depending on your definition of what a "normal" monarchy is

The best goverment ever.

>Die of plauge
>Executed for 'witchcraft'
>Taxed to living in mud huts

>Not knowing we are taxed more today.

>Die bc an atom bomb.

>Die in the name of "Freedom"

>NSA watching you fap

>Child drag queens

>Wars are becoming more barbaric

because Atom bombs would be so much better in the hands of a monarch, I'm sure.

imagine Wilhelm II with an A-bomb

Bc a monarch looking to get more land would destroy that same land

Not really interested in a debate about it atm, but I am interested in by what measure we are considered taxed more.

Willy sure tried his hardest to destroy a good part of French land he wanted to take

Also, if before anyone tries bringing up prima noctis. That was a bigger myth than smallpox blankets.

and he could have easily nuked London. capital of a nation he did not care for and who's supremacy on the waves threatened his dreams of Weltpolitik

Is it a philosophical war in his mind or an actual territorial war?

a war for the very existence of the Kaiserreich. to Wilhelm, Britain was almost as evil as France

Mate there is your answer.

and he had no interest in occupying the British Isles as far as I know. if he had the ability to crush them and remove them from the war, I do not believe he would have hesitated

When the US got in WWI it became a war of ideology Republic vs Monarchy, when it started as a territorial war.

of course the French and British were quick to reframe the public image along similar lines

I will not say there have never been bad kings such as King Louis X but they are far better than Wodrow Wilson for example.

we can trade good examples and bad as much as we want. one of the problems with American politics is that we've given the chief executive to much power. We've made his office more like that of a king's as time has gone on. the difference between a bad president and a bad king is that there are more people to get in the way of a bad president's decision.

I disagree, given than a King had to beg money for his wars while a president doesn't; a King can be controlled if they are unruly, mad, or bloodthirsty more often than a president than names his delusions as "The will of the people"; Kings are able too do much more good given that it is in his benefit to increase the current wealth and future wealth of his state; A president only thinks of the now.

keep in mind that it was not the republics that declared war first in WWI

Of course

it took the US until 1917 to join

But it ceartainly took a bitter turn when it got in, especially when it came to Germany.

of course it did. all that fresh material bolstering Germany's enemies. some 2 million fresh troops sent to the Western front. it's no wonder the civilian government and the military (the Kaiser himself having fled to neutral Holland) agreed to the armistice.

I was talking about the treaty of versailles.

oh, you mean WIlson's 14 points that the French pissed on?

You know what I'm trying to get, don't be coy.

what are you getting at?

What happened after WWI

Germany's economic collapse caused in large part by the reparations, a brief revolutionary period (not in that order), the dissarmament of germany, the eventual rise of the Nazis, what is your point?

Had Germany stayed as it was before WWI had that happened?

are you trying to suggest that they wouldn't be disarmed under the Kaiserreich?

Had Monarchy stayed in power had that happend?

yes. why wouldn't it have? at any rate, the Monarch himself decided to abdicate.

U sure?