The Dreyfus Affair - Essay Example

The Dreyfus Affair The Dreyfus Affair is usually used to refer to the arrest and subsequent incarceration of Alfred Dreyfus on the Devil’s Island. His arrest and trial divided the French nation into divergent groups with one side supporting the trial and the other one being against it. Upon being arrested, not much questions were raised but on January 13, 1898 Emile Zola published an article that set the stage for the Dreyfus Affair. As a daring journalistic act, Zola’s letter to the French president questioning the legality of Dreyfus arrest was in all aspects the turning point of the Dreyfus Affair. For a long time, those who supported Dreyfus had not been able to make any objections but the publication of Zola’s article gave them the much needed boost to challenge the affair. The emergence of two opposing camps definitely had a great impact on the Third Republic. It is rather hard to determine when the Dreyfusard camp came into existence. The truth is that a large section of public opinion, together with a large section of intellectuals, politicians, journalists and writers were sure that Dreyfus was guilty by the time his trial came into an end in 1894. If anything, the court had declared him guilty and the newspapers had broadcasted this guilty sentence. Even though individuals such as Zola were dismayed by the anti-Semitism direction that the trial had taken in dying years of 1894, no one came out publicly to challenge the outcome of the sentence. In addition to this, from the moment that Dreyfus had been arrested, a very small number of individuals were convinced of his innocence. After the conviction, several individuals led by Edgar Demange, a criminal lawyer soon began to see the conviction as a case of racial profiling. Upon the passage of the guilty verdict, Demange held a press conference where he declared that the incarceration was a judicial mistake. On the other hand, the anti-Dreyfusard’s were the individuals who were convinced that Dreyfus was guilty of the charges brought against him and was therefore fit to be in prison. For the Dreyfusard’s, their main issue at the beginning of the affair was calling for a revision of the issue. At first, revisionism only meant for the review of Dreyfus sentence but with the passage of time it generated into a larger fight against anti-Semitism, militarism, nationalism, and conservatism. In later years, revision turned into a call for the change in ideology. As the movement grew, Dreyfusard’s started addressing the issue of French anti-Semitism that had not been taken seriously in the past. In later years, the movement gained an intellectual direction and Dreyfus innocence was from that point onwards addressed on an intellectual basis. Although the Dreyfusard camp did not exist in the early days when the trial begun, was in existence from the early days of the trial, it became political, intellectual, and even ideological as prominent individuals joined the Affair. On its past, the anti-Dreyfusard’s were individuals who were against the idea of Dreyfus being declared as not being guilty. This group believed that the acquittal of Dreyfus would challenge the moral foundation on which the French nation was founded on. To the Dreyfusard’s, the guilty sentence was a clear manifestation of the cancer that had been eating the nation without being noticed. In the later days of the Dreyfus Affair, the Dreyfusards were of the opinion that heeding their calls would be a way of renewing France. Once seen as a great nation, these “liberators” pointed out that the acquittal of Dreyfus was a good way for France to reestablish its honor and glory. For the anti-Dreyfusard’s, the Dreyfus Affair was of great importance since it challenged the military’s authority and hence it was an issue of national security. For many anti-Dreyfusard’s, the army represented their interests and any challenge to its authority was a challenge to their freedom The Dreyfus Affair no doubt had a negative on the Third Republic. Following the publication of Zola’s article a number of anti-Semitic broke out across France with 70 cases being reported in 3 weeks. These attacks were violent in some places such as French Algeria where Jewish shops were vandalized and Jews physically attacked. This obviously shocked the Dreyfusard press and in the following days the Minister of War would bring a suit against Zola for libel. During the trial that was dubbed L’Affaire Zola, the defense took the opportunity to point out the irregularities in the 1894 Dreyfus trial. During the case that dragged for several months, there were several public disruptions and at the end Zola was sentenced to one year in prison and a fine of 3,000 francs. In essence, the injustices and bias towards Dreyfus and Zola inspired the creation League for the Rights of Man and Man. Although the Dreyfusards at first seemed to be losing the battle, the events of the following years proved to be critical in the affairs of the Third Republic. Under the heat of the calls for reforms, some officials were forced to resign and those who were considered to be radicals were forced to flee the country. From what seemed to be a family affair, the Dreyfus Affair soon spread and became a State matter that could only be concluded through an investigation. Although the investigation cleared Dreyfus and Zola of any doing, the persistent calls for change that had been borne from the affair soon led to far-reaching changes that led to the collapse of the Meline government on June 15, 1898 (Popkin 55). WORLD WAR 1 ON FRANCE Although all the nations involved in World War 1 suffered heavy loses, France is believed to have suffered the most. Unlike the other nations that were stable before the war broke out, France was just begin to re-establish itself as a power after more than ten decades of constant wars where it had suffered enormous defeats. In the early days of the war, France lost a big part of its land to German but managed to gain some of the land lost during the Franco-Prussian War. Although France was victorious in some sense, by the time the war ended the country had been left without an economic support system something which meant that it took longer to recover as compared to the other nations. In addition to this, the country suffered heavy civilian and military casualties. Even after the way, the treaties that were set up did not favor France and the world nations failed to recognize it as a major player. The World War I had brought about an unprecedented suffering on the French people, and the country had lost over 10% of its entire population. The impacts of the war became evident to the solders and even civilians, but it was brought to an end on 11 November 1918 with the signing of the Versailles Treaty. Although the treaty was meant to bring lasting peace to the world, many people objected to it claiming that it did not address the issues that had brought the war in the first place. In the Treaty, Germany was delegated to go back to France and the rest of the allies to vacate the land that had been lost in the entire period the war lasted. However, this was not easy as Germany did not show any desire to cooperate. It is worthy noting that the country had from the beginning objected to the treaty terming it too harsh. In the war guilt-clause that was provided for in the treaty, German was supposed to accept liability and restore all that France had lost as a result of the war. Despite the provisions of the treaty, Germany was only expected to adhere to the treaty based on good faith as there were no any provisions that would compel them to honor the provisions. If anything, the war-guilt clause had united the Germans more than they had been by the time the war broke out. From the beginning, there seemed to be no general commitment to the Versailles Treaty. On its part, the provisions that Germany cede 10% of its land to France had only heightened the existing animosity towards France. While the Germany politics might have been divided by the time the war started, the Versailles Treaty fostered a sense of nationalism in the country. In the United States, the treaty was not favored since most people felt that its provisions had clipped the country’s powers in regards to participation to war. Following the completion of the war, the League of Nations had been formed to foster the relationship between nations. However, because the United States was not content with the Versailles Treaty that had created the League of Nations, it offered very little support to it. Ideally, the League of Nations was the one mandated to ensure that Germany honored the treaty but due to the lack of a powerful nation to push for reforms, France was left on its own. Although no support was offered to France in terms of ensuring that the Versailles Treaty was honored, the formation of the Four-Power Treaty that included the United States, France, Britain, and Japan had brought some hope for France. Despite the formation of such a treaty, the United States regarded France and Japan as emerging military threats in the region and were therefore not keen to help these nations to attain full economic recovery. This feeling was also present among the Britons who were busy building their own arsenal in readiness of war. Ideally, the period after the war saw the rise of fascism not only in Germany but in nearly every other state. Most nations were concerned about readying themselves for the eventuality of war and as such had very little time left to involve themselves with the affairs of other nations. This meant that any attempts towards reforms in France were hampered by lack of commitment from the allies. In essence, Germany claimed that the Versailles Treaty was harsh and ruthless but historians differ with this reasoning. They state that overall, the treaty took 13.5% of Germany’s territory and 14% of its economic productivity which is only a small fraction from the huge territory they maintained. Although this seems to have been a big percentage to the Germans, the truth is that the Allies had the power to deal an even bigger blow to Germany considering the role that they had played in the war. The other thing that proves that the treaty was too lenient is that it failed to create a roadmap in which it could be honored. Due to this leniency, Germany did not feel obligated to honor the terms of the treaty and as such very few of its provisions were honored. Since the treaty was unable to deal with Germany which was the main aggressor in the war, they were able to enter a period of political and economic development, which ushered the region into World War II. If anything, World War II is seen to have been an attempt by nationalists who were demanding a forceful revision of the Versailles Treaty. In the years following the signing of the treaty, Germany had appeared to resent to the signing of this treaty and the onset of World War I appeared to be a perfect opportunity for them to avenge the wrongdoings that had been meted on his country two decades ago. If the treaty had been harsh enough, it would have created an environment that would make it impossible for Germany to prosper economically and politically since these two factors were instrumental in the chaos that erupted in the region two years later (Popkin 155). Works Cited Popkin, Jeremy. A History of Modern France. New Jersey: Pearson, 2012. Print. Read More