The Dreyfus Affair ***

The Dreyfus Affair The conspiracy surrounding the Dreyfus espionage trial, and its development into a highly involved political scandal, has been the subject of endless articles and books everywhere in the world and among all movements and parties since the late 19 th century and up to the present day. This article will recount the highlights of the affair and outline its major details and developments from 1894-1906 when it riveted France s attention. We are presenting the affair here in this context to underscore how difficult it was for the Jews of Western Europe to integrate into their surrounding societies, and as an example of how antisemitism was used in these countries to further internal, personal, and political goals. *** In 1894, French intelligence discovered that highly secret military information had reached the Germans. In the investigation of the espionage in the French General Staff, high-ranking officers accused the Jewish Alfred Dreyfus (1859-1935), a junior officer in the General Staff, as being responsible for the dangerous leak. In preparation for the trial a secret file containing seemingly irrefutable evidence of Dreyfus guilt was prepared by the French General Staff. Among the exhibits presented to the court was a letter that it claimed had been written by Dreyfus. This was the principal piece of evidence in the case against him. During the court martial, the legal authorities did not properly inspect the evidence out of respect for the army and its prosecuting officers. The court martial convicted Dreyfus of spying for the enemy and of treason, despite his repeated claims that he was innocent and had nothing at all to do with the crime. Dreyfus was stripped of his rank in a humiliating military ceremony, and after being dishonorably discharged, exiled to a distant island under the harshest of conditions. This was of course only the beginning of the affair that would stir up a considerable storm in France and the entire world for the next 12 years, and which to this day symbolizes political conspiracy and prevarication. For us, the Dreyfus Affair represents an example of the exploitation of antisemitic feelings for inter-partisan political needs. Doubts regarding the credibility of the legal process and the conviction began to be voiced in public not long after the verdict and sentence were handed down. At first, Dreyfus relatives and personal supporters demanded a retrial in order to be able to prove his innocence. But

soon this developed into demands involving more generalized principles. No longer was this a simple espionage case; the Dreyfus trial had evolved into a far more complex and ramified political affair. In 1906, it was indisputably proved that Dreyfus conviction had been based on a forgery, and he was cleared of all suspicion and set free. In his 1898 essay, J accuse, French author Emile Zola had already demanded that Dreyfus be retried, underscoring the principles of justice as weighed against political interests; and the principle of the welfare of the individual as opposed to the welfare of the state. How was it possible for the army top brass and the legal system to play so fast and loose with evidence and falsely accuse Alfred Dreyfus, a junior military officer, of such a serious crime? An overview of the state of mind that prevailed in France in the late 19 th century will show that shifting the blame to a Jew was a very clever move from the perspective of the true culprits. A wave of impassioned patriotism was sweeping over Europe at the time, and was especially strong in France and Germany. In the 1880 s and 1890 s, this intense nationalism grew even stronger in France and encompassed broad levels of society. The defeat to the Prussian army in 1870 and the economic depression that came in its wake caused the French people to become increasingly fearful for the country s future. Many of the people and groups that had difficulty adjusting to the Republican way of life, the enormous social mobility and the impact of burgeoning industrialization responded by becoming devotees of nationalistic slogans, accepting them as a possible solution to the troubles of the times. The battle cry regarding the danger posed to the nation and about the welfare of the nation, that at times of trouble should take precedence over the welfare of the individual found attentive ears among them. The national state of mind consequently turned away from the principles of the French Revolution those of equality and individual freedom, with patriotic sentiments paving the way for dormant prejudices. It was claimed that equal rights for foreigners could turn out to be dangerous. From this respect, it was easy to cast aspersions on Jews, despite attempts on their part to prove their wholehearted allegiance to France, and perhaps in part due to their success in proving their full and complete integration. In this reality, it was not difficult to make false accusations targeting a Jew, a foreigner, and thereby awaken traditional antisemitic sentiments, especially since Jews could now be blamed for all the maladies and troubles in the world. These accusations were not unknown in France even before the Dreyfus Affair. The Panama scandal, the collapse of a public French company that was involved in constructing the Panama Canal, in which Jews were also involved, also contributed to the antisemitic feelings in France. This period saw the publication of

antisemitic libels in the style of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, describing how Jews were taking over all areas of the economy and finance by undermining the spirit of the nation, by being cosmopolitans and disloyal to the nations among whom they lived. The most famous and widely distributed writings of this kind were those of Edouard Drumont (1844-1917). The chief bear of antisemitism, as Drumont called himself, was the publisher of a newspaper named La Libre Parole, which was entirely dedicated to antisemitic propaganda. In his articles, he coined the slogan, France for the French! and maintained: The rapaciously plotting Jewish race is responsible for the economic depression in France. Antisemitism was then an available and convenient tool for all those that sought to inflame the atmosphere of extreme patriotism and nationalism that prevailed during that period of economic crisis and political confusion. The army top brass and nationalistic politicians placed loyalty to the homeland above the principle of individual rights. In doing so, they managed simultaneously to taint the Jews while at the same time covering up the corruption in their own ranks. Under the slogan of love of homeland, the nationalistic circles, which venerated the military, attempted to safeguard it from what they called slander coming from political circles that championed individual and civil rights and equality before the law. The new means of transportation in the late 19 th century and the dizzying pace the development of communications technology, especially the print press and photography, gave additional momentum and impetus to the news of the Dreyfus Affair and led to greater public involvement in the affair. The newspapers, whose first priority involved the financial interests of circulation and profits, were sustained by the publication of juicy scandals that came out during the trial and involved its main characters. The stories and leaks (which in many cases were untrue) supplied all of these to the newspapers, which hoped to sully the name of the Jew Dreyfus and thereby conceal the corruption in the army and government. In all the years of the affair, the newspapers were filled with provocative banner headlines and attention-getting photographs and cartoons, which further propagated antisemitic stereotypes. They assassinated the character of all Jews and fostered hostile public opinion of Dreyfus. The anti-dreyfusards went even further when they later organized an Exhibition of Monsters in Paris, which included a collection of political posters. Also included in the exhibition were pictures by famous artists (such as Degas) maligning Dreyfus supporters.

The distortions of the truth, the publication of half-truths and the deliberate leaks with the full collaboration of the press, and in particular the sophisticated use of political cartoons all added a new element to the widespread traditional antisemitism. However, this broad public involvement also triggered an equal degree of opposition and public involvement on the part of broad people determined to fight to save Dreyfus and expose and condemn the injustice done to him. Very soon, a very trenchant public debate was launched in France on questions of law and justice. Following the publication of J accuse, and the celebrated accusation of the French government on the front page of the Paris daily L'Aurore on January 13, 1898, Emile Zola was accused of libel and forced to leave for England, although he ultimately succeeded in shaking the faith of many in the justice of the verdict. He similarly condemned the motives that led to Dreyfus conviction. The entire French nation was up in arms and once again, the press contributed to the volatile atmosphere, which was divided between those who supported and those who opposed Dreyfus, except that in addition to their views on the espionage trial itself and the question of Dreyfus guilt or innocence, each side also upheld its own set of principles on the questions of society and state in France. Let us try to understand the principles and values that both sides fought for, using statements made by both camps. The following excerpt is from Emile Zola s J accuse (1898): Ahh! The Dreyfus affair, ladies and gentlemen, has become quite insignificant. It has become fairly remote in light of the terrifying questions that it awakened. There is no more Dreyfus affair; from now on, the question is: Is France still the France of the declaration of human rights, that which gave the world freedom and which was also to have given it justice? Are we still the noblest nation, most overflowing with fraternity and most generous? Will we preserve the name of our justice and humanism in Europe? Because what is being undermined now if not all our past accomplishments? Open your eyes and see that to be as confused as we are, the French soul must be profoundly shocked, facing a terrifying danger. No nation undergoes such a terrible shock as this, unless its moral life itself lies in danger. This is an hour of extraordinary severity; the very well-being of the nation is at stake. And when you realize that, ladies and gentlemen, you will feel that there is but one possible remedy: To tell the truth, to do justice. Everything that obscures the light, whatever adds shadows to shadows will only prolong the crisis and exacerbate it. [...] There are already many among us that share this feeling. People of letters, philosophy and science are rising up on all sides in the name of reason and logic. To say nothing

of other countries, of the shock all over Europe. Nevertheless, the foreigner is not necessarily an enemy. In 1899, in sharp contrast with Emile Zola s position and principles, August Maurice Barres * argued for different principles: [...] There is no need to explain what caused Dreyfus to become a traitor. [...] His racial kinship teaches me that Dreyfus is capable of treason. [...] The ones most responsible, the ones that should have been punished, are the intellectuals, the anarchists of the soapboxes, the metaphysicists of the social sciences. A bunch of arrogant crazies. People whose wisdom lies in criminal selfhedonism, those who call the heads of our army idiots, who call our social institutions foolish, who give our traditions false names. These fastidious rebels are at the same time the least fertile people. If there is any corruption or vice in our General Staff, the work of correction must be done out of a feeling of love, in the spirit of a paterfamilias towards the members of his household, and not due to the insolence of these fastidious artists that so hunger for destruction, who cry out: May the social order that does not agree to adapt itself to the ideal that I have composed be damned! [...] Let us place our trust in the army, whose representatives have strengthened us and proved our French brotherhood. The result of the verdict may be terrible for some: The question of race is from now on open. [...] The French national compass is angered because foreigners from within and without seek to deceive it. [...] The dispute between the two political camps in France went beyond the borders of the country, and renowned intellectuals, writers and musicians took part on both sides. These included Anton Chekhov from Czarist Russia, Mark Twain from the United States and the Norwegian composer Edvard Grieg, who declined a concert invitation from France after Dreyfus was convicted, replying: I hope that you will understand that I am unable to tread on French soil as long as there are such miscarriages of justice and murder of justice and law. * August Maurice Barres (1862-1932) one of the most important French writers in his time; in all his writings, he emphasized the importance of the French national heritage. He was among the most prominent of Dreyfus accusers and among the most important ideologues of extreme French nationalism in the style of Earth, blood and death.

The Dreyfus affair provoked opposing responses not only in French society, but among French and world Jews too. The official Jewish community of France took a neutral stand and did not protest the injustice perpetrated against Dreyfus as a Jew. Beyond the hope that their neutrality might cool the antisemitic fever, this approach also stemmed from the fact that equal rights had been granted to French Jews as individuals, rather than as an organized group. The leaders of the French Consistoire (the umbrella organization of all the Jewish communities in France, since Napoleon s time) believed that Jews were entitled to react to the Dreyfus affair solely as French citizens, unrelated to their religious affiliation, and that they must place their trust in the institutions of the French Republic and its constitution, and rely on them to protect all French citizens, no matter who they were. As the French Jewish community waited for the storm to blow over, there were Jews, particularly intellectuals, who expressed their support for Dreyfus and their struggle against antisemitism by joining non-jewish political organizations that championed the principles of universal justice and morality. For example, the League for the Defense of Human and Civil Rights, which fought to uphold the principles of the Republic and the French Revolution and which condemned the ultra-nationalists who placed general welfare above the welfare of the individual. In addition, in reaction to the Dreyfus Affair, a small minority of French Jews began to support Jewish nationalism. The most outstanding among them was the writer Bernard Lazare. Lazare s first book on the subject, The Truth about the Dreyfus Affair, was published in 1896. It was one of the first pieces of writing to attack the verdict handed down in the trial. About a year later, Lazar wrote: We must not take the path that the nations among whom we live perhaps want us to take; we must strive for the things embodied within us. In other words, we must not Christianize Judaism; on the contrary we must Judaize the Jew, to teach him to live for himself and his own true existence. In 1906, when the affair ended with Dreyfus complete exoneration, the Jews of France responded with a great sigh of relief. An article in one of the important Jewish newspapers noted with renewed optimism: Antisemitism begot the Dreyfus Affair and as a result, died. Indeed, there was some justification for this sentiment. Dreyfus exoneration weakened the circle of powerful officers and priests that were behind his wrongful accusation. A short while afterwards, a law was passed in France separating church and state. It appeared to the Jews of

France that the nightmare of the unpleasant affair had finally come to an end after more than ten years. However, Jews in countries where they had not yet been granted full citizenship and equality were not convinced that the end of the Dreyfus Affair meant an end to Jewish troubles. The following editorial appeared in a Russian newspaper: Our brothers in France are sleeping at a time when a storm rages, but they nevertheless will not leave their paradise of pleasant dreams. If they were now to awaken from their deep slumber, they would see the threatening cloud covering the sky of their lives but they dream, lie there and dream! The victory of law and justice in the Dreyfus Affair struck a blow, at least temporarily, against antisemitism in France. The end of the affair left many Jews with the impression that trusting the values of freedom and equality would serve them in the future to guarantee their security and provide a firm foundation for full civil equality. They were assured the support of the liberal public in a democratic regime. However, among certain non-jewish circles, Dreyfus vindication bolstered the antisemitic attitude towards the Jewish minority and served as further proof of the talent of the Jews and their aspiration to take over the world. It can therefore be stated that from the Jewish perspective, two lessons can be drawn from the Dreyfus Affair. On the one hand, it proved to the Jews that even in the west where they had received full equality, there remained a threatening potential for antisemitism. On the other hand, the culmination of the affair and the weakening of the antisemitism movement in France caused most French Jews to continue to believe that if liberal, democratic, and socialist principles of freedom, equality, and brotherhood are implemented, their own civil equality and integration could be fully realized. Yehoshua Mathias, Doron Niederland, Shifra Kolat, The Jewish Existence in the Diaspora in the 20 th Century (Heb.), Board of Education, Maalot Publishing, 1994, pp. 31-38. With the help of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, Inc