betiko wrote:how dare you compare Robespierre with Hitler? He brought democracy, fought against slavery, death sentence, fought for human rights and to let black and jews vote...
On 5 February 1794 Robespierre stated, more succinctly that, "Terror is nothing else than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible."
“ The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny. ”
— Maximilien Robespierre, 1794
The result was policy through which the state used violent repression to crush resistance to the government. Under control of the effectively dictatorial Committee, the Convention quickly enacted more legislation. On 9 September the Convention established sans-culottes paramilitary forces, the revolutionary armies, to force farmers to surrender grain demanded by the government. On 17 September the Law of Suspects was passed, which authorized the charging of counter-revolutionaries with vaguely defined crimes against liberty. On 29 September the Convention extended price-fixing from grain and bread to other essential goods, and also fixed wages. The guillotine became the symbol of a string of executions: Louis XVI had already been guillotined before the start of the terror; Marie-Antoinette, the Girondists, Philippe Égalité, Madame Roland and many others lost their lives under its blade.
The Revolutionary Tribunal summarily condemned thousands of people to death by the guillotine, while mobs beat other victims to death. Sometimes people died for their political opinions or actions, but many for little reason beyond mere suspicion, or because some others had a stake in getting rid of them.
Among people who were condemned by the revolutionary tribunals, about 8 percent were aristocrats, 6 percent clergy, 14 percent middle class, and 72 percent were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion, rebellion. Maximilien Robespierre, "frustrated with the progress of the revolution," saw politics in a rather tyrannical way because "any institution which does not suppose the people good, and the magistrate corruptible, is evil."
All tyrants are united by the basic idea that the public good justifies killing opponents. Robespierre's victims may have only been in the tens of thousands, while Hitler's exceeded ten million, but their basic presumption -- to end the lives of others to impose a new social order -- is the same.
And thus ends my digression here. If you want to continue this, take it to Shroedinger's Catbox.
he is definitely a controversial character in french history; The french monarchy was a tyrany though that had lasted over 1500 years. Stuff got out of hands the first years when they took over, some nobles that were decent guys and apreciated in their region got blindly targeted. I've had some of these conversations with a friend that is Marquis and another that is Count.
But can you really compare him with someone who went for ethnic epuration, mass torture, created concentration camps to effectively erradicate all races that were not worth living acording to him?