Why were European monarchies gone after WW1?

And those which remained didn't grant any power to the monarch, like UK, Denmark and others.

Why did it happen at the same time and who profited from it?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Żydokomuna
youtube.com/watch?v=FsaieZt5vjk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

...

Oh look, the losing side of WW1 lost their monarchs, what a surprise.

But Russia did as well, and the UK effectively.
It happened on both sides.

Why though?

Monarchies are nationalist
(((International bankers))) don't like nationalism because it fucks with their scheming

>Spain
>Red

Paint it purple because the early 1900s were a clusterfuck here

The Russians and the people freed from them are pretty obvious and the rest of the ones that flipped were part of the german side and it was just part of the post-war cucking. It can also be said that both of these things were caused by (((a certain middle eastern tribe)))

But Russia did lose their monarch and he is right.

...

Because republics are easier to control, rise of socialism/communism/fascism, leaders of those ideologies gaining influence in the military which in return poses a real danger to monarchs. The real beginning of the end was Napoleon and the insane increase of liberalism in Europe.
Also, the believe that the monarchy is at fault for the majority of the problems.

Pure coincidence

Not my map, from wikipedia.
He said that the losing side (of the WW1) lost their monarch and Russia didn't lose the WW1.

It does look a bit simplistic though.
I bet it is a bit more complicated than jews don't like monarchies.
Besides it was before the holocaust, so they didn't have as much emotional blackmail material.

>He said that the losing side (of the WW1) lost their monarch and Russia didn't lose the WW1.

Didn't they?

They did actually. They capitulated and signed a treaty that got canned because we ended up getting rekt on the Western Front. They did pretty much lose.

The monarchies did a pretty shit job of caring for the working class.
The monarchies destroyed every single life, every working class person's life with WW1.

Commies undermined them.
British were wise in granting the people liberties before things got bloody, the rest fucked up.

The end.

The danish king Is all powerful according to the danish "grundlov". Though it is not the right ruler sitting on the throne. as the real line was taken forced out. She has also broken the "grundlov", and is therefore illegitimate.

Strong nation state hinders globalistic banking economy, usury, etc.

Okay, sorry then I was wrong.

Pretty much all wrong.

They threw millions of young men into a pointless war and sewed the seeds of their end.

UK monarchy had been limited since 1688 with the Bill of Rights. They've been a constitutional parliamentary monarchy for years. WW1 didn't change their system at all

You realize The Great War wasn't the first war, or the first actual World War for that matter, in Europe?

Completly wrong

>What is the Thirty Years War
>What is the Nine Years War
>What is the Seven Years War
>What is the War of the Spanish Succession

WW1 was about as "pointless" as these other wars matey

Yes. But it is the turning point that provided the proper catalyst for popular revolt against the current system in Russia and Germany. It castrated the French, and broke up large parts of the British empire.

No of the large empires ever regained or maintained that type of geo-political power again.

the americans profited of course.

The political dimension of the two world wars was simply a destruction of the old world and hostile takeover by the americans and the british who represent the new world.
Thats all that it was.

I think the front line of europe in that time was germany, so two times they needed to be defeated, first crippled by versailles and a second time at the normandie or russia depending on how you look at it.

>wanting to be ruled by inbred dictators
>not wanting freedom of speech

What are you, retarded? GTFO and kys maggots

>you're country threw itself into one of the bloodiest wars in history to defend Serbia.

I'm not saying that those wars were irrelevant it's just that from my observations WW1 was the ending point of classic imperialism.

>and the british who represent the new world
This is bullshit. As much as any German should regard the British as our natural enemy, despite collaborations against France in the past, the British actually lost A LOT in World War II.
Their economy went to complete dogshit, a fair amount of men, their Empire and obviously their Independence. If anyone was the true victor of both wars, it was America because they could setup vassal states across Western and Central Europe while gaining a huge amount of people due to migration and achieving Superpower status.

Also, Versailles was bad but Brest-Litovsk was just as awful.

Obviously it's true that we mainly got thrusted in due to our industrial power and influence growth in Europe.

>implying free speech can't exist in a monarchy
I thought Swedes were supposed to be educated.

Tell me how leading the underclass into wars against their own best interest was doing right by the people, m80s.

ww1 was caused by monarchic imperialism
ww2 was caused by reactionaries trying to bring back monarchy

simple really

Allahu Akbar!

The U.S. must take Monroe Doctrine now.

The U.S. must withdraw American Forces from all Foreign Countries now.

Stop America's doing its all wars now!
I love American99% and the U.S.
Japan, Germany and China are evil empires.
Islamists' true enemies are Japan, Germany, China, top1%, Wall-Street, American-Military-Industry and DOD!

Allahu Akbar!

I can't link to it on Sup Forums but Mencius Moldbug's "Open Letter" explains it in depth.

Explain.

People get killed in all wars. I don't know why this is related to monarchism. You never had a monarchy and yet you threw people away in Europe and the Pacific.

Why did Germons, Austrians and Russians destroy the polish-lithuanian monarchy in 1795?

>Why did it happen at the same time
Because those monarchies were strongly centralized, with rampant militarism, focused on conquest and serving imperial interests. In the end those monarchies didn't Those poor german and russian bois had to die because despotic kaiser and tsar couldn't limit themselves in their imperial hubris

What I meant was: in the end those monarchies couldn't constrain their emotions and went full retard. It was a pointless slaughter, because, does anybody really fucking think that Germany could control France or Russia or whatever?

monarchy will always be inferior to democracy or dictatorship because people in latter system had to fight for power and proved themselves worthy, while monarchs were just born into the office

according to the old legends, the monarch could be challenged every year. It was a breeding system back then. the monarch only controlled the military, i.e. the breeding system

>according to the old legends
you believe in fairies too?

Yes I do. They are very real and vivid archetypes in my mind.

do you not?

Why did the bolsheviks kill tzar nicholas?

Should be a different colour for constitutional monarchies and it would be even worse

The whole purpose of WW1 was to
get palestine for jews and tople the monarchies of austria, germany and russia and make them ((democracies)) which would be controlled by bankers and represent their interests unlike monarchs did, and by removing them they opened these countries to jewish communism and this is essentialy how they wanted to enslave the world 100 years ago but failed

now they are just going to slowly make communism again out of the EU by means of economic integration and mass migration which will destroy indentity and mix nationalities

...

...

In Portugal it was literal terrorists who implanted the first republic in 1910, after murdering the king in 1908. We had daily protests, bombings on the streets and were changing governments every few months.

...

for memes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Żydokomuna

Enjoy, shortly after WW2 majority of those (around 60%), who joined in ranks of NKVD to opress Polish people were Jewish

Our monarchy lost most of it's power in 1848. The Netherlands, as well as most other European countries, were on the edge of democratic reforms. The king realized he faced a revolution if he didn't sign the new constitution transferring the power from the monarchy to the democratically elected government.

Didn't this happen to most countries?


Idk if I just took the bait, I have the feeling I did, but reading this gave me a headache.

Freemasonic, Jacobite, Republicanism was the proto-Communism spawned by urban intellectuals who spurned traditional aristocratic hierarchies.

youtube.com/watch?v=FsaieZt5vjk

I might add to the motivation that the urban elite felt they had more right to power than those monarchies.

The ones that wielded autocratic power and refused to give it up were removed. The only reason Great Britain retained a monarchy was because it had its transfer of power from the aristocratic class to the political class in relatively early era, when the concept of having no monarchy at all was deemed too radical. The British monarchy also deferred its power to maintain it's position. Germany and Russia were autocratic, so subversives riles up revolution to remove them.

The urban elite used the masses to simply wrest power for themselves, and their enlightened philosophy of political fraternity. The great banking families like the Rothschilds funded this removing of the monarchies as they were their only rival and they new parliaments were easier to manipulate.

Cuts the chafe, maintains a well disciplined military, and gives purpose to the plebs.

truly is SAD!
I weep ;_;

...

Monarchies of Czechs, Poles, Latavia and Lithuania was dead for centuries, Finns and Estonians didn't have any at all, Krauts send Lenin to kill Tsars. Krauts and Austrians were angry at thier Kaisers so they overthrow them.

>Soviet Union
>republic

Because people grew tired of the idea that you should do what somebody tells you just because of their bloodline.

>the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Yeah nah you yanks don't have the monopoly on republicanism and if you think its not the case because the USSR wasn't free you don't know what republicanism means.

...

perfect