The Reign of Terror: Was it Justified?
[2023-08-12 10:55:17]
Does the French Revolution seem reasonable for you in the streets, innumerable dead bodies, and heads that cut off fear? The French Revolution lasted 18 months from January 1793 until late July 1794. Meanwhile, 20,000 people including King Louie 16 were murdered by the use of guillotine. Is the French Revolution still reasonable for you? Domination of terrorism is irrational. This description can be supported by examining external threats, internal threats, and methods being used.
External threats are not enough to justify the rule of terrorists. They refuse to offer legitimate expressions to people, they only kill them on the spot. Some soldiers even opposed some of the things their government did, so they fought away from France in other countries. This evidence shows that terrorism control is irrational as they kill everything and kill even innocent citizens. The soldiers also disagreed
Internal threats are also insufficient to justify the rules of terrorism. The abolition of Christmas and Easter is not serious. They later signed a military draft and then killed them if they refused to join the army. To show the example of the revolutionaries, they destroyed 1,600 houses and cut 12 houses in just 5 minutes. This evidence shows that domination of terrorism is unreasonable as they are too cruel.
Response of "governance of terrorists" against external and internal threats is not appropriate. If the Public Safety Commission only doubts you as an anti-revolutionary, they may kill you. If you criticize the government, they may doubt you are an anti-revolutionary. These reactions to terror domination are irrational, as it is impossible to kill someone by doubt.
Though the opposite argument can be made for terror rules. For example, they may say that they are reasonable in dealing with conflicts, as people have to die in order for the revolution to succeed. There are many conflicts between terrorism and internal and external. The government must answer it. But because you doubt that they are anti-revolutionary citizens, executing innocent people is irrational. To make matters worse, they forced citizens to become soldiers. Because they need to choose between soldiers or dead, they choose to die or die. However, the revolution succeeded in establishing the government of the Republic.
It saved France, it worked, and other countries thus created the world today, so terror domination is justified. By violence, the world will look like this. So the rule of terrorism is immoral. It killed a lot of French but brought France to the power of Europe. It helped to change France, which helped to change the world, which created the world we live in. "Men are afraid of death as children are afraid of darkness" - Bacon
Terrorism is seen as a way to survive and gain good support for the revolution, but that does not make sense. As internal threats spread radicalism, external threats became intense, more powerful, and the way was chaotic, and terrorism control extended stay in France until strong leader Robespierre died. Terrorist rule is a support activity to gain rights, but during this time they were robbed until Robespierre's death ended an important day of terrorism
The story and image of terrorist rule dominates our view of the French Revolution. According to folklore, terrorism is a short-term and fatal period, Maximilian Robespierre of the Public Safety Commission and Revolutionary Court accused thousands of people died under the guillotine. The reality of terror is more complicated. Terrorist rule is not moved by a single human being, group, or policy, it is a child with many parents caused and driven by various powers and factors. Regardless of why, it is the most intense age of the French Revolution, as well as the rule of terrorism. Over the summer of 1793 to 1794, more than 50,000 people were murdered by suspicion of anti-revolutionary activities or so-called "opposition to freedom". One-third of this number dies u