Revolution are just a marketable term for coups. The military always deal the final blow. The term revolution has gained a certain popularity, and many coups aregraced with it because of the implication that it was “the people” rather than a few plotters who did the whole thing. Thus, the obscure aims Abd al-KarīmQāsim had in mind when he overthrew the Iraqi regime of King Faisal II and prime Minister Nuri es-Said are locally known as the “sacred principles of the July 14th RevolutionMasses of people do not make a revolution revolution as Leon Trotsky pointed out long ago, the technological improvement of weapons, means of transport, and communications has widened the capability gap between organized military forces and civilians equipped with improvised weapons. Trotsky noted that, while the French mobs of 1789 could “rush” positions defended by infantry soldiers with their one-shot muzzle loaders, in 1917 a Russian mob however large and determined would be cut down by “modern” automatic weapons. By “modern,” he meant the clumsy, very heavy water-cooled Maxim machine gun on its tripod; today, every single soldier on mob control can be armed with an automatic weapon with a similar rate of fire.The effectiveness of modern soldiers, with their rapid transport, reliable communications, and efficient weapons, means that even one single formation loyal to the regime could intervene and de feat a coup
Retarded semantic argument. "Revolution" usually results in some ideological change or a drastic change in overall power structure. Like a whole new constitution or even a whole new country. "Coup" implies exclusively the military or an existing political figure, and often changes nothing whatsoever because the call came from inside the house.
>>64754879a "revolution" and a "coup" are very different in both methods and results.
