• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Why was the Dreyfus Affair so bitterly divisive in France? The Dreyfus Affair began in 1894 with the unjust conviction of Alfred Dreyfus, a French Artillery Officer

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Lee Waring Why was the Dreyfus Affair so bitterly divisive in France? The Dreyfus Affair began in 1894 with the unjust conviction of Alfred Dreyfus, a French Artillery Officer, for the crime of treason. The Affair was to last 12 years, and some historians would argue that it split the country in two.1 The case of Dreyfus was to create such intense public opinion, that some believe few modern French figures have been more controversial.2 Feelings of Nationalism and anti-Semitism would keep the Affair closely related to the French passions. The Press would play a large part in influencing the feelings relating to the case; helping to condemn Dreyfus as well as later increasing awareness and support in favour of him. Questions would be asked of the previously infallible Army, and as time went on the Affair would cause some to question the very foundations of the French Republic. The reasons why the Affair was so bitterly divisive have been, over the last century, subject to much debate. I want to argue that, as well as causing major divisions within France, the Affair became a symbol of these divisions, as well as a focus for certain groups to rally around. I would also show that the many reasons for the divisions it created are specific to the French political and social divisions at the time. Throughout the Third Republic, there were a great number of conflicting political parties. On the right there were the Orleanists, the Legitamists and the Nationalists. These were opposed by the Opportunists, the Radicals and Republicans. ...read more.

Middle

Zola, believing Dreyfus to be innocent, explained the case in simple terms and made the public aware that an innocent man was in prison. The article was titled 'J'accuse' and was later described as a "revolutionary act of incomparable power"21 which resulted in people taking sides. Chapman would argue that until 1897 the affair had been concentrated on two narrow groups; the people linked to Dreyfus who believed him to be innocent from the outset, his family for example, and the ministry of war, chief of staff and statistical section. He believes that had the Affair been confined to these groups, it would have been easily wound up, creating little division.22 What the press did was extend the number of people with an interest in the case so that it now included political and religious groups as well as public opinion. This complicated matters and allowed the case to be opened up to debate. Johnson believes that this would not, perhaps, create a problem in a country that had no divisive factors to begin with, as the press doesn't play too important a role. However, in a country which already has underlying divisions, the press will have much more influence23, helping to "re-kindle the dying embers of mutual antipathy."24 The Army was at the centre of the debate over Dreyfus. Dreyfus was an army officer, allegedly attempting to pass military secrets to a foreign enemy. It was the Army who suspected, charged and convicted Dreyfus. It would also be the Army who would refuse Dreyfus' retrial, even when they realised that he was innocent. ...read more.

Conclusion

The reasons have been debated ever since. Whilst there were factors such as anti-Semitism and anti-Militarism involved in the Dreyfus Affair, it was not essentially a question of whether Dreyfus was guilty or innocent. Dreyfus was ultimately a symbol, and as such highlighted many of the underlying divisions. The Affair was so divisive because it questioned of the rights of the individual in the republic. The left believed that the rights of an individual should be the states' uttermost concern, and that it should not matter that by admitting a judicial error, the army's honour, or the state system could be harmed.56Without the possibility of injustices being corrected, the left believed that the state could not exist unfortunately the right disagreed believing that "while there could be society without justice, there was never any justice without society."57In England, there was a similar case involving a naval cadet. It had many of the same circumstances as the Dreyfus Affair.58 However, it was not such a divisive affair in England. This is because essentially there were no underlying divisions on how the state should be run, as there were in France. The Dreyfus Affair had touched a nerve amongst the already sensitive French population. What had started as a case of treason against a Jew, and originally represented the dangers of a foreigner, evolved into a far more divisive affair. It pitched the left against the right over traditional targets such as the church, army and aristocracy. Ultimately, it was not Dreyfus that the French were divided upon, but a Republican France. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Political Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Political Philosophy essays

  1. Socialist uses of workers' inquiry

    The products of capitalist production have to find a buyer, of course, but this is only incidental to the main aim of making a profit, of ending up with more money than was originally invested. This is not a theory that we have thought up but a fact you can easily confirm for yourself by reading the financial press.

  2. Russia's Political Party System as an Obstacle to Democratization

    The core of Putin's support is less a party than it is a construct of the Kremlin's making, with "no history, no platform, and no membership," which achieved a startling victory with Kremlin backing. The new distribution of power in the Duma, although chosen at the ballot box, is largely

  1. The Parliamentary Reform and Redistribution Act of 1884 - 1885.

    These influential groups aimed at awakening the public to far better 'Socialist Britain'. The Societies would be seen to have acted as a catalyst to the development of the Labour Party in years to come. The two main groups that affected the Social understanding of the general public in and

  2. 'Accidental Death Of An Anarchist' was written by Dario Fo, in 1970 - Contextualisation

    A bomb exploded in an agricultural Bank. It was a massacre with more than 16 dead. Instantly, the anarchists were blamed for the slaughter. One, Giovanni Pinelli, having been taken to the police headquarters, flew out of the window on the fourth floor.

  1. Iran Country Study

    * Mohammed Mossadeq (1951-1953) - major figure in modern Iranian history who served as the Prime Minister of Iran until he was removed from power by a coup d'�tat. Mossadeq was also an author, administrator, lawyer, prominent parliamentarian, and statesman, famous for his passionate opposition to foreign intervention in Iran, which ultimately brought his demise.

  2. Wilted Socialist Rose?: Changing fortunes of the French Socialist Party

    Later on we will look at how the semi-presidential system affects the fortunes of the PS. Before 1981: Rise from decline In 1969, the French Section of the Workers International (Section Francaise de l'International Ouvriere or SFIO) was merged with other left-wing groups and this new aggregation was renamed to the Socialist Party (PS)1.

  1. Idealistic Politics

    lived only by the idea; the closest analogy one could give would be of hunter-gatherer societies. These societies, however, existed during the prehistoric times where human attitudes and behaviours were not being constantly reshaped by the changing economic systems in which people find themselves nowadays, which Marx himself mentions as there being no such thing as fixed "human nature."

  2. Have village elections democratized rural China?

    Chinese Communist Party and they do not have to be approved by the party before standing. It can be argued that in many ways village elections have helped democratize villages. In theory many of the procedures for standing for election and indeed for voting in elections seem democratic.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work