Was he a bad ruler?
Was he a bad person?
Was he a bad thing to happen?
Didn't he pave the road to Napoleon through his rule? People just got so fucking tired of him.
>>1038268
Robespierre literally did nothing wrong.
No
No
No
He literally did nothing wrong
>>1038268
He wasn't a ruler.
He wasn't a person.
He was the Revolution !
>I was only 9 years old
>I loved Robespierre so much, I had all of his speeches and quotes
>I pray to Robespierre every night before bed, thanking him for the Revolution I’ve been given
>"Maximilien is love" I say; “Maximilien is the Revolution”
>My dad hears me and calls me a faggot
>I know he was just jealous of my devotion for Liberté
>I called him a cunt
>He slaps me and sends me to go to sleep
>I’m crying now, and my face hurts
>I lay in bed and it’s really cold
>Suddenly, a warmth is moving towards me
>It's Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre
>I am so happy
>He whispers into my ear “This is my Committee of Public Safety.”
>He grabs me with his powerful incorruptible hands and puts me down onto my hands and knees
>I’m ready
>I spread my ass-cheeks for Robespierre
>He penetrates my butt-hole
>It hurts so much but I do it for the Revolution
>I can feel my butt tearing as my eyes start to water
>I push against his force
>I want to please Maximilien
>He roars in a mighty roar as he fills my butt with his fraternity
>My dad walks in
>Robespierre looks him straight in the eyes and says “Pity is treason.”
>Robespierre leaves through my window
>The next morning, I find my dad decapitated
>The Terror is love. The Terror is life.
Why did he got so much hate?
>>1039804
Reaction must ternish him in order to legitimate itself. Hence the black legend of the Revolution, going on about the Terror, etc. It's a mystification : Robespierre never said that the Terror was up. And so on. Most of the scariest horrors related to the civil war (especially in Vendée) are made up, because victors write history, and it's true that the result of the Revolution has been a fail for the most advanced revolutionaries, i.e. the Sans-Culottes, i.e. the first form of urban proletariat.
From this point of view, we might criticize Robespierre, not as a mad tyrant thirsty for blood, but because he didn't get far enough. He killed the most radical, the "enraged" like Hébert and Chaumette, and for this reason lost the support from the Sans-Culottes, who themselves didn't understand the implication of the fall of Robespierre. It's sort of tragic. Well, we can't rewrite history : it was the time of bourgeoisie's rise, not proletariat.
It's pretty funny how the guy that was committing the reign of terror was wearing a ribbon on his neck
>>1040074
>the guy that was committing the reign of terror
Another fool of the restaurationist propaganda.
>>1038268
>I retarded France industrialization and progress because scientist said mean things about me
>>1040146
wut
>>1040034
But he did got a lot of hate from his contemporaries, didn't he?
>>1040206
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier
>>1040403
But it's a demonstrated forgery, Anon...
He was a degenerate Freemason who undermined the legitimate Catholic identity of France in the name of "progress".
>>1040034
>It's a mystification
It's pretty well documented. If anything, people romanticize the Revolution because "muh democracy".
>>1040445
Or was it Condorcet ? Or pretty much any progressist of that day ?
>>1040454
http://www.bibnumcermtri.fr/IMG/pdf/P_Chronique_Lavoisier_8_.pdf
>>1040469
>James Guillaume
Why would I trust an anarchist?
>>1040403
I studied chemistry instead of French History in college, and I can remember feeling shocked and upset when learning that Lavoisier had been executed during the Terror.
>>1040481
Because the citations needed are provided ?
>>1040491
The Soviet propaganda ministry can find citations. He's a communist trying to justify revolution to obscuring the facts.
Robespierre was a paranoid Freemason who attacked Catholics and anyone perceived as a threat, murdering thousands.
>>1040454
The Catholic church had pretty much degenerated into Aristocratic Deference Force, so purging reactionary elements from it was justified.
>>1040534
Yeah, killing country priests sure is sticking it to the aristocrats.
This is Marxist revisionism.
>>1040541
The Catholic Church has always defended it's host monarchs in each countries, they were and are a remnant of feudalism. Even during Civil War Spain they sided with fascism in order to save the monarchs standing.
>>1040548
As they should to remain order. Better to stand with the Fascists and tradition than to become another cog in the communist machine.
>>1040541
>throwing out Marxism where it doesn't apply
*tips*
>>1040541
You should study the wars of Vendée : they are particularly rich of teachings on the collusion between the Church and the Ancient Regime.
that's also why this subject is a hot theme among the adversaries of the Revolution still nowadays.
>>1040557
Man you are dumb, fascism is not traditionalism, but a high modern autocracy. The King did not posses any power, that was all Franco, but retarded Catholics sided with him to save their untaxed lands and their privileges that the Kings existence assured them.
>>1040559
Marxists whitewash the atrocities of the Revolution all this time to justify their own ideology and ambitions.
>>1040560
You act like merely supporting the aristocracy is enough to justify mass slaughter of clergy and lay people. The Vendee war was a popular Catholic resistance to the excesses of the Revolution.
>>1040575
Franco was not a doctrinaire fascist, and he had always intended to restore the monarchy, but there were competing legitimist factions and Franco had to hold on to power to protect Spain from the threat of communism.
>>1040644
>You act like merely supporting the aristocracy is enough to justify mass slaughter of clergy and lay people.
But supporting the aristocracy had a concrete meaning : it was justifying and PRACTICING the slaughter of the most advanced part of the French people, and planning the return into servitude of the crushing majority of this same people. The Church played a central role in the manipulation of the most arrierated parts of the people, but even there, if you compare the weight of the royalist peasant forces to the rural population who spontaneously created communes during the summer 1789, you see that the royalists are minorities concentrated in the poorest regions and mobilized by foreign/exiled powers, whenever the constitution of independant municipalities is a massive and nation-wide move.
Name one thing Robespierre specifically did that was wrong, with citations and primary source evidence.
>>1041445
Well, there is one thing...
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques-Ren%C3%A9_H%C3%A9bert
>>1040719
>it was justifying and PRACTICING the slaughter of the most advanced part of the French people,
That's an awful lot of rhetoric, especially compared to the actual slaughter perpetrated by the Revolutionaries.
Furthermore, the Revolution was not some popular revolt, but a English-backed coup sponsored through the masonic lodges:
>English guineas were found on the rioters, and Englishmen were seen min-
gling with the mobs during the first days of the revolution. Seditious pamphlets
were printed in London, and there had been a heavy traffic in money, messages,
and letters between England and the revolutionary leaders in France. Many of
those same leaders "were constantly in England both before and during the Revo-
lution; Marat lived for years in Soho, whilst Danton, Brissot, Petion, St. Hururge,
Theroigne de Mericourt and the ruffian Rotondo were all habitues of London.
These facts admit of no denial. ..
E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, pg. 534
>>1041445
>Only the fall of Robespierre in July of 1794 hindered further leveling plans, which Babeuf in all probability would have realized. So Robespierre planned not only to put all Frenchmen (and women) in uniform (like Mao's "blue ants"), he also planned to raze all church steeples as "undemocratic." They were higher than the other buidlings and as a result stood out because of their "aristocratic" bearing. (In Strassburg, preparations were already underway for the barbaric mutilation of the cathedral there.) Another problem that needed to be solved was the language of the Alsatians, qui ne parlent pas la Iangue républicaine, otherwise known as French. Someone suggested taking the children away from those in Alsace-Lorraine or resettling the entire German-speaking population throughout out all of France. Those were costly plans and as a result a more practical solution was worked out, namely, the complete extermination of the germanophone population. As one can see, the French Revolution was not only interested in the good Doctor Guillotin's deployment of mechanical mass murder, it was also interested in genocide and not only in Alsace but also in other regions of the République Une et Indivisible.
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/parricide.html
>>1041689
Have you been snorting solvents?
The Brits were terrified of the Revolution.
They spent millions of pounds over 20 years to defeat the Revolutionary French.
Just another jew-hater, aren't you?
>>1040719
>>1041929
Not that anon. Do you have a better counterargument? He's got documentary evidence.
>>1038268
He wanted a universal egalitarian republic.
You think the fucking church and aristocracy were gonna let go of power just because the people wanted power for themselves?
Long live the Jacobins!!
>>1041943
Yes I do, moron.
His reference is a controversial anti-jewish anti-catholic book with dubious evidence.
Try reading George Rude, Georges Lefebvre, David Andress, Albert Soboul, R.R. Palmer.
Actual specialists in French Revolution history.
After that, read any of the dozens of Napoleon bios, and hundreds of Napoleonic Wars titles.
Don't bother with KKK racist bullshit.
>>1042015
Thanks ;0)
>>1041445
Fucked up killing himself. Bad aim.
>>1043216
Prove the Brits "financed" the revolution.
Parliamentary records?
Record of money dispersal?
Jones IS a known anti-semite.
He is one of those catholics who does not recognize the pope, rejects Vatican II as heresey.
He is not a respected scholar.
Since he filters everything through his "jews are evil" lens, his views are suspect at best.
>>1041535
Why is French wikipedia in English?
Hell, I'm not even a frog but I'm feeling some form of second-hand disgust..
>>1044713
Are you ok anon ?
Saint Just is my husbando
Which bad things did he did?
