Was the French Revolution good or bad for the country?

>guilds
Conserved the quality of the products,and kept the standards of manufacturing high
>Assets of the church
The church was the save guard of lots of people,and in their property they were gorgeous pieces of art that has been lost,especially in the desamortizaciones in Spain
>Regional administration
Way better than a cwntralized body. The cantonal model in Switzerland works pretty damn well.

nice

It should have been more radical.

In what sense? Genociding more regional cultures and centralizing France even more which is something that is dooming the country?

How so?

Centralization,overall decadence of France,which allowed things like the world wars to happen,the loses of traditional institutions and values such as family or culture slowly started to lose their importance in society.

Paved the way for republicanism, communism and ensured Europe would be embroiled in war for centuries to come.

Fuck all of you counter-revolutionaries and your monarchists lackeys.

The Great French Revolution cast off the yoke of aristocracy and the Church.
No more feudalism, no more privilege for nobility and priests.
Civil rights for all men and women.
All equal before the law.
Emancipation of slaves.
But of course, YOU are against this.

Long live the Revolution!
Long live the French Republic!

Oh, like kings NEVER went to war?
Have you read ANY 18th century history?

Got a problem with republics?
Do you prefer aristocracy?

Long live the Great French Revolution!

Dont forget about cultural genocide,25k people executed for not being in favour of dumb ideas and the imposition of a meme religion. But that is not Tyranny,that is.... justice!!!

The war before the french revolution was mostly profesional armies killing each other usually respecting the invaded people. After the French revolution madness wars became birderline genocidal. Another thing that you can thank to the """""glorious"""""" French """"""revolution"""""
There is nothing wrong with aristocracy btw.

>muh six million kings guillotined personally by Robespierre! oy gevalt it's like anudda shoah!
"There were two 'Reigns of Terror', if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the "horrors of the... momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror - that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves."

The monarchy proportionally has caused less deaths than the republican rules. Monarchies lasted 1000 of years and barely any genocide was made. Mao alone killed more people than all the European monarchies combined,and this is not counting Uncle Stalin and Hitler. Robespierre killed more people in a couple of years against civilians than hundreds of years of monarchy. To put this into perspective the evil Spanish inquisition killed 2000 people in 300 years. Robespierre killed around 25k people in his short reing

>missing the point entirely
Monarchies might have not perpetrated purposeful democide on the same level as ideology-driven republics, but they sure as hell killed uncountable millions throughout the years, by inequality, starvation, feudalism, intrigue, colonialism and pointless dynastic wars. This is the real unsung mass murder.

Revolutionaries were often murderous psychopaths, but monarchs were way worse. Fuck neoreactionary revisionism.

What cultural genocide?
That doesn't even make sense.
So what if the Jacobins killed aristocrats, vendeans and others plotting to restore the nobility?

None of you seem to remember the White terror.
Over 10k jacobins were executed or murdered by the Thermadorians and the Directory.

Rightists like to forget THEIR crimes.

Thank you, citizen!!

technically it is.
there's a law that applies worldwide to any country which is treason = death penalty
and when you're a fucking leech and a parasite to your fellow men, you betraying your country therefore your death is acceptable

The french revolutiok tried to genocide the minor cultures in France like the Basques. They destroyed the minor languages and their traditions in the name of a revolution.
And Thermadorians and the Directory just stopped the madness of retards like Robespierre.

Thank you, citizen!

>People in this thread are still ass-blated about what happened over 200 years ago

The French Republic today isn't the French Republic of 1793. After Napoléon Bonaparte came into power, he achieved the stabilisation of France by re-introducing many things lost with the fall of the monarchy.
If anything, France today has more in common with the old monarchic tradition than anything inherited by the Revolution. The French president has a LOT of power, including the complete right to pardon crimes. The french president is essentially an elected King of France, except it only lasts for 5 years.
Hell, the French Republican Guard does monarchic ceremonies. They have a special show number called "La Maison du Roy" where they all dress like old gens d'armes and pompeous noble cunts.

Wrong.
30 years war?
Killed many more civilians than soldiers.
How about forced requisitions, taking food and goods from those in the way of the army?

How many rapes?

C'mon, man!!

Total bullshit. Can you tell me a genocide done by a monarch? Because you will strugle finding one while I have so many choices to pick that is not even funny. Monarchies brought stability to a broken Europe that was collapsing after the fall of the Roman empire. People died of hunger not because of monarchies,but because technology was shit at the time. Monarchies have never confiscated more than 10% in taxes. You cant say the same about the psycos that you support. Dynastical wars were wars between proffesional armies,civilians were not targeted. The only wars that targeted covilians before the French revolution were religious wars,but even this ones havent caused as much harm as any """""revolution"""""" in history.

The 30 years war was a religious war fucktard. Protestants and Catholics were the ones seeking the destructions of each other. Dynastic wars caused only military deaths,other than sieges.

So defending the right to speak your native language is treason too? You guys are borderline retarded

obviously there were excesses like in any other single revolution but the great majority of people getting killed were pretty much scum so nothing of value was lost
needless to say that when there was no more scum to kill they started killing other that could "become scum" in a near future - that's how fear works in a revolution... you start getting paranoid and you have weapons at your disposal, so why not use it?
power is as addictive as cocaine and as the same side effects

>the French Revolution was the worst thing to happen to Europe, of course if we still had the blessed freedom of feudal order today I would be an enlightened noble rather than a filthy peasant

The Republican Guard wears 19th century style uniforms.

The French Republic has little to do with ancien regime.
So their President has power?
So does the POTUS.
No hereditary aristocracy.
No feudal privilege.
No rule by the church.
Women and minorities have civil rights.
People aren't owned by the nobility.

I don't see any profound links at all between the Republic and the monarchy.

Gee, I guess that's why Catholic Spain and Catholic France fought each other during 30 yrs war!!!

Idiot.

Remember the French victory over the Habsburgs at Rocroi?

I admire the English and the Dutch revolution. Their revolutions unlike the French ones werent genocidical,and werent based merely on pure revanchism. The french revolution starts because a bad harvest. There was nothing but hateness and desesperation on its followers. They tried to kill entire cultures,in the name of a revolution. I dont know how can anyone defend those genocidical bastards.

Back in the Ancien Régime feudality was already falling. The aristocracy too ; Many nobles were poor and miserable, while others, young bourgeois, were buying their titles. A few ordinances would have destroyed the Kingdom either way, monarchy was a thing of a past, that's all.
The important thing to understand is that the french Republic changed. Robespierre's dream was never achieved, and the Vth French Republic still has a huge monarchic-vibe, which is normal since Charles de Gaulle was a catholic, monarchist traditionnalist. Today, the french president lives in a palace, has some old king priviledges, and the french administration (From the Conseil d'Etat to the Cour des Comptes) is directly inherited from the old Curia Regis. Hell, there's even the Prud'Hommes, a jurisdiction invented under Louis IX that still exists today.

But the genocide in the 30 years wars hapoened in Germany idiot,which was purely a religious and centralizing war,something that the Jacobines defended. The casualties on the Spanish/French war in terms of civilian population were slim. You should inform yourself before posting that crap moron.

I guess that the Basque small farmers that defended their own language were scum. How can they believe that their children should speak their language? I am disgusted by the mere thought of children speaking the language of their parents.

Total bullshit.
Monarchs and their church allies purged entire populations of "heretics".
Northern Crusades, remember that?
How many jews suffered the wrath of "Christian" kings when they needed a scapegoat?

How about the Hundred Years War?
Lots of misery for civilians then too.

Religion was often used as a cover for avaricious actions by kings.

Feudalism may have stabilized Europe after the western Empire fell, but by the 18th century, it was an anachronism.

How do you Antis feel about the American Revolution?

>I am disgusted by the mere thought of children speaking the language of their parents.

I can.
Ivan IV, the Fearsome, genocided former republican polities of Novgorod and Khlynov, obliterated most of aristocracy and resettled peoples left and right, especially forcing Russians from Grand Lithuania to repopulate Moscow region after Livonian war started going to shit. He also created the grandfather of all secret intelligence services and troops to be used against own civilians, the Oprichnina system.
A hypercentralized state centuries before the French revolt.
Shit went so totally bad during his last years and after him, the Time of Troubles lasting for 20 years or so is still considered worse period than early USSR or Nazi occupation of Western Russia.

French went downhill after Louis XIV, "l'etat est moi" and the like. Absolutist regimes were just as anti-traditional as the modern republics are, and prepared the field for modern ochlocratic anarcho-tyranny.
Consider it "the progress of tyranny", from absolutist kings to early modern republics to communism and fascism to modern caste anarcho-tyranny.

The jews were targeted for the same reason the aristocracy was targeted,why dont you support this one this time? I dont support that by the way.
The HYW was brutal,but its purposed was never to exterminate the other group or the culture. Unlike the posterior revolutions
The American revolution unlike the French one was not about destruction and revanchism, unlike the French one,and it had a real philosophy behind it. It was closer to the Dutch revolution than to the French one.

No, you are wrong.
Your interpretation of the 30 years war is utterly incorrect.
The War was NEVER a religious war after the initial events.
It was an effort by the Holy Roman Emperor to consolidate power by attacking the protestant lands, not for the pope, but it made a good excuse.
"Religious" wars are NEVER truly about religion.
It is all economics.

So go ahead and continue deluding yourself.

I suggest that you read Peter H. Wilson's "The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy" published by Belknap-Harvard.

I didnt know about that. But I oppose centralization at all costs,which is were genocide usually comes from. Which is what the French revolution achieved. They finished Louis XIV and Richeleau's job.

The genocides were committed for the sake of religion. You seem to forget what genocide means. A war doesnt have to be a genocide. And in my post I talked about centralization which is something that I opposed myself.

The funny thing is they managed to kill more random innocents and other republicans in the mass mob hysteria than actual counter-revolutionaries.

Oh, fuck, you are Out there.

The American Revolution had plenty of revanche!
The war in the southern colonies was especially brutal and cruel, with MANY civilian casualties.
Patriot and Tory committed atrocities, but we like to forget that to make our Colonial rebellion "clean".

You obviously haven't read much on pre-revolutionary France, because if you had, you would know that there was a GIGANTIC philosophical process before and during the Revolution. Hell, there are entire books on the subject!!

There was philosphy behind the revolution,but it was mostly ignored. Montesquieu were totally ignored. And the revolution was driven mainly by revanchism,which is something obvious.

I do know the definition of genocide, and there was no program of eliminating an entire genotype of people until the Armenian during WWI.

You oppose centralization? So what?
I do support it.
Is the human race to be divided forever because of old tribal affiliations?
How much longer should we kill each other over land and resources?

Without a centralized government or laws that apply equally across the globe, the parade of death will continue.

No, it is not obvious at all.

Many of the revolutionaries were adherents of Rousseau, the Jacobins especially.

The desire for a universal Republic built on virtue and justice has little to do with a desire for revenge.

For that matter, why is revenge against a hateful, oppressive enemy, such a bad idea?

Yes.

Assblasted reactionaries GTFO.

Fuck this post is dumb on so many ways.
If you target a religion or a culture it is a genocide too. The firs genocide is not the Armenian one. The genocide of cultures is also a genocide,something than the revolutionaries did pleasantly.
Division integrates better than a union. Things like patriotism will always exist,and there is nothing wrong with that. The right to secede,should be universally accept,as segregation can be useful tool against policies that someone may not agree.
A global goverment would be the worst thing that could happen. 1000 of cultures would die,and political systems that have been working for 1000 of years,that had brought prosperity would be destroyed. Remember that if a global goverment was to be established wpuld probably have African corruption,Indian polititians and Sharia as its law,as the natural tendency is to mediocrity unless there is competition.

The worst thing to ever happen to Europe

Rousseau was mostly ignored m8. Dont be a fool. Rousseau wouldnt agree to the centralization efforts of the Jacobines and all that garbage. And no,not all the anti reactionaries were bad,lots of people fought to preserve their cultre,their communal lands or to simply stop the bloodbath against the people that opposed the revolution that was disgusting. Robespierre killed 10 times more people than the Spanish inquisition,and the inquisition lasted 300 years. Only dick people can defend this.

The greatest thing to ever happen to Europe.

>revolutionary cucks manifested by ideology think ruining the west is a good idea
Who /level4/

Carlism was the last true revolution in Europe.

the only way of definitively answering OPs question is by rewinding time and then seeing how history turns out if the French revolution never happens

anything else is pure speculation tbqh with you buddy

>What cultural genocide?
I know you're baiting, but I'm still triggered desu
By the way, it is still an ongoing process. Even though almost nobody from the younger generations is even aware they used to have cultures and languages vastly different from the Republican-approved masonic crap they've been fed with since birth, politicians seem hell-bent on ensuring there will never be a revival nor a mere preservation, as stated by Nicolas Sarkozy a few years ago, or more recently by Hollande, whose government re-draw an absolutely grotesque and non-sensical administrative map for the sake of destroying the few remnants of identity left through land and history.

...

The real red-pill is RED, m8.

...

>Lenin had to liberalize the economy because his litrle project failed miserably.
Not really m8. Lenin made a fool out of himself.

That traditionalist argument operates on false assumptions.

>The revolutionary argument operates on false assumptions.
Ftfy

The USSR didn't fail miserably tho, m8.

It was a roaring success until Gorbachev decided Pizza Hut is more important than not being homeless and having AIDS.

>roaring success
This is b8

It was a """"success"""" because Stalin. Lenin screwed the economy ultra hard at the begginning. And it success depended on imperialism and genociding. So not a big fan.

>roading success

>Education, healthcare, science, art and wealth all skyrocket under the USSR
>It doesn't matter because dah jooz did it.

>Capitalist """"freedom""""

>communist anything

>roaring success

Retard, the USSR only started to work under Stalin's state capitalism. Before that it was a catastophre. Places like Estonia are thriving right now compared to the inefficiemt soviet rule.

Does anyone have the capitalist vs communist countries comparison pre communism. Places like Poland were 10% wealthier than Spain and after commie rule it was 6 times poorer

eesti gtfo of this thread

No but I got this spicy dankness

>Thriving right now
Eastern Europe is fucking North Africa tier right now.

>Communist women

>Capitalist women

It was bad of course but Jacques de Molay was avenged and we got Napoleon out of it so it was far from being all bad.

MUH KULAKS
USSR DINDU NUFFIN
STALIN A GOOD BOY
>Everyone who opposes me is a fascist
*sniff*

I was referencing the picture from the quoted post.

It was wirst before. Estonia or Poland are doing pretty well.

>Actually being a Lemonist

I'm not I'm a Luxemburgist. But Lenin is still a pretty cool guy.

Yes which is why there are more Poles over here in the UK than fucking Pakistanis.

>Lenin
>a cool guy
Literally a complete abject failure.

Because you couldnt leave Poland before. Another thing that capitalism has over comunism,that you can leave the country. Isnt it fantastic?

I'd say Lenin was a massive success given he totally crushed the whites.

And everyone has a job in communism, as opposed to Poland and their double digit unemployment and half a million homeless.

In the long term it was good, mainly thanks to Napoleon who managed to keep the best parts of the Revolution and tone down the Jacobinism.
It certainly wasn't the "beginning of the end" for Europe, it just introduced change with good and bad consequences, most of which were good.

>Literally doesn't understand how economics works
Having a job doesn't mean shit.
The USSR was a bigger slave society than Tsarist Russia ever was.
Stalin was nothing more than an edgy teenager given the reigns of a country, and running it into the ground.
Lenin was a failure, he may have "crushed the whites"(not really his doing), but his state and his aspirations were all undoubtedly wrong.

Maybe shitholes like Moldova and Ukraine, but not the Catholic Eastern European countries.

GDP per capita:

>Czech republic
31,549

>Slovenia
31,007

>Slovakia
29,720

>Libya
14,650

>Algeria
14,504

>Morocco
8,164

>Having a job doesn't mean shit
It means you don't live under a bridge addicted to huffing glue like so many people in the former Eastern bloc are now.

The USSR was the best thing ever to happen to Russia, within a single lifetime they went from a third-world shithole to a super-power with achievements of monumental significance.

>Lenin was a failure, he may have "crushed the whites"(not really his doing), but his state and his aspirations were all undoubtedly wrong.
No, Lenin knew what was up.

People have this mad idea that had it not been for communism Eastern Europe would be just like the west. It wouldn't, it would be Turkey-level at best and extremely destitute countries like more or less the entirety of the Russian Empire gained the most from socialism by far and away.

Lenin is what made this happen, and he's a hero for doing it.

>People have this mad idea that had it not been for communism Eastern Europe would be just like the west. It wouldn't, it would be Turkey-level at best

Do commies just get off to lying?

The thing is this, boosting your wealth as much as possible in communism isn't particularly important. What is are things like education, healthcare, education and housing.

GDP is a very capitalist metric of success.

Czechoslovakia was on par with the west in pretty much every measurable cathegory. Healthcare, industrialization, democracy, everything. Fast forward to the late 80s and it was a shithole. Even East Germany is still a massive craphole compared to rest of Germany and that's despite 26 years of unity and trillions of Deutsche marks spent on integrating them.

Literally every time some commie boasts about communist advancement he pulls examples like Russia or some bumfuckistans in the Balkans but completely ignores that socialism downright ruined countries that were already industrialized.