How did an enlightenment movement descend into the Terror?

How did an enlightenment movement descend into the Terror?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

There was no real plan for a post-feudal government. The reason it started was outrage, and because of this, without a plan, the outrage would continue until there was one. So, they started murdering each other in outrage, which did not stop until Napoleon was exiled to Elba.

It always does. Every movement and revolution set to "liberate" someone ends up this way, descending into chaos and terror. First, the revolutionaries slaughter the "oppressors", once those are gone they start slaughtering each other on charges of being contra-revolutionary or foreign agent, and they keep doing this until they get either bored or removed.

>Every movement and revolution set to "liberate" someone ends u-

didn't happen in freedomland

>what is the US Civil War

>It always does
t. assmad divine right of my old kings's nutsack theorist

Not even the same thing. American revolution wasn't really a revolution as it was the local colonial leadership suddenly deciding they're their own country. They didn't aim to overthrow the king in London.

>They didn't aim to overthrow the king in London.
rofl.

>Russia
>France
>Haiti
>China
>Afghanistan
>Arab Spring

John Paul Jones would've gone all the way to the top if he had the chance

Those are good things. Force theory is the best theory. The dead are just impious filth. The only way to have any real (by definition) justice or change, if by violent revolution.

Crises after crises dogpiled on top of another. The French Revolution actually started off pretty tamely, but a combination of foreign (threat of war) and domestic pressures (local uprisings) led to ever more radical measures being imposed to resolve the situation. It didn't help that Louis XVI was so indecisive, which damaged virtually everyone's credibility, from the monarchy to the revolutionaries themselves.

Do you want to parade Afghanistan around as a success story? Because they're the poster child for the series of events described in >Saur revolution, communists kill the rightful president and establish a communist government
>communists start accusing each other of being CIA puppets and killing each other
>high instability, cycle of like 4 communist leaders within a few years, each murdering his predecessor
>eventually Soviets step in, kill the current leader and replace him with a KGB trained guy
>huge popular uprising sparking a civil war happens
>60% of the army defects to the rebels and starts fighting against the remaining 40%
>CIA starts funding the rebels
>communists panic as they're about to be overthrown, call for Soviet help
>Soviets come in and bomb the entire country to shit
>10 years later communism in USSR collapses and Soviet troops leave
>rebels overthrow the communists and form a new government, but they keep disagreeing with each other
>president gets overthrown, a new civil war starts, with each side acting as basically a proxy for independent warlords
>war drags on for several years until both sides are completely depleted and exhausted, then Taliban enters the stage out of nowhere and starts fighting against all the warring parties
>the warlords who previously fought against one another are shocked and quickly unite against the Taliban
>Taliban BTFOs them regardless and forms a new government
>the post-communist government people become the new rebels, hide out in the northern mountain passages and ironically get supported and supplied by Russia
>Taliban eventually pisses off the Americans who invade and bomb whatever was left after the Russian bombings
>country is now completely destroyed
>new presidents are one American puppet after another, while Taliban becomes the rebels and controls a huge chunk of the countryside
>pro-ISIS faction splits from the Taliban and starts fighting against the Taliban
>rinse and repeat

Fucking Girondins thinking people would welcome armed liberators

>CIA started funding rebels after all the 'CIA puppets' are eliminated
Really makes me think

No, they started a little earlier than that.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

>No, they started a little earlier than that.
I meant to imply that the communists' accusation of each other of being CIA puppets is believable considering CIA did eventually interfere in the nation

There's no doubt the CIA was interested in the conflict but there's no evidence any of the communists was on their payroll. That was just used as an excuse for other communists to seize power from their comrades.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Again I am not saying CIA did do it, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

It's highly unlikely they did it because they were negotiating with Pakistan on how to fund the rebels pretty early on. I don't think they would support the rebels and the commies at the same time, sounds like a waste of money.

>try to remove a full millennium of feudal privileges
>end up in war against the rest of europe
>royalist uprising in the homeland
>royalists and moderates looking for a chance to depose you
>get a bit paranoid

>conservashits go: 'well this is why we shouldn't try to change anything, ever'

robespierre *literally* did nothing wrong

Except in America, England twice, Irish independence, the revolutions leading to German unification, same for Italian unification, fall of the USSR, Soviet Hungarian revolutionary after WWI (repressive sure, but shit the bed on lack of peasant support and fled instead of killing everyone), Tunisa post-Arab Spring, Egypt post-Arab Spring (military stepped back in after religious conservatives lost popular support) etc.

The Great Terror was a typical peasant uprising that wasn't put down because the King and nobility were at loggerheads and the new middle class was egging it on. The Infernal Collumns and religious genocide in the Vendee was rural versus urban dynamics plus left over Reformation anger. Only the Reign of Terror falls into that definition and it happened years in during a massive foreign war at a time of high paranoia.

Problem is most people know dick about the French Revolution and think it was originally intellectual Republicans taking control and doing terror when really about 30 things had to happen before they even got power.

>1848 in France
>July Revolution in France

...wait, that doesn't fit your thesis...

I guess a revolution is only leftist and a true revolution if it goes off the rails?

Conservashits are like fucking dogs, they love to feel the boot on their neck and resent people who don't

Freedom is not given, its taken, user

It wasn't enlightened. It was a power trip. They wanted a revolution for the sake of revolution more than they wanted to liberate themselves. Thus spending time being resentful rather than improving oneself.

>What is Vietnam War
we're listing irrelevant wars that happened centuries later right?

Great Terror had nothing to do with peasants, it was almost completely Parisian.

Thanks, Stirner!

Freedom is not desirable.

>Killed Danton
>Did nothing wrong

Pick one.

The terror was mostly just social chaos as the old power structures collapsed and new ones came into being. The reigme put down rebellions in the same way every other state in europe did at the time and in its search for traitors shit got a bit out of hand, not uncommon in such uncertian times.

>The ancien regime was not an actively hostile force

Hey user if I beat you with a shilelagh every day would you fight back?

Sorry, meant the Great Fear and typed terror.

>muh freedumz
>muh freederm mudafucka
literally burger tier

> Greatest nation in history tier
> Bad

...

t. Monsieur de Maistre

>Haiti was better before the revolution
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

...

le ebin epic meme XDDD