Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

World History

white_wolf

(6,257 posts) Thu Mar 1, 2012, 09:56 PM Mar 2012

Was the Terror necessary to defend the French Revolution? [View all]

I'm just curious, do you all think that the Reign of Terror was a necessary to protect the Republic during the French Revolution? I've heard several people argue that without the Terror, the revolution would have failed, but of course others disagree. What do you all think? I came across this video by a philosophizer Slavo Zizek where he defends it a necessary.

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Was the Terror necessary to defend the French Revolution? [View all] white_wolf Mar 2012 OP

Sorry, but I think.... fladem2006 Mar 2012 #1

I don't think that it was necessary for the terror JDPriestly Apr 2012 #2

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is bemildred Apr 2012 #3

I think the removal of the French Royal Family was necessary for the success of the Revolution, Matilda Apr 2012 #4

Yep, it's always about becoming the emperor yourself, never about destroying the empire. bemildred Apr 2012 #5

Mark Twain on "the two terrors" JackRiddler Apr 2012 #6

Mr. Twain is wrong Rittermeister May 2012 #8

You're oversimplifying. JackRiddler May 2012 #9

This message was self-deleted by its author bemildred Apr 2012 #7

"necessary" is irrelevant, the Terror was MORALLY WRONG, period. Odin2005 May 2012 #10