The period of the Reign of Terror, September 1793- July 1794, resulted in significant political and social changes in France. One of the claims made by France was that they were under constant attack by Austrian and Prussian troops. The conflict as also called by other names. The Terror had an economic side embodied in the Maximum, a price-control measure demanded by the lower classes of Paris, and a religious side that was embodied in the program of de-Christianization pursued by the followers of. The was adopted as part of a program of de-Christianization.
Economics, Labor theory of value 1340 Words 5 Pages the reign of Stalin he was able to establish himself as a successful dictator through totalitarian rule. There is, perhaps, and argument for Stalin's. In a way, the French, like many who have preceded them, and many who will proceed them have done the impossible, rewriting history. Power in this assembly was divided between the more moderate , who sought a and economic liberalism and favored spreading the Revolution throughout Europe by means of war, and the , who preferred a policy of radical egalitarianism. Let the despot govern by terror his brutalized subjects; he is right, as a despot. It is my opinion that even though there were some mistakes made in the determination to invade Iraq, it was a just decision on both a security and a moral basis.
The same fool who sent soldiers, ships and money in a foreign war American Revolution yet completely disreguarded the condition of his own people. In document C, they used threats by using the draft and making them fight involuntarily. Were the values expressed by the French Revolution necessary though? The Julio-Claudians were Roman Nobles with an impressive and significant ancestry in the Roman Empire. With the radical Jacobins in power, the country was in tumult, and a Reign of Terror ensued due to a law of suspects that legalized local revolutionary committees. The Desperate times called for desperate measures, all suspect counter revolutionaries had to be executed. Many thought that what Robespierre was doing would just lead to a greater anti-revolution movement, which would in turn increase the number of executions.
To completely understand the reasoning behind the War on Terror, the history of terrorism should be analyzed between the Cold War and September 11, 2001. In 1793, he was guillotined. The Terror was instigated and carried out by a coalition of Jacobins and sans-culottes. However, the only way to control the citizens to adapt to the new way to act and behave in society was through violence. Terror was the order of the day.
It was a time of bloodshed and murder, aimed to destroy counter revolutionaries and conspirators, and attack foreign enemies, which resulted in the deaths of around 20,000 to 40,000 people, and was viewed by Robespierre as an inevitable period to stabilise France. My opponent has asserted weakly that the anti-monarchies are unjustified, sure, but the Jacobin regime? Counter revolutionaries: I can't make huge rebuttals since my character space is running out. This terrible war waged by liberty against tyranny- is it not indivisible? The privileged classes, including the clergy and the nobility, were exempt from most of the taxes passed on to the poorest rungs of French society: the farmers, the common laborers, and the peasants. In October 1793, the pro-revolutionaries decided to make an example of the counterrevolutionaries by setting their homes on fire and chopped off 12 heads within five minutes. We see the true unfairness of the Terror in this spike of killings. During that time, the Revolution was in extreme debt, due to wars. They feared the old order and beheaded any of the old nobility who suggested it be reestablished.
Although I still think its not justified due to there bad threats lack of reasons and good fair methods shown throughout mostly documents: C, F, E, and A. He became a dictator and greedily sought to take over the world. Anyone suspected of aiding the enemy was swiftly put on trial and executed. There was spaghetti law enforcement. Others did not take action against… 4589 Words 19 Pages The Reign of Terror History is said to be written by the winners, but is it possible to rewrite history? Conclusion: There are many opinions on this subject for example others may say, the Reign of Terror was justified because being violent and taking extreme measures was the only way people would listen and react. Answer: was led by Maximilien Robespierre As this is an open question, there are many different views: Answer 1 - No Terrorism cannot be justified, as it is nearly always the case that aggressive acts of terrorism are perpetrated by individuals who do not represent the majority of society. The government forced terror in the hearts of the French.
Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. Despite of all those horrible things, war have always exists like if it were part of human nature. But I do agree that the deaths of the revolutionaries caused by counter revolutionaries are unjustified, which is why the reign of terror prevented a larger scale uprising and even more suffering. This lends weight to arguments against the Terror's justification. Overtime, feuds between political parties got to an all-time high. It was on these tenets that the revolution began and ironically only four years later a man of great strength would take control of France and begin the Reign of Terror, this man was Maximilien Robespierre. Does your government therefore resemble despotism? Jean-Baptiste Carrier put his victims into vessels with trapdoors for bottoms and to sink them in the Loire River.
Committee of Public Safety, French Revolution, Guillotine 944 Words 3 Pages The reign of terror was a period of violence in which occurred from 1793- 1794 after the strong onset of the French Revolution. Other History Sourcebooks: Selected Sources Sections Modern History Sourcebook: Maximilien Robespierre: Justification of the Use of Terror Maximilien Robespierre 1758 1794 was the leader of the twelveman Committee of Public Safety elected by the National Convention, and which effectively governed France at the height of the radical phase of the revolution. Laws were passed that defined those who should be arrested as counterrevolutionaries, and committees of surveillance were set up to identify suspects and issue arrest warrants. The reign of Terror was not justified this claim can be supported by three main reasons the threats to the government weren't big enough, the methods did not justify it, and the actions of the government contradicted the ideals of the revolution. The laws they fought against were laws against Christianity. It is easy to be a great leader when times are good, but a good leader only proves himself during rough times.
The French Revolution has been building up for years under the rule of King Louis 16. G The Reign of Terror was not justified because the threats to France externally and internally did not warrant the methods used. In February, war was still going badly for France. The War One, he has to justify the deaths of those counter-revolutionaries. The French were only able to mobilize about 200, 000 troops. This was because Louis was having financial, and harvest issues.
If the question is asking if it is possible for people to justify terrorism, the answer is: Yes. Originally it seemed that France was doing the right thing to hire spies in neighborhoods. In one swift stroke Japan had silenced yet enraged the whole of the United States. They also believed that Socrates was corrupting the youth. No one was safe from suspicion and a word against the government could mean a death penalty or jail time.