THE SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Dreyfus Affair also aggravated many social ideas held by the French people at the time. Nationalism and anti-Semitism were two very prominent themes often pervasive in the French attitude toward the case. Also, there were conflicting ideas about what place an individual’s rights had in the entire process, and whether or not one should be sacrificed for the national good.
A heightened sense of nationalism brought about not only an unprecedented interest in the Army, but also a fear of any divisive element that could make France weaker. The Boulanger threat awakened this nationalism, and many of the anti-Dreyfusards used it to their advantage. (Weber, 194) A recurring idea throughout the Affair was that a revision would only make the country, and the Army weak, so there should not be one. De Boisdeffre knew the power that the Army had on this issue, as shown in his testimony at the Zola trial, where he stated "If the nation has no confidence in its Army’s leaders, in those responsible for the national defence, they are ready to leave the heavy task to others." He knew, like others on the General Staff, to what extent France had vested its hopes of national greatness in the Army, and it was demonstrated time and again that revision would hurt the Army and the nation.
There was indeed something to be said about the dangers of a prolonged affair to the nation. In a telegram sent on September 19, 1898, by Bernhard Von Bulow, the German State Secretary of the Foreign Office, it was stated that "It should not sadden us that French generals and the General Staff have been discredited - and especially the chauvinistic and the clerical officers who are militarily the most efficient among them." (Snyder, 112) But at this point, there was far too much evidence of a miscarriage of justice for the call for revision to go away, and it was actually in the nation’s best interests to revise the verdict and get the whole Affair over with.
A frequent flaw in thinking among the anti-revisionists was the idea that those seeking a new trial were not thinking in the nation’s best interest. Men like Juares only became involved when he realized that a judicial error had been done, and he knew that not having the case revised would ultimately hurt the country. If trials were being held in secret from the public, if false evidence could lead to convictions, and if trials could not be corrected, what rights did the individual really have in the country? It was these rights that Juares fought for. He was no less nationalistic because of this, he was actually more so than other Socialists at the time. (Morgan, 264) He always thought that treason should be punished, indeed, it was he who called for the death penalty in 1894 for the act that Dreyfus supposedly committed.
Another issue that frequently clouded the judgment and rose the passions of many French people at the time, was the increase of anti-Semitism. Nationalism and xenophobia contributed only partly to the Dreyfus Affair, and it is very unlikely that such a thing could happen to a Turk or an Armenian. (Weber, 288) Several factors contributed to this new fear and hatred for the Jew. There was a new immigration of Jews to France in the last half of the 19th century, a frequent association with wealth and the Rothschilds, and signs that Jews were beginning to consolidate around the idea of Zionism.
Immigration from eastern European and Russian Jews to France was one of the catalysts of anti-Semitism. In 1870, there were 24,000 Jews in Paris, in 1881, there were 40,000, and by 1930, there would be 150,000. (Zeldin, 1038) These Jewish immigrants were immensely different from progressive Jews in France, who were actually more French then Jewish. These Jews had embraced the ideas of the Revolution and looked upon these stereotypical Jewish immigrants with dread and scorn. Bernard Lazare in his early writings hoped to stop "the continual immigration of these predatory, rude, and dirty Tartars (East European Jews) who come to feed upon a land that is not theirs." (Weber, 290)
Another pervasive idea was that the Jews controlled the finances and bureaucracy of the nation. A mystique surrounded the Rothschilds, a famous, wealthy and influential Jewish family, that they were behind any economic slump and any failed business venture (as shown with the Panama scandal.) Another problem was brought about by the original Jewish emancipation, because Jews thought themselves equal, the law thought them equal, but much of the population did not feel the same way. (Weber, 292)
There was also outspoken anti-Semitic leaders. Eduoard Drumont founded the Anti-Semitic League and the infamous La Libre Parole. His writings often were enough to shape opinion against the Jews. A member of the Chamber of Deputies, Denis from Landes, asked that the Jews "be re-channeled toward the center of France, where treason is less dangerous," after the 1894 trial. (Bredin, 136) During the Zola trial, Premier Jules Meline participated in anti-Semitic outbreaks, saying "The Jews who have foolishly unloosed this prepared campaign of hatred, brought down upon themselves a century of intolerance - the Jews and that intellectual elite which seems to enjoy poisoning the atmosphere and inciting bloody hatred." (Shirer, 60) This quote also illustrates the idea that Jews were a consolidated entity, which, with the exception of the international and as of yet weak Zionist movement, could not be further from the truth. (Zeldin, 1038)
French society had much to reckon with, and the Dreyfus Affair brought much of these rivaling camps into action and consolidation. The Germans looked at it a different way. The Ambassador to Paris, Count Munster said "The Parisian is completely irresponsible when it comes to politics, especially by anything concerning Germany. The superficiality and the passion of the Parisian leave him little time for reflection, and for that reason the yellow press here has a most dangerous influence." (Snyder, 107)
