France and the Dreyfus Affair

French wants to draw attention to the harrowing nature of Hitler’s ideas. We are then forced to contemplate and question the dramatic pause and about how these prejudicial ideas impacted upon the lives of the Jewish people.

The decision to enter into war is usually a great struggle involving many factors. Some countries, however, such as France in 1940, do not have much choice in the matter. France’s leaders struggled with the feelings of autonomy and responsibility. France's struggle entering into World War II was in the difficulty in fulfilling its dual responsibility to the people of France and to the rest of the world whom both maintained conflicting beliefs about the approaching war. The French people desired peace, while the other countries required France to go to war to defend itself against

Just about any country that one can name has some history of civil unrest, class issues, rioting in the streets, and outright warfare. These patterns of behavior are common denominators for most civilization in the world. The names, faces, and places may change, but the motivations are generally the same, because of the need for change and the willingness to do whatever is necessary to achieve it. In contrast to the United States, which was in the process of freeing itself from British colonial rule, France was working to free itself from royal absolutism. This period is historically known as the French Revolution. Many scholars do not agree on the chronology of the French Revolution; some scholars suggest that the Revolution took place between 1789 to 1799 while others feel that it did not end until Napoleon lost power in 1815. To better understand the history of the French Revolution it is necessary to discuss the causes, major events, significant figures, and the outcomes associated with these political developments. Without this uprising, that changed the face of the entire country and influenced local political life in many countries in Europe, in all likelihood the France we know today would never have existed.

The public of Fahrenheit 451 are seemingly unaware of how much they are being controlled and it takes only a few moments of clarity for the main character, Montag, to realize how corrupt his own society is. Bradbury uses his own life experiences of WWII and the Nazi book burnings for inspiration in the creation of his top-selling novel. Fahrenheit 451 is as entertaining as it is informative and a warning to the world about the dangers of censorship and protecting the freedom of

President John Adams had sent several delegates, one of them being John Martial, to France to help sort out the issues between France and the US, such as the United States not honoring the Franco-American Treaty, formed back during the American Revolution, when France had its revolution, by meeting with minister Talleyrand of France. Three of Talleyrand’s men met with the delegates and told them Talleyrand refused to meet unless a large amount of money was payed. The delegates returned home and informed President Adams, who was outraged. The name of the Affair comes from the substituting of the three French men’s’ names with X, Y, and Z in a Congress report.

Throughout the book “Au Revoir Les Enfants” Louis Malle highlights at several points the typical associations which the majority of people have when discussing the role of the Germans during the war. However Malle approaches the topic from a more complex angle thus forcing the reader to question the general stereotypes and examine the varying attitudes of both the French and Germans, by portraying them in certain situations in which they adopt a sometimes unexpected attitude.

Was this Violent Period During the French Revolution Necessary? Robespierre, the most famous French Revolutionary, believes that the citizens of France should extinguish the threats inside and outside of France or meet one’s death. Began in 1789, the French Revolution began as an attempt to form a new government in France. This gruesome period, that lasted about ten to eleven months, was the Reign of Terror.

The Dreyfus Affair was a political scandal that divided France for many years, during the late nineteenth century. It cantered on the condemnation by high treason of Alfred Dreyfus in 1894, an artillery officer of the French army, of Jewish origin. The accused was subjected to a fraudulent process conducted behind closed doors. He was accused of having written a list of secret military documents of the French government that he intended to send to the German embassy in Paris. A military court found him guilty in 1894; He was demoted and transferred to Devil's Island, where he was to remain a prisoner for the rest of his life. His conviction provoked a national conflict that led the progressive Republican sector to a dominant position in French politics and that culminated in the separation of the Church and the State.

    There are two important literary devices used in this section. First the author puts the word "pettiness" on a line by itself. This is used as a declaration of what the author feels anti-Semitism is based on. It is because of pettiness that Dreyfus was accused and further because of pettiness that he was not pardoned when it was proven that he had not committed any crime. The next important device is the description of ladies with their umbrellas. This is an image to the wealthy

Throughout history, Jews have often been subjected to the inferior status of “scapegoat”, wrongfully being found guilty of crimes that they did not commit. An extremely telling example of this subjection was with the Dreyfus Affair. In order to understand the complexity and the injustice that was brought to the Jews of Europe, specifically surrounding France throughout the duration of the Affair, one must begin by understanding the shift in the French government that took place in the 1880’s. With a new power created by the shift in French government, there was possibility for a brighter future where the French government could work alongside the great Jewish leaders to create an even stronger and more powerful country. Unfortunately, the Dreyfus

For my book review, I have read and evaluated Sylvia Neely’s history book entitled A Concise History of the French Revolution published in 2007 by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Neely’s purpose is to gives an overview of the French revolution with the most important events, the most prominent people and the essential terms. We can see that the author proved her thesis by explaining the background causes of the revolution such as the ancient regime with Louis XVI. Also she described all important events in chronological orders which made it easier for the reader to understand. Neely’s book is at the same time an history book, but also an kind of encyclopedia because she included all essentials terms which were use during that time period, such as “dérogeance”, which means the loss of nobility.

By 1898, the ubiquitous Dreyfus affair in France had developed into a situation in which French journalist Emile Zola felt that he needed to declare the truth of Dreyfus’s conviction. He published a letter addressed to the President of the French Republic, using the information he had. Emile Zola validly argues in “J’Accuse” that the court martial framed Captain Alfred Dreyfus of selling French military secrets to the Germans, and he uses the important arguments that the court martial conducted an unreasonable examination, unlawfully convicted him of treason, and wrongly protected and claimed Commander Esterhazy’s innocence. With this faulty conviction, Zola wrote, “France has this stain on her cheek” (1).

A well known liberal catholic, Père Hyacinthe Loyson, addressed his opinion about the significant case of the Dreyfus Affair to captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish captain officer in the French army, and said, “You belong to a race, that of Israel, which has suffered much, and which has suffered for humanity. That race has in you been hated and persecuted.”. Loyson and many others who opposed the Dreyfus Affair helped lead the spread of anti-Semitism in France. However, those who supported Dreyfus and the affair were shocked to realize that despite Jewish emancipation in Europe and the struggles France went through during the French Revolution for independence, racial prejudice on Jews hadn’t come to a standstill. Therefore, the Dreyfus affair

This collaboration was the revenge of the nationalist right-wing elements that had failed to overthrow the government. Also Colonel Paul Gaujac’s discharge in February 1994 after submitting reports of Dreyfus’s innocence, was also a repercussion of the Dreyfus Affair. This latent anti-Semitism that the French population had been storing finally burst out on every scale of society. This outburst was due to discontent triggered by various social and economical changes decreed by the government in the final quarter of the 19th century. Before the affair, France had been one of the least anti-Semitic countries in Europe, but anti-Semitism only started to seriously appear in an article written by Drumont in 1886 claiming that a Jewish invasion was occurring. At the time only an insignificant fraction of France was anti-Semitic, but this seed of hatred spread throughout France, playing a major role in the division of French politics; as well as being a major reason why the Dreyfus Affair politically divided France in such drastic way. The day after the government had mentioned that a Jewish officer was suspected of treason, outbursts of anti-Semitism eventuated. Anti-Semitic newspapers display Dreyfus as a traitor, while others decided to wait for the verdict before publishing their opinions. On December 22nd, 1884, the juries

Nechaev’s idea of political provocation was to anticipate the Russian government’s response and use the response in order to radicalize people. For example he sent letters to people, knowing that they would be intercepted and those to whom the letters were addressed to would be thrown in jail. In jail people would either break, which were exactly the kind of people Nechaev did not want, or they would harder and become radicalized. By committing an act and anticipating the overreaction of the government, Nechaev was actually able to use the unknowing Russian government in order to assist in the radicalization process. This idea applies to the Anglo-Saxon approach of dealing with terrorism. Unlike the Russian approach of blind persecution, the Anglo-Saxon approach ignores the non-violent radicals and only concentrates on violent terrorists. By learning from the mistakes of the Russians the Angelo- Saxon approach only deals with legitimate threats, thereby rendering political provocation useless.