지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The War of Vendéen broke out in March 1793, and finished in December of the same year. For these nine months, the peasants of the Vendée region and the revolutionary armies were at ‘war’ against each other, and the latter won the final victory. What caused the historical controversy was the relentless punishment after the war, during which were killed all the inhabitants including the republicans.
After the War of Vendée, the republican historians and the marxist historians who dominated the historiography of the French Revolution, defining it as the counter revolutionary war maintained their negative position on the war of Vendée. They accepted the Terror committed in that period as the inevitable measure for the safety of the nation and the revolution during the simultaneous wars in and out of the country, while they neglected the violent treatment after the war. The new interpretation of the War of Vendé came from the revisionist historians. François Furet criticized Albert Soboul for tolerating the violence carried out for the purpose of obtaining the public safety. It was Reynald Secher who heated up the debate. He argued that the treatment after the war was the ‘genocide’ conducted cautiously by the public safety committee. Jean-Clément Martin who represented the ‘orthodox’ position counter-attacked him by arguing that the public safety committee did not lead the massacre and, for that reason, the massacre was not the genocide.
If we define the genocide as the total or partial mass massacre by an integral state policy, the Vendée massacre can be included in this category. But if we expand the scope of the genocide in this way, all the massacres can belong to the genocide, which makes the concept of the genocide meaningless. That is the reason why the genocide should be defined strictly as “the systematic destruction of the other ethnic group”. Viewing the Vendée massacre in this perspective, “the genocide of the French by the French” cannot stand. In the historical conscience of the War of Vendée, the important thing is not to judge whether it is a genocide or not but to confirm the fact that a barbarous violence was committed by the revolutionary armies. In the dimension of the violence, the French Revolution of 1789 made no difference. It is very important to remember that the very revolutionaries who cried out “Liberty-Equality-Fraternity” continued the inhuman violence of the Ancient Regime type.
After the War of Vendée, the republican historians and the marxist historians who dominated the historiography of the French Revolution, defining it as the counter revolutionary war maintained their negative position on the war of Vendée. They accepted the Terror committed in that period as the inevitable measure for the safety of the nation and the revolution during the simultaneous wars in and out of the country, while they neglected the violent treatment after the war. The new interpretation of the War of Vendé came from the revisionist historians. François Furet criticized Albert Soboul for tolerating the violence carried out for the purpose of obtaining the public safety. It was Reynald Secher who heated up the debate. He argued that the treatment after the war was the ‘genocide’ conducted cautiously by the public safety committee. Jean-Clément Martin who represented the ‘orthodox’ position counter-attacked him by arguing that the public safety committee did not lead the massacre and, for that reason, the massacre was not the genocide.
If we define the genocide as the total or partial mass massacre by an integral state policy, the Vendée massacre can be included in this category. But if we expand the scope of the genocide in this way, all the massacres can belong to the genocide, which makes the concept of the genocide meaningless. That is the reason why the genocide should be defined strictly as “the systematic destruction of the other ethnic group”. Viewing the Vendée massacre in this perspective, “the genocide of the French by the French” cannot stand. In the historical conscience of the War of Vendée, the important thing is not to judge whether it is a genocide or not but to confirm the fact that a barbarous violence was committed by the revolutionary armies. In the dimension of the violence, the French Revolution of 1789 made no difference. It is very important to remember that the very revolutionaries who cried out “Liberty-Equality-Fraternity” continued the inhuman violence of the Ancient Regime type.
목차
1. 머리말
2. 반(反)혁명전쟁
3. 양민 학살
4. 누구의 책임인가?
5. 맺음말
ABSTRACT
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
제노사이드의 단계적 메커니즘과 국민보도연맹사건: 대한민국 공산주의자들의 절멸 과정에 관한 일고찰
동북아연구(구 통일문제연구)
2015 .08
-
제노사이드의 중층구조와 상황적 구성요건
연세법학
2024 .02
-
Russia's Abduction of Children in Ukraine War and Applicability of UN Genocide Convention
세계지역연구논총
2024 .06
-
[지정토론문] 집단살해죄(Genocide), 인도에 반한 죄 등에 관한 국제형사법적 고찰
저스티스
2015 .02
-
식민에서 제노사이드로 : 이스라엘 가자 학살의 기원
경제와사회
2024 .09
-
집단학살 부정(否定, denial) 처벌의 정당성 ― 홀로코스트와 홀로도모르 ―
공법연구
2023 .10
-
터키 역사 교과서에 나타난 아르메니아인 제노사이드
국제문화연구
2019 .01
-
집단살해죄(Genocide), 인도에 반한 죄 등에 관한 국제형사법적 고찰
저스티스
2015 .02
-
국제법상 제노사이드금지와 국가의 책임 : 제주 4 · 3 사건에 대한 미국의 책임을 중심으로
국제법학회논총
2016 .12
-
The Policy on Children of the ICC Office of the Prosecutor: Toward greater accountability for crimes against and affecting children
인도법논총
2020 .12
-
1923년 관동대지진 조선인학살의 현재적 의미 - 트라우마와 제노사이드적 관점에서 -
동학학보
2024 .06
-
The Economic Role of “One Dollar Campaign Project” by Rwandan Diaspora in the Reconstruction of the Country after 1994 Genocide
전남대학교 글로벌디아스포라연구소 국내학술회의
2016 .07
-
집단살해죄 관련 국제형사재판소(ICC)의 법리 분석
법학논집
2016 .12
-
제노사이드는 구체적위험범으로 분류될 수 있는가? – ICC Al-Bashir 사건 전심재판부 판례를 중심으로 –
서강법률논총
2025 .02
-
Social Capital Nuilding as a Mechanism of Development: A Case of Rwanda after 1994 Genocide against Tutsi
전남대학교 글로벌디아스포라연구소 국내학술회의
2017 .07
-
제노사이드적 강간(Genocidal Rape)범죄의 독자적 불법성과 그 함의 - ICTR의 Akayesu 판결을 중심으로
사법
2024 .06
-
분쟁과 대량학살 이후 르완다의 평화를 위한 교육
초등도덕교육
2021 .09
-
실패국가, 실패패권, 근대국가의홀로코스트 삼중주: 청일전쟁과 일본의 동학농민군 대량학살의 개념적 분석
일본공간
2018 .01
-
1923년 간토(関東)대지진과 조선인학살 사건을 둘러싼 일본문학자의 인식 연구
일본근대학연구
2019 .01
-
21세기 멕시코의 강제 불임술과 강제 피임술 사이의 역설과 진실
중남미연구
2023 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-390-002208822