Why is the French Revolution celebrated, while the Russian Revolution is despised?

t. Bolshevik Jew

>He thinks accurate history is propaganda

Eternal Anglo got something right for once.

Last I remember Robesippre did nothing wrong

>Nazbol in Veeky Forums
When memes are taken too far

>people still conflate the February Revolution with the October coup
>some still think Lenin fought against the Tzar, not against the Russian Republic that already replaced the monarchy months earlier

Had Lenin waited a few months Russia would've been a winner from the war, and gained land (including Constantinople) as per the agreement, and instead she lost Ukraine, Baltics, Belarussia, Poland...

Immediate peace at all cost was a mistake. Objectively so.

Napoleon did his best to turn liberalism into a feasible, humane form of government, which is on reason why the Code Civil is still the inspiration of our constitution (and I'm not from France).

Stalin on the other hand made socialism more stiffling and inhumane than it needed to be.

>Last I remember Robesippre did nothing wrong
>Famous for "If you're innocent, you have no reason to need a legal defence."
>Height of power is literally known as "Reign of Terror"

Robespierre was history's greatest pseudo-intellectual. Virtually everyone recognises him as being someone with noble intentions, but who had no business running a major country, and ultimately led to chaos and hypocrisy.

>French revolution
-Made by French
-Went on Crusade to subjugate Europe
-Liberal
-Nationalist

>"Rusian" Revolution
-Made by Jews and commies
>Tried to subjugate the West by deceitful mean
>Commie-Socialist
-Internationalist

One was nationalist and fought gloriously, the other was socialist and fought deceitfuly to fuck up Europe

>celebrate the french revolution

Both of them were retarded, based on more retard ideology

>commies is an ethnicity now

Both revolutions were liberal. The Bolsheviks replaced literal slavery with freedom, mind.

French revolution was ECONOMICALLY(aka true liberalism) liberal, the so called Russian revolution was SOCIAL LIBERAL(LGBT, and other degeneracy) it's not the same thing at all

The french revolution utterly obliterated the economy, and it only recovered by Napoleon stealing wealth from Italy and sending it back home, by selling colonies and titles, and taking loans.

Also, MUH NO TRUE LIBERUL isn't an argument.

>The french revolution utterly obliterated the economy

The foreign invaders obliterated our economy by attacking us ceaselessly

>nd it only recovered by Napoleon stealing wealth from Italy and sending it back home *

Serve them right for fighting with glorious frog master race

>heroes and villain in history
Come on, user.

> Russian revolution was SOCIAL LIBERAL(LGBT, and other degeneracy)
Are fucking retarded? The USSR punished gays with prison sentences and the nuclear family was the foundation of that country. Please stop treating /pol/ as a reliable source of historical knowledge.

>it is another Robesippre held the most power instead of being a member of the committee of which he was the least bloodthirsty episode
Robesippre cut out all radical fractions in the revolution desu, also he never wanted war with other countries, you know the very same war that lead the country to chaos and need for the Terror?

>SOCIAL LIBERAL
Ahahahahahaha. Why do people who don't know what communism is insist on talking about it?

>French Revolution
Execute whores spreading bullshit like anglo femenist and equal right fopr niggers

>"Russian" Revolution
Spread feminism and equal right for niggers

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_in_Russia#The_Revolution_and_Soviet_era
Deal with it our Revolution was based and yours was led by kikes

Europe under French would the Paradise

>our
Larping child.
>misogyny and racism is based
Sick child.

>Spread feminism and equal right for niggers
There were very few black people in the USSR and there is nothing wrong wwith women having rights.

Your revolution? It belonged to the everyone except reactionaries and monarchies

Good goy, hon hon hon

Just coz napoleon, the man who 'ended' the Revolution had these reactionary views doesn't taint the revolution. The French Revolution was a movement towards freedom and empaication, a movement that has not stopped. The first republic may have fallen but the ride has only begun.

The engineers of the Russian Revolution aimed to improve on the French Revolution and avoid its mistakes, just as the French did to the American Revolution. These revolutions are directly related in their radical embrace of enlightment ideas, obviously, each to a different degree.
Conerning the point that one is celebrated while the other isnt. Do not forget that the French Revolution was considered digusting and vile by most other governments (and their citizens) at the time. There are still many people today who condem it, despite the great ideas and republican concepts that came of it. Now that we look back on it more people are open to the significance of what was politically and socially achieved, because the guilt of the violence and tyranny is no longer in the recent past. The Russian revolution is fairly recent and anyone who seriously studies Russian history cannot see it as a "bad" thing. Like the French, things could have gone differently and been less bloody. But if you look at the political and social progress that was made in almost an instant, it is rediculous. Their stance on workers rights, sexism, racism, environmentalism, international aid, etc were decades ahead of the US. In terms of "civil rights" the US only caught up to the USSR in the 1980s. People pointing out the good things the soviet union achieved before, during, and after stalin tend to be called apologists right now, however as time goes on and the bloodshed and human rights violations fade to the background people will focus more on what was attempted in the Soviet Experiment, just like they do in the French.

tl;dr Give it time. The russian revolution is still historically fresh and people are still personal about it. "my grandfather was forced to...etc" In a couple hundred years people will view it kinda the same as we view the French Revolution now.

The French Revolution gave black people equal rights you dibshit

Jews only started hating bolshevism in the 1930s after Stalin purged Jewish bolsheviks and then after the 1960s when the USSR and Israel became enemies. You can see the shift in the USA when communist and trotskyist Jews switched and founded the neocon movement. Before that, the Jews were fully on board with bolshevism.

>the American Revolution
>mistakes

The American Revolution was an unequivocal success.

Don't make me call the embassy, Loys!

Russians love Stalin.

Not all Russia is vata

>The share of those who sympathized with Stalin was slightly lower than the 40 and 39 percent registered in 2015 and 2014 respectively, but still much higher than the 28 percent of 2012, before the ongoing wave of the global financial crisis hit Russia.

I agree it was a success. But they had a couple mistakes...for example:
> All men are equal
> Non-land owning, slaves, and women don't count

>all MEN are equal
>WOMEN don't count
No shit?

>Non-land owning, slaves, and women don't count
>implying this was a mistake

Universal suffrage was the real mistake.

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.

...

A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.

Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism

>All full time
>doesn't factor in overtime/total hours worked, maternal leave, different professions

I fucking hate leftist """academics""".

That's journalism bro, not academia.

PD: But, the point is that women feel because of the cultural inhibitors that have been placed on women, some sort of woman leadership is needed, to compensate and break those barriers, and to make good all the grievances of the past.

AR: You can do it only by education. If women feel there is prejudice against them, you do it by spreading the right idea that women are not intellectually the inferior of men, physically they certainly are…

PD: That’s what feminists are doing. They are standing up and educating.

AR: No. They are asking for government power and government handouts. They go around depriving men of jobs because you have to have quota of so many women.

>quoting the fucking bible in the 21th century on the internet on a hentai forum in a thread about revolutions

How many layers of low IQ are you on?

PD: Well, what should they do, be nice little girls, and not say anything, and stay home and break bread?

AR: No!

PD: Well, what should they do?

AR: Go into any career of their choice, except longshoremen or professional football player [unintelligible] and fight for their career as every man has to fight.

PD: Would you fight for anything?

AR: How did I get here?

...

then explain why they push this garbage in 90% of universities in the continental US.

You mistook this Veeky Forums thread comparing the French and Russian revolutions with a /pol/ thread about hating women.
Go back to the catalog and find a new place to dump your memes.

Where can we expect the next "revolution" to take place, and how will the mob govern itself after throwing out the intelligentsia this time?

I imagine the dictatorship of the people will be a necessary step still, but what comes after?

kill yourself faggot
die in a fire loser
eat shit retard

>he thinks universal suffrage only applies to women

>French revolution
>Made by French
You mean Freemasons and Jews?

You are posting off topic nonsense.
There is no reason for it, not like you are converting anyone.

literal know-nothing fedoraposter
you do not speak for this board

This is a thread about the French and Russian revolutions.
You are posting 21st century american feminist memes, bible quotes and Aryan Rand.

You make no sense, you don't contribute, and have no reason to do this.
Reconsider what you are doing right now.

>Russia would have gained constantinople
Even if that did happen it would be a clusterfuck for decades and the bolsheviks would not have been able to easily seize it

It's still too recent, you'll see.

I am responding directly to user who is talking about the "failings" of the American Revolution when compared to the French Revolution, specifically the lack of universal suffrage. Which I contested by direct contention of the central point.

>he thinks I got more than one (you)
>he thinks there are only two people itt

stop shitposting now you irredeemable retard

The lack of universal suffrage was a mistake, that was later corrected. I am going to bed now, make sure I won't find you being all /pol/mblr when I check in the morning.

>lack of universal suffrage was a mistake

no, it was deliberate.

These are some heavy questions. I expect the next enlightenment based revolution to happen in the middle east, probably Iran. The countries affected by the arab spring might have a difficult time going about it because the people seem bent on theocracy. I feel like India is socio-economically in a good place for a revolution. Social casts very much in play, unrestrained corruption, social oppression wide-spread, and it still has a good amount of indutry and agriculture. The problem with india is that its popultion is so complacent, they never seem that upset or taken advantage of, this is most likely due to Hinduism and the normalization of their respective stations.

>Had Lenin waited a few months Russia would've been a winner from the war
The germans were literally on the outskirts of st. petersburg. then again, the bolsheviks could have evacuated to moscow and then the germans wouldn't be able to launch the spring offensive, which meant the war might have ended more quickly, and plus they're stuck occupying a hostile territory which is bound to hemorrhage troops.

>and gained land (including Constantinople) as per the agreement, and instead she lost Ukraine, Baltics, Belarussia, Poland...
it would've been interesting... something tells me in my but though that russia would have been left in the cold, similar to Italy. The British and French would soon move to prevent a russian takeover of the black sea because that would make russia a very real threat... but i dunno

>but
i meant gut..

>but who had no business running a major country, and ultimately led to chaos and hypocrisy.
first of all, robespierre DID NOT run the government alone. The committee of public safety had around 8 members and they did a lot of the lion's share of running the government from day to day. Robespierre was the face of the Committee, but he wasn't necessarily its leader. He had made a name for himself in the early years of the revolution, and so due to his recognition he delivered speeches on behalf of the Committee communicating its aims to the national convention.
>ultimately led to chaos and hypocrisy.
Excuse me? The Terror was atrocious, that goes without saying, but the Committee achieved all its aims, the most important of which defeating the invasion of France's foes, which they did with resounding success. Robespierre got executed almost as soon as the last of France's enemies were defeated. This wasn't coincidental, because so long as there was a national emergency nobody in the convention could really challenge Robespierre, who was a scapegoat anyway.

>went on Crusade to subjugate Europe
>nationalist
choose one and only one

>the so called Russian revolution was SOCIAL LIBERAL
most retarded thing ive read all day. kys desu

>Turn into feoderati the other people in the name of the glorious French race and topple the enemies of France
>Not nationalistic

Don't get me wrong, if you do read the primary sources you'd see some people thought along those lines deep down. But we're not talking about Napoleon (which i assume you are). The early years of the Revolution saw France invading its neighbors and establishing republics (puppets, but probably necessary in order to avoid a counter-invasion from the enemy). That said, by the end of the 1790s even the Directory was basically advocating imperialism while paying lipservice to republicanism. It didn't have to turn out that way, though, unless you accept that the Republican rhetoric was all a facade to begin with.

>It didn't have to turn out that way, though

The Republic was on the defensive since the beginning, but she was forced to invade its neighbour both to weaken/crush the Anti-French Coalition and to protect its trade.

As said a great man : Peace in the inside, war in the outside.

Bump

>something tells me in my but

But it's not. The French Revolution was literally a mistake. The monarchy was superior in every way