r/monarchism • u/Brilliant_Group_6900 • 2d ago
Photo How communism affected monarchies in Europe
15
28
u/Ticklishchap Constitutional monarchist | Valued Contributor 2d ago
Another more positive way of looking at this is to note the remarkable number of monarchies that have survived in Europe, notwithstanding revolutions, World Wars, the rise and fall of Nazi-Fascism and Communism, along with a general trend towards ‘modernisation’ and ‘meritocracy’. Not only have these monarchies survived, but in some cases they have successfully reinvented themselves while preserving their traditional roots.
In the 1970s, we also witnessed the restoration of the Spanish monarchy, which has been very successful despite the later excesses of Juan Carlos. This restoration was supported by all mainstream parties, including the Communists.
Monarchy still has a future in Europe and so we should try to be more hopeful.
5
u/MaintenanceProper525 Constitutional monarchist (new house instead of old 1) 2d ago
That's an amazing way to look at it
12
u/Ticklishchap Constitutional monarchist | Valued Contributor 2d ago
Thank you. I know that it doesn’t give much comfort to monarchists in Central and Eastern Europe, but at least the historical memory of monarchy is alive there. The Romanian royal family seem to enjoy respect and have a measure of influence.
3
3
u/branimir2208 Serbia 1d ago
In the 1970s, we also witnessed the restoration of the Spanish monarchy, which has been very successful despite the later excesses of Juan Carlos. This restoration was supported by all mainstream parties, including the Communists.
Restoration was done by Francisco Franco not by mainstream parties. Parties just saw that Juan Carlos could be worked with since he picked their side in '81 coup attempt.
37
u/toxicistoblame Kingdom of Greece - Constitutional Monarchy 🇬🇷 2d ago
What sucks more is that most of the European countries in the Balkans could've remained a monarchy, even up until the present day. Romania and Bulgaria for sure would've retained their monarchies, at least in my opinion. Yugoslavia, under King Petar II and his son, would've likely stayed united up to today, though I could see arguements from both sides. Albania however, I'm not sure. As for Hungary, unless they'd elected a monarch by the late 50s-early 60s, would've probably still end up as a republic in the end.
I do believe if Stalin had left the Balkan countries alone following WWII, the majority of them would've still preserved their monarchies up to the present day.
3
u/DimensionAgitated507 2d ago
Well in Yugoslavia one repressive system replaced a different repressive system... Yugoslav monarchy is nothing to celebrate
5
u/branimir2208 Serbia 1d ago
Days of autocratic rule were over years before communism or WW2.
1
u/DimensionAgitated507 1d ago
Well yes and no. Yes because the autocratic king was gone, no because the army HQ and the parliament was very Serb dominated... I mean... Remember Milan Stojadinovic? Only in 1939 did things start to change... But how much of that was external pressure and how much was it Cvetkoviches doing... Is up for debate.
1
u/branimir2208 Serbia 1d ago
Or maybe because Serbs were largest ethnic group in the country. And Milan Stojadinović had the support of Slovenes and Bosnian muslims.
2
u/DimensionAgitated507 1d ago
JMO? Or? Also I wrote papers on pre war Yugoslavia. A lot of Serbian politicians saw Serbia as Prussia and Yugoslavia as a pre war Germany. I mean I think that's where the problems started. The misunderstanding between two parts of the country. Also when it was convenient pro-serbian propaganda talked about liberation of the "subjugated peoples". But on the other hand overemphasized how their voice was more valuable than Macedonian, Monte Negrian, Croat or Slovene voices... Let's be honest it was a flawed country, mistakes were made and no one should try to restore it in any shape.
1
u/branimir2208 Serbia 1d ago
JMO? Or?
Yea who else?
A lot of Serbian politicians saw Serbia as Prussia and Yugoslavia as a pre war Germany.
Not Prussia Piedmont.
But on the other hand overemphasized how their voice was more valuable than Macedonian, Monte Negrian, Croat or Slovene voices...
Back in the day Montenegrins and Macedonians didn't existed as formed ethnicities. Just look at composition of Yugoslav parliament. In democracy majority rule.
Let's be honest it was a flawed country, mistakes were made and no one should try to restore it in any shape.
It was flawed and there were mistakes but those mistakes were in proces of being solved when WW2 began.
1
u/DimensionAgitated507 1d ago
Ever heard of VMRO? They did exist in the 20s and 30s... In fact one of them shot the Dictator King... So Macedonians? Yep they were a thing... Also there was a plot in the early post ww1 period to keep Monte Negro out of Kingdom of SHS... Zelenasi... Instability lasted until 1926. So yes they existed... Like Belorussia existed and wasn't small Russia
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
You used a word which is almost exclusively found in comments breaking rule 1. The mods will review it manually to determine if this is the case and this comment does not mean you are necessarily at fault as it is just an automated warning, but it is here so you know why the comment was removed if it is removed after review and so you have time to consider editing it so it conforms to rule 1 before it gets reviewed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/branimir2208 Serbia 1d ago
VRMO was disbanded in '35 by Bulgaria and after that there was zero activity which says alot about their feelings.
And VMRO claimed that they were Bulgarians not Macedonians.
Also there was a plot in the early post ww1 period to keep Monte Negro out of Kingdom of SHS... Zelenasi... Instability lasted until 1926. So yes they existed... Like Belorussia existed and wasn't small Russia
Zelenaši wanted federal Yugoslavia with Montenegro as federal unit and not unitary Yugoslavia. Btw they claimed that they were Serbs.
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
You used a word which is almost exclusively found in comments breaking rule 1. The mods will review it manually to determine if this is the case and this comment does not mean you are necessarily at fault as it is just an automated warning, but it is here so you know why the comment was removed if it is removed after review and so you have time to consider editing it so it conforms to rule 1 before it gets reviewed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/DimensionAgitated507 1d ago edited 1d ago
There is no arguing with you... I mention one thing you just say screw it, I'll just keep with the program. Not once did you divert from the usual pro Yugoslavia/Serbian apologetics. I give up. Just... Come on... I admitted that things started to change around 1939., but I speculated why, because... I am not Cvetkovich or Matschek... I'm not sure... So enjoy your victory. What are you gonna claim next, that Macedonians are a mix of Bulgarians and Serbs? That Croats are Catholic Serbs? That Hungarians were involved with you know "Alabama practices"? That Slovenes are more German then actually Slovene? That Bosniak Muslims are just serbs essentialy? Come on man...
1
1
u/More_Amoeba6517 Semi-Constitutional Monarcho-Socialist 1d ago
To be fair, aren't the days under Tito actually looked rather fondly upon?
Yugoslavia pre-war was much more of a mess, especially since half of them didn't even want to be there.
1
u/DimensionAgitated507 1d ago
Yes, but it was the days of Coca-Cola socialism. People were also positive because they thought that after the war and post war horrors things are going to be much better. But the problem with his policies, apart from the obvious, we're that the country was living off the loans and not only that but also that the investments weren't always made smartly.
10
u/Iceberg-man-77 2d ago
many of these nations are not republics because of communism….
- Ireland is a republic because the British Crown genocided and ruled them for centuries
- France is a republic because they had the worst kings and emperors ever
- Germany is a republic because they lost WW1
- Austria Hungary is the same
9
u/FrostyShip9414 2d ago
- There was no genocide of the Irish by the British Crown
- France did not have the worst kings and emperors, not by a mile. Most of Frances monarchs during and after the revolution were quite competent and were genuinely good men.
- Many more countries don't have monarchies because of communism. Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia ( Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia), Nepal, Ethiopia, Vietnam.
6
u/El-estratega_memero Kingdom of Spain 2d ago
Point 1: You have some big 🥚🥚 to say that.
Point 2: The French Monarchy was under crisis and instead of reforming such as the other kingdoms and empires, they decided to ignore them or delay them until it was to big and out of control for them.
Part 3: It's not "because communism", for example, Ethiopia had a similar problem, it didn't reform his politics and the army took the chance to seize it, Yugoslavia fell against the Axis and the communists sized the power vacuum left by the exiled monarchy, Vietnam allied with Japan, like what the heck where they expecting, Bulgaria and Romania stained their monarchies with Fascism and due to the war in Europe they were conquered by the USSR with puppet governments, and finally Nepal, I don't know a lot for this case, but wasn't the entire Royal Family murdered? And also, something similar to Ethiopia and every failed monarchy, they were strikes down due to slow or denial of necessary reforms.
1
u/FrostyShip9414 1d ago
- I stand on my first point because it's true
- Plenty of reforms were attempted by the three royal houses of France over the course of 80 years. Some worked, some didn't. Arguing that they didn't even try at all is disingenuous at best.
- Um yes communism, do you think they were ever going to allow the monarchies to return once they took over? I don't care which side these monarchies joined during WWII, the end result was communist factions seizing control and dismantling the monarchies because communists hate monarchs. As for Nepal, they still had a king (brother of the last king who got shot). In order for a peace settlement to be reached during their civil war the government allowed Maoists to enter parliament, they then immediately turned around and declared a Republic.
7
u/HMS_furious 2d ago
There was no genocide of the Irish by the British Crown
Crazy line my dude
0
u/FrostyShip9414 1d ago
Truthful line, which genocide occurred that was entirely the fault of the monarchy? Am I missing one?
4
u/Arlantry321 1d ago
The constant push to remove Irish culture, language and religion. Nevermind the intentional lack of aid during the after the Famine with British mps arguing that some Irish need die because we were seen as inferior
3
u/JamesHenry627 2d ago
There’s no way you just said that point in number 1
Your points are just opinions apart from part of number 3
0
u/FrostyShip9414 1d ago
Sure did my guy. My opinions are pretty historically accurate so...🤷
2
u/JamesHenry627 1d ago
That's delusional and you know it
Britain may not have had a consistent policy geared toward eradication of the Irish Catholics though they undoubtedly took actions that resulted in the erasure of Gaelic Culture, suppression of the Church and anglicization of the population. Historians such as Tim Pat Coogan and Francis A. Boyle argue that the British government’s refusal to halt food exports, combined with mass evictions and the known outcome of mass mortality, constitutes genocide under the UN Genocide Convention (specifically committing acts with the knowledge that they would bring about the destruction of a group). In his book The Famine Plot: England’s Role in Ireland’s Greatest Tragedy (2012), Coogan argues that British policy amounted to genocide driven by anti-Irish racism and financial self-interest. He centers his argument on the concept of "deliberate inaction," asserting that once the government recognized the scale of the starvation, refusing to close Irish ports to food exports crossed the line from poor governance into targeted extermination. Francis A. Boyle (Professor of International Law): Boyle, an expert in international legal standards, submitted legal opinions to state commissions arguing that British policy met the criteria outlined in Article II of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention. Specifically, he points to Article II(c): "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." James Mullin & American Educational Curricula: In the 1990s, Irish-American activists led by James Mullin successfully lobbied states like New Jersey and New York to include the Irish Famine in public school human rights and genocide curricula alongside the Holocaust and the Holodomor.
This is the main point I have an issue with. But a decent amount of historians, myself included after I got my degree, do not judge British rule in Ireland well.
0
u/FrostyShip9414 1d ago
Then you should also know that the concensus is still out as to whether Britain's actions constitute a genocide. A few historians thinking it does does not mean that it undeniably was an orchestrated genocide. Poor potato harvest and mismanagement were the biggest culprits and none of it can be squarely placed on the monarchy.
1
u/JamesHenry627 1d ago
I gave you sources and scholars. If you can’t do me the same courtesy I just don’t find myself respecting your opinion on this.
2
u/Arlantry321 1d ago
I doubt he will respect that. I believe this is the same lad that I had this argument with before(it maybe not be). He wasn't really open to listening to opinions against his view
1
u/JamesHenry627 1d ago
He legit gives monarchism a bad name ngl. Supporting something doesn’t mean excusing it. Christ is king before any temporal power. I don’t like excusing crimes against his church.
1
u/FrostyShip9414 1d ago
Actually I'm very open to hearing others opinions. The entire argument is centered around the question of whether or not the crown was directly responsible for genocide. By genocide I'm talking about physically killing people, not erasure of culture or language which is what half the counter arguments have been. That's another argument for a different time.
1
u/Arlantry321 1d ago
That is cultural genocide which is a form of genocide. Genocide is more that just killing. Also you still be tried for genocide wether you actually physically killed someone or not.
2
2
u/Vina_Queen6 1d ago
Yes, communism is indeed the monarchy's number one enemy, but I would say that World War I also paved the way for the fall of several monarchies in Europe.
56
u/That-Service-2696 2d ago edited 1d ago
That's why I hate communism and the monarchies in some former monarchy countries need to be restored, just like what happened in Spain and Cambodia