Hypothetically, would these Monarchies have survived if WW1 hadn't happened? Would Europe would be still be a Monarchy now without WW1?
>>18175990The monarchy is just a larp, it always exists and never stops existing. What starts existing is Jewish control.
>>18175990WWI was inevitable. These parasites natrowly avoided being wiped out a century earlier by Napoleon but their luck ran out
>>18175990First of all, many states in Europe are still monarchies. 80% of the kings in that photo remain a monarchy in their respective states.Second; monarchies prior to ww1 were still heavily subservient to their parlaments, even monarchs like Tsar Nicolas had to answer to the parlament, because Nicolas wanted to avoid war and even cancelled the mobilization but the parlament forced him into full general mobilization.Third, no I personally dont believe most of the larger empires would have survived the test of time because virtually every historian concludes that empires like Austria and Russia were fracturing prior to the war and had to increasingly federalize to cope with nationalism.This is speculative, but its what most historians believe. Britain was never going to hold on to Ireland. Austria was never going to hold on to croat slavs. Russia was never going to hold on to the dozens of different nationalities in north, west and south.
>>18175992First bost pest bost
>>18176030Except Russia did, disproving the point.
>>18175990>? Would Europe would be still be a Monarchy now without WW1?You mean monarchies plural?Saaaar?
>>18176113Hindu monarchies outlasted European counterpart…
>>18176030>80% of the kings in that photo remain a monarchy in their respective states.Wrong
>>18176087Except >Poland>Finland>Estonia>Latvia>Lithuania>Belarus>Ukraine>Armenia>Georgia>Azerbaijan>Khazakstan>Turkmenistan>Uzbekistan>Tajikistan>KyrgyzstanThus proving my point.Most of these nationals broke away from Moscow TWICE as soon as the opportunity was given.
>>18176182You're right, its closer to 50% of the states represented on the photo still has a monarchy.50% is still a substantial number.It also excludes Sweden and Netherlands which also has a monarchy.
>>18176190Because Russia was overcentralized. Nothing inevitable about it.
>>18176199Except all other empires followed the same pattern:Britain with their Irish nationals.Germany with their Polish nationalsAustria with their Slavic nationalsOttomans with their Arab nationalsRussia with their X Y Z nationals.None of them survived the tide of nationalism.You're the one arguing hypothesis.
>>18176196It also excludes Italy, Romania, Serbia/Yugoslavia, and Austria. Not to mention nobody cares about a liberal democracy where the king is a national housepet like Norway or Denmark, monarchists want powerful autocrats like the Russian Tsars or politically influential like German and Austrian emperors. If you consider monarchism as a political system where a sole hereditary individual bears significant executive authority monarchism in Europe was devastated by WW1 and effectively dead after the end of WW2.
