After the World Came Apart

Last year marked the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I and this year marks the 70th anniversary of the end of the deadliest legacy of that conflict which was World War II. A large part of why the First World War is so pivotal in world history is that it helped set the stage for the Second World War. The first war left the Old World mortally wounded while the second war saw it finished off entirely. In Europe, the First World War saw the death of monarchies in Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Turkey but the Second World War would see the death of many more due to the advance of the Soviet Union with its goal of worldwide communist revolution. For Europe, the Second World War was an act of suicide and since World War II no European country has yet to achieve “great power” status again. World War II gave birth to the world that we live in, the institutions, alliances and power structures that everyone reading these lines was born in to. It would see the rise of communism as a global threat and the rise of the United States, which had withdrawn back into isolationism after World War I, to super-power status and the primary foe of communist expansion on the world stage.

World War II created the system of international affairs and the world leaders that exist today. It gave birth to the United Nations and, in fact, even before the end of World War II, the Allied nations were often referred to as “the united nations” opposed to the Axis powers. This is why the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are the primary Allied nations of World War II; the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia and China. Readers here will note that amongst that ruling elite there is but a single monarchy alongside four staunchly republican countries. The world since 1945 has been a much more republican place than that in 1939. This is due entirely to the Second World War without question. Republicanism was, as usual, dominant in the Americas, though monarchist outposts remained and these were secure, but Europe was certainly no longer a place where republics were the exception rather than the rule. By 1945 or shortly thereafter the monarchies of Italy, Hungary (though it was nominal to begin with), Yugoslavia, Romania and Bulgaria would be replaced by republics, alongside Portugal, France, Germany, Poland, Finland, Austria, Czechoslovakia and (for the time being) Spain.

Prior to World War II the republic of Liberia was the only independent country in Africa with most of the continent being divided between the colonial rule of France or Great Britain. The end of the Second World War would change that state of affairs and ultimately give us the Africa we know today which contains only three independent monarchies; Morocco, Lesotho and Swaziland, none of which are particularly significant compared to their larger and more powerful republican neighbors. In Asia, a continent in which republicanism had been a totally foreign concept for most of its ancient history, the greatest blow struck against monarchy had already occurred with the fall of the Manchu Emperor in China in 1911. Still, before World War II, Asia was an overwhelmingly monarchist continent with the only republics being the French mandates of Lebanon and Syria, China (which had descended into internal disorder), Outer Mongolia (a part of the Soviet Union in all but name) and the soon-to-be independent Philippines. The rest was entirely monarchist, even in Indochina, which was governed by the French Republic, there still remained monarchs on the thrones of Laos, Cambodia and Annam (Vietnam). Every part of the British Empire was under the reign of the British monarch, most with a local monarch as well, Thailand was monarchist, the Dutch East Indies had local monarchs as well as the Queen in Amsterdam and then there was the Empire of Japan which also included Korea which had lost its independence but retained its traditional royal family.

It is not hard to see that the biggest reason for the decline in monarchy around the world after 1945 is due to the decline in one monarchy in particular which was, of course, the British Empire which ruled almost a quarter of the world. Britain’s King George VI, the last British King-Emperor, reigned over more land and people than any of his predecessors. Yet, during his reign, it all came to a sudden and surprisingly anti-climactic end. The biggest reason for the increase in the number of republics around the world is due to the fact that the biggest empire in the world dissolved. World War II has been called Britain’s “finest hour” and that it certainly was, yet it was also the end of Britain as the greatest empire in world history. The British basically mortgaged their empire in order to wage a war that they could not hope to win on their own strength. No sooner was the war ended than a new leftist government was elected which had de-colonization as a major goal. Even when there was talk in some conservative circles of a “third British Empire” to be focused on Africa, it was simply impossible for such a thing to come to fruition because of the enormous cost of the welfare state British socialists were busy building and because in combination with that, the cost of World War II had made Britain economically dependent on the United States.

Looking at the major participants of World War II, the five primary Allied nations and three primary Axis powers, the only monarchies were the British Empire, the Kingdom of Italy and the Empire of Japan. Obviously, since the First World War, monarchies were not so well-represented amongst the great powers of the world and none of these would survive World War II as great power monarchies. Italy and Japan were on the losing side, Italy lost its monarchy altogether after the war was over and the monarchy survived in Japan only by the good graces of the occupation forces of the United States. The British Empire emerged on the winning side but what it actually “won” was more negative than positive in that the conflict doomed the British Empire but the conflict that cost Britain its empire also cost Germany, Italy and Japan their empires as well. It is not unnatural then that some have asked, from the British point of view, if the Second World War was a hill worth dying on. Was Manchuria worth Singapore? Was Ethiopia worth India? Was the loss of the British Empire a sacrifice justified by having a Poland dominated by Soviet Russia rather than Nazi Germany? These are perfectly reasonable questions to ponder and yet they are not often raised let alone given serious consideration due to the nature of the Second World War itself.

Part of the reason for the lasting legacy of the Second World War is the hesitancy to question it. Certainly it has been studied intensely, perhaps more intensely than any other conflict in history and yet it is rarely questioned because for so many it is sacrosanct. As it gave us the world we all live in, the powers-that-be have a vested interest in its justification. Today, China and Russia are the most vocal about “defending the post-World War II world order”. Others are more inclined to scrutinize that world order but not the war that produced it because it is the one conflict almost everyone in the world is in agreement on. France, Russia and China certainly agree on it as much of it was fought on their territory and none would exist as they are today had things gone differently. In the US and UK it is also something that both the political left and right agree on. The British right look at it as their “finest hour” under the most famous conservative British statesman of modern times and see their country, not incorrectly, as something akin to the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, holding back the enemy hordes until help can arrive. The British left sees it as the great crusade against “fascism”, fighting alongside Stalinist Russia and Mao’s guerillas to take down anti-comintern regimes that were nationalist and racist. Similar sentiments are held in America where World War II is perhaps the only conflict that both Republicans and Democrats view as necessary and justified. All of this makes World War II a subject many study but few question.

For most, World War II was “the good war” and one that can be portrayed in very simplistic terms as good vs. evil with clearly identifiable good guys and bad guys. It was a popular war at the time as is evidenced by how many countries rushed to be included in it even though they were not directly affected by it and despite the fact that they could contribute little to nothing to fighting it. Almost every country on earth was at least nominally involved in the conflict. Before the end of the conflict just over 50 countries had declared war on the Axis powers which is probably the single greatest example in the history of humanity of people agreeing on something. And that attitude survives even today and even with countries in opposition to each other. In the United States, conservatives call even communist regimes like Cuba “fascist” to emphasize their wickedness while communist countries have frequently called all of their enemies “fascists” as well. When western powers want to take down petty tyrants from Slobodan Milosevic to Saddam Hussein they compare such leaders to Adolf Hitler, in Russia the official line has been to call the Ukrainian nationalists “Nazis” and in China, bringing up World War II and Japanese atrocities has become practically an official national policy to divert attention and cast themselves in a positive light. Every interventionist accuses their opponents of being modern-day Neville Chamberlains, every political activist accuses their rivals of being “Nazis” to the extent that it can seem like amongst all our differences in the world, the one thing absolutely everyone agrees on (save perhaps the Japanese nationalists) is that World War II was right, the Allies were the good guys and the Axis were the bad guys. Such a dramatic and unprecedented consensus is not to be taken lightly.

Not a few people have said that “the winners write the history books” which is usually true, just as it is usually losers who say that and just as it is usually true that the losers write the revisionist history books. That is not what I am about here. Crimes like the Holocaust speak for themselves (and should not require censorship laws to sustain them). It is not historical revisionism to point out that the Second World War was not so clear cut as people like to think. That does not mean the “bad guys” were not actually bad but that they didn’t have a monopoly on misbehavior. If evil is defined by death tolls, Hitler was certainly an evil man for massacring about nine million people. Yet, by that standard, Joseph Stalin (one of the Allied “Big Three”) massacred about twenty million people. Likewise, if evil is identified by oppressive, all-powerful governments, the Soviet Union, one of the Allied nations, made Mussolini’s Italy at the height of the Fascist dictatorship look positively libertarian in comparison. It should be possible to look at the war and the world it created and note that it has not all been beneficial, which of course does not mean that the current state of affairs would be all for the better if the Axis had prevailed. Human beings like things to be simple and clear-cut but real life is seldom so cooperative.

The point in considering these difficult issues and asking such questions is to learn something valuable from them and, as often as possible, to have alternatives to present. This has been difficult for many monarchists who, after the tragedy of World War I, have preferred to withdraw in a huff from world affairs, doing nothing more than blaming others and lamenting the passing of the world that existed before 1914 (even though it was rarely up to snuff for such people as these). Yet, not only does such an attitude hinder rather than help, it also surrenders what was a state of affairs, not ideal, but certainly preferable to what came after. In 1939 Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania and Yugoslavia all had monarchs. Hungary did not but was still legally a monarchy. After 1945 all of these, save Greece, would become communist republics. Italy would become a republic and even for the monarchies that survived or were restored, they were still diminished by the war. In Belgium, for example, the King today has about as little actual power as all of his predecessors and yet, every Belgian king from Leopold I until World War II played a much more central and decisive part in national affairs. The Netherlands, Denmark, even Sweden which was neutral and others have a similar story with their monarchies being noticeably diminished in one way or another after World War II.

On the other side of the world, in Asia, things were as bad if not worse. The last hopes of preserving a monarchy in what is now China were squashed by the war, Korea did not so much regain its independence as much as traditional Korea was simply pushed aside and replaced by two republican contrivances. In Vietnam the monarchy, after declaring independence a short time before, was brought down by a revolution led by Ho Chi Minh, setting the stage for decades of vicious warfare. In Japan, the monarchy survived but was certainly diminished and has been focused more on survival than leadership since then. Because of Japanese policies, an Axis victory would have meant a more monarchist East Asia and yet the blow struck by Japan against European colonialism in the region, which the nationalist right champions even more than the pacifist left, meant more republics rather than fewer and republics that stand as the most brutal and bloodthirsty regimes in human history. What is absurdly ironic is that the Japanese nationalists who most defend Japan’s actions in World War II and deny every wrongdoing at the same time inadvertently place upon Japan the responsibility for murderous regimes from Pol Pot to Chairman Mao by claiming credit for destroying European colonialism in Asia.

All of this is worth looking into. If all goes according to plan, throughout this year, The Mad Monarchist will feature articles about the Second World War and its impact on the cause of monarchy across the globe. How were monarchs and monarchists involved in the war? Why was the British Empire so crucial to how the war came about? What were some viable alternatives to how things developed as far as the monarchies of the world were concerned? In what ways was the war a crossroads for the Italian monarchy? Why is the legacy of the war so particularly dangerous for Japan? All of these are questions that will hopefully be discussed going forward as well as looking at some of the key events and personalities involved. I hope you will look forward to it and, of course, stay “mad”…

Clash of Monarchies: The Russo-Japanese War

The conflict between the Empires of Russia and Japan can be seen as inevitable. As soon as Russian and Japanese made contact with each other there was hostilities, dating back centuries to a Russian explorer who burned Japanese villages in the northern islands after his request for formal relations was rebuffed. When Russian power began to spread across Siberia to the Far East, Russian and Japanese settlers came into conflict over the possession of Sakhalin island. These early tensions meant that when the Empire of Japan emerged from a long period of being largely isolated and determined, through the Meiji Restoration, to become a major power and not a European colony, Russia was at a disadvantage. From day one, the Japanese were, albeit carefully, willing to deal with powers such as France and Great Britain but were less well disposed toward Russia. For the Russians, geography made Japan a natural enemy. The Russian Empire faced a similar problem in the east as in the west which was being cut off from the oceans; the great highway of nations. The driving, ever-present goal of Russian foreign policy in the Far East was the acquisition of an ice-free port on the Pacific. This proved problematic but Japan was an additional problem as even when Russia obtained such a port, the geographic placement of the Japanese islands meant that so long as Japan was not under Russian control, it could easily shut off access to such a port and render it useless.

Meiji of Japan & Nicholas II of Russia

When Japan began to modernize and industrialize it, of course, needed resources it had never needed before and the growth in the Japanese population that accompanied the rising standard of living also caused concern over food shortages. Both led Japan to take an increased interest in the resources and farmland of Korea. The rising power of Japan also caused tension with the traditional super-power of East Asia; China, at the time the Great Qing Empire. Eventually, the Sino-Japanese War broke out, officially over the independence of Korea (actually whether Korea would be dominated by China or Japan). The path toward a war between Japan and Russia came into view as soon as the war with China was over. Most had assumed the Chinese would easily defeat the Japanese, a people the Chinese had traditionally held in contempt. Yet, these people were looking at things like land and population rather than who had the better grasp of modern weapons and tactics. In the end, Japan won the war quite handily and China was forced to make peace on Japanese terms. It should also be remembered that, by this time, almost the whole of China had been divided up into spheres of influence for the major European imperial powers, roughly these were; France in the south, Britain in the middle and Russia in the north.

It did not escape the notice of Japan that Russian power was expanding in East Asia rapidly. Mongolia was recognized by the other European powers as being within the Russian sphere of influence and later Manchuria was as well. Following the Boxer Rebellion, the Russian Empire took control of Manchuria, making it a part of the Russian Empire in all but name. Russia invested heavily in the region and was intent to see such investments protected. The Trans-Siberian railway was also soon under construction in 1891 which would enable Russia to transfer its vast strength from one side of Asia to the other. In 1896 Russia obtained permission from China to build railroads across Manchuria which would bring Russian power extremely close to the doorstep of Japan. These were concerns for Japan but not the sort of thing that could not be worked through. However, after the Sino-Japanese War, that situation changed. The Japanese victory removed Korea from Chinese control and Japan obtained considerable concessions, such as the island of Formosa, but most significantly for Russia, the Liaotung Peninsula on the Manchurian coast. No sooner was the ink dry on the documents then Russia, Germany and France joined together to declare that Japan had gained too much from China and demanded that some of the spoils of victory be returned.

Pro-Russian French view of the invasion of Korea

Naturally, the Japanese were deeply offended by having the fruits of their victory snatched away from them, including the Liaotung Peninsula but faced with the overwhelming combination of Russia, France and Germany, Japan had no choice but to agree. However, offense turned into outrage and fury when, after handing the Liaotung Peninsula back to China, Russia obtained the lease on the property and began building a massive naval base there at Port Arthur. This was to be the Pacific gateway that Russia had wanted for so long and which would be vital to Russia being a major force in the Far East and free from having Russian trade cut off every winter. After being continuously thwarted in similar efforts at expansion in the west, such as in the Crimean War, the Russian Empire was enjoying a wave of success in the east. Mongolia was within the Russian sphere of influence, Manchuria was practically a part of Russia and the new railroad expansion was bringing Russia to the Korean border. Soon, the struggling Kingdom of Korea, later asserting its independence as the “Great Han Empire” was divided at its highest levels by pro-Russian and pro-Japanese factions. Since winning the war with China, Japan had invested heavily in Korea, Japan owned the railroads in Korea and Japanese settlers were moving into Korea in growing numbers. Russians were starting to filter into the country as well and the powerful Queen/Empress was becoming increasingly friendly to the representatives of the Tsar.

During the diplomatic talks to settle differences and ward off a potential conflict, the Japanese made it clear that they would be willing to accept the Russian domination of Manchuria but that, in return, Russia would have to recognize the Japanese domination of Korea. The realists in Tokyo viewed Manchuria as a lost cause but they could never tolerate Korea becoming a Russian protectorate. However, Japan did not want war. Russia had almost every possible advantage over Japan and the Japanese hoped that they could settle matters through diplomacy with the formula which said, in its simplest form; Russia can have Manchuria if Korea is left to Japan. Russia did not really want war either. They were not even opposed to Japan keeping control of South Korea so long as North Korea remained unoccupied so that Japanese forces could not threaten Russia’s presence in Manchuria. If Czar Nicholas II was simply out to pick a fight with Japan, or any East Asian country, he certainly would have waited until the Trans-Siberian Railroad was completed. Yet, what was, perhaps, the most dangerous mistake that the Czar made was in thinking that war was never a realistic possibility. He had no desire for a war and saw no need for one as Russia had been doing fine expanding her influence without fighting. Why should it not continue? It was a perfectly reasonable point of view. The mistake was in discounting the notion that Japan might be the one to initiate a war with Russia. To summarize, the basic attitude of the Czar was, ‘they wouldn’t dare’.

The great Admiral Togo

Betting against the daring of Japan would prove costly. The Japanese leaders knew that their only chance of winning a war with Russia would be to fight aggressively and win it quickly before Russia could transfer her massive military strength to the east. So, while the diplomats tried to find a solution, the Japanese prepared for war. The Russian leadership never thought things were all that serious, again, discounting the idea that Japan would ever attack the largest land empire on earth, and continuously delayed the Japanese diplomats. The Japanese became more offended and frustrated and ever more convinced that war was the only solution all while Russia thought they were in no danger at all. It was not even seen as terribly alarming when the Japanese recalled their diplomats and broke off diplomatic relations with Russia on February 6, 1904, having deemed further talks useless. What happened next was alarming and it sent shock waves all the way across Asia to St Petersburg. On February 8, 1904 the Imperial Japanese fleet under Vice-Admiral Heihachiro Togo launched a surprise attack on the Russians at Port Arthur. An official Japanese declaration of war against Russia followed after hostilities had commenced.

The opening battle of Port Arthur was fairly inconclusive. The Japanese did slightly more damage but were finally forced to withdraw with neither side suffering very grievous losses. However, the pattern of the war was set with Japan being on the offensive and Russia being on the defensive. The Japanese actually had superior numbers on the scene as Russia had only about 80,000 in Manchuria compared to 200,000 Japanese in Korea and neighboring islands. Anxious to get some revenge on Russia themselves, the Chinese offered to join Japan at war but the Japanese refused the offer, not wishing to deal with China wanting a share of the spoils. Japanese troops were landed in Korea, occupied Seoul and were soon marching north while others were landed in Manchuria to begin the siege of Port Arthur. Having not prepared for aggressive war, the Russians were forced to fight delaying action while the bulk of Russian military strength was mobilized for transport to the Far East. At the battle of the Yalu River the Japanese brushed aside a Russian detachment and invaded Manchuria. At Port Arthur, the Russians tried to strike back but suffered damage from Japanese naval mines which unfortunately killed the best Russian naval commander in the region, putting Russia at another serious disadvantage.

Japanese infantry attack

In April of 1904 Japan began the siege of Port Arthur. Initial infantry attacks were repulsed by the stalwart Russian defenders who inflicted heavy casualties on the Japanese. However, after bringing up heavier, German-made artillery, the Japanese were able to gain the high ground and could bring guns to bear on the Russian fleet, effectively wiping out Russia’s Far East squadron. Tsar Nicholas II was thus forced to divert the Baltic Fleet to the Far East to try to salvage the situation, however, the voyage would be long and Britain kept Japan well informed of its movements. Whatever happened on the ground, the two navies would ultimately determine the outcome of the war at least as far as the goal of Russian access to the Pacific was concerned. The Japanese continued to attack and continued to suffer very high casualties but at Port Arthur the local Russian commander, General Anatoly Stossel, seemed to be losing his nerve. Russian strength was building in Manchuria but at a painfully slow rate and when a relief column was sent from Mukden to Port Arthur it was intercepted by the Japanese at the battle of Liaoyang. At first, Japanese attacks were repelled with heavy losses but after the Japanese seized a key position, the Russian commander, General Alexei Kuropatkin, ordered his men to fall back. The initiative was lost and finally the Russian army retreated back to Mukden.

The Japanese had won the field but the Russian army had escaped and would only grow stronger over time and the Japanese had suffered horrendous casualties in the process. Still, Port Arthur was then completely isolated and on January 2, 1905 General Stossel surrendered, much to the surprise of the Japanese. In Russia there was shock and fury, especially after subsequent investigations showed that the Russian troops had been holding their lines and that sufficient provisions were available to sustain the garrison for much longer. It was a heavy blow to Russian morale and allowed Japan to focus on pushing north into Manchuria for further attacks before Russian reinforcements could arrive. To the surprise of some, Russian troops taken prisoner by the Japanese were treated with great humanity, even generosity which stood in stark contrast to the treatment meted out to POW’s in the First Sino-Japanese War and later during World War II. Meanwhile, on the home front, both countries faced serious problems because of the on-going war.

Russian propaganda picture

In Japan, the government had promoted the war as one of dire necessity rather than choice, assured the public of victory and immense benefits when it was over. The public was then shocked to see the long casualty lists for what was supposed to have been an easy success against a beastly, barbarian foe. The Japanese economy was also stretched to the breaking point. In fact, carrying on the fight would not have been possible without considerable private financial assistance from the United States. American sympathy was overwhelmingly on the side of Japan but it was one wealthy American in particular who helped Japan in a major way and that was the Jewish-American businessman Jacob Schiff, a banker, investor and philanthropist who had a particular grudge against Russia for the treatment of the Jews there. He put the entire financial resources of his firm, “Kuhn, Loeb & Co.” at the disposal of Japan to give Tokyo the money necessary to fight the war. Of course, this was known only to military and civil officials in Japan and not the general public, though Schiff was given the Order of the Rising Sun from the hand of the Meiji Emperor himself.

In Russia, where most ordinary people never understood the necessity of their foreign policy goals, anti-war agitation and social unrest was increasing. The Japanese did their best to encourage this, funding a variety of leftist, revolutionary groups in Russia and pro-independence dissidents in Poland by way of agents operating in Sweden. Even the future Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin received some Japanese subsidy. With the monarchy itself coming under greater threat, more officials were advising the Czar to make peace but Nicholas II was infuriated by Japanese behavior and determined to fight on until final victory was won. Aiding revolutionary elements would have been unthinkable to the high-minded Czar but one thing he could do was to have prayers read out in all the Russian Orthodox Churches calling down the wrath of God on the Japanese. When, eighteen years after the war, Japan was hit by a number of immense natural disasters, such as the Great Kantou earthquake, Russians began to remark that Heaven must be eighteen years away from earth.

Russian troops at the front

What would be the climactic land engagement of the war came on February 20, 1905 and which would last until March 10; the immense, bloody battle of Mukden. The Russians had a somewhat larger force but they had the disadvantage of being led by General Kuropatkin, an inept officer and future traitor. The Japanese, on the other hand, were led by Field Marshal Oyama Iwao, one of the best military commanders Japan would ever produce. The fight was long, fierce and bloody, a precursor to the sort of tactics seen later in World War I. The Russians lost nearly 90,000 men and the Japanese over 75,000. However, it was Kuropatkin who blinked first and who failed to properly coordinate his movements and Oyama was quick to exploit the opportunity. The Russian army was broken and retreated north while the Japanese marched triumphantly into Mukden. And yet, the Russians had not been destroyed and more troops were on the way while the Japanese were so exhausted and depleted by their costly attacks that they could not pursue and finish off their retreating enemies. In fact, the situation for Japan had become so serious that Tokyo was putting out ‘peace feelers’ while the battle was still underway. The Czar was reluctant to accept such an outcome but the situation changed when the Baltic fleet finally arrived in East Asian waters. Thanks to Great Britain, Japan was well informed of Russia’s naval movements and Admiral Togo was waiting in ambush in the waters between Korea and Japan. The resulting battle of Tsushima, on May 27-28, was a total disaster for the Russians. The Baltic fleet was wiped out and Japanese naval dominance in the region was secured. Any hope of unfettered Russian access to the Pacific died at Tsushima Straits. When Japanese troops landed on Sakhalin afterwards, Czar Nicholas II finally agreed to talk peace, accepting American President Teddy Roosevelt as mediator even though he had been pretty openly sympathetic to Japan.

The resulting peace left neither side happy but Japan more so than Russia. Japan gained the Russian lease on Port Arthur, the southern half of Sakhalin Island and saw all Russian forces evacuated from Manchuria as well as an acknowledgement of Japanese domination over Korea. However, none of it seemed sufficient given how costly the war had been and Czar Nicholas II refused to pay an indemnity to Japan and when President Roosevelt backed Russia, Japan had to drop the issue. For the Czar, as with most things, it was a matter of principle. Such payments were usually taken as an admission of guilt for starting a war and given that it was the Japanese who had struck first, the Czar saw this as totally unacceptable. He was also reluctant to give in to all Japanese demands considering that Russia still had considerable forces in the field and was quite capable of continuing the war. The Japanese tended to blame the American president for not getting all they wanted but the fact is that the war was not the total victory it had been portrayed as with the Japanese armies severely depleted and the economy stretched to the breaking point. The Treaty of Portsmouth ended the war officially on September 5, 1905.

American pro-Japanese view of the fall of Port Arthur

For Russia, the war was not a total disaster but was a serious humiliation that left a lasting legacy of bitterness. The events of “Bloody Sunday” had shaken the monarchy, tarnished the image of the Tsar and the increased revolutionary agitation left the Russian Empire in a delicate position. Not long after, the Russian monarchy was forced to, officially at least, abandon autocracy and become a nominal constitutional monarchy with the October Manifesto. It also, though this can be exaggerated, caused some in the Russian leadership to take a more strident tone and be more anxious to assert Russian strength on the world stage, preparing the way for the mobilization on behalf of Serbia against Austria-Hungary that turned a Balkan crisis into the First World War. The humiliation was never forgotten and Russia, under Soviet leadership, would enact a considerable degree of retribution against Japan in the final days of World War II. After defeating the Japanese in a border dispute in Mongolia, Russia would break its neutrality pact with Japan after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and send Russian forces sweeping into Manchuria, driving the Japanese from that area as well as northern Korea, retaking all of Sakhalin and seizing the Kurile Islands as well. Plans to invade Hokkaido, partition Japan and set up a communist republic there were avoided only by virtue of the staunch opposition of General Douglas MacArthur.

The Empire of Japan emerged from the conflict as a world power, recognized as such by the other great powers of the world. Japanese mastery of northeast Asia was undisputed and no one voiced any serious opposition when Japan annexed Korea in 1910. However, the Japanese were not happy with the fruits of their victory, mostly because of how the government had made promises to the public that were unrealistic and kept them in the dark as to the true situation at the end of the war. Knowing nothing of how badly Japan needed the war to end, the public blamed America (which had been overwhelmingly pro-Japanese) for the fact that they had not received everything they wanted from the Russians. Anti-American riots broke out across Japan and an offended United States then retaliated by enacting laws restricting Japanese immigration to the United States (oddly enough, those who voiced the most anti-American attitudes seemed most offended at not being able to immigrate to America). The USA would not be so well-disposed toward Japan again until after World War II. Likewise, the way the war was triumphed in Japan and by others in East Asia in racial terms made the elite club of colonial powers rather nervous about their newest member. Successive victories over China and Russia also, probably, produced a degree of over-confidence in the Japanese military that was to have disastrous consequences in the years to come.

Anniversary of a Greek Tragedy

On this day in 1974 was held the last referendum on the subject of the Greek monarchy, reaffirming the abolition of the institution which had actually taken place effectively some time before. HM King Constantine II had already been overthrown in a coup and replaced by a military junta which held its own staged referendum to abolish the monarchy as a way of putting a “democratic” face on their treason. However, after the junta was overthrown all of its legal rulings were declared invalid and so, in order to keep up the pretense of democracy, it was necessary for the new ruling elite in Athens to stage another referendum to verify the abolition of the monarchy. The result was, not surprisingly, a considerable majority of a little over 69% voting in favor of the republic that then held power. Was this a “free and fair” expression of the will of the Greek people? Of course not, even if there was no chicanery in the voting process (which is highly unlikely to say the least), both sides were not given a fair hearing by the public. The exiled King Constantine II was not allowed to return to his homeland to make his case and campaign on his own behalf. So, only one side was really allowed to be heard.

In this manner, the vote was reminiscent of the referendum which replaced the former Emperor, Bao Dai, as “Chief of State” of Vietnam with his Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem as the first President of what then became the Republic of (South) Vietnam in 1955. There too a vote was held in which the former monarch was not allowed to make his case to the people and in which the voting process was controlled entirely by one side. Again, in Vietnam, it is no surprise that the result was an overwhelming victory for President Diem with even many of his sympathizers admitting that the referendum was more of an exercise of power than a legitimate reflection of the will of the people. Still, given that the Emperor was known for his past associations with institutions officially on the “naughty list” of respectable world opinion in 1955, such as French colonialism and the Empire of Japan, even many monarchists would, it seems, have to agree with prevailing opinion amongst the republicans that it did not matter too terribly much because Diem would have won the vote anyway, though perhaps by not so ridiculously large a margin, if it had been held absolutely fairly. Can the same be said for Greece though?

After all, unfortunate as it is, Greek kings being overthrown was hardly something new, it had practically become a tradition in itself. The King would be overthrown, the state of affairs in the country would become worse and in the end there would be a referendum and the King would be restored again. It was also rather unusual that the military junta did not legally abolish the monarchy outright. Effectively, they operated as unwanted, un-appointed regents of the absent King across the Adriatic in Rome. He was even paid, though it was a mere pittance as the colonels deducted the cost of maintaining all of the royal properties in spite of the fact that the King was not allowed to use any of them. They held their coup in 1967 and it was not until 1973, one year before their own overthrow, that the junta held the referendum which officially abolished the Greek monarchy and replaced it with the Hellenic republic. King Constantine II had tried to restore himself less than a year after his initial removal but the whole plan was badly botched and came to nothing. After the referendum, also within the year, a group of admirals tried to launch a royalist coup of their own but it too failed and King Constantine himself made no effort to take advantage of it.

One of the problems that arises in judging just how true a reflection of the popular will the referendum was has its roots in determining how effective all of the anti-monarchy propaganda was that was fed to the Greek public. The leader of the military junta, George Papadopoulos, had accused King Constantine of being the worst sort of character imaginable, going to plainly absurd lengths to link him to every sort of crime and every sort of criminal any decent person would naturally despise. If the public believed any of what Papadopoulos told them, they would have thought King Constantine was in league with malevolent foreign powers looking to exploit them, all the way down to plain murderers, traffickers and other criminals. Did anyone actually believe this? It seems impossible to think so, certainly for anyone who had any knowledge of the King and Queen at all.

If anything, perhaps stung by the failed counter-coup of December 67, the King took far too passive a part in the efforts to effect his own restoration. He considered that the changes effected by the junta were all illegal and invalid and that he was still the King of the Hellenes and that he would soon be called back to either resume his reign or at least participate in the campaign ahead of the referendum. However, he was never called and events plowed ahead without him under the leadership of the head of the interim government, former Prime Minister Constantine Karamanlis. The case of this one politician is highly illustrative of what things were like “on the ground” in Greece prior to the infamous referendum of 1974. It was widely said that Karamanlis had no opposition to King Constantine II returning to reign again at all but that he did have a very, very strong aversion to his mother Queen Frederika. A popular phrase was that the only thing Karamanlis held against King Constantine was that he was Queen Frederika’s son.

Queen Frederika of Brunswick had first earned a fearsome reputation during the civil war because of her strident anti-communism. Funded generously by wealthy American friends she established the Royal Welfare Institute to care for orphans being created and victimized by the communists. Not content to sit idle, she went out to the front lines herself to rescue these children whose parents had been killed or who had abandoned them to join the communists. Originally, she was quite popular, but by 1967 she had become the female version of the bogey man of the Greek Royal Family. Being from Germany and a fierce anti-communist she was, of course, accused of secretly being a Nazi as well as a tool of exploitation by greedy American capitalists because of her many friendships with people in the United States. She was blamed for anything unpopular with an ill-advised trip by King Paul and herself to Constantinople in 1952 being one well-known example. Again, she had once been very popular but by the late 60’s it was no longer fashionable to be anti-communist or pro-American and Queen Frederika was seen as both as well as having a reputation for being domineering and independent that made those with power suspicious of her. Needless to say, she featured heavily in the campaign propaganda for the republicans, “warning” Greeks that a return of the monarchy would also mean the return of the now vilified Queen Frederika.

It is both sad and disgusting that King Constantine II was pushed by this to practically denounce his own mother, trying to reassure Greeks through his supporters on the ground that the Queen Mother would not be invited to return if the monarchy was restored. He also apologized profusely for any mistakes, real or perceived that were committed during his reign. As we know, it was to no avail and Greece was proclaimed anew a republic. The result was not that dissimilar to what it had been in the vote held by the colonels and this has caused some to judge that it was probably an accurate reflection of the public mood. However, even if that is so, it still does not make it just. The republican side used every sort of disreputable scare-tactics, outright lies and pandering to popular xenophobic and bigoted sentiments to help their cause while the King was not even allowed to set foot in the country to make his case in person. If he had, it seems very likely that the good-natured monarch, his beautiful queen-consort and charming children could have easily won over the public and, though I am loath to say it, perhaps even reassure them that the Queen Mother would stay away given that the government managed to convince them that she rode a broomstick and ate small children. The fact that the junta failed and was overthrown should have been enough to convince reasonable people on its own to go back to the way things were before, just as the sad state of Greece today should be enough to convince people that a real and fundamental change in Greece is necessary and not simply a continuation of the rotating system of political elites into elected office.

The referendum held on this day in 1974 was unjust in a variety of ways. It should be overturned without delay. My friendly, unsolicited, advice to Greece today would be this: toss out the lot of the political establishment in Athens, restore the monarchy, leave the European Union, restore the drachma and start to make investment in Greece attractive again. You might also want to keep an eye on that rather unsavory Erdogan fellow too…

Queen Fabiola of the Belgians

Queen Fabiola of the Belgians

1928-2014

RIP

The USA, Monarchy and America-Bashing

Whenever British royals visit the United States you can count on two things happening; proletarian preaching from the Yankee Doodle dandies about the glories of republicanism and how absurd having royals is (have fun counting down until someone says, “We fought a war to get away from this sort of thing” -someone says it every single time and still thinks they’re oh-so-clever) and then, in reaction to this, you have the other side retaliating with tirades of anti-Americanism, ranting about how the United States is the most terrible country in the world and the greatest plague to the monarchist cause ever. All the while, of course, the royals themselves invariably behave in the most well-mannered and friendly way possible and while the American leadership tries to be good hosts (though certainly not always succeeding). This issue has been brought to my attention more than usual lately and, as I usually do, thinking about it long enough has caused me to consider the side opposite that I would normally take. Is the strident anti-Americanism of so many monarchists really justified? Has the United States really been that bad for monarchy around the world?

In the first place, I would have to say that even while agreeing with much of the content of anti-American complaining from monarchists, I have never, ever been fond of it. Even when it is entirely accurate, it still seems petty and hypocritical. It is, in a way, stooping to the level of the basest American republicans that so many monarchists despise. After all, what that imported Englishman Thomas Paine penned his famous tract, “Common Sense”, he appealed to emotion rather than reason and, lacking any rational, factual justification for their rebellion, the American patriots had no other recourse but to heap blame and point fingers at King George III. Furthermore, as has been pointed out here often enough, the United States would not exist as it is today without the support of monarchies. The Kingdom of France and the Kingdom of Spain were of the most direct assistance, while the Kingdom of Morocco boasts of being the first foreign power to recognize the United States. The Kingdom of Sweden claims to be the first nation to recognize the United States which was not engaged in the conflict that bore it out. Empress Catherine the Great of Russia said that she would sooner commit suicide that recognize American independence if she were King George III but, as she was not, the Russian Empire also made haste to recognize the new republic. King Frederick the Great of Prussia even sent George Washington a ceremonial sword as gift (perhaps he heard that some American monarchists speculated about making his brother King of America).

The strident anti-American would then have to condemn those monarchies which not only helped give birth to the United States but without whose support American independence could not have been won (much as the Yankee Doodle dandies hate to admit it). One should also keep in mind that, for all the radical rhetoric, the so-called American Revolution was hardly revolutionary at all. The firebrand republicans like Thomas Paine were useful to whip up the masses and make the rebellion seem justified but when it came to actual leadership, such rabble-rousers were kept far from the halls of power. Even the most radical of the “Founding Fathers”, Thomas Jefferson, kept in his “Hall of Heroes” at Monticello portraits of King Louis XVI of France and the self-made Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. There were Founding Fathers who were monarchists themselves at heart, the most notable being Alexander Hamilton. Men like George Washington and John Adams, once the war was won, could not hide their lingering attachment to the United Kingdom they had broken away from. The war deprived the British monarch of territory but not of his throne and there was no attempt to remake society in the way of the French or Russian revolutions.

Loyalists had to go of course (and almost all did) but those who were the elite before the war remained the elite after it was over. Also, unlike the French Revolution, there was no immediate urge to export the “American Revolution” abroad. There were those who sympathized with the French Revolution that broke out soon after and those who wanted to renew the war against Great Britain in solidarity with the French republicans but, as we know, that did not happen. In fact, America stopped payment of its debts to France on the grounds that the debt was owed to the King who had aided America and not the French Republic (while simultaneously making a trade agreement with Britain). The resulting French revolutionary outrage sparked The Undeclared War with France on the part of the United States. Clashes did not cease until the French Republic succumbed to the more realistic rule of Napoleon (who was also kind enough to give the USA a good deal on Louisiana). In 1812 there was the totally condemnable effort to conquer Canada but, after a good drubbing, the United States seemed to have learned its lesson even while telling themselves that they had not really lost.

Where America at least seemed to have the most impact on the replacement of monarchial government with republican ones was in Latin America. There was, after all, the Monroe Doctrine and the involvement of American officials (often Freemasons) in conspiracies to bring down the Spanish Crown in the New World. However, as reprehensible as these things are, the simple fact is that the United States did not have the strength to back up one word of the Monroe Doctrine and no amount of republican fervor from US envoys in Latin American countries could have accomplished anything were it not for the republican, revolutionary elements already there. The British Empire supported the Monroe Doctrine and had the Royal Navy to enforce it. Aside from native, revolutionary elements the success of republicanism in Latin America largely came down to official and unofficial support from the British Empire as well as, most significantly, chaos in Spain itself. The royalists had won in Mexico but the rising liberalism in Spain pushed Mexican conservatives into the pro-independence camp. The outbreak of the Carlist Wars also prevented the Spanish from being able to focus their strength on serious efforts to retake colonies that had been lost with the support of Britain which was anxious to break up the Spanish monopoly on trade with Latin America.

The United States was quick to recognize the independence of the Empire of Brazil but was certainly the decisive factor in the failure of the Second Mexican Empire. Yet, that situations presents anti-American monarchists with a unique problem. The rapidly growing power of the United States made it extremely difficult for any one European monarchy to oppose them outright but the one thing that would have broken up that power and saved the Empire of Mexico would have been the victory of the Confederate States of America. Support for the Confederacy is not unknown in monarchist circles but with the “Lost Cause” of Dixie so associated with slavery today, I have rarely seen any monarchists willing to say that Britain and France should have recognized the slave-holding southern states and helped the Confederacy win independence. As we can see, even when America has been wrong, it was rarely alone and seemed to have a way of exploiting situations so that an American triumph would be hard to condemn because so many would see the alternative as being worse or at least necessitating some very unpopular and even distasteful alliances. But, of course, distasteful alliances is what geopolitics tends to be made of. The United States has certainly made more than a few but then so has virtually every monarchy.

After clashing with Britain in 1812, America did not fight a monarchy again until the Spanish-American War. Many European countries did not like this and the German Kaiser even urged concerted action to, more or less, put the Americans in their place. However, none did so because, again, the British Empire decided it was wiser to support America rather than Spain which, still struggling with seemingly endless Carlist Wars, was a rapidly declining power. Around the same time there was also the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy by American interests and that is something that Hawaiians certainly have a right to be upset about. Not too many do though as it is a very liberal state and has come to depend on the largesse of the government in Washington. Hawaiians are also a tiny minority in the state and in any democratic decision on the matter would be easily outvoted.

The next time the United States went to war with a monarchy (or monarchies) was in 1917 when America entered the First World War. This is a rather complex situation as President Woodrow Wilson (certainly one of the worst presidents in American history, whether one is a monarchist or not) is a perfect bogey man and many have heaped blame on him and America as a whole for ruining the Europe that was dominated by traditional monarchies prior to 1914. Unfortunately, this is also the beginning of what has become an obsession with the United States by many people beyond its borders. They make common cause with the Yankee Doodle dandies in at least one way; both like to portray the United States as the pivotal world power upon whom everything depends, one side just thinks that this has been good and the other thinks it has been bad. Sadly, I must disappoint both sides and say that the United States, certainly in 1917, was just not that important. In the first place, America was involved only in the last few months of the war and the primary rival to President Wilson in domestic politics, former President Teddy Roosevelt, would not have remained neutral but would have taken America into the conflict much sooner. Moreover, it was France and especially Great Britain which worked the hardest to get the United States involved in the war, helped just across the finish line by Germany with that ludicrous Zimmermann Telegram which no country in the world would have ignored. But, what about America and the monarchies of World War I?

As much fun as many have blaming the loss of every monarchy toppled in 1918 on America, the simple fact is that the USA had practically nothing to do with it. America did not declare war until late in 1917, after the outbreak of the Russian Revolution, and by that time Austria-Hungary was already doomed. Britain and France had already made the agreements with the other powers and the ethnic minorities for the carve-up of Austria-Hungary before America was ever part of the picture. The same goes for the Ottoman Empire. In Bulgaria, the monarchy survived and in Germany it was the outbreak of leftist rebellions combined with the Social Democrats seizing the opportunity that brought down the Kaiser. Not one American or other Allied soldier had set foot on German soil when that happened and the greatest pressure put on Imperial Germany by the Allies was the Royal Navy blockade which had been going on since the start of the war. As for what happened at the Versailles Conference, Wilson certainly did his part to help make it the disaster it was but he was only one man among many and the other Allied leaders were perfectly happy to ignore his lofty, unrealistic preaching when it suited them. The Germans actually preferred to make peace based on his “Fourteen Points” but the Allies brushed most of them aside. The United States, lest we forget, was the only major Allied power that neither sought nor was given any territorial concessions and also the only one that did NOT endorse the Versailles Treaty. The idiotic Wilson thought it was swell but, thankfully, the United States Senate did not and refused to ratify it and America made a separate peace with the Central Powers later.

The United States, despite gaining no territory, certainly emerged from the war in a very enviable position. Having stayed out until the very end, it made a great deal of money selling all sorts of necessities to the warring powers and almost all of the Allies were so desperate for American money that they all indebted themselves heavily to the United States. For the British Empire, this situation reached critical mass during World War II. Those who decry how the United States surpassed the British Empire as the preeminent world power must face the fact that it was Britain which put itself in this position by mortgaging the empire to fight a war it could not win on its own. It is not a pleasant thing to ponder but the fact is that the British Empire could, possibly, have survived the First World War but not the Second. As it happened, the British government made the decision that destroying Nazi Germany was worth placing the Empire entirely at the mercy of the United States and President Franklin D. Roosevelt made no secret of his desire to see the British Empire come to an end.

American participation was not always bad for monarchy in World War II. American forces enabled the monarchies in The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark and Norway to be restored or liberated. The Greek monarchy was restored (for the time being) and though the Italian monarchy fell it is one, for baffling reasons, which a fair number of monarchists seem ambivalent about. In East Asia, the American victory meant the doom of the restored Manchu monarchy but it seems to have few friends these days anyway. Korea became republican but even most Korean monarchists seem to prefer half an independent republic to a monarchy subordinate to the Empire of Japan. In Japan itself, it was the United States, mostly General Douglas MacArthur himself, which prevented the partition of the country (as the Soviets wanted) and the execution of the Emperor (which many in Washington and even some dissidents in Japan wanted). The monarchies of Yugoslavia, Romania, Albania and Bulgaria were doomed but this was part of a deal worked out as well between Britain and the Soviet Union and one must face the uncomfortable question as to whether Nazi or Communist domination of these countries would have been preferable. To jump back to East Asia for a moment, it is interesting to note that the one other independent monarchy in the region (besides Japan) was the Kingdom of Thailand which declared war on the United States but the United States never declared war on Thailand in return, considering the regime there illegitimate.

After World War II, the world was treated to a state of affairs not conducive to monarchy at all but dominated by a choice between being aligned with the United States or the Soviet Union. One need look no further than the fate of the Romanov dynasty to see that the monarchies of the world made the right decision in choosing the United States. As the era of colonial empires came to an end, there is much for which American policy can be justly criticized, probably the most blatant being the absolutely disgraceful betrayed of the Netherlands over Indonesia. However, of the major colonial powers of Britain, France and Portugal there was only one monarchy among them. In Indochina, the United States did not have clean hands in the fall of the Vietnamese monarchy (or rather the state which amounted to as much) but then, without American support, as was seen, the communists would have won and the monarchy would have fallen anyway. America had a hand in the (temporary) downfall of the Cambodian monarchy but, again, without America the ultimate communist victory would have brought about the same thing. The same goes for Laos where America’s struggle against North Vietnam at least delayed the fall of the monarchy as long as the war continued.

In Burma, it had been the British who deposed the last king and the downfall of the British Empire, while certainly assisted by the United States which was eager to jump on the popular anti-colonialism bandwagon and try to woo peoples away from Soviet Russia, it was the decisions of the British government and British people which made this possible. Britain had sold itself to America to fight World War II and may, perhaps, have forgotten the Biblical warning that “the borrower is slave to the lender”. Yet, even then, Britain may have been able to at least hold on to Africa where it not for the fact that after the war the socialists came to power in a big way in Great Britain and there is simply no way that the United Kingdom could afford an empire AND a social welfare state. It has become clear today that they cannot even afford a military and a social welfare state. The generous entitlements, benefits, welfare (call it what you will) most monarchies have in place today would, by and large, not be possible were it not for the United States protecting all of them and so permitting them to live in peace with only token military forces.

Monarchists who hate the United States today should, perhaps, get over their American obsession and focus their attention on the decisions of their own governments. As it stands today, practically every monarchy in the world has availed itself of the protection of the United States. In a way, all depend on very republican Americans to be the defenders of monarchy in the modern world. The United States, through NATO (in which the USA accounts for the vast majority of NATO‘s military strength), has pledged to defend the monarchies of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom and Spain. Japan also has a formal guarantee of American protection and, in fact, the United States is the one and only official ally Japan has in the world (something the radicals on the right and left in Japan like to ignore). In addition, among those listed as “Major non-NATO Allies” of the United States are the monarchies of Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, Morocco, Bahrain, Jordan and Kuwait. The Kingdom of Sweden is noticeably absent from both lists but, rest assured, Sweden has participated in NATO missions anyway and has “secret” agreements (don’t tell Wilson!) to avail itself of American protection in the even of an enemy invasion. Again, there is practically not a single monarchy in the world that is not either defended by America or defended by a country which is defended by America with the US having “defense understandings” even with such unpopular monarchies as Brunei and Saudi Arabia.

When it comes to the post-Cold War era, American actions in regard to monarchy are probably not so terrible as most would think (certainly if one listens to those who blame America for everything). Iran is an interesting case. America is often blamed by monarchists for the fall of the Shah, yet this is more a case of America not helping maintain the Shah as opposed to actively bringing about his downfall. However, there is no doubt that President Carter certainly should feel guilty about his treatment of such a stalwart American ally (-partisan remark about a certain US political party removed-). What does look absurd is that while monarchists blame America for letting the Shah be deposed, anti-monarchists are blaming America for having put the Shah back in power once before, something anti-American monarchists rarely talk about. After Carter, there was President Ronald Reagan who restored the authority of the Crown over Granada. I know, some British experts at anti-Americanism think that was outrageous but I do not see how. The Governor-General, the Queen’s representative on the island, had been taken prisoner so the authority of the Queen had effectively been removed by the communists and this was restored by the intervention of the US Marines. It doesn’t seem like something for a British monarchist to complain about to me.

Under the first President Bush the United States actually led a coalition to war to restore a monarchy, namely the Emir of Kuwait, to the throne he had been deprived of by the republican dictator Saddam Hussein. But, then we had President Clinton, the man who thought it would be a brilliant idea for the United States, which is pledged to defend the United Kingdom from foreign attack, to make as the one and only Major Non-NATO Ally in Latin America the Republic of Argentina. Yeah, …what a genius. Anyway, some have blamed the United States under the second US President in history to be impeached for the lack of royal restorations in the Balkans following the collapse of the Soviet Union. You will not find a greater critic of the Clinton family than myself, but this really seems to be stretching credulity. How was it that the United States actually prevented monarchies from being restored in Romania, Bulgaria or Yugoslavia? Aside from one contemptuous, haughty remark from Clinton’s Secretary of State, I have yet to be shown any real evidence of this.

The United States was certainly not occupying any of these countries, they had been isolated from all American influence for decades behind the “Iron Curtain” and all of their monarchs had been exiled. If there is any evidence of the United States actually taking action to prevent the return of monarchs to these countries and providing some sort of irresistible pressure to prevent restorations I have yet to see it. In most cases, there was no real change in the power elite at all, old communists were simply replaced by new communists who changed their affiliation to Social Democrats. I suppose the United States could have been more supportive or perhaps could have done what it never did throughout the Cold War and launch military invasions of East European countries to forcibly restore monarchs to power but that would seem an odd thing for monarchists to expect from the most preeminent republic in the world while not expecting the same action from actual monarchies. That is something which perplexes me to no end; the number of times I have seen monarchists acting outraged that the very republican United States is not more pro-monarchy than actual monarchies are. I find it baffling. Frankly, I am often amazed America is as friendly toward monarchy as it is given how hyper-egalitarian the American left is and how hyper-republican the American right is.

During the administration of Bush the Younger anti-Americanism became more popular than ever and perhaps, being so often in the minority, monarchists could not help but join in. On at least one issue, I had to change positions myself and drop some previous criticisms I had made against the US government after doing some research. For the Bush years, the two most controversial events were the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Personally, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan (have not supported lingering there for a decade) while viewing the Iraq war as unnecessary. However, for monarchist critics of these events, I fail to understand the complaints. Of course, there are any number of things to criticize about how things were done, the mission, whether it was in the interest of any particular country or how they impacted the politics of the region. However, strictly from a monarchist perspective both Afghanistan and Iraq had monarchist parties operating freely and competing in elections after the invasions where they had been totally suppressed before by the Taliban and Baathist dictatorships. Going from “no chance” of a restoration to at least a “slight chance” of a restoration seems like positive movement to me. In the case of Afghanistan though, many have and continue to repeat the accusation that the United States prevented a restoration of the monarchy when everything was in place for this to happen. I confess to raging about this one myself. However, I was wrong. The simple fact is that the reason the monarchy in Afghanistan was not restored was because the King did not wish it so. The United States had been very friendly with the King in the past and gave a great deal of support to people who claimed to be monarchists in Afghanistan. However, when approached the King said he had no desire to be King of Afghanistan and that was the end of it.

The bottom line is that the United States attracts a great deal of criticism simply for being powerful, just like others that have gone before them. Long-time readers will know that I hate the blame game and believe that in the vast majority of cases we are all the authors of our own misfortunes. Some like to bash America simply because it is an inviting target. Countries complain that they cannot take any action on the world stage without America’s permission, yet, when pressed, they admit they really don’t want to take any action anyway. Many countries complain about America meddling in the affairs while taking for granted American subsidy and military protection. In other words, “shut up and give us your money”. However, all of the monarchies which have to at least take the wishes of America seriously are only in such a position because of past decisions they themselves made and which they go on making today.

I have heard it said that America exerts undue influence on other countries because they are so indebted to the United States. My first reaction to that would be, then don’t borrow so heavily from one country, don’t start wars you cannot finish without having to put your fate entirely in the hands of a foreign power. However, most know that the United States itself is a deeply indebted country, about $17 trillion in the red at least count. Do you know who America owes most of this money to? Nope, WRONG! It is not China, the two biggest sources of borrowed money for Washington DC is the United Kingdom followed by Japan. Does anyone think the British or Japanese are exerting such influence in this way to control the actions of the United States? Are Americans just the helpless puppets of the money-lenders in London and Tokyo? If they are, they have an odd way of showing it. The truth is, no monarchy is being “held back” by the United States. The United States is currently protecting more monarchies than probably any country in history. It would like nothing better than to see these countries shoulder more of that burden, to become more militarily powerful. In regards to Japan, the United States has been urging the Japanese to strengthen their military for decades. For the British, the greatest block on military strength has been the fault of extremely expensive entitlement programs. And for Britain, the idea that the UK is the lapdog of the US, suffering under Yankee rule, is rather disproved by the fact that there have been occasions when the US asked for British help and Britain said, “no”.

Monarchists, in my view, need to be more realistic about the world we live in, a world born out of World War II, a conflict which started in London and Paris and not Washington DC (though Roosevelt certainly took full advantage of it). Currently there is no monarchy that is anywhere near close enough to being able to take a leadership position in the world comparable to the United States, mostly due to past actions in regards to the world wars. If monarchists are unhappy with this state of affairs, then we must ask ourselves who would be most likely to have such a dominant position if not the United States? I doubt anyone would imagine that Communist China would be prepared to give war guarantees to most monarchies in the world. And if none of the alternatives seem preferable then the only solution is not to complain, not to antagonize but to reassess priorities. Make the tough choices to grow the economy, put more money into the military and be more assertive on the world stage once you have the strength to back it up. Blaming America for all and sundry will get you nowhere and being a constant annoyance to the most powerful country in the world is hardly helpful to the monarchist cause. What would be helpful is if more monarchists were just as proud and just as assertive about their own countries and their own system of monarchial government as most Americans are about their own model. Rather than give Americans doubts about the wisdom of standing guard for the monarchies of the world, welcome it and welcome American friendship while using the safety that shield provides to rebuild, reorganize and grow stronger until the great day comes when it is no longer necessary.

Savoy-Bourbon Reconciliation

In response to a question from a concerned reader, I will be addressing here the relationship between the House of Savoy and the House of Bourbon Two-Sicilies. Evidently, some anti-Italian, anti-Savoy people have been spreading some misinformation on this subject, suggesting that there was never any reconciliation between the Bourbons and Savoys and that nothing improved for the Bourbon Two-Sicilies family until the unlawful creation of the republic when they (unlike the Savoy) were allowed to return to Italy to promote their interests and the regional history of Sicily and southern Italy. These people then actually make the case that it was better that the republic be forced on the Italian people as they can see no farther than their own narrow interests and not recognize the wider damage to the monarchist cause this did. They seem to be doing this in an effort to carry on a quarrel that no one else is fighting, indeed that no longer exists. I want to be clear about this point because, while such alleged partisans of the House of Bourbon Two-Sicilies miss no opportunity to slander and defame the venerable House of Savoy, I will not be responding in kind. I have too much respect and admiration for the Bourbon Two-Sicilies to sink to that level, I do not like monarchists "shooting inside the tent" and because I see no reason to carry on such bitterness. 

This is a point I want to make clear: such vitriol and misinformation is not coming from the actual members of the House of Bourbon Two-Sicilies but rather from some of their misguided supporters who seem to want to tear Italy apart and go back to the days of the country being a patchwork of feuding states ruled by foreign powers. Let there be no misunderstanding and no misguided ill-will on this issue: neither of the two royals claiming leadership of the House of Bourbon Two-Sicilies have ever called for the break-up of Italy, the secession of the south or the restoration of the pre-1860 Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies. No member of the family alive has ever done such a thing and it is completely untrue that the Bourbon Two-Sicilies only ever recognized Italy after the victory of a republic, in effect, recognizing a united Italy only so they could be free to try to divide it. On the contrary, the Houses of Savoy and Bourbon were reconciled years before the republican ascendency when the country was still the Kingdom of Italy as it had been originally founded.

It was something many had hoped for to further cement national unity, especially at a time when the Kingdom of Italy seemed to be moving up to the top tier of the great powers. Appropriately enough, the reconciliation started with a romance, a romance between a member of the House of Savoy and a child of the head of the House of Bourbon Two-Sicilies. The couple in question was HRH Prince Eugenio, Duke of Ancona (son of the Duke of Genoa) and HRH Princess Lucia Maria Raniera of Bourbon Two-Sicilies (daughter of Prince Fernando Pio, Duke of Calabria -the last undisputed head of the House of Bourbon Two-Sicilies). The couple obtained the permission of their parents to be married in 1938 in Munich, Germany (the mother of the bride was Bavarian). Prior to this happy occasion, Prince Fernando Pio came to Rome and was received by HM King Vittorio Emanuele III. He recognized the place of the House of Savoy and the authority of the Kingdom of Italy at that time. What did happen later, after the republican victory, was a further show of reconciliation between the two families when, in 1948, HM King Umberto II bestowed on the Duke of Calabria the Supreme Order of the Most Holy Annunciation, the oldest and most prestigious chivalric order of the House of Savoy. The Duke later reciprocated by bestowing on the exiled King of Italy the collar of the Constantinian Order. their most prestigious order of chivalry.

Obviously, these are not the actions of a man holding a grudge about things that happened in 1860 or a man who preferred a republic to the Kingdom of Italy. The House of Bourbon Two-Sicilies, under Prince Fernando Pio, Duke of Calabria, recognized the unified Kingdom of Italy, the authority of King Vittorio Emanuele III and later King Umberto II in their exchange of honors. The two families were reconciled and no member of the Bourbon Two-Sicilies family since has called for the break-up of Italy or wished for any internal strife for the Italian nation. That should be remembered by people on both sides of the issue. I hope that these facts will clarify the situation and allow for all Italian monarchists to come together in common cause against the republic that has shackled the Italian people in mediocrity for far too long. The past should be remembered, the past should be honored but it should not be used as a weapon to do damage to the present and future. Viva l'Italia!