[...]That means the USA has to go to war with the Allies for the benefit of an absolute monarchy the USA had zero love or respect for.
To call Germany a constitutional monarchy but Russia absolutist means either absolutism is meaningless or people are bending over backwards to present Russians as despotic while obscuring the degree to which both Germany and Austria-Hungary were just as autocratic and neo-feudal as Russia itself was. Germany officially had a constitution, so did Russia. Austria-Hungary had a byzantine division on ethnic lines, so did Russia. Germany and Austria-Hungary had legislatures, so did Russia. If we're going to call them constitutional, then so was Nicholas II a constitutional monarch.
Otherwise, if we stick to what words mean, as opposed to what we want them to mean, Germany was an absolute monarchy, proud of it, and fell apart at the seams like Austria-Hungary and Russia because dynastic autocracy and modern war don't mesh very well.
And it had a Chancellor accountable only to the Kaiser, a military accountable only to the Kaiser, and the principle of Kommandogewalt which was Fuhrerprinzip Mk. I. I know damn well what an absolute monarchy is, it seems you're the one who has a hard time accepting the self-evidently obvious, namely that Prussia and the House of Habsburg were autocrats, just autocracies ruled by bad autocrats.
Claiming that a monarchy doesn't have power in the hands of the nobles is precisely what the absolutist regimes strove for, so it's a red herring.
Austria-Hungary and Germany were autocracies if we want to be the least bit intellectually honest about what the CPs actually were. Of course if we're not being intellectually honest and are instead relying on the old Russia ain't Europe double-standard than that's another matter. It should be noted that the Kaiserreich inherited the Prussian autocracy, so it's hardly likely that the heirs of Frederick the Great were going to give up absolutist power in a united Germany. Of course for some reason people always scream and twist away from facing the obvious about the German Empire.
Here you are plain wrong. It is the core of the definition of an absolutist monarchy (which goes back to Louis XIV.) that the monarch has absolute that is unrestricted limitless power in what he could do. That was not the case in the German Empire since its foundation in 1871 (and was not the case for the Prussian King since 1849) and was also not the case for the Russian tsar since 1906. A constitutional monarchy is in contrast to an ablsoute monarchy a form of government where the ruler is subject to certain limitations enshrined in a constitution (hence the name). The German constitution constituted the following limitations on the emperor:
- Legislative action was reserved only for the Reichstag and the Bundesrat (the latter was the federal chamber), Art. 5 of the Constitution. That means the emperor was only able to influence the legislative process in his role as Prussian King in the Bundesrat Art. 11) and would have to gain support by the other states (Prussia had only 17 votes out of 58, although a lot of the minor northern states would vote with Prussia on a regular basis). This included all budgetary laws (Art. 69).
- The right to legislative initiative was held by the Reichstag and the chancellor (Art. 23). That meant that the Reichstag could start a legislative process without the consent of the emperor. The emperor could only start a legislative process via proxy (chancellor), who at least technically could refuse.
- The above meant that - although the emperor, his chancellor and the government were not responsible to the Reichstag - they had to work with it, especially considering the fact that the Reichstag had the power to deny funding.
- Reichstag members were protected from prosecution because of their work in the parliament (parliamentary immunity, Art. 30, 31).
- Reichstag elections were general and direct in a secret ballot with universal suffrage for all males at the age of 25 and above (which is incidentally one of the most extensive suffrages at that time, iirc better than the suffrage of democratic states like France, the UK or the USA). A true secret ballot in practice was only established in 1913, however.
- The Reichstag could be dissolved by the emperor before its legislative period was over, but only if the Bundesrat consented to this action (Art. 25).
- The emperor was the representative of the Empire in international relations. He could conclude treaties with other states but if they touched legislative issues under Art. 4 they had to be ratified by the Reichstag and Bundesrat. The emperor could declare war but he would at least need the consent of the Bundesrat. De facto would he need the consent of the Reichstag, because of said budgetary power.
Thus the German Empire was a constitutional federal monarchy. As was the Russian Empire since 1906.* The UK was a constitutional parliamentary monarchy. Neither the German Empire nor the Russian Empire can be called an absolute monarchy in 1914.
There were, of course, quite some differences between Russia and Germany:
For instance, Russia was not a federal state, besides the special rights which were granted to Finland. The tsar had more power than the German emperor: He was the only institution which had the right to legislative initiative (Art. 8). He could veto any law (Art. 9, 86). His powers to conclude treaties with other states or to declare war were unlimited (Art. 13). He was unchecked to declare martial law (Art. 15). He was the head of the church (Artt. 62 ff.) He was perpetually referred to as the sole autocratic ruler throughout the constitution (see especially Art. 4, 5).
Considering how much de facto power the Reichstag gained in between 1871 and 1914 up to and including one of the best election laws in the western world, most of the recent academic publications on this subject acknowledge that the German Empire was well on the way towards full democratisation and a parliamentary monarchy. This is especially exemplified by the debate about the inheritance/estate tax, which in the end despite strong resistance from the conservative side was enacted. The elections of 1912 saw a landslide victory for the SPD and solid results for both liberal parties. The conservatives were dying. And the centre was also losing its appeal. Not to mention the fact the emperor was given a de facto muzzle by the Reichstag after his 1908 blunders which let him to think of resignation. If not for the war one can seriously argue that Germany could have ended up like the UK with a stronger federal aspect.
I am not aware of a mainstream academic publication which argues that the German Empire was an absolutist monarchy. Most of the elements you cited are not a defining aspect of an absolutist monarchy. For example, that the head of the executive has a strong control of the military is a normal situation in most democratic states even today up to and including the USA.
Russia had some different regulations which I consider important enough to make a distinction between both constitutions although the Russian Empire was from 1906 on a constitutional monarchy. There is no doubt about that.
But the question in such an A-H scenario is not how academic scholars would define a form of government, but how the government was percieved by the contemporaries. For the time being I can only speak for the UK and Russia: and Russia had a worse reputation there than Germany when it came to form of government. That was one reason why even the British hawkes like Grey knew that a war to defend the despotic Russia (against Germany) would be out of the question, because it could not be sold to the public. How the US percieved Russia and Germany respectively Ihave not researched yet.
*Sidenote: There was a contemporary publication which called Russia a constitutional monarchy with an autocratic tsar.
Kind regards,
G.