> You seem so poisoned with anti-English xenophobia Even if I was, why would being so anti-French like the English establishment and its followers are be ok, b

> You seem so poisoned with anti-English xenophobia Even if I was, why would being so anti-French like the English establishment and its followers are be ok, but not being 'anti-English'. > spreading disinformation You are not the arbiter of truth. Neither the establishment that you are defending. The one that was called the 'perfidious albion' for 400~ years by now. This is the first time I see someone talking about 'misinformation' regarding referenced historical material. It comes across extremely funny. Demonstrates how big the gap is in between how the Angloamerican world sees itself and the world and the rest of the world does. > Denying the existence of The Terror is just weird. It was condemned at the time by fellow Jacobins like Danton/Desmoulins who were then executed themselves as the revolution devoured it's own. Robespierre had lost his mind by this point. Aside from the charged emotional wordage used in your paragraph giving away the level of ire and propaganda levied against those who you consider to be your 'historic enemy' in line with your establishment's propaganda, nobody denies the existence of executions. ~3000 people were tried and executed in Paris. What is 'denied' is the delirious, emotionally charged exaggeration that comes from the establishment you stan for - just like your emotional approach, that establishment has portrayed this event as if millions of ordinary French were wrongfully killed. With the judge, jury and executioner of that sentence being the English establishment, the traitorous aristocrats who escaped to England, and those who finally accomplished in destroying the French Revolution. Its like asking Dick Cheney to describe the Iraq War... > It isn't called la Terreur because of English propaganda but because the revolutionaries openly discussed the concept and deliberate use of terror in the period. You can quibble about what they meant by it and whether or not terror was an official policy or just the reality, but that is where name arises. Robespierre: "The basis of popular government in time of revolution is both virtue and terror". The word 'terror' had different meanings 300 years ago. Whereas it has been made into something quite different from the usage in the period in the following centuries. Maybe they should have used the word 'fear of god' instead of the more rational-sounding 'terror'. Like how it is in the Anglosaxon literature. Then it would be all good and well. Regardless of the propaganda subversion of a term from a different language by a hostile establishment, the incident is what it is - the execution of ~3000 people, mostly the aristocrats and their surrogates for conspiracies against their own people. > The official figures are 17k executed (2-3k in Paris) and 10k died in prison awaiting trial. The Anglosaxon 'Terror' propaganda is about the executions in Paris. Its about 'blood flowing in the streets'. Guillotines. Not the events that transpired elsewhere in France, during the wars, or in the killings of the revolutionaries by the French aristocrats or the foreign armies that they have called in to murder their own people. It is very likely that even more people died from both sides in the events during and after the revolution. But the English propaganda is not about that. Its about 'blood flowed in the streets'. Emotional manipulation to demonize. Because otherwise different sides in a civil war executing collaborators of the other faction in court martials across the countryside does not make the same emotional manipulation effect. Even more so because the English history is chock full of such incidents, and the accusation would turn against the propagandists themselves - hence, 'blood flowed in the streets - guillotines!!!'. ... There is absolutely no difference between how the French Revolution was demonized in this manner through emotional propaganda and how other targets of the English establishment were demonized before and later. All the way from starting the demonization of the Spanish by the Elizabethans to the demonization of Europe during the Brexit process. Here is an example of the actual terror that existed back in that time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre That doesnt count, of course. It was not directed against the aristocrats, but commoners. Who are not 'real people'. ... Yes, how the French Revolution is viewed outside the Anglosphere and inside the Anglosphere is !starkly! different. For your demographic, this is a vicious football matchup in which you must vilify and demean your opponent even if the arguments are based on lies for emotional manipulation by totally invalidating even the principles that built our modern society by originating from that revolution. For the rest of the world, its one of the most important events in history of the world. An event that permanently destroyed the myth of the god-given rights of the aristocrats to rule, and freed the world from their yoke.