[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Extra juicy! | Home]

Oh, don't mind me anon, I'm just here to ruin everything

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 32
Thread images: 2

Oh, don't mind me anon, I'm just here to ruin everything for everyone.

Due process of law? Phshh. Sounds like something a counter revolutionary would say!
>>
>be moderate
>advocate against the execution of royal women with no political power
>be the only one of the Committee of Public Safety with the balls to recall Carrier and want him put on trial for his barbarity in the Nantes
>support a provisional law during a time of both civil war and war with pretty much all of Europe that makes it easier to imprison people for suspected counter-revolutionary activity since, y'know, counter-revolutionary activity threatens the stability of the republic
>go down in history as an eeeevil dictator monster because living enemies get to rewrite history

sucks, man
>>
>>293334
>we can only achieve stability by killing thousands of our own people
>>
>>293334
>support a provisional law during a time of both civil war and war with pretty much all of Europe that makes it easier to imprison people for suspected counter-revolutionary activity since, y'know, counter-revolutionary activity threatens the stability of the republic
>go down in history as an eeeevil dictator monster because living enemies get to rewrite history

>Talk about the rights of the people
>Suspend the rights because if we grant them, people might misuse them!

I'm glad Robespierre died screaming. I only wish he could have experienced the terror and pain of every execution his law made possible, where innocent people went to their death because "muh republic can't stand dissent!"
>>
Please end the suffering of the modern world.
>>
>>293342
>we can only achieve stability by killing thousands of our own people

There were pockets of people who were executed for their rank or association with the old regime (but ancien and previous political figures) but the number of those is comparatively small when put against people executed, with proof, for treason.

And even then: Robespierre was not some all powerful dictator who twirled his little ponytail and personally signed off on every execution or death in the country. He was one man on a Committee. One man who, on more than one occasion, noted that the executions had to be judicially just and spoke out when they were not.

>>293355
>Suspend the rights because if we grant them, people might misuse them!

No? Where did you even get that? Suspending rights during states of emergency is nothing radical. Done before the French Revolution, done after. France was in a state of war on all sides at the time these decrees were made. Not to mention that the Law of Suspects wasn't even created by Robespierre! But "muh history channel documentary!!" strikes again, I guess.

>where innocent people went to their death because "muh republic can't stand dissent!"

Yeah, innocent people like murderers, embezzlers, thieves, people sending money to emigres to fund an army that would invade France--an army which literally stated it would slaughter Parisians who didn't submit to royalist rule.
>>
>>293473
>And even then: Robespierre was not some all powerful dictator who twirled his little ponytail and personally signed off on every execution or death in the country. He was one man on a Committee. One man who, on more than one occasion, noted that the executions had to be judicially just and spoke out when they were not.
But let them continue. He also said the King couldn't be given a trial, because he might be acquitted and that just wouldn't do. And that even though he spoke out against the death penalty before, he decided it didn't count when dealing with someone he wanted wrong
>>
>>293334
>Hey you stupid plebs, completely upend your entire civic and social structure and submit to our meme government that literally murdered the previous one, pay us a huge tax, stab your nobility in the back and give us your men to fight in our army
>Okay, you didn't do what we told you to do so we'll raze your entire region to the ground and genocide you to teach everyone else a lesson


Not everyone has forgotten Vendee, senpai. The only good Jacobin is one swinging from a gallows.
>>
>>293501
>The only good Jacobin is one swinging from a gallows.
Here here! Let every Jacobin know that his attempts to weave lies and slander with his tongue will be his undoing and that he shall hang, a short drop before being plunged into the depths of hell for their wretched crimes!
>>
>>293473
You are an absolute lunatic for trying to defend or justify what robspoophead did.
Especially while using sensationalist wording like "regime" and what not.
Some people liked monarchist rule and tried to fund an army to reestablish it? OFF WITH THEIR HEAD BECAUSE MUH FEELS.
>>
>Confiscate church land
>Destroy church property
>Oppress clergy members
>Send hundreds of priests, nuns, and bishops to the gallows because they won't swear allegiance to your new government

Totally a revolution based in reason and worthy of support!
>>
>>293480
>But let them continue.

And how was he supposed to stop them? He was not in control of the government. He had to stop speaking up for Marie Antoinette (he argued against her trial and certain execution) because his own life was threatened.

>He also said the King couldn't be given a trial, because he might be acquitted and that just wouldn't do.

Notice how you're leaving off a really, really big chunk from the narrative here? WHY did Robespierre say that? Because, golly gee he just happened to want Louis dead because of some personal grudge? No. Because Louis XVI was the king, the very symbol of the oppressive ancien regime which had been swept away.

>Louis cannot be judged, he has already been judged. He has been condemned, or else the republic is not blameless. To suggest putting Louis XVI on trial, in whatever way, is a step back towards royal and constitutional despotism; it is a counter-revolutionary idea; because it puts the Revolution itself in the dock. After all, if Louis can still be put on trial, Louis can be acquitted; he might be innocent. Or rather, he is presumed to be until found guilty. But if Louis is acquitted, if Louis can be presumed innocent, what becomes of the Revolution?

Not to mention that Louis was working against the revolution from the start. Louis was writing foreign rulers asking them for armed intervention. Armed intervention with came with the promise of the slaughter without mercy for all men, women and children if they didn't submit to foreign, royalist armies intent on putting a king back on the throne.

>>293501
>cries about the Vendee
>says not a single thing about the hundreds of thousands of French republicans killed by royalists in that same civil war
>says not a single fucking thing about the millions of peasants starved, kept poor and executed for petty shit during the ancien regime

As long as the oppression wears a crown, it's okay, right?
>>
>>293550
>it's okay for people to raise royalist armies that say they'll kill women and children who don't submit to monarchical rule
>OFF WITH THEIR HEAD BECAUSE MUH CROWN

Ah it all becomes clear. Oppression and murder are fine when done under the name of the crown. Spoken like a true royalist!

>Especially while using sensationalist wording like "regime" and what not.
>the term by which its referred to in all history books and texts is sensationalist

Did you eat gilding off the walls the last time you went to Versailles, or?
>>
>>293566
>Not to mention that Louis was working against the revolution from the start. Louis was writing foreign rulers asking them for armed intervention. Armed intervention with came with the promise of the slaughter without mercy for all men, women and children if they didn't submit to foreign, royalist armies intent on putting a king back on the throne.

Wow. Your proof sounds incontrovertible. If he was put on trial, there would be no way he could be acquitted! Oh, wait. Robspoophead didn't care one bit about justice and wanted an obstacle to power out of the way.

All Jacobins deserve his fate. Thankfully, many of them received it and people cooled down after they executed this insane dictator
>>
>Talk about the rights of the people
>Suspend the rights because if we grant them, people might misuse them!

Give one good example of human rights being useful.

I'll wait.
>>
>>293574
>Robspoophead didn't care one bit about justice and wanted an obstacle to power out of the way.

He literally said why putting the king on trial was a bad idea. Read it, more than once if you have to, because it wasn't "gotta get this obstacle of power out of the way."

>people cooled down after they executed this insane dictator
>cooled down

I... you have to be trolling, right? Roleplaying because you're on Thanksgiving break and have nothing to do? Because people certainly didn't "cool down." White Terror? Thousands of people slaughtered by royalist gangs roaming the streets if they were suspected of being revolutionary? Ring any bells?
>>
Slaughter is okay as long as the victims aren't royalists!
>>
>>293721
>He literally said why putting the king on trial was a bad idea. Read it, more than once if you have to, because it wasn't "gotta get this obstacle of power out of the way."
Of course that's not what he said. But he wanted power, and he took it. No matter who it harmed. Like a ravenous beast, he took liberties with the fair maiden France

>I... you have to be trolling, right? Roleplaying because you're on Thanksgiving break and have nothing to do? Because people certainly didn't "cool down." White Terror? Thousands of people slaughtered by royalist gangs roaming the streets if they were suspected of being revolutionary? Ring any bells?

>Slaughter whites left and right, and people even suspected of being a white.
>The tide turns and they use physical force against your attempt to take power once again.
>Wahahahah! Robespierre didndu nuffin wrong.
>>
He saved France and the Revolution and he restored order by getting rid of all the crazies.
>>
>>293755
He was a crazy. He and the Jacobins had to be put down like rabid dogs.
>>
>>293473
>There were pockets of people who were executed for their rank or association with the old regime (but ancien and previous political figures) but the number of those is comparatively small when put against people executed, with proof, for treason.

September Massacre?
>>
>>293574
And Louis XVI gave away French military positions, causing the death of French soldiers who fought for their country and their king.

He deserved his fate.
>>
>>293760
He was a moderate. He got rid of both the warmongering Girondins who had put France in this state of chaos, and the insane Hebertists who were ruling the Paris Commune and who'd have people executed by the thousands based on rumour of them not being revolutionary enough, and he ended the civil war. France emerged from the Reign of Terror for the first time with some level of peace and stability.
>>
>>293766
Robespierre didn't commit the September massacres, the Hebertists did, the Paris Commune excited by the press. Exactly the people that Robespierre wiped out shortly after.
>>
>>293779
>Notice how you're leaving off a really, really big chunk from the narrative here? WHY did Robespierre say that? Because, golly gee he just happened to want Louis dead because of some personal grudge? No. Because Louis XVI was the king, the very symbol of the oppressive ancien regime which had been swept away.
>>Louis cannot be judged, he has already been judged. He has been condemned, or else the republic is not blameless. To suggest putting Louis XVI on trial, in whatever way, is a step back towards royal and constitutional despotism; it is a counter-revolutionary idea; because it puts the Revolution itself in the dock. After all, if Louis can still be put on trial, Louis can be acquitted; he might be innocent. Or rather, he is presumed to be until found guilty. But if Louis is acquitted, if Louis can be presumed innocent, what becomes of the Revolution?
He's only considered a "moderate" because from 1791 onward the political center moved further to the left. Just being between the right and the left doesn't make you center. If anyone was truly centrist in the Revolution it was Lafayette or arguably Danton.
>>
>>293791
Yes it literally does. Being in between two opposing sides is the definition of moderate.

Lafayette was ridiculously incompetent and responsible for the Revolution getting this bloody in the first place. As head of the national guard he allowed riotous crowds to do whatever including march on the royal palace, all without enforcing any sort of order. He only woke up when it had gotten way out of hand, and he's responsible for the Champs de Mars massacre that made everything much worse.
>>
>>293833

To be fair to Lafayette, the National Guard refused to listen to him multiple times, and the massacre at the Champ de Mars was in no way intentional.

But yes, as a whole, Lafayette was an incompetent who had visions of grandeur of himself as the hero of the nation. He definitely did try to coup the National Convention, but he had basically zero support and that was news to him.
>>
>>293833
>Yes it literally does. Being in between two opposing sides is the definition of moderate.

Then Lenin was a centrist in 1920.
>>
>>293833
>>293853

Suppose I'm dealing with two other people. Person 1 says each of us rapes a woman we just found. Person 2 says only one of us should. If I say only two of us should, does that make me a moderate?
>>
>>293866
I see your point, but it essentially voids the concept of meaning. Since there's always someone further to the left/right anyone could be termed a moderate under this meaning. Moderate is a certain metaphysical approach to politics, like Platonism and Machiavellianism; safe to assume neither Robbespiere nor Lenin shared it.
>>
>>293866
Yes.
>>
>>293879
This.
Thread posts: 32
Thread images: 2


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.