Zola Accuses: Dreyfus has Been Framed

in this paper i argue the opposing views of Daniel Goldhagen 's book Hitler 's Willing Executioners and Christopher Browning 's book ordinary Men. These books deal with the question of whether or not the average German soldiers and civilians were responsible for the holocaust. My research paper argues in favor of Goldhagen 's book, the average German was responsible for the participation of he holocaust. At the end of world war ll the Jewish community and the the rest of the world were crying for justice because of the devastation of there homes. The crimes committed by the Germans were cruel and someone had to pay. Several Nazi leaders were held accountable for the actions of the Germans. Were the Nazi leaders the ones responsible for

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

In the essay entitled Shouting ‘Fire’, Alan M Dershowitz writes about the American’s right on the freedom of speech, which it could not always be used for defending ourselves in a trial. Besides, the case that triggered a crowded theater analogy was the prosecution of the general secretary of the Socialist party in Philadelphia, and the recording secretary by being guilty in creating the subordination of the soldiers, assigned in the First World War.

This book takes place sometime during the 1960s after the Second World War. Some Germans would rather forget it ever happened than acknowledge the disgraceful events that took place during World War II “Adolf Eichmann's trial began on April 11, 1961 in Jerusalem, Israel. Eichmann was

The first chapter of Lying About Hitler examines the challenges to objectivity that surfaces in the court case between David Irving and Debra Lipstadt. Evans was requested to participate due to his objectivity, however, impartiality within the field of History comes under scrutiny. Evans examines what it means to history and its importance to the court case. The trial transforms into a study of whether the Holocaust had been depicted truthfully or had objectivity created our modern notion. Irving’s belief of preconceived notions and opinions corrupting studies in the field, if true, would discredit many historians’ works. Lipstadt believes that Irving’s anti-Semite sentiments are the cause of him misrepresenting and falsifying sources. Evans

France had a general distrust of Germany. There was a great fear that if more serious measures to stop Germany were not made then the next generation would be seeking a war of revenge. The French public opinion earnestly desired a just peace, and would not take up arms again until compelled by a clear threat.3 This pacifism played an extremely important role in French policy. "Whether from ignorance or misunderstanding, many of the French people were apathetic, or just did not care enough to want action."4 The people were divided into two forces, the Left and Right, the Right favoring

The external thread of foreign armies on French soil and the internal threat to the french revolutionary government , which

Natalie Zemon-Davis’s 1983 book The Return of Martin Guerre provided both the public and academic world with a fresh and interesting take on a classic story. Presented like a mystery thriller, Davis weaves a tale of deception based on a solid framework of cultural history. Her narrative depends on grounding the characters of Bertrande de Rols, Martin Guerre, Arnaud du Tihl, and their associates within a web of social context. Davis draws heavily on the traditional Coras narrative, but also supplements the established story with the version presented in Le Sueur, a new source she discovered. Additionally, she incorporates unusual sources dealing with broader social context and infers specifics from a general study of period interactions. It is this latter approach that historian Robert Finlay disagrees with. He claims that Davis does not appropriately rely on the source material provided by the Coras narrative and thus gives an unnecessarily dramatic version of events. The AHR forum on the subject includes both Finlay’s review and Davis’s response, providing a model of scholarly debate that extends beyond the actual content of the book in question. In addition to being a rhetorical critique, Finlay is attacking the foundational methodology of modern social history that Davis is then compelled to defend.

Many American originally supported the French Revolution as an extension of the American Revolution. Men wore cockades as an outward demonstration of their support of the French Republic. French victories and holidays were celebrated, and toasts to the French were given at parties. Good feelings towards the French disappeared after the XYZ Affair. The French were angry over American’s creating Jay’s Treaty, which they correctly saw as favoring the British. When American ambassadors arrived in France, the French foreign minister sent three agents to bribe the ambassadors into making a treaty that favored France instead of England. Americans were angered over this slight because it showed how little they mattered in international politics; other countries didn’t take the United States seriously because of the extreme partisan division in American politics. After the XYZ Affair, Americans shifted towards a derogatory view of France and became determined to show the French that the United States was not a country divided by political parties.

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.

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

Vichy France is a period of French history that has only fairly recently begun to be examined for what it truly is: a period in which many of the French turned against their own state and collaborated with the German forces to betray their own country. Until the eighties, the Vichy Regime was regarded as “an aberration in the evolution of the French Republic” (Munholland, 1994) , repressed by the French in an attempt to regain their national pride. ‘Lacombe Lucien’ (1974), directed by Louis Malle is a film which aims to capture the ambiguity of the era through the documentation of fictional collaborateur, Lucien.

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.