Starts liberating france from feudal aristocrats that had been oppressing their people for generations

Why?

the word Terror in the 18th century didn't have the same negative stigma as today. Robespierre wrote openly about how terror was good and necessary to defend liberty. and he was completely right

He killed a lot of innocent people who were barely "suspected" as being counter-revolutionaries, but I guess it's what was necessary at the time.

Reactionaries gonna react.

At the center of the Terror (Paris), including those who died of tangential causes before being executed, only ~3,000 people were killed. In a city of 630,000 people at the time, that was less than 0.5% dead vs initial population, and that percentage decreases even more once outside of Paris. That's pretty tame as far as revolutions go: more people were proportionally dying in wars both then and now than were killed by the Terror itself.
That's not to say all the deaths were justified, but the scale of death taking place at the hands of the guillotine is almost always overblown.

how did he fuck it up in the end?
where was his Cheka?

Steven Pinker who is a scholar of the 1688 Revolution in England argues that violence from armed vigilantes to say nothing of the Jacobite rebellions the Revolution caused was on a similar scale of violence as the French Revolution prior to the Napolepnic Wars.

Likewise, the English civil wars that established the first and only British republic were estimated by some to have killed between 1/5th-1/3 of the British population.

The US revolution was also quite bloody considering the small population of the colonies at the time and relied on an informal method of interpersonal vigilante terrorism to enforce its results that Robespierre had tried to avoid.

Are you autistic? Legitimately asking, most people don't look at historical atrocities and beep-boop that "only" 1% of the population was harmed

tfw you only look at deaths as statistics

also gj picking only the first few words instead of addressing what the post is actually talking about

~30,000 actually.

The only reason people freaked out was because the "victims" (if you could call them that) were all wealthy and well connected. Kind of like how McCarthy is seen as Satan by western liberals because he hassled some actors and liberal lawyers yet the same people who hated McCarthy actively supported the first red scare that took out the IWW.

Robespierre was a pantsy liberal and Enragés and Jacques Roux were right all along.

[citation needed[

Why is anyone from the left a mass starving and murdering dictator? Atrocity propaganda. Oligarchs can murder millions and its peace bringing operation, but you cant think about increasing taxes because its murder.

The liberal elite actively supported the first red scare. This is a historical fact.

...

Then it should be simple for you to provide sufficient evidence to back your assertion :)

Not that poster but honestly there's no excuse for being such a history brainlet

I thought it was relatively known that the us sent supplies to the whites

...

More like one of those open secrets that everyone prefers not to dwell on in the same way that everybody knows the US arms jihadists whether of the moderate rebel variety or ISIS etc.


We're hitting brainlet levels that shouldn't be possible. Memes and reaction gifs were a mistake

no like I thought it wasnt a secret but then again I probably learned about it via the history channel or reading some book and not from school so w/e

Some of it was public knowledge but Foglesong argues that Wilson had to undertake the intervention primarily through covert methods to undermine the Russian Revolution, due to being boxed in by his own rhetoric, congressional restrictions and fear of public disapproval.

Rarely does the public ever find out the full-extent of what goes on beyond the scenes in an open shooting war and in a covert war/"limited intervention" this is even more the case.

So one of the things the author attempted to do was to document how extensible the intervention really was. In the same way that today the US argues that it only has one military base on the African continent or that it took a neutral position in the Syrian war until circumstances forced it to intervene more openly when both positions are transparent lies.

because the french revolution got too radical and they started purging people suspected of being counter-revolutionaries.

does this sound a little familiar, commies?

THE Steven Pinker?

My point was that it was an armed conflict: all armed conflicts of that sort are going to involve their share of deaths, especially if the conflict is revolutionary in nature.


It's tragic, but again: it's the nature of the historical circumstance. Nobody today is losing sleep at night because some ancestor from 200+ years ago got their head lobbed off by the Committee of Public Safety.
But since you're butthurt that I didn't address every point of your post:
Yes, as such proceedings tend to go.
Were all the deaths necessary at the time? In the establishment of the Republic and defense of the Republic: no. In the establishment of bourgeois rule through an emerging liberal system: mostly yes. A new class was placing itself in the position of dominance amidst the collapse of the feudal system; it needed to ensure that said rule would not be challenged by those who would either seek to reverse the progress made or bypass or usurp their goal of dictatorial (in the Marxist sense) power. Wielding violent force was an inevitable necessity when faced with such goals.


Depends on the means by which the deaths are counted. What I was mentioning was executions in Paris in the 1 year period that most sources agree constituted the Terror. If you extend the time-frame back closer to the start of the Revolution or include other Revolution-related deaths (ones that were not strictly executions), then the number in question can be far more variable.

...

fuck off

I don't see the problem

...

It's a problem when everybody that has business interests in conflict with or power interests in conflict with some fat bureaucrat just happens to be a "counter-revolutionary"

the fat bureaucrats are counter-revolutionaries aswell though

*Pincus
My b

Because modern day booj identify more with the aristocracy getting the chop than they do with their booj revolutionary forefathers.

...