You're viewing a single thread.
It really isn't though. It's always two steps forward three steps back. Anything good that arises out of the destruction, always comes at an immense cost, and usually corrupts the revolutionary leaders who made it happen.
Is there any violent revolution in history for which genuine peace followed in the immediate aftermath?
I think violence is often necessary. But I wouldn't say it's ever the right answer.
Is there any violent revolution in history for which genuine peace followed in the immediate aftermath?
Most of them, depending on your definition of immediate.
A few weeks to months following the rebellion. Maybe a year at most.
It's different if the rebellion does not itself topple the structures of government. I'm talking about violent coups specifically I suppose, not a bit of violent protesting that motivates an existing government to act.
Maybe look into how we ended up with 8-hour workdays and weekends… Hint: it was not through peaceful, polite negotiations with the ruling class…
Okay, but I'm talking about violent coups really. Not just not-so-peaceful protests.
Even so, it seems violence didn't help the Union movement all that much either. I'm no expert though of course.