It has been less than a 100 years since the final denouement of the Dreyfus Affair, so I consider this thread timely.
Y’all, of course, are free to do whatever you want, but the issue I’d like to debate is not whether Dreyfus was guilty or innocent (I think that has been settled in favor of innocence), but how you stand on what became the key question of the Affair, to wit:
Is it better for an innocent to be improperly convicted and punished when otherwise - if the innocent person was vindicated - it would damage the state and its ability to defend the nation?
I think the Dreyfus Affair has some relevance to current days, both in the current War on Terror, as well as lesser analogies to the ongoing fight about the death penalty and DNA and the like.
The Dreyfus has been settled legally, but I’ve heard you can still start debates around dinner tables in France with it.
I think it’s better to let the innocent go free than be punished. I can’t imagine that falsely accusing people does anything for the legitimacy and the stability of the state. In the long term, it’s likely to deepen the divisions in society, and destroy the credibility of government.
The fallout from the Dreyfus Affair – the riots, the conflicts, a debate that continues still, and some rather deep scars – attest to the usefulness of false accusations as a tool for building national stability.
Well, I just googled and got a brief overview of the Dreyfus Affair.
As far as your question goes, I’d say no, it’s not better. It seems to me that one of the primary ways in which we experience our freedom in the US is by not worrying about the government making up charges against us in order to further some political agenda.
If the government can incarcerate whomever it wants for whatever reasons it wants, then the terrorists have already won.
On a related note, did you see the film In the Name of the Father, or read the book (now by the same name, but I think originally published under a different title) by Gerry Conlon? Both are very moving, and they’re about this same sort of issue in Ireland/England.
[Devil’s advocate hat ON]
But that’s kind of the point of the anti-Dreyfusards. Everything was fine and dandy until people started questioning Dreyfus’ conviction. It was only after that happened that the riots, the conflicts, the scars, etc., happened. Indeed, it is plausibly argued that the Dreyfus Affair was one of the seeds that helped cause the chronic weakness of the French Third Republic, leading to its downfall at the hands of Hitler.
If everyone had just shut up and not started the big stink, the divisions would have been lessened, the riots would not have occurred, the scars would not have formed, and, perhaps, the French would not have been as divided and defeatist in 1939-40 - and may have done better against the Germans.
And all for the mere price of the suffering and disgrace of one innocent man.
[Devil’s advocate hat OFF]
Yes Sua, but do you truly think (in your devil’s advocate hat, of course) that people would possibly adopt a “don’t question the government” attitude “for the greater good”?
Again, I only got a brief overview of what the Dreyfus Affair was all about, but I imagine that what the anti-Dreyfusards are blaming on the questioning and disruptive citizenry could equally be blamed on the government not being forthright and honest in admitting its own faults.
Fine and dandy for whom?
Clearly not for Dreyfus. But also clearly not for any of those people to whom Dreyfus’ conviction represented the fact that they were second-class citizens who could be used as convenient scapegoats at any time.
Let’s say there was no controversy over Dreyfus and that allowed the French to hold off the Germans (although I’m not sure how plausable that is). In that case, would that kind of a France really have been any better than the Nazis?
It seems ironic, if not infernal, for the Devil to argue that if the French public had quietly gone along with a governmental antisemitic act, that would have helped motivate opposition to Hitler.
BTW this argument has a modern parallel. Clinton’s misdeeds led to a scandal that interfered with his ability to govern. The Devil argued that political opponents ought to have just shut up and not started the big stink, so that Clinton’s administration could have been more effective.
ha! december, I’m not saying this to argue with you, but I just have to admit that I find it quite funny that you just did what every parody of you on this board suggests that you do (in other words, “yes, I see, and did you know that Clinton also did something equally dastardly?”).
Again, I’m not arguing with you, and hope you take this post as light-heartedly as possible, but you just really made me smile.
and epolo, yes, I agree. Somehow the phrase “gilded cage” comes to mind.
I find it a bit of a stretch to suggest that one could have insulated the Third Republic against Hitler by adopting, well, an anti-semetic and undemocratic approach to governance.
I suspect that the real weakness in France were the remaining anti-Drefusards, and people who would have been anti-Dreyfusards had they been around at the time. Correct me if I’m wrong – it’s been a long time since I’ve had European History – but wasn’t one of the original anti-Dreyfusards a part of the Vichy government?
Hamish, several persons important in the Vichy government, primarily military officers such as Foch, were on the anti-Dreyfus side, but none of them were primary actors, if only because the Dreyfus Affair started some 45-odd years before Vichy, and they were only low-to-mid ranked officers (or civilian equivalent) at the time.
Eonwe
Well, actually, yeah. That is a good summation of those who advocate aristocratic or autocratic rule, and dictatorships remain pretty damn common.
But is response to that, those who listen more to John Locke than your local dictator will ask; if the state is willing to preserve itself at the expense of its own citizens, why is the state worth preserving at all?
IMHO, it’s sort of a contradictory argument to state that the state should preserve itself by unjustly persecuting the citizens. The point to HAVING a state, at least in the Western tradition, is to uphold justice for the citizenry.
I would point out that the Dreyfus affair was only an element in a much more larger issue : the violent struggle between (roughly) the conservative catholic and sometimes anti-republican right and the anti-clerical and sometimes socialist republican left. There has been several other instances where this struggle resulted in major issues, for instance the Boulanger affair (an aborted attempt to overthrow the republic) in the 1880’s or in 1905 the law about religious congrations (with confiscations, dissolution of religious orders, ban of schools belonging to religious orders…) which caused also a major strife.
So, the divisions and conflicts preexisted, and were very pervasise during this period. The Dreyfus affair can’t be considered as their cause, and could perhaps even be considered as their consequence (not the fact that Dreyfus was sentenced at the first place, but the fact that it became a national issue)
However, the origins of some antisemitic political movements (like the “Action Francaise”, antisemitic, anti-republican and catholic, very influential until the 40’s) can be traced back to the Dreyfus affair. Which doesn’t means that they wouldn’t have existed otherwise, though.
I doubt it, the issue has been settled long time ago…There’s a famous caricature about a family around a dinner table swearing that “we won’t talk about it” at the beginning of the meal, with the second picture depicting a major brawl around the table (“they talked about it”), which is perhaps the origin of your belief, but it dates back from this period.
You can see it here , toward the bottom of the page.
[Devil’s advocate] For the citizenry as a whole, but it’s better that “one man should die rather than the nation should perish.” If the flaws of the state are pointed out publicly and allowed to be discussed, then people will start considering the government untrustworthy, and will be less likely to obey it, even if what the goverment orders is neccesary.
Though I don’t know (if it’s the case, he’s probably more famous for his participation in the Vichy governement than for his involvment in the Dreyfus affair) and though he would have been quite old in the 40’s, it could be possible.
But Charles Maurras, an influential ideologue, journalist and writer, was a fervent supporter of the Vichy government (though not part of it) and had been an anti-dreyfusard when younger.
Well that, and letting the real spy go free and, IIRC, continue to spy for the Germans. I mean, if you’re going to sacrifice any moral standing that your state has, at least make sure that you get something out of it. Send Esterhazy to bed without supper, or something.
Brain freeze, clairobscur. My mind was saying Weygand, my hands were typing Foch.
[Devil’s advocate] to expand slightly on the words of Devil Amazing, another point to having a state in Western tradition is to provide for the safety and security of its people, and many people would consider that goal of the state to be considerably more important.
A salute to Iolanthe for pointing out that when you punish and jail the wrong man for spying, the real spy remains unpunished and in a position to do you further damage.
It seems to me that even before the Dreyfus Affair, French lawmakers narrowly defeated a proposal to prevent Jews from holding positions in French governmental departments. When this kind of attitude, whether or not legally enshrined, helps keep society from filling key positions with talented candidates, the society loses (look at the cost to Nazi Germany from the emigration of brilliant scientists, whether or not Jewish).* The Dreyfus Affair was a necessary step in starting to root out damaging bigotry.
And whether or not acting as a devil’s advocate, one makes a rather large leap from the stain on the military’s reputation left by the Dreyfus case to the “defeatism” of Vichy France. I think you can trace at least some of the appeasement tendencies in 30s-40s France to the failures of French military/foreign policy in the World War I era, i.e. the failure of the aggressive military spirit predominating at that time (the concept that elan was superior to machine guns, and the millions of casualties resulting from the doctrine of the offensive). Blaming Dreyfus’ supporters for Vichy France is, in my view, a ludicrous stretch. december’s comment about Clinton is apropos as a reminder that governmental coverups do a great deal more damage than the scandals they are meant to obliterate. If the Dreyfus case had been honestly investigated at the time when questions began to be raised, its impact would have been far less.
*a warning to be careful about the present-day potential for driving out Moslems who could make valuable contributions to American society?
