I think you’ve mistaken my point for something it’s not. The “revenge” demanded by the French was financial indemnity, hardly equivalent to genocide. As it happ

I think you’ve mistaken my point for something it’s not. The “revenge” demanded by the French was financial indemnity, hardly equivalent to genocide. As it happens, I also don’t think the Haitians should ever have agreed to pay it (not worth diplomatic recognition in my view), but I do understand why the French were upset after the bloody and unnecessary Massacre of 1804. That doesn't mean they deserved revenge, but it does explain their motivation. The desire for such a harsh indemnity cannot be understood without this context, which the article and OC left out. The massacre and its consequences had profound effects on Haiti’s early development and international relations.