Robespierre thought otherwise, and it is for that reason that he was Robespierre.
He clearly comprehended two things; the first, that war was a gratuitous crime against the people; the second, that a war, even though successful, would ruin the cause of democracy.

Robespierre looked on the Revolution as the rigorous application of the principles of philosophy to society.

A passionate and devoted pupil of Jean Jacques Rousseau, the _Contrat Social_ was his gospel; war, made with the blood of the people, was in the eyes of this philosopher--what it must ever be in the eyes of the wise--wholesale slaughter to gratify the ambition of a few, glorious only when it is defensive.

Robespierre did not consider France placed in such a position as to render it absolutely necessary for her safety that the human vein should be opened, whence would flow such torrents of blood.

Embued with a firm conviction of the omnipotence of the new ideas on which he nourished faith and fanaticism within a heart closed against intrigue, he did not fear that a few fugitive princes, destitute of credit, and some thousand aristocratic emigres, would impose laws or conditions on a nation whose first struggle for liberty had shaken the throne, the nobility, and the clergy.