in the case of France, they most certainly DID -- The Huguenots make a big sob story about their reparations but never mention that they were the losing side in a war in which they fired the first shot
let's trace the Huguenots, shall we. In france, under Francis I, France was tolerant of all religious views
however, what did the Huguenots do? In the affair of the placards they posted placards all over Paris and even on the bedchamber door of the king (a security breach that angered him and made him change his tolerance position) -- these placards were attacks on Catholics.
So, instead of discussing, the Huguenots went to attack the Catholic majority who until then were content to let them live and debate and discuss and debate. Incidently, until this time the Huguenots were increasing, like the Moslems in Bradford, but then they started to get shrill and wake people up with their attacks
This polemic was an attack and the Huguenots started this retaliation.This was in 1534
Next, came the French wars of religion in which the Huguenots conspired against the King. This, added to the previous attack meant that they now publically came to attack the conservative forces. The progressives of the Huguenots were the precursors of the Revolutionaires
The people who became Huguenots were primarily the urban elite, like our present-day New Yorkers who take a fad and they saw that this was a means to oppose the King, so Huguenotism became a political tool
A group of Huguenots tried to kidnap the Prince Francis II when his father died -- causing more antagonism.
Huguenots in 1560 attacked Catholic Churchs and destroyed properties in Rouen and La Rochelle -- thus the FIRST salvo was lobbed by the Huguenots. -- the Catholics retailiated with mobs at seeing their places of worship attacked and defiled by Huguenots
Next, in 1562-70, we have the wars -- now political-religious, so no, it was not a simple case of "persecution" --> The Huguenots were one side of a civil war, which they lost
Now, let's come to the juicy part, the St. Bart's day massacre -- this occured in 1572, 40 years after the first provocations by the Huguenots and 12 years after they started destroying Catholic Churchs (just like the Moslems in America they were quiet until their numbers grew)
now, King Charles XI was openly in favor of the Huguenots -- so a political moment. Hence the attacks on the opposing side
So, let's see in conclusion -- Huguenots first start their provocations in 1534, then in 1560 start attacking Catholic Churchs (with no provocation), then start their political support against the conservatives and start a civil war. After 12 years their side loses the civil war and yet they are still allowed to live and practise their faith (note this is the 1500s, not a nice time, yet they get this tolerance) -- but they still play political intrigues. So, one faction starts to attack and massacre the other faction
so, stop the entire "poor persecuted Huguenots" -- they brought it on themselves. the Huguenots after doing their persecuting of Catholics, got retaliation, then they went to England and many to South Africa where they were among the racists enforcing Apartheid.
Many came to the US and Germany as well.
In England and Germany they were Calvinists in non-Calvinist lands, but no "persecution". In the US they were one of many and no, no "persecutions". In South Africa they were one of the folks doing the persecutions and in Northern Germany they enthusiastically participated in the Kulturkampf.
what persecution did they face once they left France?
As shown above (and you can check the facts for yourself), the Huguenots were the one who bit the hand that fed them, then launched the first attacks, started a civil war and then lost
They were like the Moslems in present day France -- slowly starting, making nice noises, but then attacking Christian churchs and finally starting a civil war.
They lost, tough luck --- the losers in the 1500s were not given much graces, yet they were allowed to stay with the same acts of tolerance AFTER losing politically. Yet they continued supporting political intrigues and there was a political massacre.
The Huguenots were on the losing side, so they got killed like the Catholics in England or in Scandanavia.
It was the 1500s, a pretty barbaric time
The mass killings of the Huguenots were done at the hands of rioters in a pogrom after it was learned that the Huguenots were conspiring with the English to stage a coup and facilitate an invasion. It is never healthy to conspire against a sitting king.
By placing pieces of writing which you characterize as "a shot", and an "attack"? Pieces of paper with words written upon them? I'm glad you also said it was a polemic. That's more like it, if we're in any way trying to reach truth.
"So, instead of discussing, the went to attack the Catholic majority ..."
Attacking them with words written on pieces of paper?
Aye-yi-yi, well lets have us some solemn processions, lets have the King walk under the very awning which normally was carried aloft over the chalice & host during solemn religious processions, then, let's round up a half dozen of these who "attack" us with challenges to our most christian church, AND BURN THEM ALIVE. After having offered a cash reward for their capture, of course.
Here, let me fix this sentence to bring it back towards quieter sanity;
>This polemic was an attack [a polemic] and the Huguenots started this [suffered] retaliation.<
To say it they way you do, is to have the Catholics of that day be allowed to wipe their bloody hands on their victims and say "we are not responsible in the least for what we do, including murder, because Jesus loves us, but He can't stand these people who dared to openly oppose our religious/political system".
If you wish to speak of possible parallels between 16th century French Protestants and today's Islamists, please START ANOTHER THREAD. But ask yourself first --- who is it that says "there is no compulsion in religion", yet does the opposite in practice? Who in the past? (how'd that work out for them?) Who presently?