The title of your publicationIs War Ever Justified Essay

All war is a symptom of man's failure as a thinking animal." (Steinbeck)

There is no such thing as inevitable war. If war comes it will be from failure of human wisdom. Is it possible to live in a world without war? In order to answer this complicated question one needs to examine arguments that may provide some sort of reasonable merit to justify why this statement is indeed correct.

Beliefs:

Realists would argue that war is inevitable simply because of the biological makeup of the human race, and high capacity of anger. From a socio–biological perspective this violent nature could impact on how we execute international politics. We can also say that war is inevitable from a psychological perspective. Many psychologists theories that human aggression can develop into frustration, aimed at something unobtainable and irresolvable, and so therefore displaced onto civilians.

The belief that a war–like spirit is built into the human psyche is an "intensional" one. It is simplistic, subjective, and narrow. It needs to be "extensionalized" to consider the many factors that are involved.

Historical Perspective:

We as a civilization have grown up learning in schools about the vast number of great wars from the Medieval Ages all the way to the modern days. War and conflict have been engrained so much into our way of life that we almost instinctively assume that disputes between nations which end up in a bloody conflict is almost...show more content...

In that sense it is important to recognize that no law of physics or sociology requires us to have war because we have some other institution. In fact, war is not required by a particular lifestyle or standard of living because any lifestyle can be changed, because unsustainable practices must end by definition with or without war, and because war actually impoverishes societies that use

The Revolutionary War Was Justified

Imagine a country where the government could do anything they wanted because it was simply their "right." The revolution was caused by a series of events which were started by the king passing taxes on the colonists and enforcing laws which were violating the civilians natural rights. There has been an argument since the war started about whether the colonists were justified in declaring independence and breaking away from their home country. The American colonists were justified in waging war for independence against Britain because the british government ignored countless formal petitions sent, the government didn't have the right to impose taxes on the settlers, and Britain waged war against the colonists. The first reason the revolutionary war was justified was because the king ignored a myriad of petitions. In return, their "petitions have been answered only by repeated injury." (7) Can you serve, respect, and honour a country that has brought death and soldiers into your land?

Even after the King George III received the pleas of the settler, he continued to send more troops to their land, waging a silent war with the colonist's. In Thomas Paine's Common Sense, makes a very bold point that supports a big reason why the colonists were not guilty of declaring independence from Britain. He says "But...then tell me whether you can hereafter love, honour, and faithfully serve the power [ English Parliament ] that hath carried fire and sword into your land?" (6)What

Paine

Get more content

There have been varying views as to the definition of war, while others have a broader definition to include even conflicts at home, between family circle, within and out of the immediate family; others limit the concept of war to social phenomenon which occurs only between political communities or within intellectuals. In all war according to Encarta English dictionary is "a period of hostile relations between countries, states, or factions that leads to fighting between armed forces, especially in land, air or sea battles." While many have questioned the justification of war because it elicit tremendous cruelty and suffering, others have held high that war is "a peculiar human activity, in that it can bring out some of our best traits, such as courage and self–sacrifice." (David – 2000) The big questions are: Is there anything like just war? Or can war ever be morally justifiable? What is the relationship between human nature and war? Or is war part of human nature that is inevitable? These and many other ethical issues and questions raised by war and what some define as just war will be considered in my paper. Let's consider the question, is there anything like just war? Evidently, there is the theory of just war which holds high and on which bases...show more content...

While there are many philosophers who buy the idea of Hobbes saying that without imposing law, which people could have been in warfare. The fact that in man, war is inevitable and any attempts at peaceful federation are futile has been on the acceptance by many, yet other school of thought argues that in the state of nature man is naturally peaceful and not belligerent. Philosophers such as Kenneth Waltz for example argues that "while human nature no doubt plays a role in bringing about war, it cannot by itself explain both war and peace, except by the simple statement that sometimes he fights and sometimes e does

Justification of Violence

Violence and the justification of it has been an issue for as long as the world has been in existence. There are many conflicting opinions on the subject, many in favor and many opposing the idea. I am personally split on the issue; I believe that in some cases, violence can be justified; however, I also believe that in others, it cannot be. In my opinion, the only instance in which violence can be justified is self–defense. I believe that if an innocent person is attacked for some reason and their life is put in danger, they have the right to fight back to save themselves. How can a person let themselves be attacked and do nothing to help themselves survive? It's almost unreasonable to believe that. There are...show more content... But, I believe that when you hit a child when they do something wrong, they don't repeat the action because they're afraid of the consequences, rather than understanding why they shouldn't do it again. It gives the wrong impression on the child and teaches them that violence is okay if you're trying to teach someone a lesson, so they carry this over into their lives when they get older, and the chain of violence is never broken. War, in general, I believe, is ineffective. I think that it totally uses the wrong reasons for countries to agree to compromise. It's amazing that before war, countries are totally against one another, yet after blowing away half of each other's population, they're willing to talk. It makes you think.

I think that if countries would talk out their problems in a more peaceful manner, they would much easier come up with plans that would include both of their needs and desires. I think the world uses war in the wrong way; they're in wars to show their own power and prove themselves to the world. War is not only bad because of those reasons. It is also negative because innocent men and women from the involved countries are killed. Even if they couldn't care less about what was going on, they are drafted to fight for their country. And many of them die, which is really depressing, because they didn't

Imagine a war. It doesn't matter which war, because all of them have several things in common. Wars are very costly. They have cost thousands to millions of dollars in equipment, and all wars have cost hundreds, thousands, or even millions of lives, both in the military and in the innocent population. Those who do survive are scarred, sometimes physically, mentally, and emotionally. Many retired soldiers suffer from PTSD, or post–traumatic stress disorder, as well as severe or fatal injuries. There are very, very few who would want to go towar, but sometimes, war is necessary. The question is: when is military force justified? Military force is justified when the safety of our population is threatened, when one of our allies is threatened, and when other, more peaceful attempts have been ineffective. Military force should be used as a defense, both to our population and for our allies. In December...show more content...

Commenting on Michael Gonchar's article, "When is the Use of Military Force Justified?', Alondra (no last name given) states: " Guns are not a form of power, only a form of destruction. Although, sometimes, destroying something is the only way to have peace. Military Force is justified to be used after discussion isn't effective. An overlooked problem today is that are Military Force is being used causally, rather than using it as the absolutely only option for peace. Peace and force contradict each other, which is why using force to gain peace should not be used as such an impromptu act." (Gonchar)

Many wars are fought to find peace, but war is its opposite. If there is a peaceful way to find peace, then that way should be used. War leaves scars, both physical and mental, on those who fight. If there is a peaceful way, then there is no reason for members of the military to sacrifice so much. But if there is no peaceful way, then military force can be justified and used as a last

Get more content

Since the beginning of war among settled civilizations, the question of whether war is right or wrong has been somewhat ambiguous. Some say war is wrong in totality and should not be an option because there are no moral, justifiable grounds for the damage caused during war. Others say that war can be just. The idea of having a justifiable war is called the "just war theory" or "just war doctrine". As early as 400BCE, within the Indian book "Mahabharata", the notion of having a just war has been debated. The discussion of this idea, within the Mahabharata, laid the groundwork for future influential philosophers to expand on this topic. In this essay we will discuss what meets the standard of being considered a just cause for declaring war, how the just war theory contributes to today's decisions made before and during a war, and examples of just and unjust causes of war. The main focus we will be addressing is the first and second, of the three proponents of what the Just War Doctrine. The first proponent is "Jus ad bellum" (Justice before war), the second, "Jus in bello" (Justice during war), and the third, "Jus post bellum" (Justice after war). St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine were two of them and they were Christian philosophers. In the city of god, Augustine said there was a fundamental paradox of the Western Roman Empire. It was a Christian state committed to peace. But, it was also a territorial entity beset by enemies. To Augustine, Christians can be pacifists

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity."–Dwight D. Eisenhower.

War is a filthy thing; the word itself drives a extensive sense of panic into the souls of millions. And yet, even with that fear metastasized across the nation, fear that usually comes in the form of a tiny silver sphere and the unmistakable stench of gunpowder, our government leaders still choose to risk people's lives for petty arguments. We threatened and threatened the other countries with promises of demolished cities overtaken by fire, explosions so bright and destructive it made the sun look like a mere lightning bug , but nobody listened. The first bomb was dropped on March 24th, 2040.

The bomb, originally named RDS–220 by the Soviet Union, was dropped right in the middle of North Korea's capital, Pyongyang. Shortly after, the media was flooded with images of once...show more content... Maybe my past history of mental illnesses and crippling anxiety would exempt me from an over glorified suicide. But that's the thing about war, nothing is ever predictable.

I should have known. Perhaps I had, somewhere deep in the rationalized part of my brain. War was a filthy thing, a supernova of sorts; it pulled everyone and everything unwillingly into its center before exploding with patches of light that destroyed everything in its path. Patches of light, almost like the ones dancing across my vision. The fistful of hair wrapped snugly in a vice–like grip was beginning to bring tears to my eyes; however, he burning pain that shot through my scalp was nothing compared to the burning deep in my heart. The wails of a woman, presumably my mother, but possibly my own, were stuck in a never ending loop, consisting of pleas and indistinguishable sobs that made my head throb. The light yellow walls of the kitchen and the deep red shade of the door came into focus through bleary eyes, causing panic to constricted around my chest like a

It is excessively difficult task, making it impossible to recognize a typical reason for all wars, over a wide span of time, then characteristic it obligation regarding their starting. In any case, what should be possible is to distinguish certain establishments normal on the whole "war", and pay notice to how "states [or other structures] really carry on, behind the façade of their qualities based talk". Any discussion or reflection on war will lead to few general questions like, What is war? What causes war? Can any war ever be justified? What is the relationship between human nature and war?

In order to define what war is we need to focus on the entity which allowed it to begin. a Person's definition of war frequently communicates the ...show more content...

As needs be, fights are minor side effects of the fundamental combative nature of the universe; such a portrayal compares with a Heraclitean or Hegelian reasoning in which change (physical, social, political, practical, and so on) can just emerge out of war or brutal clash. Heraclitus discredits that "war is the father for goodness' sake," and Hegel echoes his feelings. Interestingly, even Voltaire, the exemplification of the Enlightenment, took after this line: "Starvation, torment, and war are the three most popular elements of this pitiful world...All creatures are interminably at war with each other...Air, earth and water are stadiums of Get more content

Did you know that religious leaders that come from religions of peace are starting deadly wars in the name of their God? Leaders like Pope Urban 11 and Muhammad have started wars in the name of their God. There has been about 200,000,000 deaths due to holy wars, so should someone be justified in initiating one? Christian and Jewish religious leaders should not be justified in starting holy wars, proving that if they do start a holy war, it would be going against their religion's beliefs since both religion's beliefs are opposed to killing. To begin,Christianity and Judaism are against killing, according to their beliefs. The ten commandments and the Torah states "Thou shall not kill". If their beliefs state that they mustn't kill

Get more content

Is Violence ever justified

Is violence ever justified? The debate about the use of violence has been on going for the last decade. Violence, the act of causing physical harm to another person willingly, has often been categorized as being an uncivilized, unjustified act. It is mostly known, and commonsensical knowledge that attacking or inflicting harm upon another person is "wrong". Most of us frown upon people who resort to such violent acts, and they are punishable by law. However, as we progress into the 21st century, the line of when the use of violence can ever be "right" or justified is getting increasingly blurred. The need for war, punishment, and even domestic violence can be said to deter further violence or stop present violence from exacerbating....show more content...

When such actions are clouded with alcohol, or not done in a rational state of mind, this violence cannot be justified. Such disciplinary actions can also inflict adverse effects on children instead. For example, children may start to be afraid of their parents, or be even more rebellious. It is also in the belief of some parents that it is wrong to lay a finger on their children, regardless of whether disciplining them in this way can correct their actions. Another instance when violence can be justified is when one is protecting himself from another person's attacks. It is only human nature to protect oneself, in the only way one knows how to. For example, if one was held at gun–point and given the chance, one would definitely rib his attacker and proceed to inflict harm on him in any way, to make an escape. In times of desperation, violence is seen as the only way out and thus can be justified. A gray area in using violence as an act of self–defence has recently been challenged in the Trayvon Martin incident that happened in Florida, USA. George Zimmerman, a 28 year old Hispanic, fatally shot 17– year –old African American Martin, as an act of self–defence, although the teenager did not carry any lethal weapons on him. The fact that Zimmerman could have made an error in his judgment, yet proceeded to assault and shoot the teenager has brought up questions and protests as to whether violence is justified when merely assuming another to be a threat to one's

Get more content

Have you heard about Korean War, which occurred in June, 25, 1950? The conflict between ideologies caused this war with tens of millions killed, millions of families separated, the country reduced to rubble, and a huge permanent scar on Korea's culture. Then, Vietnam War, Gulf War, or Iraq war can sound familiar to you. Let's change point to the number of dead bodies from wars themselves. Can youguess how many people got killed during all of those war periods? Only for Vietnam War, the true civilians of Vietnam War were two millions in the north, and another two millions in the south, and military causalities were 1.1 million killed and six hundreds thousand wounded during war. Tofinish a war, how many innocent people and soldiers have...show more content...

The damage of wars is way too much that it should never happen under any circumstance. No one should ever initiate a war and claim it justified. Let's see why war should not be justified.

First of all, war is nothing but bloodthirsty killer. During Iraq War period, 172 U.S. and British combatants were killed fro m March 20 to May 1 and another 222 died between May 2 and October 20. The number of civilians killed during war is between 5,708 and 7,356. The major unknown is the number of Iraqi military deaths during the war and it was estimated as low as 13,500 or as much as 45,000 soldiers. Furthermore, at least 20,000 civilians were injured. If protecting national interests or achieving diplomatic goals is a just cause then which party has a just cause between Iraqi people and U.S. or British army? Basically, all of them have their own just causes arising from their national profits. Then, can you say that soldiers, no matter which party they belong, are guilty because of killing people? The answer is "No," because, for soldiers, killing enemies is related to more likely legal defense than any other reasons. The point is that all the people, who are related with this cruel action, are nothing but innocent victims.

People are just born with nationality not by their willing or choice whether they like it or not and therefore they acquire the ideology that is prevailing in their birth countries as they grow up. No matter what country they are from or what ideology

Get more content

Can War Ever be Justified for Any Reason?

"We all say not war, we are all for justice and peace. But sometimes in order to maintain peace, armed action is necessary. But we hope it won't be the case"–by Silvio Bersuconi. This quote was said by the former Italian Prime Minister who spoke about the war. War has been a problem since human was created on this planet. War is a part of history and it is still going on. World War I and II, Cold War, Civil War in Somalia, Afghanistan, many wars has happened and still going on. And all the war expect cold war involves death. Therefore, war brings u6ys mass death, destruction, and ruins the daily life. Numbers of wars happened all around the globe and most of them involves mass death....show more content... Soldiers experienced many traumatic event that can ruin their daily life. Chris Wilson,Iraq war veteran who lost nine men quoted, "So it's been extremely hard to forgive myself. ... The first guy in my company who died stepped on a bomb that was hidden under a footbridge... I can see his face right now." This traumatic events during his time in Iraq still flashes back him daily and night mares him. Up to 20% of American soldiers were diagnosed PTSD, and 70% experienced some kind of traumatic flash back. Not only soldiers who experienced traumatic events, medical staff are also experiencing harsh conditions. "For a long time after I got back, I isolated myself in a cabin and drank all the time. Then at one point I'd decided I was going to try everything possible to feel better. And if nothing worked, I was going to kill myself. God, this is harder to talk about than bombs,,"Jenny Paconowisky said after she returned from serving at Iraq. She was also diagnosed alcoholic syndrome due to stresses she had after warlike, flash back of her colleagues died front of her or harassment at her workplace during the time in Iraq. To treat and fund all soldiers who fights with PTSD and for military, government pays a total of 636 billion dollars (2014) each year and pays 156 billion dollars (2014) to war veterans each year. Although, some people will say there are people who are successful after they return from Get more content

Is War Being Morally Justifiable

All across the world, countries are drowning in the acts of warfare. Citizens residing in unescapable conditions due to war are suffering and likely calling out to other nations for help. It is proven that fighting violence with more violence does not draw a solution. The question of war being morally justifiable is one most easily answered by ancient and modern philosophers: it is not. For war induces a great deal of all those involved, promotes unnecessary violence, and overall it prevents the expansion of the human race. Every waking moment a catastrophic war is taking place somewhere in this world. Every waking moment a life is lost due to the wounding actions of opposing countries and opposing people. A majority of attacks imposed consist

Get more content

QUESTION 1: There are times when war is necessary and must take place regardless of the circumstances. War is normally the result of the two sides not having the aptitude to comprise because the demands are too enormous for one side or the other. As suggested by scholars, the "just war" theory defines why countries declare war and the conduct of war. When providing an example of the 911 attacks as a "justified war," does not make it because it was not a war. How would theUnited States comprise with the 911 attackers? How was the 911 attackers a rival of the United States? The "just war" theory suggest that wars are fought between two counties and not that of rivals. Themilitary presence of the United States in Afghanistan was clearly an invasion and not the breakdown of the two rivals not having the ability to compromise. Do you really think that the military forces of the United States would battle terrorist if that terror organization was housed in Russia?

QUESTION 2: When you have ownership, there is logic to "stand up for what was [yours];" however, there are times when one must assess the situation and do what is the best for in the name...show more content...

The only "upper hand" that they shared, it had to do with being knowledgeable of the landscape as they traveled through the mountains. The Nez Perce should have continued to fight the federal army because they won every battle. They did not need the help of the Crows as a result, even though it would have been helpful. In fact, if other Native Americans would have came to their aid or helped to rescue them, as opposed to hunting them, the Nez Perce probably would have not had many battles with the federal army because the federal army was unaware of the terrain, and they would have been lost chasing behind the Nez Perce as a

Ms. Crutcher English 3 3/3/17 Is war ever justified? One cause of World War one is the story behind the assassination of the Archduke of Austria, Archduke Franz Ferdinand. In the early 1900's the Austrians–Hungarians and Serbians had a feud after the rebellion in 1835 in which the Serbians separated themselves from the Ottoman Empire. So in 1878, Serbia was considered an independent state. One reason why Serbian nationalists hated the Archduke Ferdinand was because of two reasons. The first reason was that the Serbian people believed that with the Archduke gone they would receive a lot more land and benefits. The second concern is they way the Archduke felt and talked about the Serbians. He referred to the Serbians as "pigs", "thieves",...show more content...

The first and most important reason why World War One was not justified was because of the Treaty of Versailles. Originally U.S. President at the time Woodrow Wilson created the idea of Fourteen Points in which helped develop The Treaty of Versalles The Treaty of Versailles was a treaty created in Paris by Allied officials in 1919. Although the germans were not even invited to their own treaty the Allied powers made it without them. The point of the Treaty of Versailles was to split Germany up and make it impossible for a war this catastrophic to occur. In the treaty, a League of Nations would be created but Germany would not be allowed to join until 1926. The Treaty of Versailles really hurt Germany because took all of Germany's colonies. Shrunk the German colony a very large amount. They even started taking certain weapons they liked and thought were bad in the Germans hands. But what really hurt Germany was the demand of full reparations. In Article 231, it stated that "Germany accepted the responsibility of itself and its allies for the losses and damages of the Allies." (pg1) Although there were many protests in Germany regarding the treaty the german government signed it. As a result German politicians who believed were at fault were attacked by German parties who were against their decision. 14 Points was a series of principles that were created by President Woodrow Wilson to help create what is now and later

Get more content

When is war justified

When is War Justified? War is justified and only justified when a nation is acting out of self–defense to protect their nation as a whole. One might argue that humanitarian wars or wars that are fought because they seem morally right are also justified. However, wars like these do not protect the interest of their nation as a whole, and are usually fought to establish political connections rather than to protect the nation. In the article, "When is War Justified?" by Elijah Sweete, he states that, "A defensive war is the most clearly justified and generally involves a direct attack by another nation or outside force on one's own territory or physical assets." Defensive wars are always fought out of the best interest of one's nation ...show more content...

In the book, The Things They Carried, the chapter "On the Rainy River" is the perfect examination of a young man who has been drafted to fight in a war that has no clear explanation. The young man wonders how a nation can go to war and sacrifice lives without any undeniable just cause. The young man, Tim O'Brien, thinks aloud to himself and says, "It seemed to me that when a nation goes to war it must have reasonable confidence in

Is War Inevitable?

The modern human mind has sought to present findings and evidence that would lead to some form of an indication or conclusion regarding the inevitability of war through the multifarious fields of science and technology; anthropology; political science; economics; psychology (both humanist and evolutionary); and cultural studies. The general perception for most people – gauged through academic surveys and Social Networking websites – is that the innate biological tuning, socio–cultural infrastructure, geo–political systems, economic scarcity, and the massive amounts of arsenal possessed by mankind will never allow humans to transcend the atrocities of brutality, violence and aggressive bloodshed. Unfortunately,...show more content...

Anthropological and ethnic studies have shown that, long before the emergence of modern nation–states, human beings waged war in the tribal setting, basing these conclusions on archeological findings. Furthermore, observance of the behavior of our closest evolutionary cousins, the chimpanzees, has encouraged the perception that just the way chimpanzee troops tend to wage war on other chimpanzees – sometimes even beating them to death – similarly, we too are biologically programmed and naturally hardwired for aggression. In "Are

Humans Hardwired to Behave Aggressively?"

Margie Wylie says that a new and upcoming field of genealogy suggests that the Y–Chromosome in human beings causes us to be, at least in part, "hardwired for aggression and troublesome behavior". The question is posed to any logical mind: can we allow ourselves to conveniently use this as an excuse for war and crime? No. We can not. Yale's "Human Relations Area Files" (Ember), a database of around 360 cultures around the world from the past and present, shows that nearly nine–tenths of these cultures have engaged in warfare. However, the frequency, intensity, and time spans of these wars varies vastly from one culture to the next. "There is variation in the frequency of warfare when you look around the world at any given time," says Melvin Ember. "That suggests to me that we are not dealing with genes or a biological propensity."

Even if we do consider the biological propensity and

"War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children. This famous quote is from James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr., who served as the 39th President of the United States. It implies that war can be justified under strict circumstances where it can be necessary, but it is still abhorrent. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. Justification refers to the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. War brings many negative and catastrophic impacts not just to the country, but to the people living in the country as well, which this paper...show more content...

From the various points and examples given, it is clear the war is unjustified in many ways as it involves mass killings and is unethical, it destroys economies, having an impact on people and the country physically, and it causes great harm to a society, especially children. However, it can also be justified, only under very strict circumstances where it can prove to be Get

War: Is Military Force Ever Justified? War has become a very sensitive, polarizing subject in the past few decades. Either it's good or bad, right or wrong, black or white. Many people do not find any justification, even though no decision is more thought out than a country's decision to use military force. for anything war–related because of the negative reality that it is war: violent, nasty, unyielding. All they see is an unprejudiced killing parade that rips lives apart. But what many people fail to realize that there is some gray areas surrounding military force.There is not a definite yes or no when it comes to war, and not all wars are choices. When it comes to national security and keeping America safe, war is undeniably...show more content...

The press does everything it can to show pro–war propaganda, in way which shows the urgency of issues and justifying theuse of force by our brave military. The press normalizes war as a patriotic event, and almost seems to ostracize those who do not back it, labeling them as unpatriotic. The news outlets exaggerate issues and show war as the last and only option. So, when is war okay? For one, when a country's borders are threatened. If a country is being invaded, there is a reason to use military force. When a country's citizens are in danger, the country should be able to use military force. There is an obligation for the military to protect American citizens, and that sometimes entails using force. Fighting for our freedom, safety, and happiness is a reason to use military force. Examples of such would include when we entered WWII after the attack on Pearl Harbor, or when we went to war in the Middle East after 9/11 as a way to prevent further attacks on US soil. Another reason would be if a larger, more powerful country attacks one of our allies, or even a smaller, defenseless country. Morally, America should step in and do the right thing and help these other countries keep their people safe. Cases like this are harder to justify, as they are not totally necessary; however, they are are smart. Building allies and keeping relationships strong means more protection when it comes Get

Is War Ever Justified Should people be persecuted for their beliefs? The Reign of Terror was a war that had lasted for eighteen months starting with the execution of the king Louis XIV on January 21st 1793, and ending with the death of the leader of the revolution Robespierre. During those eighteen months 20,000 to 40,00 people were killed by the guillotine, and many more were killed by the war. TheReign of Terrorwas not justified because of the internal and external threats were not very serious, rights were being taken away, and because there were too many deaths, During the revolution there were some external and internal threats but they were not a major problem for France. Prussia and Austria did invade France but throughout the war France had an advantage and stayed winning, according to (document B) France had won the battle of Valmy in 1792, not only that but it also shows that three years later France had defeated Prussia and Austria and took over the...show more content...

The Vendee region had become the hub of the counterrevolution the people that were there fiercely fought against the military draft, and the people that set the laws that abolished Christianity. Because that was the main region that was against the revolution historians believed that anywhere between 80,000 and 500,000 French people died on both sides of the Vendee (document C). in March 1793 a tribunal court of justice was set up to try all crimes against the state but soon it became a corrupt system full of spies that would seek out anyone that was against or potentially against the government (document E). the revolution ended up dividing many of the people that lived in France and put one against another, it got to the point to where the revolutionaries decided to prove a point to the counterrevolutionaries in Lyons and destroyed 1600 homes, and chopped off heads in five minutes (document