The Importance Of The Dreyfus Affair

Anti-Semitism changed the French perspective of Jews before and after the Vel d’Hiv Roundup in July 1942, because this Roundup was the first time the French government explicitly targeted foreign and French Jews alike without pressure from German occupiers. The French government explicitly designed and carried out the Vel d’Hiv Roundup where they collected all of the Jews in Paris, France on their own accord and sent them to concentration camps to be exterminated. While holding in scope two years prior, 1940-1, and one year, 1943, following the Roundup, the changing perspective in Paris, France, of mutual obliviousness to sympathy, is evident by the analysis of anti-Semitic legislature, the influence of German occupation, and the leading operations of the French government. The changing perspectives in Paris show that a majority of society will follow their government (without rebelling) until this influence affects society as a whole, and alters the way of life. The government and societal viewpoint of Jews transformed together, but arrived at opposing conclusions – anti-Semitism and pro-Semitism respectively. This transformation became definitive after the Vel d’Hiv Roundup in Paris on July 16-17, 1942. This claim holds relevance to current knowledge and culture by providing an example of profound importance on the influence of governmental actions and its own societal standpoint in connection with world issues. In respect to this claim direct governmental actions

The triumph of love, the death of Madame Defarege, and the triumph of Charles Darnay in trial shows how good triumphed over evil. The theme of

← Doyle, William. The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. 2001

The French Revolution is arguably the bloodiest period in French history, with men such as Maximilien Robespierre leading the country into a situation of state sponsored terror. Originally being quite a liberal thinker inspired by the works of Rousseau, Robespierre quickly gained a reputation for being a radical throughout the course of the Revolution, especially during the Terror. Early on terror was justified as a means to root out foreign and domestic enemies of the Revolution, however; once the foreign threat had been taken care of it became increasingly difficult for Robespierre to rationalize his use of terror to bring about a supposed Republic of Virtue. In his speech, the “Justification of the use of Terror” which he presented to

In spite of the fact that it is a commonly known historical piece of the Holocaust, it’s authenticity has been questioned. Some conspiracies deny that it even happened at all. Through the analyzation of Hitler’s own violent anti-Semitism, powerful position, and ability to convey Nazi propaganda into action, one can see how he is the sole cause of the Holocaust.

Germans in the beginning of the Nazi era were campaigning to eliminate any signs of Jewish intellectualism or anti-socialist ideas within the public. This is eminent when the author states in the article “Book Burning” that, “German govt was trying to create support for the Nazi cause, by driving in the nazi ideas in social and cultural groups”(Book Burning, Holocaust

The Inspector, who had been sent to solve the case, had formed a theory that placed focused on a Christian butcher. Wilhelm Bruhn, the publisher of Die Staatsburgerzeitung, then interfered by convincing Bernhard Masloff, a laborer, to testify against a Jewish butcher. The story that Masloff gave would directly conflict with the theory that the Inspector had formed. This created more subject matter that the anti-Semitic newspapers could use to fuel their tirade.

France was experience a great amount of change in the summer of 1793, when the Jacobins succeeded the moderates in the National Convention. With the radical Jacobins in power, the country was in tumult, and a Reign of Terror ensued due to a law of suspects that legalized local revolutionary committees. Because of this, thousands of people were killed by guillotine or other methods. Throughout the summer of 1793, the radical Jacobins’ control of the Committee of Public Safety instituted the Terror which was advantageous in it’s intended purpose, yet it was disadvantageous because of the enemies it created.

Just like John Wilson Croker, 19th-century historian said, "Of no one of whom so much has been written is so little known,”. Historians such as Fouché and Merlin think of Robespierre as a “bloodthirsty tyrant”. Fouché said, “he (Robespierre) had an unquenchable thirst for the blood of his colleagues”. Historian, Peter Kropotkin also has a similar view of Robespierre. In his book, Great French Revolution (1911), he wrote that Robespierre was a “fanatic”, who “to establish his authority over men’s minds, was ready, if necessary, to pass over the dead bodies of his opponents”. On the other hand, historians such as George Rudé and Albert Soboul support Robespierre’s decisions. In Rudé’s opinion, Robespierre was not a ruthless killer, but instead a competent judge, able to differentiate between the counter-revolutionaries and those who had just been misguided. Historian Mathiez has gone as far as relieving Robespierre of any blame by saying that he was a “victim of his time”. The extreme polarity between historians’ views on Robespierre shows us how obscure his personality

In this essay I shall try to find whether the Terror was inherent from the French revolutions outset or was it the product of exceptional circumstances. The French revolution is the dividing line between the Ancien Regime and the modern world. After France the hierarchy that societies of the time had been founded on began to change and they began to sweep away the intricate political structures of absolute monarchy, but however to achieve this was the Terror absolutely necessary? And was it planned/ or was it just the extraordinary circumstances, which the French had lead themselves into once they had deposed of Louis the

She witnesses firsthand all of the hardships the French commoners are enduring and it fuels her rage and anger toward the nobility. Madame Defarge channels all of this anger into exacting her revenge, but we cannot help pitying her for her wretched childhood. We comprehend the reasons behind the madness, but that does not justify her actions.

The violence in France will not stop until equality is reached. The revolutionaries picture a time when all the people of France live equal. This reasoning is the core factor of why they are fighting against the system. When we learned the motive for Madame Defarge’s reasoning for hating the Marquis and anyone associated with him, she replies that everyone against the revolution should “...tell the Wind and Fire where to stop; not me!” (326). We learn here that she has not intent to stop until she gets even with the Evrémonde family. Madame Defarge’s idea of equality is the death of Charles Darnay and everyone associated with him. When Madame Defarge and Defarge were discussing the end of the revolution Defarge asked the question, “but one must stop somewhere. After all, the question is still where?” (324). Defarge questions Madame Defarge’s intent to stop somewhere but Madame Defarge replies with “At extermination” (324). This strengthens the fact that Madame Defarge believes the revolution will be complete with the death

Hart, a legal positivist, believes that “law is law,” and argued against Radbrunch’s theory in servings as a solution to fix Germany’s judicial system. He argued against his theory and wanted a separation of law and morality because he thought that it would only “cloak the true nature of the problems,” and encourage a “romantic optimism,” rather than addressing the dilemma that the courts had in deciding on convicting Nazi criminals. Though Hart acknowledges that this case poses a difficult situation for the law, he does propose his own solution to the problem. With his positivist approach to the law, saying that the laws are the rules expected of us, and enforced at a particular time, he proposes that the “grudge informer” should be punished through a different and ‘new’ set of laws. These laws he deems “retrospective laws,” would entail punishing acts such as revenge and duplicity. However, this dilemma between choosing if the “grudge informer” was innocent

This easy-going, pleasant hedonism is interrupted permanently by Meursault's murder of the Arab on the beach. Not only is he incarcerated, but also he must examine the reality behind the illusion of his trial and, ultimately, of his life. Introspection has not been his metier. It takes him a while to realize that the judge, the jury, the journalists, even his own lawyer, do not wish him well. Meursault finally realizes that he is going to be convicted, not because he killed an Arab but because he did not mourn his mother's death.

In “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” Hannah Arendt analyzes Adolph Eichmann while he is on trial in Jerusalem for the crimes that he committed while being a Lieutenant Colonel in the SS during the Nazi Regime. In the book Arendt talks about how Eichmann’s actions were “banal” in the sense that he seemed to be an ordinary person who just committed acts that were evil. Italian-Jewish Writer Primo Levi, a Holocaust Survivor, states that SS officers like Eichmann lived in their own self-deception that made them believe that their actions were caused by just following their orders in the SS. In this paper, I will analyze the views that both Arendt and Levi had about the Eichmann trial and then compare and state the differences of their views. I will then explain the reasons why both Hannah Arendt’s and Primo Levi’s analysis of Adolph Eichmann that show that the actions that he committed were all truly evil actions.