More Important to Modern Western Liberalism:1776, 1789, 1848

[Meneldil]

What? This view that Girondins were the original "rabble-rousers" and that other revolutionnaries simply continued their work is silly as hell.

The Girondins were clear-headed liberals, rational hommes d'Etat, unlike the rabble-rousing Jacobine scum. As for the Girondins starting the Terror and the wars - the Girondins simply understood better and earlier than the others that the Revolution had to succeed. And that in order for it to succeed, its opponents would have to be fought sooner or later. So make it sooner while the momentum is theirs.
Then the rabble took over. The illiterates and their hotheaded leaders, the Jacobins. That pityful alliance of adventurers and sans-culotte masses. Which forced the inherently progressive force of liberalism to the right, where it remains to this very day.

The Girondins had a grasp of international reactions and of internal realities. Plus a policy. Bring about the revolution and spread it from the Pyrennees to the Rhine, and from Spain to Warsaw. Perfectly rational. They didn't radicalise, they simply followed through their ideas, seizing opportunities and bearing in mind shifting political realities. Which forced them to the left in the beginning, to the right during the Terror and, what was left of them, further right still during the Thermidor.

Err... I don't see where you got the idea that Girondins had a grasp of international politics. They went to war happily, against all odds. Robespierre opposed it from day one, claiming that this was futile and pointless as long as the country was still on the edge of a civil war.
They never followed their ideas, cause they simply had no idea where they were heading, just like pretty much anyone at the time. They first aimed for a Constitutional Monarchy (like guess who? Robespierre), understood that wasn't going to happen (due to a retard king), then created a new system largely based on the newly born American Republic, understood that wasn't going to work, decided to screw up said new system, claimed to liberate Belgium and the rest of Europe while pillaging it, and ultimately got booted and guillotinned.
They followed this spiral of self-destruction just as badly as the Jaconbins.

As for the Jacobins, they weren't really allied to the Sans-Culottes and illiterates masses. Dunno where you got that idea either. The main opponents to Robespierre were the Paris Commune, Hébert and Roux, the true leaders of the disgruntled masses. The Jacobins used them at several points (in august and september 1792 and to get rid of the Girondins), until they became too threatening for them (at which point they got rid of them too). Even Marat didn't care much for the "people". His articles were mostly aimed at the angry petty bourgeoisie, not at the masses (who as you said, were mostly unable to read). The Jacobins are clearly not the Sans-Culottes, they weren't the same political movement and despite the fact they at some point worked together, there was a whole world between them.

Short story long story, the Jacobins and the Girondins had the same political and philosophical background (may I remind you that most Girondins came from the Jacobin Club?). They only had different interests. The Girondins mostly represented the financial and trading bourgeoisie, while the Jacobins relied upon the petty bourgeoisie.
Both used the masses when it was convenient, both eliminated their opponents when it was convenient, both clearly had no idea where the were going but thought they were doing something glorious. The only reason why the Jacobins are seen as "ze evil doods" is because the situation was so bad when they took the power (partly because of the Girondins, who screwed up badly- but that hardly can be blamed on them, as they had to handle a completely new situation) that they thought they had to go crazy to save the country.

Edit: I never said the Girondins were the original rabble-rousers, because neither them, nor the Jacobins were rabble-rousers. Though each side had its share of opportunists, power-hungry maniacs and dictator wannabes, they were first and foremost enlightened people who wanted to change their country, against all odds, which ultimately led them to do the very things they opposed.

As for the rest of this topic, it's so full of misconceptions that it makes me sad. But still, I'm going to correct some of those:

The guy who wrote that 1789 was the prelude of modern totalitarianism is absolutely right; 1789 was the prelude of the pretty much everything that screwed up the 20th

The French Revolution was the prelude of all that because it was the prelude of the modern political era, in which the masses/people/population was to play a large role. This mean that it made democracy possible, just like it made fascism and nazism possible (though nazism was rather a reaction against this modernity than a direct outcome). It certainly also was the prelude of socialism, and all modern political ideas, ranging from the most respectable ones to the most despisable ones.

I agree that it gave birth to totalitarianism (though I think the whole notion of totalitarianism sucks), in that it allowed mass endoctrinement, total wars (as in the whole country is going to fight until annihilation or victory), ideology and what not. But I clearly don't think Revolutionnary France was a totalitarian regime, even during the height of the Terror. It's a dictatorship that slowly go out of his mind, and that's about it. It lacked the strong leadership (even at the heights of Robespierre's popularity), the defined goal and ideology to be a totalitarian regime as described by Harendt (and furthermore never really controlled the society).

Seriously, there is no comparison. I ask you to refer to the book The Wars of Louis XIV by John Lynn. War was supposed to be an artificial, "chivalrous" and controlled process - so was pretty much everything else ranging from the administration to the ruling class

That's all fine and dandy, but Louis XIV killed more people during his reign that all revolutionnaries altogether. Between his constant wars and the several famines that ensued, around between 1.5 and 3 million frenchmen died. Not to mention that he's probably responsible for the revolution in the first place, as he screwed up the economy so bad that none could fix the issue.

"Liberty, Justice, Fraternity"

I'm not sure you're taking about that, but just in case : the true motto was "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité ou la Mort" (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity or Death). But then again it was at the time only used by the Paris Commune and became the motto of France only under the 3rd Republic (in 1876 I think). They obviously dropped the "or Death", deemed as to offensive.

Also, most of the people executed during the terror were nobles. And the nobility deserves the axe anyway. All of them.

That's untrue. The nobles only provided around 7% of the beheaded population and the clergy 9%. The rest was made up of bourgeois, farmers, workers, soldiers and pretty much anyone suspected of being opposed to the Revolution.

As for Robespierre (as his name is coming up quite often), he wasn't the all powerful dictator that many people make him to be. He had quite some power, as the head of the Comity of Public Safety, but this power was rivaled by the Comite of General Security, the Paris Commune (when it opposed him) and even by the Assembly itself.
The journal of Paris executionner not only is a great read about the Revolution as a whole, but also shows how Robespierre had to deal with these various rivals, and didn't simply decide things secretly with Couthon and St-Just.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You waited a whole week with your reply just so you could read half a library of books and then smite me with lenghty well-informed posts!

[Meneldil]

Yeah well, for all we know, I could be making all this up, as I haven't cited a single source (except for this one, which I strongly encourage you to read, it's pretty awesome. This is good to in order to get a good overview of these 10 years, and is IMHO quite neutral).

I didn't care much about the Revolution until I went to study in Canada. Up to this point, I've always thought it was mostly a french-only event. But most of my professors in Canada kept talking about it, whether it was in my nationalism class, in my globalisation and nation-state one, or in my propaganda course. They even had a whole 2-semesters long French Revolution class.
So I came back, and finally decided to read all these books that have been on my shelves for quite some time. And I'm still not sure if the Revolution was the most glorious event of history or the roots of genocide, war, hatred and murder.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yeah, well, it is unfair to read lenghty books and use this to beat other debaters.

Err... I don't see where you got the idea that Girondins had a grasp of international politics. They went to war happily, against all odds. Robespierre opposed it from day one, claiming that this was futile and pointless as long as the country was still on the edge of a civil war.

I, for one, consider invading Belgium and pillaging it while pretending to liberate it genius foreign policy.

This only got a bad reputation after the evil plagiarising Germans stole this fanciful concept and started performing it with their usual lack of a sense of humour.