How did the french revolution& its legacy impact the german people?
(pls i will give brainliest! )

For two centuries the varied interpretations that successive generations of historians have not ceased to contribute, constitute as many remodels of the event. The French Revolution has two opposite faces: on the one hand, the luminous face of 1789, a symbol of freedom, of equality and fraternity, of democracy and human rights, of triumph and of reason over obscurantism; on the other side, the face of terror applied in the name of the defense of revolutionary achievements in 1793.

The French Revolution had a strong influence on the German states, given the importance of the dissemination of Illustration in them. The German bourgeoisie was very aware of the development of events in France, as well as the privileged estates and the different Crowns for different reasons. Let us not forget, finally, the Napoleonic occupation over a large part of the German states. The main contemporary German philosophers of the Revolution were interested in it, but most of them were more concerned with philosophical, political and moral aspects than with the historical analysis of the causes, facts and consequences. They were, with nuances, defenders of the Revolution.

Enmanuel Kant (1724-1804) was a strong supporter of the Revolution because the establishment of the Republic meant achieving the most perfect and rational form of government, but rejected the violence and execution of Louis XVI.

Fichte (1762-1814) was also in favor of the establishment of the Republic but did defend the use of revolutionary violence because it was the only means to bring down the absolute monarchy. He even criticized the authors opposed to the Revolution because this was a stage on the road to freedom. But Fichte moved away with the time of the Revolution because he considered that he had not achieved his original liberal goals.

George W. F. Hegel (1770-1831) was also a fervent supporter of the Revolution because he was the one who had introduced Reason into politics and meant the victory of general interests over individuals. But he rejected the violent character he adopted in times of Terror.

Marx explains, with very concrete strokes for Germany, what he considers are the results and experiences of the French Revolution in bourgeois consciousness and practice. The unleashing of a process that aspires to develop a bourgeois revolution. That is to say, the essential claims that were claimed of the Ancien Regime staged social forces whose specific interests went beyond the original claims, and continually threatened the overflow of those borders, threatening, then, the stability and rules of the social order . That is, calling into question not the political order but that of society in general.

when studying cause and effect, historians usually group the causes into different categories. for example, cultural causes reflect how a society’s literature and art convey the way the society saw itself in relation to the rest of the world. another resource that historians use to understand society is pop culture, which tells them the trends and ideas that are preferred by the common people. when studying cause and effect, it’s important to remember multiple causation, or the idea that an effect could have several causes and vice versa.  

the correct option is “cultural causes” since art and literature are related to the culture of a place. culture is determined by literature, art, music.

the correct option is “pop culture” since it reflects the likes and ideas of common people whereas the rest of the options do not focus on common people.  

the correct option is “multiple causation” since it refers to the idea that events are caused by multiple reasons, not just a single one.  

answer: a parliamentary system is a system of democratic governance of a state where the executive derives its democratic legitimacy from its ability to command the confidence of the legislature, typically a parliament, and is also held accountable to that parliament. in a parliamentary system, the head of state is usually a person distinct from the head of government. this is in contrast to a presidential system, where the head of state often is also the head of government and, most importantly, the executive does not derive its democratic legitimacy from the legislature.

countries with parliamentary democracies may be constitutional monarchies, where a monarch is the head of state while the head of government is almost always a member of parliament (such as the united kingdom, denmark, sweden, and japan), or parliamentary republics, where a mostly ceremonial president is the head of state while the head of government is regularly from the legislature (such as ireland, germany, india, and italy). in a few parliamentary republics, such as botswana, south africa, and suriname, among some others, the head of government is also head of state, but is elected by and is answerable to parliament. in bicameral parliaments, the head of government is generally, though not always, a member of the lower house.

parliamentarianism is the dominant form of government in europe, with 32 of its 50 sovereign states being parliamentarian. it is also common in the caribbean, being the form of government of 10 of its 13 island states, and in oceania. elsewhere in the world, parliamentary countries are less common, but they are distributed through all continents, most often in former colonies of the british empire that subscribe to a particular brand of parliamentarianism known as the westminster system.

explanation: