‘THE TERROR WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE REVOLUTION’.

DO
YOU AGREE?’
The Terror was the most dramatic and controversial period of the French Revolution lasting
from around the formation of the CPS in April 1793 – July 1794 ending with the execution of
Robespierre. There were many reasons for the Terror including the war with the Prussians and
Austrians, the civil war in the Vendée and the economic crisis. There was unrest throughout the
country and the Assembly knew that without the support of the people they would not win the war
and would not be able to solve the economic crisis.

The modern Marxist interpretation believes that the terror was essential to the survival of
the revolution. Sophie Wahnich says, “the greatest danger was then that of a weakening of the
revolutionary desire.” She believes that the terror strengthened the desire for the revolution to
continue. However, people still wanted the revolution shown by the civil war in the Vendée. There
was no lack of support for the revolution, there was however and increase in radical ideas for the
revolution which fuelled the government by terror. Therefore it can be viewed the that the Terror
was essential to the survival of the revolution because of the threat of a counter-revolution because
of the economic crisis and state of the war abroad.

The contemporary consensual view addresses the difficulty posed for republicans in France
of how to view the Terror. David Andress suggests that the commitment of the terrorists was noble.
He writes, “This after all, was the point of not letting the counter-revolution win”. He believes that
the terror was perhaps not necessary but showed the commitment of some people to preserving the
revolution through the difficult period of war and economic crisis. However it can be argued that
such drastic measures were not needed to preserve the revolution and that there were other ways
to prevent the threat of a counter-revolution. The Assembly showed they were willing to change to
make certain groups happy, however they did not take any action on those posing a counter-
revolution. Certain political groups, however, suggest repressive measure to respond to this and the
uprising in the Vendée.

The revisionist view believes that the terror was completely unnecessary and wrong. Simon
Schama says, “it was a brutal example of the politics of envy, made possible as the moral bond
holding society together dissolved and disintegrated before the eyes of the masses. He blames the
things that happened before the terror for the cause of it which is deepened by the war between the
political groups in Paris. The Montagnards were drawing closer to the sans-culottes as were the
Plain. All members shared the Girondin hatred of Robespierre and Marat, but they blamed the
Girondins for the failures in the war. This political war raging in Paris could be argued that it was the
main cause of the Terror and therefore the Terror could have possibly been stopped.

In conclusion, I think that the Terror was not essential to the survival of the revolution. The
political war in Paris led to the Terror, along with the war and economic crisis. However the
Assembly could have taken much less radical routes to solve these problems but they were not
helped by the split in society throughout France. Therefore it was not essential but would have been
very tricky to supress as proven by the Assembly.