|
|
|
|
|
|
by ChrisLomont
1994 days ago
|
|
|
The proper way to evaluate how successful throwing out leaders is as a way towards peace is not to list cases you can think of where it failed, but to list every place leaders were thrown out with a goal of peace, and seeing how well that fared. Then to be really honest, see how well that fared against other options. Then you may reach a different, but demonstrably more accurate, conclusion. |
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebell...
Results from the period of 1900-1910 (19 revolutions; I don't have time to do more) is that 12 were outright failures: the revolution was crushed, the leaders executed, oftentimes with significant loss of life for the revolutionaries and nearby civilians. 5 were temporary successes: they led to some reforms or a new government, but the government collapsed within 15 years anyway, leading to either anarchy, dictatorship, or conquest by a foreign power. 2 were an "eventual success" (Young Turk revolution, and revolution in the Kingdom of Poland), where the revolution had modest success but later events achieved "peaceful" (if you can count WW1 & WW2 as peaceful) independence. 1 was a success, the Theriso Revolt that broke Crete away from the Ottoman empire and led to its eventual union with Greece.
I'd come to a bleaker conclusion: most revolutions fail, and lead to the deaths of their leaders and most of the people who support them. Then of the subset that "succeed" (in the sense of not being crushed), a majority lead to government or lack thereof that is just as bad or worse than what came before.