#National Revolutionary Army

[carbone14]

Ecrivains publics pour soldats chinois illettrés – 1940's

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"CHANGSHA - A Jap Rout," Brantford Expositor. May 27, 1942. Page 10. ---- Graveyard Hill was the name of the decisie battle for Changsha in which Chinese scored their great victory. Here Chinese troops hold hill overlooking and dominating the vital Chinese City. Return of the native picture shows Changha residents in a crude sailboat crossing the Hsiang River. They are going back to what was left of their homes. They are still in those homes, too. Rubble of what was once their house greeted these two Chinese, but they were fashioning a new dwelling place with the bricks and other bits left them after the smoke of battle had cleared. Congratulations to victorious Gen. Hsueh Yueh from Harris Forman photographer for NEA Service and The Expositor, who scored a world scop by obtaining these exclusive pictures

[super-stardust56]

I like to think that the revolutionary army has a board at their base where they have like a map of liberated or affiliated nations, and on that board is an employee of the month and it’s been Monkey D Luffy since after Impel down/Marineford.

Imagine you’re a new person in the RA, you’d think he’s the nepo personality hire, literally the son/ brother of the heads of the organisation. but man when you look at his accomplishments….you can’t help but think he’s Speed running takedowns Of corrupt governments/ breaking into high security government places, he’s been doing it since shells town.

Months of planning your organisation takes to start a coup against a corrupt king/ figurehead, and this rubber kid in a straw hat and flip flops dose it in an afternoon.

[read-marx-and-lenin]

about taiwan. but im still confused as to why should china care. they havent controlled taiwan for some time and seems to just cause conflict. why not just leave taiwan be and be happy with the mainland. what good does claiming taiwanese island bring? why do they care if an island belongs to them or not?

What good does the ROC claiming the mainland bring? Why does the KMT care about the ROC being the legitimate successor to Sun Yat-sen's Republic? Why is the DPP bribing right-wing US warhawks and inviting US destroyers into the Taiwan Strait?

This is not a situation where a bunch of nasty evil communists are persecuting an innocent island nation. This is a situation where a right-wing counter-revolutionary army, upon losing a civil war, occupied the island and maintained a military dictatorship for 45 years, only eventually opening up to democracy after massive amounts of protests and unrest. The PRC was the only democracy in China for those 45 years. They were fighting to liberate the Taiwanese people, not to oppress them.

After the ROC abolished the military dictatorship and repealed the law declaring the CPC to be rebels and enemies of the nation, the CPC and the KMT began to engage in peaceful dialog, leading to the 1992 Consensus. This consensus formed the basis of informal PRC-ROC relations, under the shared belief that Taiwan is a territory of China.

The election of the pro-independence DPP in 2016 has threatened the prospects of peaceful reunification. Unlike the KMT, the DPP has never had any relations with the CPC and is firmly opposed to reunification. Cross-Strait dialog between the two governments was cut off and the ROC quickly began to take a much more antagonistic role towards the PRC.

The PRC does not want a war. The Taiwanese people do not want a war. The KMT does not want a war. It is only the DPP and a bunch of US imperialists who have been bribed by the DPP who want a war. This is why the PRC has condemned foreign interference in Chinese affairs and condemned the separatist movement in Taiwan.

The PRC does not even want political control over Taiwan. They have proposed a "one China, two systems" approach to reunification that would enable the Taiwanese government to maintain its current legal system and operate with a high degree of autonomy. They know that the Taiwanese people would not soon accept CPC control over the island and they are not proposing that as a solution. But if the separatists get their way and start the Civil War all over again, it's very likely that that is what will happen, with many innocent lives lost to boot.

The DPP could choose at any point to resume the peaceful cross-Strait dialogues that the KMT had been engaging in. But they would rather continue their nonsensical rhetoric and wordplay where they can have their cake and eat it too; where the 1992 Consensus was never a consensus and where Taiwan is already independent despite never having declared independence. More worryingly, they want to continue courting US imperialists and engaging in behavior intended to provoke armed conflict in the region. They would rather start a war than risk having to acknowledge Taiwan's status as a territory of China.

If you want to understand the PRC's position better, this publication by the PRC is a good summary of their current position on the subject.

[apas-95]

sorry if this question is too personal, but do you think theres a place in revolutions for people who are scared of active combat situations?

well, yeah - while revolution is defined by its armed conflict, in a revolutionary collective there are only really a small few who engage in combat. the rear of an army is much larger than its vanguard - every soldier relies on a plethora of committed cadre engaged in production, logistics, healthcare, and so on. during the early stages of a revolution, it's especially important to maintain cadre who keep themselves 'clean' of directly engaging in combat, and being subject to death or detainment; and during the later stages of a revolution, the organisational and logistical tail grows to encompass the entire nation, and having committed persons in roles outside of warfare becomes of increasing importance.

also, while not to diminish your point, I think everyone who has any understanding of combat is scared of it; anyone who isn't shouldn't be engaging in it.

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

The Committee of Public Safety being a totally healthy work environment with no issues whatsoever compilation

First, some statistics:

Leaving in the middle of a session due to fighting: Collot (1 time), Robespierre (3 times), Saint-Just (4 times), Lindet (1 time)

Starting to cry during a session: Carnot (1 time), Robespierre (1 time)

Threatening your co-workers: Robespierre (2 times), Saint-Just (2 times, one of them a death threat), Couthon (1 time)

Calling your co-workers traitors/scroundrels/ counter-revolutionaries/aristocrats/conspirators/foreign agents: Billaud (1 time), Saint-Just (3 times), Robespierre (5 times), Collot (2 times), Barère (1 time)

Accusing your co-workers of aspiring towards dictatorship: Carnot, Billaud, Barère, Collot, Lindet (1 time)

Accusing your co-workers of wishing to destroy patriots: Robespierre, Collot (1 time)

Using physical violence against your co-workers: Collot (2 times?)

Defending your co-worker against another co-worker in a way that doesn’t at all make it seem like you’re into him: Saint-Just (3 times) Barère (1 time)

Saint-Just had such indifference that, about this time (return from Fleurus), he came one evening to propose to the committee a strange means of promptly ending the struggle of the revolution against the suspected and imprisoned nobles. These were his words: ”For a thousand years the nobility have been oppressing the French nation with exactions and feudal vexations of every kind, feudalism and nobihty exist no longer, if you want to repair all the frontier roads for the passage of the artillery, convoys, and transports of our army, order the imprisoned nobles to go to work daily and mend the highways.” […] When Saint-Just had finished there was a movement of silent indignation amongst us all, succeeded by a unanimous demand for the order of the day. I thought I ought to stipulate for the national character by saying to Samt-Just and the committee that we should be opposed to such a kind of punishment for prisoners even if the law pronounced it, that the nobility could be abolished by wise laws, but that the nobles always preserved in the mass of the people a rank, a distinction due to education, which prevented us from acting at Paris as Manus did at Rome. ”Ah,” exclaimed Samt-Just, “Marius was more politic and a greater statesman than you will ever be. I wished to try the strength, the temperament, and the opinion of the Committee of Pubhc Safety. You are not fit to combat nobility, since you cannot destroy it, it will devour the Revolution and the revolutionists. I retire from the committee.” He quickly withdrew, and set out for the army, until the moment when he thought himself capable of executing vaster projects with Robespierre, Couthon, and Lebas, his associates. Memoirs of Bertrand Barère, volume 2, page 139-140.

It is the inherent vice of bad laws, and, above all, of penal laws devoid of motive, which attack a great number of innocent people, to nullify themselves. Saint-Just did not understand that. He attacked me, and accused me of having put under requisition the relatives of several emigrants whilst the law punished them in their property. The committee appeared struck by this accusation, and asked him to explain himself and name some of the relations. He named several, but they were all unknown to us. He afterwards named Mademoiselle d’Avisard, of Toulouse, whose father was abroad. Here I replied that the fate of this innocent girl, who was but sixteen years of age, and obliged by the terrible laws against emigrants to subsist at Paris by manual labour, for she was then engaged in making gaiters for our soldiers, was in the highest degree worthy of compassion and interest. […] The Committee of Public Safety thought this explanation sufficient. It saw that it was only a wicked recrimination by Saint-Just, supported by the presence of Robespierre. Memoirs Of Bertrand Barère, volume 2, page 147-148.

Robespierre murmured a lot about the forms that we had established in Lyon for the execution of decrees: he constantly repeated that there was no reason to judge the guilty when they are outlawed. He exclaimed that we had let the families of the condemned go free; and when the commission sent the Convention and the committee the list of its judgments, he was not in control of his anger as he cast his eyes on the column where the names of the citizens who had been acquitted were written. Unable to change anything in the forms of judgment, regulated according to the decrees and approved by the committee, he imagined another system; he questioned whether the patriots of Commune-Affranchie were not vexed and under oppression. They were, he said, because the property of the condemned being specially intended, by article IV of the decree of July 12, to become their patrimony, we had greatly reduced their claims, not only by not judging only a quarter of the number of conspirators identified by Dubois-Crancé on 23 Vendémiare, or designated by previous decrees, but also by establishing a commission which appeared willing to acquit two thirds, as it happened. Through these declamations Robespierre wanted to entertain the patriots of whom he spoke, with the most violent ideas, to throw into their minds a framework of extraordinary measures, and to put them in opposition with the representatives of the people and their closest cooperators: he made them understand that they could count on him, he emboldened them to form all kinds of obstacles, to only follow his indications which he presented as being the intentions of the Committee of Public Safety.   Défense de J-M. Collot, répresentant du peuple. Éclaircissemens nécessaires sur ce qui s’est passé à Lyon (alors Commune-Affranchie), l’année dernière; pour faire suite aux rapports des Répresentants du peuple, envoyés vers cette commune, avant, pendant et après le siège (1794)

Billaud Varennes: […] The first time I denounced Danton to the committee, Robespierre rose like a madman and declared that he saw my intentions, that I wanted to lose the best patriots. Billaud-Varennes accuses Robespierre during the session of 9 Thermidor

Why should I not say that [the dantonist purge] was a meditated assassination, prepared for a long time, when two days after this session where the crime was taking place (March 30 1794), the representative Vadier told me that Saint-Just, through his stubbornness, had almost caused the downfall of the members of the two committees, because he had wanted the accused be present when he read the report at the National Convention; and such was his obstinacy that, seeing our formal opposition, he threw his hat into the fire in rage, and left us there. Robespierre was also of this opinion; he believed that by having these deputies arrested beforehand, this approach would sooner or later be reprehensible; but, as fear was an irresistible argument with him, I used this weapon to fight him: You can take the chance of being guillotined, if that is what you want; For my part, I want to avoid this danger by having them arrested immediately, because we must not have any illusions about the course we must take; everything is reduced to these bits: If we do not have them guillotined, we will be that ourselves.  À Maximilien Robespierre aux enfers (1794) by Taschereau de Fargues and Paul-Auguste-Jacques.

In the beginning of floréal (somewhere between April 20 and 30) during an evening session (at the Committee of Public Safety), a brusque fight erupted between Saint-Just and Carnot, on the subject of the administration of portable weapons, of which it wasn’t Carnot, but Prieur de la Côte-d’Or, who was in charge. Saint-Just put big interest in the brother-in-law of Sijas, Luxembourg workshop accounting officer, that one thought had been oppressed and threatened with arbitrary arrest, because he had experienced some difficulties for the purpose of his service with the weapon administration. In this quarrel caused unexpectedly by Saint-Just, one saw clearly his goal, which was to attack the members of the committee who occupied themselves with arms, and to lose their cooperators. He also tried to include our colleague Prieur in the inculpation, by accusing him of wanting to lose and imprison this agent. But Prieur denied these malicious claims so well, that Saint-Just didn’t dare to insist on it more. Instead, he turned again towards Carnot, whom he attacked with cruelty; several members of the Committee of General Security assisted. Niou was present for this scandalous scene: dismayed, he retired and feared to accept a pouder mission, a mission that could become, he said, a subject of accusation, since the patriots were busy destroying themselves in this way. We undoubtedly complained about this indecent attack, but was it necessary, at a time when there was not a grain of powder manufactured in Paris, to proclaim a division within the Committee of Public Safety, rather than to make known this fatal secret? In the midst of the most vague indictments and the most atrocious expressions uttered by Saint-Just, Carnot was obliged to repel them by treating him and his friends as aspiring to dictatorship and successively attacking all patriots to remain alone and gain supreme power with his supporters. It was then that Saint-Just showed an excessive fury; he cried out that the Republic was lost if the men in charge of defending it were treated like dictators; that yesterday he saw the project to attack him but that he defended himself.

”It’s you,” he added, ”who is allied with the enemies of the patriots. And understand that I only need a few lines to write for an act of accusation and have you guillotined in two days.”   ”I invite you, said Carnot with the firmness that only appartient to virtue: I provoke all your severity against me, I do not fear you, you are ridiculous dictators.” The other members of the Committee insisted in vain several times to extinguish this ferment of disorder in the committee, to remind Saint-Just of the fairer ideas of his colleague and of more decency in the committee; they wanted to call people back to public affairs, but everything was useless: Saint-Just went out as if enraged, flying into a rage and threatening his colleagues. Saint-Just probably had nothing more urgent than to go and warn Robespierre the next day of the scene that had just happened, because we saw them return together the next day to the committee, around one o'clock: barely had they entered when Saint-Just, taking Robespierre by the hand, addressed Carnot saying:

”Well, here you have my friends, here are the ones you attacked yesterday!”

Robespierre tried to speak of the respective wrongs with a very hypocritical tone: Saint-Just wanted to speak again and excite his colleagues to take his side. The coldness which reigned in this session, disheartened them, and they left the committee very early and in a good mood. It was at this time that the division became pronounced in a very noticeable manner, and soon after we saw it claimed in the English papers that the Committee of Public Safety was divided. For some time now we had been distrusting each other, we were observing each other, we were no longer deliberating with them with this abandonment of trust. Until then Robespierre had done little; he constantly brought us his concerns, his suspicions, his shady expressions and his political bile; he only concerned himself with personal measures; he only drafted arrest warrants, he only dealt with factions, newspapers, the revolutionary tribunal. Nothing about the Government, nothing about the war, never having either views to propose or a report to make, he spent his time destroying our courage, despairing of the salvation of the country and speaking of its slanderers and its assassins; his favorite expressions were, everything is lost, there are no more resources. I no longer see anyone to save it, he always cried. When news of victory were brought by a courier, he spoke of upcoming betrayals, he tarnished our joy or attacked the representatives of the people near the victorious army. The more triumphant the Northern army was, the more strongly he denounced Richard and Choudieu; when the troops besieged Ypres, a stronghold and the key to West Flanders, a capture which, according to the decrees of the committee, was to open and ensure the campaign; Robespierre shouted against the representatives of the People near this army and had complaints written that the troops had not taken Ostend sooner. He seemed to us to be pursued by victories as well as by furies, and he often reproached the committee's rapporteur for the length and exaltation of his reports on the triumphs of the armies. Réponse des membres des deux anciens Comités de salut public et de sûreté générale (Barère, Collot, Billaud, Vadier), aux imputations renouvellées contre eux, par Laurent Lecointre et declarées calomnieuses par décret du 13 fructidor dernier; à la Convention Nationale (1795), page 103-105.

Robespierre, supported by the Jacobins, was the most influential member of the Committees without being the most wicked. His supporters were, however, in the minority; the plan to adjourn the sessions of the Convention had not obtained theor approval. One thought it necessary to oppose Robespierre with the masculine structure of Collot d’Herbois. A quarrel caused by the proposal of a proscription list to which Robespierre was precisely opposed (it involved the arrest of 14 deputies and citizens); this list, put up for discussion by the majority, passed to each member who added names to it, when it reached Robespierre, it had 32 deputies on it. Robespierre said: “I see five or six deputies unworthy of the character with which they are invested: it will be easy to induce them to resign: but I will lend neither my vote nor my signature to the revenge that you want to exercise.” Two friends of Robespierre were of his opinion: heads became heated, quarrels ensued: Robespierre was reminded of the fact he had voted against the Danton faction. The three opponents were treated as moderates. Robespierre, getting up angrily, said to them: “You are killing the Republic, you are the faithful agents of the foreigner who fears the system of moderation that we should adopt.” The session became so stormy that Collot used acts of violence against Robespierre. He threw himself at him and seized him by the flanks. He was about to throw Robespierre through the window when the latter's friends rescued him. Robespierre then declared that he was leaving the committee, that he could not honorably sit with executioners, that he would report this to the Convention. One saw the danger of publicizing this scene, blamed Collot's patriotic anger, and begged Robespierre, after having torn up the disastrous list, not to give the enemies of the Republic new means of attacking it. Robespierre seemed to calm down, but when Collot approached him to embrace him he refused and despite being urged not to he left.  Mémoires de Barras, membre du Directoire (1895) page 349-350. In a footnote, there is to read: This argument between Robespierre and Collot is recounted in more detail in another autobiographic note by Barras: Robespierre having opposed a new measure of proscription, saying: “You are decimating the National Convention, you are arresting citizens whose republican energy you fear,” the boor Collot d'Herbois threw himself at him and, having seized him by the flanks, he was about to throw Robespierre through the window when the latter's friends freed him. This scene was followed by explanations. Robespierre observed that he could no longer sit with executioners, that he was withdrawing and that he would report to the Convention. The Committee which predicted his fall then opposed Robespierre's exit. The proscription list was torn up in his presence. The hypocrite Carnot and the honeyed Couthon told him that Collot's angry outburst was disavowed by the Committee, that the publicity of what had just happened would ruin the Government Committees and the Republic. He was implored to make the sacrifice of all resentment, and that this proof of patriotism was expected of him. Collot furiously addressed the two mediators, complained about the weakness of his colleagues and left the session. Robespierre, very affected, alternately observed his adversaries. He said to them as he left: “You would have made me look crazy if the abortive plan to throw me through the window had taken place. I see here beings more atrocious than the one who tried to execute that plan. He left ashamed of having accepted this assassination.” Robespierre withdrew and did not appear again for two months at the Committee.

At a time when the Convention was already in a high state of alarm [Robespierre] had circulated a list of five or six deputies. It was rumored that Robespierre intended to have them arrested as a little treat to himself, alleging their immortality as the motive of this proposed act of severity. Robespierre, informed of what was being imputed to him, asserted that such an idea was foreign to him, and, desirous of hurling it back at its authors, he maintained that it had originated with the majority of the committee, which, he alleged, had pushed its cruelty so far as to seek to include 32 deputies in its latest proscription-list. In vain did those who spoke in defence of Robespierre’s innocence of the idea and his humanity protest that it was he who had opposed this more than rigorous measure, that he had torn up the list with his own hands, and apostrophizing the Committee, had said: ”You are seeking to still further decimate the Convention; I will not give my support to such action.” Robespierre had indeed spoken these words just as, making an attempt to leave the committee, he had opened the door with the intention of being heard by the deputies and a large number of citizens who, attracted by the noise of a quarrel in the bosom of the committee, were waiting in the antechamber for the purpose of gratifying their curiosity thus aroused. Collot d’Herbois, furious at such hypocrisy, had sprung after Robespierre, seized him by his coat, and, dragging him towards him in order to bring him back into the room, exclaimed in his resounding voice, which, the door remaining ajar, was heard by all, both the committee and the people outside: ”Robespierre is an infamous scroundrel, a hypocrite; he seeks to impute us that of which he alone is capable. We love all our colleagues; we carry all patriots in our hearts. There stands the man who seeks to butcher them one and all!” Thus vociferating, Collot d’Herbois still remained his hold on Robespierre’s coat-collar. As I had at that very moment left the Convention on my way to the committee, I became a chance spectator of this fearful scene, whose violence was still not the greatest crime in my eyes. Behind it stood revealed the plot of premeditated vengeance, far worse than a mere outburst of anger. I was among those who compelled Collot d’Herbois to release his hold on Robespierre, who thereupon declared that he could no longer sit with his enemies, styling them a party of septemvirs, whom he would unmask and fight in the body of the Convention. He then took his departure, in spite of the entreaties of the entreaties of the committee, which, having been unable to conquer, sought to retain him in its midst. ”Let him go his way,” I said to those surrounding him. All my interest in him lay in the fact that I did not wish to see him strangled on the spot by a stronger man, and one perhaps as wicked as himself. I followed him for a short distance in order to see him safely home; he was trembling as he walked alone. Memoirs of Barras, Member of the Directorate (1895), volume 1, page 196-198. A variation of the anecdote found in the French memoirs?

Lindet has recounted that Collot d'Herbois had thrown himself on Robespierre and that he, helped by Carnot and Prieur de la Côte-d'Or, had to separate them. Councilor Carnot affirms that one day his brother threw a writing case at Robespierre’s head. Le Grand Carnot (1952) by Marcel Reinhard, volume 2, page 145. Reinhard cites ”family archives” as the source for this anecdote. Thank you for sharing @aedesluminis !

On 19 Prairial (June 7 1794), I was in the council chamber with Dumas and several jurors. I heard the president speak of a new law which was being prepared and which was to reduce the number of jurors to seven and nine per sitting. That evening I went to the Committee of Public Safety. There I found Robespierre, Billaud, Collot, Barère and Carnot. I told them that the Tribunal having hitherto enjoyed public confidence, this reduction, if it took place, would infallibly cause it to lose it. Robespierre, who was standing in front of the fireplace, answered me with sudden rage, and ended by saying that only aristocrats could talk like that. None of the other members present said a word. So I withdrew.  Réponse d'Antoine-Quentin Fouquier, ex-accusateur-public près le Tribunal révolutionnaire de Paris (1795) page 52-53.

The day after the one on which the [law of 22 prairial] was issued, (June 11 1794) […] there was such a stormy scene at the Committee of Public Safety that Robespierre cried out of rage, since that time he only came two times to the Committee of Public Safety, and it was agreed that the Committee of Public Safety would hold its sessions one floor higher so that the people would not witness the storms that were agitating us. Billaud-Varennes at the Convention, August 30 1794. In fact, Robespierre is proven to have continuously signed CPS decrees up until June 30 1794.

At the morning session of 22 floréal [sic, prairial] (June 10 1794), Billaud-Varennes openly accused Robespierre, as soon as he entered the committee, and reproached him and Couthon for alone having brought to the Convention the abominable decree which frightened the patriots. It is contrary, he said, to all the principles and to the constant progress of the committee to present a draft of a decree without first communicating it to the committee. Robespierre replied coldly that, having trusted each other up to this point in the committee, he had thought he could act alone with Couthon. The members of the committee replied that we have never acted in isolation, especially for serious matters, and that this decree was too important to be passed in this way without the will of the committee. ”The day when a member of the committee,” added Billaud, ”allows himself to present a decree to the Convention alone, there is no longer any liberty, but the will of a single person to propose legislation.” ”I see well that I am alone and that no one supports me,” said Robespierre, and immediately he flies into a rage, he declaims violently against the members of the committee who have conspired, he says, against him. His cries were so loud that on the terraces of the Tuileries several citizens gathered, the window was closed and the discussion continued with the same passion. ”I know,” said Robespierre, ”that there exists within the Convention a faction that wants to lose me, and you’re defending Ruamps here.” ”It must be said,” Billaud rebutted, ”that with this decree you wish to guillotine the National Convention.” Robespierre responds with agitation, ”you are all witnesses that I am not saying that I want to have the National Convention guillotined.” He added, “I know you now,” addressing Billaud. ”And I too, know you as a counter-revolutionary,” responded the latter. Robespierre became agitated as he paced around the committee; and then speaking again with more calm, he carried his hypocrisy to the point of shedding tears. Réponse des membres des deux anciens comités de salut public et de sûreté générale… (1795), page 108-109. This very much sounds like the same session Billaud is describing above, that here got wrongly dated twice.

When Robespierre, dissatisfied with his colleagues, left the Committee – four décades before 9 Thermidor – he exclaimed while leaving: “Save the homeland without me!” ”The homeland is not a man!” R. Lindet would have replied. R. Lindet would also have energetically opposed the proposal of Saint-Just and Le Bas trying to have dictatorship given to Robespierre. He would have replied: “We did not make the Revolution for the benefit of just one person. Tell your master that I oppose this decree,” and he would have left. (Papers of R. Lindet kept in his family). Robert Lindet, député à l'Assemblée législative et à la Convention, membre du Comité de salut public, ministre des finances : notice biographique (1899). Thank you for sharing @saintjustitude !

It was agreed that the reform of the law of 22 Floréal [sic, prairial] was to be proposed in consultation with the Committee of General Security and that the internal divisions would be kept a secret as they were seen as capable of serving the enemies of the Convention and the revolutionary government. Robespierre became more of an enemy of his colleagues, isolated himself from the committee and took refuge with the Jacobins where he prepared to sharpen public opinion against what he called the known conspirators and against the operations of the committee. Only a few days he was seen reappearing at the committee, one evening it was to accuse Richard and Choudieu of the slow and uneven march of the Northern army, and of allowing Ostend to be evacuated during the siege of Ypres. He was told that Choudieu was very ill, that Richard’s conduct had always been good, that they had the confidence of the committee and that the general was carrying out the orders of the committee by securing Ypres. Robespierre affected great concerns about the operations of the armies of the North, he announced to us upcoming betrayals or even double inertia, he proposed to Billaud-Varennes to go to the North, to excite the energy and activity of the operations, but the members of the committee, being few in number and feeling the need to be reunited, opposed this dangerous measure, and Billaud remained. He had done the same thing some time earlier after a big fight (une alteration très-vive) with Collot d'Herbois, who reproached him with the fact he seemed to want to destroy the patriots, in his way of constantly denouncing them. The next day, Robespierre suggested that he go to Commune-Affranchie where royalism was regaining, he said, a frightening consistency. But this tactic of Robespierre was foiled both these two times by the very strong wish of the Committee of General Security which saw itself just as threatened as us by the maneuvers and denunciations of Robespierre. Réponse des membres des deux anciens comités de salut public et de sûreté générale… (1795), page 109-110. Note that on July 3 1794 we also find a CPS decree signed by Collot, Carnot, Saint-Just, Barère, Billaud and C-A Prieur ordering Couthon to go to the army of the Midi, an order that he never followed through with, indicating Robespierre might not have been the only one to try this tactic…

How many nights have not been fruitfully devoted to preparing everything that could strengthen the brilliant destiny of the Republic? How many battles have not been fought against the despotism of Robespierre? He had come to reject, either out of jealousy or malice, the most obviously salutary ideas. He once wanted to declare me a traitor and conspirator, because I had strongly supported the useful and wise proposal that Lindet made, to require horses and carriages in each section of Paris, in order to provide for the supplies of the armies. Défense particulière de J-M. Collot, représentant du peuple (March 1 1795) 

At several times, we had seen from afar the plan to attack the National Representation, intending to resect it; sometimes Couthon, and more often Robespierre, denounced deputies to the Jacobins. One day, we read letters and information sent to the Committee of General Security: Robespierre demanded immediate arrest for the two deputies denounced in these letters: the arrest of Dubois-Crancé was discussed and rejected: that of Alquier was strongly advocated by Robespierre who accused us of softening against the culprits and thus losing the public sake; but that he would denounce these facts to the Jacobins. An arrest warrent was drafted against this Representative; but by a unanimous wish of the two Committees, without hearing Robespierre, the execution was postponed indefinitely and was never carried out. Robespierre returned to the Committee a few days later to denounce new conspiracies in the Convention, saying that, within a short time, these conspirators who had lined up and frequently dined together would succeed in destroying public liberty, if their maneuvers were allowed to continue unpunished. The committee refused to take any further measures, citing the necessity of not weakening and attacking the Convention, which was the target of all the enemies of the Republic. Robespierre did not lose sight of his project: he only saw conspiracies and plots: he asked that Saint-Just returned from the Army of the North and that one write to him so that he may come and strengthen the committee. Having arrived, Saint-Just asked Robespierre one day the purpose of his return in the presence of the other members of the Committee; Robespierre told him that he was to make a report on the new factions which threatened to destroy the National Convention; Robespierre was the only speaker during this session. He was met by the deepest silence from the Committee, and he left with horrible anger. Soon after, Saint-Just returned to the Army of the North, since called Sambre-et-Mouse. Some time passes; Robespierre calls for Saint-Just to return in vain: finally, he returns, no doubt after his instigations; he returned at the moment when he was most needed by the army and when he was least expected: he returned the day after the battle of Fleurus. From that moment, it was no longer possible to get him to leave, although Gillet, representative of the people to the army, continued to ask for him. Saint-Just awaited in Paris the determination that matters would take. In the morning he took care of the police bureau, and decided on arrests or correspondence to be signed; in the evening, he dealt with the detained persons to be judged, together with the public prosecutor, or made violent motions to the committee; he would often speak twenty times in an evening session, and would only speak out of sentence or out of anger when he was not subjecting himself to an affected and painful silence, or rather he would spy on the committee. Most often, he spoke to us about the conspiracies that were being formed in the prisons, he insinuated ideas on this point to the committee's rapporteur, and above all wanted us to refuse the help requested in the prisons. One day he wanted to reduce it to 15 sousand called us defenders of counter-revolutionaries, because we were arguing for the rights of humanity. Réponse de Barère, Billaud-Varennes, Collot d’Herbois et Vadier aux imputations de Laurent Lecointre (1795) page 101-103.

Finally one day during the meeting of the Convention [sic, Committee?], Robespierre asked if one wanted to decide to attack the new factions or to perish by their maneuvers; he attacks and indicts several deputies in turn. An impatient member of the committee, oppressed by this ever-reviving project, stood up and said to him with violent severity: “Robespierre, for a long time you have been trying to lure us with terror into the project of striking our colleagues. You keep complaining about them, attacking them, gathering grievances and denouncing them. This is what the Hébertists and other punished counter-revolutionaries did. There are six of us here who profess the dogma of the integrity of national representation: if you want more, I declare to you, in my own name and in that of my colleagues who work with me and whose feelings I know, that you will only achieve national representation through our bloody corpses. These are the obstacles that we oppose to every ambitious person.” The same member of the committee has since repeated these words to the National Convention while speaking to Robespierre himself on 8 Thermidor. (Billaud) Robespierre felt the force of this unanimous response, bit his brakes, accused us of being defenders of the factions and threatened us with denunciation to the People and to the Convention, he moved away from the committee for some time and never stopped accusing us at the Jacobins, while he was preparing the speech he read on 8 thermidor. Réponse de Barère, Billaud-Varennes, Collot d’Herbois et Vadier aux imputations de Laurent Lecointre (1795) page 103

On 10 messidor (June 28) I was at the Committee of Public Safety. There, I witnessed those who one accuses today (Billaud-Varenne, Barère, Collot-d'Herbois, Vadier, Vouland, Amar and David) treat Robespierre like a dictator. Robespierre flew into an incredible fury. The other members of the Committee looked on with contempt. Saint-Just went out with him.  Levasseur at the Convention, August 30 1794. If this scene actually took place, it must have done so one day later, 11 messidor (June 29), considering Saint-Just was still away on a mission on the tenth.

In several evening sittings the two committees united to devise a means of revoking the law of 22 Prairial. After several conferences during the month of Messidor, they called Robespierre and Saint-Just into their midst to force them to revoke this law, which was the result of a combination unknown to all the members of the government. The meeting was very stormy. Vadier and Moise Bayle were the members of the Committee of General Surety who attacked the law and its authors with the greatest force and indignation. As to the Committee of Public Safety, it declared that it had no part in it, and plainly disowned it. All were agreed to repeal it next day. After this decision Robespierre and Saint-Just declared that they would appeal to public opinion, that they saw that a party was formed to assure immunity to the enemies of the people, and thus to destroy the most ardent friends of liberty , but they could warn good citizens against the united manoeuvres of the governing committees. They retired uttering threats against the members of the committees. Saint-Just called Carnot, amongst others, an aristocrat, and threatened to denounce him to the Assembly. This was like a declaration of war between the two committees and the triumvirate. Seeing Carnot, the most indispensable worker in the committee, thus attacked on account of his courageous honesty and great military talent, I rose up against Saint-Just. Carnot seemed astonished at these threats of denunciation — terrible indeed from a man who two months before had denounced and destroyed Danton. On behalf of my attacked colleague, I said to this little dictator: ”I do not fear you, I have always defended our country openly and without personal interest I will answer you in the tribune if you lay the blame on Carnot. You know that I make reports that are favourably heard by the Assembly, I will make one of those reports in favour of Carnot and against you.” From this moment Robespierre and his friends acted with hostility against us, and especially against me. One day they even sent Robespierre the younger to me, whom they had recalled from the Basses Alpes. This lunatic entered the committee under pretext of giving an account of his mission to Nice; but instead of fulfilling this duty, he addressed me in a furious tone: ”You have maltreated my brother. We missed you on the 31st of May, 1793, but we shall not miss you on the 31st of May, 1794.” He left still threatening us. Memoirs of Bertrand Barère, volume 2, page 167-169.

I obtained from Barère the following fact: During a session of the Committee of Public Safety, Saint-Just and Robespierre reproached Carnot for being an aristocrat (the latter was frightened and shed tears, Barère said) and threatened to denounce him as such at the Convention. Then Barère said: In that case I will make public that you are angry with the man who organized the victory. Testimony of Filippo Buonarroti, cited in Études robespierristes; La corruption parlementaire sous la Terreur (1917) by Albert Mathiez. This sounds very much like the same incident Barère is describing above.

Having come to the Committee of General Security three or four days before 9 Thermidor (July 23), I was told that the two committees of public safety and general security would meet between noon and one o'clock in the place where the first held its sessions, and that I had to go there. Having asked what the reason for this meeting was, I was further told that it was to mutually explain the division which, according to what Robespierre had claimed on different occasions to the Jacobins, existed between the government committees. As I did not have the slightest knowledge of this alleged division, and as I was completely ignorant of what Robespierre had said to the Jacobins, I went to the Committee of Public Safety where I found several of my colleagues who had preceded me, and above all Robespierre, walking with long strides, glasses on his nose and throwing at everyone, from the height of his grandeur, looks which marked the deepest contempt. After a few minutes of silence, Saint-Just spoke and said in his exordium that although the youngest among us, he spoke first since we had often seen young people open opinions which enlightened those who were older; he then spoke on the necessity of organizing a constitution and ended up making a pompous eulogy of Robespierre, calling him the martyr of the liberty of his country and assuring him of all his esteem. This praise having been applauded and confirmed by Le Bas, Robespierre believed that it was time to burst out and first complained in general about his numerous enemies, whom he said were too cowardly to ever allow themselves to persecute him; he then indicted Amar, Vadier, Jagot, Carnot, Collot and Billaud, reproaching them for the fierceness with which they tore each other apart, which, having given rise to explanations, was the cause of Carnot telling him to his face that he did not like him, and Billaud and Collot repulsed his attacks with so much vehemence, energy and noise, that I more than once invited Collot to speak more quietly. Now, in the heat of this explanation, I heard for the first time that Robespierre was also criticized for having intended to put on trial the 72 of our colleagues who were still incarcerated; I also heard him being told that he had complained that one had not yet made use of this infinity of denunciations which were in the Committee of General Security against others of our colleagues, that nothing had been done so as not to provoke new troubles and to maintain concord and peace between us. This storm having passed and Robespierre having seemed to calm down, one agreed on ending the session, and that Saint-Just would make a report on behalf of the two Committees to inform the National Convention that they were not divided. Philippe Rühl in a speech held March 23 1795

Robespierre bitterly reproached us, at the committee, on 5 Thermidor (July 23), for having had the statue of superstition, erected on the Tuileries basin, brought down during the night. Réponse des membres des deux anciens comités de salut public et de sûreté générale… (1795), page 96.

You (Dubois-Crancé) say that Robespierre being absent the other members of the committee therefore agreed to lose you. It was rather to save you. Twice at the end of Messidor and on 7 Thermidor (July 25 1794) Couthon wanted to have the committee adopt the draft of the act of accusation against you; twice he was rejected. The last time especially, seeing himself rejected by us with a sort of cold and firm indignation, he went so far as to request from the committee the refusal that we made to deliberate on these serious denunciations which he brought against Dubois-Crancé. We opposed him in political principle the integrity of the legislative body and the danger of supporting the liberticidal projects of the aristocrats and tyrants in coalition; in public consideration, his reconciliation with you at the Jacobins, and in principle of justice the lack of legitimate evidence. Couthon left the committee furious, and threatened to denounce or silence our refusal to the people and the Convention. B. Barère à Dubois Crancé: Réponse (1795), page 29

This decisive scene, to unmask the conspirators, happened at half past midnight, from the 8th to the 9th of Thermidor (July 26 to 27). Several members of the two committees were gathered. We worked on the ordinary operations of the committees, but we worked with that sad impatience accompanies a terrible outcome, which all circumstances told us would be imminent. Saint-Just kept a profound silence, observed from time to time the members of the committees, and showed neither concern nor rest. He had just sent to Tuilier, his creature, the first 18 pages of the report he was to make the next day; and he then told us that he could not read the report to the committee, of which he only had the last pages. Collot d'Herbois come over from the Jacobins, where he had just been insulted, threatened, proscribed, so to speak, he seemed very agitated. Collot-d'Herbois had barely entered when his colleagues ask him why people left the Jacobins so late? Saint-Just asks him coldly, ”what's new at the Jacobins?”

”You’re asking me what's new? Are you the one who ignores it? You, who are in league with the main author of all these political quarrels, and who only wants to lead us to civil war: you are a coward and a traitor: it is you who deceives us, with your hypocritical air; you're just a box of apothegms, and you're spying on us in the committee. I have just convinced myself of this by everything I have heard; you are three scoundrels, who believe you are blindly leading us to the loss of our homeland, but liberty will survive your horrible plots.”

Here Elie Lacoste rose in fury and said: “there is a triumvirate of knaves, it is Robespierre, Couthon and Saint-Just, who are plotting against the homeland.”

Barère adds: ”who are you then? Insolent Pygines? Who wants to see the spoils of the homeland split between a cripple, a child and a scoundrel; I wouldn’t give you a barnyard to govern.”

Collot-d’Herbois continues: “I know that perhaps you will have us assassinated this night, perhaps we will be hit, by your plots, tomorrow morning, but we are determined to perish at our posts; and before then, perhaps, we will be able to unmask you. Among us, you are making plans against the committees. You have, I am sure, in your pockets calumnies leveled against us; you are a domestic enemy and a conspirator.” 

Saint-Just was struck by this speech; he turned pale, and he did not know what to answer. He opened one of his pockets, stammering, and placed some papers on the table; no one came to read them.

Collot-d’Herbois continues and says to him: “You are preparing a report; but from the way I know you, you have undoubtedly written our act of accusation? So what hope do you have? What lasting success can you expect from these horrible betrayals? You can, perhaps take our lives, have us murdered, but you will not deceive the virtue of the people. Do you believe that when it sees itself deprived of its defenders, of men who sacrificed themselves for it, it will not tear you to pieces? Do you believe that it will sit tight tomorrow, a quiet spectator of your crimes? No, there will be no unpunished usurpation when it comes to the rights of the people.”

Saint-Just then fell back on his report, and said that he would join the committee the next day and that if it did not approve it, he would not read it. Collot continued to unmask Saint-Just; but as he focused more on depicting the dangers praying on the fatherland than on attacking the perfesy of Saint-Just and his accomplices, he gradually reassured himself of his confusion; he listened with composure, returning to his honeyed and hypocritical tone. Some time later, he told Collot d'Herbois that he could be reproached for having made some remarks against Robespierre in a café, and establishing this assertion as a positive fact, he admitted that he had made it the basis of an indictment against Collot, in the speech he had prepared. Saint-Just, during that night, prolonged his allegations and his remarks so much, that it was quite obvious that he only dragged on in this way, in order to prevent us from taking measures against their conspiracy. Several members of the committees, impatient to so much falsehood, went into the next room and deliberated whether they would have him arrested immediately, but they thought it was wiser to refer it the next day to the National Convention, after having known the intentions of Saint-Just, in the report he was to make. It is even worth noting that when we drew up a picture of the unfortunate circumstances in which public affairs found itself, each of us looked for measures and proposed means; Saint-Just stopped us, acting astonished, as if not being in the confidence of these dangers, and complained that all hearts were closed, that he knew nothing, that he could not conceive this quick way of improvising lightning at every moment, and he conjured us, in the name of the republic, to return to fairer ideas, to wiser measures. This was how the traitor kept us in check, paralyzed all our measures and cooled our zeal. At five o'clock in the morning, Saint-Just fled and the members of the committee sought means to paralyze the armed force of Paris, which the scoundrels had in their hands. Réponse des membres des deux anciens Comités de salut public et de sûrété générale… (1795) page 105-107.

[opencommunion]

"According to the United Nations, 93 percent of Gaza’s 560 schools have been either destroyed or damaged since October 7. About 340 have been directly bombarded by the Israeli army. They include government and private schools as well as those run by the UN itself. By now it is clear that Israel is systematically targeting Gaza’s schools and there is a reason for it.

For Palestinians, educational spaces have historically served as vital hubs for learning, revolutionary activism, cultural conservation and the preservation of relations between Palestinian lands cut off from each other by Israeli colonisation. Schools have always played a crucial role in the empowerment and movement for liberation of the Palestinian people.

What Israel is doing now is trying to destroy this form of Palestinian resistance by committing scholasticide. It is dismantling educational and cultural institutions to eradicate the avenues through which the Palestinians can preserve and share their culture, knowledge, history, identity and values across generations. Scholasticide is a critical aspect of genocide."

[nesiacha]

The Women of the French Revolution (and even the Napoleonic Era) and Their Absence of Activism or Involvement in Films

Warning: I am currently dealing with a significant personal issue that I’ve already discussed in this post: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/765252498913165313/the-scars-of-a-toxic-past-are-starting-to-surface?source=share. I need to refocus on myself, get some rest, and think about what I need to do. I won’t be around on Tumblr or social media for a few days (at most, it could last a week or two, though I don’t really think it will).

But don’t worry about me—I’m not leaving Tumblr anytime soon. I just wanted to let you know so you don’t worry if you don’t see me and have seen this post.

I just wanted to finish this post, which I’d already started three-quarters of the way through.

One aspect that frustrates me in film portrayals (a significant majority, around 95%) is the way women of the Revolution or even the Napoleonic era are depicted. Generally, they are shown as either "too gentle" (if you know what I mean), merely supporting their husbands or partners in a purely romantic way. Just look at Lucile Desmoulins—she is depicted as a devoted lover in most films but passive and with little to say about politics.

Yet there’s so much to discuss regarding women during this revolutionary period. Why don’t we see mention of women's clubs in films? There were over 50 in France between 1789 and 1793. Why not mention Etta Palm d’Alders, one of the founders of the Société Patriotique et de Bienfaisance des Amies de la Vérité, who fought for the right to divorce and for girls' education? Or the cahier from the women of Les Halles, requesting that wine not be taxed in Paris?

Only once have I seen Louise Reine Audu mentioned in a film (the excellent Un peuple et son Roi), a Parisian market woman who played a leading role in the Revolution. She led the "dames des halles" and on October 5, 1789, led a procession from Paris to Versailles in this famous historical event. She was imprisoned in September 1790, amnestied a year later through the intervention of Paris mayor Pétion, and later participated in the storming of the Tuileries on August 10, 1792. Théroigne de Méricourt appears occasionally as a feminist, but her mission is often distorted. She was not a Girondin, as some claim, but a proponent of reconciliation between the Montagnards and the Girondins, believing women had a key role in this process (though she did align with Brissot on the war question). She was a hands-on revolutionary, supporting the founding of societies with Charles Gilbert-Romme and demanding the right to bear arms in her Amazon attire.

Why is there no mention in films of Pauline Léon and Claire Lacombe, two well-known women of the era? Pauline Léon was more than just a fervent supporter of Théophile Leclerc, a prominent ultra-revolutionary of the "Enragés." She was the eldest daughter of chocolatier parents, her father a philosopher whom she described as very brilliant. She was highly active in popular societies. Her mother and a neighbor joined her in protesting the king’s flight and at the Champ-de-Mars protest in July 1791, where she reportedly defended a friend against a National Guard soldier. Along with other women (and 300 signatures, including her mother’s), she petitioned for women’s rights. She participated in the August 10 uprising, attacked Dumouriez in a session of the Société fraternelle des patriotes des deux sexes, demanded the King’s execution, and called for nobles to be banned from the army at the Jacobin Club, in the name of revolutionary women. She joined her husband Leclerc in Aisne where he was stationed (see @anotherhumaninthisworld’s excellent post on Pauline Léon). Claire Lacombe was just as prominent at the time and shared her political views. She was one of those women, like Théroigne de Méricourt, who advocated taking up arms to fight the tyrant. She participated in the storming of the Tuileries in 1792 and received a civic crown, like Louise Reine Audu and Théroigne de Méricourt. She was active at the Jacobin Club before becoming secretary, then president of the Société des Citoyennes Républicaines Révolutionnaires (Society of Revolutionary Republican Women). Contrary to popular belief, there’s no evidence she co-founded this society (confirmed by historian Godineau). Lacombe demanded the trial of Marie Antoinette, stricter measures against suspects, prosecution of Girondins by the Revolutionary Tribunal, and the application of the Constitution. She also advocated for greater social rights, as expressed in the Enragés petition, which would later be adopted by the Exagérés, who were less suspicious of delegated power and saw a role beyond the revolutionary sections.

Olympe de Gouges did not call for women to bear arms; in her Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen, addressed to the Queen after the royal family’s attempted escape, she demanded gender equality. She famously said, "A woman has the right to mount the scaffold; she must equally have the right to mount the rostrum," and denounced the monarchy when Louis XVI's betrayal became undeniable, although she sought clemency for him and remained a royalist. She could be both a patriot and a moderate (in the conservative sense; moderation then didn’t necessarily imply clemency but rather conservative views on certain matters).

Why Are Figures Like Manon Roland Hardly Mentioned in These Films?

In most films, Manon Roland is barely mentioned, or perhaps given a brief appearance, despite being a staunch republican from the start who worked toward the fall of the King and was more than just a supporter of her husband, Roland. She hosted a salon where political ideas were exchanged and was among those who contributed to the monarchy's downfall. Of course, she was one of those courageous women who, while brave, did not advocate for women’s rights. It’s essential to note that just because some women fought in the Revolution or displayed remarkable courage doesn’t mean they necessarily advocated for greater rights for women (even Olympe de Gouges, as I mentioned earlier, had her limits on gender equality, as she did not demand the right for women to bear arms).

Speaking of feminism, films could also spotlight Sophie de Grouchy, the wife and influence behind Condorcet, one of the few deputies (along with Charles Gilbert-Romme, Guyomar, Charlier, and others) who openly supported political and civic rights for women. Without her, many of Condorcet’s posthumous works wouldn’t have seen the light of day; she even encouraged him to write Esquilles and received several pages to publish, which she did. Like many women, she hosted a salon for political discussion, making her a true political thinker.

Then there’s Rosalie Jullien, a highly cultured woman and wife of Marc-Antoine Jullien, whose sons were fervent revolutionaries. She played an essential role during the Revolution, actively involving herself in public affairs, attending National Assembly sessions, staying informed of political debates and intrigues, and even sending her maid Marion to gather information on the streets. Rosalie’s courage is evident in her steadfastness, as she claimed she would "stay at her post" despite the upheaval, loyal to her patriotic and revolutionary ideals. Her letters offer invaluable insights into the Revolution. She often discussed public affairs with prominent revolutionaries like the Robespierre siblings and influential figures like Barère.

Lucile Desmoulins is another figure. She was not just the devoted lover often depicted in films; she was a fervent supporter of the French Revolution. From a young age, her journal reveals her anti-monarchist sentiments (no wonder she and Camille Desmoulins, who shared her ideals, were such a united couple). She favored the King’s execution without delay and wholeheartedly supported Camille in his publication, Le Vieux Cordelier. When Guillaume Brune urged Camille to tone down his criticism of the Year II government, Lucile famously responded, “Let him be, Brune. He must save his country; let him fulfill his mission.” She also corresponded with Fréron on the political situation, proving herself an indispensable ally to Camille. Lucile left a journal, providing historical evidence that counters the infantilization of revolutionary women. Sadly, we lack personal journals from figures like Éléonore Duplay, Sophie Momoro, or Claire Lacombe, which has allowed detractors to argue (incorrectly) that these women were entirely under others' influence.

Additionally, there were women who supported Marat, like his sister Albertine Marat and his "wife"Simone Evrard, without whom he might not have been as effective. They were politically active throughout their lives, regularly attending political clubs and sharing their political views. Simone Evrard, who inspired much admiration, was deeply committed to Marat’s work. Marat had promised her marriage, and she was warmly received by his family. She cared for Marat, hiding him in the cellar to protect him from La Fayette’s soldiers. At age 28, Simone played a vital role in Marat’s life, both as a partner and a moral supporter. At this time, Marat, who was 20 years her senior, faced increasing political isolation; his radical views and staunch opposition to the newly established constitutional monarchy had distanced him from many revolutionaries.

Despite the circumstances, Simone actively supported Marat, managing his publications. With an inheritance from her late half-sister Philiberte, Simone financed Marat’s newspaper in 1792, setting up a press in the Cordeliers cloister to ensure the continued publication of Marat’s revolutionary pamphlets. Although Marat also sought public funds, such as from minister Jean-Marie Roland, it was mainly Simone’s resources that sustained L’Ami du Peuple. Simone and Marat also planned to publish political works, including Chains of Slavery and a collection of Marat’s writings. After Marat’s assassination in July 1793, Simone continued these projects, becoming the guardian of his political legacy. Thanks to her support, Marat maintained his influence, continuing his revolutionary struggle and exposing the “political machination” he opposed.

Simone’s home on Rue des Cordeliers also served as an annex for Marat’s printing press. This setup combined their personal life with professional activities, incorporating security measures to protect Marat. Simone, her sister Catherine, and their doorkeeper, Marie-Barbe Aubain, collaborated in these efforts, overseeing the workspace and its protection.

On July 13, 1793, Jean-Paul Marat was assassinated by Charlotte Corday. Simone Evrard was present and immediately attempted to help Marat and make sure that Charlotte Corday was arrested . She provided precise details about the circumstances of the assassination, contributing significantly to the judicial file that would lead to Corday’s condemnation.

After Marat’s death, Simone was widely recognized as his companion by various revolutionaries and orators who praised her dignity, and she was introduced to the National Convention by Robespierre on August 8, 1793 when she make a speech against Theophile Leclerc,Jacques Roux, Carra, Ducos,Dulaure, Pétion... Together with Albertine Marat (who also left written speeches from this period), Simone took on the work of preserving and publishing Marat’s political writings. Her commitment to this cause led to new arrests after Robespierre's fall, exposing the continued hostility of factions opposed to Marat’s supporters, even after his death.

Moreover, Jean-Paul Marat benefited from the support of several women of the Revolution, and he would not have been as effective without them.

The Duplay sisters were much more politically active than films usually portray. Most films misleadingly present them as mere groupies (considering that their father is often incorrectly shown as a simple “yes-man” in these same, often misogynistic, films, it's no surprise the treatment of women is worse).

Élisabeth Le Bas, accompanied her husband Philippe Le Bas on a mission to Alsace, attended political sessions, and bravely resisted prison guards who urged her to marry Thermidorians, expressing her anger with great resolve. She kept her husband’s name, preserving the revolutionary legacy through her testimonies and memoirs. Similarly, Éléonore Duplay, Robespierre’s possible fiancée, voluntarily confined herself to care for her sister, suffered an arrest warrant, and endured multiple prison transfers. Despite this, they remained politically active, staying close to figures in the Babouvist movement, including Buonarroti, with whom Éléonore appeared especially close, based on references in his letters.

Henriette Le Bas, Philippe Le Bas's sister, also deserves more recognition. She remained loyal to Élisabeth and her family through difficult times, even accompanying Philippe, Saint-Just, and Élisabeth on a mission to Alsace. She was briefly engaged to Saint-Just before the engagement was quickly broken off, later marrying Claude Cattan. Together with Éléonore, she preserved Élisabeth’s belongings after her arrest. Despite her family’s misfortunes—including the detention of her father—Henriette herself was surprisingly not arrested. Could this be another coincidence when it came to the wives and sisters of revolutionaries, or perhaps I missed part of her story?

Charlotte Robespierre, too, merits more focus. She held her own political convictions, sometimes clashing with those of her brothers (perhaps often, considering her political circle was at odds with their stances). She lived independently, never marrying, and even accompanied her brother Augustin on a mission for the Convention. Tragically, she was never able to reconcile with her brothers during their lifetimes. For a long time, I believed that Charlotte’s actions—renouncing her brothers to the Thermidorians after her arrest, trying to leverage contacts to escape her predicament, accepting a pension from Bonaparte, and later a stipend under Louis XVIII—were all a matter of survival, given how difficult life was for a single woman then. I saw no shame in that (and I still don’t). The only aspect I faulted her for was embellishing reality in her memoirs, which contain some disputable claims. But I recently came across a post by @saintejustitude on Charlotte Robespierre, and honestly, it’s one of the best (and most well-informed) portrayals of her.

As for the the hébertists womens , films could cover Sophie Momoro more thoroughly, as she played the role of the Goddess of Reason in her husband’s de-Christianization campaigns, managed his workshop and printing presses in his absence accompanying Momoro on a mission on Vendée. Momoro expressed his wife's political opinion on the situation in a letter. She also drafted an appeal for assistance to the Convention in her husband’s characteristic style.

Marie Françoise Goupil, Hébert’s wife, is likewise only shown as a victim (which, of course, she was—a victim of a sham trial and an unjust execution, like Lucile Desmoulins). However, there was more to her story. Here’s an excerpt from a letter she wrote to her husband’s sister in the summer of 1792 that reveals her strong political convictions:

« You are very worried about the dangers of the fatherland. They are imminent, we cannot hide them: we are betrayed by the court, by the leaders of the armies, by a large part of the members of the assembly; many people despair; but I am far from doing so, the people are the only ones who made the revolution. It alone will support her because it alone is worthy of it. There are still incorruptible members in the assembly, who will not fear to tell it that its salvation is in their hands, then the people, so great, will still be so in their just revenge, the longer they delay in striking the more it learns to know its enemies and their number, the more, according to me, its blows will only strike with certainty and  only fall on the guilty, do not be worried about the fate of my worthy husband. He and I would be sorry if the people were enslaved to survive the liberty of their fatherland, I would be inconsolable if the child I am carrying only saw the light of day with the eyes of a slave, then I would prefer to see it perish with me ».

There is also Marie Angélique Lequesne, who played a notable role while married to Ronsin (and would go on to have an important role during the Napoleonic era, which we’ll revisit later). Here’s an excerpt from Memoirs, 1760-1820 by Jean-Balthazar de Bonardi du Ménil (to be approached with caution): “Marie-Angélique Lequesne was caught up in the measures taken against the Hébertists and imprisoned on the 1st of Germinal at the Maison d'Arrêt des Anglaises, frequently engaging with ultra-revolutionary circles both before and after Ronsin’s death, even dressing as an Amazon to congratulate the Directory on a victory.” According to Généanet (to be taken with even more caution), she may have served as a canteen worker during the campaign of 1792.

On the Babouvist side, we can mention Marie Anne Babeuf, one of Gracchus Babeuf’s closest collaborators. Marie Anne was among her husband's staunchest political supporters. She printed his newspaper for a long time, and her activism led to her two-day arrest in February 1795. When her husband was arrested while she was pregnant, she made every effort possible to secure his release and never gave up on him. She walked from Paris to Vendôme to attend his trial, witnessing the proceeding that would sentence him to death. A few months after Gracchus Babeuf’s execution, she gave birth to their last son, Caius. Félix Lepeletier became a protector of the family (and apparently, Turreau also helped, supposedly adopting Camille Babeuf—one of his very few positive acts). Marie Anne supported her children through various small jobs, including as a market vendor, while never giving up her activism and remaining as combative as ever. (There’s more to her story during the Napoleonic era as well).

We must not forget the role of active women in the insurrections of Year III, against the Assembly, which had taken a more conservative turn by then. Here’s historian Mathilde Larrère’s description of their actions: “In April and May 1795, it was these women who took to the streets, beating drums across the city, mocking law enforcement, entering shops, cafes, and homes to call for revolt. In retaliation, the Assembly decreed that women were no longer allowed to attend Assembly sessions and expelled the knitters by force. Days later, a decree banned them from attending any assemblies and from gathering in groups of more than five in the streets.”

There were also women who fought as soldiers during the French Revolution, such as Marie-Thérèse Figueur, known as “Madame Sans-Gêne.” The Fernig sisters, aged 22 and 17, threw themselves into battle against Austrian soldiers, earning a reputation for their combat prowess and later becoming aides-de-camp to Dumouriez. Other fighting women included the gunners Pélagie Dulière and Catherine Pochetat.

In the overseas departments, there was Flore Bois Gaillard, a former slave who became a leader of the “Brigands” revolt on the island of Saint Lucia during the French Revolution. This group, composed of former slaves, French revolutionaries, soldiers, and English deserters, was determined to fight against English regiments using guerrilla tactics. The group won a notable victory, the Battle of Rabot in 1795, with the assistance of Governor Victor Hugues and, according to some accounts, with support from Louis Delgrès and Pelage.

On the island of Saint-Domingue, which would later become Haiti, Cécile Fatiman became one of the notable figures at the start of the Haitian Revolution, especially during the Bois-Caiman revolt on August 14, 1791.

In short, the list of influential women is long. We could also talk about figures like Félicité Brissot, Sylvie Audouin (from the Hébertist side), Marguerite David (from the Enragés side), and more. Figures like Theresia Cabarrus, who wielded influence during the Directory (especially when Tallien was still in power), or the activities of Germaine de Staël (since it’s essential to mention all influential women of the Revolution, regardless of political alignment) are also noteworthy.

Napoleonic Era

Films could have focused more on women during this era. Instead, we always see the Bonaparte sisters (with Caroline cast as an exaggerated villain, almost like a cartoon character), or Hortense Beauharnais, who’s shown solely as a victim of Louis Bonaparte and portrayed as naïve. There is so much more to say about this time, even if it was more oppressive for women.

Germaine de Staël is barely mentioned, which is unfortunate, and Marie Anne Babeuf is even more overlooked, despite her being questioned by the Napoleonic police in 1801 and raided in 1808. She also suffered the loss of two more children: Camille Babeuf, who died by suicide in 1814, and Caius, reportedly killed by a stray bullet during the 1814 invasion of Vendôme. No mention is made of Simone Evrard and Albertine Marat, who were arrested and interrogated in 1801.

An important but lesser-known event in popular culture was the deportation and imprisonment of the Jacobins, as highlighted by Lenôtre. Here’s an excerpt: “This petition reached Paris in autumn 1804 and was filed away in the ministry's records. It didn’t reach the public, who had other amusements besides the old stories of the Nivôse deportees. It was, after all, the time when the Republic, now an Empire, was preparing to receive the Pope from Rome to crown the triumphant Caesar. Yet there were people in Paris who thought constantly about the Mahé exiles—their wives, most left without support, living in extreme poverty; mothers were the hardest hit. Even if one doesn’t sympathize with the exiles themselves, one can feel pity for these unfortunate women... They implored people in their neighborhoods and local suppliers to testify on behalf of their husbands, who were wise, upstanding, good fathers, and good spouses. In most cases, these requests came too late... After an agonizing wait, the only response they received was, ‘Nothing to be done; he is gone.’” (Les Derniers Terroristes by Gérard Lenôtre). Many women were mobilized to help the Jacobins. One police report references a woman named Madame Dufour, “wife of the deportee Dufour, residing on Rue Papillon, known for her bold statements; she’s a veritable fury, constantly visiting friends and associates, loudly proclaiming the Jacobins’ imminent success. This woman once played a role in the Babeuf conspiracy; most of their meetings were held at her home…” (Unfortunately for her, her husband had already passed away.)

On the Napoleonic “allies” side, Marie Angélique, the widow of Ronsin who later married Turreau, should be more highlighted. Turreau treated her so poorly that it even outraged Washington’s political class. She was described as intelligent, modest, generous, and curious, and according to future First Lady Dolley Madison, she charmed Washington’s political circles. She played an essential role in Dolley Madison’s political formation, contributing to her reputation as an active, politically involved First Lady. Marie Angélique eventually divorced Turreau, though he refused to fund her return to France; American friends apparently helped her.

Films could also portray Marie-Jacqueline Sophie Dupont, wife of Lazare Carnot, a devoted and loving partner who even composed music for his poems. Additionally, her ties with Joséphine de Beauharnais could be explored. They were close friends, which is evident in a heartbreaking letter Lazare Carnot wrote to Joséphine on February 6, 1813, to inform her of Sophie’s death: “Until her last moment, she held onto the gratitude Your Majesty had honored her with; in her memory, I must remind Your Majesty of the care and kindness that characterize you and are so dear to every sensitive soul.”

In films, however, when Joséphine de Beauharnais’s circle is shown, Theresia Cabarrus (who appears much more in Joséphine ou la comédie des ambitions) and the Countess of Rémusat are mentioned, but Sophie Carnot is omitted, which is a pity. Sophie Carnot knew how to uphold social etiquette well, making her an ideal figure to be integrated into such stories (after all, she was the daughter of a former royal secretary).

Among women soldiers, we had Marie-Thérèse Figueur as well as figures like Maria Schellink, who also deserves greater representation. Speaking of fighters, films could further explore the stories of women who took up arms against the illegal reinstatement of slavery. In Saint-Domingue, now Haiti, many women gave their lives, including Sanité Bélair, lieutenant of Toussaint Louverture, considered the soul of the conspiracy along with her husband, Charles Bélair (Toussaint’s nephew) and a fighter against Leclerc. Captured, sentenced to death, and executed with her husband, she showed great courage at her execution. Thomas Madiou's Histoire d’Haiti describes the final moments of the Bélair couple: “When Charles Bélair was placed in front of the squad to be shot, he calmly listened to his wife exhorting him to die bravely... (...)Sanité refused to have her eyes covered and resisted the executioner’s efforts to make her bend down. The officer in charge of the squad had to order her to be shot standing.”

Dessalines, known for leading Haiti to victory against Bonaparte, had at least three influential women in his life. He had as his mentor, role modele and fighting instructor the former slave Victoria Montou, known as Aunt Toya, whom he considered a second mother. They met while they were working as slaves. They met while both were enslaved. The second was his future wife, Marie Claire Bonheur, a sort of war nurse, as described in this post, who proved instrumental in the siege of Jacmel by persuading Dessalines to open the roads so that aid, like food and medicine, could reach the city. When independence was declared, Dessalines became emperor, and Marie Claire Bonheur, empress. When Jean-Jacques Dessalines ordered the elimination of white inhabitants in Haiti, Marie Claire Bonheur opposed him, some say even kneeling before him to save the French. Alongside others, she saved those later called the “orphans of Cap,” two girls named Hortense and Augustine Javier.

Dessalines had a legitimized illegitimate daughter, Catherine Flon, who, according to legend, sewed the country’s flag on May 18, 1803. Thus, three essential women in his life contributed greatly to his cause.

In Guadeloupe, Rosalie, also known as Solitude, fought while pregnant against the re-establishment of slavery and sacrificed her life for it, as she was hanged after giving birth. Marthe Rose Toto also rose up and was hanged a few months after Louis Delgrès’s death (if they were truly a couple, it would have added a tragic touch to their story, like that of Camille and Lucile Desmoulins, which I have discussed here).

To conclude, my aim in this post is not to elevate these revolutionary, fighting, or Napoleonic-allied women above their male counterparts but simply to give them equal recognition, which, sadly, is still far from the case (though, fortunately, this is not true here on Tumblr).

I want to thank @aedesluminis for providing such valuable information about Sophie Carnot—without her, I wouldn't have known any of this. And I also want to thank all of you, as your various posts have been really helpful in guiding my research, especially @anotherhumaninthisworld, @frevandrest, @sieclesetcieux, @saintjustitude, @enlitment ,@pleasecallmealsip ,@usergreenpixel , @orpheusmori​ ,@lamarseillasie etc. I apologize if I forgot anyone—I’m sure I have, and I'm sorry; I'm a bit exhausted. ^^

[city-of-ladies]

Wu Shuqing and the revolutionary women's troops

Revolutionary women fighting at Nanjing

In 1911, revolutionaries in southern China rose up against the Manchu-led Qing Dynasty. Their successful uprising brought an end to the imperial system and ushered in the early republican era. Moved by both patriotism and feminist ideals, women joined the movement.

Wu Shuqing’s women’s troop

Wu Shuqing, a 19-year-old student from Hanyang, was one of these women. Alongside two others, she wrote to revolutionary leader Li Yuanhong, asking for permission to fight. He initially refused, arguing that integrating women into an all-male army would be too difficult.

But Wu Shuqing didn’t back down. She responded by asserting that there was no difference between men and women when it came to fighting a revolution:

“Were they to hear that the nation was conscripting troops, farmers would lay down their hoes and laborers would abandon their tools. In high spirit they would go off and become soldiers. Even teachers and students in school would all have to become troops. The people are the starting point for society, and society is the point at which the state begins. The people are thus of major importance in terms of victory and defeat of the state. If we do not now come to the aid of the great Han people and wipe out the Manchu bastards, we will assuredly earn the slander of foreigners. In the north sits powerful Russia and majestic Great Britain. Our country faces great dangers on that front. I seek no instant glory. I merely want to join the troops in fighting northward, giving my life in pursuit of the enemy, killing the Manchus. Only then will our Han race be avenged.”

Wu Shuqing’s request was granted, and a women’s troop was formed.

The women’s troop at the front

The exact number of women who joined is unclear, with reports suggesting several hundred. They underwent military training before being sent to the front lines.

Wu Shuqing led them into combat. She participated in a campaign against the Qing at Hankou. During the battle for Nanjing, she and her troops devised a plan to occupy the fort at Shizishan, opening a path for the revolutionary army.

Many women’s forces and organizations were formed in quick succession, though not all of them saw battle.

The sisters Yin Weijun and Yin Ruizhi became famous for their skill in bomb-making and explosives. They earned respect during the battles against the Qing for their daring bombing raids.

Though Yin Ruizhi was wounded, her sister went on to create another unit, the Zhejiang Women’s Nationalist Army, leading them into battle. Over 30 women from this unit fought to liberate Nanjing. They attacked three forts, occupied Yuhatai, scaled ladders over the city walls, and entered Nanjing on December 2. Eyewitnesses praised their bravery and combat effectiveness. However, the troop was later disbanded as the commander-in-chief did not believe women could handle a long-term expedition.

The Yin sisters in military attire.

A third women’s troop also participated in the battle for Nanjing, providing first-aid and logistical support.

A fourth women’s unit, the Guandong Women’s Northern Expedition Bombing Team, was led by Xu Mulan. A hundred female soldiers fought at Xu Zhou.

Though women made up only a small fraction of the revolutionary forces, they played a vital role in the overall movement. For some, their military involvement became a way to express their political ideals and ensure the possibility of an egalitarian society in the future republic. Some of these women also became outspoken advocates for women’s suffrage.

Aftermath

Most women’s armies were discharged in 1912 after a compromise was reached between the revolutionaries and the northern forces. Many female soldiers were left frustrated, feeling that their contributions were undervalued, especially as all positions in the provisional government were given to men.

Wu Shuqing’s whereabouts after the revolution remain unknown.

Here is the link to my Ko-Fi. Your support would be much appreciated!

Further reading:

Edwards Louise, Gender, Politics, and Democracy: Women's Suffrage in China

Ono Kazuko, Chinese Women in a Century of Revolution, 1850-1950

Li Xiaolin, Women in the Chinese Military 

[27moremoons]

Hamas, October 7th, 2024:

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

A Flood Towards Liberation

A year into the ongoing heroic Al-Aqsa Flood Battle:

October 7th marks a historic turning point in our struggle, representing a natural response to zionist schemes aimed at erasing our national cause, consolidating control over our land and sacred sites, Judaizing them, asserting dominance over the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, persecuting prisoners, and continuing the siege on the Gaza Strip. This heroic battle, led with unwavering faith, determination, strength, and capability, was carried by the Al-Qassam Brigades, alongside all Palestinian resistance factions, with the support of our people across the homeland and abroad. At the heart of this movement were the steadfast, patient, and sacrificial people of Gaza, standing at the forefront of the nation, defending the land and the holy sites.

Since October 7th last year, over the course of an entire year, this Nazi enemy has committed the most heinous crimes and massacres, launching one of the most horrific genocide war against our people in modern history.

This ongoing aggressive war, now marking its full year, has claimed the lives of more than 41,000 martyrs, the majority of whom are women and children, with over 96,000 injured. Thousands remain missing beneath the rubble, alongside the thousands of detainees, all from Gaza alone. In the West Bank and occupied Al-Quds, over 600 martyrs have ascended, a quarter of them children, with more than 6,000 injured, while around 11,000 of our people remain imprisoned, subjected to the most brutal forms of torture, persecution, and the slowest deaths in the occupation's prisons.

As we mark one year since the Al-Aqsa Flood Battle, we in the Islamic Resistance Movement - Hamas offer our prayers for the souls of our people’s martyrs, who ascended in our long struggle against the zionist enemy. We also pray for the martyr leaders who sacrificed their lives in this heroic battle: our brother, the martyr leader Ismail Haniyeh, our brother, the martyr leader Saleh Al-Arouri, and the caravans of the martyrs from our nation, especially from the support and defense fronts, led by the martyr, His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, and the martyr leaders of the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, whose blood mixed with the blood of our people on the path to liberating Al-Quds and the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque.

We affirm the following:

First: The steadfastness of our great people in the Gaza Strip, their steadfastness on their land, their immense sacrifices, their rallying around and embracing of the resistance while remaining patient and steadfast for a full year, is the rock upon which all the occupation’s plans to displace us and eliminate our rights have shattered.

Second: The cowardly and criminal assassinations carried out by the fascist occupation against the leaders, symbols, and cadres of the resistance, both inside and outside of Palestine, and against the leaders of the resistance on the support fronts, only strengthen our resolve to confront the occupation and its aggressive schemes until it is defeated and vanquished.

Third: One year into the ongoing Al-Aqsa Flood Battle, we express our pride in the following:

1 - The legendary steadfastness of our great people in Gaza, who have written a glorious history for our people and our nation through their blood, suffering, hunger, and thirst, as they continue to defend their dignity, freedom, and independence.

2 - The bravery of the valiant resistance, including our victorious Al-Qassam Brigades, Saraya Al-Quds, and all resistance forces who have shattered the myth of the occupation and brought the despicable occupation closer to its inevitable end, offering the lives of their leaders and soldiers in the process.

3 - The heroism of our revolutionary youth and resistance fighters in the proud West Bank, who are confronting the occupation army and defending their land and holy sites against the enemy’s crimes, its hostile invasions of cities and camps, the rampages of extremist settlers, and their desecration of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Fourth: The Movement has made and continues to make significant efforts to stop the aggression and end the suffering of our people, positively engaging with all initiatives while firmly holding to a permanent ceasefire, the full withdrawal, the upholding of our people’s rights and aspirations, and honoring the blood and sacrifices of our people.

Fifth: All the lies and black propaganda promoted by the occupation and its fascist government against our people and resistance have collapsed and have proven to be false. Likewise, all the rumors and psychological warfare have failed to undermine the popular support for the resistance.

Sixth: We hold the U.S. administration, a partner in this aggression, fully responsible for the continuation of these crimes and acts of genocide. We call on it to stop its biased support for the occupation and immediately act to halt this brutal genocide war.

Seven: The expansion of zionist aggression to include Arab and Islamic countries—Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Iran—proves once again that it poses a real threat to the security and stability of the region, as well as to regional and international peace and security. Now, more than ever, there is a pressing need to deter this rogue entity, isolate it, boycott it, and shut down all attempts to integrate it into our nation or normalize relations with it.

Eighth: We highly value and appreciate the jihad and sacrifices of our brothers in Hezbollah, the Islamic Resistance, the Islamic Group in Lebanon, Ansarallah in Yemen, and the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. Their steadfast support, sacrifices, and participation in aiding our people and resistance during the Al-Aqsa Flood Battle are recognized. We call on all the forces of the Islamic Nation and its free people to join this heroic battle, gaining the honor of defending Al-Quds and the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Ninth: We renew our call to our Arab and Islamic countries to take urgent steps to stop the ongoing aggression and genocide war against our people. We also urge the implementation of the resolutions from the Arab and Islamic joint summit held in Riyadh on November 11th of last year, calling for serious action to break the siege, bring aid and relief to Gaza, and cut all forms of political, diplomatic, and economic relations with the zionist entity.

Tenth: We express our gratitude to the Republic of South Africa for filing a lawsuit, and to all the countries that have joined this case, against the zionist occupation at the International Court of Justice for committing genocide in Gaza. We also value all the official, popular, and partisan stances, initiatives, and activities in our Arab and Islamic world, and across the globe. We commend the mass mobilization by all free peoples and those with a conscience in capitals around the world, the union movements, popular protests, and student demonstrations in universities supporting our people's rights. We call for an escalation of solidarity activities in all arenas and fields, strengthening the boycott of the occupation, condemning its crimes, and pressuring countries, entities, companies, and organizations that support the genocide war in Gaza.

Eleven: We call upon the masses of our Palestinian people in the West Bank, Al-Quds, the occupied territories, and in refugee camps and the diaspora to escalate all forms of resistance and struggle against the zionist enemy and its schemes. We also call on all Palestinian political factions, movements, organizations, and national figures to unite, close ranks, and prioritize national responsibility, focusing all efforts and resources to confront this fascist aggression.

In conclusion, we affirm to the entire world that there can be no compromise on our people's legitimate right to resist the occupation by all means necessary, to establish our free and independent Palestinian state with Al-Quds as its capital, and to live a life of dignity, free from siege, bombing, threats, or foreign control—like all other peoples of the world. Our great people and valiant resistance will continue their legendary epic in the Al-Aqsa Flood Battle, standing firm against aggression and thwarting its hostile plans.

Mercy, glory, and eternity to the martyrs of our people and our nation, swift recovery to the wounded and the sick, and freedom to the prisoners and detainees in the enemy’s prisons.

It is indeed a jihad of victory or martyrdom.

Islamic Resistance Movement - Hamas

[carbone14]

Soldats chinois nationalistes avec une mitrailleuse lourde MG 08 Maxim Type 24 - Guerre sino-japonaise

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“New pictures, just received from the Orient, showing some of the Chinese forces which are lined up against the powerful Japanese war machine in Jehol. The above photo shows Chinese soldiers digging trenches not far Shanhaikwan.”

- from the Kingston Whig-Standard. March 7, 1933. Page 7.

[txttletale]

Wtf is Lancer and why is it shit (serious question)

lancer is a tabletop roleplaying game made by the guy who drew kill six billion demons and another guy. i wouldn't call it 'shit', necessarily--it's good in a lot of the ways that matter. it's first and foremost a tactical mech combat game and on that level it's incredible. its ruleset is finely tuned, provides great amounts of GM support to make running what might otherwise be overwhelmingly crunchy combat easier, and has a truly stunning and cool level of character customization available. so as a game, i think it's great fun to play and run, genuinely innovative, and a huge step forward for battlemap tactical wargame type TTRPGs in general.

the lore though, kind of sucks. i think it has two clear and overlapping core problems. problem #1 is that it is a utopia as envisioned by a social democrat. it's a world which the text describes as 'post-capitalist' (but there are still evil megacorporations with private armies who own slaves) and 'post-scarcity' (but only in the developed 'core' systems, so. y'know. there's scarcity). at many points in the text they say that Union (the game's main faction) is utopian, throwing around that exact word a bunch of times as well as 'mutual aid' and 'direct action' and the like. but what they describe is just kind of an imperialist Space Sweden with several distinct forms of slavery that constantly expands and uses its Benevolent Imperial Power to intervene on the Backwards Violent Worlds on its outer border but its good because its just trying to bring them UBI.

to show what i mean, here's one of the game's writers¹ talking about how it would be morally wrong for Union to, say, appropriate the property of a private military corporation that also operates as a fascist nation-state:

it's 'revolution' as imagined by the limpest of social democrats. and of course this would honestly be fine, whatever, most sci-fi settings are fundamentally achingly liberal, but the game goes so out of its way to signpost how Radical it is and how Hopeful and Liberationist you're meant to see the setting as

the other core problem is closely related--it feels like the lancer guys put every cool sci-fi idea they had into lancer even when it completely clashes with the core ideas behind it. like, AIs in this settings are callled 'NHPs' (non-human persons) and they're eldritch god-like beings from another dimension who have be kept 'shackled' (lancer's words, not mine!) to keep them as pliant and obedient AI assistants instead of hostile eldritch abominations. this is obviously horrifying and dystopian but it rules, it would be sick fucking worldbuilding for something with the tone of 40k or a one-off doctor who or star trek episode--but as a fundamental technology foundational to what we are supposed to believe is a post-revolutionary society founded on mutual aid and solidarity and blah blah blah it's glaringly dissonant.

bear in mind this is all just going off the rulebook. lancer fans have told me that the supplements and campaign modules fix some of this or contextualise it. but on the other hand communists have told me that they make it worse and i trust the communists more. i leave you with this incredible passage from the game's foreword:

[creative-classpect]

Prince of Blood

One who destroys blood and bonds, often with blood and bonds.

The power of friendship and incredible violence

Prince- destroy their aspect and destroy with it. They are incredibly active and a bit unstable due to their destructive nature.

Blood- major themes of literal blood, connections, bonds, and unity. Minor themes of perseverance, authority, and tangibility.

Abilities

Disruption

The Prince of Blood destroys bonds, connections, and stability with bonds, connections, and stability. The Prince is a roadblock, a social wall, that separates others and cuts off connections. They stand firmly in the way as the only remaining option, strong-arming others into submission through a mix of incredible persuasion, intimidation, and deception, even backed up by their own network of those forced to rely on them from blackmail, dependency, or any other number of reasons. 

At lower levels the Prince of Blood understands that unity is what allows success to become achievable. By sowing dissent, creating disharmony, they are able to stress test and destroy any power structure, relationship, and bond, no matter how close or concrete. The Prince is backed up by their own connections and bonds, a host of minions ranging anywhere from mindless robotic servants to undead vampire thralls to hapless gangster goon or a cell of extremists. The connections of this group are ironclad and unquestionable, for better or worse. While other Blood players may seek to integrate their enemies into the fold, the minions of the Prince stand in stark contrast, an eternal in vs out group, an us vs them mentality made manifest.

As the Prince of Blood progresses, the strength of their convictions and the unity of their minions would greatly increase. With a more closely unified force, their abilities would increase, becoming professionals and experts, a black ops squad able to handle any mission the Prince leads them on. Likewise, the Prince would become a more capable leader, a more cunning manipulator, and a force of social dynamism, breaking apart movements, friendships, romantic relationships, etc to progress their goals.

At medium levels the social pressures the Prince can inflict become supernatural, more than just authoritative and overriding. The Prince of Blood is capable of inducing doubt, fear, disdain, and other alienating emotions, so far as inducing states of depression or mania, to incite anything from intense loneliness to neglect of their allies to treason. They are also able to scramble speech or even censor it entirely, cutting off lines of communication and interaction. Emp bursts to electronics, jamming radios, even disrupting speech like a living Tower of Babel. As the Prince divides their enemies, they are able to quickly conqueror as they and their minions operate with a level of efficiency and communication others simply can not compete with, sharing all of their senses and even their thoughts. When the enemy is all alone, weak and separated, the Prince and their minions will be there to finish the job.

At higher levels the Prince of Blood is a thronebreaker, a dictator, a revolutionary, a firebrand. With their legion they are able to tear down nations. They would be able to drive out and banish the Black Queen and King themselves. There are few fighting forces capable of combating the Prince of Blood and their forces. The Prince of Blood embodies the destructive power of the collective, even when alone they embody the unified force of an army, a riot made manifest. Like a many handed wear god, the Prince of Blood is Legion, able to exist in multiple places at once in synchronicity with their forces, capable to achieve more than what any one person should be able to achieve. Wherever the Prince goes, they bring the force of hundreds, and wherever their legion marches, they bring the power of countless warriors.

Bleed out

The Prince of Blood can destroy with physical, literal blood, using their own blood as a weapon. This can take the form of manifesting various weapons, such as swords, whips, or projectiles, as well as something deadly about their blood, such as a disease or it being corrosive. They are a master of homokinetic combat, using their own pulse in stressful situations to greatly increase their physical abilities and combat prowess. 

At lower levels the Prince has a talent for survival in life and death situations, using the tension of the moment as fuel. While weaker hearts may not be able to withstand the pressure, the Prince of Blood is able to take pulse pounding stress, anxiety, and fear to grant themselves increased speed, strength, and agility. This stems from a unique quality of their blood, something unnatural allowing it to handle a far greater effort than the already superhuman players of Sburb. This may be a rare blood mutation, a curse, perhaps their blood has been replaced by Something Else. Regardless, their blood is a weapon all on its own, empowering the Prince and being capable of poisoning, cursing, blinding, or otherwise impairing those it makes contact with.

Princes, starting their sessions with overpowered weapons, would be quick to utilize their quirk of their blood. This could be using game systems to infuse weapons with the qualities of their blood, using it as a volatile building material. As a replenishable resource, access to their blood could be used to coat weapons like a poison or acid, act as nitro for engines, and allow weapons to glide and flow with far greater speed and power.

By the medium levels the Prince of Blood has progressed past enchanting and infusing weapons with their blood, instead able to conjure powerful weapons from their bloodstream entirely. This may operate as a sort of secondary inventory system. Any items connected to their blood could be conjured up in an instant, regardless of distance. These weapons are not merely enhanced by the Prince's blood, but are overwhelmingly bathed in its properties. An effective poison becomes even deadlier, a potent acid becomes capable of dissolving bodies almost instantaneously, etc. While the Prince was capable of moving with increased abilities before, their weapons, now a literal living extension of themselves, would grant them a level of finesse, impact, grace, and speed unparalleled. Few can wield a weapon with more skill and power than the Prince of Blood with their own body.

At higher levels the armaments of the Prince of Blood are not relegated to simple hand weaponry, able to evolve into any number of warmachines for the Prince to store within their body. As the Prince engages in the all too common hyperviolence of the game, their weapons may gain an awakened state, drawing on the blood of enemies to empower their weapons. The Prince of Blood is capable of creating artillery cannons, tanks, fighter jets, and other large scale war machines, all fabricated from the ravenous tide of blood.

As the Prince of Blood reaches full enlightenment of their powers, Prince of Blood can achieve the ultimate state of their legendary weapon. A weapon that can cut anything, regardless of durability, that will ruin and bring rot and ruin to everything connected. The Prince’s weapon sends harmful reverberations through everything connected to the target or metaphysically severs connections to the target. On the Battlefield, the Prince of Blood may slay a single soldier and all those in its legions suddenly fall gravely ill. In a duel, the Prince of Blood may strike the Black Queen and before they hit the ground, the Black King has forgotten their existence entirely. 

Skills

Bad blood- your blood is deadly. When a creature makes contact with your blood, they take a set damage type and have a chance to contract a matching condition. Fire and burning, poison and poisoned, acid and dissolving, etc.

Best way is through- things almost always move out of your way when you push forward

---

This post was commissioned! If you want to commission me or support my content, you can find me @ https://ko-fi.com/kesscal !

[i-identify-tanks-in-posts]

Okay. So, last night I was scrolling through my news feed and I came across an article with one of the most dogshit takes I've ever had the misery of reading with my own two eyes.

The article in question? From 'The National Interest', "The M60 Patton could never be built today."

So, come with me as we absolutely rip the fuck out of this dogshit article. (Now is your chance to read it.)

So, first, let me say, that I don't dislike the m60. It's a venerable tank, extremely capable for its time, and the fact that it still sees some use more than 60 years after it's creation says a great deal as to its capabilities.

However, I take great issue with some of this article's claims.

First, the idea that the M60 was some revolutionary miracle tank, developed out of the blue, and rushed to the field before it was ready. To be frank, that's a bold-faced lie. The M60 is the result of a long lineage of medium tanks and MBTs, stretching back to the final days of ww2. A fairly common piece of cold-war tank trivia is that the M60 was never formally called the "Patton", it just looked so much like the m48 "Patton", that the tankers never saw fit to call it anything different. (Below is a comparison of the vehicles: from the front, the tanks can be distinguished by the m48s concave frontal armor, while the m60 has a flat wedge.)

M60:

M48:

The m48, itself, was a development of the m46, which was itself an upgrade of the m26 Pershing, the American medium tank used in the last days of the European theater. So, the idea that the m60 was flawed because of its "revolutionary design" not being given time to be tested is, quite frankly, horseshit.

Next up on the chopping block is the claims that the M60 is still in use by nations today. The article states that, throughout the Middle East, you can find nations that use the m60 and its modernization still today, from Egypt to Saudi Arabia. However, you'll notice that none of these nations are exactly military powerhouses, with Egypt not having won a war that wasn't against starving partisan rebels since the British packed up their shit and went home, and Saudi Arabia quickly transferring to the M1, and offloading as many of their Pattons on other nations as quickly as they can manage. And let's be honest, when's the last time you even thought about the Iranian military?

Next, I'm going to directly quote this line, because it's peak comedy. "in 1991, the United States Marine Corps, one of the most innovative branches in the US military, deployed the M60 in battle against Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Army." Ah, yes, the Marine Corps, famous for it's innovation and openness to change...

The Marines wouldn't know innovation if it grabbed the crayon out of their mouths. They hate change more than H.P. Lovecraft hated penguins and Irish people. So to come out and say that something is amazing because the Marines are still using it instead of a newer thing? It's peak comedy.

Then, the author goes into his highly-political diatribe about how, because the m60 was so "rushed" and "untested", it's head-and-shoulders above any US defense project since, because it still sees some use by tin-pot dictators, outdated militias, and the Marines in Iraq. However, what he fails to mention is that the m60 was the ultimate result of the 2nd generation of MBT technology, building on a lineage of tanks going back to 1945. The idea that the m60 is special in any way other than being the culmination of a generation or armored vehicle technology is ludicrous, and I sincerely hope that not too many are suckered in by this ex-congressional staffer's bullshit.

[whencyclopedia]

Constitutional Convention

The Constitutional Convention was held at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from 25 May to 17 September 1787. Spurred on by economic troubles left over from the American Revolution and compounded by the weak Articles of Confederation, delegates from twelve states met to draft a new framework of governance, the United States Constitution, which created a stronger federal government.

Background

In March 1781, the Articles of Confederation went into effect as the framework of governance for the fledgling United States, after having been ratified by all thirteen states. Under the Articles, each state essentially operated as a semi-independent republic, bound to one another in a loose 'perpetual union'. The federal government – which at the time consisted only of a unicameral Congress – was intentionally kept weak, to ensure the sovereignty and independence of the states. Congress' only real powers were those relating to war and foreign affairs, and even then, it needed the consent of at least nine states before it could declare war or borrow money from foreign lenders. The framers believed that they needed to keep the federal government weak to protect the rights and liberties of American citizens; their recent experience with the British Parliament seemed to suggest that a powerful central authority would not hesitate to squander those rights. But, before long it would become apparent that weak governments carried their own sets of issues that would be just as dangerous.

The most glaring problem was Congress' inability to levy its own taxes. Rather than raise its own money, Congress instead had to rely on donations from the states to fill the national treasury. But, especially after states began to focus on their own interests after the end of the American Revolutionary War, these donations were not consistently forthcoming. This left Congress with no funds to pay federal soldiers or meet its many other financial obligations. Nor did Congress have the power to compel the states to send money or comply with any other federal legislation. Several attempts to amend the Articles to allow Congress to raise money through tariffs were vetoed by the states. Additionally, a lack of unified foreign policy left Congress ill-equipped to deal with foreign powers, with Britain, France, and Spain all putting restrictions on American trade that the federal government could not retaliate against. Finally, Congress had been unable to respond to Shays' Rebellion when it broke out in western Massachusetts in late 1786. Although the rebellion was eventually suppressed by a privately funded army, it led to fears that future insurrections would not be crushed so easily.

For these, and other, reasons, many Americans became convinced that the Articles of Confederation were not working and that unless the Articles were revised, the United States would soon unravel. This reality weighed heavily on the minds of the delegates who met in Annapolis, Maryland, on 11 September 1786. Representing five states (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia), the delegates had merely been sent to discuss trade between states. But as their discussion touched on other issues caused by the weak Articles of Confederation, the delegates realized that something drastic had to be done. In their final report to Congress, drafted by Alexander Hamilton of New York, the delegates proposed that a constitutional convention should be held in Philadelphia the following May to discuss revisions to the Articles. On 21 February 1787, Congress endorsed the suggestions of the Annapolis Convention, and stated that it would write up a report on which changes to the Articles were necessary. Ultimately, twelve of the thirteen states decided to send delegates to the upcoming Constitutional Convention – the sole holdout was Rhode Island, which believed there was nothing wrong with the existing Articles of Confederation and refused to send delegates to amend them.

Continue reading...