population.

You can check to see how much less important, less representative/represented was the left (from Socialist to Communists and far-left extremism) in those countries compared to Central and Western Europe (and that is true all the way from the 19th up to after WWII).

The "less monarchist" feeling, when and if it came around, it was rather linked to the person of a bad King than to a republican rejection of the idea of monarchy.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,590
SoCal
#67
I disagree, at least partially.

I already mentioned the reason why foreign princes were "imported": neutrality of the Monarch.

And, IMHO, countries You mentioned weren't really "less fond" of monarchy or "more" republican than before WWI: we are talking about countries that had a much more conservative society than the Western part of the Europe.

Urban population, working class had a much smaller proportion, and republicanism comes mostly from there, not from the rural population.

You can check to see how much less important, less representative/represented was the left (from Socialist to Communists and far-left extremism) in those countries compared to Central and Western Europe (and that is true all the way from the 19th up to after WWII).

The "less monarchist" feeling, when and if it came around, it was rather linked to the person of a bad King than to a republican rejection of the idea of monarchy.
Interesting points.

Anyway, were countries such as Finland, the Baltic countries, Czechoslovakia, and Poland closer to Western Europe or closer to the Balkans in regards to this? I mean, Czechoslovakia (which was heavily industrialized back then--at least in regards to its Czech part) appears to have been closer to Western Europe, but what about these other countries?

(By "closer," I mean in regards to the structure of their population with things such as urbanization and social attitudes.)
 
#68
Monarchy was a good deal more appealling in Europe prior to World War I. It was quite natural for Belgium, Norway, Greece, Bulgaria, Rumania, and Albania, once they achieved independence, to import kings from foreign royal families , to represent their nations. (Albania eventually sent their imported king into exile, and installed a native one.) It was something that was conventional for them to do, and reinforced their sense of patriotism and independence. And importing a king from a foreign royal family would avoid friction from competing aristocrats within the newly-independent nation, as well as giving them a bit of international prestige. Earlier, in Sweden, when the native Swedish Vasa royal family died out, they actually chose to elevate one of Napoleon's commanders (General Bernadotte) to be their new king. This was an astonishing exception to convention, but they probably did it to incur the goodwill of Napoleon, and it illustrates the continuing attraction of monarchy. Serbia was another exception, choosing a king from a native family. This actually caused quite a bit of dissension within the new nation, as competing families (Karageorgevics and Obrenovics) strove for the newly-established throne. Montenegro also chose a native king from its preexisting nobility.

After World War I, monarchy lost most of its appeal. People blamed the German, Austrian, and Russian monarchs for leading them into a destructive war, and for its ensuing misery. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia chose republican governments instead. Had any of these countries had a charismatic patriotic statesman from among the native aristocracy, they might actually have opted to a native constitutional monarchy. But such wasn't the case, and they had no desire, any longer, to import a king from a foreign royal family.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Futurist

Similar History Discussions