At first the public mostly supported the
conviction and much of the early publicity surrounding the case came
from anti-Semitic groups such as the newspaper La Libre Parole,
to whom Dreyfus symbolized the perceived disloyalty of French Jews; particularity those in the military - the most respected national institution of the time.
Context
French society was very divided
and the single source of French pride since 1789 - the army, was the only thing
that united all French citizens, transcending class divisions. It has been argued that nationalism began in 1789,
when the concept of the nation state was unheard of as most people in
Europe were simply servant to this or that duke or aristocrat. This was
very different to the United States where a fear was kept that if one
particular group ever took over either the government or society there
would be disaster, as had been shown in Europe, which an alliance of the
aristocracy and the Church had enslaved the continent. Americans
encouraged competing groups, known as pluralism, in the hope that each
group would keep each other in check. For example, these groups were
kept entirely separate to their sphere, i.e. business, government,
religion and the family where in many European ‘countries’ most
presently in France, each group had fused together.
Post-revolution, Rousseau’s
‘General Will’ prevailed in the form of the Terror whereby one group
forced others to assimilate or be exterminated. In comparison the the
revolution in America wherein Locke’s ‘Minority Rights’ were enshrined
in law and even today the US suffers very little from anti-Semitism
although it remains widespread in France (i.e. with the National Front).
The end of 1871 saw French militarism explode after their loss to Prussia, and revanchism soon became a powerful force in the public
sphere. Ever since that defeat it became France’s primary
foreign policy objective to retake Alsace-Lorraine, by any means. A
policy that eventually led to another European war. But the people were
entirely behind this policy of reconquest. A military officer Ernest
Boulanger, nicknamed ‘General Revanche’ almost led a military coup in
1889 after the public were outraged by a perceived pro-German policy.
J’accuse
However, as evidence pointing to
the guilt of another French officer, Ferdinand Esterhazy, came to light
in 1896, the pro-Dreyfus side slowly gained support. The novelist Emile
Zola wrote a letter titled J’accuse, published in the newspaper L’Aurore.
In it he put his money, reputation and life on the line to accuse the
army of complicity in covering up the mistaken conviction of Dreyfus. An
action for which Zola was found guilty of libel.
By this time the Dreyfus case had
attracted widespread public attention and had split France into two
opposing camps. The anti-Dreyfusards viewed the controversy as an
attempt by the nation’s enemies to discredit the army and to weaken
France. The Dreyfusards seeking exoneration of Captain Dreyfus, saw the
issue as the principle of the freedom of the individual subordinated to
that of national security. They wanted to republicanize the army and put
it under parliamentary control. Senior officers on the general staff
and in military intelligence feared that to admit a miscarriage of
justice would not only lose them their jobs but discredit the army at a
time when in their eyes, all of France should be unified in attempting
to retake lost territory.
Zola’s letter promted anti-Semitic riots throughout
France. It became a fixation in the minds of French nationalists – not
just rioters but respectable intellectuals – that there was a conspiracy
to destroy France’s Catholic identity. The most easily identifiable
enemies were the Jews, because many were rich and their talents had led
to a disproportionate presence in the judiciary, the civil service, the
press and even the army. Moreover, most came from Alsace, had Germanic
names, and some, like Dreyfus, spoke with a German accent.
Important to mention is something that is not always
made clear in accounts of the Dreyfus Affair that many Dreyfusards were
quite as anti-Semitic as their opponents. Zola himself has anti-Semitic
stereotypes in his novels; so too the Dreyfusard authors Marcel Prévost
and Anatole France. The officer who refused to ‘bury’ the evidence that
Dreyfus was innocent was vocally anti-Semitic, whereas a number of the
anti-Dreyfusards abhorred anti-Semitism.
Legacy
The Drefus Affair signified the arrival of modern
Anti-Semitism in Europe and ushered in modern Zionism as a practical and
realistic proposal to escape a Europe that was so intensely distrustful of Jews
that it would rather be rid of them in France for example, than have
them as enthusiastic citizens and even soldiers united against Germany.
Prior to the scandal, most European Jews tried to assimilate into their
host nations. Theodor Herzel even proposed a baptism for every
Jew in Europe so they would not suffer Anti-Semitism because he thought fighting
against it was futile. But whilst the affair was ongoing he became one
of the biggest and most public advocates of Zionism, especially after
publication of his book, The State of the Jews in 1896 which envisioned a future Jewish state in the 20th century.
The crisis also showed the utter failure of the monarchist
and right-wing nationalist and reactionary forces, thus resulting in the
strengthening of those advocating parliament democracy. This was very significant for a
country that had in a 100 years undergone absolute monarchy, revolution,
numerous dictatorships including a near army coup in 1889.
